Overview

This comparative study, responds to Crossley and Watson (2003) call for increased cultural and contextual sensitivity in educational research in order that the field might make a more effective contribution to educational theory, policy and practice. It brings a humanitarian focus to the internationalisation of higher education discourse and draws from eminent international scholars and research trends, in the field. The theoretical review is overlayed with a critical dialogue between two academics from universities in different hemispheres and contexts. We focus on how internationalisation is defined, interpreted, and responded to within Australia and Canada, two decades after de Wit’s (1995) comparison of internationalisation in four higher education contexts. We undertake a comparative analysis through the lens of de Wit’s findings through exploration and examination of factors and features that influence or disrupt the potential for intercultural transformation of universities. We juxtapose our comparative analysis against the backdrop of what we term, conscientious internationalisation. This refers to values-informed practices, processes, and institutional/organizational structures guided by ethical principles that support equity in relationship formation and the provision of supports and resources within programme development and delivery. Conscientious internationalisation signifies a desire to shift the focus and practice of internationalisation in higher education from quantity to quality of relationships ethical practices, and pedagogically informed programmes. This resonates with recent calls by Altbach and de Wit (2018) to stand strong for a quality approach to the internationalisation of education.

Internationalisation of higher education (IHE) has transitioned from its traditions from a field of professional practice (Dolby and Rahman 2008) to a purveyor of peace, passage of politics, and provider of policy. Meiras (2004) referred to the evolution in terms of socio-political, economic and academic. Emerging trajectories include internationalisation at home (Knight 2013), intercultural and international dimensions (Jowi 2009), student mobility, English as linque franca, ICT, and quality assurances (Yemini and Sagie 2016). Given its history, criticism of research on internationalisation of higher education is related to its perceived uncritical stance and its practical and applied focus (Dolby and Rahman 2008; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). However, research that takes a more critical stance, include Altbach (2004), Altbach and de Wit (2018), Marginson and Rhoades (2002) and Marginson (2004) who combined diverse methodologies and approaches to transcend previous perceptions of IHE limitations.

Combining internationalisation in higher education and comparative education methods seeks to identify similarities and differences amongst education systems and the societal contexts in which they are located (Eckstein and Noah 1993; Sodhi 2006)—this adds ‘critical’ questions to the debate. As we progress, we endeavour to grapple with some critical questions pertaining to how internationalisation is interpreted and taken up in Australian and Canadian contexts. How do we make meaning of and interpret internationalisation—our philosophy? How do we move forward by stepping back to explore and leverage our deep history of engagement with internationalisation—places of engagement and people communities impacted? How will we honour our commitment to internationalisation in a manner that aligns with the focus and direction of our universities—processes? Further, what guiding principles and ethical considerations guide our internationalisation work—philosophy, power? (Ledger et al. 2015; Paul et al. 2010). The aforementioned, people, philosophy, place, processes, and power, the 5Ps (Ledger et al. 2015), provides a lens through which to prompt these critical questions throughout the analysis of our findings.

It takes courage to ask these deeper questions, as insights gained will require letting go of some tightly held notions, assumptions, and ways of doing. Change—deep transformation, is seldom realized without fortitude, however, as moving forward requires stepping back and probing critical questions to provide foundation and clarity of next steps.

Our aim is to seek greater understanding and probe critically the concept and enactment of internationalisation and how this is taken up in two higher education institutions. We position the study from a humanitarian viewpoint of comparative education where nurturing global citizenship, relationships and conscientious internationalisation is valued (Wolhuter 2008). Drawing from academic contexts that are both similar and different—Universities located in Western Canada and the other in Western Australia, we critically explore and examine how internationalisation is interpreted and played out in our respective locations, including systems shaped by local infrastructures, policies, practices, and norms. Within our respective cultures and contexts, we apply a comparative lens to uncover and analyse competing and complementary policies and practices embedded in our institutions’ internationalisation agendas and compare these over time and context with de Wit’s (1995) original comparative findings.

Methods

The aim of this qualitative comparative study is to investigate how internationalisation of higher education is defined and enacted in literature, policy as well as in practice, within Canada and Australia. In this study, the five policy threads; people, philosophy, place, processes, and power [5Ps] (Ledger et al. 2015), provides a lens to prompt the critical questions outlined above, to critique current literature, examine the dialogue, and interrogate policy and practices related to internationalisation of higher education.

The study has three phases in its research design: Phase One incorporates the literature review. Although we do not claim to have reviewed all scholarly work in this area, the review provides a robust understanding of internationalisation of higher education by presenting highly relevant literature specific to the topic over time and continents. The review identified key researchers in the field and explored the various meanings and models of internationalisation in higher education (IHE). Phase Two comprises a comparative case study aligned to de Wits (1995) original study. It critiqued national and institutional policy documents, practices and implementation approaches adopted by higher education institutions in Canada and Australia. Each case study site offered a suite of policy documents related to internationalisation of higher education, including national strategies, state (if applicable), and university policies. The inclusion of governmental policy documents is important as they serve as powerful tools to influence behaviours and internalize norms into society (Rizvi and Lingard 2010). The findings are compared to de Wits’s earlier findings to reveal convergence and divergence. Structures and priorities of the texts are critiqued and guided by Van Dijk’s (1996) discourse and relationship analysis of power. Phase Three overlays dialogic engagement between the authors to probe critical questions arising from data in regard to five key policy threads: people, philosophy, place, processes, and power referred to as the 5Ps (Ledger et al. 2015). The 5Ps are used to triangulate the findings, add rigour to the comparative analysis, and pose possibilities for future recommendations.

Phase one: literature review

The number of research papers on internationalisation in higher education has grown exponentially over the last decade. The fields of study encapsulate the policies, practices and impact on individuals, systems and societies. Initial search terms, ‘internationalisation of higher education’, revealed over 1,030,000 million results. This list was reduced to literature reviews on the topic (171,000). The literature reviews were further reduced to recent historical reviews. Yemini and Sagie’s (2016) diachronic review of 7000 articles provided one of the most comprehensive overviews and insights into the changing direction of IHE within the research. It presented dominant themes, common issues and trends within this dramatically expanding field of study. A cross examination of recent historical reviews revealed common themes, trends and prominent writers. European scholar, Hans de Wit (875,000); Canadian scholar, Jane Knight (184,000); American scholar, Philip Altbach (51, 200) and more recently, Australian scholar, Betty Leask (29 000) were the most highly cited leaders in the field from around the globe and their works inform this paper. de Wits (1995) comparative study of the internationalisation of higher education within four countries frames the investigation of the comparative case study of two countries two decades later.

Internationalisation is interpreted and implemented in divergent ways in diverse educational contexts. Attempts to internationalise higher education have been studied over time and place. de Wits’ (1995) study of four geographic regions (USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia) made reference to “a process approach to defining internationalisation” (p. 17) that included “…strategies to characterize those initiative which are taken by an institution of higher learning to integrate an international dimension into research, teaching and service functions as well as management [of] policies and systems” (p. 17). Further, de Wit (1995) referred to the continuous cycle of internationalisation that encompasses: awareness, commitment, planning, internationalisation, review, and reinforcement. Jane Knight, adjunct professor at the Comparative International Development Education Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, also advocated for a process approach to internationalisation and the need for integration of internationalisation dimensions into teaching, research, and service (2008a). Advancing the discourse that internationalisation “is changing the world of higher education, and globalization is changing the world of internationalisation” (Knight 2008a, p. 1), Knight made reference to the complex and ever-shifting landscape of higher education and to a myriad of opportunities, challenges, and tensions presented in light of this flux and fluidity. Furthermore, “the international dimension of higher education has been steadily increasing in importance, scope, and complexity” (Knight 2008a, p. 3) and, consequently, requires continual revisiting, revisioning, and reframing.

Interpreting internationalisation and how this phenomenon is responded to is directly impacted by diversity of country, culture, and education systems. Knight (2008b) emphasized that internationalisation spans all facets of education and that education plays a significant role in how societies are shaped and cultivated. Two decades after de Wit’s (1995) comparative study, Knight (2015) cautioned against constructing a universal definition. Rather, she favoured a more general description, one more respectful of and responsive to cultural and contextual differences to “[ensure] that the meaning [of internationalisation] is appropriate for a broad range of contexts and countries of the world” (p. 2). With this in mind, Knight amended her earlier definition: “Internationalisation at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (2015, p. 2). This enhanced denotation challenges any inclination to articulate an all encompassing universal definition that specifies “rationales, benefits, outcomes, actors, activities, or stakeholders … as these vary across nations and from institution to institution” (p. 2). This study explores how two universities, one in Western Canada and the other in Western Australia are shaping and cultivating internationalisation in their Schools of Education. Promoting internationalisation is a common goal of faculties/schools of education as, within higher education contexts, “linguistic, cultural and racial diversity has become a salient feature of school environment(s)” (Larsen 2016, p. 3) due to rapidly changing demographics.

The complexities of internationalising higher education, like globalisation, continues to evolve. The work of de Wit revealed the evolution and conceptualisation of internationalising higher education. In 1995, de Wit edited Strategies for Internationalisation of Higher Education as a result of a project organized by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and their Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education. The OECD at the time raised concern about the “challenges of an increasingly interdependent and competitive global setting and the consequent need to enhance international dimension of education and training policies” (de Wit 1995, p. 1). The edited book was the culmination of work undertaken by the IMHE over a period of 5 years involving conferences, seminars, meetings, and workshops: Helsinki 1991; Paris 1992a and Paris 1992b; Paris 1993; Washington 1994 and subsequent meetings in Monterey 1995 and Asia–Pacific 1996. The work during this period was initiated by the OECD as a general project entitled Higher Education in a New International Setting. The culminating book drew on a set of four case studies from around the globe that described and analysed ways in which higher education institutions developed and implemented a coordinated approach of teaching, research, administration and supporting services for the internationalisation of higher education. At the time, the following definition of internationalisation of higher education was adopted: “The complex processes whose combined effect, whether planned or not, is to enhance the international dimension of the experience of higher education in universities and similar educational institutions” (de Wit 1995, p. 2).

More recently, de Wit and Leask (2015) highlighted the emergence of new approaches and terms related to the internationalisation of higher education. Terms including deep internationalisation, transformative internationalisation, comprehensive internationalisation, and also ethical internationalisation are often found in discussions related to the field. Each term attempts to capture the complexity and multi-layered factors inherent in the process of internationalising higher education. de Wit and Hunter (2015) suggested that these approaches are consistent with a more global move toward:

… an inclusive internationalisation where abroad and at home, cooperation and competition, virtual and physical, North and South, global citizenship and professional competence become more intertwined and interpreted according to local context is the current imperative of higher education to play its role in the global marketplace (p. 355).

The aforementioned definition highlights ongoing recognition of complexities, breadth, and interrelatedness of key aspects impacting the internationalisation of higher education. The dichotomies inherent in the definition provide a “catch all” approach and demarcation between elements. The shift in focus from the institute to the person through attributes such as global citizenship and professional competence, sees internationalisation of higher education position itself in the realm of both policy as product (student) as well as process (institutional) (see Ball 2006).

Ethical internationalisation is promoted to inculcate values that hold to internationalisation ideals. A social cartography developed in Canada by the Ethical Internationalisation in Higher Education project (2013–2015), presents three discursive configurations (neoliberal, liberal and critical), four interfaces and recognition that there is a dynamic, contested and enduring corporate and civic imaginary of internationalisation in higher education. It position ethics central to internationalisation; ethics underpin how people behave, the philosophy they believe in, the processes they employ, the places they choose, and the power they develop (5Ps) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Ethical internationalisation in higher Education Project social cartography (Andreotti 2016, p. 10)

Full size image

Much debate, countless definitions, and major dichotomies have emerged from the desire to internationalise higher education. If the intent of internationalising higher education is not clearly known or understood by policy makers and practitioners, the resulting action is often limited to those elements of internationalisation that are visible or easily measured such as recruitment of international students, access to study abroad programmes, and student exchange initiatives, rather than the hidden or difficult to measure outcomes such as students’ personal and professional development and how development in these areas ultimately inform their professional practice. De Wit and Leask (2015) called for “coherent and connected approaches to international education, which address epistemological, praxis, and ontological elements of all students’ development” (p. 11). We interpret epistemological to include philosophy, praxis to include process, and ontological to include person and place. Similarly, according to de Wit and Leask (2015), “multiple dimensions of being are required of both individuals and institutions” (p. 10) for the development of international perspectives.

Phase two: case study

De Wit (2002) chose two countries and four institutions, this study chose two countries and two institutions. We justify our choice based on purposeful and convenience reflecting the connection between the two academics providing voice and agency to this comparative study (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017). de Wit stated “internationalisation strategies are shaped at the programme level by the different relationships these programmes have to the market and society” (p. 6), exploring two institutions provide opportunity for a deeper dive into programme level relationships. Key policy documents, structures, programmes and practices were highlighted. National higher education policy documents provide a context for the university case sites. Furthermore, whilst whole of university policy documents, structures and programmes were critiqued, school of education specific exemplars were also highlighted as practical application of policies.

Canada: international education policy

Universities across Canada are analogous in prioritizing internationalisation goals in their strategic plans—goals supported by objectives and action items. The following policy documents inform practice: Canada’s International Education Strategy (2014); the Canadian Bureau for International Education/ Bureau canadien de l’éducation Internationale (CBIE/BCEI 2014); Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada [AUCC 2014]; Association of Councils of Deans Education [ACDE] (2014) Accord and the Australina Government (2016). The main directive of these policy documents are outlined as follows:

  1. 1.

    Government of Canada (2014). 1. Setting the stage and enhancing Canadas competitive advantage—making the grade in a highly competitive global environment. The International Education Strategy aims to achieve the following goals: double the number of international students in Canada by 2022 (from the level of 2011).

  2. 2.

    CBIE (2014) Pillar 1: strengthening the fundamentals—Goal 1: Building on a world class, training and research system.

  3. 3.

    AUCC (2014): internationalisation of higher education “is now a central part of institutional planning, structures, and programming” (p. 3).

  4. 4.

    ACDE Accord (2014): principles of the Accord promote: Economic and social justice and equity across contexts and sites of educational practice.

In the Canadian context of internationalisation of higher education, a combination of economic and social justice is evidenced. However, in most documents, priority exists for economic imperatives and measurements for success. Emphasizing that internationalisation needs to be understood and interpreted in ways that are culturally and contextually responsive, AUCC (2014) stressed that “internationalization is not a unitary set of goals and processes unfolding in the same way everywhere and needs to occur with different emphases, at different paces and in different ways in various institutions, regions and countries” (p. 3). It is within this discourse that the option of”comprehensive internationalisation” emerged.

Comprehensive internationalisation is described as a “strategic, coordinated process that seeks to align and integrate international policies, programmes, and initiatives, and positions … universities as more globally oriented and internationally connected” (AUCC 2014, p. 3). Granting that this may not be an attainable goal for all universities, comprehensive internationalisation requires “a clear commitment by top-level institutional leaders [in order to] meaningfully impact the curriculum and a broad range of people, policies, and programmes” (p. 3). Determinants that unite Canadian universities in the development of internationalisation strategies include: preparing graduates that are globally aware and competitive in the marketplace, recruitment of international students, advancement of programmes and expanded access, and research collaborations (Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada 2014).

In 2014, at a gathering of the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE), an Accord was created. This Accord aimed to “stimulate discussion of critical issues and institutional responsibilities in the internationalisation of education, and to give careful consideration to representations of marginalized individuals, groups, and communities” (p. 3). It articulated processes of internationalisation within education contexts and encased five completory, educational practices: (1) Experiences of international mobility; (2) International teaching partnerships; (3) International research partnerships; (4) Internationalisation of Canadian curriculum; and, (5) Preparation of educators and leaders (p. 4).

Western Canadian university site

Policy documents have conflicting priorities, either market-driven or ethics-driven and staff are required to enact at different contextual policy levels (Ledger et al. 2015). Although guided by a suite of national and university policy documents implementation differs within and across universities.

Building on the work of AUCC and ACDE, the Canadian university developed an International Strategy (2013), aimed “to leverage…expertise and share capacity with targeted institutions around the world [and to] encourage faculty, staff and students to explore the world through linkages with partner institutions around the globe” (p. 1). Four high-level strategic goals were identified in this strategy: “1. Increase diversity of our campus communities; 2. Improve global and cross-cultural competencies within our campus communities; 3. Enhance opportunities for international collaborations and partnerships in research and education; and, 4. Leverage unique areas of expertise to engage international development” (p. 6).

Correspondingly, the School of Education developed its own international strategy. This strategy aligns to the broader internationalisation strategy, a key focus of a high-ranking, research-intensive university committed to “becoming an intercultural global hub” (University of Internationalization Strategy 2013, p. 1). There are always challenges when working to align with the broader university priorities and goals whilst, concurrently, crafting a strategy that is responsive to the culture and context of a particular community of learners, scholars, and practitioners. One challenge was that “internationalisation work” taken up by faculty members in the past was typically appropriated to a select, small group—a focus on internationalising the curriculum (IoC) and coordinated, collaborative initiatives that advanced the work of the School as a whole, beyond individual research agendas, was not apparent. Our internationalisation strategy aimed to increase capacity (human capacity, knowledge, and other resources) to support a deepened and expanded internationalisation agenda. Secondly, we also sought to understand, more fully, the essences of cross/intercultural sensitivities and responsiveness to diversity, and how might we live this well and with integrity in our School of Education.

Granted, attracting international students, burgeoning programme development, and cultivating international partnerships in support of collaborative research endures as a priority for our School. To guide this work with intention and focus, we recognize that a deeper understanding of what internationalizing of the curriculum (IoC) and internationalisation at home (IaH) encompasses is paramount. IoC “is the incorporation of international, intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and support services of a programme of study” (Leask 2009, p. 209). IoC focuses heavily on processes, not wholly on outcomes. Internationalisation at home (IaH), a subset of IoC, refers to “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (Beelen and Jones 2015, p. 76). We are also committed to how IoC and IaH informs and supports our relationships with one another in our diverse work and learning community. Accordingly, a key focus of our School is to acquire this knowledge with the help of critical friends—some internationalisation scholars/leaders in curriculum innovation who have deep expertise in putting theory into practice. This has been identified (and resourced) as a priority by our senior leadership team.

Australia: international education policy

Particular policy papers have shaped International Education in Australia over the last few years, including the Chaney Report Australia—Educating Globally (Australian Government, Department of Education and Training 2013) and the more recent, National Strategy for International Education 2025 (2016) coupled with the strategic plan of the university help contextual the university response within a national context. Drawing out the first priority from each of these documents provided a starting point for critique.

  1. 1.

    Chaney Report (2013): ensure improved coordination of government policy and programmes for international education and better consultative mechanisms for stakeholders.

  2. 2.

    National Strategy for International Education, Department of Education 2025 (2016). strengthening the fundamentals, making transformative partners and competing globally.

  3. 3.

    University Strategic Plan 2017–2027 (2016): we consider internationalisation as whole of university enterprise, goal to extend our impact as a global university.

These policy documents highlight the desire to become a global outlooking university within a competitive context revealing a focus on growth in numbers, programmes, partners, and the vernacular of business.

The national view of internationalisation of education in Australia has unfortunately emerged with an “overt emphasis on monetising international education and the neo-liberal values and ideology that underpin its attitudes to international education” (Whitsed and Green 2016, para. 6). The Australian government has promised to provide $12 million over four years to implement the policy. However, problematic is the lack of detail pertaining to specific accountabilities and costings. The subtle vernacular changes from the draft 2015 version to the current document reinforce an economically driven view of international education. In this document, education has been reduced to a service and it has a commitment to explore new products, new opportunities for expansion, and building on our current presence in the existing market. The omission of the terms curriculum or learning outcomes in the document reinforce a narrowing of understanding of international education to that of one-dimension economics rather than transformative benefits. This one-dimensional view of international education lacks vision and foresight. The document is robust with twenty-first century clichés and aspirational prose rather than specific detail referring to ‘game changers’, ‘competing at scale, ‘embracing borderless learning’ and ‘unleashing technology’ as well as heeding a warning to ‘disrupt or be disrupted’. Recent social commentary and online activity considers the document a missed opportunity in regards to policy reform in Australia (O’Malley 2016; Whitsed and Green 2016).

Western Australia University Site

In contrast to the Australian governments neoliberal approach to internationalisation, the state level context prioritises partnerships. Similarly, the Western Australian university (2017–2027) considers internationalisation as “a whole of university enterprise transforming what we do and who we are, modernizing the institution into a high quality research-led international university for the twenty-first century” (p. 7). It aims for international connectivity, and the wholesale adoption of an international orientation in all aspects of what it does and how it does including research collaboration and cooperation as well as pursuing best practice in all its activities. The document opposes the one-dimensional economic view of internationalisation that accompanies student load by shifting its focus on widening cross-cultural experiences and understandings.

Educators are in a position to influence student worldviews and ethical understandings (Hobson and Silova 2014). Curriculum, biases, and the climate of the learning environment contribute to moulding students’ ethics and values (Wren 1999). Translating internationalisation into practice requires careful consideration of curriculum, research, fieldwork, and programmes. The enactment of policy is driven by how internationalisation is defined, understood, and interpreted within a learning context.

The School of Education, like other schools within the university, was charged with operationalizing the visionary plan for internationalisation. The vehicle used to navigate the reform was the yearly operational plan which was divided into three domains: teaching and learning; research; and engagement. Internationalisation was embedded within key priorities for each domain. Success indicators were identified; responsibilities and accountabilities assigned; risks were identified; and, budgets allocated. Much of the commitment to internationalisation rested on engagement and partnership endeavours. The school increased scholarships, international placement opportunities, international competitions, inward/outward bound experiences, joint research, and transnational offerings in Singapore, Dubai and China, visiting scholar programmes, and recruitment of international academics. Many international partnerships, research, and joint projects still centre on individual connections and ad hoc approaches.

Although variance exists amongst staff and programmes, leverage and linkages are being utilised with the implementation of a school wide ‘integrated model’ for all facets of operations. Schools and partners are seen as sites of observation, research, special projects or practicums. The message is gaining momentum. The value adding and leveraging of current partnerships is resulting in more in depth and broad experiences—curriculum, research and engagement. For example, government funding sustains a programme and ongoing research where health and physical education students travel to rural and remote schools in Thailand. Intensive swimming lessons and train the trainer programmes are offered to address the national high drowning rate.

The WA university was established in the 1970s and promoted as a centre for ‘free-thinking’, social justice and environmental sustainable. It has one purpose: to be a creative force for current and future generations. It is ranked in the top 1 percent of the most globalised universities within Australia.

Summary of cases

Canada and Australia, although similar, are particular in differences regarding factors that converge and diverge pertaining to social and economic factors and to education at a national and local level. Further, as large, English speaking, British commonwealth nations, both adopted the Westminster parliamentary system. National policies and global market development plans recently developed in both countries, namely, Canada’s International Education Strategy/CIES (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada 2014) and the Australian National Strategy for International Education 2025 (2016) aim to advance internationalised education by way of economic imperatives and a desire to become global leaders in international education to ensure future prosperity. Internationalisation represents diversity and inclusion of all peoples (Rizvi 2014).

Additional commonalities are low rates of First Nations or Indigenous students enrolled in higher education. Comparatively, whilst 4.3% of Canadians are Indigenous, only 9.8% have university degrees. Similarly, 3% of Australians identify as Indigenous; only 1.3% of university students are Indigenous (Universities Australia 2014). In contrast, international student numbers are in excess of 25% in higher institutes in both Australia and Canada (Universities Australia 2014; Universities Canada 2014). This comparison of higher education international and Indigenous student numbers is a demographic binary, highlighting confusion and possible superficiality of the term “internationalisation of education”. Although both countries offer a range of international experiences for their students, limited domestic numbers benefit from these global experiences; 13% of Australian and similar numbers in Canadian universities (Australian Department of Education 2016).

Divergence is evident between Canadian and Australian higher education sectors spanning government, institute, staff, and student levels. Canada and Australia include internationalisation in higher education strategic plans; yet, Canada targets university staff diversity in addition to traditional strategies focused on student population, study abroad opportunities and curriculum, as evidenced within the Australian case. Further, Australia and Canada are linguistically similar and culturally diverse, with English as the main lingua franca and minority Indigenous languages as a marginalized voice within education. Canada, however, acknowledges the rights of Indigenous language minorities (Perry 2009). Recent surveys identified Canadian universities as engaging in activities that develop international perspectives by integrating international and intercultural dimensions into curricula (Universities Canada 2013). Variously, Australian universities, under the guide of the national policy document predominately focus on traditional perspectives of curriculum, international experiences for domestic students, and increasing international student numbers as portrayed in de Wit’s (1995) comparative review. However, these policy directives are balanced with increasing engagement and partnership endeavours at the local level. Rizvi (2014) challenged this perspective by exposing the “new realities” of internationalisation in higher education, including the hybridization of peoples, cultures and practices, shifting notions of citizenship, and an ever increasing mobile middle-class. The dynamic nature of internationalisation of education in de Wits’ (1995) findings evidence a continuous cycle of change that encompasses awareness, commitment, planning, internationalisation, review, and reinforcement.

National international strategies: Canada and Australia

Targets and outcomes commonly emphasized in university strategic plans fall short of Knight’s (2004) call for a more holistic, robust understanding and approach to internationalisation in higher education, and to de Wit’s (1995) appeal for “[more] clarity about the process of internationalisation, its historical and its present role, as expressed by the different stakeholders in higher education” (p. 28). As well, national strategies for international education fail to address holistic and sustainable understandings and approaches. For example, Canada’s International Education Strategy/CIES (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada 2014) detailed international education as:

…foreign students studying in Canada for any length of time, Canadians studying outside of Canada, collaboration between educational and research institutes in Canada and abroad, and sharing of Canada’s education models with foreign countries and the online delivery of Canadian education around the world (p. 9).

Attracting international students, increasing mobility of faculty and students, and advancing collaborative research are cited as pathways to “strengthen Canada’s innovation edge and competitiveness— keys to success in today’s highly competitive, knowledge-based economy” (p. 11). The Australian National Strategy for International Education 2025 (Australian Government 2016), aimed at advancing and internationalising Australian education, aligns with the Canadian strategy regarding accessing new global markets and partnerships, recruiting international students, advancing international research collaborations, and developing “new modes of education delivery…onshore, in-market and online” (p. 4). Both national strategies emphasize student and faculty mobility, amplifying international partnerships, and expanding alternate programme delivery opportunities—strategies that advance internationalisation as a business and recruitment process (Knight 2015). The role of universities in supporting internationalisation experiences for students, staff, and faculty (Welikala 2011) and targeted strategies to support cross/intercultural responsiveness “at home” in the informal and hidden curricula are not as discernable.

Findings provided evidence that current national strategic approaches and university practices both in Canada and Australia centred on philosophical underpinnings informed by economic rationalism, power inequities and neo-liberal process, rather than focusing on people and place.

Phase three: dialogic engagement

The 5Ps—five key policy threads (Ledger et al. 2015), people, philosophy, place, processes and power, go someway to help untangle the complexities of internationalisation in higher education. They offer one of many lens to capture the development, implementation, and outcome of higher education internationalisation across two sites in a systematic and critical manner. They form the basis of the dialogic engagement undertaken between two academics who explored how they made meaning of and interpreted internationalisation—our philosophy? How they moved forward by stepping back to explore and leverage our deep history of engagement with internationalisation—places of engagement and people/communities? How we honour our commitment to internationalisation in a manner that aligns with the focus and direction of our universities— processes. Further, how guiding principles and ethical considerations guide their internationalisation work—power and privilege? (Ledger et al. 2015; Paul et al. 2010).

Philosophy

Dialogic engagement highlighted the intent that drives the internationalisation of higher education. It is often played out by stakeholders informed by their own philosophical and ethical principles (liberal, neoliberal, critical) practices, processes, and asymmetrical power bases. The tacit knowledges and unconscious biases of those in decision-making positions at the institutional level, as well as national policy decision levels, have the capacity to impact individual, institutional, and national outcomes. Therefore, given the power issues of policy, there is justification to interrogate the intent of institutions and their desire to internationalise with more rigour. Internationalisation within a university culture and context is significantly more than a vision or the advancement of programmes and initiatives to generate revenue. Paul et al. (2010) argued that:

A university … must understand that its predominant defining drive is not corporate in nature – that is; the university is not so much about global extensions of activities – but rather, internationalisation actually features the internal transformation of the university itself. Internationalisation, then, must be understood as a university-institutional consciousness-raising process. Indeed, internationalisation frames an enlightening process that engages and activates the concept of openness towards a diverse, complex world in all the activities and organizational/functional mandates of the university itself. (p. 2).

Process and place

The internal transformation of institutes, argued by Paul et al. (2010), resonates well with de Wit and Leask’s (2015) call for “coherent and connected approaches to international education that address epistemological, praxis and ontological elements of all students’ development” (p. x). Dialogic engagement found that policy intent related to internationalisation of higher education was contextual. It impacted internal and international partnerships, processes, and practices. International partnerships come in all shapes, sizes, and forms; ranging from research partners, curriculum teams, and field experience opportunities through to more formalized partnerships, resulting in Memorandum(s) of Understandings and sustainable programmes.

People

Drawing from our own experience in higher education contexts, we advocate for a more intentional and transparent focus and articulation of foundational guiding principles and ethical practices in our internationalisation strategies (Pashby and Andreotti 2016). We prefer to focus on principles and practices aim[ed] to promote greater equity (Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research 2015) with respect to all stakeholders. If internationalisation agendas and strategies are not rooted or grounded by relational ethics and guiding principles, we will be remiss in addressing critical factors “to guide [our] involvement … within [our] networks and partnerships” (p. 4), factors in support of “authentic partnering, inclusion, shared benefits, commitment to the future, responsiveness to causes of inequities, and humility” (p. 2).

Power

Both academics recognised the neoliberal market-driven perspectives of internationalisation of higher education persist to dominate discussions and activities in each of the case study universities. Policy texts targeted strategic ways to entice international students with a comparatively smaller focus on developing international-mindedness or associated competencies for students within their own domestic market.

To summarise the dialogic engagement, the academics conferred that national policies in Australia and Canada (place) continue to reflect a market-driven rather than ethics-driven approach to internationalisation of higher education (philosophy). This was evidenced by an increase in scholarships, enticements, study abroad options, targeted-country specific programmes, transnational offerings, joint degrees, shared supervision and various memorandums of understandings across the sites (processes). Issues of agency surround individuals and institutions; for individuals, issues relate to ESL and more recently limited job prospects for international graduates evidenced within both universities (people), for institutions partnership opportunities between ‘like’ universities exist but issues relate to entrenched hierarchies within university sector (power inequities).

Discussion

Our comparative analysis involved exploration and examination of how internationalisation was defined, interpreted and applied in two case site countries, Canada and Australia within two case site institutions, two Schools of Education. It revealed convergence, divergence, and complexities over time and place when compared to de Wits (1995) study of four countries. The findings showed important policy threads impacting and influenced by people, philosophy, place, processes and power (5Ps) (Ledger et al. 2015) within internationalisation definitions and practices. Disparity and inequity existed across cases and contexts.

In regards revealing how internationalisation was defined, interpreted and implemented, the study highlighted the importance of viewing internationalisation of education through a broader and deeper conscientious internationalisation lens (philosophy), rather than one that focuses primarily on economic benefits driven by geographic and demographic determinants. Internationalisation is:

a compelling agent of change in its own right, serving as a potent catalyst for new models for organization, deliver, and even the stated mission of the higher education enterprise in many different contexts across the globe [and put] into a broader context for deeper understanding and more nuanced reflection (Deardorff et al. 2012, p. 4).

National policy statements related to internationalisation of higher education in Canada and Australia were clearly articulated but not easily implemented. Canada focused on a broader, ethical view of internationalisation (Andreotti 2016). Australia, falls short, presenting a one-dimensional economic view that ignores the transformative benefits (Whitsed and Green 2015). This was evident in the institutional policy documentations, but at the school level more creative options were exposed.

The policy and practice findings provide a robust understanding and ethical approach that embodies the why and the how universities respond to and take up internationalisation (process). Zhao (2003) advocated for a commitment to internationalisation that “embraces the entire functioning of higher education and not merely a dimension or aspect of it, or the actions of some individuals who are part of it” (p. 249). The findings represented internationalisation as an aim, rather than “an important resource in the development of higher education towards, first of all, a system in line with international standards; secondly, one open and responsive to its global environment” (Zhao, p. 250).

Both academics agreed, that translating internationalisation into practice requires a ‘whole of university approach’ with careful consideration of how it transcends the often siloed areas of research, teaching and learning, and engagement. As shown in the case study findings, these areas are driven by specific indicators of success dictated for each domain rather than more integrated approaches. Policy intent requires a “whole of university” commitment to be effective.

We take heart in Zhao’s statements though acknowledging de Wit’s (2002) assertion that “internationalisation of higher education is still a phenomenon with a lot of questions marks regarding its historical dimension; its meaning, concept, and strategic aspects …” (p. xv), and support the premise that “internationalisation is based on relationships …” (p. 226). From these premises this paper posits internationalisation within higher education as a global mindset involving lived curriculum experiences and relationship-based ethical dimensions that transcend traditional geographic, economic and demographic dimensions.

Both university international policies oppose the one-dimensional economic view of internationalisation that accompanies student load by shifting its focus on widening cross-cultural experiences, understandings and partnerships. The programmes, practices and innovative partnerships undertaken in each context, such as teaching swimming to Thai children and Teachers across Borders programmes were testament to this commitment.

Engaging in deeper internationalisation will help to identify the inherent biases and power inequalities within university partnerships, ethical processes and practices that underscore current economic driven, student load views of international education. In turn, it promotes an ethical approach to developing long term, sustainable partnerships based on respect and mutually beneficial outcomes. We contend to “live” internationalisation more broadly and deeply. We emphasise that universities have significant work to do if internationalisation is to be understood, interpreted, appreciated, and lived in ways that extend beyond student and faculty mobility, study abroad initiatives, and recruitment of international students.

A case for ‘conscientious internationalisation’

Human needs, interests, and intentions are integral to conscientious internationalisation (CI). We assert that to be conscientious is to have intent—to be people attentive, aware, reflective, mindful, responsible, honest, thoughtful, concerned, and critical. We further advance CI as all encompassing of these elements in support of ethical principles, practices, and processes espoused and advanced in higher education contexts. Moreover, the intent (philosophy) embedded in CI centres on individuals and institutes as purveyors of international-mindedness, ideologies, practices and pedagogies.

Conclusion

This paper draws from a humanitarian viewpoint of comparative education where nurturing global citizenship, relationships and conscientious internationalisation is valued (Wolhuter 2008). We sought to contribute to the discourse regarding exploring and examining, more deeply and broadly, how internationalisation in higher education is defined, interpreted, and responded to by one university in Canada and another in Australia, two decades after de Wits’ (1995) four country case study. We highlighted de Wit’s evolving conceptualization of internationalisation for higher education against a backdrop of conscientious internationalisation and, in so doing, identified contextual complexities and comparative tensions.

Power in its direct or indirect form is enacted and reproduced in and by talk and text discourse (van Dijk 2001). Ledger et al.’s (2015) 5Ps: people, philosophy, place, process and power provided an effective policy tool for translating findings and advancing critical questions. We argue that the intent (philosophy) of institutions (place) to internationalise (process) are impacted by interests (power) of individuals and institutions (people) and are often in conflict with internationalisation descriptions presented by key scholars in the field. We revealed that much of the commitment to internationalisation rests on engagement and partnership; yet, this affords the point of most vulnerability and ethical contestation (Ledger et al. 2014).

Conscientious internationalisation is offered as a philosophical backdrop to mitigate against competing and conflicting practices and power inequities. It aims to increase agency for all stakeholders in higher education contexts. This approach foregrounds people in the process of internationalisation. Accordingly, it is fitting to conclude by highlighting the critical importance of valuing and fostering the human element to create and sustain dynamic, internationalised universities—the foundational essence of de Wit and Leask’s (2017) vision.