From Enrolment Rates to Collaborative Knowledge Production: A Critique to the Internationalization of Higher Education in Canada

Abstract

Although not a new phenomenon, the evolvement, range and characteristics of the modern process of internationalization are worthy of attention. Despite many potential benefits of having a multicultural campus, internationalizing higher education requires more than the physical presence of international students. As stated on the literature, this process must value transnational knowledge as an asset to the educational experience, thus promoting collaborative knowledge production between teachers and students. Nonetheless, there is a paucity of studies done from the point of view of educators depicting how they perceive their graduate international students and internationalization itself. Therefore, through the perspectives of 10 professors at a mid-sized western Canadian university, this critical phenomenological research offers an analysis of the present condition of higher education in Canada. More specifically, this paper deconstructs some of the challenges of internationalization, in which graduates are to be recognized as active agents of circulation and production of knowledge and not just mere figures or passive recipients of information. Finally, questions about the complexity of incorporating epistemic diversity in a meaningful way through internationalization are proposed.

Keywords

Internationalization of higher education graduate international students post-secondary teachers collaborative knowledge production transnational knowledge

Introduction

Many scholars have sought to depict the multiple facets of the process of internationalization of higher education in the 21st century (Anderson, 2015; Andrade, 2006; Knight, 2007, 2012; Stier, 2004; Van Damme, 2001; Wadhwa, 2016a). Nonetheless, it is undisputed that its most outstanding characteristic is the facilitation of student mobility (Knight, 2012; Van Damme, 2001; Wadhwa, 2016a). Indeed, such a complex and evolving phenomenon has gained even more strength in the last decades with the advent of globalization. Canada, for instance, is recognized as a highly aimed country for those willing to study abroad because of such facility as well as other push-pull factors (Andrade, 2006; Canadian Bureau for International Education [CBIE], 2018; Wadhwa, 2016a;). Anderson (2015), for example, outlines how the population of sojourner students in Canadian universities increased more than 99 per cent between 2000 and 2011. According to the CBIE (2018), there were 494,525 international students in the country in 2017, coming from more than 180 different nations. Nonetheless, internationalization of higher education is not merely the physical presence of individuals from different countries.

A simple way of defining internationalization of higher education could be ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education’ (Knight, 2003, p. 2). Although the concept of ‘higher education’ may encompass universities, colleges and institutes of technology or art, the term will be used here interchangeably with post-secondary to refer to education in universities. The term ‘international student’ in this study is defined as an individual who was not born in Canada and who came, primarily, with the purpose of studying at a university, either for the whole academic programme or a shorter period of time. Additionally, in this study, professors were required to reflect specifically upon their graduate international students, as those comprise a more experienced group and because those are hardly ever in the scope of internationalization studies, notwithstanding the high proportion of this population in Canada (75% of the international students were enrolled in post-secondary studies in 2017; according to the CBIE (2018), 57% were university students).

Many are the recognized potential benefits of having a multicultural university (in terms of having people from different parts of the globe). As Cudmore (2005) notes, it builds ‘a stronger international and intercultural dimension to teaching and research and a crucial global perspective to Canadian campuses’ (p. 47). Furthermore, the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE, 2014) also recognizes that this process should ‘create opportunities for collaborative knowledge production, exposure to different contexts and worldviews, more complex and nuanced analyses, and improved capacity to respond to change and diversity’ (p. 5). So, it is important to note that just having a large number of enrolled international students does not make an institution internationalized. It is also expected that ‘their transnational knowledge should be seen as a social, cultural, and institutional asset that enriches the educational experience of all students, rather than as a barrier to learning in host institutions’ (ACDE, 2014, p. 8). As also expressed on that document, exploitative practices emerging from an unbalance focus on profit maximization, systemic exclusion and the consequent emergence of a neo-colonization of epistemologies are some of the potential threats involved in the internationalization of higher education, which must be taken into account.

Seeking to conceptualize international education, Madge et al. (2015) also resort to the existing literature to point how often the discussion is narrowed to the economic, social and political aspects of internationalization, taking for granted that internationalization is not only the flow of people but also the ‘circulations of knowledge’ (p. 684). While there are many guides and policies that seek to guarantee quality of education among internationalized institutions, little attention has been given to how this process has been unfolding in practice in terms of receiving graduate international students as active agents of knowledge production or to clarify how this is to take place in post-secondary classrooms.

Additionally, Canada is a country distinguished by its claims of commitment, support and encouragement to cultural diversity. Nevertheless, not much has been said in terms of how professors conceptualize the internationalization process and how they perceive their graduate international students. The government may claim to be committed to cultural diversity, but what happens inside post-secondary classes is questionable. Friesen (2012) shows that faculty members often do not have a clear understanding of internationalization, what it involves or proposes. Friesen’s research demonstrated that this phenomenon is differently viewed and engaged by different faculty members, mainly according to each one’s personal relationships, showing that ‘internationalization is complex, nuanced, and qualitative in nature’ (p. 221). However, given the pivotal importance professors have in the institution of internationalization as knowledge mobility, such conceptualization cannot be undermined.

Therefore, this article offers critical insights on Canadian internationalization of higher education based on the experience of post-secondary teachers themselves. The major question this article seeks to answer is ‘what are professors’ perception of graduate international students and internationalization’. More specifically, how do they perceive international students’ transnational knowledge?

Relevance

Notably after the Cold War, Canada has had many shifts around international academic relations and policymaking. Overall, Trilokekar (2010) shows that the history of internationalization in the country has been shaped by miscommunications between universities and the government, especially given the absence of academics in the departments of policy developments, which has led to an uncoordinated approach towards this type of education. The author claims that in the last decades of the 20th century, Canada’s international cultural relations were characterized by a non-colonial middle power status and an effort to avoid any idea of a ‘Canadian cultural imperialism’. Hence, the government bypassed any direct or indirect involvement ‘in academic matters [that] would interfere with the principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom’ (p. 139). Nevertheless, with the advent of globalization, especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s and until the current time, the government adopted a posture that emphasizes free trade and commerce.

Severe federal budget cuts, such as happened in the early 1990s, are evidences that ‘Canada’s investment in academic and cultural relations has always been extremely weak’ (Trilokekar, 2010, p. 135). Anderson (2015) observes more recently that besides the public subsidization of higher education, universities have also been largely corporatized. Consequently, sojourner students end up paying in average 3–4 times more than domestic ones as a way to counterbalance the deficit as well as be a source of revenue to institutions. Higher education has then been regarded as a lucrative and tradable sector (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight, 2008) not only by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) but also by universities that admit international students as a source of revenue. Consequently, there is a risk that students may now be seen as mere customers who are recruited in order to fulfil economic agendas (Andrade, 2006; Harris, 2008; Van Damme, 2001; Wadhwa, 2016b).

Cudmore (2005) also notices that a former humanitarian motivation in Canadian institutions to recruit international students has yielded to ‘a motivation to boost revenue and export earnings’ (p. 47). Therefore, the promises of a process characterized by a bilateral humanistic way of acquiring cultural understanding, co-production, cooperation and sharing of knowledge, ideas, values (Knight, 2013; Wadhwa, 2016b) has in fact been commonly shaped by an act of marketization of education and commodification of students.

In parallel, a race among universities to recruit and hold outstanding students, also referred as brain power and human capital, started taking place in the academic scenario (Knight, 2013). Nonetheless, as Madge et al. (2015) also recognize, these international students are often merely expected to fit into and reproduce existing orders rather than being empowered with a more critical view of the world and transforming the environment with the knowledge they bring.

As a consequence, Trilokekar (2010) points that any middle power status that Canada enjoyed, or tried to maintain in the 20th century, has now shifted to an active effort to concentrate ‘wealth, knowledge and power’ (p. 144). The education that should be focused on quality can be in danger of being dominated by quantity, making internationalization the ultimate goal instead of a mean to a meaningful end, a private commodity instead of a public good. This issue has been perceived by higher education institutions as the biggest risk of internationalization for society today (International Association of Universities [IAU], 2014).

Notwithstanding the current scenario, a quick look back in the history shows that the Government of Canada has long claimed to value and support cultural diversity. Since 1971, multiculturalism has been a public policy at the federal level (Library of Parliament, 2013), making Canada the first country in the world to take such a measure. The government alleged to be rejecting the idea of assimilation and to be advocating for opening the doors to the integration into Canadian society. The main goal of the Multiculturalism Policy publishing was to support and promote cultural diversity as well as guarantee that immigrants could be active members of society, for example, by supporting their learning of at least one of the official languages then proclaimed, English and French.

Later, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 declared that ‘persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion or to use their own language’ (Minister of Justice, 2016, p. 2). In recognizing the importance of diversity in the constitution of the Canadian society, this document claims that the Government of Canada is ‘committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada’ (Minister of Justice, 2016, p. 2). This Act also emphasizes that the Government of Canada is committed to recognize, preserve and promote appreciation of cultural diversity. Moreover, Federal Institutions are to ‘carry on their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada’ (Minister of Justice, 2016, p. 4).

So, as Trilokekar (2010) observes, it is ironic that a country as Canada, whose soft power has distinguished itself among other nations, has arrived in a narrow notion of internationalization, one shaped by standardized curriculums and the colonization of thinking, based on the Western’ epistemology even in non-Western countries (Clifford, 2014; Jones & De Wit, 2012; Kudo, 2016). It seems that at the same time that it is a country which is opened to newcomers, it inhibits any influence coming from the other’s end. Thus, in the midst of such delicate circumstances, and especially in a country that takes pride in its multiculturalism policies, it is imperative that we understand the present situation of Canadian universities, critique and actively strive to achieve the intended goals of internationalization which are much deeper than having a certain amount of enrolled international students.

Moreover, this research aims at covering an important gap in theory and practice of internationalization. There is a paucity of studies done through professors’ perspective of graduates, let alone studies that seek to comprehend the extent to which graduate international students have been considered ‘complex agents who alter the academic worlds around them through their knowledge practices’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 686). As Madge et al. (2015) point out, international students are often objects of study, but the focus is mostly on the impact such mobility has on students themselves rather than looking at them as active agents of knowledge production who can also transform the universities they go to.

Being a major agent in the process of internationalization, faculty members have been challenged to teach and work with a broad range of cultures, but it is not yet clear how they perceive such phenomenon. Do they look at internationalization as a two-way road, resorting to students’ transnational knowledge as an asset to their classes, or are international students regarded as mere recipients of ‘better education’? If Canada is to live up to its stated multiculturalism values, the process of internationalization of higher education must be carefully observed. So, as Friesen (2012) points, it is necessary to comprehend whether professors have in fact understood the roles they should play in such a context in order to ensure a meaningful implementation of internationalization: A process in which the co-construction of knowledge between students and professors is not lost in the race for enrolment rates.

Methodology and Limitations

The institution selected for the study was a mid-sized university located in Western Canada. In the fall of 2016, almost 17 per cent of its enrolled students were international, coming from 111 different countries. Furthermore, from the 3,700 graduate students, 30.2 per cent come from other countries. Besides the considerable proportion of students from other countries and several characteristics of a modern internationalized university (e.g., International Student Mentorship Program, International Centre Advising Services, Academic Learning Centre, etc.), this institution was also chosen since its mission, vision and values also claim to be committed to cultural diversity.

A non-random and purposeful sampling was used in this research. In this way, professors of different faculties in both sciences and social sciences were invited based on certain characteristics from which most could be learned. The criteria for inclusion were (a) hold a tenure-track position, (b) have had at least 4 years of experience in this position, (c) teach at the graduate level and (d) have had international students in their classes. Based on the institution database of number of international students enrolled by faculties (those which had the highest numbers) invitations were sent out via email to potential participants. The first 10 professors who met the criteria and responded that they were willing to participate were recruited for the study.

A semi-structured interview (Appendix A) was conducted through Skype with each of the 10 professors recruited. Although all professors knew beforehand about the critical lens of this research, during the interviews their responses were simply recorded, without critical replies from the researcher. At the time of the interview, professors had 13–34 years of experience with that institution. Eight professors belonged to the sciences and two from social sciences, comprising a total of six different faculties. Although participants were not asked directly about their gender or nationality, I assume that the group consists of seven men and three women, and three participants mentioned not being born in Canada. Such diversity, although not being requisite for the purposes of this research, served to increase the group’s heterogeneity, thus an asset to the study.

All interviews were digitally recorded and manually transcribed verbatim by the researcher. All data were coded and analysed, step-by-step, as Moustakas’ (1994) transcendental phenomenological approach instructs, as ‘a return to experience in order to obtain comprehensive descriptions that provide the basis for a reflective structural analysis that portrays the essences of the experience’ (p. 13). Additionally, the critical perspective of this research is an expansion of its phenomenological paradigm. It seeks to comprehend, critique and improve how power relations have been negotiated in internationalized higher education classrooms, who has and what reinforces it. Therefore, the goal was not only to deconstruct the internationalization phenomenon but also, based on the findings, to ‘critique and challenge, to transform and empower’ (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Responses were kept confidential through the use of pseudonyms, no single answer was tied to any specific individual, and no specific faculty member has been identified. Where necessary, words (such as one’s faculty) have been replaced by something else in brackets so as to keep the sentence’s meaning.

I acknowledge that this study is limited in many ways. The fact that I was a complete insider (McMillan, 2016), that is, an international student at the time of interviewing professors about a topic directly related to me, may have skewed their responses. Also, there was a very low rate of response from potential participants. A plausible explanation is the fact that it was supposed to be an online interview, which might be uncomfortable to some people and thus unwilling to make the effort. Another possibility, however, is indifference to the topic. In such case, it is possible that those who agreed to participate hold stronger views about it. Furthermore, I recognize that different professors, from different faculties or different universities could have different perspectives, but I also believe that the present data raises legitimate aspects to be discussed. Therefore, the results here presented should not be generalized for the whole institution or country, although I do not deny the possibility of transferability.

Findings

Each interview sought to help professors reflect upon their international students and how they have experienced internationalization. Although there were several categories of response, I present here the data which speaks more directly in terms of how this process approximates or distances from what is claimed by existing literature, educational accords and guides to be of major importance for the internationalization process: recognizing and supporting international students as active agents of knowledge circulation and production.

Understanding of Internationalization

Given the importance of having a clear understanding of the purposes and goals of internationalization for its implementation, the first category depicts what professors understand by such phenomenon. Participants directly associated it with ‘a push to attract more international students’, especially for financial benefits. They understand that education is something global in itself, so it ‘shouldn’t have national boundaries’. Whatever impinges on this facility is perceived as a contradiction to this process. They feel this flow happens especially in the direction of developing countries towards Europe and North America who seek better education than they would have in their home countries.

Samuel: Well, I think there’s always been a tradition of people coming to Western countries from other countries to take advantage of, you know, advantaged education opportunity at the Master’s and PhD level.

A couple of participants pointed that internationalization also involves the development of international collaboration and partnership between universities. Although, in other parts of the interview, some professors claimed that having international students is an asset to the class for the different perspectives they might bring, none of them mentioned cooperative knowledge production between students and teachers as an essential part of internationalization. In fact, participants generally conceive this process as a one-direction mobility of students who can profit from Canadian education and then either immigrate to Canada or be more successful in their home countries.

Perceived Benefits of Internationalization

After conceptualizing the process of internationalization, professors were asked to reflect upon its potential benefits. First and foremost, participants believe that international students are a main source of revenue for the university, making their presence on campus essential. Additionally, professors recognize how international students are conducting a huge amount of research for the university, thus enhancing its reputation around the world.

Mary: Honestly, all I can say is without international students, at least in my department, there wouldn’t be any graduate programme [laughs]. So, [this university] does need international students.

As for international students themselves, professors believe by coming to Canada they have the opportunity to improve their English skills, receive better education than they would in their home countries, improve their credentials, immigrate and integrate Canadian society (which they see as a more welcoming and supportive country for individuals pursuing a degree abroad).

Elizabeth: They get a programme that they can hold in their hand, their certificate that says, ‘I’ve a Masters or PhD from Canada’, that adds a big plus around the world … Because we are, Canada is regarded as a pretty high and … educated country.

The most common aspect mentioned in the interviews, however, is how international students bring different perspectives to the classroom, which is beneficial to everyone.

Samuel: You know, I think that the more diversity you have the stronger you are. The more kind of complexity to the human experience that you bring together the richer the tapestry that you kind of, you know, weave out of all the different threads that are there.

Although at first these claims seemed to be in accord with internationalization guides, such as the ACDE, the way in which international students can actually transform, bring meaningful changes the classes with the knowledge they bring was somewhat obscured, as will be presented further ahead.

Structural Challenges

When it comes to the perceived hurdles of internationalization, professors point to two main alarming issues: the process of recruitment and the English language. During the interviews, other aspects were deemed as obstacles to internationalization, but these two are seen as an ineffective (and unfair) way of recruiting potentially excellent researchers and a multifold challenge among international students, respectively, which could mostly impinge on the ‘circulation, mobility, agency and resistance of international students’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 688) as active agents in the co-construction of knowledge.

Recruitment

The main issue criticized by professors was the recruitment process of graduate international students, which they perceive as biased, long and ineffective. Having to pay much higher fees than domestic students is considered a contradiction to a system which should be facilitating those who want to study abroad. Many participants claimed that ‘there’s pressure to take students if they can get money from their own country’, rather than having to rely on scholarships, for example. Moreover, they understand how a mere GPA conversion is not only troublesome but also not enough to recruit good researchers, especially given the academic differences among countries which may use different scales and standards.

Peter: Well, from the point you’re making it more financially difficult the requirements for accepting … in my experience have not been fair for international students, I guess … or as equal. So, it’s more difficult for students from some countries to get accepted into our programme because their grading system disadvantages them for acceptance.

The issue of a long timeline (sometimes, they point, more than 6 months) often results in many potentially good students deciding to go study somewhere else, which is also frustrating for professors who desired to work with them and spent a lot of time sifting through hundreds of applications. Therefore, participants feel the recruitment process of international students to be not only challenging but highly time-consuming. The potential frustration and disappointment when trying to recruit graduate international students is also felt by professors who believe many students arrive with ‘questionable commitment to conduct research’, using education simply as a tool for immigration.

Mary: You know, many people want to come to Canada. So, sometimes international students are using that as an immigration tool, more than anything else.

Nevertheless, given the extra amount of effort professors put to recruit those students, they also feel quite under pressure to keep them throughout their programmes, even if a problem arises.

English Language

Despite having to prove an adequate level of English skills in order to apply to study (through standardized language proficiency tests), professors feel that most international students arrive not being able to express or synthesize ideas.

Daniel: Yeah, TOEFL. Those are okay, and they serve as predictors, but the grad schools use them as hard-line evidence, right, of ability, which is probably way too simplistic. Because I’ve seen some people with not many TOEFL scores come in and just be outstanding writers, eventually. So, you know, these things are general predictors, but universities tend to hang a hat on those results and offer a pretty hard-line about it.

As a consequence, most participants recognize that language frequently impairs students’ academic success (especially when compared to domestic students’ communication skills), whereas those who manage to improve their English skills are more likely to thrive.

Matthew: If the ability to communicate wasn’t part of their grade then they would do just as well as the students whose first language was English, on average. But sadly, like I said, as sad as researchers and academics, we have to be able to communicate effectively, and if we can’t do that then it’s tough, it’s gonna be real hard … the language aspect is very important.

Therefore, not only do professors find themselves constantly having to edit students’ work, but also feel that this whole situation contributes to many teachers having a deficit approach towards international students when confusing language difficulties with intelligence.

Capacity to Teach

Professors believe they are capable of teaching international students, but they express vehemently how every skill they have today stems from their own experience, either as a traveller, having been an international student, or simply by their years of teaching. In any case, they feel that the university did not provide any specific support for a task which they consider highly demanding.

Elizabeth: You know, it’s a lot of layers of mentorship. You end up feeling like you need to go to school as a supervisor to understand cultural constraints, assumptions that different countries might have about how we behave which may or may not be true, and about one another. Like, we need sort of a United Nations training programme for supervisors sometimes, I swear, because everybody finds out the problem and of course it’s urgent at the end, too late.… And we’re not actually trained to do that. We get it by osmosis [laughs], kind of. And our own experience as grad students ourselves really shape the way we do things in our own lab.

Nonetheless, participants are also not sure how the university could help them. They point that generalizing problems one can face when teaching international students, for example, would be impossible, and even trying to set workshops would be impractical due to professors’ busy agendas. Thus, although professors recognize that teaching international students poses a big challenge to them, this is mostly related to identifying and dealing with students’ immediate needs to the course, such as language difficulties, academic and cultural differences and expectations. For that reason, participants believe that their capacity to teach international students stems from the length of their experience and their inner appreciation of different cultures.

Perception of International Students’ Knowledge

When comparing with Canadian students, participants feel there is a stark contrast not only in their language skills, as previously mentioned, but also academic.

David: At least in [my department], what we found is that students from other countries are often not, don’t have the background that we would expect in [our area] students from, students from Canada have. And so, students are coming in with equal worth degrees to a domestic student, but the … training that goes into that degrees is quite different. And in some ways, it’s stronger, so often technically, mathematically students are quite good … but in terms of other things like critical thinking and formulating research questions and organizing thesis statements, students are often not as good.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulties, most professors also hold a positive perspective of international students claiming to admire their efforts, how they have worked hard to be there and to manage through the challenges of being an international student. Participants used several adjectives to describe international students, especially those they have advised, such as ‘experienced’, ‘extraordinary’, ‘wise’ and ‘talented people’.

Samuel: Well, I think you need to recognize the wisdom of the students in your class. Like, especially at the graduate level, people have usually had quite a bit of life experience and it’s important not to waste that.

Nonetheless, when I asked them how the presence of international students has influenced their practices or classes their answer would be:

Matthew: Not at all. In terms of course content, not at all. I mean, I, you know, deliver course-content based on the science not the student body. And the students are there because they’re interested in the course content not because there’s, you know, maybe more or less international students in that class. At least that’s what I would hope of, that’s why I’m for [laughs].

Or also

Noah: To my class? Well, they’re just like a normal student, right, in my class. And then, yeah, whatever the contribution made by other students be, they contribute to my class. And I know there’s a sort of this idea of bring international student to the classroom and they can share their experience from their own countries, and … but my courses are mostly technical courses, we deal with technical issues so there are no sort of boundaries between [laughs] countries, between cultures.

In this way, notwithstanding participants expressing how the talent and experience international students bring cannot be wasted, they did not make it clear how their knowledges can be an asset to the class, how it can make a difference to the course. Even though some teachers mentioned occasionally listening to international students’ voices in the class, such participations seemed to be somewhat blurred and limited by the rigidity of the curriculum and the pace of the class that had to be kept.

Discussion

From the point of view of post-secondary teachers, this research sought to deconstruct the present state of internationalization in the Canadian higher education, especially in terms of recognizing graduate international students as active agents of co-production of knowledge. The first category of response revealed that professors perceive student mobility as a main part of internationalization, which has also been pointed in the literature as the most preeminent feature of such phenomenon (Knight, 2012; Van Damme, 2001; Wadhwa, 2016a).

Nonetheless, it was absent from participants’ conceptualization of internationalization any notion of co-production of knowledge between students and teachers, being thus the first challenge, this research points to. Professors, who are fundamental to the concretization of internationalization (Friesen, 2012), emphasize the power of internationalization to break barriers of distance and connect individuals from different parts of the world, however, without indicating that it is also a flow of knowledge. Friesen (2012) believes that the unclear definition of internationalization among faculty members lies on the lack of harmony of related literature. Although this may be true, it is important to note that the focus of the present research goes beyond a mere theoretical conceptualization of such complex phenomenon. Perceiving the classroom as a ‘shared space of knowledge’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 685) brings implications to the curriculum as well as a teacher’s role and practices. Therefore, it is imperative that post-secondary institutions strive to better inform professors (for example, with a summarized document such as the Accord on the Internationalization of Education) as well as promote meaningful discussions (preferably inter and across faculties to hear different perspectives) which, although not a panacea, could be the starting point for helping teachers better understand this process and thus make informed decisions towards it on a daily basis.

As the second category of response depicts, professors in general see internationalization as a trade of money and recognition for the university, which Knight (2013) also points, in the exchange of better education for students. Clearly, this process involves not only teachers and students but also many different stakeholders who have different interests, such as the government, academic and private sector. However, as Knight (1997) had mentioned earlier, it is possible to achieve a balanced situation where there is not only one ‘winner’. As far as professors are concerned, it is necessary that, after being well informed about the goals of internationalization, they embrace such objectives and shift from a deficit approach (i.e., trying to provide students with what they ‘lack’) to one that enables an equally valued knowledge encountering experience.

When it comes to perceived structural challenges, professors’ responses conceive the process of recruitment of graduate international students in a way which could be a stumbling block to internationalization itself. First, standardized language tests are deemed as an ineffective way of testing one’s academic communication skills, which consequently serves to reinforce a deficit approach towards international students whose intelligence is confused with their language abilities. Second, a biased (for giving preference to wealthier students) and rigid (for relying mostly on GPA conversions) way of recruiting graduates could be dismissing potentially excellent and committed researchers. The consequence of such scenario is graduate international students’ knowledge being underestimated given the blurred vision professors may hold of them, either for not being committed to their studies or for not being able to communicate ideas clearly.

Cudmore (2005) also noticed in an assembly of other studies that this ‘commercialization of international student recruitment’ has long taken place in the academic world, which has a dangerous impact to a process which should actually be valuing transnational knowledges regardless of origin, language or wealth. Indeed, the process of recruitment of international students is complex and unlikely to have a simple solution. Notwithstanding, it is necessary to listen to what professors voice and relentlessly strive to find better ways of verifying one’s language and academic capacity in order to join a university.

In the following category of response, ‘capacity to teach’, professors argue that they have not received appropriate preparation for the demanding task they have been assigned to. Indeed, the literature shows that there is a taken-for-granted belief that every teacher is capable of teaching a multicultural classroom, thus being ‘left alone to devise solutions to socially generated problems, and to do it individually, using their individual skills and individually possessed assets’ (Bullough, 2014, p. 16). Although trusting in their own capacity to teach international students, participants feel overwhelmed by having to handle numerous amounts of cultural, language-related and academic differences. Notwithstanding, this research has showed that more important than striving to obtain an in-depth understanding about every country represented in the classroom or trying to solve students’ immediate course needs (such as helping them with English), it is crucial that professors are open to the arrival of the unknown (Ruitenberg, 2011), realize how their knowledge is fundamental to the educational experience and make informed decisions that will support and promote a shared dialogic space ‘in which different mobile knowledge agents … play a role’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 689).

Finally, when considering their perception of knowledge itself, some participants claimed that the presence of international students benefits the class as a whole. However, as Madge et al. (2015) notice, this appreciation is usually nothing more than a fondness of the ‘exotic other’, who frequently has to be instructed to fit in the existing system. Hence, if it is possible for teachers to claim to appreciate cultural diversity while still not allowing any transformations in the classroom (Brown, 2004; Marin, 2000), or not seeing knowledge as something decentred and dynamic (Madge et al., 2015), a mere sensitivity towards international students’ challenges or admiring their perseverance will not be enough in order to enable the co-production of knowledge that the process of internationalization aims at.

Conclusion

Despite being a common destination among international students, Canadian higher education still faces major challenges so that its classrooms can be places where not only the flow of people but also (and above all) the flow of knowledge it involves is highly valued. This research has showed that the process of recruitment of graduate international students is one of the first obstacles in the recognition and support of transnational knowledges. Although there might not be a single or simple answer for such complex mechanism, efforts have to be made in order to improve the current way of recruiting graduates, which professors perceive as biased and ineffective. But perhaps, as Trilokekar (2010) explored, meaningful changes may only start taking place once the Canadian federal government and the university community engage in a more coordinated approach towards the internationalization of higher education, based not only in the facilitation of student mobility but also in the valuation of ‘mobile intellectual subjectivities’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 686).

Additionally, it should be the role of post-secondary institutions to provide their professors with a better understanding of internationalization, clarifying its rationale, goals and their own roles in such process, especially in terms of recognizing the ‘dyadic relationships between staff and students’ (Madge et al., 2015, p. 688). Meanwhile, each professor must also strive against a broadly spread unilateral vision of internationalization in which international students are no more than figures or ‘interesting’ passive elements simply in need of absorption of knowledge to fit in the Canadian society. Higher education is not internationalized when an individual from another country enters the classroom; rather, that is just the front door to what has to be an ongoing, dynamic and decentred place of co-knowledge construction.

The Complex Challenge of Internationalization

As usually happens in the academic world, this research has generated more questions than answers. Internationalizing higher education entails the value of transnational knowledge as an asset to the educational experience in a way that promotes collaborative knowledge production between teachers and students; however, incorporating epistemic diversity in a meaningful way through internationalization is not as simple as it sounds. For instance, how are professors to detect the boundary between students’ expertise and their novice status? How can professors trained in Western science discern whether or not an international student is offering a ‘valid’ interpretation of their home knowledge system that the professor has no prior knowledge of? Moreover, shouldn’t all graduate students theoretically be regarded as active agents of knowledge production and circulation? In what ways is this unique for domestic versus international students? Or, is there a presumption that the viewing of students as active agents already happens for domestic students? We cannot assume that international students are experts in the knowledge that they bring from their home countries, just as we cannot assume that domestic students are experts in all disciplines of Western thought. The ability to discern the nuances of knowledges professors have no prior experience with remains a big challenge to the meaningful implementation of internationalization of higher education, which cannot be undermined.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

My heartfelt thankfulness to Dr Nathalie Piquemal, a remarkable human being whose encouragement and support made this research come true.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

How long have you been a professor at [this university]? (What levels and disciplines have you taught?)

What proportion of the students in your classroom are international students? (Have these numbers changed in your years of work at this university?)

What proportion of the graduate students you supervise are international students? (Have these numbers changed in your years of work at the university?)

What do you understand by internationalization of higher education?

Do you consider [this university] an internationalized institution? (Why? Why not?)

What do you think are the benefits/is problematic for this process for international students? (For the university?)

To what extent do you think the presence of international students has influenced [this university]? (Policy/economic/ethical issues)

How do you think your life experience, whether personally or professionally, has influenced the way you teach international students?

How do you define ‘academic achievement’?

In terms of academic achievement, how successful do you consider your former international students to have been? (What do you think contributed for their success/failure?)

Have you noticed other areas beyond academic achievement in which your international students either succeed or face challenges? Please explain.

What do you think is the role of language in the integration of international students?

How do you see your relationship with international students? (In what ways does it differentiate from non-international students?)

To what extent do you think international students have contributed to your classes/to the wider university? (In what ways?)

How are these contributions either facilitated or hindered from your perspective?

Have you ever faced any academic/personal challenges with regard to international students? (Which ones? How did you deal with them?)

How do you think the presence of international students in your classroom has influenced your practices? Please comment with respect to curriculum, content, assessment and any other areas you feel are relevant.

Author’s bio-sketch

Rebeca Heringer is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba (Canada). With a Bachelor degree in Social Communications and a Master’s degree in Education, she is currently a Research Assistant and a Writing Tutor at the University of Manitoba. Her main research focuses are philosophy of education, wellbeing and well-becoming, anti-racist education, anti-oppressive research methodologies, hermeneutic phenomenology, and internationalization of higher education. Besides her previous formal experience as an English teacher in Brazil, Rebeca has worked with diverse minority groups in Kenya, Brazil, Hungary and Canada.

References

Altbach

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education , 11(3–4), 290–305.

Anderson

(2015). Seeking internationalization: The state of Canadian higher education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 45(4), 166–187.

Andrade

(2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education , 5(2), 131–154.

Association of Canadian Deans of Education [ACDE] (2014). Accord on the internationalization of education. Vancouver, BC: ACDE. Retrieved from https://www.trentu.ca/education/sites/trentu.ca.education/files/ACDE%20Accord%20on%20the%20Internationalization%20of%20Education.pdf

Brown

(2004). Diversity: The challenge for higher education. Race Ethnicity and Education , 7(1), 21–34.

Bullough

(2014). Higher education and the neoliberal threat: Place, fast time, and identity. Journal of Thought , 48(3–4), 13–32.

Canadian Bureau for International Education [CBIE]. (2018). International Students in Canada . Retrieved from https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/International-Students-in-Canada-ENG.pdf

Clifford

(2014). Challenging conceptions of western higher education and promoting graduates as global citizens. Higher Education Quarterly , 68(1), 28–45.

Cudmore

(2005). Globalization, internationalization, and the recruitment of international students in higher education, and in the Ontario colleges of applied arts and technology. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education , 35(1), 37.

10.

Friesen

(2012). Faculty member engagement in Canadian university internationalization: A consideration of understanding, motivations and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education , 17(3), 209–227.

11.

Harris

(2008). Internationalising the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 40(2), 346–357.

12.

International Association of Universities [IAU]. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing expectations, fundamental values, IAU 4th Global Survey. International Association of Universities.

13.

Jones

De Wit

(2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy , 3(1), 35–54.

14.

Knight

(1997). A shared vision? Stakeholders’ perspective on the internationalization of higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education , 1(1), 27–44.

15.

Knight

(2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education , 33, 2–3.

16.

Knight

(2007). Internationalization brings important benefits as well as risks. International Higher Education , 46, 8–10.

17.

Knight

(2008). The role of cross-border education in the debate on education as a public good and private commodity. Journal of Asian Public Policy , 1(2), 174–187.

18.

Knight

(2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education , 7(1), 20–33.

19.

Knight

(2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalisation—for better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education , 17(3), 84–90.

20.

Kudo

(2016). Social representation of intercultural exchange in an international university. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 37(2), 256–268.

21.

Library of Parliament (2013). Canadian multiculturalism (background paper). Retrieved from http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2009–20-e.pdf

22.

Madge

Raghuram

Noxolo

(2015). Conceptualizing international education: From international student to international study. Progress in Human Geography , 39(6), 681–701.

23.

Marin

(2000). The educational possibility of multi-racial/multi-ethnic college classrooms. Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (pp. 61–83).

24.

McMillan

(2016). Fundamentals of educational research. Pearson Education.

25.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th edition). Jossey-Bass.

26.

Minister of Justice. (2016). Canadian Multiculturalism Act . Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C–18.7.pdf

27.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.

28.

Ruitenberg

(2011). The empty chair: Education in an ethic of hospitality. Philosophy of Education Archives, 28–36.

29.

Stier

(2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education , 2(1), 1–28.

30.

Trilokekar

(2010). International education as soft power? The contributions and challenges of Canadian foreign policy to the internationalization of higher education. Higher Education , 59(2), 131–147.

31.

Van Damme

(2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education , 41(4), 415–441.

32.

Wadhwa

(2016a). Students on move: Understanding decision-making process and destination choice of Indian students. Higher Education for the Future , 3(1) 54–75.

33.

Wadhwa

(2016b). New phase of internationalization of higher education and institutional change. Higher Education for the Future , 3(2) 227–246.