Using Study-Abroad As Laboratory For Teaching Research

Video Presentation
Conference Discussion

What follows is a description and assessment of the use of the study-abroad as a laboratory for teaching research to undergraduates. Many aspects of this process can be examined. This paper explores the interdisciplinary research aspect of the process. Other aspects, not covered in this paper, include the factors leading to success or failure of the undertaking; preparation of students--both skills and attitude toward research; transferability of approach to on-campus learning; issues related to professional presentation; and assessment of learning.

This paper discusses two attempts to utilize study-abroad as a laboratory for engaging undergraduate students in interdisciplinary research at a level at which the student researcher knows that she or he is contributing to the advancement of human knowledge. Thus, the research is not just an exercise in learning a body of information or a method of research. The first, highly successful undertaking was a three-week study program in Vietnam, set within a larger ten week term devoted to the study of Vietnam. The second, somewhat less successful undertaking was a ten-week study program in China, based in Beijing with travel to western China and Tibet. The reasons for great success and moderate success are examined in light of a study-abroad program to China and Mongolia occurring contemporaneous to this virtual conference.

STUDY ABROADS

Principia College has had an active study abroad program since the early Sixties. Unlike most other study abroad programs, Principia’s are generally self-contained and are conducted "on-site" with a college faculty member and a member of the college’s student personnel department (serving as a "resident counselor" and administrative assistant). In a recent two-year cycle we sponsored the following programs: language and culture in Indonesia, language and culture in Argentina, literature in England, business in San Francisco, language in Russia, language in Germany, language in France, biology in New Zealand, language and business in Japan, and art history and music in Europe. Some of the programs are conducted within the US and some are not a full term (such as biology study in Puerto Rico or the Bahamas, and history in Hawaii). With the exception of international airfare, the programs are funded entirely within the term’s room, board and tuition costs. The competition among sponsoring departments and students for these programs has required the institution to establish criteria for the programs.

Most of our study-abroad programs are oriented to either language training (including exposure to the foreign culture) or subject-specific learning (e.g., biology in the rain forests of Costa Rica, theater in London). Why not reconceptualize study-abroad as a laboratory, isolated from the distractions of "home," in which to engage in interdisciplinary learning? Why not utilize this opportunity to engage undergraduates in scholarly research (which is loosely defined as knowingly contributing to the advancement of knowledge)?

This task requires two resources. The first is a setting in which students can easily engage in research, thus language and culture can be either barriers or openings. The second is a faculty member committed to this type of learning who is willing to expend extensive energy and resources to facilitate the on-location learning.

The process is promoted as well as hampered by the "strangeness" of the foreign culture. The difference of the foreign culture naturally challenges student beliefs, attitudes, and values. This is the opening necessary to challenge student preconceptions (what I believe are forms of mis-training) as to what research is all about and as to their ability to engage in scholarly research. Students must become open-minded or withdraw within their shell. As will be discussed in the paper, I select cultural settings that push the students’ limits, within a net of personal and intellectual safety. I require students to undergo an intensive screening and training process, the latter including a group physical education course. Admittedly, the strangeness of a foreign culture, including language and vastly different cultural norms, can impede research (particularly accurate and sensitive analysis of observations). However, this strangeness provides a context for challenging assumptions and preconceptions, including those related to the student’s ability to learn.

To help demonstrate the legitimacy of various forms of research and establish my own intellectual authority, I publish many of my writings on our college’s internal web site. When possible, I note where the work has been presented, published, or both. This indicates that the work has met some professional standard; it demonstrates that our faculty engages in active professional scholarship; and it reveals that scholarship and teaching can be easily related.

INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

Each student is required to produce a piece of major research (papers generally vary between 30 and 50 pages, with minimum of 20 resources including documents, observations, interviews, surveys, etc.). The choice of topic and method is open, with two limitations. First, the topic must be related to an issue of public policy (this is a practical matter of granting academic credit), though this is defined very broadly. It is part of my subversive attempt to introduce students of other disciplines to issues of politics. Second, the instructor must have some exposure to the methodology in order to assist the student researcher, because evaluation is based on the standard of that methodology.

My standards are simple. First, the student may select any topic, though the specific research question or hypothesis must be carefully developed with my input. I encourage the student to select a subject of which she has a basic knowledge and interest. Second, the student may use any acceptable (defined broadly) methodology, with perhaps the exception of the writing-in-multiple-voices (of which I am not competent to evaluate). Third, the standard is to use the method well--to meet the criteria of that methodology.

Originally, this requirement was not developed to engage students in research nor to engage students in interdisciplinary thinking and learning. These were two successful, though unintended consequences that I am seeking to understand and develop further. The original assignment was designed to give the students the necessary knowledge and motivation to dig deeply into some aspect of the foreign culture. They could not be tourists, casual college students, or interested outsiders.

As testament, unless the students meet someone specifically trained in their topic, they uniformly knew more about that aspect of the foreign culture and country than did their hosts (including university professors, government officials, party leaders and political leaders, journalists, diplomats, etc.). This had the unexpected result of honoring our hosts by demonstrating that we cared enough to learn so much about their country. Initial meetings were generally met with skepticism, but quickly turn into rich and lively interchange of ideas. Our sincere search for knowledge and understanding, motivated by the research paper requirement, was routinely rewarded, often with introductions to additional resources. On both programs, with and without my assistance and generally without extensive language skills, students were able to enter areas generally forbidden to foreigners and engage in dialog usually unavailable to foreigners. The innocence and sincerity of a motivated student can do wonders. The need to engage in interdisciplinary thinking was a necessary requirement. Initially, successful research was a by-product.

The factors leading to success include the attitude and enthusiasm of the student researchers and the instructor, and the accessibility of the subject matter. Less important factors are cultural barriers and language. Clearly, for students to push to graduate school and professional levels of scholarship, "tools" such as language are important. Accessibility appears more related to the resources available to the faculty member, the competing demands on the local resources, and the general willingness of the culture to respond to examination by foreigners.

I judge the success of the enterprise by two criteria. The first criterion is the overall strength of the research product and the development of a research way-of-thinking in the undergraduate. The second criterion is the professional acceptance of the research product, usually in terms of a conference paper.

Student backgrounds

Twenty nine students have been subjected to this exercise, 18 women and 11 men. Eleven of the students were political science or international relations majors (both majors are administered by our department). Six of those add an additional major in a different discipline (reflecting a trend in our institution toward double and triple majors). I had some disciplinary contact with two other students by virtue of my teaching courses in the Mass Communication department and sitting on the supervisory board of our Asian studies program. Thus, the majority of the students came to the program from different disciplinary backgrounds and influences. Most tended to undertake research related to their majors. There were a few students willing to take risks: two political science majors who researched comparative religion, a business administration major who researched geology (though she had been a geology lab assistant), a Spanish/IR major who researched mass communication (though she is preparing for a career in international journalism), an education major who researched archaeology (a result of personal interest), and a history major who researched criminal justice (result of personal interest). The women who undertook women’s studies issues were active in our Women’s Studies minor.

The students were predominantly upper-class (16 seniors, eight juniors, five sophomores). Nine conference papers were generated (and presented) by six of the students (four women and two men). The Vietnam program was conducted in a fall term, while the China program was conducted in a spring term. Thus, the seniors on the Vietnam program had some opportunity to develop their research for presentation prior to their graduation. Only one sophomore developed her research into a paper (and she was very bright and motivated, and is now in international relations graduate school). I have found the sophomores to still be too unprepared, both in skills and in attitude, while the seniors tend to research and write the strongest papers. Unfortunately, due to graduation and conference deadlines, seniors are disqualified by their circumstances. During the subsequent conference season graduates are usually immersed in their new lives, are too distant to mentor, and institutional financial support is no longer available.

Methodology

The primary research methodology employed by the students was qualitative, using interviews, field observation, and participant observation. A variety of interview techniques were used, including formal one-on-one, informal one-on-one, group, and lecture followed by questions. Informal meetings akin to focus groups were also used. Participant observation ranged from organized tours and activities in which the student researchers participated to informal, though intentional, observations of daily life and behavior. The research was usually supplemented by collection of documents, some requiring translation, and observations of artifacts (on the street, in museums, at historical sites, etc.). The methodologies were dictated by the circumstance of researching in the foreign environment and, I suspect, by predisposition of the students’ backgrounds. We are aware of growing "math anxiety," student distaste for the physical sciences, and a disdain for qualitative thinking. Of the range of research techniques, the students were readily comfortable with interviews. However, it was difficult for them to conceive, unlike a reporter, that a speech, lecture or talk could be the source of scholarly data.

Results of the Vietnam Program

Four of the papers were developed and presented in various forms on six different occasions. The papers included two papers based on the hill tribes research, two papers derived from the research on religion under communism, and separate papers on mass communications in Vietnam and the influence of geology on the conduct of the war. One of the papers was presented at a Southeast Asian studies conference, two papers were presented at a gathering of Vietnam-era scholars, and three papers were presented to the Vietnam War section of the Popular Culture Association. In each instance, the presenters were the only undergraduates at the respective conferences. The other participants were either graduate students, scholars, or practitioners. The instructor helped the students in preparing for their presentations. In all but one instance, the students were solely responsible for the presentation, responding to discussant comments, and answering to questions. The two students at the Vietnam era conference were besieged by scholars, not so much for the quality of the papers or presentations, but because the students had valuable first hand knowledge of the conditions "on the ground."

Three of the students have continued their education--a Ph.D. in education, an MA in international affairs, and an MSW. Four of the students have continued their interest in international affairs or in the region. One is completing her MA in international affairs, and three have returned or will be returning to Vietnam, either as visitors or as professionals.

Results of the China Program

Three of the papers were further developed and presented at professional conferences. One paper, on current issues in Chinese criminal justice, was presented at an annual conference on issues in teaching criminal justice sponsored by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. The paper was substantially strengthened through co-authorship with the supervising instructor, but the presentation, including fielding of criticism and questions was done entirely by the undergraduate. Two other papers, a critique of the one-child policy and an exploration of cultural values affecting business practices, were presented at an annual third world affairs conference. Although the instructor escorted the undergraduates to the conference and worked with them on preparing their presentations, the two undergraduates were solely responsible for the presentations, response to discussants and fielding of questions. To their initial chagrin, their session at the third world conference was one of the most popular and attracted a number of Chinese scholars and graduate students from the Beijing area. The response, however, was quite warm, primarily because the students were able to share personal observations and information gathered "on-the-ground." Their presentations were of much higher quality than the third person, an academic, who was both superficial and second-hand. In both instances, the three students were the only undergraduates presenting papers. The other presenters were either graduate students, established scholars, or practitioners. One of the student presenters was encouraged enough to submit her major capstone research paper to a professional conference’s undergraduate paper competition, in which she received an honorable mention.

Seven of the students are either in graduate school or are currently applying to graduate or professional schools. The programs include international relations (1), chemistry or physics (2), anthropology (with focus on Asia) (1), Asian studies (2), and law (1).

Twelve of the students have continued their interest in international issues, whether through pursuing internationally focused graduate training (4), returning to China to study language and/or teach English (3), take internships in international journalism (2), join the Peace Corps (1), undertake additional international travel-study (1 in Africa, 1 in Indonesia), and continue additional Asian language training (3) [the numbers will not add up, since some students are in several categories].

DISCUSSION

I envisioned this process as a vehicle for forcing students beneath the surface of a foreign culture. I wanted to demonstrate to the students that they can master a foreign environment and that they can become scholars in their own right. The students who presented papers based on their research in Vietnam were inundated by graduate students and professionals. One student reported back to me that his presentation was "okay," but that the conference was very impressed. Not at the paper itself, the student admitted, but at the fact that he was the only undergraduate and that he was the only one who had been to the subject of his research. Another student, reporting on the survival of religion under communism, found herself bombarded with questions about Buddhism. She admitted in some humiliation that she did not know what the professors were talking about. They quickly dismissed her reluctance and asked questions she could answer that they needed to know. Over dinner, they had her mentally walk through important sites and describe the sites. Although she might not understand the significance of a specific stature or mural or icon, she could confirm its existence or condition. Her hosts explained their importance. Upon her return to campus, the student joined an electronic discussion group of these scholars. She reproduced her pictures and sent them out. She knew and appreciated her limits, and she knew and appreciated her ability to contribute. Now successful in commercial real estate, she will be taking her husband to travel Vietnam later this year.

One of the primary problems is that students must write in the midst of a heavy travel and study schedule. We were dependent on two laptops, which also served as our email link to the college and for our administrative bookkeeping. The six seniors had to complete their papers in China, while the remaining undergraduates had the summer. I compensated by reducing the importance of writing mechanics for the seniors. Instead, I focused almost entirely on the substance. In spite of the rough-draft nature of the papers, three of the six senior papers were clearly outstanding. The other students exchanged extensions for much more rigorous standards of writing.

Students were trapped by their intellectual upbringing. Chemistry and physics students viewed research as limited to the laboratory. History students seemed bound to a library, though they could appreciate the usefulness of original documents, so long as the documents were old. It took some time for them to realize that history is as recent as this morning’s newspaper, and the newspaper is now an historical document, susceptible to historical research. Social science students could only think of conducting public opinion polls with a large enough sample size, something quite difficult (both practically and politically) in China (though I conducted a field experiment with both Chinese and American students while in China). Most adaptable were the students with sociology or women’s studies training. They were used to the quantitative techniques most adaptable to China, such as field observation, participant observation, and various forms of interviews (one-on-one, group, focus group, etc.).

One result of this undertaking was to expose students to the wide span of valid research approaches. One of the most exciting papers was a combination of the results of interviews and observation and autobiography. The student set out to discover the issues confronting Chinese women of her generation. It was the story of a woman’s awakening to issues of gender in her own mind and in Chinese society. She wrote a series of short chapters, stating her preconceptions at the specific point in time, followed by the results of interviews and observations focused or in response to those preconceptions, followed by a new set of conceptions, followed by the results of more interviews and observations. It was an intellectual journey of awakening and shifting. The paper worked because the student was a proficient writer, humble and honest. She was not polemical, but confidently reflective.

Most of the students appeared to fight the idea that they could do original research or could contribute something new to human knowledge. Part of this comes from the false expectation that new knowledge comes in great heaps, rather than tiny droplets. Part of this may come from the traditional emphasis on proving something rather than disproving something. Failing to find something you expected to find can itself be an important discovery. To go into thriving Tibetan monasteries after reading of the "total destruction of Tibetan Buddhism" is an important discovery.

Another result was to expose students to the wide span of research subjects. Another exciting paper explored how the Chinese use archaeology for political ends. As appropriate, the student conducted a literature review prior to traveling to China. She identified (and negotiated with me) her research question, her methodology, and the expectation as to the evidence she might find to support or discount her hypothesis that the Chinese use (or manipulate) archeology for political purposes. She identified a key question based on her understanding of the Chinese assumptions about Marxism. Marxism argues that societies progress inevitably through stages of economic development. One of those stages is slavery. Marxism argues that progress is inevitable, that the stages are identified and fixed, and that no stage can be skipped. Thus, in order for China to defend its socialist status, the society must have gone through the prior stages, including slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. The student identified the generally accepted definition of slavery--ownership of human beings as economic goods. She discovered that scholars writing in the West cannot find any period of slavery, as commonly defined, in Chinese history. She found that Chinese writers and museums routinely refer to an early period as the slave era. These statements, in guidebooks, museum plaques, and textbooks, are asserted as if demonstrated. As she traveled to the leading museums in Beijing, Xian, and elsewhere, the student examined the evidence proffered as proof of slavery. It did not meet the standard she had developed. She fleshed out her research by conducting interviews at Beijing University’s Sackler Museum (their archeology teaching facility) and at the State Archaeological Commission.

The Vietnam program was more successful than the China program in a number of respects. Quantitatively, more (hence a higher percentage) of the students produced conference papers. The papers were generally better thought through and better written. The primary difference between the programs, however, was not the students, but the preparation. The Vietnam travel-research of three weeks was set within a larger ten week term. The students had five weeks of intensive introduction and preparation, including significant amounts of time for research and writing, before they departed to Southeast Asia. They had two weeks upon their return to write, research, and polish their work. On the other hand, the China program was in-country for the entire term. The preparation program the prior term included a very small course on research techniques and travel preparation. The students were much more interested in the latter. The group physical education course was aimed at building group dynamics rather than intellectual skills. All of the students were required (the result of institutional politics rather than educational goals) to take a Chinese politics class from another faculty member. That course could have been an excellent vehicle, akin to the preparation time for the Vietnam program. While the Chinese politics course was excellent (one of the complaints was that my lectures in-country were redundant), it did not prepare the students for their research endeavors. This, in part, reflects lack of agreement within our faculty on the very issues addressed in this paper--the nature and validity of interdisciplinary research by undergraduates.

The students on the Vietnam program understood before arriving in Hanoi that useful information is all around. Every observation, every person, every sound, every movement is a potential source. I arranged interviews and tours--foreign ministry, US MIA search team, cultural agency, orphanage, television station, senior party official. Students learned to investigate on their own--newspapers, meeting with a women’s action group, university professor, anyone who could communicate. Their desire to ask questions was insatiable. And, after the first meeting or two, they learned to be economical in their questions--diplomatic, judicious, but to the point.

The best example of an interview was with the deputy chief of the America branch of the foreign ministry. He was polite but very hesitant. I had pulled strings through a contact to set the meeting. We settled around a large wooden conference table. The diplomat spoke excellent English and was backed-up by a junior official/observer who could intervene to deflect trouble. We went through the formalities of introducing ourselves. The students learned quickly to follow my lead in the stilted form of public diplomacy. As we settled into our formal and somewhat awkward meeting, the official allowed us to ask our questions. I directed (as the students expected) that each student should ask one question, with no follow-up and no interruption. Thus, each question had to be effective--diplomatic enough to encourage a response, pointed enough to elicit information. The student exploring the problem of narcotics asked his question about the government strategy to control drugs coming from Laos. The official politely though stoically denied that Vietnam has any drug problem. That answer was an important piece of information.

We moved on around the table. The official slowly warmed to us. He realized that we were not political, that we were serious and deeply interested, and that we were prepared. After the round, I went through the normal, tentative steps of thanking our host for his kindness. He either made no move to end the meeting or actually encouraged us to continue. So, around the table we continued. The student investigating the drug problem asked the same question. The response was stunning. The official leaned into the table and began to explain how the Party was deeply concerned about the problem and one of the new strategies was to form Party-peasant teams to hike into the mountains to educate the people along the border. Other questions and answers flowed. The meeting eventually ended, as did many others, with our host pulling me aside to compliment us, with obvious respect and some affection, for our interest in Vietnam. The highest praise for the students, repeated meeting after meeting, was, "They know more about the subject than I do."

I must weigh the institutional politics and the alternative strategies in developing the necessary pre-requisite preparatory program. Our physical education department is enthusiastic about the group PE course to build team dynamics. I will continue it--as both its instructor and participant--with some needed improvements. I will also include the confrontation with the research requirement component in the application-interview-acceptance process. I will ask each student applicant, in addition to their other materials, to set forth a research agenda. I will not be too demanding, now that I better understand the context these students are coming from. This additional application requirement will help me understand the individual students a bit better and will force them to confront this requirement at the start and begin to think about it. I will probably ask the applicants to suggest a topic or subject of interest, to write a research question or hypothesis (not a thesis), and to outline a research strategy.

One of the disappointing moments of the China program was the student insistence on knowing the structural requirements of the research paper--how long it had to be, and how many footnotes. This, of course, misses the point. I was deeply discouraged by the lack of intellectual maturity displayed by the students (who were mostly juniors and seniors). I handled it badly, suggesting fifty pages and a minimum of 20 different sources. My attitude was quite surly. I realize that this was a defining moment and I turned off most of the students from the start. I had not realize how unprepared they were for such an undertaking. My arbitrary requirements were not strange. I routinely have students, with careful mentoring, produce extensive, quality documents. However, the way I framed the assignment and the way I delivered the message set back the project significantly. I do not believe some of the students ever recovered from the shock. As I reflect on the individual students, those most taken aback did not produce good work and did not turn to me for help. This indicates to me that I actually did damage to our interpersonal and group dynamic relations. As a result, I have to handle the assignment with care. I need to put the students into the scholarly frame of reference from the beginning.

With a small group, the students are familiar with each other’s projects. As a community of scholars (which is why group dynamics are important), they learn to share information, observations, and analysis. While I prohibited them from using each other as sources, I allow them to use each other as data collectors. If someone arranged a private interview, they often shared the results with others. I stressed the need to document information, with full citations (names, titles, locations, dates, etc.) and accurate recording keeping (e.g. accurate quotes).

Another benefit is that each student becomes the expert in her or his field. I expect the students to be the "experts" of the subject matter. I expect to learn from them, and I expect the other students to rely on their colleagues as subject-matter experts. I regret not having a biology student on the Vietnam trip, as we traveled the length of the country, from Hanoi to Saigon, and into jungles, mountains, and rice paddies, to help educate us about the eco-system.

One student, for example, sought to determine the status of the hill tribes vis-à-vis the central government. Western human rights sources (his literature review) claimed the Vietnamese discriminated against the minorities and subjected them to a variety of low-level human rights abuses. Vietnamese officials and private citizens stoutly proclaimed the policy of equal if not affirmative treatment of the minorities. The student had to get into hill tribe country. In Dalat we arranged police permission to visit a benign area (in which the hill tribes were not a political threat to the Vietnamese). The student, through a South Vietnamese (I make this important distinction, because the South Vietnamese was eager to translate for us), interviewed tribal leaders. The rest of us were "along for the ride." As the tribal leaders, comfortable with the Southerner, escorted the student around the village, the rest of us tagged along. We wandered through homes, drank rice wine, learned to play traditional gongs, jumped rope with school kids, put our Vietnamese friends on ponies, and watched a European film crew for CNN get cold-shouldered. We tried to stay close to the student, both to learn and to ask our questions, as he listened, asked, and wrote furiously. The young man presented his findings--Western human rights sources are much closer to accurate than the government would suggest--at two conferences, has learned Vietnamese, and is now in Hanoi working for a English-language trade journal.

The students on the Vietnam program shared their research process, data, and results, while the China program students appeared to work in isolation. Two of the women worked on very similar projects, so did a lot of their research together. A couple (who already had a personal relationship) also appeared to work together on similar projects. On the Vietnam program, the research was a linchpin element, both motivating and uniting the students. I over heard repeated sharing of ideas, questions, concerns, data, etc. I realize that I need to be more pro-active in developing that same attitude in the future. One of the activity might be weekly sharing of status reports, with opportunity to express concerns, brainstorm solutions, and swap ideas. I need to work to breach the isolation. I also appreciate that the research project was not the central element, but one of several competing elements (including language training, other academics, and opportunities to just be in China).

Both programs had their share of non-starters. Some students wrote mediocre papers that offered nothing new. My gravest disappointments were students distracted by personal matters. In one instance, a woman’s fiancee promised in a letter "exciting news" when she returned. Yes, an engagement ring. She spent the entire trip expectantly awaiting her return. She enjoyed the trip, as might a tourist. Now happily married, she acknowledges that she missed a important opportunity. A man on the other trip, rebelling against authority (in the form of me) and falling for a woman on the trip, seemed to avoid focusing on his project. He struggled to complete the assignment after we returned to the states. His ability to research his topic--MFN’s impact on China--and his ability to write prevented a total disaster. He now admits that he wished that he had pursued his topic--as I constantly encouraged--while in China. Now in a prestigious Asian studies program, he is discovering that he is a small fish in a large pond and that he could have distinguished himself by being more than a tourist or a college student on a study-travel program. To his credit, he has had two piece (a sidebar on MFN and a personal essay on Chinese kite-flying) publish in The Christian Science Monitor, where he did a subsequent internship. His story is the story of the college student who sees himself or herself as a college student doing college student sorts of things rather than as a scholar exploring a new world.

Where is this process most successful? I believe it is more successful in countries that are "transparent." This is the ability to move through the external barriers. Language, I have discovered, is a false barrier. If people really want to communicate, language will fall. Either side will find alternatives. My students have found friends or language teachers eager to assist with translation. Local officials are eager to practice their English. I have been in situations where French (in Vietnam) and Spanish (in Mongolia of all places) were the intermediate languages. Transparency, instead, appears to be a result of access. The size of the country is an important variable. Smaller countries, such as Vietnam and Mongolia, have smaller and more accessible sources--from government ministries to universities to private individuals. The nature of the government (e.g. totalitarian versus democratic) does not seem to matter, with the exception of Tibet (which is an occupied territory). The uniqueness of Americans appears to be another factor. We do not have to compete with other Americans--business delegations, Harvard graduate students, or diplomats. Once the entree is made, the network of relations builds. This experience empowers students. In larger countries, such as China, the students have to be more innovative and more persistent. With persistence, one student arranged for a tour of the Beijing Jeep factory and a meeting with corporate staff, another student got a private tour of the teaching museum at Beijing University (which was under police cordon at the time), two students arranged several meetings with women’s rights groups, and students had one-on-one interviews with embassy officials, Chinese journalists and American businessmen. These were on top of the meetings, interviews, appointments, lectures or tours I or the host university arranged.

One of the things I believe helps is to have my own obvious research agenda--seeking information along with my students. Thus, I serve as a role model and we are on a journey together. It was clear to the students in Vietnam that I was asking my own set of questions (and published several articles as a result). My research agenda was less obvious in China, since most of our research activities were conducted in isolation from each other. I did use my students in my field experiment (which will be presented at the International Studies Association in March). The results of my own interviews and data-gathering about informal communications patterns will be published this coming spring. Most of the data was gathered with the students around me, though they were unaware of my intense interest. I will use these as examples for future programs.

I turn to my faculty colleagues when I feel I am getting too far afield. However, this approach does not require additional faculty unless the student wants academic credit from another discipline. Both of the religion projects and the chemistry project on the Vietnam program were undertaken for religion and chemistry credit, respectively. The students had to negotiate separate learning contracts with sponsoring faculty. I provided the necessary local expertise and guidance in research, but the students had to meet the substantive and methodological standards of their respective departments.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I believe that the requirement that undergraduates on study abroad programs engage in some form of original research has tremendous benefit. Since most study abroad programs (at least through our college) are subject-specific, they do not allow for interdisciplinary research or engagement in interdisciplinary thinking. Nevertheless, this undertaking demonstrates a number of things to our students:

1. research can be fun;

2. research can be readily applicable, is not just an exercise in theory;

3. research can reach graduate-school level;

4. research that can be done immediately (not a delayed process)

I believe that faculty involved in such an undertaking must meet certain criteria: commitment to interdisciplinary thinking and learning; exposure and expertise in multi-disciplines; active participation in own interdisciplinary research agenda (you can’t profess and not practice); and commitment to scholarship as an integral part of teaching. I believe it is also useful if the faculty can apply different methodologies, is involved in different subject matters, and is active in scholarship--have own research agenda. I believe successful faculty must come with certain qualities and attitudes, including energy; commitment to teaching undergraduates; openness to diversity of ideas, values, and methods; be principled, especially when it comes to excellence and professionalism; humility; capable of mentoring (e.g. know when to let a student fail); truly believe we can learn from our students; and truly believe our students can contribute to knowledge in a scholarly, systematic manner. It also helps to know the "laboratory." My students know I’m doing research. I believe we are on a journey of discovery.