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

net/publication/331135697

What Counts as Internationalization? Deconstructing

the Internationalization Imperative

Article  in  Journal of Studies in International Education · February 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1028315319829878

CITATIONS READS

11 705

2 authors:

Elizabeth Buckner Sharon Stein

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of British Columbia - Vancouver
28 PUBLICATIONS   377 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   497 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Higher Education Otherwise View project

Mobile Innovation in Education - SMILE Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharon Stein on 15 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

829878
research-article2019
JSIXXX10.1177/1028315319829878Journal of Studies in International EducationBuckner and Stein

Article
Journal of Studies in International Education
1­–16
What Counts as © 2019 European Association for
International Education
Internationalization? Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Deconstructing the DOI: 10.1177/1028315319829878
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsi
Internationalization
Imperative

Elizabeth Buckner1 and Sharon Stein2

Abstract
This article examines how internationalization is defined by three leading higher
education professional associations: NAFSA, the International Association of
Universities, and the European Association of International Education. We examine key
publications to understand which activities, topics, and constituencies are included in
conceptualizations of internationalization and, conversely, which are absent. We find
that all three rely on similar definitions that emphasize international students, student
and scholarly mobility, and curricular change. We argue that current definitions are
largely de-politicized and de-historicized, while internationalization is often assumed
to mean more and better coverage of the globe. Little attention is given to the
ethics of international engagement, particularly across unequal relations of power.
We conclude with numerous questions for administrators and faculty engaged in
internationalization that seek to deepen conversations about this work. In particular,
we emphasize the importance of identifying enduring patterns of global inequality,
recognizing ethical responsibilities, and enabling alternative possibilities.

Keywords
internationalization, professional associations, ethics

Introduction
Around the world, faculty, staff, and administrators are being asked to engage with
internationalization on their campuses, often with little understanding of what

1University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, USA

Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Buckner, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6.
Email: elizabeth.buckner@utoronto.ca
2 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

internationalization is, should, or could be. Mainstream resources are overwhelmingly

oriented toward achieving “successful” internationalization, rather than prompting
thoughtful engagements and systemic analyses around why or how we should do so.
This article seeks to draw attention to the possibilities, complexities, and complicities
that are presented by the seemingly inevitable intensification of internationalization.
Ultimately, we seek to create spaces for conversations that might enable educators to
collectively problematize and historicize existing assemblages and allocations of
resources and value.
To do so, this article examines discourses on internationalization put forward by
three of the largest international education professional associations: NAFSA, the
International Association of Universities (IAU), and the European Association for
International Education (EAIE). We draw on a critical paradigm to deconstruct the
“internationalization imperative” through a close reading of major reports, surveys,
and documents, asking what “counts” as internationalization and what does not. In
analyzing discourses from NAFSA, IAU, and EAIE, we find that the three associa-
tions’ conceptions of internationalization are quite similar, with shared understandings
of what “counts” as internationalization, namely, international students, student and
scholarly mobility, research partnerships, and curricular reforms. We further argue that
all three associations tend to adopt a predominantly technical and often quantified
approach to measuring internationalization, while simultaneously leaving the idea of
“international” conceptually vague. The major effect of this approach is that interna-
tionalization is framed as apolitical and largely divorced from broader discussions of
historical or geopolitical inequalities, ethical responsibilities, and alternative possibili-
ties for engaging with and across difference.
We conclude by posing open-ended questions that can help to orient collective
conversations among higher education administrators and faculty engaged in interna-
tionalization efforts. We emphasize that all approaches to internationalization are par-
tial and must consider what is viable, relevant, and socially responsible in a given
context. We note that although internationalization is being undertaken by institutions
around the world, our focus in this article is on internationalization as it operates
within Western institutions and organizations.

Internationalization at a Crossroads
Nearly 15 years ago, Jane Knight (2004) defined the internationalization of higher
education as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimen-
sion into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 11).
Although Knight’s (2014) has become a go-to definition of the term, recently, she
expressed concern that “internationalisation has become a catch-all phrase used to
describe anything and everything remotely linked to the global, intercultural or inter-
national dimensions of higher education and is thus losing its way” (p. 76). In response,
she proposed not a revised definition of internationalization, but rather reconsideration
of “the fundamental values underpinning it” (p. 76). Knight is not alone; de Wit (2014)
also argued “internationalization in higher education is at a turning point and the
Buckner and Stein 3

concept of internationalization requires an update, refreshment and fine-tuning taking

into account the new world and higher education order” (p. 97; see also Brandenburg
& de Wit, 2011). Beyond these more general concerns about the need to re-examine
what is meant by “internationalization,” a growing critical literature attends to the
specific possibility that dominant approaches might further reproduce and reify endur-
ing local and global power inequalities, in both the epistemological and material
dimensions (Madge, Raghuram, & Noxolo, 2015; Stein, Andreotti, Bruce, & Susa,
2016; Suspitsyna, 2015). In light of these conversations, this article examines how
professional associations currently understand and define internationalization, as a
starting point to deepen and add complexity to current conversations.
Our approach is guided by critical discourse analysis; dominant discourses around
internationalization assume that it is both necessary and desirable (Hudzik, 2011).
Critical discourse analysis allows us to de-naturalize the assumptions and ideas that
frame and limit our thoughts about internationalization. Discourse refers to how we
use language to define, categorize, and explain our social world, becoming the basis
for establishing identities, justifying action, and creating social structures (Chabbott,
2003). In this way, discourse creates “regimes of truth” that not only explain the social
world but help to constitute reality (Foucault, 1980). When discourse analysis is
undertaken from the critical paradigm, scholars identify dominant discourses and
deconstruct them to examine how power functions to normalize certain ideas while
minimizing or foreclosing others. Kezar (2006) reminded us that in the critical para-
digm, an “objective stance vis-à-vis the phenomena of study is neither required nor
deemed desirable” (p. 308). Rather, we seek to shed light on how powerful histories
and assumptions work to normalize certain definitions and ideals of internationaliza-
tion, and to point to potential openings for different types of engagement, or what we
describe as “engaging difference differently.”
Using a critical discourse analysis approach, we conduct a close reading of major
publications by three prominent professional associations that support and advocate
for internationalization: NAFSA: The Association of International Educators, based in
the United States; the IAU, a global association of universities; and the EAIE.
Combined, these three organizations represent major sources of ideas about interna-
tionalization and the professional advocacy networks that define best practices and
collect data on how higher education institutions (HEIs) are responding to the interna-
tionalization imperative. However, our analysis is not intended as a comprehensive
assessment of their work in particular. Instead, we focus on these three associations
because each is a producer of influential discourses on (and practices of) internation-
alization, and their materials can therefore serve as useful illustrations of dominant
discourses on internationalization that circulate within higher education spaces more
generally. We recognize that the selection of only one key document by each organiza-
tion is limited; because of this, we do not claim to offer a representative review of their
approaches to internationalization, nor an analysis that can be generalized to describe
how internationalization is defined and operationalized within individual universities,
departments, or professional associations. However, in adopting a critical approach,
our goal is not to empirically summarize or report out major themes in these reports.
4 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Rather, it is to shed light on aspects of internationalization that have been under-

appreciated in many conversations, and point to possibilities for new conversations.

Profiles of Internationalization
NAFSA’s Comprehensive Internationalization
NAFSA is a worldwide membership association of professional higher education
administrators focusing on international education. NAFSA was founded in 1948 as the
National Association for Foreign Student Advisers, as a professional association for
advisors helping foreign students studying in the United States after World War II. By
1990, the association’s work developed to include admissions personnel, language spe-
cialists, and higher education leaders, and its mandate included both foreign students
and outbound mobility. In recognition of these changes, the association voted to rename
itself NAFSA: Association of International Educators to reflect its broader mandate. In
the 21st century, NAFSA has been a strong advocate of global education. It organizes
an annual conference; publishes a professional magazine, International Educator; and
advises higher education administrators on a range of issues, including how to manage
international offices, tips for successful study abroad tours, and international student
recruitment. Although primarily U.S.-centered in its history, outlook, and mandate, its
annual conference attracts 10,000 members from over 100 countries, and its website
describes it as “the leading organization committed to international education and
exchange” (NAFSA, 2019).
In 2011, NAFSA published a flagship text, Comprehensive Internationalization,
which summarizes much of the association’s thinking on internationalization. The
report was produced by the Internationalization Dialogue Task Force and written by
John Hudzik, a former dean of International Studies and Programs at Michigan State
University who is also a past president and chair of the Board of Directors of NAFSA
and past president of the Association of International Education Administrators
(AIEA). The report, while being only one of many publications by NAFSA, articulates
the association’s approach to internationalization and has informed its key program-
ming, including the Senator Paul Simon Award for Comprehensive Internationalization.
The concept of comprehensive internationalization, which undergirds NAFSA’s
approach to internationalization, is framed as an “organizing paradigm to think holisti-
cally about higher education internationalization” (Hudzik, 2011, p. 5). Given the
association’s endorsement of this approach, we focus on NAFSA’s approach to com-
prehensive internationalization:

Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment, confirmed through action, to

infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and
service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches
the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional
leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is
an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (Hudzik, 2011, p. 6)
Buckner and Stein 5

While expansive and aspirational, this definition of comprehensive internationaliza-

tion is also somewhat vague: comprehensive internationalization is defined as a form of
commitment and action that must infuse “international and comparative perspectives”
throughout the entire institution, including internal and external stakeholders. However,
what exactly counts as “international and comparative” is not discussed. Because
NAFSA was founded in the United States and its membership is overwhelmingly
located in the United States, its approach to internationalization both reflects and poten-
tially reproduces dominant discourses of internationalization found in the United States,
and its discussions of what is “international” is implicitly oriented to a U.S. audience
through the report’s discussions of U.S. universities’ history of isolationism.
The report outlines two primary types of indicators of internationalization: (a) stu-
dent-focused measures and learning outcomes, and (b) research, scholarship, and
engagement outcomes. Student-focused indicators of internationalization include
study abroad program diversity, the number of international students and their majors,
the number of students achieving language competencies, and the number of students
in “international, global, and comparative majors,” although which majors count as
“international or global” is also left undefined.
It is worth noting that many indicators of internationalization refer to study abroad.
For example, the report identifies possible indicators as “Study abroad program diver-
sity: destination, length, subject matter, pedagogy” and “Number and diversity of stu-
dents in activities abroad (study, research, internships, etc.).” The implicit assumption
here is that by traveling abroad, students will learn about another country, language, or
society. However, the distinction of “international-to-whom” is never addressed,
despite the fact that country of origin is fundamental to definitions of internationaliza-
tion. The implicit assumption of study abroad indicators is that international students
traveling back to their home country would not count as engaged in an international
activity, while a national student doing the same activity would count. The status of a
permanent resident or immigrant returning to a home country or second-generation
students learning heritage languages are also never addressed, suggesting that the
dichotomy between “domestic” and “international” is defined somewhat narrowly by
visa status, with no discussion of other forms of student diversity.
Indicators of student learning outcomes are also left quite vague. For example,
outcome-oriented indicators of internationalization include “Evidence of outcomes
relative to learning objectives,” “pre- and post-results on standardized tests of knowl-
edge, attitudes, or beliefs,” and “evidence of impact on students, e.g., knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs, skills, careers.” Each one of these indicators suggests that students
should be learning something, or experiencing some change in attitude or belief.
However, the report never clearly articulates or discusses what exactly students should
be learning, or how the learning might be undertaken.
Indeed, much of the literature on internationalization, including this NAFSA report,
seems to imply that internationalization should improve students’ understanding of the
world’s many countries, societies, and languages; provide exposure to diverse per-
spectives; and prepare students to work closely with those from different linguistic or
cultural backgrounds. However, discussions of the politics of difference are rarely
6 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

engaged directly. The number and diversity of international students’ countries of ori-
gin are viewed as a key indicator of internationalization; however, in these discus-
sions, international students become framed as primarily resources for internationalizing
the campus environment to the benefit of national students. Moreover, despite the fact
that many organizations, including the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development (OECD), and the European Union (EU), define inter-
national students as those on international study visas for tracking trends in interna-
tional academic mobility, scholars including Jones (2017) have argued that such
practices at the institutional level fail to recognize the heterogeneity of “international
students,” and create a “false dichotomy” (p. 934) between “international” and
“domestic” that may prevent institutions from developing relevant and targeted
approaches to adequately support all students.
The effect of the focus on “international” as defined by visa status on campuses is
that nationality comes to define diversity, and other forms of difference among “inter-
national students,” including class, ethnicity, linguistic, and migration status are often
downplayed. The closest the report comes is stating that the institution must fully
integrate international students into the campus environment to promote their “appre-
ciation for global diversity” and must maximize “the contact and cross-learning of
both domestic and international populations” (Hudzik, 2011, p. 35). In addition, one
student learning outcome states that there should be “evidence of students’ capacity to
learn from and with others from different cultures” (Hudzik, 2011, p. 26). However,
this language implies that international is a synonym for “different cultures,” with the
United States as the assumed audience, while the wide range of diversity of cultural
practices within the same nation, including the United States, is wholly ignored.
Similarly, there is no discussion of global inequality or power imbalances in any of
the recommended indicators of internationalization—internationalization is never dis-
cussed as a way to help students understand or rethink their place in the world, despite
the report’s recognition that U.S. higher education and the United States more broadly
has a long history of isolationism. The “content of internationalization” could include a
discussion of unequal political, economic, and cultural relations between countries; it
could help students, particularly those in North America and Europe, wrestle with the
historic and ongoing power imbalances in the world that grant them distinct privileges
based on their national origin. This is just one possibility for the types of “knowledges,
attitudes or beliefs” that could be mapped onto internationalization. However, this
report largely ignores the issue of power and geopolitics altogether. Instead, one of the
key takeaways of NAFSA’s definition of comprehensive internationalization is that it is
self-consciously defined as a “big-tent,” intentionally broad in scope and inclusive of a
wide variety of activities. In practice, this broad definition allows campuses to engage
in a version of “comprehensive internationalization” with little grappling with geopoli-
tics, power imbalances, or privilege. The benefit of a “big tent” approach is that it seeks
to avoid limiting institutions to narrow prescriptions; on the contrary, it also means that
the burden of adopting and translating a version of critical internationalization into
institutional priorities and programming likely falls on the initiative of specific indi-
viduals, rather than being undertaken in a more systematic way.
Buckner and Stein 7

The IAU’s Global Survey on Internationalization

The IAU (2016) is an institutional membership-based international non-governmental
organization (INGO) that aims to build a worldwide higher education community. The
IAU was founded in 1950 as a worldwide association of HEIs. Today, it has 650 mem-
bers from roughly 120 countries; the IAU is an institutional membership organization,
whose members are typically university leaders from around the world. The IAU
focuses on promoting values-driven institutional leadership, and internationalization
is a priority area for the IAU—its 2016-2020 strategic plan includes internationaliza-
tion as a thematic priority, stating that the association aims to remain “a leader for
inclusive, fair and ethical internationalization of higher education” (IAU, 2016, p. 10).
The IAU conducts the Global Survey on Internationalization, which serves as an
important knowledge-producing initiative for the association, as part of its commitment
to trend analysis. The Global Survey on Internationalization began as a pilot initiative
in 2003. The survey is now conducted every 4 years (2005, 2009, 2013, 2018), and
participation has grown significantly with each iteration. The first IAU survey of inter-
nationalization in 2003 included only 176 HEIs from 66 countries, primarily predomi-
nantly English-speaking countries. Subsequently, the survey was translated into
multiple languages, and the first regular survey, conducted in 2005, included 545 coun-
tries from 95 countries. By 2009, the survey included 745 HEIs from 115 countries, and
in 2013, the fourth Global Survey included more than 1,300 HEIs from 131 countries.
The IAU membership covers all world regions, including Latin America, Asia, and
Africa, and its survey is designed in consultation with experts from those regions.
To understand how the IAU conceptualizes internationalization, we examined the
text of the questionnaire used for the fourth Global Survey on Internationalization to
examine what activities are included as internationalization. The survey is divided into
six sections: (a) an institutional profile, (b) internationalization as an institutional pri-
ority, (c) specific strategies and activities associated with internationalization, (d) stu-
dent mobility, (e) internationalization at home, and (f) the respondent profile (IAU,
2013).
The survey begins with an institutional profile that examines how important inter-
nationalization is to university leadership, asking “What level of importance does
internationalization have for the leadership of your institution?” The very nature of the
question and its placement at the beginning of the survey can be understood as imply-
ing that internationalization should be an institutional priority. An alternative way to
gauge the importance of internationalization, for example, would be to ask respon-
dents to list their current institutional priorities, where a list of options could include
enhancing research productivity, ensuring equitable access, community engagement,
supporting diverse learners, upgrading facilities, improving student experience, and so
on, where increasing international engagement is only one of many possible priorities.
However, the IAU questionnaire does not ask respondents to compare or evaluate the
importance of internationalization relative to other priorities. By creating data that
reinforces the idea that internationalization is important, the survey creates a world in
which higher education administrators can commit to internationalization without
8 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

having to weigh other activities or constraints, or having to reflect on why it is impor-

tant by considering the motivations behind its presumed importance (e.g., financial,
ethical, political).
The next section of the questionnaire focuses on organizational and bureaucratic
aspects of internationalization. The survey asks several questions about who is respon-
sible for internationalization, as well as questions about whether the HEI has a specific
office or team, a monitoring and evaluation framework, budgetary resources, and
whether it has defined concrete learning outcomes related to internationalization.
These questions emphasize an understanding of internationalization as an organiza-
tion-level process. The survey also identifies several activities, which become an
implicit definition for what internationalization is and what it should be, including
recruiting international students, facilitating student mobility and exchanges, research
partnerships, joint degrees, branch campuses, and distance learning.
However, many key university constituencies are left out, and by failing to recog-
nize them, many types of activities that could be conceptualized as “internationaliza-
tion” are not included. For example, activities that are not included in the survey
include co-authoring with international colleagues, the number and types of languages
of instruction offered, the number and extent of scholarships offered to students for
mobility opportunities, or the extent to which institution-produced knowledge is
openly accessible to researchers around the world. Moreover, none of the mentioned
activities include discussions of multiculturalism, diversity, equity, or other types of
work that higher education administrators could be participating in to advocate, sup-
port, or enact more just or equitable forms of internationalization programming.
By focusing on the activities and roles of higher education administrators, the sur-
vey seems to downplay the role of faculty and librarians. For faculty members, inter-
nationalization tends to be conceptualized as “outgoing mobility opportunities for
faculty/staff” (IAU, 2013, p. 8). In addition, there is one question about whether inter-
nationalization-at-home includes professional development to support faculty in inte-
grating international or intercultural content into the curriculum. However, the survey
is noticeably not interested in how that content is integrated, or whether the institution
offers any support to help faculty members teach students from diverse backgrounds,
which remains a key challenge for many faculty. Other key stakeholder groups that are
noticeably absent include librarians, alumni, and/or local community organizations.
In a notable exception to the IAU survey’s largely technical frame of reference, the
survey asks about risks to institutions, society and values, sources of funding for inter-
nationalization, and barriers to internationalization. The listed societal risks include
exacerbating inequality in access, overuse of English, the homogenization of curri-
cula, reputational risk, and prestige orientation. Similarly, the survey then asks about
risks to the country, such as a loss of cultural identity and linguistic diversity, brain
drain, or dominance of Western epistemologies. This section offers a potential opening
for more nuanced and critical approaches to internationalization. However, selecting
and ranking risks to produce comparative data is abstracted from discussions of insti-
tutional deliberations, meaning it does not allow us to understand how considerations
of risks inform institutions’ internationalization practices.
Buckner and Stein 9

Another potential critical opening arises in a question related to external barriers to

internationalization, where the survey asks about visa restrictions, both those imposed
by the respondent’s country and those by other countries. The same question addresses
language barriers and concerns over a “lack of interest” on the part of potential part-
ners. This question implicitly recognizes the unequal geopolitical environment, which
privileges some students and disadvantages others, but is also framed as important
primarily because it is an “obstacle” (IAU, 2013, p. 6) to effective internationalization.
Notably, the survey does not ask about other pertinent obstacles, such as differentials
in fees for international students, availability of scholarships for less-affluent interna-
tional students, or financial aid options to help national students study abroad.

The EAIE’s Barometer

The EAIE is a non-profit organization for higher education administrators and profes-
sionals engaged in internationalization. According to EIAE, its mission is to “help our
members succeed professionally and to contribute to developments in international
higher education from a European perspective” (EAIE, 2019). In its work, EAIE offers
services to members and other international higher education professionals, serves as
a platform for networking and strategy, and influences “key decision makers” in the
field. Despite being Europe-centered, EAIE includes individuals from outside Europe
who “share our view of international higher education as equitable, ethical, socially
responsible, accessible and accountable” (EAIE, 2016, p. 1). Each year, EAIE hosts an
annual conference, produces the Forum magazine, and The Internationalisation of
Higher Education Handbook. EAIE is also part of the Association for Studies in
International Education (ASIE), which publishes The Journal of Studies in International
Education. In 2012, EAIE led a group of associations in the creation of The International
Student Mobility Charter, which calls on governments, institutions, and associations
to endorse 10 dimensions of support for international students.
In addition to these publications, EAIE has committed to creating periodic reports on
“the state of internationalization in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) from
the point of view of actors directly involved in internationalization” (EAIE, 2014, p. 2).
The first edition of this survey and subsequent report, “EAIE Barometer 2014,” was
published in 2015, and the second addition was published in 2018. To understand how
EAIE conceptualizes internationalization, we examined the survey questions that will
inform the second edition.
The 2018 EAIE Barometer survey has nine sections that cover institutional context,
management of internationalization, and challenges. In the section on institutional con-
text, the survey asks respondents to identify the main goals of internationalization at their
HEI, which include: improve the quality of education; improve the quality of research;
prepare students for a globalized world/enhance student employability; better service the
local community and society; improve institutional reputation, competitiveness, and/or
position in rankings; financial benefits; respond to demographic shifts; other; and do not
know. Notably, many of the listed goals frame internationalization in terms of the com-
petitive advantages it will confer to local students, communities, and institutions, namely,
10 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

in terms of improving their reputation or economic standing. In creating a list of assumed

motivations for internationalizing, the survey implicitly ignores other possibilities, even
as there is an opportunity for people to write in “other” goals. Indeed, absent from this list
is the pursuit of internationalization for reciprocal or transformative outcomes, such as
challenging and/or broadening students’ worldviews, reframing the power dynamics of
intercultural relationships, or enhancing epistemic equity between different communities
and nations. It is also significant that the list of goals includes service to the local com-
munity and society, but no similar reference to responsibilities to global communities.
Next, the EAIE survey asks respondents to rank the “level of internationalization”
of their HEI in relation to other HEIs in their own country, as follows: above average,
average, below average, or do not know. This kind of a ranking not only assumes that
internationalization can be compared across institutional contexts but also immedi-
ately establishes a hierarchy and frames internationalization as a competition. As with
the IAU survey, such a framing also positions internationalization as an inherent good,
without considering that some institutions might have other legitimate priorities or that
some internationalization activities can be harmful.
As in the IAU survey, the EAIE survey prepopulates its responses in ways that
frame and limit what can be identified as internationalization. For instance, respon-
dents are asked to identify which activities are undertaken at their institution, which
are prioritized in strategic plans, which have been areas of progress in the last 3 years,
and which will become more significant at their HEI in the coming 3 years. These
activities include: international student recruitment; international faculty/staff recruit-
ment; international mobility for home students; international mobility for home fac-
ulty/staff; internationalization of the curriculum; programs in a non-local language;
courses and activities developing students’ international awareness and cultural com-
petence; distance/online/blended international learning; branch campuses; joint degree
programs, capacity building in developing countries [sic]; engagement with local
community and society; internationalization of campus services; institution-wide
internationalization training for faculty/staff; other; do not know. While the EAIE’s list
of internationalization activities is more comprehensive than that of the IAU, and
includes a number of constituencies ignored by the IAU, the framing nonetheless
implicitly bounds what is considered “international” and potentially reinforces global
hierarchies. For example, it is telling that the only time low-income countries are
invoked directly, the assumed relationship is “capacity building,” rather than equal
research partnerships or outward mobility.
There are a few notable exceptions to the technical perspective in the EAIE
Barometer questionnaire. One is the “Challenges,” section, which asks respondents
about the internal and external challenges that their institution faces in pursuit of its
internationalization goals. The provided list of external challenges is particularly nota-
ble in that several gesture to political and economic inequalities and/or tensions such
as issues of brain drain (although this is in reference to local staff and students, not
international staff and students), immigration barriers (e.g., visa restrictions), high
costs, and even “political nationalism that evokes anti-international and xenophobic
sentiments.” Moreover, the EAIE survey acknowledges that internationalization does
Buckner and Stein 11

not come naturally, but must be actively supported through faculty/staff development,
by including a question that asks respondents to indicate the kind of training programs
that are available at their institution, such as recruiting and retaining international staff
and students, teaching methodologies for the international classroom, and managing
international relations.

Discussion: De-Politicized Internationalization

The documents analyzed above illustrate some of the common guiding assumptions
about the definition and measurement of internationalization in higher education that
risk reproducing uneven relations of local and global power. Despite their consider-
able differences, the three professional associations hold largely similar understand-
ings of higher education internationalization: all three associations profiled adopt a
broad definition of internationalization, with all three pointing to roughly a dozen
possible activities, stakeholders, and forms of programming that “count” as interna-
tionalization. They also focus on similar priority programs, including international
students, student and scholarly mobility, research partnerships, “internationalization-
at-home” through curricular additives and extra-curricular activities, and cross-border
initiatives such as branch campuses, joint degrees, or distance programs. Similarly, we
note that all three associations tend to define successful internationalization primarily
in technical terms, with a focus on organizational structures, activities, and programs.
Each association’s list of key indicators for internationalization places a significant
emphasis on the extent to which the organization is “doing a good job” implementing
new, often additive, forms of international engagements, a point noted by other schol-
ars (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011).
Prior scholarship has pointed out that internationalization indicators need to move
beyond measuring what institutions are doing to measure what students are learning
(Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011). We found evidence of this discourse permeating the
professional associations, with NAFSA emphasizing the need to move beyond organi-
zational structures to measure actual student learning and outcomes. However, we
note that these conversations remain framed in highly functionalist discourses of
human capital development, which conceptualizes the purpose of higher education as
skill development and downplays the role of higher education as a site of knowledge
production, critique, or political or ethical engagement.
A key finding is that there is a striking absence of engagement with political,
­historical, or geopolitical dimensions of international relationships and knowledge
­production. For example, none of the associations ask higher education administrators
to engage with histories and legacies of unequal geopolitical influence, or with
­inequality in the contemporary academic system that privileges Western, wealthy, and
English-speaking institutions, for example. Similarly, there is almost no discussion of
the financial burdens (or exploitations) associated with various forms of international-
ization. As a result, there is a blind spot regarding the link between internationalization
and broader conversations concerning how unequal power shapes relationships across
racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic difference.
12 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

A second key finding is that the idea of “international” remains conceptually vague in
discussions of internationalization. A number of words, including international, trans-
national, global, and inter-cultural, are all used, more or less interchangeably. This mul-
tiplicity of terms distracts from the fact that what “counts” as “international” is rarely
discussed or theorized, leaving us with all but the most simplistic of definitions—essen-
tially, international is “outside the nation-state’s borders.” A key point, missing from
many definitions of internationalization, is that when “international” is defined as
“abroad” or “foreign,” there is an implicit assumption about identities assumed to be
“local” or “national.” In general, the “national” student body is thought to be homoge-
neous, non-immigrant, and non-Indigenous which erases local differences and the ongo-
ing, uneven relations that have produced them (Roshanravan, 2012). This also means
that conversations about internationalization and multiculturalism are rarely bridged.
On one hand, internationalization is often equated with “global” and entails a push
to cover the “entire world.” The indicators from NAFSA imply that the more expan-
sive the coverage, the better the internationalization. It is worth pointing out that a
desire to “cover” the world and “collect knowledge” suggests a potentially superficial
and extractive cataloging and consumption of difference, rather than deeper under-
standing. Although there are implicit linkages between internationalization and
“appreciation for global diversity,” without defining it further, “appreciation” can
implicitly frame the global “other” as an object of knowledge, cultural capital, and/or
personal development for the local subject, rather than an equal partner in a reciprocal
engagement. In this way, an apolitical embrace of the “global” risks becoming a means
of reproducing relative advantage, while simultaneously ignoring the long histories of
often-exploitative global engagements that produced those relative advantages to
begin with (Charania, 2011).
At the same time, the emphasis on comprehensive “coverage” is belied by the fact
that internationalization strategies also emphasize the importance of having “strate-
gic” partners. These tend to reflect historical and ongoing global inequalities and con-
temporary geopolitics—North American universities send students to Europe for
exposure to “high culture” and look to China and India to capitalize financially off
global elites’ desire for English language education, while places like Mauritania,
Guyana, or Turkmenistan hardly register on the map.
Failure to engage critically with histories of international engagements makes it
likely that existing inequalities in international engagements will simply be reproduced
in the imperative to internationalize. Decades of critical scholarship from de-colonial
and post-colonial studies have documented how engagements across difference do not
necessarily interrupt, and instead often reproduce, unequal power relations (e.g., Santos,
2007; Spivak, 1988). This is because the dominant frames that shape both self-knowl-
edge and intercultural engagements within Western institutions are often shaped by
inherited hierarchies of human worth, in particular those that presume that the West sits
at the head of humanity and as the leader of moral and intellectual progress (Andreotti,
2007). The mere presence of an international dimension in higher education—whether
readings from other national contexts or even an entire course about another country—
does not necessarily interrupt Eurocentric frames, as content is often interpreted through
Buckner and Stein 13

them, further reifying presumed supremacies and separations. Similarly, the terms of
international institutional partnerships can easily become dominated by more economi-
cally and geopolitically powerful partners, affecting knowledge production. If, for
instance, the imperative to internationalize were instead addressed alongside or in dia-
logue with ongoing efforts to decolonize higher education, it might lead to deepened
conversations about colonial legacies, critical multiculturalism, or structures of white
advantage.

Conclusion
In this article, we deconstruct the discourses of major professional associations regard-
ing internationalization, illustrating how dominant approaches are focused on aspects
of technical implementation and largely avoid the ethical and political dimensions of
international engagement. We suggest there is a need to develop deeper and more sys-
temic understandings of the political and historical dimensions of international engage-
ments and their possible impacts, both in general and as this manifests within particular
institutional contexts. While we emphasize that there is no “best” approach to interna-
tionalization, we nonetheless suggest that collective, critically informed efforts to
map, examine, and contextualize different possibilities can equip participants to act
from a place of deepened understanding. With this in mind, we conclude this article
with questions and conversations that higher education administrators and faculty may
want to consider when discussing and planning internationalization efforts. More fun-
damentally, we suggest internationalization work should be engaged from a space of
humility, with self and institutional reflexivity, and with a commitment to continually
assess the impact of that work.
First, who is at the table? Whose voices and experiences are represented, and whose
are not (and who decides this)? Whose voices might be present and represented, but
still remain unheard? Recognizing that internationalization is never apolitical, we
would encourage administrators to ask whose experiences are centered in discussions
of internationalization? Who is presumed to benefit from internationalization, and
who is the presumed subject of internationalization efforts? In particular, we are wary
of implicit assumptions that the assumed target for internationalization on North
American campuses is a white, citizen, middle class individual who needs (and is
entitled to) “exposure” to the “rest of the world” for their own personal and political
development. Meanwhile, international students, and non-Western community part-
ners, are often framed not as subjects but as objects of internationalization, in particu-
lar, as objects of Western development by way of education. Such framings naturalize
and reproduce Eurocentric hierarchies of knowledge and humanity.
To further nuance this conversation, we might go beyond asking who is included
and centered in conversations about internationalization, and also ask about the terms
of the conversation itself: Who gets to decide what counts as internationalization, and
why? Who has more power in shaping international research partnerships or interna-
tional service-learning programs, and what are the histories and institutional structures
that have created and sustained these unequal patterns of relationship? How might
14 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

these patterns be interrupted and reformulated so as to enact internationalization in

more equitable ways? Engaging with these kinds of questions would invite faculty and
administrators to either begin or continue identifying the enduring intellectual and
political economies that shape internationalization practice, and perhaps prompt them
to consider the challenges that would be involved in trying to reframe it.
Second, commonly cited definitions of internationalization frame it as an “ongoing
process”—and we welcome this approach. However, our profiles above note that
dominant approaches to internationalization remain highly technical and emphasize
coverage of regions, languages, and programs, and the quantity of international activi-
ties rather than a more qualitative consideration of the ethical and political possibilities
that are enabled by any particular activity. Rather than conceptualizing international-
ization in terms of coverage, through numerical indicator programs and students, we
argue that internationalization should be understood as an approach to “encountering
difference” and perhaps, as a way to “encounter difference differently,” that opens up
possibilities for examining and re-examining biases, stereotypes, and hegemonic
assumptions about ways of being and knowing. In line with this argument, we would
ask administrators to reflect on questions such as the following: What are you measur-
ing? What assumptions and investments are reflected in those measurements? To what
extent are the outcomes of internationalization framed in terms of “acquiring” knowl-
edges about places and peoples, rather than “deconstructing” assumed knowledge, and
“opening up” new possibilities for relating to ourselves and the world in ways that
account for our differences and interdependencies?

Authors’ Note
Sharon Stein is now affiliated with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
Elizabeth Buckner https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6335-0997

References
Andreotti, V. (2007). An ethical engagement with the other: Spivak’s ideas on education.
Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1, 69-79.
Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher
Education, 62, 15-16.
Buckner and Stein 15

Chabbott, C. (2003). Constructing education for development: International organizations and

education for all. New York, NY: Routledge.
Charania, G. R. (2011). Grounding the global: A call for more situated practices of pedagogical
and political engagement. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies,
10, 351-371.
de Wit, H. (2014). The different faces and phases of internationalisation of higher educa-
tion. In A. Maldonado-Maldonado & R. M. Bassett (Eds.), The forefront of international
higher education: A festschrift in honor of Philip G. altbach (pp. 89-99). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
European Association for International Education (EAIE). (2014). “Executive Summary.” The
EAIE Barometer, Internationalisation in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/dam/
jcr:720cfbd1-25b1-41cd-8e52-0b95738a9b2c/EAIE%20Barometer%20Executive%20
Summary.pdf
European Association for International Education (EAIE). (2016). 2016-2020 EAIE Strategy.
Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/dam/jcr:a6acb81f-6933-4734-8c1a-7efeca1796af/
2016-2020%20EAIE%20Strategy.pdf
European Association for International Education (EAIE). (2019) The EAIE Academy.
Bordeaux, 8–12 April 2019. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.
New York, NY: Pantheon.
Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington,
DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
IAU. (2013). IAU 4th Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education. Institutional
Questionnaire. Paris, France: International Association of Universities.
IAU. (2016). IAU Strategic Plan 2016-2020. Retrieved from https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/
iau_strategic_plan_2016-2020.pd
Jones, E. (2017). Problematising and reimagining the notion of “international student experi-
ence.” Studies in Higher Education, 42, 933-943.
Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 283-344, volume 21). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.
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 edu-
cation: A festschrift in honor of Philip G. altbach (pp. 75-87). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer Science & Business Media.
NAFSA. (2019). “About Us.” Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/About_Us/
Madge, C., Raghuram, P., & Noxolo, P. (2015). Conceptualizing international education: From
international student to international study. Progress in Human Geography, 39, 681-701.
Roshanravan, S. (2012). Staying home while studying abroad: Anti-imperial praxis for global-
izing feminist visions. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 2, 1-23.
Santos, B. D. S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of Knowledges.
Review, 1, 45-48.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism
and the interpretation of culture (pp. 24-28). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Stein, S., Andreotti, V. D. O., Bruce, J., & Susa, R. (2016). Towards different conversations
about the internationalization of higher education/vers des conversations différentes au
16 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

sujet de l'internationalisation de l'enseignement supérieur. Comparative and International

Education, 45(1), Article 2.
Suspitsyna, T. (2015). Cultural hierarchies in the discursive representations of China in the
chronicle of higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56, 21-37.

Author Biographies
Elizabeth Buckner is an assistant professor in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult
Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Her research
examines how globalization is affecting higher education institutions. Her prior studies have
examined the effects of privatization and internationalization on universities around the world.
Sharon Stein is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the Universiy
of British Columbia. Her work is focused on the social foundations of higher education, and
addresses the ethics and politics of knowledge production, frames of global learning, and theo-
ries of social change. She seeks to foster divergent perspectives, practices, and pedagogies that
gesture toward more just global futures.

View publication stats