Global Learning for All: The Fourth in a Series of Working Papers on Internationalizing Higher Education in the United States At Home in the World: Bridging the Gap Between Internationalization and Multicultural Education by Christa L. Olson, Rhodri Evans, and Robert F. Shoenberg Funded by the Ford Foundation AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION The Unifying Voice for Higher Education Global Learning for All: The Fourth in a Series of Working Papers on Internationalizing Higher Education in the United States At Home in the World: Bridging the Gap Between Internationalization and Multicultural Education by Christa L. Olson, Rhodri Evans, and Robert F. Shoenberg Funded by the Ford Foundation AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION The Unifying Voice for Higher Education © June 2007 American Council on Education ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education. American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Additional copies of this publication are available for purchase at www.acenet.edu/bookstore for $20.00 per copy, plus shipping and handling. Copies also may be purchased by contacting: ACE Fulfillment Service Department 191 Washington, DC 20055-0191 Phone: (301) 632-6757 Fax: (301) 843-0159 www.acenet.edu When ordering, please specify Item #311578. Table of Contents Foreword .................................................. iii Executive Summary ........................................... v Introduction ................................................ vii Our Choice of Language . viii Our Point of View . x Part One: Why Engage in This Work? .............................. 1 To Better Understand the Changing World Order . 1 To Equip a More Diverse Group of Students with International Skills and Knowledge . 3 To Improve Instruction and Advance Student Learning . 5 To Address Difficult Social Issues in the Institutional Context . 5 Part Two: Common Ground ..................................... 7 Shared Values, Shared Challenges . 7 Shared Nature of the Work . 8 Shared Learning Outcomes . 9 Part Three: Degrees of Separation ............................... 17 Diverging Histories . 17 Diverging Structures—Academic Units/Student Services . 19 Diverging Objectives or Motivations of Faculty and Students . 20 Potential Flashpoints . 21 Part Four: Bridging the Gap .................................... 27 Beginning a Conversation . 27 Engaging in Difficult Conversations. 30 Sustaining the Conversation. 31 Curricular Frameworks. 32 Part Five: Conclusion—What’s Next? Continuing the Dialogue ........... 33 Appendices Appendix A: Roundtable Attendees . 35 Appendix B: Roundtable Agenda. 37 References ................................................. 41 Foreword n 2003, with financial support from As part of a follow-up grant to evalu- the Ford Foundation, ACE launched ate the impact of the Global Learning for a national project to promote global All project at the participating institutions, learning at eight institutions that the Ford Foundation provided funding Iserve high numbers of minority, adult, for ACE to explore further the common and part-time students.1 During the course ground between internationalization and of the Global Learning for All project, it multicultural education. To accomplish this became apparent that campuses are host goal, ACE convened a two-day roundtable to multiple perspectives on what the terms in July 2006 that brought together leading internationalization and multicultural theorists and campus practitioners of inter- education mean. At some institutions, nationalization and multicultural education differences in philosophy among faculty (that is, faculty, chief diversity officers, and staff about how internationalization and chief international educators who and multicultural education should be are responsible for advancing multicul- defined and advanced resulted in tensions tural education and internationalization), that stymied efforts to promote either as well as presidents and chief academic initiative. While some saw the possibili- officers.2 (For a complete list of the ACE ties for synergy and mutual reinforcement roundtable participants, see Appendix A.) of internationalization and multicultural The agenda for the roundtable was education, others perceived that these shaped in part by an anonymous elec- two important educational concerns tronic survey disseminated prior to the differed on a conceptual level and, on meeting through various ACE networks. a practical level, that they competed for The survey sought input from campus attention and resources. The complex rela- practitioners of internationalization and tionship between internationalization and multicultural education on areas of multicultural education, and how institu- potential synergy, examples of successful tions attempt to institutionalize both cooperation, and perceived tensions and these concepts, have implications across potential barriers to greater collaboration all institutions. between internationalization and multicultural education. 1 California State University, Stanislaus; Cleveland State University (OH); College of Notre Dame of Maryland; Kennesaw State University (GA); Montgomery College (MD); Portland State University (OR); San Diego Community College District (CA); and St. Louis Community College at Forest Park (MO). 2 The views expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect those of the roundtable participants. American Council on Education i i i The purpose of the meeting was to when exploring the overlap of these explore the conceptual frameworks under- two concepts, and possible strategies for lying internationalization and multicultural success. (For the full agenda of the ACE education and the relationship between roundtable, see Appendix B.) these two frameworks. The roundtable This essay builds on the roundtable sought to identify the convergent and meeting and draws upon ACE’s prior divergent goals of internationalization research and project experiences, particu- and multicultural education, issues that larly in the area of institutional transforma- institutional leaders should consider tional change. i v AT HOME IN THE WORLD Executive Summary his publication, the fourth in the tionalization and multicultural education Global Learning for All series, is share some common goals and charac- intended for institutional lead- teristics, such as enhancing cross-cultural ers, chief international educa- communication, there is disagreement tionT administrators, and chief diversity over how closely they can and should be officers, as well as faculty and staff across integrated and, if so, how. the institution who are engaged in educat- This essay contends that visible lead- ing about difference. It seeks to help ership and collaborative strategies that institutions launch conversations about transcend the historical divide between the overlap between internationalization internationalization and multicultural and multicultural education. After present- education are needed to ensure that ing diverse rationales for engaging in this students can live ethical, meaningful, and important work, this essay outlines the productive lives in an increasingly diverse common ground these areas share, the and complex world. While recognizing ways in which these areas diverge, and the differing views on this issue, this essay potential strategies for advancing conver- is built on the premise that multicultural sations that bridge the gap. education and internationalization can Available research does not provide complement and enhance each other. It is a consensus on what is meant by these not intended as an exhaustive account of concepts, beyond a general recognition internationalization or multicultural educa- that, in the U.S. context at least, multi- tion and the theories, conceptual frame- cultural education focuses largely on works, and paradigms that each embrace. domestic diversity, while internationaliza- Nor does this essay seek to provide defini- tion focuses on knowledge of cultures tive answers on matters of curriculum outside the United States, on relationships design or delivery. Instead, it aims to between nation-states, and on global be suggestive, highlighting possible trends and systems. Furthermore, although questions for discussion and areas for there is general acceptance that interna- further investigation. American Council on Education v Part one of this essay elaborates on underscores the need for strong institu- why institutional leaders need to engage tional leadership if a campus is to succeed their institutions in this important work, in achieving institutional change and including the changing world order as well student learning. Part three discusses how as changing national and student demo- the diverging histories, structures, motiva- graphics. Part two outlines the common tions, and limited knowledge of each area ground that these areas share, including help explain why so many thoughtful values, interdisciplinarity, pedagogy, and people in U.S. institutions are not already several learning outcomes. These areas engaged in a dialogue across these areas. also share challenges in how they are Potential flashpoints that may develop defined and because of their marginal during