General Session | Tensions and Conflicts in Global Learning: Responding to Affective Polarization at Home and Abroad

Higher education professionals and leaders are expressing increasing concerns over upticks in incivility, the erosion of civic discourse and democratic norms among college students at home and abroad, including in the context of education abroad. These developments parallel the growth in affective polarization in the U.S. and elsewhere. One response to these developments is focused on increasing student engagement with the practices of dialogue and conflict resolution. However, a recent 2023 report issued by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace suggests that participation in facilitated dialogue may be insufficient for combating affective polarization in society, particularly when the focus of the dialogue is limited to improving understanding and reducing prejudice among individuals. Rather, the goals of dialogue need to include the pursuit of broader social or political improvements impacting communities at varying levels of scale. In other words, dialogue needs to be directed toward collaborative action that can create positive change in broader cultural and political context(s), not only changes in the feelings of individuals. This finding poses significant questions relevant to education abroad, global learning and higher education regarding how we can best work together combat polarization.

In this session, a panel of committed educators, administrators and scholars will take up a subset of these questions:

What are the limits of an intercultural learning lens to addressing the issues of polarization we see connected to education abroad and other global learning opportunities? Where might global learning as a learning process complement and strengthen our efforts?

In what ways might civic learning or deliberative dialogue frameworks aid the field of education abroad in responding to increasing polarization? What might such frameworks look like when not centered on U.S. centric traditions, norms and histories?

Short-term study abroad is an important access and engagement strategy; however, fostering communities of inclusion and belonging in EA remains a challenge that affective polarization may complicate further.

How does affective polarization show up in onsite contexts in ways that are invisible to those at sending institutions? What needs to change? How does polarization in EA look different in contexts across the Global North as contrasted with those across the Global South?

Where can sending institutions target their efforts to better prepare students, faculty and staff prior to going abroad and then again upon return?

Are there examples that you can point to that illustrate coordination, integration and scaffolding across international and other campus offices and/or among community groups that help to connect EA proving effective?

Questions for panelists here
Menti: code 8806 7768