This article combines archival research and critical discourse analysis to examine 33 evaluation and report documents that evaluate the effectiveness of the Fulbright Program from 1958–2023. Specifically, the study employs argumentation analysis to understand the underlying ideological strategies used to discursively construct the Fulbright Program's multiple purposes. The study finds that the documents argue that education and mutual understanding are ephemeral concepts, the Fulbright Program has geopolitical justifications, and academic disciplines are a source of geopolitical power. This approach to analyzing the Fulbright Program's historical documents provides a model for understanding educational diplomacy schemes that use higher education as a geopolitical tool.
AilesC. P.RussellS. H.ParkJ.CarrR.CowardH. R.HancockM.MathiesonJ.HicksE. K. (2005). Outcome assessment of the U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program. Office of Policy and Evaluation Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
2.
AltbachP. G. (1971). Education and neocolonialism: A note. Comparative Education Review, 15(2), 237–239.
3.
AngI.IsarY. R.MarP. (2015). Cultural diplomacy: Beyond the national interest?International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1042474
4.
BettieM. (2015). Ambassadors unaware: The Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 13(4), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794012.2015.1088326
5.
BlancoG. L. (2021). International accreditation as geopolitical space: U.S. practices as “global standards” for quality assurance in higher education. In LeeJ. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 60–76). Rutgers University Press.
6.
BlancoG. L.RombalskiM.MosqueraJ. M. (2022). Fulbrighters without fulbright: Branding US internationalization of higher education in a context of racial justice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2143000
7.
BlommaertJ. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
8.
CantwellB. (2021). Concepts for understanding the geopolitics of graduate student and postdoc mobility. In LeeJ. J. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 94–112). Rutgers University Press.
9.
CsurgaiG. (2021). The main components of geopolitical analysis. In CriekemansD. (Ed.), Geopolitics and international relations: Grounding world politics anew (pp. 13–60). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004432086_003
FulbrightJ. W. (1946, March 5). Fulbright Plan (Amendment to the Surplus Property Act of 1944). University of Arkansas Special Collections (J. William Fulbright Papers (MS F956 144, Series 71, Box 2, File 3)), Fayetteville, AK, United States. https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/digital/collection/Fulbright/id/86/rec/4
George MwangiC. A.LatafatS.HammondS.KommersS.ThomaH.BergerJ.Blanco-RamirezG. (2018). Criticality in international higher education research: A critical discourse analysis of higher education journals. Higher Education, 76(6), 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0259-9
17.
HazelkornE. (2021). What do global university rankings tell us about U.S. geopolitics in higher education? In LeeJ. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 42–59). Rutgers University Press.
ICF International. (2017). Evaluation of the Fulbright Foreign Student Program. Evaluation Division, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/fulbright_foreign_student_program_-_stem_participants_final_dec_2017_-_vol_i.pdf
20.
JohnsonC. S. (1952). Report to the board of Foreign Scholarships on visit to four United States Educational Commissions and Foundations, to The Congress of the European American Associations, to The United States Secondary School Teachers of French (Summer Session) and to The First Fulbright Conference on American Studies at Cambridge University [Microfilm]. Rockefeller Archive Center (Institute of International Education Records, RG 1, Series 3, Reel 27), Tarrytown, NY, United States.
21.
JørgensenM.PhillipsL. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage.
22.
KienpointnerM. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-Holzboog.
23.
LebovicS. (2013). From war junk to educational exchange: The World War II origins of the Fulbright Program and the foundations of American cultural globalism, 1945-1950. Diplomatic History, 37(2), 280–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/dh/dht002
24.
LeeJ. (2021). International higher education as geopolitical power. In LeeJ. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 1–22). Rutgers University Press.
25.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
26.
MaekawaI. (2015). Neo-Colonialism reconsidered: A case study of east Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43(2), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2014.982406
27.
MignoloW. D. (2018). Decoloniality and phenomenology: The geopolitics of knowing and epistemic/ontological colonial differences. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 32(3), 360–387. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.32.3.0360
28.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
29.
MoisioS. (2022). In what sense a geopolitical knowledge-based economy? In Parreira do AmaralM.ThompsonC. (Eds.), Geopolitical transformations in higher education: Imagining, fabricating and contesting innovation (pp. 21–33). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94415-5_2
30.
Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, Pub. L. No. 87–256 (1961).
31.
PatelL. (2021). No study without struggle: Confronting settler colonialism in higher education. Beacon Press.
ReisiglM. (2014). Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach(C. Hart & P. Cap, Eds.; pp. 67–96). Bloomsbury.
34.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
35.
SavinL. (2018). The changing shape of global higher education geopolitics. Katheon. https://katheon.com/article/education-tool-us-geopolitics
36.
Scott-SmithG.TournèsL. (2018). Conclusion: 150 years of scholarship programs: Old trends and new prospects in the global landscape. In Scott-SmithG.TournèsL. (Eds.), Global exchanges (1st ed., pp. 322–328). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04fqt.26
ShahjahanR. A.MorganC. (2016). Global competition, coloniality, and the geopolitics of knowledge in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1095635
39.
SmytheM. M. (1962). Report to the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs American Educational Programs in Africa. University of Arkansas Special Collections (MC 468, Box 105, Folder 15). Fayetteville, AK, United States https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/digital/collection/FPH/id/752/rec/58
40.
SommerfeldtE. J.BuhmannA. (2019). The status quo of evaluation in public diplomacy: Insights from the US State Department. Journal of Communication Management, 23(3), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2018-0137
41.
SRI International (2005). Outcome Assessment of the U.S. Fulbright Student Program (Volume I). Office of Policy and Evaluation Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; Sent by Monitoring Evaluation Learning and Innovation (MELI) Unit.
42.
Steering Committee on the Future of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program. (1997). Fulbright at Fifty: The National Humanities Center Steering Committee of the Future of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program. Rockefeller Archive Center (Institute of International Education Records, RG 3, Series 1, Box 11, Loose Material). Tarrytown, NY, United States.
43.
SuspitsynaT.ShalkaT. R. (2019). The Chinese international student as a (post) colonial other: An analysis of cultural representations of a US media discourse. The Review of Higher Education, 42(5), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0053
44.
ToulminS. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
45.
TrilokekarR. D. (2021). International education as soft power: A history of changing governments, shifting rationales, and lessons learned. In LeeJ. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 23–41). Rutgers University Press.
46.
U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. (1963). A Beacon of Hope – the Exchange-of- Persons Program: A Report from the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. (MC 468, Box 322, Folder 18). https://uark.as.atlas-sys.com/repositories/2/archival_objects/662924
47.
U.S. Department of State. (1956, November 5). Commission for Educational Exchange Agreement Between the United States of America and Argentina. University of Arkansas Special Collections (MC 468, Box 126, Folder 9). https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/digital/collection/FPH/id/1368/rec/6
48.
WinksR. W. (1977). A report on some aspects of the Fulbright-Hays Program. University of Arkansas Special Collections (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Historical Collection/ MC 468, Box 105, Folder 15). Fayetteville, AK, United States. https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/digital/collection/FPH/id/681/rec/1
49.
WodakR.de CilliaR.ReisiglM.LiebhartK.HirschA.MittenR.UngerJ. W. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r26kb
50.
YaoC. W. (2021). Global positional competition and interest convergence: Student mobility as a commodity for U.S. academic imperialism. In LeeJ. (Ed.), U.S. power in international higher education (pp. 151–169). Rutgers University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
