Violence Against International Students: A Critical Gap in the Literature

International Students

The term “international student” is defined as an individual enrolled in an institution of higher education who is on a temporary student visa and is a nonnative English speaker (Andrade, 2006). In order to be admitted entry to the United States, international students are issued certain visas, including visas for academic study (F-1 visa), for vocational study (M-1 visa), and for cultural exchange (J-1 visa). If the student has a spouse or children, they may accompany the student under a “2” status (i.e., F-2, M-2, or J-2) visa. As noted, there is now a substantial number of international students in the United States, who provide needed revenue but also contribute to a diverse learning environment in a world focused on globalization. Given this focus on recruiting and admitting international students, it is important that universities consider the students’ educational and cultural experiences once they arrive in the host country (Andrade, 2006).

In order to provide students with academic support to fulfill their educational goals, universities must focus on helping international students adjust to the new culture. The adjustment issues that international students face include difficulties with language (Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000), lack of social support (Hechanova-Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Van Horn, 2002), loneliness and homesickness (Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002), and anxiety and lack of confidence (Robertson et al., 2000). Some universities have adopted social support programming to help international students with the adjustment process, such as pairing volunteer “host” students with international students (Abe, Talbot, & Gellhoed, 1998), offering outreach counseling support groups (Smith, Chin, Inman, & Findling, 1999), and creating online orientations (Murphy, Hawkes, & Law, 2002). It is unclear whether or not international graduate students utilize such social support programs as some research indicates they tend to place less priority on social adjustment and more priority on adjusting to academic life (Lewthwaite, 1996). Even with the multitude of resources available on campus, most international students prefer to turn to their family or friends for help with personal problems (Zhai, 2004).

The support systems that have been put in place at many institutions are clearly needed. Despite the increase in international students coming to study in the United States, research shows that many international students do not receive a warm welcome to the host country. Research by J. J. Lee and Rice (2007) on international students’ perceptions of discrimination indicates this is the case for both undergraduate and graduate students. Their sample included students from India, East Asia, Latin America, Europe, Africa, the Gulf Region, the Caribbean, Canada, and New Zealand (p. 390). Their findings indicate different experiences for White international students and those of color. Students from Europe, Canada, and New Zealand did not report negative experiences based on their race or culture and found the host country to be warm and welcoming. In contrast, international students of color, such as students from Asia, India, Latin America, and the Middle East, reported feelings of inferiority, encountering hostility related to their nonfluency in English, and general racial discrimination. International students said they were often uncomfortable in the classroom due to language barriers and felt excluded by other students. They were also uneasy in parking lots due to safety concerns, and their general unfamiliarity with American culture also caused discomfort. The authors describe an Indian male respondent who felt uncomfortable with the culture because he was

surprised by the “incredible” amount of partying and drinking involved in undergraduate life and was shocked with the open sexuality of American culture. He feels excluded from friendships and gaining the type of experience he hoped for because he doesn’t partake in the usual activities of his peers. (p. 397)

According to the most recent World Health Organization (n.d.) report on alcohol consumption and patterns, only 1.7% of the population in India engaged in heavy drinking, and 84.9% of the population abstained from drinking. Given that 16.9% of the U.S. population engaged in heavy drinking and 31% of the population abstained, the stark contrast in cultural norms and practices would likely raise adjustment problems for some international students. This may be particularly true for students who come from “dry” countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where <0.1% of the population engaged in heavy drinking and 94.2% of the population abstained. These students may face greater adjustment challenges than students from countries like Germany or France where the alcohol norms are not wholly distinct from those in the United States. France, for example, had 29.4% of the population who engaged in heavy drinking and only 5.2% who abstained from drinking. Beyond this, the cultural norms around alcohol are relaxed, with parents often giving young children wine with meals and adults routinely drinking wine with lunch. The influence of the cultural norms from students’ home countries should be accounted for in their adjustment process.

In addition to feeling discomfort due to cultural differences, the international students in J. J. Lee and Rice’s (2007) sample reported being verbally assaulted, physically assaulted, and even sexually harassed by their professors. J. J. Lee and Rice (2007) stress that not all international students endure the same hardships, the experiences of White international students and international students of color were very different. Their findings indicate that students from Western cultures and English-speaking countries experienced minimal or no discrimination at all; however, students from Asia, India, Latin America, and the Middle East reported considerable amounts of discrimination.

Those students who experience difficulty adjusting to life in the United States may be more socially isolated, which could elevate their risk for certain types of victimization and could influence their help-seeking behaviors. Social isolation may reduce their risk of certain types of victimization, serving as a protective factor from engaging in behaviors (i.e., binge drinking, hooking up) that have been linked to victimization. However, social isolation could increase their risk of domestic violence, susceptibility to experience assault, or harassment by their advisors or supervisors and could have a drastic influence on their help-seeking behaviors in the aftermath of an experience.

Campus Culture

Guided by overexposure to Hollywood versions of the United States and television shows like “Sex and the City” and “Friends,” international students’ perceptions of American culture may be very different from what they will actually encounter as students. For some international students, American college culture, which is associated with drinking and casually “hooking up” (defined as having casual sexual encounters with someone you are not in a relationship with), may be similar to their cultures; for others, it may be worlds apart. The diversity of international students makes generalization difficult, at best. When international students arrive in the United States to pursue their degrees, they bring with them their own cultural norms, including their religious beliefs and norms about dating and relationships, in addition to their expectations and preconceived notions of “American life.”

An individual’s cultural ideas and norms from their home country provide a lens through which they incorporate and assimilate experiences in their new country. The culture of campus life in American higher educational institutions has been the context of sociological studies for quite some time, as scholars explore the gendered nature of the university setting, the prevalence of alcohol in social situations, and sexual and dating norms. It is likely that international students will be exposed to American campus culture at parties, bars, and other campus and off-campus functions. The way in which this exposure either confirms or challenges their expectations of American culture happens during the process of acculturation, where individuals learn about culture through experience, observation, or instruction. Acculturation has been largely studied in the field of cross-cultural psychology, where scholars seek to understand the influence of culture on individual human behavior. Berry (1997) explains that the goal of acculturation research is to understand “what happens to individuals, who have developed in one cultural context, when they attempt to live in a new cultural context?” (p. 6). Do individuals maintain their previous behaviors in their new setting, do they change their behaviors based upon the new setting, or is it some variation of change? The psychological literature on acculturation is vast and indicates that there is a multitude of components to be taken into consideration when understanding acculturation of populations, such as their society of origin, their society of settlement, the length of time in the new country, their acculturation strategies, coping strategies, social support, and demographic variables (age, gender, language, and religion) among others. Because international students who come to the United States to pursue higher education spend the vast majority of their time at the university, the campus community serves as a unique microcosm in which they experience the host country. For this reason, the processes that must be analyzed are the aspects of American culture that have been identified in the literature as being associated with college campuses, such as drinking, socializing, and the hookup culture. Especially for graduate students, the nature of the university institution influences the social relations within campus culture through educational work groups, faculty–student advisor pairings, and graduate support networks, which are often gendered. Therefore, international graduate students’ acculturation strategies must also go beyond the social aspect of college campus culture to address the gendered nature of the institution of U.S. graduate education.

Scholars have identified ways in which schools are considered gendered institutions. For an institution to be organized along gendered lines reflects that the conception, definition, domination, and interpretation of institutions have been done by men in the absence of women (Acker, 1992; Britton, 2000; Pierce, 1995; Risman, 2004). Schools are one example of a gendered institution because of how patterns and arrangements, such as events, curriculum, pedagogy, and sports, perpetuate heteronormative gender expectations (García, 2009; Pascoe, 2007; Wilkinson & Pearson, 2009). This exerts an effect on individuals seen as “other,” such as international female graduate students, because they may face organizational barriers, lack of mentoring, unfriendly work environments, and feel as though there is a lack of respect toward their research and scholarship (for an example of how this plays out for women of color faculty members, see Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001). S. M. Park (1996) examines institutionalized sexism inherent in the masculine ideologies within university promotion and tenure policies and how a gendered division of labor values research (men’s work) over teaching and service (women’s work), hindering women’s professional advancement in academia. Given the close relationship of graduate students to their faculty advisors, the gendered nature of the faculty experience may influence the interaction, mentorship, and socialization of graduate students.

Sallee’s (2011) research on the gendered socialization of doctoral students highlights the masculine and heteronormative values that characterize certain disciplines. Values and ideologies of competition, intellectualism, independent discovery, hierarchy, and lewd humor are woven throughout the institutional, interactional, and individual levels of graduate student socialization (Sallee, 2011). These aspects of the gendered institution may be especially pertinent for international graduate students, many of whom study in male-dominated fields (e.g., electrical engineering, computer science; Anderson, 2013), where these values may be even more pervasive than in other graduate programs and where students may be more likely to have a male faculty advisor. As discussed previously, although Sallee’s (2011) findings reveal the gendered nature of graduate school socialization, they are not generalizable to international students because the researcher removed them from the population sampled, despite the fact that they comprised the majority of students in the department studied. Thus, there is still much to learn about international students’ acculturation challenges and strategies regarding socialization and navigation of the gendered institution of higher education, and particularly how it may heighten international female students’ risk of victimization. For example, could the symbolic and social power associated with men in our society, coupled with the organizational power associated with being an advisor, operate in a way that makes female students vulnerable to sexual assault or harassment by their male advisors? This could have implications for female international graduate students in STEM programs whose funding, and subsequently their visas, are tied to an advisor.

Sallee’s (2011) exclusion of international students brings to light the deep influence that culture has on social norms. These cross-cultural expectations and ideals of masculinity must be taken into consideration when international students are included in a research population. Cross-cultural expectations of dating norms and gender roles are explored in several studies with international students, such as J. Lee, Pomeroy, Yoo, and Rheinboldt (2005) and Yamawaki, Ostenson, and Brown (2009). Their findings demonstrate that victim blaming may be more pervasive among Asian students because of the Chinese cultural expectations that women must protect their virginity, and if a woman is raped, she bears the responsibility for failing to prevent it. This is a reflection of the emphasized femininity within Asian cultures, which place high value on chastity and provide clear gender roles for women to act as sexual gatekeepers. It is not surprising then that J. J. Lee and Rice (2007) discovered that the international students in their sample felt discomfort with the drinking and sexual activity that is so openly discussed in American culture. In research on campus life, this has been referred to as the “hookup culture.” Although there is not one established definition of the hookup in the literature, scholars agree that hooking up consists of casual sexual activity, ranging anywhere from a kiss to intercourse, between nondating partners outside the context of commitment (Armstrong, England, & Fogarty, 2009; Bogle, 2008; England & Thomas, 2006; Glenn & Marquardt, 2001; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Understanding the hookup culture provides context for the campus culture that international students, and international graduate students, may encounter on campus. Although there is no existing research that indicates whether or not international graduate students participate in the hookup culture, J. J. Lee and Rice’s (2007) respondents indicate that they still encounter and learn about the contours of campus hookup culture, even if they are not active participants. The hookup typically begins at a party or a bar where there has been flirting and usually drinking, and the individuals move to a more private location such as a room at the party or a dorm where the sexual activity occurs (Bogle, 2007; England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2008). Although most graduate students do not live in dormitories, many universities do offer on-campus housing for international graduate students.

While the literature of the hookup culture focuses primarily on gender, and sometimes includes class (Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, 2014; Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009) in heterosexual relationships, most other social locating variables, such as race and sexual orientation (Heldman & Wade, 2010), and graduate and international student status, are excluded from analyses. Hamilton and Armstrong (2009) and Armstrong and Hamilton (2013) discovered that undergraduate women from privileged backgrounds were attracted to the hookup because it facilitated sexual liberation without the constraints of a committed relationship that might cause them to deviate from their career plans. Their research found that less privileged women did not view college as a time for merely career and professional development but also as a time to develop serious relationships that could end in marriage. This desire to move into adulthood faster than those from privileged backgrounds made hooking up less appealing to less privileged women. Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, and Seeley’s (2014) more recent work on the social mobility pathways of universities focuses on the role of class in achieving high social rank on campus. They argue this combination facilitates sexual assault, as it stems from a “high-stakes status competition” (Armstrong et al., 2014, p. 93). The evidence of the hookup as a classed phenomenon, and one that influences sexual assault, shows the importance of including social location factors into research. To be clear, the extant literature on the hookup culture focuses on domestic undergraduate students whose experience on campus is qualitatively different than international graduate students. However, if there are significant differences in one social location (i.e., class), it is worth examining if there are significant differences in other social locating variables, such as graduate student and international student statuses. Would research that explicitly and intentionally focuses on this population yield equivalent results?

As J. Lee et al. (2005) indicated, just as there are gender role expectations of Asian men and women, there are also cultural expectations of dating and sexual norms for American men and women. Research on sexuality consistently finds male endorsement of the belief that men are expected to desire and pursue sexual opportunities (Bogle, 2008; Kimmel, 2008). Conversely, women are expected to want love, romance, and relationships (Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; Holland & Eisenhart, 1990; K. Martin, 1996; Simon, Eder, & Evans, 1992). When they do engage in sexual situations, men are given increased social status and women are labeled with the slut stigma—a powerful label that in some social groups is “the worst thing a girl could be called” (Pascoe, 2007, p. 56). The slut stigma is so pervasive that Hamilton and Armstrong (2009) found that the women in their sample constrained their sexual behavior in order to avoid being labeled a slut. Other research indicates that changing behavior is not the only option; other women do not change their behavior but instead strategically use the vague term of hooking up to maintain impression management of femininity (Currier, 2013). By walking a thin line between hooking up “enough” and “too much,” the women in Currier’s sample used the vagueness of the term hooking up to their advantage by complying with the sexual scripts of hooking up while protecting their feminine identities to avoid being labeled a slut. Such strategies can be seen in samples other than college students. Lamont (2013), for instance, indicates that her respondents engaged in efforts to conceal nonconforming behavior in courtships postcollege. Contrary to the image of the American woman embracing her sexuality and promiscuity put forth by shows like Sex and the City, the women in these research samples take steps to hide their gender role nonconformity. Thus, there may be a disconnect between the preconceived ideas of American women and the reality that male international students encounter during their acculturation processes. However, strategies of ambiguity are not just used by women. Currier (2013) found, for example, that while women used strategic ambiguity to imply they were not having sex and thereby shored up their femininity, men engaged in strategic ambiguity to imply that they were having sex. Thus, men used the vague term hooking up to embrace their social identity in line with the American hegemonic masculine value of hypersexuality.

For male international students who are introduced to a less restrictive dating and sexual atmosphere than in their home countries, the situation may be as bewildering and difficult to navigate for them, as it is for female students from similar countries. The hookup culture maintains the gender order of hegemonic masculinity, where men should want to engage in sexual activity, and emphasized femininity, where women comply with the gender order (Connell, 1987). Using the framework of hegemonic masculinity for her study of hooking up, Currier (2013) explains, “Although there are variations of hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity, there are commonly accepted and expected displays of both, grounded in time- and culturally specific contexts” (p. 706). For instance, her interviews with students reveal how the meaning and significance of oral sex has shifted since their parents’ generation, indicating that the hookup script is grounded in a time-specific context. Research is needed that provides for a more nuanced understanding of how the hookup script is a culturally specific context that varies by country of origin. Students from Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand may experience similar hookup cultural scripts in their countries. However, more than 60% of international students come from China, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea—countries where hookup scripts are very different or are nonexistent. Without a specific focus on how these students learn about, adjust, reject, or perhaps even engage in the hookup culture while here in America, the extant literature cannot fully speak to their experience with it.

Although their research included only domestic students, Wade and Heldman’s (2012) study raises many important questions for the international student population. They found that students’ anticipation of college sexual culture was shaped by media portrayals of college life as a “wild, sexual party scene” (p. 134). Do international students come to America with preconceived notions of American college culture based on what they have seen in movies and television shows? Wade and Heldman (2012) also found that the freedom of college life, such as no curfew or accountability to parents, facilitated the ease of hooking up. Many international students (including graduate students) come from countries, such as China, where females are held accountable to their parents’ curfews and where they are expected not to engage in sexual intimacy outside of marriage. Do these women and men experience new-found freedom as did the first-year undergraduates in Wade and Heldman’s (2012) sample? Currier (2013) discusses the difficulty that her American students experienced when trying to describe and define what hooking up means because of its normalized and taken-for-granted nature. However, J. J. Lee and Rice (2007) suggest that the hookup culture is not normalized or taken for granted by international students, so discovering how outsiders learn of the hookup culture could contribute to a fuller understanding of these campus norms. Instead of leaving international students out of the analysis, studies should intentionally include them. Doing so could highlight the culturally specific context of college campus norms, the processes by which international students learn of the hookup culture and scripts, and their level of engagement in the culture.

Understanding how international students engage with the hookup culture will highlight whether their experiences reflect or challenge the experiences in the extant literature. Scholars often present the findings of emotional distress among women that stem from their experience with hookup situations that leave them feeling isolated and lonely (Heldman & Wade, 2010; Paul, 2006) and disconnected from their sexual partners (Wade & Heldman, 2012). Other scholars indicate that women often find hooking up “confusing, hurtful, and awkward” (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001); harmful to women (Eshbaugh & Gute, 2008); objectifying and disempowering (Wade & Heldman, 2012); or as a negative experience in general (Bogle, 2008; Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010). Studies demonstrate that the hookup culture facilitates sexual assault (Flack et al., 2007). Flack et al. (2007) found that in their sample of 178 undergraduate students at small liberal arts school, 78% of the coerced sex occurred while hooking up, and that one fourth of the students who had hooked up also reported being raped (compared to zero rape reports from their nonhooking up counterparts). It would be an immense addition to the extant literature to uncover whether international students participate in the hookup culture, whether they experience unique or additional distress based on cultural norms and values and whether the victimization experiences of international students are correlated with the hookup culture.

Beyond the hookup culture, scholars have found that rape is often attributed to misperceptions of consent (Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008), alcohol (P. Martin & Hummer, 1989), and gender socialization (Searles & Follansbee, 1984). These three factors could play an even bigger role for international students. Farris, Treat, Viken, and McFall (2008) studied the way misperceptions of sexual intent led to aggression and violence based on men’s inability to distinguish women’s sexual interest from their platonic interest. The data indicated that men perceive more sexual intent in women’s behavior than women intend in their own behavior (Farris et al., 2008). The author also found that misperception of sexual interest was often caused by alcohol consumption, which impairs individuals’ ability to clearly express their desire to participate or abstain from sexual acts (Farris et al., 2008). This misperception may be tied to the learning curve of the hookup scripts, which disadvantages first-year students who hope that engaging in sexual acts will lead to a more committed relationship (Bogle, 2008). If misperception of intent and adherence to cultural scripts emerge in research findings for first-year domestic students, it is worth examining if they are similarly experienced by international undergraduate and graduate students.

Other scholars have found important links between alcohol use and sexual assault (P. Martin & Hummer, 1989; Sanday, 1990; Schwartz & Nogrady, 1996). The male respondents in P. Martin and Hummer’s (1989) research said that alcohol is the major strategy used to gain sexual access to women who would not otherwise have sex with them. Sanday’s (1990) research showed that men taking advantage of a drunk woman at fraternity parties was widely accepted among students. Research by Schwartz and Nogrady (1996) indicates that the primary predictors of sexual victimization are the perceived peer support of exploiting women through alcohol, in conjunction with the amount of alcohol consumed by the perpetrator when he is drinking, and lack of institutional controls. In addition to alcohol’s influence on male action in sexual assault situations, victims’ use of alcohol reinforces victim blame (Hammock & Richardson, 1997; Richardson & Campbell, 1982; Scronce & Corcoran, 1995; Sims, Noel, & Maisto, 2007; Stormo, Lang, & Stritzke, 1997). Alcohol also lessens one’s ability to defend against unwanted sexual advances (Gidycz, Van Wynsberghe, & Edwards, 2008).

Other scholars argue that it is the timorous socialization of women that prevents an effective defense against unwanted advances. For instance, Searles and Follansbee (1984, p. 66) discuss that “Traditionally, women have been socialized to believe that they are the ‘weaker sex.’ Females […] have been taught to be passive, dependent, emotional, helpless, inadequate, ladylike, inactive, and incapable of protecting themselves.” From this, women appear to lack the self-confidence, assertiveness, and technique with which to clearly articulate that they do not want the sexual activity or sexual advance. Combating this gender socialization is the goal of many feminist self-defense classes (Cummings, 1992; Hollander, 2004, 2010; Searles & Follansbee, 1984) with a specific focus on empowering women to be more assertive (Brecklin, 2008). Although scholars have been studying the impact of timorous gender socialization and its connection to sexual assault for decades, there has been no specific focus on international students. This impact could be exacerbated for international students coming from countries that place high importance on the socialization of women to be passive and subordinate, such as students from China, India, and Saudi Arabia. This could influence their response to victimization, their coping strategies, and postvictimization help-seeking behaviors.

This lack of inclusion of international students in the aforementioned research speaks to the need for new research that explores how the campus hookup culture and gender behavioral norms affect male and female international (graduate) students and how they make sense of and encounter American campus culture. Is there something unique about their international student status that acts as either a protective factor or a risk factor for victimization or perpetration behaviors? Will they be less likely to engage in behaviors that the literature has identified as risk factors, such as drinking and hooking up? If they do participate in these behaviors, will their involvement lead to additional and culturally specific feelings of distress? How might this influence their coping abilities and help-seeking behaviors? These are the types of questions that should guide data collection and analysis in future research.

Consequences of Victimization

We have known for years that international students face greater adjustment issues on campus when moving to the United States than do their domestic counterparts (Pedersen, 1991), yet they continue to report similar rates of mental health issues (Hyun, Quinn, Madon, & Lustig, 2007). Despite similar rates, international students (especially international Asian students) are significantly less likely to use counseling services (Hyun et al., 2007), which may be due to language barriers and cultural differences (Mori, 2000). Many cultures view seeking mental health services as a weakness or an individual failing that brings shame to themselves and to their families (Flaskerud, 1986). Therefore, scholars have called for culturally responsive counseling practices that meet the cultural needs of international students, such as locating the counseling services near nonpsychological services, proactive approaches by counselors to increase the visibility of the counseling services, networking with medical professionals, conducting needs assessments, and presenting at international student orientations (Mori, 2000).

Developing culturally responsive counseling practices has very real implications for international students who have been sexually assaulted, as they may be mandated by visa regulations to seek medical or psychological help. The immigration implications of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) for international students who are sexually assaulted are outlined by Lin, Sreeharsha, and McKenzie (2013). Due to stringent immigration regulations, international students who are victims of sexual assault face logistical barriers in trying to cope with their victimization in ways that domestic students do not. Title IX regulations require universities to provide reasonable accommodations for students who have experienced sexual assault or harassment, such as adjustments to their course load or housing accommodations. For international students, however, maintaining good visa standing adds an additional layer of bureaucracy for students to access these accommodations after they have victimized. For example, if the victim finds it difficult to maintain a full course load, she or he must get special approval in order to maintain visa status and is often forced into sharing the assault with multiple people in order to prove her or his need for a reduced course load (Lin, Sreeharsha, & McKenzie, 2013). Other possible outcomes of sexual victimization, such as needing additional time to complete course requirements or even transferring schools or changing one’s address or name, all require the international student to notify the university based on the SEVIS regulations. International students are encouraged to work with a counselor to approach the university; however, this is something that research shows international students are uncomfortable doing (Flaskerud, 1986). Title IX Offices should be taking the unique needs of international students into account when writing policies, providing programming, and designing victim resources.

Although research conducted by Lin et al. (2013) provides a policy perspective on international students and sexual assault, the voices of international students are largely missing from the research literature, so our understanding of how sexual victimization affects international students is limited. Although the few published studies almost exclusively rely on samples of Asian students, the findings reveal that international students have different perspectives of sexual violence than their domestic counterparts. For instance, J. Lee and colleagues (2005) found that Asian students are more likely than Caucasian students to blame the victim for sexual assault or rape, which may derive from the Chinese cultural blame for rape as the woman’s failure to protect her virginity or chastity. These negative cultural reactions may contribute to Asian victims’ hesitation to seek counseling or other forms of help. J. Lee et al. (2005) also found stronger support for rape myths, specifically that rape is perpetrated by strangers, which, they argue, could lead Asians to be more vulnerable to acquaintance rape. They found that the men in their study view sex as the primary motivation for rape, had stronger beliefs than females that victims cause rape, and had more negative attitudes toward women after rape than female students did. The research by J. Lee and colleagues (2005) is an especially important piece of scholarship, because it is one of the few studies to include male and female graduate students in the sample.

Ahmad, Riaz, Barata, and Stewart (2004) provide an investigation of the relationship between women’s patriarchal beliefs and their own perceptions of women’s victimization. Their study on South Asian immigrant women found that the stronger the immigrant woman’s patriarchal beliefs, the less likely she was to identify certain behaviors by a spouse as abusive. Even though many international students do not come to the United States with a partner, this finding may mean that women who are being abused may not see it as abuse and, therefore, will not seek help. Additionally, these patriarchal beliefs may lead her to negate others’ experiences as abuse. A similar study by Yamawaki et al. (2009) explains that the male and female Japanese students in their sample were more likely to dismiss or downplay domestic violence compared to Caucasian students (although the author excluded international students from the sample). Their findings indicate that higher scores on the Gender Role Traditionality Scale, which is intended to measure traditional patriarchal beliefs, may contribute to victim blaming and minimizing domestic violence. Their data also indicate that men tend to blame the victim of domestic violence more than do women (Yamawaki, Ostenson, & Brown, 2009).

Studies like Yamawaki et al. (2009), Ahmad et al. (2004), and J. Lee et al. (2005) provide insight into the influence of cultural values on rape myths and victim blaming. However, this is an extremely small number of studies, some of which do not include international students, and focus almost exclusively on Asian values. Moreover, the actual victimization experiences of international students is still missing from the literature as well as how their cultural values may influence their help-seeking behaviors. Additionally, the experiences of graduate students should be studied to determine whether the intersection of international status and graduate status influences risk and vulnerability. For example, given that graduate students are more likely to be older than undergraduates and possibly married, they may be more vulnerable to experiencing domestic violence or more vulnerable to sexual harassment by advisors or supervisors. Spouses of graduate students who are victims of domestic violence but have come to the United States on an F-2 visa may be extremely isolated and without the ability to seek resources.

Studies that focus intentionally on the experiences of international students, and international graduate students, will help us begin to understand whether the extant literature can be generalized to the experiences of this population. But what does it mean to intentionally focus on this population, given the dearth of research in this area? How should research be conducted, given the sensitive nature of the questions, the cultural diversity of the research population, and potential language and cultural translation issues? Bonistall Postel (in progress) introduces both qualitative and quantitative methodological challenges that emerged from a research study of the risk and vulnerability of international graduate students to sexual violence. Using examples and data from her research, she presents solutions and suggested best practices for accurate measurement of international students’ violent experiences.