Empowerment and ownership in effective internationalisation of the higher education curriculum

Higher Education, Mar 2018

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.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10734-018-0246-1.pdf

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)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10734-018-0246-1.pdf

Sandra H. Kirk, Clare Newstead, Rose Gann, Cheryl Rounsaville. Empowerment and ownership in effective internationalisation of the higher education curriculum, Higher Education, 2018, pp. 1-17, DOI: 10.1007/s10734-018-0246-1