Questions in “Literature review”

Gacel0Avila.pdf

Home >English homework help >Questions in “Literature review”

10.1177/1028315304263795 ARTICLE Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005 Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education

The Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Paradigm for Global Citizenry

Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

This article presents internationalisation as a new educational vision able to provide global society with an education that meets current needs and that can respond effi- ciently to contemporary demands and challenges, which are characterized by global- isation, interdependence, and multiculturalism.

Keywords: internationalisation for higher education; international education; global citizenship; internationalisation of the curriculum

THE CHALLENGES OF EDUCATION IN THE GL OBAL CONTEXT

One major factor in the final stages of the 20th century is that humankind entered into an accelerated process of multidimensional changes encompassing the fields of economy, finance, science and technology, communications, educa- tion, culture, and politics. This new context is characterised by a relationship of increasing interdependence and competitiveness between nations, modifying the traditional paradigm of interstate relations. No country escaped this process, nor the inherent challenges. However, although the processes of globalisation and modernisation developed simultaneously throughout the planet, this devel- opment has been generated in an unequal, divergent, and contradictory manner.

In summary, there are the “globalisers” and the “globalised,” which brought the end of the 20th century to a situation of profound and increasing inequality between nations—an atmosphere of exclusion and marginalisation, with off- shoots of violence, wars, ethnic conflicts, terrorism, racism and intolerance, pandemics, increases in delinquency and organised crime, rising unemployment and underemployment, and a degradation of the environment and natural resources. At the start of the 21st century, a large part of humanity is every day poorer and further away from development and modernity (Lopéz Segrera,

121

2001). As far as education is concerned, there is a common consensus that its quality has, in general, diminished, in accordance with the current belief that individual abilities should be restricted to mere technical-productive functions. This is the setting that all of us now face and the environment in which we will have to act in the future; and where, of course, educators and institutions of higher education have to play a part.

Therefore, it is crucial for 21st-century society to seek out alternatives to these political and economic practices, which are expressions of the power held by a mere few countries and international businesses. International organisa- tions such as the United Nations and the World Bank have begun to warn that although the developed world can attract private capital, build a solid banking and financial system, and invest in human capital, it will not keep on growing if it continues to marginalize much of humanity (such as women and ethnic minori- ties) and does not adopt a policy of inclusion. Ultimately, without parallel social progress over the medium and long term, satisfactory standards of living become impossible as well. In other words, cautioned the philosopher Morin (2001), “The hegemonic system of production is destructive, devastating and, in the final instance, causes anti-development. If conceived solely in a technical- economic form, development is not sustainable. We need a richer and more com- plex notion of development that is not simply material but also intellectual, emo- tional and moral” (p. 74).

To face these problems, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has prescribed sustainable human development. This concept is broader than simple economic growth because it encompasses human, cultural, and educa- tional dimensions. Moreover, the United Nations’ International Conference on Financing for Development (Monterrey, Mexico, March 2002) emphasised the urgent need for an element of solidarity—“la mondialisation de la solidarité” (the globalisation of solidarity)1—and respect for the Kyoto accords. In light of the pressing problems faced by world society in the 21st century, these concepts are not only a response to ethical demands but are also a political imperative (Lopéz Segrera, 2001).

These ideas have inspired the 1998 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Declaration on Higher Educa- tion for the Twenty-First Century, declaring that higher education—and educa- tion in general—should serve a world order that enables the development of a more equitable, tolerant, and responsible society. If we agree that education is at the centre of all social change, new approaches to educational policy and process are then needed, because without education there can be no change in mentali- ties and society. And without a change in paradigm for international relations, there can be no solidarity among nations.

122 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

In all countries, the new global context has prompted a greater demand for education and is forcing institutions of higher learning to reconsider their mis- sion, tasks, and responsibilities, as well as to develop innovative strategies to improve their relevance and function, leading to the following question: How can institutions of higher education adequately prepare their graduates to live and participate as global citizens and professionals?

To be relevant in the new global environment, today’s education must concep- tualise everything with the age of globalisation and within the environment and complexity of the planet. Knowledge of the world itself has become a vital intel- lectual necessity, just as the solution to international problems requires a global approach and planning process. To achieve this, however, we must reform our way of thinking: a reform that is paradigmatic and not programmatic. The devel- opment of a new consciousness—a global consciousness—among people is a key aspect of this reform, however, it requires a change in mentality, and there- fore a change in educative paradigms. Educational strategies in the 21st century must begin with a common foundation, which would include the search for a standard of teaching competitive on an international level but adapted to local conditions.

In this new global environment, one of the basic and fundamental functions of a university should then be the fostering of a global consciousness among stu- dents, to make them understand the relation of interdependence between peoples and societies, to develop in students an understanding of their own and other cul- tures and respect for pluralism. All these aspects are the foundations of solidar- ity and peaceful coexistence among nations and of true global citizenship.

In this context, the objective of internationalisation must be focused on an updating of academic content, making global phenomena understandable while promoting intercultural understanding and sustainable human development. The internationalisation of the main functions of the university should then help spur the development of a global consciousness (Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1991), defined as comprehension of and receptivity to foreign cultures, and the availability of certain knowledge of, and information about, socioeco- nomic concerns and ecology. In fact, internationalisation in this context appears to be the key strategy to develop this kind of education. This is why it is relevant to link the internationalisation process to the response to crucial questions, such as What kind of education is required in the 21st century to face the challenges of globalisation? How can internationalisation contribute to developing edu- cational programs adequate for the needs of this century? What are the charac- teristics and elements of an internationalised curriculum to educate global and multicultural citizens? What types of policies and institutional strategies must institutions of higher education follow to internationalise their main functions?

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 123

What are the strengths and weaknesses of international activities in universities, as well as the outlook for the internationalisation process in the world? What role should education play in international cooperation and international relations to foster a world citizenry?

GL OBALISATION VERSUS INTERNATIONALISATION: DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

First of all, it is relevant for all social and educational stakeholders to make a clear definition of the concepts of globalisation and internationalisation because they are often confused with each other. In fact, although it is true that both are phenomena brought about by the same social dynamic, they are different in terms of scale and intensity. Moreover, they exhibit opposite and contradictory tendencies.

The concept of internationalisation differs dialectically from that of global- isation because it refers to the relationship between nation-states, which pro- motes recognition of and respect for their own differences and traditions. By contrast, the phenomenon of globalisation does not tend to respect differences and borders, thus undermining the bases of the very same nation-states, and leading to homogenisation. In this sense, internationalisation can be understood as complementary or compensatory to globalizing tendencies, given that it allows for a resistance to the latter’s denationalising and homogenising effects.

Knight (2001) defined the globalisation of higher education “as the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, ideas . . . across borders. Globalisation affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s individual history, traditions, culture and priorities. . . . Internationalisation of higher edu- cation is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalisation yet, at the same time, respects the individuality of the nation” (p. 20).

Furthermore, according to Schoorman (1999) two theories can serve as a con- ceptual framework to internationalisation: on one side, the general systems the- ory of organisation (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and on the other, critical pedagogy (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991; Giroux, 1989, 1992; McLaren, 1994, 1997, 1998). According to this conceptual framework, Schoorman (1999) defined the inter- nationalisation of higher education as “an educational process, continuous and ongoing, comprehensive and counterhegemonic” (pp. 38-39) and as a means by which universities are able to respond and adapt to their environment. Interna- tionalisation is a continuous and ongoing process because it grows out of a cycle of recurring events. It is comprehensive because it involves all university sectors and levels of the educational process. It is counterhegemonic because it ques-

124 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

tions the content, process, and basis; that is, the what, how, and why of the edu- cational process.

Schoorman (1999) recommended using a critical pedagogy to emphasize critical thinking in students because of the universities’ strategic role in the for- mation of citizens. This pedagogical theory prepares students to work and gain citizenship in a global community while promoting the representation of differ- ent cultural traditions in the teaching and educational process. Finally, it builds students’ awareness of a global perspective on human problems, as well as help- ing them to recognise and respect cultural differences.

Schechter (1993) identified three goals of the educational process that are consistent with the development of a global citizenry, which are the pragmatic, the liberal and the civic (as cited in Schoorman, 1999). The pragmatic refers to the acquisition of knowledge and skills for employability in a global context, which can be related to the global competence described by Lambert (1994), while the liberal refers to development of an intercultural sensibility and a capacity for appreciating cultural differences, which involves moving from an ethnocentrism to an ethnorelativism such as described by M. Bennett (1993). The civic is aimed at developing a sense of multidimensional global citizenship, whose dimensions (personal, social, spatial, and temporal) have been described by Cogan and Derricott (1998).

INTERNATIONALISATION AS A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Based on the above-described conceptual framework, the international dimension of universities should constitute a key educational resource for train- ing citizens with a critical perspective and the adequate preparation to work and live effectively and successfully in a global context. It represents an educational reform whose ideals are the driving force behind the political, ethical, and inter- cultural nature of the social relationships that support the formation of a critical citizenry by developing global consciousness and perspective in university graduates.

The international curriculum should therefore focus on developing in univer- sity graduates respect for humanity’s differences and cultural wealth, as well as a sense of political responsibility, turning them into defenders of democratic prin- ciples of their society, and true architects of social change.

Internationalisation strategies are therefore crucial for the education of the 21st century and constitute a crucial and an important tool in bringing to fruition the new educational vision proposed by Delors (1997), “the four pillars of the

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 125

education of the future,” and French philosopher Morin (2001) of the “seven complex lessons in education for the future.”

According to these proposals, and especially the one described by Morin, if we conclude from the evidence that there is a serious, deepening gap between, on one hand, our disjunctive, fragmented, shared knowledge, and on the other hand, the realities and problems that are each day more poly-disciplinary, transversal, multidimensional, transnational, and global, then the education of the future must teach the following four basic dimensions: the context, the global, the mul- tidimensional, and the complex. Morin described the seven areas of knowledge that should be taught by the education of the future, as follows: detecting error and illusion, principles of pertinent knowledge, teaching the human condition, teaching earth identity, confronting uncertainties, understanding each other, and ethics for the humane genre. The main function of future education would be therefore to foster a general intelligence capable of interconnecting these dimensions and fostering the development of the intellectual capacities in indi- viduals. Furthermore, Morin stressed that one of the basic functions of educa- tion is to promote world understanding, ethics, and culture, as cultures must learn from one another, and that comprehension between humans is the first requirement for intellectual and moral solidarity on earth.

Needless to say, international education is one of the rare educational strategies that has the potential for fostering these perspectives in students, based on a deep reform of the curriculum of higher education (Mestenhauser, 1998). To achieve these goals, the international curriculum should favour the holistic formation of the indi- vidual and be based on an integral, humanistic, and socioreconstructive curricular structure. Its objective would be to help students develop a global perspective. One model for such a curriculum could be borrowed from Hanvey’s (1982) very interest- ing work that described the five dimensions of a global perspective in the follow- ing way: perspective consciousness, state-of-the-planet awareness, cross-cultural awareness, knowledge of global dynamics, and awareness of human choices. In Hanvey’s (1982) words,

A global perspective has the potential to be conducive to a cognitive change: from national thought to that of an international nature; from a traditional way of thinking to a rational one. The result would not mean a loss of identity, but the acquisition of a broader worldview. Nations would begin to understand that their own interests and activities cannot be separated from those of others, and they would pay more attention to human problems that transcend international, regional and local interests. The con- cept of interdependence would begin to be recognized, and the connections, conse- quences and vulnerabilities of the global system would be understood. The role of the nation-state as the principal player in interstate politics would be called into question when faced with the need for a coordinated, global system. The individual would

126 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

become a citizen of the world, with a sharper awareness of his own and foreign cultural perspectives, and with a stronger empathy for other cultures. He would be informed about the state of the planet and the principle social and political happenings around the globe, thereby taking on a greater commitment to the construction of a better world. (p. 37)

C. Bennett (1995) depicted the six objectives of a global and multicultural curric- ulum that can serve as a basic model, to be used as a common root in general educa- tion curriculum: understanding multiple historical perspectives; developing cultural consciousness; developing intercultural competence; combating racism, sexism, prejudice, and all forms of discrimination; raising awareness of the state of the planet and global dynamics; and developing social action skills. A concurrence with Hanvey’s global perspective is obvious. This kind of content in the general education curriculum could be ideal for internationalization-at-home strategies.

These curriculum objectives concur greatly with what Morin described as the anthropological, cultural, intercultural, ecological, and civic-terrestrial con- sciousness and also with the four pillars of the education for the 21st century depicted in Delors (1997): to learn how to learn, to learn how to live with others, to learn to be, to learn how to do.

Another concurrence between international education and UNESCO’s 21st- century educational vision is that it stresses that, besides providing students with a higher level of professional and academic competence, which is characteristic of the knowledge society, today’s education has to foster in students intellectual capacities and cognitive abilities making them able to contribute to a social, eco- nomic, and political environment that is global, interdependent, and multicul- tural. Indeed, in the new century, individuals will find themselves faced with the challenges of adapting to new responsibilities, the need for participation, plural- ism, and the change in values. For this reason, rather than simply providing stu- dents with professional training for an ever-changing job market, universities must educate for the acquisition of competence and for “employability.” As a result, to be successful, professionals will each day be required to develop more and more cognitive skills such as abstraction, systematic thought, experimental investigation, and teamwork.

Once again, in this particular aspect, international education and experience seem to offer a great potential to enhance these kind of cognitive skills, de- manded by this new context. On this point, Mestenhauser (1998) demonstrated in his article titled “Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Cognitive Response to the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century” that international edu- cation supports the development of certain intellectual abilities that are not gen- erally acquired in the traditional classroom but that coincide with the necessities and the demands of 21st-century society. Indeed, when the students leave their

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 127

own cultural environment—for study abroad or academic programs based on intercultural communication techniques with content that highlights the inter- national and global dimension of human and social interaction—they have the possibility to develop a capacity for adaptation and flexibility as they are faced with rapidly changing situations and the opportunity to broaden their cultural and intellectual horizons and to adapt to different kinds of people.

Mestenhauser (1998) demonstrated that international education promotes such cognitive skills as the following: ability to recognize differences, under- standing the difference between emic and etic thinking, ability to make cognitive alterations/shifts, ability to recognize knowledge gap, ability to communicate cross-culturally, ability to recognize scarce knowledge, ability to think compar- atively, ability to change self-perception, ability to know how to compare one’s own country, possessing knowledge about other cultures, possessing diagnostic skills, understanding differentiation, ability to recognize trends in other cul- tures, understanding cognitive complexity and cognitive integration, under- standing a variety of learning styles, and understanding the difference between product and process learning.

Thus, in other words, all these aspects make international education one of the key strategies for the 21st-century education.

INTERNATIONALISATION: REALIT Y AND PERSPECTIVE

Unfortunately, despite its essentially contemporary nature, we cannot over- look the fact that, to date, the above-mentioned potential and qualities of interna- tional education have not yet been recognized. Generally speaking, present-day educational systems in Latin America, and Mexico in particular, accord little importance to intercultural and international perspective and even neglect long- term strategies. Universities in Mexico largely underestimate the personal and intellectual growth stimulated by contact and empathy with other cultures.

A simple tour d’horizon of the higher education environment in the early 21st century leads us to realise that we are still far away from an international univer- sity and an international dimension integrated into the mainstream of the educa- tional process. In this context, it is relevant to observe the evolution of universi- ties over the centuries, in an effort to understand their present state.

Indeed, a look back on the history of universities reminds us that higher edu- cation institutions have gone through different eras, the two primary of which are usually described as convergence and divergence. The first era took place during the times of the medieval universalist model and gave rise to the cos- mopolitan university that sought to unify the world through knowledge, at a time when knowledge knew no boundaries. The second era developed during the

128 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

Reformation and gave birth to the diversification of university models. This trend grew stronger during the Industrial Revolution and the economic expan- sion of capitalist countries, up to the present time, and emphasised the national character of educational systems and objectives. In fact, we may say that today’s university still remains trapped in a national environment and is a national orga- nisation, no longer international by nature. Nevertheless, as a result of globalisa- tion, universities are showing clear signs of a new period of convergence.

On the other hand, Kerr (1990) pointed out that there might exist a potential conflict between the national and international character of universities. Kerr contended that there is a potential conflict between the university as a political organisation forced to follow a national agenda, and the university as an intellec- tual institution that participates in international academic networks and tran- scends national borders. This idea is also expressed by Trow (as cited in Scott, 1998) who introduced the concept of the “public life” and “private life” of uni- versities. Because most universities are public institutions, he said, they must follow a political agenda that involves such priorities as broader access to stu- dents, financial austerity, and the need for greater diversification to meet the market demands. These are just some of the pressures that weigh on universities today. As a result, we may say that at the beginning of the 21st century, universi- ties continue to be influenced by protectionist nationalist feelings. They are under constant pressure to meet immediate market demands, and they largely respond to national dynamic and local interests. Similarly, the current dominant paradigm—that is, competitiveness—tends to reinforce a survivalist mentality, which favours approaches that focus on the present and disregards strategies for the future as well as long-term solutions. Thus, educational institutions may be led to neglect development of visionary responses, which could mean that global trends will leave them behind. The concept of private life described by Trow (1973) refers to the intellectual role of the university, which is centred on teach- ing and the search for knowledge. According to Trow, the intellectual role played by the university expands and flourishes at its best in an international context, thus reinforcing the idea that knowledge has no borders. Trow con- cluded that, until now, universities have functioned internationally through their private lives rather than their public lives and emphasised that these two aspects may act in opposition to each other and block the internationalisation of higher education. Nevertheless, what is new and remarkable about the new global con- text is that the imperatives of globalisation, on one hand, and the growing demand for higher education in the knowledge society on the other, are produc- ing a synergy that yields to a greater internationalisation of educational systems. These trends are stressed by the strategic value of knowledge in the progress of society, linguistic unification through the use of English, decreasing importance

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 129

accorded to religious and political schools of thought, the role of new infor- mation and communication technologies, and the existence of exchange pro- grammes on an unprecedented scale and scope.

In a society based on knowledge, the strategic value of knowledge will increase; therefore, the value of universities will increase as well, given that they are the source of nearly all knowledge being produced. This fact emphasises the university’s international character because its intellectual and academic func- tions are essentially international. This is why there is a strategic aspect to research that stresses that no antagonism exists between a university’s national and international vocations, and that, on the contrary, these two functions are compatible and essential in the new global environment. Thus, despite their intrinsic nature as national organisations, universities must find a way to be national and international. This situation must compel the different stakeholders to create a relationship between institutional objectives and the need for a greater opening to the outside world. As a result, today the momentum of these globalizing trends heralds an era of partial reconvergence among the different educational systems.

One way for today’s university to meet the challenges of a globalised society may be to rescue its “internationalist” past and make use of global affinities and international networks to build models for transnational cooperation. These models could help universities take back the internationalist and universalist role they once played. In other words, the international environment is the fore- runner of reconciliation, a successful combination of, or a convergence between, the university’s public life and its private life.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

To achieve the scope of the above-mentioned objectives, the process of inter- nationalisation must be integrated in a systematic and holistic manner in the higher education sector, which requires a complete understanding of its nature and characteristics. The Centre for International Research and Innovation (CERI) stressed that an internationalisation strategy should be comprehensive. The notion of comprehensiveness means that internationalisation strategies must affect all levels of the educational process to help improve the quality and relevance of higher education and to support the necessary changes in the educa- tional system that will enable it to adapt to the new global reality. Van der Wende (1994) stressed that internationalisation strategies must affect the following three levels of education: micro (the teaching and learning process in the class- room); medio (factors that determine content and teaching and learning meth-

130 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

ods; that is, the curriculum); and macro (definition and decision making regarding institutional policies and strategies).

The conceptualisation of comprehensive internationalisation is, however, still unfamiliar and unknown by the majority of policy and decision makers. Basic theories and concepts of internationalisation are not very popular topics for researchers of higher education, thus making these concepts fragile and unknown. Furthermore, the various social and university stakeholders do not have a common understanding of these basic concepts, and there is no consen- sus with respect to internationalisation’s importance, significance, definition, scope, and strategy.

In this context, it is relevant to observe how the higher education systems and, in particular, that in Mexico, are integrating the international dimension in the universities’ functions. A survey on the international dimension of Mexican uni- versities (Gacel-Ávila, 2002) clearly shows that the concept of comprehensive internationalisation is not reflected in the content and objectives of current Mex- ican educational policy, either on the institutional or the national level, despite the abundant rhetoric of national and institutional educational authorities and of international organisations regarding the importance of internationalisation for an education capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. The survey shows that institutions of higher education in Mexico do not have institutional policies and strategies focused on integrating internationalisation efforts into their own institutional mission, vision, and development policies and culture. International activities are kept marginalized from development policies and institutional priorities. Moreover, such activities are not submitted to planning and evaluation procedures and are not given a specific budget. Rather, inter- national activities are the result of isolated and individual initiatives, lacking direction.

The National Plan of Education 2002-2006 solely highlights the concept of international and development cooperation, but not that of comprehensive inter- nationalisation, overlooking the already mentioned recommendation of the CERI that has made evident the need for a comprehensive concept of inter- nationalisation that goes beyond the mere concept of international cooperation and physical movement of individuals. Furthermore, the procedures and criteria for Mexico’s national planning and evaluation systems do not review either the international dimension in educational programmes or the functioning of the institutions. As a result, because internationalisation is not considered a relevant indicator of academic performance or a factor in improving the quality of educa- tion in the institutional evaluation procedures, government support programmes are unlikely to provide the financial resources necessary for institutions of higher education to institutionalise their process of internationalisation.

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 131

Because of this limitation in conceptualisation, international activities are not likely to contribute to improving educational quality, nor are they likely to promote the changes necessary to enable graduates to meet the demands of the new century. This is why in Mexico and Latin America it is crucial to create study groups focusing on theoretical, applied, and comparative research to guide the future of internationalisation, reinforce the role of international cooperation, and combine internationalisation efforts with the improvement and modernisa- tion of educational systems. This type of research would emphasise the impor- tance, reasons, bases, and concepts of internationalisation in a regional context. In addition, it would guide priorities and provide a general outline to help educa- tional institutions establish and carry out policies and strategies relating to inter- nationalisation. It goes without saying that these types of studies would give more weight to qualitative analysis than quantitative analysis and that they could help to build a bridge between international activities and national policies for higher education.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO ACHIEVE GL OBAL CITIZENRY

In the global context, and besides the necessity of internationalising the cur- riculum to educate students to become true global citizens, it is crucial that inter- national relations theory consider education and culture in its paradigm. The concept of a global citizenry should give culture and education a key role in the relations between states. At present, relationships between countries are consid- ered to be almost exclusively political, without including culture and education. Thus, political conflicts that affect cultural relations tend to be resolved by polit- ical means. Furthermore, Van der Wende (1997) stressed that no connection exists between international cooperation policies and those covering educa- tional development. International cooperation should cross over both mandates of relations between states and educational policies.

According to Mestenhauser (2000),

The very nature of international relations is changing and with it the outdated concept of national interest and balance of power (George, 1994; Keohane et al., 1984, 1993). The alternative is to articulate another paradigm, that of interdependence, which might serve as a “super-ordinate goal”, a conflict resolution concept based on a higher level of abstraction in which all lower level interests are taken into account (Sherif & Sherif, 1953). This concept is not a simple opposition to the idea of competitiveness, but one level higher in which all parties win. (p. 43)

132 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

The events of September 11, 2001, in the United States should have been a suffi- ciently compelling reason to eradicate the hegemonic attitudes of absolute power, as well as the kind of diplomacy pegged to economic interests. In this environment, all states must rethink their foreign policy and place value on the crucial role played by academic cooperation in educating for peace. In a paradigm of sustainable human development, relationships between states must be re-examined vis-à-vis conditions in the global village. Education must become the focal point of intercultural under- standing, of peaceful coexistence, of democracy, and of global citizenship. There- fore, the new conceptualisation of foreign policy, and also its progress, depends on the curriculum; that is, on the reform of mentalities, which in turn requires new edu- cational paradigms. Ideas, not arms, sustain the hope for world peace. To make these ideals a reality, we must regard education and international cooperation as activities that influence all human destinies, representing as well a hope for the exercise of some control—if still possible—over the future of humankind. This is why all coun- tries must pay the utmost attention to these concerns.

CONCLUSION Therefore, internationalisation should be conceived as a comprehensive

strategy with widespread relevance for society. And I believe that the future of internationalisation centres on three factors: (a) its acceptance as an integral, central, and fundamental part of educational policy that can improve the quality and relevance of education, implemented through comprehensive strategies to help transform educational systems to meet the needs of a global society; (b) the strategic role of international academic cooperation in globalizing solidarity among nations and establishing a true global citizenry; and (c) more attention paid to the theme of internationalisation in educational research.

NOTE

1. As expressed by President Jacques Chirac of France in his speech to the United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002.

REFERENCES Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture,

and social criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bennett, C. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and prac- tice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 133

Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of inter- cultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural expe- rience (pp. 26-28). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Cogan, J., & Derricott, R. (1998). Citizenship for the 21st century: An interna- tional perspective on education. London: Kogan Page.

Delors, J. (1997). La educació)n encierra un tesoro [Education: The treasure within]. México City, México: Ediciones de la UNESCO.

Gacel-Ávila, J. (2002). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior: Para- digma para la ciudadanía global [The international dimension of Mexican universities: A quantitative and qualitative diagnosis.] Educación Global, 6, 101-135.

Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling as a form of cultural politics: Toward a pedagogy of and for difference. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 125-151). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of educa- tion. New York: Routledge.

Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. New York: American Forum for Global Education.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organisations. New York: John Wiley.

Kerr, C. (1990). The internationalisation of learning and the nationalisation of the purposes of higher education: Two “laws of motion” in conflict? Euro- pean Journal of Education, 25(1), 5-22.

Knight, J. (2001). Internacionalización de la educación superior [Internationali- sation of higher education]. In Calidad e internacionalización de la educa- ción superior. México City, México: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Lambert, R. (1994). Educational exchange and global competence. New York: Council of International Educational Exchange.

Lopéz Segrera, F. (2001). Globalización y educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: La universidad como agente de transformación social [Globalisation and higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean: The university as an agent of social transformation]. Caracas, Venezuela : United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

McLaren, P. (1994). Multiculturalism and the postmodern critique: Toward a pedagogy of resistance and transformation. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of cultural studies (pp. 192-222). New York; Routledge.

134 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005

McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for a new millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview.

McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical foundations of education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Internationalisation of higher education: A cognitive response to the challenges of the twenty-first century. International Educa- tion Forum, 18(1/2), 3-7.

Mestenhauser, J. (2000). Dual functions of international education profes- sionals: In search of their knowledge base [EAIE Occasional Paper 12]. In H. Callan (Ed.), International education: Towards a critical perspective (pp. 31-50). Amsterdam: European Association of International Education.

Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Oxford dictionary of new words. (1991). Compiled by Sara Tulloch. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Schechter, M. (1993). Internationalising the university and building bridges across disciplines. In T. Cavusgil (Ed.), Internationalising business educa- tion: Meeting the challenge (p. 137). Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse concep- tualisations of internationalization: A U.S.-based case study. Journal of Stud- ies in International Education, 3, 19-46.

Scott, P. (1998). The globalisation of higher education. Buckingham, UK: Soci- ety for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1998, Octo- ber 5-9). Higher education in the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Paper presented at the World Conference on Higher education, Paris.

Van der Wende, M. (1994). Internationalisation as a process of educational change. In Pilot project on regional co-operation in reforming higher educa- tion, seminar II: Mobility in higher education (pp. 37-49). Paris: European Commission/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Van der Wende, M. (1997). International comparative analysis and synthesis. In T. Kälvermark & M. Van der Wende (Ed.), National policies for the interna- tionalisation of higher education in Europe. Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education, Högskoleverket Studies.

Gacel-Ávila / Internationalisation of Higher Education 135

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila has a Ph.D. in higher education, specialized in international and comparative education. She is the author of three books on internationaliza- tion in Latin America and founder and editor of the international education maga- zine Educación Global, edited by Mexican Association for International Educa- tion (AMPEI). A founding member of the AMPEI and elected president of the Board of Directors for the period 1996-2000, she is now acting as president of the Advisory Board for the 2000-2004 term. She is currently the coordinator of Aca- demic Cooperation and a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies for Devel- opment at the University of Guadalajara, México, and is a member of the National System of Researchers in México.

136 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2005