


































45-Manuscript-595-1-11-20200727


Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 2, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Shelli D. Rampold, Research Coordinator, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources, 
University of Florida, 1408 Sable Palm Dr., Gainesville, FL 32611, srampold@ufl.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-
7157  

2. Bradley M. Coleman, Doctoral Graduate Assistant, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of 
Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-0540, bradleycoleman@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747  

3. J.C. Bunch, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, PO Box 
110540, 307C Rolfs Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, bunchj@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349  

4. Richie Roberts, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education and Evaluation, Louisiana State 
University, 131 J.C. Miller Hall, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803; roberts3@lsu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2993-4945   
 

 
65 

 

Exploring Students’ Cultural Competence Development During 
a Short-term International Experience: A Q-Sort Study 

S. Rampold1, B. Coleman2, J. Bunch3
, R. Roberts4 

 
 

  

Abstract 
This study was conducted to understand how agricultural students’ cultural awareness, knowledge, sensitivity, 
and communication abilities combine to influence their development of cultural competence. Future 
graduates must have the cultural competencies needed to work effectively in cross-cultural settings. Q 
methodology (Q) was used to capture the subjectivity and lived experiences of 10 participants of a short-term 
international experience (IE) program. When viewed through the lens of the Personal Cultural Competence 
Enhancement Framework (PCCEF), findings suggested students’ cultural competence development could be 
interpreted through three typologies: (a) Cultural Learners, (b) Cultural Engagers, and (c) Cultural Samplers. 
Cultural Leaner students demonstrated new awareness of their limited amount of cultural knowledge and 
desired to learn more about other cultures through future travel. Cultural Engagers, on the other hand, 
expressed greater confidence in stepping out of their comfort zones to engage and communicate in diverse 
settings. Cultural Samplers demonstrated increased awareness of the benefits of experiencing other cultures 
and expressed a desire to continue traveling abroad in the future but were not highly motivated to engage 
fully with those cultures. These findings support the use of short-term IE programs as supplemental activities 
to foster agricultural students’ progression toward cultural competence. Examining the typologies of study 
abroad participants can help demonstrate how students’ study abroad experiences uniquely combine to 
shape their progression toward cultural competence development and be used to inform the development of 
future IE programs that foster such development.  

 

Keywords 

Personal Cultural Competence Enhancement Framework; Q Methodology; Study Abroad Impacts; 
Undergraduate Students. 

 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  66 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The internationalization of higher education has increased over the past three decades (Bedenlier et 
al., 2017; Deardorff, 2006; Deardorff et al., 2012; de Wit, 2020; Mitchell & Neilsen, 2012). In response, 
de Wit (2020) called for greater examination of the educational, research, and societal implications of 
internationalization efforts at the post-secondary level. A key outcome of purposeful 
internationalization in higher education is the ability to produce more culturally competent graduates 
entering the workforce in a world that is more globally connected (Deardorff, 2006). Although no 
universal definition of cultural competence exists, it has been broadly defined as the ability to think 
and interact appropriately and effectively across cultural settings (Deardorff, 2011; Hammer et al., 
2003). One common strategy used to actualize goals for developing cultural competence is engaging 
faculty and students in international experiences (Byker & Putnam, 2019). Much research has been 
conducted to explore best methods of doing so (Bunch et al., 2015; Danjean et al., 2015; Rampold et 
al., 2018).  

Study abroad courses and short-term international experience (IE) programs provide relatively 
accessible opportunities that have been shown to yield desirable outcomes among participants (Bunch 
et al., 2018; Dietz & Baker, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Zamastil-Vondrova, 2005). However, to ensure 
these high-impact practices instill cultural competence in students more systematically, continuous, 
and rigorous assessment and evaluation of programmatic impacts are warranted (Russell & Morris, 
2008). Existing evidence has demonstrated that impact assessments of study abroad courses and IE 
programs vary considerably based on intensity, context, lived experiences, and subjectivity of program 
participants (Bunch et al., 2018; Dietz & Baker, 2018; Pigg et al., 2020; Roberts & Edwards, 2016; 
Salisbury et al., 2013). To understand better the development of cultural competence, it is critical to 
describe how students’ awareness, knowledge, sensitivity, and skills, combine to influence their 
development of cultural competence as a result of IE programs (Bunch et al., 2018; Russel & Morris, 
2008).  

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The personal cultural competence enhancement framework (PCCEF) served as the conceptual 
framework for this study (Bunch et al., 2018). Per the PCCEF, cultural competence requires the 
development of cultural awareness, cultural understanding (i.e., cultural knowledge and 
sensitivity), and cultural communication (see Figure 1). Cultural awareness does not require in-
depth knowledge of another culture or country, but rather is a preliminary step in the 
development of cultural competence that may result from mere exposure of another culture 
(Perry & Southwell, 2011). In this respect, cultural awareness involves the transition from a me-
centered to an others-centered analysis, in which individuals begin to evaluate their own beliefs, 
values, and customs as they being to relate to those of other individuals (Bunch et al., 2018). 

Cultural understanding comprises the domains of cultural knowledge and sensitivity. Cultural 
knowledge is the cognitive domain of cultural understanding that pertains to gains in 
knowledge of another culture and the differences between that culture and one’s own. An 
individual’s subjective response to and experience of such differences represents cultural 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  67 
 

sensitivity, the affective domain of cultural understanding (Bennett, 1993; Bunch et al., 2018; 
Hammer et al., 2003). 

Lastly, cultural communication describes an individual’s ability and willingness to effectively and 
appropriately communicate with people from cultures different than their own. Whether 
viewed as an individual attribute or a characteristic of the relational or situational context, 
successful cultural communication requires an understanding and tolerance of cultural 
differences and the ability to overcome those differences when engaging with people of 
another culture (Bunch et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2009; Perry & Southwell, 2011; see Figure 1).   

  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  68 
 

Figure 1 

Personal Cultural Competence Enhancement Framework 

Note. Reprinted from “The Impact of a Short-Term International Experience on Undergraduate 
Students’ Cultural Competency” by J. C. Bunch, S. D. Rampold, M. Cater, and J. J. Blackburn, 
2018, Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), p. 132. (https://doi.org10.5032/jae.2018.04120). 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  69 
 

Purpose 
 
Participants in this study included ten undergraduate students who enrolled in a short-term 
agricultural IE program to Costa Rica. The purpose of this study was to understand how 
students’ cultural awareness, knowledge, sensitivity, and communication abilities combine in 
their progression toward cultural competence following their participation in a short-term IE 
program. The following research question guided this investigation: How do students’ 
experiences during a short-term international experience contribute to their progression toward 
cultural competence? 
 

Methods 
 
Q methodology (Q) was used to capture the subjectivity and lived experiences of IE program 
participants and assess the impact the program had on their cultural competence development. 
The participants in this study were 10 undergraduate students who enrolled in a short-term IE 
in Costa Rica during the 2019 spring semester break. Q involves a unique data collection 
technique, called a Q-sort, that utilizes both quantitative and qualitative approaches to 
understand the collective views of individuals on a phenomenon of interest (Watts & Stenner, 
2013). This method is appropriate for small sample sizes (McKeown & Thomas, 2013) as the 
emphasis is placed on capturing subjective perspectives of participants in a moment-in-time, 
rather than on generalizing outcomes (Brown, 1980; Watts & Stenner, 2013). To facilitate such, 
researchers (a) develop a concourse, (b) create a Q-set, (c) recruit participants to collect data 
through a Q-sort, and (d) use factor analysis and naturalistic analytic procedures to interpret 
emergent findings.  

The concourse is the full range of perspectives that exist on a phenomenon in the form of a 
collection of statements (Brown, 1993; Paige & Morin, 2016). The concourse can be generated 
using relevant theories, literature, qualitative data, or a combination of both (Brown, 1993; 
Paige & Morin, 2016; Watts & Stenner, 2005). In this study, the concourse was constructed 
using prior literature (Sæbjørnsen et al., 2016) and journal entries and daily group reflections 
from the IE program participants. Through this strategy, 235 initial statements were collected 
to represent this study’s concourse. 

A subset of statements was then drawn from the concourse to create the Q-set. Statements 
included in the Q-set are sampled to represent the population (Paige & Morin, 2016; Watts & 
Stenner, 2005). An a priori theoretical framework was utilized in this study to structure the Q 
set by which the four antecedents of cultural competence outlined in the PCCEF were used: (a) 
cultural awareness; (b) cultural sensitivity; (c) cultural knowledge; and (d) cultural 
communication (Bunch et al., 2018). Homogeneity within each conceptual category and 
heterogeneity between categories were pursued when negotiating statements for inclusion. 
This process resulted in 36 statements, with nine statements in each of the PCCEF conceptual 
categories.  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  70 
 

The ten IE program participants, or P-set in Q methodology, then engaged in the Q-sort activity. Each 
participant was provided a packet of the 36 statements and asked to sort the statements into three 
categories: (1) most like me, (2) most unlike me, and (3) neutral (McKeown & Thomas, 2013). 
Participants then self-sorted the statements on a forced distribution board in ranking order of personal 
preference from -4 (most unlike me) to +4 (most like me) using the condition of instruction: How have 
you changed as a result of your experiences gained during the international program in Costa Rica? The 
condition of instruction is not intended to be the stem of a response scale, but rather provides 
participants instruction on how to approach the sort. For example, students who previously had a 
desire to travel abroad, but did not gain more desire to do so as a direct result of the Costa Rica IE 
program, may not place that statement in the “most like me” category. The condition of instruction 
used for this study was selected to best examine student outcomes that were a direct result of the 
Costa Rica IE. An explanation of the condition of instruction was provided to all participants prior to the 
Q-sort activity. Compared to conventional research methodologies, validity and reliability are of 
relatively less concern (Brown, 1980). In Q, emphasis is instead placed on replication under a similar 
condition of instruction to examine whether similar factors emerge (Brown, 1980; McKeown & 
Thomas, 2013). For instance, the condition of instruction in this study served to specify competencies 
gained because of the IE program and, not other life experiences of the participants.  

Participants’ sorts were uploaded to PQ Method® version 2.35 (Schmolck, 2014), and three statistical 
tests were performed: correlation, principal components factor analysis, and computation of factor 
scores. Unlike traditional factor analysis that correlates items in an instrument, Q correlates individual 
sorters, rather than individual items as in traditional quantitative methodology (Brown, 1980). Using 
Varimax rotation, a three-factor solution was chosen with a base significance of .52 that captured 10 
participants and 61% of the total variance. Correlations among factors were negligible, meaning each 
factor was considered unique. Factors were interpreted by investigating factor array positions, factor 
loadings, distinguishing and consensus statements, and participants’ personal characteristics (Mauldin, 
2012).  

Findings 
 
To identify defining sorts, the factor matrix (see Table 1) was analyzed by establishing a base 
significance of 0.52. Defining sorts are those that load high (significantly) and pure on only one factor. 
The sorts of all 10 participants were considered defining.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  71 
 

Table 1 

Factor Matrix with Demographics of Participants 

P Number/ 
Gender 

Age Academic Department Factor Loadings 
1 2 3 

1-female 19 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.12 .67b .34 

2-female 20 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.52a -.18 .46 

3-female 19 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.78a .17 .31 

4-female 22 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.81a .21 -.02 

5-female 22 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

-.05 -.03 .88c 

6-female 20 Animal Sciences -.02 .89b .00 

7-female 19 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.03 .37 .65c 

8-female 63 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.16 .52b -.05 

9-male 19 Food and Resource Economics .83a .11 .01 

10-male 20 Agricultural Education and 
Communication 

.29 .01 .57c 

Defining Sorts 4 3 4 
% Variance Explained 24% 18% 19% 
Note. P Number refers to the numeric identifier for each participant. 
aIndicates a defining sort for Factor 1. bIndicates a defining sort for Factor 2. cIndicates a defining 
sort for Factor 3. 

 

Analysis of the data yielded three factors: (1) Cultural Learners; (2) Cultural Engagers; and (3) Cultural 
Samplers. Four participants, one male, and three females, loaded significantly as Cultural Learners (see 
Table 2). Many of these students had not previously traveled on their own, and they demonstrated 
new awareness of the cultural knowledge they were lacking and a desire to learn more about other 
cultures. From their perspectives, the IE gave them a greater desire to travel abroad (35, +4) and 
willingness to pursue international agricultural opportunities (28, +4). They also felt the IE helped them 
grow as a culturally minded individual (21, +3). In a follow-up interview, one student noted, “I realized 
how much I still need to learn about other cultures.” Similarly, another student said, “I feel like I’m not 
very aware of other cultures, because I just live in my own little bubble. So, going to Costa Rica made 
me more aware of the differences in cultures and how other people live.” Although these students had 
gained some confidence in their abilities to travel, they were still fairly apprehensive about engaging 
fully in culturally diverse settings and trying to communicate in another language (31, -4; see Table 2).  

 

 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  72 
 

Table 2 

Array Positions for Cultural Learner Students’ Statements 

No. Statement Array Position z-score Theoretical Category 
28a  I am more willing to pursue international 

agriculture opportunities.  
+4 1.89  Cultural Communication 

35 I have a greater desire to travel abroad. +4 1.82 Cultural Communication 

32 I have a greater desire to learn Spanish (or 
another language). 

+3 1.22 Cultural Communication 

22 I am more aware of the benefits of 
experiencing other cultures. 

+3 1.56 Cultural Sensitivity 

21 I have grown as a culturally mindful 
individual. 

+3 1.33 Cultural Sensitivity 

7 I am more aware of the comforts I have at 
home. 

+3 .91 Cultural Awareness 

14a I am more knowledgeable of the 
differences in values between US and 
CR cultures. 

-3 -1.32 Cultural Knowledge 

10a I am better able to make comparisons 
between other cultures. 

-3 -1.24 Cultural Knowledge 

4 I am more aware of my own traditions. -3 -1.24 Cultural Awareness 

1a I am more aware of the cultural values in 
Costa Rica. 

-3 -1.40 Cultural Awareness 

33 I am more comfortable trying to 
communicate in another language. 

-4 -1.46 Cultural Communication 

31 I am more comfortable using foreign 
currency 

-4 -2.04 Cultural Communication 

Note. The No. column provides the reference number for each statement in the q-set.  
a Indicates distinguishing statements for the Cultural Learner Students typology.  

 

Cultural Engagers, which included all female participants (3/3), perceived the IE helped them 
feel less apprehensive about stepping out their comfort zones (29, +4) and more confident in 
their abilities to travel abroad (30, +4) by helping them feel more comfortable engaging in 
culturally diverse settings (36, +3). One high and pure loader stated, “I’m more comfortable 
engaging in a culturally diverse setting. I never felt I was uncomfortable, but now I feel when I 
talk to my friends about someone [from another background] I can have more patience and 
think about where they come from and why they think like that.” Cultural Engagers also 
expressed a greater desire to learn another language (32, +3) and a higher degree of 
comfortability to communicate in another language (33, +3). However, cultural engagers did 
not perceive the IE helped them become more aware of the stereotypes they hold toward 
other cultures (8, -4), helped them become more knowledgeable of the differences between 
U.S. and Costa Rican cultures (11, -3), nor help them become more aware of the challenges they 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  73 
 

face in being respectful of other cultures (23, -3; see Table 3).  Follow-up interviews with 
Cultural Engagers revealed they felt the IE was very agriculturally based and helped them learn 
more about agricultural production topics than cultural traditions. One participant stated, 
“anything that had to do with tradition I immediately put to the left because I felt like, in my 
experience there, I didn’t experience many traditional things.” 
 

Table 3 

Array Positions for Cultural Engager Students’ Statements 

No. Statement Array Position z-score Theoretical Category 
30 I feel more confident in my ability to travel 

abroad. 
+4 1.77 Cultural Communication 

29 I am less apprehensive about leaving my 
comfort zone. 

+4 1.59 Cultural Communication 

36a I am more comfortable engaging in 
culturally diverse settings. 

+3 1.37 Cultural Communication 

21 I have grown as a culturally mindful 
individual. 

+3 1.45 Cultural Sensitivity 

33a I am more comfortable trying to 
communicate in another language. 

+3 1.42 Cultural Communication 

32 I have a greater desire to learn Spanish (or 
another language). 

+3 1.36 Cultural Communication 

3 I am more aware of my own values and 
beliefs. 

-3 -1.56 Cultural Awareness 

11 I am more knowledgeable of the 
differences in traditions between US 
and CR cultures. 

-3 -1.92 Cultural Knowledge 

23 I am more aware of the challenges I face in 
being respectful of other cultures. 

-3 -1.33 Cultural Sensitivity 

13 I am more knowledgeable of the 
similarities in traditions between US 
and CR cultures. 

-3 -1.39 Cultural Knowledge 

8a I am more aware of the stereotypes I hold 
toward other cultures.  

-4 -1.83 Cultural Awareness 

4 I am more aware of my own traditions. -4 -1.99 Cultural Awareness 
Note. The No. column provides the reference number for each statement in the q-set. 
aIndicates distinguishing statements for the Cultural Engager Students typology. 

 

Cultural Samplers included three participants, one male, and two females. From their 
perspectives, the IE inspired them to travel abroad (35, +4) again in the future, and helped 
them build confidence in their abilities to study abroad (30, +4). The IE also enhanced their 
awareness of the benefits of experiencing other cultures (22, +3), as well as their awareness of 
the comforts they have back home (7, +3). However, the IE did not facilitate a greater desire to 
learn another language (32, -4), nor did it help them feel more comfortable to communicate in 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  74 
 

another language (33,-3). For example, one student maintained, “I’m definitely not comfortable 
at all trying to communicate in any language other than English. While [in Costa Rica], I really 
struggled with that and I have not changed at all.” Further, their experiences abroad did not 
change Cultural Sampler students’ degree of awareness of the challenges they face in being 
accepting (25, -3) and respectful (23, -3) of other cultures. Cultural Samplers’ significant 
statements are displayed in Table 4. 

Table 4 

Array Positions for Cultural Sampler Students’ Statements 

No. Statement Array Position z-score Theoretical Category 
35 I have a greater desire to travel abroad. +4 1.74 Cultural Communication  
30 I feel more confident in my ability to travel 

abroad. 
+4 1.56 Cultural Communication  

22 I am more aware of the benefits of 
experiencing other cultures. 

+3 1.50 Cultural Sensitivity  

7 I am more aware of the comforts I have at 
home. 

+3 1.43 Cultural Awareness  

16 I am better able to relate everyday 
experiences to my international 
experiences and make sense of them. 

+3 1.23 Cultural Knowledge  

27 I am more patient when working with 
people from other cultures. 

+3 .98 Cultural Sensitivity  

33 I am more comfortable trying to 
communicate in another language. 

-3 -1.21 Cultural Communication  

25 I am more aware of the challenges I face in 
being accepting of other cultures. 

-3 -1.26 Cultural Sensitivity  

9 I am more knowledgeable of the 
similarities in traditions between US 
and CR cultures. 

-3 -1.30 Cultural Knowledge  

23 I am more aware of the challenges I face in 
being respectful of other cultures. 

-3 -1.48 Cultural Sensitivity  

31 I am more comfortable using foreign 
currency. 

-4 -1.86 Cultural Communication  

32a I have a greater desire to learn Spanish (or 
another language). 

-4 -1.93 Cultural Communication  

Note. The No. column provides the reference number for each statement in the q-set. 
aIndicates distinguishing statements for the Cultural Sampler Students typology. 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Overall, the findings of this study support the continued use of short-term programs to help generate 
cultural competency outcomes among agricultural undergraduate students. When viewed through the 
lens of the PCCEF (Bunch et al., 2018), students’ cultural competence was interpreted through three 
perspectives: (a) Cultural Learners, (b) Cultural Engagers, and (c) Cultural Samplers. Cultural Learners 
perceived the IE instilled in them a greater desire to travel abroad and pursue international agriculture 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  75 
 

opportunities. The IE also helped enhanced their awareness of the cultural knowledge they did not 
possess. In follow-up interviews after the sort activity, students in this typology explained that the IE 
made them more aware of their general lack of cultural knowledge about Costa Rica and other 
cultures. These conclusions align with the notions of cultural awareness described by Bunch et al. 
(2018) and suggest these students are in the early stages of their cultural competence development. 
Cultural Engagers reported the IE lowered their apprehension about leaving their comfort zones, as 
well as helped them become more self-assured in their abilities to travel abroad and engage in 
culturally diverse settings. These participants felt more comfortable trying to communicate in another 
language and expressed a greater desire to learn another language. Growth among these students was 
primarily in areas of the cultural communication element of the PCCEF (Bunch et al., 2018) and suggest 
more advanced cultural competence development than any of the other typologies observed. Cultural 
Samplers expressed the IE promoted a greater desire to travel abroad and confidence in their abilities 
to do so. However, post Q-sort interviews with Cultural Samplers suggested these students have an 
interest in experiencing, or “sampling,” many new cultures to push themselves out of their comfort 
zones, but little motivation to engage fully in those cultures. The IE also did not help these students 
become more aware of the challenges they face in being accepting and respectful of other cultures. 
Per the PCCEF (Bunch et al., 2018), students in this typology appeared to still be developing in all 
elements. However, it should be noted that some students in this typology had already acquired 
extensive international experience prior to the IE program. The retrospective design of the study is a 
limitation in that students’ prior experience likely contributed to patterns in the findings related to 
awareness of challenges faced in being accepting and respectful of other cultures, because some of 
students may have already developed such abilities. Future research is needed to examine how IE 
programs impact students with and without prior international experience.   

It is recommended that those seeking to implement short-term IE programs as a means of 
internationalizing higher education should include opportunities for students to increase their cultural 
competence. While the design of the Costa Rica IE helped students gain agricultural production 
knowledge, the findings suggest more activities focused on cultural traditions need to be included in IE 
programs to foster cultural competence development. Doing so aligns with de Wit’s (2020) pillars of 
purposeful internationalization by building abilities to learn about and engage with other cultures. 
Providing students experiences in which they can build knowledge of cultural beliefs, customs, 
traditions and stereotypes, build sensitivity and respect toward others who are culturally different, and 
develop a willingness to communicate and interact with those of different cultures are all means of 
increasing cultural competence (Bunch et al., 2018). It is further recommended that those seeking to 
provide such experiences should assess program impacts with cultural competence elements found 
within frameworks such as the PCCEF (Bunch et al., 2018).  

Further exploration of the PCCEF (Bunch et al., 2018) is needed. For most participants, statements in 
the cultural communication domain were split on the sort board as those most like and most unlike 
them. This divergence in statements could indicate that cultural communication should be expanded 
into two separate elements; one intended to capture attitudes or willingness to engage in other 
cultures (e.g., I am more comfortable engaging in culturally diverse settings); and another to capture 
desire or intent to verbally communicate (e.g., I have a greater desire to learn Spanish, or I am more 
comfortable communicating in another language). Future research should further explore cultural 
communication measures. As previously noted, participants of this study identified with one of three 



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  76 
 

typologies. Further research should be conducted to identify extraneous variables (i.e., personal 
characteristics, previous international/domestic experience) and IE program characteristics that may 
have influenced students’ sorting patterns. These external factors were not assessed, and the lack of 
ability to control for such was a limitation of this study. Lastly, Q research should be conducted with 
participants of other short-term IE programs to compare results and help identify program designs or 
characteristics most useful in facilitating cultural competencies.  

References 
 

Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Two decades of research into the 
internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the Journal of Studies in 
Internationalization (1997-2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 2(2), 
108–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317710093  

Bennet, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural 
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). 
Intercultural Press.  

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale 
University Press.  

Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138. 
https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.1993.002  

Bunch, J. C., Blackburn, J. J., Danjean, S. E., Stair, K. E., & Blanchard, L. D. (2015). Examining 
Louisiana State University College of Agriculture students’ perceived motivators and 
barriers to participation in international experiences. Journal of International 
Agricultural and Extension Education, 22(3), 69–82. 
https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2015.22305  

Bunch, J. C., Rampold, S. D., Cater, M., & Blackburn, J. J. (2018). The impact of a short-term 
international experience on undergraduate students’ cultural competency. Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 59(4), 120–136. https://doi.org10.5032/jae.2018.04120  

Byker, E. J., & Putman, S. M. (2019). Catalyzing cultural and global competencies: Engaging 
preservice teachers in study abroad to expand the agency of citizenship. Journal of 
Studies in International Education, 23(1), 84–105. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318814559  

Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B., Wright, N. D., & McMillen, R. M. (2009). Student intercultural 
proficiency from study abroad programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(2), 173–
181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475309335583  

Danjean, S. E., Bunch, J. C., & Blackburn, J. J. (2015). Examining the motivations and barriers 
influencing the decisions of Louisiana State University College of Agriculture freshmen to 
participate in international experiences. Journal of International Agricultural and 
Extension Education, 22(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2015.22104  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  77 
 

Dietz, S. S., & Baker, S. B. (2018). Study abroad as a cultural competence development tool: 
Case study Honduras. Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 41(1), 104–124. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-018-9348-9  

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student 
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 
241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002  

Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for Institutional 
Research, 149, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.381  

Deardorff, D., de Wit, H., Heyl, J., & Adams, T. (2012). SAGE handbook of international higher 
Education. Sage. 

de Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization of higher education. Journal of International 
Students, 10(1), i–iv. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1893  

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The 
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 
421–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4  

Harris, V. W., Kumaran, M., Harris, H. J., Moen, D., & Visconti, B. (2018). Assessing multicultural 
competence (knowledge and awareness) in study abroad experiences. Compare: A Journal of 
Comparative and International Education, 49(3), 430–452. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1421901  

Mauldin, C. (2012). Overview of the Q interpretation process. Media Marketing Inc. 

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Sage. 

Mitchell, D. E., & Nielsen, S. Y. (2012). Internationalization and globalization in higher 
education. In H. Cuadra-Montiel (Ed.), Globalization–education and management 
agendas (pp. 3–22). InTech. https://doi.org/10.57772/48702  

Paige, J. B., & Morin, K. H. (2016). Q-sample construction: A critical step for a q-methodological 
study. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(1), 96–110. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914545177  

Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models 
and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453–466. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.644948  

Pigg, J., Richardson, M. A., Roberts, R., & Stair, K. S. (2020, May 18-21). Awakening 
transformative learning: A comparison of the dissonance experienced by agriculture 
majors during study abroad courses to Costa Rica and Thailand [Paper 
presentation]. American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) COVID-19 Virtual 
Conference. 
http://aaaeonline.org/resources/Documents/National/2020Meeting/2020AAAEPaperPr
oceedings.pdf  



Rampold et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.45  78 
 

Rampold, S. D., Cater, M., Bunch, J. C., & Blackburn, J. J. (2018). Explaining agriculture faculty 
members’ involvement in study abroad: Structural relationships among personal-
dimension variables. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 
25(3), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2018.25304  

Roberts, R., & Edwards, M. C. (2016). Transforming students’ global knowledge and 
perspectives through international service learning (ISL): How U.S. university agriculture 
students made sense of their lived experiences over time. Journal of International 
Agricultural and Extension Education, 23(3), 7–22. 
https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2016.23301  

Russell, M., & Morris, P. (2008, March 9–15). A “mixed model” for assessing intercultural and 
attitudinal outcomes of international service-learning experiences [Abstract 
presentation]. Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE) 
24th Annual Meeting, EARTH University, Costa Rica. 
https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/684/449.pdf  

Sæbjørnsen, S. E. N., Ellingsen, I. T., Good, J. M. M., & Odegard, A. (2016). Combining a 
naturalistic and theoretical Q sample approach: An empirical research illustration. 
Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 38(2), 15–32. 
https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2016.005  

Salisbury, M. H., Brian, A. P., & Pascarella, P. T. (2013). The effect of study abroad on 
intercultural competence among undergraduate college students. Journal of Student 
Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2013-0001  

Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod manual. Author. 
http://schmolck.org/qmethod/downpqwin.htm  

Watts, S., & Stenner. P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. 
Qualitative research in psychology, 2(1), 67–91. 
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa   

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2013). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and 
interpretations (2nd ed.). Sage.  

Zamasti-Vondrova, K. (2005). Good faith or hard data? Justifying short-term programs. 
International Educator, 14(1), 44–49. 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/200757299?pq-origsite=gscholar  

 
 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


