1.2. Studying abroad as life experience: research review

Currently, higher education institutions around the world aim to prepare students to function in a globalised world, in an international community, and the experience of studying abroad has become one of the basic elements of academic education programmes. The objectives of study abroad go far beyond expanding language skills and include, e.g. raising intercultural awareness or global communication competences (Isabelli-García et al., 2018; Szczepaniak-Kozak and Wąsikiewicz-Firlej, 2013). Following in the footsteps of Allan Findlay’s team, this book assumes that internationalisation of studies and learning mobility are inextricably linked and lead to the personal development of students, particularly by shaping their identity and contributing to the acquisition of new skills as well as linguistic and intercultural awareness (Findlay, King, Stam and Ruiz-Gelices, 2006).

The provisions of The Bologna Declaration signed in June 1999 assumed that at least 20% of students studying in the countries comprising the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) would have taken part in learning mobility by 2020. Due to the outbreak of the pandemic in the early 2020, these assumptions have not been achieved (FRSE, 2021), as health concerns have become yet another factor discouraging students from going abroad. Before the pandemic, the main obstacles mentioned were financial problems, fear of loosening ties with the loved ones, insufficient language competences, personal reasons (e.g. lack of self-confidence), or concerns regarding academic performance abroad (Fowlie and Forder, 2018; Powell and Finger, 2013). A potential departure may also be prevented by administrative problems, including those related to obtaining a visa (British Council, 2015), issues linked to the socio-economic environment (Findlay et al., 2006; Netz, Orr, Gwosć and Huβ, 2012), or a simple lack of interest in such an endeavour (Beerkens et al., 2016).

Upon arrival, individuals who decide to leave their country and manage to overcome the initial organisational obstacles typically face a language barrier, confront their own and local stereotypes as well as difficulties in understanding the new value system or worldview resulting from a different way of thinking. Next on the list, there are issues related to the daily functioning of a foreigner in the host country, e.g. organising and legalising the stay, everyday work and handling issues in public institutions. The prospects of having to resolve these problems may be paralysing, and as such, adversely affect the willingness to take initiative and establish contacts, or, in some cases, they may discourage students form continuing the their stay abroad.

To understand the role of personality factors in intercultural encounters, Karen Van der Zee and Jan Pieter Van Oudenhoven (2001) conducted a study on successful stays abroad. The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire that they developed makes it possible to measure the intensity of these factors using scales for the following categories: cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative and flexibility. According to these scientists, cultural empathy, defined as the ability to clearly show interest in others, as well as to obtain and reflect a relatively accurate sense of other people’s thoughts, feelings or experiences, constitutes a fundamental aspect of a satisfactory and effective sojourn abroad (Van der Zee and Oudenhoven, 2001). Other available studies do not categorise factors but, instead, focus on an individual’s overall ability to operate effectively in a multicultural environment and refer to it as a “cultural intelligence predisposition”. According to Martine Gertsen and Anne-Marie Søderberg (2010) and David Thomas (2006), cultural intelligence is a dynamic ability based on three dimensions operating in synergy: 1. (Meta)cognitive dimension – includes knowledge about cultural differences and the impact of cultural diversity on interactions and activities carried out by partners from different cultures. This dimension also includes the meta-level, which refers to the ability to reflect on how cultural diversity influences cognition and understanding of oneself and others; 2. Emotional dimension – concerns the ability to be empathetic, to be aware of and open to other points of view, to engage and learn from day-to-day culturally diverse experiences; 3. Behavioural dimension – signifies the ability to communicate effectively in the verbal and non-verbal form in intercultural relations, in real-time.

It includes, for example, the capacity to recognise, explain or deal with misunderstandings and other aspects of intercultural communicative competence (cf. Byram, 1997; Byram, Nichols and Stevens, 2001) as well as respect for the interlocutor and other aspects related to linguistic politeness.

The course of cultural adaptation in a foreign culture largely depends on one's profile of cultural identity. Such a profile is made up of various elements, among which common habits, distinctive interpretations and entrenched ideas can be clear indicators of common features (cf. Jameson, 2007). However, the profile of identity is essentially determined by the concept of difference, i.e. identity is always defined in juxtaposition with another group. Contacts with foreigners promote the strengthening of our own sense of cultural identity as they make us aware of its components. In other words, we become most aware of the characteristics of our culture when we meet a person who does not have such