Enhancing social work students’ multicultural counseling competency: Can travel abroad substitute for study abroad?

Introduction

Social work schools in the United States actively encourage students to participate in study abroad experiences to the extent that study abroad programs have become an integral part of social work curriculums in almost all schools throughout the country (Fairchild et al., 2006; Lager et al., 2010). Studying abroad has gained extensive popularity for a variety of reasons (Kitsantas, 2004); however, considering the unprecedentedly fast pace of the recent sociocultural transformation of American society that has stemmed from the explosive expansion of Latino and Asian American populations during the past decade (Shrestha and Heisler, 2011), few can deny that the primary reasons lie in the increased professional expectations regarding social workers’ ability to work flexibly with diverse clients, such as immigrant and refugee clients, in a clinical counseling setting (Rothman, 2007).

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between studying abroad and social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. Not surprisingly, these studies have found a positive and significant relationship between the two (Gammonley et al., 2006; Gilin and Young, 2009; Lindsey, 2005; Lowe et al., 2008). Specifically, their findings can be summarized in the following three points. First, study abroad experiences raise students’ awareness of their own culture. Second, study abroad experiences help students gain a more comprehensive knowledge of culturally different clients. Third, students with study abroad experiences employ culturally sensitive and culturally appropriate counseling skills when working with diverse clients.

Although informative, these previous studies have been met with skepticism from some social work educators (Jung and Lee, 2010). Essentially, these educators argue that students aiming to increase their multicultural counseling competencies through contact with foreign cultures need not participate in study abroad programs because such competencies could be sufficiently developed by simply traveling abroad (Won, 2010). The argument for the equivalent effects of study abroad and travel abroad in enhancing social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies rests on the fact that people travel for a variety of reasons and interests (Crompton, 1977). For example, some people travel abroad for leisure, while others travel to escape the humdrum of everyday life, and still others travel simply to take a break and relax (Kim et al., 2006, 2007). Recent studies, however, have indicated that pleasure, amusement, and comfort are not the only reasons for international travel. These studies show that an equally large number of people travel abroad for educational purposes, such as curiosity about other cultures and people or the desire for new experiences and adventures (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). For these travelers, traveling abroad does not mean a relaxing and luxurious trip to seek pleasure or excitement in an unknown place. Instead, it means a journey toward personal growth that can sometimes involve adversity and ordeals; however, results in expanding the person’s knowledge and experience (Sirgy et al., 2010). Seen from this perspective, traveling abroad implies an intensive, onsite learning opportunity and a process where, in the course of meeting people from diverse cultures and trying new adventures and challenges, individuals expand their understanding of such cultures and hence their ability to effectively communicate with people from diverse backgrounds. The argument that traveling outside one’s own country may enhance social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies in a way comparable to that of studying abroad is grounded on this educational aspect of traveling abroad.

The equivalency of study abroad and travel abroad may be further supported by the contact hypothesis in psychology (Allport, 1954). According to this hypothesis, negative prejudices against out-group members stem from a lack of intergroup contact. Thus, according to the logic, if the frequency of contact can be increased by any measure, then in-group members’ misunderstanding of out-group members – stemming from ignorance of their cultural values and belief systems – can naturally lessen (Whitley and Kite, 2010). The measure, for the case under consideration in this article, indicates that American social work students going abroad observe and try new things, thereby expanding their breadth of knowledge and experience (Jung and Lee, 2010). The question of what form the act of going abroad should take – that is, studying abroad or traveling abroad – becomes a secondary issue. The key is whether the curriculum has provided sufficient opportunities for students to go abroad and interact with new people in a new environment. A deeper understanding of other cultures and the ability to work with a diverse set of clients are presumed to ensue naturally from the process of making frequent contacts with diverse people in challenging environments.

Social work researchers and educators have canvassed the possible equivalency of the effects of study abroad and travel abroad on social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. However, they have done so only at a theoretical level (Jung and Lee, 2010; Won, 2010). No studies, to date, have empirically examined the relationship between traveling abroad and social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. Without empirical evidence, the argument for the equivalency of the two types of overseas experience is difficult to sustain. This limitation is most clearly reflected in that none of the previous studies provides a satisfactory answer to the following fundamental question: between a student who has never traveled abroad but studied abroad just once, and a student who has never studied abroad but traveled abroad a number of times, whose multicultural counseling competencies are more advanced and sophisticated?

Certainly, it is problematic that past studies have focused on the education benefits of studying abroad exclusively as they overlook the possibility that traveling to overseas countries may be another important avenue through which social work students can expand their cultural awareness. This expanded cultural awareness could indeed hone social workers’ counseling skills as well as other verbal and non-verbal communication skills, to work flexibly with diverse clients. As such, the primary goal of this study was to address the void in the existing literature and provide evidence-based, practical help for social work educators who have wondered which types of overseas experiences are more appropriate and effective in training culturally competent clinical social workers. The current study achieves this goal by testing the following two hypotheses:

Methods

Analysis

This study used multiple regression analysis techniques with Predictive Analytics Software (PASW), version 18.0, to examine the relationships that link studying abroad and traveling abroad to social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies.

Results

Descriptive analyses revealed that respondents’ average multicultural counseling competency scores, as measured by the MCKAS, were 163.55 (SD = 21.24); their average number of trips abroad was 3.34 (SD = 1.21). The proportion of respondents who reported having studied abroad at least once was 12.8 percent, while 87.2 percent reported having never studied abroad. Based on these descriptive statistics of dependent and independent variables, the researcher performed a regression analysis. Table 1 displays the ordinary least square (OLS) regression results used to examine the association among study abroad experiences, travel abroad experiences, and social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. Separate models tested the independent effects of study abroad and travel abroad experiences on students’ multicultural counseling competencies.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

OLS regression results for MCKAS scores.

	A	B	C	D
Constant	82.481 (8.912)	87.652 (8.175)	85.411 (8.648)	89.991 (8.686)
Gender	4.162 (3.108)	4.159 (2.948)	4.201 (3.054)	4.956 (3.904)
Age	2.595 (1.310)	2.713 (1.294)	2.486 (1.272)	2.701 (1.247)
Educational level	8.728 * (1.978)	8.498 * (1.815)	8.871 * (1.896)	8.531 * (1.802)
Ethnicity	13.741** (3.053)	12.876** (3.894)	13.501** (3.100)	12.983** (2.906)
Study abroad experience		21.580**(4.802)		20.027**(4.106)
Travel abroad experience			6.496(4.612)	6.015(4.162)
R 2	0.179	0.358	0.198	0.380
Adjusted R2	0.161	0.330	0.172	0.357
F-test	11.015**	25.128**	11.194**	23.094**
No. of observations	86

Notes: Standard errors are reported in parentheses.

*

and ** indicate significance at the 95% and 99% levels, respectively.

The direct effect of study abroad experiences on students’ multicultural counseling competencies was examined in Model B. As previously mentioned, this researcher expected social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies to be positively related to their study abroad experiences (Hypothesis 1). Consistent with this expectation, the results of the regression analysis revealed that respondents who had studied abroad had greater perceived knowledge and awareness of multicultural counseling issues than did those without such experience; net of controls (b = 21.580, p < .01). Overall, the model accounted for 35.8 percent of the variation in the dependent variable (R² = .358, F (5, 80) = 25.128, p < .01).

Model C considered the direct effect of travel abroad experiences on students’ multicultural counseling competencies. As previously discussed, this researcher hypothesized that social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies are positively related to their travel abroad experiences (Hypothesis 2); however, the results from the regression analysis revealed insufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. Specifically, the data indicated that, although respondents who reported more travel abroad experience did have greater perceived knowledge and awareness of multicultural counseling issues than those with fewer travel abroad experiences, net of controls, the difference was not statically significant (b = 6.496, p = .251).

Model D examined whether the positive and statistically significant effect of study abroad experiences and the positive and statistically insignificant effect of travel abroad experiences observed in the previous two models remained when simultaneously considered. The regression results revealed that, after controlling for gender, age, educational level, and ethnicity, study abroad experiences yielded a positive and significant net effect (b = 20.027, p < .01), whereas travel abroad experiences yielded a positive, yet very small net effect (b = 6.015, p = .217). Thus, the findings confirmed that the effects of independent variables did not change, but rather remained as they were in the full model. Overall, the model accounted for 38 percent of the variation in the dependent variable (R² = .380, F (6, 79) = 23.094, p < .01).

Finally, all four models tested in this study demonstrated that educational level and ethnicity are significant predictors of students’ multicultural counseling competencies, whereas gender and age are not. These findings suggest that, the higher the education level and the more likely individuals are to be from minority backgrounds, the greater the level of knowledge and awareness of multicultural counseling issues; however, no such association was found for gender or age.

Discussion

Studying abroad affords students the opportunity to immerse themselves in new and unique cultures. During such experiences, students often eat local foods, hear and speak the native language, and engage in culture-specific practices. Studying abroad also affords students the opportunity to learn the local culture intimately. Today, many social work educators express little doubt about the effectiveness of studying abroad. Specifically, many would agree that this pedagogical methods has been proven effective to help students obtain knowledge and master skills needed to offer culturally sensitive and culturally congruent services, whether it be on the micro-, meso- or macro-level (Rothman, 2007).

Various studies have examined the outcomes of study abroad programs. For example, some have addressed how such experiences enhance the student’s global understanding (Rotabi et al., 2006; Tajes and Ortiz, 2010), while others have measured personal value growth and still others have investigated cultural understanding (Gilin and Young, 2009; Lindsey, 2005). More recently, research has begun to explore the relationship between studying abroad and multicultural counseling competencies, which reflects an increase in professional expectations regarding clinical social workers’ abilities to work effectively with culturally and ethnically diverse clients who have varying values and multiple needs (Fairchild et al., 2006; Green et al., 2005; Lowe et al., 2008).

Despite the large volume of the research, few studies have examined the relationship between travel abroad and multicultural counseling competencies in combination with how this relationship interplays with studying abroad. Such issues that are related to traveling abroad are worth investigation. Suppose a student had taken 10 trips abroad but none to study abroad. If this student demonstrated more advanced and sophisticated multicultural counseling competency compared to a student who participated in a study abroad program only once, current efforts to expand and develop study abroad curriculums would suffer a great blow and the significance and urgency of such curriculums would become difficult to justify. In such a case, it would be more cost-efficient to recommend that students travel abroad as often as possible at their own expense rather than encourage them to register for a study abroad program and follow its rigorous curriculum.

However, a solution to this dilemma cannot be found in previous studies because no researchers have empirically examined the potential role that traveling abroad plays in enhancing multicultural counseling competency. The current study took a step toward filling this void by systematically investigating the association among studying abroad, traveling abroad, and social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. Further, the study demonstrated several crucial findings that might be of interest to future researchers and social work educators.

The key finding of the investigation was that study-abroad experiences are a significant predictor of multicultural counseling competency, whereas travel abroad experiences are not. The positive and significant effect of study abroad on multicultural counseling competency is not surprising given that this finding was expected at the onset of this study (Hypothesis 1) and had been repeatedly tested and confirmed by previous studies. However, the positive, yet limited effect of travel abroad on multicultural counseling competency, which led to the rejection of Hypothesis 2, is an unexpected result because it invalidated the existing theoretical work, according to which, as long as the traveling individual meets diverse people and experiences significant emotional, psychological, or spiritual growth, the travel abroad experience per se could yield positive effects comparable to those enjoyed by students of study abroad programs. Another unexpected result is that the contact hypothesis, a well-established psychological theory, was not supported by the data collected through this research. This theory emphasizes increasing the sheer frequency of contact with the unknown subjects or people as a way to overcome any ignorance of the unfamiliar and to strengthen communication, instead of substantiating the position that places an emphasis on improving the quality and intensity of contact as the more effective and recommendable pedagogy (Whitley and Kite, 2010).

The unexpectedly weak association between traveling abroad and multicultural counseling competency is thought to be partly attributable to the fact that people travel abroad for a variety of educational and non-educational motives and purposes; consequently, the educational effects that are obtained from a trip abroad (e.g. a new insight into the horrors of war after visiting Nazi concentration camps in Poland), no matter how impressive and great, can easily disappear or become quickly diluted by the non-educational effects that are involved (e.g. pleasure and excitement felt after visiting a theme park in Poland that offers services and amenities congruous to American culture). In an environment where one can easily find excitement and comfort, it is natural that travelers – even those who leave home with a curiosity to learn more about other people, and who have an open-mindedness to unfamiliar cultures and an eagerness to attempt new adventures – become less likely to try new things and are often reluctant to embrace unfamiliar, uncomfortable or intimidating cultural experiences in their original forms (Crompton, 1977; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Therefore, it is no wonder that emotional, psychological, or spiritual growth that is obtained from the trips abroad does not fully translate into multicultural counseling competences worthy of recognition. If successfully translated, these experiences still fall short of the level of competency that is obtainable from studying abroad.

In contrast, study abroad begins with detailed and clearly articulated educational goals, while not completely ruling out non-educational components. Therefore, individuals who study abroad, compared to those who travel abroad, are more likely to maintain their original intentions and realize the anticipated result. Studying abroad offers a deeper cultural permeation by actively and intentionally placing students in unfamiliar and uncomfortable environments. For example, students who study abroad often stay in dormitories and live in close quarters with people from the given culture. These students might also stay with host families and live within the culture. Being detached from the comforts of American culture, students are forced – or, more precisely, motivated – to experience everything indigenous, from food and routines to values and practices. During this process, students develop close relationships with locals through friendships, their host families, or members of the community. This comprehensiveness and the active connections that are built during the stay can be a key element that allows the study abroad experience to have a positive influence on social work students’ multicultural counseling competences. Students may take advantage of similar educational effects from traveling abroad; yet, it is important to note that such effects tend to be diluted by influences of non-educational experiences that necessarily accompany the course of traveling abroad.

In summary, the analysis of the current results confirms the findings from previous studies regarding the relationship between studying abroad and social work students’ multicultural counseling competencies. The findings further indicate that the experience of emotional, psychological, and spiritual growth that is obtained from travel abroad is not as intense as the transformative experiences that can be obtained from studying abroad; additionally, travel abroad experiences do not necessarily translate into quality multicultural counseling competencies as seen with studying abroad. From the perspective of social work education, these findings strongly suggest that travel abroad is an inadequate substitute for study abroad. Consequently, like-minded social work educators, who value multicultural competency, should keep in mind that, to train culturally competent clinical social workers, it is essential to expand and develop existing study abroad curriculums. This expansion includes international field practicum and exchange student programs, which will afford students as many opportunities as possible to study abroad and undergo intense cultural immersion in diverse and challenging environments.

Limitations

The results of this study and implications for social work education must be considered in light of two potential limitations. The first limitation concerns the need for caution in generalizing or drawing a causal relationship from the study results. The small sample size (N = 86) is a limitation, as is not having completely controlled for potential factors that might threaten the study’s internal and external validity. In connection to the latter in particular, a case may be proposed where students who participated in the research already had a higher sensitivity toward multicultural issues than those who did not participate. In this case, response bias would be unavoidable; consequently, the study’s validity would be questionable. To minimize the effects of potential contaminating factors, such as history or selection bias, the current study limited research participants to those whose places of birth and residences were in rural areas; however, given that the study was not based on an experimental design, threats to its validity linger.

The second limitation concerns the self-report measures used, which could cause an inherent social desirability bias that is prevalent in responding to such instruments. The primary measure used in this study, the MCKAS, was self-reporting in nature (Green et al., 2005). In this case, participants’ interpretations of items may have differed from that intended by the instrument’s authors. Furthermore, participants may have reported the expected, rather than actual, attitudes and behaviors concerning their experiences (Hays, 2008). If this was the case, the reliability of the study could be undermined. Future studies that successfully address these issues, however, will allow researchers to draw more reliable and valid conclusions regarding the relationship among studying abroad, traveling abroad, and students’ multicultural counseling competency.