Hopeful Cross-Cultural Encounters to Support Student Well-Being and Graduate Attributes in Higher Education

Abstract

The impetus to ensure Australian students, once enrolled, complete their university qualification has become more pressing. Student retention impacts funding in a tight fiscal environment and is used as a benchmark for quality performance. Evidence of increased levels of psychological distress in university students threatens this retention. Risks to student well-being can be compounded for diverse and international students with vulnerabilities that include social isolation, negotiating cultural difference, and marginalization. This article reports on the evaluation of an extracurricular program available to all students in an Australian university that enabled respectful interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue, called Finding Common Ground. The program sought to reduce social isolation, support mature religious expression, counter marginalization, and strengthen graduate attributes. The research highlighted hopeful and surprising cross-cultural encounters, impacted positively on student well-being, enhanced cross-cultural learning, and disrupted the propensity for polarization or “silence” in university (and social) discourse on religious beliefs.

Keywords

intercultural literacy cross-cultural competence interfaith dialogue international students diversity internationalization informal curriculum

Introduction

It is well recognized that tertiary students benefit from systemically supportive and enabling environments to reach their full potential (Bassit & Tomlinson, 2012; Naylor, Baik, & James, 2013). The Australian Government’s (2016) National Strategy for International Education 2025 claims that developing student supports enables all students to “perform academically and make meaningful social, professional and cultural connections” (p. 13). In an expanded and competitive higher education system, the impetus to ensure students, once enrolled, complete their university qualification has become more pressing (Bradley, 2008; Marr, Curry, & Rose-Adams, 2014). Student retention impacts on funding in a tight fiscal environment and is used to benchmark quality performance in a more measured and accountable tertiary system (Gale & Parker, 2013; Lingard, 2011). More recently, research has highlighted how university students’ mental health and well-being impacts on their capacity to complete their studies, and there are growing concerns at the high levels of psychological distress in tertiary students in comparison to the broader population (Baik et al., 2018; Larcombe et al., 2016; Schofield, O’Halloran, McLean, Forrester-Knauss, & Paxton, 2016). Research indicates that a significant number of students in distress are not accessing central student support systems as they navigate their studies, and questions remain about why (Karimshah, 2013; Robotham, 2008).

Leask (2009) highlights the role of the “informal curriculum” in the student university experience, which she defines as “the optional extracurricular activities that take place on campus that are not part of the formal requirements of the students’ academic program but provide part of the landscape in which the formal curriculum is enacted” (p. 207). She maintains that such informal spaces invite opportunities for intercultural learning without the performative pressures of the formal curriculum which can constrain host and international student interactions. This article reports on the evaluation of a small, but noteworthy, “informal curriculum” project at Swinburne University, Australia. The program complements student services provision by providing a service with a different focus. It was hypothesized that some students might be less confident accessing traditional Student Services, but might attend a supportive program that affirmed their cultural and religious traditions. This provided an “asset-oriented” approach, rather than seeing difference as a “problem” to be overcome.

To bridge cultural and religious divides that can polarize and exclude students on university campuses, the Finding Common Ground (FCG) program aims to create respectful and safe space for interfaith dialogue, social connection, and intercultural learning for diverse, international, and host students. These goals were met in ways that exceeded expectations. Meaningful stories and insights emerged about students’ vulnerabilities, struggles, and hopes in the university context; significant social connections were forged across differences, including between host culture and international students; and identities were seemingly affirmed as students’ values and aspirations were welcomed and voiced within the university context. Reporting on this success contributes to the scarcity of such stories in the literature as universities struggle to maximize intercultural learning and possibilities of an internationalized higher education system (Bennett, Volet, & Fozdar, 2013; Urban & Palmer, 2014).

The research team included academics from education/social work and theology, as well as two university chaplains who initiated the project. This article brings an “educational” (and “social work”) lens to evaluate the extent to which the project achieved its goals to reduce social isolation of students from minority backgrounds; validated participants’ cultural and religious heritages; supported students’ participation in Swinburne University life; and/or had other impacts. The research findings affirmed the value of this informal curricula initiative to support student well-being and, by extension, retention, as well as contribute to intercultural understanding, safety, and communication.

Background

Internationalization, mass global migration, policies of widening participation in Western universities, and more flexible online study modes have invited a rich diversity in students accessing university education in Australia. As one of the major English-speaking destinations for foreign students, international students in 2018 represent approximately 27% of all higher education students in Australia (Joseph, 2011; Universities Australia, 2018). Student diversity is potentially a valuable resource for the creation of an open, tolerant and cosmopolitan university experience that can contribute to the graduate capabilities of Australian university students. Given an increasingly pluralistic and globally connected world, universities would want to be places of enlightened engagement to enable connection and understanding of difference, rather than division and alienation.

Although espousing the importance of “internationalized curriculum,” “global citizenship,” and “cross-cultural competence,” studies suggest that the educational possibilities of this diversity are not being realized in universities (Jones & Caruana, 2010; Joseph, 2011; Rahul, 2016). Many faculty and administrators recognize the need for intercultural competence, however, “practicing it with skill and a welcoming mind-set is yet to be achieved on many campuses” (Rahul, 2016, p. iii). The coexistence of home, diverse and international students in class and on campus does not necessarily result in meaningful interaction between them, nor the development of valuable intercultural communication skills and international perspectives (Leask, 2009, p. 206; Lee, 2013). Among the barriers between host and international students, Leask (2010) identified that many host students will not, or reluctantly, choose international students in class group work because of high risk associated with task failure, and limited time. She recommends the formal curriculum be complemented by “a range of ‘risk free’ interventions between hosts and sojourners outside the classroom, with interaction across cultures a normal part of everyday life” (Jones & Caruana, 2010, p. xvi). The program in this study is one such “risk-free” intervention; it is open to all students (with or without religious beliefs), is voluntary, and has no formal contributions to discipline assessments.

Such interventions can be significant, given the literature commonly attests to the complexity of internationalization in universities; “students and staff alike are learners in crossing cultural boundaries” (Jones & Caruana, 2010, p. xvi). The lucrative focus on recruitment of international students is not always matched by supportive infrastructures or inclusive cultural practices (Naidoo, 2018). The dominant interests of the host recipients can be served, rather than the possibilities of mutual collaboration and cultural exchange. Joseph (2011) argues that the commodification of higher education has eroded values of common good and significantly constrained inclusive pedagogic practices. Jooste and Heleta (2017) argue that the term “global citizenship” popularized in Western universities depends on privileged norms and values that are not accessible to all. They argue that to acknowledge global inequities, higher education needs to cultivate “globally competent students” who are “ready to function, work, succeed, and make a difference in a constantly changing, diverse, and complex world” (p. 46).

Moreover, although diversity is welcomed, it can bring educational and structural challenges to universities as they seek to maximize the educational success of their students, respond to diverse educational needs, and attend to the growing reality that university students are experiencing greater levels of psychological distress than the broader population (Baik et al., 2018). Student support systems and academics are required to respond to more variability and complexity in the student experience. Recent research on student well-being by Baik et al. (2018) has recommended a “whole of university” collaborative approach, with greater cohesion and collaboration between university services and learning and teaching (p. 11). Kift et al. (2010) have for some time conceptualized the first-year experience of all students transitioning to university as “everybody’s business,” advocating for coherence across university academic, administrative, and student support systems. The program in this study sought to complement existing initiatives, as well as learning and teaching practices that support the well-being of international, diverse, and domestic students, their retention, and successful course and graduate outcomes.

The FCG Program

Aware of the above complexities, as well as the close intersection of faith and culture for some minority students, the Chaplaincy team at Swinburne University developed a 5-week extracurricular program, FCG. This was open to students of any or no faith and was designed to be a safe space where students could respectfully articulate stories of their own faith traditions, belief frameworks, and personal journeys in search of meaning and explore those of others, hopefully finding common ground between them. Students who maintain an active faith tradition, and/or an interest in alternative belief systems, can find themselves on the margins of mainstream Australian university cultures, with little opportunity to explore some of the universal questions that are part of personal, cultural, and intellectual development and enquiry (Crisp, 2010). Dialogue around religious beliefs in the secular (Western) university has diminished in a post-Christendom era where institutional faith traditions have declined; partly due to the pervasive (but not wholly unwelcome) influence of the Enlightenment and postmodernism, and in the wake of postcolonial travesties, punitive denominational divides, and child sexual abuse crimes (Bouma, 2006). Disciplines such as philosophy and the arts have been diminished in contemporary universities as programs with a vocational focus have been selected to strategically respond to student and industry demand and fiscal realities (Joseph, 2011). Yet as Hugh Mackay explains, a search for authentic spirituality remains (Mackay, 2016, 2018); The FCG program aimed to create a respectful space for this dialogue, bringing it in from the margins in a way that did not reinforce simplistic or arrogant assertions but invited more complex understandings of faith and doubt in our multifaceted lives and world.

There have been three FCG programs conducted since 2017, and the second and third iterations are the subject of the current research. Students with a faith tradition, or no faith, were welcome to attend. Program topics were discussed over a simple vegetarian lunch, 1 hr weekly for 5 weeks. The discussion centered around activities related to the following themes:

Laying the foundations—being safe and ground rules

My story

Listening

Valuing differences

Strength and courage, and where to from here?

Students were encouraged to speak from their own experience and not “on behalf of” their faith tradition. Each group at the outset established guidelines and expectations for respectful dialogue and cultural safety.

Participants

There were 28 participants over the two programs, all of whom agreed to participate in the research. Of these, eight were international, nine were first generation (born overseas, now Australian citizens), and 11 were domestic students. Cultural/religious backgrounds ranged from Muslim (Afganistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China), Hindu (India); Sikh (India), Jewish (Uzbekistan, Australia), Christian (Australia, China, India, Myanmar), Agnostic (Australia, Kenya). A range of year levels and disciplines were represented.

Method

Qualitative research methods in a program evaluation methodology were used to respond to the research question:

Research Question 1: How effective is the FCG program in supporting the participation and well-being of students from minority cultural and religious backgrounds and in building intercultural understanding, in the Swinburne University community?

Qualitative methods elicit insight into how people interpret and draw meaning from their experience in natural, everyday contexts (Tomal, 2010). Drawn from a social constructionist or interpretivist epistemology, the views and perspectives of individuals, and the meaning they attach to things, are considered central to understanding (Corby, 2006, p. 50). Qualitative research enabled the depth and richness of data required for insight into the participants’ lived experience and perceptions of the FCG program. Qualitative inquiry is especially valuable for identifying unintended consequences and side effects in program evaluation, particularly, when researchers go into the field, observe what is really happening, and interview participants about what they are experiencing (Patton, 2015, p. 10).

Participant experiences and perceptions were captured with multiple data-collection methods. These included pre- and postprogram surveys, (voluntary) semistructured interviews of participants, and researcher field observations. These multiple sources sought to maximize insights about the program. In addition, they sought to counter researcher partiality through triangulation of data, given the two program facilitators (Chaplains) were part of the research team. The invitation of a researcher external to the university, and a theology professor not directly involved in the program (although with a voluntary Chaplaincy role in the university’s Multi Faith Facility), was additionally designed to reduce a myopic or biased interpretation of data. A Swinburne academic from a Muslim background initially joined the research team but withdrew due to other workload demands. The project was approved by Swinburne Human Research Ethics Committee (ethics number: 2017/334).

The external researchers each observed three sessions and made field notes with participants’ permission. The facilitators contributed their perceptions as “reflective practitioners” into the field observation data (Schön, 1983). Having “insider” researchers (the facilitators), as well as external observers, provided insights from lived experience, which contributed nuanced insights from privileged information (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007).

Pre- and postprogram survey questions were developed with the research question in mind to identify demographic data and explore expectations of participants. These were distributed by the FCG program facilitator to be completed anonymously in the first and final sessions. After each of the programs, participants were invited to semistructured interviews to expand on the themes from the survey. This enabled them to express their experience and perceptions in more depth and with more privacy than in a group setting. The interviews explored what the participants found helpful or unhelpful about FCG, what insights they gained about themselves and others, and whether, and how, the program promoted their well-being and intercultural confidence and communication. 15 out of the 28 participants attended these interviews, conducted by the researchers. Interviews were digitally audio recorded and transcribed for data analysis and thematic coding.

After the first program interviews, the researchers met twice to discuss emerging themes. Interview transcripts and survey results were stored in a common document for researchers to annotate and code recurring themes. Themes from the researchers’ field notes and reflections were discussed in conversation with the team. After the second cohort, the researchers met again for discussion and added the insights of the further interviews into their analysis.

Findings and Discussion

The following themes from the data affirm, and further illuminate, the issues identified in the literature that perpetuate social isolation for international and diverse students, maintain discomfort and alienation between host and international students, and contribute to missed educative opportunities in cross-cultural encounters while at university. Our reporting privileges the students’ interviews as they provide rich insights, are congruent with survey data, and reflect themes from the researcher field observations. The findings were unequivocal that participants benefited significantly from the social connections made, the space and freedom to express aspects of their identity that were latent in the formal learning environment, and found a growing confidence in cross-cultural interactions.

Reducing Social Isolation—Supporting Student Well-Being

The participants universally affirmed that the weekly opportunity to share their belief frameworks/questions, and learn from others in a safe environment, was a rare and very welcome opportunity. Some described the FCG program as the highlight of their week; others a counter point, or relief, to the “every-day stresses of student life.” A number of participants expressed their struggle to make friends or integrate with students in the formal learning environment but appreciated the depth of relationships in FCG. For example, one first year international student commented,

In my course there is not many international students, most of them are Australians. Even in res[idence], a lot of them are Australians from regional Victoria . . . So there’s . . . a little bit of safety when you are in a room with a bunch of international people . . . even if you don’t really talk explicitly about the experience of being an international student, there’s a feeling of being welcomed, of being part of something that you should be a part of . . . I don’t have too much of that.

A second year local student reflected,

As a university, there’s a bit of a thing with student culture where it’s not as communal. There’s a lot less social interaction. Sort of get to class, get out. [FCG] is a . . . conduit that allows people to come together. It starts these . . . long-term social bonds.

Another first year international student discussed her lack of mutual student relationships in her university context:

[In the FCG program] just the fact of having friends and not academically, but like for emotional support . . . I find it really hard to make friends. I feel like Australians are very individualistic . . . Here, if you want to revise with friends or someone in your class, you won’t have anyone come to you. I only have one friend who’s an international student as well. And he was looking for other people to study with, and he only found me. Because the other ones, they were like, oh but the lectures over, I need to go home.

The struggle for international students to connect with host students echoes a recurring theme in the literature, as does the centrality of such relationships (with other students and academics) to support retention (Bennett et al., 2013; Kift et al., 2010; Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2008). International and “first generation” students (i.e., born overseas, now Australian citizens) have significant linguistic, cultural, and identity differences to negotiate and do not always have the social capital to facilitate relationship building (Meuleman, Garrett, Wrench, & King, 2015; Rosenthal, Russell, & Thomson, 2008). Providing spaces that develop opportunities and skills to cultivate belonging and connection become important in this context. The research found that FCG’s social connections were highly valued by the students, and friendships continued beyond the life of the program. This was a resounding theme, expressed by a second year international student:

Thursday was actually the highlight of my week. It was good, just because we knew that there were people like us, like-minded people who were willing to have discussions about what we believed in and the faith. Just the security that there are other people just like us. And it really helps out how we live our week in University . . . seeing them around, we now have more friendly faces we see around the University.

Social isolation is identified as one of the key risks to students’ mental health (Baik et al., 2018). Participants alluded specifically to the ways in which the program supported their mental health and well-being, such as this first year, first generation student:

[FCG] really is a small kind of community . . . People are genuinely interested in each other . . . I always thought it would keep me sane through the week. What I look forward to during this week . . . it was a very wholesome and uplifting experience for the week.

A first year international student similarly commented,

I think it’s important to find people or a group or an outlet in which you can just talk. I think that’s really good for mental health, particularly. To not have everything just caught up in your mind. We lead busy lives. Sometimes, it’s just nice to take that 30 minutes or an hour out of your week to take a breath and release and forget about all of that and focus on something else. To listen to people, as well, who are having the same problems that you’re having, or sharing the same thoughts and anxieties that you’ve got as well . . . . It’s just important for students, I think, to have that support network.

The normalizing of students’ experience in a safe space seems to have opened channels of unexpected support. Some students disclosed deeply personal stories that revealed significant distress. The researchers noted some astonishment at the depths of (effective) mutual support that evolved within the groups. Content of the sessions would spontaneously (and constructively) shift toward issues of participants’ mental health and well-being, and the mutual support generated was tangible and profound. For example, from one researcher’s field notes, the facilitator asked, “what has been a difficult time in your life and how did you get through it?” One student (encouraged by her psychologist to attend the group) admitted to severe depression, connected to posttraumatic stress disorder from her childhood in Afghanistan. Another student teared up and admitted that depression was something she had struggled with for years. The Afghani woman stood up and they embraced with tears, giving each other the strength to continue telling their stories. The (facilitator) researcher noted, “The group shifted on that day to one where you could talk about anything.” On another occasion, students were asked to, “Share an experience that has had a significant impact on your life.” One student discussed their addiction to pornography and spoke about the strategies used to address the addiction. The (facilitator) researcher noted, “. . . his trust of the other students enabled others to open up deeper stories of their own journeys. The discussion moved to peer input on life-skills, career information and other mutual help issues.”

The program gave space for such explorations when they were clearly in the students’ best interests. This highlights the interconnectedness of belief systems, relationships, identity, and well-being sitting not far below the surface of students as they pursue their studies at university. An accepting and welcoming space that acknowledges this, and is not initiated by a perceived need or problem, but operates at the outset from an “asset” perspective, has merit among other services offered to support students’ well-being. Some participants were accessing additional support services as well. For example, a second year, first generation student explained,

I have severe anxiety and depression. Since I was young, my parents never forced religion on me, however . . . my parents decided to send me . . . into a privatized . . . “religious” school . . . . Unfortunately, it is at that school, I start to see . . . how people distort what religion is and how you use religion to punish those who do not follow their idea . . . that place made me hate myself and after I graduated from high school . . . I ran away from home . . . also because of my sexuality . . . in most religion sexuality, especially . . . homosexuality, is not very favoured upon . . . I grew a disdain for all religion because of my experience. Coming to this program, it actually allowed me to be open minded . . . to know that even though religion as a whole can be a bad thing . . . there are individuals who are open minded within every certain religion.

The facilitators and participants’ compassion toward each person’s experience and story was transformative. Although students encountered unfamiliar faith traditions in the FCG program, this was explored from a position of religious beliefs and cultural traditions as an asset rather than unimportant, anachronistic, or extraneous. When the student above was asked what they gained from the FCG program, the response was not only moving in its insight but also revealing of the significance of social connection:

The idea that I am not alone . . . This program allowed me to see that everyone is on a similar journey. They’re not necessarily following their religion per say, they’re following their own way and that really is a refreshing take in today’s climate where religion is such a loud institution and sometimes overshadows those individuals within those certain religions.

The student is articulating the value of exploring beliefs that might not fit conventional systems but affirms expression of the complex process of discovering values and purpose that are meaningful for participants and their identities. The intention of the program to create a safe space where students could respectfully share stories of their own faith traditions (integral to their identities), and learn from others, was strongly affirmed in the participant data. A first year, first generation student said in his interview:

The way it is structured, it feels very safe. In terms of wellbeing, it’s quite cathartic to have this space where you can talk about things like this and have people listen to them and be interested . . . for people like me who didn’t have this kind of space to share and receive stories from other people as well, it makes me feel light . . . .

Students often referred to the program being “accepting,” “safe,” and “encouraged openness and intimacy.” This facilitated social connections as well as intercultural learning between host and international students, which became evident in the following themes.

Identity Affirmed—Enabling Learning?

A person who feels more comfortable in their own skin is just gonna be a better student . . . I think.

This quote from a fourth year domestic student interview alludes to the value of affirming students’ identity (by valorizing their cultural heritages) in the university context to support their learning. The same student further commented,

I think that it makes people feel that their spiritual reality has been acknowledged in this kind of environment. Because in uni that’s very underrepresented in the academic side of it. So this kind of thing allows people to see other people who acknowledge a spiritual reality and feel comfortable talking about it. So I think if they were feeling repressed spiritually, they might feel kindred spirits.

There were examples of the affirmation of students’ identities—feeling more comfortable “in their own skin”—being constructively transferred to other contexts. For example, a Muslim first generation student was surprised at how more relaxed she felt with strangers after the program:

Somebody’s beside me that is totally a stranger, but I feel a sense of assurance and those things that we have talked about [in the FCG program] that comes in my mind . . . now I feel like I would be safe beside a total stranger. Now, I feel relaxed . . . I’m like, “Okay, so it’s fine. I have nothing to worry about.”

A second year international student commented,

Sometimes when you are sitting in a group of peoples with different religions, you may hesitate, and they may oppose you, because bad things are happening in the world. But we had the freedom to speak openly. I learned it’s not just me who faces problems like racism, or gender chauvinism. But others from other parts of the world. I don’t feel humiliated. I a woman, and from India, but I’m not alone.

The affirmation of minority students’ experience, and valorizing their cultural traditions outside the classroom, could lever confidence in international and diverse students to express themselves in the classroom. These educative possibilities are outside the scope of this study, but Leask’s (2009) argument for the strategic use of “both the formal and the informal curricula to encourage and reward intercultural engagement” is affirmed by this possibility (p. 205). Different cultural practices and power dynamics embedded (and “hidden”) in the formal curriculum play a role in participation and hospitality toward diverse contributions (Margolis, 2001). However, Glass (2012) found that international students who interacted with other students and experienced cross-cultural group interactions in both curricular and cocurricular or community contexts reported greater levels of learning and development in intercultural maturity.

Supporting Intercultural Understanding and Learning

Encouraging participants to honor their own traditions while becoming aware of multiple ways of viewing the world fosters an intellectual maturity that is aspirational in higher education. Most universities in Australia articulate graduate attributes that include intercultural competence and communication (Leask, 2010). Swinburne aspires to embed “Future-Ready Skills,” including “cultural competency, to understand and collaborate with people of different ideas, backgrounds, and professional contexts, and to value, respect and celebrate equity and diversity.” It would seem that FCG contributes to the various opportunities available to Swinburne students to develop this skill set. Perry (1985) refers to the developmental schema that educators hope university students will progress through, from dualistic thinking toward “relativist” or “commitment to a relativist perspective.” Although FCG is one step toward cultivating this educational progression, it can be significant for students with religious backgrounds to develop mature religious understandings, along with the other aspects of their intellectual and emotional lives. What emerged in the data was an affirmation of diverse views and experiences, as expressed for example, by this fourth year domestic student:

I think it’s harder to be close minded in a program like this. It’s harder to keep misconceptions about people. So when you expose people to people of other groups, all of a sudden the straw men come down and the people emerge. And I think that’s always a good thing.

. . . I saw a little bit of assumptions, unconscious assumptions being challenged.

Students valued the opportunity and freedom to explore, in an inclusive and appreciative group, over and against some of the pressure in more closed faith group activities where there can be pressure to confirm to traditionalist views. The data suggest that the program fostered maturity in religious understanding as well as confidence in intercultural encounters. This is expressed by the following first year domestic student interview:

A positive thing for me to have to actually stop and articulate to somebody else who’s coming from a very different perspective. I think that’s probably a key element to what can be achieved in this kind of discussion. It does make you stop and think about . . . beliefs that you’ve probably held on to for a long period of time, being able to articulate them is one thing. Then, being able to back up where those beliefs come from or how you got to this point, is another important element as well. I don’t necessarily think anything changed [for me], but it probably made me more reflective and aware of, if I am sharing those ideas, to understand where they come from.

This student is grasping the intellectual value of articulating beliefs and values, and supporting them with reasoned arguments, in the context of respectful discussions with others of different beliefs and values. When students were asked about the benefits of the FCG program, they referred to feeling more confident with difference and the development of intercultural communication skills—partly because they had the opportunity to experience and practice these. For example, a first generation student observed:

Australia being very multicultural . . . you cannot be in denial of the fact that you will interact with one of these people every single day almost. You can’t just say I’ll stick to my own group of people . . . So it was like an opportunity to blend in with other groups and get a practical feeling of how it can be. You can grow with it in a bad way. Just agree with everything the other person is saying, or there’s the other way. You can think, be open and respectful at the same time and then that’s how the actual interaction should go. It was the best benefit that I gained from the project. I’ve also gained more confidence trying to speak up myself and who I am as well as my religion.

Similarly, a second year international student affirmed:

It also improved my communication, and I gained confidence for speaking in public . . . It’s really rare for me. Sometimes people think, like local students, and she’s international, so they show her an attitude, but not in this group.

At times, the participants articulated an inclusive discourse that indicated the potential to orient them toward a critique of exclusionary social arrangements within and beyond the university (Walton, 2017). For example, from the same international student above:

. . . I believe anyone who participated in this program will be coming out of this with a much more open mindset about themselves, their religion and also people around them and they will be eager to learn new things out there and to be more engaged with people who are different from them.

Global citizenship outcomes are evidenced by a capacity to confidently articulate one’s own cultural (including religious) identify and respect and listen to those of others. Students become “global citizens” when they are aware of inequalities and the systems that perpetuate them, and become active advocates to redress these. Although the latter is difficult to achieve in a weekly program over 5 weeks, the empathic and respectful exploration in relationships of trust—including injuries from students’ sociostructural positions, in and outside the university—is fertile ground for developing such awareness and advocacy.

Limitations of the Research

There were limitations to this project and opportunities for further research. FCG was a voluntary program, and the representation of schools was not prioritized in the demographic data. Any discoveries about discipline representation were therefore not possible. In terms of attrition from the program, two students dropped out of the first cohort and three from the second, which was claimed to be because of workload pressures. One of those who left the program early was included in the students interviewed. There was virtually no critique of the program by the students, although some students expressed interest in further and deeper intellectual debate, but recognized it was about sharing experience, rather than apologetics on different religions. Although the program met the intended outcomes, numbers were small, and participation was voluntary. As one first year student insightfully expressed it in his interview,

People that might have the most to gain in terms of knowledge from this [program] are the people that might not want to come, which is a little bit unfortunate because some people are so shut off from other ways of thinking that they wouldn’t even consider doing something like this.

It is hard to know to what extent the program participants were, in some ways already open, and to what extent the interactive and experiential opportunities offered by the program deepened and informed this openness.

We can only speculate about the impact of FCG on academic performance. We know that well-being and retention are related. We also know that campuses with lower levels of prejudice and discrimination, and intentional support for diversity, are more likely to foster belonging and learning for students from diverse backgrounds (Glass, 2012). Nevertheless, it is difficult to isolate FCG program as a contributor to participants’ academic success. Should a longer term follow-up study be undertaken, this could provide more insight. Further research on whether such programs complement student support systems by offering preemptive and supportive interventions that are possibly socially and culturally more appealing to some minority students than the formal support networks provided is recommended. How FCG and similar initiatives might interact with the formal curriculum to enhance learning potential in diverse student populations is explored in another paper.

Conclusion

Jones and Caruana (2010) maintains that the key to developing cross-cultural capability “seems to lie in providing space for reflection and support for students and staff to work together in developing the multicultural classroom as a safe environment to traverse complex cross-cultural terrain” (p. xvi). The FCG program provided “space for reflection” for students and Chaplaincy staff in the informal curriculum.

The qualitative data provided rich insight into the vulnerabilities of diverse and international university students, and the recurring (human) elements that seem to support them. The study—and the students’ stories—perhaps provide a gentle counter-balance to the rational, Western-centric, outcome-oriented and measured university (Lingard, 2011); not all learning and student experience can be “measured” quantitatively. A first year domestic (law) student expressed that programs such as FCG can be a valuable support for student well-being and learning and may well hold hope for generating effective cross-cultural encounters and learning in the university context:

I think it is important for programs like this, on numerous levels, one, from it being an additional service that a university can provide to support students who are stressed . . . and just want that relaxed support network. I think it’s important on the level of offering a service to students with specific religious backgrounds who might not feel supported or know of the services available to them, who might feel ostracized by being in a minority. But, then, from an academic level, I think there’s great opportunity for the discussion to grow, and the group to grow. I’m not sure how far that could be taken and what opportunities might come from that; at a more community level rather than just the university level of expanding beyond the university borders to shine a light on the diverse nature of communities across the city.

FCG is one, small, but positive, initiative among the institution’s efforts to support diverse and international students in their study and developmental journeys and to generate graduates with values of inclusivity, respectful curiosity, and a growing ease around difference that potentially challenges prejudice and inequity and inspires social action toward more socially inclusive and just ends.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Angela Daddow

Author Biographies

Angela Daddow is a social work lecturer at Deakin University, and a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Her post-graduate qualifications in Social Work and Education often merge in her research interests. These are inclusive curriculum design, transformative pedagogies, and learning and teaching in higher education.

Darren Cronshaw is head of Research of Missional Leadership with Australian College of Ministries (Sydney College of Divinity). He is an honorary chaplain at Swinburne University, and is particularly interested in the well-being and pastoral care of international students.

Newton Daddow is senior chaplain overseeing the Multi Faith Facility at Swinburne University. A strong advocate for Interfaith understanding, he is on the Executive Committee of the Council for Christians and Jews, Victoria.

Ruth Sandy is a chaplain and facilitator of the Finding Common Ground program at Swinburne University, and associate coordinator of Building Bridges Through Interfaith Dialogue in Schools Program. She has a secondary teaching background, majoring in world music, choirs and food.

References

Australian Government. (2016). National strategy for international education 2025. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/national-strategy-international-education

Baik

Larcombe

Brooker Wyn

Allen

Brett

Field

James

(2018). Enhancing student mental wellbeing: A handbook for academic educators. Retrieved from http://unistudentwellbeing.edu.au/

Bassit

Tomlinson

(Eds.) (2012). Social inclusion and higher education. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Bennett

Volet

Fozdar

(2013). “I’d say it’s kind of unique in a way”: the development of an intercultural student relationship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17, 533-553.

Bouma

(2006). Australian soul: Religion and spirituality in the 21st century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley

(2008). Review of Australian higher education—Final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Brannick

Coghlan

(2007). “In defence of being native.” The case for insider academic research. Organisational Research Methods, 10, 59-74.

Corby

(2006). Enacting research in social work practice. New York: Open University Press.

Crisp

(2010). Spirituality and social work. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.

10.

Gale

Parker

(2013). Widening participation in Australian higher education. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and The Office of Fair Access (OFFA), England, CFE (Research and Consulting) Ltd, Leicester, UK and Edge Hill University, Lancashire, UK. Retrieved from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013_WPeffectivenessAus.pdf

11.

Glass

C. R.

(2012). Educational experiences associated with international students’ learning, development, and positive perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 228-251. doi:10.1177/1028315311426783

12.

Jones

Caruana

(2010). Nurturing the global graduate for the twenty-first century: Learning from the student voice on internationalisation. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. xv-xxiii). New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Jooste

Heleta

(2017). Global citizenship versus globally competent graduates: A critical view from the south. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21, 39-51.

14.

Joseph

(2011). Internationalizing the curriculum: Pedagogy for social justice. Current Sociology, 60, 239-257.

15.

Karimshah

(2013). Overcoming adversity among low SES students. Australian Universities Review, 55(2), 5-14.

16.

Kift

Nelson

Clarke

(2010). Transition Pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-20.

17.

Larcombe

Finch

Sore

Murray

Kentish

Mulder

. . . Williams

(2016). Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological distress among students at an Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 1074-1091. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.966072

18.

Leask

(2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 205-221.

19.

Leask

(2010). Beside me is an empty chair: The student experience of internationalisation. In Jones

(Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 3-52). New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Lee

(2013). The false halo of internationalization. International Higher Education, 72, 5-7. doi:10.6017/ihe.2013.72.6101

21.

Lingard

(2011). Policy as numbers: Accounting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38, 355-382.

22.

Mackay

(2016). Beyond belief: How we find meaning, with or without religion. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Macmillan.

23.

Mackay

(2018). Australia reimagined: Towards a more compassionate, less anxious society. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Macmillan.

24.

Margolis

(Ed.) (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Marr

Curry

Rose-Adams

(2014). Autonomy, legitimacy and confidence: Using mainstream curriculum to successfully widen participation. In Murray

Klinger

C. M.

(Eds.), Aspirations, access and attainment (pp. 144-156). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

26.

Meuleman

A.-M.

Garrett

Wrench

King

(2015). “Some people might say I’m thriving but . . .”: non-traditional students’ experiences of university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, 503-517. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.945973

27.

Naidoo

(2018). Like strangers in a new world…’ Interrogating issues of access, belonging and participation of foreign students in private higher education in South Africa. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(6), 622-637.

28.

Naylor

Baik

James

(2013). Developing a critical interventions framework for advancing equity in Australian higher education. Discussion paper prepared for the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

29.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation Methods: Integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

30.

Perry

(1985). The modern American college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Rahul

(2016). Campus readiness for supporting international student success. Journal of International Students, 6, I-V.

32.

Robotham

(2008). Stress among higher education students: Towards a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 735-746.

33.

Rosenthal

Russell

Thomson

(2008). The health and wellbeing of international students at an Australian university. Higher Education, 55, 51-67.

34.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 148-180.

35.

Schofield

M. J.

O’Halloran

McLean

S. A.

Forrester-Knauss

Paxton

S. J.

(2016). Depressive symptoms among Australian university students: Who is at risk? Australian Psychologist, 51, 135-144.

36.

Schön

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

37.

Tomal

(2010). Action research for educators. Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield.

38.

Universities Australia. (2018). Data snapshot 2018. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/australias-universities/key-facts-and-data#.W5sMUdgzbUo

39.

Urban

Palmer

(2014). International students as a resource for internationalization of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 305-324.

40.

Walton

(2017). Inclusive education in the academy: Pedagogical and political imperatives in a master’s course. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22, 856-869. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1412512