ERIC EJ584086: Difference, Globalisation and the Internationalisation of Curriculum.

5 Pages·1998·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W
Difference, globalisation and the
internationalisation of curriculum
F R L W
AZAL IZVI AND UCAS ALSH
Monash Centre for Research in International Education
The idea of internationalisation of curriculum has be- ing in Australian higher education. Many of these focus
come entrenched in Australian higher education. Almost on values of globalism and intercultural understanding
every university in Australia now professes to the need as fundamental to the management of the student
to transform its curriculum to reflect the goals of interna- diversity that has now become a conspicuous feature of
tionalisation. According to a national study conducted in Australian universities. There is a growing recognition
1995, 37 out of 38 Australian universities included a that Australian universities need to develop new litera-
policy of internationalisation in their corporate plans. cies and learning spaces that are relevant to the emerging
Furthermore, its was found that over 70 per cent of challenges of globalisation. As universities increasingly
universities had strategies for the internationalisation of adapt to competitive corporate environments in which
form and content of their curricula. (IDP 1996) The cost-effectiveness is an integral aspect of on-going de-
problem with these findings is that they do not tell us velopment, they have realised that a careful re-examina-
how the idea of internationalisation is understood. Even tion of the goals of curriculum development is required
a cursory glance at policy documents suggests a diversity if higher education is to prepare students, teachers and
of meanings. In 1995, Australian universities claimed citizens for the global environments of the approaching
over 1000 different internationalised curriculum devel- millennium.
opment initiatives. (IDP 1996) This number is most likely At the twilight of the twentieth century, there is little
to have increased in the past four years, as universities doubt that emergent social, economic and cultural con-
experiment with new initiatives and plans in response to ditions have enabled tremendous growth in processes
a changing educational environment. and possibilities of international education. At the inter-
An international comparative study conducted by the section of globalisation of financial markets, innovation
OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation in transport and information and communication tech-
(CERI) defined international curricula as “an internation- nology (ICT), as well as postcolonial shifts in the
al orientation in content, aimed at preparing students for formation of cultural identities, and changes to the
performing (professionally/socially) in an international everyday concerns of universities throughout the indus-
and multicultural context, and designed for domestic trialised world, the impact of internationalisation on
students as well as foreign students.” (OECD 1994, p. 9) learning, teaching and educational administration is as
Current mainstream understandings of internationalisa- extensive as it is complex. As education systems adjust
tion of curriculum in Australian universities are broadly to the economic and cultural climate of the late 1990s,
in line with this definition, though most people in widespread interest in internationalisation has inevita-
Australian higher education continue to view interna- bly turned towards its relationship to the design and
tionalisation as curriculum designed to broaden the implementation of curriculum. The need to develop
vocational and life options students are provided. Thus, more thorough understandings and strategies for the
attempts to meet the specific needs of international internationalisation of curriculum has steadily grown
students; to promote student exchange; to develop alongside growth in student mobility (actual and virtu-
learning packages that are appropriate for delivery in al), developments in flexible delivery and institutional
overseas locations and lead to the recognition of learn- restructuring in response to ‘new knowledge markets’
ing by international organisations, or perhaps to joint or and cultural diversification.
double degrees, are just some of the popular examples The issue of cultural diversification of Australian high-
of internationalised curriculum. For some others, inter- er education lies at the heart of the goals of internation-
nationalisation can also mean efforts to study the history alised curriculum. It should be noted, however, that the
and culture of another country or a region. Australian higher education system has always been
While these views have become mainstream, new, and diverse to a considerable extent, as a reflection of the
perhaps more expansive, ways of conceptualising the unique demographic composition of Australia. This
idea of internationalisation of curriculum are also emerg-
2/1998 Page 7
A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W
diversity was often unacknowledged and treated as international economic integration of product and cap-
something that was irrelevant to curriculum design. As a ital markets.
result, Australian curriculum remained largely Euro- However, as many theorists have pointed out, globali-
centric, reflecting European cultural production, repre- sation is both a differentiating as well as a homogenising
sented in the Arnoldian terms as “the best that has been force. According to Hall (1996), globalisation pluralises
said and thought in the world”. (Arnold 1937) It was the world by recognising the values of cultural niches
assumed that the idea of the university embodied an and local traditions. Furthermore, different societies
unwavering and singular standard of universal truth. appropriate the materials of globalisation differently.
This monoculturalism both reflected and simultaneously The global shift is thus accompanied by a language that
reproduced the assimilationalist policies of governments highlights the cultural aspects of economic relations, and
until the mid 1970s. Even in the 1980s, efforts to the need to develop products that are responsive to local
introduce multicultural perspectives in Australian higher needs, values and traditions.
education were at best minimal, and more often than not Australian higher education has not been slow to
met with either suspicion or derision. recognise this insight. In a policy statement in 1992, the
Over the past decade, however, there has been a then Minister of Education, Kim Beazley (1992, p. 5)
discernible shift in attitudes towards cultural diversity, acknowledged that Australia’s approach to internation-
not only in Australian universities but elsewhere as well. alisation of education was “too narrowly commercial
Histories and cultural traditions that were once silenced with insufficient recognition of student needs and of the
are now being acknowledged. Burbules (1997) has benefits of international education”, and that therefore a
argued that this shift is in part a reflection of the new policy discourse that emphasised educational val-
theoretical debates within the humanities where there is ues and quality, a geographical focus on the Asia Pacific
“a postmodern suspicion of ‘metanarratives’ and of region, and a broadening of Australia’s international
unifying discourses generally”. The effectiveness of education activity to include research exchanges and
committed and active social movements alongside the links and staff exchanges, was needed. With its recogni-
tremendous force of global change has produced a tion of the mutual benefits from internationalised educa-
political framework in which groups can argue for their tion and training, the Government noted that:
cultural distinctiveness against previously accepted con- ...international education is an increasingly impor-
ceptions of uniformity and consensus. A more compre- tant part of Australia’s international relations. It
hensive awareness of difference and its implications for uniquely spans the cultural, economic and interper-
personal and social development has come to be seen as sonal dimensions of international relations. It assists
a profound feature of contemporary life. Changes within cultural understanding for all parties involved. It
the nation-states as a result of this shift, moreover, are enriches Australia’s education and training systems
more closely aligned with the general processes of and the wider Australian society by encouraging a
cultural globalisation. Notions of ‘world society’, ‘glo- more international outlook. (Beazley 1992, p. 1)
balisation’ and ‘global culture’ have gained widespread
This orientation in turn enframes curriculum develop-
currency throughout academic discourse, and to a lesser
ment, whereby strategies are encouraged “which re-
extent, popular culture in general. (Connell 1996) Con-
spond to the diverse and sophisticated nature of the
siderations of cultural difference are no longer confined
global environment”. (DEET Annual Report 1995, p. 28).
to discourse of interethnic relations, managed by nation-
Internationalised curriculum based on values of “inno-
al governments, but now span the global terrain.
vation”, “flexibility” and “enterprise culture” is highlight-
Associated with a shift in the political organisation of
ed, as is the idea of the ‘client focus’, in which interna-
nation-states towards a new system of modalities, glo-
tionalised study is seen to foster an in-depth knowledge
balisation is connected to the social economic and
of conditions in that country, cultural understanding and
political transformation of the twentieth century, during
sensitivity, and the capacity to deliver products and
which time “the world transformed ever more into ‘a
services that are responsive to the distinctive needs of
single place’” (Waters 1995, p. 39) The word ‘global’
the client.
suggests a totality, something that enfolds a comprehen-
Economic and cultural aspects of international educa-
sive group of objects and beings in a way that involves
tion are thus intertwined. As Viggo Haarlov (1997)
the whole world. Processes of globalisation integrate the
argues: “There is a growing incentive to have an interna-
world into one extensive system. (Waters 1995, p. 3)
tional dimension included in higher education pro-
Recent developments in ICT, for example, involve new
grams, partly because of labour market stipulations to
flows of information and cultural representations that
this effect and partly because social developments in
defy traditional boundaries. (Appadurai 1996) The present
general are heading towards a multicultural and more
surge of globalisation features a major shift towards
globally minded society.” In a comprehensive overview
of the field, Knight and de Witt (1995) maintain that
Page 8 2/1998
A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W
internationalisation is a meaningless term without a through the practices of curriculum. To view difference
conscious effort to integrate an intercultural dimension as simply an external factor to be taken into account in
into the teaching, research and service of the institution.” the construction of curriculum is to treat it in an instru-
According to Cope and Kalantzis (1997), a key to mental manner, to regard it as involving a cultural
internationalisation is the recognition and valuing of formation that is somehow external to what goes on
global diversity and the capacity to understand and within the university. It is to assume that student diver-
respond to cultural differences, with a combination of sity is mainly relevant to issues of interpersonal relations,
local and global values, such as openness, tolerance and and not to the issues of academic content and pedago-
cosmopolitanism. gies. But to do this is to fail to see how those institutions
Most Australian universities now express this commit- within which curriculum is constructed may themselves
ment to the values of cultural diversity. The University of be culturally biased and exclusionary. What is required
Melbourne has, for example, developed a fairly exten- is a careful analysis of the political dynamics of cultural
sive policy on cultural development. Monash University interactions that form the borders of curriculum plan-
has identified engagement, innovation and internation- ning within which difference acquires significance. Fur-
alisation as its key values. The Queensland University of thermore, universities can no longer assume a position
Technology has established an office to oversee the of neutrality in the formation of curricular relations, as
implementation of its commitment to cultural diversity. somehow being external to the more general processes
RMIT University views its goal of internationalising the of intercultural articulation.
curriculum in terms of two aspects: teaching and learn- What this argument implies is that the relationship
ing which “incorporates a global, international and between curriculum and cultural difference needs to be
multicultural orientation and the promotion of interna- reconsidered in a more dynamic, relational way, rather
tional and cross cultural understanding and empathy”. than in purely instrumental terms. A better understand-
Now while this commitment to values of diversity and ing is needed of the curricular and administrative mech-
tolerance is clearly welcome, exactly how it is under- anisms through which differences are identified, marked
stood and is translated into practice is less clear. Much of out, and integrated into teaching and learning. This
the activity seems to rest on a fairly limited understand- includes an understanding of how difference works
ing of the contemporary politics of difference. In what relationally through the structural operations of curricu-
follows, we argue for a more complex view of these lum: in textbooks, in time allocation and in practices of
concepts and of curriculum, which is critically respon- assessment and in other administrative practices, which
sive to the processes of globalisation and of new privilege some values and marginalise others. Our prob-
economic and cultural conditions that now dominate lem is not that, in a global university, students are
both Australian universities and society more generally. different, but that we find it difficult to ‘read’ difference.
Part of the problem with the current rhetoric of As a result, some differences are sometimes overlooked
intercultural and international education is its location when they should not be and, on other occasions, they
within a discourse of economic necessity. It is felt that are made to make more of a difference than they must.
the commercial potential of international education may Here differences are politicised in antagonistic ways by
not be realised in a context that does not adequately defining and locating different kinds of people as exotic
recognise cultural difference. The fashionable language or even inimical in various realms of everyday life. In
of ‘productive diversity’ (Cope and Kalantzis 1997) can internationalising the curriculum, what is needed is a
easily be mistaken for its corporate rather than its ethical practical understanding of how difference can be both
impulse. The language of recognition, like the liberal self-ascribed and constructed by others to deal with it;
language of tolerance, is in a real sense a patronising how students construct their identities and how it might
language, which simply pays lip service to the celebra- be possible for curriculum to critically engage with their
tion of cultural distinction. Such a celebration is often no contingent and relational character.
more than an administrative instrument that serves to Without such an understanding, it is not possible to
contain and restrain expressions of difference. When appreciate the ways in which the politics of difference
cultural difference is constructed simply as a resource, affect educational participation. For it needs to be
then the issues concerning the ways in which difference recognised that the discourse structures of Australian
is historically constructed and plays an important role in universities are constructed to normalise and legitimate
defining social and administrative relationships within certain existing patterns of power relations. Favoured
universities are effectively overlooked. ways of representing, speaking and acting, as well as
Difference is not something that is external to the favoured conceptions of knowledge and skills, are the
university; a resource that students bring to university. cultural capital of such educational discourse structures
Rather, it something that is constitutive of social relations which govern and control student engagement with the
within the university. It is constructed and enacted curriculum. Indeed, the success of students often de-
2/1998 Page 9
A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W
pends on the extent to which they can orient themselves and by the places to which they belong, groups unsul-
to the dominant group’s educational discourse. Those lied by contact with the larger world, have probably
who either do not understand or resist the dominant never existed”. International education itself is an ex-
discourse become the failures of a system unsympathetic pression of the forces of globalisation that are now
to difference. Some become excluded entirely. reshaping people’s identities, their social imagination, in
Unless learning is made culturally relevant and better which the notion of travelling overseas to receive one’s
articulated to the complexities of the politics of differ- education holds an important place.
ence in a world of student mobility across cultural and Travelling overseas is of course a spatial metaphor
national boundaries, many students will remain con- about which a great deal has been written recently in
fused and alienated. What is required is a complex multi- both cultural geography and postcolonial theory. Meta-
voiced approach to educational experiences, which phors of mobility, transculturation and diaspora have
does not assume fixed categories of cultural difference served to highlight “the possibilities of hybrid identities
but encourages instead their exploration. What is need- which are not essentialist but can still empower people
ed is a set of administrative principles which enable and communities by producing in them new capacities
everyone in a university to continually search for the for action. The ethnic absolutism of the ‘root’ meta-
relevant connections between different cultural starting phors’, fixed in place is replaced by mobile ‘route
points and different cultural frames and experiences. A metaphors which can lay down a challenge to the fixed
university in which cultural dialogue is missing, and identities of ‘cultural insiderism’” (Pile & Thrift 1995, p.
which insists on compliance to unreflexive bureaucratic 10). And as Hall (1991, p. 48) has argued, “the notion that
rules, that is antipathetic to heterogeneity of student identity...[can] be told as two histories, one over here,
voices, is unlikely to develop a sophisticated view of one over there, never having spoken to one another,
internationalisation of its curriculum. never having anything to do with one another...is simply
One of the ways in which it is possible to determine the not tenable any more in an increasingly globalised
manner in which Australian universities conceptualise world”. This view implies a fundamentally different
the idea of internationalised curriculum is to look at their conception of internationalised curriculum, as founded
professional development programs, designed to enable on a ethic of difference which demands an openness of
staff to explore the issues of diversity and intercultural outlook, encouraging a freedom to move across borders
relations. Kate Patrick (1997) has described some of the and boundaries in an exploration of new senses of self
approaches taken. These include: internationalisation as and other.
cross-cultural awareness; internationalisation as profes- In a sense, to view the celebration of diversity itself as
sional capacity to undertake tasks in different cultural an educational goal is to overlook the immense possibil-
environments and internationalisation as exploration of ities of an ethic of difference. The distinction between
professional discourses. A critical examination of these diversity and difference is significant here. Critical of the
approaches suggests that such approaches seldom ques- liberal idea of diversity, Homi Bhabha (1995) has point-
tion the normative cultural assumptions upon which the ed out that it masks an illusion of pluralistic harmony;
traditional practices of Australian higher education are positing a framework in which diversity is tolerated only
based. For example, in an effort to enhance an under- so long as it does not challenge the dominant cultural
standing of cultural diversity, these approaches seek to norms and social order. To be attentive to difference, in
describe the cultural values and practices of internation- contrast, is to understand difference as dynamic, as
al students but do not ask how these values and practices always a product of history, culture, power and ideolo-
are constructed, or what significance they have for gy. Differences occur within and among groups, and
students or how they are often transformed by the should not be seen as absolute, binaristic or irreducible,
experiences of international education. These strategies but as always socially and culturally relational. If this is
are reduced to ‘add-ons’ to the dominant culture, which so, then internationalisation of curriculum must not
in turn is assumed to be self-evident, consensual and assume the task of merely representing cultural diversity
homogeneous. in the curriculum, but must involve the creation of new
The cultural identities that international students bring learning spaces in which the politics of difference in
to Australian universities are never self-evident. They are relation to histories of knowledge and power can be
already saturated by the experiences of colonial histo- explored, in which the dominant values and other
ries, local cultural diversity and political complexity, on competing values can be interrogated and in which new
the one hand, and by the contemporary homogenising patterns of identity formation, meaning and representa-
experiences of ‘global media spaces’ (Morley & Robins tion can be negotiated.
1995), on the other. The idea of internally homogeneous The idea of international curriculum in relation to the
and authentic culture is an absurdity, as Appadurai politics of difference challenges us to rethink the design,
(1996, p. 34) has argued, “natives... people confined to planning and delivery of higher education in new ways.
Page 10 2/1998
A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W
It implies the blurring of form and content. It suggests alising curriculum implies a consistent but flexible strat-
that current understandings of curriculum as simply a egy that is recognised and executed throughout inter-
process of study of other cultures are insufficient in the personal, institutional and regional settings. This would
international context. Internationalisation of curriculum encourage the kind of culture that is relevant and
involves a dynamic interplay between subject matter and appropriate to the new learning spaces currently in
its implementation across a variety of cultural milieus formation.
which is undecidable in advance. In a global context
RRRRReeeeefffffeeeeerrrrreeeeennnnnccccceeeeesssss
characterised by shifting and hybrid cultural identities
and new technological modes of the transmission and Appudarai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
reception of knowledge, the content of international Globalisation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
curriculum involves an erosion of the categorical distinc- Beazley, Hon. K. C. (1992) International Education in Australia
through the 1990s, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS),
tions between course composition and operational as-
Canberra.
pects of study.
Burbules, N. (1997) “A grammar of difference: some ways of re-thinking
As Australia prepares for its first virtual university, new difference and diversity as educational topics” in The Australian
ways of thinking about curriculum need to be developed Educational Researcher, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.97-116.
to meet the changing imperatives of the global environ- Connell, R. W. (1996) “Schools, Markets and Justice: education in a
fractured world”, inagural lecture, Faculty of Education, The University
ment alongside serious reconsideration of teacher-cen-
of Sydney.
tred approaches to education. In negotiating the com-
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
plexities of cultural difference and different perspectives (DEETYA) (1995) Higher Education Review - Final Report, Canberra.
of students, curriculum assumes a comparative orienta- Hall, S. (1991), “Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities” in A.D.
tion by default. (Mestenhauser 1997) In doing so, tradi- King (ed.) Culture, Globalisation and the World System, MacMillan,
London, pp. 41-68.
tional disciplinary boundaries between disciplines be-
Hall, S. (1996) Stuart Hall, edited by D. Morley & K. Chen, Routledge,
come problematic as curriculum is compelled to change London
for the new demands of work and life in which exposure Haarlov, V. (1997) “National Policies for the Internationalisation of
to alternative cultural perspectives is increasingly a part. Higher Education in Europe - 1985-2000 (Case: Denmark), Hogskoleverket
Studies, 1997-98, Hogskoleverket Agency for Higher Education, Stock-
Internationalisation destabilises conventional frameworks
holm.
of curriculum design and implementation at local, na-
IDP Education Australia (1996). Curriculum Development for Interna-
tional and international levels. tionalisation: Australian Case Studies and Stocktake, DEETYA, Canberra.
The simultaneous development of student-centred Knight, J. & de Wit, H. (1995) “Strategies for internationalisation of
approaches and common approaches to curriculum higher education: historical and conceptual perspectives”, in de Wit
(ed.) Strategies for Internationalisation of Higher Education, European
planning at the macro-level mean that the loci of control
Association for International Education, Amsterdam.
over curriculum development and implementation exist
Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. (1997) Producitve Diversity, Pluto Press,
in a state of flux. Growing conditions of competition and Sydeny.
the unregulated nature of new media further contribute Mestenhauser, J. (1997). “On moving cemeteries and changing curric-
to this dynamic situation. It is for these reasons that a ula” EAIE Newsletter, European Association for International Education,
Amsterdam.
more organic approach to curriculum planning and
Morley, D. & Robins, K. (1995) Spaces of Identity, Routledge, London.
implementation is necessary. Internationalisation of cur-
OECD (1994) Education in a New International Setting: Curriculum
riculum is more than just a response to emergent global
development for internationalisation—Guidelines for country case
conditions, it is a framework of values and practices study , OECD (CERI), Paris.
oriented towards heightened awareness and apprecia- Patrick, K. (1997) “Internationalising Curriculum”, paper presented at
tion of the politics of difference as the basis for develop- HERDSA Annual Meeting, Adelaide.
ing the necessary skills and literacies for a changing Pile, S. & Thrift , N. (1995), Mapping the subject: geographies of cultural
transformation, Routledge, London.
world. International curriculum is therefore about an
Waters, M. (1995) Globalisation. Routedge, London.
engagement with difference both within and beyond
spaces of learning. An organic approach to internation-
2/1998 Page 11