International-Mindedness: Deviations,Incongruities and Other Challenges Facing the Concept

Abstract

This article examines the developing discourse of international-mindedness and the problematic nature of its theoretical foundation alongside its actual manifestation in international school settings. In particular, it explores the discord between international-mindedness as a benevolent form of character development compared to international-mindedness as an opportunistic form of social and global mobility. Against this competing backdrop, the article also looks to identify distinct features that differentiate the concept of international-mindedness from other more established ideologies, including those related to interculturalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. The assumption that international-mindedness is perpetually situated within a moral code of conduct is challenged and analyzed critically, along with implications for schools.

Keywords

International-mindedness international schools international education globalization of education

Introduction

The concept of international-mindedness has become a staple within the context of international schooling. Evidence of its widespread usage can be found in international school mission statements, policy documents and websites (Tamatea, 2008). Yet providing a succinct definition for this concept, let alone an assessment of it, has proved to be a slippery proposition at best. What exactly is international-mindedness? And how does it differ from the more traditional theories associated with multiculturalism, interculturalism and cosmopolitanism? This article seeks answers to these questions through a critical analysis of relevant literature, including an exploration of the rise of new international school types and their relationship to recent shifts in the conceptualization of international-mindedness. It is with these goals in mind that the authors attempt to deconstruct the complex layers of a concept that has become increasingly difficult to define, despite its widespread usage across the international school sector.

Theoretical Framework

International-mindedness has been defined in a multiplicity of ways by organizations and scholars alike. Definitions have evolved over time, including those used by the International Baccalaureate (IB), an organization whose curriculum is well known across international schools worldwide. Given the influential role of the IB, this article takes as its point of departure key themes in the IB’s most recent formulation of international-mindedness, before delving into a number of alternative interpretations. According to the IB, intercultural understanding, global engagement and multilingualism (Singh & Qi, 2013) are considered cornerstones of international-mindedness. The IB further defines the concept as:

‘A multi-faceted and complex concept that captures a way of thinking, being and acting that is characterized by an openness to the world and a recognition of our deep interconnectedness to others. … An IB education fosters international-mindedness by helping students reflect on their own perspective, culture and identities, and then on those of others. … By learning to appreciate different beliefs, values and experiences, and to think and collaborate across cultures and disciplines, IB learners gain the understanding necessary to make progress toward a more peaceful and sustainable world.

(IB, 2017, p. 2)

According to this description, international-mindedness can be understood as a social construct that requires some form of cultivation. If we place the student at the center of this cultivation, then examining the various social and institutional forces that influence student beliefs and behaviors may help to shed light on how the concept is ultimately internalized. It is for this reason that the current study was situated within a social constructivist framework, taking into account the role of both primary and secondary socialization agents (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

In the case of primary socialization, the role of significant others such as family members is assumed in the preliminary shaping of individual perspective, even before formal schooling begins. The powerful impact behind this initial influence can be attributed to the extended time spent around family, as well as the pliability of the formative years (Bowlby, 2005; Piaget, 1929). It is during the formative years, after all, that an individual begins to internalize social norms through repeated exposure to parental and caretaker behavior. From this vantage point, ‘the self’ is essentially a reflection that mirrors the attitude and behaviors of others that are considered closest (Kalantari, 2012). In the case of local students who are citizens of the host country and attend international schools, one can expect that primary socialization reflects both the values of the larger community and the values that come with having a more privileged socio-economic status. This assumption is based on data indicating that the vast majority of local students attending international schools come from the middle or elite classes of their communities (Barratt-Hacking et al, 2017; Bunnell, 2014; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014; Prosser, 2014).

Unlike primary socialization, secondary socialization shifts away from the intimate relationships within the family structure to the more distant relationships found in institution-based worlds (David, 1994). Yet even in secondary socialization, identity continues to be largely reflected by whom and what we associate with (Tajfel, 1981). For any given student, identity may be shaped by the school attended, extra-curricular interests, the neighborhood lived in, the institutions parents work for and the titles they hold. Identity, therefore, is influenced to a significant degree by a social order and – most notably — the individual’s relationship to that social order (Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel,1981; Turner, 1982). Schools are important secondary socializing agents because they carry a sense of authority, regulate information and oversee interactions among constituents (David, 1994). Traditionally, schools reinforce the values and perspectives held by the community they are charged with representing. From a nationalistic perspective, secondary socialization would ideally serve as an extension of what has already been established through primary forms of socialization. In the case of local students attending international schools, where institutionally-promoted values may be somewhat different from those of the family or the larger community, it is possible for chasms between these two forms of socialization to emerge (Baker & Kanan, 2005; Bunnell, 2008; Frangie, 2017). An American school in Saudi Arabia, for example, may promote gender equality even as the larger Saudi community enforces policies and laws that explicitly discourage such equality. Of course, expatriate students may also find that the values espoused by their family and school may be different from the region in which they are living.

The presence of distinct and potentially competing value systems can pose challenges. The influence of the outside community can be particularly potent for local students who are not merely ‘passing through’ a culture (as expatriate students often do) but are expected to internalize it as their own and ultimately contribute towards it. As a result, local students attending overseas international schools may find themselves negotiating values promoted on the school campus on the one hand, against family or community values on the other (Baker & Kanan, 2005; Bunnell, 2008; Frangie, 2017). The same, however, can be argued for expatriate students who must negotiate living in a country with values that may be different from those at home or school. Importantly, this dissonance does not necessarily produce negative outcomes. On the contrary, research studies have found that it is through experiences of dissonance and disequilibrium that increased intercultural awareness among students and faculty often materializes (Allan, 2002; Savva, 2015 and 2017A). In the case of teachers, research has found that the experience of dissonance can produce definitive changes in actual teaching methods used in classroom settings (Savva, 2017B). The presence of competing values and their negotiation, therefore, is especially relevant to the development of a sense of purpose. This sense of purpose, in turn, impacts how a concept such as international-mindedness is ultimately understood and internalized.

Methods: Data Collection and Analysis

The current study began with a review of scholarly journal articles related to the concept of international-mindedness. Multiple university search engines were utilized to compile pertinent articles. Digital libraries accessed during this process included, but were not limited to, ProQuest, Sage, ERIC, JSTOR, Medline, Taylor & Francis, Narcis, SpringerLink and Repository Utrecht University. Filters for the initial compilation included peer-reviewed articles that utilized the term ‘international-mindedness’ either in the title or as a key word. This resulted in an initial count of 40 abstracts, which were screened for relevance. Relevant abstracts included those that engaged in the description or conceptualization of international-mindedness. Abstracts that focused on instructional or assessment aspects of international-mindedness were generally not included, but were sometimes kept in the pool of relevant literature in so far as they contributed to the descriptive/conceptual components on which this research study focused. The literature review also drew from the bibliographies of articles, which were used to locate additional information sources via a type of ‘snowball sampling’ (Robson, 2002). These additional sources came to include some edited books, websites and research reports. While the latter sources served to enhance the study, the crux of the research focused predominately around scholarly journal publications. The collection of sources concluded once the knowledge-base became noticeably saturated with similar patterns of data re-emerging and no new categorizations.

Key themes in the literature were sorted according to (1) text that supported dominant definitions of international-mindedness, (2) text that supported something different from dominant definitions, and (3) historical and other information germane to the development of international-mindedness as a concept. After the identification of salient themes within each category, memos were used for the further analysis and development of each theme (Charmaz, 2014). Memos are a qualitative analysis tool that involves the transfer of multiple pieces of data into document files. Text narratives – in the form of free writing – are then built around the data in an effort to conceptualize findings and identify relationships or patterns.

Findings and Analysis

Establishing the Broader Context

In order to understand the varied interpretations of international-mindedness that have emerged over the years, it is necessary to first understand the context of international schooling. For the purposes of this article, an international school has been broadly defined as a school that provides a curriculum that is different from the curriculum typically offered in the country within which the school is physically located (Hayden & Thompson, 2013). This may include American or British schools based in overseas countries or territories, but also American or British schools that are based within national borders but follow a distinctly international curriculum that is different from the surrounding neighborhood schools. Beyond this single shared characteristic, international schools and the students they serve have become increasingly varied and diverse (Lineham, 2013). To this end, it becomes necessary to consider not only variances in institutional perspectives related to school and curricular issues, but variances in clientele perspectives as well. In the latter case, this involves examining the intent of families who choose to enroll their children in international schools. While there are a multitude of international school types currently in existence, this section will look briefly at the more prevalent categories of schools for purposes of contextualization. The categories discussed are not exhaustive in any way but are intended instead to provide a general framework for the reader. To this end, the section draws heavily on the influential work of Hayden & Thompson (2013) and Parker (2011).

Earlier Context of International Schools: Traditional & Ideological Schools

Most scholars agree that international schooling gained its greatest impetus after the Second World War (Bunnell, 2014 and 2016; Hayden & Thompson, 2008 and 2013; Hill, 2012 and 2013). A rise in foreign-service employees associated with the United Nations and overseas embassies coincided with an increased demand for providing a quality education to the children of those employees. It was at this time that the number of international schools, as we now know them, began to increase. Eventually coined as ‘traditional’ international schools (Hayden & Thompson, 2013), a primary aim of these schools was to enable students to prepare for their country’s school-leaving examinations or university entrance examinations ‘back home.’ Given the historical context of that time period, traditional international schools were also influenced heavily by an ethos that aligned closely with the United Nations and its agencies. This ethos was built upon the idea of maintaining a long-lasting peace and working to make the world a better place (Hill, 2012). These first schools were often developed through grass roots parental initiatives and were typically non-profit in nature (Bunnell, 2014).

Parallel to the traditional international school was the ‘ideological’ international school (Hayden & Thompson, 2013). ‘Ideological’ schools were different from ‘traditional’ schools because of their active recruitment of students who were not necessarily drawn from the middle or elite classes. This latter type of school went so far as to offer bursary funding for students to cover tuition and accommodation costs. Currently, 65% of students attending United World Colleges receive full or partial scholarships (UWC, 2017). Although not as prevalent as traditional international schools, ideological international schools continue to be well known for their heavy emphasis on a pacifist philosophy, one that is historically rooted in the belief that no war or violence is justifiable.

Later Context of International Schools: Non-Traditional & Domestic Schools

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, scholars noted a rapid proliferation of international schools worldwide (Bunnell, 2014; Hayden, 2011; Hayden & Thompson, 2013; MacDonald, 2006; MacKenzie et al, 2003; Wells, 2011). Notably, the majority of these newly emerging international schools were no longer serving expatriate children of diplomats, but rather serving children from the local communities in which the schools were located (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013; Bunnell, 2014; Hayden & Thompson, 2013); in other words, a student body increasingly made up of English language learners. A key institutional difference in the emergence of ‘non-traditional’ international schools (Hayden & Thompson, 2013) was that they were increasingly run on a for-profit basis (Bunnell, 2014 and 2016), effectively commodifying the provision of education.

The growth of ‘non-traditional’ international schools has been attributed to a variety of factors. Unprecedented economic growth in countries including China, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates has created greater disposable income among families in these regions, giving rise to new middle and elite classes (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013; Hayden & Thompson, 2013). These families have taken a keen interest in securing social mobility for their children through attendance at international schools (Barratt-Hacking, 2017; Gardner-McTaggart, 2014), which are seen as conduits for acquiring English language proficiency (Sharma, 2013) as well as a way for children to gain improved access to some of the most prestigious universities (Hayden & Thompson, 2013; Tamatea, 2008; Van Oord, 2007). Hence, aspirations for securing social and global mobility appear to be important catalysts in local parental choice in so far as ‘non-traditional’ schools are concerned (Bunnell, 2014 and 2016; Hayden, 2011; Tamatea, 2008).

Alongside the expansion of ‘non-traditional’ international schools catering to local students, international education has also experienced rapid growth in state-funded international schools within Anglophone country borders (Parker, 2011; Wells, 2011). This development is most evident in the increased use of IB curricula in US state schools which make up 57% of the IB market share (Hill, 2014). The domestic context is distinctly different from the traditional, ideological and non-traditional contexts for two important reasons. Firstly, international schooling under these circumstances does not take place on foreign soil. Secondly, the provision of international curricula in domestically-based state-funded schools contrasts sharply with what has been provided, for the most part, through third party or elite family-funded schools.

This state-side trend has been described as a response to the perceived challenges of globalization, particularly as they relate to national security (Parker, 2011). It is the idea of maintaining a competitive edge in a global economy which has given substantial impetus to the expansion of international curricula in state schools such as those in the United States (Harrison, 2015; Parker, 2011). Student performance on competitive international testing schemes such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) has contributed significantly to this positioning. Despite being a wealthy country, the United States continues to perform below average in mathematics and only average in reading (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015). In contrast, China, Singapore, Korea, Japan and Finland remain top performers and competitors in these high-stakes examinations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015).

What the non-traditional and domestic international schools do share, however, is a local clientele and analogous intentions. In both instances, students are local to the particular geographic region and competitiveness in the global market appears to be a key driver behind enrolment—albeit on an individual (bottom up) level in the case of the non-traditional international school vs a collective (top-down) level in the case of the domestic international school. These varied contexts highlight the very different ethos and intent arising from each institution-type and the clientele each serves. It is these varied contexts, as well, that have contributed to the continued evolution of international-mindedness. Given the changing geo-political landscape of international schooling, then, the question that arises is what effect has this changing landscape had on the interpretations of international-mindedness? To answer this question the authors looked to relevant literature, including changes in some of the literature that emerge most prominently in the earlier part of the 21^st century.

The Identity Problem: Part I

The majority of literature reviewed in the current study overwhelmingly dealt with international-mindedness within the context of the International Baccalaureate (IB), a well-known organization within the field of international education. The IB recognizes the challenges associated with accurately defining and assessing the concept and has commissioned research to address these difficulties (Barratt-Hacking et al, 2017; Singh & Qi, 2013). Any understanding of international-mindedness within the IB context, however, needs first to be contextualized within the broader IB mission statement. Although not mentioned explicitly in the mission statement, the development of international-mindedness has been described as an idealistic goal that is nevertheless implied in it (Belal, 2017; Singh & Qi, 2013):

The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect. To this end the organization works with schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment. These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.

(International Baccalaureate, 2017)

In deconstructing the IB mission statement, the prominent placement of words or phrases such as ‘caring’, ‘better and more peaceful world’, ‘understanding and respect’ indicate alignment with an agenda that places morality and character development at its core. This agenda is further reiterated by Ian Hill, former Deputy Director General of the IB, who writes that international-mindedness is ‘about putting the knowledge and skills to work in order to make the world a better place through empathy, compassion and openness.’ (Hill, 2012, p. 246).

One important issue that international-mindedness faces, however, is that such descriptors fail to differentiate it adequately from other well-established ideologies associated with multiculturalism, interculturalism and, more recently, cosmopolitanism. The significant overlap that international-mindedness rhetoric shares with these sister ideologies is problematic. Although available literature on these other ideologies is too voluminous to list in this single article, a quick academic search of research titles containing intercultural and/or multicultural terminology resulted in a long list of 20,251 peer-reviewed publications. This finding supports the notion that interculturalism and multiculturalism are, indeed, highly established fields of study. Likewise, an academic search of research titles containing cosmopolitanism terminology resulted in 1,366 publications. Although this finding is reflective of cosmopolitanism being a less widespread concept, the concept nevertheless continues to hold a more established position relative to international-mindedness which, as noted earlier, resulted in only 40 peer-reviewed titles.

A close analysis of literature identifies only two distinct features that are unique to the dominant definitions of international-mindedness relative to the ideologies of interculturalism and multiculturalism: its origins, and who it was created for. The growth and development of intercultural and multicultural concepts outside of national borders and constraints, for example, cannot be claimed by either of the two ideologies—both of which emerged largely as responses to dealing with difference within national borders. To be concise, multiculturalism and interculturalism have always examined diversity within the context of a traditional nation-state and the issues that are specific to it (Levey, 2012; Meer & Modood, 2012). This is markedly different from the inception of international-mindedness which, although very much situated in Western thought, was never restricted to the oversight of a single national entity.

The clientele that international-mindedness was originally designed to serve is also distinct and should not be ignored. Whereas multiculturalism and interculturalism have been historically focused on the underprivileged within a nation-state – such as the African-American in the United States or the Roma in European nations – international-mindedness was, for the most part, designed to serve otherwise privileged children across the globe. Given the two distinctions of origin and clientele one might question whether international-mindedness is the ‘multiculturalism and/or interculturalism’ of the privileged classes. This question fits into Kenway and Fahey’s (2014) argument that international schools may serve as unique conduits in securing advantage for social grouping that extends beyond the traditional nation-state onto the global stage. Distinctions between cosmopolitanism and international-mindedness are more difficult to identify. Like prominent definitions of international-mindedness, cosmopolitanism centers on a global political consciousness (Cheah, 2006) with a commitment to humanist principles and norms, including the promotion of human equality, the recognition of difference and its celebration (Starkey, 2012). Most importantly, cosmopolitanism is rooted in developing a sense of connectedness to other human beings (Osler & Starkey, 2005) that transcends man-made borders and boundaries (Gunesch, 2015; Osler & Starkey, 2005).

The often times indiscernible language, aim and rhetoric promoted across all three ideologies relative to international-mindedness has contributed to somewhat of an identity problem. Some have suggested that descriptions of international-mindedness need to be adjusted to better reflect what actually materializes at the school level (Cause, 2011; Haywood, 2007), which may also help to differentiate it from these other ideologies. Such shifts in thinking have the potential to bring greater clarity to a struggling concept, perhaps even giving it the traction it needs to move beyond the niche market of international schooling.

The Identity Problem: Part II

International-mindedness is often promoted as a concept that centers heavily on principles of morality and character. Yet there is little to be found within the existing literature [on international-mindedness] that draws on the abundance of scholarly work that exists within the fields of moral development or character education. The absence of such literature suggests a very real knowledge gap that needs to be filled and is in need of imminent attention. There are subtle differences between moral education and character education that should be acknowledged here. Moral education typically involves a guided discussion of problems requiring students to identify issues, develop responses, make reasoned choices and then defend the choices made. Its focus is largely on method and students are encouraged to think problems through (Davis, 2013). The logic behind moral education is that it improves student character by building upon their knowledge of moral issues, their skills at developing varied responses to those issues, and their ability to make informed choices based on publicly defensible reasons. In short, moral judgment is viewed as a character trait that needs to be developed (Davis, 2013).

The challenges in delivering a moral education are evidenced in one analysis of IB educational samples which noted that the term ‘action’ often referred to avoiding conflicts and misunderstanding on a personal as opposed to societal level (Castro, Lundren & Woodlin, 2015). According to this research, the idea of global engagement appears to stop short of politics and position-taking that are so central to creating a more just world. Although a single study, findings highlight the possible need for explicit guidance on how to better address problems and cultural conflicts that hinder the creation of a ‘better and more peaceful world’ as an important challenge for schools to consider (Castro, Lundren & Woodlin, 2015).

In contrast, character education holds as a starting philosophical principle that there are widely shared, critically important core ethical values such as caring, honesty, fairness, responsibility and respect for one’s self that form the basis of good character (Lickona et al, 1997). Based on predominant definitions, international-mindedness appears to align most closely with this latter form of education. The IB Learner Profile identifies ten attributes that call on learners across all IB programmes to be inquirers, thinkers, communicators and risk-takers who are knowledgeable, principled, open-minded, caring, balanced and reflective (IB, 2013). To date, the rationale for these attributes remains unclear with no theoretical justification in place to substantiate how the values of the IB Learner Profile were selected (Wells, 2011). Besides being particularly ambitious (Bunnell, 2014), these traits also assume an absoluteness that seems to ignore the complexity of human nature. A single individual may, for example, demonstrate a natural curiosity (i.e. be an ‘inquirer’) in one aspect of their lives but not necessarily do so in other aspects (Wells, 2016). A simplified example of this would be a student who demonstrates a natural curiosity with respect to the arts but lacks this same sense of inquiry when faced with subject-matter related to mathematics; the point being that attributes can be both present and absent within the same individual depending on subject matter and/or context.

Yet attributes, in and of themselves, do not necessarily align with the development of good character (Davis, 2003). One needs only to look at modern day radicalism to find individuals who are ‘risk-takers’ but use the trait to cause harm to others. Likewise, individuals may cause terrible harm to others in ‘caring’ for their cause. Engaged in active conflict, a soldier is considered a hero in the home country for defending national interests and caring for fellow citizens. The same soldier, however, is viewed as anything but caring by those who are on the receiving end of military force. From this vantage point, attributes seem to have a kind of superficiality. It is of interest to note that research has found that programs promoting a collection of traits for character development have often worked counter to their aims. According to Davis (2003), this is the case because character is considered a settled and internalized disposition as opposed to being the result of short-term outcomes.

A final form of education that should be mentioned goes under the label of ‘Just Community’ which attempts to shape student character through a type of civic apprenticeship (Davis, 2003). This type of education can also be viewed as one that looks to shape dispositions through direct experiential learning (Cushner, 2007). The IB Diploma’s Creativity, Activity, Service (CAS) requirement draws on similar principles. According to the ‘Just Community’ approach, students and teachers make policy together and carry it out while democratic virtues such as tolerance, rationality, responsibility and concern for the common good are underscored. These virtues, however, are to be practiced whole – not trait by trait (Davis, 2003). Interestingly, these latter ambitions are similar to social justice theories which are often rooted in the belief that all people in a community should play an active role in equalizing access to wealth, health, well-being and opportunity. Yet the existence of many international schools, it could be argued, contradicts the very tenets of social justice. Although there are a variety of instructional approaches that have looked to work with this reality (Prosser, 2014; Wasner, 2016), the promotion of equal access between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in institutions that are overwhelmingly attended by those who ‘have’ continues to pose challenges (Barratt-Hacking et al, 2017). Even in the case of the state-side international schools, it is the promise of building a national competitive edge that continues to fund international curricula, as opposed to concern for a universal common good.

Changing Forms of International-Mindedness

The manifestation of international-mindedness across varied types of international schools has not always aligned with the benevolent origins of the concept. This has prompted numerous alternative interpretations. Haywood (2007) proposes that international-mindedness is more about the cultivation of a disposition that can take a multiplicity of forms. According to this line of thought international-mindedness can manifest itself as a means towards diplomatic, political, economic, commercial or spiritual ends (to name a few). Haywood (2007) further notes that some forms of international-mindedness may very well be mutually exclusive. Diplomatic or commercial forms of international-mindedness, for instance, are typically driven by national interests or personal gain respectively. In contrast, pacifist and spiritual forms of international-mindedness coincide with more compassionate aims. Although preliminary in nature, Haywood’s (2007) typology is pioneering because it openly acknowledges the divergent forms of international-mindedness in existence, and effectively decouples the concept from what has always been assumed to be an inherently pacifist discourse. Somewhat paradoxically, however, Haywood (2007) concludes his typology by attempting to define international-mindedness and, in doing so, re-creates what appears to be an agenda that is aligned, in part, with ecological special interests:

[International-mindedness is demonstrated by a] curiosity and interest in the world, open attitudes towards other cultures and belief systems, the recognition of the earth’s environment as a common entity that has value for all, recognition of the interconnectedness of human events and values, including caring and having a general concern for the wellbeing of people.

(Haywood, 2007, p. 87)

This definition is of interest because the capacity of international-mindedness to be reshaped by different interest groups has been described as contributing towards the confusion surrounding the concept (Skelton, 2015). In later work, Haywood (2015) returns to the concept of international-mindedness to examine the emerging threats facing the value components so often associated with it. Some of the threats identified include the rise of nationalism, global competitiveness, commodification and the pursuit of ‘global citizenship’ from a hierarchical power perspective (having multiple passports, for instance). The institutionalized branding of global curricula and assessments, a growing pre-occupation with external examination scores and the relatively homogenous social class of most international school students are also identified as factors that have potentially served to de-prioritize the role of values.

Still others have attempted to pin down what might be described as a more value-free definition of ‘international-mindedness.’ Harwood & Bailey (2012) propose a framework entitled ‘Me and My World’ which covers the five strands of world views, language, culture, human society and global issues. Within each of these strands, they present a concentric diagram that examines ‘me, my school, my country and the world.’ As a guiding definition, they propose:

International-mindedness (global consciousness) is a person’s capacity to transcend the limits of a world view informed by a single experience of nationality, creed, culture or philosophy and recognize in the richness of diversity a multiplicity of ways of engaging with the world.

(Harwood & Bailey, 2012, p. 79)

This description centers around an individual’s ability to relate to others who may hold different world views. One might observe that it stays focused on what international-mindedness might be, as opposed to how it should be practiced. Another description of education for international-mindedness that flows in a similar but more ambitious vein is provided by the former Deputy Director General of the IB, Ian Hill, who describes it as:

the study of issues which have application beyond national borders and to which competencies such as critical thinking and collaboration are applied in order to shape attitudes leading to action which will be conducive to intercultural understanding, peaceful co-existence and global sustainable development for the future of the human race.

(Hill, 2012, p. 259)

What is unique in this particular definition is its activist dimension. By utilizing the word ‘action,’ the author does not merely encourage a dove-like approach, but argues for others to engage in playing a dynamic role in the actual promotion of peace, understanding and sustainable development. Here we see an attempt both to define the concept and to direct others on how it should be applied. Needless to say, Hill’s (2012) description contrasts sharply with aspects of Haywood’s (2007) typology. Can an activist or pacifist agenda co-exist with diplomatic, political or commercial forms of international-mindedness? Perhaps this is possible, but it is also likely to be difficult due to the fact that each agenda prioritizes differently based on its own interests. This variation in priorities is highly relevant. Faced with a choice between applying a superordinate moral code of conduct or serving national interests, a diplomat (for example) would be inclined to choose the latter. This is not because s/he is necessarily an immoral individual, but because national interest would take priority in the particular role.

There is no doubt that making the world a better place is a noble cause, and teaching this explicitly can contribute towards increased collaboration and understanding across the human race. The problem with current definitions of international-mindedness, however, is that they are rooted in the assumption that moral/character education and international-mindedness are one and the same. Perhaps international-mindedness is a disposition that is rooted in the ability to transcend the limits of a single world view, as described by Harwood & Bailey (2012), but this disposition can be applied just as much for purposes of self-interest as for purposes of self-sacrifice. If we accept this premise to be true, the disposition of international-mindedness becomes a strategic skill that can be applied in a wide range of global scenarios for an equally wide range of reasons – irrespective of whether these reasons are considered to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

It is here that moral/character education can play a key role through parallel but distinctly separate instruction. Barratt-Hacking et al (2017) note that international-mindedness remains a ‘fuzzy’ concept, that the definition of international-mindedness appears to depend largely upon relational context and that it is perhaps best viewed as a process or journey, as opposed to a term with a single fixed definition. On the one hand, such an open-ended ambiguity seems to feed into the lack of clarity the concept so desperately needs. On the other hand, it also creates an open space whereby stakeholders can contribute meaningfully. From this vantage point, school-level leaders are in the unique position of grappling with and molding the concept according to the demography and intentions of their constituents.

What Does this Mean for Schools?

Given the wide-ranging definitions and interpretations of international-mindedness, schools can begin to enhance teaching and learning in this area by agreeing on a contextualized definition (Barratt-Hacking et al, 2017; Ellwood & Davis, 2009). School leaders are well positioned to guide their schools through this process. As a starting point, international schools should consider if international-mindedness is the best term to use or whether another phrase such as global citizenship or intercultural learning may be better suited. Leaders can help to situate international-mindedness within a school’s unique mission, vision and values. Schools with a clear mission and vision where understanding is shared across a community will find the process of developing a contextualized definition of international-mindedness more straightforward.

Definitions of international-mindedness may align with a school’s historical categorization or type. For instance, an ideological international school might have a pacifist leaning definition of international-mindedness. In reality, schools rarely fit neatly into one category. School leaders should be prepared to help school communities grapple with competing expectations. Keeping with the same example, an ideological school with a strong pacifist mission might face pressure from families to focus more on teaching global competency skills that make students marketable in an increasingly globalized economy. Schools, however, must also go beyond identifying a contextualized definition. The entire school community must develop a shared understanding of the term. In other words, the fact that the term is defined on paper does not mean that teachers, students, parents, the board and other constituents will interpret a definition in the same way. Developing a clear and consistent understanding should not be confused with developing widespread agreement over a contextualized definition of international-mindedness. Staff and students from diverse international schools bring with them a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and experiences, which may conflict with a school’s conceptualization of international-mindedness (Cause, 2011). School leaders should acknowledge these tensions and provide opportunities to discuss and clarify how a school’s definition of international-mindedness aligns with its mission and vision. That said, just as mission statements should be evaluated on a periodic basis, so too should definitions of international-mindedness, which are likely to evolve and mature over time.

Despite challenges, schools can use a variety of techniques to develop shared understanding. New staff and student orientation sessions, homeroom or advisory groups, assemblies and parent-teacher conferences all provide good opportunities. International-mindedness is not a simple concept and international schools are inherently transient environments (Barratt-Hacking et al, 2017); educating a school community must therefore involve repeated and diverse attempts at explaining and exploring its meaning. Effectively teaching international-mindedness necessitates school leaders and teachers who are culturally competent and who embody the key characteristics of the concept. International educators should not assume a strong level of culture competence exists within an individual based on seniority, title or the length of time lived outside a home country. The Council of International Schools (CIS) has administered the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) to many international school staff across the world, and has found that a majority of participants perceive their intercultural competence to be far more developed than indicated in reality (as measured by the instrument). The process of becoming culturally competent does not happen by osmosis when living in a foreign land, and working in a school committed to international-mindedness one must intentionally develop these skills. An intentional and ongoing professional development plan is essential to developing cultural competence in teachers and leaders, particularly one that expects and anticipates the transiency that is inherent in so many international schools. A clear definition and understanding of international-mindedness is critical for an international school. A commitment to international-mindedness impacts hiring practices, strategic planning, classroom pedagogy, curricular and extracurricular programs, and nearly all aspects of a school’s life; therefore, a shared vision of the term is paramount. School leaders should view the facilitation of this process as a key component of their role.

Moving Forward

This article has aimed to move forward the scholarly discussion on international-mindedness through an analysis of scholarly articles and other available relevant literature. As a result of the analysis, the authors have identified three key areas that are in need of substantive research in order to bring greater clarity and longevity to the concept of international-mindedness. The first area of need relates to understanding how international-mindedness differentiates itself from other widely used ideologies associated with multiculturalism, interculturalism and cosmopolitanism. Beyond the variations in origin and clientele identified in this article, how is the message of international-mindedness different from the message of these other ideologies? This is an important question to ask, and the answer(s) will help determine whether international-mindedness offers something truly unique, or if it is something that is merely packaged differently on the exterior while essentially maintaining the same inner workings.

Secondly, the assumption that international-mindedness is one and the same as moral or character development would benefit from some cross-examination. Yet even if we accept this assumption, research-based data that is drawn from the respective fields of moral development and character education is notably lacking. These data seem crucial to supporting the philosophical claims made for the concept by organizations and schools. To date, research has focused primarily on IB document analysis or IB-sponsored research, but has stopped short of reaching outwards to draw on the rigorous pool of available academic research in the fields of moral development and character education.

Finally, changes in how international-mindedness is interpreted and utilized at the school level should not be ignored. Important is the delineation between what some believe international-mindedness should be, relative to what some have observed it to be. This latter point can be a difficult one to digest, particularly in circumstances where manifestations of international-mindedness diverge significantly from the core principles upon which it was originally founded. Yet engaging with this reality, as opposed to a utopian portrayal (Singh & Qi, 2013), seems critical to the continued evolution of international-mindedness and, importantly, may contribute towards differentiating it from the other ideologies described above.

For now, school leaders may facilitate and tailor definitions of international-mindedness to suit the needs of the community being served. Some may opt to embed values as an integral part of its definition, while others may choose to treat values as parallel but distinctly separate. International-mindedness is certainly not a static concept and it continues to evolve with the changing contexts of international schooling. To this end, the ability of key institutions to revise definitions to fit this rapidly changing landscape remains central to moving the concept of international-mindedness forward.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Maria Savva is Assistant Professor and Director of International Studies in the Education and Language Acquisition Department at the City University of New York (CUNY). Maria earned her PhD in Education from University College London, where her research was funded by a fellowship grant from the European Council of International Schools (ECIS).

Dave Stanfield serves as Head of Research and Development for the Council of International Schools (CIS). Previously Dave was the Director of Student Activities and First-Year Programmes at Carnegie Mellon University’s international branch campus in Doha, Qatar. Dave earned his PhD in higher education administration at Boston College, USA.

References

Allan

(2002) Cultural borderlands: A case study of cultural dissonance in an international school. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(1), 63–90.

Baker

Kanan

(2005) International-mindedness of native students as a function of the type of school attended and gender: The Qatari case. Journal of Research in International Education, 4 (3), 333–349.

Barratt-Hacking

Blackmore

Bullock

Bunnell

Donnelly

Martin

(2017) The International Mindedness Journey: School Practices for Developing and Assessing International Mindedness Across the IB Continuum. Available from https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/continuum/international-mindedness-final-report-2017-en.pdf

Belal

(2017) Participating in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: Developing international-mindedness and engagement with local communities. Journal of Research in International Education, 15 (1), 18–35.

Berger

P. L.

Luckmann

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.

Bowlby

(2005) A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Available at <http://www.abebe.org.br/files/John-Bowlby-A-Secure-Base-Parent-Child-Attachment-and-Healthy-Human-Development-1990.pdf > Accessed on February 14, 2018.

Brummitt

Keeling

(2013) Charting the growth of international schools. In Pearce

(ed) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years. London: Bloomsbury.

Bunnell

(2016) Teachers in international schools: a global educational ‘precariat’? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(4), 543–559.

Bunnell

(2014) The Changing Landscape of International Schooling: Implications for Theory and Practice. Oxford: Routledge.

10.

Bunnell

(2008) The global growth of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme over the first 40 years: a critical assessment. Comparative Education, 44 (4), 409–424.

11.

Castro

Lundren

Woodlin

(2015) International-mindedness through the looking glass: Reflections on a concept. Journal of Research in International Education, 14 (3), 187–197.

12.

Cause

(2011) International-mindedness: A field of struggle, confusion and hope. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 11 (7), 35–40.

13.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE

14.

Cheah

(2006) Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 486–496.

15.

Cushner

(2007) The role of experience in the making of internationally-minded teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 27–39.

16.

David

(1994) Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history?’ Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220.

17.

Davis

(2003) What’s Wrong with Character Education? American Journal of Education, 110 (1), 32–57.

18.

Ellwood

Davis

(2009) International Mindedness: A Professional Development Handbook for International Schools. London: Optimus Education.

19.

Frangie

(2017) The negotiation of the relationship between home and school in the mind of grade 6 students in an international school in Qatar. Journal of Research in International Education, 16 (3), 225–235.

20.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2014) International elite or global citizens? Equity, distinction and power: the International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 14(1), 1–29.

21.

Gunesch

(2015) Cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan cultural identity as a model to enrich international education. In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(ed) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE

22.

Harrison

(2015) International education in the USA and Canada: An emerging community of interest. In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(ed) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE.

23.

Harwood

Bailey

(2012) Defining and evaluating international-mindedness in a school context. International Schools Journal, 31(2), 77–86.

24.

Hayden

(2011) Transnational spaces of education: the growth of the international school sector. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2), 211–224.

25.

Hayden

Thompson

(2008) International schools: Growth and influence. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

26.

Hayden

Thompson

. (2013) International schools: Antecedents, current issues and metaphors for the future. In Pearce

(ed) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years. London: Bloomsbury.

27.

Haywood

(2007) A simple typology of international-mindedness and its implications for education. In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(ed) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education. London: SAGE.

28.

Haywood

(2015) International-mindedness and its enemies. In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(ed) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE

29.

Hornsey

(2008) Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.

30.

International Baccalaureate (2017) IB Mission Statement <http://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/mission> Accessed on February 8, 2018.

31.

International Baccalaureate (2017) About International-Mindedness <http://www.ibo.org/globalassets/what-is-an-ib-education-2017-en.pdf> Accessed on February 12, 2018.

32.

International Baccalaureate (2013) IB Learner Profile <http://www.ibo.org/contentassets/fd82f70643ef4086b7d3f292cc214962/learner-profile-en.pdf > Accessed on February 8, 2018.

33.

Hill

(2012) Evolution of education for international-mindedness. Journal of Research in International Education, 11(3), 245–261.

34.

Hill

(2014) Internationally-minded schools as cultural artefacts: Implications for school leadership. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(3), 175–189.

35.

Kalantari

(2012) ‘The influence of social values and childhood socialization on occupational gender segregation and wage disparity.’ Public Personnel Management, 41(2), 241–255.

36.

Kenway

Fahey

(2014) Staying ahead of the game: the globalising practices of elite schools. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 12(2), 177–195.

37.

Levey

G.B.

(2012) Interculturalism vs. multiculturalism: a distinction without a difference? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 3(2), 217–224.

38.

Lickona

(2009) Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books

39.

Lineham

(2013) Is the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme effective at delivering the International Baccalaureate mission statement? Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 259–282.

40.

MacDonald

(2006) The international school industry: Examining international schools through an economic lens. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 191–213.

41.

MacKenzie

Hayden

Thompson

(2003). Parental priorities in the selection of international schools. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 299–314.

42.

Meer

Modood

(2012) How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), 175–196.

43.

Osler

Starkey

(2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill International.

44.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015) Programme for International Student Assessment [online]. <http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data> Accessed on February 8, 2018.

45.

Parker

(2011) International education in US public schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9 (3–4), 487–501.

46.

Piaget

(1929) The Child’s Conception of the World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

47.

Prosser

(2014) Reach for the stars: a constellational approach to ethnographies in elite schools. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 12(2), 275–289.

48.

Robson

. (2002) Real World Research. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

49.

Savva

(2015) Characteristics of the international educator and the strategic role of critical incidents. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(1), 16–28.

50.

Savva

(2017A) The personal struggles of ‘national’ educators working in ‘international’ schools: an intercultural perspective. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(5), 576–589.

51.

Savva

(2017B) Learning to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students through cross-cultural experiences. Intercultural Education, 28(3), 269–282.

52.

Sharma

(2013) Teachers on the move: international migration of school teachers from India. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 262–283.

53.

Singh

(2013) 21^st century international-mindedness: an exploratory study of its conceptualization and assessment. Centre for Educational Research, School of Education, University of Western Sydney.

54.

Skelton

(2015) International-mindedness and the brain: The difficulties of ‘becoming.’ In Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(ed) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, 2nd Edition. London: SAGE.

55.

Starkey

(2012). Human rights, cosmopolitanism and utopias: implications for citizenship education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(1), 21–35.

56.

Tamatea

(2008) A practical and reflexive liberal-humanist approach to international-mindedness in international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(1), 55–76.

57.

Tajfel

(1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Turner

J.C.

(1982) Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Tajfel

(ed) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59.

United World Colleges (2017) What is UWC? <http://www.uwc.org/about> Accessed on February 12, 2018.

60.

Van Oord

. (2007) To westernize the nations? An analysis of the International Baccalaureate’s philosophy of education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(3), 375–390.

61.

Wasner

(2016) Critical Service Learning: A Participatory Pedagogical Approach to Global Citizenship and International-mindedness. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(3), 238–252.

62.

Wells

(2011) International education, values and attitudes: A critical analysis of the International Baccalaureate Learner profile. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(2), 174–188.

63.

Wells

(2016) Learner Reflections on the International Baccalaureate Learner Profile and International Mindedness at a Bilingual School in Bogota, Colombia. Journal of Research in International Education, 15(3), 277–277.