A
U
S
T
R
A
L
I
A
N
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
I
E
S
’
R
E
V
I
E
W
a sample including both graduate and undergraduate stu-
Nerad et al. 2007). In the US, the existing Survey of Earned
dents. Undergraduates tend to experience more personal
Doctorates (SED) does not collect data on international
development gain, while doctoral students report direct
experiences. The Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR),
career benefits. A key lesson of this research is that it is
a subset of the SED, tracks career mobility, but does not
possible and useful to prepare for going abroad and for
allow linking careers to international experiences during
returning home, itself a difficult transition referred to as
doctoral education. The SDR, however, allows for analyses
‘reverse culture shock’ (Storti 1997).
of numbers of international collaborations as well as co-
Existing literature thus offers several models for
authorship with international researchers (Hogan et al.
studying the outcomes of international educational and
2010). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
research collaborations for doctoral and postdoctoral
Development (OECD) in collaboration with the Eurostat
students. One source of information is rooted in sub-
project on Careers of Doctorate Holders and the UNESCO
jectivity, including first-person accounts of experiences
Institute for Statistics completed in 2007 (and repeated
as well as scholarly investigations of identity, attitudes,
in 2010) the first survey on international career mobil-
and subjective evaluations. Occupying a key role in
ity of doctorate holders and reasons for mobility in seven
this category is intercultural competence. Defined as a
countries in Europe (http://www.oecd.org/sti/working-
complex concept that broadly deals with effective and
papers). This study is only available for selected European
appropriate
interactions
with those from different backgrounds, cultures, or perspectives
(Deardorff
2009), this capacity has long been understood as critical in business. Efforts to design more effective international
countries.
Postgraduate advisers themselves steered students from diverse cultural backgrounds and female students away from certain opportunities based on perceived fears, even when these perceptions were not matched by actual experiences
exchanges at the doctoral
Methods for measuring the contribution of international exchanges to the vitality of the US scientific enterprise and the quality of PhD graduates need to be developed and refined. Starting points are offered
and postdoctoral level may
by
evaluation
research
benefit from findings in this research area. It offers peda-
of NSF IGERT programmes with strong international
gogical tools and assessment instruments that might
components (Heg & Nerad 2004) and by studies in the
be adapted to purposes of evaluating the impacts of
sociology of science and studies of innovation that use
international exchanges for doctoral and postdoctoral
indicators such as publications and citations and exam-
students. Researchers and practitioners in the area of
ine scientific networks, such as the analyses of data from
intercultural sensitivity and competence offer examples
the SDR mentioned above. Evaluations and assessments
of widely used and tested training techniques, including
of particular programmes offer potential frameworks,
the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) which
methods, and instruments: for instance, Sadrozinski
has been tested for reliability and validity (Paige, Jacobs-
(2005) develops a framework for evaluating the educa-
Cassuto, Yershova & DeJaeghere 2003). In general, the
tional outcomes of international collaborations among
field of intercultural competence offers a diverse set
doctoral students. This framework uses participant
of research approaches and findings, which should be
observation, interviews, focus groups, and materials anal-
synthesised where relevant to the particular types of
ysis to evaluate international collaborations. The report
exchanges undertaken among early career research-
(Sadrozinski 2005, pp. 21-29) also includes interview
ers (e.g., Altshuler, Sussman, & Kachur 2003; Greenholz
protocols for academic staff and students over three
2000; Paige et al. 2003).Thus, one method of studying
phases and an online survey in the appendix, making it
the impact of international exchanges is to examine out-
a useful resource. Finally, Kirk (2008) reports on a NSF
comes in terms of intercultural competence; well-devel-
workshop intended to develop approaches for evaluat-
oped instruments for doing so exist already.
ing international science and engineering-related col-
A final approach is to document the career outcomes
laborations, beginning with an analysis of those funded
of students participating in international exchanges and
by NSF. The workshop suggested examining effects of
collaborations. This can be done by means of retrospec-
these collaborations on individuals, on institutions, and
tive surveys as the Center for Innovation and Research
on what the author termed the ‘knowledge environment
in Graduate Education (CIRGE) has done (Nerad 2009;
level,’ or quality of innovation and research (Kirk 2008, p.
vol. 54, no. 1, 2012
Assessing international (post)graduate education, Tami Blumenfield and Maresi Nerad
75