Reconceptualising the
internationalisation of higher education
Invited Keynote Address to the National Union of Students Education Conference “The
Hidden Agenda”, 3-5 July 2003, Adelaide University, South Australia (Theme:
Globalisation and Higher Education)
Tracey Bretag
School of International Business, University of South Australia
Tel: 8302 0224, email: tracey.bretag@unisa.edu.au
Abstract
This paper challenges the economically driven internationalisation of higher education in
Australia, and provides the basis for a reconceptionalisation that places
“internationalisation” at one extreme end, and “internationalism” at the other, more
idealistic end of a continuum. Implementing the new model requires the re-envisioning
of educators, not as policy agents and economically-oriented service providers, but as
intellectuals with ethical and moral imperatives to pursue educational objectives rather
than respond to the needs of the market.
Introduction
This paper aims to contribute to the debate (all too often absent, apathetic or timid) about
what it is that tertiary education aspires to be, what it is in the new millennium, and to
what extent Australian educators should embrace or resist policies of internationalisation.
Matthews (2002, p. 378) argues that “The absence of informed engagement with debates
in the field of multiculturalism and antiracist education reminds us that tertiary led
practices of internationalisation are primarily driven by economic policy and lack
educational vision and purpose”. Speaking at the “Internationalisation of higher
education” seminar, held at the University of South Australia (4 December 2002), Hans
de Wit began his presentation by asking the audience (comprised mostly of academic
1
staff and educational administrators), “What is the main incentive for
internationalisation?” The immediate response from a number of participants was one
simple word: “Money”.
Making the link between globalisation and internationalisation
According to the Human Development Report (1999, p. 1(Human Development Report)),
globalisation is a process that links the economy, culture, technology and governance. It
includes finance and trade; communications and technology; migration and tourism;
linguistic, cultural and ideological convergence; and world systems of signs and symbols
(for example, “the Golden Arches”) (Marginson 1999). On the one hand, globalisation is
viewed as a positive (“Most of the available evidence suggests that globalisation boosts
economic growth” [Eslake 2003] and on the other hand, as an imposition of one system
on another (“Westernisation and the acceptance of Western business standards and
political systems around the world” [Mahathir 1999 cited in Eslake 2003).
The all-pervasive nature of globalisation has resulted in a perception by many that it is “a
Juggernaut running out of control” (Holton 1997, p.1). However, it is not uncontrollable,
irreversible or inevitable (Eslake 2003); nor does it have to be seen as a homogenising
force. Henry, Lingard, Rizvi and Taylor (1999, p. 87) posit that globalisation provides
the opportunity for the heterogeneity of cultures to exist side by side.
It could be argued that internationalisation is a response to globalisation, rather than
merely another term for the same idea. Although both concepts are related to the
increasing fluidity of national borders, globalisation refers more to the formation of
“world systems”, while internationalisation sees sovereign states as the essential unit.
Internationalisation is about bi-lateral or multi-lateral relations between individual
sovereign states. Holton suggests that it is “internationalisation” rather than
“globalisation” that best describes the recent shifts in the higher education sector (1997,
p. 1).
2
Internationalisation of Australian higher education
Back and Davis (cited in de Wit (ed) 1995, p. 121) define the internationalisation of
higher education as the “combined effect” of a variety of activities, including the
international movement of students, staff and campuses; international links (between
governments, between institutions, or for research); and the internationalisation of
curricula. Whether or not “internationalisation” is defined in this way, a number of
commentators agree that a significant impetus for international student recruitment has
been the income potential (Back, Davis & Olsen 1996; Alexander & Rivzi 1993; Holton
1997; Dobson 1998 ; and Starck 2000 , among others).
This relatively new focus on students as a means of financial income has provided the
framework for the “internationalisation” of higher education in Australia. Despite
occasional rhetoric alluding to the teaching and learning environment, it could be argued
that generally the focus has been on recruiting students for the fees they will provide
(more than $3 billion worth in 2001 [Matthews 2002, p370]), rather than for the potential
two-way educational exchange. In 1998, the Australian Vic-Chancellors’ Committee
stated “every private dollar generated by universities is gold” (AVCC 1998, p. 2).
Commenting in 1993, Alexander and Rizvi suggested that “new market-based approaches
to overseas students have so far not had any significant impact on the way universities
consider issues of curriculum and pedagogy” (p. 120), and I would argue that the
situation a decade later is only marginally, if at all better.
Ivic (1991) was also critical of the potentially negative elements of ‘internationalisation’,
and suggested that the concept should include “exchanges, mutual enrichment, mutual
influence, …borrowing, forms of mutual assistance, [and] possibilities for the rational use
of resources” (p. 19). However, ‘internationalisation’ may lead to “…the imposition of
dominant models including dominant languages, along with the application of theoretical
and methodological models and ways of thinking developed in a certain group of
countries, as well as organisational methods applicable to institutions of higher education,
research problems, and the contents of education in these same countries” (p. 20).
3
Phillipson (1992) would further argue that such a pattern of asymmetrical interaction is a
form of cultural and linguistic imperialism.
Matthews (2002, p. 376) suggests that international education discourse is “bifurcated” in
that while it “ generates a competitive, commercialised, and commodified drive for
overseas student enrolments…it evokes notions of transnational connectivity,
interculturalism, and reciprocal flows of individuals and knowledge”. While most of the
literature does not make this explicit distinction, many researchers acknowledge the
oppositional values often implicit in the term ‘internationalisation’. Ma Rhea (2001,
cited in Matthews 2002, p. 376) argues that this educational relationship is essentially
comprised of commodity exchange, but it has “been reconstrued as a moral advance”.
Knight (1996, cited in OECD [ed] p. 19) also warns:
If one is to ensure that improving the quality of higher
education is the primary goal of internationalisation, not the
development of international export markets, it is essential to
find the balance between income generating motives and
academic benefits.
Matthews (2002, p. 369) claims that the recruitment of fee-paying students “has
generated far more investment, interest, and enthusiasm than policy appeals for
associated structural, curricular, and pedagogical change”. While I agree with Matthews
that “practices of internationalisation are limited in scope and vision” (2002, p. 375), I
also believe that pockets of mutual exchange do exist, often in the work of individuals,
sometimes in discipline groups, and even in whole faculties/schools.
Can internationalisation be embraced and resisted?
Henry, Linguard, Rizvi and Taylor (1999, p. 85) argue that ‘internationalisation’ can be
“worked with and against”. In the light of recent world events (the terrorist attacks in the
United States, September 11, 2001; the Bali bombing; and the war on Iraq), I believe that
4
educators have a unique role to play in resisting discourses of “inevitability”, particularly
as they relate to the so-called “inevitable” forces of globalisation and internationalisation.
Just as Pennycook (1994) questions the spread of English as an international language as
“natural, neutral and beneficial…and a result of inevitable global forces” (p. 9), I
maintain that “internationalisation” should be interrogated, with the aim of resisting and
offering an alternative to what many university administrators (and some academics)
seem to regard as the inescapable drive to uncritically embrace it.
Reconceptualising internationalisation
The Australian Oxford Dictionary (Ed. Moore 1999) defines ‘internationalisation’ as “to
make international”, with the implication that this process is one that is imposed, rather
than sought from within. “Internationalism”, however, is “the advocacy of a community
of interests among nations”; a definition which suggests agency, cooperation and
commitment. To make the distinction between these two concepts clearer, I would like to
borrow from Burton’s (2000) explication of the difference between ‘professionalisation’
and ‘professionalism’. In the following extract, with the author’s permission, I will
replace the word ‘internationalism’ for ‘professionalism’, ‘internationalisation’ for
‘professionalisation’, and ‘lecturer and/or student’ for ‘teacher’.
Lecturers [teaching international students] need to make sense of
teaching for themselves…internationalism and teaching
expertise cannot be imparted; they have to develop from what
[lecturers and students] are exposed to…Internationalism, then,
is something which can be supported to develop within
individual lecturers and students, but what it means is individual
and unique to each [participant].
By contrast, and at its most extreme, internationalisation can be
described as an imposition in that it may entail implementation
of initiatives outside the classroom to create an [academic
5
environment] of a specific kind. In other words, lecturers in
such situations are not usually encouraged to act on their own
interpretations of internationalism. Such initiatives will often
have an economic basis; they may or may not be [culturally]
sound. At this extreme, lecturers’ and students’ own…voices are
not audible. (Burton 2000, p. 3).
In another article on professionalisation/professionalism, Burton suggests that
collaboration and community are vital components in the development of the latter
concept (1998, p. 25). Using the same analogy, I would posit that collaboration and
community are integral to the cultivation of ‘internationalism’. In contrast to individual
lecturers working in isolation, attempting to implement policies of ‘internationalisation’,
a collaborative environment which encourages the sharing of ideas, experience and
research will further support the development of internationalism.
Cohen and Kennedy (2000) similarly draw a distinguish between “globalisation”, an
external process manifested in such objective trends as trade ties, and “globalism”, which
refers to the “…subjective, personal awareness that many of us share common tastes and
interests and that are all likely to share a common fate” (p. 11). Higgins-Desbiolles
(2003, unpublished), suggests that “while globalisation invites us to examine the ties of
interdependence being woven on many fronts, globalism invites us to examine how we
feel about these changes and what positions we will take towards them” (p. 23).
As I have grappled with how the tertiary sector might reconceptualise internationalisation
so that it both responds to economic need, while not losing sight of broader educational
objectives, I have developed a simple model that describes “internationalisation” (the
economically driven recruitment of international students) as being at one extreme end of
a continuum, with “internationalism” (a personally motivated drive towards mutual
cultural exchange) at the other end of the continuum.
6
Internationalisation
Internationalism
In 2003, I would argue that most Australian universities are situated somewhere towards
the extreme end of “internationalisation”, although there has recently been some
movement towards the more utopian vision of “internationalism”*. The following two
tables (which are at an early stage of development) explicate the two ends of the same
concept in more detail, firstly as it relates to institutions of higher education, and
secondly as it relates to academic staff.
7
Table 1:
The internationalisation/internationalism continuum - institutions of
higher education
Internationalisation
 Economic motivation
 Response to external policy (eg.
Cuts in government funding)
 Focus on needs of institution
 Measurable ‘outcomes’ (eg.
Graduate Attributes)
 Students (especially CHC) seen
from within a deficit model








Need to re-socialise and inculcate
students into Western academic
culture
Little understanding of (or
resources allocated to) the
complexities of studying in a
second language
Workload issues of teaching CALD
students not addressed
Little commitment to understanding
the cultures and/or languages of
international students
Western institution held up as
exemplar of best educational
practice
Research opportunities mostly oneway (West takes from East)
Need to develop policy to ensure
that Australian academic standards
do not change or fall
Disregard for individual lecturers’
and/or students’ experiences when
developing policy
Internationalism
 Cultural motivation
 Response to internal policy and
staff interests
 Focus on needs of students
 Dynamic, difficult to measure
process
 Students seen as having diverse,
potentially beneficial learning
backgrounds
 Responsibility to share ‘insider
knowledge’ in an environment of
respect and mutual exchange
 Deep understanding and practical
commitment (including funding) to
supporting CALD students






Staff training and professional
development in CALD teaching
provided
Commitment to cross-cultural
communication, and to languages
other than English
Interest in learning from partner
institutions
Mutual research opportunities
encouraged
Need to develop policy to ensure
that academic standards are
inclusive and non-discriminatory
Inclusion of lecturers’ and students’
experiences/voices in developing
policy
8
Table 2:
The internationalisation/internationalism continuum - academic staff
Internationalisation









Internationalism
Hierarchical relationship between
lecturer and student
Little attempt to share broader
culture with students (outside the
classroom)
Fear of failing students because of
potential loss of fees

Feelings of ‘being imposed upon’
because of extra workload
Feelings of helplessness, apathy or
anger in the face of institutional
policy
Retreat into own traditional
‘comfort zone’ because of lack of
institutional support
Offshore teaching seen as economic
opportunity
Reminiscence about the ‘good old
days’ of homogenous higher
education
Fear of being seen as a ‘troublemaker’








Hierarhical relationship with
students challenged
Relationship with students beyond
academic requirements
Commitment to successful learning
outcomes for all students,
regardless of fee-paying status
Enthusiasm for the challenges of
teaching CALD students
Motivation to challenge and change
inequitable and insular policy
Commitment to exploring new
methods of teaching practices to
address new situation
Offshore teaching seen primarily as
cultural opportunity
Forward thinking about the
potential of international education
Belief that critique is an essential
part of academic work
Discussion
I believe that internationalisation cannot be reconceptualised without re-envisaging both
the role of the university and the role of the academic. Soucek (1994, p. 54) suggests that
the function of tertiary institutions has changed since the ‘80s “from guardianship of
knowledge and wisdom to ancillary production of knowledge for corporate capital” (p.
54). During this time there has been a redefinition of the role of the teacher, “from
progressive educator and participant in educational politics to one of competent
performer of relatively neutral tasks related to efficient and profitable delivery of pre-
9
specified curriculum, and of being a responsible manager of learning contexts” (Seddon
1998 p. 5).
When there is almost unanimous agreement that the key rationale for internationalisation
is economic, it seems clear that Australian universities (and many of the academics
employed by them) have lost their way. Smythe and Hattam (1998) argue that academics
need to counteract the prevailing discourse, by publicly asking embarrassing questions,
confronting orthodoxy and dogma, and not being “co-opted by governments and
corporations”(p. 169). However, Alderson (1996) suggests that when academics do ask
the difficult questions associated with implementing the latest policy on
internationalisation, they rarely receive satisfactory answers.
To resist dominant understandings of internationalisation and to work towards the other
end of the continuum, internationalism, is not a one-off exercise. Rather it is an active,
consultative, developmental, respectful and empowering process that re-positions the
academic in multiple roles as researcher, learner and teacher (Burton 2003, pers.comm.).
While this may sound idealistic, it doesn’t seem so very long ago that education generally
was viewed in terms of its contribution to a social agenda of equity and justice. I am
certainly not advocating a “rose-coloured” or myopic perspective, but instead a
commitment to moving towards an internationalism that has at its core, a commitment to
educational, rather than economic objectives.
I agree with De Angelis (1998) that:
Global pressures can be used in different ways, resisted or
compensated, rather than being employed as an excuse for
narrowing the policy agenda and imposing an ill-thought through
policy activism, instead of more sensible and consensual, longterm reform. (p. 113)
10
Conclusion
The “Internationalisation/Internationalism Continuum” is an attempt to open the debate
on how universities are positioned in 2003, and how they might be positioned in the
future. It is not meant to be a table “written in stone”, but rather a catalyst for the reimagining of higher education in the new millennium. The forces of globalisation, and
the economic need to embrace internationalisation, may have inadvertently resulted in a
higher education system which is more responsive to the needs of the market, than to the
needs of the increasingly diverse student body. As institutions and educators we do not
need to accept the “inevitability” of where we now find ourselves. Rather we need to
strive towards a more idealistic vision of ourselves, and hope that we do not settle for the
middle ground of ambivalence or apathy.
________________________________________________________________________
* Thanks to Associate Professor Jill Burton, School of Education, University of South
Australia, for suggesting this distinction to me. Thanks also to Associate Professor Vicki
Feast, Dean of Teaching and Learning, Division of Business and Enterprise, University
of South Australia, for suggesting that I table the distinction.
Abbreviations:
ESL English as a second language
EAL English as another language
TESOL Teaching English to speakers of other languages
CALD Culturally and linguistically diverse
11
References
Alderson, A. (1996). Internationalisation and academic staff development. Paper
presented at the AARE Conference, Singapore. Available:
http://www.aare.edu.au/96pap/park196a.194 [accessed 5 June 2003).
Alexander, D., & Rivzi, F. (1993). Education markets and the contradictions of AsiaAustralian relations. In M. Bella & J. McCollow & J. Knight (Eds.), Higher
education in transition: Working papers of the higher education policy project
(pp. 110-123). Brisbane: University of Queensland.
AVCC. (1998). Setting the foundations for the internationalisation of Australian Higher
Education, Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee address to Education '98: The
Industry Practitioners' Forum, Sydney, 17-19 March.
Back, K., Davis, D., & Olsen, A. (1996). Internationalisation and higher education:
Goals and strategies. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Burton, J. (1998). Professionalism in language teaching. Prospect, 13(1), 25-35.
Burton, J. (2000). Professionalism and discourse in TESOL. Thai TESOL, 13(2), 1-23.
Cohen, R. & Kennedy, P. (2000). Global Sociology. Houndmills, Basingstoke:
MacMillan Press.
De Angelis, R. (1998). Globalisation and recent higher education reform in Australia and
France: Different constraints, differing choices in higher education structures,
politics and policies. In I. Hunt & J. Smyth (Eds.), The ethos of the university:
West and beyond (pp. 97-117). Adelaide: Flinders University.
de Wit, H. (2002, 4 December). Keynote address: Internationalisation of higher
education. Paper presented at the Internationalisation of higher education seminar,
University of South Australia.
de Wit, H. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education.
Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.
Dobson, I. R. (1998). Overseas students in Australian higher education: Trends to 1996.
People and Place, 5(1), 24-29.
Eslake,S. (2003, unpublished).Globalisation: Keeping the gains. Presentation to a series
of workshops arranged by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Advocacy
12
and Outreach Section. Economic Analytic Unit, DFAT, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (1999). Working with/against
globalization in education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 85-97.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003, unpublished). Globalisation: A Literature Review.
Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Holton, R. J. (1997). Some myths about globalisation. Paper presented at HERDSA '97:
Advancing International Perspectives, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
University of South Australia. Available:
http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/herdsa97/holton.htm12 June].
Human Development Report. (1999). New York: United Nations Development Program
and Oxford University Press, Inc.
Ivic, I. (1991). The internationalisation of higher education: A point of view from a
developing country. Higher Education in Europe, XVI(2), 10-22.
Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of
Education Policy, 14(1), 19-31.
Matthews, J. (2002). International education and internationalisation are not the same as
globalisation: Emerging issues for secondary schools. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 6(4), 369-390.
Moore, B. (Ed.). (1999). The Australian Oxford Dictionary. South Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
OECD. (1996). OECD Documents: Internationalisation of higher education. The Hague:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New
York: Longman Group Limited.
Philllipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seddon, T. (1999). Research, recommendations and the realpolitik: Consolidating the
Ed.D. Australian Educational Reseacher, 26(3), 1-14.
Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (1998). Intellectual as hustler: Researching against the grain of
marketisation. In I. Hunt & J. Smyth (Eds.), The ethos of the university: West and
beyond (pp. 145-178). Adelaide: Flinders University.
13
Soucek, V. (1994). Flexible education and new standards of communicative competence.
In V. Soucek (Ed.), Economising education: The post-Fordist debates. (pp. 43103). Geelong: Deakin University.
Starck, N. (2000, 22-24 November). Teaching global, thinking local - an offshore
education challenge. Paper presented at the Offshore 2000.
14