See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328802880

The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy: A

critical discourse analysis approach to contemporary strategies in Finland and
Canada.

Chapter · October 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 244

2 authors:

Jani Haapakoski Sharon Stein

University of Oulu University of British Columbia - Vancouver
4 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   497 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ethical internationalism in higher education View project

Higher Education Otherwise View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharon Stein on 18 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

1. The ethical implications of internationalisation

for a knowledge economy: A critical discourse
analysis approach to contemporary strategies
in Finland and Canada

Abstract: Internationalisation of higher education has within the three decades

become a strategic focus of universities worldwide. In this chapter, we take a
Critical Discourse Analysis approach towards contemporary internationalisation
strategies in Finland and Canada to examine how they frame the role of higher
education, and consider the ethical implications of these framings. We find that
both documents largely naturalise the role of higher education and international-
isation in the service of a knowledge economy, and uncritically reproduce global
power inequities and Western supremacy in ways that narrow possibilities for eth-
ical engagement. We also find that the Canadian strategy is less ambiguous in its
commercialised aims, while the Finnish document contains a mixture of social
and economic rationales for internationalisation. We suggest that these spaces of
discursive ambiguity point to distinct models of internationalisation, and argue for
the importance of scholarly spaces that support open and critical inquiry about the
implications and ethical commitments of these different models.

Introduction

Internationalisation has within the three decades changed from ad hoc

activities to a strategic focus in Higher Education (HE) worldwide, in
part as a response to the changing contexts facilitated by globalisation
(Knight, 2014). In addition to becoming more structured, internation-
alisation has also changed in terms of approaches and values. Post-
World War II internationalisation was more focused on development
aid cooperation and mobility of students and staff whereas, today, it is
increasingly driven by economic imperatives. The economic focus of
42 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

internationalisation can be understood in part through growing focus

on the Knowledge Economy (KE) that has, since the 1990’s, redefined
the role of universities in many nation-states in the Global North and
facilitated the rise of affiliated phenomena, like academic capitalism
(Altbach et al., 2010; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). As HE internation-
alisation activities become increasingly dominated by economic imper-
atives, there arise a number of questions about the ethical implications
of these practices, and their potential to compromise universities’ abil-
ity to serve as spaces of deep inquiry and to prepare students to face the
unprecedented challenges of today’s increasingly unequal and intercon-
nected world.
In this chapter, we will discuss some of the ethical implications
of HE internationalisation in the context of KE through an analysis of
the most recent national internationalisation strategies in Finland and
Canada. More specifically, we ask how the visible focus on KE shapes
the strategies, and the ethical implications of this focus. Both coun-
tries are highly invested in the KE model and also share similar histo-
ries of post-War developments in internationalisation. However, their
current formations of internationalisation differ greatly and whereas
Canada has a large market for international students, Finland is only
aspiring to enter the market. The increased state divestment from HE
and policy changes indicate movement away from universities’ role as
a facilitator of the ‘public good’ towards a more narrow facilitation of
economic growth. Perhaps the most notable development in Finland has
been the recent imposition of tuition fees for non-European Union/EEA
students.1 As aspirations to build a strong market for international edu-
cation grow in Finland, we can look at experiences of other countries
in the Global North that have more readily embraced marketisation. To
this end, we juxtapose Finnish internationalisation with Canada, where
the marketisation of HE has advanced quickly, and where concerns have
grown around the ethical and other effects of this rapid marketisation.
From this discourse analysis and comparative study, we find that while

1 This legislation came into effect January 1, 2016. At that time universities were
permitted but not required to charge fees; by August 1, 2017, fees will be man-
datory. Though the cost is at the institutions’ discretion, it must be a minimum
of E1,500 per year. Doctoral study is not included in the fee structure, nor are
programs taught in either Finnish or Swedish.
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 43

KE discourse is, broadly speaking, ascendant in Finland and well estab-

lished in Canada, it is nevertheless not totalising. We begin the chapter
by introducing the larger context of this study, and outlining the theoret-
ical and conceptual frameworks that guide our work. Next, we review the
historical and contemporary context of Finnish HE internationalisation,
as well as the Canadian context. Following this, we review our meth-
odology, and then detail our findings through the analysis of the most
recent internationalisation strategies in Finland and Canada. We con-
clude with a discussion of the findings and their implications.  

Context of the paper: ethics of internationalisation 

Even though internationalisation is often seen as a natural part of uni-

versities’ functions, it requires active facilitation that often involves top-
down guidance and systematic implementation (Warwick & Moogan,
2013). This facilitation and implementation are motivated by varying
rationales, and political and practical interests, which result in certain
approaches and potential choices being made over others (see the next
chapter on internationalisation in Russia as a prime example of this). As
a result, internationalisation is never a neutral process. 
This paper emerged out of a larger project, Ethical Internationalism
in Higher Education (EIHE) project (2012–2016), funded by the Acad-
emy of Finland, which was motivated by shared concerns that finan-
cial imperatives are driving unethical internationalisation practices and
undermining the potential for ethical and mutually beneficial global
engagements in higher education (Khoo, 2011). Over 20 universities
in 9 different countries were involved in the mixed-method project,
which developed several theoretical tools, one of which we employ in
this chapter – the shifting imaginaries of higher education, which are
detailed later. The approach to ethics in this paper is connected to the
aims of the EIHE project: to examine and make intelligible the unequal
power relations that are often masked behind naturalised discourses and
practices of internationalisation, and to defend higher education as a
site for imagining alternatives.
44 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

Theoretical framework

Theoretically, we draw from two related critical perspectives: growing

emphasis on KE is reframing the role of the university and its main
functions, including internationalisation (Olssen & Peters, 2005); and
shifting imaginaries of HE suggest that the civic (democratic and social)
purposes of higher education are fusing into a more corporate imagi-
nary, but not without conflict and ambivalence (Andreotti et al., 2016;
Khoo, 2011). Incorporating a third critical approach, we suggest that
both of these trends incentivise superficial approaches to cultural diver-
sity that step over ethical questions around the reproduction of local and
global inequities (Andreotti, 2009). One contribution of this chapter is
combining these three concerns that are rarely brought together. 
As Harris (2001) states, the notion of a knowledge economy frames
economic production as the “creation, production, distribution and
consumption of knowledge and knowledge-based products” (p.  22).
According to Olssen and Peters (2005), a knowledge economy is char-
acterised “in terms of the economics of abundance, the annihilation of
distance, the de-territorialisation of the state, and, investment in human
capital” (p.  331). The idea of KE was born as a result of the 1980’s
recession and the attempt to seek new vistas for economic growth, uti-
lising the potential of newly discovered information technologies, and
with the strong support of the OECD (Harris, 2001; Peters, 2001). It
was meant to indicate a shift from industrial-based economies (Olssen
& Peters, 2005), though in fact ‘knowledge workers’ make up a rela-
tively small proportion of labourers today (Schugurensky, 2007). Some
researchers are sceptical towards the novelty of knowledge economy/
society as a concept. As societies throughout history have relied on
knowledge for the organisation of social and economic life, the current
focus can be seen as a new interpretation of long-standing connections
(Carlaw et al., 2012). According to Bastalich (2010), knowledge econ-
omy is merely “a discursive recasting of the relations between ideas and
the economy” (p. 845). Furthermore, KE as a concept is ambiguous and
contains different interpretations (Peters, 2001). 
Although emphasis on KE does not necessarily lead to marketi-
sation of HE, the concurrent rise of KE discourse and neoliberalism
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 45

has meant a new role for universities that are now more tightly joined
with government and industry in a ‘triple helix’ (Leydesdorff & Etz-
kowitz, 1996). In particular, whereas universities were previously less
concerned with the immediate production of knowledge with exchange-
value and more concerned with use-value, they are increasingly called
upon to contribute more directly to the accumulation of capital (Slaugh-
ter & Rhoades, 2004). This manifests in the commodification of educa-
tion and research, and production of ‘knowledge workers’ for the labour
market. Thus, although universities may have been given more promi-
nence in society, this came at the cost of autonomy, as the ‘usefulness’
of the HE sector is now tied more closely to economic growth, and
knowledge is increasingly treated as private (‘intellectual’) property
(Olssen & Peters, 2005). Like illustrated in the introduction chapter of
this book, the neoliberal developments are not solely due to the some
external forces but are also driven by the HE institutions themselves.
The change can also be examined through the shift in imaginaries of
HE; along with a specifically neoliberal iteration of KE, the corporate
university has begun to colonise the civic role of the university. 
To conceptualise the shifts in HE, the EIHE project theorised four
broad imaginaries of the Western university over time: the scholas-
tic imaginary (12–16th Century, emphasising the Catholic church and
ancient Hellenistic philosophy); the classical imaginary (16–17th Cen-
tury, emphasising universal, secular knowledge); the civic imaginary
(19th-mid/late 20th Century, emphasising service to the nation-state and
the training of skilled labourers and engaged citizens); and the corpo-
rate imaginary (1970s-today, emphasising the economic rationalism of
the capitalist market) (see Andreotti et al., 2016). In this paper, we par-
ticularly emphasise the civic imaginary, which democratised the expan-
sion of access to higher education, emphasised service to the public
good and arguably reached its zenith in the post-World War II era,
as well as the corporate imaginary, which is increasingly hegemonic,
trains students to be entrepreneurial, and emphasises profitable research
and university-industry partnerships2. However, rather than totalising
imaginaries following in clean succession over time, these imaginaries
are juxtaposed, overlapping in unexpected ways. Thus, we note that,
2 For a highly evolved example of the corporate imaginary at work, see the educa-
tional hubs, described in chapter 5.
46 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

depending on the context, today the civic and corporate imaginaries

frequently vie for dominance, creating a number of tensions, paradoxes,
and context-specific debates and discursive ambiguities that demand
further and deepened examination. 
As emphasis on economic returns of both student education and
research monies continues to expand, ethical concerns about the equi-
table distribution of resources and the democratisation of epistemic
value, which might interrupt or challenge this capital accumulation,
are increasingly devalued. At the interface of the civic and corporate
imaginaries, terms like ‘diversity’ can mean very different things, but as
economic rationalism prevails, institutions are increasingly enacting a
selective recognition of difference in ways that frame diversity as some-
thing to be marketed, consumed and also, contained (Stein & Andreotti,
2016). For instance, difference becomes a means for students to develop
more marketable skills (e.g. ‘intercultural competency’), or to increase
institutional revenues indirectly by enhancing the global profile of an
institution. At the same time, there are fewer institutional spaces to
critically examine local and global inequities, epistemic hegemony, or
national exceptionalisms.  
These issues are not unique to the contemporary moment, but
rather a part of an enduring global imaginary that presumes a series
of hierarchical power relations premised on the basic assumption of
European superiority and non-European inferiority (Stein & Andre-
otti, 2016). These uneven relations arose and were cemented during
the era of Western colonisation, but they have not disappeared. Rather,
they have been reimagined to allow for formal disavowal of Western
supremacy while nonetheless largely maintaining Western political and
economic advantage, and the presumption of Western epistemic univer-
sality. Thus, it remains important to ask how these are reframed within
the corporate imaginary of the university, and in relation to internation-
alisation specifically.  
In particular, it is significant to note that while both Canada and
Finland have benefitted and continue to benefit from colonialism (both
domestically and abroad), exceptionalist discourses in both countries
disavow complicity in colonisation, and attempt to distance themselves
from the colonialism of their perceived counterparts (for Canada, the
US and the UK; for Finland, other European nations) (Lehtola, 2015;
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 47

Palmgren, 2009; Thobani, 2007). Both countries also make asser-

tions about the peacefulness and tolerance of their national character
(Palmgren, 2009; Thobani, 2007), and Finland in particular has a
strong narrative about the superiority of its national education system
(Schatz, Popovic, & Dervin, 2015 and Juusola in this book). Narratives
of exceptionalism are not simply nationalistic celebrations; they also
position non-European descended peoples as deficient (un-exceptional)
‘Others’, including both non-white national citizens and immigrants
(Nicolson et al., 2016; Thobani, 2007).
The educational effect of this ‘Othering’ is to rationalise inequality
between Western and non-Western nations, as well as between Euro/non-
Euro-descended populations within the nation, while at the same time
suggesting that these ‘Others’ benefit from access to Western schooling.
If during the post-World War II era access to Western higher education
through international student mobility was framed as benevolent devel-
opment aid, today it is more likely to be presented within a marketised
framework, perceived as: beneficial to the host nation through growth
in revenues and global influence; beneficial to the non-Western student
obtaining Western credentials; and beneficial to the sending nation that
is presumed to gain valuable expertise from Western universities. This
latest, marketised version of higher education in the service of national
exceptionalism, and its Othering effects, have prompted many concerns
about the potential for exploitation and the reproduction of inequality
in the context of internationalisation, including: compromised/limited
rights and security of international students (Marginson, 2012); racism
against international students (Lee & Rice, 2007); Eurocentric curricula
(Connell, 2017); brain drain between the Global South and North (John-
stone & Lee, 2014); a declining commitment to higher education equity
and public goods within both host and sending countries (Brown & Tan-
nock, 2009); and depoliticised commodification of international students’
difference for domestic student consumption/cultural capital (Andreotti,
2009; Suša, 2016).
Despite these critiques about the potentially harmful outcomes of
contemporary internationalisation, it does not only produce adverse
effects, and the situation in both Canada and Finland is extremely mul-
tifaceted. Due to the scope of this chapter we will predominately focus
on critiques of the corporate imaginary while understanding that all
48 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

problems cannot be simply reduced to effects of KE on HE internation-

alisation, and benefits (actual and potential) exist as well. Furthermore,
international students should not be reduced to a uniform group who
are similarly affected by the negative aspects of internationalisation, or
the benefits, for that matter. Next, we will proceed to examine the post-
war developments in HE internationalisation in Finland and Canada.

Policy shifts in internationalisation in Finland

Compared to its Nordic peers, Sweden and Denmark, the internation-

alisation of Finland and its HE sector started rather late. The indus-
try sector started to open up to other countries in the 70’s along with
the EU law forbidding discrimination of labour based on nationality
that forced the recognition of new types of competencies needed for
working-life (MOE3, 1995). Prior to this, in 1955, Finland joined the
United Nations, which also brought new policies and laws along with
national ones. Membership of the UN initiated plans for development
cooperation, for example, that was linked with HE internationalisation.
The ‘massification’ stage of internationalisation activities started in
late 80’s, aided by the prospect of Finland being included in the EU
mobility programs, like Erasmus. The internationalisation of HE has
been strongly driven by the Ministry of Education and Culture, as part
of larger government programs (de Wit et al., 2015). The Ministry has
since 1987 produced nation-level strategies steering internationalisa-
tion of HE and the latest, at the time of writing, the 2009 document, will
be further analysed in this chapter. The HE funding models have since
the 90’s included funding for internationalisation and as an example,
the latest model grants relatively big sums for international mobilities
and degrees of non-Finnish students (MOEC, 2016). This has undoubt-
edly helped to consolidate the position and aims of internationalisation

3 The Finnish Ministry of Education changed its name to Ministry of Education and
Culture in 2010 and in this chapter, we will use two acronyms, MOE and MOEC,
which do however refer to the same institution.
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 49

within the Finnish HE sector4. Finland joined the European Union in

1995 and the larger EU processes, facilitated by the Ministry, have had
a major effect on the HE sector, and internationalisation, in Finland.
For example the Lisbon project, introduced in 2000 to make Europe
as the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, and
the Bologna process, aimed at harmonising the degree structures in HE
within European Higher Education Area, have greatly shaped the struc-
tures and aims of HE in Finland (Nokkala, 2007).
The KE discourses in Finland have been visible in nation-level
strategies on HE and internationalisation since the late 90’s and have
intensified especially due to the EU competitiveness policies that have
been used to justify the reforms in HE (Kauppinen & Kaidesoja, 2014).
There has also been emphasis by the Ministry of Education and Cul-
ture to facilitate export of education, where universities are seen as the
central driver of the whole ‘industry’ (MOEC, 2010), fuelled by the
exceptionalist discourses around Finland’s high scores in OECD’s The
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test during the
previous decade (Schatz, 2016). However, progress in the commercial-
isation of education has been slow, at times hindered by the HE legisla-
tion itself. For example, collecting tuition fees from individuals has not
been legal in the past but recently the legislation was changed, to enable
fees from 2017 onwards for non-EU/EEA students. What the tuition
fees will mean for internationalisation in Finland remains to be seen but
it will signal a new era for the commercialised interest in HE5. Apart
from the export of education, more indirect economic rationales are
visible in HE internationalisation through the emphasis on the recruit-
ment of the ‘best talent’ to Finland as students and/or workers. This is
identified as one of the key priorities in internationalisation and is seen
to contribute to the competitiveness of the Finnish KE and alleviating
the shortage of skilled labour (MOE, 2009). 

4 Finland has a dual system of HE with traditional universities and universities of

applied sciences. Although HE institutions are currently autonomous, they are
mainly tax-funded.
5 More on the export of education in Finland, see Chapter 4 in this book.
50 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

Policy shifts in internationalisation in Canada 

Post-War Canadian international academic cooperation was largely

understood as a means of ‘soft power’ for ensuring smooth foreign rela-
tions and promoting national interests, and premised on a commitment to
contribute to “a just and equitable world order” (Trilokekar, 2010, p. 144).
In the context of higher education, this not only meant the dispensation of
knowledge for Global South countries’ socio-economic development, but
also developing allies against the perceived threat of global communism
(McCartney, 2016). International education was also framed as part of
Canada’s narrative of national exceptionalism in which it positioned itself
as having no imperial history, and having ethical responsibilities towards
poorer nations (Trilokekar, 2010). Development assistance in educa-
tion took the form of technical assistance projects between Canadian
and Global South universities, and hosting international students, which
was framed as “vital to improving economic and social conditions in the
developing world” (Cudmore, 2005, p. 47).  
If Canadian economic interests were broadly wrapped up in its
international educational influence in the post-War years, it was only
later that this came to be more clearly understood as having a central
and direct economic dimension. By the mid-1980s most Canadian prov-
inces had implemented differential tuition fees for international students
(Trilokekar, 2015), and the federal government started to more explicitly
identify opportunities to marketise and emphasise the role of higher edu-
cation in Canada’s emerging ‘global knowledge economy’. A 1994 fed-
eral document indicated a new emphasis on international student recruit-
ment, which was underscored in a 2002 federal innovation strategy, and
in various federal planning documents in the 2000s (Trilokekar, 2015).  
Since then, several provinces have developed their own interna-
tional education strategies, but it wasn’t until 2014 that Canada pro-
duced its first-ever federal international education strategy. The doc-
ument strongly emphasises the importance of international education
for Canadian ‘prosperity’, and puts forth a recruitment target of over
450,000 international students by 2022 (for all levels of schooling,
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 51

not just higher education) (DFATD6, 2014). International students pay

many times more for tuition than domestic students, and these costs
continue to rise (Anderson, 2015). In 2015, “357,000 international stu-
dents collectively spent more than $10 billion in Canada and generated
employment for some 90,000 Canadians” (GAC, 2016). Notably, inter-
national student tuition has risen at the same time as public funding
for universities has declined. Thus, there are concerns that Canada is
exploiting international students as a means to subsidise domestic stu-
dents’ education.  
There is also concern that increased recruitment will contribute to the
migration of highly educated people from less wealthy countries (known
as ‘brain drain’) (Johnstone & Lee, 2014). This is because, at the same
time as they are pursued for their immediate economic impact, interna-
tional students are also increasingly framed as potential, high-skilled Cana-
dian immigrants. In fact, out of concern for an impending ‘skills gap’, the
Canadian government has enacted several immigration policies that ease
international students’ transition to becoming Canadian permanent resi-
dents after graduation (Johnstone & Lee, 2014).  Further, international stu-
dents are understood to play an important role in the promotion of Canada’s
political influence and economic interests abroad. In sum, international
education is understood as key in the development of Canada’s knowledge
economy. While this represents a significant shift from Canada’s post-War
approach to international education, it remains important to consider how
colonial and nationalistic exceptionalist logics also shaped earlier, civic
imaginary-focused approaches to internationalisation (see e.g. McCartney,
2016; Suša, 2016). 

Methodology 

For the methodological approach in our strategy analysis, we used Crit-

ical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In CDA, discourses are defined as ‘rel-
atively stable uses of language serving the organisation and structuring
6 DFATD stands for Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, now
known as Global Affairs Canada (GAC).
52 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

of social life’ (Wodak & Meyer, 2016, p. 6), meaning they both consti-
tute and are constituted by social practice. Because discourses contain
ideological assumptions about how the world is and should be, they
may serve to produce and reproduce unequal power relations, but can
also enable resistance and transformation (Fairclough, 2003). CDA is
of particular value in documenting multiple and competing discourses
within a single policy text, by highlighting marginalised and hybrid
or ambivalent discourses, and documenting discursive shifts in policy
implementation processes (Taylor, 2004). In particular, CDA is appro-
priate for examining transformations related to KE, which are effected
in part through a discursive recasting of existing ideas about knowledge
and economics in ways that lead to social and material change (Bastal-
ich, 2010). 
The two documents analysed in this chapter are “Strategy for the
Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009–
2015” (MOE, 2009) and Canada’s “International Education Strategy:
Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Pros-
perity” (DFATD, 2014). These two strategies are, at the time of writ-
ing, the most recent federal/national strategies in the two countries
addressing the internationalisation of HE.  Although both documents
are official government strategies, they are fundamentally different and
not directly comparable. The Finnish document was commissioned by
the Ministry of Education, whereas the Canadian strategy was signed
off by the Minister of International Trade. As education in Canada falls
under the jurisdiction of the provinces/territories, internationalisation
of HE on the federal level is placed under trade that affects the empha-
ses of the strategy. In the ensuing analysis, our aim is not to compare the
documents directly but discuss, through juxtaposition, the national level
implications of the KE discourses on the imaginaries of the university
in the context of internationalisation. Also, as the two strategies are a
small part of larger national and global policy networks, we acknowl-
edge that our analyses are partial and provisional. 
In our textual analysis we focused on the following aspects of the
strategies: a) how is the social order presented and justified; b) how are
internationalisation and its actors framed and described; and c) which
discourses are hegemonic and which discourses are omitted. The criti-
cal component of our discourse analysis pays specific attention to how
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 53

certain discourses in the nation-level strategies become naturalised, and

subsequently depoliticised, and have the potential to reproduce harmful
social relations and exclude alternative discourses that might be neces-
sary for better addressing ethical issues. 
Our analysis was conducted by first reading the strategies and
coding emerging themes. During the second round of examination,
more specific readings were made regarding the main themes of this
paper, the knowledge economy and its ethical implications for inter-
nationalisation. As a comprehensive analysis of the two documents is
beyond the scope of this chapter, we selected three main themes that are
discussed in more detail: 1) how KE discourse is framing internation-
alisation of HE, and discourses about 2) international students and 3)
global responsibility. Both strategies are examined together according
to the themes to juxtapose the potential similarities and divergences in
the discourses.  
As a note on our positioning, we approach the topic with extensive
experience with internationalisation as students, through work, and now,
as researchers. Our background in critical and postcolonial research also
affects our readings of the documents and we are well aware that other
individuals might end up with differing results in their analysis of these
documents. Given the partiality and provisionality of any reading, we
emphasise the need for multiple interpretations of the documents, which
further supports our underlying suggestion about the need for more
in-depth critical engagement with internationalisation amongst both
scholars and practitioners of higher education.

Discourse analysis of the strategies

Knowledge economy and internationalisation of HE

General examination of the two strategies shows that they are both
heavily framed through KE ideology, which is reflected in the first lines
of both documents (and in the title of the Canadian strategy): 
54 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

Investment in knowledge and competence is the sustainable core of Finland’s

national success strategy. International comparisons and evaluations have shown
that a high-quality education and research system affords us significant strength
and a competitive edge. (MOE, 2009, p. 4) 
International education is critical to Canada’s success. In a highly competitive,
knowledge-based global economy, ideas and innovation go hand in hand with job
creation and economic growth. In short, international education is at the very
heart of our current and future prosperity. (DFATD, 2014, p. 4)

Both internationalisation strategies favor the ‘logic of appearance’

where socio-economic order is portrayed as given instead of explained
through causal relations and evidence (Fairclough, 2003, p.  95). This
approach is legitimised through authority as both strategies are signed
off by the responsible ministers. Legitimation is also presented through
the utility of the proposed action for the society, as the implication is
that without enhancing the international dimension of education, the
countries will lose their competitive edge. The competitive KE resulting
from globalisation is presented as the only relevant context for interna-
tionalisation. The existence and prevalence of KE is not questioned or
backed up by facts, apart for the vague mentions of ‘international com-
parisons and evaluations’ in the Finnish document (MOE, 2009, p. 4).
The rationale in both strategies can be summarised in the following
way: globalisation alters the power relations in the global economy, and
increasing the competitiveness of the national economy is important as
it is the basis of welfare of the society as a whole. This global economy
is knowledge-based and thus educational institutions are in a key posi-
tion to increase the competitiveness and in this process, international-
isation is a direct vehicle for success. Strangely, internationalisation is
not really defined in the Finnish strategy and the Canadian document
only refers briefly to the contents of international education. This can
be seen as part of the legitimation strategy of utility where anything
with an international dimension enhancing the competitiveness of the
country is framed as part of internationalisation/international educa-
tion. Internationalisation is tied to the competitiveness of the national
economy in multiple ways in the strategies; through research and inno-
vation, selling of education, and immigration of highly-skilled people.  
The benefits of internationalisation in the Canadian document are
mainly economic. The strategy frequently utilises economic vocabulary
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 55

like economic prosperity, priority markets, labour shortages, skilled

labour and knowledge-based economy that emphasise the corporate
imaginary of universities over the civic. In fact, as the priorities in the
strategy are essentially related to maintaining the market share in inter-
national education and remedying labour challenges, there is hardly
any focus on developing the education in ‘international education.’ The
high-quality of Canadian education, across the provinces and territories,
is perceived as a given and questioning this would go against the promo-
tional discourses connected to marketisation of education and, moreover,
the discourses around the country brand of Canada. The strategy states
that ‘international education is at the very heart of our current and future
prosperity’ (DFATD, 2014, p. 4, emphasis added), which implies that the
whole country is participating in the educational business venture and
that the resulting economic and social benefits will be distributed evenly
across the nation. This can be contrasted with the economic impact table
in the strategy (DFATD, 2014, p. 8) that estimates the amount of students,
their expenditure and the resulting employment in the provinces and terri-
tories. Based on the table, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec benefit
most from international education, accounting for over 80% of student
expenditures and almost 70% of related jobs.
Although the discourses around the benefits of internationalisation
are more diverse in the Finnish strategy, the corporate imaginary of
HE is still similarly prevalent. Internationalisation is seen to increase
the ‘competitiveness’ and ‘well-being’ of the nation and the appearance
of these words together, on multiple occasions, illustrates the empha-
sis on both the civic and the corporate imaginaries of HE in Finland7.
However, similarly, the juxtaposition of competitiveness and well-being
can indicate that the latter is defined in economic terms as a result of
the increased competitiveness. Throughout the document the pattern
is the same, as economic rationales precede and afford the civic ones.
Otherwise, unlike the Canadian strategy, the Finnish document has sur-
prisingly open and critical stance towards the progress of internation-
alisation in the country. The document is directed towards the manage-
ment level in HE institutions and although including ‘vision’ elements,
it adopts a realist tone where internationalisation is paradoxically both
7 Henna Juusola discusses similar phenomenon from the perspective of quality in
chapter 4.
56 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

a result and a requirement. More ‘internationalisation’ is needed to

increase the competitiveness and attractiveness of the country that then
again draws more international talent and investments to Finland. The
implication in the strategy is that in order to make Finland more interna-
tional and KE ‘compatible’, the HE sector must be reformed to become
less national, with regards to people and ideas.

Students as commodity

Although both strategies are strongly framed through KE discourse, a

more thematic analysis reveals interesting differences highlighting the
relationship between the civic and the corporate imaginaries of the uni-
versity. In the Canadian strategy, international students are at the heart
of the economic discussion:
Inviting international students and researchers into Canada’s classrooms and
laboratories helps create new jobs and opportunities for Canadians while
addressing looming skills and labour shortages. Perhaps most importantly, inter-
national education fuels the people-to-people ties crucial to long-term success in
an increasingly interconnected global economy. (DFATD, 2014, p. 4) 

The quote also presents the country as hospitable towards visitors.

This hospitality is, however, inherently exclusionary and conditional,
as it is connected with ‘key markets’ and ‘attracting the best and the
brightest’ elsewhere, instead of a general open invitation. Any reci-
procity implied with hospitality is also largely lost in the strategy and
international students are only discussed in relation to their economic
impact on Canada.  Students (and researchers) contribute to the econ-
omy through tuition-fees and other spending that “helps create new jobs
and opportunities for Canadians” and is a source of high-skilled labour
through migration “addressing looming skills and labour shortages”.
Also indicated, with the “people-to-people ties”, is that international
students can be used as ambassadors for Canada, whether they migrate
or not, to help, for example, to sustain Canada’s presence in the interna-
tional education market as well as in the realm of international business
more generally. This concern is also evident in the fact that the strategy
identifies “priority education markets” in “developing and emerging
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 57

economies”, including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, North Africa and

the Middle East, and Vietnam (DFATD, 2014, p. 10). 
Regarding labour, the strategy potentially contradicts itself, arguing
that internationalisation creates new jobs for Canadians while also argu-
ing that attracting international students addresses an apparent labour
shortage. Although, the statement might imply jobs that do not require
specialized skills, at least the highly-skilled immigrants in Canada have
difficulties finding jobs that match their education (Guo & Shan, 2013).
The strategy also discusses the selective processes for degree mobility
and migration as the aim is to attract the best and the brightest students
to Canada, although specifics on how this is executed is not elaborated,
apart from upholding quality at an attractive price. 
Although the Finnish strategy displays more signs of the civic imag-
inary in internationalisation of HE, it still places a lot of emphasis on the
economic contributions of international students and highly-skilled labour.
The document contains two different student populations: ‘immigrants’ and
the ‘non-Finnish’. Immigrants are defined as “first-generation immigrants
who have entered the country primarily for reasons other than study or for
short-term employment” as well as second or third generation immigrants
“who form a group somewhat differing from the majority population”
(MOE 2009, p. 44). The ‘non-Finnish’ consist of foreign degree-seeking
students, or teachers and researchers. The groups are framed very differ-
ently and are addressed in different chapters. The strategy suggests: 
Talented non-Finnish students and researchers who choose Finnish higher educa-
tion institutions are attracted by the high quality education and research as well
as by the opportunities afforded by Finnish working life. Well-functioning services
support coming to and staying in Finland. (MOE, 2009, p. 10) 

As well, for ‘non-Finnish’ applicants, “Student selection will be developed

to assure that the admitted students are motivated and proficient in lan-
guages and have necessary qualities to do well in studies” (MOE, 2009,
p. 36). Whereas the ‘non-Finnish’ are framed as the coveted ‘highly-skilled’
individuals, ‘immigrants’ in Finland are depicted more as a national social
‘responsibility’:
The share of people with immigrant backgrounds in higher education institu-
tions is low when compared with the overall number of people with immigrant
backgrounds in Finland… By improving the availability of open higher education
58 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

and preparatory training for higher education, the threshold for participating in
higher education can be lowered for immigrants and people speaking foreign lan-
guages as well as provide them with the content and language skills needed in
studies. (MOE, 2009, p. 46)

The main question with the ‘non-Finnish’ population is how to recruit

the most talented students and workers, amidst the ever stiffening global
competition. Towards ‘immigrants’ in Finland, the attitude is more pat-
ronising, with a deficit-based framework that suggests they are lacking
and therefore require special accommodations in order to ensure their
equal access to education. The 2008 draft of the final strategy goes rather
far with facilitation of equal chances and mentions that linguistic and cul-
tural factors should not hinder participation of students with immigrant
backgrounds, implying that universities should change their intake poli-
cies for certain groups of people (MOE, 2008). This remark was however,
changed in the final version to a less substantive commitment. 
The two groups are framed by different imaginaries of the univer-
sity. The ‘non-Finnish’ students are framed through the competition/
best-talent discourse and corporate imaginary while the ‘immigrants’
are part of the social responsibility on the nation-state typical to the
civic imaginary of HE. In addition to the differential categorisation of
the ‘non-Finnish’ and the ‘immigrants’, it is interesting to note how the
latter group, living in the country already and in large part having citi-
zenship, is still discussed in the context of internationalisation. Further-
more, the ‘integration’ process of ‘immigrants’ is seen as a duty of the
universities that should be a part of their internationalisation processes.
In the larger society in Finland, integration is the task of the Ministry
of Labour. It can be argued that universities have the experience and
existing processes for including individuals from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds, and that with a higher education degree the
chances of employment increase. Furthermore, the success of a mul-
ticultural society requires the participation of the whole society. Still,
the categorisation to the ‘non-Finnish’ and ‘immigrants’ indicates how
internationalisation is used as an arena for addressing forms of social
difference, in ways that potentially reproduce existing social inequali-
ties, or create new ones. 
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 59

The exchange value of global responsibility 

Another interesting thematic field showing the different approaches in the

two strategies is what in the Finnish document is called ‘global responsi-
bility’. In the Canadian document, partnerships are strongly linked to the
economic benefit with lines like ‘Canada has much to share with its trad-
ing partners’ (DFATD, 2014, p. 16) and stating that the money invested
in realising the objectives of the strategy should be primarily directed
towards the six priority markets identified in the document (p. 10). Ech-
oing exceptionalist discourses on Canada (Suša, 2016; Thobani, 2007),
there is a chapter in the strategy titled ‘Canadians Teaching the World’
(DFATD, 2014, p.  16) that lists the excellence of the education sector
that has ‘caught the eye of the world’. This visible position is yet again
presented as a possibility to ‘harness’ the attention to take advantage of
the emerging opportunities for the national economy. 
The Finnish strategy pays a lot of attention towards ‘global respon-
sibility’ but not without contradictions where the civic imaginary is
fused with the KE priorities and the corporate imaginary. The final
chapter of the strategy, labelled ‘Global Responsibility’ stresses the eth-
ically sustainable role of universities:  
Finnish higher education institutions utilise their research and expertise to solve
global problems and to consolidate competence in developing countries. The
activities of higher education institutions are ethically sustainable and support
students’ prerequisites to function in a global environment as well as to under-
stand the global effects of their activities. (MOE, 2009, 49).

The lofty and salvationist aims presented in the chapter can be contrasted
with the goals of the earlier chapter labelled export of expertise. Both
chapters address the importance of cooperation with developing/emerg-
ing economies which is, however, framed both as a profit-seeking activity
for Finland through export of education and educational services, and as
capacity development for ‘developing’ countries without economic moti-
vations as a part of Finland’s global responsibility. This complexity is
however not discussed or acknowledged in the strategy. The 2008 draft
mentions in the Global responsibility chapter that tuition-free education
in Finland can influence the social and economic development of the
‘developing’ countries, if students return home after graduation (MOE,
60 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

2008). This mention was, however, removed from the final version, per-
haps because it would contrast too much with the commodification dis-
courses in the education export chapter, as well as with the aim to facili-
tate the immigration of students after their studies to fix Finland’s national
labour shortages. 
Although having different emphasis towards forms of global respon-
sibility, both the Canadian and the Finnish strategies share in common
the lack of concern about the ethical risks of internationalisation. As an
example, brain drain between the Global North/South is not discussed in
either strategy. In both documents, attracting students to, essentially, emi-
grate is one of the key rationales for internationalisation and it is justified
through the lack of domestic opportunities for education in their home
countries. The Canadian document specifies, “much of the demand for
international education will come from developing and emerging econo-
mies—countries with relatively young demographics and, in some cases,
inadequate educational capacities” (DFATD, 2014, p.  7). Although this
creates an opportunity to address brain drain, the document proceeds to
frame this as an opportunity for Canada to strengthen its leadership and
economic advantage. Similarly, the Finnish document presents the migra-
tion of highly-skilled labour to the country as a key priority. Lastly, any
discussion related to cultural imperialism or the hegemony of Western
knowledge is also omitted.  

Discussion

Apart from the EIHE project, ethics in internationalisation is the object of

rising interest world-wide. In Europe, the European Association for Inter-
national Education (EAIE) and International Association of Universities
(IAU) have released statements calling more ethical consideration in inter-
nationalisation. In Canada, the non-profit Canadian Bureau of International
Education (CBIE) and the Association of Canadian Deans of Education
(ACDE) have created similar documents. Issues identified include uneven
treatment of student populations to adverse effects of economic competition,
and compromised commitments to social justice and responsibility (ACDE,
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 61

2014; CBIE, 2014; EAIE, 2012; IAU, 2012). Our analysis of the Finnish and
Canadian internationalisation strategies suggests that these ethical concerns
are warranted, and demand further practical and scholarly attention. Gen-
erally speaking, the documents discursively naturalise the reproduction of
a narrow vision for higher education’s role in the service of a national KE,
while providing little space for critical questions about the effects on weak-
ening support for other social purposes of higher education, or questions of
local and global equity. Without these spaces, and subsequent conversations
and considered actions, internationalisation practice may further entrench
existing power inequities, including economic disparities and educational
structures that presume Western cultural and epistemic supremacy. 
In particular, the strategies largely naturalise (and thereby, depoliti-
cise) the presumption that the economic gains from internationalisation,
particularly in relation to international student mobility, are a (if not the)
primary benefit to both sending and receiving countries. However, there is
no consideration as to whether or how these benefits are equitably shared,
either within or between partnering nations. This suggests a growing shift
away from a civic imaginary that emphasises the role of higher education
in broadly shared economic and social development. Though it was not
always the case in the post-War era that the full costs of international
students were covered by the host country, international students were
not expected to pay more than local students – thus, recruitment was not
driven by the direct pursuit of income. However, in the case of both the
post-War and the contemporary approaches to internationalisation, the
presumptive benefits of student mobility are largely understood to flow
from the fact that valuable knowledge and skills are primarily produced
within Western institutions.  
Thus, within both the civic and corporate imaginaries of internation-
alisation, it is assumed that non-Western international students benefit
from being the recipients of Western knowledge. Only, whereas once this
knowledge was offered as a part of the capacity development and mobility
projects, today it is increasingly framed as a commodity for purchase. At
the same time, there is growing emphasis on the value of international
students as highly educated labourers and potential immigrants to their
host countries. Tellingly, even those who critique the potential for this
pattern to enable brain drain from the Global South to the North tend
to implicitly presume the value of Western knowledge and support a
62 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

KE framework. For instance, according to Lee and Johnstone (2014),

this uneven flow of people “contributes to Western nation-building and
hegemony while reducing the capacity of the sending countries to build
their own knowledge economy” (p. 212). In this critique, civic and cor-
porate imaginaries converge and produce instructive overlaps: the civic
element emphasises the importance of national development, while the
corporate element emphasises the role of economic growth in that devel-
opment. Indeed, shifting imaginaries rarely arise out of clean breaks, and
the same discourse can have multiple meanings – which both provides
the opportunity to reclaim old meanings in places of ambiguity, and the
risk that if we do not trace how new imaginaries repurpose the discourses
of an older imaginary, we will lose the chance to critically examine and
debate the shape of social change.  
In light of contemporary shifts toward KE and the corporate imagi-
nary, it important to highlight those moments where there is a lingering
allegiance to civic higher education values in these and related strategy
documents. These moments demonstrate a continued commitment to
the non-economic purposes of higher education, and signal possibilities
for negotiation or contestation. These instances were far fewer within
the Canadian document than the Finnish one, which is what we expected
from a context where internationalisation is already much more thor-
oughly marketised. In that sense, the Canadian case can be instructive
for Finnish universities as they consider the shift toward a more market-
ised model for international student tuition. Though perpetual develop-
ment of marketised tendencies are never inevitable, the further a country
tends toward this model, the more difficult it can be to reverse or stymie
continued commodification of higher education (including, potentially,
for domestic students as well). In this sense as well, for those who seek
to maintain the civic character of higher education in Finland, there
is much value in recognising moments of discursive ambiguity and in
defending the necessity of scholarly spaces for open, critical inquiry
about the effects of different models of internationalisation, and for
engagement and experimentation with possible alternative approaches
to global educational engagements. However, rather than simply defend
the civic imaginary, the limitations of all possible imaginaries of higher
education demand further attention from scholars and practitioners. If
we fail to prioritise this work then existing spaces for critical sustained
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 63

engagement with ethical questions and alternative imaginaries within

HE may be increasingly compromised. 

References

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global

higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers. 
Anderson, T. (2015). Seeking internationalization: The state of Cana-
dian higher education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
45(4), 166–187. 
Andreotti, V. (2009) Engaging critically with ‘objective’ critical analy-
sis: a situated response to Openshaw and Rata. International Stud-
ies in Sociology of Education, 19(3), 217–227. 
Andreotti, V., Stein, S, Pashby, K., & Nicolson, M. (2016). Social
cartographies as performative devices in research on higher edu-
cation. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. doi:
10.1080/07294360.2015.1125857  
Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE). (2014). Accord
on the internationalization of education. Retrieved from http://
www.csse-scee.ca/docs/acde/Accord_Internationalization_EN.pdf 
Bastalich, W. (2010). Knowledge economy and research innovation.
Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 845–857. 
Brown, P., & Tannock, S. (2009). Education, meritocracy and the global
war for talent. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 377–392. 
Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) (2014). International-
ization statement of principles for Canadian education. Retrieved from
http://www.cbie.ca/internationalization-statement-of-principles-
for-canadian-educational-institutions/ 
Carlaw, K., Oxley, L., Walker, P., Thorns, D. & Nuth, M. (2012). Beyond
the Hype: Intellectual Property and the Knowledge Society/Knowl-
edge Economy. In D.W. Livingstone & D. Guile (Eds.), The knowl-
edge economy and lifelong learning: A critical reader (pp.  7–42).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 
64 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

Connell, R. (2017). Southern theory and world universities. Higher Edu-

cation Research & Development, 36(1), 4–15. doi: 10.1080/07294
360.2017.1252311 
Cudmore, G. (2005). Globalization, internationalization, and the
recruitment of international students in higher education, and in
the Ontario colleges of applied arts and technology. The Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, 35(1), 37–60. 
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD).
(2014). Canada’s international education strategy: Harnessing our
knowledge advantage to drive innovation and prosperity. Retrieved
from http://international.gc.ca/global-markets-marches-mondiaux/
assets/pdfs/overview-apercu-eng.pdf 

de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Inter-
nationalisation of Higher education – European Parliament
2015. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/ STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf 
European Association for International Education (EAIE). (2012).
International student mobility charter. Retrieved from http://www.
eaie.org/dms-static/42c5999a-9700-4262-8ecf-45b09ec7e0ff/
Global%20Charter.pdf 
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social
research. London: Routledge. 
Global Affairs Canada (GAC). (2016). EduCanada: New international
education brand. Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.
do?nid=1035499&tp=1 
Guo, S. & Shan, H. (2013). The politics of recognition: critical dis-
course analysis of recent PLAR policies for immigrant profession-
als in Canada. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4),
464-480. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2013.778073 
Harris, R. G. (2001). The knowledge-based economy: intellectual ori-
gins and new economic perspectives. International journal of man-
agement reviews, 3(1), 21–40. 
International Association of Universities (IAU). (2012). Affirming aca-
demic values in internationalization of higher education: A call
for action. Retrieved from http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/
The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 65

Affirming_Academic_Values_in_Internationalization_of_Higher_
Education.pdf 
Johnstone, M., & Lee, E. (2014). Branded: International education and
21st-century Canadian immigration, education policy, and the wel-
fare state. International Social Work, 57(3), 209–221. 
Kauppinen, I., & Kaidesoja, T. (2014). A shift towards academic capi-
talism in Finland. Higher Education Policy, 27(1), 23–41. 
Khoo, S. (2011). Re-routing the postcolonial university: educating
for citizenship in managed times. In V. Andreotti and L. de Souza
(Eds.), Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education,
(pp. 200–220). New York: Routledge.  
Knight, J. (2014). Is internationalisation of higher education having
an identity crisis? In A. Maldonado-Maldonado & R. M. Bassett
(Eds.), The Forefront of International Higher Education: A Fest-
schrift in Honor of Philip G. Altbach  (pp.  75–87). Dordrecht:
Springer. 
Lee, J. J. & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student
perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. 
Lehtola, V. P. (2015). Sámi histories, colonialism, and Finland. Arctic
Anthropology, 52(2), 22–36. 
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix
of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public
Policy, 23(5), 279–286. 
Marginson, S. (2012). International student security. In H. d. Wit & D.
K. Deardorff (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher
education (pp. 207–223). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Pub-
lications, Inc. 
McCartney, D. M. (2016). Inventing international students: Exploring
discourses in international student policy talk, 1945–75. Historical
Studies in Education/Revue d’histoire de l’éducation, 28(2), 1–27. 
Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC). (2010). Finnish education
export strategy: summary of the strategic lines and measures. Pub-
lications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2010:12. 
Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC). (2016). Rahoitusmalli-
kaavio. Unpublished. Retrieved from www.minedu.fi/export/sites/
default/OPM/Koulutus/Liitteet/rahoitusmalli_2017_fi.pdf 
66 Jani Haapakoski & Sharon Stein

Ministry of Education (MOE). (1995). European Unions’ Higher educa-

tion Policy. Finnish Higher Education Policy’s EU strategy. Reports
of the Ministry of Education 1995:15. 
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2008). Draft of Strategy for the Inter-
nationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland
2009–2015. Unpublished. 
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2009). Strategy for the Internationalisa-
tion of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009–2015. Publi-
cations of the Ministry of Education 2009:23 
Nicolson, M., Andreotti, V.D.O, & Mafi, B. F. (2016). The unstated pol-
itics of stranger making in Europe: A brutal kindness. European
Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(4), 335–351. 
Nokkala, T. (2007). Constructing the Ideal University – The interna-
tionalisation of higher education in the competitive knowledge
society. Tampere University Press. 
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and
the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capital-
ism. Journal of education policy, 20(3), 313–345. 
Palmgren, M. (2009). The Nordic colonial mind. In S. keskinen, S. Tuori,
S. Irni & D. Mulinari (Eds.), Complying With Colonialism: Gender,
Race and Ethnicity in the Nordic Region (pp. 35–50). Farnham, Eng-
land: Routledge. 
Peters, M. (2001). National education policy constructions of the
‘knowledge economy’: towards a critique. The Journal of Educa-
tional Enquiry, 2(1), 1–22. 
Schatz, M. (2016). Engines without fuel?–Empirical findings on Finn-
ish higher education institutions as education exporters. Policy
Futures in Education, 14(3), 392–408. 
Schatz, M., Popovic, A., & Dervin, F. (2015). From PISA to national
branding: exploring Finnish education®. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 1–13.  
Schugurensky, D. (2007). The learning society in Canada and the US.
In M. Kuhn (Ed.), New society models for a new millennium: The
learning society in Europe and beyond (pp.  295–334). New York:
Peter Lang. 
 The ethical implications of internationalisation for a knowledge economy 67

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new
economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press. 
Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. D. O. (2016). Cash, competition, or charity:
International students and the global imaginary. Higher Education,
72(2), 225–239.  
Suša, R. (2016). A critical examination of student responses to the
internationalization of higher education in seven universities in
Canada. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E 170. Tampere: Juvenes
Print. 
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new
times’: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education
Policy, 19(4), 433–451. 
Thobani, S. (2007). Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and
nation in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 
Trilokekar, R. D. (2010). International education as soft power? The
contributions and challenges of Canadian foreign policy to the
internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 59(2),
131–147. 
Trilokekar, R. D. (2015). From soft power to economic diplomacy? A
comparison of the changing rationales and roles of the US and Cana-
dian federal governments in international education. Research &
Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.2.15. Center for Studies in Higher
Education. 
Warwick, P., & Moogan, Y. J. (2013). A comparative study of percep-
tions of internationalisation  strategies in UK universities. Com-
pare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
43(1), 102–123. 
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse
studies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

View publication stats