Questions in “Literature review”

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20

Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Educating global citizens: a good ‘idea’ or an organisational practice?

Kathleen Lilley, Michelle Barker & Neil Harris

To cite this article: Kathleen Lilley, Michelle Barker & Neil Harris (2015) Educating global citizens: a good ‘idea’ or an organisational practice?, Higher Education Research & Development, 34:5, 957-971, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1011089

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011089

Published online: 11 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 736

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Educating global citizens: a good ‘idea’ or an organisational practice?

Kathleen Lilleya*, Michelle Barkerb and Neil Harrisb

aSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia; bGriffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Higher education emphasises training and skills for employment, yet while the ‘idea’ of educating global citizens appears in university discourse, there is limited evidence demonstrating how the ‘idea’ of the global citizen translates into practice. Recent research emphasises a desire for graduates to be local and global citizens with ethical and critical capacities for global workforce preparedness. The purpose of this paper is to explore the university responsibility for translating the ‘idea’ of the ethical thinking global citizen into practice. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with higher education experts (n = 26). The interpretive research is discussed through the themes: Constructing the global citizen, Enacting the global citizen, Legitimating the global citizen and The sidelining context (italics used to distinguish research themes in text). The paper contributes to higher education discourse on a contested and topical issue.

Keywords: commercialisation; cosmopolitanism; global citizen; leadership; public good

A dominant neoliberal economic paradigm has steered higher education towards com- petency training for professional employment, with education considered as students’ investment in their future prosperity as productive employees (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). However, there is support to expand the neoliberal focus to include the broader features of cosmopolitan learning (Caruana, 2014; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Rizvi, 2009). Cosmopolitan learning provides an individual with broader life skills and capacities and the opportunity to develop as global citizens. Universities commonly articulate an aim of educating global citizens in policy documents. Yet, the global citizen ‘idea’ is rarely explained and has limited evidence in practice (Leask & Bridge, 2013).

The global citizen term is contested and eludes precise definition. Schattle’s (2008) research suggests that global citizens present in many ways. Avoiding precise defi- nitions, researchers have elected to describe the global citizen through the dimensions of social responsibility, global competence and global civic engagement (Morais & Ogden, 2011; Schattle, 2008), specifically in terms of justice and the environment (Tarrant, 2010), and as an attitude and commitment (Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011). Global citizen attributes commonly referred to by these researchers include openness, tolerance, respect and responsibility. In higher education, the global citizen has been

© 2015 HERDSA

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Higher Education Research & Development, 2015 Vol. 34, No. 5, 957–971, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1011089

investigated through a change in attributes as a result of mobility (Morais & Ogden, 2011; Tarrant, 2010). However, the global citizen is rarely explored as a university responsibility.

Translating the notion of ‘public good’ and ethical values into education is complex. Yet, the International Association of Universities (2012) encouraged universities to integrate academic values explicitly into practice and to improve the preparation of stu- dents, as national and global citizens, and as productive members of the workforce. However, this is not easily achieved. As explained by Morrow and Torres (2000), the inter-relationships between globalisation, the state, education and social change have created major challenges for universities. Despite these complexities, Marginson (2011) claims that ‘education needs to re-ground itself in the social’ if it is to avoid slip- ping into irrelevance (p. 431). Furthermore, as noted by Calhoun,

for universities to be effective institutions for public good we need not merely a defence of old habits or an embrace of new trends. We need a stronger analysis of how universities can be public. (2006, p. 37)

Through case study research, Rhoads and Szelenyi (2011) concluded that advancing global citizenship is central to the public mission of universities. They believed that developing a global citizen disposition through education could foster a student com- mitment to advancing public good concerns locally and globally. In summary, there appears to be support for educating ethical thinking global citizens as an outcome of higher education. However, the way to achieve this is unclear. The purpose of this research was to explore higher education experts’ perspectives on the university respon- sibility for educating global citizens.

Literature review

The ‘idea’ of educating global citizens is often articulated through a university’s public mission and internationalisation policies. As constructs, public good and internationa- lisation are interrelated, frequently contested, and are claimed to be sidelined by neoli- beralism and corporate culture (Giroux, 2009). Considerable in-depth empirical research has analysed how universities, operating in ‘quasi-markets’, are constrained by intrinsic factors specific to higher education. One such factor that is commonly identified is the cultural shift from collegiality and democracy to executive power (Marginson & Considine, 2000; Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).

Other scholars examining the impacts of neoliberal policies on university public good have identified sidelining issues such as: citizenship conceptualised as a private affair (Giroux, 2009); a reoriented focus of university values from democracy and equality to efficiency and accountability (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010); and the imperfect correlation between excellence (inherent exclusivity) and access to education (restricted admission to raise standards) (Calhoun, 2006). Notwithstanding these constraints, Marginson (2011) claimed that universities should provide the ‘conditions for learning’ that engage faculty and students with common human problems and contribute to social tolerance, international understanding and social collectivity.

Universities have responded to global change through the political, economic, social and academic rationales of internationalisation of higher education (Knight, 1997, 2012; de Wit, 2002). However, the assumption that internationalisation would

958 K. Lilley et al.

produce an international understanding among graduates is unsubstantiated (Gallagher, 2011; Hoareau, Ritzen, & Marconi, 2012). As summarised by Green (2012) and Rhoads and Szelenyi (2011), the public purpose of education and the aims for educating global citizens have been sidelined by the instrumental and commercial foci of internationalisation.

The OECD (1996) promoted internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC) as a strat- egy to prepare students for professional and social engagement in a multicultural and global-minded society. However, Leask and Bridge (2013) highlighted how little is understood about the influence of IoC on educating global citizens. Higher education stakeholder groups have articulated their views on the social responsibility of univer- sities in terms of the ‘ideal global graduate’. For instance, UNESCO (2009) identified educating critical and ethical thinking graduates as core to the university purpose. Simi- larly, it was found that employers value communication and analytical thinking capacities in job applicants and recommended greater synthesis between the aims of liberal education and professional education (Georgetown University, 2013; Maguire Associates Inc., 2012). Emerging evidence suggests that universities hold a responsibil- ity to prepare global graduates with values and capacities beyond the training for productive careers.

A number of prominent authors have conceptualised the critical and ethical thinking global citizen through a cosmopolitan lens. However, as highlighted by Marginson and Sawir (2011, p. 62) ‘cosmopolitanism can follow different paths’. Peters, Britton, and Blee (2008) considered that fostering the cosmopolitan global citizen would promote an understanding of complex political, cultural and internationalisation issues. Further- more, Rhoads and Szelenyi (2011, p. 27) emphasised the global collectivist nature of the global citizen. Beck (2006), believes that ‘common sense’ cosmopolitanism presup- poses certain common moral values are shared by societies. According to Beck, the ‘cosmopolitan moment’ occurs from within as a ‘self-reflexive action’, whereas uni- versalism avoids curiosity about difference, and relativity institutionalises thought and action resulting in pre-established ignorance. In contrast, Pogge (2002) conceptu- alised cosmopolitanism as a social justice issue. According to Pogge, the responsibility of world citizens is to mitigate between the compromised premise of strong cosmopo- litanism (equal treatment of all) and weak cosmopolitanism (equal worth). Instead, Pogge promoted intermediate cosmopolitanism as a duty not to impose unjust social institutions upon our fellow citizens.

Other authors have discussed cosmopolitanism in a less prescriptive way. Appiah (2006) explained cosmopolitanism as a moral ethic that promotes a sense of ‘otherness’ that helps to build habits of coexistence. Concurring, Rizvi (2009) discussed the dynamic nature of cosmopolitanism as an instrument of knowing and critical under- standing for moral improvement. Rizvi rejects universalism and fixed notions of the global citizen, explaining that cosmopolitan learning engages students ethically. Taylor (2004) explains how the social imaginary allows us to deal with the unstruc- tured, complex, empirical and affective aspects of our existence. It fosters the ability to engage internally, and with others in a relational and reflexive way. Adding to an epistemology for global citizenship, Vertovec and Cohen (2002) described transforma- tive cosmopolitanism as a way of promoting ‘intellectual thinking’, and a mindset for understanding the interconnecting influences of globalisation from the economic, social, technical, environmental and cultural aspects (Selby, 2008; Vertovec & Cohen, 2002). Moral and transformative cosmopolitanism offers a philosophy and epis- temology for students to engage in ethical interconnected thinking as global citizens.

Higher Education Research & Development 959

However, enacting the cosmopolitan global citizen as a curricular outcome can be con- tingent on the public purpose of the university and its leadership.

In summary, the contemporary university could be considered paradoxically posi- tioned between corporate responsibilities, a mission of public good and the ‘idea’ of educating global citizens. The purpose of this study was to explore expert higher edu- cation perspectives on the university responsibility for translating the concept of the ethical thinking global citizen into a curricular outcome.

Methodology and methods

An interpretive, hermeneutic approach was taken in this qualitative research (Elwell, 1996). The conceptual framework of the research was guided by the juxtaposition between the university operating as a ‘quasi-market’ institution and the public purpose of education. Given the degree of ambiguity and uncertainty about the global citizen term, we adapted the qualitative research technique of matching the ‘ideal type’ to observable phenomena and explained to participants that the global citizen represented the ‘ideal global graduate’ (Neuman, 2006; Swedberg & Agevall, 2005).

The following questions guided the semi-structured interviews:

. What does the global citizen or ‘ideal global graduate’ mean to you?

. Do universities have a responsibility to educate ethical thinking global citizens (representing the ‘ideal global graduate’)?

. What are the implications and obstacles?

. Is there a role for values-based education?

A purposive sample of Australian and European Union (including UK) higher edu- cation experts (n = 26) was chosen. According to de Wit (2002), European and Austra- lian universities have a similar educational approach to internationalisation of the curriculum and this provided a degree of institutional commonality for participants to respond to the research questions. Twenty-five participants either worked in the European Union or Australia/New Zealand, the 26th in America. Defining participant identity was complex. For instance, a group of Australian/New Zealand participants originally came from India, Pakistan and England. Participants working in Europe were from Scotland, USA, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Netherlands and Slovakia. One participant worked in the USA but was involved with higher education in Europe and Australia.

All participants were employed in universities, peak higher education non-govern- ment organisations (NGO), or key intergovernmental organisations (IGO) involved with higher education policy and funding in the European Union. University executive (UE) positions included dean, deputy-vice chancellor, rector, vice-chancellor and vice- president. University academic (UA) participants were professors. NGO and IGO par- ticipant descriptions included education department head, executive director, director, deputy-director, senior policy advisor and international education consultant. Expert status of participants was gauged by scholarly publications, reputation and experience. Two postgraduate students involved with international postgraduate student organis- ations were included. Gender was balanced and there was ethnic diversity among par- ticipants. The Eurocentric bias of the sample is acknowledged and is not claimed to be representative of the higher education sector. Nevertheless, due to the limited

960 K. Lilley et al.

institutional evidence about the global citizen, this research was undertaken as a starting point for future national and cross regional research.

Data were analysed by identifying descriptive and conceptual themes and sub-themes (Miles & Huberman, 1984). In accordance with the principles of the herme- neutic circle (Klein & Myers, 1999), the researcher engaged in dialogic reasoning, was sensitive to multiple interpretations and exercised suspicion of biases, and distortion of participant data. Data analysis involved devising multiple ways of viewing the data, such as developing matrices of categories, tabulation of frequently occurring events, tabulation and relationship comparisons, ordering into temporal schemes, modelling, pattern matching and explanation building. Abstraction of the findings was done con- textually in respect of the participant worldviews and experiences, and in relation to theory and the literature. The developing concepts, themes and sub-themes were subject to cycles of revision. The multiple interpretations were considered through their individual parts and their contribution to the whole. The research protocol was revised in line with the emerging data. An audit trail was maintained during the research process, and the research database was managed in NVivo 9. The comprehensive and systematic approach taken during the data analysis provided a scaffold to support the trustworthiness of the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Ethical approval was obtained from an Australian university.

Findings

The findings offer insights into the global citizen as a curricular outcome and as a uni- versity responsibility. The findings are discussed through the themes: Constructing the global citizen, Enacting the global citizen, Legitimating the global citizen and Sidelin- ing the global citizen. These themes present an interpretive representation of partici- pants’ perspectives. The participant quotes are referred to in the findings as AUS/ NZ, EU, UK or US with identifying Arabic numbers. Place of employment for non-university participants is described by non-government organisation (NGO), inter- governmental organisation (IGO) or student representative (SR) (for instance, EU 23_IGO and EU 8_NGO). The university participants are explained through either their academic (UA) role or executive/corporate (UE) role (for instance either, AUS/ NZ 4_UA or EU 9_UE). The participant quotes are identified with inverted commas in the text. The resultant themes and sub-themes used to report the study are shown in Table 1.

Findings by theme

Constructing the global citizen

This theme focuses on the building of a more inclusive understanding of what the global citizen concept means in higher education. The majority of participants believed that a common definition for the ‘ideal graduate’ was unrealistic. Yet, by asking about the global citizen or their view of the ‘ideal global graduate’, clarity about overlapping terms emerged. Only four participants preferred to use an alternative term to the global citizen; cosmopolitan (1), cross-cultural capability and global perspectives (1) and intercultural competence (2). Twenty-four participants accepted the global citizen as a broadly understood term to describe a desirable curricular outcome for the ‘ideal global graduate’.

Higher Education Research & Development 961

Regardless of the term participants used to describe the ‘ideal global graduate’, there was a degree of consistency in the underpinning liberal values they described. They mentioned openness, tolerance, respect, and responsibility for self, others and the planet. According to EU 17_NGO, at the advanced stage, it could be seen as a ‘com- mitment rather than some sort of technical efficiency’. US 12_UA thought that ‘engage- ment’ was a feature that differentiated intercultural competence from the global citizen. However, EU 21_NGO said, ‘I think we could have high and lofty expectations’. For instance, while social justice has been associated with cosmopolitanism, these partici- pants’ aspirations for graduates were more realistic. The participants did not specifically identify political or environmental activism in their construction of the ideal global graduate. The global citizen emerged as a fluid concept and a way of thinking. Further- more, many were emphatic that it was not the role of the university to measure or probe into students’ values. However, participants unanimously felt that universities should provide an education that engaged students with values-based education:

I think it probably comes back to liberal virtues … . we should foster those social attri- butes which go to sociality itself … tolerance, openness, consideration for others, collec- tivity in certain domains, making institutions work. All that’s legitimate, proper, and we [universities] should pursue that. (AUS/NZ 1_UA)

In terms of linguistic ability, EU 17_NGO thought that ‘language pain tolerance’ was a characteristic of the global citizen, as English was heard in many ways. Two other EU participants thought that global citizenship required foreign language ability, but others did not emphasise language in such strong terms. In contrast, AUS/NZ 1_UA con- sidered that foreign language capability was not essential for everyone: ‘ … it’s just one of those things that people aren’t wired for the same way. Some people are better at it [relational engagement] than others’.

The global citizen mindset was explained by participants by using different terms; ‘interconnected thinking’ (US 12_UA), ‘systems thinking’ (AUS/NZ 6_UA), ‘ways of thought and ways of knowing’ (AUS/NZ 19_UE). EU 23_IGO described interconnected

Table 1. Institutional context of the global citizen themes and subthemes.

Themes Subthemes

Constructing the global citizen Ambiguity Liberal values Language Mindset/capacities Cosmopolitanism

Enacting the global citizen Student expectations Liberal framework for learning Challenging students with values Measurable learning outcome

Legitimating the global citizen Organisational processes Organisational leadership Shared values Cross-disciplinary thread

The global citizen sidelined Competition/commercialisation Managerial mindset Leadership style Relativism of values

962 K. Lilley et al.

thinking as the transferring of competences. He/she explained that ‘you cannot solve pro- blems like climate change, and social cohesion, without those sorts of transference of competences’. Several participants described the ideal global graduate in terms of identity, belonging and the imagination, and in relational terms, as explained by AUS/NZ 1_UA:

It’s that relational cosmopolitism, that capacity to enter into the imaginative world of the other … a central principle that you’re trying to get through, which is quite hard … I think a lot of people find it hard. And some people can do it with some other cultural sets, and not others.

The mindset for imagining difference was explained as questioning assumptions, walking in others’ shoes, imagining difference, and critical and ethical thinking. Whereas, AUS/NZ 4_UA described the mindset capacities for cosmopolitan thinking:

So the epistemic virtues that I talk about are relationality, reflexivity, and imagination. Those are the kind of virtues that become important once you accept the premise of the changing nature of our notions of belonging and how we belong. (AUS/NZ_4UA)

While only two participants rejected a global notion of citizenship, one of these thought that cosmopolitan was a more apt description for the ‘ideal global graduate’. However, AUS/NZ 5_UE thought that there would be academic resistance towards using cosmo- politanism as it could act as a barrier to broader uptake. In contrast, AUS/NZ 4_UA clarified cosmopolitanism as a form of ‘moral connectedness’ and could be promoted in terms of ‘pedagogical possibilities’.

This varied sample of international participants presented a surprisingly similar broad construction of the global citizen in higher education. The descriptions appear to be consistent with a moral and transformative cosmopolitan underpinning, and a mindset and capacities for interconnected thinking.

Enacting the global citizen

The second theme focuses on translating the ‘idea’ to practice. Several participants thought that enacting the global citizen was a difficult, but not insurmountable, problem for teaching and learning. The university responsibility was accepted as complex. Obstacles were explained as a disciplinary emphasis on specialised skill devel- opment, overcrowded curricular, and already overburdened and/or sceptical academics. AUS/NZ 19_UE explained how organisational practices were to a certain extent influ- enced by narrow student expectations of learning and student satisfaction surveys. However, from the student perspective, AUS/NZ 26_SR said ‘students think university is where you go to get a degree’. They are not explicitly told that going to university is preparation for global engagement and understanding. According to this participant, not enough is made of the benefits of engaging students interculturally, as part of their uni- versity learning experience. He/she thought that students should have their expectations of learning altered. Furthermore, AUS/NZ 26_SR thought that there is potential to broaden students’ expectations of their learning experiences through better marketing practices. Many participants identified organisational strategies that would be more sup- portive of educating global citizens. Yet, it was commonly felt that there was ‘no one size fits all’ in terms of institutional approaches. As EU 8_UA explained: ‘ … it’s not a set of regulations like we do for the traffic … We think that from those values you [students] can think for yourself what that means’ (EU 8_UA).

Higher Education Research & Development 963

Several participants discussed a liberal framework for integrating the global citizen into education. According to these participants, educating global citizens was an approach to learning, where students are challenged by dilemmas and liberal values. How students resolve value conflicts is part of their learning, development and self- transformation. Several participants thought that the difficulty of linking the global citizen to measurable learning outcomes was an obstacle to academic uptake. However, there was unanimous support for an educational experience that fostered the development of global citizens. Many participants felt that how, and how much, stu- dents engaged and developed was up to them. EU 8_UA thought that a capstone unit offered an opportunity to monitor and evaluate student engagement, their thinking capacities, and how they understood the relevance and interconnected nature of global citizen values across their programme learning objectives.

Legitimating the global citizen

This theme explores how aspirations for nurturing global citizens could be legitimated through university processes and practices. Several participants thought that engaging in values-based education was a secular dilemma of the modern university. AUS/NZ 1_UA explained that academics frequently abstain from taking a value stance or dis- guise their values. Discourse on legitimating values in universities frequently defaulted to ‘whose values are we promoting?’ A common thread in the theme associated values to intellectual approaches to education, in contrast to solely focusing on the trans- mission of professional competence. In particular, EU 8_UA and EU 9_NGO discussed how science, technology, engineering and maths disciplines had become more disinte- grated due to EU policy decisions and national policy directions. Yet, many participants felt that the real purpose of higher education was opening students’ minds. AUS/NZ 1_UA explained:

But I think it is proper domain of staff and for universities, and if we don’t do it system- atically, we can’t expect those sorts of values to be fostered in families … . So I think that that creates a kind of vacancy that the universities do need to think about filling. (AUS/NZ 1_UA)

EU 7_UE also highlighted how values were assumed to develop through family and religion, and that university was preparation for the workforce. However, EU 7_UE questioned whether this assumption continues to be true.

Participants considered the task of identifying shared values in higher education a challenge. On the one hand, some participants thought that articulating shared univer- sity values could risk offending a minority/minorities. Yet, alternatively, several partici- pants felt that it could be possible to find shared values and develop these, as well as new ones, in a moral cosmopolitan sense. As explained by AUS/NZ 1_UA:

Questions of scientific truth, we could expect to guide us. Questions of political fostering we have to be a bit more cosmopolitan about … . the university might have to step in as a more objective, and a more public body devoted to the conditions that enable you to be public and objective.

It was agreed by many participants that shared values should accommodate diversity, and multiple perspectives. As a curricular outcome, EU 9_NGO suggested that shared values could be perceived as a ‘mandatory cross-disciplinary thread’.

964 K. Lilley et al.

Furthermore, EU 9_NGO suggested that the International Association of Universities (IUA) could be an appropriate forum for identifying shared university values. There was no support for a regulatory approach. As US/NZ 1_UA explained, ‘I don’t think we should be talking about energising the whole curriculum with normative issues’.

AUS/NZ 4_UA felt that organisational leadership and socially embedding values can help to legitimate an institution’s ethos. In this situation, academics need to show how their academic performance is linked to the institutional mission and the community. Furthermore, the institutional mission is systematically linked to hiring policies, appointments and promotions. There was considerable support among partici- pants for a more explicit and cosmopolitan organisational approach towards legitimat- ing university values.

Sidelining the global citizen

The fourth theme focuses on what participants felt was sidelining the global citizen. The global citizen as curricular outcome is organisationally complex and often those most committed are removed from corporate complexity and responsibility. Many partici- pants blamed the commercial and competitive nature of universities for sidelining the global citizen. In the opinion of UK 15_UE:

The notion of universities contributing to public good is a contradiction, when universities are acting like a business.

Building on this view, EU 9_NGO discussed the lack of organisational coherence between commercialisation, competition and public good. This participant felt that edu- cating global citizens was a notion universally supported in the European higher edu- cation leadership environment. However, imaginative ideas for translating the ‘idea’ into practice were lacking.

AUS/NZ 19_UE used the metaphor of ‘the managerial mindset’ to describe how bureaucratic thinking and reasoning can impact university organisational processes. Boisot and MacMillan (2004) described ‘the managerial mindset’ as an embedded man- agerial epistemology that ‘seeks evidence to justify its actions’ (p. 513). This epistem- ology could explain the differing worldviews between the external bureaucracy and the university sector on the appropriateness of particular performance indicators. For instance, AUS/NZ 19_UE felt that ‘the managerial mindset’ enforces performance indi- cators that are poorly conceived, and in some cases are not respected by the university sector. Examples of ethical behaviour and teaching quality were raised:

What’s the performance indicator for ethical behaviour, and the answer is, there isn’t one. But that’s unacceptable to ‘the managerial mindset’ which can only see in that sort of thing. They say they are going to measure teaching quality, and hand out money accord- ingly. They’ve tried in the past and student satisfaction surveys fail. They say, okay well double your efforts, rather than revisit our premise. (AUS/NZ 19_UE)

Furthermore, AUS/NZ 19_UE felt that internal university management processes reinforce ‘the managerial mindset’. The executive requires staff to report on these poorly conceived performance indicators, as universities are so reliant on external funding. When asked if universities, individually or through Universities Australia, have attempted to challenge these accountability measures, the participant explained

Higher Education Research & Development 965

that these attempts are misinterpreted by ‘the managerial mindset’ as ‘university self- interest, and are discarded’.

All participants acknowledged the conflicting demands faced by university lea- dership. However, several participants considered that there was a lack of com- mitted leadership to public good. One university leader acknowledged his/her own complacency by saying: ‘I guess in universities, you do take for granted certain things, like tolerance and fairness’ (AUS/NZ 3_UE). A frequently expressed opinion was that leaders failed to ‘walk the talk’ (AUS/NZ 16_UE) or offered ‘lip service’ (EU 8_NGO). For instance, AUS/NZ 16_UE analysed his/her own univer- sity’s policies. Internationalisation was mentioned 63 times; however, there was limited organisational evidence of this commitment beyond the exchange of stu- dents. Many participants discussed the corporate leadership style. While one partici- pant attributed corporate behaviour to the ‘self-interested “power status” of senior management’ (AUS/NZ 6_UA), other participants attributed leadership behaviour to external subordinating influences, and the internally directed demands of managerialism.

AUS/NZ 5_UE offered an alternative leadership model:

We need more ‘thought leadership’ on it [values] to encourage public debate. And I think that’s part of the role of vice-chancellors. They’re not just CEO managers. They are thought leaders … I think this is where the academy hasn’t necessarily been helpful, because it’s gone into cultural relativism which actually then comes right up against the universality of some of our core values. (AUS/NZ 5_UE)

Regardless of sidelining influences, the majority of participants thought that university leaders and the academy have a role to drive organisational and public discourse on values of common human concern. These participants felt that university leaders have a responsibility to assist with embedding values-based education systemically into organisational processes and disciplinary learning.

Limitations in the depth and scope of this research are acknowledged; however, the snapshot of participants’ perspectives offers insights towards a framework for educat- ing ethical thinking global citizens. The Eurocentric focus of the research and predomi- nance of Australian perspectives are specifically acknowledged, yet, insights into the research purpose were gained.

Discussion

Collectively, the themes offer considerable insights into how the global citizen as the ‘ideal global graduate’ is, and could be, positioned in contemporary universities. The participants’ perspectives are illustrated through: Constructing the global citizen, Enacting the global citizen, Legitimating the global citizen and The sidelining context. Surprisingly, there was a broad sense of conformity among participants’ per- spectives on what a global citizen disposition means and the university responsibility for enacting it as part of the student experience. This was an unanticipated finding and is not claimed to be generalisable. With this said, there was no support from par- ticipants to adopt prescriptive approaches to enacting and legitimating the global citizen in universities. Organisationally, participants explained how the ‘idea’ of educating global citizens could be sidelined by instrumentalism, managerial mindsets and leader- ship behaviour. The complex organisational demands of both executive and academic

966 K. Lilley et al.

staff were acknowledged; however, there was some sense of optimism for future organ- isational and pedagogical possibilities.

Participants’ perspectives offered insights into the ambiguous nature of the global citizen. A clearer construction of the global citizen emerged through the ‘ideal research approach’ (Swedberg & Agevall, 2005). According to these participants, regardless of the describing term (global citizen, intercultural competence, cross-cultural capabilities or cosmopolitan), the ‘ideal global graduate’ has an ethical disposition underpinned by the liberal values of openness, tolerance, respect and responsibility towards self, others and the planet. The participants’ construction of the global citizen was not aligned to precise definitions or ‘lofty aspirations’ of human rights and social justice. This was not for all students. As such, this research failed to provide a close ‘fit’ with strong, weak or intermediate forms of cosmopolitanism (Pogge, 2002), or pro-justice, political activism or environmental forms of global citizenship (Tarrant, 2010). This research identified the global citizen disposition as a process of ‘becoming’ an ethical thinking person and appeared consistent with Rizvi’s (2009) description of cosmopolitan learning.

Overall, the global citizen disposition and mindset for engagement and intercon- nectedness expressed by participants were interpreted as a broad moral and transfor- mative cosmopolitan ethic (Appiah, 2006; Vertovec & Cohen, 2002). Participants used different terms to explain the global citizen mindset and ways of thinking. In summary, the global citizen mindset was explained by participants as having the capacity to think transformatively, imagine other possibilities and perspectives, question assumptions reflexively, think as the ‘other’ and walk in their shoes, and engage in critical and ethical thinking. The theories behind these capacities are described in more detail by other authors (Beck, 2006; Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Rizvi, 2009; Taylor, 2004). The ‘ideal global graduate’ described in this research is a fluid disposition characterised by a global mindset for ethical and inter- connected thinking.

It has been claimed that universities lack a theoretical framework to enact the global citizen (Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011). A model of ‘social embeddedness’ was suggested as an organisational approach to institutionalising the global citizen across the univer- sity. ‘Social embeddedness’ was explained as a systemic process that spanned the uni- versity ethos, practice, and research, into human resource strategies. Furthermore, participants considered global citizen values as complementary to professional compe- tence. They supported synthesising pragmatic employment aims into ethical frame- works for learning, as identified by other authors (Delors, Al Mufti, Amagi, & Carneiro, 2010; McArthur, 2011), and by employer groups (Georgetown University, 2013; Maguire Associates Inc., 2012).

Participants considered that it was a university responsibility to provide value-laden learning experiences; however, there were differing opinions on how this should be enacted. For many participants, the university’s role was to stimulate students’ ethical learning frameworks, yet they felt that it was not a university role to delve too deeply into students’ value systems, by attempting to assess student values. In con- trast, a few participants thought that it was important to measure global citizenship attainment in learning. A capstone unit was suggested as an appropriate monitoring and evaluation tool to assess how students’ global citizen disposition is developing, or has developed over a programme. In this case, the purpose of evaluation would be to holistically assess how students were thinking, rather than what they were thinking.

Higher Education Research & Development 967

In terms of Legitimating the global citizen, all participants emphasised the univer- sity responsibility for promoting liberal values and educating ethical thinking global citizens. Several participants believed that students might not be exposed to values through family and religion, and the university had a responsibility to fill this void. Delanty (2001) claimed that a cosmopolitan university could be recognised as a key communicative institution in society, as the state retreats from social responsibility and cultural direction. Participants discussed the collective role of universities and thought that identifying shared values was a central secular issue for universities. Several participants considered that it could be possible to identify university values that accommodated diversity and multiple perspectives, and IAU could be an organis- ation to further this goal. Scientific truth was identified as a guide for some shared values, whereas political and moral issues may need a more cosmopolitan approach.

Consistent with cosmopolitan learning (Rizvi, 2009), participants strongly con- sidered that the role of the university was to teach students ‘how to think’, ‘not what to think’ in terms of values. Rather than reinvigorating the curriculum with normative issues, values could be used within an ethical learning approach to foster critical and ethical thinking. Moreover, the findings highlighted how cosmopolitan ‘thought’ lea- dership could provide an integral aspect of furthering values-based education.

The ‘managerial mindset’ explained how bureaucratic thinking influences univer- sity organisational processes. Participants were acutely aware of leadership corporate responsibilities and the uncertainty of future university public funding, as discussed by other authors (Marginson, 2011; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Rhoads & Szelenyi, 2011; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Moreover, leadership culp- ability for reinforcing ‘the managerial mindset’ was also identified by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) and Brady (2012). Brown and Rayner (2013) believed that blindly defaulting to reporting requirements avoids critique of the purpose of the data. Yet, if university leaders question the appropriateness of the data, one participant explained that this was attributed to ‘university self-interest’ by ‘the managerial mindset’. Several participants (including leaders themselves) questioned a leadership commitment to public good; however, university corporate responsibilities are unique and complex, as shown by Marginson and Considine (2000).

The relativism of university values was specifically raised as a major sidelining influence to instituting the global citizen and several participants discussed the conse- quences. They believed that the drive for discipline-specific skills and measurable com- petencies overshadows values-based education that promotes critical and ethical reasoning. Relativism of values has been attributed to pre-established ignorance (Beck, 2006) and more specifically to the declining public good and societal role of uni- versities (Appiah, 2006; D’Arms, 2005; Furedi, 2009; Li, 2007). Appiah (2006) explained that relativism was thought to promote tolerance. Yet, conversely it stifles conversation about what we think and feel, and how we might learn from each other. According to Appiah (2006), in contrast to creating a multicultural open and tol- erant society, relativism has created a reason to fall silent instead. This perspective was echoed in the findings.

The suggested notion of ‘thought leadership’ captured a leadership model that could be suitable for mediating between corporate and social responsibilities, and the relati- vism of values. ‘Thought leadership’ is consistent with Lawler’s (2005) views. He argued that the predominant model of corporate leadership lacks a philosophical basis where responsibility, values and morality are inherent. Instead, adding an existen- tial element promoted moral and ethical, reflective and relational decision-making. The

968 K. Lilley et al.

findings of this research and the literature suggest that ‘thought leaders’ with a global citizen mindset could promote an organisational framework that supported the global citizen as a curricular outcome.

Conclusion

Universities often claim to educate global citizens, yet there is little evidence of this occurring. However, in a grounded snapshot, this research offers insights into organisational constraints and enablers for enacting and legitimating the global citizen as a curricular outcome. The participants’ perspectives of the ‘ideal global graduate’ reduced the perceived ambiguity of the global citizen term. The international and inter-sectoral participants presented a shared under- standing of the global citizen as a disposition and as a university responsibility. Hindrances to realising values-based education were discussed through the differ- ent epistemologies of the managerial and academic mindsets, and corporate and thought leaders. ‘Thought leaders’, acting beyond the role of corporate CEO and with a global citizen mindset, were proposed as having potential to reinvigorate the societal purpose of universities, and promote values-based education. These leaders could be vital to supporting organisational processes, and pedagogical prac- tices directed towards educating ethical thinking global citizens as well as skilled professionals. This paper is intended to stimulate future academic discourse and research on the organisational enablers for promoting values-based education for students as global citizens.

References Appiah, A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. London: Penguin. Beck, U. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. The

British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1468–4446.20006.00091.x Boiset, M., & MacMillan, I. (2004). Crossing epistemological boundaries: Managerial and

entrepreneurial approaches to knowledge management. Long Range Planning, 37, 505–524. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2004.09.002

Brady, N. (2012). From ‘moral loss’ to ‘moral reconstruction’?: A critique of ethical perspec- tives on challenging the neoliberal hegemony in UK universities in the 21st century. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 343–355. doi:1080/03054985.2012.698987

Brown, L., & Rayner, S. (2013). Managing leadership in university reform: Data-led decision making, the cost of learning and deja-vu? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 1–17. doi:10.1177/1741143213494890

Calhoun, C. (2006). The university and public good. Thesis Eleven, 84(7), 1–43. doi:10.1177/ 0725513606060516

Caruana, V. (2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanisation, resilience and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 85–104.

D’Arms, J. (2005). Relationality, relativism and realism about moral values. Philosophical Studies, 126(3), 433–448. Retrieved September 12, 2012, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4321670

Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, I., & Carneiro, R. (2010). Learning the treasure within (3rd ed.). Paris: UNESCO.

Elwell, F. (1996). The sociology of Max Weber. Retrieved September 12, 2012, from http:// www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm

Furedi, F. (2009). Wasted: Why education isn’t educating. London: Continuum.

Higher Education Research & Development 969

Gallagher, M. (2011). Envisioning the future global positioning of Australia’s education, train- ing and research. Canberra: International Education Association Australia.

Georgetown University. (2013). Recovery 2020: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Georgetown: Georgetown University.

Giroux, H. (2009). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463.

Green, M. (2012). What is global citizenship? IAU Horizons, 17(3), 27–29. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/IAU_Horizons_Vol17_3_18_1_EN.pdf

Hoareau, C., Ritzen, J., & Marconi, G. (2012). The state of university policy for progress in Europe. Maarstricht: United National University.

International Association of Universities. (2012). Affirming academic values in internationali- sation of higher education: A call for action. Retrieved September 2, 2012, from http:// www.iau-aiu.net/content/affirming-academic-values-internationalization-higher-education- call-action

Klein, H., & Myers, D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(Special Issue on Intensive Research), 67–93.

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds), Internationalisation of higher education in Asian Pacific countries (pp. 5–19). Amsterdam: European Association of International Education.

Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalisation of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds), The Sage hand- book of international education (pp. 27–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lawler, J. (2005). The essence of leadership: Existentialism and leadership. Leadership, 1(2), 215–231. doi:10.1177/1742715005051860

Leask, B., & Bridge, C. (2013). Comparing internationalisation of the curriculum in action across disciplines: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 79–101.

Li, X. (2007). A cultural critique of cultural relativism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(1), 152–171. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00502.x

Maguire Associates Inc. (2012). The role of higher education and career development: Employers’ perspectives. Washington, DC: The Chronicle of Higher Education/America’s Public Media Market Place.

Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and rein- vention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Intercultural education. New York: Palgrave McMillan. McArthur, J. (2011). Reconsidering the social and economic purposes of higher education. Higher

Education Research & Development, 30(6), 737–749. doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.539596 Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Morais, D., & Ogden, A. (2011). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship

scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 445–466. doi:10.1177/ 1028315310375308

Morrow, R., & Torres, C. (2000). The state, globalisation, and education policy. In N. Burbles & C. Torres (Eds), Globalisation and education critical perspectives (pp. 27–56). New York: Routledge.

Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

OECD. (1996). Internationalization of higher education: Critical. Paris: Author. Peters, M., Britton, A., & Blee, H. (2008). Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and

pedagogy. Rotterdam: Sense. Pogge, T. (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A defense. Critical Review of International Social and

Political Philosophy, 5(3), 86–91. doi:10.1080/13698230410001702672 Rhoads, R., & Szelenyi, K. (2011). Global citizenship and the university: Advancing social life

and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

970 K. Lilley et al.

Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 253–268. doi:10.1080/01596300903036863

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalising education policy. Abington: Routledge. Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield. Selby, R. (2008). Designing transformation in international education. In V. Savicki (Ed.),

Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and appli- cation in international education (pp. 1–12). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets state and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Swedberg, R., & Agevall, O. (2005). The Max Weber dictionary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tarrant, M. (2010). A conceptual framework for global citizenship development. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 433–451.

Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. UNESCO. (2009). The new dynamics of higher education and research for societal change and

development. Paris: Author. Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2002). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalisation of higher education in the United States of America and

Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Boston, MA: Centre for International Higher Education.

Higher Education Research & Development 971