The term “Internationalization at Home” and its definition were first introduced in 2001 (Crowther et al 2001). Since then, strongly related and overlapping concepts and definitions have emerged, notably Internationalization of the Curriculum and Campus Internationalization, which have led to confusion over terminology and risk distracting attention from the main job of implementing internationalized curricula. This chapter focuses on the concept and definition of Internationalization at Home. It first critically explores three accepted definitions: 1. Internationalization; 2. Comprehensive Internationalization; and 3. Internationalization of the Curriculum. This is followed by a discussion of three notions which are more contested: the distinction between internationalization at home and abroad; the OECD definition of an internationalized curriculum; and Campus Internationalization. Their similarities to and differences from Internationalization at Home (IaH) are discussed. Next, recent developments in conceptualizing Internationalization at Home and in its implementation are presented. It will be argued that, while Internationalization of the Curriculum is the overarching term, the concept of IaH within that is still valuable in certain contexts and for certain purposes. On the basis of these arguments, it is maintained that the current definition of IaH does not provide sufficient support for those with an interest in internationalizing domestic curricula. The authors therefore propose a new working definition and identify challenges that await those who want to implement Internationalization at Home.
This article takes the 3rd Global Survey Report of the International Association of Universities (IAU) as a starting point. The results of this worldwide survey were published in September 2010. The article discusses four questions from the survey that include internationalisation at Home (IaH) and internationalisation of the curriculum as response items. outcomes of these four questions are commented on and, where relevant and possible, compared to the results of the previous survey, which was conducted in 2005 and published in 2006. It is argued that the sections of the Global Survey that mention internationalisation of the curriculum and IaH use terminology that is not always adequate for the purpose and at times even seems contradictory. The Global Survey includes a question on internal obstacles to internationalisation, which will also be discussed here. These obstacles include the lack of engagement and limited expertise of academic staff in relation to the internationalisation process. The response items for this question do not connect these obstacles to internationalisation of the curriculum explicitly, but it is argued here that a relationship indeed exists. The same is true for issues around foreign language proficiency, which may have a strong impact on internationalisation of the home curriculum. In the conclusion, several additional questions are raised that could serve to get a clearer picture of the development of internationalisation of the curriculum in a global perspective.
MULTIFILE
The 'implementation' and use of smart home technology to lengthen independent living of non-instutionalized elderly have not always been flawless. The purpose of this study is to show that problems with smart home technology can be partially ascribed to differences in perception of the stakeholders involved. The perceptual worlds of caregivers, care receivers, and designers vary due to differences in background and experiences. To decrease the perceptual differences between the stakeholders, we propose an analysis of the expected and experienced effects of smart home technology for each group. For designers the effects will involve effective goals, caregivers are mainly interested in effects on workload and quality of care, while care receivers are influenced by usability effects. Making each stakeholder aware of the experienced and expected effects of the other stakeholders may broaden their perspectives and may lead to more successful implementations of smart home technology, and technology in general.
The findings suggests that participation in music practices can significantly support caregivers' and nurses' contact with the people to whom they give care and the healthcare professionals' insights into the patients' and residents' personhood. Music can create experienced changes in the care environment through kairotic moments of connectivity and intimacy of the musical interaction. The music sessions support and reinforce the person-centred values of care delivery.The meaning of participatory music practices for the well-being and learning of healthcare professionals working with ageing patients and nursing home residents.
