LIFE AFTER POPPING THE BUBBLE:
Reentry into St. Olaf After a Global Semester Abroad
2003
Abstract:
We studied the reintegration of St. Olaf students to life on the campus
of St. Olaf College after spending a semester abroad.
Specifically, we looked at students who participated in Global Semester
in the past two school years. Using in-depth interviews with
sixteen students who participated in Global Semester and participant
observation of an informal dinner with Global students and a Global
softball game, we began to better understand the struggles students
encounter when they return to the campus of St. Olaf College.
Global students often have difficulties both in the classroom and with
their old friendship circles, but the transition is eased through
activities and interaction with fellow Globalites. As a result of
our interviews, Global students are now able to more fully understand
their personal reentry process.
Setting/Community:
Letter from Global Semester Students to the St. Olaf community:
-December 2, 2002
"We now realize that our study abroad experience is
halfway done. As a group, we have traveled around the world together
through six countries so far. The close-knit community that we have
formed is valued by all of us. We continue to look forward to learn and
explore all the experiences that Global offers. Yet, our hearts are
often drawn to home, especially with Thanksgiving right around the
corner. We will be thinking of all of you as we eat a traditional
Thanksgiving on the other side of the world."
Global Semester is a St. Olaf College sponsored program where students
have the opportunity for experiential learning in places around the
world. Students apply to go on Global Semester in the spring by
writing essays, going through a panel interview, and filling out lots
of paper work. At last, the international study office selects up
to twenty-eight students who are eligible from all applicants, and they
immediately begin their abroad orientation meetings on safety, health,
culture shock, and similar issues about travel abroad. Most of
the students on the trip tend to be juniors and seniors, but
occasionally, sophomore students apply for the program and get
accepted. Students from other campuses are also permitted to join
this program; however, our focus has been only on St. Olaf Global
students who have participated in the past two years in this
program. Often, one St. Olaf professor and spouse will accompany
the students and act as chaperone, professor, and friend throughout the
course of the journey. The group leaves around the end of August
to venture on a five-month journey that will orbit the whole
globe. For instance, the fall 2002 Global Semester itinerary
included Switzerland, Turkey, Egypt, India, Thailand, Hong Kong, China,
and South Korea. Their last stop to wrap up the journey is
Hawaii, and from there, they fly back to school just in time for the
spring semester.
This semester abroad program differs from all other programs because of
it’s particularly rigorous itinerary. No other program visits
such a large number of countries, and therefore, they have a different
experience than other trips such as Term in Asia. Also, on many
of the other programs, the St. Olaf students get to live with host
families within their countries for at least a part of their semester,
and/or they live in separate university housing. The Global Semester is
unique in the fact that the students are never separated from
each other during the course of their journey. Therefore, they
are able to form a community that has the potential to be more unified
as a group overall.
Upon return to campus, Global students often seem to have a newfound
identity, and the community, which they built on their travels,
continues to function in new ways back in the campus life. First,
we will mention some characteristics of this community of
students. In one sense, they are unique in the fact that only
certain types of people make up the group. As we have found in
our research, the majority of Global students have done extensive
traveling around the globe prior to Global semester. Therefore,
their desire to travel and see new places and meet new people is one of
their primary reasons for applying. We concluded that Global
students have more of what they call “the travel bug” than the typical
college student across the U.S. For many of the participants, the
Global program seemed to further enhance their symptoms of the "travel
bug" condition. This program is also one of the most expensive
study abroad trips St. Olaf sponsors due to the many airplane tickets
from country to country. The cost of the trip does deter many
people from participating on Global Semester, but that is not to say
that all Global Semester participants are more financially well off
than any other Olaf student.
Another distinguishing fact about the Global program is the community
of the group. No other St. Olaf program gets the opportunity to
form such a tightly knit community since all the other programs
separate students on university campuses or in home stays with
residents of the foreign countries. This group of students and
their chaperones eat, sleep, and travel together each day for the
entire five months, with the exception of their few holidays.
Originally, people volunteer to work on social committees in order to
help the group function more efficiently. For instance, some
students participate on the communications committee, which is
responsible for posting updates on the St. Olaf web page.
Consequently, the group grows beyond these social committees to become
a more personal community. They ultimately learn to work together
and start to function as a family, as many of them informed us.
Some serve the role of mother and comforter, some play the part of
peacemaker, some are the cheerleaders, and they all become like
brothers and sisters who have the occasional rifts, but ultimately
share a deep love of each other. As Globalites travel around the
world, they are in such unfamiliar cultural settings that their group
provides the only familiar faces they see, which likely contributes to
the great bond they form with each other.
In terms of personality, the majority of our Global interviewees told
us about their individual growth. They discussed how they were
more "aware" of their global ties with the rest of the world, and their
values have changed in many ways due to their eye-opening
experiences. After seeing all these new faces and places, coming
back to the American continent can be rather difficult. This was
the final characteristic of the Global community. They said that
they often felt different from their peers and professors who had not
had the opportunity to see new places and gain new perspectives on all
subjects. The International Studies Office warned these students
before they left that the reentry process would be difficult.
Some students laughed while others took it more seriously.
However, upon return, we have found the general consensus to be that
this reverse culture shock is one of the most difficult experiences of
the Global Semester.
While our focus for this project is the community of Global students on
St. Olaf campus, it must be noted that each group from each year has
slightly different characteristics. For instance, the 2001-2002
Global Semester experienced September 11th while in Cairo, Egypt.
They constantly lived in a state of uncertainty on whether or not they
would have to leave their region due to safety factors. On many
occasions, these students were forced to stay in their hotels because
of anti-American sentiments in the community at large. Therefore,
this group had the potential to grow and develop differently than other
Global Semester groups.
The Problem
One student confided that when she looks around at Global students and
other study abroad students from first semester, she thinks that they
outwardly seem to be doing okay. However, when they get together
to talk, she realizes that everyone seems to be having a difficult time
readjusting. Not everyone is doing okay. Another claimed
that many people on Global described their experience with reentry as
an incredible weight and “you can’t get this weight off of you.”
Finally, a third returning Globalite described reentry as “the craziest
thing a person ever has to go through.”
Author John T. Hogan discusses how students who study abroad often
encounter psychological difficulties in terms of adjusting to their
homeland culture. Hogan uses the word "crisis" to describe the
reentry process; the Globalites we interviewed often exemplified this
attitude of crisis. As Hogan notes, the transition into the
student’s old life seems to be hard after having so many enlightening
experiences (1983). Moreover, we learn from Goldammer’s study of
the Global Semester program at St. Olaf College that reentry has been
difficult for Globalites in the past. In her study of the
1999-2000 and 2000-2001 participants on the Global Semester, Goldammer
found reentering the United States to be a fairly hard experience for
most people from the 1999-2000 group as well as from the 2000-2001
group. Furthermore, many found it was even more difficult to come
back to St. Olaf than simply to the United States. Goldammer’s
findings speak to the relevance, as well as the importance, of our
research.
As these authors have shown, returning to campus after studying abroad
can potentially be very traumatic. We decided to investigate this
problem of reentry in greater detail. Before all of this, one
co-author was casually discussing our research project with a friend
one day, and asked her if she had any suggestions on which community of
St. Olaf students we should study. She listed many wonderful
topics on the spot, but the one that struck us the most dealt with how
students who travel abroad readjust to St. Olaf College upon returning
from their travels. The topic was very poignant to both of us
because each of us had recently returned from study abroad programs,
and we have had experience with reentry ourselves.
Over lunch one day, we were discussing which study abroad program to
research, and we weighed the pros and cons of both Term in Asia program
and Global Semester because they both had large numbers of participants
this year, and it would make our population sample potentially
larger. Additionally, from the outsider’s perspective, they
seemed to have very tight-knit communities. After consulting the
International Studies Office, we found that the Global Semester had
more participants in the past two years combined compared to the Term
in Asia program. Therefore, we decided to delve into the lives of
the Global participants. After settling on Global Semester, we
brainstormed categories associated with the problem of reentry.
We narrowed our topic of research to focus only on social interaction
at St. Olaf upon return.
Reverse culture shock and reentry have been extensively studied in the
past fifty years due to globalization. Study abroad has increased
dramatically since the 1960's. Gullahorn & Gullahorn (1963)
proposed an extension of the U-curve Hypothesis. They explain the
model of the U-curve as it pertains to the cross-cultural
traveler. Initially, there is a stage of excitement over new
ideas and experiences, followed by a period of depression as one
encounters difficulties, and finally a sense of satisfaction and/or
personal growth if one is able to again behave effectively in the new
culture. As the title suggests, Gullahorn & Gullahorn extend
the hypothesis of a U-curve to a W-curve acknowledging that the same
process of adjustment occurs again in the individual’s home
culture. Similarly, many Globalites described feelings of
excitement over returning to St. Olaf. However, these same
students soon afterwards experienced feelings of depression, which
supports Gullahorn & Gullahorn theory of a W-curve.
Unlike the W-curve hypothesis developed by Gullahorn & Gullahorn,
Peter Adler makes no attempt to attach time sequences to the stages
(Contact, Disintegration, Reintegration, Autonomy, Independence) of his
model of a transitional experience. Adler defines a transitional
experience as a movement from a state of low self- and cultural
awareness to a state of high self- and cultural awareness.
(1975: 15) Throughout the duration of Global Semester,
students gained new insights into the daily lives of people across the
world. They received lectures in non-Western universities and
listened to some people who held anti-American sentiment. Coming
back to the United States and St. Olaf campus, students often became
frustrated (part of Adler's Reintegration stage) due to the lack of
diversity in thought and people. While Gullahorn &
Gullahorn’s W-curve is helpful for understanding the concept of
post-return adjustment, we benefit from Adler’s more fluid model that
allows for individual variation. For instance, a few students
described how their reentry difficulties were not addressed at first
because they were so busy with other scholarly projects. However,
once their lives slowed down, they encountered the common frustrations
of reentry.
Methodology:
We focused on behavior and interaction during the reentry process and
though we did a few hours of participant observation, we relied mainly
on self-report of an interviewee’s actions.
Our primary method of data collection was through personal, on-campus
interviews approximately one hour long. Understanding that a
longitudinal study would make our data more generalizable, we
interviewed students from the past two years of the program. Our
population included all students from the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003
Global Semester programs who are still on campus. We limited it
to students who are still on campus for two reasons. First, by
nature of our topic, in order to readjust to life on the campus of St.
Olaf or to provide comparison between one’s first and one’s second or
third semesters on the campus of St. Olaf, it is necessary to be on the
campus of St. Olaf. The second is a question of
practicality. Locating and connecting with alumni proved outside
the scope of our resources.
After obtaining the official rosters from the
International & Off-Campus Studies Office, we sent an email to
every Global student still on campus asking them to participate in our
research. (Appendix A) Of the twenty-six students from this
year and the fourteen still on campus from last year, twelve students
replied. After scheduling interviews with these twelve students,
we resorted to coercion. (Only joking.) From this point,
our sample selection included part begging and part snowball
sampling. After word got around that we were studying them and
that the interviews had the potential to be both helpful and fun, many
students offered to participate.
As one of our interviewees noted, this voluntary
method of sample selection gives us a rather biased representation of
reentry. The students who actually do the interviews with us
might be students who really enjoyed their program or who really want
to share their experience with someone. As one Globalite we did
not interview suggested, they may also be the Globalites having the
most trouble with reentry. Therefore, their experiences may not
represent the entire population of the students who participated in
Global. However, to enhance the data gathered from these
interviews as well as to help us better understand our population, we
took part in several hours of participant
observation.
We conducted seventeen personal
interviews: sixteen with students of the Global Semester and one
with the faculty advisor for this year’s program. Eleven of the
sixteen students interviewed participated in the 2002-2003
program. The five students from the 2001-2002 program were all
women. However, this is not as detrimental as one might think –
two-thirds of the students still on campus from the 2002-2003 program
are women.
The interviews we conducted were semi-standardized,
or semi-structured, interviews. After asking a few demographical
questions and explaining the focus of our research, we simply asked the
interviewees to respond to the statement, “Tell me about your life from
the moment you stepped back onto campus.” However, each
interviewer also had a list of topic areas that she asked each
interviewee to address in terms of his or her reentry to St. Olaf
College. (Appendix B) In addition, the interviewer used
other questions, planned and unplanned “probes,” to further understand
each individual’s experience. Despite the fact that consent was
implicit in responding to our questions, to appease the Institutional
Review Board, each interviewee also signed an informed consent
form. (Appendix C)
Though difficult with a relatively small interview population in a
school the size of St. Olaf, we have tried to protect the identities of
our interviewees. We have avoided idiosyncratic references such
as “the junior red-headed and freckled male who laughs like a hyena”
and specific, identifying activities such as the Acrobatic Club.
Fortunately, most of the information we collected is not particularly
sensitive. Furthermore, each interviewee had the opportunity to
read a draft of our paper before it was published. We e-mailed
all of our participants asking for feedback and/or suggestions.
(Appendix D)
While not sensitive per se, the data was poignant. We, the
researchers returned to campus this semester after time abroad.
Even though our experiences were quite different from those of the
Globalites—we were in “Westernized” countries and we remained in the
same country for the course of our study—we could both relate, in many
ways, to the students we interviewed. Many times we longed to
turn the interview into a conversation. We found it was difficult
to bite our tongues and continue taking notes. One co-author
recorded in her field notes, “I wanted to say something here, but I
restrained myself from influencing her answers.”
Finding ourselves relating to our interviewees, we
realized we were both dealing with some aspects of reentry
ourselves! Emotional attachment to our research as well as to our
interviewees likely lent what could be considered a “reentry bias” to
our study. This should not be viewed as a weakness, but rather a
testament to the reality of reentry. In fact, it points to the
generalizability of our results to students beyond those of the Global
program.
Implied by the “we” in the preceding paragraphs,
both researchers conducted interviews. Having two interviewers
allowed us to interview twice the number that one interviewer could
interview. However, with both of us busy interviewing and typing
up field notes, our communication with each other regarding the
interviews lessened. Later on in the research process, we
realized that we had each slightly adapted the questions to our own
interviewing style and one of us had dropped a question in which the
other was keenly interested. This would be a greater problem had
we been doing quantitative research. For our purposes, we used
agreed-upon specific topic areas to ensure comparable data, along with
unscheduled probes to ensure that each interviewer had a firm grasp of
the idea the interviewee was trying to
communicate.
After each interview and/or participant observation,
the interviewer typed up the notes she had taken—“cleaning up,”
clarifying and expanding, as need be. After our interviews were
completed, we printed out and exchanged our field notes. Reading
through 60+ pages of single-spaced typed field notes, several themes
emerged. Using colored pencils (one co-author) and markers (the
other co-author), we read through the notes, coding the data. For
example, any notes dealing with interaction between Globalites after
reentry were marked green. We chose green to symbolize the bright
green global T-shirts we see all over campus. In fact, many of
our interviewees wore them to their interview so we could recognize
them! Next we studied each of our colored themes, searching for
patterns as well as the best way to synthesize and present the
information. As we discussed in our problem section, rather than
a theoretical framework, we chose to write under a conceptual
framework. We draw upon many authors’ ideas of reverse culture
shock and reentry. However, the primary concept one needs to
understand before reading our paper is that of reentry.
Reentry…or Readjustment?
Our definition of reentry is simply the return of a traveler to his or
her home country. Reentry, for those who return home, is not a
choice. However, travelers do have choices in how they cope with
it. Théoret, Adler, Kealey, & Hawes identify three
typical reentry styles in their booklet Re-entry: A Guide for
Returning Home (1979: 8-10).
The first is alienation. One Globalite in
particular we interviewed exemplified the “alienated returnee.”
After living out of a suitcase for five months, he realized how much
stuff he had and how little he actually needed in order to
survive. When he went home, he threw out three-fourths of all the
stuff he owned. During his interview, he discussed his distaste
of pop culture and style. One co-author commented in her field
notes, “If you can’t tell by now, [he] is on a very anti-American
society kick right now, and he even said that this was the case.”
The second reentry style is reversion. Though
this approach did not seem too prevalent among Global students, one
Globalite described reverting to his prior life style (Théoret,
Adler, Kealey, & Hawes 1979: 9). He feels like things
are just back to normal; it is pretty much like he came back and
started where he left off.
The third is integration. In integration, “the
returnee tries to use the stress and changes of the re-entry period in
order to learn… He or she tries to synthesize or integrate changes that
have occurred while abroad and to develop a new identity and life style
in accordance with the changed self” (Théoret, Adler, Kealey,
& Hawes 1979: 10). Another Globalite, who was a Junior
Counselor last year, still spends quite a bit of time mentoring
the guys from his floor. This is helpful to the reentry process
because it brings up issues from the past. For example, one of
his guys will tell him about a problem he is having and the Globalite
will remember similar problems he experienced as a sophomore and he
will remember how he dealt with the problem then. But he also
knows how he would deal with the same problem now. This helps him
to reconcile these two selves. In the interview he said something
like, “it brings who I was then, with who I am after, together.”
As Théoret, Adler, Kealey, & Hawes note,
these descriptions are generalizations. In fact, “there may be
elements of all three types of reaction in a given person” (1979:
11). While reentry is not a choice, reactions and much of
readjustment are.
In our research, we looked at how reentry affects a
student’s behavior and interaction with others. For the purpose
of giving organizational flow to our paper, we discuss reentry in terms
of the categories of social interaction, activities, interaction in the
classroom, and interaction with the St. Olaf community at large.
However, we wish to note that these distinctions are often
meaningless. Many times, it was difficult to categorize our
data. Most of the vignettes could have supported findings in
categories other than the one in which they are placed. Reentry
is an intricate, complex process that defies
categorization.
A further disclaimer:
Reentry is a process. Like a snapshot, we captured these
Globalites at a certain stage in their personal process. The
first thing that one of interviewees immediately noted upon hearing our
topic was that whatever she said today, at this particular moment in
time, is bound to change tomorrow if asked the same question.
Frankly, this is evidence that reentry is still occurring in their
lives. Moreover, another Globalite pointed to the fact that all
her Global friends were readjusting at different stages. It
should be noted that differences among Globalites might be due to the
fact that one participant was at the bottom of the second “U” of the
W-curve, if you will, while another Globalite had already begun the
ascent.
A New Person:
Most Globalites seem to be operating under the assumption (or from the
experience) that going on the Global Semester significantly changes a
person. One interviewee said Global “takes you through a blender”
and then “puts you back in a place that hasn’t changed.” He
modified his statement to say that St. Olaf has changed, “but not
nearly to the extent we did.” Another interviewee spoke of her
outlook shifting; she believed she had changed a lot in the last
year. This is reminiscent of the symbolic interactionist Goffman,
who believes that the self is not an unchanging entity, but rather the
result of one’s interactions (Ritzer 2003: 147). Many
referred to their “new person.” One woman said that when you get
back from Global, you want people to know you’re a new person and to
relate to you in new ways. Another named the questions she has
been forced to ask herself during this period: What parts of my new
self do I want to change and why? What do I need to do for myself
in any given situation? What do I really want in and out of
life? Considering her new person in terms of reentry and
readjustment, another Globalite is not sure she wants to
readjust. Readjusting means picking up habits, tendencies and
characteristics from before and “I like who I am now so much better.”
For others, Global was not only about the person you
become, but also about accepting the person you are. This idea
parallels George Mead’s theory of the ante “me” and the present
“I.” “In other words, the ‘now’ or what Mead called the ‘present’
is the sphere of the ‘I,’ while the ‘me’ consists of the organization
of past attitudes (Collins and Makowsky 1998, 174-175).” Perhaps
the Globalites’ selves while on the program represent the “me,” while
their current identities back on campus exemplify the “I.” One
interviewee feels he is now “a little more accepting of whom I
am.” Another commented how, for her, a big part of Global was
about coming to accept herself. She now feels more comfortable
being herself in front of her old friends. She feels like her new
Global person also comes out more with her old friends at Olaf.
Another interviewee believes Global taught her about identity.
She claims that on Global you get to know yourself a lot better, and
that reentry is getting familiar with your new self.
Social Interactions:
Because returning Globalites are in the process of getting familiar
with their new selves, they sometimes find it difficult to relate to
their old friends. To further complicate the experience, often
old friends do not seem to know how to relate to the person their
friend has become.
The first three weeks or so back on campus, one interviewee stated that
she felt unfeeling and dead around her old friends. She did not
want to be with them, but she did not want to hurt them either, and she
knew that was going to happen. This increased her reentry
anxiety. Another interviewee, during what she labeled as “Stage
1” of her reentry process, described most of life as being dead and
emotionless, and then she would experience super highs during the few
moments that she saw her Global friends. We have attempted to
illustrate her experience in the following
graph.
GRAPH: ____/\____/\____/\____
Another Globalite arrived to campus with hopes of really sharing her
experience with her sextet podmates, but upon arrival, she noted that
the pod atmosphere was the first thing that let her down. People
seemed non-caring and rather aloof. Instead of the pod lifting
her up, she found that her reunion with the Global students was the
most satisfying part of returning to campus. One interviewee
feels he has lost friends. He feels he was “out of sight, out of
mind” for five months. Similarly, another Globalite left thinking
he had “twenty really good” friends, but came back to realize he has
“five wonderful” friends.
Some Globalites, on the other hand, have not spent
much time trying to reintegrate back into their old groups.
However, as one interviewee pointed out, neither had her old friends
made much effort to drag her back. Another Globalite thinks of it
differently, she believes that somehow, all of her old friends seemed
to know that she would be going through this tough reentry period, and
that she needed space and time. She was amazed at how well they
have been accepting her in spite of everything. She jokingly
thought that maybe they took some prep class about reentry for
friends.
“My Globals”
The majority of students we interviewed from the
2002-2003 program spoke of the incredible importance of their friends
from Global. One interviewee claimed, “I can’t live without my
Global friends.” In fact for many, Global friends are “more like
family” than friends; you ask more from them and expect more from them
than you do friends. They are “closer than friends.” Back
on campus, this Global group has “stayed pretty cohesive.” One
Globalite feels they are “always going to be there for each
other.” However, he feels that there are “probably two people”
from the group “who don’t feel that way.”
He is right. The entire group does not feel
that way. One Globalite we interviewed was not enthusiastic about
his “family” – in fact, this word or words like it were never
mentioned. He did say that those Globalites he was closer with on
the trip, he is closer with here. These people he hangs out with
and stuff, but there are others that he just passes and says hi.
Another interviewee, a sophomore, said that while most of the other
Global students hardly have any time left at St. Olaf College, he feels
like he still has a lot to experience. Therefore, he feels
differently than everyone else. He feels that he spent five
months with them, but now they are back on campus with their own
friends, and they all have separate lives to live again. He does
not really miss them that much. Instead, he is trying to figure
out his real group of friends. He guesses they will probably be
from his sophomore class. Nevertheless, most Globalites would
likely agree with the interviewee who said that he spends an
“extraordinary amount of time” with his Global friends.
A few likened their dependence on Global friends to
that of drugs. One woman bluntly said, “It’s like drugs.”
She needs to be around these people in order for her day to go
okay. Another interviewee, while talking about the different
‘stages and phases’ Global students go through, claims the first stage
was “withdrawal.” She related these symptoms of reentry with
those of a person who has suddenly quit smoking. You know you
need to get away from the cigarettes, but you continually want to
indulge in more. Similarly, she knew that she needed to form new
relationships on campus; she needed some space from her traveling
companions, but she longed to only be with them, perhaps because they
knew her the best. Similarly, though lacking a reference to
narcotics, one Globalite at the beginning of the semester craved seeing
her Global friends. She felt the need to see them in between each
class so as simply to give meaning to the day.
Goldhammer, in her study of the Global Semester
notes, “I saw group identity at St. Olaf among Global Semester students
that did not seem as prevalent in other group programs” (2001:
275-276). Our interviews support this claim. One student
declared, “the Global group is one person.” A Globalite from the
2001-2002 program recalls that while she was aware she might experience
culture shock while abroad, when she got back, she didn’t really expect
the group culture shock. She described how she went through a
disbandment process from the rest of the group upon their return.
She felt that now she was separated from her thirty other halves.
That’s how close she felt to some of these people! Another
Globalite, from the 2002-2003 program, also felt that the loss of her
Global family was the hardest shock to deal with.
Before she left for Global in 2001, one woman had
two separate groups with which she hung out. After reentry, her
focus gradually shifted to her Global friends and some other friends
she had before. Like many of her fellow Globalites, she hung out
with her Global friends a lot. Raschio has found this to be
typical of students who study abroad. He found that most
returning students alter their circle of friends to include those who
have had similar travel experiences (1987: 158). Another
Globalite is “drawn to people who are okay with me talking about
Global.” Often, this is other Globalites. One interviewee
and her old friends would say, “yeah, we’ll hang out,” but it just
never happened. She hesitated to say it and then said it was
horrible to say, but she thought they wouldn’t talk about anything
meaningful. Another woman, who recently returned from Global,
said she has the “same group of friends” that she had last spring
semester. However, other than with some of her close friends,
she, too, has “most of [her] most meaningful interactions” with Global
people.
Of the five students interviewed from the 2001-2002
program, two women explicitly stated that their good friends now are
the friends they had before going on Global. As one of them
explains, her friendship circles have “mainly stayed the same.”
Though she will always have her Global friends, their “connection is
Global.” Globalites do not share the same experiences she has for
years with her other friends. Her first month back at Olaf, she
hung out with primarily Global students. Then these friendships
“decreased” in importance and old friends came back. This
“decrease” took place by the end of last spring, for sure by the fall
of this year. The other woman explains it a little bit
differently. She says that her good friends from before are still
her good friends now; but now she has twenty-eight more! She
believes she sees her old friends about the same amount that she did
last spring semester. She maybe spent a little less time with
them last spring semester, but this spring it’s pretty normal – she may
spend a little less time with them, but only because she’s a senior and
has a hundred things to do
Another interviewee claims that, to this day, she
still spends many of her free hours with the ten or so Global people
who are left on campus. There are fourteen people from the
program still on campus, but not all of them still hang out. In
the same way, one interviewee notices a difference in herself this
spring in that she does not feel the need to maintain relationships she
has no interest in maintaining. She realizes she does not have to
be friends with everyone. She has really been able to identify,
“What do I really want to spend my time doing and who do I want to
spend it with?” Another interviewee acknowledged that each person
experiences reentry differently. There are a few guys who do not
really hang out with the Global group anymore, even though they were on
the program. She did not try to judge them, but she simply said
they did their own thing when coming back, and that was perfectly fine
too. On the other hand, several Globalites remain grateful for
the broader friendship base they now have. One mentioned that
this was really exciting to her; she has met many of her Global
friends’ old friends, and she has become quite close to some of
them. She also mentioned that perhaps this applied to all the
abroad trips. Another interviewee recalls that, over time, she
grew comfortable with old and new friendships. Now she feels as
if her circle of friends has really expanded.
Balancing Act
Many of the 2002-2003 students, however, mentioned the “balancing act,”
which one student describes as “weird,” between the friends they had
before and their new Global friends. “You can try to mix them,
but they don’t; Global people inevitably start talking about Global and
other friends get sick of it.” Another student noted this
balancing was especially hard when it came to meals. If she had
solo dinners with each Global student all the time, it would take over
a week to get them all done, and she knew that she still needed to eat
with her old friends too. She mentioned how stories like this had
brought tears to some of her friends. The only thing that she
could do was apologize; she couldn’t change the way she was
feeling. Another Globalite echoed this sentiment. She
claims that her old friends were very careful and understanding when it
came to her spending time with her Globalites, but she still felt bad
when they said things in a little voice like, “You’re going to eat with
them again?” Many Globalites’ friends are jealous of their Global
relationships leaving them feeling “constantly torn in different
directions.” One student who returned to campus this spring
divides his time fifty/fifty. Globalites, his best friend from
first year, the guys he was a Junior Counselor for last year and other
“close friends” claim fifty percent of his time and the other fifty
percent is divided between other friends and acquaintances.
Obviously, “homework doesn’t get done.” He jokes that the other
(negative) zero percent is allotted for homework.
The Right Questions
A woman who just returned from Global claims that her old best friend
doesn’t understand why anyone would ever want to go on Global.
Her old best friend sees that it only creates painful situations upon
return, and she doesn’t feel that the trip is worth it. The
Globalite, however, disagrees with her friend and treasures her Global
experience.
Many Globalites mentioned the carelessness with
which some people on campus treat their experience. One
interviewee seemed disappointed that some of his friends whipped
through his five months of pictures in an hour. Some of his
friends (even those who had spent time abroad) “don’t know the
questions to ask.” They underestimate the “importance of asking
obvious questions.” However, more than a few Globalites cringe at
the all-too common questions, “What was your favorite country?” and
“Did you have a good time?” “Was it fun?” One woman claims
there are two things wrong with asking the question, “What was your
favorite country?” One, it is “impossible” to answer. She
liked all the countries; sure there were things she didn’t like, but
they were all incredible. Two, the people who ask are “not really
interested” – they only want to hear a one, two or five word
answer. Similarly, one interviewee also felt that no one really
cared about his experiences; they would ask him how his trip was, and
then they would immediately change the topic before he could respond
with one word. Perhaps for this reason one Globalite said she has
not really shared any meaningful stories with her old friends on campus
about any specific life-changing events. Instead, she mainly
tells the funny little incidents that make people anywhere laugh.
Another interviewee remembered that when people,
close friends or acquaintances, asked her how she was feeling, she
often had a hard time articulating her thoughts and sensations.
She said that even their simple questions “weirded her out.” One
student hated the caf because this was how she first saw most
people on campus, and this is where she had to answer the first brief
questions about her experience. She hated summing Global up in
one word, but that was all that time permitted during these meals in
the caf. Plus, she didn’t have the time or emotional energy to
explain her experience to three hundred people. On the other
hand, this same student claims some of her old friends really helped
her readjust because they asked the right questions and really let her
discuss her experiences. This helped her reform her old bond with
these people. On the whole, however, most Global students we
interviewed would seem to agree with the Globalite who concluded that
people don’t really care. She says, “Oh, they’ll look at your
pictures and stuff and ask questions, expect[ing] you to talk about it
for the initial two weeks, then [things should get] back to
normal. But you keep thinking about it. It’s now part of
your life.”
However, one population on campus that several students cited as
important to their reentry process is the International Students.
One interviewee mentioned that she has now formed friendships with
people from the countries she has visited. They have even
provided her with the opportunity to return to one of these countries
after graduation. The interviewee in the paragraph above that was
disappointed with the friends who whipped through his pictures spent
seven and a half hours looking at pictures with a student from another
country. He really appreciated the time she spent with him and
the questions she asked. Lerstrom recognizes the importance of
time spent like this to reentry and names it appropriately, “the gift
of listening.” (1995: 7) This interviewee also noted
that international students could be helpful for students coming back
because they are familiar with a lot of the things Global students
experienced on the trip. A few things he specifically mentioned
include values and conceptions of time. Similarly, another
interviewee feels he can better relate to his multicultural friends on
campus since traveling around the world.
Activities
Tuesday, April 15th 2003:
“Come on G.!! Strike that batter out!” the Global IM softball team
shouted to their pitcher. “Watch out for those line drives, G.!!”
the pitcher advised herself out loud. Oops! Too late. On
the second throw, the batter slammed the perfect pitch right into the
G.’s foot. She let out a scream and immediately fell to the
ground half laughing and half crying. Immediately, the infielders
and outfielders ran to surround their teammate and help her to the
bench. They told jokes to make her feel better and rubbed her
back as she “ iced” her injury with her water bottle. Within the
next inning, she was back in the game, however, with the rest of her
team, shouting words of encouragement to the others and laughing
together as their Global group shared yet another experience of
friendship, teamwork, and community.
Participating in various personal and group-oriented
activities, students can more easily integrate back into their former
community and ultimately ease the impact of reverse culture
shock. In terms of the W-curve, these activities often aid in
rising out of the stage of depression. As Barbara Gallatin
Anderson noted in her article on culture shock, student travelers must
learn how to “neutralize” or balance their new experiences abroad with
those former experiences back on the home front (1971). Global
students from both semesters have involuntary incorporated this balance
of their cultural experiences through their active participation in
certain clubs. For example, one female Globalite from the first
semester now works for the college as an international student
counselor. This activity gives her a closer connection to her
Global experience because she has been able to form friendships with
people from the countries she visited. Additionally, some Global
students have become active in the college’s Political Awareness
Committee (PAC). One of our interviewees is even the coordinator
of the committee this year. Finally, some students have mentioned
attending the World Issues Dialogue weekly dinners sponsored by the
International Domestic Off-Campus Studies group, and other guest
speakers sponsored by the college. All these events help students
with their reentry process because students are able to share their
abroad experiences with others in these settings. Therefore, they
are integrating and balancing their two cultural occurrences which
consequently helps validate their learning experiences abroad.
Philip Bock discussed in the forward to his book,
Culture Shock: A Reader in Modern Cultural Anthropology, how immigrants
cling to each other in new countries. Often, one will find
concentrated Hispanic populations in cities because they have a common
background that differs from the community at large (1970).
Global students also tend to “cling” together upon reentry into St.
Olaf life. They have so many shared experiences and shared
feelings that they can relate to each other and lean on each other for
support. This is very important in readjusting into the
fast-paced college life, and many of our interviewees have mentioned
that they would not have been able to reintegrate back into St. Olaf
without the assistance and support of their Global network.
Global activities, therefore, are an important part
of the reentry process for these students. Both Global years
extensively used the Global e-mail alias. Letters about all
subjects were written in order to maintain the tight connection among
the community. As time went on, and some Globalites graduated and
others became more integrated into the college community, the operation
of the alias diminished as we have observed with the Global Semester
2001-2002. Additionally, the school initiates weekly dinners for
the students to get together and once again experience their community,
which many find very difficult to maintain back at St. Olaf since so
many students are pulled apart by class and club obligations.
These weekly dinners have continued into the second year for the Global
2001-2002 group. Even though they don’t use the alias as much
anymore, they still find ways to get together on a weekly or sometimes
daily basis. Laura has often witnessed this particular group eat
lunch and dinners together various times throughout the course of one
week. Likewise, the Global Semester 2002-2003 has informal
gatherings each week too. For instance, some of them meet in the
Cage during chapel each day to “study,” which usually results in simply
fun discussion. Moreover, this group has organized Global slumber
parties as well as cookie parties to reunite their Global family once
again. While students from the previous year did not mention
these particular types of activities, they did state that the first
semester back to campus is usually the one and only semester that
Global ties remain so strong. Once some of the students graduate,
the group obviously becomes smaller, and they stated that they become
more natural friends with each other rather than “Global”
friends. Furthermore, Global students were able to maintain their
social connections to each other through St. Olaf sports. Last
year, four Global girls ran on the varsity track team together, and
this year’s group created an official Global intramural softball team
consisting of approximately two-thirds of this year’s Global Semester
students.
As St. Olaf College is a Lutheran school, students
have many opportunities to explore their faiths and learn about new
beliefs. While on Global, the students witnessed religious
rituals and ceremonies of people from all walks of life. Some
students mentioned how these close encounters with such devout people
really made them reevaluate their own faith. Upon returning to
Olaf, the people who had had these strong religious experiences seemed
to look for ways to incorporate their new understandings about their
spiritual selves. While a few of our interviewees discussed
really jumping back into their evangelical Christian groups on campus,
many others talked about how their religious views had become harder to
pin down. Often, these students would feel that they did not
fully agree with the American perspectives implicitly taught within
these Christian organizations, and therefore, they sought other methods
of developing their spirituality. One, for example, began to get
more involved with the interfaith dialogues offered on Monday
nights. Another student mentioned that she joined the
international student Bible Study to gain more of a worldwide Christian
viewpoint rather than a simply Westernized Christianity. These
activities were all important in the spiritual growth process that many
of our interviewees underwent during the course of their program.
By participating in these group activities, they were able to remain
connected to their Global Semester as well as integrate and readjust to
their different old lifestyle back on campus.
While many of these students benefited from the St.
Olaf sponsored activities or the Global group activities, they also
made personal changes in their lifestyles to further facilitate their
reentry process. For some this meant keeping a journal. To
them, this individual activity was an extension of their Global
travels. Students on the trip kept a travel journal in order to
remember their experiences, but the journaling also served the purpose
of meditation. On the trip, journal time meant time away from the
group for just oneself. Often, returning students complain that
there is simply no time for themselves anymore at St. Olaf because you
have so many other things to do. However, some of our
interviewees have incorporated their Global journaling habits into
their lives back on campus. Some students have even commented
that this particular activity was an extension of Global, and it really
helped them evaluate their thoughts and feelings of both their
experience on Global and their reentry process onto the St. Olaf hill.
Along with journaling, many of the returning
students have talked about their great desire to leave campus every now
and again. In fact, for some students, this was a daily event for
the first month or so. Both the Global 2001-2002 students and the
Global 2002-2003 students commented on how they needed to see other
people and places other than Oles and the limestone buildings
everywhere. A few interviewees told us how grateful they were to
have cars on campus after returning. One would drive down to Blue
Mondays coffee shop in Northfield and sit there to do homework.
Others mentioned that they really missed the coffee shop experiences
that they had all around the world, and therefore, little trips such as
going to restaurants, coffee shops, or even up to Minneapolis/St. Paul
helped them feel a closer connection to their previous Global
days. Therefore, in these small trips, returning students were
able to decrease their feelings of restlessness. Some of the
Global students from 2001-2002 stated that after their first semester
of reentry, they felt better about hanging out on campus, and didn’t
feel so much of that restless spirit that was so present their spring
semester following the Global Semester.
In Class Interaction:
Letter from the Global Program to the St. Olaf community:
-Written by: Laura Wilkinson
-December 18, 2002
In the city, there are numerous diversions. There are Katie's shopping
expeditions, happy hours to partake in (Michelle is a big fan), sights
to see, and museums to visit. Popular sights were Hong Kong Park,
Victoria's Peak (where some of us completed the Challenge Course!), the
Bank of China building, the Temple of 10,000 Buddhas, the Night Market,
and the waterfront. There is [sic] always interesting things to
see while just walking around and several students have done just that,
with their cameras out. I'm sure there will be great pictures. Many of
us have visited the Hong Kong Museum of History. There is currently an
exhibit that features pieces from the "Terra Cotta Army," which we
learned a great deal about in our art classes, so it was exciting to
actually see the figures.
Now, though, we have been scurrying to see the final things on our
lists of "Stuff to Do." Our classes, tests, and papers are finished for
the time being; now all we have to get done is laundry. We leave
tomorrow morning for mainland China and are having a nice farewell
dessert party tonight. Sarah Steingas will be buying us all cake, as
she has suddenly come into a lot of money ... you'll have to ask her
about that one.
Classroom experiences differ drastically from
individual to individual, however, each experience can fit into the
reentry framework of the W-curve. For some students, we found
that the classroom experience was very fulfilling and rewarding in
terms of getting back into the groove of college; thus one sees the far
right, upside of the curve being carried out. On the flip side,
other students described the classroom environment as a completely
strange, non-stimulating atmosphere. These feelings and
experiences reflect the left side of the curve on its downward
wave. Finally, it is important to remember that each individual
goes through different phases of the curve at different times, and not
everyone has a difficult reentry process. Classes can be either
positive upward events in reentry or they can act as downward events
adding to the reverse culture shock syndrome.
Before looking at the specific classroom
interactions and experiences, it is important to first note the vast
difference between the two Global Semesters. While, the 2001-2002
group described both negatives and positives concerning their classroom
settings, they spent less time on the subject matter as a whole.
Also, their attitudes on the classroom were more optimistic in general.
In contrast, the Global students just returning from their 2002-2003
program had numerous grievances and/or joys to state about this
specific duty as a St. Olaf student.
We tried to look for patterns within the students who felt positively
and those who felt negatively about their classroom situation.
However, as we do not have access to previous academic records, we
cannot make assumptions about the type of student (e.g. A-student) that
struggles in the classroom upon return. The gender factor seemed
to have little difference in affecting classroom attitudes. From
both males and females, we received both upbeat and depressed responses
concerning their readjustment into classroom life.
For one interviewee, dealing with the classroom setting was the first
step in her readjustment process because that was the first thing she
had to encounter. Many Globalites do not have the opportunity to
take a class where they can use the information that they gained while
on their program. As the Coordinator of Program Advising/Student
Activities, Helen Stellmaker, mentioned, some abroad programs offer
students the chance to come back and complete a class where they can
use their information gained abroad. For instance, students who
traveled on the Term in Asia semester often come back to take a few
more Asian study classes to obtain an Asian Studies concentration or
major. The Global program, however, does not have any class or
concentration specific to its travels.
Classes are especially important in the reentry
process due to the time commitment that they take, especially at St.
Olaf. A full-time student at St. Olaf is in class at least 12
hours per week. Additionally, for every hour of class, a student
is expected to spend three hours on homework. Many of the newly
returned students are slightly worried about the lack of time devoted
to their studies, and the Global 2001-2002 assured us that first
semester was more difficult in terms of focusing on school. Many
of our interviewees from both groups discussed their lack of interest
in school and their lack of study skills in general now. Many
students have dropped classes or taken other classes pass/fail, but
almost all students say that they make more time for their friends and
other interests. While grades are creating stress for some of the
students, a few participants from the 2001-2002 Semester said how their
grades increased during the spring semester more than ever
before. Two of our interviewees from the 2002-2003 Semester also
felt that classes were not as difficult either. (They were
definitely in the minority among their Global peers from this year,
though.)
A lot of our interviewees from the 2002-2003 trip talked about their
distaste for the traditional classroom life in general, with one
exception: they enjoyed the shorter time length of classes at St.
Olaf. They seemed to feel being in a classroom confined one’s
learning capabilities. One specifically stated that returning to
the classroom was like “putting [her] brain back in box.”
(However, these same students said that they did try to engage
themselves more fully while in class. For instance, they did not
daydream or fall asleep in class as much.) The 2002-2003 semester
students really seemed to emphasize the value of hands-on learning
which they did every day on the streets of places like Hong Kong and
Cairo.
Interaction between the students and professors on the Global Program
and at St. Olaf College varied greatly with each individual.
Globalites in general often voiced positive sentiments about their St.
Olaf professors. They felt that these professors were able to
challenge their students more than some of their international
professors. They also appreciated the greater accessibility of
professors back on campus. When it came to voicing opinions about
the St. Olaf students, themselves, opinions seemed to be less
favorable. The Global students from 2002-2003 especially felt
frustrated with the unwillingness of their fellow Ole students who had
not been abroad to hear other views. These Globalites longed for
more diversity within the classroom in terms of opinions, and people in
general. One girl did mention that she really likes to hear a
fellow student talk about the perspectives she gained growing up in
Costa Rica. Unfortunately, St. Olaf lacks the diversity required
in order to give every class a more global atmosphere.
During the 1970’s Michael Flack (1976) studied how American students
use their information from going abroad in the classroom setting after
they return from their travels. His research was still continuing
when he wrote his article, but we were also interested in this same
topic. Therefore, we asked our interviewees how much of their
Global knowledge they actually use in class upon their return.
Surprisingly, this question seemed to receive the most common answer
between both Global Semesters. Students essentially said that
they use their “factual” knowledge, such as world statistics, when it
fits into the class discussion. However, they rarely have a
chance to share their personal experiences with the class. Even
when they do, they often actively try to avoid using phrases that
begin, “Well, on Global I learned” for fear of coming across in a
snobbish way to the rest of the class. Many students, though,
voiced their frustrations that their classes gave them very little
opportunities to use their Global knowledge. Some students stated
that their classes were mainly number based (e.g. statistics), and
therefore, that left little room to insert valuable information about
places like Thailand or Switzerland.
Out of the sixteen students we interviewed, only two were able to claim
that they had the chance to utilize their Global experience in an
academic setting. These two students worked with a third fellow
Globalite in order to create a project on globalization and
economics. In order to receive an upper level credit for their
economics major, they presented their findings at St. Olaf’s annual
Globalization Conference. The conference was held at the end of
February, and they worked approximately seventy hours at the beginning
of the semester to put their research together into presentable
form. Both of these students realized how this project was
extremely helpful in the sense that they could absorb and reflect upon
their entire semester. One of the students noted that the project
helped her pull her “experiences into a nice little neat ball.”
But even so, Global was not just about the economic situations within
the various countries. The other student mentioned that although
the conference facilitated her reentry process, partly because it
allowed her to spend time with her Global companions, ultimately, it
only helped analyze one aspect of Global.
Interaction with the St. Olaf Community:
John Hogan (1983) commented on the “reentry crisis” that many students
encounter upon their return. The “crisis” mainly deals with a
strong negative feeling or attitude toward American society and every
secondary institution below this. The majority of our
interviewees voiced similar opinions to those students in Hogan’s
study. While he mainly discusses a student’s reentry into
American society, we have found that the same holds true for the
smaller setting of the college campus.
Outside of the classroom, reentry often has the capacity to be
difficult in new ways. For some students, who previously felt
very loyal to St. Olaf College, they no longer feel the same close
connection that they were sure would be present when they
returned. For others, however, they were pleased to be back at
their “headquarters” as one student commented, and the former
connection was still strong to some degree. Whether or not they
were glad to be back on campus, though, the general consensus was that
each Globalite had to reestablish a niche within the St. Olaf
community, and this was not the easiest task in the world to
accomplish. At a glance, the Global students from each of the
years that we interviewed seemed to initially be doing well with their
readjustment onto campus, but when asked what it was like being back on
the hill, many from both years ranted about certain negative aspects
about the student body and the daily procedures of the campus as a
whole. The St. Olaf lifestyle is quite rigorous both in the
academic and extracurricular sense, and it can be overwhelming to
students just returning from any abroad program.
Speaking of overwhelming events, many interviewees mentioned the
treachery of the college’s cafeteria. Upon returning to St. Olaf,
each Globalite must face the ominous Stav Hall, a.k.a. “the caf.”
The crowds of Oles pushing for the pizza, the familiar faces of
acquaintances from the past, the huge selection of the food, the
questions asked by the non-Globalites. These encounters are all
too much for the individual Globalite to undergo simultaneously!
Since the Global Semester is highly organized, the
Global students do not have control over their schedules and daily
activities. On campus, however, the students return to a schedule
where they dictate the course of their days. They have to make
their schedules for school, meals, and activities. One student
described herself as “rusty” when she talked about coming back to St.
Olaf. Another student went as far as to say that she almost felt
like a first year all over again because the whole process of going to
scheduled classes felt so foreign to her. Another student also
said that being back at school made her feel younger, only in a
different way. She no longer had to think about her safety, her
methods of transportation, or where she was going to eat.
The Globalites felt disconnected from the college at many different
levels. Students from both years voiced multiple stereotypes that
they believed existed about Global students in general. One
female student mentioned that many Oles see the Global program as an
international, drunken shopping spree. She believes this to be
entirely wrong. She also thought that many of the non-Global Oles
called the Global students the “Global Cult” and these same Oles simply
saw this cult as being filled with a bunch of weird students. The
notion of a cult or clique, which could work as a synonym here,
reflects the opinion of many students on campus that Globalites are
exclusive. This stereotype only creates a stronger divide between
the Global community and the surrounding St. Olaf community.
While Global students realize they are being judged
outside of their circles, they also have the tendency to cite the St.
Olaf student body as one of their own sources of frustration.
This attitude from Global students contributes to the divide between
themselves and the St. Olaf community at large. Globalites from
both semesters made similar comments on how Oles often seem
materialistic, self-centered, and concerned with trivial matters.
One student from the 2001-2002 semester noticed that Oles spend most of
their time discussing trivial matters such as grades, classes, and
extracurricular activities. In contrast, Global conversations
seemed to be more “soul” discussions, as one Globalite described
it. They had so much time to spend together that they felt
comfortable sharing personal thoughts and reflections on life.
These conversations, however, take a fair amount of time, and as
another Global student commented, St. Olaf students have very little
time in their busy lives for these deep discussions.
Additionally, Global students get used to absorbing new ideas and new
perspectives on life each day of their trip as they come in contact
with all types of people in all types of situations. As a result,
they often come back with more questions than answers about life in
general, and they often have a more tolerant view on the world
itself. These traveled students often find the narrow thinking of
St. Olaf students to be very exasperating. One female Globalite
felt that there was not an acceptance of new ideas within the Ole
student body. She described the students’ opinions as being very
“black and white,” and she said that many people did not appreciate the
“finer shades of gray.”
Conclusions:
Paraphrased from one of the Global 2001-2002 interviewees:
I can’t emphasize enough that reentry gets better! Over time,
life at St. Olaf will become valuable and fun again. Readjustment
is entirely possible. Part of you will always be different after
Global, but that new part of you will find a niche and an identity that
includes St. Olaf for those of you who have another year to go on the
hill.
Reentry, on the whole, is a process of coming back to a once familiar
setting and finding a niche for oneself. The process itself,
while relatively easy for some, can also be a painful procedure full of
doubts and trials. Most of the interviewees appeared to
experience a new self-awareness while on Global, and a lot of their
reentry seemed to be about fitting that new self into the old setting
of St. Olaf College. Reentry involves renewing old friendships,
or in some cases, abandoning old friendships. It’s about
balancing time and emotions between old friends and new friends.
For some Globalites, classes and extracurricular activities facilitated
the reentry process by diminishing the feeling of disconnectedness.
Others, however, dreaded their classroom experiences and longed for
something more experiential.
The majority of the interviewees informed us that they loved St. Olaf,
but they still treasured their Global experience more than any other in
their life. As a result, many of the newly returned Globalites
were experiencing mixed feelings about St. Olaf. As one
interviewee stated: “It just sucks to be here.” Though he “loves
St. Olaf to death” and has had wonderful experiences here, it still
“sucks” to be here. One of the main sentiments expressed by the
Globalites was their continual inner conflict during their first
semester back. In some ways, they were glad to be back at St.
Olaf, but in many respects, they wanted to leave the hill and travel
some more.
Reentry can be the hardest part about the entire Global Semester
abroad, according to one 2002-2003 interviewee. For some students
reentry can take only weeks while for others the process can last many
months. We found lots of variation in both the 2001-2002 and the
2002-2003 semesters. Reentry is difficult for many reasons.
For instance, Global students are not used to the structured class
scheduling, the fast-paced life of the college campus, and the daily
assignments given in each class. In addition, many of the
returning students feel that they are no longer a part of the St. Olaf
community. They have to find ways to balance their time between
their new Global families, their old friends at Olaf prior to going on
Global, and all their extracurricular activities. Often, this
task is overwhelming, and they can easily become discouraged in trying
to balance their time.
Ultimately, the Global “family” clings to each other upon first
semester of their return so that they can readjust as a group rather
than try to face all these challenges alone. The time shared
among fellow Globalites is incredibly important in the reentry
process. The International Studies Office (ISO) at St. Olaf
College sponsors a few activities such as a welcome back dinner on the
first day of classes for all international study abroad programs.
They also can provide counseling opportunities for the students, and
the administration can be sympathetic to students who are not
readjusting to the St. Olaf academic life. However, as one female
student summed it up, “We are a family, and we take care of our
own.” Global students are the biggest support for each other
during reentry.
Recommendations and Practical Application:
According to our interviewees, St. Olaf‘s part in
the reentry process was to gather the Global students together to
discuss the pros and cons of the program itself, but they do not really
work with the individual students. According to the Globalites,
the ISO provides a list of some negative reentry symptoms that students
may experience (Appendix E), but they do not provide very helpful
suggestions for dealing with these symptoms. As a disclaimer,
Global students were very grateful to the ISO for the wonderful program
of Global itself, and every thoughtful act that the ISO did for them
throughout their Global Semesters. However, many students felt
that they had to figure out their emotional states and relearn their
St. Olaf identities without any guidance. They turned to each
other, but their Global friends were at the same loss as the rest of
them. Therefore, we suggest conducting a reentry workshop.
A workshop could cover the basics of reentry as well as providing a
venue for students to present and become accustomed to their “new
selves.”
Additionally, students from the 2001-2002 Semester appreciated the fact
that their chaperones/professors hosted Global reunions at their house
a few times after returning to the campus. Students informed us
that this activity was really helpful. One of the strongest
themes presented in our interviews was the importance of spending time
with other Global students. For this reason, we suggest that
anything done to facilitate this would be beneficial.
A workshop would be valuable not only for the
Globalites themselves, but also for the friends of Globalites.
Many Globalites felt that although their friends from campus were
wonderful overall, they often asked the wrong questions, and they did
not understand what to say or think about Global. Some Global
students jokingly stated that there should be a reentry class for the
friends of Globalites who stayed on campus. This way, the friends
would be somewhat prepared to find their old friend a new person, at
least on some level. A workshop could warn friends of Global
students that the Globalites might say and do some funny things, but
not to take it personally. Our number one recommendation might
be: Don’t ask this question! “What was your favorite
country?”
In terms of application, future Global students can
use our research as a resource. They can learn about what fellow
Oles went through upon their return from the Global Semester.
Reading about others’ struggles with reentry, they can be reassured
that their “reentry crises” are normal. As one participant asked
near the end of her interview, “Do I sound really wack?” She
wondered if what she was saying was strange, or if it was perhaps
breaking the norms of returning Globalites. On the contrary, this
person’s experience was very similar to the responses among former and
fellow Globalites. Moreover, the majority of students who attend
any semester or yearlong program will experience some type of “reentry
crisis” upon returning to their former campus life. This was
certainly the case with one co-author’s reentry to St. Olaf. She
was abroad for a semester in England, and when the co-author returned
to the hill, she felt incredibly excited at first. However, as
the initial thrill wore off, she felt very disconnected from the campus
life and community for quite some time.
By conducting these interviews, students had the
often-rare chance to talk to a non-Globalite about their Global
experience. Many of our interviewees were really excited about
our research, and they told their Global friends how much fun it was to
be interviewed. Others called our interviews Global counseling
sessions; we actively listened and let them talk to their hearts’
content. One interviewee commented that she had “not been asked
questions like that before,” and it was “helpful” and “kind of
fun.” Ultimately, our hope was that in conducting these
interviews, Global students would more fully understand themselves and
their own reentry process. We were hoping the interviews would
benefit the interviewees as well as the interviewers. We had a
wonderful time with the interviews, and many of the interviewees told
us they really enjoyed them, too.
Suggestions for Further Research:
If further research on the Globalite population is undertaken, we
suggest conducting interviews with the students before going on Global
as well as upon their return to St. Olaf. This way, the students
would not have to rely as much on their memory when thinking back to
how campus life used to be prior to Global. (Students did seem to have
trouble remembering how they behaved in class prior to Global,
etc.) Also, people in general tend to have more nostalgic
feelings when remembering events in the distant past. Hopefully,
this approach to the study would create more dependable
self-reports. This new methodology stemmed from some of our
interviewees who mentioned that they had taken the Meyers-Briggs
personality test prior to their Global Semester. These students
felt they would answer many of the questions differently after their
Global Semester.
Bibliography
Adler, Nancy J.
1991 International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. pp 226-244.
Adler, Peter S.
1975 The Transitional Experience: An
Alternative View of Culture Shock. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology 15(4): 13-23.
Anderson, Barbara Gallatin.
1971 Adaptive Aspects of Culture Shock. American Anthropologist 73(5):1121-1125.
Bock, Philip K. ed.
1970 Culture Shock: A Reader in Modern Cultural Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp ix-xi.
Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky.
1998 The Discovery of Society. 6th edition. Madison: McGraw Hill. pp 170-178.
Flack, Michael J.
1976 Results and Effects of Study Abroad. The Annals of the American Academy 424: 107-117.
Global Group
2002 Global Letter. Electronic Letter. Accessed April
28, 2003. http://www.stolaf.edu/services/iso/letters/gl120202.html
Goldammer, Anna
2001 Global Semester: The Formation of a Group
Identity. Unpublished paper, Department of
Sociology/Anthropology, St. Olaf College.
Gullahorn, John T., and Jeanne E. Gullahorn
1963 An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues 19: 33-47.
Hogan, John T.
1983 Culture Shock and Reverse-Culture Shock: Implications for Juniors
Abroad and Seniors at Home. Houston: American College Personnel
Association.
Lerstrom, Alan C.
1995 International Study Transitions: Creating
and Leading a Reentry Workshop. Paper presented at the Speech
Communication Association Convention, San Antonio, November
18-21.
Raschio, Richard A.
1987 College Students’ Perceptions of Reverse Culture
Shock and Reentry Adjustments. Journal of College Student
Personnel 28(2): 156-162.
Ritzer, George.
2003 Contemporary Sociology and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. Madison: McGraw Hill.
Théoret, Roger, Nancy Adler, Daniel Kealey, and Frank Hawes
1979 Re-entry: A Guide for Returning
Home. Hull, Quebec: Canadian International Development
Agency
Wilkinson, Laura.
2002 Global Letter. Electronic Letter. Accessed April
30, 2003. http://www.stolaf.edu/services/iso/letters/gl121802.html
References
2003-2004 St. Olaf College,
Pamphlet on Term in Asia, Environmental Science in Australia, Global
Semester, Term in the Middle East. Obtained from the International
Studies Office, spring of 2003.
Bruce, Allison.
1997 Culture Shock at Home: Understanding Your Own
Change-the Experience of Return. Transitions Abroad. Jan/Feb:79-80.
Cleveland, Harlan, Gerard J. Mangone and John Clark Adams.
1960 The Overseas American. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. pp191-218.
Hoffa, William and John Pearson.
1997 NAFSA’s Guide to Education Abroad Advisors and Administrators.
(2nd edition) Washington D.C.: NAFSA Association of International
Educators. pp233-253.
Hoffa, Bill.
2000 Exploring Cultural Differences. Handbook: A Guide to Going
Abroad (1995-2000).
Pennsylvania: Educational Directories Unlimited, Inc.
Kauffmann, Norman L., Judith N. Martin, and Henry D. Weaver, with Judy Weaver
1992 Students Abroad: Strangers At Home. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Nash, Dennison.
1976 The Personal Consequences of a Year of Study Abroad. The Journal of Higher Education 47(2):191-203.
Wilson, Angene H.
1988 Reentry: Toward Becoming an International Person. Education and Urban
Society 20(2): 197-210.
Appendix A
Subject: Hey Globalites :)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:57:57 -0600
From: one co-author
To:
We (the co-authors) are conducting research on how St. Olaf students
readjust to life on the hill after going abroad for a semester.
Specifically, we are interested in the students who went on
Global. We were hoping that you could help us out by
participating in our interviews. Don't worry - we won't be
interviewing until after Spring Break, but we do hope to schedule
interviews within the first two weeks after break. The interview
would be approximately one hour long, and we will work around your
schedule. We are hoping to interview at least 20 Global students
total, around 10 people from each of the past two years. Please
respond as soon as possible if you are willing to help us out.
Thanks!
The co-authors :)
Appendix B
Readjusting to Life at St. Olaf after a Global Semester
Preliminary Questions
Which year did you participate in Global Semester?
What is your major?
What had been your experience with other cultures before leaving on your Global Semester?
Do you feel you experienced culture shock upon returning to St. Olaf? (Yes / No)
The Questions
Tell me about your life from the moment you stepped back onto campus.
(What frustrates you about St. Olaf upon returning to the hill?
What are you grateful for now that you took for granted before you left
St. Olaf?)
Cheat Sheet: In what ways has this contributed to the culture shock of St. Olaf?
How have your experiences in the classroom changed?
--do you share your knowledge with the class
--attitude toward professors
--attitude toward other students
How have your friendship circles changed since you came back?
Has your value of money and/or material wealth changed? If so, how has this impacted your return to St. Olaf?
How has your value of time changed?
What activities do you participate in at St. Olaf? How do these
activities help or hinder your readjustment process?
Do you feel that St. Olaf achieves its goal of providing students with
a global perspective while living on the hill?
For seniors who participated in the 2001-2002 Global Semester:
Is readjustment possible over time? How has time helped you readjust to life on the hill?
Were there any particular events and/or activities that facilitated your readjustment process?
Appendix C
Readjusting to St. Olaf after Studying Abroad
We are studying the reintegration of students to
life on the campus of St. Olaf College after spending a semester
abroad. Specifically, we are looking at students who participated
in Global Semester in the past two years to determine if there are any
patterns in their reentry process. Each voluntary interview will
take approximately one hour and we hope to interview 20 people.
We anticipate that through these interviews, the Global students will
come to a greater understanding of their own reentry
process.
If you wish to receive any information about the nature of this
research, please email __________ or __________, who are students
in Carolyn Anderson’s Sociology 373 Research Methods class. We do
not foresee any risks to the subjects, but if you have any complaint
about your treatment in this study or wish information about the
ethical requirements of research done by the Sociology Department at
St. Olaf College, please contact:
Jo Beld, Administrator
St. Olaf College Institutional Review Board
St. Olaf College
1520 St. Olaf Avenue
Northfield, MN 55057
beld@stolaf.edu
507-646-3343 or 507-646-3910
_______________________________________________________________________
Detach bottom portion and return to researcher
I certify that I have had the nature and procedure of this study on
abroad experiences described to me. The researcher has described
the potential benefits and risks of my participation in this study, and
has informed me that my data will be kept in confidence. I also
understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time.
Interviewee’s Signature:___________________________________________
Date:_________________
Researcher’s Signature:___________________________________________
Date:_________________
Appendix D
Subject: Rough Draft of Global Paper
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:22:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: one co-author
To:
Hello,
This is simply a rough draft of our paper on Global reentry, so if you
want to make any suggestions, feel free to do so in the next couple of
days. We may not include every suggestion, but we want to
make sure that we are representing your reentry correctly. If you
don't have time, that's ok too...we realize how busy everyone is right
now:)
Have a great day!
the co-authors :)
Appendix E
Reentry Symptoms:
“Reverse culture shock can include symptoms of disorientation,
alienation from family and friends, rejection of one’s own culture,
boredom, and lack of direction. More specifically, students may
find that they have little in common with their old friends; that
beyond polite inquiries no one seems to be very interested in listening
to them talk about their experiences abroad; that attitudes of family
and friends seem parochial; and that there is seemingly no place to go
with the knowledge and skills learned abroad. Moreover, life on
the home campus often seems restrictive and unexciting” (Hoffa and
Pearson 1997: 246).