Empowerment and ownership in effective internationalisation of the higher education curriculum
Empowerment and ownership in effective internationalisation of the higher education curriculum
Sandra H. Kirk 0 1 2 3
Clare Newstead 0 1 2 3
Rose Gann 0 1 2 3
Cheryl Rounsaville 0 1 2 3
Sandra H. Kirk 0 1 2 3
0 School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University , 50 Shakespeare St, Nottingham NG1 4FQ , UK
1 College of Science & Technology, Nottingham Trent University , Clifton Lane, Nottingham NG11 8NS , UK
2 School of Science & Technology, Nottingham Trent University , Clifton Lane, Nottingham NG11 8NS , UK
3 NTU Global, Nottingham Trent University , 50 Shakespeare St, Nottingham NG1 4FQ , UK
Internationalising the curriculum (IOC) in order to produce graduates with global citizenship skills is a common strategic goal in modern higher education. The extent to which this is achieved and the level of understanding amongst staff and students of what IOC involves and the benefits it imparts are varied. In this study, activities and attitudes across 15 subject disciplines delivered in a modern UK university were surveyed through an analysis of official course documentation, and semi-structured interviews with a range of academic staff. The outcomes are discussed in relation to the level of understanding and ownership that staff have of IOC. Through the modification of a process control model Barnett (European Journal of Education, 29(2), 165-179, 1994), suggestions are made as to how to move this top-down strategic imperative forward through empowerment of the academic staff involved in course delivery.
Empowerment; Ownership; Internationalisation
Introduction
According to the International Association of Universities 4th Global Survey on
internationalisation in higher education, 75% of over 1300 institutions in 131 countries either
had a policy for internationalisation, or were in the process of preparing one
(Egron-Polak and
Hudson 2014)
. While many view student recruitment as important, institutions ranked
increasing the international awareness of students as the top driver for internationalisation.
Despite this widespread commitment to internationalisation at the institutional level, there
remain clear challenges to embedding key elements of internationalisation into organisational
cultures. Over 20 years ago,
Knight (1994)
described the academic activities and services, and
organisational factors needed for the development and success of an international culture in a
Canadian institution. These included raising awareness amongst all relevant stakeholders,
ensuring staff commitment, clear planning, effective operationalisation, review, and
reinforcement. That staff buy-in is fundamental to the success of internationalisation and, in particular,
in ensuring that students receive maximum benefit from this strategic imperative is now widely
accepted within the literature, yet it remains a key challenge
(Clifford and Montgomery 2015;
Dewey and Duff 2009; Leask and Beelen 2009; Friesen 2012; Leask 2015)
.
In Knight’s view, a critical mass of 15% of staff fully engaged is necessary for success, but
it is not uncommon to hear international office staff describe responses to internationalisation
in their institutions as at best uneven, with pockets of excellence often disconnected from
overall institutional strategies. Disciplinary differences shape this picture, with evidence of
excellence being found in disciplines such as languages and business studies, while staff in
science subjects often appear resistant and yet-to-be convinced of the benefits of
internationalisation
(Clifford 2009; Leask and Bridge 2013; Newstead et al. 2015; Sawir
2011)
. Yet, across all disciplines, the ways in which internationalisation strategies are
presented to staff appear to matter. Research over the last 15 years consistently points to a lack of
communication and discussion between institutions and their staff, weak levels of support for
the internationalisation agenda, its goals and underlying values, and persistent gaps between
strategy claims and practices in the classroom
(Bond et al. 2003; Dewey and Duff 2009)
.
Knight (1994) suggests that while “[a] n internationalization plan tailored to build on the
specific interests, characteristics and objectives of the College or University has a better chance
of success than a general purpose strategy”, (p. 13) institutions often fail properly to articulate
their ambitions to specific contexts and existing organisational cultures.
Bond et al. (2003)
suggested that in addition to a lack of discussion and debate within institutions, there are often
issues of inadequate institutional support, work overload, and lack of respect for disciplinary
specifics.
Dewey and Duff (2009)
further highlight that there is frequently a lack of recognition
of and reward for the efforts involved in changing cultures. This was still being reported as a
problem in the sector by Florenthal and Tolstikov-Mast, as recently as 2012.
Barnett (1994)
suggests, in his work on quality assur (...truncated)