By Santiago Castiello-Gutiérrez, Jhuliane Evelyn da Silva, and Sharon Stein

Note: An extended version of this essay was published in September of 2023 by the European Association for International Education (EAIE) as part of their 2023 Annual Conference Conversation Starter publication. We encourage you to read the six essays in the publication as they relate to our work in the CISN.

In recent years, our field has begun to acknowledge that the benevolent discourse of internationalization as an inherently good or benign process is limited, and that it has been–despite our best intentions–built upon an ahistorical and apolitical perspective. We seem to be at a stage where many recognize that higher education institutions’ current practices of global engagement are both harmful and unsustainable (Stein, 2017). For at least the past decade, prominent scholars have highlighted several significant challenges associated with traditional conceptions and implementations of internationalization. These challenges include the perpetuation of local and global colonial legacies (Huaman et al., 2019; Majee & Ress, 2018), the exacerbation of higher education’s global carbon footprint (Shields, 2019), the intensification of market-oriented practices (Bamberger et al., 2019), and the emergence of neo-racism and neo-nationalism (Lee, 2016; Lee & Rice, 2007). As general awareness of these challenges has grown, more people have also begun to address the complexity and multidimensionality of the problems internationalization creates and exacerbates, recognizing that there are no simple solutions and those of us who critique internationalization are also implicated in it (George Mwangi et al., 2018; Stein, 2021).

As scholars, practitioners, and scholar-practitioners of international higher education, we must confront our complicity in perpetuating the problematic aspects of internationalization. While we may critique current practices and highlight their shortcomings, it is crucial to acknowledge that we are embedded within the systems we critique. This recognition calls for a deeper level of reflexivity, humility, and self-interrogation. Given the systemic nature of these issues, there are no easy, immediate, or simple solutions. However, we can commit to a practice of continually asking how we can more responsibly intervene in our own contexts. Critical internationalization studies, and in particular, approaches grounded in ‘internationalization otherwise’, can support efforts to interrupt ongoing harm, enact repair for harm already done, and experiment with possibilities for different futures.

What is critical internationalization?

Critical internationalization is an approach that seeks to identify, challenge and ultimately interrupt how mainstream approaches to the study and practice of internationalization have contributed to the reproduction of systemic harm in higher education and beyond. As its name suggests, critical internationalization stems from criticality as a theoretical perspective. This framework places great importance on challenging the naturalization and normalization of existing social institutions and practices, while also advocating for transformative interventions that could lead to deeper forms of cognitive, emotional, relational, social, economic, and ecological justice and well-being (Andreotti et al., 2015, George-Mwangi et al., 2018).

Based on this perspective, critical internationalization is also an invitation to challenge the oftentimes-dominant discourse that positions the internationalization of higher education as inherently positive or at least neutral; an apolitical and ahistorical process of win-win global engagement (Stein, 2021; Vavrus & Pekol, 2015). It is a call to recognize the historical and ongoing roles of colonialism and capitalism in higher education, including by critically examining how knowledge production and academic standards uphold and normalize Western oppression and ways of knowing (Stein and Andreotti, 2017). Critical internationalization is not simply about critiquing what is flawed with our current practices, but more substantively it entails a “deep questioning taking into account both the new world and higher education order and old colonial continuities” (Stein, 2021, p.1772).

Internationalization otherwise

Rooted in this general critical internationalization perspective, in this piece, we would like to put forward an invitation for moving towards an ‘internationalization otherwise’ (Stein and McCartney, 2021). This is one particular critical internationalization approach grounded in de-/anti-/post-colonial, abolitionist, and Indigenous critiques that challenge not just our ways of doing and thinking, but our ways of being (ontology). To truly imagine internationalization otherwise, we must confront the ways in which our own actions, assumptions, and positions contribute to the reproduction of systemic harm. It requires acknowledging that we are not outside observers but active participants in the processes we seek to transform. This self-awareness compels us to critically examine our own roles, privileges, and responsibilities within internationalization practices.

This approach to internationalization also requires humility, as we must be open to questioning our own assumptions, certainties, and biases. It calls for an ongoing commitment to self-reflexivity, unlearning ingrained and often unconscious patterns of thinking grounded in the status quo, and actively challenging ‘business as usual’ in our specific contexts. Recognizing our complicity requires us to critically reflect on the institutional structures and policies that shape our work. We need to examine how power dynamics are embedded in these structures and how they perpetuate inequities, reinforce hierarchies, and reproduce colonial legacies. By critically interrogating our institutional contexts, we can uncover the extent to which we are fulfilling our social and ecological accountabilities.

At the same time, we want to highlight that facing our complicity is not about self-flagellation or immobilizing guilt. Rather, it is a call to action and a recognition of our responsibility to effect change. It invites us to use our positions and expertise to challenge the status quo, advocate for more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable internationalization practices, and center the voices and experiences of systemically marginalized communities. In this way, we can mobilize our critiques to take meaningful steps towards (re)imagining internationalization otherwise.

Navigating complexity and contradictions

Reimagining internationalization requires navigating the inherent complexity and contradictions embedded within the field. There is no one-size-fits-all approach or prescriptive roadmap to guide us. Instead, we must embrace the discomfort of ambiguity and engage in nuanced and critical dialogues.

We must recognize that internationalization is a multifaceted endeavor, entangled with various ideological, cultural, and political tensions. Different stakeholders hold conflicting ideologies, desires, and interests. Rather than seeking consensus, we must create spaces for dialogue and engagement that bring together diverse perspectives. It is through these complicated dialogues that we can explore the tensions and contradictions that arise, challenging our assumptions and fostering transformative change.

At the heart of navigating complexity and uncertainty is the recognition that there are no easy answers, nor are there any quick fixes. The reimagining of internationalization requires practical interventions that are context-specific, recognizing the power dynamics, policies, and theoretical commitments unique to each situation. These interventions may be temporary and imperfect, and they will undoubtedly give rise to new challenges. However, by remaining committed to ongoing reflexivity and adaptation, we can continue to navigate the complexities with a critical lens, striving to dismantle harmful practices and experiment with alternative possibilities.

In closing—and hoping to problematize some of the limitations of our current practices and research, and also to prompt us to imagine internationalization otherwise—we invite you to reflect on how internationalization might be ‘otherwise’ approached in the years to come.

Questions for reflection

1. What would we need to do in order to create the conditions under which we might imagine the internationalization of higher education otherwise – that is, beyond what is possible within the modern/ colonial university model? What are the challenges, complexities, and contradictions involved in this kind of work?
2. Can we challenge and change existing inequities of internationalization through intellectual critique alone? If not, what else is needed (such as the deepening of relational rigor, decluttering of affective blockages [like guilt, shame, fear])?
3. How are we, as scholars and practitioners of internationalization, complicit in higher education’s coloniality? What opportunities are there to interrupt this coloniality and imagine, create, and nurture a university, and internationalization, otherwise—beyond the modern/colonial university model?
4. What geopolitical patterns and relationships exist in our internationalization practices? How do these relate to larger systems and longer histories of uneven, exploitative, and extractive flows of power, people, and resources? Are there any biases, prejudices, and stereotypes embedded in our selection of partners?
5. When designing education abroad programs, how does the curriculum incorporate local perspectives? Whose voices are prioritized? How is the program balancing different versions of the history surrounding the destination site, its culture, and its people?
6. What are the environmental impacts of study abroad programs? How can we assess and reduce their hidden environmental costs?
7. Do recruitment of international students practices align with equity and social justice? Are they inclusive of diverse cultural backgrounds? Do they perpetuate or reinforce systemic inequalities or biases?
8. Are international students’ educational needs prioritized over financial gains? Are their voices and perspectives incorporated to ensure their agency and active participation and to enhance their overall experience?

*Note: Questions adapted from Castiello-Gutiérrez and Gozik (2022) and from Stein, da Silva, and Castiello-Gutiérrez (2022)

References

Andreotti, V.; Stein, S.; Ahenakew, C. & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education.  Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21-40.

Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). Neoliberalism, Internationalization and higher education: Connections, contradictions and alternatives. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 40(2), 203-216.

Castiello-Gutiérrez, S.; Gozik, N. (2022). Decolonizing Education Abroad: Grounding Theory in Practice. In H. Barclay Hamir, & N. Gozik (Eds.). A House Where All Belong: Redesigning Education Abroad for Inclusive Excellence. Forum on Education Abroad

George Mwangi, C. A., Latafat, S., Hammond, S., Kommers, S., S. Thoma, H., Berger, J., & Blanco-Ramirez, G. (2018). Criticality in international higher education research: A critical discourse analysis of higher education journals. Higher Education, 76(6), 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0259-9

Huaman, E. A. S., Chiu, B., & Billy, C. (2019). Indigenous internationalization: Indigenous worldviews, higher education, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. education policy analysis archives, 27, 101-101.

Lee, J. J. (2016). Neo-nationalism: Challenges for international students. International higher education, (84), 23-24.

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher education, 53(3), 381-409.

Majee, U.S. & Ress, S. (2018). Colonial legacies in Internationalization of higher education: Racial justice and geopolitical redress in South Africa and Brazil. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(4), 463-481.

Shields, R. (2019). The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 594-602.

Stein, S. (2017). Internationalization for an uncertain future: Tensions, paradoxes, and possibilities. The Review of Higher Education, 41(1), 3-32.

Stein, S. (2021). Critical internationalization studies at an impasse: Making space for complexity, uncertainty, and complicity in a time of global challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1771–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1704722

Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2017). What does theory matter?: Conceptualising race critical research. In G. Vass, J Maxwell, S. Rudolph, K N. Gulson (Ed.), The relationality of race in education research (pp. 156-169). Routledge.

Stein, S., & da Silva, J. E. (2020). Challenges and complexities of decolonizing internationalization in a time of global crises. ETD Educação Temática Digital, 22(3), 546-566.

Stein, S., da Silva, J. E., & Castiello-Gutiérrez, S. (2022). Critical Internationalization Studies Masterclass. https://criticalinternationalization.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/handbook_final-2.pdf

Stein, S., & McCartney, D. M. (2021). Emerging conversations in critical internationalization studies. Journal of International Students, 11(S1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11iS1.3840

Vavrus, F. & Pekol, A. (2015). Critical Internationalization: Moving from theory to practice. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 2(2), Article 2. Available at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/fire/vol2/iss2/2

About the authors

Santiago Castiello-Gutiérrez, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Seton Hall University and Co-Chair of the Critical Internationalization Studies Network.

Jhuliane Evelyn da Silva, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor at Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto and Co-Chair of the Critical Internationalization Studies Network

Sharon Stein, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of British Columbia and the founder and convenor of the Critical Internationalization Studies Network.