Making the case for responsible internationalisation

Over recent decades, professionals who deal with tertiary education internationalisation have invested considerable effort in internationalising institutions, programmes, campuses, classrooms and even curricula.

New theories and concepts of internationalisation have emerged, with new models, new goals and numerous possibilities to develop international cooperation activities and research projects.

International education agencies have developed rankings focused on how to measure the success of progress made in internationalisation, anchored basically in quantitative analysis rather than in a more qualitative approach.

New definitions have appeared: internationalisation at home (Bengt Nilsson, 2003); comprehensive internationalisation (John Hudzik, 2011); internationalisation of the curriculum (Betty Leask, 2015) and many other variations.

The growth of inbound and outbound international mobility, the number of agreement terms and the quantity of research projects with international partners are clear. As the numbers have increased, different problems have arisen, bringing different challenges. We have started to face new questions and concerns that were not so obvious before.

Today we are focused on the need to care more about individuals, human values and society rather than just the numbers and quantitative results of internationalisation.

Since we have more international students and researchers at our institutions than ever, we have had to adjust our campus structures, to review our methodologies, courses, programmes offered, languages of instruction and the content we are sharing in our disciplines.

We are urged to pay special attention to a new global multicultural scenario, but the most important thing we need to focus on is the social aspects of internationalisation.

So what kind of internationalisation can we look forward to in the next years? Are we ready to absorb the demands of this new university campus and these new international education concepts?

When I started thinking about this subject, at least five critical aspects of the issue occurred to me and made me reconsider the way I was working on internationalisation. These concern some basic requirements for responsible internationalisation: balance, accountability, sustainability, inclusion and compliance.

Balanced internationalisation

Balanced internationalisation means seeking a horizontal reciprocity and cooperation with regard to geographic location; valuing different languages for the purposes of teaching, not just English; promoting South-South partnerships to enhance the knowledge produced in other parts of the planet; and creating an equilibrium with regard to incoming and outgoing mobility.

These should be some of our top priorities when discussing our internationalisation goals. Developing strategies that balance the number of agreements and activities with institutions located in the South with those in the North and valuing them similarly is a good starting point.

Aiming for an equal number of inbound and outbound students would give us a better understanding of fairness and justice by offering equal opportunities to everyone because internationalisation should be for everyone, not just for an elite.

Internationalisation goals should be based on equal opportunities, symmetry, equivalence of interests and a focus on the equilibrium of international activities, especially when we design our internationalisation plans and policies and we should promote a horizontal reciprocity with our partner institutions.

Sharing learning outcomes with society

Usually we do not have any control over the outcomes of internationalisation, especially the learning outcomes resulting from international experiences. Just a few institutions have a ‘knowledge management cycle’ that captures, organises and shares the knowledge produced as a result of an international experience.

There is so much evidence that it is important to show those who have invested in internationalisation what the outcomes are. Transparency and accountability are vital.

Showing the results of internationalisation and sharing them with society are crucial.

Research shows that there are many benefits of internationalisation for individuals. But students and faculty who travel abroad usually keep these results to themselves.

One reason is that they do not always have any place or opportunity for sharing what they have learned during their experience abroad.

Accountability and transparency are something that deserves more in-depth attention. We must create internationalised ecosystems for knowledge sharing and human capital development resulting from experiences abroad.

Who pays the bill?

Sharing the results of internationalisation makes it easier to demand more funds and investment and guarantees a more sustainable future for internationalisation. Funding is always a significant constraint when talking about increasing mobility and research projects.

It is important that we all start developing or joining discussions about how to support international programmes and activities to make them more sustainable. We all know of many examples of student mobility programmes that came to a sudden halt due to a lack of financial resources or institutional investment, or even changes in government policies.

Maintaining financial or institutional support to keep doing what we have been doing so far is an important issue for everyone involved in internationalisation. We have to find ways to guarantee the sustainability of our internationalisation projects. Currently funding is too fragile. Internationalisation requires more in-depth institutional or governmental support that remains in place even if the whole political and international relations scenario changes.

Inclusion and access are different things

In their recent article “Inclusive Internationalisation: Improving access and equity” in International Higher Education, Hans de Wit and Elspeth Jones state that “access vs equity is an issue in general but represents an even more significant challenge for international education”.

Researchers have already proved that it is not enough to open the doors of our institutions to receive international students and researchers. We must do much more.

Inclusive and comprehensive internationalisation requires us to reframe our thinking, regardless of the context in which we live. Internationalisation for all should be the starting point for institutional strategies, reflecting an awareness that all students will benefit from internationalisation in their future lives as citizens and as professionals.

But internationalisation is not only about students. It is critical that we understand inclusion from a broader perspective, in relation to international students and researchers’ impact on campus activities, in the classroom and in day to day life. It is vital that we establish mechanisms for giving equal opportunities to all the nationalities and cultures that exist on campus.

Inclusion means also thinking about who is excluded from activities, for instance, low-income students coming from African or other developing countries. These students may lack financial resources or come up against language barriers or other difficulties.

We dedicate enormous effort to increase the numbers of international students and rates of mobility, but most of the time, we are not aware of the massive difficulties that students and researchers may be facing just to survive in a new context.

In other words, we are not taking good care of them. It does not mean that we must become paternalistic, but we must create structures to help them find solutions for their basic logistic or administrative needs, such as accommodation, security and especially academic and intercultural issues like love, friendship and care.

Can we do it better?

If we say ‘yes’ to internationalisation, we must observe and obey its fundamental principles. Compliance with the high-quality internationalisation we all want for the future must be our primary focus. This is why we need to do what we have been doing up to now but much better, seeking high-quality, responsible internationalisation.

One way is to develop a roadmap for responsible internationalisation. This would begin with choosing internationalisation partners, programmes and funds in a geographically, linguistically and economically balanced way. Next comes accountability and sharing learning outcomes, which leads to the development of more sustainable internationalisation, greater inclusion and greater institutional commitment to the work.

Disruptive internationalisation is concerned with creating internationalised ecosystems and human capital that meet the needs of our knowledge society, generating new knowledge, bringing innovation and generating value for our institutions.

Highlighting learning outcomes and thinking about knowledge society goals such as co-working, co-learning and co-production are in line with the basic principles of responsible internationalisation and will mean we can move towards higher quality internationalisation over the next years.

Luciane Stallivieri is a researcher at the Institute for Studies and Research in University Administration (INPEAU) and a visiting professor at the postgraduate programme in university administration at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil. E-mail: luciane.stallivieri@ufsc.br. This essay was inspired by a talk given by the author on November 2018 at the Instituto de Gestão e Liderança Universitária (IGLU programme), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, on the subject of “Internationalisation of higher education and international cooperation management”.

Hans de Wit has issued a call to readers and contributors to University World News to send him their essays of between 800 and 1,200 words on what went well and what went wrong in internationalisation of higher education over the past 25 years. This is one of the essays he has received. He will select one essay to be published by University World News and at the end of 2019, will bring all these essays together in a book.