Globalisation, Societies and EducationVol. 2, No. 1, March 2004

ISSN 1476–7724 (print)/ISSN 1476–7732 (online)/04/010083–15© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1476772042000177069

Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalismJonas Stier*Växjö University, SwedenTaylor & Francis LtdCGSE20106. sgm10 .1080/14767 720420 001770 69Globalisat ion, Societies & Edu cation14 76-7724 (print)/147 6-7732 (online)Special Issue20 04Taylor & Francis Ltd2112 8March 2004J .St ierSchool of Educat ionVäxjö UniversitySE 351 95 Väx jöSwed enjonas.st ier@iped.v xu.se

This article suggests that difficulties in the implementation of internationalization policies in highereducation can be explained by the fact that universities are guided by divergent understandings ofthe term ‘internationalization’ as well as by diverging or even contradictory ideologies. This text,therefore, critically singles out and investigates three internationalization ideologies, referred to asidealism, instrumentalism and educationalism with a special emphasis on their explicit as well asimplicit visions, foci, goals and strategies.

Introduction

Learning, too, and wonder, as a rule, are pleasant; for wonder implies the desire to learn,so that the wonderful is something desired, while learning implies a settlement into ournormal state. (Aristotle)

At the dawn of the new millennium internationalization is a popular and frequentlyemployed concept—in varying contexts and for diverse purposes. Yet it undoubtedlyremains ambiguous and unclear (Knight, 1997; Stier 2001, 2002b, Yang, 2002).Policy-makers in Europe, North America and Australia encourage, or even require,universities to facilitate international co-operation. Educational fairs and conferences,with thousands of participants are arranged annually, ambitious inter-universityagreements are signed, vast (albeit insufficient) financial resources are allocated, andstudents and teaching staff travel abroad by the thousands. And even if some peopledo not wish for personal involvement, the majority, nonetheless, seem to be at easewith the academic parlance of our times—the need for internationalizing highereducation.

*School of Education, Växjö University, SE 351 95 Växjö, Sweden. Email: jonas.stier@iped.vxu.se

84 J. Stier

By the same token, for many academics internationalization has, more or less,taken the shape of a commitment, or a vocation and become an integral part of theirprofessional deed. Personally I have invested more than a decade in these matters,and yet it was not until recently I more thoroughly started reflecting over commonlyheld conceptions and ideological underpinnings of internationalization in highereducation. Particularly significant was the following event (cited from Stier, 2002b).

I was on my way home from a trip as an ‘international educator’. On the aeroplaneI sat next to a man in his 60s. As boredom struck us we became involved in a conver-sation. Taking turns, we told each other about ourselves. For 35 years my new friendhas been working as a technician with the whole world as his professional turf. Witha big portion of enthusiasm he told me many interesting anecdotes. When I told himthat I worked with ‘internationalization issues’ he rightly asked for an explanation. Atlength I explained what I meant by internationalization. Afterwards he said: ‘… but,isn’t my job an example of internationalization?’ I agreed. He thought for a while andthen said: ‘Strange. I never thought of it as “internationalization”. I just saw it as ajob.’

This man’s reaction made me think of the vagueness or even contradictory usageof the term internationalization and how we, in higher education, advertise it as aninvention of late modern society. At the same time I came to realize how seldom wecritically scrutinize the ideological underpinnings of internationalization policies.Instead discussions tend to be fairly idealistic and founded in taken-for-grantedassumptions, rarely questioned or investigated more closely. Finally, and perhapsmost important of all, our conversation evoked curiosity in me to seek explanationsas to why the spirit of internationalization does not let itself easily be transformed intoeducational practice.

Aim, foci and limitations

Against this background, in the following it is assumed that explanations of the ambi-guity and difficulties of implementing internationalization policies can be sought intwo interconnected problem-complexes. The first problem-complex pertains todivergent conceptualizations of internationalization within the existing discourse. Morespecifically, there are different understandings of the term. Some people see interna-tionalization as a state of things, others as a process and some see it as a doctrine. Discus-sions on internationalization also tend to circle around varying foci. For universityadministrators often form-issues are the centre of attention (e.g. the form of agree-ments, structure of student exchanges etc), whereas content-issues (e.g. underlyingideas of curricula, perspectives, biases, pedagogic considerations etc.) largely are leftaside (Stier, 2002b, 2003). In addition to this, educational actors adhere to divergentmotives in their ambition to internationalize.

The other problem-complex pertains to the fact that diverging or contradictoryideologies appear to guide internationalization in higher education. This presumablyhas repercussions for the strategies universities choose to adopt. It is this latter sourceof explanation that it the primary focus of this presentation.

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 85

Hence, by drawing upon personal experiences as an international educator and onexamples from the theoretical discourse on globalization, intercultural training andinternationalization, the focus of this paper is, therefore, to critically investigate theideologies on internationalization in higher education—focusing on their explicit aswell as implicit visions, foci, goals and strategies. Attention will also be drawn to theconsequences for higher education of these ideologies.

For the purpose of this text a generic conception of ideology will suffice. Conse-quently, ideology will refer to a set of principles, underpinnings, desired goals andstrategies that structure actions and beliefs of international educators—administrativeand teaching staff alike—groups, organizations or societies. Ideologies may be, partlyor completely, conscious (e.g. as manifested in educational doctrines) or make up aset of taken-for granted assumptions about internationalization, manifested as anunconscious frame of reference for the individual. Purposively the discussion will notthoroughly address the relationship between internationalization ideologies and otherpolitical ideologies (e.g. socialism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.).

It seems unavoidable that discussions on internationalization take on an ideologicalor a normative character. This text is no exception. More specifically, it addressesnormativity at three different levels. At the first level, the discussion takes off from aconviction of the unquestionable value of internationalization (as it is understoodbelow) for higher education. At the second level, it attempts to deconstruct thisconviction by identifying three different normative views in the discourse on interna-tionalization. These views will be referred to as three ideologies of internationalization.At the third level, the presentation is concluded with some personal suggestions as tohow internationalization can be approached in higher education.

Internationalization then and now

Internationalization is habitually seen as something unique for the last two centuries.But ever since time immemorial, people have interacted with other cultures, out ofcuriosity, necessity or by sheer coincidence. Explorers such as James Cook, Vasco daGama and Christopher Columbus travelled the world in their thirst for knowledge,impulses or material gratification. Famous Swedish scientists Carl von Linné andEmanuel Swedenborg worked in different parts of the world. Academics and studentstravelled abroad to the universities in Bologna, Göttingen, Paris, Greifsvald andOxford, to mention just a few, to take advantage of the intellectual elite of those days(Sjöstrand, 1970; Egidius, 2001). Thus, an interest in the world, other people,cultures, languages and ideas or simply the quest for knowledge and competence areancient motives for academic training abroad.

A significant difference nowadays is, however, that late modernity is distinct fromany previous era—with regard to the pace and extent of societal change (Giddens,1996, pp. 16–17). We also live in a globalized world (Giddens, 1996; Beck, 1998;Bauman, 2000). People, capital, ideologies, media images and cultural impulsestravel around the world more rapidly and efficiently than ever before. Appudurai(1996, p. 33) refers to such movements as global cultural flows or ‘scapes’. By utilizing

86 J. Stier

the term ‘scapes’ he stresses the fluidity and irregularity of global flows and that anygiven flow can be understood in the light of the viewer’s perspective and ideologicalbackground.

The internationalization of higher education is intertwined with these ‘scapes’ inat least two ways. First, it enables or even initiates the transference of ‘ethno-’,‘media-’, ‘techno-’, ‘finance’ and ‘ideoscapes’ (Appudurai, 1996, p. 33). For exam-ple, collaborative international research or international students by the thousandsconstitute significant actors in transferring capital (e.g. through study fees and bycontributing the local and national economies), life styles, ‘know-how’, ideas etc.Second, the internationalization of higher education is influenced by such ‘scapes’. Aswe will see, internationalization, among other things, is entangled with commercial,pragmatic and ideological motives of educational actors.

International experiences are constantly available for us in the work place, oncampus, in our own neighbourhoods or on-line. The internet connects people withdifferent backgrounds across large distances, enabling ‘domestic’ students to moreeasily engage in intercultural interaction as part of their learning. It is even fair to saythat the internet is totally indifferent to international boundaries (Graham, 1999,p. 86). It links together people who otherwise would be strangers to one another bycommon interests that have little to do with nationality (Graham, 1999). Virtual real-ity has become a significant factor, not merely in their learning, but in many people’sidentity construction.

Against this background, territorial, local or national identities have supposedlybeen substituted for mobile and cosmopolitan identities. Being on the go, in constantmovement—physically or virtually—changing and searching for new impulses hasbecome a life-style for some people (Bauman, 2000). In constructing such identitiesinternationalization plays a vital role, in facilitating mobility within higher educationas well as promoting certain supranational identities (e.g. a common ‘EU-identity’).

In addition to this, late modern society is a consumer society to an extent never seenbefore (Bauman, 2000, p. 77). In this context higher education is a double-edgesword. On the one hand, by imposing a consumer ideology (e.g. to view students ascustomers purchasing a commodity) it may (purposively?) reproduce existing struc-tures. On the other hand, through critical scrutiny and emancipatory measures highereducation has a potential to affect the course of society.

This has led people to frantically seek new modes of social, cultural and existentialanchorage (Giddens, 1991). They struggle to attach themselves to the fluid, globaland late modern world—and it seems that many feel frustrated, confused, disorientedor lost. By the same token, people’s identities appear to be more fragile, dispersed ordislocated than ever before, which have urged the construction of new identities(Friedman, 1994; Castells, 1997). As a consequence, self-help books and therapy (oruniversity courses) are seen as paths to self-actualization and wellness (Giddens,1991, p. 198). Solutions are commonly presented as being simple—typically reflect-ing a cause-effect relationship between the origins of the problem and the possiblesolution. Such a simplified view may be counterproductive to some ideologies ofinternationalization in higher education. For instance, intercultural competence is

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 87

not something that is easily accessible of achievable by using a manual or conduct,but requires that hand of time and a vast personal investment.

Finally, Ziehe (1993, p. 36) argues that another overall characteristic of latemodern society is the principle of achievement. Success, development, or results ofhigher education are objects of registration, measurements, evaluations andcomparisons. A person is defined by his or her accomplishments, more than before(this is not, however, to suggest that sex, social class, race, ethnicity etc. are unim-portant). By the same token, universities are objects of constant critical scrutiny. InSweden, for example, there is a trend to continuously assess ‘results’ and levels ofcompetitiveness of education and research, and hence to compare institutionalachievement—quantitatively and qualitatively—with peer institutions around theworld.

Against this background, the significant role of higher education in late modernityseems unquestionable.

Internationalized higher education in a globalized world

Responding to the needs of global man, higher education policies have becomeincreasingly internationalized (Kälvemark et al., 1999). Within the European Unionthe need for mutual exchange of ‘know how’, a strategic utilization of competenciesand resources, and a constant quality-enhancement of higher education is empha-sized. Internationalization is seen as one valuable path to achieve these goals. TheEuropean Commission (2003, p. 2) argues that:

The knowledge society depends for its growth on the production of new knowledge, itstransmission through education and training, its dissemination through information andcommunication technologies, and on its use through new industrial processes or services.Universities are unique, in that they take part in all these processes, at their core, due tothe key role they play in the three fields of research and exploitation of its results, thanksto industrial cooperation and spin-off; education and training, in particular training ofresearchers; and regional and local development, to which they can contribute signifi-cantly. The European Union therefore needs a healthy and flourishing university world.Europe needs excellence in its universities, to optimize the processes which underpin theknowledge society and meet the target, set out by the European Council in Lisbon, ofbecoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable ofsustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

As the example indicates, pragmatic, economistic goals of higher education areemphasized. But in conjunction with such goals, it is often assumed that educationmay be enriching for individuals and a mode for enhanced learning, self-actualization,personal growth as well as national cultures in general:

The transnational mobility of people contributes to enriching different national culturesand enables those concerned to enhance their own cultural and professional knowledgeand European society as a whole to benefit from those effects. Such experience is provingto be increasingly necessary given the current limited employment prospects and anemployment market which requires more flexibility and a greater ability to adapt tochange. (Official Journal of the European Communities, 9.8.2001).

88 J. Stier

It is assumed that higher education may function, in a highly complex fashion, as acatalyst in initiating social change, stimulating economic growth and increasingpeople’s overall sense of life-quality. Beck (1998, p. 178) argues that enlarging theeducational sector is one of the most crucial responses to the global world and mayencompass prolonging educational programmes, emphasizing the acquisition ofbroad competencies (e.g. social and intercultural competencies, conflict manage-ment), rather than competencies narrowly defined a profession-specific needs andrequirements. Internationalizing the curriculum may be one strategy to enablestudents to obtain such skills.

Reversibly, exclusion from or limited access to higher education potently sustainssocial inequality in the world, both within countries and between countries. The bulkof ‘know how’ and necessary resources for scientific innovations are still located to alimited number of the world’s countries. Due to their access to capital, political influ-ence and human resources for research, transnational corporations are powerfulactors in political decision-making—including policies of higher education andresearch (Beck, 1998).

From these assumptions, and illustrated by the two quotes, in the discourse threedivergent ideologies on internationalization crystallize. Analytically, these are ideal-type constructs—i.e. they are to be viewed as means of discussion on international-ization rather than mutually exclusive categories. Also, universities and educationalpolicy-makers do not adhere to merely to one of these ideologies, but often vacillatebetween them. Nor do educators within a given institution necessarily share the sameinterest or ideological view of internationalization.

I have chosen to refer to these ideologies as idealism, instrumentalism and education-alism. Typically, they are not visible to us, but taken-for-granted conceptionsinfluencing our actions and decisions.

Idealism

The idealist rationale of international academic cooperation stems from the norma-tive assumption that ‘internationalization is good per se’. It is believed that throughinternational cooperation, higher education can contribute to the creation of a moredemocratic, fair and equal world. Hence, the task of universities is, among otherthings, to ‘foster’ citizens that adhere to an emanicipatory outlook on the world.

This rationale presumably has roots in ‘pre-global’ times. Bauman (2000, p. 58)argues that globalization replaced the old idea of universalism. He considers universal-ism as central to the modern discourse on international issues. Just like concepts suchas ‘civilization’, ‘convergence’ and ‘evolution’, universalism embodied a belief, inten-tion or ambition to establish a sense of ‘world order’, i.e. to create such an order at aglobal scale. Man’s intellectual capacity was considered a means for societal progressand improvement—‘the old’ was obsolete and should be replaced by a new and betterworld.

In this endeavour internationalization plays a significant role. Internationalizedcurricula supposedly increase the awareness of global life-conditions and social

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 89

injustices—both for students and staff. In turn, as aware and knowledgeable citizensthey may eventually demand a redistribution of resources and welfare as well asenable people to establish a satisfactory level of life-quality. The UNESCO-conference stresses the important role of higher education to accomplish this:

Without adequate higher education and research institutions providing a critical mass ofskilled and educated people, no country can ensure genuine endogenous and sustainabledevelopment and, in particular, developing countries and least developed countries cannotreduce the gap separating them from the industrially developed ones. Sharing knowledge,international co-operation and new technologies can offer new opportunities to reduce thisgap. (UNESCO, World Declaration on Higher Education)

Among other things, international co-operation is to grant students and staff from the‘poor world’ access to essential knowledge and competence (a Swedish example is theLinnaeus-Palme programme). It should also, to domestic students, communicate anunderstanding for the relativity of cultural beliefs, values, living patterns and ideas.Among them, it should, induce tolerance, respect, democratic values, and induce apersonal commitment to helping less fortunate people—i.e. making them willing tomake a difference. Ideally this should eventually enable a sense of global communityand solidarity and prevent ethnocentrism, racism and self-righteousness.

With the risk of generalizing, my experience is that expressing and promoting suchview points is more widespread among university teachers than administrators, andmore common among teachers within the social sciences and the humanities thanamong their colleagues in the technical and natural sciences.

The idealistic standpoint can be criticized insofar that internationalization—andthe creation of a better world—is approached within the realms of the ‘rich world’s’value systems and ethnocentrism.

In the discourse on internationalization residual idea of universalism are clearlyvisible. Internationalization is predominantly conceived of as a one-way flow—‘theycan learn from us’, i.e. ‘we have little to learn from them’ (Stier, 2003). Accordingly,‘their’ competencies are devalued—many times even without being given properattention. In its most extreme, arrogant guise large portions of the world are collec-tively victimized and the wonder cure is spelled internationalization. It is the instru-ment to educate uncivilized people. This attitude has (rightfully!) lead to accusationsof Western cultural imperialism and of claims of global hegemony.

Finally, it seems paradoxical that much of the measures implemented to promoteand facilitate internationalization aim at an increased level of international or globalconvergence—of ideas, educational systems and ideologies—at the same time asthings such the respect and value of pluralism are stressed.

Instrumentalism

Policy-makers want to increase the level of transparency and transference betweennational educational systems, to facilitate and simplify the labour force’s mobility ofpeople and homogenizing university degrees, grading systems etc. To the instrumen-talist viewpoint this is consistent with its inherent pragmatic and economistic goals.

90 J. Stier

Instrumentalists consider higher education to be one means to maximize profit, ensureeconomic growth and sustainable development, or to transmit desirable ideologies ofgovernments, transnational corporations, interest groups or supranational regimes.

For instance, the EU:s rationale for providing life-long learning, e-learning, inter-national study programmes etc, is to have a more flexible labour force as well as toenhance its competencies and, in turn, to increase the Union’s competitiveness on theglobal market.

At a national level, higher education may serve as a buffer to regulate unemploy-ment rates. During recessions or depressions more resources may be allocated tohigher education. For decades this has been a strategy of Swedish governments. Therationale is that it is more cost-efficient to educate people than having them on thepublic payroll, doing nothing.

To attain the goals above, university administrators play a key role, since theyconstitute the organization’s executive force. Hardly surprising it is not uncommonthat teachers and researchers are more reluctant or even oppose such a rationale forinternationalizing higher education.

Nonetheless, in Western Europe, study-programmes with broad foci have beenprioritized. Real, de facto competencies and qualifications with a wide range ofapplication are emphasized (Beck, 1998, p. 178). The value of a given competence ischaracteristically decided how easily and fast it may be enacted in a professional,money-generating context.

For the same pragmatic reasons policy-makers stress the value of life-long learning,inclusive education, social competencies, critical thinking, and, last, but not least,intercultural understanding. The primary objective is to ensure a sufficiently largelabour force, with adequate skills for competence-demanding jobs, in an increasinglymore complex global and multicultural world. Accordingly the Swedish NationalAgency for Higher Education writes in a report (1998, p. 25):

… an increasing number of Swedish enterprises will be active in arenas outside the EU andthe export industry will face great and new challenges in foreign markets. To be preparedfor the 21st century, the private sector will need skilled and well-educated labour. [Mytranslation]

Thus, internationalizing higher education is assumed to meet the demands of thecapitalist, global and multicultural world. Today an increasing number of employersseek multilingual professionals with knowledge of diverse cultural codes (Beck, 1998,p. 178). The importance of intercultural training for university staff and other educa-tors is also a primary area of concern for the EU:

Mobility fosters the discovery of new cultural and social environments. There is thereforea need to facilitate the cultural preparation and initiation of the persons concerned intoliving, learning and working practices in different European countries, as well as theirreturn under appropriate conditions, namely by training relevant contact persons of thetarget groups (university teachers and administrators, vocational teachers and trainers,teachers and head teachers, staff of sending and hosting organizations) interculturally, andto encourage educational and training establishments to appoint staff to coordinate andfacilitate their intercultural training. (Official Journal of the European Communities,9.8.2001, p. 32).

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 91

For these reasons, it seems fair to suggest that university education has become aglobal commodity (Beck, 1998; Stier, 2003). Countries market themselves asresearch and education nations. Accordingly, universities want to strengthen theirand their country’s ‘competitiveness’ at the global academic arena. Griffith Univer-sity, Australia formulates this as:

[The goal is] that the University through its scholarship contribute to Australia’s compet-itiveness as a nation in the global market place. (www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/tal/Policy_Statement_on_internat.html)

In this respect, academia is no different than other markets. For educational tradershaving access to new, unexploited markets is essential. American and Australianuniversities make big efforts to attract fee-paying students from India, China, SouthKorea and Taiwan, since they bring money into the system. Traditionally, this viewon education has not been widespread among Swedish universities, because themajority of them are publicly funded and by law prohibited to charge individualstudents study fees. Yet recently an ideological shift is visible, where universities seemmore prone to ‘commercialize’ their education.

The instrumentalist viewpoint can also be criticized. Wealthy nations attempt toattract academic staff and fee-paying students from the ‘poor’ world, not only forshort-term financial gains, but with an intent to keep their competence in the country,thus risking to ‘brain drain’ their home countries.

In addition to hidden economic incentives, there are concealed ideocultural goals.Subtly and deceptively internationalization policies may be tools to impose a way oflife on others.

Or as in the case with the European Union, internationalization policies may bepart of a large-scale identity-project, intended to replace local, regional or nationalidentities with supranational identities (Stier, 1998). In line with this and other objec-tives of the Union, internationalizing higher education in the member states mayserve as an instrument in establishing ideological convergence and facilitate aEuropean sense of community and cultural conformity. Against this background, itbecomes understandable why the Union allocates vast resources for internationaliza-tion and undertake measures (e.g. simplifying transparency and grade and degreeequivalencies) to simplify student mobility (Kälvemark et al., 1999). But the eager-ness of administrators and policy-makers to remove international obstacles may beperceived as an oppressive standardization of higher education and homogenizationof cultures by teaching staff. This seems contrary to an idealistic ambition to preserv-ing and promoting cultural pluralism, where cultures and nations are valued equallyand appreciated for their peculiarities.

Educationalism

The ideology of educationalism implies a wider and deeper view on education—vividly expressed in the German distinction between Ausbildung and Bildung. Inshort, Ausbildung is typically what most of us presumably think of when we hear theexpression higher education. It is organized, limited in time, and its purpose may be

92 J. Stier

professional or academic—typically with the intent of obtaining a given set of skills.By contrast, Bildung refers to life-long learning, beyond organized education, with astrong emphasis on the value of learning itself.

What this means it that although internationalization may be a response to thelabour market’s competence demands, for educationalists its purposes extend beyondmere idealistic and professional aspirations of policy-makers.

Educationalists argue that being exposed to and having to adapt to an unfamiliaracademic setting (with its unique culture, teaching style, norms and grading system)enriches the overall academic experiences of students and teaching staff alike (Stier,2002a).

At the same time by being abroad the features and oddities of the home institutionbecome obvious. By comparing ‘home’ to ‘away’ advantages and disadvantages ofboth can be seen. As an exercise syllabi and contents of lectures and literature mayscrutinize to detect cultural biases or embedded ideologies. As an example we can askourselves the question: to what extent do readers in global studies reflect otherperspectives than Western? What does a ‘global’ perspective imply?

Exposure to a new, perhaps unknown, national culture—with its unique features,social expectations and language—is a learning experience per se where culturalcompetence is acquired and respect for the equality and value of cultural differencesand similarities is developed. For some individuals this may trigger feelings of uncer-tainty, uneasiness, frustration, anxiety or chauvinism (Stier, 2002a). Acquaintingoneself with such feelings may, however, enhance his or her self-knowledge and, inturn, facilitate the development of fruitful coping-strategies. In such situations theindividual’s beliefs, attitudes, prejudices and stereotypes are challenged. The role ofeducation is to assist him or her, not merely in detecting cultural differences and simi-larities, but in understanding, scrutinizing and respecting them.

Furthermore, education in the Bildung-sense facilitates a unique and enrichinglearning process. Unlike one-dimensional instrumental learning, it is a multilevellearning process, which stimulates meta-reflection and the adoption of ‘anoutsider’s’ perspective. Students should therefore not only understand that there arenumerous perspectives and interpretations of most things. Rather, they should alsograsp the anatomy of a perspective and how it distorts our conception of reality.Parenthetically it can be said that here e-learning has an important role to play. Itmay facilitate or intensify intercultural interaction between students in differentparts of the world. It also enables students who, for whatever reasons, are unable tostudy abroad to obtain an international experience. Whether it will facilitate mutualrespect, tolerance and understanding between people around the world or not, onlyfuture can tell.

So all in all, from an educationalist standpoint internationalization may contributeto personal growth and self-actualization. This is supported by a report from theSwedish National Agency for Higher Education. It indicates that studies abroad givestudents a sense of greater independence, self-esteem and evoked an interest in othercultures (1999, p. 28). What the long-term and in-depth effects studying abroad hadon them is a matter of further research.

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 93

The educationalist standpoint has its flaws. For instance, time spent on educationas it is outlined above will draw time from other subjects. The standpoint is also morecongruent with some academic disciplines than others. For example, students andteaching staff in sociology or anthropology presumably see more direct relevance totheir respective field, than colleagues in engineering or computer science may do. Onthe other hand, albeit internationalization per se has been much of a concern, for natu-ral and technical sciences international cooperation and exchange ideas has been anactual and natural part of their work. To put it differently, rather than talking aboutit, they simply do it.

Moreover, in an eagerness to learn about the world we are often unaware of ourown ethnocentrism and ignorance. Likewise, higher education has its own version ofethnocentrism—academicentrism. Among teaching staff and researchers academicen-trism is for example manifested in a conviction that ‘our’ methods of teaching,research and degrees are better than those of other countries. Among administratorsit may be expressed as a lack of understanding or rejection of the rules, routines orgrading principles of foreign systems. Finally, educationalists can be accused of, albeitnot necessarily intentionally, individualizing solutions of structural and global prob-lems, i.e. educated and enlightened people are considered the cure for poverty,inequality or exploitation.

Nonetheless, transforming or reforming the global system requires measures atdifferent levels and in multiple areas. And individual attitudes always make up asignificant resource or obstacle in times of change.

The three internationalization ideologies summarized

It has been argued that there are different normative motives and ideologies embed-ded in the educational discourse on internationalization, and that these significantlyinfluence policy-makers and educators in their understanding and approach to inter-nationalization. At the first level of normativity there is a common denominatoramong these actors; internationalization is desirable, beneficial and crucial. It is at thesecond level of normativity that significant differences become visible, manifested asthree distinct and yet overlapping ideologies, with their unique visions, foci, goals,strategies, and possible critiques.

Table 1 summarizes these three ideologies, which once again are to be seen as ideal-type constructs. They can be employed to describe the internationalization of highereducation in general or with regard to specific institutions. It is obvious that theseideologies to some extent overlap and that taken separately each ideology does notaccount for the vast array of aspects that the concept of internationalization embodies.

Educational actors are preoccupied with different aspects of internationalization.Generally speaking, politicians and policy-makers tend to focus on the objectives andoverall course of higher education. Internationalization is seen in the light of politicaland economic ends. In contrast, university administrators concentrate on practicali-ties of international co-operation (e.g. student visas, health insurance, gradingsystems, course-equivalencies etc). Problem-solving and rapid, visible and measurable

94 J. Stier

results are emphasized. Teaching staff is typically concerned with course contents andpedagogic issues. Results of internationalization are seen as long-term and of a morequalitative character.

By understanding that even if policy-makers, administrators and teachers share acommitment to internationalization, they adhere to different ideologies and norma-tive objectives as well as work under dissimilar organizational and monetary condi-tions. At universities around the world it is not uncommon that the organizationalduality of administration and education constitutes an obstacle in the implementationof internationalization policies. Similarly, within universities there may be significantideological variations between academic subjects, faculties, departments or individualteachers.

In addition to this, there are numerous cultural differences that affect internationalcooperation. Just to mention one example, American, Canadian and Australianuniversities operate within a dual system of international student mobility. On the onehand, they want to attract as many fee-paying students as possible since thesegenerate substantial annual revenue. On the other hand, American, Canadian andAustralian universities participate in international student exchange schemes such asISEP or sign bilateral agreements with other universities. Within such arrangementsstudy-fees are typically waived between institutions, and students pay the home

Table 1.

Ideology Idealism Instrumentalism Educationalism

Vision Create a better world Sustainable development Education (in a broader sense)

Focus The moral world The (global) market The individual’s learning process

Goals Mutual understanding, respect, tolerance among peopleSocial changeRedistribution of wealthPersonal commitment

Economic growth, profitCompetence availabilityExchange of know howCultural transmission

Enrich learningNew perspectives and knowledgePersonal growthCommitment to learning

Strategies Provide global knowledgeFacilitate insightsStimulate empathy and compassion

Attract international fee-paying studentsProvide relevant professional trainingConduct market-relevant research

Stimulate self-awareness and self-reflectionTrain intercultural competence

Critiques ArroganceVictimizationEthnocentrism

Brain drainIncreased global disparityExploitationCultural imperialism

AcadamicentrismChauvinismIndividualizingSocial and global problems

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 95

institution regular fees instead. Consequently, no extra income is produced for parti-cipating universities. This is sometimes overlooked by their Swedish counterparts towhom international students and exchange students is the same thing. Reversibly,non-Swedes may not grasp the Swedes’ unfamiliarity with and unwillingness to ‘sell’education.

A final outlook

Moving to the third level of normativity, as I see it, there are a number of issues thatdeserve attention for future discussions on internationalization. First, a closer coop-eration between policy-makers, administrators, teachers and students is needed.Today there is a mutual lack of familiarity with the others’ expectations, obligations,ideologies and understanding of internationalization. Ideological goals need also to beaddressed in the light of any given university’s administrative and organizationalpeculiarities, and educational policies and aspirations.

Second, until now the discourse on internationalization has predominantlyfocussed on form-issues. Now it is time to emphasize content-issues. Ideological andcultural biases in the curricula, course literature, bedrock assumptions, perspectivesand theories must be highlighted. The inherent learning potential and problems ininternational study groups must also be given more attention.

Third, as international educators we must expose and reflect over of our own ideo-logical motives. We must ask ourselves why we do what we do and what we want toachieve. Regardless of our personal motives, the realization that internationalizationin itself is an ideological endeavour is essential. For these reasons, there is a need forscrutiny.

Fourth, academia has traditionally claimed its relative independence from govern-ments, despots, capitalist or the sacrality (although this is partly a figment of thebrain). Yet it seems as if higher education today is more entangled with the ideologiesand agenda-setters of society than ever before. It is imperative that academia does notallow others fully dictate its ideologies. This is not to suggest that utilitarian gains ofeducation and research should be categorically rejected, but merely to ensure somedegree of academic freedom. To put it differently, there is a need for mutiny—foremancipation.

Fifth, by providing internationalized education of good quality, the long-term rele-vance and usefulness for all sectors of society, commercial or non-commercial, privateor public, will eventually become evident to every one. Internationalizing highereducation will have positive effects on future society. For instance, it may facilitateunderstanding and tolerance among people of the world and prevent arrogance,ethnocentrism and chauvinism. Here universities need to be self-critical and activelywork against academicentrism and victimization of nations or cultures.

Sixth, if internationalization is seen as a means to decrease global disparity, preventexploitation, ‘brain drain’ and cultural imperialism, and work to resolve social andglobal problems, economic incentives should not be allowed to exercise hegemonicinfluence on higher education, but other ‘higher’ ends need to be allowed to co-exist

96 J. Stier

and flourish. On the other hand, economic realities and the global world order cannotbe overlooked. The task is, hence, to find an acceptable balance between an econo-mistic and an idealistic outlook on education.

Finally, in the era of globalization internationalization may serve as a powerfulmode to re-establish a sense of identity, meaning, continuity and coherence forpeople. By being exposed to new impulses, ideas and adding new experiences to theirpersonal repertoires, travelling—physically, intellectually or culturally—can fill theexistential gap that late modern society has created. Eventually local communitiesmay be replaced by international, ethnic identities may become increasingly meshedwith global, national cultures may be transformed—at least partly—into more cosmo-politan. Over time cosmopolitan identities may become the late modern version of theold academic vagabond, though his turf no longer is local or regional, but global.

Being part of this endeavour is a great challenge—and as international educatorsour job extends far beyond education in a narrow sense—it is a vocation and a pathto development, for us, our students, and the world as a whole. It is up to us whetherthe internationalization of higher education merely becomes a consequence of global-ization, or rather a powerful tool to grasp and debate its effects—positive and negative.

Note on contributor

Jonas Stier is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the School of Education, VäxjöUniversity, Sweden. His areas of interest are intercultural interaction, intercul-turality, identity change and the internationalization of higher education. Forseveral periods he has been a visiting faculty in Australia, Canada, UK and theUSA.

References

Appudurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization (Minneapolis, MN,University of Minnesota Press).

Bauman, Z. (2000) Globalisering (Lund, Studentlitteratur).Beck, U. (1998) Vad innebär globaliseringen? Missuppfattningar och möjliga svar (Daidalos,

Göteborg).Castells, M. (1997) The power of identity (Blackwell, Oxford).Commission of the European Communities (2003) The role of the universities in the Europe of

knowledge (Communication from the Commission).Egidius, H. (2001) Skola och utbildning: i historiskt och internationellt perspektiv (Stockholm, Natur

och Kultur).Friedman, J. (1994) Cultural identity and global process (London, Sage).Giddens (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age (Cambridge, Polity

Press).Giddens, A. (1996) Modernitetens följder (Lund, Studentlitteratur).Graham, G. (1999) The internet:// a philosophical inquiry (Routledge, London).Griffith University. ‘Policy Statement on Internationalization’. Available online at:

www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/tal/Policy_Statement_on_internat.htmlKälvemark, T., Löfkvist, S. & Waerness, M. (1999) Internationella trender på högskoleområdet

(National Agency for Higher Education), 2.

Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism 97

Knight, J. (1997) Internationalization of higher education: a conceptual framework, in: J. Knight &H. De Wit (Eds) Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries (EuropeanAssociation for International Education, Amsterdam).

National Agency for Higher Education (1998) Utbildning och forskning för Strategisk Internationalis-ering–Redovisning av ett regeringsuppdrag, Rapport 1998:16r, Stockholm

National Agency for Higher Education (1999) Utlandstudier–till vilken nytta? En utvärdering aveffekter av utlandsstudier, Rapport 1999:10r, Stockholm

Official Journal of the European Communities (2001) Recommendation of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community for students,persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers, Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities, 9 August.

Sjöstrand, W. (1970) Pedagogiska grundproblem i historisk belysning (Lund, Gleerup).Stier, J. (1998) Dimensions and experiences of human identity: an analytical toolkit and illustration,

Monograph no 69 (Department of Sociology, Göteborg University).Stier, J. (2001) Internationaliseringens målsättningar, problem och möjligheter, unpublished paper

(School of Education, Växjö University).Stier, J. (2002a) Going international—becoming intercultural, Pedagogic Communication (School of

Education, Växjö University).Stier, J. (2002b) Internationalization in higher education: unexplored possibilities and unavoidable

consequences, paper presented at the ECER-conference in Lisbon, September 2002.Stier, J. (2003) Internationalization, ethnic diversity and the acquisition of inter-cultural compe-

tencies, Journal for Intercultural Education, 14.Yang, R. (2002) University internationalization: its meanings, rationales and implications,

International Education, 13, 1.UNESCO, World Declaration on Higher Education (UNESCO).Ziehe, T. (1993) Kulturanalyser. Ungdom, utbildning, modernitet (Stockholm, Symposion).