Support and Report: The Advising and Compliance Roles of Designated School Officials

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Mobility, AI, and DSO Engagement

Proposal

Introduction
This study contributes to the nascent area of international education surveillance studies, specifically emphasizing the monitoring of international students studying in the United States, which is conducted by Designated School Officials (DSOs) who seek to build relationships with students, support them in flourishing academically, socially, and professionally at the institution, all while working with the student to meet SEVIS’ reporting and surveillance requirements” (Crumley-Effinger, 2022, p. 156). The purpose of this study is to continue exploring international student monitoring and surveillance, which has become a relatively unquestioned and ostensibly unproblematic core component of inbound student mobility in the United States.

Background
Recent literature has shone a spotlight on the surveillance that backgrounds the experiences of international students in the United States (Walsh, 2019; Bista & Allen, 2021; Crumley-Effinger, 2022), in Canada (Brunner, 2022), and in the United Kingdom (Jenkins, 2014; Walsh, 2019). The education sector has seen some of its own take on surveillance responsibilities whereby “non-state actors have been activated as policing agents and rendered partially responsible for administering the national border” (Walsh, 2019, p. 326). The educational institutional surveillance of international students in the United States is the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which is described by Walsh (2019) as “an electronic database that… harnessed information technologies to improve capacities of information collection and mass-surveillance” (p. 330). This detailed database includes, but is not limited to, biographical, academic, employment, and school data (Burns, 2010).

At the forefront of the work to collect this information in SEVIS are DSOs, who hold surveillance responsibilities that position them as “a government enforcer” (Rosser et al., 2007, p. 539) while they also seek to “support international students in their academic, social and cultural transition during their studies” (Briggs & Ammigan, 2017, p. 1084). The DSOs are tasked with their institution’s attempts to “find a balance between national security concerns and [providing] a welcoming atmosphere for international students and scholars” (Urias & Yeakey, 2009, p. 106).
A previous study has shown that of peer reviewed literature published between 2003 and 2021, very few of the analyzed articles focused on DSO roles as it relates to SEVIS, and most were eleven or more years old. This research provides new insights into more than two decodes of SEVIS’ operation as a student monitoring tool.

Conceptual Framework
This study’s conceptual framework was developed through the combination of neo-Gramscian theory with compassion satisfaction. Neo-Gramscian work examines hegemony as an accepted or “consensual” institutionalized domination that permeates many aspects of individuals’ lives (Bieler & Morton, 2004). World hegemonic forces are understood to be the outgrowth or expansion of national hegemonies; this broadened scope maintains connections with the idea of hegemony through institutions and the “acquiescence” of those dominated by them (Burnham, 1991). Compassion satisfaction is used here to understand DSO perspectives of the satisfaction derived from helping others (Hunsaker et al., 2015), and facilitates examination of DSO reflections on their own role balancing the student support with the SEVIS reporting. The conceptual framework aided in the development of survey questions, and was the foundation for the data analysis protocol.

Methodology
The study is guided by two primary research questions: (1) What potential tensions may emerge in the work that DSOs do with their advisees in terms of the reporting to which they are required to commit? (2) How do DSOs view their SEVIS reporting roles? Current and former DSOs were recruited to complete a short qualitative survey after an IRB approval was secured through my home institution in Fall 2023. A total of 108 individuals began the survey, with 63 completed surveys functioning as the data set for this study. The study’s 12 survey questions were developed based on previous literature as well as feedback from the IRB committee to attend to concerns about participant privacy. Interview analysis occurred through a MAXQDA analysis guided by an analysis protocol created through insights from the conceptual framework as well as current international education and education surveillance literatures.

Conclusion
Preliminary findings from 63 survey responses largely fall within four areas. First, DSOs are highly motivated by their desire to work with and assist wonderful students from around the world. Second, while this motivation is key to their continued work in the field, their personal feelings sometimes conflict with the reporting requirements of the job. This is connected to a lack of clarity about how information gathered and entered in SEVIS will be used by the federal government, as well as a concern that mandatory reporting requirements may dissuade students from sharing information, which can limit DSOs’ abilities to provide guidance.

Third, frustrations sometimes arise with regulations that are out of date. DSO work also requires balancing “enforcement” roles with supporting students, and some DSOs acknowledge that the SEVIS data collection requirements can be beneficial for enhancing institutional records. Finally, despite the importance of DSO work to students, institutions, and the US government, there are some areas where support is lacking. This includes pay, training, and various forms of institutional support. Very little academic research is used in the day-to-day work of DSOs, though best practices and inter-office regulatory sharing is key, especially since this is seen by some DSOs as a quasi-governmental role without the support from the government.

These preliminary findings highlight the value of this work to better understand the experiences of an understudied group of individuals who are crucial to the functioning of international education through their support of international students. This study concludes with an outline of the limitations of this study, which include the limits of a qualitative survey as well as a study design that did not allow for follow-up with participants due to the anonymous nature of the survey. This paper outlines future inquiry ripe for ongoing research, including the necessity of examining the US government’s SEVIS data usage practices and learning more from students about their perspectives of SEVIS reporting requirements.

Author

• Max A Crumley-Effinger, Emerson College