Issue topic: International perspectives on social education

PAPER

Sociální pedagogika | Social Education 25

volume 8, issue 1, pp. 25–32, April 2020

ISSN 1805-8825

Paper

Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education. An intercultural

task, a political assignment and a personal dedication

Hanneke Teekens

Many people – international relations officers, teachers, coaches and people active in the international

programmes in national agencies – have often asked me why it is so difficult to promote and

implement international programmes? Why is there such resistance – often hidden – against

internationalising the curriculum or mixing international students with domestic students? Why do

issues concerning visa applications remain a major problem? And why is teaching and learning in

English – outside the English-speaking world – an issue of increasing concern? Not to speak of why it

remains an everlasting challenge to promote mobility among domestic students. And the list is by no

means complete. The same people also tell me they love the job, enjoy the intercultural contacts with

colleagues in other universities, and take pleasure in working with students from around the world and

visiting foreign universities and interesting international conferences. They wouldn’t want to do

anything else! (Teekens, 2013).

Different stakeholders have very different rationales for internationalisation. Some may overlap, but

other intentions will not. One could argue that to a large extent there is agreement on a definition of

internationalisation, but no common view exists on the desired outcome. In other words: many

authors somewhat agree on what international education is, but not why it is important and what its

impact should be. No wonder that the same holds true within a university. Leadership, professors and

students will all have different perspectives. Internationalisation is a bag of mixed messages.

Statistics on student mobility, international cooperation and budgets spent – both individually,

organisationally and internationally – show rising figures and increased impact. Various voices argue

that internationalisation has become a core activity for higher education in most places around the

world. But the reality remains complicated. In some cases we actually see developments that suggest

a slow-down of earlier achievements, or even a return to a national perspective on the role of higher

education. The closure in 2018 of the Central European University in Budapest is perhaps the most

dramatic example.

Obstacles to internationalising higher education have a long history, and this explains why they are

likely to remain an important and lasting factor in the process. The current political and economic

situation in Europe may well have a much greater impact than it did a few years ago. Globalisation,

especially as a result of developments in China, will be felt in Europe, although probably more so in

Australia and the United States.

I write this contribution from the perspective of a practitioner. Someone, with more than twenty-five

years of work experience in the field, who has now enjoyed a period of more than five years of

retirement, albeit a period in which I still have been moderately active in international education in

various parts of the world. A position that has prompted me to reflect more or less from the sideline.

It makes my contribution more of a personal reflection than the result of recent research. It is an open

door to say that we are facing a world in change. That has always been the case. The questions are

now: why are these changes so profound, and what direction are we heading in?

A vast literature on international education has accumulated since the field was developed as an

academic, inter-disciplinary field of study. But these studies are not always of direct use for those

dealing with the practicalities of international education. In everyday work it is difficult for those

involved to bridge the gap between the leadership, academic domain and administration. In this article

I will focus on Europe and will refer to the European Union (EU) when that is explicitly meant. I do not

26

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

pretend to have the answers, let alone the solutions to the issues raised above. But in this article I try

to explain some of the obstacles that are inherent in the process of internationalising higher education.

At the end I reflect on some current developments and what they mean for international education.

Europe

But first a remark on the use of the term ‘Europe’. Some may purport that this designation is not a

reality. They argue that Europe is an idea, or perhaps more of an ideal, but not a reality. Political,

cultural and geographical criteria do not necessarily overlap. So when talking about ‘Europe’ it remains

a bit unclear what precisely is meant. All over the world, and within ‘Europe’ itself as well, we use the

term often and understand it without difficulty or very specific criteria. This would not be commonly

done, if this name did not evoke an image that is useful. It also expresses a feeling of belonging. During

the time of the Cold War, people behind the Iron Curtain thought of themselves as Europeans,

although this notion was not shared by either the Soviet Union or the governments in the various

capitals in ‘the rest of Europe’. People in greatly different countries, ranging from the far northwest in

Iceland to the southeast in Cyprus, will confirm that they are ‘European’, as opposed to African,

American or Asian. Recently the question has arisen whether Ukraine and Armenia are European

countries. Using the term ‘European’ is not very useful in higher education, unless it explicitly refers to

the European Union.

Some European values and ideas could perhaps be better classified under the notion of ‘Western’.

Europeans transplanted them to other parts, where they were further developed and adapted by those

who settled in places like The Americas and Australia, and later on in colonies all over the world. In

cultural terms, descendants of those early European colonists may still identify with ‘Europe’ up to the

present day, for instance regarding their taste in literature or music. Just take Ludwig van Beethoven,

born in 1770. He has a Dutch/Flemish name, was born in Germany, and worked and lived most of his

life in Austria, where he died in 1827. The chorale ‘All Men Shall Be Brothers’ from his ninth symphony

is the official European hymn. Tellingly, the chorale is usually referred to internationally as ‘Ode to Joy’.

Beethoven’s legacy has become part of a global appreciation of his music, rooted in the Viennese

tradition of classical music.

At the same time, the notion of ‘Western’ may well be identified as suppressive and non-inclusive.

Sometimes Europe is seen as the Old Continent, a place that was good to get away from. So notions of

Europe depend on facts, ideas, and very much on emotions. There may not be one European culture,

but there is a feeling, even when not always clearly articulated, that people in Europe know each other

because they share values, religious beliefs and tastes, and admire important icons of the arts. But

having a common background does not imply that it unites the peoples of Europe. At most, it confirms

that many Europeans share common roots that have shaped the cultures and societies of its various

nations. Higher learning played an important role in creating European commonality. In international

education, this means that students often find other European countries not ‘different’ enough and

prefer a destination beyond Europe when going abroad. The United States was always a very popular

destination for many European students. The same regards researchers. With the current political

climate in the US, this may well be different in the future (Open Doors, 2020).

The university model as a European invention

The university as we know it today originated in Italy in the eleventh century. In the early days of the

university, Latin was the unifying language of communication and theology was an important subject,

if not the most important one. The Roman Catholic Church had an important stake in university

education, shaping the minds of students and reinforcing religious belief as a catholic, meaning

universal value. Through a common language, religious belief and the mobility of students and

professors, the university was indeed international. But this is actually a contradiction in terms,

because at the time there were no nation-states to establish ‘inter-national’ relations with, or that

could feel ‘international’. Europeans dealt with each other as individuals with wide and diverse

27

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

backgrounds, coming from all parts of the realm but sharing the same frame of mind. This enabled a

relatively non-committal travel and interaction within the academic world. Mobility reinforced the

universal religious and cultural perspective. Academic mobility was not a danger to established

university interests and was thus promoted. But in the sixteenth century the ‘universal’ view on higher

education slowly started to change. National interests took over when powerful kings established

centralised monarchies and diminished the ‘catholic’ influence of the pope. The Reformation meant

that not even in religious matters was there a consensus within the confinement of one church. Most

churches came under state power, such as in Britain where the monarch became the head of the

Anglican Church. The consequences for learning were vast, although change came slowly. National

languages replaced Latin, and knowledge and research became tokens of national pride and status. As

a whole, the university became part of the economic and political framework of the state. Technical

applications represented national economic gain and status. Science and research fuelled

developments that brought Europe to the threshold of modernity. Think, for instance, of the stock

market in economics, democracy and human rights in politics, the welfare state in social terms, soccer

in sports and opera in classical music. The list is endless. But where all countries became part of this

modern Europe, the idea of communality faded.

At this moment, renewed nationalism is overtaking the facts. Namely that Europe is strongly

interconnected, but apparently not in the hearts and minds of many of its people. In education, the

university is again a bastion of national interest. The paradox is that this often comes in the form of

internationalisation. Universities want to attract research talent from abroad to rise in the rankings, so

that more research money can be obtained. Governments hope that international students will stay,

pay taxes and support the national economy. Different departments and interest groups battle for a

different piece of the pie within the university. In countries that are strongly dependent on

international trade and business, like Germany, support from the government will enhance

international collaboration. In countries without such an orientation, the government will further

strengthen a national perspective on higher education, like in Hungary for example.

Nation-states need loyal citisens and professionals. Education is a very important way of winning the

hearts and minds of the population. Universities educate and prepare the professionals of the state

needed to build strong societies. People, once accountable to the church, became subjects,

accountable to the state, its monarch and its state-controlled churches. For a long time this related to

higher education only, because general education did not become common until the late nineteenth

century. In the collective Western view of higher education, the role of the university as a ‘motor’ for

society is persistent to this day. This does not reduce responsibility for teaching and in particular

research, but politics places a clear social responsibility on the university as well. The application of

knowledge must enlighten the population and provide prosperity. This is not only a national view on

the role of universities. In a close reading of strategy papers, for instance of the OECD and the EU, you

can clearly read this message. It implies that ‘all’ countries share the same interests, but in reality

within the EU there is still strong national competition among the member states, including in

education. National governments are interested in the question: where do the best students go? They

will support their universities to attract that talent. This explains why rich countries with well-organised

and well-equipped institutions find it easier to attract students. An example of this is the increasing

flow of students from Italy and Greece to northwestern Europe. European programmes claiming

European solidarity are not really able to counterbalance these trends (Eurostat). Higher education

remains highly national, because it depends on national legislation and, most importantly, it is based

on national funding (Brooks, 2018).

European universities, while serving the interests of kings, nevertheless remained centres of creativity

and free thinking over the centuries. Individual scientists paid the price. Book burnings and exile were

commonly experienced. Other, more open countries profited, such as in the case of Descartes and

Comenius, who came to the Netherlands where they found shelter and could publish freely. Ever since

the eleventh century, universities in Europe have been an agent of change and common European

28

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

values. Through the mobility of students and professors they were an important facilitator of

collaboration. Born from theological philosophy, universities cleared the ground for empirical

research, documented and discussed through written publications that shaped the academic mores of

the modern university around the world. The university world create the critical mind of the modern

age. Modernity made Europe the motor of the world’s economy and technology.

It is important to stress that developments in European higher education were strongly fuelled by

industrial and technological developments in the United States. The trans-Atlantic connection became

the most important international relationship for Europe. At the end of the nineteenth century,

massive migration from Europe to the US strengthened this even further, creating strong national

communities and bonds across the ocean, like in the case of Polish and Italian communities.

Universities across the world have a lot in common, all having emulated the same university model as

it originated in Renaissance Italy. Globalisation is now creating new academic connectivity, which will

transform old ‘Western’ notions of learning and research with new international standards and values

fuelled by technology. Western dominance will fade. In order to maintain their relevance, universities

in Europe will seek to strengthen collaboration among themselves and internationally. Although

universities worldwide trace their origin to the European university model, education elsewhere is

often inspired by other cultural values and religions. Modern Chinese universities, for instance, seek

to link their social relevance to the centuries-old respected Confucian philosophy (Nisbett, 2003). But

all universities worldwide, no matter their background, will face a future where the old notions of

teaching and learning will be contested by big data and a global economy (Teekens, 2015). Modernity

has been overtaken by technology and the unimaginable wealth of a small number of the super-rich.

They do not live in Europe.

For people working in universities, ‘internationalisation’ represents daily activities on the micro level

of their own organisation. But most influences, both push and pull factors, are results of developments

that have little to do with education and much more with politics and the economy. This is often

frustrating for individual staff when one realises that those realms are outside one’s direct sphere of

influence in the office or classroom. Think of visa regulations, national laws on using the national

language of instruction, or legal rules regarding examinations.

The core of the problem regarding international university programmes is that they ‘talk international’,

but have to comply with national ideas and standards to serve the national interest. European

education programmes back up the interests of the EU. It may essentially be true that science is

universal, but its application is local and subject to national control. International education goes

against the flow of power when it does not serve power structures that are based on the national

interest. And that relates also to the interests of individual nationals, domestic students and

professors. This may explain why domestic students do not want to be taught in a language other than

their own, when they argue ‘I just want to be a doctor here in my own city’. Or why some academics

do not like colleagues with an international degree and broader experience, who potentially may be

competitors for job promotion. Once I was asked what PhD stands for. When I answered, the person I

was speaking to shook his head. No, it means ‘PushHerDown’. University structures have known

longstanding local and cultural traditions. The introduction of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees in

European countries was often felt as a cultural intrusion.

Of course this short flashback does not do justice to the complex history of the university as an

institution of higher learning, but it does explain why countries are so proud of their universities and

why they find it so difficult to allow foreign influence, perceived or real, to affect these institutions.

This relates to cultural, economic, political, social and religious paradigms. International education

affects all these aspects. That makes internationalisation policies so complex and at times poorly

understood.

29

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

Higher education in Europe: A political assignment

In the twentieth century, European rivalry led to the horrors of the First and Second World Wars and

consequently the Cold War. The name ‘World War’ conceals the fact that those conflicts originated in

Europe and were the result of national competition between European countries. In 1945, the political

will to prevent future wars while at the same time build strong economies was the beginning of a

process that connected the historical/cultural notion of ‘Europe’ with a political ambition for peace

and prosperity. Political stability and economic growth are the pillars of the EU. They resulted in the

rapid admission into the EU of ten post-communist countries in Central Europe, when it was felt that

otherwise a new curtain would arise in the eastern part of Europe.

It is helpful to realise that the notion of ‘Europe’ in higher education is not of an educational order. To

create a European open market, it was felt that the harmonisation of higher education was a

prerequisite. Universities have often disagreed and used European programmes to strengthen their

position within Europe. This explains why there is a strong flow of students and researchers from east

to west. The old national interests in the various countries, along with their historical and economic

positions, change slowly. It also explains why universities in countries with less international trade feel

less inclined to internationalise than countries who are more dependent on it. Universities in the

Netherlands are almost bi-lingual and, in many cases, English has taken over from Dutch, even in

undergraduate teaching.

Loyalty to the fatherland and the mother tongue are important ingredients for personal identity, or so

it appears. Countries in Europe with important regional differences are now seeing, with the demise

of strong centralised political frameworks, how the nation-state and the national language are under

pressure, such as in Spain with the uprisings in Catalonia, and in the United Kingdom with the cry for

more freedom in Scotland. Centuries of power centralisation have not been able to erase deeply

rooted feelings of pre-national identity. It is important to realise that in those so-called apostate

regions there is quite a positive attitude towards Europe. The current political tendency is to juxtapose

national interests and the European idea. That is a pity, but it is understandable as long as the EU acts

as a supra-national unit instead of a trans-national organisation. Globalisation will only evoke more

local identity issues, having a strong local impact with very different outcomes for the different parts

of Europe. It is an assignment for all educators in Europe to remind our youth that peace in Europe is

not self-sustaining and needs to be carefully treasured.

Higher education in Europe: An intercultural task

International education in Europe is an intercultural task. This was recognised early on, when in the

nineties of the last century the debate on internationalising higher education really got started (Wulf,

1995). And learning goals for primary schools were discussed even earlier, since by the time students

go to university their cultural identity has already been strongly fixed (Bell, 1988). But as explained

earlier, there is no European culture. The culture of Europe is a collection of different languages and

many different customs, rituals and narratives. Cultures admire – even worship – their heroes, and

that may be one of the main obstacles to creating more communality in Europe. There are no European

heroes. In the end, Beethoven is claimed by Germany and not by Spain. Culture is learned and

collectively transmitted. The EU supports education programmes through which the youth of Europe

will ‘unlearn’ some narrow national knowledge in order to create a newly integrated European

knowledge . But this is a very rational perspective. Learning begins with an effective attitude, as does

teaching. By the time children go to school they have already absorbed the cultural narrative of their

community. And this is important. We all need to feel rooted and to know where we belong. The task

of education is to teach diversity. Dealing with diversity, on an individual level and within one’s

community, will increasingly be the basis of culture. In spite of what populists proclaim, globalisation

has done away with the days of secluded cultures – in fact those days never were! But in times of

uncertainty, those fairy tales feel comforting. The task of higher education is to educate Europeans to

live together amidst cultural and linguistic diversity.

30

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

Higher education in Europe: A dedication

Over the last five decades we have been dealing with the massification of higher education,

digitalisation, and the mass mobility of students around the world. At the same time, (higher)

education in Europe has retained some of its centuries-old traditions while trying to find ways to

educate Europeans. Collaboration and sharing universal values amidst different cultures and interests

is quintessentially European: diversity in unity. EU programmes invested and this created a different

kind of international collaboration than in other places, Australia in particular, where attracting

international students was predominantly a business model for universities. In Europe, aspects of

internationalising the curriculum were always part of the discourse. This means that mobility was an

element of the policies but was always embedded in learning strategies for both learner and teacher.

The personal level in education, and certainly in international education, is very important. It requires

from both learner and teacher an open mind, willing to include new ideas. A dedication and willingness

to learn from each other across cultural differences (Zull, 2012).

Over the last two decades we have seen that international higher education has become highly

commercialised. Attracting international students became for many universities the most important,

if not the only reason to internationalise. As long as students came in the way the universities wanted,

the ‘field’ boomed, and cultural aspects and views on intercultural learning and profits, both material

and immaterial, were discussed. But in reality, internationalising universities was based on ‘Western’

ideas and ideals and, in the end, more on money than anything else. Now that massive flows of

students from China and other ‘sending’ countries are drying up, the view on ‘collaboration’ has

changed completely. In Europe, exchange has remained an important aspect of collaboration, and the

intention of universities to include cultural aspects of mobility in their educational approach differs

from a purely commercial stance.

Education in the twenty-first century is faced with the most important development in teaching and

learning since the Renaissance. Education means teaching students to learn and apply knowledge. We

are now faced with a future in which computers will not only be able to teach, but also to learn. They

will turn us – potentially – into different people (Harari, 2016).

Reflections

What then will be the role of the teacher and learner? Why would you go abroad when the whole

world can be reached through the Net? Does this make international mobility obsolete? When we look

at the plans of the EU for new education programmes in the period from 2021 to 2027, the contrary is

the case. The objective of strengthening the European market is again the most important reason to

greatly increase the budget to 30 billion euro. The aim of greater mobility among students and staff

remains unchanged. The ambition is to reach a number of 12 million young people and their teachers.

Erasmus (the + will again disappear from the name) remains the flagship of the EU. The new

programme retains the core values that were first articulated when the programme started – at least

for higher education – in 1987. That is remarkable. It also means that the EU has not yet achieved its

ambition of creating a truly European education area. However, I think for the vast majority of young

people, personal and cultural interests will prevail, not the political ambitions of the EU. Two elements

are being focused on: inclusivity and professional skills development. Regional development, albeit

across national borders, also remains important. In my view there is not much new under the sun. The

way in which Erasmus really impacts inter-European collaboration remains unclear. Nevertheless, I

wholeheartedly support the idea of Erasmus and think the money is well spent. Millions of young

people have profited and developed themselves, and it has strengthened universities. Whether it has

strengthened the EU is doubtful. In other words, what is good on a personal level may not really work

macro-economically, or the other way around. It makes clear that the assignment, task and dedication

to European commonality, remains unchanged.

Outside of Europe, the most important reason for students to go abroad has always been the lack of

good education at home. Increasing costs for higher education are such a burden for many students,

31

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

and for international students in particular, that they no longer see it as an investment but more as a

financial burden that inhibits personal development after graduation. This applies in particular to

students who study primarily to get a job, not because they want to develop themselves in regards to

‘Bildung’. It means that people will make different choices and perhaps focus on professional training

instead. In fact, international work experience and internships are the fastest growing activities within

European programmes. And not only for universities but also in technical secondary education.

Will nothing change? It will. Europe is no longer the motor of the world; in fact, not even the ‘Western’

world is. The knowledge revolution will place university learning in a very different position. Higher

education will take the lead in developing artificial intelligence only in part. Big companies will have a

growing influence on research, and those big companies are increasingly located in Asia. A university

degree is no longer a guarantee of work. Universities are a result of the modern age. The new age will

require people to deal with knowledge in ways that are digitally prescribed and will require very

different and novel ways of instruction. Probably largely supported by virtual reality.

My question is: how can we humanise society when artificial intelligence and big data will rule the

world? Computers have no feelings. I still feel that the most important added value of international

education is the cultural learning experience, which imparts new learning primarily in terms of

attitudes, provided that this learning is well contextualised. Hopefully, this learning is still

predominantly face-to-face, and exists in international education through real international mobility

and exchanges. But following on what was discussed above, this all may well mean that virtual mobility

and internationalising the curriculum at home will become more and more important. That implies

that educators – more in their role as learning coaches than as instructors – are tremendously

important in guiding the next generation through the jungle of big data, and helping students to

explore the local environment. The big question will be how to live a meaningful life and how to

combine real personal experience with the virtual reality of the net. Finding one’s own cultural identity

amidst a globalised world will be a matter of shifting modes of thinking. This means dealing with

diversity. A lasting phenomenon of a globalised world.

Note: This article was written before the Covid-19 outbreak engulfed the world. My personal

reflections on the future herewith have a different colour. It shows that under global pressure, many

of the developments are actually shaping up more quickly, and it will be very interesting to see how

permanent they will be in the long term.

References

Bell, G. H. (1988). Developing a European dimension in primary schools. London: David Fulton

Publishers Ltd.

Brooks, R. (2018). Higher education mobilities: a cross-national European comparison. Geoform, 93,

87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.009

Harari, Y. N. (2016). Home Deus. A brief history of tomorrow. London: Penguin Random House UK.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently – and

why. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Open Doors. (March 31, 2020). Report on International Exchanges. Retrieved from

https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors

Teekens, H. (Ed.). (2013). Global Education. A narrative. The Hague: Nuffic.

Teekens, H. (2015). The freedom to be: international education and crossing borders. 2015

Mestenhauser Lecture on Internationalizing higher education. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota.

Wulf, C. (Ed.). (1995). Education in Europe. An Intercultural task. Waxmann: Munster/New York.

32

Teekens / Reflections on the internationalisation of higher education…

Zull, J. E. (2012). The brain, learning and study abroad. In M. Vande Berg, M. R. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.),

Student learning abroad. What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do

about it (pp. 162–187). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Hanneke Teekens

Climes, Education & Culture

Hanneke Teekens brings more than forty years of experience in

education as a teacher, researcher, consultant, and manager. She

retired in 2013 from the Board of Directors of NUFFIC, the Netherlands

Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education. At

NUFFIC, Hanneke was responsible for a wide range of activities,

including the Netherlands Education Support Offices in ten countries.

She was director of the Socrates National Agency and Erasmus Mundus.

Before joining NUFFIC, Hanneke worked at Twente University, the

Hogeschool van Amsterdam, and the Graduate School of Teaching and

Learning of the University of Amsterdam. She is the founder of Climes,

her own consultancy company for coaching and advising in international

education. One focus of her research regards ways to support teaching

staff in ensuring and demonstrating international, intercultural, and

global learning outcomes. Hanneke has worked in many countries

around the world on projects and training, and has published on various

aspects of international education, in particular Internationalization at

Home. Hanneke is a frequent speaker at international seminars and

conferences and was until two years ago a senior fellow of NAFSA:

Association of International Educators. Currently she is active as a

volunteer within AFS, the organization that brought her to the U.S. as an

exchange student in 1966. She studied at Leyden University and holds

graduate degrees in History and Education.

Table of Contents

! (Teekens, 2013)

(Zull, 2012).