Questions in “Literature review”

Article

Internationalization and culture in higher education

Jacky Lumby and Nick Foskett

Abstract Internationalization has attained great significance in Higher Education, driven by both educational philosophy and commercial imperatives. Cultural change is implied as both a related process and as a goal. The article considers the multifaceted ways in which culture might be conceived and linked to different orientations to internationalization. The metaphor of ecology is used to highlight the dilemmas faced by leaders attempting to use cultural exchange as a market product while they may be simultaneously eroding the distinctiveness of cultures on which such a strategy relies. The short termism of humans in general and business in particular is argued to militate against action to protect cultural assets other than one’s own. The article suggests considered and careful lead- ership of internationalization, preserving distinctiveness and promoting equality among cultures is in the long term commercial interest of universities, as well as offering individual and societal benefits.

Keywords cultural imperialism, HE, internationalization, leadership, universities

Challenging Internationalization as Win–Win

Engagement with the idea of internationalization has taken a strong hold within Higher Educa-

tion (HE) worldwide (Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011). Its development is typically seen as a

response to the pressures of a changing world, in diverse conceptualizations reflecting a reaction

to globalization, to financial exigencies, to radically different communication technologies and

to post-colonial political shifts (Marginson and Sawir, 2005). Inhabiting the same discourse is

the concept of culture, internationalization implying for many the necessity for cultural and

intercultural transformation. Jiang (2008: 348), for example, describes internationalization as

‘reciprocal exchanges of national culture’. While the concept of culture has been strongly chal-

lenged on multiple grounds, we have argued (Lumby and Foskett 2, 2011) that it persists never-

theless because of the usefulness of its ‘differential and relativist function’ (Clifford, 1988: 274).

The article utilizes this property to explore HE organizations’ efforts to differentiate and secure

Corresponding author:

Jacky Lumby, Southampton Education School, University of Southampton, Building 32, University Road, Highfield Campus,

Southampton SO17 1BJ E, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2016, Vol. 44(1) 95–111 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143214549978 emal.sagepub.com

relative positions through internationalization. Seen through the lens of cultural change, the con-

testations and outcomes of internationalization are consequently of central interest.

The article first examines internationalization, considering its provenance and growing central-

ity in HE. It then questions how we might conceive culture and in what ways it remains a differ-

entiating component of HE organizations and, particularly, how it may help distinguish approaches

to internationalization. The article argues that notions of both internationalization and culture

change are linked to contestations of power, sometimes presented as benign and sometimes as inti-

mately linked to ‘structures of domination and subordination’ (Cantwell and Maldonado-

Maldonado, 2009: 290) and that, rather than reflecting significant change, internationalization

risks extending the perennial role of education in sustaining unequal power structures.

At the heart of the article lies a fundamental view that the rush to internationalization observable

in all HE jurisdictions needs to be accompanied by a sufficiently critical analysis of some key cul-

tural and ethical implications. Internationalization in HE is often perceived by leaders as ‘win–

win’ for students, for destination countries and institutions and for source countries and institutions

(Knight, 2007). We conclude that the issues raised by a more critical analysis pose significant

ethical, cultural and hence strategic questions for university leaders, and we propose some initial

ideas on how HE leaders might be better prepared to address those questions.

Internationalization: Drivers and Manifestations

Evolution of policy contexts and policy emphases has meant that particular themes have dominated

the discourse of academics, institutional leaders and governmental policy makers at different

times. During the 1990s the dominant discourses were around marketization and decentralization.

While those themes are still important and have themselves continued to evolve, the first decade of

the 21st century has also seen the strong emergence of internationalization as a key concept, an

idea that has generated much of the strategic development and intellectual debate of an era (Yang,

2000). A simple, generic definition of internationalization is suggested by Maringe and Foskett

(2010: 1), drawing on the work of Knight (2004), de Wit (1997) and Teichler (1996), that describes

internationalization in the context of HE as ‘the integration of an international or intercultural

dimension into the tripartite mission of teaching, research and service functions’.

Internationalization has been characterized as impelled by four rationales, political, academic,

economic and cultural/social (Jiang 2008; Knight, 1997). These might be further distilled as

reflecting two distinctive drivers. One is a philosophical dimension that sees the growth of inter-

nationalization in terms of the value it adds to the educational experience of both ‘home’ and

‘international’ students, and the contribution it makes to addressing global needs and global issues.

It is rooted in the debate about the nature and purpose of education. The second is an economic and

market dimension that sees internationalization as a business opportunity, a potential income

stream and a way of expanding an educational institution’s and a nation’s operations. Engaging

beyond one’s own national boundaries opens up huge global markets for both student numbers and

for research funding. The vagaries of economic performance from state to state can be offset by

being able to engage flexibly with the strongest markets on a global scale (Brandenburg and de

Wit, 2011). And where there are constraints on the growth of ‘home’ markets, either because of

demographic changes or national economic austerity, internationalization provides an opportunity

for compensatory business activity (Rivers, 2010). For many universities, it has been seen as a

‘quick fix’ in challenging economic times, especially in a context where markets for international

96 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

student movements have continued to expand rapidly despite the most recent period of global eco-

nomic downturn (British Council, 2013).

Internationalization may be seen as both a response to the changing demands of the exter-

nal cultural context of an institution (that is, society or the global HE community expects

institutions to become more international in their perspective or outlook), and also as a pro-

cess of internal cultural change. In combination with the two key drivers of internationaliza-

tion outlined above, this will inevitably lead to a range of possible responses and outcomes

within institutions. Knight (2010), for example, indicates that internationalization may be

superficial or embedded within an organization, and that superficial signs of internationali-

zation (for example, recruitment of significant numbers of overseas students, or strong rheto-

rical commitment to internationalization within promotional and public relations material)

may not necessarily show embedded cultural change. Specifically, she identifies the ‘five

myths of internationalization’:

1. foreign students indicate an internationalized university;

2. international reputation is a proxy for quality;

3. international institutional agreements indicate internationalization;

4. international accreditations indicate internationalization;

5. global branding is a sign of internationalization.

In each case, the presence of the ‘sign’ may be no more than a formal process in operation, and

may not necessarily have led to significant evidence of cultural change throughout the organiza-

tion. Additionally each HE organization may not be uniform in development, subunits or aca-

demic/administrative staff developing faster or in different ways to others.

Foskett (2010), in his analysis of internationalization and strategies across seven universities

in the UK and 14 universities in south and east Asia, demonstrates similar gaps between the rheto-

ric and reality of cultural change. While in some institutions strong alignment between explicit

strategy and embedded cultural change is clear (institutions that Foskett describes as ‘internation-

ally engaged’ or ‘internationally focused’), others have a strong market-driven engagement with

internationalization but have made limited progress in adjusting their processes and behaviours

within and across their own university. Foskett describes these as ‘imperialist’ in their orientation

towards internationalization.

Many writers in many contexts suggest there is a relationship between internationalization and

cultural change. Ball (2012), for example, reviews the global picture of policy change over the pre-

vious two decades and concludes that the cultural changes (economic, social and cultural change

sensu stricto) of globalization may be read into the policy trends of almost every government and

thence every educational organization in most national jurisdictions. Rossi (2010) describes the

changes to HE in Italy in a similar context, concluding that the key organizational and cultural

changes that are observable relate directly to globalization and internationalization pressures. Sim-

ilar conclusions are drawn by Rivers (2010) in the context of Japan.

The growth of internationalization reflects the high value ascribed to ‘being international’ in

HE. For much of the history of universities, this has been implicit through the recognition of the

‘universality of knowledge’ and through the establishment of leading research and scholarly orga-

nizations as international bodies. Research has always been based on the exchange of knowledge

across boundaries: most research networks are global and international in character (Amit, 2010;

Teichler, 2009). The high status accorded to ‘international’ is seen in leading universities’

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 97

emphases on being ‘world class’ or ‘world-leading’ in education or research (Rivers, 2010). The

categorization of the ‘best’ research in the recent research assessment exercises in the UK as being

‘world-leading’ or of ‘international standard’ reflects this. But the reflection of high value in ‘glo-

bal’, ‘international’ or ‘cross-cultural’ elements implies a lower value for ideas associated with

‘national’, ‘regional’ and ‘local’. Indeed, in the UK research assessment exercises, research of

national or regional significance was accorded the lowest grading, and institutions with a strong

regional and local mission are typically regarded as lower-status universities within the national

comparative scene (Deem et al., 2008). Internationalization, therefore, clearly, has high cultural

value and is regarded as a key element of the cultural capital of a university.

Conceiving Culture

Much of the internationalization debate assumes that the meaning of culture is unproblematic,

despite a large literature that suggests that the concept is highly contested, its definition and

application ‘refracted through diverse functionalist, ecological, cognitive, transactionalist,

structuralist, Marxian, and hermeneutic perspectives’ (Brightman, 1995: 509). Despite the

plethora of disciplinary perspectives, Brightman outlines multiple grounds of discontent with

the clarity and utility of the concept. Throughout the 20th century, the concept’s vague def-

inition and generalized application have been the subject of repeated attack (Archer, 2005;

Lumby, 2012). In the 21st century, the argument has developed to include assertions that the

technologically driven transformation in the space–time experience of human communication

has rendered the very notion of discrete cultures untenable. However, despite frequently

rehearsed critiques, the concept persists.

Jenks’ (1993) typology of culture suggests that it is a phenomenon discernible in at least four

ways; as an outcome of the cognitive activity of the individual, as the collective product of a group,

as an artistic category embodied in concrete artefacts and ideas and as a way of life of a large social

group. Our focus in this article is on the second, the culture of a group, in this case the organization

of a university and the fourth, the culture of nations. Many argue that the culture of an organization

or a nation cannot be viewed as homogeneous (Martin et al., 2004; Said, 2004) and inevitably

includes multiple sub- and counter-cultures. Nevertheless, a widespread view persists that in an

organization (Schein, 2010) and a nation (Hofstede, 1984, 2007), a dominant culture can be iden-

tified. Indeed at organizational level, an integrationist approach (Martin et al., 2004) perceives cul-

ture as a management means of coalescing values and behaviour.

Given the long and complex history of the study of culture, the overabundance of conceptuali-

zations and longstanding dissatisfaction with them, it is unlikely that we can provide a universal

and satisfactory definition but, for the purposes of this article, culture is seen as the patterns of val-

ues, beliefs, behaviour and symbolic artefacts, which together characterize one group as distinctive

from another and underpin the usually unspoken assumptions that guide thought and action within

an organization. The fact that members are often unconscious of the nature of the assumptions in

no way detracts from the power of culture to shape human activity. We adopt culture as a heuristic

tool for its utility both in differentiating one organization from another and in enabling relative

judgements about the worth of one culture compared to another. While this inevitably entails some

simplification of the complexity of organizations, we believe it is part of a long tradition which has

viewed culture as a tool to discern patterns in human behaviour such as is necessary in order to

make meaning.

98 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

Differentiation and Relativism in Internationalization and Culture

Understanding the cultural value ascribed to being international provides interesting insights into

the ideas of ‘insider’ and ‘other’, not only the differences between HE organizations, but also their

relative status. The notion that it is common values that unite the global academic community

implies that there is a universal set of perspectives that a university must possess. Becoming inter-

nationalized may be about joining a club of like-minded members, and being an insider (Deem

et al., 2008). An alternative perspective sees becoming international as engaging with others with

clear differences, operating in different contexts and with different challenges. From this perspec-

tive, internationalization is about ensuring that a university’s staff and students understand diver-

sity and difference, and that doing so enhances their own understanding and personal academic

development (Rivers, 2008). The adoption of either stance reflects, of course, an initial cultural

position and will in turn lead to the evolution of the organization’s culture or parts of the organi-

zation in a particular direction. In the first, cultural homogeneity, linked to ideas of ‘high’ culture is

the goal. In the second, the heterogeneity of multiple distinctive cultures is to be sustained. Estab-

lishing the starting points for such cultural evolution is important in understanding the nature of

internationalization as a cultural project that powers both perceptions of difference and of relative

status.

From our discussion and the literature on the dimensions of internationalization, we believe we

can identify within the debate four positions that HE organizations adopt in relation to differentiat-

ing and locating their relative status reflecting organizational culture.

1. Internationalization is about recruiting overseas students to come to the destination country

to experience the host country’s culture, with an implicit assumption of the high value and

status of that culture. So students coming to the UK or USA, for example, would be coming

to experience British (or any Anglophone) culture with an implied presumption of the high

value both of HE and of the ‘capital’ value of Western culture in a global context (Jiang,

2008).

2. Internationalization is about cultural exchange, in which cultural differences are valued and

emphasized (Teichler, 2009).

3. Internationalization means the participation of all in a homogenized global culture

(Gibbs, 2010).

4. Internationalization is about a group of equals working together, which includes only those

who match perceived ‘world-class’ criteria of having the same culture, ‘value’ or ‘worth’ as

other members of the group. The processes and principles are ones of selection and exclu-

sion (Deem et al., 2008).

In order to explore these cultural dimensions of internationalization and their associated issues,

in the sections that follow we establish a number of ways in which the concept of culture might

provide alternative approaches to understanding internationalization.

Differential Protection of ‘Authentic’ Cultures

Of relevance to the internationalization of HE is a conceptualization of culture as rooted in anthro-

pological study of those perceived as exotic or deviant, premised on the belief that there is such a

thing as a recognizable indigenous culture, whether reflected by the individual, group or nation.

Power relationships are signalled by such a conceptualization. A binary is introduced between

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 99

those who study a culture from the outside and those who are viewed as sufficiently different to

justify study; the knower and the known. When issues of nationhood and race are integral, as in

the process of internationalization, reference to the culture of incomers uncomfortably starts to

resemble Bhabha’s (1994: 19, 67) ‘exclusionary imperialist ideologies of self and other’, leading

to ‘cultural hierarchization’. The hierarchy is clearly visible in the HE orientation to internationa-

lization discussed earlier. ‘Internationalization is overseas students coming here to experience Brit-

ish (or any Anglophone) culture’ implies that selected nations and or universities hold a culture of

greater value to incomers than their own. The culture of the host university and the culture of inter-

national students construct, to use Bhabha’s (1994: 34) distinction, ‘cultural difference, not cultural

diversity’.

As used by Bhabha, diversity is a neutral term indicating a range of distinguishing features

among a number of phenomena. Cultures are diverse. Difference carries an emotional signifi-

cance, implying a relative relationship. Cultures are different to one’s own, weaker or stronger,

superior or inferior. Difference, a sense of strangeness, provokes anxiety and defence until the

degree of potential threat is assessed and resolved (Gudykunst, 1995). A response to cultural dif-

ference may defuse a perceived threat by the minimal accommodation of token gestures, while

simultaneously resisting incursion across the boundaries of the host culture. The specific cultural

requirements of guest cultures may be accommodated in universities at the periphery by, for

example, student national societies or facilities for religious worship. However, there is no per-

ceived need fundamentally to change the university culture, for example by adopting a different

approach to pedagogy, because students are engaging, and indeed paying, to experience the host

culture. They wish to encounter difference. Rivers (2010) offers Japan as an example of where

international students are accepted but there is little enthusiasm for welcoming them among host

staff and students, and the distinction of us and them can be perceived in cultural markers. For

example:

Despite the fact that many of the students coming to Japan will be non native English speakers, insist-

ing on English-only language courses ultimately allows the Japanese to maintain the ‘us–them distinc-

tion’ – i.e., foreigners should speak English and Japanese should speak Japanese. (Rivers, 2010: 45)

By contrast, ‘internationalization is an exchange of cultures in any location’ superficially adopts a

stance related to diverse rather than different cultures. It assumes that distinguishable cultures exist

and that to some degree they retain their worth because they are distinct. Corruption of one culture,

particularly by globalizing or Western culture, is destructive of what is valued. Amit (2010: 10)

suggests that Canadian and Australian HE administrators anticipate benefits to students who pre-

serve their own culture but also become more cognisant of that of others, whether by study

exchange or by working alongside students from other nations:

We talk about international skills and competencies, um . . . cultural understanding, knowledge of

diversity, of different ways of doing things, language skills, looking at innovative ways to address

issues or solve problems. Um, flexibility, you know, being able to work together in teams, all that sort

of thing.

Exchange suggests an equal relationship, and there is evidence that many student do gain from cul-

tural exchange (Harrison and Peacock, 2010), but there is also evidence that cultural difference,

rather than cultural diversity, is in many instances the underlying organizing principle:

100 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

You know Australia is very good at getting feepaying, international students into the universities

and gets criticized for its crassness in this regard, you know, its out and out commercial approach

to education. (Amit, 201:11)

The rhetoric of diversity may overlay the practice of difference.

Visible or observable difference from the majority group generally provokes anxiety in both the

majority and minority (Gudykunst, 1995), but it is the majority that usually has more power of

agency to act to remove or reduce its anxiety. Milliken and Martins (1996) suggest that the pro-

portion of people who are viewed as different, and the more different these appear, influences the

degree of anxiety. Difference can consequently be measured across two scales; the perceived

degree of otherness, that is how different the minority appears to the majority, and ‘cultural dis-

tance’ (Iles and Kaur Hayers, 1997: 107), that is the proportion of those seen as different relative

to the comparator group, ‘diversity amount’ (Taras and Rowney, 2007: 67). As otherness increases

across both dimensions, anxiety escalates. Therefore, while universities promote the richness of

diverse cultures within their staff and student body, in practice they may set a ceiling on the pro-

portion of otherness they are prepared to accept; for example, no more than one-third of all students

to be international students in a business school. This accords with the curvilinear effect suggested

by Isles and Kaur Hayers (1997); some heterogeneity is perceived as having a positive effect, but

too much and the effect is perceived as negative.

Even when conceptualizing the internationalization of universities as sharing cultures, there is

differentially expended care to retain the integrity of culture. The host culture is the priority for

protection. Internationalization is therefore a carefully controlled change, where cultures are sub-

ject to categorization, ranking and differential protection (DiTomaso et al., 2007). Cultures may be

equal and shared, but, to paraphrase Orwell (1945), some cultures are more equal than others.

Whether the rhetorical mission is to offer the experience of the host culture to students or to share

the experience of diverse student cultures, practice suggests a primary focus on protecting the

authenticity of the host culture and using it for universities’ aggrandizement (Rivers, 2010).

Internationalization as Homogenization in a Globalized Culture

The third stance towards internationalization draws on transactionalist perspectives. If one accepts

that indigenous cultures exist, they are argued to be currently under threat and rapidly weakening

(Burbules and Torres, 2013; Knight, 2008. It is suggested that the global diasporas of people and

instantaneous technology-aided communication across the world are eradicating the immunity of

indigenous culture to cultural incursion; heterogeneous cultures, it is argued, are increasingly

replaced by a single homogenous culture through globalization (Cowen, 2009). A HE stance where

‘Internationalization is everybody as part of a homogenized, globalized culture’, captures an orien-

tation that does not assume distinguishable discrete cultures. Culture is performative, constantly

evolving, mutating, subject to and exerting cultural pressure. From this perspective, universities

engage with culture as ‘identifiable zones of sameness and difference’ (Brightman, 1995: 519)

as ‘multi’ culture and as a single academic culture spanning the world, an apparently paradoxical

conceptualization of culture as both single and many.

The idea of distinguishable and authentic national cultures is derided by some. Said (2005: 199)

suggests that a conceptualization of culture that aligns with a notion of ‘some primitive, unalloyed

pure essence of something that has been corrupted and polluted, as it were by the West’ is mista-

ken. Culture viewed as performative, that is, constructed by a fluid, persistent negotiation or

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 101

imposition of values and practice influenced by the power of the players is therefore never homo-

genous and stable. The paradigmatic consequences are highlighted by Bhabha (1994: 21) who

asks: ‘what the function of a committed theoretical perspective might be, once the cultural and his-

torical hybridity of the post-colonial world is taken into account’. If culture is conceived as a flow

of cognitive and affective practice across the world, in transactional terms, the position of the indi-

vidual or the individual organization is to influence the swiftly changing culture as strongly as pos-

sible and to seek to dominate it. A second qualifier is therefore introduced into university culture;

the latter is not only globalized but preferably elite or ‘world class’.

Culture has for a long time functioned as a socioeconomic classificatory system, a hierarchical

distinction being drawn between those who are ‘cultured’ and those who are not. Bates (1987: 85)

refers to ‘high culture’, an elite corpus of supposedly universal knowledge and values reflecting the

greatest human achievements. In fact, far from being universal, such culture largely reflects Eur-

opean art and values, its position in a culture pantheon clearly signalled by the adjective. The uni-

versity orientation, ‘Internationalization is a group of equals working together which is inclusive

only of those who match the criteria of being of the same value/worth as the others’, makes explicit

the greater value given to selected cultures, and specifically Anglophone cultures. The term ‘world

class’ is a semantic sleight of hand that suggests that the culture of greatest value is inclusive across

nations, rather than reflecting an exclusive club where a particular culture is the passport for entry,

as is arguably the case.

Rather than an inclusive pan-national culture, the term ‘world class’ signals an orientation to

internationalization that reflects Western cultural values, both in relation to academic work and

to managing HE (Altbach, 2004). Scholarly work reflects roots in Graeco-Roman Christian cul-

tures and management enacts Anglophone cultural assumptions (Lumby and Foskett, 2008). The

fact that academic discourse is now largely conducted in English is an unmistakable signal of the

provenance and domination of ‘world class’ culture (Deem et al., 2008).

Writing from the World Bank, Salmi (2008) points out that there are relatively few universities

designated world-class according to international league tables, and that these are located in a few,

mostly Western countries. Attempting to identify the characteristics of a world-class university,

Salmi highlights an abundance of resources as one key element. Being world-class appears to

imply the availability of wealth, either through accumulated endowments and or governmental

investment. Hazelhorn (2007: 43) suggests ‘that the majority of institutions ranked in the top

100 in the two international rankings are those that have adopted key aspects of the American

research university model’ reflecting the cultural values of Western, competitive mores. Abun-

dant resources are invested in star performers and outstanding facilities for both faculty and stu-

dents. An individualized, economy-driven culture is clearly indicated, for example in China’s

selective investment in a few universities which aspire to achieve world-class status (Hayhoe and

Jun, 2011).

We have argued that culture can be used as a sorting category that is neutral or hierarchical.

Universities tend to describe internationalization publicly in terms of neutral usage, as an inter-

change of equal cultures; we have argued that hierarchical usage is also clearly discernible, for

example, in recruitment literature emphasizing the ‘world-class’ status of the organization. The

first usage implies an equal interchange of cultures. The second implies the aggrandizement of one

culture and the disintegration of another, or the adoption of a supra-culture that subsumes all.

The latter phenomenon is discernible in much literature which suggests that the globalization of

culture is moving from heterogeneity to homogenization (McGuigan, 2005). Featherstone (1990:

2) argues against simple binaries, rejecting ‘the mutually exclusive terms of homogeneity/

102 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

heterogeneity, integration/disintegration, unity/diversity’, proposing that the flows, interdependen-

cies and struggles between cultures are more complex, leading to the emergence of cultures ‘which

themselves are conduits for all sorts of diverse cultural flows which cannot be merely understood

as the product of bilateral exchanges’. It may be that ‘world-classness’ is one such culture.

Adopting a Heuristic Lens: An Ecological View

A means is needed holistically to view and understand the different perspectives we have explored.

Applying the metaphor of ecology may act as a heuristic lens to culture and internationalization,

and provide insights into an overall perspective from which HE leaders might interpret and under-

stand the implications of cultural change. We have argued that culture is both inert and permeable

and, despite attempts to resist cultural incursion, the increasing degree of diversity distance and

amount (Iles and Kaur Hayers, 1997; Taras and Rowney, 2007) among international students in

itself creates pressure towards change. While the pressure may be felt throughout the organiza-

tion, it may be differentially experienced by academic or administrative staff with/without an

internationalization brief and in subunits. For example, in the UK 2010–2011 one-third or more

students in business and engineering are international compared to less than 10% in history or education (UK Council for International Student Affairs, 2014). The internal context for change

will be variable.

One of the global foci that has arisen over the last 20 years alongside globalization has been that

of sustainability and environment. This has provided a perspective on natural environments in

which the concepts of ecology and ecosystems, and of ecological processes, have been key under-

pinning ideas. Transferring those ideas to human societies provides some interesting perspectives

in relation to understanding the nature and interaction of human cultures, and may also provide a

basis for considering the consequences of cultural changes (Carroll, 1988).

In ecological terms, the arrival of a new and dominant culture will have a number of possible

effects on pre-existing cultures. It may lead to the complete loss or destruction of existing cultures

and their replacement with the new culture. Alternatively, it may lead to some form of dilution or

mutation of existing cultures by the interaction and merging of elements from both ‘old’ and ‘new’

cultures. We might also consider the project of internationalization in HE as being essentially one

in which the nature of a cultural ecosystem is changed by direct intervention. The parallels with

human intervention in ecosystems are strong; although many of the outcomes may be predictable

and desirable, others may be less obvious and, once processes of change have begun, there will be

both negative feedback and positive feedback effects that may be irreversible. We can consider this

in the context of some of the dilemmas that organizational leaders face.

Leadership Dilemmas

Leaders within organizations such as universities are frequently placed in the position of making

operational or strategic decisions on the basis of complex information and where there are conflict-

ing potential impacts of those decisions. Leading in such ambiguous contexts provides genuine

dilemmas for those with decision-making responsibilities, and decisions may well involve a set

of outcomes that includes both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ results. Taking decisions in the knowledge that,

either way, the impact may be negative for some or all stakeholders provides both an operational

and a moral dilemma.

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 103

In the context of internationalization in HE there are three broad areas of impact for leaders –

the economic sphere, where the impact is measured in terms of economic return to the individual,

the micro-cultural sphere that represents the internal culture of the organization and the organiza-

tion or the broader economy; the macro-cultural sphere that relates to the changing external cul-

tural setting of the organization.

The superficial argument in favour of internationalization suggests that, from the perspective of

leaders in organizations, it is a ‘win–win’ approach in that the impact on the organization, the indi-

vidual and wider society in respect of all three spheres is seen as beneficial. The process is seen as

bringing economic benefits to the receiving institution, the student and the states and societies that

they subsequently live and work within. In parallel, it is seen as enhancing cultural understanding

across and between societies by ensuring that both ‘home’ and ‘international’ students develop

much deeper and broader understandings of different cultures and, in terms of micro-cultures, it

is seen as delivering to the individual both a breadth of cultural knowledge and inter-cultural skills

that will enhance their own life skills and prospects (Ward et al., 2001). There is evidence

that internationalization has functioned in this way, and brought benefits for students and for

HE (Harrison and Peacock, 2010). However there is also evidence which we have briefly rehearsed

that many students and staff do not experience internationalization as a positive, and that a range of

negative experiences and outcomes are clearly discernible (Brandenburg and deWit, 2011; Gibbs,

2010; Hashimoto, 2000; Khadria, 2004; Rivers, 2010; Yang, 2002).

We would contend that the benefits identified reflect a short-term view of the impact of inter-

nationalization, as a longer-term perspective identifies cultural risks in the strategy that might

result in it being either a ‘win-lose’ position, where there are some groups or stakeholders who gain

while others are negatively impacted; or, more seriously, that it is a ‘lose-lose’ strategy in which

there are few, if any, stakeholders whose primary objectives are delivered; that, for example, HE

‘risks sacrificing the diversity of its national and cultural vitality to standardization’ (Gibbs, 2010:

242).

Here is where we might consider the parallels with changes in ecosystems. The challenges relate

specifically to the impact of the cultural exchange and interaction that lies at the heart of interna-

tionalization. Two specific processes can be identified. First, one of the key benefits of studying

abroad to international students is that they acquire and bring back to their own country the cultural

insights and understandings of engaging internationally. While this may have short-term social and

economic benefits, in the long term it may lead to the dilution or loss of the cultural characteristics

of their own culture, with the extension of ‘globalized’ cultures and an increasing challenge to

domestic cultures. Second, this process may itself lead to a reduction in cultural distance or distinc-

tiveness for future generations of potential international students from the ‘home culture’. As this

distinctiveness and difference is an important element of the attraction of international student

movement, one of the key benefits may be slowly eroded through this process.

A consequence of such processes may be that the cultural diversity and distinctiveness that is

the very basis of the cultural components of the internationalization rationale will itself be eroded

by the process of internationalization. When the value of the cultural ‘premium’ of internationa-

lization declines, then it will principally be the simple financial and economic premium that

remains. None of this is of course an argument in itself for reducing the commitment to the inter-

nationalization process. The short- and long-term economic and cultural changes may be outcomes

desired by governments and individuals, the value of which is regarded as outweighing some of the

cultural negativities that might result. Rather, it is simply important that leaders promoting inter-

nationalization in HE are aware of the full extent and breadth of the balance sheet.

104 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

Finding Leverage in the Game

University leaders may assert that they are driven by primarily educational rather than commercial

goals and make rational choices in relation to positioning their organization. Seen in this light,

internationalization is consequently an extension of age-old imperatives to share the creation and

communication of knowledge across national boundaries. Teichler (2009) points out that the 3% intra-European movement of students in the first decade of the 21st century is considerably less

than the 10% movement recorded from the 17th century. Internationalization is not new. We have suggested alternative critical interpretations that view internationalization as using the mechanism

of culture for the negotiation of power and status. From this perspective, the goals diverge from the

rhetorical commitment to protecting and valuing cultural diversity and converge with the kind of

human imperatives embedded as evolutionary strategies for survival in a competitive world. From

this perspective, the fundamental goals of any group might look rather similar to those of interna-

tionalization. For example:

1. to secure basic resources for survival;

2. to accumulate material wealth for security;

3. to increase social standing vis-à-vis other clans;

4. to promote privilege and prestige;

5. to establish alliances with other autonomous clans; and

6. to expand their resource base, wealth, and prestige sphere. (Tollefson 1995: 55)

These goals, discerned in an anthropological study of potlatching of the Alaskan Tinglit clan,

could easily be aligned with the orientations to internationalization that we have outlined and prob-

ably with the activity of most human groups.

If our hypothesis is correct, that deeply embedded competitive imperatives drive internationa-

lization, and if the intention is to move away from such goals towards those closer to the publicly

espoused educational and cultural intentions, where is the leverage for change? The long-term pro-

tection of diverse cultures or, even more problematically, the erosion of current status inequalities

among them, is a problematic and very long-term endeavour. Irving (2009) points out that there is

considerable evidence that humans choose short-term benefits over long-term delayed reward.

Such pressures are culturally shaped, as is evident from the differences in willingness to make

long-term investment among companies of different nation states. This general tendency is partic-

ularly acute in certain cultures, of which the UK and USA are notable (Hofstede, 1984, 2007). The

two nations recruiting the largest numbers of international students (UK Council for International

Student Affairs, 2014) are world leaders in taking a short-term perspective. Irving draws on Lav-

erty (2004) to suggest that not only individuals but also organizations take a short-term perspec-

tive, driven by performativity demands that leaders produce measurable results for shareholders

in the very short time-frame of their tenure.

Preparedness to wait for delayed rather than immediate rewards is dependent on their relative

size and the perceived distance. A very much larger reward may be seen to justify investment,

including time, towards that end. Rewards that are close to either the individual or the organization,

will be more compelling than those that come to the nation, or more distant groups. Viewed in this

light, the distant and long-term goal of preserving or enhancing cultural diversity is a weak force

compared with the immediate gratification of a rise in student income gained through offering a

homogenized ‘world-class’ or a supposedly superior culture (Jiang, 2008; Maringe et al., 2013)

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 105

or a high placing in the league tables (Hazelhorn, 2004). To take an analogy, even the prospect of

planetary disaster through climate change has not proved sufficient motivation to significantly shift

most individuals’ commitment to short-term benefit. Preserving and nurturing cultures and nation

state development is unlikely to prove a strong motivation for those who see that as a desirable

goal, let alone those who would support the promotion of a Western-based culture as in some sense

offering high culture to all.

Our argument is that long-term business interests and ethical outcomes may be aligned, but that

even if this was recognized, the result would be insufficiently powerful to shift behaviour designed

to achieve goals in the short term. Learning from leader behaviour in other fields, as Tenbrunsel

and Messick (2004: 224) argue, it may be that leaders are not driven by the ethics of internationa-

lization, as psychological processes ‘fade the ‘ethics’ from an ethical dilemma’. Acting in a way

that compromises ethics creates tensions which the individual seeks a psychological means to

counteract, either by eradicating awareness or by adjusting the inner narrative. Internationalization

may be one of the ‘disguised stories’ (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004: 13) leaders tell themselves, a

relabeling exercise whereby the perceived enrichment and positive nature of internationalization

can bleach out the potential negative consequences for some, and permit acceptance of behaviour

which might otherwise be seen as reprehensible (Khadria, 2004).

Just as thinking in relation to climate change sees the real leverage for change in finding where

opportunities for short-term benefit align with longer-term interests, so the only real chance of

shifting the less positive internationalizing trends may be to suggest that competitive advantage

lies in a different direction. Those universities that see their competitive edge in the preservation

and sharing of cultures might be persuaded to work harder at controlling the negative impact of

internationalization and the cult of world-classness. Jockeying for position in league tables based

on offering a cultural experience of a superior kind is increasingly unproductive for the majority

not represented at the top of the table. As Asian and Indian universities grow in strength and chal-

lenge, the pool of international students traveling to Anglophone countries may decline (British

Council, 2013). Adopting a market position predicated on sustainability and cultural respect might

offer a distinctive approach attractive to both home and international students. Embedding such a

market position would entail change at multiple levels.

Education for Senior Leaders in the Ethics of Business

In 1995 Ciulla noted the paucity of research and practical guidance for leaders on ethics. The finan-

cial crash of the early 21st century ushered in a flurry of studies on how senior finance and banking

leaders came to make decisions that were disastrous for their organizations and for wider society

(Bazerman and Banaji, 2004). The lessons that are emerging could be embedded much more

strongly in education programmes for vice-chancellors and leaders at other levels, at the least

encouraging awareness of the legacy of taking their organization or unit in a particular cultural

direction.

Education for Leaders at All Levels in Diversity Issues

Diversity training for HE staff is often absent or a one-off, sheep-dip type programme (Avolio,

2010). A half or one day of training in relevant legislation and anti-discrimination may provide

the illusion of equipping staff to respond sensitively to diversity but is hardly likely to achieve it

(Holladay and Quiñones, 2005). Stimulus for more self-awareness is needed, for example

106 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

challenging such ubiquitous, simplistic and apolitical metaphors for action, such as diversity as

melting pot or as salad bowl, which fade out important cultural and power relativities between

different groups.

Limiting the Number of Individuals Who Can Take Opportunist Decisions

Irving (2009: 289) suggests that a re-examination of business practice is needed:

identification of where and when trade-offs are being made between short- and long-term concerns,

deciding who has responsibility for such decisions, and limiting the range of organisational depart-

ments and individuals who are required to deal with trade-off decisions.

Universities would therefore need to constrain their activity within a long-term strategy, ensuring

individuals do not have the freedom to make deals ‘on the hoof ’, which may be outside the long-

term strategy. Entrepreneurialism might be debated and defined in ways which go beyond merely

generating income (Vidović and Bjeliš, 2006). In particular, sensitivity to the differing challenges

and dilemmas faced by staff in different roles and disciplines may be needed. Leaders in those dis-

ciplines with a high percentage of international students and those aspiring to increase a modest

market share may be driven by different strategic imperatives and have varied development and

support needs to achieve sustainable internationalization.

Reconfigure the Core Carriers of Culture: Curricula and Pedagogy

There is considerable evidence that both curricula and pedagogy differentially disadvantage

diverse students (Ryan and Carroll, 2005; Taras and Rowney, 2007) Currently development tends

to position international students as in deficit, the response being a minimum accommodation to

make peripheral change to both curricula and pedagogy. More radical change would reverse the

scenario, viewing academics and home students as in deficit in largely pursuing a monocultural

approach without being aware of it, or of the implications of doing so. Universities would need

to work much harder at equipping staff to work with multiple cultures and to resist the imposition

of a supra culture embedded in notions of being world-class (Leask and Bridge, 2013).

Both the will to change and the capacity to effect it are needed. Currently capacity is being

somewhat addressed (Altbach and Knight, 2007) but there is little attention to will. A more exten-

sive change strategy is needed and we have sketched in only some starting ideas which might be

implemented as appropriate at organizational, faculty, department and team levels.

Leading the Way

We have explored some of the multifaceted ways in which the relationship of culture and interna-

tionalization might be understood and have challenged simplistic notions of the latter as a consis-

tently win–win scenario. We have suggested that significant issues of ethics and self-interest are

intertwined in complex ways. Although leadership is commonly associated with setting values and

consequently is concerned to establish ethical boundaries, we have expressed doubt that ethics are

likely to exert sufficient force to counter economic imperatives. HE does not have a distinguished

record of avoiding elitism or fighting for equality. Lynch (2006) argues that, despite its public per-

sona as a guardian of democracy and the civic good, in HE commercially driven strategies have

generally prevailed over disinterested goals. Rather than offering futile exhortations to act for the

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 107

good of all, we would argue that, as we have discovered in the financial sector too late and to our

cost, perceived distinctions between commercial advantage and self-sacrificing morality may in

fact be deceptive; ethical behaviour may, in fact, have a long-term commercial as well as an indi-

vidual and societal return (Stiglitz, 2012; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). ‘Win–win’ scenarios may

be an option, but not if action is constructed within the current rhetoric of internationalization.

References

Altbach PG (2004) Globalization and the university: myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary

Education and Management 10(1): 3–25.

Altbach PG and Knight J (2007) The internationalization of HE: motivations and realities. Journal of Studies

in International Education 11(3–4): 290–305.

Amit V (2010) Student mobility and internationalization: rationales, rhetoric and ‘institutional isomorphism’.

Anthropology in Action 17(1): 6–18.

Archer MS (2005) Structure, culture and agency. In: Jacobs MD and Hanrahan NW (eds) The Blackwell

Companion to the Sociology of Culture. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 17–34.

Avolio BJ (2010) Full Range Leadership Development. London: SAGE.

Ball S (2012) Global Education Inc. New policy networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. London:

Routledge.

Bates RJ (1987) Corporate culture, schooling, and educational administration. Education Administration

Quarterly 23(4): 79–115.

Bazerman MH and Banaji MR (2004) The social psychology of ordinary ethical failures. Social Justice

Research 17(2): 111–115.

Bhabha HK (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Brandenburg U and de Wit H (2011) The end of internationalization. International Higher Education 62:

15–17.

Brightman R (1995) Forget culture: replacement, transcendence and reflxification. Cultural Anthropology

10(4): 509–546.

British Council (2013) The Shape of Things to Come: Higher Education Global Trends and Emerging Oppor-

tunities to 2020. London, British Council.

Burbules NC and Torres CA (2013) Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Cantwell B and Maldonado-Maldonado A (2009) Four stories: confronting contemporary ideas about globa-

lisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 7(3):

289–306.

Carroll GR (1988) Ecological Models of Organisations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Clifford J (1988) The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Ciulla JB (1995) Leadership ethics: mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(1): 5–28.

Cowen T (2009) Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World’s Cultures. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Deem R, Mok HK and Lucas L (2008) Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept

of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy 21: 83–97.

De Wit H (1997) Studies in international education: a research perspective. Journal of Studies in International

Education 1(1): 1–8.

DiTomaso N, Post C and Parks-Yancy R (2007) Workforce diversity and inequality: power, status, and

numbers. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 473–501.

108 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

Featherstone M (1990) Global Culture: An Introduction. In: Featherstone M (ed.) Global Culture: National-

ism, Globalization and Modernity. A Theory, Culture and Society Special Issue. London: SAGE.

Gibbs P (2010) The commoditization and standardisation of higher education. In: Foskett N and Maringe F

(eds) Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, strategic and management

perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 241–254.

Gudykunst W (1995) Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In: Wiseman R (ed.) International

Communication Theory Vol. XIX. London: SAGE.

Hashimoto K (2000). Internationalism is Japanisation: Japan’s foreign language education and national

identity. Journal of Intercultural Studies 21(1): 39–51.

Hayhoe R and Jun L (2011) CHINA: World-class universities in a diverse system (University World News.

Issue No: 202). Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story¼20111216171430504 (accessed 14 March 2014)

Hazelkorn E (2007) The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making.

Higher Education Management and Policy 19(2): 87.

Hofstede G (1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, 1st edn. New-

bury Park, CA: SAGE.

Hofstede G (2007) Asian management in the 21st Century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24: 411–20.

Holladay CL and Quiñones MA (2005) Reactions to diversity training: an international comparison. Human

Resource Development Quarterly 16: 529–545.

Iles P and Kaur Hayers P (1997) Managing diversity in transnational project teams. A tentative model and

case study. Journal of Managerial Psychology 1(2): 95–117.

Irving K (2009) Overcoming short-termism: mental time travel, delayed gratification and how not to discount

the future. Australian Accounting Review 51 19(4): 278–294.

Jenks C (1993) Culture: Key Ideas. London: Routledge.

Jiang X (2008) Towards the internationalisation of higher education from a critical perspective. Journal of

Further and Higher Education 32(4): 347–358.

Khadria B (2004) Paradoxes and pitfalls in internationalisation of higher education under the WTO regime of

trade in services: a critical analysis of mode III and mode IV. Internationalisation of higher education

issues and concerns (Internationalisation of Higher Education 123). Available at: http://www.nuepa.

org/libdoc/e-library/conference/2004sbhushan_ihecp.pdf#page¼125 (accessed 18 March 2014) Knight J (1997) Internationalisation of higher education: a conceptual framework. In: Knight J and de Wit H

(eds) Internationlisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries. Amsterdam: European Associa-

tion for International Education (EAIE).

Knight J (2004) Internationalization remodelled: definition, approaches and rationales. Studies in Interna-

tional Education 8. 5–31.

Knight J (2008) Higher education in turmoil. The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers

Knight J (2010) Higher education crossing borders; programs and providers on the move. In: Johnstone DB,

d’Ambrosio MB and Yakoboski PJ (eds) Higher Education in a Global Society. Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar Publishing.

Laverty KJ (2004) Managerial myopia or systemic short-termism? Management Decision 42(8): 949–62.

Leask B and 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): 9–36, 79–101.

Lumby J (2012) Leading organisational culture: Issues of power and equity, In: T Bush and M Crawford (Eds),

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 40th Anniversary Special Issue 40(5): 576–591.

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 109

Lumby J and Foskett N (2011) Power, risk and utility–interpreting the landscape of culture in educational

leadership. Education Administration Quarterly, 47(3): 446–461.

Lumby J and Foskett N (2008) ‘Leadership and Culture’. In: G. Crow, J. Lumby and P. Pashiardis (eds) Inter-

national handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders, New York, Routledge, pp.

43–60.

Lynch K (2006) Neo-liberalism and marketisation: the implications for higher education. European Educa-

tional Research Journal 5(1): 1–17.

Marginson S and Sawir E (2005) Interrogating global flows in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and

Education 3(3): 281–309.

Maringe F, Foskett N and Woodfield S (2013) Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global ter-

rain: findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education

43(1): 9–36.

Martin J, Frost PJ and O’Neill OA (2004) Organizational culture: beyond struggles for intellectual domi-

nance/(Research Paper No. 1864, Stanford, Stanford Graduate School). Available at: https://gsbapps.stan-

ford.edu/researchpapers/Library/RP1864.pdf (accessed 22 November 2011)

McGuigan J (2005) Neo-liberalism, culture and policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 11(3): 229–241

Milliken FJ and Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of

diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 21(2): 1–32.

Orwell G (1945) Animal Farm. London: Secker and Warburg.

Rivers D (2010) Ideologies of internationalisation and the treatment of diversity within Japanese higher edu-

cation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32(5): 441–454

Rossi F (2010) Massification, competition and organizational diversity in higher education: evidence from

Italy. Studies in Higher Education 35(3): 277–300.

Rui Y (2002) University internationalization: its meanings, rationales and implications. Intercultural Educa-

tion 13(1): 81–95.

Ryan J and Carroll J (2005) Canaries in the coalmine: International students in western universities. In:

Carroll J and Ryan J (eds) Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Abingdon:

Routledge, pp. 3–10.

Said EW (2005) Power, Politics and the Culture. Interviews with Edward Said, Viswanathan G (ed.). London:

Bloomsbury.

Salmi J (2009) The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, DC: World Bank

Publications.

Schein EH (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stiglitz JE (2012) The Price of Inequality. London: Penguin.

Taras V and Rowney J (2007) Effects of cultural diversity on in-class communication and student project

team dynamics: Creating synergy in the diverse classroom. International Studies in Educational Admin-

istration 35(2): 66–81.

Teichler U (1996) Comparative higher education. Potentials and limits. Higher Education 32(4): 431–465.

Teichler U (2009) Internationalisation of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education

Review 10: 93–106.

Tenbrunsel AE and Messick DM (2004) Ethical fading: the role of self-deception in unethical behavior.

Social Justice Research 17(2): 223–226.

Tollefson KD (1995) Potlatching and political organizations among the Northwest Coast Indians. Ethnology

34(1): 53–73

UK Council for International Student Affairs (2014) International student statistics: UK higher education.

Available at: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Info-for-universities-colleges–schools/Policy-research–statistics/

110 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1)

Research–statistics/International-students-in-UK-HE/#International-student-numbers-by-subject-area-

2011–12 (accessed 4 April 2014)

Vidović VV and Bjeliš A (2006) Entrepreneurialism at the University of Zagreb: managing the sustainability

of change. Higher Education in Europe 31(2): 157–139.

Ward C, Bochner S and Furnham A (2001) The Psychology of Culture Shock. Abdingdon: Routledge.

Wilkinson R and Pickett K (2009) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.

London: Allen Lane.

Author biographies

Jacky Lumby is Professor in Education at Southampton Education School, University of

Southampton. She has taught and led in secondary schools, adult and community and further

education She also worked in a Training and Enterprise Council with responsibility for the

development of managers in both business and education, managing a network which allowed

the cross-fertilization of skills and experience from education into business and vice versa.

Her recent publications include (with Fenwick G English) Leadership as Lunacy and Other

Metaphors of Educational Leadership (2010) and (with Gary Crow and Petros Peshiardis)

International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders (2008).

Nick Foskett is Vice-Chancellor of Keele University having previously been a professor of

Education at Southampton University and Dean of the Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences.

His particular interests lay in educational policy and management with a particular focus on higher

education. He is the author (with Jacky Lumby) of 14–19 Education: Policy, Leadership and

Learning (2005).

Lumby and Foskett: Internationalization and culture in higher education 111