This article considers the popular concept of culture shock from three perspectives. The first is from the academic perspective, considering how researchers from different disciplines (anthropology, education, psychiatry, psychology, sociology) attempted to operationalise the concept and understand the process behind it. It represents 50 years of research using different methodologies and trying to answer different questions about the experience of travel for many reasons. This section of the article also considers issues concerned with the ‘overseas’ student; of which there are ever more travelling abroad to study. They can have serious culture shock difficulties. This is followed by a short section on migration in the South Pacific and the consequences for large and small countries, particularly that of sojourning, migration and refugees. The final section is a personal statement and reflection on culture shock and how I came to write two books and around a dozen papers on the topic.

The frequent assumption that there are relevant and meaningful parallels between agriculture in the U.S. and in Less Industrialized Countries (LICs) is critically examined. Based on the results of a survey of LIC students enrolled in the College of Agriculture at the University of Minnesota, recommendations are made to more carefully focus the approach and direction of LIC student eduction. We conclude that the education and training of agriculturalists in U.S. institutions of higher learning does not relate sufficiently to the resource base and domestic needs of farming cultures in the LIC countries. A case is made for the benefit of practical experience through work with farmers whose practices and applications accommodate and reflect the realities of low-input farming practices in the LICs. Appropriate paralleled farming systems in the U.S. are typified as “organic,” “biological,” “regenerative,” or “sustainable,” and LIC students could be given experience on these farms as a part of their degree program in school.