The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation? A ... - CiteSeerX

European Educational Research Journal Volume 8 Number 1 2009 www.wwwords.eu/EERJ

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation? A Challenging Quality Issue in Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century MONNE WIHLBORG Department of Management, Blekinge Institute of Technology & Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

ABSTRACT What are the pedagogical impacts of internationalisation on the development of higher education in Europe? How can we proceed in this process and take a pedagogical stance on the issue? This theoretical article is partly based on a series of empirical studies, conducted by the author, investigating students’ and teachers’ experiences and understanding of an internationalised educational context in Sweden. Here, some further implications of these studies are examined and discussed in relation to recent publications and research concerned with internationalisation in higher education in various ways. Underpinned by the findings of earlier studies, this article argues that even though the internationalisation of higher education has been extensively researched in recent decades, more qualitative studies are needed. In particular, there is a lack of studies from the perspective of teachers and students concerned with their experience of internationalisation, and with how they interpret various aspects of this process in relation to their respective educational contexts. The empirical results of the series of studies conducted earlier in this area by the author show that teachers’ and students’ experience of internationalised contexts varied, and that they were experienced as ambiguous and difficult to grasp. Both teachers and students experienced such contexts as difficult to evaluate in terms of learning outcomes. This article argues in favour of a shift in research perspective, from an overall external perspective to a relational, experienced and context-based perspective, to understand how internationalisation in higher education is developed in practice. Adopting this perspective not only sheds light on issues of meaning making in learning and understanding knowledge content, but also raises significant questions of a general order, concerned with the nature of knowledge development in international educational contexts.

Introduction A Shift in Perspective and Some Standpoints Numerous studies, above all in Europe, have in recent decades dealt with various aspects of internationalisation in higher education (HE) (see, for example, Sporn, 1996; Jarvis, 2000; Bartell, 2003; Vaira, 2004; Smeby & Trondal, 2005). However, the majority of these studies have not been conducted from the perspective of the teachers and students, and are not contextually based. While teachers’/insructors’ [1] and students’ experiences of internationalisation in relation to their own educational contexts are central from a pedagogical perspective, this dimension has not been explored in internationalisation studies. To emphasise the quality dimension of the internationalisation of HE, the position taken by the author in this article is that an essential focus must be on how intentions aiming at internationalisation are actually concretised in teaching and learning, in contrast to a purely organisational focus. The assertion here serves to emphasise the

117

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.117

Monne Wihlborg pedagogical dimension, and not to neglect the importance of political and economic influences in the development of HE. Based on findings from research in nurse education, this article emphasises the quality (qualities) of the phenomenon of an internationalised education, searching for the fundamental pedagogical aspects related to teaching and learning. It is argued that sufficient attention must be devoted to issues of quality. It is also suggested that we need to make a shift in stance from an overall external perspective to a relational (non-dualistic) and experienced-based perspective, in order to contribute results that develop the pedagogical dimension and issues of quality in internationalising HE (Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). Finally, it is proposed that issues of knowledge and knowledge construction are not culturally neutral, and the field of higher education is subject to rapid change. This is why an explicit discussion of learning goals is crucial, and attention must be given to the epistemological development concerning the meaning of internationalisation in HE (Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). This article will address arguments concerned with shifting our attention from the organisational and political perspective, which dominates the manner in which the internationalisation of HE is conceived today, in favour of a pedagogical perspective on internationalisation and the development of knowledge in an international perspective. A number of empirical studies are presented and used as background data in order to support the arguments put forward in this article, and complete the picture by discussing aspects of internationalisation that otherwise tend to be neglected. Internationalisation is, in this article, ultimately a question of a lower and higher order of learning, and of pedagogy as a human activity in an international context, taking place in the twenty-first century. Concluding remarks will address some reflections about curriculum development and the idea of culturally constituted knowledge. A shift in perspective – makes an important difference for completing the picture. This article is based in a research tradition concerned with investigating learning/educational contexts in terms of how intentions are conducted and carried out in terms of actual teaching and learning approaches (Marton, 1992a, b; Marton & Booth, 1997). Assuming the standpoint that the learner’s perspective should be focused in educational contexts, both globalisation and internationalisation can be considered at the core of ‘learning issues’ in HE, raising questions of what to learn, how to learn, and why these contents and modalities could be regarded as relevant from an international and/or global perspective, in relation to any education at all. It is the viewpoint of the author of this article that understanding the internationalisation of HE from a didactical and pedagogical perspective, rather than relying on various embedded or predefined understandings of a general order, is a crucial challenge for both policy makers and teachers. Examples of forces that shape such predefined understandings today are linked to increasing commodification, neo-liberalism and forms of neodemocratic approaches, which influence the academy and the discourse of HE. The suggestions and conclusions presented in this article draw on several authors’ contributions to the subject of internationalisation in HE, as well as on a series of empirical studies conducted by the author Wihlborg (1999 [study I], 2004a [study II], 2004b [study III], 2005) and Svensson & Wihlborg (2007 [study IV], 2008/submitted). This article therefore involves an integrated line of argument, clarifying the author’s position and contribution to the continuing debate concerned with the phenomenon of the internationalisation of HE. A European Example: the general background and a vision of the further direction in internationalising HE in Sweden An ongoing process in Europe has, over the past decades, stressed the importance of the concretisation of intentions concerning internationalisation in HE (see, for example, Jarvis, 2000; Becher & Trowler, 2001; Strand, 2007). Students’ and teachers’ mobility and the use of information and communication technology have increased in an explosive way, changing the shape of HE and its role in society. The development of HE is therefore an essential aspect of societal change, related to questions of knowledge innovation and the transnational advancement of technologies. The effects of the force of internationalisation on the quality of learning and knowledge formation urgently need to be considered when we are engaged in developing HE in today’s society, across 118

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation national or cultural boundaries. This can be illustrated by the example of Sweden, where the government has emphasised the international dimension of HE, encouraging all university and college units to engage in international and global exchange, and participate in the processes that currently affect HE generally. Swedish HE has been continuously reformed and evaluated, with the aim of being positioned to take part in the social process known as internationalisation (Jarvis, 1996; van der Wende, 1996, 1997; Kälvemark & van der Wende, 1997; Knight, 1999; Waters, 2001). Looking back, it is clear that the concern with internationalisation in various curricula for Swedish HE has increased (Strömholm, 1994) [2] and the intentions put forward are confirmed by the present government policy on HE in Sweden (see, for example, SFS [Swedish Statute Book], 1992:1434; Kälvemark & van der Wende, 1997). It is worth noting that already in the 1998 report on ‘Education and Research for Strategic Internationalisation’, published by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Högskoleverket [HsV] 1998:16), it was stressed that a shift of perspective was required, viewing Sweden in relation to the rest of Europe and the world. A crucial concern in the report is that international competence should be strengthened to meet the future demands of the changing surroundings and promote increased international collaboration in order to solve global issues. Looking ahead, in line with the Bologna process involving 44 other European countries, five major objectives recently stated in the government bill ‘New World–new university’ [3], published by the Swedish Ministry of Education, Research and Culture, contend that Sweden should become an attractive country for foreign students to study in. HE institutions must make active international efforts to enhance the quality of their education, promoting understanding for other countries, international conditions and relations, as well as eliminating obstacles to internationalisation (Wihlborg, 2005, pp. 122-123). The Empirical Studies A series of empirical studies of internationalisation in nurse education was conducted by the author in the period 1999-2008, using a phenomenographic research approach and a follow-up literature review study. Despite certain local differences, the educational context investigated was homogeneous in the sense that Swedish nurse education is subject to national authorisation policy and that all schools of nursing in Sweden experience similar structural constraints. The education is a three-year university education, leading to an authorisation in nursing. The studies were based on empirical material collected in a survey, and interactive interviews with students and teachers, describing their ways of understanding and experiencing the phenomenon of internationalisation in teaching and learning situations. A deep dialogue format was employed in the interviews. First, an interview study with student nurses was conducted at two nursing schools in Sweden. The interviews comprised 25 and 24 student nurses respectively (Wihlborg, 1999, 2004a [studies I and II]). In these interviews, the aim was to describe how student nurses conceptualised and understood the phenomenon of internationalisation in general, and in relation to Swedish nurse education in particular. Subsequently, a survey study was conducted and analysed in 1999-2004, including 60 teachers/instructors in nurse education from several (10, including a pilot study) Swedish universities and university colleges, who described their conceptions of internationalisation. The survey comprised 23 main questions and a total of 184 question items, where many questions were open response questions. Responses to the survey were analysed using a qualitative, phenomenographic approach (Wihlborg, 2004b [study III]). Finally, interactive interviews using a deep dialogue format and lasting approximately two and a half hours each were carried out and analysed between 2000 and 2007, with 18 teachers/instructors in nurse education (Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007 [study IV]). This study aimed at describing teachers’ understandings and experiences of internationalisation, against the backdrop of the strong concern for internationalisation currently expressed in Swedish policy documents. The empirical studies (I-IV) each showed results related to teachers’ and students’ understanding of the phenomenon of internationalisation in HE, and an understanding of an internationalised education context. In the present article, the point is not to describe results from these studies in detail but rather, drawing from all the studies, to consider which parts can in some sense be generalised, and discuss the conclusions that emerge from this research as a whole. Conclusions from these studies are here further developed, focusing on the fact that the participants did not share a mutual understanding 119

Monne Wihlborg of the phenomenon of internationalisation, nor had they developed a shared curriculum understanding. The Results from the Empirical Studies: a contribution to the ongoing discussion of the development of internationalisation in HE The four empirical studies conducted by the author of this article [4] clearly indicate that despite a dedication to teaching, expertise and commitment with regard to aspects of internationalisation, the teachers did not possess a shared didactical culture and could not relate to a curriculum concerned with a shared understanding of internationalisation and its pedagogical considerations (Wihlborg, 2004b, pp. 533-544). The students, likewise, experienced the phenomenon of internationalisation as obscure and fragmented. They did not share a distinct experience of a common curriculum in relation to aspects of internationalisation within their educational context (Wihlborg, 1999, pp. 537-541; 2004a, pp. 439-446). The overall picture shows that conceptions/experiences of internationalisation comprise a number of areas concerning formalities in HE, exchange programmes in HE, subject matter content and knowledge in HE, sociocultural content and competence and desirable capabilities in HE. The teachers’ and students’ experience concerning an internationalised context varied. It was experienced by both teachers and students as ambiguous and difficult to grasp and to evaluate in terms of learning outcomes (Wihlborg, 1999, pp. 537-540; 2004a, pp. 446-451; 2004b, pp. 540-544; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, p. 287). The results further show that the pedagogical dimension, emphasising experiences concerned with internationalising HE, and the understanding of an internationalised education context that students and teachers expressed both lacked clarity. This, in turn, raises questions concerning qualities in the relationship between teachers’ didactical (theoretical) awareness and their teaching practices. In the following, the importance of knowledge content of an intercultural character is therefore specifically stressed when discussing consequences of internationalisation and additional steps in the future. A fundamental issue here is the extent and manner in which teachers shape, support and explicitly discuss features or elements of interchangeable knowledge content of an intercultural character, in order to achieve internationalised education. The notion of interchangeability is used to designate the possibility of applying ‘general’ knowledge to a variety of different situations and contexts. The notion is often based on assumptions of the universal character of knowledge; in other words, that essential characteristics do not depend on context or culture, and that observed variation can be reduced to standardised variables, such as income or age. However, in the present article, ‘interchangeable’ rather implies that knowledge and content and constitution of meaning are context-sensitive and relational in character. These questions have consequences for students in teaching and learning situations, affecting both their learning outcomes and the competencies they develop. It is claimed, by the teachers and students, as well as in documents expressing overall curricular intentions, that a range of general and specific competencies needs to be developed to enable the learner to participate in an international or global context within a specific field of knowledge and practice (see Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, pp. 297-303; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). Such competencies, if developed, the author will claim, can be viewed as twodimensional and relational.[5] On the one hand, they involve the relationship between the learner and the surrounding world/culture, supporting the idea of becoming a world citizen or developing a world citizenship (see Dahlin, 2004). On the other, they engage the specific field of work/enterprise the learner is aiming at through the chosen educational activity. This twodimensional relationship also clarifies the pedagogical issue. While viewed against the backdrop of the ongoing process of internationalisation of HE, these results are ultimately part of a discourse concerned with the development of the quality of teaching and learning in HE more generally. Findings from the studies support the argument that a more profound understanding of the nature and quality of this process is needed. Among the issues that require particular attention are: the internationalisation of curricula; the underlying view of learning expressed in these curricula; approaches to teaching knowledge content aiming at intercultural [6] knowledge development within HE; and, finally, students’ development of intercultural competencies (see Wihlborg, 2005; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, 2008/submitted). Pedagogical approaches need to address the 120

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation knowledge, skills and competencies students must develop to become internationally competent within a field of work and participate in an international lifeworld arena. A Vision of the Missing Part in Completing the Picture The main findings in the empirical studies all imply that the pedagogical dimension is rather unclear. This dimension involves experiences concerned with internationalising HE as a ground for shaping our understanding of the practical implications of an internationalised education context, with respect to qualities of learning and teaching. It is argued that there is a lack of understanding of internationalisation from a pedagogical perspective, concerning experiences about learning and learning conditions, within the context shaped by and resulting from the aims of internationalising HE. A main argument stressed in this article is therefore the need to recognise the pedagogical dimension of the internationalisation of HE. The focus should be directed to teaching and learning, rather than limited to organisational, economic, political and policy aspects. Also, there is an urgent need for further curriculum development, meeting the needs of the new century. Apart from the absence of a pedagogical dimension and explicitly formulated goals, results from the four studies imply the lack of a conscious didactical approach and ‘awareness’. The need for a pedagogical ‘foundation of awareness’ in relation to the implications of internationalisation in terms of adapting contents was also shown (Wihlborg, 2005; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, 2008/submitted). To summarise the core issue underpinned by the elements discussed above, it may be concluded that neglecting content-related aspects has made it impossible to grasp, in a coherent way, the relevant measures required to improve curricula in terms of what, how and why. The lack of didactical awareness concerning content-related aspects of internationalisation will have the effect of preventing strategies to promote, support or achieve learning that could be understood in terms of a ‘student learning outcome’. The question for the future is therefore: How can this be avoided henceforth and how may we proceed concerning internationalising HE? Visions for the Future of Internationalisation in HE Considering that fundamentally different ways of viewing the internationalisation of HE will ultimately lead to different consequences, some of these viewpoints are discussed in this section. This involves the voices of several authors, including the approach of the author of this article, in trying to outline some visions for the future concerned with internationalisation in HE. The section addresses questions concerned with our view on knowledge and learning in an international context, and calls for a pedagogical perspective. Specific questions about learning need to be raised, taking as a starting point the idea of variations in meaning and understanding. The final part of the discussion takes, however, a more abstract form. Knowledge Content of an Intercultural Character and the Need to Include a Pedagogical Dimension in the Internationalisation of HE Waters (2001) discusses the path of globalisation through time and its influence in social science from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, specifying ‘three arenas through which globalising processes take effect, the economy, the polity and culture’ (p. 22), as well as pointing to the current global idealisation and reflexive individuation. He maintains that ‘the new world chaos’ is equivalent to ‘globalizing cultures’ (p. 182), and says: as material interdependence increases and as political sovereignty is whittled away, transnational, inter-societal connections eventually become more dense and important than national, intra-social ones. The central features of this acceleration are compression of time and its elimination of space, and an emerging reflexivity or self-conscious intentionality with respect to the globalization process. (Waters, 2001, p. 182)

It is claimed that intercultural learning involves learning about social phenomena and global changes, and that it would involve a flow of understandings between people (cf. Svensson & 121

Monne Wihlborg Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). This could open up the development of a global/international consciousness and support citizenship capabilities and competencies.[7] Robertson (1995, 1998) and Waters (2001) discuss a form of emergent holistic consciousness. On a global level, this would involve cultures being connected to a complex collective whole, a form of collective consciousness. In a similar line of thought, Svensson (1998) discusses education as ‘flows’ between cultural contexts and the relation between cultural elements: Cultural changes dependent on transnational cultural flows are here seen as a matter of how externalizations of meaning within one culture are dependent on externalization of meaning within another culture. This kind of dependence and influence is only a special case of relations between externalizations of meaning. The character of such relations is a main preoccupation within education as a discipline, although they are not usually referred to in those general terms. (Svensson, 1998, p. 124)

While Urry (2005) directs our understanding of globalisation, emphasising the complexities in terms of cultural and socially intertwined meanings, Barnett claims that ‘we live in an age of supercomplexity’ (Barnett, 2004, p. 65). Drawing on Readings’ (1996) book, The University in Ruins, Barnett contends that we have ‘passed through the phase of “the university of reason” and “the university of culture” in the past two hundred years, that the university is now “the university of excellence” in an age of systematized quality systems’ (Barnett, 2004, p. 64); ‘conceptually, the ideas on which the modern university was built – truth, knowledge, reason, communication – all stood in the dock as mere detritus’ (Barnett, 2004, p. 65), leading to an end of the idea of the universal. According to Barnett, Readings’ conclusion is ‘that the university might become “a community of dissensus”’ (Barnett, 2004, p. 64). Barnett’s description summarises the overall complexity involved in the changes in the university’s future role, but does not draw any conclusions concerning the necessity to develop a pedagogical/didactical stance to face these challenges. Barnett (2007) does, however, talk about ‘restrained anarchy’, claiming that ‘pedagogy for uncertain times has itself to be uncertain. It is open, it is daring, it is risky, it is itself unpredictable’ (p. 137). If we are indeed living ‘in an age of supercomplexity’ (see Barnett [2000] for an elaboration of the term ‘supercomplexity’), the author would suggest that the discourse concerned with the teaching, learning and qualities of internationalisation/globalisation in HE should by necessity involve a pedagogical/didactical dimension. The shape and space this dimension takes, what content is required, and how we decide to elucidate the phenomenon of the quality of internationalisation/globalisation of HE are all issues that call for further elaboration and research. The Concept of Internationalisation Bartell (2003), referring to Ellingboe’s (1998) and Mestenhauser’s (1998) views on internationalisation in HE, extends the meaning of the concept by saying: internationalization conveys a variety of understandings, interpretations and applications, anywhere from a minimalist, instrumental and static view, such as securing external funding for study abroad programs, through international exchange of students, conducting research internationally, to a view of internationalization as a complex, all encompassing and policydriven process, integral to and permeating the life, culture, curriculum and instruction as well as research activities of the university and its members. (Bartell, 2003, p. 46)

Bartell’s notion of enlargement/broadening concerns the assertion that it is helpful to make a distinction between internationalisation and the concept of ‘globalisation’. This may be achieved by applying three phases to internationalisation: a multi-domestic phase, a multinational phase and a global or transnational phase. Globalisation, on the other hand, can be viewed ‘as an advanced phase in the evolving process of internationalization’ (Bartell, 2003, pp. 46-47). Bartell further maintains that ‘internationalization may be viewed as occurring on a continuum’ and that ‘HE can no longer merely espouse universal values at the rhetorical level but must promote understanding through interpersonal, cross-cultural, international and shared experience’ (p. 51). Discussions concerning the concept of globalisation are obviously complex and far-reaching. The present article will therefore not elaborate on definitions of the concept per se, since the issue here is primarily to raise questions concerned with pedagogical implications of the process of 122

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation internationalisation in HE. While it is relevant to differentiate between the meaning of globalisation and internationalisation of education, the point here is that the internationalisation of HE concerns educational activities, whereas globalisation might not. Furthermore, it is argued that the issue of internationalisation and globalisation, in relation to HE, has mainly been discussed from a political-economic-policy perspective, and we therefore need to complete the picture and stress other angles as well. For instance, Bartell expands the idea of ‘exchanges between countries’ in terms of various meeting platforms, and suggests that increased internationalisation in HE could be exemplified by distance learning technologies, ‘e-learning’, including interactive teleconferencing, enabling students located thousands of miles apart in different countries to interact in real time in a virtual classroom ... At the institutional level, the challenge and the opportunity are to globalize the entire research and scholarly enterprise. (Bartell, 2003, p. 48)

However, questions of teaching and learning still need to be addressed more explicitly. Internationalisation and Intercultural Knowledge The author’s own concern is primarily with learning, viewing internationalisation in HE as an opportunity to develop curriculum objectives concerned with (flows of) intercultural phenomena. On a meta-level, the author draws on Yang’s view of internationalisation: the rationale for internationalisation lies in an understanding of the universal nature of the advancement of knowledge. While knowledge is of the contextual, the advancement of human knowledge that is based on common bonds of humanity is arguably a global enterprise. Universities are, therefore, by nature of their commitment to advancing human knowledge, international institutions. (Yang, 2002, p. 85)

This view has the potential of opening up the development of intercultural knowledge in HE. Above all, there is a need to develop international education objectives, in particular abilities and competencies in various types of education within HE, giving them a clear and visible position within the curricula. Internationalisation of HE and Lower Order or Higher Order Learning In the present article, it is argued that there is a need to pay attention to variations in meaning and understanding in learning situations, underpinned by the idea of a theoretical framework emphasising the development of interculturally constituted knowledge and a holistic approach to learning. Both curriculum and didactical awareness need to be stressed in order to support a higher order of learning with the possibility for developing ‘higher-order abilities’ (see Bloom, 1956). This standpoint considers the learner as an active and conscious participant in his/her learning processes, in line with the view held in the phenomenographic research tradition (see, for example, Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997). However, the quality of learning is also dependent on the learning situations that are offered and the opportunities that are afforded to discuss explicit learning goals. If the goal is for the student to become interculturally knowledgeable, developing crosscultural knowledge, skills and abilities, then these aims also need to be more distinctly emphasised in curricula, and become a central part of all HE contexts. In order to create competence and knowledge innovation, as well as an emerging internationalised culture and competence-based understanding, it would be necessary to support the students’ development of competencies related to learning from a cross-cultural perspective. To be effective, this learning mode must be supported by curriculum and didactical approaches in teaching and learning situations stressing that students should acquire the ability to construct and deconstruct social and behavioural patterns and habitus (here taken in a sense converging with Bourdieu’s use of the concept habitués; cf. Bourdieu, 1977). Furthermore, students and teachers need to develop the capacity of relating to relevant cross-cultural flows of various kinds. Sufficient attention must be devoted to the fact that we are facing a world in change, and this includes our view of the university as such. One might then ask what should be placed on the 123

Monne Wihlborg meta-agenda – what are the strategic questions we need to address? Suggestions have been made that education should include ‘critical social science with enlightenment, rationality and political Bildung as superior categories’ (Strand, 2007, p. 270 with reference to Dale, 1976, p. 7). It has also been advanced that HE should especially consider ‘flows’, identifying flows of ‘knowledge’ and ‘networks’ that are relevant within specific fields of occupation/work (Becher & Trowler, 2001). In relation to internationalisation, Freedman (1998) suggests that curriculum should be organised to permit students to see concepts in their complexity ... the structure of curriculum should promote the learning of both deep and broad knowledge and focus less on sequential and hierarchical knowledge and more on flexibility, interpretative analysis and interactive instruction. (Freedman, 1998, p. 44)[8]

These and many other standpoints need to ignite a discussion on the direction HE is taking and allow decision making to be informed by real awareness of the issues at stake. The Importance of Pedagogy as a Human Activity in an International Context and the Importance of Experience Peters (2003) argues that ‘a critical pedagogy of differences’ of a genuinely multicultural and internationalist kind and a pedagogy suitable for the future is ‘located at the interstices and in the interplay between a “democracy to come” and a “subject to come”, a global subject whose critical function it is to both initiate and interrogate the International’ (Peters, 2003, p. 327). Pedagogy and learning are very much activities that build on assumptions concerning people’s lifeworld, socio-intercultural contexts and formal educational contexts, as well as framings of such contexts of interaction between people. By its very nature, learning from the learner’s perspective is assumed to involve an aspect that is in some way existential in character, related to the learner’s existence as an integrated part of the learning experience. Today, this is frequently expressed as lifelong and life-wide learning (Faure, 1972; Furter, 1977).[9] According to the results from the series of empirical studies the present article draws on, this dimension of learning was identified as ‘personal growth’. This can be compared to the results of some phenomenographic studies, for instance Marton et al (1993), where an existential aspect was added to learning and described in terms of ‘learning as changing as a person’ (p. 292). The object of learning was conceptualised as expressing a ‘new way of seeing those phenomena dealt with in the learning material ... and seeing the world differently means ... change as a person’ (p. 292). The influences of curricular objectives (stated by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education [HsV 2002:1 R]) also have an impact in relation to the general internationalisation of HE in terms of the emphasis on lifelong learning. Drawing on Hegel and the German term Bildung, lifelong learning in HE in Sweden (SFS 1992:1434; HsV, 1993:100) should be understood as a process reaching beyond the institutionalised role/position of the learner in a formal educational context. The implications, therefore, not only include the development of professional competencies, but also the foundations of citizenship. Lifelong learning, according to the author, can be viewed in two ways: as a product and as a process. It involves both education that is related to a formal educational context and limited in time (though this may take the form of some kind of recurrent event), and knowledge and learning ‘over time’ as a continuum, with both ways assumed to be both informal and formal in character. Lifelong learning focuses on the learner’s perspective and a personal profit/benefit involving a deep understanding of educational content. Lifelong learning supposes that each individual learner (meaning a learner in any formal/educational context in HE) becomes a concerned and involved actor in his or her own learning processes. While informed by considerations of lifelong learning, additionally, the view held in the present article is that a deep approach in teaching and learning in any formal learning context opens up and supports a relational approach to learning in aiming at revealing human experience and awareness by relating both to new and previous knowledge. The relational view referred to in this article draws on work within the phenomenographic research tradition (see, for example, Trigwell & Prosser, 1996, 1997; Marton & Booth, 1997; Biggs, 1999). A reasonable consequence of the developments outlined above is to assume that education as a whole should be concerned with how we can learn from a holistic viewpoint involving an existential experience (i.e. a dimension of personal growth). Logically, the students’ learning 124

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation process would be based on the assumption of both individual and cultural variation, which would per se include various ways of experiencing something (such as experiencing learning of intercultural content), connecting various societal levels (Robertson [1992], for instance, talks about an emergent holistic consciousness). Robertson (1992) asserts that globalisation involves relating the individual and national points to a supranational consciousness, and the linkages between the individual self and national society, as well as between the international system of societies and humanity in general, will create a holistic approach. Another study with theoretically and empirically grounded typology, by Ramsey & Latting (2005), elaborates on 14 intergroup competence skills that are applicable across social group differences. The skills include connecting the personal to the cultural and societal, and ‘both cultural and diversity competences refer to the ability to establish effective relationships with members of diverse populations’ (p. 266). Ramsey & Latting also refer to Arrendondo et al (1996) and Cox & Beale (1997), who in their studies advocate for diversity and cultural competence in terms of ‘(a) awareness about one’s own biases and the benefits of change; (b) understanding and knowledge, particularly about specific cultural groups; and (c) action strategies for change, often including cross-cultural communications skills’ (Ramsey & Latting, 2005, p. 266). The pedagogical issue at stake becomes a question of how we can use a holistic approach in teaching, while also involving variations. Using variations of experience and cultural influences in social science research in an educational context not only allows us to gain access to and open up a culturally constituted base of knowledge, but also to understand the educational context and learning outcomes against the whole, as well as in relation to the curricular objectives and accordingly developed competencies. Marton describes a phenomenon and the way of experiencing a phenomenon as the complex involving all the possible ways of experiencing it, including on an imaginary level, meaning ways already found, as well as those not yet found. It is further argued that the way of experiencing a phenomenon is related as parts and whole, also implying that any phenomenon is inexhaustible (Marton & Säljö, 1976; Marton, 1986). De Vita & Case (2003) suggest the need for ‘Rethinking the Internationalisation Agenda in UK [United Kingdom] Higher Education’ (p. 383). Their article highlights some of the current problems, saying that ‘simply flavouring curricula with “international” or “global” elements fails to address more fundamental issues of the educational process posed by multicultural recruitment and teaching’ (p. 383). The authors claim that there is a need for ‘a reclamation of the Internationalisation agenda on the part of practitioners who are interested in creating culturally inclusive, fair and genuinely educational forms of multicultural HE teaching and assessment’ (p. 383). The author especially agrees with their assertion concerning the need for educational reform, and their suggestion that we must become more aware of both how we teach and what approaches we have to learning – that is, become didactically aware. This objective would be supported by a curriculum-oriented theoretical approach to the internationalisation of HE, concerned with a higher order of learning as an outcome. The term multicultural is more problematic, Readings (1996) mainly suggesting an understanding of the specifics of different cultures based on the idea of maintaining a logic of indifference and supporting qualitative homogenisation by separation from ‘others’. In contrast to the notion of multiculturalism as a homogenisation of differences seen by Readings, Stenhouse (1967, p. 16) suggests the term intercultural, to be used in the sense that a phenomenon would be investigated by looking through a lens understanding a meaning variation, opening up the development of a mutual understanding. Culture is, in this view, seen as ‘a medium bridging the gap ... culture consists of a complex of shared understandings which serve as a medium through which individual human minds interact in communication with one another’ (Wertsch, 1991, p. 10). This, as interpreted by the author of this article, supports the development of cross-cultural understanding, in merging variations of meanings and understandings, eventually creating a cross-cultural identity. A personal-growth aspect could be discerned in the data (studies I and II) in relation to learning and knowledge of an intercultural nature – in other words, intercultural learning also involves developing as a person.

125

Monne Wihlborg Variations in Meaning and Understanding in Learning: an individual and a collective issue In order to support learning of intercultural content, it would be possible to start from a field of variations, based on students’ various ways of experiencing knowledge content of an intercultural character, and doing what Trigwell (2000) [10] describes as the core issue in all teaching: regarding ‘teaching as helping students change conceptions’ and ‘helping students change their ... world views’ (p. 77). A deep approach in teaching has been observed to support a deep approach in students’ learning, where the main intentions are to understand and be able to relate ideas to previous knowledge and experience(s), to interact with educational/knowledge content from a critical stance, and to be able to use organising principles to integrate ideas and relate evidence to conclusions and arguments (see, for example, Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Marton et al, 1984). It can be argued that learning concerned with intercultural knowledge content opens up for variations in meaning related to a learning object. What is being studied, related to aspects of internationalisation in any given learning context, is no longer embedded in a univocal cultural frame of reference, but becomes a collective issue of importance that needs to be defined and situated. Another aspect is to acknowledge the importance of individual experience, understanding and meaning – in other words, individual variations in ways of experiencing something – related to any of the learning objectives, and more particularly in teaching concerned with intercultural content. Expressed somewhat metaphorically, one could speak of a relational, simultaneously adjusting companionship as the incentive for intertwining individual and collective learning structures. This view implies a holistic approach to learning, while emphasising a relationship between individual and collective experience. However, realised and constituted on an individual level, this becomes an existential self-realised/self-discovered aspect. In the data from the empirical studies, this appeared in relation to a ‘personal growth’ experience intertwined with a learning experience (Wihlborg, 1999, p. 539 [study I]; 2004a, pp. 443-446 [study II]). Thus, from the learner’s perspective, the experience of personal growth is related to, or intertwined with, the learning experience. This can be pictured in terms of self-awareness, allied with the experience in learning held by the person concerned, while also being intertwined with the totality of the educational experiences; a relational, simultaneously adjusting companionship, which is mainly developed through an understanding of intercultural knowledge when internationalised teaching and learning take place. Concluding Remarks In this article, arguments have been put forward in favour of a shift in (research) perspective in order to understand how internationalisation in HE is developed in practice. The results of the empirical studies that underpin the rationale of the discussion in this article stress that participants did not share a mutual understanding of the phenomenon of internationalisation, nor of the curriculum. The results drawn on also imply that teachers’ lack of pedagogical/didactical theoretical awareness has consequences for students in teaching and learning situations, and influences their learning outcomes (Wihlborg, 2004b, 2005; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, 2008/submitted). This relationship also constitutes the pedagogical issue that has evolved from the results of the studies. Two dimensions are characterised as typical approaches to the internationalisation of teaching and learning in HE (Svensson & Wihlborg, 2007, 2008/submitted). One revolves around the question of students becoming internationalised, while the other concerns the question of students developing knowledge, capabilities and competencies related to their future profession/field of work. In this last section there follow some general viewpoints regarding curriculum development. The arguments support the idea that in the constitution of knowledge in HE, variations in meaning and understanding, influenced by cultural differences, also would open up a more holistic understanding of the world around us. This, in turn, would promote a socially valid sustainability. Expressed in a normative sense, borrowing the voice of the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Literature Jean-Maire Le Clézio, we have to start to listen to everyone, all cultural voices – we do not really listen to each other, and to some hardly at all (referring to the African continent).[11] In pedagogical 126

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation terms, and with the voice of Buber (1964, 1996), this would be a dialogue based on the notion of an I–thou relationship, where the dialogue rests on the idea that those involved enter the dialogue with their sincere whole being and presence. Curriculum Development in the Light of the Idea of Culturally Constituted Knowledge One of the arguments that may be advanced for why curricular change and educational change [12] should primarily take place from a pedagogical/didactical stance and perspective is that they are fundamentally an epistemological issue. To remain in accord with an overall holistic perspective, curriculum objectives and rationales should be open to both contextual possibilities and constraints. The argument draws on the tradition of Paulo Freire (1973), expressed in philosophical terms as a tradition that takes into account the importance that the learner seeks identity and meaning in life, in relation and connection to his/her lifeworld, community and whole world. According to the phenomenographic tradition, the relational character of learning (Marton et al, 1984; Marton & Booth, 1997; Svensson, 1997) implies that there are no contextual influences in learning without an experiencing subject. This holds both on an individual and a collective level (Panikkar, 1991; Appadurai, 1996; Svensson, 1998; Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). By necessity, any individual develops and constitutes understanding and meaning through his/her own contextual experience, but nevertheless also, by necessity, has to acknowledge other individuals’ variations in ways of experiencing objects of knowledge by participating in a wider, shared learning context. A pedagogy that supports internationalised learning thus implies an awareness of possible flows of elements that might facilitate the constitution of meaning and understanding of internationally relevant features for students and teachers, in the overlapping contexts informed by the specific educational setting and ‘international society’. What is urgently called for today is a curriculum theory involving the ontological and epistemological rationales of internationalised teaching and learning, as well as the changes ensuing from this internationalisation, in terms of a new scholarly approach. The underlying view of knowledge would involve a dimension of ‘categories of flows’ to support internationalisation in HE both generally and specifically, depending on the field of work/profession (Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). The Swedish educational policy formulates among central learning objectives the development of critical awareness. This objective is in accordance with what Hegel (1977) elaborates on in terms of the development of awareness, involving self-reflexivity as an individual learner. As put forward in the study by Ramsey & Latting (2005), it involves an awareness of one’s own biases and is further discussed in terms of the skill to ‘eliminate bias, prejudice, and discrimination’ (p. 266, with reference to Sue, 2001, pp. 798-799). In a Swedish government bill (Ministry of Education, 2004/05) it is stated that: [any] obstacle to internationalisation must be eliminated, in Sweden and internationally ... Universities and other higher education institutions must conduct active internationalisation efforts so as to enhance the quality of their education and promote understanding of other countries and international conditions and relations. (Ministry of Education, 2004/05, p. 1, in the English summary)

This competence is also essential in any practice in order to promote changes. Educational practice (i.e. those involved in developing teaching and learning) should accordingly be able to critically reflect on what is meant by internationalised teaching and learning in a specific context (and ultimately a field of work), and for what reasons and by what claims any particular concretised interpretations of the overarching curricular objectives that represent internationalisation of that educational programme exist. And, if something is missing, what, then, are the ontological and epistemological arguments for asserting what should be included in order to achieve these curricular objectives? How students learn and why the acquired knowledge is relevant would then become explicit issues open for reflection. Ultimately, this also opens up a discussion of which features to change or support and promote in practice, and whether these would be time-relevant or not. Theoretical assumptions about pedagogy could more consistently be developed in order to achieve a holistic view of learning of intercultural features and elements, to develop intercultural competencies. 127

Monne Wihlborg Svensson (1998) asserts that ‘to deal with the flow of culture, there is a need for a meaning of culture, that is, focusing more on the elements of culture, their constitution, nature and relations’ (p. 15). Referring to Panikkar (1991), Svensson (1998, p. 15) further argues that it is between meaning on an individual level, the nature of man and the meaning of culture that we have to conceptualise elements of culture. A dynamic view of culture involves both the relational activity of an individual cultural activity and a collective culture. How do people learn from another culture? By learn we mean how they change their externalizations of meaning in relation to externalizations coming from another culture. Although we do not see this change as mainly a matter of acquiring or reproducing the given externalization, the relation to the given is fundamental to the understanding of the change together with the reaction to one’s own context of experience and tradition. (Svensson, 1998, p. 127)

In combination with cultural flows, this can be seen as an ‘exchange of culture between people representing different cultural traditions’ (Svensson, 1998, p. 19). Svensson (1998) goes on to say that ‘the combination of a focus on cultural elements and cultural flows is fundamental to an educational perspective and an educational perspective is fundamental to a deeper understanding of the creation and flow of cultural units’ (p. 19). Although the internationalisation of HE is frequently discussed by writers in the educational sphere, no coherent discourse has yet been established that investigates the phenomenon from a pedagogical/didactical stance – a conclusion that is also supported by the author’s own empirical studies. Today, it is the author’s conviction that internationalisation is a worldwide process and, above all, should be treated on a full scale, in terms of it being an ongoing cross-border activity. The phenomenon needs to be explored in didactical terms, involving teachers’ ways of handling teaching and learning aspects of internationalisation in practice, for example, raising questions of a didactical nature concerning the constitution of knowledge and an understanding of the phenomenon in relation to curricular objectives stated for HE. The author would argue that this is one of our most important shared pedagogical and societal challenges for the twenty-first century. Acknowledgement This work was supported in part by a grant from Gyllenstiernska Krapperupsstiftelsen, Sweden. Notes [1] In Sweden, the term ‘teacher’ is also used for teaching in universities. In the empirical studies referred to in this article, all of the teachers were teaching in HE and had at least a Master’s degree. [2] The aim is not to describe internationalisation in HE in Sweden from a historical perspective. However, the overall assertion should be situated against the background of what is known as the ‘democratisation’ process in Swedish society, as well as the liberal education process that has been in progress since the end of the Second World War; see also: ‘Two Decades of Reform in Higher Education in Europe: 1980 onwards’. Brussels: Eurydice, 2000). http://www.eurydice.org [3] The full version of the government bill (Ministry of Education, 2004/05:162) is only available in Swedish. The five objectives are quoted from the English summary. For further information, contact: [email protected] [4] The co-author of study IV is Lennart Svensson, who is based at the Department of Education, Lund University, Sweden. [5] See Gurwitsch (1964) and Marton & Booth (1997) for the terms ‘external’ and ‘internal horizon’. [6] Intercultural content in epistemological terms needs to be investigated empirically and exemplified, as well as discussed theoretically in a more explicit way (see also Svensson & Wihlborg, 2008/submitted). [7] See also Bowden (2004) for his elaboration on ‘capabilities-driven curriculum design’. [8] Also cited in De Vita & Case (2003, p. 388).

128

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation [9] The term ‘lifelong learning’, drawing on the term Bildung, was debated in the 1960s and 1970s in connection with HE when UNESCO suggested that educational systems should be based on the idea that people develop learning through lifelong education (Faure, 1972; Furter, 1977). [10] Also discussed in research by Trigwell & Prosser (1996, 1997) concerning changing approaches to teaching. [11] From the televised round-table debate of the winners of the Nobel Prize (19 December 2008, Svt2 (Swedish Television 2), rephrased by the author. [12] The theme of educational change is continuously reviewed in, for instance, the Journal of Educational Change (Kluwer).

References Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Arrendondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, et al (1996) Operationalization of the Multicultural Counseling Competencies, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24(1), 42-78. Barnett, R. (2000) Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2004) The Purposes of Higher Education and the Changing Face of Academia, London Review of Education, 2(1), 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1474846042000177483 Barnett, R. (2007) A Will to Learn: being a student in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Bartell, M. (2003) Internationalization of Universities: a university culture-based framework, Higher Education, 45, 43-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021225514599 Becher, T. & Trowler, P.R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowden, J.A. (2004) Capabilities-driven Curriculum Design, in C. Baillie & I. Moore (Eds) Effective Learning and Teaching in Engineering. London: Routledge. Buber, M. (1964) The Philosophy of Dialogue, in S. Rome & B. Rome (Eds) Philosophical Interrogations, 27-29. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Buber, M. (1996) I and Thou, trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Touchstone. (Original work published 1923.) Cox, T.J. & Beale, R.L. (1997) Developing Competency to Manage Diversity. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Dahlin, B. (2004) Education for Citizenship in the Context of the State, the Market, and Civil Society: where does it belong? Paper presented at Philosophy of Education conference, Oxford, 2-4 April. Dale, E.L. (1976) Inledning [Introduction], in E.L. Dale (Ed.) Kritisk pedagogikk [Critical pedagogy]. Oslo: Pax. De Vita, G. & Case, P. (2003) Rethinking the Internationalisation Agenda in UK Higher Education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877032000128082 Ellingboe, B.J. (1998) Divisional Strategies to Internationalize a Campus Portrait: results, resistance, and recommendations of a case study at a US university, in J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds) Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: internationalizing the campus, 198-338. Phoenix: American Council on Education & Oryx Press. Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm. Faure, E. (1972) Learning to Be: the world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO. Freedman, K. (1998) Culture in the Curriculum: internationalising learning by design, in J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds) Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: internationalizing the campus. Phoenix: American Council on Education & Oryx Press. Freire, P. (1973) Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum. Furter, P. (1977) The Planner and Lifelong Education. Paris: UNESCO. Gurwitsch, A. (1964) The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Hegel, G.W.F. (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

129

Monne Wihlborg Högskoleverket (HsV) [National Agency for Higher Education] (1993:100) Högskoleförordningen [The Higher education ordinance]. Stockholm: [Swedish National Agency for Higher Education]. Högskoleverket (HsV) [National Agency for Higher Education] (1998:16 R) Utbildning och forskning för strategisk internationalisering: redovisning av ett regeringsuppdrag [Education and research for strategic internationalisation: account for a government commission]. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. Högskoleverket (HsV) [National Agency for Higher Education] (2001:1) R Livslångt lärande som idé och praktik i högskolan [Lifelong learning: ideas and practice in higher education]. Report by B. Askelind, U. Christiansson & R. Foss-Fridlizius. Stockholm Högskoleverket. Jarvis, P. (1996) The Globalisation of Nurse Education within Higher Education, Nurse Education Today, 17, 22-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0260-6917(97)80075-5 Jarvis, P. (2000) The Changing University: meeting a need and needing to change, Higher Education Quarterly, 54(1), 43-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00144 Knight, J. (1999) Internationalisation of Higher Education, in J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds) Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education, 13-28. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/IMHE. Kälvemark, T. & Wende, M. van der (1997) National Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education in Europe. Högskoleverket [National Agency for Higher Education] 1997: 8 S. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography: a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, Journal of Thought, 21, 28-49. Marton, F. (1992a) Phenomenography, in T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds) The International Encyclopaedia of Education, 2nd edn, 4424-4429. Oxford: Pergamon. Marton, F. (1992b) On the Structures of Teachers’ Awareness, in I. Carlgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage (Eds) Teachers’ Minds in Actions: research of teachers’ thinking and practice, 28-42. London: Falmer Press. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and Awareness. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993) Conceptions of Learning, International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277-300. Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (Eds) (1984) The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976) On Qualitative Differences in Learning II: outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127. Mestenhauser, J.A. (1998) Portraits of an International Curriculum: an uncommon multidimensional perspective, in J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds) Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: internationalizing the campus, 3-39. Phoenix: American Council on Education & Oryx Press. Ministry of Education (2004/05) New World – new university. Government Bill (2004/05:162). Stockholm: Ministry of Education, Research and Culture in Sweden. Panikkar, R. (1991) Indic Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism from the Perspective of Interculturation, in K. Pathil (Ed.) Religious Pluralism: an Indian Christian perspective. Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Peters, M.A. (2003) Derrida, Pedagogy and Calculation of the Subject, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(3), 313-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-5812.00030 Ramsey, V.J. & Latting, J.K. (2005) A Typology of Intergroup Competencies, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 41(3), 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886305277974 Readings, R. (1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: social theory and global culture. London. Sage. Robertson, R. (1995), Glocalization: time- space and homogeneity-heterogeneity, in M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson, R. (Eds) Global Modernities. London: Sage. Robertson, R. (1998) Globalization: social theory and global culture. London: Sage. SFS [Swedish Statute Book] 1992:1434, revised, 1994:267; 1995:96,817; 1996:298, 555, 1392; 1997:797, 1330; 1998:1832; 2000:260, 830 Högskolelagen [Swedish Higher Education Act]. Stockholm: Swedish Statute Book. Smeby, J.-C. & Trondal, J. (2005) Globalisation or Europeanisation? International Contact among University Staff, Higher Education, 49, 449-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2826-5

130

The Pedagogical Dimension of Internationalisation Sporn, B. (1996) Managing University Culture: an analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches, Higher Education, 32, 41-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00139217 Stenhouse, L. (1967) Culture and Education. London: Nelson. Strand, T. (2007) The Discipline of Education in a World of Change, Nordisk Pedagogik, 27(3), 265-276. Strömholm, S. (1994) Den svenska högskolan: lägesbestämning och framtidsdebatt [The Swedish university college: progress report and debate for the future]. Stockholm: Ratio. Sue, D.W. (2001) Multidimensional Facets of Cultural Competence, The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 790-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000001296002 Svensson, L. (1997) Theoretical Foundations of Phenomenography, Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2), 159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436970160204 Svensson, L. (Ed.) (1998) Meeting Rivers: a report on transnational cultural flows and national cultural processes. Lund: Lund University Press. Svensson, L. & Wihlborg, M. (2007) Internationalisation in the Swedish Nurse Education from the Perspective of Teachers Involved: an interview study, Higher Education, 53, 279-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8157-3 Svensson, L. & Wihlborg, M. (2008/submitted) Internationalising the Content of Higher Education: the need for a curriculum perspective, Higher Education. Trigwell, K. (2000) A Phenomenographic Interview on Phenomenography, in J.A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds) Phenomenography. Melbourne: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996) Changing Approaches to Teaching: a relational perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381211 Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1997) Towards an Understanding of Individual Acts of Teaching and Learning, Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 241-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436970160210 Urry, J. (2005) The Complexities of the Global, Theory, Culture and Society, 22(5), 235-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276405057201 Vaira, M. (2004) Globalization and Higher Education Organizational Change: a framework for analysis, Higher Education, 48, 483-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046711.31908.e5 Waters, M. (2001) Globalization, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Wende, M. van der (1996) Quality Assurance in Internationalisation, in U. De Winter (Ed.) Internationalisation and Quality Assurance: goals, strategies and instruments. EAIE Occasional Paper No. 10. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE). Wende, M. van der (1997) Missing Links, in T. Kälvemark & M. van der Wende (Eds) National Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education in Europe. Högskoleverket [National Agency for Higher Education] 1997: 8 S. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. Wertsch, J.V. (1991) Voices of the Mind: a socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wihlborg, M. (1999) Student Nurses’ Conceptions of Internationalisation: a phenomenographic study, Nurse Education Today, 19, 533-542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/nedt.1999.0343 Wihlborg, M. (2004a) Student Nurses’ Conceptions of Internationalisation in General and as an Essential Part of Swedish Nurses’ Education, Higher Education Research and Development, 23(4), 433-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000276459 Wihlborg, M. (2004b) Teachers’ Understanding of Internationalisation as an Essential Part of Nursing Education in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(5), 529-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/003138042000272168 Wihlborg, M. (2005) A Pedagogical Stance on Internationalising Education: an empirical study of Swedish nurse education from the perspectives of students and teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lund University, Sweden. Yang, R. (2002) University Internationalisation: its meaning, rationales and implications, Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980120112968

MONNE WIHLBORG works at Lund University in the Faculty of Medicine and at Blekinge Institute of Technology in Sweden, and is a member of the international board in the Faculty of Medicine. Correspondence: Assistant Professor Monne Wihlborg, Department of Health & Social

131

Monne Wihlborg Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Box 157, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden ([email protected]).

132