|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 3/99
The International Studies Curriculum: Infusing Global and Area Studies Perspectives
Department of Political Science
UNC Charlotte
International Studies Association
40th Annual Convention
Washington, D.C.
February 16–20, 1999
Even as a growing number of institutions of higher learning articulate their commitment to fostering global understanding, there is no consensus as to what constitutes or even ought to constitute the field of international studies. Unencumbered by the constraints of prevailing “conventional wisdom” guiding the development and evolution of more established disciplines, international studies has been marked by an extraordinarily wide range of approaches and perspectives. While quite useful in encouraging creativity and innovation in the crafting of programs and curricula, this diversity has tended to undermine efforts to generate the internal coherence necessary to promote broader acceptance across academic communities.
One of the more troubling disputes limiting consensus within the field is that between global and area studies. Rather than being viewed as complementary components of a broader effort to prepare students for citizenship (and gainful employment) in an increasingly interconnected world, these divergent perspectives have come to be seen as mutually exclusive enterprises on many campuses across the country. Unfortunately, it is the dynamic of internal campus politics, rather than the logic of intellectual or pedagogical argument, that often dictates the ultimate content of the curriculum. At larger institutions, students may be forced to opt for a course of study incorporating one or the other of these perspectives. Even this choice may be precluded in other settings where there may be resources available for only one program of an international nature. Either way, it may be argued, students are not acquiring the range of perspectives and understandings that might be readily available by the bridging of the global/area studies gap.
This essay attempts to offer some insight into the development of strategies that might reconcile these global/area study differences. It focuses on the international studies program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte), which infuses both global and area studies into the curriculum. The result of extended deliberation and often lively discussion of the complexities of accommodating both perspectives, this multi-disciplinary undergraduate major transcends curricular limitations that would have resulted from failure to resolve the global/area studies debate. It also goes a long way towards satisfying the needs and interests of the diverse departments servicing the program.
The International Studies Major: A Multi-Disciplinary Blend
From the outset, planning for the international studies major at UNC Charlotte was designed to be as inclusive as possible within the existing campus climate. To be sure, those involved in advocating for the creation of this new program represented the range of perspectives evident on many campuses across the country. Yet, the university had a strong tradition of joint planning and cooperation across departments and disciplines involved in international programs and activities. This was certainly evident in the prior development of the university’s international studies minor, which incorporated specializations in Asian, African and European studies. Many of those involved with the minor would become part of the core group seeking to define and structure the major in an effort to generate the broadest possible constituency.
Still, to that point, there had been little discussion on campus as to the nature of international studies per se. Beyond the courses available to fulfill the requirements for the regional concentrations within the minor, appropriate survey courses in anthropology, geography, history and political science were used to satisfy “front end” degree requirements. No specific courses under the international studies rubric had been created, nor was there much interest in doing so. While an attractive tool for packaging and marketing area studies programs, international studies had little in the way of an independent identity. Indeed, for many, international studies continued to be equated with international relations, a fairly well developed course of study available through the department of political science.
Such diffusion would not hold up to the more rigorous standards applied to the development of a new academic major. The interdisciplinary nature of the prospective program accentuated the need to define its substance and to articulate the principles underlying the course of study. In keeping with the recommendations of the American Association of Colleges (AAC), early planning sought to insure that the major would foster an environment for “connected learning” while contributing to existing liberal arts education by offering
Nevertheless, it would prove somewhat difficult to translate these understandings into a coherent and distinguishable program of study. As discussions pertaining to a projected curriculum proceeded, any number of controversies surfaced. Most were rather expected and involved the kinds of turf and ownership issues commonly associated with the creation of new programs of this sort. In an effort to retain maximum support and inclusiveness, the departments represented were encouraged to present blueprints detailing their desired means for participation. Various tradeoffs would eventually be required to accommodate differing departmental perspectives and to take advantage of prevailing institutional strengths.
If this new program was to gain approval, however, it would have to differentiate itself sufficiently from existing offerings. A key question framing many of the planning meetings was how the international studies major would provide students with new appreciations, skills and opportunities not already available through established majors. Two elements incorporated into the requirements for the major were designed to address this issue explicitly.
First, the decision was made to provide for an enhanced foreign language component. Students would be expected to demonstrate competency in a foreign language related directly to their area of specialization. While foreign language program limitations would necessitate some flexibility in fulfilling this requirement, the goal was to mandate a level of fluency enabling students to communicate effectively in the target language.
Second, an international experience would be included in each student’s plan of study. Generally, the minimum duration would be six to eight weeks and the requirement might be satisfied through participation in a formal study abroad program or through foreign-based work, service or internship activities. In special cases, moreover, a U.S.-based experience of an international character or prior experience abroad would be considered. These direct encounters, coupled with a foreign language requirement considerably beyond that of the university’s core general education program, were seen as particularly useful in addressing the broad challenge of establishing a distinct identity for the new major while providing students with opportunities to acquire necessary global-based competencies. Those basic competencies, enunciated by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), included
Despite the relative ease with which many curricular issues were addressed, the prospective major still suffered from the absence of overarching perspective. Indeed, even as many existing programs were referenced and consulted, it became clear that the difficulties encountered in articulating a clear mission and in piecing together an integrated curriculum were symptomatic of the broader international studies field itself. While there seemed to be some general definitional consensus, existing programs were marked by considerable diversity in terms of both their structure and content. This lack of continuity was a source of concern to most administrators and even prompted Ann Kelleher to conclude her survey of undergraduate programs by questioning whether international studies could be legitimately considered a distinctive field of inquiry (Kelleher, 1996).
In an effort to establish that identity (at least within a UNC Charlotte context), planning continued on the development of introductory and capstone courses. The culminating seminar was not difficult to conceptualize, as it was to give students the opportunity to conduct independent and original research into a topic related to their respective areas of specialization. This was a model utilized by many departments across campus and did not generate any real controversy. Obviously, the range of topics that might be the subject for research would depend ultimately on the actual concentrations that would comprise the major. The introductory course, on the other hand, would require far more deliberation — especially as its content would define the essence of the overall program itself.
In keeping with the themes and concepts common to many such surveys, the course was designed as a multi-disciplinary enterprise. Its primary units were intended to foster understanding of diverse cultures, an appreciation of spatial and ecological issues shaping patterns of interaction in the world, the changing global political order and economic globalization. Despite a more contemporary focus, historical appreciations and understandings were incorporated into each segment. The underlying goal was to blend the various disciplinary-based perspectives contributing to a view of the world as an interrelated system and global education as
the process by which people acquire the ability to conceptualize and understand the complexities of international systems...and develop an awareness of world cultures, interdependence, interconnectedness and the diversity and commonalities of human values and beliefs (Wolansky, 1993).
While there was overarching consensus within the planning committee as to the general content of the survey course, a number of anticipated questions surfaced. Most were of an administrative and resource nature and involved such matters as team teaching, work load adjustments and scheduling. Yet, far more critical in terms of the future of the program was the concern that a one semester course (no matter how inclusive) could not provide the grounding necessary to generate the global perspectives we were seeking. Nor would it likely prove sufficient, it was argued, in preparing students for the more advanced components of the curriculum. It should be noted that the absence of directed follow-up to introductory courses evident in numerous programs consulted contributed, in part, to the raising of this issue.
The response was rather intriguing. The introductory course itself offered the key to dealing with this perceived limitation with its emphasis on promoting global (a)economic (b)geo/political and (c)social/cultural awareness. Each of these areas was designated as comprising the “advanced core” of the major and students would complete at least one course from each area in fulfilling their degree requirements. The pool of acceptable courses represented a range of disciplines and consisted mainly of those at the upper division level. The intent was to expose students to materials that would build upon the basic foundation derived through the various components of the introductory survey course. It was also hoped that students would come to appreciate more fully the need for multi-disciplinary perspectives and appreciations in learning about the world in which they live. It should be noted that the addition of this “advance core” layer served to solidify support for the program across a number of academic departments. Not only did they feel more comfortable with the idea that global studies would continue to be rooted in the understandings emanating from their respective disciplines, they were also assured of generating some additional enrollments for some of their courses!
With these various pieces in place, it would not prove very difficult to craft the remainder of the curriculum. As suggested earlier, UNC Charlotte had a relatively long standing commitment to area studies across three geographic regions — Africa, Asia and Europe. Thus, there was never much doubt that the major would incorporate concentrations along those lines. Required survey courses (offered jointly and cross-listed with the history department) would provide the focal point for each of the regional specializations, while students would have access to courses across a number of disciplines and retain some flexibility in developing academic plans fitted to their particular interests. As it turned out, the real key to the development of the program — with both its global and area components — proved to be whether a coherent, distinctive notion of international studies could be articulated effectively.
Conclusion
This review of the UNC Charlotte experience seeks to add to the ongoing effort to define more clearly the nature and scope of international studies as an integrated and legitimate field of inquiry. As the demands and impacts of an interdependent world become more encompassing, colleges and universities will be obliged to offer their students additional options to prepare them adequately for the global society of the twenty-first century. This will be particularly challenging with respect to the liberal arts, which are already encountering pressures stemming from what are perceived to be the increasingly technical requirements of the future work force.
International studies, if appropriately conceived, can serve as a useful bridge. A College Placement Council/RAND Corporation survey uncovered a corporate view of globalization incorporating both conceptual and operational components. This suggests that the most desirable future employees will be those evidencing basic cross-cultural competence and appreciation, built upon a solid foundation of specific subject matter or “domain” knowledge. Moreover, direct prior experience in applying these skills in a foreign setting is seen as a distinct advantage (CPC Foundation/RAND Corporation, 1994).
It remains essential that the students we prepare acquire adequate empirical knowledge of the regions and specific countries they study. At the same time, however, they must be able to communicate and apply that knowledge effectively in a broader global context. The UNC Charlotte model presented here offers an opportunity to move beyond the disciplinary rivalries and campus “turf” battles which have tended to hinder the ability of many international studies programs to satisfy these needs concurrently. It also suggests a means for avoiding any further fragmenting of social science and humanities faculties by reconciling both global and area studies perspectives into an integrated, multi-disciplinary curriculum (see Hall & Tarrow, 1998).
References
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Guidelines: Incorporating an International Dimension in Colleges and Universities, 1988.
Association of American Colleges, The Challenge of Connecting Learning, 1991.
College Placement Council, Developing the Global Work Force: Insights for Colleges and Corporations, College Placement Council Foundation/RAND Corporation Report, 1994.
de Wit, Hans, “Studies in International Education: A Research Perspective,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 1, No.1, Spring 1997, pp. 1–8.
Fata, Frank, “When Interdisciplinary Becomes International,” Phi Beta Delta International Review, Vol. 1, January 1990, pp. 25–34.
Goodman, Allan E., “College courses Must Take a New Approach to Foreign Affairs,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 8, 1996, p. A52.
Hall, Peter A. And Sidney Tarrow, “Globalization and Area Studies: When Is Too Broad Too Narrow?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23, 1998, pp. B4–B5.
Kelleher, Ann, “A Need for Definition: Findings from a Comparative Study of Twenty-Nine Undergraduate International Studies Majors,” prepared for the International Education Section/NCISPA of the International Studies Association, 1996.
Sears, Richard D., “Determining the Requirements for a New Program: Some Preliminary Thoughts,” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 1997.
Wolansky, William D., “Nurturing Global Education In Its Infancy,” Phi Beta Delta International Review, Vol. III, Fall 1992/Spring 1993, pp. 11–19.
Email this citation