Internationalization in Canadian Higher Education Institutions: Ontario

Introduction

Internationalization of higher education has been the first policy priority and the most important agent of change in higher education policy processes and practices over the last two decades. Hopefully, there is also national and international urge among educational policymakers to engage almost all higher education institutions and universities with the practice of internationalization as it seems it is considered nowadays as a sign of prestige and reputation if the universities’ aim and mission is to compete with other global rivals. However, it seems still there is no clear understanding of such a practice as Buckner and Stein (2019, p. 1) believe ‘(a)round the world, faculty, staff, and administrators are being asked to engage with internationalization on their campuses, often with little understanding of what internationalization is, should, or could be.’ In the same line, Rumbley et al. (2019, p.10) indicate: ‘(D)iscussions around internationalization in higher education in Europe and elsewhere are increasingly focused on understanding the impact that internationalization has, as well as the processes that higher education institutions (HEIs) should follow in order to reach their internationalization (and related) goals.’

It has also become a core element of institutions’ initiatives and ‘a significant feature of the Canadian (higher) education landscape’ (Beck, 2012, p. 133). Most institutions in Canada engage in some form of international activity and Today almost all institutions in Canada and around the world engage to some degree in activities aimed at forging global connections and building global competencies among their students, faculty and administrative units (AUCC, 2014; p. 3). Nearly all Canadian institutions include internationalization as part of their mission statement and strategic planning and “More than 95% of universities report that their strategic or longterm planning documents make (89%) or will make (7%) explicit reference to internationalization and/or global engagement” (AUCC, 2014; p. 9). In addition, the federal government has issued Canada’s first-ever national recommendations for internationalization of higher education (DFAIT, 2012a). Also, one notices a huge increase in the Canadian universities’ budget destined to internationalization as well as in office space and personnel dedicated to this activity. Accordingly, Canada is planning to be a leading destination for many international students and the world’s leading scholars.

Nonetheless, universities may internationalize their campuses, policies and processes for different reasons. Some rationales of internationalization are common amongst different institutions worldwide. Each university may, however, have its own particular rationales and components in the same way and context. As a common component of institutional mission statements, Canadian higher education policymakers and administrations have made internationalization a key aspect of their strategic plans for different reasons. Internationalization, therefore, seems to be ubiquitous in higher education policy statements and rhetoric in Canadian higher education institutions. It is, however, not particularly clear what rationales drive internationalization policies and initiatives in public universities in the Canadian context. Whereas most Canadian universities are struggling and vigorously crossing the globe to find new customers and attract more international students (Coates & Morrison, 2011; Jones & Oleksiyenko, 2011; McNeil, 2013), the main rationales behind internationalization need to be critically examined. This article is an attempt to provide a critical policy analysis of why and how a public university in Ontario engages in internationalization. In a context where competition in an aggressive market of higher education has been one of the main characters of universities in the developed world (Beck, 2012; CMEC, 2011; Fisher et al., 2009; Jones & Oleksiyenko, 2011), this article endeavours to understand how rationales are positioned in internationalization agendas and programmes in the context of Ontario.

Following the introductory outline, this paper continues with a review of the literature and overview of methodology. It continues with summarizing the findings and developing a critical argument and analysis. It finishes with a conclusion and policy recommendations.

Literature Review

Higher education policymakers in both institutional and governmental levels are increasingly interested in the variety of benefits associated with internationalization. A review of the scholarly literature shows that there are a variety of motives why institutions internationalize their policies and processes. Internationalization on the one hand generates a competitive and commercialized drive for different initiatives like student enrolments, whereas on the other, it evokes notions of transnational connectivity and academic reciprocal flows of individuals (Matthews, 2002). As the goals and objectives of internationalization are multiple and somewhat conflicting (Tarc, 2013), there are different categories of rationales for institutions acknowledging it as a policy priority. Maringe and Gibbs (2006) classify all the rationales of internationalization in six wide-ranging streams: economic, political, sociocultural, technological, educational and pedagogical. Knight (2004, pp. 22–23) develops a categorization of rationales which consist of two broad stages of: (a) national human resources development, including strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, social/cultural development and (b) institutional international branding and profile including income generation, student and staff development, strategic alliances and knowledge production. According to Knight’s (2004) classification, the two broad stages of rationales, that is national and institutional, are classified in four central rationales of (a) sociocultural, (b) political, (c) economic growth and (d) academic.

According to IAU’s (2005) survey the main rationales of internationalizing are to ‘increase student and faculty international knowledge capacity and production; strengthen research and knowledge capacity and production; create international profile and reputation; contribute to academic quality; broaden and diversify source of faculty and students; promote curriculum development and innovation; [and] diversify income generation’ (p. 2). Nevertheless, from the perspectives and observations of most scholars, internationalization in rich northern countries of the West is increasingly associated with commodification and commercialization of higher education (Altbach 2002; de Wit, 2011; IAU, 2012; Maringe et al., 2013). As Knight (2008) argues, the dominant tendency of internationalization in Anglo-American institutions is mostly towards economic and commercial rationales. In other words, one of the major rationales of internationalization for most Anglo-American institutions is economic and business profit. Therefore, ‘financial incentives and income generating programs have become purposes of internationalization in many institutions in the West over the last two decades’ (Khorsandi Taskoh, 2014, p. 40). In a more recent research, Buckner (2019, p. 315) finds:

Administrators at HEIs in knowledge-intensive economies, and those in the United States and Anglophone Canada in particular, are more likely to frame benefits in terms of enhancing students’ international awareness, while revenue generation is much more likely to be cited in other Anglophone contexts. It argues that in Anglophone North America, higher education is being leveraged to combat histories of parochialism; in knowledge-intensive economies, it is seen as supporting pipelines of skilled labor; and in Anglophone contexts outside of North America, it is framed as an economically valuable export.

In this regard, a wide range of motivations may inform public institutions in the Canadian context about the internationalization of higher education. Becoming the 21st century leader on an international stage in order to attract top talent foreign students and prepare citizens for the global marketplace seems the focal vision and landscape of Canadian higher education (Chakma et al., 2012). According to AUCC’s (2014) survey concerning the rationals for internationalization of higher education, ‘the other four most-cited reasons are building strategic alliances and partnerships with key institutions abroad, promoting an internationalized campus, increasing the university’s global profile and generating revenue’ (AUCC, 2014, pp. 12). Other motives are more directly connected to national well-being and prosperity. Despite AUCC’s survey, like universities in other countries, economic and political rationales and promoting the country trade and diplomatic agendas play a big role in developing internationalization initiatives in Canadian universities. For example, a report from the DFAIT (2012b) shows international students contributed over $8 billion to Canada’s economy in 2010 through tuition, accommodation and discretionary spending. Tight (2019, p. 1) finds:

While many interpret the growing globalization and internationalization of higher education as another effect of neo-liberal agendas, the role of higher education institutions as instigators of further globalization and internationalization should not be ignored, while the compromises they make in doing so need to be acknowledged.

Hence, it must be remembered that the role of educational policymakers, researchers, higher education stakeholders, as well as higher education institutions where internationalization is to happen in reality must be considered as a key to success of internationalization that is in alignment with the theme of present research that investigates such a practice in Ontario. Zha et al. (2019, p. 673) also introduce the following three spheres in their analytical framework ‘to detect dynamics and currents in the internationalization of Chinese universities’ which confirms the above statements.

(1) the interaction between local actors and agencies of internationalization and their immediate environmental conditions, whether of academic/professional, market, or governmental/managerial nature; (2) the interconnection between those actors and agencies on all layers, be they local, national, or global; and (3) the interface between material processes of internationalization and ethical/spiritual orientations.

Overview of Conceptual Approach and Methodology

This study adopted a critical conceptual approach. Critical policy analysis is used to elicit the ‘truth’ about policy issues (Chesler & Crowfoot, 2000) and it provides an opportunity for the researcher to speak with administration about possible misguided and unjust policy (Ozga, 2000). Critical policy analysis acknowledges policy as a political and value-laden process (Allan et al., 2010; Marshall, 1997; Prunty, 1985; Weimer, 1998). Critical policy analysis is chosen as the preferred conceptual approach and the method of analysis in order to envision why a policy (e. g., internationalization) is made in a specific period of time and how it is put into practice. It is significant to know how policy rationales are directed and organized around a set of policy statements, rhetoric and perceptions regarding internationalization. In this study, critical policy analysis helps the researcher to properly understand the implied and indirect rationales of policy text and discourse. Specifically, it is used to question the perspectives of university administration and faculty and to critically examine their opinions about internationalization initiatives. Critical policy analysis in this context (and respect) exposes the intended versus pretended rationales underlying policy agenda(s) and their proposed solutions regarding internationalization. This includes an analysis of how rationales are perceived and framed by the various policy actors, and understood and experienced by intended practitioners in their daily lives and professions.

This study uses qualitative and case study research methodology. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005), qualitative researchers study things in their real and natural settings and locations, attempting ‘to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’ (p. 3). A top-tier public university in Ontario, Canada, that had actively adopted and implemented internationalization as a policy and has a respective strategic plan was chosen as the research site for the study. In order to maintain anonymity, Ontario University was chosen as the pseudonym of the research site. Data collection for this research relied on several primary sources, which are one-on-one key informant interviews, policy documents (including strategic and academic plans) and published archival materials in media. Participants for this study were chosen amongst ‘information-rich people’ (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2006). To be selected to participate in this study, they had to have had wide knowledge and experience about internationalization or have been involved in the university’s internationalization programmes. The total number of participants for the key informant interview was 27 interviewees. The participants were selected from two main groups of (a) administrators (11 participants) including senior administrators, board of governors and the senate, department chairs and executive managers engaging in international programmes and offices of the site; and (b) faculty (16 participants) including faculty members and international researchers who were engaged and interested in internationalization from the four faculties of arts and humanities, engineering, science and social sciences. The study used two types of sampling: purposeful sampling (criterion-based sampling) and snowball sampling. The collected data were analysed in two stages: single case (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2006) and cross-(sub-) case analysis (Borman et al., 2006; Yin, 2013).

Findings: Leading Policy Rationales

Policy rationales are reasons and motives which indicate why a certain policy is adopted and preferred over another alternative in a given institution .The findings in this section are associated with the central question of ‘why does a public university in Ontario engage in internationalization?’ I first briefly review and discuss what the official policy says as it exists in policy documents and archival materials which reflect Ontario University administration’s rhetoric. I then summarize the findings from the individual interviews and key-informant’s perceptions.

Participants’ Perceptions (Administrators and Faculty)

Commercial and Financial Incentives

Economic and commercial-driven motivations appear to be the central rationale of internationalization at Ontario University. Specifically from the faculty’s points of view, the story of internationalization seems different and more complex than the official policies. According to faculty members, except for a few from the Faculty of Engineering, generating revenue is the first and foremost rationale of the university for adopting internationalization. The faculty supposed that the recruitment of more international students, particularly at the undergraduate level, is a basic policy to bring more financial resources to the institution. The university tends to think of the classrooms as places that need to be filled with what can be called ‘bums-in-seats’ model. Dr Adams, a full professor from the Faculty of Social Science, for example, stated, ‘My students are increasingly becoming my customers; and that is what business transaction is; the bums in seats; we put as many bums in seats as possible.’ According to Dr Hilton, a full professor from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, ‘A push to internationalization logic has been linked to broader set of transformation and change the institution’s culture and commitment.’ She continued, ‘Internationalization has been a part of broader agenda to monetizing the university’s research, teaching and intellectual assets.’

According to the faculty, the university departments commonly do not actively recruit international students at the graduate level for financial motivations. However, the faculties believe that at the undergraduate level, the central objective of internationalization is to make money. Dr Brennon, an associate professor from the Faculty of Science, for example, commented: ‘(The) undergraduate programme in our department is like an open market and foreign students are the actual customers… The administration sees international students like a rich source of consumers.’ In other words, for most faculty members, it is obvious that the financial factor is the first and foremost rationale for internationalization, specifically the recruitment of more international undergraduate students. According to Dr Adams Ontario University sees students as a revenue-generating activity at the undergraduate level. Dr Tishman, a department chair from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities believed that money (economic incentives) is the central part of internationalization rationales. He commented: ‘The university recruits more international students because they bring more money to us.’ Dr Blatt, an associate professor from the Faculty of Science also commented, ‘From the business point of view, it is tempting to charge 15 thousand dollars instead of five thousand and get more people who pay the fifteen thousand dollars.’ Faculty suppose that the central rationale of the university in recruiting more international students at the undergraduate level is finding and replacing some external resources to inject more money to the system to run the institution. This perspective is consistent with AUCC’s (2014) report indicating that the most important barrier to internationalization development in Canadian context is lack of funding opportunities. Boes, a full professor from the Faculty of Science, for example, said:

‘The provincial funding for Ontario universities is declining; they have been on a decline for 20 years at least. So, in the environment where the provincial share of funding is going down and will continue to go down and where there is not a lot of flexibility to raise tuition for domestic students—because that ultimately is controlled by the provincial government, and there is a political reason why the administration cannot raise domestic tuition—the (Ontario) university is seeking more external non-provincial government founding; so if you talk to the administration, they hope to have more fund raising; so they would be more aggressive for fund raising; and they go after more billionaires and name more facilities as far as they can. So the fund raising is big part of it.’

The community of faculty members, particularly participants from three faculties (i.e., Social Science, Science, and Arts and Humanities), insisted on the idea that financial incentives are the primary values driving internationalization initiatives at Ontario University. According to Dr Boles, an associate professor from the Faculty of Social Science, for example, international students pay money to the university for programmes that already have been planned for domestic students’ requirements and needs. According to Dr Tracy, a full professor from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, ‘Internationalization is about money and nobody can see the liberal values of education in university anymore.’ Dr Adams, a full professor from the Faculty of Social Science, supposed that internationalization of campus is driven by an economic engine rather than an educational engine. He added: ‘The economic engine has to do with the fact that foreign students on our campus pay two or three times as much school (tuition) fees than the Canadian students.’

There is discrepancy between what administrators say and what faculties perceive about the rationales of recruitment of international students. The faculty challenged the business attitudes of the university administration towards internationalization and international students. They believe that the university has been selling postsecondary credentials to the world through internationalization like a commercial project. Dr Hilton, an associate professor from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, commented: ‘I think our university administration sees international students as cash cows and of course, provincial government sees them in that way.’ She believed that this is the disappointing part of internationalization, viewing foreign students like revenue generators. She continued her criticism by saying that: ‘It is so sad if provincial and federal governments say universities have to raise their own money; it is so sad when universities charge international students three times or whatever more than our students.’ Dr Levinson an associate professor from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities was suspicious because he supposed that internationalization is a business project of the present government. He said: ‘I try not to be an ideological-driven faculty (member), but in terms of values promoted by internationalization I am very sceptical and actually quite critical at the same time; that is a political-business agenda, not a real education plan.’ Therefore, the faculty perceptions are that the university administration’s first and primary concern is not recruiting the best and brightest international undergraduate students. Rather, they are interested in their wealthy backgrounds and the finances they can generate from them. Indeed, this is consistent with Coates’s and Morrison’s (2011, p. 215) observations that ‘universities in Ontario are chasing foreign students from around the world.’

According to administrators, it is true that international students contribute significantly to the Canadian economy, but in most departments such as Engineering and Science all graduate students are funded by their departments. Dr Saeedi, a department chair from the Faculty of Engineering thought that making money is not the main motivation for the graduate programme. According to him, they have to be recruiting talented people to do their work. He commented, ‘We want top international students in our labs; because our labs need them.’ According to the participants recruiting international students to work in the departments’ labs could be an example of academic-research rationales driving internationalization initiatives at Ontario University. For Dr James, an associate dean from the Faculty of Science, there is a possibility of the institution trying to make money through international students’ tuition, but there isn’t any pressure from the university and senior administration on departments to take more graduate international students in order to increase the university finances. Dr Santos, a department chair from the Faculty of Social Science observed that probably the university is making some money from the undergraduate side, whoever, only 5 per cent of their undergraduate population comes from overseas.

Research and Academic Rationales

Internationalization has a different meaning for administrators and faculty. According to the perceptions of research participants, specifically from the administrators’ points of view, research and academic purposes is one the key rationales of internationalization at Ontario University. Collaboration and partnerships with international partners in global research projects is the main (and foremost) component of this rationale. According to Dr Birdwell, a governing board member, for example, the university cannot be competitive at any level ‘if it does not have meaningful collaboration and engagement beyond local and national borders.’ Dr Dishke, a senate member, supposed that having international research collaboration with top tier institutions of the world would provide great opportunities for Ontario University. According to him, ‘Universities that draw only from local talent pools may be missing out on opportunities to share knowledge and learn from a broader set of life and cultural experiences.’ Dr Smith, another senior administrator, verified Dr Dishke’s perception. He supposed that ‘the expansion of international partnerships with foreign research institutes and hiring senior university officials with a dedicated internationalization mandate’ creates big opportunities for the community. According to Dr Miller, another senior administrator, Ontario University needs an international partnership plan that develops more collaboration with the overseas partners and enables the university researchers and students to be connected with them internationally. According to her, research collaboration is an inevitable part of the university’s past, current and future component of internationalization. ‘It is years and maybe decades that this university has been doing international research and collaborating with the people around the globe on matters that have been important’, said Dr Miller. She added that the university scholars has been translating its research and mobilizing the knowledge and republishing in international journals through representing their research in conferences.

Internationalizing the curriculum and increasing the quality and effectiveness of the learning–teaching process is yet another component of the research and academic rationale of internationalization at Ontario University. According to administrators and also participants from the Faculty of Engineering, international graduate students make different contributions to the Canadian academy and Canadian university campuses. Their main contribution is the carrying out of departments’ research projects and enriching the diversity and productivity of learning processes and classrooms. In the graduate programmes, particularly in engineering and science departments, international students are recruited to assist faculty to conduct their research projects. Dr Vig, an associate professor from the Faculty of Engineering, believed that international graduate students do not bring extra money to his department, but are a major source of impacting faculty research. He commented, ‘Many of our research projects and publications would not have happened if my colleagues and I did not have international graduate students accompanying us in our research projects.’ Dr Beardslee, a full professor from the same faculty echoed Dr Vig’s views, by stating, ‘International graduate students conduct most of the data collection in our research programmes. So, any faculty member in engineering who is successful, he is successful largely because he has a team of graduate students who is working either in his lab or on individual thesis projects that fit in his overall research programme.’ According to Dr Barr, an associate professor from the Faculty of Science, most of his and his colleagues’ publications are co-authored with graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. He commented, ‘They (international students and fellows) are a good source of trainees and workers that we can use in our research labs, research groups and courses.’ Dr Sameti, an associate professor from the Faculty of Engineering believed that his ‘department recruits international students simply because they have strong academic promise and because of mutual interests.’

According to Dr Anderson, an associate professor from the Faculty of Engineering, the university’s president has made and pushed to increase the international student population on campus for research and academic reasons and rationales. He said: ‘I am sure, and you may be aware, that I do not think our president is pushing that (internationalization) from a money making point of view. I think the president is pushing that because of the academic values added of having international students here.’ At the same time, a few faculty members, however, believed that it would partly be a self-concerned mode of internationalization if some departments hire international students for doing faculty’s research projects. Dr Boes, a full professor from the Faculty of Science summed up this situation by stating, ‘The selfish mode is that if we can recruit top quality research graduate students or fellows then the research productivity of department goes on.’ The selfish mode that Dr Boes refers to implies that the university does not accept any responsibility for the career growth of international students after graduation. Needless to say that international students are culturally more docile and academically dependent on their mentors’ decisions and interests, particularly in the areas of engineering and science.

Visibility and Profile Status

Building a high profile brand name internationally in order to attract the brightest and best people is a significant rationale for Ontario University. Securing and increasing national prestige and building international profile and reputation are the main components of this rationale. Specifically from the viewpoint of faculty, visibility and profile status appear to be major motivations for internationalization. They believed that internationalization provides a rationale for going beyond local vision and regional approach of higher education. For this purpose, Ontario University needs a significant population of international students, researchers and faculty who have an international mindset. According to the faculty, a hidden agenda of the university policymakers is that they need to break out of the regional mindset and develop the international profile of the institution. This is a mission that most big successful universities such as Oxford and Harvard in the world have achieved already. Dr Chao, a full professor from the Faculty of Social Science, for example, commented, ‘It is important in a sense that the university wants to be widely recognized at the global level. I do not think any institution wants to be exclusively a provincial or regional sort of institution; we need to have a high profile; insofar as it deserves recognition, I like it, internationally.’ According to most participants rebranding Ontario University and making its professional image visible outside of the country and province is central amongst the internationalization rationales. Dr Pierce, a full professor from the Faculty of Social Science, for example, commented, ‘The (public) university has rebranded to provide a more consistent and professional image to the outside world.’

According to the administrators, one of the central concerns of public universities to acknowledge internationalization as a policy priority is to compete for national and international prestige and reputation. Senior administration believed that it is the duty of the administration to hold and increase the university’s reputation nationally and internationally. Dr Bryon, a board of governor member, for example, stated, ‘People are hungry for the education that we have in North America…; so the administration needs to be able to hold on and raise our reputation, and at the same time make the place attractive for foreigners, and people outside of the province to come in.’ According to Dr Smith, a senior administrator, most of the time, unhealthy competition drives internationalization. He commented, ‘Each university fights each other; that is another thing that drives me crazy; … (just) look at Southern Ontario; all universities compete with each other.’ He added, ‘Internationalization is being a commercial enterprise.’ According to some administrators, the existing game of competition is not bad per se, rather, it is a big opportunity for Canada and Canadian institutions. Dr Saeedi, a department chair from the Faculty of Engineering, for example, stated, I think it would be very unfortunate for Canadian universities if they ignore this competition...just from a market point of view…there is a large market there; this is a big opportunity for the institution, the departments, faculty and whatever.’ It falls into a global capitalist economy of competitiveness.

The fact, however, is that even though some faculty members accept that Ontario University has to be concerned about its visibility internationally, some of the universities were, more or less, unhappy about that. They suppose that to the extent that internationalization activities are being done as a form of brand extension at the expense of scholarly or pedagogical reasons, the community of faculty would not be interested to be part of the trade agenda of internationalization. According to Dr Levinson, an associate professor from the same faculty, the current imperatives to internationalize at Ontario University seems to be not necessarily the cosmopolitan international nature of scholarship; instead, it is more about attracting more foreign students. He claims, ‘The university administration are having to expand the brand internationally to get more international students from Asia and elsewhere.’

Sociopolitical Rationales

Sociopolitical agendas are yet another reason for acknowledging internationalization as a policy priority at Ontario University. According to the participants, losing the best and brightest talents through a brain drain specifically to the USA is one the major problem that needs to be dealt with before it is too late as it is destroying the economy of Canada. Internationalization, particularly of graduate international students, is a very good source of talents to replace increasing level of brain drain of Canadian talent to other western countries. Dr Anderson, an assistant professor from the Faculty of Engineering contends that international students meet the Canadian immigration needs. According to the faculty, internationalization is a way to attract talented people for the future of the country. Dr Boes, a full professor from the Faculty of Science, for example, said, ‘Internationalization for Canada is a political project in order to bring bright people in as potential immigrants and residents.’ Dr Robinson, a full professor from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities is also of the opinion that internationalization includes a political agenda. He commented: ‘My assumption is that both brain drain and brain gain can happen at the same time. What I am now thinking about internationalization is that definitely it has a political slant; I think from the point of view of Canada it is a good thing.’ According to Dr Sameti, an associate professor from the Faculty of Engineering, recruiting and training graduate students and making them top engineers for the future of Canada is an important rationale for engineering departments.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Khorsandi Taskoh (2014).

Arguments and Analysis

The findings support the existence of different rationales for internationalization at Ontario University, ranging amongst others, from academic and educational rationales such as educating global citizens and building capacity for research and partnership, to economic and administrative rationales, and the quest to enhance institutional international profile and prestige. The data gathered from my research identifies four main rationales driving internationalization initiatives: Commercial and financial, research and academic, visibility and profile, and sociopolitical (see Figure 1).

Like many institutions in the Anglo-American tradition of academia (de Wit, 2011; Knight, 2008; Maringe et al., 2013), Ontario University is largely motivated by the economic incentives of internationalization. Drawing on the official policy documents and administrators’ perceptions, although the research and academic objectives and components are theoretically the central rationales driving international initiatives, the university’s administration cannot ignore the tempting economic benefits of internationalization in practice. In other words, internationalization rhetorically is associated with academic rationales and activities such as international research, partnership and collaboration, recruitment of top talented students, mobility programmes, and educational quality and excellence, but the dominant tendency is mostly related towards commercial and financial, and visibility and profile rationales. This finding partly, but not wholly, challenges the AUCC’s (2014) results, indicating that educating internationally knowledgeable graduates and providing local and international students with international and intercultural knowledge and skills is the core rationales of internationalization at Canadian institutions. There is, however, an agreement and connection between AUCC surveys and findings from the official policy documents and administration’s rhetoric of this study. But when it comes to the faculty’s perceptions, a divergence emergences between findings of this study and AUCC’s surveys.

Remarkably a common sense understanding about the importance of the visibility and profile rationale of internationalization binds the official policy, administration rhetoric and participants’ perceptions. Ontario University’s policy directly recommends its administration to determine initiatives that can raise the university’s international profile and reputation at home and abroad. Following this recommendation, the university administration attempted to achieve international prestige and reputation by different appropriate commitments such as increasing the number of international undergraduate students, strengthening intellectual intensity at the institution and selectively expanding the number of active partnerships with preeminent international research and teaching institutions (e.g., joint degrees and dual degrees). This finding is consistent with the observations of some scholars (Kehm & Teichler, 2007; Knight, 2004), pointing out that one of the main institutional rationales of internationalization is international rankings, institutional international branding and building a great public competitive profile. Interestingly, one of the main objectives of building a high profile brand name and increasing international reputation aims at attracting the best and brightest minds (students and scholars) on campus and also generate more revenue at Ontario University.

There may moreover be different motives behind an initiative or specific component of internationalization. Another finding of this study reveals the multiplicity of objectives and variety of motives for the same single component of each rationale. There may, for example, be only one simple single objective for continuing to recruit international students. Despite the material rationale and revenue generation motivation behind international ‘undergraduate’ student recruitment, the best international ‘graduate’ and postdoctoral students, particularly in the fields of engineering and science, are recruited for scholarly and research reasons and partly for sociopolitical rationales related to immigration policy. Therefore, sociopolitical rationales like immigration policy may not be the university administration’s agenda; however it intersects with the federal government’s changes to immigration policy focusing on highly educated and skilled young immigrants. This discussion is consistent with the IAU’s (2012) finding showing that internationalization may foster the process of immigration and brain drain and even accelerate it globally. Thus, internationalization can potentially exert an uneven brain drain/gain scenario that highly promotes human capital flight and the net migration of skilled students to richer nations like Canada. It deprives many countries from their human potential.

As was shown in the previous section, while most faculty challenge the economic and financial rationales of internationalization, particularly concerning the recruitment of international students, administrators reject such a point and the criticism. University administrators will never admit to viewing international students as cash cows, nor will they admit to trade and business revenues as the central rationale driving internationalization. The correlated challenge and criticism from the faculty’s point of view is about the unequal tuition fees paid by domestic and international students at Ontario University. From the perspective of administrators, the fee differential between domestic and international students is justifiable in the context of Ontario, given that universities, like many other institutions in Canada, receive government funding and money for domestic students but not for international students. Universities justify the fee differential between domestic and international students: First, Ontario University receives government funding and money for domestic students, but not for international students. Second, the practice is prevalent in other public universities in Canada and in the Anglo-American world. The administration claims that Ontario University is not the only institution to pursue a market-based internationalization agenda. According to them, other universities in and out of Canada have similar agenda(s). Third, at the undergraduate level, relative to other top universities in the rich-Northern countries of the West, Ontario University has a low population of international students and they bring insignificant funds to the system. As such, the low numbers of international undergraduate students do not account for a significant form of economic benefit to Ontario University. Therefore, the administrators claim that having differential fees for international and local students is understandable given that it is a common practice across Canada and elsewhere. According to the administration, if the cost to international students was different only at Ontario University, it would not be ‘normal practice’ for the institution to charge more money for people who are not local.

Arguably, the economic and financial rationale as a dominant motive appears to be worrisome for the community. This is because faculty members believe that the institution has been approaching postsecondary education with a business mindset, rather than from the perspective of educational rationales of schooling. This trend of internationalization is favouring rich students over deserving ones. It is clear to me that the community of faculty and scholars had a negative attitude to internationalization and particularly the university’s inclination to commercial rationales and business profits. They believe that the current discourse on internationalization departs too much from the real reasons they have been recruited as professors and scholars to teach students or conduct academic research. This is consistent with other scholars’ observations, indicating that the postsecondary education sector is seen as a factor in ensuring economic productivity (Bok, 1982; Giroux, 2012; Marginson, 2013; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Within this commercial framework, higher education institutions have, as Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) observed, become international drivers for revenue generation since profit has become prioritized over the core educational activities of institution. Likewise, the finding from my study supports the claim that internationalization seems to be a key component of the global marketplace for higher education in which brand name institutions sell their products (i.e., credentials and certifications) to students from the developing world.

The last point of the section is the presence of divergent perceptions and attitudes towards the rationales and agendas of internationalization amongst participants from the Faculty of Engineering and the other three faculties. Participants from the Faculty of Engineering were more optimistic about internationalization initiatives as compared to participants from the other faculties. This finding may elicit thoughts as to why participants from some faculties may be more optimistic about internationalization than others. One of the reasons is that participants from the Faculty of Engineering is the most involved in international activities and participants than other faculties, particularly Faculty of Arts and Humanities has been the least involved faculty. In other words, participants from the Faculty of Engineering is more optimistic because it is favoured by actual political economy in the west, based on tangible revenue generating productivity. It is positive because it has benefited and is privileged by different components and activities of internationalization, compared to scholars from other faculties at Ontario University. A couple of the research participants echoed this point. For instance, Dr Boles, an associate professor from the Faculty of Social Science commented, ‘If you study or teach in the areas of, for example, humanities, sociology and many social sciences, my sense as an insider is that you will not be at the first stage of internationalization priority now.’ From this perspective, it is important to mention that faculties could be divided into two sections of ‘more’ international and ‘less’ international. Subsequently, the uneven engagement of departments and individuals with internationalization activities appears to be the main reason for the divergent perceptions amongst participants. This perspective is consistent with Warwick and Moogan’s (2013) research showing that there are extensive variations in practice in the degree and implementation of internationalization initiatives between departments and between faculties at the same university.

Conclusion

This study acknowledges internationalization as a core element of policy initiatives at Ontario University which is based on different rationales ranging from the commercial and economic, and sociopolitical to the academic and educational and profile-building components. There are, however, many contradictions and different perceptions about the rationales between the research participants’ perceptions, the rhetoric of the administration supposedly based on official policies. According to the official university policy and administrators’ rhetoric, the main rationale for internationalization is the enrichment of the university’s community in terms of educational, academic cultural diversity. Conversely, faculty members believe that the primary goal of internationalization is generating revenue, branding and extending the profile of the university in practice. Taking all that into account, this study concludes that commercialization is the dominant trend (if not the only trend) influencing and governing internationalization at Ontario University. From this perspective, internationalization is evaluated as an objective in itself. In other words, despite different rationales and great diversity, this study identifies that this particular university has, more or less, similar concerns with other universities in the rich-Northern countries of the West.

For internationalization policymaking, Ontario University and the institutions of higher education in Canada need to reimagine their enthusiasm for international initiatives because the over enthusiasm for commercial objectives and rationales can jeopardize the academic and educational objectives of the university. The university administrators need an imaginary which recognizes the university as an academic and sociocultural enterprise. Accordingly, the central goals of internationalization activities should be educating new generations of world-aware students who are globally competitive, academically creative and critical, and also politically committed to the values of democracy, diversity and equity as the university purports in its own rhetoric. Perhaps university administrators would resonate with this imaginary and feel that such a mission requires a business approach to ensure that the university is financially strong enough to carry on this mission. But the whole argument is that the administrators of higher education in Ontario need to move from policy (text and rhetoric) to praxis. They need to move towards all those good things that are written in policy texts and university administrators like to talk about, such as diversity, mobility, exchange opportunities, educational and intellectual values, global awareness and international impact, among others. Universities need to show more commitment to collaboration, serving the public good, and pursuing persuasive inclusiveness and scholarly excellence. Such a commitment to praxis can largely decrease the present misconceptions and tensions that pervade between the administrators’ understanding of internationalization and the expectations and observations of faculty who are involved in international activities.