Maryssa Griffin
Research 201
Professor Stumme
12/3/2020
Article Analysis: Humanities Assignment
According to the article, Lasting Impact of Study Abroad Experiences: A Collaborative
Autoethnography, researchers studied abroad and focused on studying language, identity
construction, and motivation in order to test the lasting impacts of studying abroad. The other
purpose of this article was to allow the readers to see how the researchers compared their
experiences to look for the lasting effects of studying abroad, if any, and consider the practical
and theoretical interpretations of the data. The thesis of this article was “we reflect on our study
abroad experiences to determine the indirect and direct impacts that these experiences have had
on our professional journeys” (qtd from Garbati et al). One of the major theories that was used
by the researchers in this article was the reviewing of the specific literature that discussed
studying abroad and the suitability of the collaborative autoethnography approach.
“Autoethnography is a form of qualitative research in which an author uses self-reflection and
writing to explore anecdotal and personal experience and connect this autobiographical story to
wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings” (qtd from Ellis 1). Another
theory that was used throughout the article and study is grounded theory methodology. Grounded
theory methodology is defined as “an inductive methodology that provides systematic guidelines
for gathering, synthesizing, analyzing, and conceptualizing qualitive data for the purpose of
theory construction” (Charmaz 1). These theories helped to attribute to the data collection and
reflection that takes place. These processes are based on the grounded theory methodology.
In the article, “Lasting Impact of Study Abroad Experiences: A Collaborative
Autoethnography” a qualitative research approach was used. The reason for this being that the
article and study use preliminary data collection, subsequent data collection, data analysis, and
report writing. The research design that was used in this article and study was narrative inquiry.
According to Hark, narrative inquiry “revolves around story telling (Riessman, 2008), in which a
researcher asks an individual, or group of individuals, to provide stories about their lives and
experiences” (qtd from Hark 150). While this is used a tad different in this study, the design of
the study still remains under the narrative inquiry category. In this article, the way the study uses
this design category is different than most. In this study the researchers are the ones providing
their own experiences to be used for collection and analyzation.
The article concludes that the lasting impacts of studying abroad are fairly unique to each
person. “On a personal level, we have maintained the close relationships with other study abroad
students rather than French peers we developed during our time in France” (qtd from Garbati et
al). While everyone will have their own experiences when studying abroad that will shape and
change them as a person, they will also form bonds with the other study abroad students in their
program. These are the bonds that will last, while all of their interactions will personally impact
them in different ways depending on the individuals they get the opportunity to interact with.
However, some of the lasting impacts will be shared from person to person. For example, in the
article each of the researchers and subjects all went into some sort of language-based work. “On
a professional level, our narratives reveal the impact of our studies abroad on our career paths.
We both entered the workforce as FSL teachers in the public school system…” (qtd from Garbati
et al). While this study seemingly worked out great, it does have limitations. One limitation
would be the student’s personality types. If one student is fairly shy and keeps to themselves then
that student most likely would not share the strong, long-lasting bonds that a student with a
bubbly, outgoing personality might have. Another limitation to this study might be where the
students studied abroad. While the students that were in France decided to go into language-
based work, a student in Italy might go into a food-based work, such as a chef or food critic. The
authors offer suggestions for future research at the end of the article. They suggest that in a
future study a researcher should do further research in collaborative autoethnography, CAE, and
study abroad (Garbati et al). They also suggest comparing students that studied abroad 10 years
ago to students that studied more recently in the same place. This will allow the study to compare
the different eras of the study abroad program and allow researchers to see how it has changed or
stayed the same. It would also allow researchers to determine how different years of studying
abroad effects individuals and if that changes year to year.
Abstract:
In the article “Lasting Impact of Study Abroad Experiences: A Collaborative
Autoethnography”, researchers come together to share and analyze their own personal study
abroad experiences and the lasting impacts of them. The authors write about their personal
reflections of their time in the study abroad program and how it impacted their career decisions
for the future. The article also includes various points of secondary research and how this
impacted the study. The article uses a collaborative autoethnography approach which is defined
as “the study of self collectively” (CHANG, WAMBURA NGUNJIRI & HERNANDEZ, 2013,
p.11). The data, which is comprised of reflective narratives and archived e-mails, was analyzed
based on grounded theory methodology. The data was compared between the study subjects and
the impacts of studying abroad were identified. The practical and theoretical implications of the
research were also considered in the article. The research was used to understand the
collaborative autoethnography approach and the lasting impacts of studying abroad experiences
and opportunities on students.
Analysis:
The Sciences article and the Humanities article have a variety of differences between
them. While the Sciences article had a variable it was testing, the Humanities article did not. The
Humanities article was more of an opinion-based study while the Sciences article used a testable
variable. Another difference between the two is that the Humanities article was more about a
worldly impact on specific people, whereas the Sciences article was about a specific subject that
can impact everyone. Finally, in the Sciences article, the article talked about the success of the
study and the research that was put into the subject, while the Humanities article is mostly based
on the opinions of the author who feels somewhat strongly about the topic. The conclusions
stated in the Sciences article compare with the conclusions of the Humanities article by the way
they are set up. In both conclusions, the article states the information gathered from the results
and states what should be changed in a future study. The only main difference between the two is
what the conclusion is about. The Sciences article had more of a direct, straight to the point
conclusion, whereas the Humanities article has more of an opinion-based conclusion about the
results gathered through the individual’s reflections.
Works Cited
Charmaz, K. . 2001, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780080430768/international-encyclopedia-of-the-
social-and-behavioral-sciences.
Ellis, Carolyn. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography.
Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press
Garbati, Jordana F., and Nathalie Rothschild. “Lasting Impact of Study Abroad Experiences: A
Collaborative Autoethnography.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 17, no. 2,
2016. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.proquest.com%Fscholarly-journals%2Flasting-impact-study-abroad-
experiences%2Fdocview%2F1779359779%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
Hark, K. (2019). Research across the disciplines: An introduction. Kendall Hunt.
