Reconceptualising the internationalisation of higher education

Invited Keynote Address to the National Union of Students Education Conference “The Hidden Agenda”, 3-5 July 2003, Adelaide University, South Australia (Theme: Globalisation and Higher Education)

Tracey Bretag School of International Business, University of South Australia Tel: 8302 0224, email: [email protected]

Abstract This paper challenges the economically driven internationalisation of higher education in Australia, and provides the basis for a reconceptionalisation that places “internationalisation” at one extreme end, and “internationalism” at the other, more idealistic end of a continuum. Implementing the new model requires the re-envisioning of educators, not as policy agents and economically-oriented service providers, but as intellectuals with ethical and moral imperatives to pursue educational objectives rather than respond to the needs of the market.

Introduction This paper aims to contribute to the debate (all too often absent, apathetic or timid) about what it is that tertiary education aspires to be, what it is in the new millennium, and to what extent Australian educators should embrace or resist policies of internationalisation. Matthews (2002, p. 378) argues that “The absence of informed engagement with debates in the field of multiculturalism and antiracist education reminds us that tertiary led practices of internationalisation are primarily driven by economic policy and lack educational vision and purpose”. Speaking at the “Internationalisation of higher education” seminar, held at the University of South Australia (4 December 2002), Hans de Wit began his presentation by asking the audience (comprised mostly of academic

1 staff and educational administrators), “What is the main incentive for internationalisation?” The immediate response from a number of participants was one simple word: “Money”.

Making the link between globalisation and internationalisation According to the Human Development Report (1999, p. 1(Human Development Report)), globalisation is a process that links the economy, culture, technology and governance. It includes finance and trade; communications and technology; migration and tourism; linguistic, cultural and ideological convergence; and world systems of signs and symbols (for example, “the Golden Arches”) (Marginson 1999). On the one hand, globalisation is viewed as a positive (“Most of the available evidence suggests that globalisation boosts economic growth” [Eslake 2003] and on the other hand, as an imposition of one system on another (“Westernisation and the acceptance of Western business standards and political systems around the world” [Mahathir 1999 cited in Eslake 2003).

The all-pervasive nature of globalisation has resulted in a perception by many that it is “a Juggernaut running out of control” (Holton 1997, p.1). However, it is not uncontrollable, irreversible or inevitable (Eslake 2003); nor does it have to be seen as a homogenising force. Henry, Lingard, Rizvi and Taylor (1999, p. 87) posit that globalisation provides the opportunity for the heterogeneity of cultures to exist side by side.

It could be argued that internationalisation is a response to globalisation, rather than merely another term for the same idea. Although both concepts are related to the increasing fluidity of national borders, globalisation refers more to the formation of “world systems”, while internationalisation sees sovereign states as the essential unit. Internationalisation is about bi-lateral or multi-lateral relations between individual sovereign states. Holton suggests that it is “internationalisation” rather than “globalisation” that best describes the recent shifts in the higher education sector (1997, p. 1).

2 Internationalisation of Australian higher education Back and Davis (cited in de Wit (ed) 1995, p. 121) define the internationalisation of higher education as the “combined effect” of a variety of activities, including the international movement of students, staff and campuses; international links (between governments, between institutions, or for research); and the internationalisation of curricula. Whether or not “internationalisation” is defined in this way, a number of commentators agree that a significant impetus for international student recruitment has been the income potential (Back, Davis & Olsen 1996; Alexander & Rivzi 1993; Holton 1997; Dobson 1998 ; and Starck 2000 , among others).

This relatively new focus on students as a means of financial income has provided the framework for the “internationalisation” of higher education in Australia. Despite occasional rhetoric alluding to the teaching and learning environment, it could be argued that generally the focus has been on recruiting students for the fees they will provide (more than $3 billion worth in 2001 [Matthews 2002, p370]), rather than for the potential two-way educational exchange. In 1998, the Australian Vic-Chancellors’ Committee stated “every private dollar generated by universities is gold” (AVCC 1998, p. 2).

Commenting in 1993, Alexander and Rizvi suggested that “new market-based approaches to overseas students have so far not had any significant impact on the way universities consider issues of curriculum and pedagogy” (p. 120), and I would argue that the situation a decade later is only marginally, if at all better.

Ivic (1991) was also critical of the potentially negative elements of ‘internationalisation’, and suggested that the concept should include “exchanges, mutual enrichment, mutual influence, …borrowing, forms of mutual assistance, [and] possibilities for the rational use of resources” (p. 19). However, ‘internationalisation’ may lead to “…the imposition of dominant models including dominant languages, along with the application of theoretical and methodological models and ways of thinking developed in a certain group of countries, as well as organisational methods applicable to institutions of higher education, research problems, and the contents of education in these same countries” (p. 20).

3 Phillipson (1992) would further argue that such a pattern of asymmetrical interaction is a form of cultural and linguistic imperialism.

Matthews (2002, p. 376) suggests that international education discourse is “bifurcated” in that while it “ generates a competitive, commercialised, and commodified drive for overseas student enrolments…it evokes notions of transnational connectivity, interculturalism, and reciprocal flows of individuals and knowledge”. While most of the literature does not make this explicit distinction, many researchers acknowledge the oppositional values often implicit in the term ‘internationalisation’. Ma Rhea (2001, cited in Matthews 2002, p. 376) argues that this educational relationship is essentially comprised of commodity exchange, but it has “been reconstrued as a moral advance”.

Knight (1996, cited in OECD [ed] p. 19) also warns:

If one is to ensure that improving the quality of higher education is the primary goal of internationalisation, not the development of international export markets, it is essential to find the balance between income generating motives and academic benefits.

Matthews (2002, p. 369) claims that the recruitment of fee-paying students “has generated far more investment, interest, and enthusiasm than policy appeals for associated structural, curricular, and pedagogical change”. While I agree with Matthews that “practices of internationalisation are limited in scope and vision” (2002, p. 375), I also believe that pockets of mutual exchange do exist, often in the work of individuals, sometimes in discipline groups, and even in whole faculties/schools.

Can internationalisation be embraced and resisted? Henry, Linguard, Rizvi and Taylor (1999, p. 85) argue that ‘internationalisation’ can be “worked with and against”. In the light of recent world events (the terrorist attacks in the United States, September 11, 2001; the Bali bombing; and the war on Iraq), I believe that

4 educators have a unique role to play in resisting discourses of “inevitability”, particularly as they relate to the so-called “inevitable” forces of globalisation and internationalisation.

Just as Pennycook (1994) questions the spread of English as an international language as “natural, neutral and beneficial…and a result of inevitable global forces” (p. 9), I maintain that “internationalisation” should be interrogated, with the aim of resisting and offering an alternative to what many university administrators (and some academics) seem to regard as the inescapable drive to uncritically embrace it.

Reconceptualising internationalisation The Australian Oxford Dictionary (Ed. Moore 1999) defines ‘internationalisation’ as “to make international”, with the implication that this process is one that is imposed, rather than sought from within. “Internationalism”, however, is “the advocacy of a community of interests among nations”; a definition which suggests agency, cooperation and commitment. To make the distinction between these two concepts clearer, I would like to borrow from Burton’s (2000) explication of the difference between ‘professionalisation’ and ‘professionalism’. In the following extract, with the author’s permission, I will replace the word ‘internationalism’ for ‘professionalism’, ‘internationalisation’ for ‘professionalisation’, and ‘lecturer and/or student’ for ‘teacher’.

Lecturers [teaching international students] need to make sense of teaching for themselves…internationalism and teaching expertise cannot be imparted; they have to develop from what [lecturers and students] are exposed to…Internationalism, then, is something which can be supported to develop within individual lecturers and students, but what it means is individual and unique to each [participant].

By contrast, and at its most extreme, internationalisation can be described as an imposition in that it may entail implementation of initiatives outside the classroom to create an [academic

5 environment] of a specific kind. In other words, lecturers in such situations are not usually encouraged to act on their own interpretations of internationalism. Such initiatives will often have an economic basis; they may or may not be [culturally] sound. At this extreme, lecturers’ and students’ own…voices are not audible. (Burton 2000, p. 3).

In another article on professionalisation/professionalism, Burton suggests that collaboration and community are vital components in the development of the latter concept (1998, p. 25). Using the same analogy, I would posit that collaboration and community are integral to the cultivation of ‘internationalism’. In contrast to individual lecturers working in isolation, attempting to implement policies of ‘internationalisation’, a collaborative environment which encourages the sharing of ideas, experience and research will further support the development of internationalism.

Cohen and Kennedy (2000) similarly draw a distinguish between “globalisation”, an external process manifested in such objective trends as trade ties, and “globalism”, which refers to the “…subjective, personal awareness that many of us share common tastes and interests and that are all likely to share a common fate” (p. 11). Higgins-Desbiolles (2003, unpublished), suggests that “while globalisation invites us to examine the ties of interdependence being woven on many fronts, globalism invites us to examine how we feel about these changes and what positions we will take towards them” (p. 23).

As I have grappled with how the tertiary sector might reconceptualise internationalisation so that it both responds to economic need, while not losing sight of broader educational objectives, I have developed a simple model that describes “internationalisation” (the economically driven recruitment of international students) as being at one extreme end of a continuum, with “internationalism” (a personally motivated drive towards mutual cultural exchange) at the other end of the continuum.

6 Internationalisation Internationalism

In 2003, I would argue that most Australian universities are situated somewhere towards the extreme end of “internationalisation”, although there has recently been some movement towards the more utopian vision of “internationalism”*. The following two tables (which are at an early stage of development) explicate the two ends of the same concept in more detail, firstly as it relates to institutions of higher education, and secondly as it relates to academic staff.

7 Table 1: The internationalisation/internationalism continuum - institutions of higher education Internationalisation Internationalism  Economic motivation  Cultural motivation  Response to external policy (eg.  Response to internal policy and Cuts in government funding) staff interests  Focus on needs of institution  Focus on needs of students  Measurable ‘outcomes’ (eg.  Dynamic, difficult to measure Graduate Attributes) process  Students (especially CHC) seen  Students seen as having diverse, from within a deficit model potentially beneficial learning backgrounds  Need to re-socialise and inculcate  Responsibility to share ‘insider students into Western academic knowledge’ in an environment of culture respect and mutual exchange  Little understanding of (or  Deep understanding and practical resources allocated to) the commitment (including funding) to complexities of studying in a supporting CALD students second language  Workload issues of teaching CALD  Staff training and professional students not addressed development in CALD teaching provided  Little commitment to understanding  Commitment to cross-cultural the cultures and/or languages of communication, and to languages international students other than English  Western institution held up as  Interest in learning from partner exemplar of best educational institutions practice  Research opportunities mostly one-  Mutual research opportunities way (West takes from East) encouraged  Need to develop policy to ensure  Need to develop policy to ensure that Australian academic standards that academic standards are do not change or fall inclusive and non-discriminatory  Disregard for individual lecturers’  Inclusion of lecturers’ and students’ and/or students’ experiences when experiences/voices in developing developing policy policy

8 Table 2: The internationalisation/internationalism continuum - academic staff

Internationalisation Internationalism  Hierarchical relationship between  Hierarhical relationship with lecturer and student students challenged  Little attempt to share broader  Relationship with students beyond culture with students (outside the academic requirements classroom)  Fear of failing students because of  Commitment to successful learning potential loss of fees outcomes for all students, regardless of fee-paying status  Feelings of ‘being imposed upon’  Enthusiasm for the challenges of because of extra workload teaching CALD students  Feelings of helplessness, apathy or  Motivation to challenge and change anger in the face of institutional inequitable and insular policy policy  Retreat into own traditional  Commitment to exploring new ‘comfort zone’ because of lack of methods of teaching practices to institutional support address new situation  Offshore teaching seen as economic  Offshore teaching seen primarily as opportunity cultural opportunity  Reminiscence about the ‘good old  Forward thinking about the days’ of homogenous higher potential of international education education  Fear of being seen as a ‘trouble-  Belief that critique is an essential maker’ part of academic work

Discussion I believe that internationalisation cannot be reconceptualised without re-envisaging both the role of the university and the role of the academic. Soucek (1994, p. 54) suggests that the function of tertiary institutions has changed since the ‘80s “from guardianship of knowledge and wisdom to ancillary production of knowledge for corporate capital” (p. 54). During this time there has been a redefinition of the role of the teacher, “from progressive educator and participant in educational politics to one of competent performer of relatively neutral tasks related to efficient and profitable delivery of pre-

9 specified curriculum, and of being a responsible manager of learning contexts” (Seddon 1998 p. 5).

When there is almost unanimous agreement that the key rationale for internationalisation is economic, it seems clear that Australian universities (and many of the academics employed by them) have lost their way. Smythe and Hattam (1998) argue that academics need to counteract the prevailing discourse, by publicly asking embarrassing questions, confronting orthodoxy and dogma, and not being “co-opted by governments and corporations”(p. 169). However, Alderson (1996) suggests that when academics do ask the difficult questions associated with implementing the latest policy on internationalisation, they rarely receive satisfactory answers.

To resist dominant understandings of internationalisation and to work towards the other end of the continuum, internationalism, is not a one-off exercise. Rather it is an active, consultative, developmental, respectful and empowering process that re-positions the academic in multiple roles as researcher, learner and teacher (Burton 2003, pers.comm.). While this may sound idealistic, it doesn’t seem so very long ago that education generally was viewed in terms of its contribution to a social agenda of equity and justice. I am certainly not advocating a “rose-coloured” or myopic perspective, but instead a commitment to moving towards an internationalism that has at its core, a commitment to educational, rather than economic objectives.

I agree with De Angelis (1998) that: Global pressures can be used in different ways, resisted or compensated, rather than being employed as an excuse for narrowing the policy agenda and imposing an ill-thought through policy activism, instead of more sensible and consensual, long- term reform. (p. 113)

10 Conclusion The “Internationalisation/Internationalism Continuum” is an attempt to open the debate on how universities are positioned in 2003, and how they might be positioned in the future. It is not meant to be a table “written in stone”, but rather a catalyst for the re- imagining of higher education in the new millennium. The forces of globalisation, and the economic need to embrace internationalisation, may have inadvertently resulted in a higher education system which is more responsive to the needs of the market, than to the needs of the increasingly diverse student body. As institutions and educators we do not need to accept the “inevitability” of where we now find ourselves. Rather we need to strive towards a more idealistic vision of ourselves, and hope that we do not settle for the middle ground of ambivalence or apathy. ______

* Thanks to Associate Professor Jill Burton, School of Education, University of South Australia, for suggesting this distinction to me. Thanks also to Associate Professor Vicki Feast, Dean of Teaching and Learning, Division of Business and Enterprise, University of South Australia, for suggesting that I table the distinction.

Abbreviations: ESL English as a second language EAL English as another language TESOL Teaching English to speakers of other languages CALD Culturally and linguistically diverse

11 References Alderson, A. (1996). Internationalisation and academic staff development. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Singapore. Available: http://www.aare.edu.au/96pap/park196a.194 [accessed 5 June 2003). Alexander, D., & Rivzi, F. (1993). Education markets and the contradictions of Asia- Australian relations. In M. Bella & J. McCollow & J. Knight (Eds.), Higher education in transition: Working papers of the higher education policy project (pp. 110-123). Brisbane: University of Queensland. AVCC. (1998). Setting the foundations for the internationalisation of Australian Higher Education, Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee address to Education '98: The Industry Practitioners' Forum, Sydney, 17-19 March. Back, K., Davis, D., & Olsen, A. (1996). Internationalisation and higher education: Goals and strategies. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Burton, J. (1998). Professionalism in language teaching. Prospect, 13(1), 25-35. Burton, J. (2000). Professionalism and discourse in TESOL. Thai TESOL, 13(2), 1-23. Cohen, R. & Kennedy, P. (2000). Global Sociology. Houndmills, Basingstoke: MacMillan Press. De Angelis, R. (1998). Globalisation and recent higher education reform in Australia and France: Different constraints, differing choices in higher education structures, politics and policies. In I. Hunt & J. Smyth (Eds.), The ethos of the university: West and beyond (pp. 97-117). Adelaide: Flinders University. de Wit, H. (2002, 4 December). Keynote address: Internationalisation of higher education. Paper presented at the Internationalisation of higher education seminar, University of South Australia. de Wit, H. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Dobson, I. R. (1998). Overseas students in Australian higher education: Trends to 1996. People and Place, 5(1), 24-29. Eslake,S. (2003, unpublished).Globalisation: Keeping the gains. Presentation to a series of workshops arranged by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Advocacy

12 and Outreach Section. Economic Analytic Unit, DFAT, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (1999). Working with/against globalization in education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 85-97. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003, unpublished). Globalisation: A Literature Review. Adelaide: University of South Australia. Holton, R. J. (1997). Some myths about globalisation. Paper presented at HERDSA '97: Advancing International Perspectives, University of South Australia, Adelaide. University of South Australia. Available: http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/herdsa97/holton.htm12 June]. Human Development Report. (1999). New York: United Nations Development Program and Oxford University Press, Inc. Ivic, I. (1991). The internationalisation of higher education: A point of view from a developing country. Higher Education in Europe, XVI(2), 10-22. Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 19-31. Matthews, J. (2002). International education and internationalisation are not the same as globalisation: Emerging issues for secondary schools. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(4), 369-390. Moore, B. (Ed.). (1999). The Australian Oxford Dictionary. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. OECD. (1996). OECD Documents: Internationalisation of higher education. The Hague: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York: Longman Group Limited. Philllipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seddon, T. (1999). Research, recommendations and the realpolitik: Consolidating the Ed.D. Australian Educational Reseacher, 26(3), 1-14. Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (1998). Intellectual as hustler: Researching against the grain of marketisation. In I. Hunt & J. Smyth (Eds.), The ethos of the university: West and beyond (pp. 145-178). Adelaide: Flinders University.

13 Soucek, V. (1994). Flexible education and new standards of communicative competence. In V. Soucek (Ed.), Economising education: The post-Fordist debates. (pp. 43- 103). Geelong: Deakin University. Starck, N. (2000, 22-24 November). Teaching global, thinking local - an offshore education challenge. Paper presented at the Offshore 2000.

14