Increasingly, internationalisation at home and internationalisation of the curriculum are adopted by universities across the globe but their systemic implementation is a complex process. For instance, academics and academic disciplines understand and approach internationalisation differently, as previous studies have shown. However, there is little research on the role of such disciplinary perspectives in relation to different internationalisation practices and interventions. Using the Becher-Biglan framework of academic tribes, this exploratory study compares 12 undergraduate programmes at a Dutch university of applied sciences and addresses the question if the different disciplinary approaches to internationalisation as identified in previous studies are also reflected in the choices of internationalisation at home activities. The findings show there is more variation in the range of activities rather than in the types of activities and that it is within the rationales underlying those choices where the influence of disciplinary perspectives is more visible.
International education is a relatively new field and until recently, there was no formal education to prepare practitioners. This means that people working in international education are a colourful and diverse group, coming from a wide range of disciplines, which definitely adds to the attraction of the field. I call international education a field rather than a discipline since it is composed of a variety of established disciplines, such as languages, educational sciences, psychology, business, anthropology, history and even, in my case, classical archaeology. For this lecture, I have chosen to return to my original discipline and discuss global learning as the stages of an archaeological excavation. Cutting though the subsequent layers represents a history of international education but also my own professional history. By digging deeper down, layer after layer, I hope to uncover the essence of global learning in order to make its benefits available for all our students. This lecture consists of four sections. In the first section, I want to go back to the time when archaeology was a new discipline and see what we can learn from the research conducted at that time. In the second section I will reveal the layers of internationalisation and global learning until we come to the layer that we are currently exploring. In the third section, I will look at some of the factors and trends that will have an impact on global learning in the years to come. This shows that circumstances are quite different from when the excavation started and that global education is therefore dynamic. Finally, I will discuss what research the Research Group Global Learning will conduct, how and with whom, in the coming years.
This article outlines the expected benefits of ERASMUS+ Teaching/Training Exchanges for individuals, the institution as a whole and the degree programmes of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS), the Netherlands. The method employed was a series of semi-structured interviews, following initial email contact of 32 (approx. 1.5% of staff) who had been on exchange, or were scheduled to be, during the academic year. Interviews were agreed with 7 staff. Leask (2015) identified a lack of research in this area, and it is hoped this research will help to stimulate thinking on this issue. Despite the small sample size, general preliminary conclusions can be drawn and further research is encouraged. The article examines processes and procedures in place for monitoring such exchanges, and it also explores control and monitoring prior to the exchange taking place, as well as post-exchange outcomes and evaluations. It describes the context and theoretical frameworks and discusses the major findings, including accounts of the participants’ experiences and the benefits for them as individuals, their perceptions, their line manager’s responses and institutional policies and processes. The conclusion has recommendations for improvement based upon the participants’ comments. The main message of this article is the need to set goals for the individual and the institution and to evaluate them upon return.
