The Privilege to Follow my Passions

“Read all the descriptions in the course catalog and circle the ones that sound interesting to you.” This was the advice from my advisor at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, in the early 1980s. As a first-generation college student from a farm on the other side of the state, I was feeling far from home. Everyone back home kept asking me what I was going to major in. I entered college as a chemical engineering major; I loved chemistry in high school and it sounded really good. But I had no idea what a chemical engineer actually did.

When I got the first C of my life in first-year chemistry, it was no longer fun. I began to explore other majors, always focusing on what I would do with that particular degree. Even though I was at a liberal arts school, I had no idea what that meant. I was focused on figuring out the vocation I would be in for the rest of my life.

My advisor’s assignment was no small task, as the course catalog was a thick book with many majors and courses. When I brought the catalog back to his office, he flipped through it, noting the courses I had marked. “Well,” he said, “it’s pretty clear that you’re interested in psychology. Why don’t you major in that?” He encouraged me to follow my passions and not worry about what I would do. I took his advice and graduated four years later with a double major in psychology and communications.

Reflecting back on my 30-year career at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD), I realize that my entire life and career trajectory was a continuation of his advice. I went where my interests and passions took me. I allowed one choice point to take me in a direction that revealed options I wasn’t aware existed—options that would not have been possible to me had I made a different previous choice.

A boyfriend led me to graduate school in Duluth, and a major in school counseling led me to become a licensed psychologist. A passion for guest lecturing as a graduate school teaching assistant led me to an “emergency hire” position as an adjunct faculty member, then to a full-time non-tenure track faculty position, a doctoral degree, jobs on the tenure track (then off the track), and a 30-year career in higher education that was not even on my radar in those early years, let alone part of my plan.

Teaching multiple perspectives in a course called Human Sexuality led me to take students abroad, which revealed learning outcomes around navigating difference that led me deeper into equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice. My introduction to internationalization came later in my career.

I resisted narrowing my work to this term. In every course, I taught through multiple perspectives. My research involved what I called the “pedagogy of change,” which, broadly, involved looking at the content and processes of my teaching that facilitated the opening of my students’ minds to a variety of worldviews and perspectives. I often found myself feeling like I didn’t fit into the academic worlds that I bumped elbows with. Psychology seemed limited and westernized, and internationalization often neglected the “domestic diversity” that felt so important to address. “Intercultural” approaches often neglected issues of power, privilege, racism, and colonization. I found myself being the critical voice for inclusion and social justice in the internationalization circles, and the advocate for a more intercultural approach in my DEI roles. Looking back, I have never liked boxes, particularly when they were put around me. Feelings of isolation and being misunderstood have followed me my entire life. This story is no different.

My pedagogy and scholarship around intercultural development led me from the classroom to the administration building, from working with students to working with faculty and staff. I had the privilege to follow my passions, and I did. The myriad of influences and intersections in this story are a tangled web that would likely lend itself more to an art piece than a book chapter. A singular story, career, life cannot be shared following a linear path.

But in sharing some of my story, perhaps I can encourage others to do the same.

Exploring the Intercultural Development Inventory while Teaching in England

In 2005, I took my first group of students on a January Term study abroad trip to Amsterdam and Copenhagen. I had been feeling that something was missing in my pedagogy and learning outcomes. The idea of teaching my signature course, “Topics in Human Sexuality,” in two countries admired for their open, progressive approach to a topic often considered dirty and taboo in the US was beyond exciting for me. I set up field trips and experiences in which students could talk with and witness communities with different perspectives on the topics we were studying. The content was all there, in vivo.

My design and experience of this course led me to embrace what later became known as “just in time” learning, which Howe and Straus (2007) noted is valued by millennials. Discussing the topic of study abroad, a colleague contrasted “just in time” learning to the current (at the time) model of “just in case” learning, which focused on pre-departure and re-entry without facilitation on-site (LaBrack, personal communication, October 13, 2008). I quickly learned that my linear course syllabus, which followed the textbook topic by topic, would not work in the streets!^[1] We all had to become nimble in addressing topics that emerged each day. For me it was very liberating, though I recall my students struggling with the fluidity!

When preparing for the course, I sensed that the learning outcomes would differ from what I typically strove for when teaching the class in the US. At the same time, a friend introduced me to the Intercultural Development Inventory, or IDI, which (1) measures primary orientation toward cultural difference, (2) from less to more complex understandings of difference, and (3) and from a monocultural to an intercultural mindset (Hammer, 2008).

As she described it, I felt that I had found a model to explain what I had been trying to achieve through my teaching: expanding students’ worldviews around “difference.” It had a theory, a model and even a measurement tool. My friend agreed to give the inventory to my students before and after our study abroad experience.

Though not valued in the field of psychology at the time, my scholarship of teaching and learning had found a focus, and wings. At the time, the IDI was in its first version, in which subscales could be scored and measured. The short length of my course was not sufficient for noting a significant change in students’ overall IDI (the model is a lifelong developmental one, so two weeks, no matter how idealistic my ideas and intentions were, was not very realistic). I did, however, find changes in subscales that were statistically significant and informative to me as an instructor.

I was accepted to teach in UMD’s Study in England program during fall term 2006. I was curious about what more time—a year-long study abroad, with a semester working with me around the IDI—could do. I pursued the training to become an IDI Qualified Administrator (QA) and was able to work with the tool and my students without needing an outside consultant.

I was fortunate that the director of the program that year was very interested in my ideas and allowed me to pursue them. We administered the IDI pre-departure, then a few weeks after re-entry to home. But what was new for me, and new in the literature as well, was the idea of an “intentional intervention” that was intercultural and embedded within the program (at least during the first semester, when I was teaching there). While the IDI now includes a development plan based on a person’s profile report and developmental stage around difference, it did not at the time. I decided not only to integrate the IDI into my psychology coursework, but to work with students individually to create a plan for their year abroad. This plan around their own intercultural journey became part of their psychology coursework in a way that facilitated that “intentional intervention.” Part way into the semester, I realized that I had a natural control group in the students who were part of the program but not in my courses.

A friend connected me to Barbara Kappler in International Student and Scholar Services on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. She walked me through ways to make the most out of this research design treasure I had fallen into, and we added a control group back at UMD (students who were pursuing the Study in England program in the future but had not yet studied abroad). “The path is made by walking” (Antonio Machado, 2016), and my research evolved accordingly.

This time, the overall IDI pre/post change scores were statistically significant, a result which catapulted me into the national and international IDI and intercultural scene. In one year I traveled to Spain, Germany, and Greece, sharing my findings.

These results created excitement in the IDI and study abroad communities. More importantly, we used them to inform UMD’s Study in England program, referred to as an Island Program in the literature, where a group of students and faculty travel together to study in another country/culture. This research made it clear that not only was intentional integrated intercultural intervention in country critical for reaching intercultural growth outcomes (as measured by the IDI), but that such a program was most impactful, interculturally, for students who had more limited travel experience.

Bennett (2008) describes intercultural learning as general and transferable. Intercultural education is the systematic effort to foster intercultural learning through curriculum design, and intercultural learning does not happen by accident.

Internationalizing as Intentional Intervention

I began to think about being director of the year-long Study in England program, imagining what my “intentional intervention” regarding intercultural learning outcomes could be on a program-level (versus semester-long) effort. I can’t recall what got in the way of my goal. Did I apply and get rejected, or did I get talked out of it? Until the program ended, I recall thinking of it as a “some day” goal. What did happen, however, was that Helen Mongan-Rallis, my dear friend and colleague, served as director of the program in 2012–13. We returned to a consultant model, where I worked with the students pre-departure, and joined them in England twice during the year. Primarily, I consulted with Helen on how to work with them based on their group IDI profile. The experience that changed my previous belief that someone with intercultural knowledge and skills needed to be hired to teach study abroad or direct the program. My friend Helen, though not yet an IDI QA, was a mentor to me in the pedagogy of thinking through multiple perspectives. We made for a smashing team.

Around this time, I visited the Director of Study Abroad at UMD to share my Study in England results from 2006. I went to advocate that all students should study abroad so they could have these opportunities to broaden their intercultural and world views. He explained the reasons behind the low percentage—less than 20%—of students who study abroad. “Why not focus on internationalizing?” he said. “What’s that?” I replied.

After talking with the Study Abroad office about this thing the director called “internationalizing,” I brought it up in the Instructional Development Service. The IDS was a lifeline for me throughout my career. I was introduced to the office during my first years of teaching in the 1990s. After I was hired to be an instructor, rather than a teaching assistant, I asked my department head too many questions. “I’ve never taught before,” I reminded him. His answer left me speechless. “If I hear about any problems, I’ll let you know.” I left that interaction feeling in over my head. At IDS, I found other faculty who loved learning about different teaching methods and techniques (most were from Education, and already had some ideas about pedagogy). I had found my people!

Shelley Smith, an IDS faculty mentor, lit up when I mentioned internationalization, and talked about her work on the Twin Cities campus with a woman named Gayle Woodruff. Some time after, Shelley ran a pilot program during the semester break called “Internationalizing your Curriculum.” We worked with one class, from syllabus to final assessment, on integrating international perspectives throughout. I cannot say where the UMN system was with this work at the time, only that later I became involved with the program they offered, first as a repeat participant and then as a faculty mentor. My work world was expanding. I was finding more of my people.

I still struggled with the “international” focus. “What about differences right here at home?” To my surprise and delight, Shelley was also an IDI QA and was able to honor some of the broader intercultural language that was missing for me. I found this area of scholarship so interesting and exciting, and felt that psychology was a perfect discipline through which to explore it. And Gayle continued to validate and broaden the lenses of the internationalizing program over the years in ways that made me feel seen, heard, and valued. Such encouragement and validation can go far in terms of allowing a career to flourish.

A hallmark activity employed early in these study abroad experiences was called circles not boxes™. Adapted from a cultural identifiers activity by Gardenswartz and Rowe (1994), it decreases the negative impacts of the tendency to “group” and “categorize” through the use of decategorization strategies. The activity facilitates student understanding of the complex identities of their peers as well as themselves. It also serves as the metaphor for almost any psychology content covered in the course. If we only know one circle of an individual’s identity—be it race, sexual orientation, housing status, faith perspective, even mental disorder—we tend to fall prey to a host of social psychological categorization errors and put that individual in a box. In contrast, knowing the complex interplay of circles that define that individual allows us to have a deeper understanding of that person, and of our similarities and differences.

Gayle and Shelley shared two resources with me that informed the rest of my career: Gavin Sanderson’s (2008) article “Journey of the Academic Self” and the book Social Justice Education, edited by Kathleen Skubikowski, Catherine Wright, and Roman Graf (2009).

Sanderson expands on Socrates’ notion of “Teacher, Know Thyself” to make a powerful argument to faculty in higher education. “The authentic teacher is the merging of the self and the teacher” (Sanderson, 2008, p. 286). This notion of faculty development through faculty self development made perfect sense to the psychologist in me. IDS had helped me move beyond the traditional content expert model of higher education to focus on the process of teaching and learning—a process that, historically, only our Education colleagues were privy to. It struck me as unjust to students that college faculty weren’t required to have any education in teaching and learning in order to teach. It was acceptable to simply profess! Through my IDS and Education colleagues I also learned the importance of getting to better know my students—who they are, what inspires them, how do they learn best.

An article by Adams and Love (In Skubikowski et al., 2011) put it all together for me. They proposed a broader faculty development model that included the content and process of the teaching enterprise, as well as looking at who students are and who faculty are. It was this last and, from my perspective, most neglected piece that became my passion. How could we teach subjects and students from an international or intercultural perspective when we ourselves did not have that perspective? This Iowa farm girl had a long way to go.

An unrelated (it seemed at the time) thread in my career path was becoming involved in UMD’s Diversity Commission. They were lacking faculty participation, so a friend and colleague invited me to join. This dynamic and passionate group of students, staff, and faculty had the greatest impact on my own “faculty know thyself” journey. For the first time in my life, I was forced to look at myself not just as a queer woman, but as a queer white woman. It’s difficult to admit that I had made it through more than 16 years of formal education without being invited to do this. Susana Pelayo Woodward, Director of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, became a fast friend, a trusted colleague, and eventually a powerful collaborator in my journey of self and, ultimately, in my career.

As I grew and developed in my own awareness of self, I changed my course content. Psychology 101 needed more than the textbook’s explanation of the scientific method. The curriculum needed, for instance, to include information about Henrietta Lacks and the injustices played out against her and her family that facilitated that science we would be learning about. I started comparing textbooks and seeing the bias and slants in each. I was awakened to the notion that what my students learned about a particular topic in this introduction to the field depended not just on me, the instructor, but on the chosen textbook. Each chapter was its own field of study, with narrowing and specialization from there. This awareness led me to taking my multiple perspectives pedagogy to the source.

Innovating Pedagogy: Intro to Psychology, Group Dynamics, and Intro to College Learning

In 2006, before online resources were the standard, I gathered up different Instructors Editions of Introduction to Psychology textbooks. Teaching in our Study in England program that year, I had a dozen students in the course instead of 300. Instead of requiring them to buy a textbook, I gave them each one. They were thrilled, until they realized the books were all different. This was one of the most challenging courses of my career in terms of students’ frustration with the pedagogy. In hindsight, maybe it was developmentally too much for intro level students. As we moved through the syllabus, they had topics to find and explore, rather than page numbers. Some textbooks included an entire chapter on a topic, while others had only a paragraph. We spent class time discussing the various perspectives on the topic in each of the books. I understood students’ desire to ask “which one is right?” or “which one should we know?” I don’t know the impact of my pedagogy on those students, but it was transformational for me. I quit using textbooks as soon as it became possible—a decision that might be easier now than then.

While personally on fire when I attended both internationalization programs and Office of Equity and Diversity (OED) programs, they seemed separate and, at times, even competing. Things have changed since then, but since this is about The Power of One, I can say how isolated and alone I felt along my journey. Different parts of me were nurtured in the different spaces, but I longed for a place where I felt whole and fully understood in my passions.

The privilege of academic freedom in the higher education context meant that I could continue to explore these areas in my classroom. Though I taught more than 20 different courses during my 30-year career, there were a lot of repeats. But each semester had to be new and different, or it felt stale for me.

One of my favorite courses to teach was The Psychology of Group Dynamics. Each semester focused on a current events theme or partnered with a campus initiative. In 2009, for example, the course was The Group Dynamics of Diversity and Multiculturalism at UMD, and focused on learning about groups, identity, and conflict through the lens of UMD’s Diversity Commission theme of Truth and Reconciliation. During another term, the theme was water. Students were assigned to assess their water use while looking at how human and group dynamics might shift as water becomes more scarce and commodified, and we partnered with a group in the theater department that was creating a documentary film on the topic. Our students informed each others’ lenses. Intercultural and international perspectives, as well as issues of equity and social justice, were readily available.

I was also passionate about local community engagement, and tried to integrate it into the internationalized context. Global and local perspectives, community service—integrating so many of my passions into one course was, I confess, too much at times. But sometimes the efforts bore fruit. Material from the course is reproduced below.

My passions were taking me in seemingly disparate directions, but my attempts to integrate them were ever present. I saw my classroom as a powerful learning laboratory not just for students, but for me as an instructor. I was passionate about using my discipline and the pedagogies I was learning to help expand students’ perspectives about self, other, their community, and the world.

Even my discipline, The Psychology of…, began to feel too narrow. I found myself encouraging students to explore these topics through different academic lenses like sociology, religion, economics, or women’s studies, citing examples along the way.

In 2008, an opportunity arose to use what I had learned in my short and year-long study abroad programs and bring it back to the classroom on home soil. I had the chance to teach all four sections of a required Introduction to College Learning (ICL) course for incoming psychology majors. Though it was only a one-credit intervention, I was curious to see how course integration of diverse perspectives (a form of internationalization of the curriculum) as well as IDI-guided development (interculturalizing the curriculum) could impact the student experience.  My study design included four sections of ICL psychology majors with differing levels of integrated ICL curriculum and pedagogy. Among my conclusions:

• If intercultural effectiveness and growth toward an increased intercultural mindset is a goal in higher education, we need to do more than simply add “diverse perspectives” to a week on the syllabus.
• We need to:
  • integrate diverse perspectives throughout the curriculum, and
  • intentionally work with students using intercultural pedagogy, and include such learning objectives in our curriculum.

Though not statistically significant, the trends showed promise if more than a one-credit intervention was employed. These results headed me straight into delusions of grandeur about how we could transform the psychology degree—the entire four-year undergraduate experience—through intentional integrated and facilitated integration of intercultural and diverse concepts throughout the degree program.

As I discussed in one campus presentation:

My involvement in study abroad and with internationalizing my curriculum in a more systematic manner brought the multiple perspectives focus of my courses full circle to a deeper integration of issues of domestic diversity and social justice.

• As a diversity trainer, I take the activities/model from my study abroad and internationalizing curriculum and use them to help students to see multiple perspectives in an understanding of domestic diversity.
• I’ve done some research looking at the impacts of such pedagogy in the domestic classroom, and have found some small growth.
• I’ve started imagining what it might be like to work with students over the course of their four-year degree, putting all of this together into an integrated package.

I joined the system-wide Transformational Leadership Program (TLP) provided to UMN employees (mostly administration and staff) by the 3M Corporation. I wanted to learn how to develop a four-year program. I wrote grants and created brochures. I presented to different constituent groups on campus. Regrettably, these efforts did not work as I’d hoped. Sometimes, following your passions falls flat. This program idea did, however, plant a seed for a faculty/staff development program that would find its legs several years later.

Integrating into a New Model

I took my sabbatical year during 2012-13.^[2]  I put it all together for myself and expanded the narrow lenses I felt confined by. A vice-chancellor had attended my presentation on these various topics (including the four-year program idea) at a system-wide summit. She heard my questions about expanding the higher education lens beyond curricular content expertise:

• to expanded lenses (which internationalization focused on),
• to include a focus on process (which instructional development focused on),
• to including a focus on knowing our students more (which both internationalization and multicultural services focused on), and
• to adding the missing piece of “faculty, know thyself” (which seemed sorely missing to me).

She invited me into conversations about a campus-wide position where I could bring this integration to faculty, campus wide.

Adams and Love (2011) gave me permission to adapt their faculty development model into a campus-wide model. My visions of an integrated, intercultural focus in the four-year degree program for students evolved into a campus-wide model for systemic change. The new position evolved, and I was able to design and direct the focus accordingly.

Along with the OED vision and UMD’s strategic plan, this plan for UMD expands upon the model posed by Adams and Love (in Skubikowski et al., 2011, p. 8) in “Social Justice Education: Inviting Faculty to Transform their Institutions.” They argue that we must focus our comprehensive and integrated efforts on all four quadrants of the educational institution:

1. faculty self-awareness (extended here to faculty/staff and administrators);
2. knowing who students are (extended here to student cultural self-awareness and growth); as well as comprehensive integrated curricular reform, including:
3. content and
4. process around issues of diversity, equity, and social justice (intercultural).

I added the focus on the structural changes required for real institutional transformation.

Innovating Faculty Development and Preparing Future Counselors

One of my dreams was to bring to UMD a teacher training course that I helped design and implement for the public schools, and that focused on intercultural self-development. The program evolved into Intercultural Leadership Development (ILD) with Joan Sargent (ISD 709) and Okokon Udo (consultant), and became into a major part of the Faculty/Employee Know Thyself quadrant of the model. The last seven plus years of my story at UMD were focused on my role in this program I taught a few courses in those years but eventually became full-time staff.

Bringing the ILD model to UMD was a long process and evolution. ^[3] We started with a consultant model, with Joan helping us build internal capacity at UMD. With each cohort of 18 participants, more facilitators were recruited until UMD could be internally self-sufficient with its own team of facilitators. By the time of my retirement in 2020, over 200 employees had participated in the 40-plus-hour cultural self-development program, and stayed connected through regular continuing education offerings. Data collected prior to my retirement included post-IDI assessment, interviews, focus groups, and Ripple Effects Mapping (Chazdon, 2017). The results of this program evaluation (shared with administration but not published elsewhere) feel like the culminating ripple of all that came before.

Participants developed along the IDI continuum almost one full standard deviation (the equivalent of a developmental stage), from a worldview of minimizing differences and focusing on commonalities (minimization) to a worldview that acknowledges similarities as well as the complex cultural differences that make a difference (acceptance).

Scott Chazdon helped us conduct Ripple Effects Mapping (REM). His nine-page report revealed five themes, below which emerged from the REM process.

We shared this program evaluation data with ILD past participants, and presented it to UMD administration in 2020.

In 2017, I was asked to teach a graduate-level course called Multicultural Foundations in Counseling/Clinical Psychology. Though I was working full-time in my campus-wide administrative role, this was my opportunity to put everything together in one course that felt like it had the power to influence future counselors and help them become more culturally responsive. As in my study abroad course using different textbooks, I had a blast. And my students were frustrated. My hope is that, as with my own growth and development, light bulbs have continued to go off in and for those students. The pedagogy for that course integrated much of what I learned through my involvement with international, intercultural, and diversity, equity and social justice programs.

A popular pedagogy at the time was the Global Villager, which is credited to Denny Falk, who authors another chapter in this book (as mentioned earlier, I used his pedagogy in a number of my courses). My graduate course had only eight students, so the village couldn’t be very global. Instead, I looked up the largest immigrant populations in Minnesota and assigned those, adding a few others to help fill out my students’ possible demographics, including an Ojibwe woman. The students were assigned to work through the Intercultural Development Plan (now part of the Version 3 report of the IDI). The assignments include a number of cultural self-awareness exercises. Students were exploring their own cultural selves along with learning about another culture through the adapted global village assignment. Every assignment relating to multicultural counseling: they needed to apply its relevance to their own diverse villager. In the end, I revealed that their villager was having a mental health crisis and was being referred to them. We held a mock staff meeting where each student presented their clinical case to their peers. The knowledge and compassion each student showed to their client brought me to tears as they answered questions from their mock colleagues about the culturally responsive factors in their case. I still look upon this semester, and course, as a  powerful integrations of international and intercultural perspectives along with social justice dynamics—complete with counselor Know Thyself. It was the last course I ever taught, and a peak experience for me.

Conclusion

My non-teaching years at UMD included other peak experiences as well. It’s interesting to note that they are each examples of the place I started from—a focus on multiple perspectives—morphing into the next level. In 2011, the Diversity Commission launched a campus-wide theme called “How did you come to be here?” It included a website with video, audio. and written stories where the campus community could explore and share their cultural self-awareness. It was included in the Chancellor’s Welcome, the first-year experience office used it with all incoming students, and a variety of faculty and staff integrated the theme into their curriculum and activities, resulting in an art exhibit, a community/campus theater program, a DVD, and more. For me, it was a model of what was possible. Susana and I collaborated with then Chancellor Black to share our “top down meets bottom up” strategy for facilitating campus-wide inclusion.

A group of faculty colleagues met weekly for years, calling ourselves the Intercultural Pedagogy Community of Practice (ICPCP). Intended to be our own semester-long “interculturalizing a course,” modeled after the “internationalizing” offerings, it became so much more. The same group, mostly BIPOC and queer faculty from at least six different countries, attended semester after semester, using it more as a support group than a community of pedagogical practice. Though more than one of us has retired, to this day we still meet a couple of times a year for a meal and conversation. Our connective thread is strong enough for many lifetimes.

And my final task, bringing me all the way back to my high school and college radio station DJ days, was hosting a podcast called “It’s more than that!” I had the privilege of interviewing students, staff, and faculty from a variety of backgrounds and identities. We planned to keep it going even after I retired on March 2, 2020, but COVID-19 shifted many priorities only a week or two later.

This chapter has meandered in a manner not unlike my career at UMD. From the call for chapters: “These small changes are shared with colleagues, are built upon, and so lead to small changes across the curriculum; eventually, Woodruff argues, these small changes lead to transformed programs.” For me, this reflects my own story of One. I am keenly aware that each one writing a chapter for this book, like me, has included references to many other ones who made a singular, yet collective impact. I am grateful for the many ones who have intersected my meandering life and story. My hope is to be among the many ones in the lives of others.

A Bibliography (or Monkey Salvation for a Fish)

“What on earth are you doing?” said I to the monkey when I saw him lift a fish from the water and place it in a tree.

“I am saving it from drowning” was the reply. — Anthony de Mello, The Song of the Bird

 

Adams, M., & Love, B.J. A social justice education faculty development framework for a post-Grutter era. In K. Skubikowski, C. Wright, & R. Graf (Eds.), Social justice education: Inviting faculty to transform their institutions (pp. 3–25). Taylor & Francis.

Bennett, M.J. (1986). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 27-70). University Press of America.

Chazdon, S., Emery, M., Hansen, D., Higgins, L., & Sero, R. (2017). A field guide to ripple effects mapping. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

De Mello, A. (2016). The song of the bird. Image.

Gardenswartz, L. & Rowe, A. (1994). The managing diversity survival guide. Irwin Professional Publishing.

Hammer, M.R. (2008). The intercultural development inventory (IDI): an approach for assessing and building intercultural competence. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding and utilizing cultural diversity to build successful organizations (p. 245-261). SAGE Publications.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Life Course Associates.

LaBrack, personal communication, October 13, 2008.

Pedersen, P.J. (2008). Does it matter how we teach? Journal for the Art of Teaching: Experience-based teaching and learning X (1), 28-44.

–. (2009). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70-80.

–. Pedersen, P.J. (2009). Teaching towards an ethnorelative worldview through psychology study abroad. Intercultural Education, 20(S1-S2), S73–S86.

–. (2016). Toward intercultural development and a model for institutional change. In D. Gross, K. Abrams, & C. Z. Enns (Eds.), Internationalizing the undergraduate psychology curriculum: Lessons learned at home and abroad. American Psychological Association Press.

–. (2017). Comprehensive and integrated intercultural development: A model for institutional change. In D.K. Deardorff & L. Arasaratnam-Smith (Eds.), Intercultural competence in international higher education. Routledge Press.

Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276-307.

Skubikowski, K., Wright, C., & Graf, R. (Eds.). (2023). Social justice education: Inviting faculty to transform their institutions. Taylor & Francis.