This thesis contributes to the understanding of the intercultural experiences of students and staff in an international education setting, and has
implications for academic debate, policy development and practice within HE institutions more broadly.
8.3.1 Contribution to knowledge
This project has adopted a theoretical framework distinct from most other researchers in the field. Appadurai’s notion ‘Imagined Worlds’ (1990) and Bhabha’s ‘Third Space’ (1994), complemented by Edward and Usher’s ‘Pedagogy of (Dis)location’ (2000) and Wenger’s ‘Communities of Practice’ (1998) make it possible to capture the complexities of studying and working in an international education setting and provide valuable support for the idea that the university where the research was undertaken is failing to fully exploit the potential benefits.
The findings demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of 'Eduscape' (as discussed in chapter 3) in identifying dimensions of internationalisation that are presently invisible, such as the recognition of international students as valuable cultural resources for ‘Internationalisation at Home’. The notion of ‘Eduscape’ could also be used to create an awareness of the lived experience
of students and professionals working with international students. The analysis of student narratives through the lens of an 'Eduscape' also reveals the complex relationship among the intersecting scapes associated with studying abroad, thus challenging the essentialist view of
internationalisation as a straightforward, even celebratory development that only brings benefits. By examining the context, relationships and identities of students and staff, it opens up ideas and possibilities for more inclusive practice.
8.3.2 Implications for policy
The general understanding of internationalisation is that it is a process of integrating intercultural and international dimensions in all areas of the university. The current response, however, is largely limited to increasing numbers. Nonetheless, there are many positive developments, although not 'officially' identified as internationalisation.
The current add-‐on approach cannot guarantee that the objectives of
internationalisation will be met. Genuine internationalisation should be seen as an on-‐going process rather than a product. When a university adopts a market model of internationalisation, it needs also to pay attention to ‘customer satisfaction.' Assuming that ‘happy customers’ improve word-‐of-‐ mouth reputation, recruiting efforts may be better served by ensuring the satisfaction and retention of current international students, recognized as a key influence in recommendations to new students. This approach would support the goal of maintaining the overall prestige, status and reputation of the university in international rankings.
Re-‐envisioning internationalisation must first include an examination of the market/competitive model of internationalisation, which involves naming the ways in which economic globalisation pervades the processes and practices of internationalisation. The student experiences reported in this study illustrated the many connections between globalisation and the internationalisation of the university. It is important, then, that these
experiences should be related to systemic and structural issues rather than being seen in terms of individual difficulty. An acknowledgment of the
economic dimensions would thus encourage resistance to and destabilisation of the negative impact of globalisation.
The university needs to address the changing landscape of HE by developing stronger connections with the international students themselves. Only in this way will it be possible to embed internationalisation more comprehensively in wide-‐ranging, mutually gratifying practices. One solution might be to use the notion of ‘Eduscape’ as a basis from which to theorize the many
dimensions of internationalisation. For example, the welcome events should invite both home and international students and university accommodation should not create ‘ghettos’ of home and international students.
Internationalisation is not a neutral policy but a vibrant process that involves the complex the social, cultural, political and economic dimensions of
globalisation, and its impact on HE. Acknowledging this complexity can lead educators and policy makers to avoid the damaging effects of economic imperatives and encourage a shift towards more caring and ethical practices. An internationalisation strategy is central to the development of HE in the twenty first century. If it is to be efficient then the institution must be clear what it means by internationalisation, as this is a much-‐disputed term. Consequently, the organisation must set out clearly the development needed to meet its international goals and these must inevitably include the issues arising from a diverse student population. If the economic ‘good’ is, as asserted by Harris (2011), prioritised over the educational goals, it might ultimately result in a lack of credibility for the institution’s courses.
8.3.3 Implications for practice
There appears to be very little guidance for staff at the university on approaches to pedagogy and curriculum that support intercultural
communication. While there are isolated examples of good practice and an emerging awareness of approaches that might promote intercultural
competences, there is little evidence of attempts to develop a coherent overall approach to pedagogy and curriculum.
In addition, there needs to be a closer relationship between informal and formal learning and a recognition of the importance of the social context of learning through, for example, the development of mentoring schemes. The university needs to provide opportunities for all new staff and students to collaborate with an existing student or a staff member, ideally from a different culture, to maximize the benefits of the cross-‐cultural exchange.
Leask (2009) notes that improved interactions between home and
international students are dependent on the way we use both the formal and informal curricula to encourage and reward intercultural engagement, a key outcome of an internationalised curriculum. However, this requires a campus environment and culture that motivate and reward interaction between international and home students both inside and outside classroom.
While it is unrealistic to suggest we cease to use ‘international’, geographic or ethnic labels or problematic conceptual terms such as ‘culture’, these
descriptions need to be used with awareness of their complexity. A more considered approach to the language we use to describe each other and the learning context in which we interact might go some way to improving
intercultural communication. We should also consider ways forward that will take account of situatedness of social, educational and cultural practices in universities (Ryan and Louie, 2007).
Internationalised university experiences cannot be achieved by simply increasing casual exposure between home and international students (Harrison, 2007). Rather, the tasks and activities that require students to engage in intercultural interaction should have meaning, purpose and authenticity in the students’ personal and academic contexts.
In the quest for a more inclusive understanding of what internationalisation involves, this should not be presented as a twofold relationship of
international and home or self and other (Pierce, 2003) but as a complex site of struggle, tension and conflict. By the same token, this ‘troublesome space’ in which intercultural communication occurs should be perceived as useful and transformative rather than problematic (Savin-‐Baden, 2008).
On the level of social practices, the university needs to address the tensions between home and international students, and the lack of inclusion,
consideration of and thoughtfulness about the needs of international students. The lack of such support is a serious oversight on the part of the university. By the same token, new ways of looking at teaching and learning need to be developed that do not rely simply on assumptions of previous experience. It may be useful to abandon the idea of learning styles associated with international students. Instead, the universities should adapt a wide variety of approaches to embrace the diverse ‘learning cultures’ and to level the playing field for more meaningful interactions between all students and staff (Davies and Ecclestone, 2008).