The term “Internationalization at Home” and its definition were first introduced in 2001 (Crowther et al 2001). Since then, strongly related and overlapping concepts and definitions have emerged, notably Internationalization of the Curriculum and Campus Internationalization, which have led to confusion over terminology and risk distracting attention from the main job of implementing internationalized curricula. This chapter focuses on the concept and definition of Internationalization at Home. It first critically explores three accepted definitions: 1. Internationalization; 2. Comprehensive Internationalization; and 3. Internationalization of the Curriculum. This is followed by a discussion of three notions which are more contested: the distinction between internationalization at home and abroad; the OECD definition of an internationalized curriculum; and Campus Internationalization. Their similarities to and differences from Internationalization at Home (IaH) are discussed. Next, recent developments in conceptualizing Internationalization at Home and in its implementation are presented. It will be argued that, while Internationalization of the Curriculum is the overarching term, the concept of IaH within that is still valuable in certain contexts and for certain purposes. On the basis of these arguments, it is maintained that the current definition of IaH does not provide sufficient support for those with an interest in internationalizing domestic curricula. The authors therefore propose a new working definition and identify challenges that await those who want to implement Internationalization at Home.
In recent discussions on the internationalisation of higher education, the constant introduction of new terms and definitions has rightly been criticised. Although we are fully aware of this, we consider that the importance of clarifying the concept of 'internationalisation at home' overrides the urge to limit the number of definitions. We have recently proposed a new definition of internationalisation at home. Although defining it does not guarantee its implementation, since there are fundamental challenges to be overcome, it is hoped that this redefinition might bring implementation a step closer.
LINK
Internationalization and global citizenship are increasingly becoming the emerging focus of higher education worldwide as universities seek to incorporate global learning in their policies, curricula and strategies. Global engagement, international collaborations, strategic alliances and operations are all on the increase with the aim of delivering future-proof graduates with a global mindset and inter-cultural competences. Additionally, it can be noted that hybridity in education is acutely present through the digitalisation of delivery modes as well as the introduction of new mobility formats, such as faculty-led study abroad programmes and transnational education at branch campuses. So not only do we see more activity, but also more delivery modes of international education. While both digital delivery and new mobility structures transcend traditional boundaries of space and locality, it is precisely this point that can pose serious challenges to the success of international education. Both involve a “relocation” of education; however, when the physical locality, where the students and lecturers are rooted in certain value and beliefs systems, is not considered, the risk is that the educational experience remains one-sided despite the multidimensional context of which it should be a part. Locality is the key to successful and meaningful internationalisation. After presenting the case that locality is of paramount importance, this chapter will outline the conceptual model of intercultureality, which allows education programs to foster and nurture intercultural competence development of students in their own unique landscape from the ground up. Using the metaphor of a landscape, intercultureality provides tools to create an intercultural reality by utilising the unique hybrid of the physical locality, the disciplinary context, the dynamics of the (virtual) classroom as well as the infrastructures in place. The underlying idea is that programmes and institutions can grow any kind of landscape that works for their context, building on the soil of their own previously defined intercultural competence goals. This soil will be enriched by means of five features: the formal curriculum, the pedagogy, the student experience, the informal curriculum, and the organisational and strategic frameworks. The model is further elaborated upon and illustrated with examples of practices of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS), where the authors work.
