The following guest post is from my friend and colleague
Bryan McAllister-Grande who is currently at Doctoral Candidate at Harvard
Graduate School of Education and an Advisor for Global Affairs at Brandeis
University.
Two years ago, at NAFSA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City,
a group of international educators presented a new award to Josef Mestenhauser,
professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. The “Award for Innovative
Research and Scholarship in Internationalization” -- now an annual
peer-reviewed process -- is meant to honor contributions to a comprehensive,
learning-centered approach to internationalization, an approach that
Mestenhauser helped pioneer. Professor Mestenhauser has been gracious to serve
on the selection committee for this new award, which was recently given to Bruce La Brack of
the University of the Pacific.
Last fall, Mestenhauser published his magnum opus, an
160-page monograph based on his lectures at Minnesota. This book covers,
roughly, the entirety of his career and thought. It critically examines the
whole field, offering new interpretations of “culture,” research, student
learning, education abroad, and learning for international students. Yet, it
has not received much attention or debate. Part of the reason must be because
it is only available on Amazon.com and has
not been marketed in the usual circles. In addition, Mestenhauser’s work has
always been considered complex, given his highly philosophical style, and many
practitioners are not given ample time to read and review new work in the field
– especially at the theoretical level.
But these two reasons can’t fully explain the silence on
this book. Other scholars who work at the theoretical level have received
comparatively much deeper attention. I wonder if there are other reasons, too,
that speak to the current climate for innovation in internationalization.
Mestenhauser’s book arrives at a somewhat odd time for
international education. On the one hand, the field seems to be expanding at an
unbelievable rate, with more and more people claiming stake to the work. On the
other, academics are questioning whether internationalization is reaching an “end,”
a “mid-life crisis,” or is simply an empty fad. Jane Knight argues that all the
attention given to internationalization has led to some “unintended
consequences” – competition, elitism, market-driven priorities, and downgraded
quality. The International Association of Universities recently released a
statement entitled “Rethinking
Internationalization”, which asks, “Has internationalization lost sight of
its central purposes?” and aims to convene a global working group.
Meanwhile, on campuses, budgets are being cut, resources are
being redirected, and some faculty are questioning the attention being given to
initiatives deemed ‘outside’ the central campus mission of teaching and
research. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison – a noted leader in global
education – a faculty group recommended to
dissolve a central Division of International Studies favor of a more
diffused approach. The faculty did not repudiate internationalization as a
goal, but they did question the motives and the process.
International education has no chance of dying out in
today’s global world – but have we lost a sense of purpose and common goals?
When a group feels threatened (even somewhat unconsciously),
the tendency is to retreat into familiar, stable, and comfortable positions.
True innovation is at risk. Even the recent trend in higher education toward
online education and open courseware, while seemingly innovative, seems like a
retreat to a comfortable and marketable position. Similarly, I wonder how much
“space” there is for international educators to innovate in this climate. When
divisions of international studies are dissolved and internationalization is
questioned, radicals and critics like Mestenhauser are more apt to be ignored,
or pushed off to be tackled ‘later,’ in favor of more positive and conformist
arguments.
After all, Mestenhauser does not so much criticize faculty
and students and universities in general, but rather turns a mirror on the
field itself. While acknowledging many improvements in theoretical rigor and
practice since the founding of NAFSA, he still finds the field conceptually
bereft. (He cites more publications from the 1950s and 60s than he does from
the contemporary literature.) The prominence of current research on “global
competence,” for instance, comes under attack for being superficial, as do singular
studies on education abroad and international students. Most importantly,
Mestenhauser deems the field’s understanding of “culture” to be limited and
partial, if not itself culture-bound.
Of course, there is another issue: our field is overwhelmingly
collegial and friendly, and we are not used to the usual academic peer review,
which can be harsh and judgmental. I wonder if Mestenhauser’s particular mode
of criticism is, again, out of place with a general tendency toward
collaboration and sharing “best practices” versus theoretical debate. But can’t
and shouldn’t we have both?
What do others think?
Do you find examples of true innovation in the field, and in what
ways? What qualifies as innovation in
our field? What are the barriers to innovation, both apparent and hidden? Does
innovation come from the sharing of best practices and collaboration, or also
from healthy critique and debate and academic-style peer review?
NAFSA’s Review
of Global Studies Literature (an online compilation
of book reviews and essays of literature in the field, for which I serve as a
co-editor) is also considering a forum on this general topic of ‘critiques of
internationalization,’ and we would welcome diverse thoughts on Mestenhauser’s
book as well as general ideas for reviewing recent critiques in a variety of
topic areas. In addition, the next Call for Nominations is available for the
2013 Award for Innovative Research and Scholarship in Internationalization.
Please consider nominating someone (or yourself) who has made a crucial and
important contribution to the dialogue on how we approach our work.
Bryan McAllister-Grande
Doctoral Candidate, Harvard Graduate School of Education and
Advisor for Global
Affairs, Brandeis University
