APT. 4 .

 

 

0] LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

WHERE ARE ALL THE MALES?:
A MIXED METHODS INQUIRY INTO MALE STUDY ABROAD
PARTICIPATION

presented by

JAMES M. LUCAS

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Higher, Adult, & Lifelong
Ph.D. degree in Education

 

 

ﬂﬂm

Major Professor’s Signature

3/02 y/CI?

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

.U—I-I-I-l-I-I—n-0-t-I-i-l-I-ﬁ-l-I-I-l-I-I-O-l-I-O-C-i-C-a_t-n—¢-- _._..-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Aoc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

WHERE ARE ALL THE MALES?:
A MIXED METHODS INQUIRY INTO MALE STUDY ABROAD PARTICIPATION

By

James M. Lucas

A DISSERTATION
Subnnﬁedto
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2009

ABSTRACT

WHERE ARE ALL THE MALES?:
A MIXED METHODS INQUIRTY INTO MALE STUDY ABROAD PARTICIPATION

BY
James M. Lucas

Study abroad represents a powerful tool for internationalizing students’ higher education
experience; however, current participation numbers indicate that male students go on study
abroad programs at half the rate of female students. This rate reﬂects broader engagement trends
for male college students, who have fallen behind female participation rates in terms of college
entry and college completion. Ifhigher education institutions want to prepare global scholars,
citizens, and workers ready for the 215‘-Century, all students must engage in and beneﬁt from
study abroad opportunities. To address this problem, this study employed a mixed methods
inquiry at a large, public, Midwestern research university to analyze an institutional survey and
conduct personal interviews with male graduating seniors based on a participation model that
suggests that institutional, situational, informational, and dispositional factors inﬂuence the
decision to participation.

Based on the themes from the interviews and the qualitative analysis, male students have
four motivations related to study abroad, which included (1) ﬁin, (2) cultural learning, (3)
resume-building, and (4) major and/or career beneﬁts. Although all four motivations were
common amongst the study’s volunteers, beneﬁts to the individual’s major or career were
strongest. From the analysis of these motivations, this study suggests that in relationship to study
abroad, male dispositions—speciﬁcally their adherence to traditional notions of masculinity—
play a vital role in their decision-making process and how they weight these motivations. Other
factors related to participation inﬂuenced this decision positively or negatively depending on the
individual, but the idea that a male should further his career and achieve success was a strong and

universal consideration amongst all the volunteers.

C0pyright by
JAMES M. LUCAS
2009

DEDICATION

I dedicate this study to my parents, James D. Lucas and Sharon Neumaier, who
always knew I would go to college, but never thought I would stay there for so long; my
dissertation advisor, Dr. Ann Austin, who always encouraged me and found my topic
interesting, even when I was unsure; and to all my friends and colleagues at MSU who
went through this rite of passage with me, what a great family we became writing our
dissertations.

I would also like to dedicate this effort to my grandparents, Grandma and
Grandpa Lucas, your support led me to explore study abroad for the ﬁrst time as a student
and that single experience has shaped me both personally and professionally. Also,
Grandma and Grandpa Senn, although you passed before I ﬁnished my writing, I have a

sense you were with me all the way.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a dissertation can feel like the loneliest endeavor in the world, but in
reality, it takes a large support system. For that I would like to acknowledge the on—going
support and assistance played by many in my life.

First, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Ann Austin, who
was the ﬁrst faculty member with whom I worked as I considered my degree program.
Her support and encouragement were invaluable to me not only as I considered entering
the program, but throughout my dissertation.

I also appreciated the time and support of my wonderful committee members—
Dr. Kristen Renn, Dr. John Dirkx, and Dr. John Meltzer. In your own ways, you each
contributed to my thinking and pushed me to be a better researcher and scholar.

Second, I would like to acknowledge the support of my study abroad and
international colleagues at Michigan State University. Special thanks to Dr. Inge Steglitz,
who seemed more excited about my topic than I was and constantly pushed me to ﬁnish;
Dr. Jeff Riedinger, who graciously allowed me to tap into data collected by his ofﬁce;
and to all the other staff and advisors who helped me conduct research and obtain names
for interviews.

Fourth, I could not have ﬁnished without the guidance, support, and tough love of
Dr. Phil Gardner, who was the best statistics teacher I’ve ever had. You are brilliant!

Fifth, I would like to thank all the students who took time to speak with me for the
study, many of whom actually became interested in the topic.

Next, I would like to acknowledge my co-workers, especially Dr. Doug Estry,

who graciously allowed me to work on the dissertation as much as I needed to in the

months before the defense. Also, Drs. Linda Gross and Korine Steinke Wawrzynski, who
provided listening ears, advice, and kicks in the butt depending on the circumstance.
Finally, I cannot express my gratitude to all my friends who supported me during
my program, especially during the last six months. Gretchen, Jesse, Casey, Eric, and
Jody, thank you for being a family and support system as we shared the experience
together. Glad we all made it (sorta). Abby, Kevin, Sean, Marc, Mark, Amy, Elizabeth,
Luke, Connie, Julie, Derek, Brandon, and all the rest, thanks for putting up with the

insanity.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Internationalization and Study Abroad .................................................................... 1
Access and Study Abroad ........................................................................................ 2
Importance and Problem Statement ......................................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 8
Dissertation Overview ........................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................ 16
Study Abroad Literature ........................................................................................ 16
Student Learning and Study Abroad .......................................................... 17
Participation in Study Abroad .................................................................... 20
Strengths and Limitations of the Study Abroad Literature ........................ 26
Participation in Adult Education ............................................................................ 28
Motivation to Participate ............................................................................ 31
Barriers to Participation ............................................................................. 32
Sociological Focus ..................................................................................... 34
Conceptual Models of Participation ........................................................... 36
Participation in Service Learning ............................................................... 39
Studies on Males and Gender ................................................................................ 40
Theoretical Studies about Gender, Gender Identity, & Gender Roles ....... 42
Popular Studies about Males ...................................................................... 46
Male Educational Participation and Engagement ...................................... 48
Gender and DeveIOpment .......................................................................... 55
Development and Masculinity ....................................................... 56
Males and Risk ............................................................................... 63
Male Careerism and Success ......................................................... 66
Strengths and Limitations of the Literature on Males ............................... 68
CHAPTER 3
Methods .............................................................................................................................. 71
Ideas about Male Study Abroad Participation ....................................................... 71
Grounded Theory Pilot Study ................................................................................ 75
Mixed Method Design ........................................................................................... 77
Strengths and Limitations of this Design ................................................... 78
Rationale for this Design: Pragrnatist Philosophies ................................... 81
Institutional Setting ................................................................................................ 83

vii

Research Questions and Sequential Design ........................................................... 84
Phase 1: Quantitative Survey ..................................................................... 86
Instrument Design .......................................................................... 87
Survey Analysis ............................................................................. 88
Survey Limitations ......................................................................... 89
Phase 2: Interview Design and Implementation ........................................ 89
Researcher’s Role .......................................................................... 90
Interview Population and Setting ................................................... 91
Data Collection Strategy and Instrument ....................................... 93
Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................. 95
Limitations of the Interview Data .................................................. 96
CHAPTER 4
Quantitative Findings ......................................................................................................... 98
Survey Overview ................................................................................................... 98
Analysis Methods ....................................................................................... 98
Survey Design and Sample ...................................................................... 101
Participants and Nonparticipants ............................................................. 103
Comparison of Male & Female Participants & Nonparticipants ............. 105
Research Question 1: Programmatic Variables ................................................... 106
Research Question 2: Situational Variables ......................................................... 109
Research Question 3: Dispositional Variables ..................................................... 115
Research Question 4: Informational and Relational Variables ............................ 120
Factor Analysis of Inﬂuences and Obstacles ....................................................... 125
Factor Analysis of Inﬂuences .................................................................. 127
Factor Analysis of Obstacles for Participants .......................................... 132
Factor Analysis of Obstacles for Nonparticipants ................................... 134
Summary of Factor Analysis Findings .................................................... 138
Concluding Thoughts ........................................................................................... 139
CHAPTER 5
Qualitative Findings ......................................................................................................... 142
Background on Phase 2 ........................................................................................ 142
Sample and Analysis ................................................................................ 143
Family Background and Perceptions of Support ................................................. 144
Previous Research and Overview ............................................................ 144
Theme 1: Study Abroad and Personal Connections ................................ 146
Theme 2: Family as Watch-guard ............................................................ 148
Theme 3: Males’ Silent Duties ................................................................ 152
Conclusions on the Role of Family .......................................................... 155
Reputation and Peer Messages ............................................................................. 156
Previous Research and Overview ........................................................................ 158
Theme 4: Broad Knowledge, Little Depth ............................................... 159
Limited and Imperfect Understanding ......................................... 161
Theme 5: Message Disconnect ................................................................ 164
Pervasive Information, Limited Messages ................................... 166

viii

Theme 6: Personal Connections and the Male Voice .............................. 169

Male Messages Limited or Missing ............................................. 174
Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................... 181
Interest and Risk-Taking Behaviors ..................................................................... 181
Previous Research and Overview ............................................................ 182
Theme 7: Let’s have an Adventure .......................................................... 183
Interest in the Value-Added ......................................................... 187
Theme 8: Independence, Please ............................................................... 189
Theme 9: Organized Safety vs. Spontaneous Experience ....................... 191
Concluding Thoughts on Risk and Fun ................................................... 198
Careerism and Success ......................................................................................... 199
Previous Research and Overview ............................................................ 200
Theme 10: Value to Major and Career .................................................... 201
Theme 11: The Pragmatic Mindset .......................................................... 210
Theme 12: Intra- and Inter-Group Differences ........................................ 217
Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................... 220
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 22 1
CHAPTER 6
Analysis and Implications ................................................................................................ 224
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 224
Nonparticipant Issues ............................................................................... 227
Interaction between Findings ................................................................... 228
Understanding Differences amongst Males ......................................................... 229
Players and Workers ................................................................................ 230
Players and Workers on Study Abroad .................................................... 232
Analysis of Themes .............................................................................................. 235
Depth, Clarity, and Meaning of Study Abroad Messages ....................... 237
Fun as a Valued Programmatic Feature ................................................... 240
Weak and Strong Motivators ................................................................... 244
Situations Deﬁne Beneﬁts and Obstacles ................................................ 247
Masculinity as Inﬂuencer ............................................................. 249
Conclusion: Disposition is Key ............................................................... 251
Model of Study Abroad Participation .......................................... 256
Gender Roles and Masculinity ..................................................... 258
Recommendations for Action .............................................................................. 260
Study Abroad Ofﬁces .............................................................................. 260
Colleges and Faculty Members ................................................................ 262
Student Affairs Professionals ................................................................... 263
Families and Mentors of Young Males .................................................... 264
Research: Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................... 264
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 268
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 271
Appendix A: Summary of Sweet Briar Alumni Survey Data .............................. 272
Appendix B: Recruitment Letters ........................................................................ 273

ix

Appendix C: Volunteer Consent Form ................................................................ 274

Appendix D: Interview Protocol .......................................................................... 276
Appendix E: Overview of Survey Volunteers by Demographic Characteristics.278
Appendix F: Tables Related to Background Variables ........................................ 279
Appendix G: Tables Related to Institutional and Programmatic Variables ......... 286
Appendix H: Tables Related to Situational Variables ......................................... 288
Appendix 1: Tables Related to Dispositional Variables ....................................... 290
Appendix J: Tables Related to Relational/Informational Variables .................... 292
Appendix K: Factor Analysis Tables ................................................................... 295
Appendix L: Male Volunteers by Participation Status and Major Category ....... 302
Appendix M: Follow-up Analysis on Males and Age ......................................... 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 306

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Summary of Signiﬁcant Quantitative Findings ............................................. 141
TABLE 2: Summary of Signiﬁcant Qualitative Findings ............................................... 223
TABLE 3: Connection between Schneider’s Groups and Study Abroad ........................ 236
TABLE A1: Summary of Sweet Briar Alumni Survey Data ........................................... 272
TABLE El: Overview of Survey Volunteers by Demographic Characteristics .............. 278
TABLE F1: Crosstab Table for Participation Status by Sex ........................................... 279
TABLE F2: Chi-Square Test for Participation Status by Sex ......................................... 279
TABLE F3: Crosstab of Racial Status by Sex ................................................................. 280
TABLE F4: Chi-Square Test for Racial Status by Sex .................................................... 280
TABLE F5: Crosstab of Previous Travel by Sex ............................................................. 281
TABLE F6: Chi-Square Test for Racial Status by Sex .................................................... 281
TABLE F7: Crosstab Table for Maj or by Sex ................................................................. 282
TABLE F8: Chi-Square for Participation Status by Sex ................................................. 283
TABLE F9: Crosstab Analysis for Participation Status by Sex ...................................... 283
TABLE F10: Chi-Square Test for Major by Participation Status .................................... 283
TABLE F11: Crosstab Analysis for Transfer Status by Sex ........................................... 284
TABLE F12: Chi-Square Test for Transfer Status by Sex .............................................. 284
TABLE F13: Crosstab Analysis for Major by Participation Status ................................. 285
TABLE F14: Chi-Square Test for Transfer Status by Participation Status ..................... 285
TABLE F15: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Respondents’ GPA ....................... 285
TABLE G1: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Programmatic Variables ................ 286
TABLE G2: Crosstab Analysis for Program Duration by Sex ........................................ 287

xi

TABLE G3: Chi-Square Test for Program Duration by Sex ........................................... 287

TABLE H1: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Situational Variables (Participants).
.......................................................................................................................................... 288
TABLE H2: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Situational Variables
(Nonparticipants) ............................................................................................................. 289
TABLE II: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Dispositional Inﬂuences (Participants).
.......................................................................................................................................... 290
TABLE I2: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Dispositional Obstacles (Participants) ..
.......................................................................................................................................... 290
TABLE I3: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Dispositional Inﬂuences
(Nonparticipants) ............................................................................................................. 291
TABLE I4: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Dispositional Inﬂuences
(Nonparticipants) ............................................................................................................. 291
TABLE II: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Information/Relational Inﬂuences
(Participants) .................................................................................................................... 292
TABLE J2: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for the Informational/Relational Obstacles
.......................................................................................................................................... 292
TABLE J3: Student Ratings for Institutional Helpfulness for Study Abroad ................. 293
TABLE J4: Participants’ Ratings of Interpersonal Support for Study Abroad ............... 294
TABLE K1: Principal Components Analysis for Participant Inﬂuences ........................ 295
TABLE K2: Principal Components Analysis for Male Participant Inﬂuences ............... 296
TABLE K3: Principal Components Analysis for Female Participant Inﬂuences ............ 296
TABLE K4: Principal Components Analysis for Participants’ Obstacles ....................... 297
TABLE K5: Principal Components Analysis for Male Participants’ Obstacles ............. 298
TABLE K6: Principal Components Analysis for Female Participants’ Obstacles .......... 299
TABLE K7: Principal Components Analysis for Nonparticipants’ Obstacles ................ 299
TABLE K8: Principal Components Analysis for Male Nonparticipants’ Obstacles ....... 300

xii

TABLE K9: Principal Components Analysis for Female Nonparticipants’ Obstacles ...300

TABLE K10: Principal Components Analysis for Participants’ Inﬂuences and Obstacles ..
.......................................................................................................................................... 301

TABLE L1: Male Volunteers by Participation Status and Maj or Category .................... 302
TABLE M1: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Participants’ Academic Level ....... 303
TABLE M2: Crosstabs for Academic year by Participation for Males and Females ...... 303

TABLE M3: Chi-Square Test for Academic Year by Participation Status ..................... 305

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Factors Affecting Enrollment Adult Education .............................................. 10
FIGURE 2: Conceptual Study Abroad Participation Model .............................................. 12
FIGURE 3: Explanatory Sequential Model ....................................................................... 82
FIGURE 4: Understanding Male Values and the Decision to Participate ....................... 257

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction
Internationalization and Study Abroad

In a post-9/11, global world, all undergraduate students need to have the ability to
work, learn, and live across cultural boundaries (Deardorff, 2004; Kirkwood, 2001).
According to the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship
Program (2005), international and global knowledge-bases represent vital needs for
future national security, leadership, diplomacy, and economic prosperity, and numerous
higher education institutions have launched efforts to change curricula and increase study
abroad experiences (Steams, 2009). Despite agreement about the skills students needed
between higher education and government organizations, US. students lag behind their
international peers in terms of their language, geographic, and intercultural knowledge
and abilities (Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program
[Lincoln Commission]; Deardorff; Kirkwood; Spring, 1998).

The response to these needs has led higher education to emphasize campus
internationalization (Green & Olson, 2003; Steams, 2009). This process includes an array
of programs and experiences for students, including curricular options such as language
and internationally-based majors, internships, service learning, and most prominently
study abroad. Mestenhauser (2003) believes that universities place too much emphasis on
study abroad opportunities; however, according to the data, study abroad represents a
unique and powerful way to promote learning (Carlson, Burn, Useem, & Yachimowicz,
I990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Garraty, Kemperer, & Taylor, 1981; Kauffrnann, Martin, &
Weaver, 1992; Opper, Teichler, & Carlson, 1990). Although other campus programs,

such as interaction with international students or language instruction, can improve

intercultural knowledge and understanding, research shows that the disorientation of
international travel produces signiﬁcant personal and cultural learning beyond what can
occur domestically (Deardorff, 2006; Erwin & Colman, 1998; Sell, 1983).

Although internationalizing higher education includes activities beyond study
abroad, most higher education institutions use and emphasize study abroad as a major—~—if
not the primary—means by which to intemationalize the curriculum and provide students
with international learning. In 2005, the federally organized and supported Lincoln
Commission declared 2006 the Year of Study Abroad and set a goal of one million US.
undergraduate students traveling abroad by 2017, a ﬁgure that represents a sevenfold
increase and a 50% growth rate per year over 2006 participation levels (Davis, 2007).
When discussing barriers to this goal, they cited the lack of institutional support and high
ﬁnancial costs, two factors often highlighted in the literature (Booker, 2001; Chiefﬂo,
2001). As part of their proposed implementation plan, the Commission recommended
improving institutional support, better integration of study abroad into the curriculum
(especially in the sciences), and more federal funding to defray costs as a means of
increasing access to study abroad for a broader range of students.

Access and Study Abroad

As the importance of study abroad participation intensiﬁes within higher
education, so has the issue of who is and is not going abroad. Just as the American higher
education system evolved from a few institutions offering a liberal arts education for the
elite classes to a collection of institutions offering a wider-array of curricula to a diverse
range of students (Rudolph, 1977; Thelin, 2004), study abroad participation has widened

access through curriculum integration, increased safety, and lower travel costs (Garraty,

Kemperer, & Taylor, 1981). Historically, study abroad involved wealthy, white women
traveling to Europe for a year to study humanities, social science, or language (Gore,
2005), but curricular, technological, and economic changes have made study abroad
increasingly accessible to a broader range of students in terms of their disciplines and
economic backgrounds (Garraty et al.; Lincoln Commission, 2005).

In the last decade, the number of students traveling overseas has doubled, with
205,983 students traveling abroad in 2004/2005, a 7.7% increase over the previous
academic year and about a 270% increase from the 1993/1994 academic year (Davis,
2007). Although this increase is signiﬁcant, current study abroad rates reﬂect only about
10% of all the students graduating from accredited U.S. institutions of higher education
according to the Lincoln Commission Report (2005), and of this 10%, many students
cluster into a few ﬁelds of study. Most students (22.6%) studying abroad still represent
social science disciplines, but non-traditional ﬁelds are making signiﬁcant participation
increases. Currently, business, at 17.5%, ranks as the second highest ﬁeld studied abroad
and yearly growth in the sciences—engineering (9.4%), agriculture (8.9%), physical
science (8.3%), and health (8.3%)—continues to outpace the traditional disciplines such
as language and social science (Davis).

Despite these curricular changes in study abroad, professionals still struggle to
increase the number of low-income, minority, and—perhaps surprisingly—male students
studying abroad. A few researchers have studied theories related to minority student
involvement and linked it to factors such as family relationships, culture, and socio-
economic status (Akomolafe, 1993, 2000; Carter, 1991; Chichester & Akomalafe, 2003;

Doan, 2002), but the issue of male participation in study abroad is less studied (Gore,

2005). Also, according to NAF SA data (NAF SA is a major U.S.-based professional
organization related to international education and study abroad), over the last 10 years,
the percentage of men studying abroad actually dipped from 37.1% in 1995 to 34.5% of
total enrollments in 2005, and according to their most recent data, overall females
participate in study abroad at a rate of two to one or 65.5% to 34.5% (Davis, 2007). Data
from studies conducted by other professional organizations conﬁrm these ﬁgures. The
Council for International Educational Exchange (CIEE) indicates that 67% of their
participants have been female, and various studies conducted by the Institute for
International Education of Students (IES) indicate that over the last 50 years, between
69% and 72% of their participants have been female (Gore).

Importance and Problem Statement

According to 2005 data, males comprise about 43% of undergraduate enrollments
and, according to 2003 data, about the same percent of degrees conferred at US. higher
education institutions (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008), yet only about
35% of study abroad participants are male according to the latest Open Doors Report
published by the Institute of International Education (Davis, 2008; Redden, 2008). This
trend reﬂects broader concerns within education that suggest male students are falling
behind females in their achievement and engagement (Kimmel, 2008; Sax, 2007).

Some individuals might argue that lower male study abroad participation is not an
important topic, but determining the factors associated with males’ lower participation
rates is beneﬁcial for three reasons: First, understanding male study abroad participation
provides insight to general male engagement in college. Second, study abroad is

increasingly linked with educational goals and outcomes such as internationalization,

diversity, citizenship, and general education. Third, many faculty members and study
abroad professionals would like to see male study abroad enrollment levels increase for
practical reasons such as program logistics and planning. Fourth, pedagogical reasons
exist for having a more diverse participant population. I discuss these factors more fully
below.

In relation to the ﬁrst point, numerous studies have cited the problem of male
engagement in college, including the fact that men are less likely to attend, graduate
from, and engage in leadership and academic activities while in college (Davis & Laker,
2004; Kimmel, 2008; Sax, 2008; Sax, 2007), including service learning (Finch, 1991).
Although this study speciﬁcally looks at male engagement related to study abroad, the
qualitative methods employed are based around a general theory of academic
participation. This study is open to a variety of possibilities related to male participation
decisions and allows for responses related to gender roles, academic constraints, athletics,
family backgrounds, and peer pressure. This approach is especially important because,
just as within study abroad, many theories exist about low male academic participation in
college. Thus, my study may provide some insights that could be generalizable to broader
theories of male engagement in college (Maxwell, 1992).

Second, professional organizations such as the Association of American Colleges
and Universities (AAC&U) have linked study abroad to aspects of experiential, liberal,
civic, and general education. Many professionals view study abroad as an important and
beneﬁcial learning experience in its own right (Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Garraty et al.,
1981), yet now AAC&U and others View study abroad as also a powerful way of

advancing the values of a liberal education and educating students about diversity, critical

thinking, citizenship, and globalization (Hovland, 2006; Kirkwood, 2001; Steams, 2009).
AAC&U views intercultural and global knowledge as an essential aspect of a 21St
Century education and has called for de-centering Western perspectives and content from
the curriculum (Hovland, 2006; Comwell & Stoddard, 2009).

Related to this idea, as more and more institutions seek to better integrate study
abroad into the curriculum and highlight the importance of study abroad to student
learning, they must also concern themselves with who participates in study abroad. If
faculty members and curriculum committees use study abroad as a means of educating
students about global issues, citizenship, and general education topics, then they must
also have tools to engage diverse types of students in these activities. Related to this idea,
as the world changes and the nature of education becomes more globally-focused, study
abroad will move from an “extracurricular” dalliance to an essential part of a student’s
educational experience. If, as Kirkwood (2001) and others claim, being a well-educated,
viable professional in the 21St century means having an international experience, then
universities must consider how to promote participation among a greater number and type
of students, including male students.

Third, from a practical stand-point, greater gender diversity matters while abroad.
With many accommodations overseas being sex-speciﬁc, having lower numbers of male
participants and large numbers of female participants can overwhelm or unbalance some
accommodations’ availability. Related to program logistics, some faculty members also
desire having male students around for safety reasons in certain international locations,

believing that a man in the group helps ward off threats and harassment. Also, Tyre

 

 

W .._ —_ ———‘—;- *7: ‘
u.— . '

(2008) suggests that female students enjoy having male students present, and that female
participation can drop if the number of males participating falls below 40%.

Finally, a better balance between male and female participants also makes sense
for pedagogical reasons. Diverse participation brings more perspectives to the
educational setting and assists with the social integration and development of the students
(Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Just as students of color can feel isolated at predominantly
white higher educational institutions (Hernandez, 2002), males can feel isolated while on
study abroad if they are one of only a handful of other males. During a pilot study for this
dissertation, male study abroad participants reported difﬁculty making friends and
feelings of loneliness because they were one of only a few males on the program. One
student described his involvement on a program with only three males, stating that he did
not get along with the other two males, so he had to try and “ﬁt in” with the female
students.

For these reasons, Dr. Gary Rhodes, director of Loyola Marymount’s Center for
Global Education, believes “it is critical that students who study abroad mirror all the
students who study at US colleges and universities” (Dessoff, 2006, p. 22). The Lincoln
Commission report (2005) agreed with this statement, and its report indicated that the
student demographic studying abroad does not accurately reﬂect current higher education
enrollments. It believes that better integration of study abroad into all academic majors
and lowering participation costs through scholarships would allow more US. students to
participate.

Undoubtedly, lowering costs would help many students, especially those students

with lower socio-economic statuses, but this action alone would not address the gender

imbalance because female students, not males, are more likely to be from lower socio-
economic backgrounds in college (Kimmel, 2008). Similarly, although males dominate
certain ﬁelds and disciplines, such as technology and engineering, male participation in
study abroad in these disciplines still lags behind female participation (Redden, 2008).
Also, money alone cannot account for the low male engagement across higher education.

Hence, although action on the Lincoln recommendations would undoubtedly
improve access for some students, no studies clearly link major selection and cost to
lower male participation rates (Redden, 2008). In fact, as academic integration has
expanded and relative program costs have decreased, male participation has actually
declined slightly over time (Davis, 2008), so obviously the reasons for lower male
participation and methods to increase males’ participation are not well understood
(Booker, 2001; Dessoff, 2006; Shirley, 2006; Redden) and thus unlikely to be fully
explained or ameliorated by the Commission’s recommendations. In an attempt to better
understand the issue of male participation in study abroad, this study will use a mixed
methods approach, using both analysis and on-line survey to which 2,040 students
responded and personal interviews with 24 graduating male seniors to investigate the
question: “why do traditionally-aged college males not participate in study abroad
programs as often as females?”

Conceptual Framework

As a ﬁamework for understanding this problem, I employ an academic
participation model based in the adult education literature. Although adult education
theories are often associated with older individuals or adults returning for education and

training, no actual age ranges deﬁne the ﬁeld (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baurngartner,

2006). In fact, many theories and models within adult education include traditionally-
aged college students within their design. More importantly, participation theory in adult
education mirrors the questions posed in this study in relationship to study abroad. In,
their book, Merriam et a]. write that:

Since participation in adult education is largely a voluntary activity, knowing who

is participating, reasons for participating, and what conditions are likely to

promote greater participation can help providers better serve adult learners. An
understanding of participation patterns can also raise important questions about
assumptions underlying what is offered, who is beneﬁting for participating, and

whose needs are not being met. (p. 53)

Related to the problem posed in this dissertation, the words “study abroad” could easily
replace “adult education.” As with many adult education activities, study abroad is
typically a voluntary pursuit, and as suggested by these authors, to engage with any
voluntary activity, students must have certain motivations and overcome obstacles to
their participation (Merriam et al.).

In Chapter 2, I provide detail about the literature related to participation in
education, but for the purposes of the conceptual framework, I use a participation model
designed by Henry and Basile (1994). This model (Figure 1, p. 10) describes their
assessment of the decision-making process used by individuals regarding voluntary,

formal educational activities, which conceptually include study abroad. This model is
useful because it considers the numerous factors often associated with study abroad
involvement, including the beneﬁts associated with participation, information and

marketing, program characteristics, obstacles, and institutional factors.

 

 

 

 

8:83.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz
an:
@328 .
maﬁa.— 89938
29225
22.85 Ba...
- zo=<2¢omz~
€ no 3058

 

 

 

 

 

E a .52 azam e ESE 8:825 :33 s caoe=e=m maﬁa: seam ._ eswa

10

Based on Henry and Basile’s model (1994), I have depicted my conceptual model
for male participation in Figure 2 (p. 11). My model makes three important changes from
the original. First, it links the information category with the reputation category by
showing a relationship between these two areas, suggesting they are aspects of both
external and internal participation factors. This change reﬂects the idea that study
abroad’s general reputation, and speciﬁcally for my institutional setting, inﬂuences the
information individuals hear about study abroad. Also, it highlights that what a student
hears externally does not necessarily equate with how they process it internally. In other
words, some students might perceive the information and support given to them
differently based on their personal characteristics and some students might be more or
less inﬂuenced by the opinions provided by external information than other students.

Second, the information and reputation boxes are also connected back to personal
characteristics directly, highlighting the inﬂuence of an individual’s background on both
what information they receive and how they interpret this information. This change
reﬂects the critical theory and social capital literature related to participation (Merriam, et
al., 2006), and it supports literature about minority student involvement, which indicates
that these students face cultural barriers when seeking to participate in study abroad
(Dessoff, 2006).

Third, this model shows more links between and among potential obstacles and
the available information. These links illustrate the connection within study abroad
related to how the programs are marketed and what study abroad professionals already
know about student decision-making. In other words, study abroad ofﬁces understand

that cost is a barrier, and they communicate—more or less effectively—with this factor in

11

 

WmoEoﬁao-ﬁg2cm J

O
Sneak—Ea”— o
38:35": .

 

 

 

team—mm. W

ﬁ/ a” ﬁagawﬂﬂcm L J\ \ rD—uﬂm MOM Dhmmoa 0/
J .9563. a. 1 J
\ J ton—ma bong H8 86cm . was:

 

 

 

 

.953... :6me than; Samara—EEK . wEEwo— 35“.”ch .
wows? $3 mowmmmoE . BUB—so com 860D . 352303

85% Esaooaoq doom . 382.50 beam .

...”Mw_...m...§ I .-..-..-. . .
Based 5:» 8550 3:035:65 . 538w 3:8qu bosom

 

San—Eta.— 1‘
S 51:89

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

co.“ 280n— . can xum .
r €33.— _a=o_:=£m 82:83— :5anon a. SE . 92:5...
k ﬁt ace-Ea..— \ mes-ESE 38m . a... 8.x .
H 3.083 as .50ch .
83:33.85

 

 

 

 

5:23:32 r 72.8.5.— k

c238. 9—8on man—3:895 k

“80
wocoto 28:80 a. mowSoU
88on 90 songs
EEon we 2:;
EEotBBoEm 8&on

 

 

 

 

 

289$

[swan—Ea.— e.. Q 1:83.536

9&3 .ozwmm a. .953 :o 388 :30on :oummmoucam 39:2 33m 333250 ”N PSmE

 

 

12

 

mind. Showing connections backward and forward shows a better, more accurate
interaction between students’ needs and how the programs are marketed. Looking
internally at obstacles, I also added links between the program attributes and potential
obstacles, depicting the direct connection between these factors. For example, longer
programs cost more and have more potential to delay graduation or interfere with other
activities than shorter programs.

I adapted this model based on Henry and Basile’s (1994) model’s applicability to
my study. Like me, they wanted to understand why some individuals did or did not
participate in formal, university course offerings. Like my study, their design allowed for
various motivations, obstacles, and personal characteristics to inﬂuence an individual’s
decision. Finally, they empirically studied their model and supported it with theory; their
model has also been cited in other studies about participation. In the next chapter, I
provide additional background on participation as speciﬁcally related to education and
service learning. Then, in Chapter 3, I discuss my research methods and illustrate how the
conceptual model based on this literature ﬁts into the design of my study (see Figure 3 in
Chapter 3 on p. 82).

Dissertation Overview

In the next chapter, I will review the relevant literature related to my problem,
including research about study abroad—both its value and participation issues,
participation studies, and I conclude Chapter Two by connecting information about study
abroad and participation to theory about the target population in question by providing an
overview of studies about males in college and gender roles. This literature provides

important insight on males, speciﬁcally as related to what they might think and believe

13

about study abroad, how they are motivated to participation, and their perceptions of the
obstacles they might encounter. These three literature bases serve as a foundation and a
launching point for this study, and I revisit them in Chapter 6 during my analysis.

In Chapter Three, I discuss a pilot study I used to begin the conceptualization of
this study. I also explain the mixed methods design I used to investigate the problem of
low male participation, which involves a sequential explanatory design. In a sequential
design, the researcher uses a ﬁrst phase to help inform a second phase of research,
typically mixing quantitative and qualitative methods. For this study, I combined an
analysis of a large-scale study abroad survey and one-on—one interviews with 24 male
students at a large research university in the Midwest. This chapter also elaborates on the
conceptual model introduced in this chapter.

Chapters Four and Five present the data from the research effort. First, Chapter
Four presents the results of the institutional survey I analyzed as the ﬁrst phase of this
study. Speciﬁcally, it presents chi-square, AN OVA, and factor analysis data related to the
following domains as suggested by the conceptual ﬁamework:

0 Institutional and Programmatic characteristics, including length of program,

timing of program, courses offered on the program, and cost;

0 Situational factors such as students’ perception of study abroad as conﬂicting
with internships or work, athletics, student involvement, and graduation
timelines;

0 Some dispositional characteristics included in the original survey, including

issues such as fun, safety, and health factors as motivators or barriers; and

14

o Informational and support factors such as students’ knowledge and perception

of the institution’s, parents’, and peers’ messages concerning study abroad.

Then in Chapter Five, I present a summary of the second, qualitative phase of the
research, which involved personal interviews with 24 male seniors. I organize this
chapter around the four research questions associated with this phase of my inquiry:

0 Factors related to social capital, such as family educational and economic

background as suggested by McClenaghan (2000); and

o Informational factors focusing on male’s perceptions of the reputation of,

messages about, and support for study abroad that they receive from their
institution, parents, and peers;

o Dispositional factors related to male’s development, maturity, as well as their

sense of risk and safety; and

o Dispositional factors such as males’ opinion of careers and work, goals, and

motivations (or lack thereof) for participation.

Finally in Chapter Six, I present an integrated discussion of the data ﬁom both
phases of the study in terms of my overall ﬁndings. I also discuss the connection between
the ﬁndings and the literature in terms of themes, as well as offer recommendations for
action related to the issue of male participation on study abroad. In concluding, I discuss

the limitations of this study and the needs for future research building on my work.

15

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

This chapter reviews three bodies of literature as they relate to low male study
abroad participation. First, I discuss study abroad speciﬁcally, in terms of its beneﬁts for
students and studies conducted about participation. This section provides some insight on
participation studies more speciﬁc to this study’s problem and addresses why study
abroad is an important aspect of the undergraduate experience. Second, I review the
broader literature about participation in voluntary educational programs to provide a
context for the issue of educational participation broadly. Finally, I summarize the
literature-base about males as a means of providing a context for the gender issues related
to participation. This section provides the background for understanding how
participation motivations and obstacles might vary by sex and/or gender.

Study Abroad Literature

Much of the research done in study abroad is theoretical or small-scale in nature,
and even when larger, more inferential studies are conducted, they generally lack
consistency in design, deﬁnition, measurement, and focus between institutions. Thus, as a
ﬁeld, study abroad lacks not only in substance but in the continuity of its research
agenda. Increasingly, professional groups seek to provide a more solid basis for
understanding study abroad, usually in the context of learning assessment and outcomes.
As campus internationalization efforts become more and more common in higher
education, academic leaders are looking to study abroad to provide valuable leaming
outcomes for their students. In the following section, I provide a summary of the major
studies within study abroad, emphasizing issues related to teaching and learning abroad

and participation.

16

Student Learning and Study Abroad

To understand the potential motivations and barriers to study abroad
participation, an understanding of study abroad itself is important; however, the majority
of the literature on study abroad emphasizes student learning from a few fragmented
surveys implemented to quantify the activity’s value. Referencing this literature-base
against the current political and institutional calls for increased global awareness and
international skills among undergraduates, the literature often portrays study abroad as
providing the workforce skills needed by today’s students and highlights the importance
of study abroad as an aspect of higher education internationalization efforts (Deardorff,
2006; Kirkwood, 2001). A summary of empirical studies related to study abroad indicates
that study abroad does beneﬁt students beyond the resume. Studies show that study
abroad beneﬁts students’ learning in one or more of the following three general domains:
academic knowledge and skills, personal growth, and intercultural sensitivity (Carlson,
Bum, Useem, & Yachimowicz, 1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Erwin & Colman, 1998;
Garraty, et al. 1981; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffmann, Martin, & Weaver, 1992;
Opper, Teichler, & Carlson, 1990; Sell, 1983).

First, Garraty et a1. (1981) and Kauffrnann et a1. (1992) indicate that study abroad
provides important knowledge-based skills. They believe that learning occurs best in a
relevant context, and various studies state that studying abroad increases understanding
and retention of language abilities and content-knowledge related to one’s major or career
goals (Carlson et al., 1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Opper et
al., 1990). Although study abroad traditionally served language learners, Garraty et a1.

show that learning abroad can beneﬁt all disciplines by providing an experiential context

17

(Dewey, 1963). For example, students in environmental policy could gain a better
understanding of water shortages by visiting drought-ridden Australia. In addition,
Carlson et a1. indicate that students who study abroad demonstrate increased ability to
integrate concepts from other disciplines into their thinking, so architectural and
engineering students might gain an appreciation for the cultural factors inﬂuencing
design, thus learning to think beyond science alone.

Although gains in academic ability are signiﬁcant on study abroad programs,
Ingraham and Peterson (2004) also report a potential for negative academic learning due
to the presence of intervening variables such as program structure, student preparation,
and the availability of alcohol and drugs. Their study shows that if a program is too short
or faculty members do not adequately prepare students for intercultural interactions and
learning, students might not need to confront—or could have a negative reaction to—
cultural differences and thus reinforce stereotypes (Bennett, 1993). Similarly, if alcohol
and drugs are readily available to students, study abroad may facilitate or engender a
vacation-like atmosphere, decreasing academic motivation and learning.

The second domain of positive effects from study abroad is the improvement in
personal growth, which includes the students’ conﬁdence, maturity and self-reliance,
ability to work with others, ability to clarify values, and willingness to accept new ideas
(Carlson et al., 1990; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004; Kauffmann
et al., 1992; Opper et al., 1990). Navigating life in a foreign culture necessarily
challenges students on a daily basis, requiring them to ﬁnd new ways to perform typically
simple tasks such as asking for directions. If they can successfully live in such an

environment, they achieve a greater sense of conﬁdence and self-esteem (Garraty et al.,

18

1981). Dwyer and Peters (2004) report a 98% increase in students’ self-conﬁdence after
one year abroad and suggest that programs longer than six weeks result in signiﬁcantly
more grth in this domain than shorter programs.

Third, research shows improvement in students’ intercultural sensitivity in three
areas: their interest in global issues, their ability to interpret ideas from different
perspectives, and their ability to have empathy and relate to difference (Carlson et al.,
1990; Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Ingraham & Peterson, 2004;
Kaufﬁnann et al.; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Opper et al., 1990; Sell, 1983).
Researchers believe that through comparison of their home culture to their host culture,
students gain a better appreciation of both by expanding their overall understanding of
the world in a broader context (Dwyer & Peters; Kaufﬁnann et al.; Kirkwood, 2001;
Sell). Erwin and Coleman and Kauffrnann et al. also suggest that students begin to
question their native culture as they interact with the new ideas, lifestyles, and standards
experienced in the host culture. Ingraham and Peterson’s (2004) study shows that of all
the outcome domains, intercultural development increased the most regardless of
intervening factors such as program structure or duration.

Recently, work by Dolby (2004, 2005, 2007) suggests that an important learning
outcome from study abroad occurs in relationship to students’ sense of their own national
identity. By going abroad, US. students come home with a clearer understanding of their
American identity (Dolby, 2004), and her comparisons of US. and Australian students
suggest that this learning domain might be stronger for Americans, who have often never
questioned or considered their national identity (Dolby, 2005). Her latest work suggests

that in a post-9/11 world, students’ awareness of their identity is generally more

19

heightened than before 2001; however, the students must now work harder to manage
their American identity vis-a-vis the host culture and its perceptions of Americans
(Dolby, 2007).

Participation in Study Abroad

Beyond the emphasis on learning outcomes from study abroad, the available study
abroad literature devotes considerable attention to questions about why students decide
whether to participate in study abroad. As noted in the introduction, current study abroad
participation rates do not mirror higher education’s current enrollment demographics, and
research indicates that more students express an interest in study abroad than actually
participate (Booker, 2001; Chiefﬂo, 2000). For these reasons, understanding how and
why students choose to pursue education abroad is important.

Booker (2001) conducted a survey of study abroad participants and non-
participants to determine why students who expressed interest in study abroad during
their ﬁrst year of school never applied. To test his ideas about who decides to study
abroad, he analyzed and compared responses from a group of students who participated
on study abroad and a group who did not participate based on a model of consumer
choice. This model proposes that students evaluate their options and base their decisions
on the availability of information and other inﬂuences—such as students’ personal
background, the availability of other opportunities, and institutional, parental, and peer
support for study abroad.

Based on this institutional survey (2001), Booker found that applicants were most
likely to be middle-class, majority, females and less likely to be students who rely

signiﬁcantly on ﬁnancial aid or work as a means of ﬁrnding their education. Applicants

20

were also more likely to start planning for study abroad early, and they showed more
interest in cultural immersion and foreign language study than non-applicants. Booker
also found that non-applicants were more likely to be double-maj ors and students with
concerns about cost and academics, such as delay of graduation. Booker’s ﬁndings
support the study abroad literature in terms of these demographic proﬁles and perceived
obstacles (Dessoff, 2006); however, he did not analyze his data by gender to indicate if
males were more or less likely to have concerns about cost or curriculum.

Chiefﬂo (2001) conducted a similar study seeking to understand why students
study abroad by surveying classes with high numbers of potential participants (i.e.,
foreign language majors). She found that most students chose to participate to have fun,
to have a cultural experience, and to help their career. Students who did not participate
cited lack of time because of other obligations and cost as major factors. Concern over
security and unsupportive family members were not cited as major obstacles for students;
however, her research did ﬁnd that peer and family opinion weighed heavily on student’s
decision-making.

This study indicated that 20% of students hear about study abroad for the ﬁrst
time from a peer, and 66% of students seek out programmatic advice and information
from peers when making a decision about study abroad. This ﬁnding implies that,
generally, family and ﬁiends play a positive role in inﬂuencing students regarding study
abroad and might highlight a potential reason why fewer men participate. If fewer men
participate in study abroad programs, then male students have fewer male friends and

family members to serve as role-models and from whom to seek advice about the topic.

21

This idea will be explored more fully in the section below concerning male participation
rates generally within education.

Shirley (2006) conducted one of the only participation studies that included sex as
a major variable. This study critiques the commonly held belief that males, who dominate
science and engineering enrollments, participate less often because study abroad did not
ﬁt with their curriculum because, as noted by Davis (2007), science and engineering
ﬁelds are among the fastest growing within study abroad. Shirley indicates that scientiﬁc
ﬁelds accounted for 12.9% of study abroad in 2004, which exceeded the 7.7% rate in
1986. Despite this upturn, male participation decreased slightly during the same period.
Based on this premise, Shirley surveyed male and female students at 14 western
universities who went abroad to look for signiﬁcant “motivating factors that inﬂuences
them to pursue a study abroad experience” (Shirley, p. 63).

Generally, this study supports many of the ﬁndings found by more general
surveys of participants, and, with few exceptions, ﬁnds that male and female participants
responded similarly to most measures. One signiﬁcant difference between males and
females related to the inﬂuence of parents, with males reporting a 22% and females an
11% disagreement with the statement that their parents positively inﬂuenced their
decision to study abroad. Conversely, males reported a 53% and females reported a 66%
agreement with this statement. Similar ﬁndings resulted from questions related to
grandparents and other non-sibling relatives.

A second area of signiﬁcant difference involved perceptions of barriers to
participation. In this area, males were less likely than females (49% to 65%) to view

study abroad as conﬂicting with internship or work opportunities. Similarly, males

22

expressed signiﬁcantly less concern than females (68% to 87%) about cost as a barrier to
participation. In terms of delaying graduation, the situation was reversed, with males
twice as likely (10% to 5%) to report a need to delay graduation as a result of study
abroad participation. These ﬁndings are interesting, as they refute anecdotal information
that males would view work opportunities and money as a potential barrier to studying
abroad (Dessoff, 2006), yet they support ﬁndings that college men tend to be better off
ﬁnancially than women (Kimmel, 2008) and the belief that male-dominated ﬁelds such as
engineering allow less time for study abroad, requiring a delay of graduation (Dessoff;
Lincoln Commission, 2005; Redden, 2008).

Finally, Gore (2005) used the oldest ongoing study abroad program in the United
States, Junior Year Abroad offered by the University of Delaware and Sweet Briar
College, as a means of examining the current state of study abroad discourse with an
emphasis on gender. Like other researchers, Gore recognizes the importance of study
abroad and acknowledges the lack of male participation as a historic trend. Using
discourse analysis, Gore analyzed major assumptions that dominate study abroad
writings, both formally and informally. She states that the lack of male participation in
study abroad allows faculty and administrators to marginalize study abroad as an
additive, female-orientated option within US. higher education on multiple levels.

First, she believes that when people recognize “that women predominate as study
abroad participants” they “associate that recognition with the cultural assumption that
women’s search for education is not as serious as that of men” (pp. 43-44). Beyond the
statement about females’ education, Gore goes on to explain that study abroad is also

viewed as ﬁivolous because of disciplinary factors. Citing Briggs and Burn (1985, p. 52),

23

Gore believes that the link between gender role and ﬁeld of study implies “that more
women than men study abroad as undergraduates and more in humanities than in
professional ﬁelds may exacerbate the perception that undergraduate study abroad lacks
in seriousness of purpose” (as cited by Gore, p. 44).

As part of her study, Gore (2005) reported survey ﬁndings from the Junior Year
Abroad program, and these ﬁndings clearly show the historic nature of low male
participation. Based on data from 1949 through 2004, females comprised 75% of the
program’s participants. Not only has the overall trend indicated strong female
participation, but the general trend over time indicates decreasing male participation.
During the 1948-1949 school year, male and female participation was almost equal at 33
and 34 participants respectively. By 2003-2004 though, females increased to 102
participants and males decreased to 12 participants (Gore).

One factor overlooked by Gore is that after World War 11, primary administration
of the program transferred from University of Delaware to Sweet Briar, a female-only
college. Even though the program is coeducational and intercollegiate, the inﬂuence of its
administrative home should have been addressed as it could inﬂuence how males
perceive it. Despite this issue though, the Junior Year Abroad program does offer survey
data of its participants. In 1995 and 2004, Gore surveyed 20% of the alumni of the
program from 1948-49 through 1994-95, and subsequently 1994-95 through 2003-04. In
both cases, the response rate to the survey was between 20 and 23%, a low ﬁgure that the
author explains as related to the address records maintained by the college.

As with the other surveys discussed in this paper, Gore (2005) does not analyze

the data for signiﬁcant differences, but she does highlight the large differences between

24

factors based on sex. Some of the information points relevant to this discussion are
included in Table 1 (see Appendix A, p. 271), which suggests that males could be
inﬂuenced by male faculty members and peers more than females, yet males seem to
receive fewer negative messages about study abroad from faculty than females. Along
similar lines, males seem to be slightly more interested in gaining independence than
females, but males appear less worried about academics than females.

Gore’s survey (2005) highlights some interesting trends based on the previous
research. It supports the stereotypes that males are career-focused and females are more
interested in cultural pursuits. Second, it shows that females, not males, might be more
inﬂuenced by the message that study abroad is not a valuable academic pursuit, and third,
it suggests that referrals from same-gendered professionals, peers, and parents might be
different for men than for women. This point is supported by Redden (2008), who reports
that because most study abroad participants are women, Ofﬁces of Study Abroad tend to
create marketing materials that target women—their main audience.

Finally, Gore’s study (2005) suggests some participation differences by major,
because females dominated the survey response rates, yet few females pursue technical
degrees when compared to males. This idea makes sense based on college enrollment
rates by major (Sax, 2008), but less sense when looking at the majors represented on
study abroad (Shirley, 2006). As Redden (2008) states, the curriculum offered on study
abroad has diversiﬁed considerably, with physical and life sciences rates increasing about
14.5% and engineering rates about 13% in 2007. Given these increases, one would expect
these male-dominated ﬁelds to bolster male participation in study abroad, yet although

80% of engineers are males, 40% of engineers studying abroad are female according to

25

the Global Engineering Education Exchange (Redden). In the end, without tests for
statistical signiﬁcance, statements either way cannot be veriﬁed. The lack of empirical
rigor with this survey and others highlights a major deﬁcit within the study abroad
literature-base.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study Abroad Literature

The primary weakness within the study abroad research are the methods
employed to conduct the work. Carlson et al. (1990) and Dwyer (2004) suggest that
reporting learning outcomes is problematic for three reasons. First, many studies rely on
quantitative methods, which might poorly measure these concepts. Second, many studies
rely on self-reported data so what one student deﬁnes as leaming does not necessarily
equal the same quality or quantity of learning reported by another student. Finally, the
time between the experience and the reporting can positively distort perceptions. For
these reasons, several studies (Carlson et al.; Erwin & Coleman, 1998; Ingraham &
Peterson, 2004; Kauffrnann et al., 1992; Opper et al., 1990) have called for the increased
use of qualitative methods to supplement the use of surveys. Also, as noted in the section
above, many studies rely on raw data and do not perform statistical analyses to
investigate the power, meaning, or relationships between variables. Without these
analyses and proper controls over potentially intervening variables, the quantitative data
available lacks validity.

A second limitation cited by Carlson et a1. (1990) and Dwyer (2004) involves the
use of, or rather the lack of, theory in study abroad research. As illustrated by the studies
cited in this paper, no general guiding principles or theories exist across the research.

Instead of building off each other’s work, many researchers conduct studies with similar

26

purposes locally, using slightly different methods and research questions that do not
connect to one another or to the broader ﬁeld of international education. Even after
conducting their research, few scholars have attempted to relate their ﬁndings back to
each other or the literature. In the studies presented in this paper, some ideas about male
participation were supported, others seemingly refuted, and some ideas had mixed results.
Small sample sizes might explain part of this situation, as too would the populations
studied. In most cases, the only volunteers used for the research were participants. When
looking at reasons for why a particular student may or may not participate, it seems
warranted to make more of an effort to talk with the “non-converted.”

Beyond these two limitations, the study abroad literature does not include many
modern theories related to student learning, identity, and development commonly used
within education. Some theorists base their assumptions about study abroad on
experiential learning theories by Dewey (1963) and Kolb (1984), but none of the
empirical studies actively employed these theories—or their updated counterparts—
within their conceptual frameworks. Thus, these experiential writers, while foundational,
also represented a dated and male-orientated theory base. More recent thinking, for
example, the work by Gilligan (1993) provides new insight on issues of sex, gender, and
learning and suggests that males and females might develop cognitively through
different—yet similar—processes.

Hence, gender-based educational research represents an important literature-base
for understanding why male students do and do not participate in study abroad, yet this
domain is almost wholly absent ﬁom study abroad research. Even Shirley’s study (2006),

which emphasizes gender, does not use theories related to gender differences within its

27

literature review or conceptual framework. As such, his study and others have looked at
differences between males and females in a gender—neutral context, not considering how
concepts such as gender roles and masculinity might inﬂuence student behaviors. In an
attempt to address this limitation within the study abroad literature, I use the next sections
of this paper to summarize the issue of participation broadly and engagement, gender
roles, and identity from a gendered perspective.

Participation in Adult Education

Although often associated with older students and working adults, the ﬁeld of
adult education has no strict age range or deﬁnition of “adulthood” it uses to bound its
work; however, it does emphasize the voluntary nature of the educational pursuit,
whether conduced formally, informally, or virtually (Merriam, Caffarela, & Baumgartner,
2006). Participation studies arose within this ﬁeld as a means of describing why
individuals pursue continuing education to provide understanding for ﬁrnding and policy
decisions related to adult education (Merriam et al.), as well as to understand better
individual motivations to promote educational participation as a means of enhancing
human capacity (Henry & Basile, 1994).

In the United States, the majority of participation studies use social science
disciplines as their theoretical foundation, especially psychology and, more recently,
sociology (Henry & Basile, 1994; Merriam et al., 2006). Most modern studies consider
the potential barriers and motivations to participation based on individual characteristics
using a psychological perspective. Newer research considers the social dimension of

participation based on sociological theories and in some instances uses a critical

28

perspective to highlight how socio-economic, ethnic, and racial factors inﬂuence interest
in and access to adult education.

Johnstone and Rivera (1965) conducted one of the ﬁrst survey studies of
participation in voluntary, adult education, and their initial ﬁndings have been conﬁrmed
over time by other studies (Henry & Basile, 1994; Valentine, 1997). They conducted their
study with the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago in an attempt to describe
and assess participation in adult education activities. They established that most adult
learners are young, urban, and well-educated. Their study also indicated that the major
emphasis for their participation was to learn a job-related skill (J ohnstone & Rivera).

In 1997 the United Nations Education, Scientiﬁc, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), conducted a large international survey related to participation in adult
education, ﬁnding that about 41% of Americans participate in some form of voluntary
education (Valentine, 1997). The study also conﬁrms trends in participation cited in other
studies, indicating that since the ﬁrst studies conducted in the 19605, participation in
adult education has changed from: (1) being dominated by men to nearly equal
participation rates by men and women and (2) a balance of professional and personal-
development orientated offerings to mostly career-related offerings (Valentine).

Using this data, Valentine (1997) analyzed participants’ characteristics to identify
some motivations and barriers to participation. His ﬁndings state that individuals who
participated in adult education tend to be: young, well-educated, urban adults who are
employed in larger, technical organizations or students seeking to improve their skills.
Furthermore, he found that individuals who had highly educated parents and an interest in

reading, social interaction, and cultural engagement were also more likely to participate.

29

As expected, non-participant characteristics mirrored the opposite of participants, with
non-participants more likely to be older, less educated, rural, and unemployed. Non-
participants are also more likely to watch a lot of television (Valentine).

In 2006, the National Center for Education Statistics (N CES, 2006) published its
latest national telephone survey during which they asked people about their participation
in adult education over the last calendar year. For the ﬁrst time, this NCES survey
distinguished between formal activities that included the presence of an instructor and
informal activities pursued out of personal interest. The ﬁndings indicated that 44% of
participants pursued formal educational activities, with most of the participation in formal
activities related to work (27%). Of the participants involved in formal educational
endeavors, 95% reported doing so to maintain or improve current skills, 83% stated that
they wanted to learn new skills, 19% stated that they sought a raise or promotion, and
10% sought a new job entirely (NCES).

Like earlier surveys, the NCES data shows that participation in adult education is
related to educational and socio-economic factors. Younger, well-educated, and higher
income individuals with professional positions are more likely to participate in adult
education (NCES, 2006). As reported for the ﬁrst time in the 2001 survey (Merriam et
al., 2006), the 2006 study showed a difference in participation between males and
females, with females participating at a rate of 47% as compared to 41% for males. Both
groups engaged more in formal opportunities—such as for credit courses—and males had
a slightly larger gap in participation based on format. In other words, the study reports
that males participated in formal versus informal at a rate of 24% to 18% and females

participated at rates of 29% to 24% (NCES).

3O

Motivation to Participate

When considering motivation to participate in adult education, most studies ﬁnd
that people participate for professional reasons (Henry & Basile, 1994; Johnstone &
Rivera, 1965; Merriam et al., 2006; Valentine, 1997). Valentine’s study indicates that
90.6% of US. respondents reported pursuing education for career and professional
reasons and 9.4% responded that they chose to participate for personal interests. Of these
respondents, 58% sought to upgrade or advance their career and almost 24% sought to
earn a degree or educational certiﬁcation of some kind. This data supports ﬁndings by
NCES surveys, Merriam et al., and Johnstone and Rivera’s studies. Valentine also states
that adults who pursue adult education are more likely to have “unfulﬁlled learning
goals” (p. 106) when compared to non-participants. He explains this ﬁnding as indicating
that some individuals have a motivation to learn and improve themselves that leads to
their continued participation in education, with other individuals not having any desire to
learn.

Houle (1961) conducted one of the ﬁrst motivational studies on adult learners,
and he would classify this on-going desire for education as a learning-orientation. Using
interviews, Houle established three motivational categories: (1) goals-orientation, which
refers to someone in pursuit of an end-goal such as a new job, raise, or promotion; (2)
activity-orientation, which refers to someone motivated by an interest to engage in an
activity or social interaction related to an activity; and (3) learning-orientation, which
refers to a person motivated to learn for the sake of self—improvement and knowledge.
Boshier (1977) developed the Education Participation Scale as a means of studying

Houle’s theory by measuring participants’ motivations for attendance. Boshier and others

31

(Boshier & Collins, 1985; Fujita-Starck, 1996) have since reﬁned Houle’s categories into
sub-divisions, including the desire to conform to social expectations, the desire to serve
the welfare of others, the desire to escape reality or be stimulated, etc. Although these
studies indicate potential sub-categories to Houle’s work that more precisely describe
motivation, they generally support his original theory (Henry & Basile, 1994).

Barriers to Participation

Beyond understanding motivation to learn, several studies have also sought to
understand barriers to participation, because “knowing why adults participate in informal
adult education does not tell us why many do not” (Merriam et al., 2006, p. 65). In fact,
understanding obstacles can be more important than understanding motivation because
often institutional policies and services can help ameliorate potential obstacles (Henry &
Basile, 1994) better than they can motivate individuals to participate. Johnstone and
Rivera (1965) originally classiﬁed participation barriers as falling into one of two
categories: external situational factors and internal dispositional factors. Situational
factors include issues external to the individual such as time and money, whereas internal
factors involve dispositional facets of the individual such as his or her interests and self-
conﬁdence.

Johnstone and Rivera (1965) indicated that the most common barriers to
participation were the external factors of cost (43%) and time (39%). Valentine (1997)
found that based on these two categories, men tended to be more inﬂuenced by work,
speciﬁcally that an activity interferes with their work, and women tended to be more
inﬂuenced by family, such as the needs of their children. He also found that according to

his data, when the learning activity is not associated with work or career, time barriers

32

 

 

rose ﬁom 45% to 60% and cost barriers actually decreased from 33% to 25% (Valentine).
This ﬁnding shows a link between how individuals’ assessments of barriers to their
participation relate to their interests and motivations.

Cross (1981) added a third category to Johnstone and Rivera’s (1965) framework,
emphasizing institutional factors, which include issues such as the purpose of the course,
length of the class period, location of the opportunity, amount of time and work required
to complete the class, etc. Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) also revised the original
binary classiﬁcation by breaking the dispositional category into two sub-categories:
informational and psychosocial. These authors distinguish between what individuals
believe to be true about the opportunity (i.e., they think that they are too old to
participate) and the actual access to or availability of information about opportunities
(i.e., they did not know the opportunity existed).

Building from earlier studies, Valentine and Darkenwalk (1990) state that barriers
to participation can be aggregated into six main categories, which they deﬁned as: lack of
conﬁdence; lack of course relevance; lack of time; low personal priority; cost; and
personal or situational problems (e.g., birth of a child, death of a parent). As suggested by
the differentials in participation rate by participant characteristics, Cross (1981) and
others (Hall & Donaldson, 1997; Henry & Basile, 1994) have linked such barriers to
personal characteristics, showing that various individuals or groups of people experience
these obstacles differently. For example, women and older adults tend to have less
conﬁdence in their ability to learn than men or younger people; single mothers tend to
have more interest in pursuing formal education than married women, but often

experience greater situational problems related to child care and cost; men tend to put a

33

lower priority on informal leaming for personal interest than women; and low-income,
poorly-paid individuals face more cost, information, and access barriers than white-collar
workers. Interest in understanding how barriers might inﬂuence speciﬁc groups led to the
increased use of sociological perspectives when studying participation.

Sociological Focus

Since the 19603, participation studies have focused on the individual,
psychological-level of analysis; however, newer research suggests that this emphasis
limits understanding of the social nature of and obstacles to participation (Merriam et al.,
2006). Prior to the modern studies cited above, researchers emphasized social nature of
participation and its relationship to civic life (Courtney, 1992). Social participation refers
to the extent to which an individual engages in civic and family groups, and studies
suggest that if a person is active socially, they might also be interested in learning
socially (Benn, 1997 ). This research vein has implications for how and where to market
adult learning, suggesting that accessing existing groups might be more effective than
contacting random people because it reaches individuals already interested in social
participation.

In addition to linking educational participation with social participation, critical
theorists have made connections between participation and sociological factors such as
race, ethnicity, and socio-economic background (Merriam et al., 2006). As suggested
already, many scholars have noted differences between participants based on certain
demographic characteristics (NCES, 2006); however, using a sociological lens on the
issue offers a more complete picture of the problem (Henry & Basile, 1994). For

example, ethnic and racial minorities might not necessarily be less interested in

34

participation, but as a group they might face a lack of programming relevant to their
needs, a lack of institutional support for their participation, increased barriers (e. g., lack
of transportation or funding), or as McClenaghan (2000) suggests, a lack of social capital.
Generally, social capital refers to an individual’s place within society based on
their relationships with others (Kirpatrick, Field, & F alk, 2001). More expansive
deﬁnitions describe social capital as both the resources and deﬁcits experienced by a
group as they seek to use social networks to achieve desired goals (Hibbitt, Jones, &
Meegan, 2001; McClenaghan, 2000). Furthermore, Putnam (1993) states that the effects
of social capital can inﬂuence both individuals within a group and the group as a
collective. Highlighted in terms of its applicability to community development
(Kirkpatrick et al.), collective beneﬁts relate to how social networks help entire groups or
demographics of people reach their goals. For example, beyond an individual learning a
Skill, the skill coming back into the community might improve the overall status of all
people, not just the person who received the training.
Although not speciﬁcally related to social capital, F outs conducted a survey of
1500 students at Western Michigan and Wichita universities to determine why students
Wel‘ e not joining the institutions’ fraternity and sorority system (Fouts, 2009; Moltz,
2009). The inquiry was an attempt to understand why some of these organizations were
having difﬁculty attracting and retaining new members. Based on the data, these
professionals report three broad ﬁndings, each of which relate to sociological issues and
some differences between males and females. First, the group found that many students
had Dre-conceptions about ﬁ'atemities and sororities from ﬁiends, media, and former

members. Interestingly, male students were more likely to receive information from

35

interpersonal sources and female students were more likely to receive information from
television and movies (Fouts).

Second, when looking at the factors that lead to participation, the ﬁndings show
that messages about peers, peers joining, and positive social interactions were important
decision-making factors. In fact, 67% of students sought out a Greek letter organization
to make new friends and 48% wanted to engage in the “social scene” (Moltz, 2009).
Finally, Fouts (2009) reported that many students did not participate in fraternity and
sorority recruitment because of time and money constraints, which they related to a lack
of beneﬁt (68%). When asked what could have changed their opinions, 36% stated that
they needed more information about the beneﬁts of membership (Moltz, 2009).

This study represents an interesting transition between the sociological and
conceptual models of participation. It suggests that peer groups, social norms, and media
all factor into students’ decision-making regarding participation. Second, this study’s
ﬁndings relate to speciﬁc categories mentioned within participation studies as inﬂuencing
students. For example, peer and media messages relate to the information students have
about participation and shapes their attitudes toward the activity. Similarly, the concern
over time and money can be equated to students’ speciﬁc situations, with some students
having less time and monetary resources than others. Finally, the perception of value is
both an informational and dispositional concern, with different students desiring different
outcomes. I discuss these issues in greater detail in the next section.

Conceptual Models of Participation
Over the last forty years, several authors have developed conceptual models as a

means of explaining and testing participation theories. For example, Miller (1967)

36

created a force-ﬁeld analysis model that depicts the positive forces supporting and
negative forces opposing educational choices. Another model, the Psychosocial
Interaction Model (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982), emphasizes the inﬂuences of
sociological forces, such as socio-economic and social pressure, on educational decision-
making during phases of an individual’s life. This theory argues that socio-economic
status and social inﬂuences from pre-adulthood affect individuals’ opinions about
education during adulthood.

In the context of this study regarding males’ decisions to participate on study
abroad, Henry and Basile’s (1994) Decision Model (see Figure l, p. 10) offers a useful
conceptual tool. They base their work on a survey of 138 student participants and 180
non-participants in a university adult education course as a means of understanding “the
inﬂuence of factors expected to distinguish between” participants and non-participants (p.
69). In their design, they deﬁne non-participants as individuals who had inquired about
participation and expressed an interest in participating, but did not enroll. Their model
includes ﬁve categories that they thought would distinguish these groups: (1) motivation
to enroll, (2) informational resources, (3) program (course) characteristics, (4) obstacles
to participation—both situational and institutional, and (5) institutional support and
culture. Within their model, they also account for individual and sociological differences
between respondents—including age, sex, race, educational background, income, family
background, etc—as a potential inﬂuence on decision—making.

Their analysis indicates six signiﬁcant differences between participants and non-
participants, which they list in order of strength. In the following list, negative inﬂuences

are those that “increase the odds of non participation” (p. 77): (1) a negative inﬂuence of

37

 

meeting people as a motivator; (2) a negative factor of general interest in the course; (3) a
negative factor of paying course fees; (4) a positive factor of getting information sent
through the mail to their work; (5) a negative inﬂuence of a major life change within the
last year; (6) a negative factor of institutional deterrents, such as lack of parking, fees,
registration method, etc.

The study also highlights important ﬁndings related to comparisons between the
descriptive and interpretive data. First, although the analysis shows meeting people as a
negative inﬂuence on participation, it was ranked highly by non-participants as an
important factor for their interest. The authors state that this ﬁnding may indicate that
although non-participants value the social interaction provided by their participation, this
desire is not enough to get them to enroll (Henry & Basile, 1994). They go on to explain
that non-participants can ﬁnd other outlets for their social participation, including sports
or social clubs. Similarly, the non-participants indicated a general interest in the course, a
factor that included them in the original sample and an understanding of the course’s
relationship to their career on the questionnaire; however, only having a general interest
or relationship to career showed as weak motivators during analysis (Henry & Basile).
The authors relate these differences to the inﬂuence of fees. Individuals who had their
employer pay part or all of their course fees were more likely to participate. Hence, the
cost barrier was an overriding factor, stronger than certain weak motivators.

Finally, regarding institutional deterrents and reputation, the authors report that
information and setting are important variables to individual decision-making. In regards
to institutional deterrents, they state that a lack of information or understanding about

how to navigate the system can tip the scales toward non—participation. They write that:

38

the implication is that non-participants see the related costs and nuisance factors

associated with participation as more of a burden than those who are

participating. . ..the differences again lie at the margin. Those who are marginally

interested may allow potential inconveniences to lead them to not enroll (Henry &

Basile, 1994, p. 79)
Related to the institutional barriers, the authors argue that, although not a signiﬁcant
factor in this study, institutional reputation should be accounted for in future studies.
They believe that the generally positive perception of the institution used in their study
did not allow for signiﬁcant differences to emerge on this variable.
Participation in Service Learning

One of the more established areas of participation studies involves students’
participation in volunteer and service learning programs. Like study abroad, these
activities are known to provide many valuable learning outcomes for students, including
increased satisfaction with school, decreased drop-out rates, increased empathy and civic
awareness, as well as increased self-esteem, conﬁdence, and emotional stability (Finch,
1991). Serow, Ciechalski, and Daye (1990) also suggest that service experiences as a
youth lead to an attitude of service that stays with an individual throughout their lifetime,
a factor that Marks and Kuss (2001) connect to fostering engagement in the greater
demographic society.

Generally, the literature summarizes the motivations to participate in service
learning using three main concepts (Allen, 1982; Finch, 1987 & 1991; Phillips, 1982;
White, 1981):

1. Social obligation—owing something to society based on a sense of privilege;

39

2. Egoistic—volunteering brings personal and/or professional beneﬁts; and

3. Altruistic—volunteering to help others.

Although service learning is a valuable learning experience, as with study abroad, service
participation rates do not equal reported interest rates, and females are over-represented
amongst the students participating in service (Finch, 1991). Hence, researchers seek to
determine why the gap exists by understanding student motivation to participate.

Unlike study abroad, service learning researchers have conducted many empirical
studies to determine the factors that motivate students to participate in service-learrring
programs, and generally, these studies build upon one another in coherent ways. In most
cases, the studies have found that students participate in service for many different
reasons based on the context and their background. Generally though, most studies state
that students start or ﬁrst-begin their service experience for primarily egoistic reasons:
they want something of value from their participation, such as the feeling of helping
others, gaining credit, making ﬁiends, meeting people, etc. Over time though, many
researchers report that continued participation leads to altruistic and social obligation
values (Ender, Martin, Cotter, Masteller—Kowalewski, & Deﬁore, 2000; Jones & Hill,
2003;Marks & Jones, 2004; Marks & Kuss, 2001; Marotta & Nashman, 1998; Serow,
1991; Serow, Ciechalski, & Daye, 1990).

Studies on Males and Gender

Typically, females have conducted most of the studies about gender, and these
studies have focused on issues related to females (Connell, Hearn, & Kimmel, 2005;
Kimmel, 2008; Weaver-Hightower, 2003). Recently, though, the purposeful study of

males has gained increasing attention within education and the popular media (Connell et

40

al.; Jacob, 2002; Sax, 2007; Sax, 2008; Sommers, 2000). Modern research about males
recognizes that earlier studies conducted with or about male participants were gender-
neutral and thus not really studies about males or what it means to be a man.

This study seeks to investigate why males do not participate in study abroad at
levels equivalent to those of females, so a broad understanding of the men’s study ﬁeld is
an important aspect of the literature. In keeping with this literature, I have used the terms
male and female to refer to individuals’ sex roles and used the terms man and woman
when referring to gender-related concepts. In Chapter 5, the reader may note that the
students’ quotes use the terms man and women to refer to both the sex group and
gendered ideas. I have left their language intact. I also note that the purpose of this study
is not to enter into the speciﬁc debates surrounding the conceptualizations of gender;
therefore, in this section I summarize the discussions within the literature as a means of
acknowledging them and situating this study within them.

In the following two sections, I provide an overview of the major areas of
research about males according to how Weaver-Hightower (2003) has classiﬁed them.
Although she discusses them as four groups, I collapse them into two groups. First, I
discuss the more formal, theoretical studies about males, which she refers to as theory
studies. These studies oﬁen seek to understand and deﬁne concepts such as gender,
identity, and masculinity. Second, I present studies focused on analyzing educational data
and offering advice public policy, which Weaver—Hightower describes as popular-
rhetorical, policy orientated, and feminist response areas. After these overviews, I delve
more deeply into what this literature—base suggests about male engagement as related to

study abroad participation.

41

Theoretical Studies about Gender, Gender Identity, & Gender Roles

Historically, gender has been thought about as an aspect of human evolution,
identity development, and socialization (Connell et al., 2005; Messner, 1990), with more
current studies describing gender roles as socially-constructed, non-static concepts
(Buchbinder, 1994; Messner, 1990). Connell et a1. state that the concept of gender
originally became of interest to anthropologists during the colonial period as females
began to receive more rights and researchers began to compare cultures based on their
gender roles and norms. From this aspect, researchers considered concepts of gender as
an aspect of a culture’s evolution. Primitive cultures had strict, distinct roles for males
and females. As cultures “progressed” over time, the lines between males and females
blurred, yet each group still adhered to a speciﬁc set of gender roles.

Freud and other psychoanalysis researchers viewed gender identity as an aspect of
an individual’s psyche (Buchbinder, 1994; Connell, etal., 2005). Freud speciﬁcally
thought that gender identity related to children’s relationship to their mothers, especially
early experiences, which inﬂuenced how males developed as compared to females.
According to this line of research, different experiences as children led males to develop
fears of intimacy and females to develop a fear of separation (Messner, 1990), and it
deﬁned distinct differences between males and females that lasted throughout life. From
these perspectives, gender was often viewed as “self-evident, natural, universal; above all
as unitary and whole, not multiple or divided” (Buchbinder, p. 1).

These earlier theories, whether anthropological or psychological, viewed gender
identity as somewhat static and distinct and as a “thing” that individuals possessed

(Messner, 1990). These earlier theories also tended to make a linear relationship between

42

dichotomous concepts. For example, an individual who is biologically male identiﬁes as
being a man who ascribes to masculine gender roles and has a heterosexual sexual
orientation (Lev, 2004). Increased research efforts, especially those about homosexual
and transgendered males and females, suggest that gender roles are neither static,
universal, nor linearly connected to biology (Buchbinder, 1994; Lev). Over time,
feminist, psychological, queer studies, and sociological studies of gender adapted this
perspective, suggesting that gender roles are learned behaviors instilled in individuals by
peers, families, and social institutions (Messner, 1990).

The earliest of these studies still considered males and females to have a core
gender identity that distinguished the sexes and inﬂuenced the individuals throughout
their lives. Gilligan (1982) related the theory of gender to an onion; males and females
had many socially constructed layers of gender identity but still maintained a core
identity related to their sex role. During life, males and females could add or dismantle
layers to their identity as they developed. Modern studies often critique these earlier
theories for lacking depth concerning sociological forces such as power and privilege in
relationship to identity development and for maintaining a dichotomous distinction
between male and female gender roles that failed to reﬂect the experiences of all people
across time (Connell et al., 2005; Messner, 1990; Rhoads, 1995).

Beyond discussing the meaning and deﬁnition of gender and gender identity,
various authors deal with gender roles—the concepts of masculinity and femininity—
differently. Brannon (1976) developed a common concept and measure of masculinity.

He built off previous work about traditional male roles, and he was one of the ﬁrst

43

sociologists to deﬁne characteristics associated with masculinity. His work serves as a
basis for many discussions of masculinity to this day (Messner, 1990; Kimmel, 2008):
(1) No Sissy Stuff--males should be strong and avoid behavior that equates with
being feminine or gay, such as showing fear, sadness, weakness or emotion;
(2) Be the Big Wheel—males should prioritize success, status, power, and wealth;
(3) Be a Sturdy Oak—males should be reliable and steadfast;
(4) Give’em Hell—males should live independently, seek risk and adventure, and
disregard other’s opinions.

Connell (1987) suggests that males’ social contexts—the environments in which
they live—inﬂuence their masculine development. Additional research by Kimmel
(1997) suggests that males’ deﬁnitions of masculinity may shift based on their physical
environment. Hence, the newest writings about gender and masculinity suggest that
gender roles are developed by the interaction between males’ internal processes and
thinking and their interactions with the external social world, including the media (Katz
& Jhally, 1999; Tuss, 2004; Young, 2000), educational settings (Newkirk, 2002); parents,
(Gleason, 1987), athletics (Messner, 1990 & 1992), college fraternities (Rhoads, 1995),
and societal institutions (Connell, 2000; Mac an Ghaill, 1994). Within these domains,
some theorists view masculinity as a basis for power that beneﬁts males (Connell, 2000;
Kimmel, 2000; Messner, 1990; Rhoads, 1995). Other writers view it as a repressive trap
that harms males (Kimmel, 2008; Willis, 1977), and a third group recognizes that it can
be both or neither depending on circumstance (Capraro, 2004; Connell).

These different perceptions about gender, gender identity, and gender roles fall

into two major categories: essentialism and constructionism (Buchbinder, 1994).

44

Essentialism reﬂects the ideas discussed in reference to gender as an innate aspect of the
individual and suggests that within each individual are naturally occurring traits
associated with his or her sex, such as those theories discussed by Freud. Buchbinder
suggests that modern researchers who seek to ﬁnd biological and psychological rationales
for behavior would fall into this category. For example, he refers to studies about males
possessing natural skills inherited from their hunting and gathering ancestors and to
studies that attempt to link homosexuality to biological differences within the brain.
Within this literature-base, deviations away from congruence between male sex and
masculine gender roles are aberrant.

Constructionist writers view gender identity as malleable and socially inﬂuenced.
These writers point out that changes in society have led to changes in traditional notions
of gender roles in terms of work, dress, play, behavior, etc.; therefore, gender roles and
gender identity cannot be static on any level. Second, these researchers distinguish
between males and females biologically—their physical sex—from their personal
identiﬁcation, beliefs, and actions—their gender identity and roles. In this way, a
biologically male individual can identify as a woman and/or behave in ways associated
with a feminine gender role (Buchbinder, 1994; Lev, 2004), suggesting that gender roles
are not clearly linked to one’s biological sex.

Finally, some post-modem scholars would also state that studying gender identity
is impossible because identity itself is contextual (D’Augelli, 1994). They would argue
that no universal gender identity or gender role deﬁnitions exist (Mac an Ghaill, 1994)
and that any attempt to understand qualities related to “being male” would be bound up

with many other factors such as ethnicity, religion, economic status, sexual orientation,

45

 

etc. (Abes & Jones, 2004; Connell, et al., 2005; Jones & McEwen, 2000; Martino &
Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2003). These authors state that identity is complex and evolving; in
any given context decision-making might be based on gender identity or be based on
sexuality or ethnicity. Many theorists now use the concept of multiple male identities or
masculinities within their work (Buchbinder, 1994; Capraro, 2004; D’Augelli).

I acknowledge that no deﬁnitive research exists about the source and evolution of
gender identity and gender roles within individuals. F urtherrnore, I believe that some
aspects of gender and identity could be purely dispositional, physiological, and in some
ways innate, as suggested by Gilligan (1982), but I believe that, even if humans are born
with some innate traits, social forces shape these traits in complex, unexpected ways.
Hence, I align my study with the constructionist approach, which acknowledges that
multiple, overlapping gender identities exist, change over time, and are inﬂuenced by
societal structures, media, and relationships.

Popular Studies about Males

In addition to the more theoretical studies related to males, issues of masculinity
are also featured prominently in social and public policy dialogues. Fueled in part by
reports concerning male violence, increasing rates of male suicide, dropping male college
enrollments, and increasing male high school drop-out rates, some researchers and policy
makers have called for more attention to males within educational research (Davis &
Laker, 2004; Kimmel, 2008; Pollack, 1998; Sax, 2008; Tyre, 2008). Most of these studies
address the idea that males are falling behind in their educational achievement when

compared with females, and in response to public and policy debates on this issue, the

46

authors and writers on this subject tend to align into three major genres (Weaver-
Hightower, 2003): popular-rhetorical studies, feminist responses, and practice studies.

Even though each category contributes in its own way to understanding males and
their issues, the ﬁrst has captured the most media attention and politicized the discussion
about males. Authors in the popular-rhetorical literature typically present statistical data
from surveys to highlight the problems facing males (Kimmel, 2008; Weaver-Hightower,
2003; Tyre, 2008). They clearly believe that males are in crisis, and several prominent
writers in this ﬁeld, including William Pollack (1998), Christina Hoff Sommers (2000),
and Peg Tyre (2008), suggest that young males are in a serious crisis and relate this crisis
back to education. For example, Tyre states that even though females are gaining on
males in math and science, males are falling behind females in reading and writing.

Although Tyre (2008) focuses on education and discusses feminization of school
as an issue, she acknowledges multiple areas of inﬂuence on males from historic and
cognitive perspectives. Other authors, though, such as Pollack (1998) and Sommers
(2000), are stronger in their criticism and go so far as to state that society has declared
war on boys and link the problems facing them to the feminist movement. As a group,
these writers feel that feminization of the educational system has eliminated the outlets
for boys’ natural tendencies, leading to loss of motivation and increased discipline
problems (Kimmel, 2008; Sax, 2007). Some individuals link this shift to efforts in the
19705 to improve education for females and suggest that reforms went too far in one
direction, and they believe that by addressing girls’ needs, reformers have hurt boys
(Tyre, 2008). On the other end of the continuum though, feminist researchers have

offered diverse critiques of the “boy crisis” (Tyre, 2008; Weaver-Hightower, 2003).

47

Some feminist and pro-feminist writers suggest that although males might be
falling behind females on some academic measures, their advancement still outpaces
females professionally (Collins, Kenway, McLeod, 2000). They View differences in
achievement not as a negative for males, but rather as a sign of how well females are
doing (Tyre, 2008). Also, they highlight that males falling behind females in education
might be a natural outcome of female’s equality gains: males are relatively in trouble
when compared to females gains but not absolutely in trouble when compared to male’s
past performance. Kimmel (2008) states that females outpace males in college
enrolhnent, yet both groups show an absolute growth. Yates (2000) has even called into
question the way in which educational data has been used. Speciﬁcally, researchers
believe that differences between males and females are in reality explained by socio-
economic and racial factors (Amot & Gubb, 200; Cole, 1997). In the next section, I
discuss how researchers have applied these studies about males and men to speciﬁc
issues of participation and engagement in college.

Male Educational Participation and Engagement

Initially, theorists explained the gap in male engagement as a situation related to
the civil rights movements and changes in society that provided females with more access
to careers and educational opportunities (Frenette & Zeman, 2007). They associated
females’ relative gains in enrollments with the increasingly higher numbers of females
returning to pursue college degrees as adults and higher numbers of minority females
(King, 2000; Jacob, 2002; Sax, 2008; Tyre, 2008). The literature claims that large
numbers of formerly disenfranchised females were claiming their right to an education,

dwarﬁng male enrollment numbers in a surge that inﬂated differences; however, today

48

the difference in college enrollments by gender is increasingly disparate, with between 52
and 60% of college students being female depending on the year and school (Clayton et
al., 2004; Frenette & Zeman; Sax; Tyre).

Some sociologists suggest that the increase in single-farnily homes headed by
females and the decline in male educators has led to a deterioration of male role-models
(Clayton et al., 2004; Frenette & Zeman, 2007; Sax, 2007). A lower number of visible,
successful males in boys’ lives can translate into less encouragement and support for
them during decision-making about school (Clayton et al.). Foster and Peele (1999) also
found that male teachers tended to be more tolerant and encouraging of young males’
behavior than female teachers. Davis and Laker (2004) state that males’ issues and their
identity development are often overlooked when training student affairs professionals,
making these professionals less able to support and understand males.

Related to the issue of role models, males are more likely to have behavioral
problems and more likely to ﬁnd themselves in trouble—or jail—than females (Clayton
et al., 2004; Frenette & Zeman, 2007; Jacob, 2002). According to Sommers (2000) and
Pollack (1998), the “natural behavior of men” is treated harshly in a feminized
educational system, and punishments discourage males, causing them to dislike school.
Sax (2007) suggests that, rather than being feminized, modern education is just boring for
boys leading to lower motivation. Clayton et a1. indicate that male behavior in high
school is often dealt with harshly by educators, and these problems in high school often
hinder students’ ability to apply for college at a later date. Davis and Laker (2004) call
for more attention on channeling males and their behavior toward appropriate, productive

outcomes positively rather than punitively.

49

 

 

Beyond the social aspects related to male engagement, some experts claim that
because males have more career options that do not require college than females, such as
military service and blue-collar work, males are more likely than females to select a life
path that does not include college (Davis & Laker, 2004; Frenette & Zeman, 2007; Jacob,
2002; Looker & McNutt, 1989). In addition, the males who do attend college tend to be
higher achieving and of higher socio-economic status (SES) than average (Frenette &
Zeman; Sax, 2007), so some scholars suggest that low-achieving and lower social
economic status students may track out of college.

From this perspective, the achievement gains made by lower social status
individuals should be attributed to females’—not males’—achievement gains (Clayton et
al., 2004); therefore, scholars state that males of low socio-economic backgrounds skew
the data on males in general (Cole, 1997; Tyre, 2008). If socio-economic status is
accounted for by the research design, then some differences between males and females
decrease, suggesting that males might be more sensitive than females to factors such as
poverty, divorce, and living environment in relationship to their academic goals and
achievement. This idea also circles back to the issue of absent fathers, who are often less
present in lower socio-economic status (SES) homes.

Looker and McNutt (1989) conducted a longitudinal study to determine how
earlier decisions inﬂuence individuals’ educational outcomes based on work by Russell
(1979) and Synge (1977) that suggested females maintained a more ﬂuid academic career
and that parents and educators tended to take females’ education less seriously when
compared with males’ education. Although this study is dated, these ideas connect -

directly back to Gore’s (2005) study related to study abroad participation and suggest that

50

females might participate more on study abroad because they are more open and ﬂexible
with the educational decision-making and have fewer expectations about their
achievement than males. The ﬁndings from this study suggest that students’ projected
career decisions heavily inﬂuence their decision to enter post-secondary education, with
“over half the respondents [saying] their occupational plans affect their educational
decisions” (p. 357). The study also shows that males bounded their career aspirations by
gender role stereotypes more than females.

Looking speciﬁcally at college, Jacob (2002) conducted one of the ﬁrst empirical
studies related to the issue of low male enrollment using the National Educational
Longitudinal Study (NELS). Jacob shows that females had more incentive than. males to
return to school for white collar jobs (Murphy & Welch, 1992) because females
traditionally “have had less success moving into skilled blue-collar occupations” (p. 590).
He also found that males received less increased earning potential than females, 40% to
versus 55%, for attending college. For these reasons, females have a stronger economic
rationale to seek out higher education than males, who have more opportunities for high-
paying jobs without it.

Next, Jacob (2002) found signiﬁcant differences among males and females in
relationship to their non-cognitive abilities. Speciﬁcally, he notes that, when compared to
female students, male students were more likely to be retained in elementary school, have
a behavior problem, spend less time on homework, report lower grades, be assigned or
need remediation or special education, report less satisfaction at school, and believe that
their teachers were less supportive of them—ﬁndings supported by other researchers

(Kleinfeld, 1998; Sax, 2007 ; Tyre, 2008). Jacob relates these ﬁndings to non-cognitive

51

factors such as poor attention span, organization, and teamwork skills rather than actual
cognitive ability because males and females score about the same on cognitive tests. He
argues that males’ inability to motivate and organize themselves leads to lower grades
and poor attendance, which subsequently results in less interest in academics and
preparation for college.

In total, Jacob’s (2002) ﬁndings indicate that observable factors such as family
background, SES, cognitive and non-cognitive skills, and job availability explain most of
the gap in participation between males and females, with higher economic incentives for
females and lower non-cognitive skills for males, explaining 90% of the difference
between the groups’ participation. Some of Jacob’s other relevant ﬁndings include:

o Males are less likely to graduate from high school, but even accounting for high
school graduation, males are about 5% less likely to attend college than females;

0 Males are more likely than females to be employed or in the military;

0 Males who attend college are more likely to be above average academically than
their peers and thus more likely to attend a selective institution than females; and

o Males are more likely than females to claim that they dislike school (37% - 26%),
express a preference for work over school (49%-41%), or state they do not need
more schooling for their chosen profession (23 %-16%).

Frenette and Zeman (2007) completed a follow-up study in Canada based on
Jacob’s work (2020). They state that the largest reason accounting for the gender gap in
higher education relate to the non-cognitive behaviors in high school. Their ﬁndings
suggest that because males study less and have lower grades at age 15, they tend to get

into more trouble and have a lower interest in school, which subsequently means they are

52

less likely to want to pursue a college degree. In total, this study associates almost 60% of
the differences in college participation to males’ lower non-cognitive skills and attributes
an additional 8.5% of the gap to parents’ lower academic expectations for males.

Most recently, Linda Sax’s book (2008), The Gender Gap in College, used data
from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) database to look at patterns
in relationship to understanding entry into college and how college affects students based
on sex. Speciﬁcally, she used data from the Freshman Survey of entering college students
between 1966 and 2006 and the College Student Survey cohort who entered college in
1994 and were re-surveyed in 1998 as a follow-up. Sax (2008) grouped her discussion by
various demographic, academic, and social variables. I summarize relevant variables
below:

0 Age—Males are older than females when entering college by about one year
on average, a factor researchers connect to the fact that males are more likely
to be held-back for academic or developmental reasons during school or
before starting kindergarten.

o SES—The median family income for males in 2006 was $12,000 higher than
that of females’ family income. Males are also more likely to have parents
with a college education, less likely to think that they will work during
college, and less inﬂuenced by post-college career worries when selecting a
college than females.

0 Family Ties—Evidence suggests that males have weaker family connections

than females, and related to this ﬁnding, males are less likely to select a

53

college based on being near family or family pressures. Parents seem to be
more protective of their daughters than their sons.

Academic engagement—Males report a higher academic self-conﬁdence than
females, yet they have lower academic engagement and achievement scores.
Males are also less likely to join clubs, study for school, and speak with
teachers outside of class and more likely to feel bored in school.

Academic goals—Males are less likely to seek advanced degrees than
females; however, females are more likely than males to seek sex-stereotyped
degrees. Females are still more likely to select majors and careers in helping
and service areas such as health care, education, and psychology, while males
are more likely to be in business, history, political science, and scientiﬁc
ﬁelds.

Community and social values—Males report less interest in helping or serving
others when compared to females, and they are less likely to engage in
service, tutoring, or other community engagements. Politically, males tend to

be more engaged in politics and more conservative than females.

In the next section of this paper, I summarize in more detail the issues of gender

identity and roles. Previous studies suggest that males differ from females in terms of

their maturity and identity development. If males’ identity development and perspectives

on education are different than females, then this might account for their lack of

educational engagement and their focus on external motivations (Sax, 2008). Similarly,

the degree to which males identify with masculine gender roles might also inﬂuence their

participation decisions (Kimmel, 2008). If they view service or study abroad as feminine

54

 

activities, they could overlook or ignore opportunities in a quest to prove their manhood.
In the next section, I review the literature related to male identity and gender roles as a
way to inform the discussions regarding their participation in study abroad.
Gender and Development

Inherent in the previous discussions is the idea that males are slower to develop
physically, cognitively, and emotionally than females, so they would necessarily be less
likely to plan, be motivated, and handle adversity well during their youth. Some suggest
that teenage males do not yet possess the necessary skills to achieve in school at the time
when they must prepare for college, which inﬂuences enjoyment of school (Frenette &
Zeman, 2007; Looker & McNutt, 1980; Sax, 2007).

In the early I990S, many reports highlighted the problems young females face in
school (Weaver-Hightower, 2003), including increased problems with self-esteem,
depression, and eating disorder, as well as achievement gaps in math and less support
ﬁom teachers (American Association of University Women, 1992). Some evidence exists
that changing educational pedagogy could have negatively affected male students (Sax,
2007). For example, males tend to perform well in competitive environments and those
featuring lectures (Astin, 1993; Clayton et al.; Sax, 2007), so increased use of discussion
and collaborative learning practices within the curriculum has favored females (Zhao,
Carini, & Kuh, 2005).

Also, males tend to have more tactile learning styles, need to experience their
learning and put concepts to use in an applied way, and Sax (2007) believes that changes
in the educational system have required young males to sit and listen more than interact,

touch, feel, and play. These theorists argue that just as females have had trouble entering

55

into science and engineering curricula because of the “culture of who belongs” (Eisenhart
& Finkel, 1998; Maher & Tetreault, 2001), males are increasingly being told explicitly
and implicitly by educators that they are bad and broken (Sommers, 2000; Tyre, 2008).
Despite these generalizations though, literature about gender suggests that not all male
students develop a male identity or adhere to a traditional male gender role. To better
understand this discussion, the next sections discuss masculinity and studies about males
and their gender roles.

Development and Masculinity

Since these ﬁrst pioneering studies about human development (Kohlberg, 1975;
Perry, 1970), higher education and student affairs researchers have investigated identity
development in numerous studies. Kegan (2000), Chickering and Reisser (1993), and.
Belenky and Stanton (2000), suggest that people develop across life in predictable
patterns, and although the speciﬁc patterns vary individual to individual, transformation
reﬂects the movement from one developmental stage to another. Kegan believes that
cognitive development between life stages involves deﬁning the “self” relative to an
“other.” Newborns do not distinguish between self and an external other: they are their
needs, but as they age, they deﬁne the boundaries between themselves and the world.
Ideally, this process leads to understanding that one’s life is separate and distinct from the
external world in increasingly complex ways, with self—authorship as a desired goal. For
Kegan, the self-authored person thinks in ways consistent with their true self and has
ceased to rely on external ideas about their identity.

Put together, these theories typically portray a staged pattern of human

development that suggests humans experience external stimuli and learn from these

56

 

stimuli in such a way as to grow in predictable patterns; however, as Sax (2008) and
Gilligan (1982) suggest, much of the foundational work on development was done
predominately with males and thus reﬂect a male-centered view of development. For
example, Belenky and Stanton (2000) have shown that not only do females develop at a
different rate than males cognitively, but they develop somewhat differently. Females
tend to prefer a process they termed “connected knowing,” and their quest to learn is
often characterized by asking questions and building relationships, with males’ focus
being more analytical (Kimmel, 2008; Sax, 2008). Gilligan (1982), Josselson (1987), and
others refer to this as a care-orientation in females. Studies suggest that males tend to
prefer “competitiveness and a studied objectivity that tends to suppress the legitimacy of
subjective and connected ways of knowing” (Kimmel, 2008; Zhao, Cartini, & Kuh, 2005,
p. 504).

Hence, the earlier, gender-neutral studies about development-based males’
experiences have been increasingly adapted to study females’ development (Gilligan,
1982; Josselson, 1987; Schenkel & Marcia, 1972). Each scholar found that females’
development differenced in speciﬁc ways from that of males, and these differences
included females’ acceptance of subjective data, emphasis on building relationships,
quest for balance between family and success, and value of identifying religious and
sexual values (Davis, 2002). Similar research about males is only beginning because,
although the early researchers studied males, the early studies did not consider sex or
gender speciﬁcally (Sax, 2008). In other words, males were subjects thought to represent

all students, so nuances of male development were often overlooked. More recent studies

57

suggest that, just as with females, more consideration of males’ unique developmental
paths is required.

Davis (2002) and other researchers have looked at issues beyond cognitive stages
toward and understanding of how society socializes young males and how males cope
with “the notion” of being “male.” For example, Maccoby and Jacklin (1978) suggest
that males possess greater desire for competition and aggression in work and play, and
some theorists suggest that this difference is not based on differences between the sexes
but rather is related to socialized gender norms; males are socialized to believe that
aggression is more acceptable than females (Brannon, 1976; Kimmel, 2008). Although
social ideas and norms evolve over time, many writers suggest that traditional gender role
deﬁnitions still have some enduring power over males’ lives, especially in relationship to
how they behave in school (Kimmel; Nicolazzo & Davis, 2007; Tuss, 2004).

Thompson and Pleck (1986) conducted a survey based on Brannon’s masculinity
deﬁnition (1976). Unlike Brannon’s original classiﬁcation, which included four
categories, Thompson and Pleck found three deﬁnitional categories, which state that
males should seek to:

1. Achieve status and respect;

2. Be mentally, emotionally, and physically tough and self-reliant; and

3. Avoid stereotypically female activities and occupations.

Thompson and Pleck’s (1986) research found a few important points. First, they
found that Brannon’s categories, although somewhat differently organized, still held
together conceptually as traditional ideas related to masculinity. Second, they found that

although young males still have these ideas to some degree, the relationships between the

58

concepts are weaker than expected based on earlier studies. In other words, males do not
equally believe in all three categories and tend to have weaker afﬁnity for each as a
whole when compared to earlier studies. Finally, they found that males can still maintain
a traditional perspective about male gender roles and have a more liberal View about
females and their roles.

Building off the idea that males’ attitudes about masculinity are malleable,
Brooks-Harris, Heesacker, and Mejia-Millan (1996) randomly assigned student
volunteers to three groups, with two groups assigned to one of two different videos and
the third being assigned to no treatment. Based on the evaluation of the data, the authors
report that the interventions did alter males’ perceptions of traditional gender roles;
however, the experiment failed to inﬂuence their personal gender role attitudes or gender
role conﬂicts. The experiment also suggested that of all of Brannon’s sub-scales (1976),
the avoidance of all things feminine was more resistant to change than the other three
categories.

Building off the work of previous scholars, Rhoads (1995) conducted an
ethnographic study of fraternity members. Through observations, and interviews with
about half of the members, Rhoads sought to determine how the fratemity’s social
structure, organization, and interaction patterns related to male attitudes about females.
Based on his analysis, Rhoads discusses three major points:

1. Males tended to describe and think about females as “less than human

beings—as objects worthy of manipulation or distain,” (p. 314) often referring
to them as “whores” available for manipulation and discussing them as a

means of attracting new members or marketing the House’s name;

59

2. Males allowed females to participate in fraternity functions, but they

controlled and limited females’ participation on their terms, typically
relegating females to the sidelines as observers; and

Fraternity life tended to strengthen ultra-masculine (i.e., macho) perceptions
of gender amongst the members that led to devaluing of females and gay
males. Activities such as dares, pranks, and rituals promoted this mindset by
emphasizing “physical qualities, such as strength, fearlessness, and

aggressiveness” (p. 318).

In his study, Davis (2002) interviewed 10 traditionally-aged college students

using an adaptation of J osselson’s study (1987) about females’ identity development.

Davis’ (2002) study indicates that—unlike previous research, which suggests that males

do not value intimacy as much as females—males do desire and seek out relationships

with ﬁiends and peers; however, this relationship-building seems to occur under strict

conditions modulated by males’ concept of masculinity. For example, Davis found that:

Males valued relationships and self-expression; however, they understood this
behavior was not traditionally exhibited or valued by males and felt ill-
prepared to express their emotions. Hence, they were overly aware of how
their behavior might be viewed by other males;

Males tended to feel more comfortable speaking and expressing emotions with
females, and did so with other males only in special circumstances. Affection
and emotional intimacy between males was indirect and often done in

conjunction with another activity; and

60

0 Males fear and attempt to distance themselves from behaviors associated with

femininity, yet felt confused and conﬁned by masculinity.

Edwards and Jones (2009) conducted a study of 10 traditionally-aged, male
college students. They based their effort on an acknowledgement that the current
literature on male gender identity development was limited (Davis & Lake, 2004),
especially in the context of social identity groups (McEwen, 2003). Their analysis
generated three themes related to a social justice theory of male gender identity
development. First, they found that all the male students felt pressured to conform to
certain masculine expectations and that these expectations became stronger and more
rigid as they got older. Speciﬁc aspects of the male role included “being competitive, in
control of emotions or unemotional, aggressive, responsible, the breadwinner, in a
position of authority, rational, strong, successful, tough, and breaking the rules” (Edwards
& Jones, 2009, pp. 214-215). The males also stated that they had learned these
expectations early in life and felt that they had always known the “rules”; however, they
could not describe how or when they actually learned them.

The second theme ﬁom the study involves the performance of masculinity,
something Edwards and Jones (2009) refer to as “putting on the mask.” The male
students explained that they put on a performance to meet society’s expectations of them,
and they generally expressed a sense of insecurity and inability to meet social
expectations of manhood. Finally, they found that over time male college students strive
to ﬁnd ways to “take off their mask.” Building on the defense mechanism mentioned in
theme two—ﬁnding places to escape from traditional expectations—male students begin

to take off their masculine mask in certain contexts and situations. In this sense, male

61

students begin to develop their own sense of their manhood and masculinity and begin to
act more according to their nature and not social expectations.

These studies support claims by Pollack (1999) and other researchers who state
that social expectations challenge males by providing rigid codes for behavior, yet
offering little counsel for males on how to navigate these codes. Kimmell (2000, 2008)
and Capraro (2004) agree, stating that males exist within a society that dictates “no sissy
stuff.” Kimmel believes that males’ belief in a narrow deﬁnition of masculinity causes
them stress and also inﬂuences their behavior as they strive to conform to perceived
social expectations. In the extreme, this stress can cause males to behave in hyper-
masculine ways, exhibiting aggression, intolerance, and competition (Clayton et al.,
2004; Edwards & Jones, 2009).

This disconnection causes males to experience gender role strain or conﬂict
(Clayton et al., 2004; O’Neil, 1981, 1990). O’Neil indicates that when males experience
gender role conﬂict, it can lead them to restrict their emotions; seek control, aggression,
and competition; restrict sexual and emotional intimacy; and obsess over work, success,
and achievement. Clayton et a1. describes this concept as a situation in which males
follow traditional concepts of masculinity that the general society ﬁnds outdated. Sources
of this strain include an increased competition from females and minorities at school and
in the workforce, an increase in the use of teams and collaboration at school and work, an
increase in the tolerance for homosexuals, an increase in the concern over societal
violence, an increase in the need for advanced education, and a decrease in the

availability of manufacturing jobs. Each of these changes challenge males’ traditional

62

predominance in society and their “traditional” ways of living within that society
(Clayton et a1.)

Kimmel (2008) suggests that males perceive academic engagement as un-cool,
and thus they purposefully disengage to ﬁt their perception of the male gender stereotype.
This idea is supported by Edwards and Jones (2009), and if this idea is true, then helping
males change their perspectives about the value of educational engagement is essential to
increasing their success and participation. Gender role norms could be a major barrier for
males as they try to navigate school and conform to their peer groups. Related to issues of
gender role, the literature suggests that some males value independent, excitement, and
adventure as well as status, success, and achievement. These two values might also
inﬂuence their educational behavior and engagement, and I explore both in the ﬁnal
sections of this chapter.

Males and Risk

Dessof (2006) suggests that one reason why males participate less in study abroad
is that they take fewer risks than females; however, major studies about male engagement
and behavioral risk suggest that males take more risks than females (Bymes, Miller, &
Schafer, 1999), especially during college (Clayton et al., 2004; Davis & Laker, 2004).
Ferby and Beyth-Marom (1992) deﬁne risk behavior broadly as an action with the
potential for multiple, unknown outcomes, some of which might be negative. Hence, one
can consider risk in terms of its degree (e. g., the risk of swimming with sharks versus the
risk of swimming after eating); value system (e. g., getting an abortion vs. not going to
church); technical requirements (e. g., movie stunts performed by a teenager vs. a trained

professional); and context (e. g., golﬁng in the rain versus golﬁng in general), with each

63

of these factors contributing to how a “risk” is considered (Bymes, 1998; F erby &
Meyth-Maron; Miller & Byrnes, 1997).

According to Lopes (1987), studies tend to deﬁne risk in one of three ways, with
each study’s results differing based on its method and purpose (Bymes et al., 1999). First,
studies that investigate people who seek out regular risk behavior and risk aversion report
that males are more likely to engage in regular risk behavior because males have a
“naturally lower level of arousal” (Bymes et al., p. 368) and have been socialized to
connect risky behaviors with masculine identity (Kelling, Zirkes, & Myerowitz, 1976;
Zuckerrnan, 1991). Second, studies that look at situational risk-taking, the difference
between choosing the more risky option over the safer option in a given context, indicate
little difference exists between males and females (Lopes). Third, some studies look at a
blending of the ﬁrst two areas of study: investigating how speciﬁc people react in speciﬁc
situations. This area of study indicates that males and females would vary by context in
their risk behavior, with each seeking out risk if they believed they could be successful or
valued success within the given context (Bymes, 1998; Wigﬁeld & Eccles, 1992).

In terms of context speciﬁc risk, Wilson and Daly (1985) suggest that for most
cultures, males would tend to take more risk than females because risk is an aspect of the
male identity. As suggested in earlier sections, males are typically characterized by a
greater need for competition and a desire to win (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). Following
this characterization of males in many modern cultures, Bymes, et al. suggest that:

Competition forces dominant individuals to engage in risk taking to gain their

position of power. The greater the spread in rewards between winners and losers,

the greater the incentive to take risks. This account suggests that men would only

64

be more likely to take risks than women when a context involves both

competition and a large spread in rewards between winners and losers (p. 369).
Based on the broad deﬁnition of risk and this general model for looking at how risk is
studied in the literature, Bymes et a1. conducted a meta-analysis of 150 studies on the
subject of risk as related to gender.

Their results show that across study designs, males tended to exhibit more risk-
oriented behavior on all measures, which included situational studies, self-reporting, and
direct observation. On 60% of the measures, the researchers reported effect sizes
signiﬁcantly greater than zero with about half of the effect sizes scoring as medium or
high. Speciﬁcally, the measures scoring the highest effect score between males and
females were three direct observation behaviors: physical skill, risky experiments, and
intellectual risk-taking. Further analysis showed that over time, the effect sizes changed
based on the respondent’s age. Looking at the category associated with traditionally-aged
college students (ages 18 — 21), all three of these risk areas were still high.

Given these ﬁndings, Dessoff’s (2006) statement that males might be risk-averse
seems unlikely; males generally clearly seem to have a higher tolerance for and an
interest in risky behavior. This ﬁnding could be a reﬂection of socialization as connected
with the male gender role related to being independent, self-reliant, and aggressive.
Whatever the underlying reason, further research on males’ perceptions of study abroad
as a risk is needed. Some writers suggest that study abroad is a risk, while others talk
about it as an academic vacation. In the end, given the diversity of program models and
locations, as well as the diversity of males’ thinking about risk, risk may be an inﬂuence

or obstacle in relationship to participation. Beyond males’ desire for risk, evidence often

65

suggests that males are more pragmatic, seeking money and success in lieu of personal
development. The next section will explore how males’ perceptions of career and success
might inﬂuence participation.

Male Careerism and Success

In addition to Wilson and Daly’s (1985) theory that risk is an aspect of male
psychology, research indicates that males are more career-focused and tend to deﬁne
success differently than females (Dyke & Murphy, 2006). Given the dominant discourse
around study abroad (Gore, 2005), understanding how males view success might relate to
their study abroad participation. If males do not view study abroad as contributing to their
academic or career advancement, then they might select other opportunities in lieu of
studying abroad.

Reports suggest that males and females feel conﬂict between work and family life
and report that family responsibilities negatively inﬂuence career advancement (Trost,
1987 & 1988). Males and females also both perceive work as interfering with their desire
to see their families, but females report this issue to a greater extent than males (Covin &
Bush, 1991). Even though males and females face similar pressures related to work,
studies suggest that males face speciﬁc social expectations in terms of their role. Since
the time of the industrial revolution, social norms have expected males to support their
families (Deutschendorf, 1996). Although gender roles have changed considerably over
time, this perspective on male success is still a powerful, pervasive underlying message
within the popular media (Tuss, 2004). England (1992) reports that, of all the stereotypes
associated with men and masculinity—including males’ roles related to being assertive—

males serving as ﬁnancial provider to their families was the strongest belief across all

66

individuals (England, 1992). Many males learn these expectations about career and
success at a young age and carry these gender expectations with them ﬁ'om childhood
into adulthood, so males often equate success with salary, title, rank, and achievement
(Dyke & Murphy, 2006), ideas directly connected to Brannon’s description of males as
“big wheels” (1976).

Research also shows that males with traditional concepts about masculine roles
make career success central to their lives (Covin & Brush, 1991; Deutschendorf, 1996)
and have higher expectations in terms of salary and job advancement (Sumner & Brown,
1996). Even when controlling for professional position and status (i.e., comparing
individuals within job classiﬁcations not across them), males are more likely to deﬁne
their success on salary and personal achievement compared to females, who focus more
on work-life balance (Dyke & Murphy, 2006). Hence, despite greater parity between
males and females at home—in terms of housework and childcare—and more females in
the workforce, studies continually indicated that females bear the greater responsibilities
at home and face more challenges at work related to childcare issues due to traditional
gender role stereotypes (Covin & Bush, 1991).

Covin and Brush (1991) conducted a survey with 240 undergraduate and graduate
students enrolled in upper-division business courses at a southern state college. The
purpose of the study was to look for differences related to males’ and females’ attitudes
about work, career, and family responsibilities. Using the survey data, these researchers

identiﬁed seven themes, four of which showed signiﬁcant differences:

67

. Public policy—respondents believed that the government should play a strong
role in helping parents deal with work-family issues; however, males
expressed signiﬁcantly less support for government intervention;

. Parent roles—respondents disagreed that being a parent means someone needs
to be at home with the children, yet males were signiﬁcantly more likely to
believe that females should stay at home and be “a mother”;

. Work-life balance—respondents thought that family life should not
necessarily negatively inﬂuence work life; however, males were more likely
than females to believe that home life negatively interferes with work life; and
. Gender roles—respondents generally eschewed the notion of stereotypical
gender roles related to work and home, yet males were signiﬁcantly more

likely than females to believe in traditional roles for women.

These ﬁndings did show that generally, the survey respondents felt that family

was more important than work, that work was not necessarily a bad thing for parents, and

that males were preferred as managers or supervisors. Beyond this general consensus

though, males seemed to have a greater degree of internalized stereotypes related to their

gender role. Regardless of the exact connects between the variables and gender or sex,

males’ focus on career offers another important area for investigation as related to study

abroad participation and deserves greater attention.

Strengths and Limitations of the Literature on Males

Unlike the study abroad literature, the literature about males and masculinity

encompasses a diversity of conceptual frameworks and instrumentation that has built a

strong, continuous research agenda studying diverse aspects of gender and gender

68

identity, and the connection between an individual’s biological sex and gender role. The
beneﬁt of reviewing this literature is that it helps me put ideas related to male study
abroad participation in perspective. Speciﬁcally, this literature-base adds depth and
understanding as to why males might report less support from friends and relatives
regarding study abroad, why males seek out risky and career—orientated activities, and
why study abroad’s marketing is considered feminized.

As such, even though gender was not used as a primary aspect of the conceptual
ﬁ'amework and survey design, it provides an important lens for analyzing the interview
data. First, general studies about study abroad participation are helpful, but they fail to
adequately address potential reasons for differences between males and females because
they are conceptually gender neutral (Davis, 2002). Hence, having literature about males
embedded within this study helps put the ﬁndings in a better context. I also believe that
the initiation of a study about male participation in study abroad does not detract from the
work being done on other groups within study abroad, nor do I attempt to place the blame
for low male participation in speciﬁc philosophies or practices (Capraro, 2004).

Second, isolating and relating males’ decision-making about study abroad to their
gender identity alone is overly simplistic and ignores the complexity of the relationships
among different aspects of self (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Although this study is not
speciﬁcally about male identity and does not seek to deﬁne what it means to be “male,”
the study does seek to understand male students’ actions and thoughts. Taking the
literature into account, one step this study will use is to employ a mixed methods design.

The large survey that includes both males and females of different religious, ethnic, and

69

socio-economic backgrounds helps to account for other aspects of an individual’s identity
and the interviews help me to better understand individual males’ experiences in context.

Some wealmesses of this literature include the fact that economics and social
forces change rapidly, so the reliance on demographic data in many studies makes their
application limited (F renette & Zeman, 2007). In other words, the social and economic
forces shaping males perceptions, values, and aspirations change over time. I must be
aware of how I use and interpret studies as I move forward with the analysis of my data.
Even studies conducted 10 years ago might not be valid given rapidly changing social
structures. Second, I highlighted that within gender studies some disagreements exist
about the nature and deﬁnition of identity and gender. Also, some scholars and policy-
makers might consider lower male participation on study abroad not to be a problem at
all, but a correction of past educational imbalances based on issues of access.

In the next chapter, I discuss the methodology used for this study, which includes
discussions about a pilot study I conducted as a basis for my personal interviews. In
Chapters 4 and 5, I then report the ﬁndings from my study design, ﬁrst discussing the
survey data and then the interview data. Finally, Chapter 6 presents my analysis of the

ﬁndings based on literature reviewed in this chapter.

70

Chapter 3: Methods

With male participation in study abroad ranging between 30 and 35% of all
students, clearly there are some factors that, when compared with females, either make
males less motivated to study abroad, provide additional or different barriers for their
participation, or both. Unfortunately as shown in the review of literature in Chapter 2,
few studies have actively studied study abroad participation with a focus on differences
between males and females, and although a plethora of studies exist about male students
in general, no clear theoretical links have been made between the studies about males and
study abroad participation.

This chapter outlines a design and methods for addressing the problem of low
male participation by applying Henry and Basile’s (1994) model of participation to the
broader studies of study abroad and male engagement. To broadly understand the role of
potential participation motivators and obstacles and to deeply understand the role of
gender-related theories on male students’ decision-making, this study used a mixed
methods approach, which Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) recommend for research
questions that cannot be fully or substantially answered using a single method design.
Speciﬁcally, I employed a sequential explanatory design, which included a qualitative
pilot study, a quantitative analysis of existing survey data during the ﬁrst research phase,
and the semi-structured interviews of male students during the second research phase.

Ideas about Male Study Abroad Participation

Although the literature consistently describes the core obstacles to study abroad as

cost and academic integration, these issues do not fully explain differences in

participation between males and females (Shirley, 2006), so some study abroad

71

professionals have begun to postulate additional obstacles speciﬁc to low male
participation (Dessoff, 2006). Thus, the study abroad literature-base illuminates key
motivations and barriers to study abroad participation, but it provides little empirical
evidence to evaluate these ideas. Studies about males should provide insight about these
issues, as neither literature-base alone can provide an adequate conceptual model to
address the problem. This section begins to address this concern by bringing the
literature-bases together.

The dominant idea presented in the study abroad literature suggests that because
more males pursue science majors 'with rigorous, sequential curricula, they have fewer
international study opportunities than other majors (Dessoff, 2006; Gore, 2005; Shirley,
2006). The fact that science and engineering students tend to study abroad less ﬁequently
than those in other ﬁelds supports this assertion (Davis, 2006); however, the trend for
science and engineering majors’ participation has been upward while the number of
males studying abroad has been stagnant or declining (Davis; Shirley; Redden, 2008).
Related to this trend, the increase in short-term, summer programs should also facilitate a
larger number of majors and students going abroad. Also, no empirical study has
statistically analyzed the connection between participation, sex or gender, and academic
major. As suggested by Looker and McNutt (1989), the differences might not actually be
based on majors speciﬁcally, but more broadly on intended career outcomes.

Second, some professionals believe that males are more likely to pursue
internships, jobs, or athletics opportunities, which hamper their ability to travel (Dessoff,
2006; Shirley, 20006). As with science students, athletes are less likely to study abroad.

Historically, females may have not participated in some of these activities at the same

72

rates as males, yet overall female participation rates in sports and other professional
activities continues to rise (Sax, 2008), but so do their participation rates for study
abroad. Taking into account the information on gender participation and engagement in
higher education (Davis & Laker, 2004) and Shirley’s ﬁndings related to females and
internships also suggests that this area might fail to fully account for male participation.
As with the disciplinary background idea, the concept that males are more engaged in
other activities has not been empirically studied, and based on the general information on
male engagement, seems to lack validity.

Third, several authors suggest that males tend to be less adventurous with their
education than females (Dessoff, 2006; Gore, 2005) and generally participate less in
higher educational programming (Davis & Laker, 2004). This idea may also hold some
answers to low male participation in study abroad because it reﬂects a broader pattern in
male engagement; however, the risk literature indicates that males are generally more
adventuresome than females (Bymes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999). This literature and more
recent discussions about study abroad (Redden, 2008) state that males might not study
abroad because they view it as overly organized, while females ﬂock toward study abroad
because they view it as a safe way to travel. Study abroad would seem to be a highly
risky activity in some cases, yet perhaps one that males do not value (Bymes, 1998;
Wigﬁeld & Eccles, 1992) or one that males do not ﬁnd risky. A pilot study conducted for
this study, interviews of eight undergraduate males, suggested that males ﬁnd study
abroad overly safe and stiﬂing.

Finally, a prevailing rationale relates low participation to historic gender roles,

which make study abroad participation more socially acceptable for females, whereas

73

males are encouraged by their parents to ﬁnd work, gain professional experience, and
earn a salary (Dessof, 2006; Gore, 2005). This theory relates to Dyke and Murphy’s study
(2006), which suggests that males have historically been associated with supporting their
farrrilies and equate success with career advancement, money, and status. As discussed by
Gore, the dominant discourse on study abroad implies that the activity is ﬁivolous so
parents and peers may push males to engage with activities deemed more professionally
“beneﬁcial” to them; therefore, male career development theory supports this idea by
suggesting that male conceptions of success might not encompass a desire to study
abroad.

In addition, study abroad participation studies suggest that students’ parents and
friends have a strong inﬂuence on their decision to study abroad (Gore; Shirley, 2006),
yet males reported lower support than females and were less likely than females to
express internships and work as a barrier (Shirley). This ﬁnding conﬂicts with ﬁndings
from studies by Valentine (1997) and Sumner and Brown (1996), which suggest that
males are more inﬂuenced by external factors such as career advancement and success
than females. Thus, as with the other ideas presented in this study, the link between
males’ career focus, deﬁnitions of success, and the role of parental and peer support have
not been well studied in relationship to study abroad.

Given the state of the problem and the available literature, the issue of male
participation is clearly a problem both practically and theoretically. Considering the range
of ideas discussed by the literature, a quantitative or qualitative study alone could not
account for the range of potential factors discussed. A quantitative study can provide the

sample size and statistical control needed to understand better some potential obstacles to

74

study abroad such as academic major, athletics, internships, and peer and parental
support; however, as suggested by Carlson et a1. (1990), quantitative studies fail to
account for the complexity of issues such as males’ conceptions of gender roles, risk, and
success, which are also prominent rationales related to the research question. For these
reasons, this study employed a mixed methods approach in an attempt to investigate
multiple rationales for lower male study abroad participation.

Grounded Theory Pilot Study

Before starting this investigation, I conducted a pilot study related to the issue of
male participation in ﬁrst-year study abroad pro grams at the same institution used for the
larger study. For the pilot study, I used a grounded approach as suggested by Strauss and
Corbin (1998), with a semi-structured interview process to investigate participants’
perceptions about study abroad. Grounded theory melds the data collection and analysis
stages, with the researcher taking advantage of new insight to reform working theories
and interview protocols (Creswell, 2007); therefore, this design provided me with the
ﬂexibility to change direction during the study to account for new information and insight
(Ary, Cheser-Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990; Creswell, 2007; Creswell, 2003).

Based on the data from eight male volunteers, I used the constant comparative
method as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990) to reﬁne the interview protocol and
analysis. The initial questions posed to the students asked broad information about the
students’ thoughts and expectations about college and special opportunities—including
questions about how they decided to attend the university, why they attended the
university, and what messages they heard about the university and getting involved.

Eventually, based on the responses and direction of the conversation, I asked all

75

volunteers more pointed questions about study abroad--including what they knew about
study abroad, the messages they heard about study abroad from the university and others,
and their perceptions of the value of study abroad. As the interviews progressed, I asked
increasingly speciﬁc questions to probe categories that emerged from earlier interviews,
such as questions about marketing messages, costs, and peer support.
Based on the data collected during the personal interviews, three broad themes
emerged as related to differences between male and female participation on study abroad:
1. Male participants and nonparticipants felt that the way study abroad was
communicated to males was unappealing and should change.
2. Male participants indicated support and encouragement from family or friends
who facilitated their interest and motivation to apply.
3. Male nonparticipants who felt that study abroad detracted ﬁ‘om their ability to
work or pursue academic interests were less likely to participate.
Although these themes ﬁt with the literature and existing ideas about male participation,
the small sample size and methodology of this pilot study limits my ability to develop a
general theory about male participation; however, the ﬁndings helped me clarify several
factors related to the current study.
First, I decided that I would only interview students about to graduate for the
larger study because after interviewing ﬁrst- and second-year students for the pilot, I
realized that some students who were “nonparticipants” during the pilot intended to
participate later in their academic career. As such, getting the opinions of “true”
nonparticipants proved difﬁcult with younger students. Second, I expanded the interview

questions related to the peer support and marketing messages themes due to the

76

prominence of the data collected during the pilot study. Finally, the experience with the
pilot study helped me become more comfortable with collecting and analyzing qualitative
data and helped familiarize me with some of the literature related to the issue.
Mixed Method Design

From the original pilot study, this dissertation study employs a mixed methods
design as suggested by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) who deﬁne mixed methods “as
the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative
research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study” (p.
17). They suggest using mixed methods when a quantitative or qualitative study alone
would be insufﬁcient to answer the research problem and when the mixing of data
collection strategies is likely to strengthen results and ameliorate the weaknesses of a
single design (Patton, 1990), a concept Johnson and Turner (2003) call the fundamental
principle of mixed research (Johnson & Onweugbuzie). Creswell and Plano Clark (2006)
state that mixed methods represent an important modern research tool, as many
contemporary problems require data inherent to both strategies. Using this mixture
“researchers can situate numbers in the contexts and words of participants, and they can
frame the words of participants with numbers, trends, and statistical results” (p. 13).

This mixed method study uses an explanatory sequential design (Creswell, Plano
Clark, 2006; Gutrnann, & Hanson, 2003) as depicted in Figure 4. Explanatory designs use
a two-part data collection strategy starting with quantitative strategies followed by
qualitative strategies, and this speciﬁc form of explanatory design uses the results from
the study’s quantitative phase to inform the data collection during the second, qualitative

phase. Although Creswell and Plano Clark (2006) suggest that the dominant philosophy

77

used during data interpretation is quantitative because the study starts with quantitative
data and strategies, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) state that mixed designs can
emphasize either research paradigm as long as both forms of data are reﬂected in the
interpretation of the ﬁndings. Given the nature of the research question and the paucity of
qualitative research on male study abroad participation, I emphasize qualitative
paradigms during my data analysis and interpretation. Although both quantitative and
qualitative strategies are employed throughout the study, the qualitative paradigm will
provide the basis for the discussion and organization of the ﬁndings.
Strengths and Limitations of this Design

Given the mixed method design selected, this study has a quantitative and
qualitative phase during data collection with the quantitative survey data informing or
explaining some of the design decisions for the qualitative interviews. With this design, it
will be important to acknowledge the uses, strengths, and limitations of each phase of
data collection, as well as discuss how the entire design works together to address the
main, qualitative research question of why male college students study abroad at lower
rates than female college students (J ohson & Onweugbuzie, 2004). In this section, I
discuss the quantitative phase, the qualitative phase, and mixed methods design in
relationship to these considerations and how each contributes to answering the primary
research question. Later, I also present additional information related to research
questions, hypothesis, and limitations of the speciﬁc data collection strategies.

The ﬁrst data collection phase involved statistical analysis of survey data to look
at signiﬁcant differences between male and female students regarding study abroad and

to account for the inﬂuence of certain variables on participation, such as race and

78

academic major. The strengths of using this quantitative method are: (l) a large sample
size can be analyzed providing statistical signiﬁcance and potential generalizability to
other settings; (2) statistical methods allow the researcher to control for and potentially
eliminate some intervening variables inﬂuencing male participation; and (3) numeric data
from a large sample allows for comparisons between groups that are relatively
independent from the researcher’s analysis, which helps provide validity, triangulation,
and independent conﬁrmation of qualitative results.

The primary weakness of this data collection strategy is that the concepts being
studied are abstract, so a survey instrument might not reliably measure the intended
concepts and the discrete responses are based on individual students’ interpretations of
the questions’ meaning. For example, when asking a student about parental support, the
concept of support lacks a single deﬁnition and different students might have different
options about what a supportive behavior is or is not. Similarly, when a student reports
that a parent was “very supportive,” I do not have a clear idea of what the student means
by the response. A second weakness is that, given the static nature of a survey, I am
unable to probe new ideas, ask follow-up questions, and remain open to new ideas that
are relevant to the respondent but not included on the survey directly.

I address these weaknesses in part through the use of a qualitative second phase,
which uses interviews to follow-up on the ﬁndings from the survey. Through interviews,
I probed for deeper understanding of students’ responses and remained open to
potentially important concepts not included on the survey. Also, I gained understanding
about the problem from the view of the individuals themselves, in context, and in

comparison with the broader data set. Although the quantitative study provided the

79

breadth of information across respondents, the survey is not sufﬁciently detailed to
investigate some key concepts. Thus, the qualitative phase allowed for depth of
understanding using a smaller group, which did a better job explaining potential
synergies between abstract concepts such as male engagement, careerism, and identity. In
the end then, the survey and interview approaches are mutually beneﬁcial. The survey is
not sufﬁciently detailed to explain certain concepts, and the case study interviews rely on
small samples and have uncertain generalizability to other groups and settings. Also,
qualitative methods are more easily inﬂuenced by my bias and interpretation than
quantitative methods.

The synergies explained between design phases one and two support the
fundamental principle of mixed research (Johnson & Turner, 2003), which states that
aspects of a mixed design study reinforce each other’s strengths and lessen weaknesses
(Patton, 1990). Despite this fact, the study must also consider the strengths and
weaknesses of the overall mixed design. The main strengths of mixed methods are its
ﬂexibility and adaptability to using multiple sources of data, which adds validity,
corroboration, and insight to the ﬁndings. Figure 3 (see p. 82) graphically represents the
connection between the potential barriers to participation and the design, as well as the
relationship between the design’s phases.

The major weaknesses in a mixed design include managing the complexity, time,
and cost associated with doing two or more data collection strategies; situating the design
within a philosophy that brings seemingly disparate paradigms together; and converging
the data appropriately in data analysis and interpretation stages (Creswell & Plano Clark,

2006; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As this design made use of an existing set of

80

survey data, the time and cost issues were lessened; however, I need to situate this
research design within the literature, an issue I address in the next section. The tactic used
for reporting the data also incorporates the relevant literature as suggested by Creswell
and Plano Clark, who address a third major challenge inherent to mixed methods.
Rationale for Mixed Methods: Pragmatist Philosophies.

Although still rooted in the quantitative and qualitative methodology and rhetoric,
several writers discuss mixed methods as the “third wave” in the paradigm wars
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998). These methodologists believe that mixed methods research is not merely the
cobbling together of the two major research paradigms, but rather that it represents its
own, unique ontology based on pragrnatist philosophies (Rossman & Wilson, 1985).
Speciﬁcally,pragmatists reject the purists’ dichotomy between research traditions
(Rossman & Wilson) and offer a very practical epistemology that advocates that
researchers use “what works” (Creswell & Plano Clark, p. 24).

Hence, pragrnatists emphasize the versatility of inquiry to provide insight and
offer realistic practice and solutions for modern problems. Johnson and Onweugbuzie
state that pragrnatists are “interested in examining practical consequences and empirical
ﬁndings to help in understanding the import of philosophical positions and, importantly
to help in deciding which action to take next as one attempts to understand real-world
phenomena,” (2004, p. 17). Thus, pragrnatists welcome the use of diverse, creative, and
eclectic methods as means to gathering the needed information to understand an issue.
They recognize that complex research questions, especially within the social sciences,

often necessitate combining methods.

81

Figure 3: Explanatory Sequential Model

Motivations and Barriers to Participation

K Institutional/ \ KSituational external\ / Dis ositional internal \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
6. Work or internship i, Career—focus

a. Program format or opportunity cost j, Desire for social engage-
structure f. Athletics opportu- ment

b. Time of program nity cost k. Desire for fun and risk

c. Length of program g. Leadership opportu- 1, Low maturity/conﬁdence

d. Courses and content nity cost m. Desire for personal
offered h. Potential to delay growth

Q Cost / graduation n. F ear/safety concerns

 

 

\

{Information/Re utation internal-external nexus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

f Personal \ 0. Peer support and messages
Characteristics p. Family support and messages
q. Institutional support and messages
0 Race and ethnicity Q Reputation /
0 Gender \ j \ x
0 Age //
0 Family background \ I,”
0 Socio-economic . ,I’
k status 1 x
v V

 

 

 

 

l r
ﬂux 1: Surve Data Anal sis

 

Phase II: Interview Desi n

 

Look at the qualitative aspects of

 

 

Look at the directly measurable
aspects of low male participation by
focusing on structural, quantiﬁable
aspects of design as exhibited by
situational factors.

Emphasis on the following:

1. Program attributes (a, b, c, d, e)

2. Opportunity costs (e, f, g, h)

3. Personal motivations and
barriers (k, n)

4. Perceptions of information and
suvport (o, p q)

Demographic variables including
grades and ethnicity will be
analyzed in this phase as well.

K

J

 

82

 

Qerview protocol.

low male participation by focusing
on male students opinions and irn-
pressions of the value of study
abroad and the external messages
they hear about study abroad.

Emphasis on the following:

1. Male psychosocial development
0, 1. m)

2. Careerism (e, i)

3. Risk-raking (k, n)

4. Perceptions of support (n, o, q)

5. Reputation (r)

6. SES and family background

Aspects found to be statistically

signiﬁcant, and not included on
the above list, will be added to the

J

 

In terms of their value stance, pragrnatists do not seek an absolute truth, nor do
they necessarily state that it does not exist. They instead seek relative truths as matters of
degree, recognizing that the truth is not stagnant and the absolute truth is something that
can only be known in hindsight. For a pragrnatist, truth is ultimately about what works: if
it works, then in that speciﬁc situation something was “true” and good. Thus, pragrnatists
are not obj ectivist, they value practical solutions based on their cultural relevance and
explicitly espouse liberal ideals such as democracy, freedom, and progress (Johnson &
Onweugbuzie, 2004). They want to make the world a better place and use research to
better practice and understanding, yet this emphasis is also a major weakness of the
paradigm. Often, pragrnatist researchers’ practically focuses their work too speciﬁcally,
eschewing broader-based knowledge for speciﬁc changes; therefore, researchers basing
their work in this philosophy must remember the “bigger picture” when reporting their
results and provide clear recommendations related to broader understandings (Johnson &
Onweugbuzie).

Institutional Setting

The setting for this study is a large, research-intensive, Midwestern university.
The university used for this study is a leader in the ﬁeld of study abroad, serving about
2500 student participants per year and offering a wide-range of study abroad programs
including exchange programs, internship programs, faculty-led programs, and service
programs. Selection of this site assists with program design for several reasons. First, the
institution sends a large volume of students abroad, which allows for sufﬁcient sample
sizes and participant diversity. Second, the institution offers over 260 programs ranging

in length ﬁom one week to an academic year on every continent, which helps address

‘83

variables related to program characteristics. In other words, many different program
models exist at this institution with different course offerings, timings, and durations, so
the rationale for low male participation should not be that no programs exist for speciﬁc
majors or that the programs are too long and interfere with other summer experiences.
Third, this institution leads the country in faculty-led programs, meaning students earn
credit for their university requirements from their own faculty rather than relying on
transfer credits, which lessens the challenge of obtaining credit that counts toward their
degree.

Considering some of the suggested rationales for low male participation—~—
including limited site location, inability to take required courses, potential to delay
graduation, and program timing———this institutional setting provides some built-in
controls. For example, a male engineering student at a small institution without
engineering study abroad programs might not go abroad because of lack of knowledge,
their curriculum, personal characteristics, or because there are no programs available to
him. Conducting the study at an institution with a culture of study abroad and that offers
a range of program topics, locations, and lengths narrows the reasons for not going
abroad considerably.

Research Question and the Sequential Design

As stated in the ﬁrst chapter, my primary research question is “Why do
traditionally-aged college males not participate in study abroad programs as often as
females?”. Based on the literature, a number of ideas exist within the study abroad
community in response to this question; however, few empirical studies address it

directly. This study uses mixed methods to address this broader question of male

84

participation using complementary strategies: ﬁrst by analyzing a secondary data source
using an institutional survey of male and female students and second by conducting semi-
structured interviews with traditionally-aged college males. This section provides an
overview of the types of questions and variables related to each strategy, and the
subsequent sections deal directly with each strategy’s design and implementation.

For the quantitative phase of the study, I analyzed data from an existing survey to
investigate barriers to participation that can be quantiﬁed. Such variables include the
following (see Figure 3 for graphical representation):

0 Programmatic characteristics: length of program, timing of program, courses

offered on the program, and cost;

0 Institutional characteristics: availability of courses and programs in a student’s

major;

0 Situational factors: students’ perception of study abroad as conﬂicting with

internships or work, athletics, student involvement, and graduation timelines;

o Dispositional characteristics: fun, safety, and health factors as motivators or

barriers; and

0 Information factors: students’ knowledge and perception of the institution’s,

parents’, and peers’ messages concerning study abroad.
For each of the factors identiﬁed by these points, the institutional survey provides large-
scale, quantitative data that I analyzed and compared based upon characteristics such as
sex, race/ethnicity, grade point average, and participation status.

During the second phase, I used interviews to investigate variables not ﬁrlly

explainable or included in the survey. This qualitative study delved deeper into the

85

problem of male participation by looking at some of the issues presented above and also
by emphasizing some dispositional baniers best understood qualitatively. Speciﬁcally,
this design phase emphasized:

- Factors related to family background and social capital, such as family
educational and economic background as suggested by McClenaghan (2000)
and previous travel experience;

0 Informational factors such as messages about and support for study abroad
that they receive from their institution, peers, and others;

0 Dispositional factors related to male development, maturity, as well as their
sense of risk and safety; and

0 Additional dispositional factors related to males’ opinion of careers and work,
goals, and motivations (or lack thereof) for participation.

Based on the literature and a pilot study conducted for this dissertation, the issues of male
careerism, risk-taking, and identity development are of primary interest during the
qualitative phase of the study; however, the design for the second phase allows for other
factors in addition to those analyzed in Phase 1 to be included as needed (see Figure 3, p.
82).
Phase 1: Quantitative Survey

Three of the major limitations of the study abroad literature are that (1) few
studies have directly studied the inﬂuence of gender on participation, (2) studies have
typically had small sample sizes with inherent selection bias and low response rates, and
(3) studies have not reported data using inferential statistics. This phase of the study

addresses these limitations by using a large-scale survey distributed to traditionally-aged,

86

.rsf ‘\
.‘IUUL |

9‘1“},ﬂ
6.55s. ..

v‘ “.7-
‘mL h.

"g «3--

ﬁll-5.:

. I
H r.
LI 6'
*LhA .

'I .0. 1

4...:U

b .' ‘.~

‘4

33":
‘-\

undergraduate college males and females who attended, withdrew from, and did not
attend a study abroad program at a large, Midwestern university. This section of the
dissertation describes aspects of the survey, including the development, implementation,
and analysis of the survey as related to this study.

Instrument Design

A committee designed the survey as part of an institutional effort seeking to
understand student perspectives on study abroad, especially as related to motivations and
obstacles to their participation. I participated on this committee and assisted in the design
of the survey, and although the survey design did not directly target sex as a major focus
in its design, it accounted for sex as a variable and included many of the same rationales
often suggested in the literature as relating to low male participation. The majority of the
questions on the survey gathered either categorical data related to respondents’
demographic characteristics—such as academic major, sex, and ethnicity—or Likert-style
data related to students’ ranking of various factors as contributing to or hindering their
interest and participation in study abroad. For example, respondents ranked factors such
as parental support, length of program, safety concerns, cost, and academic rigor on a six-
point Likert-style scale ranging ﬁ'om “not an inﬂuence” to “strongly inﬂuenced.”

A campus research institute designed and distributed the survey over the campus
email system using stratiﬁed random samples obtained from the institution’s registrar’s
and study abroad ofﬁces. The sample from the study abroad database supplemented the
institutional list to ensure that the response pool contained enough respondents who had
participated in study abroad for analysis. The institute cleaned the names on the list to

ensure that no students pulled from the study abroad database overlapped with names on

87

the institutional list. The institute then emailed the survey during the institution’s spring
semester in April 2007. The institute offered students incentives to return the survey,
which included coupons to local eateries and stores, as well as a drawing for a gift
certiﬁcate to a local store. The survey elicited 2,047 respondents with a 65% return rate.
Response rates by sex approximated institutional enrollments, with 55.3% of the
respondents identifying as female and 44.7% identifying as male (institutional enrollment
for the same year was 56% female and 44% male). Content and theoretical validity of the
study were established by using study abroad professionals and the available literature
during its design to ensure that the proper concepts were included in the questions. The
committee also tested the survey to ensure that the electronic version worked correctly
and ﬂowed logically to limit response errors.

Survey Analysis

I obtained the survey data from the research institute cleaned and transferred into
SPSS. Using SPSS, I tested for relationships and statistical signiﬁcance between males
and females on variables related to the literature’s reasoning for low male participation
rates. As the survey design collected primarily nominal and ordinal data, the traditional
statistics for the data are non-parametric; however, modern statistical processes do allow
for the use of more powerful, parametric tests using ordinal data when it is in the form of
a ﬁve- or six-point Likert-scale. After consulting Dr. Phil Gardner on the statistical
methods, I proceeded with using chi-square and contingency tables to compare males and
females on nominal variables such as participation or transfer student status, and I used a
parametric analysis, AN OVA, to compare males’ and female’s mean scores on the

ordinal scales such as family support. For the purposes of comparison, I used a p-value of

88

.05, setting a 95% conﬁdence level limit. The quantitative data analysis procedures also
included factor analysis of the variables related to the common inﬂuences and obstacles
associated with study abroad participation.

Survey Limitations

This survey has two main limitations. First, I did not design it speciﬁcally to study
the issue of male participation, and the committee did not conduct a rigorous review of
literature prior to writing the survey. Thus, the survey fails to include some information
that could have been useful for this speciﬁc study—and the question of study abroad
participation in general. Speciﬁcally, additional information related to students’ opinions
about study abroad as valuable to their career goals would have provided more insight
into their decision-making. Background information related to socio-economic status
would have also helped for the analysis. Second, the survey design and implementation
limited my ability to analyze the data using statistics. Most of the survey data gathered
were nominal and ordina, so the scope and type of inferential statistics available for
analysis is limited. Also, the manner in which the survey asked questions limits analysis
using regression, which I discuss in Chapter 4.
Phase 2: Interview Design and Implementation

The study abroad literature suggests using a qualitative strategy to better
understand the complex issues of student learning and participation in study abroad
(Carlson et al., 1990); therefore, I also used a qualitative research phase to better i
understand male student participation and provide depth to the ﬁndings from the survey
discussed above. Qualitative methodologies arose from anthropology and sociology (Kirk

& Miller, 1986) to better understand a particular person, group, occurrence, or interaction

89

(Locke, Wyrick-Spirduso, & Silvennan, 2000). Unlike quantitative research—which
measures factors to ﬁnd an objective truth divorced from subjective perceptions and
context—qualitative methods seek understanding in a natural setting (Ary, Cheser-
Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990). From a pragmatic perspective (Rossman & Wilson, 1985),
this additional phase to the research design is necessary, as it helps answer the main
research question more fully than the survey could alone.

Researcher ’3 Role

The primary instrument in qualitative research is the researcher (Creswell, 2003;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through direct observation, interviews, and subjective analysis,
the researcher offers his or her interpretations of the studied occurrence. To promote
trustworthiness, Creswell (2003) recommends that the researcher clarify personal values,
assumptions, and biases that may affect interpretation of the ﬁndings, so their
contributions to theory can be useful (Locke et al., 2000). Inﬂuences that affect my
interpretation and reaction to the student interviews include my experience as a male who
both participated on a study abroad program as an undergraduate student and who
currently leads study abroad programs.

As a male, majority student, I participated in a semester-long study abroad and
internship program in Australia. Living and working abroad for sixth months helped me
to better understand my culture and frame my worldview. Until I lived in Australia and
was confronted by my otherness, I had never reﬂected upon or challenged my
assumptions about the world. This experience shaped my career and life aspirations, and I
developed a stronger commitment to social, environmental, and global issues. Until I left

my home culture, I could not have articulated this desire; I, like many Americans, had

90

been socialized to understand the United States to be a powerful, righteous nation. I had
no idea what “being American” meant or what people around the globe thought about
Americans, because I had never experienced anything beyond America. Through
international travel to Fiji and Australia, I was able to think about myself and my country
from different perspectives. Now, as a faculty member who has led 15 short-terrn study
abroad programs (i.e., programs under six weeks in length)——and who views these short
programs as an important facet of international programming because not all students
have the conﬁdence, time, or money to travel for an extended time—I want to make sure
as many students as possible can and do travel abroad.

Beyond these personal interactions with study abroad, I have formal academic and
professional experience in student affairs and development, teaching and learning, career
and academic advising, and marketing communications. My work with these theories
inﬂuences my thinking related to this problem, which I reﬂect upon during the analysis
and communication of my data. Finally, one of my current job responsibilities involves
administering study abroad programs, so I have a professional interest in understanding
male participation. For very practical reasons, I want more males studying abroad.

Interview Population and Setting

For this study phase, I interviewed 24 traditionally-aged, senior male students
who are at the end of their undergraduate degree program. This decision ameliorated the
issue of selecting male volunteers who are study abroad nonparticipants at the point of
contact but who intend to participate later in their academic career. By picking senior
study abroad nonparticipants, I ensure that the volunteer will remain a nonparticipant and

decrease the likelihood that his age or year in school inﬂuenced his participation status.

91

In other words, a ﬁrst-year student has three or more years of college during which to
participate in a study abroad program, and his perspective on study abroad might be more
inﬂuenced by his age and year in school than by his sex.

To elicit volunteers for the study, I recruited a purposeful sample of eight students
ﬁ'om three disciplinary cohort groups. I selected the cohorts from disciplines that
maximized the diversity of the sample as related to the problem. In other words, I picked
a ﬁeld of study—such as science and engineering (STEM)——that has low levels of study
abroad participation and a ﬁeld of study that has moderately high participation levels—
such as the liberal arts and social sciences. For the third cohort, I selected a unique ﬁeld
with very high participation at the institution—a residential program related to
intemational relations and public policy. By selecting three major cohorts of eight
students each, I was able to consider potentially confounding ﬁndings between the groups
on factors that emerged from the ﬁrst phase. For example, major is an important variable
deterrrrining study abroad participation, so I wanted to have males representing both high
and low participation majors.

Once I identiﬁed the cohorts, I obtained a list of names from the Ofﬁce of Study
Abroad and the academic advisors afﬁliated with the majors associated with my cohort
groups. I then contacted the students via email and Facebook to request an interview (see
Appendix B on p. 272). None of the volunteers were current students of mine or students
who worked for me in any capacity. All interviews occurred on the institution’s campus,
with locations and times selected with the student’s and my mutual consent. Getting
study abroad nonparticipants to respond to email and Facebook requests proved difﬁcult,

especially for nonparticipants. To reach my goal of 12 male nonparticipants, I used

92

referrals from my volunteers and campus personnel who had a personal relationship with
the potential study volunteer to make the introduction and vouch for my credibility.

Data Collection Strategy and Instrument

With interviews, the researcher uses direct questions, probes, and observations to
understand factors contributing to a speciﬁc behavior, especially human behavior;
therefore, qualitative interviews are most useful in generating theory and understanding
complex concepts not easily measured quantitatively (Ary et al., 1990; Creswell, 2003).
This investigation used a structured 45 —— 60 minute interview protocol with probing
questions to investigate traditionally-aged male college students’ perceptions about study
abroad. I designed the interview protocol with consideration to the ﬁrst study phase, the
pilot-study and literature, especially as related to Henry and Basile’s (1994) model of
participation in formal educational opportunities and the relevant characteristics related to
students’ social capital as suggested by McClenaghan (2000).

As part of the interview process, I also had each student watch the institution’s
study abroad video on-line. This video represents one of the primary marketing tools used
by study abroad, as it is on the ofﬁce’s homepage and used at most orientation events for
incoming students. The video includes photos from students’ study abroad experiences
set to music, with students’ quotes intertwined with the music. After each student
watched the video, I asked him to offer his suggestions about whether he found it
appealing, what he thought it “said” about study abroad, and how he might make the
content more appealing to a male student audience.

I collected all the interview data from one interaction, using a protocol that

included open-ended questions and probes as suggested by Minichiello, Alexander and

93

Timewell (1997), but my design allowed for follow-up contact if needed. On a few
occasions, I emailed students as a follow-up to ask additional questions or for clarity
around their original interview (see Appendix D on p. 276). During the actual interviews,
I digitally recorded each conversation to ensure accuracy. Also, to assist with the data
collection, I used a ﬁeld log to take notes on their comments, the interview setting, their
behavior, and other factors (Minichiello et al.). This log would have supported the digital
recording in case of technological malfunction and provided another source of data for
my analysis. At the conclusion of each interview, I reviewed my notes and
understandings with the volunteer, and after the transcriptions, I shared the written record
of our conversation with the volunteer, giving them the opportunity to provide feedback.
These techniques help to ensure the accuracy and dependability of my understanding
(Creswell, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Minichiello et al.).

To start each conversation, the interview protocol used broader questions related
to male’s knowledge of and their thoughts and expectations related to campus
international activities. Starting broad allowed the males to talk ﬁ'eely about what they
knew—and in many cases did not know—about international opportunities in general,
and it avoided biasing the nonparticipants toward the interview by making them feel
uncomfortable about their status as nonparticipants. I am especially sensitive to the fact
that this study could have made a nonparticipant feel guilty or somewhat “less studious”
because he decided not to participate, and I further understood that such sentiments could
bias the interview discussion. I tried to frame my questions and my interactions with the

males in a way that avoided blame. I used this method during the pilot study, and it

94

worked well to eliminate any feelings of accusation or negativity around the students’
decision to not participate in something this study obviously deemed important.

Based on the responses and direction of the conversation, I then asked all
volunteers more pointed questions about study abroad based on the conceptual model and
research design—including what they personally knew about study abroad, the messages
they hear about study abroad from the university and others, and their perceptions of the
value of study abroad. As the interviews progressed, I posed increasingly speciﬁc
questions to probe categories that emerged from the literature review and quantitative
phase of the study, such as questions about marketing messages, costs, and program
characteristics. By conducting the interviews in this manner, the data obtained for each
interview question did not directly link to the research question or questions that I had
pre-associated with the interview protocol. As such, I spent considerable time reviewing
all the interviews in their entirety during my analysis.

Data Analysis Procedures

Qualitative research is an inductive approach to inquiry. During data analysis,
qualitative researchers code their data into categories that reﬂect the purpose of the study
(Creswell, 2003); they seek to describe and then understand themes (Agar, 1980). During
this analysis, I ﬁrst coded the data into categories based on my four research questions.
When categorizing this data, I sought patterns among the individuals’ comments as
suggested by Miles and Huberman (1984), which involved noting the frequency and
intensity of the participants’ comments. Although I used the various hunches about male
participation from the literature as a basis for my interview protocol, the open-ended

questions allowed themes to emerge from the answers throughout the conversation rather

95

than in direct relationship to a speciﬁc question or set of questions. Hence, my conceptual
framework provided the basis for my analysis; however, I recognized that answers to
speciﬁc themes were sprinkled throughout the entire interview, not only associated with
speciﬁc interview questions. Also, I realized the need to remain open to new ideas and
themes that emerged from the data.

I had the interviews transcribed by a professional service, which provided me
with verbatim MS-Word documents of each interview. I then used an iterative process to
analyze my data around my research questions. After this initial coding, I then outlined
each research questions, identifying associated sub-themes. During this second analysis
phase, I recoded data into more speciﬁc categories and in some cases moved themes and
data between research questions. After the sub-themes were identiﬁed and organized, I
then began to write each section of the qualitative ﬁndings by research question. For each
of the four questions, I reviewed all the data again, continually moving data and themes
around as I clariﬁed my understanding and analysis. In the end, I reviewed, (re)coded,
and analyzed the data seven times.

Limitations of the Interview Data

As with most qualitative research, my prior experience represents a potential
source of bias to the study. I sought to minimize this bias by constantly referring back to
the literature to guide my analysis, by communicating with professionals in study abroad
during the research process, and by validating my ﬁeld notes and transcriptions with the
volunteers. Despite these efforts, another limitation inherent to this study is the number
and type of students interviewed. Finding volunteers, conducting interviews, and

analyzing the data are time consuming tasks. With 24 interviews, my ﬁndings are limited

96

in scope and perspective; however, this limitation is balanced by the ﬁrst phase of this
study, which used a survey to achieve the breadth of information needed to address
aspects of the research question.

Related to the student volunteers, a fourth limitation is that there could be
something about the students who volunteered that make them different than students
who did not volunteer. To address this limitation, I situated my ﬁndings in the context
and purpose of the quantitative data and the literature review. Qualitative researchers
investigate a topic in-depth at the sacriﬁce to external generalizablity; however, they can
take efforts to maximize their ability to generalize to theory (Ary et al., 1990; Creswell,
2003; Maxwell, 1992). By taking the literature-base into account, using tapes and ﬁeld
notes with member checks, applying my own experience, and relying on the experience
of other professionals in the ﬁeld, this study still achieves a high degree of creditability
and accuracy (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell).

In the next chapter, I present the quantitative ﬁndings from the survey mentioned
earlier in this chapter. This chapter includes discussion of study abroad participation
based on demographic variables, comparisons of male and female participants and
nonparticipants, and a factor analysis of inﬂuences and obstacles to participation. In
Chapter 5, I then retrun to the qualitative data, discussing the interviews and phase two of
the research study. Chapter 6 summarizes and interprets the ﬁnding from the study,
suggests some conceptual ways to think about the issue of male participation, and

provides my recommendations for future action and research.

97

Chapter 4: Quantitative Findings

This chapter reports the ﬁndings of the student survey as described in Chapter
Three; reporting about the qualitative ﬁndings begins in Chapter Five. Within this
chapter, I summarize the descriptive and inferential statistics used to analyze the 2047
respondent survey conducted by the institution that served as the setting for this study.
During this analysis I pay speciﬁc attention to comparing responses between males and
females on factors framed in this study’s conceptual model and highlighted by the
literature review in Chapter Two. To the extent allowed by the survey’s design, this
section also uses factor analysis models to better understand how these individual
variables might interact to inﬂuence the decision to study abroad. Due to the nature of the
survey’s design, I could not conduct a quality regression analysis of the data, and under
direction of my statistical consultant, I limited this study to correlation and factor analysis
techniques. As a reminder to the reader, for the purposes of clarity, I refer to the students
who took the survey as volunteers or respondents so as to avoid confusion with their
status as study abroad participants and nonparticipants in Chapters Four and Five.

Survey Overview

Analysis Methods

I analyzed the survey data according to the four areas suggested by the conceptual
model in connection to the survey design, and this section follows these areas to report
the ﬁndings. Before launching into these areas though, I ﬁrst compared male and female
respondents on some basic demographic information provided by the survey such as
racial, transfer student, and participation statuses. Second, I compared male and female

responses to survey questions that linked with the four research questions developed for

98

this research phase based on conceptual model. In doing so, I collapsed the variables
related to programmatic and institutional factors into a single category:
0 Programmatic/institutional factors: cost, length of program, timing of
program, courses offered on the program, and courses offered;
0 Information such as support factors: students’ campus, family, and peer
support systems.
0 Situational factors: students’ major, time and ﬁnancial conﬂicts, and potential
to delay graduation;
o Dispositional factors: students perception of fun, safety, health, and cultural
' factors as motivators or barriers; and
To compare different groups based on demographic and other factors, I used SPSS
Version 16.0 to analyze the ﬁndings using chi-square and AN OVA techniques. For the
purpose of this study, I consider differences between groups to be statistically signiﬁcant
if the p value is less than .05.
If both the independent and dependant variables for a test are categorical in nature
(e. g., comparing males and females on transfer student status), then I used the chi-square
test for independence as the appropriate technique. When comparing categorical groups
based on categorical data, the dependent variable’s average has no statistical meaning: A
student either is or is not a transfer student. In this case, I used a contingency table, which
compares the observed number of students in each dependent category to the statistically
expected observations for each category, and the chi-square statistic, which indicates the
degree to which the differences between the observed values and expected values are I

statistically signiﬁcant or based on chance. If the chi-square is signiﬁcant, then the

99

contingency table suggests how the dependent variable (e. g., transfer student status)
differs based on the independent variable (e. g., sex).

If the dependent variable is ordinal, then a more powerful comparison of the
independent variable can be run using a t-test or AN OVA test (one-way AN alysis Of
VAriance). The AN OVA test copares the mean value of the dependent variables for two
or more groups. If the ANOVA is statistically signiﬁcant, then a signiﬁcant difference
exists between the groups for that particular variable. AN OVAs are typically used to
compare the means of multiple groups and t-tests are used to compare two groups, but
given the power and current usage of ANOVA, my statistician recommended using an
ANOVA for all the comparisons. When comparing two groups, an AN OVA is
mathematically the same as a t-test.

In addition to this consideration, traditional statisticians would state that ordinal
data should be computed using non-parametric methods (Stevens, 1946 & 1951);
however, given advances in computer statistical programs and the nature of the data,
AN OVAs are commonly used to compare ordinal data in social science and applied
research (Davison & Shanna, 1994; Velleman &Wilkinson, 1993). When using an
AN OVA to compare ordinal data, the interpretations must be limited to ordinal
statements. For example, I can say that males are more or less likely than females to be
inﬂuenced by cost, a statement based on the order of the data, but I cannot say that males
are twice or half as likely as females to participate on study abroad, a statement that relies
on ratio data. Also, given the nature of my scale—a six-point Likert scale versus a three
point agree or disagree scale—my survey data does have meaningful means that I can

compare.

100

Second, I used a factor analysis to analyze (1) the inﬂuences on the decision
making related to study abroad and (2) the obstacles to studying abroad. I used this
analysis to determine if the variables used on the survey clustered into categories related
to the factors suggested by the conceptual framework and research questions (i.e.,
programmatic, institution, situational, etc.). This technique also provides insight into how
males and females might prioritize difference variables and the strength of the variables
or components on decision-making. I discuss additional information and detail related to
the factor analysis design within that section, later in Chapter 4.

Survey Design and Sample

In spring 2007, the institution serving as the setting for this study embarked on a
review of its study abroad programs, and as part of the evaluation, the faculty and staff
professionals worked with a research unit on campus to implement an on-line survey for
students. This survey employed a stratiﬁed random sample, pulling student emails from
both the study abroad and registrar’s ofﬁces’ records to ensure a good mix of participants
and nonparticipants. The research unit then distributed the survey over campus email, and
it provided incentives in the form of coupons for all students who completed the survey
as well as a lottery for gift certiﬁcate. The data analyzed in this chapter represents
responses from 2047 students, and according to the research ofﬁce, this survey received
the highest response rate of any survey conducted on the campus, about 65%.

The survey respondents fell into three participation status groups, 712 (34.8%)
participated on study abroad or were about to leave for study abroad at the time of the
survey, 578 (23.3%) indicated an interest in study abroad and intent to sign up in the

future, and 755 (36.9%) did not and do not plan to participate on study abroad. The

101

percentage of respondents who studied abroad (34.8%) is higher than the campus
participation rate of 30% because of the stratiﬁed-random sampling used for data
collection. For clarity and consistency, this study only analyzes and reports differences
between students who participated on study abroad and students who did not participate
on study abroad. Given that the primary research question is “why males are not studying
abroad at the same rate as females,” I decided—based on my experience with the pilot
study—to compare only participants and nonparticipants because potential participants
do not have a clear participation status and thus may confound the results.

Demographically, the survey volunteers mirrored the general institutional
population in terms of their sex, with 1113 (55%) females and 910 (45%) males, when
compared with the institution’s undergraduate enrollment of 53% and 47 % respectively
according to institutional planning data; however, the study participants were not as
racially diverse as the institution’s campus population. The survey data indicate 1728
(84%) majority and 320 (12%) minority student respondents, and according to the
institution’s planning ofﬁce, the campus’s undergraduate split for domestic students is
about 76% majority students and 17% students of color (non-intemational).

As with ethnicity, the survey volunteer population was skewed toward
academically advanced students, with more students toward the junior and senior range in
comparison to the overall campus, with 14.4% ﬁrst-year, 20.1% second-year, 27.5%
third-year, 28.4% fourth-year students, and 9.3% ﬁfth-year and above. Their ages ranged
from 18 to 54, with an average of about 21 years of old, and the average GPA for the
volunteers was 3.29 on a 4.0 scale. In terms of transfer status, 345 (16.9%) students

transferred to the institution and 1698 (83%) were non-transfer students. Finally, when

102

looking at the major categories for the students, 817 (40%) of students reported majors
within the STEM ﬁelds, 767 (37.5%) reported majors within the liberal arts, 407 (19.9%)
reported majors in business, and 67 (3.3%) students reported no major or had not
declared a major. For an overview of the survey respondents, see Table E1 (p. 278).
Participants and Nonparticipants

I started the analysis by comparing participants and nonparticipants based on sex.
The contingency table for this analysis (Table F1, p. 279) indicates that when the
observed values are compared to the expected values, males are underrepresented as
participants and overrepresented as nonparticipants. The inverse is true for females,
suggesting that females are more likely to go abroad, and the Pearson chi square test
(Table F2, p. 279) indicates that this participation difference by sex is signiﬁcant (p =
.000). In addition to participation status, I compared males and females on ﬁve variables
related to participation status that could confound the ﬁnding that males participate less
than females: minority status, major, transfer student status, GPA and previous travel.

For the major analysis, I recoded students’ self-reported majors as being STEM-
ﬁeld, non-STEM ﬁeld, business ﬁeld, or no major. I deﬁned STEM-ﬁeld using the
National Science Foundation classiﬁcation system, and I included ﬁelds housed within
the institution’s College of Business to distinguish that category. I then coded all other
majors as non-STEM. I coded any student with a dual-major that included a STEM-ﬁeld
as STEM major and similarly with business majors. My rationale for this decision being
that if major ﬁelds impose speciﬁc limitations on students’ ability to study abroad, then

students should fall into the most “rigorous” major category as suggested by the

103

literature, which in this instance suggests that STEM—majors face the most obstacles and
non-STEM, liberal arts students face the fewest obstacles.

From these analyses, I found signiﬁcant differences between males and females as
related to major, transfer student status, and GPA, with no signiﬁcant difference based on
minority status (see Tables F3 and F4, p. 280) or previous travel (see Tables F5 and F6,
p. 281). Comparing these ﬁndings to the review of literature, one could attribute male’s
lower observed participation to their major status, transfer status, or lower average GPA,
as the literature suggests that these areas are characteristic of non-participation. Due to
this situation, I then compared participants to nonparticipants based on major, transfer
status, and GPA to determine if these other variables could potentially account for
differences between sex groups as related to participation. As suggested by the literature,
demographic variables of the population did inﬂuence participation status. I summarize
these ﬁndings below:

0 Major — Males were signiﬁcantly (p = .000) more likely than females to be

STEM and business majors and less likely than females to be non-STEM majors

(see Tables F7 and F8, pp. 282-283). Non-STEM majors were far more likely

than expected to study abroad and STEM majors were slightly less likely to study

abroad than expected to study abroad (p = .000), with business majors’ observed

values being about equal to the expected values (see Tables F9 and F10, p. 283).

0 Transfer status - Males were also signiﬁcantly (p = .001) more likely to be
transfer students than females (see Tables F11 and F12, p. 284), and transfer
students were signiﬁcantly (p = .000) more likely to be nonparticipants than

expected (see Tables F13 and F14, p. 285).

104

o GPA —- Males have a signiﬁcantly lower average GPA than females (p = .000),
with males having an average of 3.26 and females having an average of 3.32. The
ANOVA results also showed a signiﬁcant (p = .000) difference between the
average GPA of participants (3.37) and nonparticipants (3.21), suggesting that
participants on average have a higher GPA (see Tables F15, p. 285).

In the subsequent sections, I discuss the obstacles and inﬂuences for study abroad
based on sex; the organization follows the outline discussed in the introduction to this
chapter. The initial investigation of the survey sample resulted in my identiﬁcation of
several demographic characteristics that could be intervening variables. To account for
these differences between participants and nonparticipants, Icompared males and
females regarding participation status separately. In other words, instead of looking at
differences between male and female groups based on participation, the following
sections state the differences between sex groups within participation status groups. This
technique allows me to make some statements about differences between males and
females while accounting for the confounding differences between participants and
nonparticipants.

Comparison of Male & Female Participants ’ & Nonparticipants

Using one-way ANOVA tests, I compared male and female responses to survey
questions based on variables speciﬁcally related to the conceptual model. I present the
ﬁndings based on differences between males and females below by research question: (1)
programmatic/institutional variables, (2) situational variables, (3) dispositional variables,
and (4) relational and information variables. Following the presentation of these ﬁndings,

I present a discussion of the factor analysis ﬁndings. These quantitative results provided

105

an estimation of the signiﬁcant differences between males and females on speciﬁc
variables and served as the basis for some probing questions during the second phase of
the research design, described in Chapter 5. I then provide a summary of the quantitative
ﬁndings.
Research Question 1: Programmatic Variables

The ﬁrst research question focused on the inﬂuence of programmatic variables,
which the conceptual model suggests as a major domain inﬂuencing the decision to
participate. Variables in this category represent features inherent to the institutional or
administrative nature of study abroad, such as program cost, duration, timing, location,
and coursework. The survey asked study abroad participants to rank the inﬂuence of
these ﬁve variables on their decision to study abroad using a six-point Likert scale, with
six being “inﬂuenced a lot” and one being “not at all inﬂuenced”. Nonparticipants did not
respond to questions related to these ﬁve variables. Each variable is discussed below in
terms of the descriptive and inferential statistics ﬁ'om the survey (see Table G1, p. 286).

Location ranked highest amongst students in terms of its inﬂuence on the decision
to study abroad, with 84.6% of participants claiming it was highly inﬂuential. By sex,
80.4% of male and 86.6% of female participants ranked this variable as highly inﬂuential,
with males reporting an average ranking of 5.16/6 and females reporting an average of
5.44/6, a signiﬁcant difference at the .00 conﬁdence level. This ﬁnding implies that males
are signiﬁcantly less inﬂuenced by the study abroad program’s location than females.
This ﬁnding could relate to the literature that indicates that males are more risky than

females and the literature and ﬁndings that indicate females are generally more concerned

106

nr'J‘P'
“MM:-

#1
...-,.1|
...

u‘v‘t‘uhl r

j.
I:""l.‘
'.I.\-‘|‘

'7' \ l ‘
m...“-

‘5’.)
wk“,

MP: .
“-1er
r

r“ 5.,
’— A

uv‘ﬁtu

Lilli

J. .-

\5 ‘_
In,

 

with safety and health than males and seek out programs in large, Westemized urban city
centers.

Within the program category, timing of the program (semester offered) was the
second highest ranked inﬂuential variable, with 68.5% of participants ranking this
variable as highly inﬂuential to them. By sex, 61.5% of males and 72.5% of females
ranked this variable as highly inﬂuential, with males reporting an average rating of 4.63/6
and females reporting an average of 4.92/6, which represents a signiﬁcant difference at
the .008 conﬁdence level. This ﬁnding suggests that males are signiﬁcantly less
concerned with timing of the study abroad program as a consideration for their
participation in study abroad. On face value, this ﬁnding seems to contradict the
literature, which implies that males might be very time sensitive due to their academic
and personal obligations; however, it could also relate to the fact that the literature
indicates that males are less likely to plan ahead than females.

The third ranked programmatic feature related to the length of the student abroad
program (duration), which 59.4% of participants ranked as highly inﬂuential. Looking at
this variable by sex, 50.2% of males and 64.3% of females ranked this variable as highly
inﬂuential. Males reported an average rating of 4.33/6 and females reported an average of
4.70/6, a signiﬁcant difference at the .000 conﬁdence level. This ﬁnding implies that
males are signiﬁcantly less concerned with the duration of the study abroad as a
consideration for their participation in study abroad.

Along with this question, the survey asked participants to rank the duration of
their ﬁrst study abroad experience on a scale of one to four, with one being “less than

three weeks” and four being “more than 16 weeks” (more than a semester). I used a

107

 

 

contingency table to analyze the responses by sex because the scale was not even in its
time distribution across the four ordinal ranks, and according to the table, males did show
a signiﬁcantly higher (p = .004) representation than expected in the “3 - 9 weeks” and “9
— 16 weeks” categories, with females slightly less represented in the “9-16 weeks” and
over represented in the “3 weeks or less” categories. This ﬁnding suggests that males
who participate on study abroad go on longer programs than females. Again, these
ﬁndings related to duration are somewhat counter-intuitive given the literature, but as
with the timing and location variables, they could reﬂect the fact that males are more
risk-taking and less likely to plan ahead than females (see Tables G2 and G3, p. 287).

The fourth variable related to the programmatic factor, coursework offered, was
ranked as highly inﬂuential by 59% of participants. Comparing responses by sex, 60.4%
of males and 58% of females ranked this variable as highly inﬂuential, with males
reporting an average rating of 4.43/6 and females reporting an average of 4.61/6 on this
scale. No signiﬁcant difference existed between male and female participants on this
variable.

The ﬁnal variable in the programmatic factor category is cost. In this instance,
cost refers to the extent that the cost of a program inﬂuenced the decision to participate;
additional questions related to cost and money are discussed in the situational factors
section. As one might imagine, cost was not ranked as a major inﬂuence toward
participation, with only 29.9% or participants ranking it as highly inﬂuential—the lowest
ranking in this grouping of variables. Looking at this variable by sex, 24.7% of male and
32.6% of female participants ranked cost as highly inﬂuential in their decision to

participate. For this question, males had an average rank of 3.27/6 and females had an

108

average rank of 3.59/6, a signiﬁcant difference at the .014 level. This difference
insinuates that males are less inﬂuenced by cost than females. This situation could
indicate that males are less cost sensitive than females, or it might mean that males are
less likely to use cost as a determinant for their participation.
Research Question 2: Situational Variables

A second factor suggested by the conceptual model as an inﬂuence related to
participation encompasses variables particular to students’ unique situations. This area
includes variables such as students’ ability to ﬁnance a program, time constraints,
academic situations, and other personal obligations. Situational variables are unique to
individual students not the program itself; therefore, for any given program, what might
be a positive characteristic for one student could be a negative to another student. For
example, as discussed previously major is a situational variable often discussed as an
inﬂuence on study abroad. As shown by this study, STEM majors often study abroad at
lower rates than liberal arts majors because of the nature of their coursework and the
relationship between study abroad programmatic content and the major’s curriculum.

Unlike programmatic features, which the survey posed as positive inﬂuences for
participation to study abroad participants, the survey framed these situational factors in a
negative context as potential obstacles to study abroad participation. Hence, the survey
asked study abroad participants and nonparticipants to rank the degree to which these
variables were an obstacle to their decision to participate using a six-point Likert scale,
with six being a “major obstacle” and one being “not an obstacle at all”. See Tables H1
and H2 (pp. 288-289) for a ranking of these obstacles for males and females by

participant and nonparticipant status.

109

«nib:

dﬂrllx \

lair:

tiff:

"_\-r
‘y...

hi1.»

I103:
A

'4
. 7
(I!

In.

OI):

As suggested by the literature, ﬁnding the money to pay for study abroad was the
number one obstacle reported by both participants (45.5%) and nonparticipants (22.8%).
Looking at participants by sex, 40.2% of male participants and 48.6% of female
participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle. With males reporting an average
ranking of 3.27/6 and females reporting an average of 3.59/6 on this scale, a signiﬁcant
difference at the .014 conﬁdence level, which suggests that amongst participants females
consider cost more of an obstacle than males. For nonparticipants, 54% of males and
62.6% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an
average ranking of 4.16/6 and females reporting an average of 4.60/6 on this scale. This
difference is signiﬁcant at the .004 level, suggesting that as with participants, female
nonparticipants consider their ability to ﬁrnd study abroad as more of an obstacle than
males.

Related to one’s ability to ﬁnance the program, the survey asked students about
the potential to lose wages while aboard. In other words, the survey asked students to
what extent the loss of the ability to earn money from a job at home while abroad was an
obstacle to their participation. This variable is distinguished from the previous variable in
the sense that students may have the money to fund a program, but their absence from
home may cause them to lose the opportunity to earn additional money needed for the
future. The literature suggests that for some students, the opportunity cost of
participation—not necessarily the direct cost—could be the larger concern.

Concern for lost wages was rated as a major obstacle by 23.7% of participants and
23.4% of nonparticipants. Looking at this ﬁnding by sex, 26.3% of male participants and

30.3% of female participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle. With. males

110

‘“ ‘-
2'”. l \I

hire Mn.
5

A l

M; I
,srnutb}

., y .

\ tf‘zr

'“N‘E.
5‘

.. 3
.. ‘1
>kuU\
'
3"”?
a\;‘.

‘ U
c ‘_ .
lint-II

it»? n-
u ‘ bl]

f

$1
11
J
V'i

reporting an average ranking of 3.03/6 and females reporting an average of 3.32/6 on this
scale, a signiﬁcant difference at the .034 conﬁdence level. This result suggests that
amongst participants, males consider the opportunity cost less of an obstacle than
females.

For nonparticipants, 24.1% of males and 22.2% of females ranked this variable as
a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 3.5/6 and females reporting
an average of 3.88/6 on this scale. This difference is signiﬁcant at the .022 level,
suggesting that as with participants, male nonparticipants consider the opportunity cost of
study abroad as less of an obstacle than females. Combined with the ﬁnding related to
program cost and ability to pay, it seems as if males might be less cost sensitive than
females when considering study abroad. This ﬁnding could relate to the fact that males
are more independent ﬁnancially than females or that they merely care less than females
about the ﬁnancial aspects of participation.

Beyond ﬁnancial concerns, factors related to time are typically major obstacles
for students. Generally, the ability to ﬁnd time to participate—regardless of rationale—
was rated as a major obstacle by 15.7% of participants and 21% of nonparticipants.
Looking at this variable by sex, 14.2% of male participants and 16.6% of female
participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average
ranking of 2.72/6 and females reporting an average of 2.75/6 on this scale. For
nonparticipants, 51.6% of males and 54.7% of females ranked this variable as a major
obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 4.27/6 and females reporting an

average of 4.29/6 on this scale. Neither group showed a signiﬁcant difference for this

111

Vela-“IN. D I"

. I“ A ‘1‘

l
I! 33"“
I...Lm.‘.‘

4

59""‘2
3hubrp I
_ r

IQ‘V-ogr
xbtl a“ \-
I

my": ;:
.IVVUVU

.Aﬁi . -.

unashi
A

10""?
u bob:
0

'-

r
._
s
I.)

“all, r
w, _

-‘IJE‘

.‘J

lOnr

variable based on gender, which is interesting given that the literature associate male’s
tendency to favor STEM majors as giving them less time to participate than females.

Academic constraints are often the reason that students cannot ﬁnd time to
participate on study abroad (Dessoff, 2006). For some students, their major and/or degree
requirements are such that students’ participation would hamper their ability to take
needed coursework and thus lead to a delay in their graduation. In terms of ﬁnding
required coursework on a study abroad program, 18.3% of participants and 11.2% of
nonparticipants ranked this variable as a major obstacle. Looking at participants by sex,
18.8% of male participants and 17.7% of female participants ranked this variable as a
major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 2.77/6 and females reporting
an average of 2.62/6 on this scale. For nonparticipants, 26.4% of males and 31.5% of
females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking
of 3.25/6 and females reporting an average of 3.34/6 on this scale. Neither participants
nor nonparticipants had a statistically signiﬁcant difference for this variable based on sex.

In relationship to delaying one’s graduation due to study abroad participation,
9.8% of participants and 12.2% of nonparticipants ranked this variable as a major
obstacle. By sex, 10.9% of male participants and 9.2% of female participants ranked this
variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 2.17/6 and
females reporting an average of 1.92/6 on this scale. This difference is signiﬁcant at the
.032 conﬁdence level and suggests that males are more concerned about delaying their
graduation than females, which aligns with what the literature review predicted and the
fact that males’ majors are predominantly in the STEM ﬁelds for this survey. For

nonparticipants, 30.8% of males and 30.8% of females ranked this variable as a major

112

 

 

 

M

vb“

" '3'";

gm...

v
..~v|

uh- I

"1)..

LI» ..

:1 ’-
uk' 1.,
r

‘4)
1)

till

obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 3.19/6 and females reporting an
average of 3.07/6 on this scale, although males are higher the difference is not signiﬁcant.

For the ﬁnal variable related to academics, the survey asked students the extent
that their inability to meet the program’s academic requirements would be an obstacle. At
the institution used for this study, an inability to meet program requirements would
typically involve a student’s lack of language ability or—more likely—a student’s poor
academic record (i.e., low GPA). Results show that 3.5% of participants and 3.15% of
nonparticipants ranked this variable as an obstacle. Considering this variable by sex,
3.3% of male participants and 3.6% of female participants ranked inability to meet
academic requirements as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of
1.69/6 and females reporting an average of 1.62/6 on this scale. For nonparticipants, 7.9%
of males and 7.9% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males
reporting an average ranking of 1.88/6 and femaels reporting an average of 1.87/6 on this
scale. The differences between males and females on this variable were not signiﬁcant at
the .05 level.

The ﬁnal grouping of situational obstacles on the survey related to students’
personal and professional obligations, including their lease, family duties, extra-curricular
responsibilities, and athletic schedule. Each of these areas is discussed below:

0 Concern over housing and/or a lease agreement was ranked as a major

obstacle by 10.3% of participants and 6.1% of nonparticipants. By sex, 7.5%
of male participants and 11.7% of female participants ranked this variable as a
~ major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 1.89/6 and females

reporting an average of 2.08/6 on this scale. For nonparticipants, 12.7% of

113

 

 

 

 

males and 19.6% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with
males reporting an average ranking of 2.56/6 and females reporting an average
of 2.72/6 on this scale.

Results show that 5.5% of participants and 4.7% of nonparticipants ranked
family obligations as an obstacle. Considering this variable by sex, 4.7% of
male participants and 6% of female participants ranked this variable as a
major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 1.75/6 and females
reporting an average of 1.82/6 on this scale. For nonparticipants, 12.1% of
males and 11.7% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with
males reporting an average ranking of 2.24/6 and females reporting an average
of 2.24/6 on this scale.

Concern over extra-curricular involvements was ranked as a major obstacle by
6% of participants and 5.77% of nonparticipants. By sex, 5% of male
participants and 6.6% of female participants ranked this variable as a major
obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 1.86/6 and females
reporting an average of 1.97/6 on this scale. For nonparticipants, 14.1% of
males and 15.5% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with
males reporting an average ranking of 2.44/6 and females reporting an average
of 2.41/6 on this scale.

Finally, concern related to athletic obligations (e. g., training, practice, or
matches) was ranked as a major obstacle by 2.5% of participants and 1.87% of
nonparticipants. By sex, 2.5% of male participants and 2.6% of female

participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an

114

 

 

average ranking of 1.33/6 and females reporting an average of 1.25/6 on this

scale. For nonparticipants, 5.7% of males and 3.3% of females ranked this

variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of

1.63/6 and females reporting an average of 1.40/6 on this scale.
Of these four variables, the only signiﬁcant difference between males and females exists
for nonparticipants’ athletic obligations. This ﬁnding suggests that male nonparticipants
view their athletic obligations as more of an obstacle than female nonparticipants. This
could relate to the fact that males are more likely to be athletes than females, males take
their obligation to athletics more seriously than females, males’ athletics—which include
revenue generating sports such as football—pose more barriers to their participation than
females’ athletics, or male coaches are less supportive of international travel (Dessoff,
2006; Redden, 2008; Sax, 2008).

Research Question 3: Dispositional Variables
The third factor related to the decision to participate involves students’ individual

dispositions, including their perceptions of study abroad’s value and concerns they might
have about their personal involvement. Dispositional factors differ from situational
factors in that they relate more to students’ perceptions, values, and beliefs rather than
their speciﬁc status. Unlike the variables discussed for research questions one and two,
dispositional variables encompass questions phrased as both inﬂuences and obstacles. For
clarity, I ﬁrst discuss issues related to potential inﬂuences on the decision to participate
for participants (see Table 11, p. 290), then discuss potential obstacles for participants and
nonparticipants (see Tables 12 & 13, pp. 290-291), and conclude this section with other

dispositional factors (see Table 14, p. 291).

115

The survey asked study abroad participants to rank the inﬂuence of four
dispositional variables on their decision to study abroad using a six-point Likert scale,
with six being “inﬂuenced a lot” and one being “not at all inﬂuenced.” These variables
included the idea that study abroad represents a fun experience, an investment in the
future, an opportunity to use a second language, and an opportunity to interact with a host
culture.

Related to the concept of study abroad as “fun,” 68.3% of participants ranked this
variable as highly inﬂuential to their decision. Organizing this variable by sex, 86.3% of
males and 89.5% of females rated this variable as highly inﬂuential, with an average of
5.38/6 for males and 5.50/6 for females. In terms of the perception that study abroad is an
“investment for their future,” 68.3% of participants rated this factor as highly inﬂuential.
Breaking it down by sex, 66.5% of males and 69.6% of females ranked future investment
as highly inﬂuential to their decision, with males having an average of 4.82/6 and females
having an average of 4.97/6. These ﬁndings are interesting, as one would typically
associate the desire for fun with male students (Kimmel, 2008; Sax, 2007); however,
neither factor had a signiﬁcant difference between males and females at the .05
conﬁdence level.

Similarly, the factors related to language and culture showed no signiﬁcant
differences between males and females. In relationship to the desire to use second
language, 33.7% of all participants, 34.7% of males, and 31.7% of females rated
language as highly inﬂuential, with the average ranking for males 3.21/6 and for females
3.31/6. For interaction with another culture, 49.7% of all participants, 45.8% of males,

and 51.7% of females ranked this factor as highly inﬂuential. In terms of averages, males

116

ranked this variable 4.01/6 and females rated it 4.06/6. This lack of signiﬁcant difference
is interesting because the literature review suggests that males study abroad at a lower
rate than females because they are less interested in learning about other cultures and/or
that their majors are less likely to require language or intercultural ability than females.
Given the ﬁndings related to non-STEM, liberal arts majors on this survey, one might
have expected to see a difference for these variables.

The second set of questions framed dispositional variables as obstacles to
participation using a six-point Likert scale, with six being “a major obstacle” and one
being “not an obstacle at all.” The survey asked study abroad participants and
nonparticipants to rank their concerns about health, safety, homesickness, and poor
academic performance and the degree to which each factor was an obstacle related to
their decision-making. Another dispositional factor posed as an obstacle, but posed only
to nonparticipants, was the idea that the student “had no interest” in studying abroad.

In relationship to health, 6.3% of participants and 2.2% of nonparticipants ranked
health concerns as a major obstacle. By sex, 2.5% of male and 8.3% of female
participants ranked health as a major obstacle, with males having an average score of
1.69/6 and females having an average of 2.14/6. The difference between males’ and
females’ averages is statistically signiﬁcant at the .00 level, suggesting that males
perceive their personal health concerns as less of an obstacle to participation than
females. Looking at nonparticipants, 2.5% of males ranked health as a major obstacle,
with an average score of 1.91/6, and 8.3% of females ranking health as an obstacle, with
an average score of 1.93/6. Health concerns are not signiﬁcantly different between male

and female nonparticipants.

117

A second question asked respondents about their concerns related to safety
abroad, and 9.1% of participants and 3.2% of nonparticipants ranked this factor as a
major obstacle. Looking at differences by sex, 4.2% of male and 11.7% of female
participants ranked safety as a major obstacle; males had an average score of 1.82/6 and
females had an average of 2.44/6. The difference between males’ and females’ averages
is statistically signiﬁcant at the .00 level, suggesting that—as with health—males
perceive their personal safety as less of an obstacle to participation than females. Looking
at nonparticipants, 9.5% of males ranked safety as a major obstacle, with an average
score of 2.04/6, and 5.6% of females ranking safety as an obstacle, with an average score
of 2.13/6. Safety concerns are not signiﬁcantly different between males and females for
nonparticipants.

Third, participants and nonparticipants ranked their perception that missing
friends and family at home would prove to be an obstacle to their study abroad
participation. Missing family and friends was ranked as a major obstacle by 17% of
participants and 9.1% of nonparticipants. By sex, 12.1% of male participants and 19.7%
of female participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an
average ranking of 2.24/6 and females reporting an average of 2.89/6 for this factor. This
difference between males’ and females’ average ranking is statistically signiﬁcant at the
.00 level, which implies that males are less concerned about missing their family and
friends than females. For nonparticipants, 22.5% of males and 23.9% of females ranked
this variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 2.76/6 and

females reporting an average of 2.90/6 for this factor. This difference is insigniﬁcant.

118

 

The fourth variable relates to participants and nonparticipants ranking of their
perception that they might not perform well academically while on study abroad.
Concern over academic performance was ranked as a major obstacle by 6.5% of
participants and 3.6% of nonparticipants. Comparing ﬁndings by sex, 6.7% of male
participants and 6.4% of female participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with
males reporting an average ranking of 1.92/6 and females reporting an average of 1.87/6
for this factor. For nonparticipants, 9.8% of males and 7.9% of females ranked this
variable as a major obstacle, with males reporting an average ranking of 2. 1 6/6 and
females reporting an average of 2.00/6 for this factor. The differences between males and
females for both participants and nonparticipants are not signiﬁcantly different for either
group at the .05 level.

The ﬁnal dispositional question posed as an obstacle was the degree to which
nonparticipants lacked interest in study abroad, and ﬁndings indicate that 7.9% of all
nonparticipants, 22.7% of males, and 15% of females ranked this factor as a major
obstacle. Males had an average score of 2.89/6 and females had an average of 2.22/6.
This difference in averages is signiﬁcant at the .00 level, which suggests that male
nonparticipants are generally less interested in study abroad than female nonparticipants.
This ﬁnding is interesting as related to the literature that suggests that males might not be
interested in study abroad due to gender norms and stereo-types that equate studying
abroad with female interests. I discuss this issue in more detail in Chapter 5.

In addition to the questions about inﬂuences and obstacles to participation,
participants answered survey questions about the degree to which they thought study

abroad was more interesting and/or more challenging than carnpus-based courses. The

119

 

iii "

u”:

survey posed these questions as a six-point Likert scale, with six being “strongly
disagree” and one being “strongly agree.” In terms of study abroad as more interesting,
74.7% of all participants, 70% of males, and 77.5% of females agreed with this
statement. The average scores for males and females were 1.91/5 and 1.87/5 respectively.
For the idea that study abroad is more challenging, 26% of all participants, 30% of males
and 23.6% of females agreed with this statement. The average score for males was 2.95/5
and the average for females was 3.15/ 5. The difference between males and females for
both of these questions were insigniﬁcant at the .05 level.
Research Question 4: Informational and Relational Variables

The ﬁnal factor suggested by the conceptual model and incorporated into the
survey is the concept of how students learn about and receive support related to studying
abroad. This domain includes variables such as receiving parental support and
discouragement, knowing faculty or students participants, getting support ﬁ'om ofﬁces
and professionals, and receiving messages from peers. Based on the survey design, and as
with the dispositional variables, some of these variables were phrased as positive
inﬂuences, while one “parental support” was phrased as an obstacle. For clarity, this
section will report the inﬂuencing variables for participants (see Table J1, p. 292), then
the obstacles for participants and nonparticipants (see Tables J2, p. 292), and ﬁnally other
variables related to support that the survey did not phrase as an inﬂuencer or an obstacle
but rather in terms of “helpfulness.”

The survey asked study abroad participants about four interpersonal variables as
to the extent that they inﬂuenced the student’s decision to participate. These variables

included: peer messages about study abroad, knowing a faculty member going on study

120

 

 

abroad, having ﬁiends going on study abroad, and receiving encouragement from one’s
family/parents. As with earlier questions, the survey asked study abroad participants to
rank the inﬂuence of these factors on their decision to study abroad on a six-point Likert
scale, with six being “inﬂuenced a lot” and one being “not at all inﬂuenced”. Each of the
four factors is discussed below and summarized in Table J 1 (p. 292):

0 Of participants 33.1% ranked parental encouragement as highly inﬂuential to
their decision to participate, the highest value of all the variables in this
grouping. Looking at this variable by sex, 29.1% of males and 35.9% of
females ranked it as highly inﬂuential, with males reporting an average of
3.32/6 and females reporting an average of 3.71/6. This difference is
signiﬁcant at the .004 conﬁdence level, suggesting that males are less
inﬂuenced by parental support than females. Note that this ﬁnding aligns with
earlier ﬁndings by Shirley (2007), but may be confounded by the fact that
males might have less supportive parents. In this way, males might not receive
as much support thus they rank the concept of positive encouragement less
than females. I discuss this issue in more detail in subsequent sections of this
dissertation.

0 Participants ranked peer messages second in this domain, with 32.4% of
participants saying that hearing about the study abroad from peers was highly
inﬂuential to their decision to participate. Breaking this variable down by sex,
25% of males and 36.4% of females found this variable highly inﬂuential,
with males reporting an average ranking of 4.22/6 and females reporting an

average of 4.29/6 on this scale. This difference is signiﬁcant at the .028

121

 

 

conﬁdence level, suggesting that males are less inﬂuenced by messages from
their peers. As with the previous variable, one must be careful when
considering this ﬁnding. Males may receive less information in terms of
quantity, less positive information from their peers, or might be less
inﬂuenced by their peers than females, all of which could lead to males
ranking this item lower than females. I also discuss this ﬁnding more in
Chapter 5.

0 Participants ranked knowing a faculty member on a program third in this
domain, with 19.2% of participants saying that this knowledge was highly
inﬂuential to their decision to participate. By sex, 19.2% of males and 19.4%
of females found this variable highly inﬂuential, with both reporting an
average ranking of 2.60/6 on this scale. No signiﬁcant difference exists
between males and females for this variable.

a The fourth area of inﬂuence posed by the survey was knowing ﬁiends on a
study abroad program, which 14.9% of participants ranked as highly
inﬂuential to their decision. Breaking this concept down by sex, 15% of males
and 14.9% of females found this variable highly inﬂuential, with males
averaging 2.30/6 and females averaging 2.16/6. No signiﬁcant difference
exists between males and females on this variable. This ﬁnding is interesting
because the literature and factor analysis suggests that males might be more
inﬂuenced by having their friends participate than females.

As stated above, family support is an elusive concept because support from one’s

family can be positive, negative, or neutral and if given, students react to the support

122

   

differently. One student might receive negative support and choose to ignore it or the
student might be highly inﬂuenced and chose not to participate. As such, in addition to
asking a question about the degree to which parental encouragement inﬂuenced them to
study abroad, the survey asked both participants and nonparticipants the degree to which
a lack of family support posed an obstacle to their participation. As with other obstacle
questions, the survey asked respondents to rank the degree to which lack of family
support was an obstacle to their participation using a six-point Likert scale, with six being
“major obstacle” and one being “not an obstacle at all” (see Table J 2, p. 292).

The results indicate that 5.9% of participants and 4.3% of nonparticipants ranked
a lack of parental encouragement as a major obstacle. By sex, 8.4% of male participants
and 6.9% of female participants ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with males
reporting an average ranking of 1.53/6 and females reporting an average of 1.78/6 on this
scale. This difference is statistically signiﬁcant at the .015 level indicating that males
perceive a lack of family support as less of an obstacle than females. This ﬁnding may be
related to other factors within the family dynamic that differ by sex or gender roles (i.e.,
males are treated as—and thus behave —more independent from the family than
females), so I discuss it more in the qualitative ﬁndings section. For nonparticipants,
10.9% of males and 10.7% of females ranked this variable as a major obstacle, with
males reporting an average ranking of 2.08/6 and females reporting an average of 2. 1 8/6
on this scale. This difference is not signiﬁcant.

A third set of questions related to this factor asked participants about their
perceptions of support from ofﬁcial institutional ofﬁces and individuals such as teachers

and mentors in their personal life. Participants ranked these variables using a six-point

123

 

Likert scale, with six being “very helpﬁil” and one being “not helpﬁil at all” (see Table
J3, p. 293). In relationship to institutional ofﬁces*which included the ofﬁces of ﬁnancial
aid, study abroad, athletic support, advising, etc.—no signiﬁcant differences existed
between male and female participants, and generally participants ranked their
institutional support systems highly, with faculty members rate as the most helpful and
the athletics staff rated as the least helpful relative to the other ofﬁces and personnel.
When considering these ratings, one should be mindful that the number of respondents
for some ofﬁces—such as athletics—were quite low because not many of the students
surveyed used them speciﬁcally when making a decision about study abroad
participation.

Unlike the institutional ofﬁces and personnel, signiﬁcant differences did exist
between student participants’ perceptions of support from individuals in their lives (see
Table J4, p. 294). For these questions, participants ranked individual support using a six-
point Likert scale, with six being “not supportive” and one being “very supportive”
(NOTE: this scale is opposite of all the other questions, with one eﬂectively being the
high, positive label). Speciﬁc differences existed between males and females in
relationship to the following individuals:

0 Males rated their friends signiﬁcantly less supportive at the .00 conﬁdence

level, with an average of 1.44/6 compared to 1.21/6 for females.

0 Males rated their spiritual leader signiﬁcantly less supportive at the .004

conﬁdence level, with an average of 2.23/6 compared to 1.63/6 for females.

124

 

o Males rated their high school teacher/counselor signiﬁcantly less supportive at
the .001 conﬁdence level, with an average of 1.92/6 compared to] .39/6 for
females.

Other individuals, including parents, family doctor, and employer showed no
differences based on sex. As with the other ﬁndings related to information,
interpersonal support, and helpfulness, these differences lack context. Males might
get less positive support than females, might perceive less support than females,
might simply get more neutral support (i.e., they receive no positive or negative
encouragement), or they might just not be as inﬂuenced by other people’s opinions as
females. The issue of interpersonal messaging and support is covered in more depth

in the qualitative phase of this design.
Factor Analysis of Inﬂuences and Obstacles
For the next phase in the analysis, I used SPSS Version 16 to conduct an
exploratory principal components factor analysis (PCA) of the inﬂuences and obstacles
questions from the survey. To maximize the clarity of the components and assist the
inter'In‘etation of the results, I used a Varimax rotation, which is the most common
I“taltiortral method used for a factor analysis. To determine the suitability of the data to
factor analysis procedures, I used three techniques: inspection of the correlation matrix
for Values of 0.3 or higher, a signiﬁcant value on Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, and a value
of '6 or higher on the Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) value.

For the purposes of investigation, the number of components extracted was
calculated using Kaiser’s criterion eigenvalue set at one and further reﬁned by comparing

th
e Scree plots. I also tested the reliability of the resulting components using alpha. One

125

would typically look for a reliability rating of 0.70 or higher, but because this analysis is
ex p loratory, I considered values at 0.60 or higher as meaningful for this speciﬁc study.
S i mi larly, typical loading cut-offs for a factor analysis would state that a variable loads to
a factor with a value of .30 or higher; however, due to the data used and the design of the
survey, I used a value of 0.40 or higher for clarity and strength of results because several
variables loaded on multiple components using the 0.30 cut-off criterion. Therefore,

variables that loaded on components at less than .40 were discarded from the analysis and

noted on the tables using an asterisk (*).

As previously discussed, the survey format divided respondents into participation

status groups, which inﬂuenced the questions they answered. For this reason, I ran the
factor analysis for inﬂuences and obstacles separately, and as stated in the previous
section, I looked at the variables by participants and nonparticipants separately. First, I
conducted the factor analysis for participants on all inﬂuences to participate. This
analysis included 13 variables: cost, location, duration, timing, coursework offered,
language, home stay, peer messages, knowing faculty, knowing ﬁiends, parental
en(:OI-ll‘agement, fun, and future investment.

Second, for the obstacle variables, I did two factor analyses: one for participants
and one for nonparticipants. This analysis procedure included 14 variables: time, money,
los1; v"ages, courses for degree, academic requirements, academic performance, safety,

healtll, lease, clubs, family support, family duties, missing family, and athletics.
I“0111)articipants also answered an additional question related to “interest,” which was

in . . . . . .
clllcled 1n the analysrs for this group but not for partrcrpants. For both sets of analysrs, I

:11
so cQmpared the ﬁndings by sex.

126

r5721 ctor Analysis of Inﬂuences

Before conducting the exploratory PCA for the inﬂuences on study abroad, I
tested the data for suitability. The correlation matrix contained coefﬁcients with a value
0 f 0-30 or higher, the KMO value was .717, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was
Si grriﬁcant (p=.000). With the data’s suitability determined, 1 ran the PCA, which resulted
i 11 four components with an eigenvalue of more than 1. These four components explained
a total of 48.54% of the variance. The screeplot for this PCA showed a clear break
between the ﬁrst and second component, suggesting that only the ﬁrst component be
retained for further investigation (Catell, 1966). This ﬁnding was common to all the
PC As, but I report the full range of components for the sake of discussion.

I also ran a reliability test on the variables for each component using Cronbach’s
alpha- None of the alpha’s showed a value higher than 0.60, suggesting that the
relationship between the individual variables within each component is weak. Given that
this analysis is exploratory, I also report these values even though the relationships are
Weaker than typically used and brieﬂy describe each factor, as it may provide some

valuab 1e insights for this and future studies. I outline the full data for this factor analysis

in Table K1 (p. 295).

The four components as suggested by the ﬁrst factor analysis:
1. The ﬁrst factor accounted for 13.80% of the variance and consisted of ﬁve
different variables: cost, duration, timing, and coursework offered. The
reliability for these ﬁve variables was only .518. This component is consistent

with the programmatic features category from the conceptual model, and it

suggests that characteristics related to the program design are an important—

127

perhaps the most important—inﬂuence on the decision to study abroad by
participants.

2. The second factor accounted for 13.17% of the variance and consisted of three
different variables: peer messages, knowing faculty, and knowing friends
going on the program. The reliability for these variables was only .574, the
highest alpha for all of the components. These three variables all related to the
relational category suggested by the conceptual model. This component
suggests that relationships are an important aspect of the decision to study
abroad.

3. The third factor accounted for 11.10% of the variance and consisted of two
different variables: language and culture. These two variables connect
logically, and they both relate to dispositional variables; however, the
reliability for these variables was only .468.

4. The fourth factor accounted for 10.44% of the variance and consisted of two
different variables: fun and location. The relationship between these variables
was only .385, and they do not connect according to the conceptual model.
This ﬁnding does suggest though that the study abroad participants might
associate fun with the location they select, and it also could suggest that
“having fun” is of lower importance than one might expect.

A ﬁnal variable, future investment, did not clearly load on any component at a value of
'40 01‘ higher. This factor analysis suggests that the strongest variables related to a

Stu . . . . . .
del'11:’s decision to particrpate consrst of programmatic features and that the

128

d i Spositional interest related to fun is not as inﬂuential as the literature might suggest;
however, none of these variables had a strong reliability rating.

I conducted the same factor analysis procedure again for male and female

p articipants (Tables K2 and K3, p. 296). For males, the correlation matrix contained
coefficients with a value of 0.30 or higher, the KMO value was .685, and the Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity was signiﬁcant (p=.000). Using the eigenvalue of 1, ﬁve components

resulted ﬁom the PCA, accounting for 57.60% of the variance. As with the other analysis,
the screeplot suggests that only the ﬁrst component be retained, but given the exploratory
nature of this study, I describe this analysis and compare it to the one done for all
participants. The ﬁve components from this PCA are:

1. The ﬁrst male factor accounted for 13.64% of the variance and consisted of
three variables: peer messages, knowing faculty, and knowing ﬁiends going
on the program. This component is the same grouping as the total group;
however, this grouping loaded ﬁrst instead of second. .

2. The second male factor accounted for 11.95% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: duration, semester, and parental encouragement.
Parental encouragement does not make logical sense with this group, and it
loaded almost as well on component four.

3. The third male factor accounted for 11.86% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: location, home stay, and fun. This ﬁnding is also
different from the other group in that males seem to associate a “home stay”
with fun and may account for the poor reliability from the previous PCA.

During various methods of factor analysis for this study, I found that males

129

consistently link “home stay” with location and fun, which could potentially
relate to males’ sense of risk and adventure.

4. The fourth male factor accounted for 10.68% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: coursework and future investment. This component is
interesting in that “future investment” did not load on any component for the
PCA of all participants, and. it may mean that male participants associate study
abroad courses with their future.

5. The ﬁfth male factor accounted for 10.06% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: cost and language. These two variables have
seemingly no logical relationship, and it may just be that they are of lowest
importance to males.

Although the relationships between the variables are sometimes illogical for these
Components, it is interesting to ﬁnd that males’ variables divided into more components
and differently than that of the full group. Speciﬁcally, males seem to place more value
on relationships, as these variables loaded for the ﬁrst component, and fun, which loaded
third instead of fourth for males when compared to the full group.

For female participants, the correlation matrix contained coefﬁcients with a value
of O- 3 O or higher, the KMO value was .698, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was
SigIlificant (p=.000). Using the eigenvalue of one, four components resulted from the
PCA: accounting for 48.43% of the variance. As with the other analyses, the screeplot
Suggests that only the ﬁrst component be retained, but given the exploratory nature of this
Study, I describe this analysis and compare it to the one done for all participants and for

1T1 . .
ales - As with the full group PCA, this analysrs resulted 1n four components:

130

1.

The ﬁrst female factor accounted for 14.26% of the variance and consisted of
four variables: duration, timing, coursework, and future investment. This
component is similar to the grouping for the total group; however, this
grouping includes future investment and does not include cost. Cost did load
on this group at a value of .39, just under the cut-off value for this study.

The second female factor accounted for 13.30% of the variance and consisted
of two different variables: peer messages, knowing faculty, and knowing
students who are participating. These variables and the loading rank are
similar to the full group. i

The third female factor accounted for 11.05% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: language and home stay. This ﬁnding the same as the
PCA for the entire group in terms of the variables and loading rank.

The fourth female factor accounted for 9.81% of the variance and consisted of
two different variables: fun and location. This component is the same for
females as it is for the entire group in terms of the variables included within it

and loading rank relative to the other components.

Generally, females’ components grouped in the same manner as the full group’s

components. As with the full group, one variable did not load on any component;

however, for this PCA the variable that had an inconclusive loading was “family

su ,, . . . . .
pport. This ﬁnding rs interesting because one would assume that females would factor

in - . . . . . . . .
fa-Il’llly support as an important part of their decrsron to partrcrpate grven the literature-

ase , S theory that safe travel is a primary concern, but this ﬁnding might mean that

fem
ales view family primarily as a negative rather than positive inﬂuence.

131

Fa ctor Analysis of Obstacles for Participants
The second set of main survey variables related to obstacles to participation. Iran
an exploratory PCA for both participant and nonparticipant males and females. First, the
PCA for participants as related to obstacles showed adequate coefﬁcients in the
correlation matrix, a KMO of .83, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test (p=.000). For this factor
analysis, four components explained 57.79% of the variance. As with all the other PCAs,
the screeplot indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and second component,
suggesting that only the ﬁrst component be retained; however, reliability tests for the
obstacle components show much stronger relationships well above 0.60 than those
obtained from the inﬂuence PCAs. The four components are (see Table K4, p. 297):
1. The ﬁrst component explained 16% of the variance with three variables:
health, safety, and missing family. These components related to dispositional
issues, and they have a reliability score of .702.
2. The second component explained 15.18% of the variance with four variables:
time, required courses, degree requirements, and academic requirements. The
variables for this component all relate to situational variables, and they have a
reliability score of .69.
3. The third component explained 14.73% of the variance with ﬁve variables:
academic performance, clubs, athletics, family support, and family duties.
Academic performance and family support do not necessarily make logical
sense with this component, but the reliability score for this component was

.757. Both of these variables load with similar strength on other factors.

132

4. The fourth component explained 11.87% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding the money and lost wages. These two variables had a reliability of .74
and make logical sense together.

'The variable “lease” did not load on any component, and generally, the strongest
variables seem to relate to safety and emotional well-being, followed by academics,
obligations, and cost.

The male PCA for participants showed adequate coefﬁcients in the correlation
matrix, a KMO of .85, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test (p=.000). For this factor analysis,
three components explained 56.27% of the variance. As with all the other PCAs, the
screeplot indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and second component, suggesting
that only the ﬁrst component be retained. The three components are (see Table K5, p.
298) :

1. The ﬁrst component explained 28.07% of the variance with nine variables:
academic performance, health, safety, lease, clubs, athletics, family support,
family duties, and missing family.

2. The second component explained 16.92% of the variance with four variables:
time, degree coursework, delaying graduation, and meeting academic
requirements.

3. The third component explained 11.27% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding the money and lost wages.

Male participants’ variable loading was much simpler than the full group. They lumped
many Variables into one larger issue of concerns, followed by concerns related to

aca d ,
el'rncs, and ﬁnally related to cost.

133

The female PCA for participants showed adequate coefﬁcients in the correlation
matrix, a KMO of .79, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test (p=.000). For this factor analysis,
three components explained 56.10% of the variance. As with all the other PCAs, the
screeplot indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and second component, suggesting

that only the ﬁrst component be retained. The four components are (see Table K6, p.
299) :

1. The ﬁrst component explained 17.10% of the variance with six variables:
academic performance, health, safety, family support, family duties, and
missing family.

2. The second component explained 16.63% of the variance with three variables:
required courses, delaying graduation, and academic requirements.

3. The third component explained 12.79% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding the money and lost wages.

4. The fourth component explained 12.58% of the variance with three variables:
time, clubs, and athletics.

LeaSe did not load clearly on any component for females just as for males, and unlike the
inﬂuences PCAs, the females’ components loaded fairly closely to the males’ for this

gr 01113 - Females had an additional category that seemed related to extra-curricular time,
Whi oh the males put in to the ﬁrst component.

Fa ctor Analysis of Obstacles for Nonparticipants

As earlier ﬁndings indicated signiﬁcant differences between participants and

nonp alticipants, I conducted a second set of factor analyses on obstacles for

110111) articipants. The PCA for nonparticipants as related to obstacles showed adequate

134

coefﬁcients in the correlation matrix, a KMO of .79, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test

(p=- 000). For this factor analysis, three components explained 57.79% of the variance. As

with all the other PCAs, the screeplot indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and

second component, suggesting that only the ﬁrst component be retained; however,

reliability tests for the obstacle components show much stronger relationships well above

0.60 - The ﬁve components are (see Table K7, p. 299):

1.

The ﬁrst component explained 15.19% of the variance with four variables:
academic requirements, academic performance, safety, and health. Some of
these components are related to dispositional issues according to the
conceptual model, but the variable “academic requirements” does not
necessarily ﬁt with this group. Collectively, they have a reliability score of
.794.

The second component explained 14.75% of the variance with four variables:
lease, family support, family duties, and missing family. The variables for this
component all relate to students’ family situation except for lease, which may
load here because students view their leases as related to their family
responsibility. These variables have a reliability score of .68.

The third component explained 10.23% of the variance with two variables:
degree requirements and delay of graduation. Although they make logical
sense together, the reliability score for this pairing was only .58.

The fourth component explained 10.15% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding the money and lost wages. These two variables had a reliability of .64

and make logical sense together.

135

5. The ﬁfth component included three variables—time, clubs, and athletics—and

explained 8.71% of the variance. The alpha value for this paring was only .43.
The variable “no interest,” which the survey only asked of nonparticipants, did not load
on any component. The nonparticipants seemed most concerned with issues related to
their academic abilities and safety, which seem like an unlikely coupling conceptually.
Second, they rated issues related to family and obligations, followed by academics, then
cost, and ﬁnally extra-curricular activities.

The male PCA for participants showed adequate coefﬁcients in the correlation
matrix, a KMO of .80, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test (p=.000). For this factor analysis,
ﬁve components explained 60.14% of the variance. As with previous PCAs, the screeplot
indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and second component, suggesting that only
the ﬁrst component be retained (see Table K8, p. 300). As with the full group, males had
ﬁve Components:

1. The ﬁrst component explained 17.51% of the variance with ﬁve variables: no
interest, lease, lack of family support, family duties, and missing family. “No
interest” did not load for all nonparticipants.

2. The second component explained 14.08% of the variance with four variables:
academic requirements, academic performance, safety, and health.

3. The third component explained 9.45% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding time and graduation delay.

4. The forth component explained 9.41% of the variance with two variables:

ﬁnding the money and lost wages.

136

5. The ﬁfth component explained 9.18% of the variance with two variables: time
and athletics.

Mal es’ loading of the obstacle variables was very similar to that of the full group;
however, they swapped the ﬁrst and second components, loading the safety and ability
variables ﬁrst. Their results also loaded the “no interest” variable on the ﬁrst component,
when the full group did not have this variable load at all.

The female PCA for participants showed adequate coefﬁcients in the correlation
matrix, a KMO of .74, and a signiﬁcant Barlett’s Test (p=.000). For this factor analysis,
ﬁve components explained 58.74% of the variance. As with all the other PCAs, the
screeplot indicates a large difference between the ﬁrst and second component, suggesting
that only the ﬁrst component be retained. The ﬁve components are (see Table K9, p.
300) :

1. The ﬁrst component explained 19.48% of the variance with six variables:
academic performance, health, safety, lease, family duties, and missing
family.

2. The second component explained 12.36% of the variance with three variables:
required courses, delaying graduation, and academic requirements.

3. The third component explained 10.89% of the variance with three variables:
family support, ﬁnding the money, and lost wages.

4. The forth component explained 8.91% of the variance with two variables:
ﬁnding the time, clubs, and lost wages.

5. The ﬁfth component explained 7.09% of the variance with one variable: no

interest.

137

Athletics did not load clearly on any component for females and females’ ratings placed
“no interest” much lower than males’ ratings; however, females’ obstacles generally

loaded similarly as the males’ group.

Summary of F actor Analysis Findings

Although exploratory, the factor analysis ﬁndings provided some important
general insights on the decision to participate. First, in relationship to inﬂuences, the
variable ﬁrn loaded in the ﬁnal component for the full group and females and the third
group for males. This ﬁnding suggests that fun might not be the major motivator for
students, but it might factor into males’ decision-making more than it does for females.
Related to this idea, a second important point from the factor analysis is that males seem
to Prioritize variables differently in terms of the inﬂuences to participate. The factors load
di fferently for males when compared to females or the total sample, with males ranking
their relationships quite high in terms of their collective inﬂuence on the decision to

participate. This observation carries over to the obstacle variables as well.

Third, nonparticipants and participants—and males and females within these
group s—seem to make decisions differently; however, the sex differences do not seem as
strong for the obstacles as with the inﬂuences. Interestingly, both groups tended to put
healtl’l and safety in the ﬁrst component, yet the other variables loaded into this
component changed group to group. Also of interest, the obstacle variable related to cost
tend€=d to load later, and generally, dispositional variables tended to out-rank the
programmatic costs. This ﬁnding might indicate that program features are not as
important to students as other factors related to their personal life and their belief in their

ab11 ity to travel abroad safely and securely.

138

Finally, and most importantly, the stronger reliability coefﬁcient and consistent
loading of the obstacle variables suggests that both participants and nonparticipants

consider obstacles as more important to their decision-making than inﬂuences. Even
though the data for the entire group was incomplete, I followed-up on this idea by
running a ﬁnal factor analysis for participants using both the inﬂuence and obstacle
variables together in a single analysis(see Table K10, p. 301). I was unable to do this for
the entire sample—negating my ability to run a regression—because the nonparticipant
group never responded to questions about inﬂuences related to their decision-making.

As I predicted based on the separate PCAs presented above, the obstacle variables
loaded on the ﬁrst components with stronger results than the inﬂuence variables, which
loaded on as the last and weakest components. Generally, the component make-up
mirrored the results from the tests presented above in terms of the individual variables,
but this step was important in that it suggests that students might start with a general
interest in study abroad, then think through the obstacles and barriers to their
par'tiC-Eipation, and then consider the inﬂuences in relationship to speciﬁcs regarding
program selection or value. It also suggests that dispositional and relational variables
migllt be more important than programmatic features of the study abroad experience.

Concluding Thoughts

The quantitative analysis I conducted revealed some consistent results that
supported ideas presented in the literature, yet it also presented some data that run
Couralter to current discourse related to low male participation rates. For example, the data
Suggest that males might be less cost and time sensitive than they are generally given

or - . . .
edlt for by study abroad professronals, and males seem to value relatronshrps more than

139

one might assume. As a summary of these ideas, I present the major ideas discussed in
th i 5 chapter in Table l (p. 141), but this summary provides only a starting point. As
mentioned throughout Chapter 4, the statistical results lack clarity.

To better understand this idea and others found during the quantitative analysis, I
conducted a qualitative phase of my study. As suggested by the literature, the reliance on
surveys has led to some broad generalizations, but little depth and understanding about
male study abroad participation. As this and previous studies have suggested, the decision
to participate is complex and hard to understand. Chapter 5 provides details related to the
qualitative interview design and results. To assist the reader, I provide brief introductions
to each research question as a means of linking the pilot-study and quantitative survey to
the qualitative inquiry process. I present a richer, in-depth analysis and interpretation in

Chapter 6 by connecting all the ﬁndings back to the literature.

140

Table 1. Summg of Signiﬁcant Quantitative Findings (p<.05)

 

Males Compared to Females

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variables Participants Nonparticipants
1 Cost Less N/A
2 Location Less N/A
3 Duration Less N/A
4 Timing Less N/A
m 5 Coursework N/A
g 6 Language N/A
3 7 Home stay N/A
ﬁ 8 Family encouraged Less N/A
H 9 Peer messages Less N/A
10 Know faculty N/A
11 Know students N/A
12 Future N/A
13 Fun N/A
14 Finding time
15 Finding money Less Less
16 Lost wages Less Less
17 Delay graduation More
18 Finding courses
19 Meet requirements
8 20 Acad. performance
”3 21 Health Less
3 22 Safety Less
0 23 Lease
24 Clubs/leadership
25 Lack family support Less
26 Family duties
27 Miss family Less
28 Athletics More
29 No interest N/A More

 

 

141

 

Chapter 5: Qualitative Findings

In this chapter, I describe the qualitative ﬁndings from the personal interviews
conducted with male, senior study abroad participants and nonparticipants from three
disciplinary backgrounds—a residential public policy program, liberal arts/ social science
ﬁelds, and STEM ﬁelds. These interviews probed more deeply into issues highlighted in
the literature and the survey as factors of signiﬁcant interest inﬂuencing participation. For
the purpose of reporting, 1 present the ﬁndings in sections organized around the four
research questions: (1) males’ familial background and the inﬂuences of this background
on the decision to study abroad; (2) males’ perceptions of and access to information about
study abroad; (3) males’ dispositional characteristics related to risk and motivation; and
ﬁnally, (4) males’ perceptions of the value of study abroad in relationship to their career.

Within each of these four sections, I remind the reader about relevant ﬁndings
from the literature, pilot study, and phase one of this study as a starting point for the
presentation of the interview ﬁndings. This reminder summarizes ideas from previous
chapters to assist the reader in understanding the context and purpose for the interview
questions and their presentation in this study. Before discussing each of the major ideas, I
start this chapter with a brief overview of phase two of the research design and additional
information about the data analysis. As a reminder, for clarity, I refer to the students
whom I interviewed as volunteers to avoid conﬁrsion with their status as study abroad
participants and nonparticipants in this chapter.

Background on Phase 2

The second phase of the research design involved interviewing male seniors who

participated and did not participate on study abroad programs. Conducting this qualitative

142

inquiry to supplement the survey was important for several reasons. First, I did not design
the survey for this study, and although the survey gathered important information related
to the research questions, the overall survey content lacked some conceptual variables
important to the study, such as students’ socio-economic background. Second, the
survey’s implementation and format did not lend itself to the use of advanced statistical
procedures like regression modeling. Finally, the survey’s results were mixed and lacked
statistical strength in many instances. Although valuable as a starting point and for
highlighting some speciﬁc issues, phase one had limited success for truly understanding
the complex issue of male study abroad participation.

This survey did produce some statistically signiﬁcant ﬁndings, yet these ﬁndings
lack depth in their meaning. Speciﬁcally, the issue of peer and parental support lacks
clarity. On this survey and the one conducted by Shirley (2006), males indicated a lower
inﬂuence in relationship to family support; however, the wording of these questions does
not lend itself to clear interpretation of the difference. For this reason, qualitative studies
are needed to assist researchers with understanding males’ (and females’) thinking about
the issues related to their decision to participate. In the end, some variables—such as their
opinions about study abroad in relation to their personal and academic life—require a
richer understanding than is often obtained from a survey alone.

Sample and Analysis

To explore some of the ideas related to lower male participation on study abroad,
I interviewed 24 male students, eight from three different academic programs: a
residential program in public policy known for its international engagement, a set of

STEM majors, and a group of students in the liberal arts (for a listing of the volunteers by

143

participation status and major, please see Table L1 (p. 302). Each of these students
volunteered for a personal one-on-one interview that lasted about 60 minutes. I digitally
recorded these interviews and had them transcribed into an MS-Word document. I then
reviewed the transcripts for themes by research question, coding the data line-by-line
using the highlighting function. Then working within each question, I further divided the
data into sub-themes and, at times, moved data between major themes and sub-themes
during this process. Overall, I sifted through the data approximately nine times—once
overall and twice within each of the four categories—to arrive at the themes I present
below.
Family Background and Perceptions of Support

The ﬁrst category relates to males’ perceptions of support received from their
families and communities regarding study abroad and the degree to which their decisions
relate to previous experiences with their family or their familial background in terms of
education and socio-economic status (SES). Within this research question, three sub-
themes developed: ﬁrst, males who studied abroad each talked about a personal
experience that inﬂuenced their interest in international issues or travel; second, although
family background did not necessarily equate with the decision to participate, the
family’s comfort and experience with international travel inﬂuenced their reaction to
their son’s interests; and third, males seem to have a sense of duty to their family that
may inhibit their participation. I discuss each of these ideas in subsequent sections.
Previous Research and Overview

As suggested by the literature and the pilot study, one rationale for lower male

participation in study abroad might be that males’ parents are less supportive of the idea

144

or push their sons toward jobs and internships more than they do their female children.
This idea relates to broader sociological trends discussed by Dessoff (2006), Kimmel
(2008), Sax (2008), Gore (2005), and others, who suggest that gender role stereotypes
allow females more ﬂexibility in their pursuits because females are not in “serious”
ﬁelds of study relative to males. In other terms, because females’ educational attainment
is not as important as males’ attainment in terms of preparing for a high-paying career,
females have historically been allowed—and often encouraged-—to participate in
activities that made them more worldly and cultured.

The quantitative ﬁndings from the ﬁrst phase of this study also indicated some
potential differences between males and females based on parental support and
encouragement. According to these data, male participants and nonparticipants seem less
inﬂuenced by family support and males tend to see family support as less of an obstacle.
As with earlier surveys though, these ﬁndings lack some meaning in that I cannot directly
distinguish between various interpretations of these ﬁndings. For example, males might
be less inﬂuenced by family encouragement because they receive less positive
encouragement, no encouragement, more negative encouragement than females, or that
males are more independent of their family in terms of their decision-making.

Based on the qualitative data, few differences seem to exist between male
participants and nonparticipants on this speciﬁc issue. One might have expected students’
parents’ economic and educational backgrounds to inﬂuence support and encouragement;
however, nearly all students reported similar support despite differences in background.
Similarly, over three-quarters of the males had previously traveled with family, and no

clear link existed between this previous travel experience with family and the desire to

145

study abroad. Generally, males seemed to distinguish between travel for pleasure or
family versus travel for school. Despite the lack of clear differences between male
participants and nonparticipants, I did notice some themes from the interviews.
Theme 1 .' Study Abroad and Personal Connections

Family social and economic background did not seem to inﬂuence the actual
decision to participate, with males of all backgrounds found in both the participation and
non-participation groups. Family background seemed to inﬂuence students’ interests
related to study abroad and, as found in the pilot study, males who had a personal
interaction or connection to international ideas tended to study abroad. Along these lines,
family history and culture led to an interest in international travel for about half of the
students. For example, Danny, an engineering student, described his interest in going to
Germany as related to his “learning about [his] heritage at a young age.” John, an English
major with a French minor, discussed his ﬁrst study abroad experiences as a means of
connecting with his father’s heritage:

My dad is French and my whole family is French, and I think it’s—for me—it

was really important just to be able to like talk to my relatives because a lot of

them don’t speak English... Now that I’ve gone, like I can talk to my dad. I talk

to him in French now, and he really appreciates that so it’s deﬁnitely more a

familial bond.

For Chris and Andrew, both international relations majors who studied abroad,
the decision to study international topics and travel abroad related to time abroad with
family. Chris said his parents “are very international thinking people,” which in his

opinion contributed to his decision-making because his mother “certainly has her own

146

ideas about the world, the way things work, and how her sons should experience it, and
they coincide with my father's, which pushed us all to travel.” Andrew summed the point
up well in saying that international travel “runs in the family.”

Speaking of more expended relations, Matt, a science student and study abroad
participant, did not hear about study abroad from his parents, but rather his grandmothers.
He explained:

Both my grandmas used to travel together a lot since my parents have been

married, so my one grandma, who is still alive, was really encouraging. She’s

really like ﬁnancially supportive, as well; she just thinks it’s absolutely great that

I do it. My parents think it’s great too, but like it’s just like my grandma’s thing is

traveling and so I’ve always had a lot of support from her.

Similarly, Frank, an engineering and ROTC student, discussed how his decision to go on
a church trip to China was inﬂuenced by “an uncle who has been working in China for
the last 10 years. . .I got put into a political science class about politics in Asia, and it was
just kind of like a recurring theme my freshman year. So I was already kind of like
interested in China and then this trip came up so it was kind of like a perfect match.”

Beyond the family, students from smaller towns related how experiences within
their larger community inﬂuenced their interests. Jake, an international relations student,
credited his ﬁrst international experience and his international interests to a high school
program run by the 4—H program. Shaun, an international relations and African studies
major, described his journey to college and study abroad as also inﬂuenced by his

experience in his community:

147

I wanted to go out of the state so I could meet students from different areas-mon-
Michigan people. But in my eighth grade year, I met a guy from Ghana and got
involved in the work that he was doing in Ghana, and then the next summer, I
went to Ghana. . .It’s pretty intense, and so that really got me interested in
international.
Shaun’s ﬁiend Oscar, an international relations student, ﬁrst went abroad with his high
school band, an experience that gave him the “traveling bug.” Since that time, Oscar has
sought out international experiences, a factor he related to his experiences within his local
community:
The unique thing about my hometown is that even though it is rural and poor, the
town has attracted a lot of unique individuals that have been abroad because it’s
kind of like this small town feel that has some good community. . .I had mentors
who had international careers that really gave me an example to look towards.
As these examples describe, many of the males who eventually choose to study
abroad—and make international topics an aspect of their studies—had some inﬂuence
prior to college. For almost all of the males who participated, this prior experience led to
the decision to study abroad, yet for other students, it led to an interest they fulﬁlled in
other ways, such as campus opportunities or internships. In the end, most males attributed
previous experience and family background as a spark to their international interests, but
not speciﬁcally as the major factor leading to their decision to study abroad.
Theme 2: Family as Watch-guard
Almost all the males reported a general support related to the idea of studying

abroad. For example, Danny, an engineering student who studied abroad, felt that his

148

parents were very supportive because “they thought it looked great on a résumé.” Kenny,
an engineer who went to Australia, had more active support: “My parents were actually
the ones who suggested it. . .They agreed with the university that it’s just a way to
diversify yourself.” He attributed this encouragement to the fact that both his parents had
studied abroad themselves. Just as parents’ background with travel could promote an
openness to travel, Kenny’s comments illustrate that parents’ backgrounds can also
facilitate the active encouragement to participate.

Corey, a liberal arts student who went to Australia on study abroad, traveled
extensively before college for sports and personal reasons. Even though he had previous
travel experiences with his family, Corey described his parents as only somewhat
supportive and also jealous of his “international globe-trotting.” In the middle of his
college career, though, his father’s personal experiences abroad changed this dynamic
and provided a better connection between himself and his father by facilitating his
father’s ability to relate to Corey’s desire for international travel:

My father has never traveled abroad until two years ago when my mom and him

both went back to Finland to visit her family. That was actually really moving,

very moving for him. He’s not a very emotional guy and not as intellectual either,
very administrative type I think. So that sort of component had never been a big

deal for him. Traveling abroad really opened his eyes to what I study and what I

am going to do and why I studied abroad.

Generally, all the males interviewed felt that their parents would support their
decision to go abroad, but their parents might not support them ﬁnancially. In this way,

family support seemed to be somewhat neutral, neither strongly encouraging nor overtly

149

discouraging. Taylor, a liberal arts nonparticipant, said his parents would “be

neutral. . .They would rather I go abroad and get the experience, but they wouldn’t be able
to help out with the ﬁnances.” Sam, also a liberal arts nonparticipant, had a similar
sentiment, saying that when he “talked about it with [his] family they were like that
would be very good, if we could do that [pay for it].”

Despite this generic support, building on Kenny’s example, family background
often inﬂuenced the degree to which males needed to convince their family that study
abroad was a viable, valuable opportunity. In some instances, family experiences abroad
eased the participation conversation, but in other cases, males had to do more convincing.
During these conversations, the issues of safety and value were consistently named by the
males as concerns, especially for students traveling to exotic locations. Frank, an
engineering student who went to China through church but did not study abroad,
discussed his parents’ concerns:

My parents just tend to be really supportive as long as l have an action plan and

you know they ﬁnd out how it ﬁts into the grand scheme of things. They tend to

be pretty supportive of pretty much whatever I aspire to do. . .They just wanted to
make sure that we'd have like translators and that we weren't gonna like end up in

a Chinese prison or something.

Other students who traveled to such locations encountered similar questions from their
parents. For those going on study abroad, though, good planning and research helped
them convince their parents, as Shaun explains relative to his ﬁrst trip to Africa:

I had done the research paper on development in Ghana before I went so, and so it

was easy to tell my parents and my family: Ghana is one of the most stable

150

 

 

Aﬁican countries, la, la, la; their economy is doing well, whatever; I’m going to
be staying in university; I will be staying in a hostel that has air conditioning... I
think doing it through the university also has a degree of security for people.
As he looked toward travel in Egypt, Oscar had a similar experience with his parents, and
he needed to provide different rationales for his father and his mother:
A lot of things I had to put into those terms why it’s important to my life in the
future. With my dad, I had to sell it as a step in my career, that study abroad was a
component of my education and my career that would take me places afterwards,
and then I can show him how they’ve taken me places. . .To my mom, I had to
ﬁrst convince her it was safe, and then there were several components like it was
both the pragmatic, ‘This is my career. Look where I’m going to go with it,’
Jason, an engineering student who studied in Russia, described his experience
taking to his parents about safety. His mother was concerned about his safety abroad, and
he laughed as he talked about addressing his mother’s concern:
Well, I told ‘em I’d call ‘em all the time. . .I didn’t really call my dad. He felt
secure about it. I talked to my mom alot; and I told ‘em that I’m a grownup; and I
can make these decisions on my own; but, also, my brother, he had traveled
before a lot; and I got to use him as an example about how he got to see the world
and was all right from it.
Eric, a social science major who went abroad, considered two different study
abroad programs: one to Aﬁica and one to Europe. For him, his parents’ support was
somewhat of a challenge because they tried to direct him toward the “safer” destination.

He explains in regards to his father:

151

Whenever I talked to him, I would mention both, and he would always talk about

the European study abroad, and not really give much attention to the Aﬁica one. I

mean, he was supportive of me going to a place that he approved of. . .He thought

it was given that Europe would be a better place, just from his perspective.
When Eric eventually decided on Africa as the location for his program, he had new
issues to work with his parents on prior to departure. Recent media reports about troubles
in part of Africa had alarmed his mother, so he “told them, ‘Well, just because one
country in Aﬁica is dangerous doesn’t mean all the countries in Africa are dangerous.”

The degree to which students had to convince their parents and their perseverance
in doing so seemed related to their participation status and family background, with those
males who had more interest seeming to push harder to participate. For example, Corey
stated that while parental support helped him, he “was going to do it either way.”
Regardless of background, safety was a big concern for males’ parents, and as I discuss
in the next section, money was another major factor.
Theme 3: Males ’ Silent Duties

For some students, money was the greatest barrier to participation. For nearly all
nonparticipants, this concern prohibited them from even considering talking to their
parents about study abroad. David, an agriculture science student and nonparticipant felt
that his “parents might have said, ‘Oh, wow, how are you gonna pay for it?”’ Along
similar lines, Eli, a public policy nonparticipant, said he would have “dreaded that
conversation. Like, ‘Dad, we need to pony up some money for that.’ Just knowing my

father that it would have been: ‘We’re paying for school, why pay for this in addition?’.”

152

For some nonparticipants then, just the thought of asking their parents about study
abroad stopped them from pursuing the option, which led to a third theme related to the
inﬂuence of family. Although males and females had no signiﬁcant differences based on
family obligations on the survey, males did seem to carry a sense of obligation to their
family relative to time and ﬁnancial resources, which affected their decision to study
abroad. Many nonparticipants used their family as a rationale for not participating or not
even actively considering study abroad. Often, these male students believed their time
away would negatively affect their parents and siblings in terms of a loss of ﬁnancial,
human, and time resources.

Jack, a history and geography major who did not study abroad, never even
considered study abroad because of his ﬁnancial situation, stating “if I was more
comfortable monetarily I’d probably deﬁnitely go for it, but I mean, my parents are
covering loans right now. I’ve got to cover all that and I don’t know. There’s no way.”
Eli, Sam, and Greg had similar concerns related to ﬁnances based on their backgrounds.
Eli explains that his family:

owned a small furniture manufacturer, and we got out —if we’d got out a year

earlier, we’d be rolling in money now, and if we’d got out a year later, I would be

panhandling on a comer now. . .My father would just view it as, ‘No, we don’t —
this isn’t something that’s necessary. It’s necessary to get a college education, it’s
not necessary to get your college education abroad.’
Sam, who works in the study abroad ofﬁce, traveled abroad in high school, but he was
unable to participate on study abroad in college due to his mother’s death and the effect

of that event on his family’s ﬁnances. He was concerned about taking on additional debt:

153

We just don’t have the money to do it. So, it doesn’t get addressed as much as it

needs to be, and it’s hard to address that [with his father] when money is the issue.

When you have ﬁrnding issues, and you’re just barely getting by with student

loans in order to go to college.

A public policy nonparticipant, Greg’s concerns related not so much to the loss of
income, but his parerits’ expectations. The eldest child and the only son with a stay-at-
home mother, he explained that growing up in his home, he had a clear idea about his
responsibilities: “You kind of grow up with that sense of your job when you grow up,
once you get out, is to support yourself, support your family—if you choose to have a
family—and just kind of get out and make a living for yourself.”

Other males echoed Greg’s concern over their role and achievement. Bill, a public
policy nonparticipant, discussed his need to get out of school in as close to four years as
possible. As a transfer student, he felt beholden to his family to work hard and get the
degree done before his siblings entered college. David, also a nonparticipant, spoke from
his own experience with males in the agricultural sciences:

Some guys have jobs here [at school], and they go home on the weekends and

help on the farm. The idea that you would be on a study abroad when your dad

expects you to be home to plant and spray—there are guys in our house that say,

‘My dad says to get home,’ and the next thing you know, they’re packing a bag

and jumping in the pickup ﬁve minutes later.

This concern by some of the males to succeed and work hard relates back to the male

gender role, especially as related to careerism, discussed later in this chapter.

154

Although family duties seemed to weigh mostly on the minds of nonparticipants,
about a third of participants also discussed ways that their family obligations inﬂuenced
them pertaining to ﬁnances. For example, Chris paid for his study abroad program on his
own. He explained that his parents “couldn't really help out. I actually have three siblings,
two of whom both go here as well, and so the burden fell on me ﬁnancially but in other
areas they were certainly supportive.” John had similar concerns. With a supportive
father, he still needed to consider the ﬁnancial ramiﬁcations for himself and his two
siblings, who are also in college. Unable to help ﬁnancially, John’s father pushed him to
ﬁgure it out for himself:

He said, ‘well, if you can go, it would be awesome, but we can’t pay for it, so I

had to go through like all the ﬁnancial aid stuff and ﬁnd ways to get loans

speciﬁcally to pay for this’ and I had to like work in the small space before and
after it [the program], so I could pay for everything.

Regardless of their participation status, males interviewed for this study seemed
highly aware of their family’s ﬁnancial situation. Often, ﬁnancial concerns also involved
the student’s role within the family related to helping with the family business or their
siblings. For about a third of the males, their sense of duty to their parents, siblings, and
family ﬁnances prohibited them from even considering study abroad as an option, but as
with concerns over safety, some males pushed forward the with their interests despite
these obstacles.

Conclusions on the Role of Family
Clearly the role of family and family background has an inﬂuence on males’

interest in and decision to study abroad. Although the role of family background did not

155

show a pattern based on family educational and economic standing, having a family or
community experienced with or supportive of international travel facilitated male
students’ movement toward a decision to participate. Also, the data indicates that males
tend to use their unique family background as part of their decision-making process. For
those males with strong interest or greater experience, the path toward participation
seems easier than for those with less interest or less experience. For these students, family
support and background often. caused them to not even consider discussing study abroad
with their families.

This evidence supports the ﬁnding in Chapter 4 that students might consider the
obstacles to study abroad before the beneﬁts. In other words, if males perceive the
obstacles as too great, then they do not even try to consider how they might make it work,
as Chris and John tried to do with their parents. Going back to the factor analysis of
obstacles and inﬂuences, I ran all the inﬂuence and obstacles variables for participants
using several different rotational techniques. In all cases and for all students, the
obstacles variables loaded more strongly and consistently than the inﬂuence variables.
This statistical ﬁnding further suggests that students ﬁrst consider obstacles to study
abroad and second consider the potential beneﬁts to study abroad; therefore, for students
with low family support and little international experience, the idea of study abroad might
never even be considered.

Reputation and Peer Messages

The second research question for phase two related to the messages and

information students’ hear about study abroad at the institution and how students interpret

this information in terms of its reputation or value. Ian’s story about his mother’s

156

encouragement suggests that a supportive family and prior travel experiences cannot fully
explain the decision to study abroad. In addition, not all of the males who participated on
study abroad had international experiences before coming to college, so why then did a
student like Andy decide to participate on study abroad while a student like David
decided to stay at home?

This section summarizes issues related to study abroad marketing efforts and the
role of peers in relationship to this question, and unlike the other section, which was
relatively straight-forward, this section presents a number of themes seemingly ﬁlled with
contradictions. To summarize, I begin by exploring the idea that students have broad
knowledge about the importance of international learning and study abroad, but limited
depth of knowledge related to this topic, with most students unaware of the diversity of
opportunities available to them. Related to this theme, I explore what students know
about study abroad itself. Many students know that study abroad is important and
respected, yet they have many misconceptions about what study abroad is and is not.

Second, and related to these ideas, I also explore the idea that the general buzz
around study abroad—despite being known as valuable—is that students feel it is a
vacation. Within this area, I discuss the messages students hear about study abroad and
the sources of these messages. Again, the sources of information seem to be multiple;
however, the messages that are getting through seem quite limited in their content and
appeal. Third, and again building on the previous theme, the students discussed their
perceptions related to how males and females communicate and think differently about
study abroad, leading to a ﬁnal theme: males seem to have different peer groups, some

supporting and some hampering study abroad participation.

157

Previous Research and Overview

A second ﬁnding from the pilot study suggested that males receive and react
differently to messages and marketing materials than females. Male ﬁrst-year students
who participated in study abroad reported that their friends highly encouraged them to
study abroad, but those who did not study abroad tended to report little connection to
other study abroad participants and a sense that study abroad was a frivolous, feminine
activity. This idea suggests that males might receive fewer or less positive messages
about study abroad from people in their lives and/or that study abroad messages from
ofﬁces and promotional materials are highly feminized because people generally view
study abroad as a female-orientated activity (Gore, 2005). Also, because fewer males are
participating and thus talking about study abroad, the male perspective on the activity is
lacking in both formal and informal communication networks.

The quantitative ﬁndings from this survey tend to support the literature on this
topic. Although male and female participants rated the institutional support and
informational systems relatively the same, males perceived signiﬁcantly less support
from peers and high school teachers and reported a signiﬁcantly lower inﬂuence on
participation related to peer messages. Also during the factor analysis, the inﬂuence of
peer messages and ﬁiends participating loaded more strongly for male participants than
for female participants and the general population. These results suggest the literature
may be accurate in its assessment about the importance of messages males receive—or
more accurately need to but do not receive—and how they perceive these messages, yet

without deeper qualitative analysis, one cannot fully understand this issue. Males may

158

receive less support from friends, they may receive more negative support, but they may
also just not talk about study abroad with friends.
Theme 4: Broad Knowledge, Little Depth

Henry and Basile (1994) suggest that nonparticipants lack knowledge about the
opportunity or that the opportunity itself is thought about poorly. Based on the qualitative
data, all the males interviewed for this study knew about study abroad and, as found with
the quantitative ﬁndings (on which all students reported the institutional ofﬁces and
resources positively), had a generally positive opinion of it. When asked to describe the
international opportunities available at their institution, 100 percent of the males named
study abroad, and most of them knew that study abroad was a priority. Frank’s statement
characterized his peers by saying, “I know there's a very large abroad program here.”

Some males even knew that the institution was ranked nationally for its study
abroad programs. Corey believed that his school “has one of the best ones in the nation,”
and Eli echoed this idea, “we were number one for a while. I know that whatever your
major is, you can ﬁnd something.” Chris understood that “we were pretty famous for
study abroad,” and even Greg, a nonparticipant, understood the priority of study abroad at
the institution:

1 know [the university] has a phenomenal study abroad, going abroad program,

and ﬁ'om what I've heard we’re one of the nation’s leaders as far as sending

students abroad and I've seen a lot of cool opportunities. I just haven’t been able

to take advantage of them personally.

The institution’s reputation for study abroad, international opportunities, and

language study was so strong that Shaun named these factors as his draw to attend the

159

institution, yet for knowing about opportunities beyond study abroad, Shaun found
himself in the minority. Of all the males, he was the only person who knew about the
institution’s international ofﬁce and that it included programs in addition to study abroad.
Few of his peers—especially nonparticipants—knew about other international
opportunities at their university. For example, Chris was the only student who mentioned
the institution’s campus in the Middle East; Eli and Eric were the only students who
mentioned the institution’s international service-learning programs; and Oscar was the
only person to discuss the institution’s freshman seminar abroad efforts. Andrew, Matt,
John, Oscar, Jason, and Corey mentioned the school’s international students, yet few
students could discuss all or even most of these activities holistically.

Cleary the males I interviewed knew about study abroad, so I then asked them to
discuss what they knew speciﬁcally about study abroad. From the data, students had two
clear ideas about study abroad: ﬁrst, they thought study abroad is a good activity, and
second, that study abroad is a fun activity. In terms of the popularity of study abroad,
many students responded as Will did, explaining that when they heard their peers talk
about their experiences, “they love it.” Eli made a similar statement, saying “I very rarely
hear people having negative experiences about it. . .I’ve like heard almost all positive
experiences. So I have not heard someone say, ‘Oh, I just had a terrible time.’ I’ve heard
universally positive experiences.”

Beyond the general sense of positivity about study abroad, students indicated that
they knew study abroad was a priority at their institution. Students like Danny knew that

study abroad was a priority because he saw ﬂyers about it in the engineering building and

160

advertisements in the school newspaper. David made a similar observation about the
marketing:
At orientation they did a whole session about it. . .Your college talks about it, you
get pretty bombarded by it, and they did their job putting it out there. I get e-mails
like all the time about it. You always know it’s coming up; you know the
meetings that they have. You can’t miss it.
The institution’s early and consistent emphasis about study abroad not only ensured that
all the males knew about the activity, but it also gave them the impression that study
abroad was valued. Andrew explained:
When I was looking at different schools to go to, there was a much higher
premium placed on international study here than any other places I was looking at
going. And they had some stat, it was something like 80% of students or 70% of
students study abroad at some point during their time here.
Corey received a similar impression when he said, “I know that almost all students at
least do one study abroad if not more.”
Limited and Imperfect Understanding
Beyond the common understanding of study abroad as a priority at their school,
about half of the males had a very limited, and often incorrect, idea about what study
abroad was or could be in terms of program models and options. In general, most of the
males, especially nonparticipants, believed that study abroad only included studying and
taking classes overseas. Only a few males had a good idea about the diversity of program
options in terms of format and timing. As Greg described, he had “heard everything from

peeple going over winter break or a spring break, alternative spring breaks go abroad

161

sometimes, your traditional study abroad, a lot of internships abroad.” Corey knew that
the school had “programs on all seven continents.” Finally, Sam, who did not go abroad
but works in the ofﬁce of study abroad, had the best knowledge about programs because
he knew about the different types of opportunities including internships, direct
enrollment, and faculty-led opportunities.

Beyond these students, many of the males lacked concrete knowledge about study
abroad, and in some cases, they had incorrect ideas about study abroad. Taylor admitted
his lack of knowledge, stating that all he knew “is that some people will take courses
abroad in another country.” Similarly, Frank said he had limited knowledge of the
opportunities beyond his college: “I don't know all the countries but apparently it's a lot
and then I know there's speciﬁcally ones for engineers, so engineering especially like
Russia and Ukraine. Those are the two I know for sure.”

Several students stated that their knowledge of study abroad was based on what
they had heard from their friends and college advisors. Eli felt that this situation limited
his understanding. Until the interview, Eli did not know that he could have traveled
abroad to ﬁrlﬁll his university general education classes:

This is self-replicating, especially being a residential college, you live with the

people [in your college], so the people in my college that have gone on study

abroad tend to do the study abroad for my college. . .I never met someone who’s
done a general education study abroad, and I think that’s part of it. The college
obviously promotes itself, and then part of it’s that if you live with those people

that have never done it, it’s just self-replicating, and you don’t ﬁnd out about it.

162

Eli believed that if he had known about options beyond his college, then perhaps he
would have had more interest in going abroad. In this way, the limited messages about
study abroad hindered participation.

About half of the students commented about only hearing or knowing about
programs for their own colleges, and for some students, this idea made them not pursue
study abroad because they were not interested in going on programs in the locations that
their speciﬁc major sponsored. For example, Eric believed that he could only go on
programs sponsored by his college: “I was more concerned with location, when I was
ﬁrst searching, but that’s also constrained by the college that you’re in, because you have
to go on a study abroad that is within your college, supposedly, it’s what I read.” Will had
a similar impression, saying that he would have gone on a program if he could have done
an internship or research experience, but he never found the right information about such
opportunities:

Maybe a co-op so you can get experience with that, but I mean, if there was, and

I’m sure there is, through somewhere, I’m pretty sure there is something out there

about doing research and going to a different country and doing research. And

that would deﬁnitely be my cup of tea.

In addition to having limited or incorrect information about study abroad, the
males seemed to have a model of what study abroad was and was not. For example, when
I asked Shaun about his second study abroad in South Aﬁica, he replied, “No, it was an
internship. It would never be a study abroad program.” Shaun and other students seemed
to believe that study abroad was only about taking classes overseas, and in many cases

they did not know about or consider ﬁeld-based programs, service learning programs,

163

research opportunities, and internships to be study abroad. Jason, who works for study
abroad as peer advisor, explained the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings as a lack
of student effort:
The information is readily available; but a lotta times students don’t utilize it to
the maximum amount... There are like 2005 of programs that we have, and so
they’ll think that you just choose a country and choose what you wanna study.
Sometimes they might think that they can go to any country to take anything they
want to, so that part is kinda hard to tell people it doesn’t work that way.
Theme 5: Message Disconnect
Although the students interviewed felt that study abroad had value, many of them
also felt that study abroad was an academic vacation. The sense that many people
participate in study abroad and that the institution values the activity translated into a
general sense that the activity had value, as exempliﬁed by Sam’s comments:
It’s been an eye-opening experience. . .It really gives students a time to be an
integral part of a different culture, and it kind of makes them go out of their
comfort zones, which is very important because you don’t learn unless you are a
little maybe shocked at times or challenged.
Shaun shared this sentiment, and when asked about the buzz on campus in relationship to
study abroad, he stated that “the big one is to go and see something different... being able
to go and study the way things are—not what you are used‘ to—is a great opportunity.”
Beyond this general impression that study abroad could be a valuable activity to learn

about the world though, the most consistent and pervasive message about study abroad

was that it was all about fun.

164

All the males consistently reported that many students think about study abroad as
more of a vacation than as an academic activity. For example, Jason stated, “I guess ﬁ'om
my experience, from what I picked up from students, they think a lotta study abroad is
like a vacation during the summer.” Danny said that he was told “‘you’ll never have to
study and pretty much get drunk every day,’ and like, you won’t have to do any work.”
Shaun had a similar experience, stating that students with whom he interacted did not put
academics ﬁrst: “They’d be more concerned about where they were going to go drink the
next night as opposed to submerging themselves in the culture, talking with people,
learning the language, talking about the issues that the people face.”

Even though the males stated that they heard about study abroad from other
students, the male participants also felt that many of their peers did not want to hear an
in-depth report about their experience. Eric felt this friends were “more interested in the
activity and the location,” than the academics and “unless they’re the same major, they
can’t necessarily relate to what I’m learning about, and even if I do tell ‘em about it,
they’re not interested.” After hearing this theme ﬁ'om many students in both the pilot
study and this study, I started asking students more pointedly about the institutional
messages about study abroad and students’ perceptions and messages. Frank had this to
say on the issue:

A lot of students go on study abroad just to travel and to be in countries where

they can drink I'd say that you kind of get the general opinion from a lot of

people just around campus and stuff that study abroad is kind of like a just for fun

thing.

165

The more I spoke with the males, the clearer the differences became. Even though
all the males could articulate the importance of study abroad for cultural learning, they
uniformly stated that most of their peers thought about study abroad in terms of fun. John
recounted this experience from his reentry experience, stating that his “ﬁiends they .
always want to know like oh, where’d you go, what you did. Like how much did you
drink while you were there?” Eric summed up his peers statements in saying “people who
go on study abroad want more of a vacation out of it, or more of a travel opportunity than
a studying opportunity.”

Pervasive Information, Limited Messages

To better understand issues related to the messages and perceptions of study
abroad as ﬁm, I asked students to discuss how they learned about study abroad, where the
messages came from, and what they thought about these messages. The males identiﬁed a
myriad of communication channels from which they heard about study abroad, which
included the campus newspaper, emails, posters, classroom presentations, orientation
events, website, and the study abroad fair held twice each year in the campus Union. In
general, most students felt conﬁdent that they knew about study abroad opportunities and
that they knew how to pursue the possibilities of participation. Danny explained his path:

They advertise it around the engineering building a lot, and I went to talk with

[my college study abroad coordinator], and she gave me a list of programs, told

me to come to the fair. So I went to the fair, talked to a couple people, and I

narrowed it down to one or two programs I’d like to do, waited for a date that I

could sign up for it, and just went.

Will had a similar story:

166

I took a class freshman year about like, about what you should do in college and

how you should like prepare yourself to graduate and get a job and one of the

 

things, one of the coordinators of study abroad came and talked to us about it...

[this] is a really big university, but I think if one really wants to like seek out

something there is like so many people that will help you I know my

counselor, she’ll know and she’ll put me in the right direction.

Several students discussed the need for help or support when investigating the
options related to study abroad, as George discussed at length in relationship to the study i:_
abroad and international opportunities fairs:

Both of them had a lot of opportunities—j ust the amount of programs—like it’s

almost overwhelming because you go in there and you see all the countries but

you realize there’s another room that has the same countries but different colleges
and programs. . .It’s deﬁnitely tough ﬁnding one that is just like exactly what you
want. It’s probably out there but there’s so many to pick from, and you just feel
like you’re in over your head.
When asked what could have made his investigation less overwhelming, George
recommended that the information be available by country and by major or topic, which
is actually how the fairs are run at the institution. The point of George’s comments,
though, was that the amount of options is daunting for students, and in the end, he felt it
was up to him: “If you really want to do it, the information is deﬁnitely out there. It’s just
that you need to do the research. That’s the toughest part, doing the research.”
From George’s perspective, the massive amount of choice was overwhelming,

something that other students mentioned during their interviews too. For many students,

167

 

 

the availability of the information was not the only issue, though. The quality and source
of the information also factored in to their interpretation and/or use of the information.
Taylor commented about his experiences, highlighting this idea:
I saw advertisements from the school that said you’re missing out if you don’t go
abroad. You can’t afford not to, things like that. They have an entire career fair
just for study abroad so I think they do emphasize it and I know a lot of people
that utilized it It’s already advertised quite a bit. The only thing I could suggest
is that maybe if they went about it in a different way, maybe if they did it through
the classroom as opposed to maybe advertisements in the cafeteria.
This statement suggests that the source of the information inﬂuences how seriously or
closely males pay attention. This idea reoccurred throughout the interviews, with some
males paying more attention to more formal, academic messages and others relying more
on personal, peer messages.

From my conversations, the males clearly believed that peer and institutional
messages (e. g., the institution’s study abroad video) emphasized fun. Although some
males liked the video, almost all of the males found it lacking in concrete, academic
elements. The males generally described it as a “photo blog,” and I provide just two
examples of the nearly uniform comments on this topic:

0 It sends a message more I guess of an experiential kind of like a vacation

theme to it. It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of mention of academics. I
mean it deﬁnitely may seem appealing to most, Study Abroad just for the

experience. . .If there was something to do with hitting on how you could take

168

like major applicable courses I think that would be deﬁnitely, like peak my
interest. (Frank)

0 They send out a positive message but the way they go about it constantly

telling you about study abroad it’s - it makes it almost too commercial. ..
That 's a vacation commercial; all you ’re showing is people having a great
time. You’re not showing any of these students in a classroom. . .I’m going to
go on study abroad; the value of going on study abroad is the studying part.
Not I could go on my own and have a vacation. I could go to Mexico on my
own and have a vacation. (Jack)

Generally, the males I interviewed felt that the information messages were quite
pervasive, but limited in their depth and diversity. For example, Sam stated that the study
abroad web site was confusing and lacked search features that would help a student
connect his academics to a program. In other words, the general peer and institutional
messages seemed to emphasize ﬁm and lacked concrete facts about program options or
the beneﬁts of study abroad, and even though some of the males knew that the
information related to their interests was available, searching for and interpreting it
seemed difﬁcult to them. This difﬁculty directly connected to the value of personal
relationships. As highlighted already throughout this study, some males made use of their
professional networks to ﬁnd out more about study abroad. Other students used their peer
networks as an important source of information.

Theme 6: The Personal Connections and the Male Voice
The importance of personal connections was another reoccurring theme. Just as

the students expressed the inﬂuence of their family and communities, they also expressed

169

the value of messages from faculty, staff, and students with whom they associated. Corey
continually mentioned the need for more discussion and interpersonal interaction around
study abroad, and he suggested ways to facilitate this interaction:

They have the photo competitions and stuff, but it’d be beneﬁcial if people sat

down and got together. Maybe another study abroad fair or instead of another

study abroad fair maybe not even a speaking competition, but a lecture where kids
could come up and talk about their experiences to kids who are thinking about
studying abroad.
Oscar, who had previously mentioned his community mentors in relationship to his
international interests, also sought out peer advice; he “talked to two people who had
gone to MSU before me who had studied abroad—one to Italy and one to Ireland, and
they had had amazing experiences and just raved about it.” He was “paying this help
forwar ” by advising a younger male student related to studying in Egypt.

Beyond the vague sentiments, most of the student volunteers and nearly all of the
participants discussed messages from within their academic units and ﬁiends as
important to them. Regarding messages from the academic units, students suggested that
the messages ﬁ'om their faculty framed their perspectives about study abroad. Unlike
Jack, who found classroom presentations annoying, Jason found one in his engineering
class to be inspiring:

One of the professors came—from my maj or—came and talked to us. I thought

about it for a little bit, and summer was approaching. I was like, ‘Well, lemme

think about that.’ I’d like to take some classes over the summer, and so I didn’t

wanna necessarily take ‘em here on campus. So I looked more and more into the

170

study abroad. I went on the Website and searched, and I went to the Study Abroad
Fair that we had in the spring and got to talk to some of the faculty at one of the
programs; and, from there, I said, ‘Wow, this looks pretty cool’; and so I signed
up for the program from there.
The idea that a faculty member from his college encouraged him to go was important to
Jack because he felt it made him feel that study abroad was more valued. Chris felt
similarly about his college and faculty members, saying that his college:
...really promotes study abroad. I mean, they have the list serve where they send
you the study abroad fairs and everything. That's where I found out about the
particular program I went on was a study abroad fair. They obviously promote it
pretty heavily with the ﬁeld experience and allowing you to substitute [study
abroad] for it. They have ﬂiers up about all their programs all the time all around
[our residence] hall.
For Kenny, his ﬁrst messages about study abroad came from a faculty member at a
recruitment event:
The ﬁrst time is when I came to [campus] when I was in high school for [an
engineering event] and they gave a presentation on study abroad programs, an—I
forget the professor—but someone came and he just had pictures of him at all
these famous places around the world with the [school] ﬂag. They talked about
the program and just how many places and all the different opportunities. So, I

mean, before I even was enrolled here, I was interested in study abroad.

171

Based on the conversations, some students associated the emphasis on study
abroad to the way in which the activity enhanced the value of their major. For example,
Andrew felt:

It's pushed in a lot of the French classes that I was in because it does help so

much. And at the time I was applying for the program I was in the class of the

faculty who came along with us and so he obviously placed a pretty big — I think
he said he'd been going for 50 years.
Yet Frank, an engineering major and nonparticipant, felt differently about how his unit
prioritized study abroad. He said that, “they don't push Study Abroad as much, but they
do tend to push a lot of co-ops a lot more just 'cause, I think it gives them more corporate
attention.” Bill, an international relations student and also a nonparticipant, seemed to
agree that although faculty talked about study abroad, they did not push it:

It's brought up from time to time. They'll say, ‘Oh, we're having study abroad

opportunity fair or there's this program if you guys are interested.’ Like if that

particular professor let's say works with Eastern European Studies, they'll say,

‘Hey, there's something in Room A or something like that you should check out if

you're interested in.’ That's usually in passing. . .But nothing very formal.

Despite some nuanced differences amongst the volunteers, the males generally
found faculty members to be an important, powerful source of information, but as Greg’s
comments described, the males did not ﬁnd the faculty voice to be the most important,
rather he thought that “the main inﬂuence is probably ﬁiends.” Chris agreed, stating that

“other students are a big factor. I didn't talk to anyone that had went on Australia, but I

172

had a lot of friends who'd gone to other programs before and they said they had a blast,”
as did Eric who simply said “ﬁiends is a big one.”
George actually went on his program to Australia because a friend suggested they
attend together, and Jake participated due to a similar recommendation:
I had a ﬁiend and the program I want is offered every other summer and I had, a
ﬁiend went two summers before and he'd told me about it and then I ﬁgured out
that it ﬁt perfectly as far as getting my 300-level Chinese [classes] taken care of
for my degree. I found out about it through him, and then I just researched it more
in the study abroad ofﬁce and went from there.
Corey also followed the advice of a friend and former participant when deciding to travel
to Australia. He had several ﬁiends who had studied abroad, one who speciﬁcally went to
Australia, and based on these stories, Corey thought: “Wow I could do that too.”
Although David did not participate in study abroad, he knew several of his
fraternity brothers who traveled abroad and encouraged other members to do the same:
It made it a lot easier for them to do it, and there’s probably some of ‘em that
wouldn’t have gone without the encouragement. I guess if some of my core group
of ﬁiends in the House had said, ‘Hey, what do you think about this; you wanna
go?’ I probably would have thought about it more than I did.
Ian expressed the same idea:
Maybe if it was someone who I knew or someone that I had known for awhile or
something had come up to me and really just been like ‘you seriously, like you

should do this because it was a life changing experience this and that.’ I feel like

173

if I had like a testimonial from someone that I knew that would be a persuasive

enough to I guess get me motivated into it. That would have probably helped.
These quotes imply that, as the factor analysis suggested, males rely heavily on personal
connections with trusted individuals for information. For the males in this study though,
the availability of such messages from other male peers seemed to be lacking.

Male Messages Limited or Missing

I asked the males to discuss the content of the messages they heard ﬁ‘om peers
and if the messages seemed different based on sex status. Generally, the volunteers
reported that peer messages were supportive and encouraging regardless of sex status, but
males felt that they heard fewer and less speciﬁc messages about study abroad from other
males when compared to females. Sometimes, the messages became more than
informational and took on a persuasive attitude, as Bill explains in relationship to a
former roommate and his ﬁiends:

I actually lived with a graduate student from Malawi, so his friend would always

talk to me about different programs. One of them kept trying to get me to go to

Africa...I've heard sort of the academic answer, ‘This is a great opportunity for

you to sort of see what's outside of your borders or city or what have you and see

how life is, not United States. And that's a great opportunity, sort of eye opener.’
For Greg, messages from friends were essential to getting beyond the surface-level
messages he heard around campus:

Part of it was just like I was involved with the church a lot, and so the people that

would talk to me about it were people that I had known for awhile. Study abroad

was always talked about in like one large chunk, and so I was never really sure

174

exactly where they went or exactly what it had to offer. I don't think I ever really

heard about individual programs unless somebody was talking to me about they

had gone on study abroad to such and such a place.

Andrew stated that his friends in French class often talked about how much their
program helped their language skills, but he also admitted most of his conversations
focused on the social aspects of the study abroad experience:

It's interesting because I talk more about the non-academic experiences I had on

study abroad than I do the classroom. I’m not sure exactly why, but I imagine it's

because those are the more fun and more memorable, the more interesting. The
classes are almost secondary when you're over there, at least for me.

Unlike the younger volunteers for the pilot study, the seniors interviewed for this
study did not report a lack of support from their male peers when compared to females.
They generally found their ﬁiends to be a good source of information and interested—
albeit only in surface ways—in the experience. Matt reported that:

Everyone’s pretty supportive about it, and all the guys I know who have done it

really loved it. Guys, when I was home, they were like, ‘Oh, man, you’re in

France this summer? Like that’s awesome. How was it?’ And. stuff, and like, ‘I’d

really like to do Study Abroad,’ and stuff like that.

In addition to the generally favorable messages and support, many of the males
stated that their male peers tended to be interested in their experience, yet in a different
way than their female ﬁiends. According to Will, both his male and female friends:

...Say that they both love the experience. They both tell me pretty cool stories,

but men tell more about the fun stuff. Guys like to exaggerate like I did this. I

175

went out to the bar. I went and got drunk. I went on the train. Got to talk to this
person, I got lost. The women, they like, just you know, I went around Europe,
went backpacking. You know, saw this, and saw that.
Generally, the males interviewed felt that females with whom they interacted tended to
share the details of their overall learning experience and their male ﬁiends tended to
share the “war stories” or ﬁrn experiences they had while abroad.
Sam explained his perception of differences between males and females during
study abroad programs this way:
I think females to a certain extent, are much more independent thinkers than
males and when males are around a peer group, they are much more likely to get
caught up in that peer group, so if they have close ﬁiends that are stating why are
you going abroad, that’s not really cool to talk about learning.
Corey, Chris, and Danny agreed with Sam. All these males suggested that their female
friends spoke more about culture, art, and the details of the experience, while their male
friends seemed more attracted to sex, alcohol, and stories about funny experiences.
Danny went on to share that, based upon his experiences, his female friends:
...tell their story by pictures and they try to place the scenario more. They try to
capture the feeling of it more. For men, I think this is in general when it comes to
start telling the — every single guy ﬁiend I have is like who, what, where, why,
like punch-line story.
In response to his observations about the differences he noticed between his male and
female ﬁiends, Corey felt that it was important for male students to hear about study

abroad from other males.

176

Taylor agreed that the peer messages relate mostly to fun, but unlike other males
in this study, he did not equate these messages to sex or gender differences; however, he
did say that for an academically-minded student like himself, these peer messages were
not an incentive to study abroad, “ Most of the stories that get back to me about study
abroad are just the things that they’ve done in the other country ...For someone like me,
someone that’s academic-oriented, it would be helpful to have more academic messages.”
Jason said he sees this communication trend with the students he talks to as part of his job
in study abroad. He noted differences between individuals based on his conversations
with students who come into the study abroad ofﬁce looking for help ﬁnding the
appropriate program, with some students wanting to go for academic reasons and others
wanting to party.

These comments suggest that different groups of males may desire and thus
communicate and seek out different values related to study abroad. Furthermore, these
quotes signal a potential connection between gender roles and males’ perceptions of
study aboard, which could help with the interpretation of these differences. Oscar
classiﬁed his peers into two groups: one related to the academic-orientation and the other
to a ﬁm-orientation. John, a campus resident assistant, connected similar observations
between his male residents based on majors:

One of them is a Japanese major, so he’s thinking about going to Japan to study

Japanese and he talked to me about like my French program. He asked me about

how much language did you learn. And his questions were very directed at what

speciﬁcally I got out of it and my French context, like how much did I learn, was

it useful, did it matter at all?. . .The other guys on my ﬂoor are like math,

177

engineering, chemical science, mechanical engineering majors. I’ll tell them about

going to France and the only thing they care about is like the girls you meet, how

much did you drink.

Another difference running through these comments was that males perceived that
males were generally less effusive about their experiences than females. Greg discussed
how many of his male ﬁiends barely talk about their experience, yet he knows many
details related to his female friends’ programs. Taylor discusses his observations of his
male friends:

We encourage each other for spring break, but for some reason we don’t for study

abroad. I think women tend to, I don’t know if they ﬂaunt it, but they like to tell

people about it, like I see pictures on F acebook, messages online, and then when
they come back they want to tell me about their experiences, whereas guys, they

do talk about it too but they’re not as gung-ho about it. They’re more like, ‘I had a

great time, you should deﬁnitely do it.’

Another gender-related theme from the interviews related to the volunteer’s peer
groups. On several occasions, males admitted to knowing few males who had participated
or who had not participated. Three of them—all participants—also stated that they did
not typically think of themselves as “traditional men,” suggesting some gender role and
peer group differences between the volunteers. Oscar—who lived with a group of males
who had all studied abroad, Eric, and Shaun each told me that they could not name
anyone who had not gone abroad because all of their friends had gone. Andrew made a
similar statement, saying that most of his conversations about study abroad were with

people who either went or where about to go abroad. Each of these males related their

178

peer relations to the fact that they were in a residential, intemationally-focused program,
and tended to hang out with other students with similar interests.

John, on the other hand, noted that he knew mostly females who went abroad,
stating that he knew “50, 60, 70 friends that are girls that have gone like on study
abroad,” but that the only male ﬁiends he had who went abroad were those who went on
his speciﬁc program. Ian also admitted to knowing only “a few ﬁiends who actually have
studied abroad,” and that he never really had a serious conversation about the subject
with any of his male friends. Eric took this sentiment a step ﬁrrther, when discussing the
concepts of gender:

I don’t associate myself with the majority of men, so I don’t — and I don’t interact

with the majority of men, so I don’t see that perspective. . .Whenever you ask me

about it, I think of someone throwing a football. I think of the male student at

[school], and I guess that’s who you’re talking about when you mention it.

Jack’s statements paralleled this idea, stating that he could not “relate to the ‘all guy’
stereotype and play video games, drink beer all day, make stereotypical jokes about
females, watch sports shows about football and play football.”

Finally, in addition to recognizing slight differences in messages and peer groups,
some of the males purposefully changed their message depending on the group. Just as
Oscar was able to identify the different interests between his peers, he recognized that he
needed to change his messages when we went home:

I’m like from a rural northern Michigan town, not many people go to college, let

alone study abroad. When I talked to my peers, I still have to tone down my

experience so that it’s not like a ﬂashy thing like I could sell it as this amazing

179

vacation, traveled around the world sort of thing or make it some other research-

based sort of thing.

As with Oscar, Danny purposefully tried to avoid seemingly like he was boasting about
this study abroad experience:

My ﬁiends were sorta jealous. If anything, they wanted to hear about the partying,

and the stupid stuff I got myself into like every now and again; but mostly, I knew

a lot of friends who didn’t want to hear anything about it, cause they thought it

was kind of offensive, or not offensive, but kinda like, ‘Well, you got to do all this

cool stuff, and I was around working at Sears all summer.’

More commonly, students mentioned that they give different messages and stories
to their parents than they do to their ﬁiends. Chris stated:

With my family I don't, at least with my parents, emphasize the nightlife. With

my female friends I don't talk about some of the things I did over there. You share

different experiences with different people... I'm a guy; I don't have any problem
telling my guy friends what I did, usually.

This theme suggests that students purposeﬁrlly and knowingly change their
discourse about study abroad depending on the audience with whom they are
communicating, which could mean that males tell other males what they think they want
to hear based on their perception of social norms and perpetuating a stereotypical “male
voice.” It also might imply that males who study abroad interact with peers who also
participated, keeping the positive messages and relationships males seem to desire
circulating amongst participants and failing to defuse the “male voice” into the general

population.

180

Concluding Thoughts

As this section highlights, the messaging aspect of study abroad is complex and
multi-faceted. All the males had heard about study abroad and seemed to recognize it as
valuable and reputable; however, the deeper understandings, meanings, and perceptions
they take away from the advertising is less positive and often ill-informed. Male
nonparticipants seem to know about study abroad as being fun and perpetuate this
message even though they also clearly desire messages related to value and academics.
This factor might be self-reinforcing, with males giving out the messages they receive as
a means of conforming to social expectations.

When giving and receiving messages then, study abroad bounces between two
extremes: as either a vacation-orientated, fun, superﬂuous activity or as a serious,
academic, organized program. Thus, Oscar’s observation, that students seem to be
motivated by either ﬁrn or academics, played out throughout the interviews, with
different males seeking out, experiencing, and perpetuating both foci. In the next section,
I discuss data related to the idea that males’ sense of risk and adventure—in other words
fun—relates to their participation decisions, and in the ﬁnal section, I explore the concept
of males’ pragmatism and career-orientation.

Interest and Risk- Taking Behaviors

The third research question used during the interviewed involved dispositional
issues related to students’ interests in study abroad. Related to Oscar’s observation that
some students view study abroad as an exciting, fun activity, in this section I explore
issues related to students’ sense of study abroad as an adventure. To accomplish this task,

I asked each student to describe his perfect study abroad experience and to discuss why

181

he did (or would) study abroad. From the discussions, I identiﬁed three themes. First, the
males clearly desired to travel, and while traveling, they sought to have exotic
adventures. While having this adventure, they also wanted an experience that they could
not get on their own.

Second, males reported a need for independence, and when discussing this need,
they noted several differences between males and females, a third theme. Males discuss
males as more independent, adventuresome, and lazy, while discussing the females they
know as seeking the safety and organization that study abroad offers. These data ﬁndings
led me to conduct an additional quantitative analysis related to males’ and females’
academic-level at the time of their ﬁrst study abroad experience. As with the previous
sections, I start this discussion with a brief overview of the previous research.

Previous Research and Overview

The study abroad literature suggests that males might not be willing to take risks
during their college career, such as jeopardizing their GPA by participating in special
activities or interacting with a foreign culture, or that males might be too complacent
(Dessoff, 2006); however, the risk literature suggests that males are actually quite
adventuresome in areas related to thrill-seeking because they connect it to a masculine
gender role (Kelling, Zirkes, & Myerowitz, 1976; Zuckerman, 1991). Bringing these two
ideas together, my pilot study found that males often perceived study abroad as a “safe”
academic endeavor, and in some cases would prefer to travel on their own rather than
have a teacher lead them. Females, on the other hand, are thought to value study abroad

for the safety and security inherent in traveling on an organized school program

182

(Dessoff). As the previous section suggested, males’ parents worry about safety, yet
males are less wonied about their safety than females according to the phase 1 survey.

Looking at the quantitative ﬁndings, little evidence suggests that males are more
or less worried about their academic performance or the challenges of studying abroad,
but female participants clearly rated their health, safety, and homesickness as
signiﬁcantly stronger obstacles to their participation than male participants. Given the
lack of quantitative data related to males’ motivation to study abroad and perceptions of
risk, the qualitative phase of this dissertation asked a number of questions focused on
having males discuss issues related to their interest in study abroad, with one question
speciﬁcally asking males to “design their ideal program” given no constraints on their
thinking (e. g., cost, time, location, content were open for them to determine). Based on
these interviews, I conﬁrmed and somewhat expanded upon the pilot study ﬁndings.
Theme 7: Let ’s have an Adventure

Although the literature characterizes males as disinterested in cultural learning or
ill-prepared developmentally to travel, most of the males I interviewed had some desire to
travel, and unlike what the messages about study abroad might suggest, they were
interested in more than an international spring break destination. For example, George
stated that he “would say it’s important just because the opportunity is there and it’s a
good chance to diversify.” Jake also framed his interest in terms of becoming more
culturally aware: “I'm very in favor of becoming more worldly or at least having an
outside knowledge of just the United States.” Finally, Eli stated that he was attracted to
study abroad “just by the idea of going somewhere different... it would be interesting to

meet new people.”

183

Most students also related study abroad to their desire to experience something
new and exciting, a way to satisfy a curiosity. Chris stated that he simply “wanted to go
someplace [he] had never been before,” and Ian explained study abroad as “something
different rather than just doing the same, going to classes.” For Shaun, study abroad
offered “deﬁnitely a much better summer than having to work.” Danny’s travels to
France “started off as just curiosity,” but he also found the utility of taking classes: “I
ﬁgured if I wanted to travel Europe, might as well kill two birds with one stone.”

For Jason, the draw to study abroad was the travel and newness of the experience:
“At this time I was pushing myself to try new things. . .I just really wanted to ﬁnd out
myself, you know, see new things, explore the world, come out of my shell without
joining the Marines or something like that.” Even Taylor, who did not go on a study
abroad, realized the allure of travel: “The fact that I'd be in an entirely other country with
study abroad was kind of fascinating to me. So that would have been a great experience I
think.”

These statements about curiosity pervaded the study abroad conversations with
the volunteers. Almost all of the males recognized the exotic value of study abroad to
them as persons and students. Speciﬁcally, in response to a question that asked them to
design their perfect pro gram, regardless of participation status, all of the males described
the need for adventure, independence, and value-added excitement. They wanted a long-
terrn program that provided them with the opportunity to learn, see, and interact with
different ideas, people, and places than they could access at home or on personal travel.

Thus, as suggested by the risk literature, males desired to attend programs that

they viewed as taking them someplace that, in Kenny’s words, “you’d never be able to

184

get on your own.” Kenny went on to explain what he meant by saying the university
allowed him to access unique individuals and places:

the speakers and the people that you get to interact with and having the

opportunities to go to businesses and have giant corporations and to talk with

them. . .On your own, you couldn’t just be able to call them up and say, ‘Hey, can

I meet with your marketing people or your advising people.’

Similarly, George felt that “Europe is a lot easier to go to” and “more accessible relative
to going to Aﬁica or Asia or South America,” so he viewed study abroad as a means of
going someplace less accessible to him as an individual, as did Corey:

One of the reasons I deﬁnitely stuck with Australia is study abroad does give you

an opportunity to go to places, Thailand, India, I had a friend go to Laos, places

that I don’t think people would normally think about for vacation purposes or
something like that. . .Study abroad gives you an access to a lot more than people
think about in terms of traveling.

Like these students, Bill wanted to travel to someplace rather exotic and learn
something he couldn’t read about or do on his own, but these interests were motivated by
his interest to learn about developing nations:

I‘d probably want to go to some sort of underdeveloped nation. I don’t want to

just go to tourist sites. . .Then what's the point of going. You didn’t actually learn

something you probably couldn’t have read about. If I went on a study abroad I'd

probably want to be able to really get to visit villages, talk to people, and perhaps

if there's a particular project, like volunteer work.

185

Eric, who wanted to study in Africa, connected his desire for study abroad to the degree
to which this destination was “not similar to the United States,” as did Bill, who
associated the location to the value of participation and the amount of learning he
expected to receive:

A lot of [students] end up going to Europe, which Europe is cool and all but it's

like a giant waste. . .Kind of a more useful place to go is East Asia or Africa. If I

went on a study abroad, that’s what I'd want to do because that's where I can learn

something. I get particularly depressed when I see people go to Britain—I mean
really—or Dublin. I know why you went there!
Jack explained a similar point, saying that he would forgo a trip to Paris for “someplace
more obscure,” yet the exotic location was not the only programmatic characteristic
desired by the males in this survey.

Many of the males also wanted a program that moved around or showed them a
lot of different locations. Eli connected his desire to travel around Europe, reliving and
tracing his father’s experiences as a youth “and doing something somewhat once-in-a-
lifetimey.” Beyond the chance to reenact this father’s experience, Eli also had a desire to
experience more than just one city. Like other students interviewed for this study, Eli
expressed an interest in a program that traveled around Europe rather than staying in a
single location for an extended period of time:

I wish [study abroad] would be more, ‘We’re gonna study — we’re gonna be in

London for a little while, and then Madrid, and then Paris, and then Brussels,’

rather than spending the whole time in Brussels. I’m restless, I like to move

around, see the different cities, see what each has to offer.

186

Kenny also stated that the traveling was an important aspect. When designing his
dream program, he wanted “something between four to six weeks and with a lot of travel
in it. Like pretty much no more than like three or four days in each city if it’s a big city,
or just — I think the traveling to different places was really the best part.” Eric had the ~
same perspective, and he believed that “to get the most out of the experience,” he
“wouldn’t stay in one area for most of the time.” John experienced a similar desire,
although he focused more on a variety of activities rather than cities:

If there was like more diversity of it, I’d be so much happier. We just took like a

bus to the next chateau and went back. Bus to another chateau and went back. Bus

to another chateau and went back. It would have been nice to go to a beach or
somewhere. It would have been nice to like go visit Paris for a weekend, but we
didn’t do any of those things, which was too bad.
Corey stated that he liked his traveling program in Australia because it allowed him to
see multiple locations within the continent while on the program:

The thing about traveling is you get to experience more on the program. It’d be

important to stay in certain places depending on where you are for more than just

a day or two... But local speakers, ﬁeld trips, just getting a sense of what it’s

really like to be where you are, ravel around, meet people, and experience things.

Interest in the Value-Added

In addition to wanting an exciting experience, students also felt that if they
traveled abroad, they wanted to experience more than they would on campus. They
believed that the study abroad program should be more than just classroom and credits

overseas, they wanted to get out and experience the culture and apply their learning in a

187

real-world setting. Oscar explained that if his study abroad had been a “[college]
classroom transplanted into Egypt, that would not have been attractive” for him.
Similarly, John wanted to avoid “just only speak[ing] the language and only focus[ing]
on learning it instead of like getting the overall culture,” which he felt provided him with
“the full experience” of study abroad.

Jack felt that he would “be distracted almost by taking classes if [he] was to travel
somewhere.” He explained that we would have been more likely to go abroad “if there
were experiential programs that were more traveling and ﬁeld-based and not go and take
a class, or an intemship...I would want a balance between classes and having the free
time to explore and become accustomed with the culture.” George summarized a similar
sentiment; he felt that “if you’re spending all that money and going someplace else, you
don’t want to be in a classroom.” Eric also valued his out of class experiences:

Relative to the rest of the trip, I didn’t like study time in the classroom, because I

felt I was learning so much more outside of it. In the classroom, I wasn’t focused

at all. . .There are teachers from the university there teaching us, but it was still

[our university’s] students only, and still pretty much the same material that I

could get here, or be taught here. So if I’m going to go somewhere, I’d really like

to be in a classroom at a minimum.

Even Eli, who decided not to study abroad, articulated a need for learning outside
of the classroom during his internship. Although he spent part of his day in a classroom,
he also had speakers and practical application of his learning: “Every day we would go
out and we would essentially manage people’s campaigns, and we’d set up door-

knocking patterns, call-patterns, and go out and register voters.” When describing his

188

idea study abroad program, he—like other students—wanted a mixture of class time and
application: “Maybe half the program spent in an African university, and then you put
that knowledge to use by if you’re studying, like the environment, by going hiking after
you learn about the various shrubs and berries.”

Generally then, the males did value study abroad for experiential, cultural
learning about people and places exotic to the individual. This desire was prevalent
amongst all of the participants and most of the nonparticipants. As males described their
ideal programs, they spoke of seeing new places, normally not reachable by tourists or
individual travelers. They also sought programs that balanced academic time in a formal
classroom or learning environment with free-time to experience the culture. More than
just time outside of class, though, the males I interviewed discussed a need for
independence while abroad, the next theme for this section.

Theme 8: Independence, Please

When describing their ideal programs, both participants and nonparticipants
raised independence as an issue, and they connected this independence to a more
experiential format. For example, Jake felt that having an experiential program “would
have been a little more adapted to me because I'm more independent.” Andrew enjoyed
his program because of the balance between structured academics and free time. Oscar
was in a unique position, having gone on several different international experiences
during college. He expressed a similar interest in being more independent while
contrasting his two programs:

That’s probably one of the reasons I picked Egypt [for my second program]

because I was supposed to be the only student going, and I’d be by myself...The

189

most valuable experiences I had were traveling by myself in Egypt, ﬁnding the
little places by myself and not having a teacher show me that, so if there was a lot
of structure to it, I don’t know that I would have enjoyed that as much.

Matt also found his international internship more appealing that his other study abroad

program because he was “more independent” and “able to get away from the group.”
With similar sentiments, John connected the idea of independence to his program

format, which exceeded his expectations:
My expectation was it would be really structured. . .I was worried that like it was
going to be a chaperone at the head of the bus with a microphone like directing us
around to other parts of France, and there were parts like that when we went and
visited chateaus and places in France. That’s when we had like tour guides and
everything, we were acting as the tourist. . .But when we actually got time off by
ourselves, we could go shopping to the clubs, to the bars.

He then compared his program in France to one his ﬁiend participated on in Ireland:
For the pro gram in Ireland they are brought into a community and are not given
much direction. They are just sent, make a community project. Do something for
the community that is good, that they approve of, that you work together on, that
has a lasting impact, and then, bring your results back to us and we’ll talk about it
and then we’ll check up on it in a year or so and see how it turns out... I have to
be hands on about it, or I have to talk to people to get things accomplished, like I
can’t just stay in my house and ignore everyone and just do my school work.
John’s comments suggest that, for some students, the perception of study abroad

as overly structured was a negative one. Jason noted that the Ofﬁce of Study Abroad

190

needed to do a better job letting people know about the various formats; he thought that
“students may be thinking it’s just gonna be a lotta work, and not all study abroad
programs have to be sit in a lecture or sit in a classroom and get lectured.” Corey’s
statements mirrored Jason’s thoughts; he felt that the ofﬁce needed to communicate more
about the potential for travel. He believed that study abroad marketing should take a
different tact. In addition to talking about the program itself, John thought that the
university should also highlight opportunities for free time and personal travel.

In aggregate, these quotes suggest that the males interviewed for this study value
their autonomy and independence . This last quote ﬁrrther suggests that the males noted
differences between themselves and females on this issue. This idea connects back to the
literature about risk and safety, which suggests that males typically seek thrills and
adventure, and the literature about masculinity, which states that gender role norms cause
males to desire—or think they need—independence from others. As the next section
highlights, different perceptions of risk were not the only distinctions the males made
based on sex role. They also believed males seemed to want freedom, independence, and
spontaneous experiences and females wanted to have a more systematic, organized
program that ensured their safety.

Theme 9: Organized Safety vs. Spontaneous Experience

The themes of experiential learning and independence were strong throughout the
interviews, especially for Jack, who was determined to travel on his own because he
thought it would be cheaper than traveling with his university:

I’d honestly rather if I’m going to travel somewhere go on my own accord and

ﬁnd cheap deals when I want to go. I would easily rather go on my own...I’d be

191

more comfortable just kind of experiencing things and ﬁguring out stuff on my

own than having a preset program to what you’re going to do... I’m more of a

self-driven person so to have like a routine like that and have classes would just

be, I don’t know. I wouldn’t like it.
Jack did not connect his conﬁdence and independence directly to his sex or gender role,
but for Jack, the difference was clear. From his perspective, “Women go to the bathroom
together. Women sign in classes with their friends or study together. . .Most of the girls I
know went on study abroad with someone they knew while the guys I know when on
their own.” Frank believed that males are more independent than females, so they seek
out different types of programs and experiences. Jason shared a similar observation about
differences between the males and females with whom he interacted:

This is a chance that [women] can study — or they can leave the country, travel in

bigger groups. I’ve heard of — women usually don’t feel comfortable studying or

traveling more — not studying more, but traveling alone; and study abroad could

be a chance for them to study in larger groups; and they can feel safer.
As Jason discussed the differences between males and females, he related the differences
to their purpose for going abroad. Connecting their interests back to the discussion of
differences in communication patterns, he thought that females seem more interested in
the actual classes and learning than males. He told a story about how many males have
asked him to set up an international trip that mimicked study abroad because “they want
the same trips, but they don’t wanna take the courses.”

Another idea mentioned by about half of the males was the idea that males were

less likely to plan ahead, more “lazy” or “unorganized,” than females, which may relate

192

to why males are less likely to sign up for the study abroad or perceived as less
academically adventuresome. Jake admitted that he almost did not get to go on his
program because he signed up late because he was busy with “other stuf .” For Taylor,
his planning was also side-tracked because he seemed to lose track of time during his
college career:

I wanted to go abroad, and the largest roadblock I had was my GPA was too low

when I was a freshman, so I didn’t qualify for the business study abroad. After

that, the roadblock I had was just ﬁnances. It was going to be a little bit more
expensive, and I just didn’t want to pay the money. Now I do kind of regret it
being a senior.
Will expressed similar regrets in hind-sight: “If I had to do it again, I would try maybe try
to plan it out better so I could go.”

Some males compared their experiences to females they knew. For example, Eli
related his experience with international travel in high school in relationship to his
younger sister:

She, as a freshman in high school, pinpointed, ‘I want to go to France; I want to

go to France with the program,’ and she was going to go...Going to Spain never

intrigued me, and I wasn’t competent in my Spanish skills, but I don’t think she’s
as competent in French skills. We’re in the same boat, so just looking at that, my

sister and I same environment, one would think that given her sheltered status, I

would be the one more likely to reach out— the whole family was shocked.

This difference continued into college:

193

Now, I want to go to Israel, but she really wants to go to Israel. . .There’s a
Birthright trip, and if you’ve never been to Israel, there’s some shady Jewish
organization sends you there for free, and I’ve applied twice and I’ve been
accepted. I’ve just kept pushing it back because I’m not ready to do it, or I don’t
want to do it, or there’s something important — something important does come
up. And she’s — she’s much more anxious to get out, which is just so — so not in
keeping with her style. I’m the one that likes to go to cities on trips; she’s the one
that likes to go and lay at the pool at the hotel, not even the beach.
Eli’s comparison ended with his admission, “1 never went to the study abroad fair. I
always meant to, but I’m lazy, things came up.”
For Eric, the challenges were not so much about timing, but the extra planning
and effort that comes from certain study abroad programs:
I think guys are lazier, maybe that’s the problem. It takes a lot of effort to do
study abroad, especially in like, developing areas, because you have to go to Olin
— I mean, I know I was stressed out from all the stuff I had to do, and I mean, I
don’t usually have to do all that kind of stuff to go somewhere.
As this quote implies, about half of the males admitted their own problems with planning,
and many males mentioned planning and ambition as a major difference between males
and females they knew. Speaking of himself and other males, Greg stated that:
Most of the guys in college kind of wing it a lot more than the girls. For example,
in my case looking back one of the things that would have deﬁnitely helped to get
me abroad is if I had come in and had my plan and stuck to it: this is when I'm

going to do this and make sure that I kind of set myself up ﬁ'om an early point.

194

Then, comparing himself to females, he went on to say that:

For women they’re more likely to actually come and say, ‘This is what I'm

interested in, this is what I want to do while I'm here, how do I do it,’ and have it

set at an earlier point. I've got two friends who are in study abroad and both are
girls and I think one had her eye on the program since at least a year before she
went and the other knew basically which program she was going to go in before
she was even admitted to the college. So I think that might have a part to do with
it as opposed to most of my guy friends who are like ‘I'll get a free summer and
this is something Iwant to do so let’s do it.’

In addition to being indifferent or lazy, the males also classiﬁed themselves and
their friends as complacent. Bill felt that “men are a little less receptive to change than
women.” Kenny continued on this theme of male willingness to change when saying that
“women are more open-minded maybe. They are more willing to experience things; and
guys might just kinda like stuff the way they are like they’re a ‘big dog here,’ so they’ll
just stay here.” He felt that males had many advantages to being on campus—such as
ﬁiends, work, and sporting activities, and he theorized that females might go away to
seek out interests unique to them.

For David, Ian, Taylor and Eli—all nonparticipants—going on study abroad was
not something they wanted to do because they did not want to leave the university setting
for various reasons. David said:

If I was a little bit more adventurous — I think my personality type has something

to do with why I didn’t go on a study abroad. I mean —cause [men] are more

narrow minded. . .You get comfortable where you’re at. You’re thinking about —

195

you know, for a lot of guys like me, ‘l’ve got all these different activities going on
in my life. I’ve got schoolwork keeping me busy, I’ve got my job, I’ve got my
family at home’
Ian agreed with David, stating that he enjoyed college too much to leave for a semester:
I really liked where I had moved to and what I was doing here, so it's just kind of
like I had found something that I liked and I just kind of wanted to experience it
here, not leave. It was more or less like I kinda had settled in here, and I really
liked where I was so I didn't wanna necessarily change that right away. I mean
now that I've been here for ﬁve years it's, it's kind of a little different, but since
I'm graduating in a semester it's kind of too late for that.
Taylor felt pressured to stay by his fraternity ﬁiends and duties, and ﬁnally, Eli shared his
rationale:
The ﬁrst two years I didn’t want to do it because I — the programs I was looking at
were — I didn’t want to miss college football season, which is just embarrassing...
I knew I didn’t want to take a semester off school, cause this is where my home
is. I only get four years here, and I’ve had such a great time here that I didn’t want
to leave my friends. I didn’t want to lose that connection.
In many cases, the nonparticipants found other reasons not to go abroad, and as these
quotes suggest, although peer relationships can be a powerful inﬂuence toward
participation, they can also be an obstacle opposing participation for some males.
During his interview, Corey was surprised by the fact that fewer males study
abroad, as were many of the other students. As the conversation progressed, he

continually tried to sort out some ideas to explain the difference:

196

I don’t know if you’ve ever read — I've read this book called Wild Heart and it’s
just this book about men being controlled by American Christian society, and
we’re expected to be these obedient, strong blah, blah men. It’s just the way our
society has molded us to be and after reading that in my opinion men would be
more likely to study abroad. Men in my opinion are more adventurous, want to do
more, want to see more, and after reading this book, that’s how I feel.
Needing some form of a rationale, Corey defaulted to a comment that Eli would have
appreciated: “I think die hard football fans aren’t going to want to miss their season.”
Embedded in the discussion about males’ complacency is the idea that males may
consider study abroad later in their academic career, and many of the other males
discussed this point directly. For example, Matt thought that “It didn’t seem like it was
possible right after freshman year. It wasn’t really until my sophomore year that I started
really considering it, because I saw some of my ﬁiends were gonna do it.” Jason related a
similar experience based on his observations and conversations with male ﬁrst-year
students during study abroad recruitment events: “They’ll happen to talk to the Study
Abroad table, and they’ll say something derogative about study abroad—relating it to gay
men or something like that, something that’s silly. After trying to talk to ‘em, they’ll just
kinda shrug it off.” These comments reiterate similar ideas made by students during the
pilot study, which suggested that younger males—~those coming right from high school—
do not see a value in or understand the value of studying abroad.
Based on these ﬁndings, I went back to the quantitative data and performed two
additional analyses. First, I compared males and females in relationship to the year in

school during which they ﬁrst traveled abroad. Using an ANOVA analysis, a signiﬁcant

197

 

difference between the means for males and females existed at the .025 level, with
females tending to study abroad mid-way between their sophomore year (2.58) and males
studying abroad a bit later, closer to their junior year (2.80). This ﬁnding supports the
idea that males might study abroad later than females (see Table Ml, p. 303).

I also conducted a chi-square analysis for male and female participants and
nonparticipants based on their year in school. Although females showed no signiﬁcant
differences between the expected and observed values, males did show signiﬁcant
differences at the .000 level. This test suggests that males are underrepresented in the
_ participant group and overrepresented in the nonparticipant group during their ﬁrst two
years of colleges; however, they were overrepresented in the participant group during
their junior and senior year and underrepresented in the nonparticipant group during their
senior year (see Tables M2 and M3, pp. 303-305). Collectively, these ﬁndings suggest a
link between study abroad participation and development or age, with males not seeking
out study abroad options until later in their academic career. As I discuss in the next
section, this issue poses obstacles for males, as they often ﬁnd it more difﬁcult to ﬁnd
time for study abroad as they near graduation.

Concluding Points on Risk and Fun

The results from this third research question suggests that males seek dynamic,
experiential, and semi-independent experiences that provide them with ﬁrm, exciting
options not available to them through other means. It also suggests that males seek
independence, a status they associate with more experiential programs that have less
structure. Finally, these ﬁndings suggest several differences related to males and females,

which seem to be associated with gender role and identity issues. Despite these ﬁndings,

198

though, this section fails to illuminate issues related to Oscar’s second student
“archetype.”

Another major idea about study abroad relates to its value to students
academically, and although all these students all seemed to recognize the general value of
study abroad to them personally and all seemed to have an interest in traveling, they all
did not participate in study abroad. Some other factor appears to intervene as males make
their decisions to participate. The next research question looks at this issue by examining
students’ perspectives related to study abroad as academically and professionally
valuable to them.

Careerism and Success

Oscar’s statement about fun versus academics implied that some males might
value study abroad for reasons other than adventure. As noted in the section on peer
messages, many males seemed to recognize study abroad as a valuable learning
experience; however, they often framed the value only in terms of their cultural abilities.
Other students noted that the lack of clear academic messages actually served as a
disincentive to participate. In the previous section, I discussed issues related to males’
desire for thrills or adventure, and in this ﬁnal section, I discuss ﬁndings related to how
males associate study abroad with their academic and career learning.

As this section’s ﬁndings show, students who make the connection between study
abroad and their academics or career are more likely to go on study abroad and those who
see less connection tend to be nonparticipants. This general idea emerged from three
themes: ﬁrst, although almost all the males saw study abroad as fun or personally

fulﬁlling, most males also sought a connection to their major and career; second, even if

199

they connected study abroad to their major, some males tended to see study abroad as just
one of many beneﬁcial options to them; and when making decisions about participation,
all males tended to use a very pragmatic cost—beneﬁt analysis to make their decision.
Previous Research and Overview

The fourth research question, and the third pilot study ﬁnding, relates to the idea
from the study abroad and literature about males, which suggest that males are more
pragmatic in relationship to study abroad because they feel the need to graduate on time
and/or gain practical work experience that advances their careers, such as internships,
rather than spend time abroad. As the last section suggests, even males who seek out
adventure and fun want to couple their experience with some beneﬁt or learning, albeit
not necessarily formal classroom learning. Connected with the ideas related to both
parents and marketing messages, males may see less relationship or value between study
abroad and their academic major than females. In other words, they may not clearly see
how the activity will beneﬁt them professionally, so they are less interested in
investigating the options and/or less willing to accept the ﬁnancial and time costs
associated with their participation.

Based on the quantitative ﬁndings, males actually seemed less inﬂuenced by
programmatic features such as cost, timing, and duration and obstacles such as lost wages
than females; however, male participants were signiﬁcantly more likely to worry about
delay of graduation as an obstacle. As indicated under the ﬁrst qualitative research
questions, some male nonparticipants did discuss study abroad as a delay to their
obtaining a career and becoming self-sufﬁcient. A major idea related to this discussion of

male-careerism is that STEM majors are also less likely to study abroad. This idea,

200

connected to the discrepancy between the number of males and females in the STEM
ﬁelds, suggests that perhaps males’ major selection and not their sex is the primary
determinant on their feelings related to study abroad. Admittedly, science, engineering,
and other technical majors have a murkier beneﬁt and typically less time within their
curriculum to participate when compared with Spanish or history majors.

The analysis for this survey showed that although males did participate at a
signiﬁcantly lower rate than females, males were also slightly overrepresented in the
STEM majors group and very underrepresented in the liberal arts major group. With this
factor in mind then, perhaps, it was that males’ major decisions made delay of graduation
more of a reality for them, thus males rated this item more highly than females. To better
understand the issue of male career orientation, I interviewed males in diverse majors,
capturing both the STEM perspective and the liberal arts perspective. From this
technique, some themes emerged related to how males balance pragmatic variables, such
as time and money, with their other interests and obligations.

Theme 10: Value to Major and Career

As discussed in the previous sections, many males saw value in study abroad, and
they thought about study abroad as an activity that could help them have some ﬁm and
learn more about the world or themselves. Danny expressed this idea by saying that
“everyone should travel in general. It’s important to every human being’s development to
travel; it widens your variety 3 lot, your point of view on things.” Eric explained study
abroad’s value this way:

The best aspects of study abroad are probably encountering a different culture and

learning from meeting people who are human just like you, and realizing that —

201

that deep down, everyone has the same concerns pretty much, with living, or just

living, and you just get a — a perspective on how people live somewhere else.
These ideas focused on how study abroad could help students build their own capacities
and knowledge-base in terms of global, international, and intercultural issues. This idea
was pervasive amongst all the males, yet all the males did not study abroad.

After more discussion and review, though, the difference between participants and
nonparticipants seemed to be the students’ ability to connect this general sentiment to
study abroad’s value speciﬁcally in terms of their major or career interests. For example,
Oscar knew that he “was going to study abroad at some point.” He felt the chance to go
abroad was that “every student should study abroad because it’s integral to your life
experience to go some place other than your home, to go beyond your comfortable range
and to see the world from a different perspective,” but also an important part of his
“career and academic interests” as an international relations major.

As with Oscar, Chris framed the value of study abroad in terms of cultural
learning, but he also linked the value of this learning to his major ﬁeld of study: “It is
valuable, especially for someone in more of a social science ﬁeld. I don't think you can
truly judge a situation until you've seen it ﬁrsthand, and that's what study abroad does. It
lets you see other situations ﬁrsthand.” He continued on to say that study abroad also
ﬁrlﬁlled some personal interests, as well as helped him satisfy some degree requirements.

Andrew also connected his study abroad program with his major and especially
pursuit of French language, which is why he decided to study abroad:

My French had reached a level that it had kind of stagnated with English

professors teaching me, so I went to the ofﬁce of study abroad and found out what

202

programs there were available to learn the French language. . .I'm an International
relations major, and I think that so often people get entrenched in their own
viewpoints and being able to live with a French family really helped to expand
and let you see from other perspectives what's going on in the world. So while the
program I took part in was just a language program it helped a lot more than just
to learn the language.
The value to learn a language was a common theme amongst the males in two of
the three cohorts, as many of their majors required some language courses. John, a
French minor, valued study abroad for offering the “kind of experience you get learning
the language in France is not going to be the same here.” Matt, a communications and
French major, also indicated that he studied abroad for language ability:
I’m a French major, so I think going like — going to a French-speaking country
kinda goes hand-in-hand with it. I actually went to the Study Abroad fair, just
kinda looked at what programs they had in France and stuff, and I found the tour
program. . .It’s kind of like part of learning a language is being immersed in that,
and I guess more people in the French probably like do it in relation to French.
Some males valued going on study abroad for indirect beneﬁts related to their
major. Shaun wanted to study in Africa as a way of learning more about the region, even
if he didn’t get credit for the experience:
Since I’m in African studies it makes a whole lot of sense to study in Africa,
that’s a really important experience I think. To understand my studies, how that
ﬁts into potentially, what I want to do in the big picture... What was most

important for me was the experience and so, I mean, taking the classes, getting the

203

credit was good, but what was more meaningful to me was being able to go and

interact with people, ask questions, see what was different.

For Jack and Eric, the study abroad experience was valuable not in terms of their
actual degree program, but for their future career. Jack, a nonparticipant, discussed how
study abroad could help if someone was “studying something location speciﬁc.” Like
some of the other students, he noted that “being there is a large difference in contrast to
studying something, you know, as a way, way, outside observer.” Eric explained that: “I
plan on living and working abroad after graduation, so I thought it would be a great
experience for my résumé, but also to know what I’d be getting into, and plus I want to

o broaden my perspective.” Jason also associated his international activity with ﬁrture
career plans:

It’s better to know how to communicate, how to work with — how to get over your

own ideas that have formed here as an American, that’s why I think it’s important.

I’m in an opportunity where I can be working internationally; and if I don’t know

how to get outta my own comfort zone, then I don’t know I’d ever be able to be

successful. Since my major is bio-systems engineering and I’m specializing in
international agriculture, I’ve decided somewhere in my career that I’d like to do
the Peace Corps.

Corey linked study abroad not so much to his major or career interest, but rather
to his passion for the subject-matter within this degree program and how it connected to
his personal life. He intertwined his personal interest in travel with his history major:

As a history major and stuff you learn that history is normally presented through

one point of view, normally the dominant force or the conquering force and I

204

think as Americans that we look at life through American eyes. We look at it

through what we’ve been taught here. . .The world looks in at us as Americans too

and kind of, ‘Oh Americans,’ and that sort of thing, but when you travel and stuff
and you meet people on a personal level it’s easier to see like, ‘Oh you’re not so
different than me. You’re the same person as me.’ Yeah, our governments have
ﬂaws, yeah our governments do rape. . .As Americans, we kind of focus on

ourselves and not necessarily how the rest of the world is run. So both, I mean, I

think for my major less. I think I did it more for myself than for my major.

Most participants talked about study abroad this way, as a blending of their personal
interests and their academic or career interests. They discussed study abroad as a way to
prepare themselves for their ﬁrture careers and/or augment their majors and they tended
to connect the cultural learning gained from study abroad to their major or career interest.
Of course, not all the conversations focused solely on personal learning for the sake of
learning.

In addition to helping directly with the career or major interests, about half of the
students, mostly nonparticipants, framed study abroad’s value more as a way to build a
résumé. For example, for George study abroad was mostly about building his résumé:
“You deﬁnitely get the message and impression that it looks good to employers or
graduate schools, just because you have like experience more in different cultures.” Sam,
who considered but did not actually study abroad, said:

I became interested in study abroad basically from the fact that I knew I needed, it

sounds kind of horrible, but it needs to be there for our résumé building tool and

for that experience. Study abroad is something that you can only get, obviously

205

from leaving this country and experiencing that, so I heard about it mostly and it

was promoted to me especially by advisors as a way to increase your résumé,

make you more diverse, which is important as I already stated.
Will put it in similar terms:

It would be a great experience, one just for the simple fact that it’s put on your
résumé because a lot of employers do love that. So I mean, just like that
experience of going abroad because like a lot of companies you know, expand
overseas and then if you know something about a different culture, that’s
huge. . .Obviously, I could go abroad and experience that because I mean, that’s
pretty big to keep like well-rounded education because well all, all the undergrads
have to take humanities class.

Although not himself primarily motivated by resume-building, Matt recognized
that the résumé was a large motivator for some students who might assume study abroad
is only about taking classes:

When I told a guy here that I was doing this internship in France; and he was like,

‘I know that’s unpaid; but you really don’t know when you can put that on a
résumé. That’s just like — it is just like that would jump off the page of a résumé.
You have no idea. An internship is like worth its weight in gold.’ So — and I don’t
think a lotta people know that international experience counts so much—weights
your résumé. They maybe look at it more as like, ‘Oh, you know, get a couple
credits and have fun for a couple thousand.’

These quotes suggest that although some males did not associate study abroad

with career skills directly, they did see it as a way to build their résumés; however, as the

206

subsequent section suggests, study abroad as a resume-builder alone was insufﬁcient
rationale to motivate participation. Nonparticipants, speciﬁcally the STEM students,
viewed study abroad as only one way to build the résumé. Although they acknowledged
the value of study abroad, they did not see it as a necessity.

In the end, nearly all of the nonparticipants and a few of the participants discussed
the value of study abroad as dependent on the person and the person’s interests. In other
words, study abroad’s value was relative to the individual. Greg exempliﬁed this
sentiment:

I would deﬁnitely say that it’s worthwhile. It’s something that personally enriches

you a lot, but I haven’t seen—and my major is international relations, so

obviously it would help my résume' to get abroad—but as far as like academically

I haven’t seen a whole lot of advantages to it. . .So I didn’t see it entirely as

something like on my must list.

Greg explained that ,in terms of his priorities, “Once I got to college it was get your GPA,
do your work experience, if you can go abroad, go abroad.” Danny, who participated,
distinguished the value of study abroad based on roles: “As a person, I think I beneﬁtted
a great deal; as an engineer, probably not whatsoever. I think they need to do more
research into their program. But study abroad in general I’d recommend for anybody.”

Will, a nonparticipant, echoed Danny’s comments, linking his rationale to not
going to both the costs associated with his involvement and other priorities related to his
major:

I actually didn’t even take a summer class and consequently I’m taking ﬁve years,

but I’ve got two internship experiences right now. Employers also like for

207

engineering and like if you are going to go to grad school, they want to see

research, like not just necessarily study abroad. Unless if I could have found a

study abroad program related to engineering, I would have done engineering

research abroad, then that would have been something I would consider very
carefully.

As Will’s cements suggest, many males weighted the study abroad option’s
value against other needs and interests in their lives. For Will, his major, marching band,
and the need to work interfered with study abroad. As Greg discussed, his involvement
with ROTC hindered his ability to travel. John explained the major connection this way:
“Math is the same whether you are in Tokyo, or whether you’re here. You can get the
same textbooks. You can read the same kind of literature so what advantage is there to
going elsewhere?”

Hence, many nonparticipants see a value in study abroad, yet they choose not to
participate because of other factors. For some, like Eli, other opportunities domestically
attracted their attention. Eli explained about this decision to go to Portland, Oregon:

There was a couple of law schools I was considering out there, so I could see if I

liked it out there. You never —- I’ve spent ~— grew up in Grand Rapids, gone to

school in Lansing for four years, so I’ve never really been on my own, so I was on
my own for three months in Portland, not knowing a single person. . .It was just

the right opportunity and the right time. They were paying me to learn stuff, so I

was happy. That was the ﬁnal argument. After sophomore year, I said, ‘Well, I’m

traveling. I’d rather just do a ﬁeld experience and so something hands on because

I want to go into American politics.’

208

Other nonparticipants, such as Sam, faced time and ﬁnancial obstacles that did not
outweigh the beneﬁts of going abroad:
It’s very important to do things, even if it’s not for a moral reason, to do it for a
professional, career building, because today, in the global economy, it’s essential
that students have global experience, that students are culturally diverse. . .If
money wasn’t an obstacle I would have already gone on four programs by now.
The threat of delayed graduation was another common concern mentioned by the
males. Bill related his decision not to study abroad to his transfer student status, which
caused him to be behind in terms of his credits and requirements. He did not want to take
an extra semester to study abroad—even though he acknowledged its value. Ian had
similar concern with moving forward:
I knew what my goals were. I'm trying to graduate you know with an engineering
degree, so I thought it would probably be better just to kind of push through and
just knock that out rather than traveling abroad or something like that. I'm sure I
would have enjoyed it because I like traveling, but it's something I probably
wouldn't have been able to accumulate the same amount of credits as I would
have if I had stayed here but I don't know that for certain.
Jason indicated that his college, engineering, generally supports study abroad, but does
not put the emphasis on it over activities: “a lotta times I’ve heard ‘em — some of the
upper division students talk about how it’s not necessarily a good idea for an engineering
student because of the fact that they’re gonna be pushing their graduation back.”
The rationales varied from student to student, yet the common theme running

throughout the interviews was that each individual makes a personal decision concerning

209

how the program relates (or fails to relate) to their degree. That is, each student seemed to
evaluate the extent to which the program was valued and needed or unnecessary.
Obviously, students’ interests and majors played a large role in the volunteers’ decision-
making, with males wanting to work abroad or to study culture and social issues more
readily making a connection than those students pursuing science.

Earlier in the discussion of these interviews, I mentioned Oscar’s observation
about the motivational difference between males seeking fun and vacation versus those
who think about study abroad as personally or professionally valuable. Sam made a
similar comment related to the value of study abroad. According to Sam, males come to
college feeling “that it won’t be beneﬁcial to them,” which is “a different mindset than
somebody that has made that choice coming in.” The next section looks at the unifying
theme between these two groups of males: pragmatism.

Theme 11: The Pragmatic Mindset

All the participants and nonparticipants viewed study abroad programs as
valuable experiences, but the manner and degree to which they viewed them as valuable
tended to relate to their major and/or career interests. The participants often noted a
clearer relationship to their degree or career interests than nonparticipants. For example,
Andrew and other language students noted that they traveled abroad to improve their
language abilities. Other students sought credit toward their degree, as Jason indicated
when I asked if he would have studied in Germany if he would not have gotten
engineering credit: “Probably not at that time. No, I wanted credit for my engineering
degree. I would love to be able to go on a program and just for the experience alone, but

I’m here at MSU for earning my degree.”

210

Many students focused on the need to get required credit for the experience. Matt,
a participant, associated the value of study abroad with getting some required credit:

I wouldn’t have done it for empty credits. I woulda done it for like [general

education courses] or whatever. I would’ve looked into one of those programs,

too, so it wouldn’t have to be speciﬁcally to my major. Because it’s like you

usually get between like 8 and 12 credits, and like that’s a lot to go for just one

summer. I wouldn’t take a whole semester of classes that were not required.
Danny also wanted credit, stating that he went abroad “to knockout some classes that I
had that were pretty easy.” When asked if he still would have gone abroad if the program
he selected offered no required courses, he admitted “at the time, no. . .now, yes.” Only
after his time abroad did Danny see the value of “being able to explore culture.”

The need to have the experience “count” or “provide a value” surfaced amongst
almost all of the males. Even Eric, who was not originally interested in study abroad,
started thinking about study abroad when he decided to change his major:

I found a social science major in international studies, so I changed to that next.

My decision to go abroad was pretty much in line with my mindset when I was

changing my major. I developed the need to go abroad, and it coincided with what

I wanted to do with my study and my postgraduate life.

For some participants, study abroad was not necessarily about the actual credit,
but rather as a valuable experience related to the major. Oscar felt that study abroad gave
him creditability as an international relations student:

You can talk about it as much as you want in the classrooms, read as much as you

want, but until you have actually traveled abroad, like had ﬁrst hand encounters

211

with other cultures, you’re just talking about it in an abstract way. That was very

valuable for me to internalize the experiences and to add that to my knowledge; I

mean to authenticate what I’ve seen in books.
As this quote suggests, credit toward the degree was one of several types of values
important to the males. Chris wanted some credit related to his major in international
relations, and he wanted this credit from a program located in Africa:

I wanted to go on a program that was interesting and related to my major. I was

really dedicated to going — really adamant about going to Africa some time. I

thought it was best to go now when I had the opportunity, as opposed to later

when I didn’t know if I’d have the opportunity or not.
When one of the two classes he needed was dropped ﬁom the program, he still wanted
the experience: “I was really upset because I was very adamant about going.” Chris was
willing to take a class as a substitute that did not count toward his degree, but when I
asked if he would have gone on the program if none of the courses would have counted
toward his major, Chris stated that he did not “think so. [He] had to get some beneﬁt.
[He] couldn’t spend that amount of money and not get any — because if [he] just went by
[him] self, then it would be a lot lower cost. The price of that tuition was a cost that [he]
had to gain from” by taking a class for graduation.

Even though Kenny said he would have gone on study abroad regardless of his
major, he talked about the value to him in terms of his career twice:

I would probably have gone anyway; but I think that if it’s relevant to your

degree, it’s deﬁnitely more advantageous or more likable. . .You’re just able to

experience something that’s completely different from what you’re used to. And,

212

also, it — since you’re taking classes, it’s kind of a good way to show employers or

prospective employers that you can handle, adapt into a situation or work in an

environment that you might be uncomfortable with or is new to you.
Along similar lines, George was willing to go abroad for a subject outside his major, but
he still wished he could get needed credit:

For me speciﬁcally it would be one that had either courses required or courses

that could take the place of physiology credits. . .The other thing that stopped me

from doing a whole semester somewhere because I didn’t really want to take a

whole semester off and then not get all the classes I would need. I was able to go

[on my short-term program] and come back and still work at a hospital, which I

needed to do in order to put that on my med school application.

George’s quote suggested that time is also a factor for some males, a variable mentioned
by Shaun when he explained why he did not go on semester-long program: “I couldn’t
during the regular school year; I can’t really take the time off. That is, if I want to
graduate in four years, which hopefully I will. It was mostly time, not money.”

John, who went abroad for his French minor and family interests, admitted that “if
Spanish was my minor I would have gone to Spain. If English was my minor and biology
was my major I would have gone to England or I would have done something with
biology.” Despite his strong interest in France for family reasons, John stated that he
would have went there “sooner or later,” but he would have gone on his own. His
comments show that even males with clear personal interests in study abroad still select

programs that could relate some credit or outcome they desire.

213

Just as participants like John wanted a value, nonparticipants also sought out
value related to credit and their major or career; however, they often used their degree
program as a rationale for not participating. Will and Frank highlighted the lack of
availability of higher-level classes as a major obstacle. Will suggested that study abroad
should “make classes more available so when students want to head out, maybe like just
co—oping, they don’t have to like prolong the graduation two years.” He believed that the
highly sequential nature of his curriculum and the lack of course offerings limited his
choices. Frank agreed, and referring to study abroad, he stated that “a lot of them they got
for either, like general education or maybe one or two really low level engineering
courses. . .I guess that would be the where the ability to take like upper level chemical
engineering courses would have helped.”

This concern was typical among the STEM students, but not only of the STEM
students, as Taylor expressed with his thoughts:

If there were core classes that — like let’s say right now I'm in Econ 420. If they

had classes like that abroad then I would have done it this semester or either next

semester. But the classes they did have, they were a little bit different and it
seemed like they wouldn’t transfer. . .If they were more ﬂexible on the courses
they offered I think that would have helped
Taylor went on to discuss this issue in terms of his academic level. As a senior about to
graduate, he felt that his needs differed from what study abroad could offer:

I'm focused on my major and I need to get certain classes out of the way. Right

now I don’t have a lot of options in the classes I need to take; they’re pretty much

planned out for me. So it’s not really feasible for me to go abroad right now

214

where as far as a freshman, ﬁrst of all I wasn’t even an econ major so I could have

gotten some of the core classes out of the way. There were just a lot of other

things, more ﬂexibility when you’re younger.

For most nonparticipants then, given limited time to graduate and ﬁnancial
resources, study abroad was just not as important as other aspects of their academics.
Their decision-making was not necessarily due to a lack of interested, though. Will
wanted to do a study abroad:

Being an engineering major, I’m more interested in getting internship experience

and it won’t be necessarily abroad... But other than like deﬁnitely get an

internship, because that’s again, what I am looking for this year and that’s like my
whole number one priority. I would like go abroad and spend a whole summer,

10 weeks, of learning about the culture and learn about how different cultures do

different scientiﬁc work and research.

For Greg, other priorities came up related to ROTC, something he planned to pursue as a
career. Due to these other commitments, he lacked time to go abroad:

I'm also in Army ROTC, and I would have like to have done an international
internship last summer but last minute they had a training opportunity that came
up that they really wanted me to take so I ended up doing that instead of pursuing
an internship or something along those lines and then I've gone this summer again
with them and because our training takes place during the school year I can’t do it
during the school year.

Often, the issue of time related to the students’ desire to graduate and get a job.

Ian felt that graduating with his engineering degree, getting a good job, and paying off his

215

. {- J-i‘ ‘rr

loans was more essential than study abroad. Kenny had similar feelings, but his advanced
placement credit (AP) and summer coursework gave him the time to go:
The engineering program is pretty difﬁcult to get through in four years. You have
to take four or eight really intense semesters. I came in with more than a
semester’s worth of credit, and I’ve taken summer school ever since I’ve been
here. So I think that put me ahead enough that I was able to spend time abroad, L
but I’d say that the majority of engineers are just focused on being able to get ’

through all their core classes.

 

For David, money and time were also issues:
I didn’t want to pay for the trip and then be gone from work all at the same time,
even though — I’m sure it would be a wonderful opportunity, but for me it never
really ﬁt in. . .I did my internship in that kind of -— and my internship was the same
time as one of the trips, and so it just kind of didn’t work out.
These quotes by David and others echoed the theme that even though the males found
study abroad as valuable, they did not necessarily see it as the most essential activity for
them to pursue. Other students had a clear reason to and interest in going abroad, but they
faced pragmatic obstacles such as time and money. For example, Jack said “I’ve got a lot
of friends that have done it and for me it just seems like the costs would be too much.”
He went on to recommend that “if you’re going to study abroad, make it practical and
applicable to your other learning. Being worldly is great, but not at that cost.”
Other students, though, ﬁgured out a way to make it work, given enough desire.
For example, Andrew could not afford to take classes or time in the summer because he

needed to work to pay for school, yet he managed to go abroad:

216

More often than not it's that you can't ﬁnancially or you can't ﬁt it in somewhere.
Money was deﬁnitely an issue. I had spent the summers working to help pay
tuition and bills, and in previous years, I had to go out and ﬁnd a job here during
school, which I typically don’t like doing because I need to focus on schoolwork
and whatnot. So I worked that spring and fall before the summer I went.
Hence, regardless of how the males placed study abroad amongst the many priorities and
activities competing for their attention, they clearly made their decisions based on a
pragmatic value. Some males saw a clear need and connection to their degrees; others
viewed it as an add-on activity that did not warrant the time away or the ﬁnancial cost.
The way males worked through this decision-making process seemed inﬂuenced by their
perceptions of study abroad and their speciﬁc situations. A ﬁnal comment by Greg
summarized these ideas:
A lot of it has to do with in high school I got good grades, and it’s like it would be
a waste of these good grades if I didn’t get into a good college. Once I got into a
good college it’s like it would kind of be a waste to be at this good college if I
didn’t get a good job to go with it. For me, I'd have to see some beneﬁt to me
down the road because you’re paying, paying tuition while you’re abroad.
Theme 12: Intra- and Inter-Group Differences
As with the other research questions, the males’ statements indicated differences
that existed between groups of males and between males and females. As ﬁrst suggested
by Oscar, males seemed to divide themselves into two groups: those with a clear value
and interest in study abroad for cultural reasons and those without clear reasons or

motivations. For about two-thirds of the males, the primary difference between these

217

 

 

groups related to majors because, as John explains, some majors lack a clear connection
to international content: “For math, there’s probably not that many study abroad
programs. Whereas, like for French, English, language, the liberal arts, I know there are
more study abroad programs.”

Jake agreed with John, which he indicated when he discussed his thoughts on why
males are not participating:

A ﬁeld like engineering it's all about you know getting your internships, getting a

foot in the door. . .Engineering is more about the sciences and math ...The social

sciences more lend themselves to exploring all cultures and even if they don't
explore things culturally a lot of times economics focuses internationally.

Beyond the cursory statement about major, though, John, Jake, and other
respondents tended to frame the issue in terms of sex and gender roles more than in terms
of the major itself. For example, Jake connected his statements about engineers to the fact
that many engineers are males. Matt, although he talks about major explicitly, also
framed the study abroad participation issue in terms of gender: “It’s like stereotypically
more feminine, and I’d say as far as like the arts and cultures and stuff like that I think
there’s more women who would think about being involved in that type of stuff.”

Often feeling embarrassed or qualifying their remarks, about half of the males
connected their comments about major to traditional gender roles. Taylor, who did not
“like to stereo-type,” spoke from his experience that:

For the most part, a lot of women that I know are either in teaching, retailing,

basically a little bit more generalized majors whereas a lot of the guys I know are

in business, economics, engineering, a little more specialized. Generally with their

218

majors it seems a little bit more important to go abroad and to get more of that
experience than it is for us where the academics are more important.
This statement echoed Gore’s ﬁndings (2005), as did Jason, who said:
Engineering’s also traditionally a ﬁeld of men. . .They don’t think they could ﬁt it
in, whether they take summer classes or not... I would maybe think for women, if
they’re in — since their ﬁelds are the ones that they traditionally dominate are like
nursing or education; there’s a lot of programs geared towards those majors.
Males also raised other gender-related differences related to participation. John
suggested “that women are more willing to kind of go into another culture and experience
it and look at it from a more humanistic standpoint than what they are just going to get
out of it explicitly. Like, in terms of like base-knowledge.” This comment again raised
the issue of pragmatism, with males being more pragmatic and wanting something from
the experience and females being more willing to just have the experience. Bill’s
comment supports this idea when speaking of males in relationship to females he knew:
They see things in terms of almost like economic terms. What's the return on me
going to Thailand? They're like, ‘Yeah, I guess that would be maybe interesting
but I could graduate in four years, get a job, start making money, yadda, yadda,
yadda,’. .. Women see sort of a more intrinsic value in going out there than men
do.. It's like something has to have practical use versus just being good.
In the context of comparing males to females or when just talking about males in their
lives, the interview volunteers continued to discuss the issue of males as being goal-
orientated, career-focused, and pragmatic. They linked this interest to priorities for

activities other than study abroad.

219

 

George stated that he did not know any females with long-term career goals, but
speaking of his male ﬁiends: “my roommate, he’s already inteming for accounting
internships and another one’s like just starting to talk with ﬁrms. I know another guy who
already has a few job offers and he hasn’t even graduated yet.” Corey noted similar
behaviors amongst his peer group, talking about his business-major roommates, he said:
“They’re very driven to make money, to be successful, and they had it regimented out. ‘I
need to do this, I need to get this grade, I need this class next semester to graduate,’ and

neither of them have studied abroad.” He contrasted these males with himself:

”‘15.; :n‘iri—r
.i

Of course I want to go out and make money, but I don’t want to do it when I'm 21
years old. Yes I'm adult, yes I have responsibility, but at the same time I don’t
want to go out and sit in an ofﬁce at 21 and go, ‘Well this is what I'm going to do
for the rest of my life,’ and not have any of that experience, not have any of those
options, not have any of those connections that I made during traveling or study
abroad that they don’t have and I look at that as another opportunity.

Speaking of the value of study abroad, he explained that:

You meet people, you make connections, you realize that college isn’t about
getting through to get a job. You realize there are tons of opportunities out there,
there are tons of ways to make a living, and I think people who are more
structured and more either money driven or academically driven don’t look at
study abroad as an option.

Concluding Thoughts

I ﬁrst noted the perceived differences between males and females and amongst

 

male participants and nonparticipants during my ﬁrst interview, and as I have referred to

220

Oscar’s comments throughout this chapter, it seems ﬁtting to end with some thoughts
related to his observations. Oscar suggested that some males do not see the value in
international study because they think of study abroad “as cultural exchanges, as the ﬂuff
of education.” He felt that many males view study abroad as non-essential skills:

You’re not learning your methods class or calculus abroad. Those are things that

you have to have for your career and [study abroad] is maybe the liberal arts part

of your education. I think that traditionally women have been pigeonholed or

pushed towards the softer cultural, not as hard science, classes and careers.
In his interview, Oscar alluded to Gore’s (2005) statements about the feminized messages
and values of study abroad and what Kimmel (2008) would call the “guy code.”
Although his observations are slightly more complex than either of these studies alone,
they have provided an interesting lens through which to consider the interview data.

Based on this data, males clearly seek a pragmatic value in relationship to their
study abroad decision. By viewing study abroad as one of many activities, the males I
interviewed discussed it as something that could be important to them depending on their
situation, and when considering their unique situations, each male seemed to weigh the
pros and cons of participation against competing needs and interests. Although majors
serve as an important variable shaping this decision process, major alone does not seem
to be the only inﬂuence. Rather, males seem to consider variables such as value to their
career, time, money, major and classes, as well as personal interests in a complex matrix.

Conclusions
The second, qualitative phase of this study provided important depth and insights

about the issue of male participation in study abroad (see Table 2, p. 223). For example,

221

 

this chapter suggests that parents are quite involved in their sons’ decision to participate
and are worried about their sons’ safety; however, it also implies that young males will
move ahead with their plans in the face of opposition or support from parents. Similarly,
this chapter indicates that academic majors are important inﬂuences on study abroad
participation, but perhaps not as important as the individual males’ situations and
dispositions. When starting this study, I thought my ﬁndings might lead to a clear idea or
set of principles that could address my research question, but these ﬁndings have
suggested no quick, easy answers. Instead, this study has begun to highlight complex
interactions between variables. I explore these ideas more holistically in the next and
ﬁnal chapter.

In Chapter 6, I pull all of the themes and data together in an attempt to describe
male decision-making processes relating to this study. Through this discussion, I seek to
both better outline and to move forward scholarly discussions about the issue of study
abroad participation. As part of this chapter, I present ﬁve “big ideas” related to study
abroad participation that emerged from this study. I also discuss recommendations for

action and for future researchers interested in the issue of male engagement.

222

Table 2: Summary of Qualitative Findings

 

Category

Theme

 

 

Family
background
and support

Peer and
institutional
messages

Fun and
adventure

Career-focus
and value

1.

10.

ll.

12.

SES does not seem to inﬂuence interest or positive support, but
previous international travel or interaction increases the interest
and motivation to study abroad.

Parental support often relates to safety and is often cost neutral:
students can go if they pay for it themselves. Parental travel
experience seems to increase parental support.

Parental support is sometimes not sought out due to males’
assumptions about their family obligations and duties.

Males have a generally positive, broad concept of study abroad,
but they lack depth and accuracy.

Males report that study abroad marketing and peer messages
highlight the fun and culture, but lack clear messages about the
academics.

Males seem to value, but report having less, information about
study abroad from other males.

Males view study abroad as an opportunity to have an adventure
and/or do something they could not do at home or on their own.
Males express concern that study abroad might be too structured
or too classroom-focused, and they value having independence
and ﬁeld experiences while abroad.

Males often describe themselves as lazy or less structured when
compared to females.

Males recognized the value of fun, but felt that having fun alone
was not enough to go abroad, they also wanted to receive a
career/academic beneﬁt.

Males recognized that study abroad was valuable, but weighted
their assessment of its value against other competing needs.
Males note differences amongst themselves and when compared
to females, often based on gender role stereotypes.

 

223

 

Chapter 6: Analysis and Implications
In this ﬁnal chapter, I summarize the ﬁndings ﬁ'om Chapters Four and Five and
present ideas about how males seem to work through the decision to participate in study
abroad. Second, I analyze some of the major themes that resulted from my study based on
my literature review. As part of this discussion, I present a model for male study abroad
participation in the context of my original conceptual framework involving dispositional,
motivation, informational, and programmatic variables. Third, I offer recommendations
for action and practice based on my analysis, and I conclude with some ﬁnal comments
about the value and limitations of this study and how future research efforts could build
on this study.
Summary of the Findings
This section provides a summary of the overall ﬁndings from this dissertation. I
present each main concept by numeric point, with the core idea in italics for easy review.
The subsequent sections of this chapter look at the interactions between these nine ideas.
1. Males were interested in international travel, and they travelled in a variety of
capacities including vacations with friends, family travel, extra-curricular
involvements, religious interests, and academics both before and during
college. At the institution studied for this project, the males were aware that
study abroad exists as an option for them, and they generally considered study
abroad to involve taking classes abroad with a faculty member overseas or
enrolling at a foreign university. Furthermore, they knew that study abroad is

a common, typically respected, activity at the institution that is encouraged by

224

faculty members, staff, and administrative ofﬁces, who the males viewed as
helpful and supportive.

In terms of its value, males realized that study abroad would provide them
with an opportunity to have fun, learn about other cultures, and often a way to
augment their résumé; however, these factors alone were not always enough
motivation to study abroad. When making the decision to study abroad, males
wanted an experience that could help them achieve their academic and/or
career goals. For some males, having fun, cultural learning, and resume-
building were not important enough reasons to study abroad given other
constraints, which included time away from home, family and ﬁiends; lost
wages and opportunities to work; conﬂicts with other—more important—
activities such as research and internships; and delayed graduation.

Males reported less support and/or encouragement from individuals in their
lives when compared to females, and they reported receiving less information
about study abroad from other males when compared to females. Male
students seemed to associate with people of like-minds, so for nonparticipants,
peer messages related to study abroad were limited. Related to their parents,
males who wanted to travel to exotic locations faced more questions about
safety, but males generally considered parents’ support as somewhat neutral—
supportive of going but not necessarily pushing or paying for them to go.
Males expressed limited knowledge about study abroad opportunities, which
seemed to limit their interest or pursuit of diverse options that would more

eﬁ’ectively match their interests. Some males conceptualized study abroad in

225

 

 

limited ways: either thinking about it as purely about fun and not worth doing
through an organized school program (when they could travel independently
with friends) or as purely about academics and not valuable to them (when
they could pursue as other professional opportunities such as internships).
Participants balanced between these two extremes, but most nonparticipants
tended to accept one of these ideas, especially the second one.

Males did not respond well to general study abroad marketing messages and
found them lacking in depth related to academics and the experiential aspects
that most interest them. They sensed that the messages about study abroad
promoted it as fun or that it was a cultural immersion, and based on their
personal interests and situations, this impression led them either to seek more
information or to feel disinterest.

For many participants, more information often came from an experience with
a mentor, friend, or family member, who sparked their interest in
international travel. Males generally put a lot of emphasis on ﬁiends and peer
messages—more than females; however, these messages were not always
supportive. If positive, messages alone were still not necessarily enough to get
them to study abroad.

Almost all of the males valued having an independent, highly interactive,
exciting learning experience, and they related these characteristics to the non-
academic aspect of study abroad. Generally, males reported fewer concerns
associated with their personal health, safety, and related concerns such as

missing home. Males also reported a signiﬁcant preference for longer

226

programs than females and seemed to prefer highly exotic, inaccessible
activities and locations.

Males valued study abroad ’5 contribution to their personal interests such as a
connection with family heritage or an exciting opportunity to experience or
learn something they could not learn by staying at home, yet even with these
interests as motivations, the primary motivations still seemed to be academic
and career beneﬁts.

Males wanted to see a clear beneﬁt to them based on their participation and
preferred hearing this message from their colleges or faculty members. For all
the males, the major value was the ability to have an experience that supported
their academic/career goals, such as studying a topic, language, or world
region and not delaying their graduation. Liberal arts and social science

majors tended to make this connection more readily than STEM majors.

Nonparticipant Issues

Nonparticipants had different themes. Some nonparticipants noted that because

they had waited to study abroad until later in their academic career, they had fewer course

options and less opportunity (i.e., time) to travel. Although they had the same interests

related to the type of experience and the same desires for academic value as participants,

they chose not to participate. For many nonparticipants, especially those in the sciences,

they discussed the availability of required classes, the difﬁculty of their curriculum, and

the need for work experience or internships as obstacles.

For the science students speciﬁcally, study abroad’s beneﬁts to their actual career

and major were less direct and obvious, thus less important and essential to them. Due to

227

these obstacles, nonparticipants seemed to feel that they could travel on their own in
another, non-academic, capacity and still achieve some of the values associated with
study abroad without incurring the ﬁnancial and time costs they associated with it. In
other words, they thought they could do it better on their own without the baggage or
concerns associated with coursework or school.

Interaction between Findings

Males had several motivations that facilitated their interest in international travel,
yet the primary reason for studying abroad—and rationale for not studying abroad—was
a pragmatic one related to academics and career. Once interested in study abroad based
on a primary interest or value, males sought study abroad programs that offered them
ways to pursue their secondary motivations, like selecting programs that provided them
with an adventure and allowed them to explore parts of the world unavailable to the
causal traveler. Hence, male participants used these secondary values as a decision-point
related to the program they selected. This entire decision-making process happened
within the context of males’ unique situations and dispositions, which inﬂuenced their
speciﬁc interests and perceptions of the beneﬁts and obstacles. For the nonparticipants,
the obstacles outweighed the beneﬁts and interests.

In the end, the common thread among all the males was that the beneﬁts of study
abroad should outweigh the costs. As stated, most science students felt that internships
and work experience were more important than cultural learning, but the non-science
students shared similar sentiments. All the males reported obstacles to their study abroad
participation as primarily being the availability of courses and delay of graduation, and

they also mentioned factors related to the ﬁnancial and time costs of being away as

228

 

related to other factors in their life besides their academics. They weighed the costs of
their attendance against the beneﬁts, and for most of the nonparticipants, the beneﬁts of
going were just not as strong as the beneﬁts of staying home. Typically, this sentiment
related to the fact that the males did not see international travel as related enough to their
career or major to warrant the time and monetary costs of being away.

On this point, I distinguish between the actual costs associated with participation
and the opportunity cost. Males did not frequently discuss programmatic variables in
relationship to their participation decisions. In other words, the direct time and ﬁnancial
costs were not so much the concern, but rather the opportunity costs associated with the
program (e.g., time away ﬁ'om work at home, time away from ﬁiends, time not spent
studying or working toward their degree, etc.) vis-a-vis their perception of its value.
Males felt they could overcome most obstacles, given enough of an incentive to do so. As
such, it seems that based on the conceptual model, male disposition were the most
inﬂuential variable in the study, because the males selected from amongst programmatic
options based on their dispositions, with their unique situations and support systems
inﬂuencing their ﬁnal decision positively or negatively.

Understanding Differences amongst Males

In this section, I discuss differences between male participants and
nonparticipants in the context of new research by Barbara Schneider (forthcoming),
which classiﬁes young adults into various categories based on their motivations for work
and play. This emerging research suggests that differences exist between groups of young
adults in relationship to the alignment between their goals and their efforts and

motivations related to school. Based on her research, she presents four semi-distinct

229

classiﬁcations for young adults that range from low engagement, low motivation idlers to
strategic planners who seek to balance work and play in preparation for their future.
Players and Workers

Oscar’s comments pointed to differences between two groups of males: those
seeking to drift through college and have fun and those seeking to engage as much as
possible. This distinction proved to be an important one, because at times some of the
males’ comments seemed hard to align with each other. All the males understood the
common message of study abroad as fun, but some males thought negatively about study
abroad because of this fact. All of the males valued study abroad for academic beneﬁts,
but most males also did not want study abroad to be an overly structured, school-like
program. Although the literature about males and masculinity used for this study can
somewhat explain these divergent values, these conﬂicts also point to differences that
exist amongst individuals in relationship to the balance between work and play.

In a forthcoming book, Barbara Schneider investigates the career aspirations and
educational attainment of young adults in the context of their motivations toward work
and play. Her work was prompted by studies that suggest that even though 70% of high
school seniors enter a post-secondary educational experience after graduation, only about
33% of these students complete a program within seven years (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2007). Through The Alfred P. Sloan Study of Youth and Social
Development (SSYSD), which has surveyed over 7,000 students from around the country
about their conceptions of work, Schneider studied young adults in a longitudinal study
that began in the 19903. Her latest research included a sample of 849 students who

completed the instruments during the sixth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth grades, and of these

230

 

students, about 600 continued to be interviewed beyond high school. These volunteers
completed in-depth interviews and several different surveys related to careers and work.
The study also used interviews with students’ teachers, counselors, and parents, as well as
a time-on-task activity that asked students to log their actions at random intervals
throughout the day.

Based on this study, Schneider (forthcoming) identiﬁed four categories of young
adults: idlers, players, workers, and strategists. She describes these groups as a semi-
distinct continuum of attitudes ranging from low toward high engagement. Differences
between the groups included their perspectives on the nature of work, their general
happiness, their self-esteem, their alignment between goals and effort, and their
engagement. Looking at these students ﬁve years after high school graduation, Schneider
provided background about each group’s characteristics:

0 Idlers—This group had the most unrealistic perceptions of work and tended to
spend a lot of time in a play mode by watching TV, reading, spending time with
friends, and playing video games. This group does not clearly connect effort in
school to their desired career aspirations, and they often have incorrect
information or perceptions about their career goals. Idlers often have weak social
networks and tend to feel as if they are not in control of their lives or their futures,
and, as a result, they do not adequately assess their own strengths and weaknesses
and have difﬁculty adjusting their expectations and goals.

0 Players—Like Idlers, this group has unrealistic ideas about work and careers, and
they tend to consider any challenges they face to be caused by external factors.

They are focused on their friends and having a good time, especially during their

231

 

last year of high school, and they expect that their career and academic
Opportunities will just come to them. As such, they do not typically plan ahead
and have a high need for independence. Although they do want to achieve
academically, players do not want to work hard to achieve what they desire.

o Workers—Workers have career goals and desire success, and they are more likely
to toil away to achieve success. Workers put a lot of effort toward employment
and academic opportunities that they perceive as helping them achieve their goals,
yet they do not typically enjoy the effort. Workers do work that they perceive as
helping them to be successful in the future so as not to need to labor hard in the
future, so they make decisions carefully and based on extensive research. Despite
this effort, though, workers tend to have a narrow perspective on their goals and a
limited conception of success—typically related to money and security.

0 Strategists—The ﬁnal grouping represents the smallest number of young adults in
the study. Strategists build upon the work ethic of the previous group but combine
it with a broader sense about the deﬁnition and value of work. Strategists like a
challenge, and they push themselves through experiences that build their ability to
reach their goals. This group tends to have broader, more ﬂexible career goals and
engage with academic and extracurricular opportunities that will help them
achieve these goals. Strategists tend to be more civically and globally minded, and
they often come from homes with higher levels educational attainment.

Players and Workers on Study Abroad
Schneider simpliﬁes these four groups by collapsing them into two main groups:

one that aligns academic and career goals and works toward them and a group that does

232

not have this alignment or work ethic. Just as some of these students have lofty career

aspirations but fail to work toward these interests, most males I interviewed for this study

knew about study abroad and had some common perceptions and values related to

participation, but they decided not to participate. Based on Schneider’s matrix, I can see

how male participation—and probably participation in general—varies between her

groups. Connecting her groups to the ﬁndings from my study:

The Idlers included those nonparticipants who described themselves as lazy and
who waited until later in their career to try and participate in study abroad. This
group could also represent those students who had career interests related to
global international issues, but who failed to connect the value of study abroad to
their goals. Idlers might not have paid attention to messages about study abroad,
put off applying, or simply not have been interested. This group needed more
motivational and convincing messages and could have beneﬁtted ﬁom having
their peers reach out to them directly. Logically, this group was probably not
well-represented, or at least under-represented, in this study because they would
most likely have been those students who did not respond to interview requests.
The Players included my study’s students who viewed study abroad as a fun,
beer-laden vacation, as well as possibly those students who expressed concern
that study abroad was too structured and culturally-focused. For this group,
getting them abroad would only be a matter of making it sound ﬁrn. Given my
ﬁndings, players could be the largest group going on study abroad or at least the

easiest group to recruit using the current marketing messages associated with fun.

233

0 V The Workers included those students in the study who responded negatively to the
fun-focused messages and/or did not ﬁnd study abroad to be the most valuable
activity in relationship to their career interests. For many of the nonparticipants in
my study, study abroad was not a clear beneﬁt to them, so they viewed study
abroad as more of a play-orientated activity. In relationship to the worker mindset,
a students’ major would heavily inﬂuence their decision-making, with a science
student perhaps less likely to see study abroad as a ﬁt and a language student
highly likely to view study abroad as essential.

o The Strategists included the students who used study abroad as a means of
achieving their career goals both directly—through courses and language skills—
and indirectly—through intercultural learning and experience living abroad.
These students were those who I interviewed that integrated study abroad across a
range of their interests and viewed the activity as important on multiple levels.
Clearly, although this study did not use Schneider’s categories as part of its

conceptual framework, her ideas represent a new, valuable way to consider male
engagement and study abroad participation. Her study did not report differences in
category grouping by sex, but she did note some important demographic variables. White
students were more likely to be players, Asian students workers, and African American
and Hispanic students idlers. Looking at social class, workers were represented at all
levels, and strategists were more, but not signiﬁcantly so, represented at higher levels of
parental education. Idler behavior was slightly less for students with highly education

parents, and ﬁnally, player behavior had a bimodal distribution: high at both low and high

234

parental education. Schneider reported that most players have highly educated parents
and connected this factor to the entitlement that comes with higher social status.

These relationships are interesting given that I suspected from the explanation and
my ﬁndings that players would be a high participating group, and players’ demographics
overlap with study abroad participation demographics: White and afﬂuent. This research
could also help explain why so few minority students are participating on study abroad.
Future studies shouldconsider using Schneider’s work as a model for looking at study
abroad participation and the inﬂuence of sex and gender roles as related to her groupings.
Even though she did not ﬁnd differences between the groups based on sex status, she
might ﬁnd differences between males and females based on their gender identity. The
literature on sex and gender roles suggests some intra—sex group differences, so her four
categories might reﬂect’broad groupings with different sub-groups internally based on
gender. In other words, although her study did not indicate that males were not more
likely to be workers than females, male workers might be different than female workers. I
summarize these ideas in Table 3 (p. 236), and based on this section’s brief analysis and
comparison to my study’s ﬁndings, males in each category could logically be less likely
to participate than females when I account for masculine gender steereotypes.

Analysis of Themes

As stated, the most important domain related to the decision to participate seemed
to be males’ own dispositions, which clearly overlapped with theories of masculinity and
gender. This section of the study analyzes the data and summarizes some core ideas from
the whole study. First, I discuss the idea related to institutional and peer messages and

information related to study abroad. Second, I write about the inﬂuence of fun or play on

235

 

 

28.88 beam :2: 8882888
822882 8.88 8 82:88::
28 2.83 32> 2 8:2 85
2:83 282228 2 32:.
82 8 >2: 22888 222

8858 82m 85
282? 288 8 28.8888
28 828288 8:8 32> 82

828882-888 on 82

2o>2

22:2: 8 28m 22: 2 288s
82.0. 82:88 28 >28 28 283
58a 8 288m 822m 32> 2 28,—.

82888288 8 >22

228.25

 

20.85

Eur—1m E 628882.88

88 85 2282. 282288 2
32.: m8— 2— 88 22.83 222

.822 3828222 2 @222
3222 8 Eow 8880 820 83

828882-88 8 >22

88¢ 8.828222 28
28 882— 2 20.38 o8 52.8.82

828882-888 on >22

288—83

 

8:83 2 888980 8
8:28me .8 .8 8288282 8
8 :2 8 9888 82m 32> 8:

28 82 2:88 222228 2
b2:— 82 on 88 2288 222

28288 82 8 8:288
02 8 28.58 858 32> ~32

82m 22 2 >=w88w
828882-888 89 >22

8:22.28 2 2:888 8282me
2 888 a 8 28.58 82m 28m

c2823 8 8858 82m 32>

3888» 888888288 on >22

293—.—

 

8882: 88 38 288

.3 888352 288 2a .88
88882 8882 85 282228
2 32:. 82 on 88 222 222

8282228
8832 x83 2 828288 83

282228 0:3
288 2 828888 1288 281—

988 25 2 828882-230

8228a 388 2 cowmwco 82

82w 25 2 888882-882

who—ﬁ—

 

 

88==E 8.8280 229.8.—

 

382228.82

 

2::222am

 

 

 

2884c. beam 28 8:20 982225 88389 888.80 ”m 2an

236

males and its relationship to masculinity. Third, I present a hierarchy of values males
seemed to associate with study abroad, which suggested that fun was a weak motivation
to participate. Fourth, I distinguish between males’ unique situations as related to study
abroad participation and pragmatic decision-making. Finally, I discuss males’
dispositions in the context of masculinity and gender roles as an over-arching theme
woven throughout this study.

Depth, Clarity, and Meaning of Study Abroad Messages

As suggested by literature on male development (Davis & Laker, 2004; Edwards
& Jones, 2009) and Schneider’s work (forthcoming), the way individual males or types of
males perceive study abroad would inﬂuence how they interpret information about study
abroad and how they connect study abroad to life and their educational goals. Evidence
presented in Chapter Four ﬁirther suggests that these perceptions are modulated by
gender role stereotypes. Gore’s (2008) research about study abroad states that study
abroad’s advertising, reputation, messages are feminized. In her report, she discusses
study abroad as a ﬁ'ivolous, culture-laden add-on typically associated with females and
women’s “lesser” academic pursuits.

Brannon (1976) states that one of the main masculine imperatives dictates that
males should avoid all things feminine. Work by Kimmel (2008) and Edwards and Jones
(2009) state that many college-aged males still subscribe to this gender norm; therefore,
study abroad could generate some gender role conﬂict for young males with traditional
ideas about their masculinity (Nicolazzo & Davis, 2007). Similarly, Sax (2008) and
others state that males and females still adhere to some traditional majors and career

options based on gender roles, with males more likely to be found in technology, science,

237

and engineering ﬁelds and women more likely to be found in the languages, humanities,
and helping professions (i.e., nursing, social work, education, etc.). Based on this
research and the data collected from this study, I suggest that the messages about and
reputation of study abroad do not appeal to young males based on their values and
interests, especially those with traditional notions of gender.

Although males had varying degrees of knowledge about study abroad and did not
necessarily label study abroad as a female-orientated activity, their unifying belief was
that study abroad is a fun activity, teaches students about other cultures, and is valuable
to them personally if they have the opportunity to participate. Without a clearer value
based on a more speciﬁc experience or knowledge-base, males—including participants—
tended to view study abroad as merely an optional or fun activity, not as important to
them as their internships, work experiences, or other involvements. These ideas relate
directly to the participation literature, which suggests lack of information and perceived
value can lower participation motivations and that for males social, fun outcomes are
weak motivators (Cross, 1981; Henry & Basile, 1994). The data also suggested that male
students received fewer messages and information from other males about study abroad.
If this supposition is true, then the lack of messages to males from males would further
exacerbate the depth and clarity of information related to study abroad and enhance the
overall “feminization of study abroad.”

As discussed in the men’s development section, researchers such as Gilligan
(1992) have provided evidence that males and females develop and communicate
differently. Coupled with years of information related to males and females in college

presented by Sax (2008), literature about males (Connell et al., 2005; Davis & Laker,

238

. "Itﬁ

2004; Tyre, 2008), and the males’ comments during this study, one could conclude that
males might think differently based on their adherence to gender roles. Given this
statement as a basis for considering participation, I believe that current study abroad
marketing efforts are limited in their effectiveness for males because they lack substance
around issues important to many (not all) male students. Current marketing efforts are
generally appealing, but they emphasize ﬁm and culture, lacking specific information

targeted at males that might appeal to their independent, career-orientated value systems.

 

Given an absence of more tailored information, males consider study abroad in
limited ways based on their own unique perspectives; therefore, serious male workers or
strategists might not be attracted to study abroad because it seems overly fun and lacking
academically. Conversely, male players might not be attracted to study abroad because it
seems like a chaperoned vacation, and idlers might not be interested because they see no
value to them or do not know about the range of opportunities available to them. More
holistically, males who adhere to very traditional ideas about masculinity would not be
interested and actually could be scared off by typical study abroad messages in an attempt
to avoid “sissy stuff” (Brannon, 1976) and adhere to the “guy code” (Kimmel, 2008).

Based on this analysis, I suggest that study abroad ofﬁces consider ways to
increase the clarity and diversity of their messages about study abroad. Speciﬁcally, they
should consider talking more about the diverse types of programs offered, the academic
value of these programs for all types of majors, and the connections between study
abroad and employment. Second, they should recruit and/or use more males in their
advertising. At the institution used for this study, there are only three male staff members

out of a staff of 23, and out of a student staff of 10 volunteers, only two are male. Males

239

 

should be involved in crafting and communicating print, electronic, and oral messages
about study abroad, and in some instances, universities might want to consider hiring
male staff members and engaging more male returnees as volunteers who can
speciﬁcally reach-out to male audiences. Finally, study abroad ofﬁces may want to
partner with colleges and academic units to improve the amount and consistency of
academic and career-orientated messages.

Fun as a Valued Programmatic Feature

Related to the messaging of study abroad, fun arose as a common programmatic

 

theme amongst all the males in terms of their discussion about the value and format of
their ideal program. Consistently, almost all of the males described study abroad
programs as providing them with an experience that they could not have had traveling
alone or with friends. They described this idea in a number of ways, including as:
o Accessing organizations, locations, information, and people that average
tourists could not reach;
0 Learning about content not available to them on campus;
0 Traveling to countries or regions that would be unsafe or difﬁcult to reach as a
traveler or tourist; and
0 Traveling to multiple places within a country or geographic region on a single
trip, which would be hard to organize as a tourist.
In addition to discussing these values, the males discussed the need for experiential
learning opportunities and free time that allowed them to explore their location on their
own terms. In other words, they wanted study abroad to provide them with a structure

around which they could explore real-world problems and issues in'addition to classroom

240

 

learning, and they desired the opportunity to pursue their unique interests independently
of the group for at least part of the time abroad.

These desires associated with fun, independence, and experience reﬂect the
literature on three different levels. First, considering males and risk, males are attracted to
thrill-seeking, adventurous experiences (Clayton et al., 2004; Davis & Laker, 2004),
which would explain why males view study abroad as something that could take them 5
someplace very different, exciting, and even dangerous. Survey evidence and earlier

studies suggest that females use study abroad as a means of traveling safety, and this

 

study suggests that the near opposite might be true for males (Dessof, 2006; Shirley,
2006). Males want to use study abroad as a way of accessing locations difﬁcult to reach
independently and use personal travel for more readily-accessible locations such as
Europe and North America. As males do not worry as much about their personal safety
and health, they are less likely to use study abroad as a means of ensuring safer travel
writ large when compared to females.

Second, and related to this idea, is Brannon’s (1976) concept of males as “a sturdy
oak.” Traditional masculine gender roles suggest that “real” men should be strong and
independent, a value that Edwards and Jones (2009) state is still common amongst
college males. Based on this categorization, males with traditional gender values would
want to seek out highly independent study options that met their individual needs and
interests. Again thinking back to females, who might use study abroad for the safety of
the group, males want to use study abroad as a vehicle to travel but then be left alone part

of the time to explore. This variable suggests that messages about safety, security, and

241

structure might appeal to females, but serve as a disincentive to males who do not want to
be baby-sat.

Third, Davis (2002), Sax (2007), and Kimmel (2008) indicate that males are more
tactile and active learners than females. Males seek out real-world applications and
practical uses for their learning. For these males, knowing that study abroad is more than
sitting in an overseas classroom or touring a museum would be essential to peak their
interests. Based on this study, I believe study abroad needs to do a better job at promoting
and developing programs that actively engage in real world problems, including more
programs that incorporate research, service, and internships.

Overall, males in this study seemed to have a high desire for fun, excitement, and
independence and want exotic program locations, but some males also found the
association with fun as a weak motivator (Henry & Basile, 1994). Thinking holistically,
study abroad oﬂices need to better describe the reality of study abroad options and
schedules in terms of the balance between free time and structured academic time. If
faculty and staff advertized the actual schedules for the programs, then students could see
the amount of free time, group time, and ﬁeld experiences embedded into the program. In
making these changes, study abroad professions must go beyond their explicit messages
and also consider the implicit messages they send to students based on the word choices,
formats, visual images, and pictures used to promote the activity.

In this study, peer and institutional messages reinforced the notion that study
abroad was time for vacation. Males described the study abroad ofﬁce’s publications and
visual materials as highlighting intercultural learning, interpersonal interaction, tourism,

and vacation-orientated experiences, which they associated with soft skills rather than

242

 

actual academics. They also suggested that their peers perpetuated the fun message
through stories focused on the non-classroom and evening activities. They found
academic messages limited to short quotes and side-comments and almost absent from
the visual design, video, and pictures. For some of the males, those interested in more
than fun, the idea of study abroad as fun made them think study abroad was not as
serious—or as valuable—an academic experience.

As metnioned, the fun value also worked the other way. Another group of male
nonparticipants seemed to think about study abroad as a fun, yet still academic, group
trip. For these males, the idea of studying abroad with a group of other students under the
supervision of a faculty member was not as interesting as going abroad alone or on one’s
own volition. The male volunteers generally sought highly independent opportunities,
and some males saw any level of academics as interfering with the value of fun. From
this perspective, if the major beneﬁt of the program involves having fun, then some males
see no reason to “seek fun” on an academic trip. These males are the ones who chose to
back-pack through Europe or take spring break vacations with their friends rather than
study abroad.

Thus, the ideas related to study abroad as fun were almost bi-polar in the extreme.
The students viewed study abroad as either a vacation booze-cruise or a chaperoned ﬁeld
trip. Only about one-third of the males spoke of a balance between free-time, learning
experiences, and formal academic time, so even though study abroad offers an excellent
opportunity to put classroom learning into practice, most males seem to not see the
potential for this synergy. One reason for this disconnect is the limited messages that

reinforced a fun orientation.

243

 

Going back to Schneider’s categories, I can explain these differences based on
workers and players. Workers do not necessarily see the academic value of study abroad
because it seems too fun, and players sometimes disregard study abroad because it seems
like too little fun. Expanding on this line of thinking then, participants who balanced the
ideas of fun and work could be considered strategists. Fun as the primary value
motivation would seem to attract the most attention from players, but it would seem to be h
a weak motivator for workers and strategists. I explore this theme of weak and strong i

motivators more in the next section.

 

.n‘
V‘ "I‘

Weak and Strong Motivators

This aspect alone—the value of fun—was not enough though to get all the males
to participate. Even though all the males recognized the fun factor, they did not all choose
to participate. In fact, based on the factor analysis and the interview data, having ﬁin was
a very weak motivation to actually participate (Henry & Basile, 1994). Other external
values, such as learning a language, building a résumé, and obtaining credit toward their
degree, surfaced as more important beneﬁts. Thus, the distinguishing feature for all the
males was the desire for some external beneﬁt, and participants tended to identiﬁt these
beneﬁts more readily than nonparticipants.

More than four-ﬁfths of the males associated study abroad with an external value.
According to the service learning literature, many students, and especially males (Sax,
2008) tend to have egoist, extrinsic motivations attached to their involvement (Allen,
1982; Finch, 1987 & 1991). They want something for their participation. Also, the
information on males and career suggests that males would seek out some beneﬁt or

value (Covin & Brush, 1991; England, 1992). This issue was especially true for study

244

abroad. All the males recognized some beneﬁt associated with study abroad, and when
considering the beneﬁts, the clearer the value to the man’s academic and career goals, the
more likely he was to participate.

After fun, the most common value males mentioned was learning about the world
and other cultures, yet this value was also a weak motivator. Similar to the values
associated with fun, the idea of study abroad as enhancing their cultural learning was a

value-added for most of the males because cultural learning was related to their personal

 

development and not as important as content information associated with their academic
or career goals. Similarly, another weak, yet pervasive, value associated with study

abroad was that it looked good on a résumé. Males valued study abroad as a way of

 

setting themselves apart from peers, but they also recognized that other opportunities—
such as clubs, work experience, research, and intemships—provided equivalent beneﬁts.
As such, a resume-builder alone was insufﬁcient to guarantee participation.

The primary common beneﬁt to the males who volunteered for this study was the
desire to have study abroad add value to their academic and career goals. Males with a
clear link to study abroad discussed the importance of language learning, regional study,
and international content as essential to their future careers. Some males discussed the
importance of travel as preparation for their careers, and even the nonparticipants, when
discussing the possibilities for study abroad, discussed their hypothetical involvement in
ways that clearly linked to their academic and career goals.

Relating these ﬁndings back to the research on males’ perceptions of success and
gender roles (England, 1992; Kimmel, 2007; Tuss, 2004; Sax, 2008), I interpret this idea

as related to the concept of males as a “sturdy oak” (Brannon, 1976). Males believe that

245

 

they need to succeed in certain ways, and their quest for this success can either facilitate
or hinder their decision to study abroad. Similarly, males believe they have duties
(Deutschendorf, 1996), both explicit and implicit, that they need to fulﬁll, which
sometimes conﬂict with the desire to study abroad. For some males, study abroad ﬁts
neatly within their life, and the participation decision is easy and facilitated by study
abroad’s connection to their academic, career, and life goals. For those with more

obstacles or who might beneﬁt less directly and obviously from study abroad, such as

ELF. vs-
. _ .

STEM majors, study abroad participation interferes with their desire to be responsible
and successful.

Thus, of all the values named by these males related to the motivation to study
abroad (fun, cultural learning, résumé building, and academic/career goals), academics
and career showed the strongest and nearly uniform importance across all this study ’s
volunteers. By making this claim, I am not saying that some males do not go abroad just
for ﬁm; some students do go abroad for fun. During my conversation with Chris, be
continually talked about ﬁm, drinking, and womanizing, and for him, fun was a clear—
and perhaps the strongest—motivation to participate. What I am saying is that the most
consistent and seemingly most important value across both participants and
nonparticipants was that it provided a career or academic beneﬁt. They did not all see
study abroad as providing this value, but they all wanted it to do so.

This ﬁnding supports information related to male perspectives and emphasis on
success and work (Dyke & Murphy, 2006), and it further highlights the importance of
academically-orientated messages for males. As suggested by Schneider (forthcoming),

worker and strategist students would speciﬁcally be attracted to messages about the

246

 

academic beneﬁts of study abroad. Even though major and career beneﬁts were a
preeminent value amongst the males, this value is not a panacea. Some males knew about
the value of study abroad and still did not participate. Several of the nonparticipants
expressed regret for not having participated, and although better messaging might have
gotten these males to participate, some males’ unique situations also played an important
factor in opposing their engagement. Issues such as money, transfer student status, and
obligations also inﬂuenced participation. In the next section, I discuss males’ unique
situations as a factor related to their participation.
Situations Deﬁne Beneﬁts and Obstacles

The literature often cites different participation rates in science, technology,
engineering, and related majors as a major rationale for lower male participation in study
abroad (Dessoff, 2006). Although males are overrepresented in science and technology
curricula (Kimmel, 2008), Redden (2008) suggest that this factor alone cannot explain
lower male participation. She indicates that although participation rates amongst
engineers and scientists are increasing, male participation rates are stagnant. My study
found that males were more likely to be STEM majors than females and that STEM
majors were less likely to go abroad than non-STEM majors, but I also interviewed males
from STEM ﬁelds who did go abroad and males from liberal arts and intemationally-
focused ﬁelds who did not participate. Based on my ﬁndings, major does play a role in
the participation differences between males and females, but I cannot categorically state
that major plays the only, direct, or primary role in participation. Based on the interview
data, I conclude that major represents just one of many situational variables that can

complicate the decision to participate.

247

 

Both male participants and nonparticipants reported delay of graduation as more
of a concern than females, signiﬁcantly so for male participants, and this concern played
out clearly during the interviews. As discussed in the previous section, even participants
with clear rationales to study abroad for other reasons discussed study abroad in terms of
its relationship to their major. For nonparticipants, the major was the most common
rationale for not participating. This group believed that participation would delay their
graduation because it did not offer any courses required for their degree, yet the major
was not their only reason for not participating.

Males also mentioned transfer student status, interpersonal and group
relationships, money, and other activities—such as work and intemships—as obstacles to
their participation. In some cases, males described study abroad as a time and ﬁnancial
requirement that interfered with other priorities, and at other times, they discussed study
abroad as less valuable to them than these activities. Even though a diversity of rationales
existed, the common theme amongst all the males, regardless of participation status, was
that they tended to weigh the costs of participation against the beneﬁts, and if the costs
were too great, then they did not participate. As a result, males in speciﬁc situations
tended to view study abroad differently based on their perception of the beneﬁts and
obstacles.

For example, most male nonparticipants in STEM majors viewed study abroad as
too costly in terms of their participation, but those who participated found a value that
overrode their sense of the costs. For example, as an honors student, George used his
study abroad program to earn some general education classes he needed to graduate.

Jason wanted to go abroad because he wanted to work abroad after graduation, yet Chris,

248

 

 

who also wanted to work overseas after graduation, did not study abroad because of
ROTC duties. Conversely, most of the males in language and international majors
viewed study abroad as a way of facilitating their graduation and career goals, but not all
went abroad. Some of these students faced obstacles too highto overcome, such as Eli,
who had limited time and money and wanted to do an internship.

Based on this consistent ﬁnding, I believe that major is not the only factor
inﬂuencing male participation, but rather, it is more accurately viewed as one variable in
a complicated decision-making process during which males determine if the beneﬁts of
participation are enough to spur them into action. This process is controlled by males’
desire to obtain academic or professional value from participation. Supporting my
analysis, several studies suggest that males typically deﬁne success differently than
females and place more value on status, power, and money (Dyke & Murphy, 2006;
Jones & Edwards, 2009). Kimmel (2008) states that males are still bound by traditional
masculine gender stereo-types, which may limit their interest in study abroad
participation due to their sense of what it means to be a successful male (England, 1992;
Tuss, 2004), so even though males know about a variety of beneﬁts related to study
abroad, situations in their life cause them to prioritize their interests in relationship to
competing factors. In this model, the beneﬁt that most clearly and consistently overcomes
the diversity of situational obstacles is a clear linkage to their major and career goals.

Masculinity as Inﬂuencer

Regardless of the exact obstacles or values, factors related to informational and
situational variables seem to be supporting concepts that inﬂuence how males make

decisions based on their individual dispositions. Hence, all these factors are important,

249

but it is males’ dispositions and how these dispositions are formed during their youth,
reached by peers and institutional messages, and processed given other competing
opportunities that seem to be most salient. In the next section, I discuss males’
dispositions in the context of gender roles and masculinity, ongoing themes running
throughout my analysis. Linking my discussion back to Brannon (1976), the variables
mentioned here all relate back to his descriptions of masculinity.

First, the idea that study abroad is a feminine activity or associated with female
learning and values relates to the idea that men should avoid all things feminine
(Brannon, 1976; Davis & Laker, 2004; Kimmel, 2008). Second, males’ desire for a
highly experiential and independent study abroad experience relates to the idea that males
should be independent and strong (Brannon). This idea is especially interesting, in that
males clearly desired freedom, independence, and autonomy while abroad; however, they
also clearly sought the approval and advice of other males. Looking at this issue through
the lens of masculinity, I explain this seeming dichotomy by suggesting that males look
to other males as guides and mentors for how they think they should behave and what
they should want (Nicolazzo & Davis, 2007; Sax, 2008)., which leads them to
consciously or unconsciously feeling the desire to be highly independent.

Third, the concept that males should be successful and support their families
relates to how males prioritize success vis-a-vis study abroad and make decisions about it
(Brannon; Deutschendorf, 1996; Dyke & Murphy, 2006). Given the overlap between the
ﬁndings from this study and the typical facets of masculinity deﬁned within the literature,
I suggest that male dispositions and the degree to which the individual male ’s thinking

reﬂects traditional notions about gender roles plays the pivotal role in the participation

250

 

discussion. Connecting back to Schneider’s typology, I can also connect the different
groups to the idea of situational variables inﬂuencing the decision to participate. Workers
would clearly be less likely to go abroad without a clear value. This group works hard to
get ahead, and they might not see the value in a ﬁrn activity and would be more likely to
face obstacles related to coursework and other obligations.

Conclusion: Disposition is Key

Henry and Basile (1994) presented a model of participation that included
institutional messages, reputation, deterrents, programmatic features, personal
characteristics, and personal motivations all inﬂuence the decision to participate. This
study used this model as a way of looking at four major groupings related to this theory:
programmatic features, institutional and peer messages, men’s unique situational features,
and men’s unique dispositions. Based on this conceptual model and the data obtained
from this study, I have discussed the idea the importance of having programmatic
features that include fun, exciting programs that also provide a clear beneﬁt to individual
males based on their unique situations. I have also discussed how the common messages
and ideas about study abroad fail to inﬂuence males based on their unique interests.

The issue of gender and masculinity has been a common thread throughout these
discussions. On many levels, differences between males and females and the theoretical
rationales for males’ values relate back to deﬁnitions of masculinity and gender
differences. As such, I conclude that males ’ unique dispositions—the degree to which
they believe in, feel pressured by, and act-upon traditional masculine gender roles—seem
to be the most important aspect related to their decision to study abroad, with the other

areas providing the context in which these decisions are made by supporting or hindering

251

 

what is ultimately a personal decision. In this section, I discuss each of these areas as it
relates to my analysis, connect my analysis more closely with the gendered literature
base, and discuss the relationship to men’s decision to participate.

I classiﬁed factors such as location, cost, duration, and timing into the
programmatic/ institutional category. Based on the study, males actually seemed less
inﬂuenced by these variables than females. In both the ANOVA and factor analyses, the
results suggest that programmatic features are not the most important issue for men.
Rather, the qualitative results indicate that ﬁnding a program of value to them, whether
for fun or professional development was highly important, and thus men did show a
signiﬁcantly stronger interest in avoiding programs that delayed their graduation or
hindered their ability to pursue courses, work, or other professional opportunities. Some
evidence suggests that males might not be motivated by program design because they are
lazy and haphazard in their planning (Kimmel, 2008); however, I believe that
programmatic variables are a contextual feature bounding men’s decision-making.

Program variables are not central to the decision, but rather provide the context in
which the decision is made. The presence of a diversity of programs facilitates but does
not necessarily directly inﬂuence participation. I offer this conclusion for two reasons: (1)
programmatic opportunities and designs vary from institution to institution, yet the
number of men studying abroad is relatively the same across the country (Davis, 2008;
Redden, 2008); and (2) a diversity of program models helps males and females at any
given institution equally, so the mere presence of more programs alone cannot fully
explain gender differences (i.e., the diversity of program models is not the inﬂuence, but

rather, a facilitator).

252

 

 

 

 

Based on this analysis, I think of programmatic features as the availability of mass
transportation. Having a train present is a necessary precursor to having a male use it to
travel to work, but just because the train is present does not mean the male will take it.
Put another way, although Seth did not go abroad, he considered it because of the
availability of a program related to his major. The presence of the engineering program
did not ensure particpation; however, it facilitated the opportunity. Similarly, I believe
that the presence of many program types, times, costs, topics, and locations allows for a
wider range of interests and needs, facilitating the participation of a larger number of
students regardless of their personal characteristics.

Next, if I consider situational features—the unique features of males’ lives that
include their major, involvements, obligations, etc., the data seem mixed. According to
the survey, males are somewhat more concerned about their academics, graduation, and
obligations (although not always signiﬁcantly different) and less worried about ﬁnances
and lost work opportunities than females. During the interviews, though, males
consistently talked about the ﬁnancial and time opportunity costs to participation. This
situation led me to consider the concept of costs in the context of a cost-beneﬁt analysis
versus the actual costs incurred. Depending on their situations, males weigh the costs of
participations against the beneﬁts; however, their analysis of these variables—even the
variables they consider—are unique from individual to individual. The only unifying
factor seems to be that the beneﬁts—often framed as an academic or career beneﬁt——
must be greater than the costs.

Again, as with programmatic variables, males’ situations alone do not necessarily

explain the decision to participate. One reason for this statement is that females within

253

 

 

the s:

IllOl'E

colle

WOU

mall

ilk:

1101

SC

wl

the same majors or with the same situational backgrounds as males still study abroad
more than men (Redden, 2008). Second, the literature suggests that males entering
college are typically of higher socio-economic standing than females (Sax, 2008), so one
would expect them to have an easier time overcoming obstacles than females. Third,
males of all backgrounds and situations have studied abroad, so although speciﬁc
situational variables might generally tip the scale toward participation or not, they do not
uniformly determine participation. Some males work harder than others to make study
abroad work for them, and this factor seems more related to their individual dispositions
than their speciﬁc situations.

Building off the train analogy, a male who lives near a train stop is probably more
likely to take the train than a male who lives farther away; however, proximity alone does
not equate with taking the train. Similarly, this analysis lends itself quite well to
Schneider’s typology. Idlers would be less likely to overcome obstacles than strategists,
who would logically seek ways to make study abroad work for them if they saw it as
valuable. Similarly, workers might face more situational obstacles than players, who
avoid getting overly engaged in any serious obligations.

The third area related to the messages and reputation of study abroad at the
institution. As mentioned, males received fewer messages and less positive support than
females about study abroad, yet males tended to value interpersonal support more than

women according to the factor analysis. The messages that males did receive seemed

 

limited, and as suggested by Gore (2005), these messages were not always interpreted as
positive or convincing. As with the two previous categories, I put the issue of messages

and reputation as a supporting characteristic. Males and females receive the same

254

messages about study abroad at the institution; however, they seem to interpret or react to
these messages differently. Thus, the issue is the interpretation of the message, not the
message itself. Similarly, even though all males had a generally favorable impression of
study abroad, some males did not pursue the opportunity.

Messages and support are powerful tools to support males’ participation, but
based on males’ unique perspectives, the messages may or may not work. In some cases,
as noted in the discussion about fun, messages meant to be positive and encouraging
could be discouraging, In the end, the message needs to ﬁt the male and his interests.
This issue would seem to inﬂuence both males and females, but if the messages are
primarily crafted by females and tend to reﬂect feminized messages, then they could
logically inﬂuence males to a lesser degree.

Going back to the train, a male is probably more likely to take the train if he has
ridden one before or if he has been told the train runs well, but ultimately, the decision to
take the train—or participate on study abroad—comes down to a combination of factors
internal to the male given his external constraints. In other words, availability, desire, and
support all must align with the males’ desires and needs to result in participation.
Similarly, Schneider’s work would highlight that different types of students would be
inﬂuenced by different messages based on their interests, regardless of gender role or sex
as a variable.

Males ’ beliefs about the value of study abroad vis-a-vis the opportunities cost
seem to be the ultimate determinant in a pragmatic analysis of costs versus beneﬁts. The
way they interpret the values and costs is determined by these other variables and their

unique dispositions. By offering a good mix of programs and providing targeted

255

 

messages, study abroad professionals can help males overcome their situational obstacles.
Males are not a uniform group, and although they share some general characteristics, the
degree to which they adhere to stereo-typical “guy codes” of conduct seems to inﬂuence
their participation decisions (Kimmel, 2008).

Model of Study Abroad Participation

Based on this analysis, Figure 4 (see p. 25 7) represents a diagram of male
decision-making based on the four categories of participation discussed in the original
conceptual model. This diagram depicts a series of concentric circles, with “fun”
representing the outer, surface-level motivation and “major” representing the core,
strongest motivation. This design implies that males acknowledge multiple beneﬁts to
studying abroad, but that they layer these values in terms of their importance, putting
beneﬁts to their major or career at the core of their decision-making. Lesser motivations
exist and can lead to participation depending on the individual’s unique situation and
dispositions. For example, a male highly interested in ﬁrm could be motivated by fun
alone given a certain situation, but a male interested in learning about culture would need
a different and, based on my analysis, deeper message in the same situational context.
Similarly, students with similar dispositions (e.g., fun or culture) might face very
different situations (e. g., ﬁnances, family support, major requirements, etc.).

The overall institutional and programmatic factors establish the context in which
males make their decisions. Schools with many types of programs and models can appeal
to a greater variety of males’ values and interests. Modulating the connection between the
availability of programs and male interests and values are males’ individual situations. I

represent these situations as semi-permeable “barriers” between levels of male

256

‘ .‘VT-‘K—cn
!

 

dispositions. For example, the science student might have situational barriers that prevent
him ﬁ‘om going on study abroad for “just” fun or cultural reasons, yet a sociology major
would be able to connect culture directly to his major and interests. Hence, this model
suggests that males have multiple values and motivations, but their unique situations
inﬂuence the degree to which the individual can act upon them.

Figure 4: Understanding Male Values and the Decision to Participate

Institutional Context/Program Variables

Men’s Dispositions

Messages & Motivation -/\ Obstacles
Inﬂuences

0 Fun can be had
F un anywhere

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l

o Add-on, not really I
CU] ture essential :
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

 

. ._ . . ‘_ :. U," Aw $11.27? -. [:2

 

   
 

o Other opportunities
more important

Resume

Non-

participant 0 Graduation credits,

career goals

Maj or

Finally, the model suggests that if programs exist (institutional and program
values), then the messages about these programs must align with males’ situations and
interests. This aspect of the model illustrates the need for the institution to provide
targeted information and marketing messages to males based on their unique situations

and motivations, and if such messages are not available, then males will probably not

257

'14 1"‘
L;-

 

participate. In Figure 4 (p. 258), I use a line to depict a “fun” marketing message, which
was not interesting to the student and has no inﬂuence on him, yet for the same student, a
different message, targeted toward major and career beneﬁts, went deeper toward his
interests and values and would be more likely to result in his participation. In the end, if
the message does not match the situation and interests, then males are likely to ignore the
message or believe that the costs outweigh the beneﬁts, leading to non-participation.

Gender Roles and Masculinity

I have woven issues related to gender roles and masculinity throughout the
preceding discussions, and during my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that male
disposition, as inﬂuenced by gender roles and masculinity, is the essential aspect of this
study. The review of literature suggests that males develop more slowly than females
and that environmental and sociological factors may be further inﬂuencing this process
(Sax, 2007, Kimmel, 2008; Tyre, 2008). According to some authors, these processes
contribute to males’ physiologically, causing them to “be” lazy and /or disengaged
academically, and socially, both reinforcing traditional male behaviors such as
competition and aggression and eliminating safe, appropriate expressions of the male
psyche. Generally, the literature portrays males as the fractured sex striving to deﬁne new
concepts of masculinity and ways of being, yet still yoked to traditional values and
stereo-types (Davis & Laker, 2004; Jones & Edwards, 2009).

Based on the pilot study and some comments from the males, some differences in
participation may hinge on gender role norms and development directly. First,
quantitative and qualitative evidence suggested that males apply to and participate in

study abroad programs later than females. Although the ramiﬁcations of this issue relates

258

F. 'ﬁ“

 

 

somev
lathe
study
in m.
sugg

than

fen
um
(161
It:

SC

somewhat to male major and career choices, the reasons given for their lag related to
laziness and lack of maturity. Also, according to the pilot study, the perception exists that
study abroad might be a “female-activity.” This study did not speciﬁcally look at changes
in male attitudes over time or measure male attitudes about gender, yet evidence does
suggest that males might come to consider study abroad later in their academic career
than females. Future studies should consider this issue more directly.

Second, during the interviews, males clearly noted differences between males and
females and different groups of males. In the context of gender roles, it is important to
understand that males seem to fall into different groups, and these groups could be
deﬁned by gender role identity, Schneider’s work, or some other factor. For this study at
least, groups seemed to be deﬁned by the students’ ability to connect study abroad to
something of value. Most of the participants had a clear interest in travel and were able to
make a connection between their life and study abroad as a valuable experience.
Conversely, most of the nonparticipants viewed study abroad as an activity that they
could pursue if given the time, as an add-on with limited value. Many factors fed into
these groups’ decision-making processes, but related to the idea of masculinity, the males
tended to group together. In other words, males who participated tended to have other
friends who participated and vice versa.

Kimmel (2008) believes that males still adhere to traditional notions of gender. If
this situation is true, then differences amongst the males might relate to the degree to
which individual male’s thinking and behavior matches the social norms associated with
being a man (Thompson & Pleck, 1986). If—as Brannon (1976) suggests—being a male

is most closely aligned with “no sissy stuff” and males view study abroad as a female-

259

 

 

orientated activity, then the issue of gender is salient. Similarly, if males think that they
must be highly independent and/or achievement-orientated based on their gender role,

then this line of inquiry needs more work to understand study abroad participation.

 

In the end, males who adhere to a strict code of masculinity—a strong desire to
graduate and get a good job, a strong sense of duty and obligation, etc.——seem to be less
likely to go abroad. The more pragmatic the male, the less likely he was to see beyond
the obstacles presented to him. Given the overlap between my ﬁndings about males’
beliefs and behaviors and the literature related to male social norms (Brannon, 1976; t-
Kimmel, 2008; Thompson & Pleck, 1986), I suggest that masculinity is a key issue
related to understanding male participation; however, the role of male gender roles was
not the main focus for this study. As such, additional study is needed on the topic. Future
studies could combine measures related to masculinity as part of the participation study
to see if there is a correlation between gender role identity and participation.

Recommendations for Action

Based on my research and analysis, I have several recommendations for future
action in relation to increasing male study abroad participation. I present these ideas
below in categories related to the audience in question: study abroad ofﬁces, colleges and
faculty members, student affairs professionals, and the families and friends of young
males. In the next section, I discuss recommendations for future research.

Study Abroad Ofﬁces
1. Study Abroad ofﬁces need to think about their communication efforts beyond
simply advertising. the programs to inform a uniform student audience; they

should craft unique messages for students based on:

260

a. demographics—such as gender, disciplinary background, and other factors
such as socio-economic status and racial background—and

b. Motivational and work styles as suggested by Schneider.

. Study abroad ofﬁces need to embark on educational efforts that help students

understand the diversity and range of opportunities available to them.

Study abroad ofﬁces should work more closely with faculty members, former
students, and parents in terms of communicating the value of study abroad to their
students, ﬁiends, and sons.

. Study abroad ofﬁces should actively seek to recruit males for their marketing
efforts and staff positions and should feature images of males more in their
communications and advertisements.

. Study abroad ofﬁces should seek a better balance between the perception and
image of study abroad as a fun, additive activity, and as an organized ﬁeld trip.
Images and stories associated with study abroad should include more than

“tourist” shots and speciﬁcally show students in active learning environments.

. Study abroad should develop messages and support systems that help students

think more clearly about overcoming the obstacles to participation rather than just
focusing on the beneﬁts to participation.

. Study abroad should collaborate with colleges and departments to explicitly
outline and articulate the value of study abroad to students based on their

academic majors and their career interests.

261

 

 

8. Study abroad ofﬁces should engage with the sociological and educational
literature related to student develop and gender as a means of understanding their
students’ motivations, obstacles, and attitudes in a deeper, more signiﬁcant way.

9. Study Abroad Ofﬁces could assist researchers by asking gender related questions
on marketing surveys and program evaluations.

Colleges and Faculty Members

10. Colleges should clearly articulate the value of study abroad in terms of learning
outcomes (e. g., relationship to the career, major, and academics) and intrinsic
values (e. g., relationship to citizenship and professional skills).

11. Colleges and departments should consider methods of raising the “status” of so-
called “soft” skills such as language and culture by highlighting knowledge and
skills in these areas as an essential aspect of the major or degree program.

12. Colleges should engage faculty members in marketing and recruiting efforts.

13. Colleges and faculty should work with study abroad professionals to clearly
connect study abroad participation to the curriculum.

14. Colleges and departments should consider diversifying their programs to:

a. Offer a range of programs, program-models, and locations that would
appeal to diverse groups of males.

b. Offer more programs that provide the opportunity to do research and/or
internships abroad.

0. Offer more programs or opportunities to complete higher-level course

requirements.

262

 

(1. Design programs that provide males with some independence, excitement,
and unique learning experiences.
e. Design short-term programs that allow males to travel abroad but also

return home to work or intern for the summer.

Student Affairs Professionals

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

Advisors and student affairs professionals should keep sex and gender differences
in mind when working with young males and encourage young males to engage.
Advisors and student affairs professionals should work with Colleges and Study
Abroad Ofﬁces to get more information and discussion going amongst ﬁrst- and
second-year males about study abroad opportunities.

Advisors should prepare multi-faceted talking points related to the value and
importance of engagement and study abroad participation.

Student affairs professionals should work with career services to deﬁne and then
communicate the value of study abroad to students’ career development and
advancement.

Student affairs professionals should partner with study abroad professionals to do
outreach and programming with fraternities.

Student affairs professionals should work with the campus community to work on
issues related to gender-role conﬂicts, especially as related to male engagement.
Student affairs professionals should seek to support and advise Study Abroad
Ofﬁces on issues related to male development and male gender role norms as a

means of improving institutional practice.

263

 

 

22. Student affairs professionals should partner with study abroad ofﬁces to develop
language for students who need help talking with their parents about study
abroad, and conversely, they should consider developing resources for parents to i
help them speak with their children.

Families and Mentors of Young Males

23. Individuals who care about young males, such as parents, teachers, coaches, and
other mentors should think about their inﬂuence on them and encourage males to
engage.

24. Parents should ask more questions of their sons related to opportunities to engage
while at college.

25. Parents should seek support in understanding their children’s academic and career
choices if they seem “counter” to tradition and avoid biasing their children based
on traditional notions of gender.

Research: Limitations and Future Directions

This research design offered several advantages over previous studies.
Speciﬁcally, the use of a mixed method framework allowed me to look at general factors
related to study abroad participation, and for the ﬁrst time, employed a qualitative phase
to add depth and understanding to understanding this topic. Second, this study looked
speciﬁcally at differences between male participants and nonparticipants, not just at the
differences between males and females. As Sax (2008) states, some of the differences
essential to understanding the issue of participation are more related to difference

amongst males, not differences between males and females.

264

Third, this study used a gendered-lens through which to analysis and interpret the
ﬁndings. This literature allowed me to consider differences between males and females
and amongst males from a gender role perspective. Given that the concept of masculinity
seems central to all facets of the participation model used in this study, inclusion of these
ideas and theories has been pivotal. Future research efforts should build off the work
started here and further integrates measures of gender roles and masculinity into the
actual research design and instrumentation.

Beyond these advantages, this study has some inherent limitations. First, I relied
on an institutional survey rather than design my own. Generally, this survey contained
most of the variables I wanted to analysis; however, its format and content limited my
ability to do certain types of analysis. Speciﬁcally, the survey did not include socio-
economic status (SES) as a variable, which would have been a valuable demographic and
situational variable. SES could heavily inﬂuence students’ values, interests, and concept
of gender. More importunately, the survey format did not ask nonparticipants to answer a
set of questions that participants answered, which limited comparisons and the factor
analysis and prohibited the use of a regression. Finally, the survey design itself did not
use the literature as a base, so even though it has good overlap with my conceptual
framework, it does not perfectly overlap or connect to theory. If I redid this study, I
would look to redesign the survey.

The second limitation of the study relates to the qualitative interviews. Finding
young males to interview is difﬁcult, and ﬁnding males who did not participate in an
activity can be even more challenging. If I had more time and when I conduct future

studies, I would want to seek out more nonparticipants from a greater diversity of majors.

265

 

 

As I interviewed the males, I found that Sax’s (2008)——and others—ideas about
differences between males to be valuable. Additional nonparticipants and interviews with
groups of males—such as athletes or fraternity members—that represent other facets of
the male “experience” would be valuable. This study primarily looked at issues related to
males’ interactions with their families, friends, and major/career interests, but it would
have beneﬁted from looking at males in groups and the inﬂuence of these groups on them
(Rhodes, 1995).

Third, although not a weakness per se, I view this study as somewhat exploratory
in nature. As noted in the literature review, the study abroad literature lacks depth and
continuity in relationship to research. Few researchers have built upon previous work
within study abroad, and as a ﬁeld, substantive, inferential work is only just starting and
the link to and application of educational and sociological theory is weak. This study
used the participation and male engagement literature to explore some important
connections and build off the few previous gender studies within the literature, but this
study is only a beginning. More qualitative research is deﬁnitely needed to investigate in
more depth some of the ﬁndings ﬁom this study. Also, additional quantitative surveys
focused speciﬁcally on comparing male participants and nonparticipants would be helpful
to better compare males broadly on variables found in this study to be of interest.

Based on these limitations the ﬁndings presented above, I recommend the
following ideas for current and future researchers:

1. Continued use of qualitative methods is needed to improve theory and

understanding related to the issue of male study abroad participation.

266

. Researchers should continue to use literature bases outside, but related to,

study abroad to generate theory, design conceptual models, and assist in the
interpretation of ﬁndings.

. More work needs to be done internally to males, by looking at differences
between groups of males in addition to differences between males and
females. Speciﬁcally, I recommend looking at stereotypical “masculine”
social groups such as athletes, fraternity members, ROTC members, etc.

. Related to gender, more emphasis on the nature of gender and its links to
dispositional and sociological forces is needed. This study takes a sociological
approach; however, work in psychology and the mytho-poetic research lens
might provide different insights.

. More attention needs to be paid to students’ social-economic status and the
characteristics of their hometowns in relationship to their participation
choices, as their background may inﬂuence their decision to participate and

the locations they travel to if they choose to participate.

. This study suggests that male students seek a high degree of freedom while

abroad. Future research should delve deeper into these concepts as related to

male students’ development and their interest in autonomy.

. Future surveys should consider using participation studies as a basis for their

design, and when asking students about inﬂuences and obstacles, they should
ask all students all questions and consider having students both rate and rank
the variable. In other words, in addition to knowing to what degree variables

inﬂuence students positively or negatively, I believe it would be useful to

267

know how the variables interact and which was the most or least important
when compared to other variables.

8. This study looked at issues of participation broadly, and future studies could
focus in more speciﬁcally on some of the prominent ﬁndings from this study,
such as males as more independent and adventurous than females and males
as more career-orientated and pragmatic.

9. Future research should explore the inﬂuence of parents’ opinions on males

and females in a comparative manner to determine if males are more

 

independent of their parent’s support.

10. Future researchers should use a survey design and seek sample sizes that

 

allow them to compare male participants and nonparticipants by speciﬁc
majors or demographic statuses.

l 1. Future studies might also want to look at differences between males over time, i
speciﬁcally looking at how males’ perspectives on study abroad might evolve l
or change while in college.

12. Additional research is needed at private, liberal arts schools and regional
public institutions. This study’s ﬁndings reﬂect the perspectives of males at a
large research university.

Conclusion
This study used a mixed method design to investigate the question: “Why do male
students participate at signiﬁcantly lower rates than female students?” This issue is of
importance for both pedagogical and logistical reasons to study abroad ofﬁces and

international educators. As the United States’ government and higher education

268

 

institutions seek to intemationalize students’ experiences, determining the factors related
to men’s lower participation is an important step toward providing all graduates with a
global perspective and work force skills. As part of this study then, I reviewed the
literature related to study abroad, and I also explored the literature bases related to
participation studies, men’s literature, and college engagement. From this literature
review, I developed a model of participation based on Henry and Basile’s (1994) theory
of participation, and I designed the study to investigate the factors they highlighted as
inﬂuencing participation decisions.

Using a secondary analysis of an institutional survey and personal interviews of
male study abroad participants and nonparticipants, I determined that signiﬁcant
differences do exist between men and women; however, differences also seem to exist
between male participants and nonparticipants in terms of their opinions and knowledge
about the value and purpose of study abroad. In the end, men’s personal decision-making
based on a cost-beneﬁt analysis of study abroad seems to be the major factor related to
their participation status. Their decision-making is inﬂuenced by—but not primarily
dependent on—other participation factors such as programmatic offerings, institutional
messages and information, and their personal situations. As such, study abroad ofﬁces
can consider manipulating these factors to enhance—but not ensure—male participation
rates.

Looking toward the future, study abroad ofﬁces and colleges should seriously
consider their marketing and curriculum integration efforts and improve messages related
to the range of opportunities and beneﬁts that study abroad offers. Better outreach

towards males is also warranted, as a means of bringing the male perspective into the

269

 

 

study abroad discussion and to provide additional direct support to young males seeking
to navigate college. For researchers, additional emphasis on the speciﬁc ideas presented
in this study is important. Also, the continued use of educational literature bases, theories,
models, and research designs will enhance future research on study abroad topics.

Study abroad is an important tool for campus internationalization and a powerful
learning experience for students. To ensure that all students engage in study abroad

though, professionals need to understand the inﬂuences and obstacles related to them as a

 

group. Research on study abroad is nascent, as is quality research about males in college,
and it must continue to better understand this complex issue. Only by building on this and
other studies can study abroad begin to develop models and understandings in a

systematic and coherent way.

270

 

 

APPENDICES

271

APPENDIX A:

Summary of Sweet Briar Alumni Survey Data

Table A1. Summary of Sweet Briar Alurrmi Survey Data (Gore, pp. 222-232)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Why do you think more women go abroad than Men % Women %
men?
0 Men need to stay in the US. to focus on job training. 54.1 41.9
0 Women are more interested in understanding and 88.9 87/5
supporting art and culture.
0 Women are more capable of learning a foreign 21.9 31.1
language
Question: Why did you go abroad?
0 I went abroad to develop my career skills. 82.4 76
o I went abroad to broaden my cultural horizons. 100 99
o I went abroad to develop my independence. 100 88.1
Question: Did you encounter beliefs that impeded your study
abroad pursuits?
0 Faculty belief that my discipline could be best studied 43 52
in the US.
0 Faculty belief that study abroad was not serious 29 52
0 Faculty suspicion of study abroad 43 34
Question: What factors helped you decide to go abroad?
0 Academic interests 68.9 74.6
- Family’s interest in international issues 37.8 36.6
0 Male faculty member 35.6 17.1
0 Female faculty member 4.4 21
Question: Prior to study abroad, what was your major
o Humanities 22.2 1 1.9
0 Foreign language 13.3 5.4
0 Science or engineering 13.3 3
0 Business 0 2
Question: How did you hear about the program?
0 From a friend who attended the program 22.2 15.3
0 From a parent or adult relative O 9.3
0 From a faculty member 53.3 46.5
0 From a study abroad advisor 15.6 22.4

 

 

272

APPENDIX B:

Recruitment Letters

Recruitment letter #1 (those who participated)
Dear student:

My name is Jim Lucas, and I’m a graduate student at Michigan State University in the
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I am
interested in talking with male students, over 18 years of age, who participated on a study
abroad program to determine how they found out about the program and why they
decided to participate.

I received your name ﬁom X as a person with whom I should talk about my work. As
part of my research, I would like to conduct a brief interview (about 45 minutes) to
discuss your experience with the program. If you are interested, please contact me by
email: lucasiam@msu.edu, by phone: (517) 449-2570, or on F acebook.

Thank you,
Jim Lucas

Recruitment letter #2 (those who did not participate)
Dear student:
My name is Jim Lucas, and I’m a graduate student at Michigan State University in the
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education program. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I am
interested in talking with male students, over 18 years of age, about issues related to
participation in international activities at MSU, speciﬁcally how they come to know
about different opportunities available to them and how the decide whether or not to
participate in these opportunities.
I received your name from X as a person with whom I should talk about my work. As
part of my research, I would like to conduct a brief interview (about 30 — 45 minutes)
about your experiences. If you are interested, please contact me by email:
lucasjam@msu.edu, by phone: (517) 449-2570, or on Facebook.
Thank you,

Jim Lucas

273

APPENDIX C:
Volunteer Consent Form

Participant Informed Consent Form
Where are all the Males?: Mixed Methods Inquiry into Study Abroad Participation

 

Summary:

Many theories exist as to why male students decide to participate or not participate in
experiential activities such as clubs and organizations, study abroad, service learning,
leadership institutes, etc. during their ﬁrst-year at college. This project seeks to
investigate ideas about male student participation in study abroad based on a survey and
interviews with traditionally-aged, male undergraduate students at Michigan State
University. The primary objective of this study will be to generate a theory about how
male students receive messages about study abroad and make decisions about their
participation.

Estimate of Participant’s Time:
The interview will consist of 10 open-ended questions and will take about 45 to 60
minutes. Any follow-up interviews will be approximately thirty minutes in length.

Voluntary Participation:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and participation in this study is
in no way linked to your status at Michigan State as a student. You may choose withdraw
you consent, refuse to answer speciﬁc questions, and/or discontinue participation at any
time during the study without penalty. If you choose to withdraw from the project, all
data records related to you will be destroyed immediately. Please note that you must be at
least 18 years of age and a US citizen to participate in this study. You can ask questions
of the interviewer at any time during the process.

Handling the Data:

The interview you grant for this project will be digitally recorded. If you prefer the
interview NOT be taped, the interviewer will take and transcribe notes from the session.
You will not be identiﬁed in any way on the transcription of the tape or the notes. The
researcher and her assistant will be the only people with access to the tapes and notes,
and they will keep these data in a locked drawer in a locked ofﬁce. When the study is
completed all tapes will be destroyed.

Conﬁdentiality and Anonymity:

Your privacy in this study will be protected to the maximum extent allowed by law. Also,
your decision regarding participation in this study will not be released to any other person
or agency. If information gathered from this study is used in future research or
publications, you anonymity is guaranteed in reports and data summaries through the use
of a pseudonym (an alternative name). All data will be treated in a conﬁdential manner
and no student will be identiﬁed by name in reports.

274

Risks:
There are no known risks associated or ﬁnancial obligations associated with this study.

Contact Person(s) and Questions Regarding this Study:

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the primary investigator, Dr.
Ann Austin, by phone: (517) 355-6757, by email: aaustin@msu.edu, or by regular mail:
417 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

If at any time you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant,
please contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection
Program by phone: (517) 355-2180, by email: irb@msu.edu or by regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.
Please check the line which reﬂects your wishes regarding the audio-taping of this
interview.

Yes, I voluntarily agree to have this interview digitally recorded.

No, I do not want this interview to be audio-taped.

Signature of Participant: Date:

 

 

Signature of Researcher: Date:

 

 

275

APPENDIX D:

Interview Protocol

Title: Where are all the Men?: Mixed Methods Inquiry into Study Abroad Participation

 

l.

2.

7.

8.

Introduce self and cover the nature of the research and the research process.
Read consent form with participant and obtain consent.

Discuss background on the interview, including issues related to pseudonym,
recording, ﬁeld notes, and eye contact.

Commence with questions

Participant check for understanding

Debrief participant

Discuss potential for follow-up conversations

Conclude

Questions for interviews:

1.

SAPS”

.°°

Walk me through what you know about the international opportunities at MSU:
a. What is available?
b. Why is it or is it not important?
c. How could you participate in these activities?
Let’s focus on one speciﬁc opportunity: Study Abroad. What do you know about
study abroad in general?
How have you heard about study abroad? From what sources or people?
Let’s look at the web site and video now. What do you think about them?
What makes this speciﬁc opportunity attractive or not attractive to you:
a. Why did you want to/not want to participate?
b. What factors made this/would have made the opportunity more interesting
to you?
c. What factors made this or would have made the opportunity less attractive
to you?
How important is it for you to get involved in these types activities while at
MSU?
A lot of people are talking about how women are participating more in these
opportunities than men. What do you think about that? Why might that be the
case?
How do you talk about study abroad with other people? Friends? Family?
What do guys say generally about study abroad?

276

10. If you could design your ideal study abroad program, what would be like?
11. What is your family background like in terms of school and work?

12. Is there anything else about this topic that you think I should know?

13. Do you have any questions for me at this time?

277

 

APPENDIX E:

Overview of Survey Volunteers by Demographic Characteristics

139.1813]: Overview of Survey Volunteers by Demographic Characteristics (% = Percent of Total Survey)

 

 

 

Male Female Participants Nonparticipants Survey Total
Group Survey Group Survey Group Survey Group Survey
N ,
,, , , % % N % % N % % N % % N %
Gender Men —- -- -- -- -- —— 240 33.8 18.6 334 57.9 26.0 908 44.4
Women -— -— -- —- —- -- 470 66.2 36.5 243 42.1 18.9 1133 55.4
Ethnicity Minority 125 14.3 6.3 179 16.3 9.1 101 14.7 8.1 90 16.0 7.2 305 14.9
Majority 748 85.7 37.9 922 83.7 46.7 588 85.3 47.0 472 84.0 37.7 1673 81.8
Transfer Transfer 182 20.1 8.9 162 14.3 7.9 83 11.7 6.4 137 23.7 10.6 345 16.9
Non—Transfer 725 79.9 35.6 970 85.7 47.6 628 88.3 48.8 440 76.3 34.2 1698 83.0
Major STEM 409 45.1 20.0 406 35.8 19.9 231 32.5 17.9 518 64.0 22.3 817 40.0
non—STEM 244 26.9 12.0 522 46.1 25.6 320 45.0 24.8 162 20.0 12.6 767 37.5
Business 233 25.7 11.4 173 15.3 8.5 152 21.4 11.8 119 14.7 9.2 407 19.9
Undeclared 21 2.3 1.0 32 2.8 1.6 8 1.1 0.6 10 1.2 0.8 53 2.6
Yr. in School First 132 14.9 6.5 163 14.8 8.0 34 4.9 2.60 57 9.9 4.4 295 14.4
Second 175 19.7 8.6 235 21.4 11.6 97 14.1 7.50 89 15.5 6.9 411 20.1
Third 253 28.5 12.4 307 28.0 15.1 235 34.1 18.30 153 26.6 11.9 562 27.6
Fourth 251 28.3 12.3 328 29.9 16.1 258 37.4 20.10 204 35.4 15.9 580 28.4
Fifth or higher 76 8.6 3.7 65 5.9 3.2 65 9.4 6.60 73 12.7 5.6 190 9.3
Participated in Yes 240 41.8 18.6 470 65.9 36.5 -- -- -- -- -- -— 712 348
Study Abroad No 334 58.2 26.0 243 34.1 18.9 —- -- —— —— —— —— 578 28.3

 

 

 

278

 

 

a..D.;\;

 

APPENDIX F:

Tables Related to Background Variables

Table F1: Crosstab Table for Participation Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Participation Status Male Female Total
Participated Count 240 470 710
Expected Count 316.7 393.3 710.0
% within Participation 33.8% 66.2% 100.0%
% within Sex 41.8% 65.9% 55.2%
% of Total 18.6% 36.5% 55.2%
Non Participated Count 334 243 577
Expected Count 257.3 319.7 577.0
% within Participation 57.9% 42.1% 100.0%
% within Sex 58.2% 34.1% 44.8%
% of Total 26.0% 18.9% 44.8%
Total Count 574 713 1287
Expected Count 574.0 713.0 1287.0
% within Participation 44.6% 55.4% 100.0%
% within Sex 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 44.6% 55.4% 100.0%
Table F2: Chi-Square Test for Partici1 ation Status by Sex
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 74.72 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1287

 

 

 

 

 

 

279

 

351*

. u. '-..T

 

Table F3: Crosstab of Racial Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Racial status Men Women Total
Majority Count 748 922 1670
Expected Count 738.6 931.4 1670.0
% within Racial 44.8% 55.2% 100.0%
% within Gender 85.7% 83.7% 84.6%
% of Total 37.9% 46.7% 84.6%
Minority Count 125 179 304
Expected Count 134.4 169.6 304.0
% within Racial 41.1% 58.9% 100.0%
% within Gender 14.3% 16.3% 15.4%
% ofTotal 6.3% 9.1% 15.4%
Total Count 873 1 101 1974
Expected Count 873.0 1101.0 1974.0
% within Racial 44.2% 55.8% 100.0%
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 44.2% 55.8% 100.0%
Table F4: Chi-Square Test for Racial Status by Sex
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.406 1 .236
N of Valid Cases 1974

 

 

 

 

 

280

 

Table F5: Crosstab of Previous Travel by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Previous Travel Men Women Total
Yes Count 484 614 1098
Expected Count 488.5 609.5 1098.0
% within Travel 44.1% 55.9% 100.0%
% within Gender 53.3% 54.2% 53.8%
% of Total 23.7% 30.1% 53.8%
No Count 424 5 19 943
Expected Count 419.5 523.5 943.0
% within Travel 45.0% 55.0% 100.0%
% within Gender 46.7% 45.8% 46.2%
% of Total 20.8% 25.4% 46.2%
Total Count 908 1133 2041
Expected Count 908.0 1133.0 2041.0
% within Travel 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%

 

 

Table F6: Chi-Square Test for Racial Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .160 1 .689
N of Valid Cases 2041

 

 

281

LE i‘i «alum-ﬂ

 

 

Table F7: Crosstab Table for Major by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Major Category Male Female Total
STEM Count 409 406 8 l 5
Expected Count 362.4 452.6 815.0
% within STEM 50.2% 49.8% 100.0%
% within Sex_2 45.1% 35.8% 40.0%
% of Total 20.0% 19.9% 40.0%
Liberal Arts Count 244 522 766
Expected Count 340.6 425.4 766.0
% within STEM 31.9% 68.1% 100.0%
% within Sex_2 26.9% 46.1% 37.5%
% of Total 12.0% 25.6% 37.5%
Business Count 233 173 406
Expected Count 180.5 225.5 406.0
% within STEM 57.4% 42.6% 100.0%
% within Sex_2 25.7% 15.3% 19.9%
% of Total 11.4% 8.5% 19.9%
No major Count 21 32 53
Expected Count 23.6 29.4 53.0
% within STEM 39.6% 60.4% 100.0%
% within Sex_2 2.3% 2.8% 2.6%
% of Total 1.0% 1.6% 2.6%
Total Count 907 1 133 2040
Expected Count 907.0 1133.0 2040.0
% within STEM 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%
% within Sex_2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

282

Table F8: Chi-Scurare Test for Partici

ation Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 88.10 3 .000
N of Valid Cases 2040
Table F 9: Crosstab Analysis for Major by Participation Status
Participation Status
Non
Major Participated Participated Total
STEM Count 231 287 518
Expected Count 285.7 232.3 518.0
Liberal Arts Count 320 162 482
Expected Count 265.9 216.1 482.0
Business Count 152 119 271
Expected Count 149.5 121.5 271.0
Undeclared Count 8 10 18
Expected Count 9.9 8.1 18.0
Total Count 71 1 578 1289
Expected Count . 711.0 578.0 1289.0

 

 

 

 

Table F10: Chi-Square Test for Major by Participation Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 48.89 3 .OOOI
N of Valid Cases 1289

 

 

283

 

Table F11: Crosstab Analysis for Transfer Status by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Transfer Status Men Women Total
Yes Count 182 162 344
Expected Count 153.0 191.0 344.0
% within Transfer 52.9% 47.1% 100.0%
% within Gender 20.1% 14.3% 16.9%
% of Total 8.9% 7.9% 16.9%
No Count 725 9701 1695
Expected Count 754.0 941.0 1695.0
% within Transfer 42.8% 57.2% 100.0%
% within Gender 79.9% 85.7% 83.1%
% of Total 35.6% 47.6% 83.1%
Total Count 907 1132 2039
Expected Count 907.0 1132.0 2039.0
% within Transfer 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 44.5% 55.5% 100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

Table F12: Chi-Square Test for Transfer Status by Sex

 

 

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.89 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 2039

 

 

 

 

 

 

284

Table F13: Crosstab Analysis for Major by Participation Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation Status
Non
Transfer Status Participated Participated Total
Yes Count 83 137 220
EXPCCted 121.4 98.6 220.0
Count
No Count 628 440 1068
EXPCCted 589.6 478.4 1068.0
Count
Total Count 711 577 1288
ExPeaed 711.0) 577.0) 1288.0
Count
Table F14: Chi-Scmare Test for Transfer Status by Participation Status
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 32.76 1 .000)
N of Valid Cases 1288
Table F15: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Respondents’ GPA
Descripitves AN OVA
Std. Sig.
Group N‘ Mean Dev. df F (p)
Men 891 3.26 .472 1 7.80 0.005
Women 1 109 3.32 .440
Total 2000 3.29 .455
Participants 699 3 .37 .401 1 41.13 .000
Non Participants 569 3.21 .484
Total 1268 3.30 .447
Scale = 4.0

285

I

APPENDIX G:

Tables Related to Institutional and Programmatic Variable

Table G1: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Programmatic Variables (Participants)

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves AN OVA
. Std. Sig.
0
Variable Nh /o Nt Mean Dev. df F (p)
Cost Men 59 24.7 239 3.27 1.60 l 6.01 0.014
Women 153 32.6 469 3.59 1.63
Total 212 29.9 708 3 .48 1.63
Location Men 193 80.4 240 5.16 1.15 1 12.47 0.000
Women 407 86.6 470 5.4-4 0.90
Total 600 84.5 710 5.35 1.00
Duration Men 120 50.2 239 4.33 1.37 l 12.24 0.000
Women 302 64.3 470 4.70 1.32
Total 422 59.5 709 4.58 1.37
Timing Men 147 61.5 239 4.63 1.43 l 7.12 0.008
Women 340 72.6 468 4.92 1.36
Total 487 68.8 707 4.82 1.39
Coursework Men 144 60.4 238 4.43 1.47 1 2.36 0.125
Women 271 58.0 467 4.61 1.46
Total 415 58.8 705 4.61 1.46

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Number of students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6)

Nt = Number of total respondents

286

 

Table G2: Crosstab Analysis for Program Duration by Sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Duration of First Study Abroad
Program Male Female Total
Less 3 Weeks Count 21 69 90
53:31::th 33.3 56.7 90.0
% of Total 4.6% 15.0% 19.6%
9 Weeks or Less Count 100 166 266
(133:3:th 98.3 167.7 266.0
% ofTotal 21.7% 36.1% 57.8%
9 to 16 Weeks (Semester) Count 46 48 94
5:131:th 34.7 59.3 94.0
% of Total 10.0% 10.4% 20.4%
More than 16 Weeks Count 3 7 10
523:?“ 3.7 6.3 10.0
% of Total .7% 1.5% 2.2%
Total Count 170 290 460
2:5:th 170.0 290.0 460.0
% of Total 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%
Table G3: Chi-Square Test for Program Duration by Sex
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.213 3 .004
N of Valid Cases 460

 

 

 

 

 

287

 

APPENDIX H:
Tables Related to Situational Variables

Table H1: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Situational Variables (Participants)

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA

Variable Nh % Nt Mean Std. Dev. df F Sig.

Time Men 34 14.2 239 2.72 1.50 1 0.056 0.813
Women 78 16.6 470 2.75 1.58
Total 1 12 15.8 709 2.47 1.55

Money Men 96 40.2 239 3.82 1.64 1 4.95 0.026
Women 226 48.2 469 4.11 1.64
Total 322 45.5 708 4.01 1.64

Wages Men 62 26.3 236 3.03 1.76 1 4.53 0.034
Women 142 30.3 468 3.32 1.76
Total 204 29.0 704 3.22 1.76

Delay Men 26 10.9 239 2.17 1.50 1 4.60 0.032
graduation Women 43 9.2 469 1.92 1.41
Total 69 9 .8 708 2.00 1.45

Required Men 45 18.8 239 2.77 1.68 l 1.16 0.282
courses Women 83 17.7 470 2.62 1.66
Total 128 18.1 709 2.67 1.66

Academic Men 8 3.3 239 1.69 1.19 1 0.694 0.405
requirements Women 1 7 3 .6 469 1.62 1.08
Total 25 3.5 708 1.64 1.12

Family Men 11 4.7 236 1.75 1.20 1 0.564 0.453
duties Women 28 6.0 466 1.82 1.30
Total 39 5.6 702 1.8 1.27

Clubs Men 16 5.0 312 2.44 1.58 1 1.062 0.303
Women 14 6.6 213 2.41 1.56
Total 30 5.6 525 2.43 1.58

Lease Men 18 7.5 239 1.89 1.31 l 2.75 0.097
Women 55 l 1 .7 469 2.08 1.50
Total 73 10.3 708 2.01 1.44

Athletics Men 6 2.5 239 1.33 0.88 1 1.49 0.223
Women 12 2.6 469 1.25 0.81
Total 18 2.6 708 1.28 0.83

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

288

Table H2: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Situational Variables (Non-Partcipants)

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves AN OVA
Variable Nb °/. Nt Mean Std. Dev. df r Sig. (p)
Time Men 163 51.6 316 4.27 1.58 1 0.025 0.875
Women 1 17 54.7 214 4.29 1.63
Total 280 52.9 530 4.28 1.60
Money Men 170 54.0 315 4.16 1.76 1 8.57 0.004
Women 134 62.6 214 4.60 1.60
Total 304 57.5 529 4.34 1.71
Wages Men 127 40.7 312 3.50 1.91 1 5.277 0.022
Women 97 45.5 213 3.88 1.77
Total 224 42.6 525 3.66 1.87
Delay Men 97 30.8 315 3.19 1.82 1 0.555 0.457
graduation Women 66 30.8 214 3.07 1.88
Total 163 30.8 529 3.14 1.85
Required Men 83 26.4 314 3.25 1.70 1 0.377 0.540
Courses Women 67 31.5 213 3.34 1.78
Total 150 28.5 527 3.29 1.73
Academic Men 25 7.9 315 1.88 1.34 1 0.033 0.856
requirements Women 17 7.9 214 1.87 1.38
Total 42 7.9 529 1.88 1.34
Family Men 38 12.1 314 2.24 1.57 l 0.00 0.99
duties Women 25 1 1.7 213 2.24 1.55
Total 63 1 1.9 527 2.24 1.55
Clubs Men 34 14.1 239 1.86 1.26 1 0.043 0.835
Women 73 15.5 469 1.97 1.31
Total 106 15.0 708 1.93 1.30
Lease Men 40 12.7 314 2.56 1.50 1 1.32 0.252
Women 42 19.6 214 2.72 1.66
Total 82 15.5 528 2.62 1.56
Athletics Men 18 5.7 314 1.63 1.23 l 5.20 0.023
Women 7 3.3 213 1.40 0.98
Total 25 4.7 527 1.54 1.14

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

289

APPENDIX 1:
Tables Related to Dispositional Variables

Table 11: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Digositional InﬂuencegParticipants)

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Std. Sig.
Variable Nh % Nt Mean Dev. df F (p)
Language Men 83 34.7 240 3.21 1.96 1 0.454 0.501

Women 149 31.7 470 3.31 2.01
Total 232 32.7 710 3.28 1.99

Homestay Men 1 10 45.8 240 4.01 1.80 1 0.122 0.727
Women 243 5 1 .7 470 4.06 1.88
Total 353 49.7 710 4.04 1.85

 

Future Men 159 66.5 239 4.82 1.36. 1 2.22 0.137
Women 327 69.6 470 4.97 1.30
Total 486 68.6 709 4.92 1.32

Fun Men 207 86.3 240 5.38 0.865 1 2.91 0.088
Women 419 89.5 468 5.5 0.811
Total 626 88.4 708 5.46. 0.831

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

Table 12: Descriptives and AN OVA Results for Digiositional Obstacles (Participants)

 

 

 

Rani Descripitves AN OVA

Std. Sig.

Variable Nh % Nt Mean Dev. df F (p)

Academic Men 16 6.7 238 1.92 1.32 1 0.22 0.639
performance Women 30 6.4 468 1.87 1.28
Total 46 6.5 706 1.89 1.29

Health Men 6 2.5 239 1.69 1.03 1 20.09 0.000
Women 39 8.3 469 2.14 1.37
Total 45 6.3 708 1.99 1.28

Safety Men 10 4.2 239 1.82 1.17 1 31.27 0.000
Women 55 1 1.7 469 2.44 1.49
Total 65 9.2 708 2.23 1.42

Miss family Men 29 12.1 239 2.24 1.55 1 25.85 0.000
Women 92 19.7 467 2.89 1.64
Total 121 17.1 706 2.67 1.64

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

290

Table I3: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Dispositional Obstacles (Nonparticipants)

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Std. Sig.
0
Variable Nh /° Nt Mean Dev. df F (p)
Academic Men 31 9.8 315 2.16 1.45 1 1.56 0.213
Performance Women 17 7.9 214 2.00 1.41
Total 48 9.0 529 2.09 1.44
No Men 72 22.7 317 2.89 1.78 l 18.91 0.000
Interest Women 32 15 213 2.22 1 .66
Total 104 19.6 530 2.62 1.76
Health Men 18 5.8 313 1.91 1.29 1 0.034 0.854
Women 11 5.1 214 1.93 1.26
Total 29 5.5 527 1.92 1.28
Safety Men 30 9.5 315 2.04 1.42 1 0.433 0.511
Women 12 5.6 214 2.13 1.37
Total 42 7.9 . 529 2.08 1.40
Miss family Men 71 22.5 316 2.76 1.78 1 0.719 0.397
Women 51 23.9 213 2.9 1.78
Total 122 23.1 529 2.82 1.78

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

Table I4: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Two Dispositional Variables Q’articipants)

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves AN OVA
Std. Sig.
Variable Nh % N, Mean Dev. df F (p)
Study abroad. Men 125 73.5 179 1.91 0.900 1 0.137 0.712
more interesting Women 227 77.5 293 1.87 0.903
Total 352 76.0 463 1.89 0.901
Studyabroad Men 51 30.0 170 2.95 1.108 1 3.805 0.052
more
challenging Women 69 23.6 292 3.15 1.045
Total 120 26.0 462 3 .08 1.072

 

Scale = 1 through 5, with 5 as high
N, = Number of students agreeing (4 or 5 rating); Nt = Number of total respondents

29

l

APPENDIX J:

Tables Related to Relational/Informational Variables

Table J1: Descriptives gn_d AN OVA Results for Information/Relational Variables (participants)

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Variable Nh % Nt Mean Std. Dev. df F Sig. (p)

Parental Men 69 29.1 237 3.32 1.66 l 8.58 0.004
encouragement Women 167 3 5 .9 465 3.71 1.65

Total 236 33.6 702 3.58 1.66
Peer Men 60 25 240 3.22 1.70 l 5.92 0.015
messages Women 171 36.4 470 3.55 1.76

Total 231 32.5 710 3.44 1.75
Know Men 46 19.2 239 2.60 1.79 l 0.00 0.988
faculty Women 91 19.4 468 2.60 1.80

Total 137 19.3 707 2.60 1.79
Know Men 36 15 240 2.30 1.69 1 1.09 0.296
friends Women 70 14.9 469 2.16 1.67

Total 106 14.9 709 2.21 1.69

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

Table J2: Descriptives 1’19 ANOVA Results for the Information/Relational Obstacle

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Variable Nh % Nt Mean Std. Dev. df F Sig. (p)

Lack of Men 6 2.5 239 1.53 1.01 l 5.98 0.015
family support Women 36 7.7 468 1.78 1.36

Total 42 5.9 707 1.69 1.26
Lack of Men 34 10.9 313 2.08 1.46 1 0.57 0.451
family support Women 23 10.7 214 2.18 1.51

Total 57 10.8 527 2.12 1.48

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

292

Table J 3: Student Ratings of Institutional Helpfulness for Study Abroad

 

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Std. Sig.
Variable Nh % N. Mean Dev. df F (p)
Study Abroad Men 69 29.1 237 3.67 1.58 1 0.818 0.366
Women 129 28.7 449 3.78 1.54
Total 198 28.8 686 3.74 1.55
Financial Aid Men 21 13.6 157 3.24 1.53 1 3.44 0.064
Women 57 19.6 290 3.54 1.65
Total 78 17.5 447 3.43 1.61
Advisor Men 48 24.4 196 3 .49 1.66 l 3.40 0.066
Women 106 27.7 382 3.76 1.66
Total 154 26.6 578 3.67 1.67
Program faculty Men 118 50.0 236 4.36 1.84 1 0.01 0.914
Women 223 49.5 450 4.34 1.84
Total 341 49.7 686 4.35 1.84
Dept. faculty Men 39 21.7 179 3.58 1.71 1 0.023 0.880
Women 60 19.8 305 3.60 1.75
Total 99 20.5 484 3.59 1.73
My major Men 34 21.3 158 3.60 1.77 1 1.16 0.283
Women 55 17.4 316 3.42 1.65
Total 89 18.7 474 3.48 1.69
Dean's Ofﬁce Men 11 11.2 102 3.23 1.71 1 0.047 0.828
Women 19 10.6 179 3.18 1.74
Total 30 10.8 » 281 3.20 1.73
Student accounts Men 12 10.5 111 3.13 1.63 1 0.178 0.673
Women 17 9.0 188 3.21 1.60
Total 29 9.6 299 3.18 1.61
Travel clinic Men 20 14.7 134 3.43 1.66 1 0.242 0.623
Women 34 14.4 239 3.51 1.69
Total 54 14.5 373 3.48 1.68
Athletic staff Men 2 3.9 43 2.95 1.73 1 0.815 0.369
Women 1 1.8 45 2.62 1.71
Total 2 2.9 85 2.78 1.72

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high
Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

293

Table .14: Participants’ Ratings of Interpersonal Support for Study Abroad

 

 

Rating Descripitves ANOVA
Std.
o .

Var'nble N. /o Nt Mean Dev F Sig. (p)

Friends& Men 224 87.9 255 1.44 0.87 1 18.81 0
peers Women 473 95.5 495 1.21 0.595
Total 697 92.9 750 1.29 0.706

Parents& Men 213 84.2 253 1.55 1.052 1 0.051 0.821
family Women 417 84.5 494 1.56 1.132
Total 630 84.4 747 1.56 1. 105

Religious Men 7 13.8 52 2.23 1.37 1 8.47 0.004
leader Women 1 1 13.2 84 1.63 1.03
Total 18 13.4 136 1.86 1.2

HS teacher Men 8 14.6 52 1.92 1.169 1 12.17 0.001
Women 30 23.4 129 1.39 0.823
Total 38 20.9 181 1.54 0.963

Doctor Men 7 12.9 53 2.17 1.24 1 1.24 0.267
Women 20 17.2 116 1.92 1.38
Total 27 15.9 169 2 1.34

En'ployer Men 38 32.1 119 2.06 1.28 1 3.004 0.084
Women 137 47.2 291 1.82 1.23

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as high

Nh = Students rating variable as highly important 5 or 6); Nt = total respondents

294

APPENDIX K:

Factor Analysis Table

Table K1: Principal Components Anzmlsis for Participant Inﬂuences

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable 1 2 3 4
1 ~ Cost 0.476
2 Location 0.565
3 Duration 0.691
4 Timing 0.701
5 Coursework 0.607
6 Language 0.738
7 Home stay 0.737
8 Peer messages 0.654
9 Know faculty 0.716
10 Know students 0.750
11 Family encouraged *
12 Fun 0.763
13 Future *
Loading 13.82 13.17 11.1 10.44
Scale alpha 0.518 0.574 0.526 0.385
KMO=. 71 7

Bartlett’s p = .000
* Only values higher than .4 are listed

295

Table K2: Principal Components Analysis for Male Participant Inﬂuences

 

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1 Cost 0.664
2 Location 0.702
3 Duration 0.764
4 Timing 0.628
5 Coursework 0.714
6 Language 0.65
7 Home stay 0.719
8 Peer messages 0.622
9 Know faculty 0.732
10 Know students 0.798
1 1 Family encouraged 0.42
12 Fun 0.46
13 Future 0.701
Loading 13.064 11.946 11.859 10.68 10.056
KMO=. 685

Bartlett's p = .000

Table K3: Principal Components Analysis for Female Participant Inﬂuences

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable l 2 3 4
1 Cost *
2 Location 0.675
3 Duration 0.71 7
4 Timing 0.709
5 Coursework 0.642
6 Language 0.729
7 Home stay 0.782
8 Peer messages 0.683
9 Know faculty 0.668
10 Know students 0.721
11 Family encouraged *
12 Fun 0.757
13 Future 0.412
Loading 14.26 13.3 1 1.05 9.81
KMO=. 698

Bartlett '3 p = .000
* Only values higher than .4 are listed

296

Table K4: Principal Components Analysis for Participants' Obstacles

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable 1 2 3 4
1 Finding time 0.532
2 Finding money 0.851
3 Lost wages 0.848
4 Finding courses 0.803
5 Delay graduation 0.774
Meet
6 requirements 0.550
Acad.
7 performance 0.405
8 Safety 0.875
9 Health 0.823
10 Lease *
l 1 Clubs/leadership 0.645
12 Family support 0.49
13 Family duties 0.571
14 Miss family 0.547
1 5 Athletics 0.777
Loading 31.63 9.73 9.36 7.06
Scale alpha 0.702 0.686 0.757 0.736
KMO=. 698

Bartlett's p = .000

* Only values higher than .4 are listed

297

Table K5: Printﬂial Components Analysis for Male Participants' Obstacles

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable l 2 3
1 Finding time 0.616
2 Finding money 0.829
3 Lost wages 0.821
4 Finding courses 0.808
5 Delay graduation 0.707
6 Meet requirements 0.554
7 Acad. performance 0.638
8 Safety 0.685
9 Health 0.672
10 Lease 0.581
1 1 Clubs/leadership 0.628
12 Family support 0.699
13 Family duties 0.637
14 Miss family 0.636
15 Athletics 0.707
Loading 37.69 9.54 9.04
KMO=. 698

Bartlett's p = .000

298

Table K6: Principal Components Analysis for Female Participants' Obstacles
Components

Variable

\OWVQM-PWN—I

Finding time
Finding money
Lost wages
Finding courses
Delay graduation
Meet requirements
Acad. performance
Safety

Health

Lease

Clubs/ leadership
Family support
Family duties
Miss family
Athletics

Loading

Kit/10:. 69, Bartlett’s p = .000

* Only values higher than .4 are listed

 

1

0.466
0.829
0.759

0.453
0.542
0.613

29.48

2 3

4

0.455

0.843
0.863

0.799
0.753
0.536

9.93

0.672

0.768

9.54

Table K7: Principal Components Analysis for Nonparticipants' Obstacles
Components

Variable

ezeezavwwowew-

KMO=. 698

Finding time
Finding money
Lost wages
Finding courses
Delay graduation
Meet requirements
Acad. performance
Safety

Health

Lease
Clubs/leadership
Family support
Family duties
Miss family
Athletics

Loading

Scale alpha

Bartlett's p = .000

1

0.734
0.735
0.605
0.603

26.23
0.794

299

2

0.487

0.422
0.741
0.775

10.45
0.677

3 4

0.849
0.799
0.724
0.813

6.74
0.641

8.92
0.581

7.15

0.534

0.620

0.788
6.4
0.427

 

Table K8: Principal Components Analysis for Male Nonparticipants' Obstacles

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1 Finding time 0.563
2 Finding money 0.843
3 Lost wages 0.788
4 Finding courses 0.779
5 Delay graduation 0.843
6 Meet requirements 0.705
7 Acad. performance 0.719
8 Safety 0.635
9 Health 0.595
10 Lease 0.499
1 1 Clubs/leadership 0.656
12 Family support 0.581
13 Family duties 0.816
14 Miss family 0.778
15 Athletics 0.749
Loading 27.52 10.39 8.52 7.06 6.64
KMO=.698

Bartlett's p = .000

Table K9: Principal Components Analysis for Female Nonparticipants' Obstacles

 

 

 

 

 

Components
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1 Finding time 0.732
2 Finding money 0.731
3 Lost wages 0.787 0.788
4 Finding courses 0.751
5 Delay graduation 0.647
6 Meet requirements 0.688
7 Acad. performance 0.710
8 Safety 0.670
9 Health 0.721
10 Lease 0.586
1 1 Clubs/leadership 0.674
12 Family support 0.464
13 Family duties 0.667
14 Miss family 0.665
15 Athletics
Loading 25.00 10.78 9.46 7.16 6.34
KMO=. 698

Bartlett's p = .000

* Only values higher than .4 are listed

300

Table K10: Principal Comments AnalLsis for Participants’ Inﬂuences and Obstacles

 

Components

 

Variable l 2

3 4 5 6

 

Cost

Location
Duration
Timing
Coursework
language
Home stay
Peer messages
Know faculty
Know students
Family encouraged
Fun

Future

Finding time
Finding money

0.508

Lost wages

0.776
0.757
0.526

Finding courses
Delay graduation
Meet requirements
Acad. performance *
Safety

Health

Lease
Clubs/leadership
Family support

0.484
0.619
0.464
0.602
0.401
0.710

Family duties
Miss family
Athletics

0.690
0.751
0.504

0.565
0.716
0.720

0.794
0.826

0.865
0.801

0.675

0.778
0.673

0.766
0.734
0.484

 

Loading
Scale alpha

18.32 8.3
0.728 0.686

4.72
0.515

5.98
0.847

5.28 4.93
0.736 0.574

3.98 3.9 3.74
0.468 0.299 0.385

 

KMO=. 806
Bartlett's p = .000

* Only values higher than .4 are listed

301

Appendix L:
Male Volunteers by Participation Status and Major Category

Table L1: Male Volunteers by Participation Status and Major Category

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Nonparticipants
Residential program for Andrew Bill
international relations and
public policy majors Chris Eli
Jake Greg
Oscar
Shaun
Liberal arts and social science Corey Jack
majors
Eric Sam
John Taylor
Matt
Science, technology, Danny David
engineering, and math majors
(STEM) George Frank
Jason Ian
Kenny George

 

 

 

302

 

APPENDIX M:
F ollow-up Analysis on Males and Age

Table M1: Descriptives and ANOVA Results for Participants' Academic Level

 

 

 

Descripitves ANOVA
Year in
School Nt Mean Std. Dev. df F Sig. (p)
Men 170 2.80 0.94 1 5.078 0.025
Women 292 2.58 l .06
Total 462 2.66 1 .02

 

Scale = 1 through 6, with 6 as sixth year in school (could be graduate student)

Nt = Number of total respondents

Table M2: Crosstabs for Academic Year by Participation for Males and Females

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation Status
Males Participant Nonparticipant Total
Year 1 Count 7 42 49
Expected Count 20.5 28.5 49.0
% within Year 14.3% 85.7% 100.0%
0 . .
A’ with“. 2.9% 12.6% 8.5%
Partrcrpatlon
% ofTotal 1.2% 7.3% 8.5%
2 Count 19 45 64
Expected Count 26.8 37.2 64.0
% within Year 29.7% 70.3% 100.0%
0 . .
/° witi’m. 7.9% 13.5% 11.1%
Part1c1patron
% ofTotal 3.3% 7.8% 11.1%
3 Count 84 109 193
Expected Count 80.7 112.3 193.0
% within Year 43.5% 56.5% 100.0%
0 . .
/° “(Him . 35.0% 32.6% 33.6%
Part1c1patlon
% of Total 14.6% 19.0% 33.6%
4 Count 130 138 268

 

 

303

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected Count 112.1 155.9 268.0

% within Year 48.5% 51.5% 100.0%
:oarhbtiggtion 54.2% 41.3% 46.7%

% of Total 22.6% 24.0% 46.7%

Total Count 240 334 574
Expected Count 240.0 334.0 574.0

% within Year 41.8% 58.2% 100.0%
:f’arvt’g‘ctgzﬁon 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 41.8% 58.2% 100.0%

Females Participant Nonparticipant Total

Year 1 Count 23 14 37
Expected Count 24.4 12.6 37.0

% within Year 62.2% 37.8% 100.0%
ragtgzﬁon 4.9% 5.8% 5.2%

% of Total 3.2% 2.0% 5.2%

2 Count 63 41 104
Expected Count 68.6 35.4 104.0

% within Year 60.6% 39.4% 100.0%
:f’mg‘gzﬁon 13.4% 16.9% 14.6%

% of Total 8.8% 5.8% 14.6%

3 Count 160 66 226
Expected Count 149.0 77.0 226.0

% within Year 70.8% 29.2% 100.0%
:f’arvi’i‘ctgzﬁon 34.0% 27.2% 31 .7%

% of Total 22.4% 9.3% 31.7%

4 Count 224 122 346

 

 

304

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expected Count 228.1 117.9 346.0
% within Year 64.7% 35.3% 100.0%
0 'thi
/° w.‘ . n. 47.7% - 50.2% 48.5%
Part1crpatlon
% of Total 31.4% 17.1% 48.5%
Total Count 4701 243 713
Expected Count 470.0 243.0 713.0
% within Year 65.9% 34.1% 100.0%
0 . .
/° “lulu“. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Partrcrpatlon
% of Total 65.9% 34.1% 100.0%
Table M3: Chi-Square Test for Academic Year by Participation Status
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Gender
Value df sided)
Men Pearson Chi-Square 24, 30 .000
N of Valid Cases 574
Women Pearson Chi-Square 4.16 .245
N of Valid Cases 713

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

305

BIBLIOGRAPHY

306

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian
college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student
Development, 45, 612-632.

Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography.
New York: Academic Press.

Akomolafe, O. (2000), Africanizing HBCUs: Problems and prospects of international
education in historically black institutions. African Issues, 38(1/2), 103-107.

Akomolafe, O. (1993, Feb. 11). Africa and foreign policy: The role of HBCUs. Black
Issues in Higher Education, 9(25), 72.

Allen, K. (1982, winter). American volunteer, 1981: A Gallup survey on volunteering.
Voluntary Action Leadership, pp. 21 -33.

American Association of University Women (1992). How schools shortchange girls. New
York: Marlowe.

Arnot, M. & Gubb, J. (2001). Adding value to boys ’ and girls ’ education: a gender and
achievement project in West Sussex. West Sussex, UK. West Sussex County
Council.

Ary, D., Cheser-Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in
education. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Belenky, M. F ., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected
knowing. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds), Learning as transformation:
Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 71-102). San Francisco: J ossey-
Bass.

Benn, R. (1997). Participation in adult education: Breaking boundaries or developing
inequalities? In P. Armstrong, N. Miller, & M. Zukas (Eds), Crossing borders,
breaking boundaries: Proceedings of the 27"” Annual SC U T REA Conference.
London: Birbeck College, University of London.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards enthnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.). Education for the intercultural experience.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc. '

Blume, S. (1997). Learning styles. In J. N. Gardner & A. J. J ewler (Eds.), Your college

experience: Expanded reader (pp. 84-95). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

307

Booker, R. W. (2001). Differences between applicants and non-applicants relevant to the
decision to apply to study abroad. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(04),
1337A.

Boshier, R. (1977). Motivation orientations re-Visited: Life space motivations and
education participation scale. Adult Education, 27(2), 89-115.

Boshier, R., & Collins, J. B. (1985). The Houle typology after 22-years: A large-scale
empirical test. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 113-130.

Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture's blueprint for manhood and what it's
done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent
majority: The male sex role (pp. 1-48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brooks-Harris, J. E., Heesacker, M., & Mejia-Millan, C. (1996). Changing men’s male
gender-role attitudes by applying the elaboration likelihood model of attitude
change. Sex Roles, 35(9/10), 563-580.

Briggs, A., & Burns, B. (1985). Study abroad: A European and an American perspective,
Organization and impact of study abroad, (No. 1). Paris: European Institute of
Education and Social Policy.

Buchbinder, D. (1994). Masculinities and identities. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne
University Press.

Bymes, J. P. (1998). The nature and develop of decision-making: A self-regulation
model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bymes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367-383.

Capraro, R. L. (2004). Men’s studies as a foundation for student development work with
college men. New Directions for Student Services, 107, 23-34.

Carlson, J. 8., Burn, B. B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad: The
experiences of American undergraduates. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Carter, H. M., (1991). Minority access to international education. Presented at the 43rd
International Conference on Educational Exchange, Charleston, SC, November 7-
9, 1990. Council on International Educational Exchange. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED340323).

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.

308

Chichester, M., & Akomalafe, S. (2003, January). Minorities and underrepresented
groups in international aﬂairs and foreign policy establishment. Paper presented
at the Global Challenges & U.S. Higher Education Conference, Duke University.
Retrieved October 12, 2007, from
http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/ducis/globalchallenges/pdf/chichesterpdf‘.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2“! ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Chiefﬂo, L. P. (2001). Determinants of student participation in study abroad programs at
the University of Delaware: A quantitative study. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61 (01 ), 3078A.

Clayton, 0., Lucas Hewitt, C., & Gaffrrey, E. D. (2004). Reﬂecting on reconnecting
males to higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 107, 9-21.

Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in
educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Collins, C., Kenway, J ., & McLeod, J. (2000). Gender debates we still have to have.
Australian Educational Researcher, 27(3), 37-48.

Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005,
November). Global competence & national needs: One million students study
abroad. Available from Lincoln Commission, 1 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 250,
Washington, DC 20036. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from
http://www.nafsa.orgpublic_policy.sec/study_abroad_2/linco1n_commission_issu
es.

Connell, R. W., Hearn, J ., & Kimmel, M. S. (2005). Introduction. In M. S. Kimmel, J.
Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities
(pp. 1-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and Power: Society, the person and sexual politics.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Comwell, G. H., & Stoddard, E. W. (2009). Globalizing Knowledge: Connecting
international & intercultural studies. Washington, DC: American Association of
Colleges & Universities.

Coutmey, S. (1992). Why adults learn: Toward a theory of participation in adult
education. New York: Routledge.

Covin, T. J ., & Brush, C. C. (1991). An examination of male and female attitudes toward
career and family issues. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 25(7/8), 393-415.

309

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the ﬁve
approaches [2nd Ed.]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, P. K. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning.
San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. '

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D.
Birrnan (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-
333). San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice.
New York: Harper Collins.

Davis, T. (2008). Open Doors 2008: US. Students Studying Abroad. New York: Institute
for International.

Davis, T. L. (2002). Voices of gender role conﬂict: The social construction of college
men’s identity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 509-521.

Davis, T. L., & Laker, J. A. (2004). Connecting men to academic and student affairs
programs and services. New Directions for Student Services, 107, 47-57.

Davison, M. L., & Sharma, A. R. (1994). AN OVA and ANCOVA of pre- and post-test,
ordinal data. Psychometrika, 59:4, 593-600.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identiﬁcation and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 10(3), 241-266.

Deardorff, D. K. (2004). Internationalization: In search of international competence.
International Educator, 23(2), 13 - 15.

Dessoff, A. (2006, March/April). Who's not going abroad? International Educator, 20 -
27.

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

310

Doan, T. M. (2002, January). Asian American students: Study abroad participation,
perspectives and experiences. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of
Minnesota.

Dolby, N. (2007). Reﬂections on nation: American undergraduates and education abroad.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 1 1(2), 141-156.

Dolby, N. (2005). Globalization, identity, and nation: Australian and American
undergraduates abroad. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(1), 101-118.

Dolby, N. (2004). Encountering an American self: Study abroad and national identity.
Comparative Education Review, 48(2), 150-173.

Deutschendorf, H. (1996). Of work and men: How men can become more than their
careers. Minneapolis, MN: Fairview.

Dwyer, M. M., & Peters, C. K. (2004). The beneﬁts of study abroad: New study conﬁrms
signiﬁcant gains. Transitions Abroad, 27(5), 56-59.

Dyke, L. S., & Murphy, S. A. (2006). How we deﬁne success: A qualitative study of

what matters most to women and men. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 55 (5/6),
357 — 371.

Edwards, K. E., & Jones, S. R. (2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of

college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(2), 210—228.

Eisenhart, M. A., & Finkel, e. (1998). Women ’s science; learning and succeeding from
the margins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ender, M.. G., Martin, L., Cotter, D. A., Marsteller-Kowalewski, B., & Deﬁore, J.
(2000). Given an opportunity to reach out: Heterogeneous participation in
optional service-learning projects. Teaching Sociology, 28(3), 206—219.

England, E. M. (1992). College student gender stereotypes: Expectations about the
behavior of male subcategory members. Sex roles, 27(11/12), 699-716.

Erwin, T. D., & Coleman, P. K. (1998). The inﬂuence of intercultural experiences and
second language proﬁciency on college students’ cross-cultural adaptability.
International Education, 28(1), 5-25.

Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York:
Crown.

311

Finch, R. T. (1991). Differences among community service volunteers, extracurricular
volunteers, and nonvolunteers on the college campus. Journal of college Student
Development, 32, 534-540.

Finch, R. T. (1989). Characteristics and motivations of college students volunteering for
community service. Journal of college Student Personnel, 28(5), 424-431.

Foster, M., & Peele, T. (1999). Teaching black males: Lessons from the experts. In V.
Polite (Ed.), African-American males in school and society. New York: Teachers
College Press.

F outs, K. S. (2009). Why students don’t “go Greek”: Survey Results. WM U Greek Links,
10, p. 1. Retrieved on April 1, 2009, from
http://greeks.wmich.edu/GreekWeekly/Links3-09.pdf.

F renette, M. & Zeman, K. (2007). Why are most university students women?: Evidence
based on academic performance, study habits, and parental inﬂuences. Analytical
Studies Branch --Research Paper Series [Catalogue no. 11F009MIE, no. 303].
Ottawa, CA: Business & Labour Market Analysis Division.

Fujita-Starck, P. J. (1996). Motivations and characteristics of adult students: Factor

stability and construct validity of the education participation scale. Adult
Education Quarterly, 47(1), 29-40.

F urby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making
perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1-44.

Garraty, J. A., Kemperer, L., & Taylor, C. J. H. (1981). The new guide to study abroad.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women ’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gleason, J. B. (1987) Sex differences in parent-child interaction. In S. U. Philips, S.
Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender and sex in comparative perspective
(pp. 189-199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gore, J. E. (2005). Dominant beliefs and alternative voices: Discourse, belief and gender
in American study abroad. New York: Routledge.

Green, M. F., & Olson C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Henry, G. T., & Basile, K. C. (1994). Understanding the decision to participate in formal
adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(2), 64-82.

312

Hernandez, J. C. (2002). A qualitative exploration of the ﬁrst-year experience of Latino
college students. NASPA Journal, 40(1), 69 - 84.

Hibbitt, K., Jones, R, & Meegan, R. (2001). Tackling social exclusion: the role of social
capital in urban regeneration on Merseyside. European Planning Studies, 9(2),
141-161.

Hovland, K. (2006). Shared futures: Global learning and liberal education. Washington,
DC: American Association of Colleges & Universities.

Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70(4), 324 — 345.

Ingraham, E., & Peterson, D. (2004). Assessing the impact of study abroad on study
learning at Michigan State University. Frontiers, 10, 83 - 100.

Jacob, B. A. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the
gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 589-598.

J affee, D. (2004). Learning communities can be cohesive and divisive. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 50(15), 144.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time as come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavior research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Johnstone, J. W. C., & Rivera, R. J. (1965). Volunteers for learning: A study of the
educational pursuits of American adults. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Jones, S. R., & Hill, K. E. (2003). Understanding patters of commitment: Student
motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education,
74(5), 516-539.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of
identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4) 405-414.

J osselson, R. (1987). Finding herself' Pathways to identity development in women. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

313

Katz, J ., & Jhally, S. (1999) Tough guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity
[Motion Picture]. Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

Kaufﬁnann, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at
home. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.

Kegan, R. (2000). What “form” transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to
transfonnative learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35-70). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kimmel, M. S. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.

Kimmel, M. S. (2000, November). What about the boys? WEEA Digest, 1(2), 7-8.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.

King, J. E. (2000). Gender equity in higher education: Are male students at a
disadvantage? Washington DC: American Council of Education.

Kirk, J ., & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Kirkpatrick, 8., Field, J ., & Falk, 1. (2001). Social capital: An analytical tool for exploring
lifelong learning and community development. CRLRA Discussion Paper Series
[ISSN 1440-480X]. Launceston, Australia: University of Tasmania.

Kirkwood, T. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying Defmitional
Arnbiguities. The Social Sciences, 92(1), 10 - 15.

Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The myth that schools shortchange girls: Social science in the
service of deception. (Report No. ED 423 210). Washington, DC: Women’s

Freedom Network.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cogrritive-development approach to moral education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 56, 670-677.

Lev, A. I. (2004). Transgender emergence; Therapeutic guidelines for working with
gender-variant people and their families. New York: Haworth Clinical Practice
Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

314

Locke, L. F ., Wyrick-Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work: A
guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Looker, E. D., & McNutt, K. L. (1989). The effect of occupational expectations on the
educational attainments of males and females. Canadian Journal of Education,
14(3), pp. 352-367.

Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 255-295). New
York: Academic Press.

Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities, and schooling.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

 

Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1978). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

McClenaghan, P. (2000). Social capital: Exploring the theoretical foundations of
community development education. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5),

565-582.

Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. T. (2001). The feminist classroom: Dynamics of gender,
race, and privilege. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld.

Marks, H. M., &' Jones, S. R. (2004). Community service in the transition; Shifts and
continuities in participation from high school to college. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(3), 307-339.

Marks, H. M., & Kuss, P. (2001). Socialization for citizenship through community
service: Disparities in participation among US. high school students. Sociological
Focus, 34(4), 377-397.

Marotta, S., & Nashman, H. (1998). The Generation X college student and their
motivation for community service. College Student Aﬂairs Journal, 17(2), 18-31.

Martino, W., & Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2003). So what’s a boy? Addressing issues of
masculinity and schooling. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 63(3), 279-300.

McEwen, M. (2003). New perspectives on identity development. In S. R. Komives, & D.

Woodward, Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed,,
pp. 188-127.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

315

Medina-Lopez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between

program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers, 10,
179 — 200.

Meniam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2006). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive guide (3rd Edition). San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston:
Beacon.

Messner, M. A. (1990). Boyhood, organized sports, and the construction of masculinities.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, (18)4, 416-444.

Mestenhauser, J. (2003, Summer). Building Bridges. International Educator, 6 - 11.

Miles, MB. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, H. L. (1961). Participation of adults in education: A force-ﬁeld analysis. Boston:
Center for the Study of Liberal education for Adults at Boston University.

Miller, D. C., & Byrnes, J. P. (1997). The role of contextual and personal factors in
children’s risk talking. Developmental Psychology, 33, 814-823.

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.

Minichiello, V., Rosalie, A., Alexander, L. & Timewell, E. (1997). In-depth interviewing:
Principles, techniques, analysis. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

Moltz, D. (2009, April 1). Why not go Greek?. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved on
April 1, 2009, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/04/01/ greek.

Murphy, k. M, & Welch, F. (1992). The structure of wages. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 107, 215-236.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2008). Fast fact: Enrollments. Retrieved
March 1, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). Percentage of persons 25 through 29
years old, by highest level of educational attainment: Selected years, 1940

316

 

through 2007, Retrieved March 13, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ﬁgures/ﬁg__04.asp

National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Adult Education Participation in 2004-
2005. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pub52006/adulted/index.asp.

Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Nicolazzo, Z. D., & Davis, T. L. (2007). Promoting social justice attitudes in college
men: A preliminary investigation. 2007 ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting Research
Brief

Opper, S., Teichler, U. & Carlson, J. (1990). Impacts of study abroad programmes on
students and graduates. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Phillips, M. (1982). Motivation and expectation in successful volunteerism. Journal of
Voluntary Action Research, I 1 , 1 18-125.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York:
Random House.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

Redden, E. (2008, December 4). Women abroad and men at home. Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved December 4, 2008, from http://www.insidehighered.com/.

Rhoads, R. A. (1995).Wha1e tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case
study of fraternity life. Anthropology & Educational Quarterly, 26(3), 306-323.

Russell, S. (1979). Learning sex roles in the high school. Interchange, 10(2), 57-66.

Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum: A history of the American undergraduate course of
study since 1636. San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

Sax, L. J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of
men and women. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

317

Sax, L. (2007). Boys adrift: The ﬁve factors driving the growing epidemic of
unmotivated boys and underachieving young men. New York: Basic Books.

Schneider, B. (forthcoming) Chapter in forthcoming book from Cambridge University
Press.

Segal, L. (1997). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men (2nd ed.). London:
Virago.

Sell, D. K. (1983). Attitude change in foreign study participants. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 7, 131-147.

Serow, R. C. (1991). Students and voluntarism: Looking into the motives of community
service participants. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 543-556.

Serow, R. C., Ciechalski, J ., & Daye, C. (1990). Students as volunteers: Personal
Competence, social diversity, and participation in community service. Urban
Education, 25(1), 157-168.

Shirley, S. (2006). The gender gap in post-secondary study abroad: Understanding and
marketing to male students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Spring, J. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our
young men. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Steams, P. N. (2009). Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: Challenges
and opportunities. New York: Routledge.

Stevens, SS. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In S.S. Stevens
(Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley.

Stevens, SS. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Study Abroad Task Force. (2007). Study Abroad Task Force interim report. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University’s International Studies and Programs.

Sumner, K. E., & Brown, T. J. (1996). Men, women, and money: Exploring the role of

gender, gender-linkage of college major and career-inforrnation sources in salary
expectations. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34(1 1/ 12), 823-840.

318

i

 

Synge, J. (1977). The sec factor in social selection process in Canadian education. In R.
Carlton, L. Colley, & N. MacKinnon (Eds.), Education, change, and society: A
sociology of Canadian education (pp. 298-306). Toronto: Gage.

Taskakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied social research methods series (V 01. 46).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Thompson, E. H. Jr., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American
Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 531-543.

Trost, C. (1988, November 11). Men too, wrestle with career family stress. Wall Street
Journal, p. Bl.

Trost, C. (1987, November 30). Best employers for women and parents. Wall Street
Journal, p. 23. '

Tuss, A. (2004). Masculine identity and success: A critical analysis of Patricia
Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley and Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club. The
Journal of Men ’s Studies, 12(2), 93-102.

Tyre, P. (2008). The trouble with boys: A surprising report card on our sons, their
problems at school, and what parents and educators must do. New York: Crown
Publishers.

University of Minnesota. (2008). 2006-2007 senior survey of study abroad: University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities responses. Retrieved on December 17, 2008 from

http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/docs/evaluation/surveys/06-
07/Seniors_UMTC.pdf.

Valentine, T. (1997). United States of America: The Current Predominance of Learning
for the Job. In P. Belanger & S. Valdivielso (Eds.), The Emergence of Learning
Societies: Who Participants in Adult Learning (pp. 95-108). New York: Elsevier.

Valentine, T., & Darkenwald, G. G. (1990). Deterrents to participation in adult education:
Proﬁles of potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(1), 29-42.

Velleman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ration
typologies are misleading. The American Statistician, 47(1), 65-72.

Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education.
Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 471-498.

319

White, R. (1981). Humanitarian concern. In A. Chickering & Associates (Eds.,), The
modern American college (pp. 158-171). San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

Wigﬁeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Yates, L. (2000). The “facts of the case”: Gender equity for boys as a public policy issue.
In N. Lesko (Ed.), Masculinities at school (pp. 305-322). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Young, J. P. (2000). Boy talk: Critical literacy and masculinities. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35(3), 312-337.

Zhao, C. M., Carini, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Searching for the Peach Blossom
Shangri-LA: Student engagement of Men and Women SMET majors. The Review
of Higher Education, 28(4), 503-525.

Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychology of personality. Ambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

320