As study abroad programs expand into increasingly complex global contexts, institutions of higher education face growing expectations to uphold duty of care through effective risk management and site selection practices. This qualitative study examines how study abroad administrators interpret and operationalize duty of care standards when approving and monitoring international program sites. Guided by a phenomenological approach, the research draws on semi-structured interviews with ten U.S.-based study abroad administrators representing institutions of varying size, mission, and resource capacity.
Findings indicate that administrators prioritize factors such as healthcare access, emergency response infrastructure, political stability, cultural context, and partner reliability when evaluating program sites. However, implementation of these considerations is often shaped by decentralized decision-making, informal institutional knowledge, and uneven documentation practices. While professional standards from organizations such as NAFSA and the Forum on Education Abroad provide a shared reference point, their application varies considerably across institutions, particularly those with limited staffing or financial resources.
The study contributes to the literature by illuminating the gap between formal policy compliance and operational practice in study abroad risk management. It offers practice-informed insights into how institutions can strengthen consistency, accountability, and preparedness in site vetting processes, supporting more equitable and sustainable approaches to student safety in global education.