Internationalizing the U.S. Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum: A Qualitative Investigation of Faculty Perspectives

Abstract

Owing to U.S. centrism, policy regulations, language barriers, institutional resistance, and faculty member interests, efforts to internationalize the undergraduate psychology curriculum are not yet realized. Therefore, we conducted a consensual qualitative research ( Hill, 2012 ; Hill et al., 2005 ; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ) investigation of current efforts to internationalize the U.S. undergraduate psychology curriculum. We interviewed 15 faculty members (eight women, seven men) regarding their perspectives and recommendations. Regarding nationality, 12 of the participants were U.S. nationals and 3 were conationals (with the United States as one of the nationalities). Data analysis led to the identification of 23 categories organized within five domains: (a) establishing “Internationalizing the Psychology Curriculum,” (b) anticipated outcomes for students, (c) instructional strategies, (d) obstacles to an internationalized curriculum, and (e) university structural development. Our findings suggest that establishing an internationalized curriculum begins with the study of cultural contexts but expands to include discipline-specific content. Further, internationalization at all levels of the profession is prerequisite to internationalizing the curriculum.

Rapid Growth of Psychology Programs in Turkey

“…Finally, it is important that internationalizing the undergraduate psychology curriculum considering the demands of the specific cultural contexts and multiculturalism have become a priority in structuring the undergraduate curricula (see Bikos, DePaul Chism, Forman, & King, 2013). Therefore, international awareness and cultural diversity have been accepted as the critical learning outcomes in undergraduate psychology education in the Western cultures (APA, 2013; Brewer, 2006).…”

US Higher Education Internationalization Through an Equity-Driven Lens

“…Most research related to internationalizing the curriculum has been criticized for being disjointed and lacking coherence (Barnett and Coate 2005 ; Leask 2013 ), with few studies situated in the USA. US-based studies tend to emphasize specific disciplines such as psychology (Bikos et al 2013 ), business (Manuel et al 2001 ), and counseling psychology (Marsella and Pedersen 2004 ).…”

The case for internationalizing the undergraduate psychology curriculum.

“…Consistent with our use of internationalizing, a qualitative study of faculty members identified core features of internationalizing psychology as (a) challenging Western privilege in psychology and notions that traditional psychology is a universal psychology as well as (b) emphasizing ways in which psychology is shaped and embedded within cultural contexts. In addition, (c) although internationalizing psychology includes cross-cultural study and comparisons, it also includes the study and valuing of indigenous psychologies (Bikos, Chism, Forman, & King, 2013). Given the multiple meanings assigned to the terms described in this section, it is important to be mindful that terms related to the study of culture are often interpreted through varied lenses and experiences.…”