Internationalisation is a much-used term in modern Higher Education but what does it mean and why do Universities seem so intent on achieving it? As is often the way in academia, the term itself is contested with various ‘messy understandings’ (Wimpenny, et al., 2019) but for the sake of clarity, I’ll use Leask’s (2009: 209) definition that internationalisation can be understood as a process by which universities ‘engage students with internationally informed research and cultural and linguistic diversity and purposefully develop their international and intercultural perspectives as global professionals and citizens’. I like this definition because the focus isn’t just the demographic profile of the institution or the international elements of teaching practice but a blend of internationalising trends with a view to producing graduates with ‘global perspectives’. In this conception, the modern University isn’t just a diverse place where multiple languages and cultures are co-located in study and space but also a mission: to provide an education that transforms learners and prepares them for the challenges presented by an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. But what is a ‘global perspective’ and how can it be achieved? For some, to take a ‘world’ view is to look beyond local environs and engage with issues and people from other places in a way that develops ‘intercultural fluency’: a set of competencies and attitudes that makes effective communication across cultural lines more likely and includes attributes like ‘respect for difference’, ‘awareness of self’ and ‘cultural humility’ (Villar-Onrubia & Rajpal, 2016). Internationalisation efforts such as COIL (Collaborative Online International Learning) aim to bring different groups together, providing experiences designed to expose students to communication and collaboration with people from other cultures, hopefully enabling the development of key intercultural fluency skills and orientations. A common additional, often explicit, aim is to foster the sort of open mindset and capacities well-suited to the demands of the modern workplace such as professional online communication and effective group working practices (Katre, 2020). Although in our inter-connected, capitalist world this might seem a reasonable and pragmatic focus, the neo-liberal conception of the ‘ideal worker’ which underpins this rationale has attracted criticism that it is too ‘Western’ (Hammond & Keating, 2018) and fails to include alternative perspectives such as those arising from neo-marxist positions which claim to place less emphasis on homogenizing ‘global’ (Western) norms and more value on local knowledge and cultural difference as positive attributes worth preserving (Jiang, 2011). Another critique questions the influence of standardising frameworks that attempt to structure and guide internationalisation endeavours, notably Global Citizen Education (GCE), but risk reifying notions of ‘other’ with the ironic result that ‘transformative’ experiences can reinforce biased existing notions rather than foster more open-minded, inclusive mindsets (Bamber, Lewin & White, 2018). Further, some have uncovered potential issues with the efficacy of efforts to improve ‘intercultural fluency’ (Boehm et al, 2010) and there is clearly still research to be done to evaluate the benefits of internationalised activity. Regardless of such concerns, there is no doubt that the world faces significant global challenges and that a move to more sustainable practices will require difficult international coordination. Universities have long sought to play their part by generating graduates with the requisite knowledge and skills to tackle these environmental, developmental and civic challenges; global citizenship and internationalisation efforts can be viewed as a recent iteration of this (Mannion et al. 2011). Internationalisation in HE can thus be viewed as one part of the answer to the question ‘how can Universities help solve the world’s most difficult (wicked) problems?’. That is why so many are concerned with its enactment and internationalisation efforts are likely here to stay.
References
Bamber, P., Lewin, D. and White, M. (2018) ‘(Dis-) Locating the transformative dimension of global citizenship education’, Journal of Curriculum Studies. Routledge, 50(2), pp. 204–230. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2017.1328077.
Boehm, D. and Aniola-jedrzejek, L. (2010) ‘Learning Projects Impact Ethnocentrism ?’, Digital Media, 7(2), pp. 133–146.
Hammond, C. D. and Keating, A. (2018) ‘Global citizens or global workers? Comparing university programmes for global citizenship education in Japan and the UK’, Compare. Routledge, 48(6), pp. 915–934. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2017.1369393.
Jiang, X. (2011) ‘Why Interculturalisation? A neo-Marxist approach to accommodate cultural diversity in higher education’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(4), pp. 387–399. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00556.x.
Katre, A. (2020) ‘Creative Economy Teaching and Learning–A Collaborative Online International Learning Case’, International Education Studies, 13(7), p. 145. doi: 10.5539/ies.v13n7p145.
Leask B. Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2009;13(2):205-221. doi:10.1177/1028315308329786
Mannion, G. et al. (2011) ‘The global dimension in education and education for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), pp. 443–456. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2011.605327.
Villar-Onrubia, D. and Rajpal, B. (2016) ‘Online international learning: Internationalising the curriculum through virtual mobility at Coventry University’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Taylor & Francis, 20(2–3), pp. 75–82. doi: 10.1080/13603108.2015.1067652.
Wimpenny, K., Beelen, J. and King, V. (2019) ‘Academic development to support the internationalization of the curriculum (IoC): a qualitative research synthesis’, International Journal for Academic Development. Routledge, 25(3), pp. 218–231. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2019.1691559.