10.

1177/1028315304263795
Journal of Studies in International Education
Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education
ARTICLE Summer 2005

The Internationalisation
of Higher Education:
A Paradigm for Global Citizenry

Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila
This article presents internationalisation as a new educational vision able to provide
global society with an education that meets current needs and that can respond effi-
ciently to contemporary demands and challenges, which are characterized by global-
isation, interdependence, and multiculturalism.

Keywords: internationalisation for higher education; international education;

global citizenship; internationalisation of the curriculum

THE CHALLENGES OF EDUCATION

IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
One major factor in the final stages of the 20th century is that humankind
entered into an accelerated process of multidimensional changes encompassing
the fields of economy, finance, science and technology, communications, educa-
tion, culture, and politics. This new context is characterised by a relationship of
increasing interdependence and competitiveness between nations, modifying
the traditional paradigm of interstate relations. No country escaped this process,
nor the inherent challenges. However, although the processes of globalisation
and modernisation developed simultaneously throughout the planet, this devel-
opment has been generated in an unequal, divergent, and contradictory manner.
In summary, there are the “globalisers” and the “globalised,” which brought
the end of the 20th century to a situation of profound and increasing inequality
between nations—an atmosphere of exclusion and marginalisation, with off-
shoots of violence, wars, ethnic conflicts, terrorism, racism and intolerance,
pandemics, increases in delinquency and organised crime, rising unemployment
and underemployment, and a degradation of the environment and natural
resources. At the start of the 21st century, a large part of humanity is every day
poorer and further away from development and modernity (Lopéz Segrera,

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, Summer 2005 121-136

DOI: 10.1177/1028315304263795
© 2005 Association for Studies in International Education

121
122 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

2001). As far as education is concerned, there is a common consensus that its

quality has, in general, diminished, in accordance with the current belief that
individual abilities should be restricted to mere technical-productive functions.
This is the setting that all of us now face and the environment in which we will
have to act in the future; and where, of course, educators and institutions of
higher education have to play a part.
Therefore, it is crucial for 21st-century society to seek out alternatives to
these political and economic practices, which are expressions of the power held
by a mere few countries and international businesses. International organisa-
tions such as the United Nations and the World Bank have begun to warn that
although the developed world can attract private capital, build a solid banking
and financial system, and invest in human capital, it will not keep on growing if it
continues to marginalize much of humanity (such as women and ethnic minori-
ties) and does not adopt a policy of inclusion. Ultimately, without parallel social
progress over the medium and long term, satisfactory standards of living become
impossible as well. In other words, cautioned the philosopher Morin (2001),
“The hegemonic system of production is destructive, devastating and, in the
final instance, causes anti-development. If conceived solely in a technical-
economic form, development is not sustainable. We need a richer and more com-
plex notion of development that is not simply material but also intellectual, emo-
tional and moral” (p. 74).
To face these problems, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
has prescribed sustainable human development. This concept is broader than
simple economic growth because it encompasses human, cultural, and educa-
tional dimensions. Moreover, the United Nations’ International Conference on
Financing for Development (Monterrey, Mexico, March 2002) emphasised the
urgent need for an element of solidarity—“la mondialisation de la solidarité”
(the globalisation of solidarity)1—and respect for the Kyoto accords. In light of
the pressing problems faced by world society in the 21st century, these concepts
are not only a response to ethical demands but are also a political imperative
(Lopéz Segrera, 2001).
These ideas have inspired the 1998 United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Declaration on Higher Educa-
tion for the Twenty-First Century, declaring that higher education—and educa-
tion in general—should serve a world order that enables the development of a
more equitable, tolerant, and responsible society. If we agree that education is at
the centre of all social change, new approaches to educational policy and process
are then needed, because without education there can be no change in mentali-
ties and society. And without a change in paradigm for international relations,
there can be no solidarity among nations.
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 123

In all countries, the new global context has prompted a greater demand for
education and is forcing institutions of higher learning to reconsider their mis-
sion, tasks, and responsibilities, as well as to develop innovative strategies to
improve their relevance and function, leading to the following question: How
can institutions of higher education adequately prepare their graduates to live
and participate as global citizens and professionals?
To be relevant in the new global environment, today’s education must concep-
tualise everything with the age of globalisation and within the environment and
complexity of the planet. Knowledge of the world itself has become a vital intel-
lectual necessity, just as the solution to international problems requires a global
approach and planning process. To achieve this, however, we must reform our
way of thinking: a reform that is paradigmatic and not programmatic. The devel-
opment of a new consciousness—a global consciousness—among people is a
key aspect of this reform, however, it requires a change in mentality, and there-
fore a change in educative paradigms. Educational strategies in the 21st century
must begin with a common foundation, which would include the search for a
standard of teaching competitive on an international level but adapted to local
conditions.
In this new global environment, one of the basic and fundamental functions of
a university should then be the fostering of a global consciousness among stu-
dents, to make them understand the relation of interdependence between peoples
and societies, to develop in students an understanding of their own and other cul-
tures and respect for pluralism. All these aspects are the foundations of solidar-
ity and peaceful coexistence among nations and of true global citizenship.
In this context, the objective of internationalisation must be focused on an
updating of academic content, making global phenomena understandable while
promoting intercultural understanding and sustainable human development.
The internationalisation of the main functions of the university should then help
spur the development of a global consciousness (Oxford Dictionary of New
Words, 1991), defined as comprehension of and receptivity to foreign cultures,
and the availability of certain knowledge of, and information about, socioeco-
nomic concerns and ecology. In fact, internationalisation in this context appears
to be the key strategy to develop this kind of education. This is why it is relevant
to link the internationalisation process to the response to crucial questions, such
as What kind of education is required in the 21st century to face the challenges of
globalisation? How can internationalisation contribute to developing edu-
cational programs adequate for the needs of this century? What are the charac-
teristics and elements of an internationalised curriculum to educate global and
multicultural citizens? What types of policies and institutional strategies must
institutions of higher education follow to internationalise their main functions?
124 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

What are the strengths and weaknesses of international activities in universities,

as well as the outlook for the internationalisation process in the world? What role
should education play in international cooperation and international relations to
foster a world citizenry?

GLOBALISATION VERSUS
INTERNATIONALISATION:
DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
First of all, it is relevant for all social and educational stakeholders to make a
clear definition of the concepts of globalisation and internationalisation because
they are often confused with each other. In fact, although it is true that both
are phenomena brought about by the same social dynamic, they are different in
terms of scale and intensity. Moreover, they exhibit opposite and contradictory
tendencies.
The concept of internationalisation differs dialectically from that of global-
isation because it refers to the relationship between nation-states, which pro-
motes recognition of and respect for their own differences and traditions. By
contrast, the phenomenon of globalisation does not tend to respect differences
and borders, thus undermining the bases of the very same nation-states, and
leading to homogenisation. In this sense, internationalisation can be understood
as complementary or compensatory to globalizing tendencies, given that it
allows for a resistance to the latter’s denationalising and homogenising effects.
Knight (2001) defined the globalisation of higher education “as the flow of
technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, ideas . . . across borders.
Globalisation affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s individual
history, traditions, culture and priorities. . . . Internationalisation of higher edu-
cation is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalisation yet, at
the same time, respects the individuality of the nation” (p. 20).
Furthermore, according to Schoorman (1999) two theories can serve as a con-
ceptual framework to internationalisation: on one side, the general systems the-
ory of organisation (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and on the other, critical pedagogy
(Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991; Giroux, 1989, 1992; McLaren, 1994, 1997, 1998).
According to this conceptual framework, Schoorman (1999) defined the inter-
nationalisation of higher education as “an educational process, continuous and
ongoing, comprehensive and counterhegemonic” (pp. 38-39) and as a means by
which universities are able to respond and adapt to their environment. Interna-
tionalisation is a continuous and ongoing process because it grows out of a cycle
of recurring events. It is comprehensive because it involves all university sectors
and levels of the educational process. It is counterhegemonic because it ques-
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 125

tions the content, process, and basis; that is, the what, how, and why of the edu-
cational process.
Schoorman (1999) recommended using a critical pedagogy to emphasize
critical thinking in students because of the universities’ strategic role in the for-
mation of citizens. This pedagogical theory prepares students to work and gain
citizenship in a global community while promoting the representation of differ-
ent cultural traditions in the teaching and educational process. Finally, it builds
students’ awareness of a global perspective on human problems, as well as help-
ing them to recognise and respect cultural differences.
Schechter (1993) identified three goals of the educational process that are
consistent with the development of a global citizenry, which are the pragmatic,
the liberal and the civic (as cited in Schoorman, 1999). The pragmatic refers to
the acquisition of knowledge and skills for employability in a global context,
which can be related to the global competence described by Lambert (1994),
while the liberal refers to development of an intercultural sensibility and a
capacity for appreciating cultural differences, which involves moving from an
ethnocentrism to an ethnorelativism such as described by M. Bennett (1993).
The civic is aimed at developing a sense of multidimensional global citizenship,
whose dimensions (personal, social, spatial, and temporal) have been described
by Cogan and Derricott (1998).

INTERNATIONALISATION AS
A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE
EDUCATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Based on the above-described conceptual framework, the international
dimension of universities should constitute a key educational resource for train-
ing citizens with a critical perspective and the adequate preparation to work and
live effectively and successfully in a global context. It represents an educational
reform whose ideals are the driving force behind the political, ethical, and inter-
cultural nature of the social relationships that support the formation of a critical
citizenry by developing global consciousness and perspective in university
graduates.
The international curriculum should therefore focus on developing in univer-
sity graduates respect for humanity’s differences and cultural wealth, as well as a
sense of political responsibility, turning them into defenders of democratic prin-
ciples of their society, and true architects of social change.
Internationalisation strategies are therefore crucial for the education of the
21st century and constitute a crucial and an important tool in bringing to fruition
the new educational vision proposed by Delors (1997), “the four pillars of the
126 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

education of the future,” and French philosopher Morin (2001) of the “seven
complex lessons in education for the future.”
According to these proposals, and especially the one described by Morin, if
we conclude from the evidence that there is a serious, deepening gap between, on
one hand, our disjunctive, fragmented, shared knowledge, and on the other hand,
the realities and problems that are each day more poly-disciplinary, transversal,
multidimensional, transnational, and global, then the education of the future
must teach the following four basic dimensions: the context, the global, the mul-
tidimensional, and the complex. Morin described the seven areas of knowledge
that should be taught by the education of the future, as follows: detecting error
and illusion, principles of pertinent knowledge, teaching the human condition,
teaching earth identity, confronting uncertainties, understanding each other,
and ethics for the humane genre. The main function of future education would
be therefore to foster a general intelligence capable of interconnecting these
dimensions and fostering the development of the intellectual capacities in indi-
viduals. Furthermore, Morin stressed that one of the basic functions of educa-
tion is to promote world understanding, ethics, and culture, as cultures must
learn from one another, and that comprehension between humans is the first
requirement for intellectual and moral solidarity on earth.
Needless to say, international education is one of the rare educational strategies
that has the potential for fostering these perspectives in students, based on a deep
reform of the curriculum of higher education (Mestenhauser, 1998). To achieve these
goals, the international curriculum should favour the holistic formation of the indi-
vidual and be based on an integral, humanistic, and socioreconstructive curricular
structure. Its objective would be to help students develop a global perspective. One
model for such a curriculum could be borrowed from Hanvey’s (1982) very interest-
ing work that described the five dimensions of a global perspective in the follow-
ing way: perspective consciousness, state-of-the-planet awareness, cross-cultural
awareness, knowledge of global dynamics, and awareness of human choices. In
Hanvey’s (1982) words,

A global perspective has the potential to be conducive to a cognitive change: from

national thought to that of an international nature; from a traditional way of thinking to
a rational one. The result would not mean a loss of identity, but the acquisition of a
broader worldview. Nations would begin to understand that their own interests and
activities cannot be separated from those of others, and they would pay more attention
to human problems that transcend international, regional and local interests. The con-
cept of interdependence would begin to be recognized, and the connections, conse-
quences and vulnerabilities of the global system would be understood. The role of the
nation-state as the principal player in interstate politics would be called into question
when faced with the need for a coordinated, global system. The individual would
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 127

become a citizen of the world, with a sharper awareness of his own and foreign cultural
perspectives, and with a stronger empathy for other cultures. He would be informed
about the state of the planet and the principle social and political happenings around the
globe, thereby taking on a greater commitment to the construction of a better world.
(p. 37)

C. Bennett (1995) depicted the six objectives of a global and multicultural curric-
ulum that can serve as a basic model, to be used as a common root in general educa-
tion curriculum: understanding multiple historical perspectives; developing cultural
consciousness; developing intercultural competence; combating racism, sexism,
prejudice, and all forms of discrimination; raising awareness of the state of the planet
and global dynamics; and developing social action skills. A concurrence with
Hanvey’s global perspective is obvious. This kind of content in the general education
curriculum could be ideal for internationalization-at-home strategies.
These curriculum objectives concur greatly with what Morin described as the
anthropological, cultural, intercultural, ecological, and civic-terrestrial con-
sciousness and also with the four pillars of the education for the 21st century
depicted in Delors (1997): to learn how to learn, to learn how to live with others,
to learn to be, to learn how to do.
Another concurrence between international education and UNESCO’s 21st-
century educational vision is that it stresses that, besides providing students with
a higher level of professional and academic competence, which is characteristic
of the knowledge society, today’s education has to foster in students intellectual
capacities and cognitive abilities making them able to contribute to a social, eco-
nomic, and political environment that is global, interdependent, and multicul-
tural. Indeed, in the new century, individuals will find themselves faced with the
challenges of adapting to new responsibilities, the need for participation, plural-
ism, and the change in values. For this reason, rather than simply providing stu-
dents with professional training for an ever-changing job market, universities
must educate for the acquisition of competence and for “employability.” As a
result, to be successful, professionals will each day be required to develop more
and more cognitive skills such as abstraction, systematic thought, experimental
investigation, and teamwork.
Once again, in this particular aspect, international education and experience
seem to offer a great potential to enhance these kind of cognitive skills, de-
manded by this new context. On this point, Mestenhauser (1998) demonstrated
in his article titled “Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Cognitive
Response to the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century” that international edu-
cation supports the development of certain intellectual abilities that are not gen-
erally acquired in the traditional classroom but that coincide with the necessities
and the demands of 21st-century society. Indeed, when the students leave their
128 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

own cultural environment—for study abroad or academic programs based on

intercultural communication techniques with content that highlights the inter-
national and global dimension of human and social interaction—they have the
possibility to develop a capacity for adaptation and flexibility as they are faced
with rapidly changing situations and the opportunity to broaden their cultural
and intellectual horizons and to adapt to different kinds of people.
Mestenhauser (1998) demonstrated that international education promotes
such cognitive skills as the following: ability to recognize differences, under-
standing the difference between emic and etic thinking, ability to make cognitive
alterations/shifts, ability to recognize knowledge gap, ability to communicate
cross-culturally, ability to recognize scarce knowledge, ability to think compar-
atively, ability to change self-perception, ability to know how to compare one’s
own country, possessing knowledge about other cultures, possessing diagnostic
skills, understanding differentiation, ability to recognize trends in other cul-
tures, understanding cognitive complexity and cognitive integration, under-
standing a variety of learning styles, and understanding the difference between
product and process learning.
Thus, in other words, all these aspects make international education one of
the key strategies for the 21st-century education.

INTERNATIONALISATION:
REALITY AND PERSPECTIVE
Unfortunately, despite its essentially contemporary nature, we cannot over-
look the fact that, to date, the above-mentioned potential and qualities of interna-
tional education have not yet been recognized. Generally speaking, present-day
educational systems in Latin America, and Mexico in particular, accord little
importance to intercultural and international perspective and even neglect long-
term strategies. Universities in Mexico largely underestimate the personal and
intellectual growth stimulated by contact and empathy with other cultures.
A simple tour d’horizon of the higher education environment in the early 21st
century leads us to realise that we are still far away from an international univer-
sity and an international dimension integrated into the mainstream of the educa-
tional process. In this context, it is relevant to observe the evolution of universi-
ties over the centuries, in an effort to understand their present state.
Indeed, a look back on the history of universities reminds us that higher edu-
cation institutions have gone through different eras, the two primary of which
are usually described as convergence and divergence. The first era took place
during the times of the medieval universalist model and gave rise to the cos-
mopolitan university that sought to unify the world through knowledge, at a
time when knowledge knew no boundaries. The second era developed during the
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 129

Reformation and gave birth to the diversification of university models. This

trend grew stronger during the Industrial Revolution and the economic expan-
sion of capitalist countries, up to the present time, and emphasised the national
character of educational systems and objectives. In fact, we may say that today’s
university still remains trapped in a national environment and is a national orga-
nisation, no longer international by nature. Nevertheless, as a result of globalisa-
tion, universities are showing clear signs of a new period of convergence.
On the other hand, Kerr (1990) pointed out that there might exist a potential
conflict between the national and international character of universities. Kerr
contended that there is a potential conflict between the university as a political
organisation forced to follow a national agenda, and the university as an intellec-
tual institution that participates in international academic networks and tran-
scends national borders. This idea is also expressed by Trow (as cited in Scott,
1998) who introduced the concept of the “public life” and “private life” of uni-
versities. Because most universities are public institutions, he said, they must
follow a political agenda that involves such priorities as broader access to stu-
dents, financial austerity, and the need for greater diversification to meet the
market demands. These are just some of the pressures that weigh on universities
today. As a result, we may say that at the beginning of the 21st century, universi-
ties continue to be influenced by protectionist nationalist feelings. They are
under constant pressure to meet immediate market demands, and they largely
respond to national dynamic and local interests. Similarly, the current dominant
paradigm—that is, competitiveness—tends to reinforce a survivalist mentality,
which favours approaches that focus on the present and disregards strategies for
the future as well as long-term solutions. Thus, educational institutions may be
led to neglect development of visionary responses, which could mean that global
trends will leave them behind. The concept of private life described by Trow
(1973) refers to the intellectual role of the university, which is centred on teach-
ing and the search for knowledge. According to Trow, the intellectual role
played by the university expands and flourishes at its best in an international
context, thus reinforcing the idea that knowledge has no borders. Trow con-
cluded that, until now, universities have functioned internationally through their
private lives rather than their public lives and emphasised that these two aspects
may act in opposition to each other and block the internationalisation of higher
education. Nevertheless, what is new and remarkable about the new global con-
text is that the imperatives of globalisation, on one hand, and the growing
demand for higher education in the knowledge society on the other, are produc-
ing a synergy that yields to a greater internationalisation of educational systems.
These trends are stressed by the strategic value of knowledge in the progress of
society, linguistic unification through the use of English, decreasing importance
130 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

accorded to religious and political schools of thought, the role of new infor-
mation and communication technologies, and the existence of exchange pro-
grammes on an unprecedented scale and scope.
In a society based on knowledge, the strategic value of knowledge will
increase; therefore, the value of universities will increase as well, given that they
are the source of nearly all knowledge being produced. This fact emphasises the
university’s international character because its intellectual and academic func-
tions are essentially international. This is why there is a strategic aspect to
research that stresses that no antagonism exists between a university’s national
and international vocations, and that, on the contrary, these two functions are
compatible and essential in the new global environment. Thus, despite their
intrinsic nature as national organisations, universities must find a way to be
national and international. This situation must compel the different stakeholders
to create a relationship between institutional objectives and the need for a
greater opening to the outside world. As a result, today the momentum of these
globalizing trends heralds an era of partial reconvergence among the different
educational systems.
One way for today’s university to meet the challenges of a globalised society
may be to rescue its “internationalist” past and make use of global affinities and
international networks to build models for transnational cooperation. These
models could help universities take back the internationalist and universalist
role they once played. In other words, the international environment is the fore-
runner of reconciliation, a successful combination of, or a convergence between,
the university’s public life and its private life.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

OF HIGHER EDUCATION
To achieve the scope of the above-mentioned objectives, the process of inter-
nationalisation must be integrated in a systematic and holistic manner in the
higher education sector, which requires a complete understanding of its nature
and characteristics. The Centre for International Research and Innovation
(CERI) stressed that an internationalisation strategy should be comprehensive.
The notion of comprehensiveness means that internationalisation strategies
must affect all levels of the educational process to help improve the quality and
relevance of higher education and to support the necessary changes in the educa-
tional system that will enable it to adapt to the new global reality. Van der Wende
(1994) stressed that internationalisation strategies must affect the following
three levels of education: micro (the teaching and learning process in the class-
room); medio (factors that determine content and teaching and learning meth-
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 131

ods; that is, the curriculum); and macro (definition and decision making
regarding institutional policies and strategies).
The conceptualisation of comprehensive internationalisation is, however,
still unfamiliar and unknown by the majority of policy and decision makers.
Basic theories and concepts of internationalisation are not very popular topics
for researchers of higher education, thus making these concepts fragile and
unknown. Furthermore, the various social and university stakeholders do not
have a common understanding of these basic concepts, and there is no consen-
sus with respect to internationalisation’s importance, significance, definition,
scope, and strategy.
In this context, it is relevant to observe how the higher education systems and,
in particular, that in Mexico, are integrating the international dimension in the
universities’ functions. A survey on the international dimension of Mexican uni-
versities (Gacel-Ávila, 2002) clearly shows that the concept of comprehensive
internationalisation is not reflected in the content and objectives of current Mex-
ican educational policy, either on the institutional or the national level, despite
the abundant rhetoric of national and institutional educational authorities and of
international organisations regarding the importance of internationalisation for
an education capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. The survey
shows that institutions of higher education in Mexico do not have institutional
policies and strategies focused on integrating internationalisation efforts into
their own institutional mission, vision, and development policies and culture.
International activities are kept marginalized from development policies and
institutional priorities. Moreover, such activities are not submitted to planning
and evaluation procedures and are not given a specific budget. Rather, inter-
national activities are the result of isolated and individual initiatives, lacking
direction.
The National Plan of Education 2002-2006 solely highlights the concept of
international and development cooperation, but not that of comprehensive inter-
nationalisation, overlooking the already mentioned recommendation of the
CERI that has made evident the need for a comprehensive concept of inter-
nationalisation that goes beyond the mere concept of international cooperation
and physical movement of individuals. Furthermore, the procedures and criteria
for Mexico’s national planning and evaluation systems do not review either the
international dimension in educational programmes or the functioning of the
institutions. As a result, because internationalisation is not considered a relevant
indicator of academic performance or a factor in improving the quality of educa-
tion in the institutional evaluation procedures, government support programmes
are unlikely to provide the financial resources necessary for institutions of
higher education to institutionalise their process of internationalisation.
132 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

Because of this limitation in conceptualisation, international activities are

not likely to contribute to improving educational quality, nor are they likely to
promote the changes necessary to enable graduates to meet the demands of the
new century. This is why in Mexico and Latin America it is crucial to create
study groups focusing on theoretical, applied, and comparative research to guide
the future of internationalisation, reinforce the role of international cooperation,
and combine internationalisation efforts with the improvement and modernisa-
tion of educational systems. This type of research would emphasise the impor-
tance, reasons, bases, and concepts of internationalisation in a regional context.
In addition, it would guide priorities and provide a general outline to help educa-
tional institutions establish and carry out policies and strategies relating to inter-
nationalisation. It goes without saying that these types of studies would give
more weight to qualitative analysis than quantitative analysis and that they could
help to build a bridge between international activities and national policies for
higher education.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

TO ACHIEVE GLOBAL CITIZENRY
In the global context, and besides the necessity of internationalising the cur-
riculum to educate students to become true global citizens, it is crucial that inter-
national relations theory consider education and culture in its paradigm. The
concept of a global citizenry should give culture and education a key role in the
relations between states. At present, relationships between countries are consid-
ered to be almost exclusively political, without including culture and education.
Thus, political conflicts that affect cultural relations tend to be resolved by polit-
ical means. Furthermore, Van der Wende (1997) stressed that no connection
exists between international cooperation policies and those covering educa-
tional development. International cooperation should cross over both mandates
of relations between states and educational policies.
According to Mestenhauser (2000),

The very nature of international relations is changing and with it the outdated concept
of national interest and balance of power (George, 1994; Keohane et al., 1984, 1993).
The alternative is to articulate another paradigm, that of interdependence, which might
serve as a “super-ordinate goal”, a conflict resolution concept based on a higher level of
abstraction in which all lower level interests are taken into account (Sherif & Sherif,
1953). This concept is not a simple opposition to the idea of competitiveness, but one
level higher in which all parties win. (p. 43)
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 133

The events of September 11, 2001, in the United States should have been a suffi-
ciently compelling reason to eradicate the hegemonic attitudes of absolute power, as
well as the kind of diplomacy pegged to economic interests. In this environment, all
states must rethink their foreign policy and place value on the crucial role played by
academic cooperation in educating for peace. In a paradigm of sustainable human
development, relationships between states must be re-examined vis-à-vis conditions
in the global village. Education must become the focal point of intercultural under-
standing, of peaceful coexistence, of democracy, and of global citizenship. There-
fore, the new conceptualisation of foreign policy, and also its progress, depends on
the curriculum; that is, on the reform of mentalities, which in turn requires new edu-
cational paradigms. Ideas, not arms, sustain the hope for world peace. To make these
ideals a reality, we must regard education and international cooperation as activities
that influence all human destinies, representing as well a hope for the exercise of
some control—if still possible—over the future of humankind. This is why all coun-
tries must pay the utmost attention to these concerns.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, internationalisation should be conceived as a comprehensive
strategy with widespread relevance for society. And I believe that the future of
internationalisation centres on three factors: (a) its acceptance as an integral,
central, and fundamental part of educational policy that can improve the quality
and relevance of education, implemented through comprehensive strategies to
help transform educational systems to meet the needs of a global society; (b) the
strategic role of international academic cooperation in globalizing solidarity
among nations and establishing a true global citizenry; and (c) more attention
paid to the theme of internationalisation in educational research.

NOTE

1. As expressed by President Jacques Chirac of France in his speech to the

United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development in
Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002.

REFERENCES
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture,
and social criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bennett, C. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and prac-
tice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
134 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of inter-

cultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural expe-
rience (pp. 26-28). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Cogan, J., & Derricott, R. (1998). Citizenship for the 21st century: An interna-
tional perspective on education. London: Kogan Page.
Delors, J. (1997). La educació)n encierra un tesoro [Education: The treasure
within]. México City, México: Ediciones de la UNESCO.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2002). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior: Para-
digma para la ciudadanía global [The international dimension of Mexican
universities: A quantitative and qualitative diagnosis.] Educación Global, 6,
101-135.
Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling as a form of cultural politics: Toward a pedagogy
of and for difference. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy,
the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 125-151). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of educa-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. New York: American
Forum for Global Education.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organisations. New York:
John Wiley.
Kerr, C. (1990). The internationalisation of learning and the nationalisation of
the purposes of higher education: Two “laws of motion” in conflict? Euro-
pean Journal of Education, 25(1), 5-22.
Knight, J. (2001). Internacionalización de la educación superior [Internationali-
sation of higher education]. In Calidad e internacionalización de la educa-
ción superior. México City, México: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e
Instituciones de Educación Superior, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México.
Lambert, R. (1994). Educational exchange and global competence. New York:
Council of International Educational Exchange.
Lopéz Segrera, F. (2001). Globalización y educación superior en América
Latina y el Caribe: La universidad como agente de transformación social
[Globalisation and higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean: The
university as an agent of social transformation]. Caracas, Venezuela : United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
McLaren, P. (1994). Multiculturalism and the postmodern critique: Toward
a pedagogy of resistance and transformation. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren
(Eds.), Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of cultural studies
(pp. 192-222). New York; Routledge.
 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 135

McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for

a new millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical foundations of
education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Internationalisation of higher education: A cognitive
response to the challenges of the twenty-first century. International Educa-
tion Forum, 18(1/2), 3-7.
Mestenhauser, J. (2000). Dual functions of international education profes-
sionals: In search of their knowledge base [EAIE Occasional Paper 12]. In
H. Callan (Ed.), International education: Towards a critical perspective
(pp. 31-50). Amsterdam: European Association of International Education.
Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Oxford dictionary of new words. (1991). Compiled by Sara Tulloch. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Schechter, M. (1993). Internationalising the university and building bridges
across disciplines. In T. Cavusgil (Ed.), Internationalising business educa-
tion: Meeting the challenge (p. 137). Lansing: Michigan State University
Press.
Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse concep-
tualisations of internationalization: A U.S.-based case study. Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 3, 19-46.
Scott, P. (1998). The globalisation of higher education. Buckingham, UK: Soci-
ety for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education.
Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1998, Octo-
ber 5-9). Higher education in the twenty-first century: Vision and action.
Paper presented at the World Conference on Higher education, Paris.
Van der Wende, M. (1994). Internationalisation as a process of educational
change. In Pilot project on regional co-operation in reforming higher educa-
tion, seminar II: Mobility in higher education (pp. 37-49). Paris: European
Commission/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Van der Wende, M. (1997). International comparative analysis and synthesis. In
T. Kälvermark & M. Van der Wende (Ed.), National policies for the interna-
tionalisation of higher education in Europe. Stockholm: National Agency for
Higher Education, Högskoleverket Studies.
136 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila has a Ph.D. in higher education, specialized in international

and comparative education. She is the author of three books on internationaliza-
tion in Latin America and founder and editor of the international education maga-
zine Educación Global, edited by Mexican Association for International Educa-
tion (AMPEI). A founding member of the AMPEI and elected president of the
Board of Directors for the period 1996-2000, she is now acting as president of the
Advisory Board for the 2000-2004 term. She is currently the coordinator of Aca-
demic Cooperation and a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies for Devel-
opment at the University of Guadalajara, México, and is a member of the National
System of Researchers in México.