Transcending Shallow Internationalization: Best Practices for Attaining Excellence in International Higher Education

Abstract

The context for this study is the volatile, turbulent, and disruptive environment that affects higher education everywhere. A plethora of key problems facing higher education are identified. Among these are escalating costs and declining public support for higher education. This means that international education must compete with other possible priorities, such as strengthening disciplines or making campuses more attractive to prospective students. The basic aim of this paper is to develop a set of best practices to promote excellence and rigor in international higher education. In that sense, this could be called action research. This could also be considered the story of how to develop excellence and rigor in international higher education. The major methodology for this study is multiple case studies research and mixed methods research. Another method is reflective participant experience based on the author’s seven decades of engagement with the internationalization of higher education. Both value premises and positionality, which might influence the research are openly shared. In terms of theoretical foundations, key genres of internationalization are identified and described, such as critical, comparative, and comprehensive internationalization. Then, in terms of results, in the next quantitative section of the paper, eight statistical tables are shared that show the current status of international higher education, primarily in the U.S., while also including a table showing the most international universities in the world. Then, in the next qualitative part of the study, 11 exemplary cases are presented, such as CAMPUS Asia, Volunteers in Asia (VIA), and the International Cooperative Learning Project. These projects involve a total of about 20 countries. The criteria for selection were factors such as depth, sustainability, and impactful, transformative learning. The paper concludes with an articulation of the best practices to achieve excellence in international education and the principle that true liberal education is inherently international and intercultural.

1. Introduction

I hear and I forget.

I see and I remember.

I do and I understand.

1.1. The Higher Education Context: Complex and Challenging Choices

The current complex VUCA/BANI* world presents many challenges related to the internationalization of higher education(*VUCA: volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous BANI: brittle, anxious, non-linear, incomprehensible). There is an unfortunate misunderstanding that equates globalization with internationalization. Then there are many key problems facing contemporary higher education, such as, for example, accelerating costs (“Baumol’s cost disease”) [1] and declining public support, excessive commercialization and vocationalization [2], too much esoteric/irrelevant research [3,4,5], overspecialization and the marginalization of interdisciplinary programs, a lack of appreciation of dual and experiential education, inadequate attention to the uses and abuses of technology [6,7,8,9,10], problems related to ethics and research integrity [11,12], and serious threats to academic freedom [13]. Therefore, not surprisingly, in a new book on global universities, Penprase and Pickus [14] call for reinventing higher education, and Ehlers and Eigbrecht [15] envision universities of the future that embrace skill and competency development, with a focus on the future, not the past. However, in another new book on higher education, Rosenberg [16] argues pessimistically that higher education resists change. For these changes to be realized, higher education must have leaders with the “right stuff” [17,18,19]; to make higher education an engine for creative change and to realize excellence in international education.

1.2. Conceptual/Theoretical Frameworks

Two conceptual frameworks and one theoretical guide this study. The first conceptual framework related to capital was developed by the French sociologist Pierre Bordieu [20]. The four forms of capital are: (1) economic capital; (2) human capital; (3) social capital; and (4) cultural capital [21]. The first form primarily relates to who has access to high-quality international education. The latter three relate to the outcomes of effective international education in terms of both student and faculty capabilities [22,23]. The second conceptual framework is cultural democracy, developed by the Latino scholars Ramírez and Castañeda [24]. This ideal relates to both cultural and linguistic preservation and embracing cultural/linguistic diversity [25]. It contributes to the recognition that multilingualism matters [26,27]. The final framework, social contact theory, is theoretical and was developed by Gordon Allport [28,29] at Harvard and then later refined and tested for validity by Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp [30]. It postulates that in-depth contact between individuals of different cultures results in decreasing prejudice and ethnocentrism. Furthermore, the case studies presented of the International Cooperative Learning Program and CAMPUS Asia strongly support the validity of social contact theory [31,32].

1.3. Further Key Theoretical Foundations: Delineation of the Genres of Internationalization

1.3.1. Comprehensive Internationalization [33,34]

For internationalization to be deep, not narrow, it must be comprehensive. It is not enough to have a fine international college or several excellent Title VI area study centers. Instead, Hudzik [34] p. 6 argues that:

“Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility”.

1.3.2. Comparative Internationalization

This approach was stressed by the late Josef Mestenhauser, a past president of NAFSA [35]. Much can be learned by comparing societies in various domains. The author, decades ago, had an inspiring graduate course titled “Variations in Societies” taught by Marion J. Levy, a student of Talcott Parsons. In that course, he wrote a paper comparing Thai and Soviet families. That led to a life-long interest in Thailand. It is imperative that both educators and students develop their comparative thinking as an integral part of becoming globally literate [36]. The highly influential Dutch social scientist Geert Hofstede [37,38] introduced the powerful metaphor of “software of the mind.” In this paper, his metaphor is used to mean adding knowledge and understanding of other cultures, societies, and languages to our brain. Hofstede [39] and his staff developed a valuable website, Hofstede Insights, which enables individuals to compare nations regarding their key cultural domains. Despite his use of the overly simplistic concept of national culture, the site provides valuable global data for comparative analyses that can enhance individuals’ software of the mind and intercultural sensitivity.

1.3.3. Critical Internationalization [40,41,42]

It is important to view all aspects of international education through a critical lens as a means to make it both more equitable and excellent. There are diverse dimensions to this critical process. One important area relates to the crisis of representation and related miseducation. Another area is the export of neoliberal educational policies that inadequately fit local cultural contexts and conditions [43,44]. Powerful neoliberal institutions such as the IMF, Word Bank, and Asian Development Bank often export “universal” policies (one size fits all), such as meritocratic testing and educational decentralization. The ADB, for example, tried to force the Lao PDR to “reform” their college admission system to be based on meritocratic testing rather than their socialist system, including important regional and occupational quotas to ensure equity. The ADB “meritocratic” system would have favored well-to-do urban families which could afford to send their children to expensive coaching schools. The Lao PDR appropriately resisted the reform. The eventual outcome was a compromise between the two systems. A critical mindset is also essential to assess critically popular theories developed in the West, which may not be applicable in many Indigenous or non-Western societies.

1.3.4. Internationalization at Home (IaH) [45,46,47]

The father of IaH is the Swedish international educator Bengt Nilsson. As Vice-President for International Affairs at Malmö University, he was frustrated that his university had no international partners to which it could send students. Thus, he had to find international opportunities at home in the city of Malmö. This led to his formulation of IaH. Since the vast majority of students in any country are unable to study abroad, this is an extremely timely and relevant concept everywhere, not just in Europe, where it was initiated and has been prominent. Actually, internationalization of the curriculum is a major subset of IaH, but there are many other activities as well. The most current is collaborative online international learning (COIL) [48]. Students from different countries can interact with each other through various online learning activities. This is actually a new genre of digital internationalization. All of the online competencies developed as a result of the COVID epidemic can now facilitate and enhance COIL.

Several other relevant activities are buddy programs in which a domestic student has an international student as a friend, and they meet often to exchange ideas and get to know each other well. Then, there are local internships involving an intercultural and/or international dimension. Examples would be internships with the Asia Foundation in DC or San Francisco, the Asia Society in New York City, the American Refugee Committee in Minneapolis, and the Hmong Cultural Center in St. Paul. Another fun way of doing IaH includes students participating in multicultural intramural sports, such as football (soccer), cricket, and badminton, which attract international students. Such intercultural interactions can lead to valuable connections and enhanced cultural capital.

1.3.5. Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) [49]

This is actually a subset of IaH. While it is a noble and noteworthy approach and ideal, its implementation is rather problematic. However, it does have great potential, as a few examples will illustrate [50]. Even a field like mathematics can be internationalized. Rosarin had math students examine the relationship between the sufficiency economy and human happiness in Southeast Asian countries and revise the Olympic rankings by looking at medals/population rather than the absolute number of medals. Students can use mathematics and statistics to analyze global data sets on key topics, for example, climate change and inequality. Furthermore, students can examine the history of mathematics and come to appreciate major Arab/Islamic contributions to the field, such as the development of algebra.

At the University of Oregon (UO), a project on languages across the curriculum was highly successful (supported by the Ford Foundation). Sections of many classes were conducted in languages other than English, such as Spanish and Japanese. A comparative politics course on Thailand and Laos was taught in Thai. Furthermore, at Oregon, the late Dr. Michael Moravcsik, a theoretical physicist, was highly devoted to growing science in Africa and Southeast Asia [51] and was an active supporter of internationalizing the UO curriculum. Still another Oregon example, with perhaps the greatest IoC impact, relates to the teaching of “world literature”. An examination of the major university texts in the field revealed that they were highly Eurocentric, mostly covering the literature of North America and Europe. With financial support from the provost’s office, a group of faculty members developed a new genuinely global text of world literature [52], which includes important writers from the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and East Asia. Maps can also be used creatively to inspire interest in other societies and cultures and to enhance both geographic and global literacy [53,54] R. Padre Johnson [55] elegantly demonstrated how art could be used creatively to enhance global understanding and literacy.

Another example of effective IoC was the hiring of Robert Kyr for a generic music theory position at the University of Oregon. For many years, Kyr trained students in the Indonesian gamelan, a valuable contribution to Southeast Asian studies.

Despite these kinds of successes, there are four major problematic aspects of IoC, namely:

(1)

Those participating in training for internationalizing the curriculum are normally not those who need it the most. Those professors have no interest in participating.

(2)

There is shallow token IoC by, for example, adding a one-week international segment to a class.

(3)

Miseducation can occur when individuals are teaching material that they really do not know or understand well, and students are quick to perceive this.

(4)

There is a crisis of misrepresentation of cultures and societies that are not our own. The Palestinian scholar Edward Said [56,57,58] popularized this critique of miseducation with his powerful concept of Orientalism, which refers to how policy-makers, scholars, and journalists often distort Asia and the Middle East. Currently, in the U.S., there is much negative propaganda about China and its economy.

There are also three major strategies for dealing with these problems, namely:

(1)

Offer significant incentives for non-international faculty to participate in good training programs.

(2)

Encourage non-international faculties to pursue international opportunities such as those provided by the Fulbright program, which often gives priority to individuals with little or no prior international experience. When hiring in any field, priority should be given to applicants with significant international experience, such as the Peace Corps, JET, World Teach, or who are former third culture kids.

(3)

Related to the serious problems of miseducation and Orientalism, special workshops should be offered on topics such as understanding China, Islam, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and special curricula should be developed to help students understand more deeply the non-Western and Indigenous worlds. At the University of Oregon, a popular course on political films and novels about Southeast Asia stimulated interest in that neglected area of the world and helped students develop an in-depth understanding of the area and how many novels and films distorted the region. In most universities in the U.S., Africa is a grossly neglected part of the curriculum.

1.3.6. Inclusive Internationalization

Darren Walker [59], the president of the Ford Foundation, notes that the best internships go to those of high socioeconomic status. Over the past few decades, there has been little diversity in the demography of study abroad. There has been a gross underrepresentation of Indigenous, African-American, Latino, and low-income students [60,61]. Dr. Christopher Johnstone [62] of the University of Minnesota developed this concept of inclusive internationalization to address this persisting problem in the field.

The most notable effort to address this problem was a huge grant by the Ford Foundation (the largest in its history) of $330 m. One $50m portion was for a 10-year project to make higher education more accessible to disadvantaged youth in developing countries [63]. The second portion, also a 10-year grant, was for $280m to enable disadvantaged students in developing countries to pursue graduate studies abroad. This project funded 4300 fellows from 22 countries. These grants went to the IIE to manage these fellowships and placements. In 2013, a tracer study was conducted to assess the impact of this inclusivity initiative [64]. Unfortunately, these projects were not sustainable. An alternative endowment approach would have made them potentially sustainable forever, and in the long term possibly even much larger.

Another inspiring example of inclusion par excellence was the vision of the social entrepreneur Susan Sygall, the co-founder (1981) and leader of Mobility International, an organization that promotes opportunities for those with disabilities to have overseas international/intercultural opportunities. In the same way that many high-tech companies, such as HP, Google, and Yahoo, were Silicon Valley derivatives of Stanford, Mobility International was a derivative of the University of Oregon. Instead of a traditional thesis research-type MA paper, Sygall prepared a praxis-type action research paper that led directly to the creation of Mobility International [65]. In recognition of her creative efforts to promote inclusive international opportunities, she received a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award in 2000.

1.3.7. Shallow versus Deep Internationalization

This concept was introduced by the author of this paper [66]. It is not a simplistic binary distinction, but instead should be viewed as a continuum. To what extent is this an-depth program or project (see case study of CAMPUS Asia)? This is one of the key four Ds of study abroad defined by Paige et al. [67] in their influential and insightful assessment of study abroad for global engagement (SAGE). The four Ds are demography, destination, duration, and depth.

Three prime examples of shallow internationalization are short-term study programs that are nothing more than glorified cultural tourism [68], adding a one-week international segment to a course, and universities in non-English-speaking countries adding English language courses to their curriculum and equating that with internationalization [69].

1.3.8. The “Hidden” Dark Side of International Education

The last two genres of internationalization provide special insight into the dark side of international education [70]. International education has tended to be both exclusive and elitist, rather than inclusive. Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and Indigenous peoples, as well as those of lower socioeconomic status, are grossly underrepresented. Darren Walker [59], president of the Ford Foundation, lamented in an influential article in the New York Times, that the best-quality and most valuable internships normally go to those of higher SES.

1.4. Definition of Key Terms

In the social sciences and education, there is a tendency to be imprecise in the use of key terms such as globalization, internationalization, equality, and equity. Unfortunately, globalization and internationalization are often used interchangeably, which is a badly flawed conceptualization. Globalization is a real-world phenomenon referring to increasing interconnectedness in all realms, such as technology, trade, capital flows, investment, tourism, and migration. Like all technologies, it is a “two-edged sword”, with both positive and negative elements. In contrast, internationalization is a process defined by Jane Knight: “The process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, function, or delivery of post-secondary education” [71] p. 11. This definition, however, has been criticized as being too inward-looking. An improved, broader alternative definition is provided by Hawawini [72] p. 5:

“Internationalization is an on-going process of change whose objective is to integrate the institution and its key stakeholders (its students and faculty) into the emerging global knowledge economy.”

There are often heated debates around whether to use the term global or international when referring to, for example, academic programs or schools/colleges. Advocates of global education often argue that the word international both in English and many other languages still contain the concept of nation and they want to avoid “the curse of nationalism” [73] that has led to so much death and destruction across the globe. We want our students to become global citizens and globally engaged. Others argue, rather persuasively, that since the two terms are different and since internationalization is a process, then that is the preferred term. For purposes of this paper, international, not global education is used. It is also important to delineate the key genres of internationalization, which are explained later as further theoretical foundations.

1.5. The Research Problem

While the internationalization of higher education is a wonderful, noble ideal, we lack rigorous empirical data documenting its impact and effectiveness. Much evidence is anecdotal, and certainly in some cases (particularly with in-depth programs), studying abroad can be truly transformative [66,74]. Thus, it is not surprising that there are scholars who are highly critical of internationalization efforts, such as the prominent Vietnamese intellectual Phan [75], who finds much mediocrity in international higher education, and the British scholar Michael Woolf [68], who is harshly critical of much short-term study abroad as nothing more than “glorified cultural tourism.” It is also important to learn from non-Western perspectives on internationalization (see [76]). Thus, the basic problem is how to make international education a center of excellence and, thus, worthy of more financial and administrative support.

1.6. Aims

The major aim of the paper is to develop a best practice model to internationalize higher education in a way that fosters excellence and rigor. In that sense, this paper could be considered action research [77,78]. The paper also identifies diverse genres of internationalization, such as comparative, critical, and comprehensive. The first descriptive part of the paper seeks to provide current empirical data on the status of the internationalization of higher education, building on the earlier work of Horn et al. [79]. Then, multiple case studies of exemplary thinkers/champions, projects, and programs are shared [80]. Then, in the final analytical part of the paper, best practices are identified and summarized to realize rigorous and sustainable international higher education. Recently, story-telling [81] has become an increasingly popular research and communications tool. In essence, this paper is the story of how to promote and attain excellence in international education.

2. Material and Method

2.1. Methodology and Methods

The principal overarching methodology for this study is multiple case studies [80] of prominent international educators and exemplary projects and programs. In this kind of research, it is important to be explicit about how cases were selected. The basis for deciding which cases to include presented complex challenges. Several steps were involved in the selection process. First, based on the author’s many decades of engagement with internationalizing higher education, a list of possible cases was developed. Then, using the method called maximum variation sampling developed by Shawn Merriam [82,83] and another approach described as extreme case sampling [84,85,86], cases were selected for presentation in this study. These scholars mention the power of extreme case analysis and how much there is to be learned by looking at these kinds of cases. Patton in fact mentions that extreme cases are particularly useful for researchers who wish to “develop ‘best in practice’ guidelines” [84], p. 3. Both methods involve a purposive sampling approach. For the selection of program case studies, there were five key criteria: (1) innovation, (2) excellence/rigor/depth, (3) sustainability, (4) impact, and (5) comparative elements. The use of the Merriam approach dictated that there be great variety among the cases, which there is.

For the selection of individuals as champions and scholars, a similar step-like process was used. The primary criteria were diversity and inclusion, a major theme of this paper, and including voices less commonly heard. Among the different genres were an African-American (a group grossly underrepresented in international education), a migrant scholar, a female leader with an unconventional career path, and a university president who was a former Peace Corps volunteer.

The analysis of the selected cases also involved complex challenges. In analyzing the cases, standard approaches to qualitative research procedures were used [87,88] with an emphasis on “mining” the cases to identify and discover (“driven to discover”) key ideas and principles to form the basis for a set of best practices to enhance the rigor, excellence, and sustainability of international higher education. In this kind of analysis, the major challenge is to develop insights and a deep understanding (the verstehen approach) of the phenomenon being studied [89]. The cases in the paper are described and analyzed in a manner to highlight best practices in international higher education and to provide insights and understanding of how to achieve excellence and rigor in international higher education.

A secondary research method was critical reflection and participant observation. I am now in my seventh decade of engagement with international education, so I have much to reflect upon and valuable experiences to share. I am also what Harlan Cleveland [90] calls an insider-outsider/scholar-doer (see the case studies of Julius Coles and Peter McPherson). My career has involved being an academic scholar, teaching at diverse universities in both Asia and the US, and a practitioner working for organizations such as UNESCO, the Ford Foundation, the Asia Foundation, and the Asian Development Bank. I have led about 15 study tours to mainland Southeast Asia and Japan. This extensive experience was essential for the first step in the case selection process and also contributed to the development of best practices.

The third research approach used was mixed-methods research [91]. There are eight key statistical tables related to the status of international education and eleven qualitative case studies. The choice of key statistical indicators was based on the recognized key-defining dimensions of comprehensive internationalization: (1) international students, (2) study abroad, (3) global engagement, and (4) internationalization at home (IaH).

2.2. The Challenge of Measuring Internationalization

Einstein once said that “we measure what we can, not what is important.” This saying is so true. Thus, it is not surprising that we frequently fail to measure internationalization. The first challenge is to define the unit of analysis. It could be the individual, families, communities, organizations, cities, states/provinces/prefectures, regions of countries (e.g., Northeast Brazil), nations, regions of the world (e.g., the EU), and the world itself (the extent of globalization). Related to measuring internationalization at the individual level, Nam and Fry [92] developed a reliable and valid instrument for measuring individual internationality. Related to the state level, Sununthorn Setboonsang, using multiple empirical indicators for each state, in the U.S., assessed how international they were. In 2007, Horn et al. [79], also using many multiple empirical indicators, ranked US research universities in terms of their internationalization. Also, in this study, institutions of higher education are used as the unit of analysis to assess the state of international higher education.

2.3. Positionality and Value Premises

The late Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal [93], from Sweden, and the prominent cultural anthropologist Ruth Behar [94] argued that researchers should make explicit the value premises that influence their research and data interpretation. My basic values can be summarized using the metaphor of gold. The first is black gold, which refers to social justice and economic equity. I am deeply concerned about the elitist biases in international education, often with the best opportunities going to those of high socioeconomic status and/or white women. My second gold metaphor is yellow, referring to the importance of cultural democracy and linguistic preservation [24,25,26]. Individuals should have the right to retain and cherish their initial cultures and languages. I believe that we must provide our students with opportunities to develop multilingual minds [95,96] (see the case study of CAMPUS Asia). In turn, a multilingual mind fosters creativity. The third and fourth metaphors are blue and green, referring to clean skies, rivers, lakes, and oceans and the preservation of forests and wildlife. There is a crucial need to reduce global warming and climate change. Importantly, it appears that studying abroad often leads to the practice of voluntary simplicity [67]. With respect to my positionality, that is explained in the participant observation part of the methodology section above.

3. Results

3.1. The State of International Higher Education: Ranking Institutions

A number of statistical tables are presented to show the state of internationalization, primarily in the U.S., though

Table 1. The World’s Most International Universities, 2024.

University	Internationalization Rank	Overall Ranking	Country
City University of Hong Kong	1	82	Hong Kong, China
Abu Dhabi University	2	251–300	UAE
University of Oxford	3	1	UK
University of Cambridge	4	5	UK
Imperial College London	5	8	UK
University of Hong Kong	6	35	Hong Kong, China
ETH Zurich	7	11	Switzerland
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne	8	33	Switzerland
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	9	64	Hong Kong, China
Hong Kong Polytechnic University	10	87	Hong Kong, China

Source: Times Higher Education World University Rankings, London, 2024.

shows which are the most international universities in the world in 2024.

This ranking was compiled by defining and operationalizing internationalization with four key empirical indicators, three objective and one subjective: (1) the percentage of international students; (2) the percentage of international faculty and staff; (3) the extent to which professors are co-publishing with international colleagues; and (4) the international reputation of the institution.

This table, probably most importantly, shows how internationalization is closely associated with overall quality rankings. Four of the universities on this list are among the top eleven in the world, and six of these universities rank in the top thirty-five globally. Interestingly, not a single US university made the list, perhaps because of escalating tuition fees, restrictive visa and work permit regulations, and growing xenophobia fostered by Trumpism. Furthermore, three countries dominate this list, accounting for 90% of the institutions listed, namely Hong Kong, China (4), the UK (3), and Switzerland (2). These data show the rise of China as an influential actor on the international education stage [97,98]. Interestingly, in previous years, the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) (“The MIT of Asia”) was ranked the world’s most international university for three years in a row [99].

Table 2. Most International Research Universities in the U.S., 2007.

University	Internationalization Ranking (Weighted)	Internationalization Ranking (Unweighted)
Columbia	1	1
UC-Berkeley	2	3
Georgetown	3	4
Chicago	4	6
Harvard	5	2
Michigan State	6	9
Yale	7	4
Darthmouth	8
UCLA	8
Wisconsin-Madison	10	8
Stanford		7
University of Minnesota		9

Source: Horn et al. 2007, [79].

, with dated statistics from 2007, is included to add a longitudinal dimension to this analysis and to see changes over nearly 20 years. In the first column, indicators are weighted. The two ranking systems are highly correlated. Interestingly, in both columns, 40% of the most international universities are public institutions. Furthermore, for both columns, 70% of the most highly ranked are coastal institutions.

Table 3. Number of Graduating Seniors Joining the Peace Corps, 1961–2024.

University	Number of Graduating Seniors Joiningthe Peace Corps
UC-Berkeley	2862
Wisconsin-Madison	2766
Washington	2342
Colorado-Boulder	2131
Michigan	2065
Michigan State	2004
Illinois	1674
Texas	1549
Ohio State	1523

Source: US Peace Corps, Washington, D.C., 2024.

, is longitudinal, covering a long period of about 60 years. Interestingly, all these universities are public, and most are land grant institutions. Four of the top five have active Southeast Asian studies programs. Six of the top ten are Big 10 universities. This observation could be interpreted as follows: Students in Southeast Asia programs develop a keen interest in developing countries, such as Thailand and the Philippines. Land grant Big 10 universities emphasize public engagement and service to the larger community.

Interestingly, seven of these universities in

Table 4. Universities with the Most International Students, 2023.

University	Number of International Students
NYU	24,496
Northeastern	20,633
Columbia	19,001
Arizona State	17,931
USC	17,624
Illinois	14,688
Boston	13,281
Purdue	11,872
UC-Berkeley	11,719
UC-San Diego	10,421

Source: Open Doors Report 2023, IIE, New York.

are coastal, either closer to Asia or Europe. Three are in warm, but expensive, California. There are an equal number of private and public institutions.

Interestingly, there are only two private universities on this list of

Table 5. Leading Universities for Study Abroad, 2023.

University	Number of Undergraduates Studying Abroad
BYU	2878
Texas	2652
NYU	2557
Indiana	2498
Florida State	2469
Georgia	2324
Florida	2195
Texas A & M	2176
Michigan	2007
Colorado-Boulder	1987

Source: Open Doors Report 2023. IIE, New York.

, and half on the list are surprisingly in the “red” South. Perhaps this is because of their proximity to Latin America and the Caribbean and their large Spanish-speaking populations. Thus, Spain and Latin America are attractive sites for heritage-seeking study abroad opportunities.

On the list of

Table 6. Number of Title VI Centers (Including Area, Business/CIBE, Language).

University	Number of Title VI Centers
Indiana	11
Wisconsin-Madison	7
Illinois	6
UC-Berkeley	6
UCLA	6
Pittsburgh	5
Michigan	5
North Carolina	5
Hawai'i	4

Source: “http://us.fulbrightonline.org/alumni/grantee-directory (accessed on 15 April 2024)”.

below there is only one private university, and there are five universities from the Big 10. Many of the Big 10 universities are land grant institutions with a strong commitment to serve communities beyond the campus. Outreach is an important mission of Title VI centers (see the case study of international engagement with the community, University of Oregon). In 1964, with support from the Ford Foundation, the Midwest Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA) was established as a consortium of Big 10 universities to provide technical assistance to developing countries. MUCIA played a major role in the early development of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) in Thailand, 1966–1976. In 2026, NIDA will celebrate its diamond jubilee, and a number of Big 10 university administrators (primarily from Indiana University) will be there. Clearly, the group of “Big 10” universities is the champions of internationalization.

In terms of attracting international Fulbright students (data provided in

Table 7. Number of Fulbright Scholars, 2023.

Top Ten in Terms of Number of Incoming Fulbrights	Top Ten in Terms of Total Number of Fulbrights (Incoming and Outgoing)
Cornell University (32)	Arizona State University
Brown University (31)	Bowdain College
Michigan State University (29)	The George Washington University
Georgetown University (29)	Middlebury College
University of Washington (27)	North Carolina State University
University of Michigan (24)	Reed College
Northwestern University (23)	University of Alabama
Villanova University (23)	University of Maryland
Columbia University (21)	University of Massachusetts-Amherst
University of Pennsylvania (21)	University of Southern California

Source: https://us.fulbrightonline.org/alumni/grantee-directory (accessed on 15 April 2024).

above), the Big 10 and the Ivy League account for 80% of these institutions.

Table 8. The Top Ten Most International Universities (Based on How Many Top Ten Rankings They Received in the Tables Above).

University	Number of Ten Rankings
University of California-Berkeley	4
University of Michigan	4
Michigan State University	4
Columbia University	3
University of Illinois	3
University of Wisconsin-Madison	3
University of Colorado—Boulder	2
Georgetown University	2
Indiana University	2
University of Texas	2
UCLA	2
University of Washington	2

below is a summary one showing which universities had the most top ten international rankings. As in a number of previous tables, the Big 10 dominates. Of these 10 most international universities, seven are Big 10, and two of the three top-ranked international institutions are Big 10. Perhaps most noteworthy, two of the top-ranked schools, Berkeley and Michigan, are normally considered the top two public universities in the U.S. Thus, this table, like several others, clearly shows a close association between internationalization and academic excellence, perhaps one of the most significant findings of this study and reflecting another important benefit of and rationale for internationalization. Care, however, must be used in interpreting this highly positive result. It is an associational, not a causal, finding. It could be that well-funded top research universities are far better positioned to support internationalization initiatives.

3.2. Champions of Internationalization and Leading Scholars of the Internationalization of Higher Education

Contributing to universities’ success in internationalizing, there are often champions of internationalization dedicated to making their campuses more international. They may do this in terms of their formal roles (e.g., Kathleen Bowman, see case study; Frances Vavrus, Vice-Provost and Dean of International Programs, University of Wisconsin) or informally (Kenneth Ghent, a mathematician, and Michael Moravcsik, theoretical physicist, University of Oregon).

Table 9. Examples of Champions of Internationalization.

Name of “Champion”	Position(s)	University(ies)
Gabriele Bosley	Professor of German	Bellarmine
Kathleen Bowman *	V-P for International Affairs, President	Oregon, Randolph-Macon
Julius E. Coles *	Director, Andrew Young Global Center	Morehouse
Ralph Cummings	Professor of Agriculture	NC State
Kenneth Ghent	Professor of Mathematics	Oregon
Miki Horie	School Director (see case study, CAMPUS Asia)	Ritsumeikan, Japan
Peter McPherson *	President	Michigan State
Josef Mestenhauser *	Professor of International Education	Minnesota
Michael Moravcsik	Professor of Theoretical Physics	Oregon
Ed Price	Vice Provost	Oregon State, Texas A & M
Paul Que	Professor of Medicine	Minnesota
Clarence E. Thurber	Director, International Studies, Professor of Political Science	Oregon
Jack Van de Water	Vice-Chancellor for International Affairs, Dean of International Affairs	OSSHE, Oregon State
Frances Vavrus	Vice-Provost for International Affairs	Wisconsin
Clifton Wharton	President	Michigan State

Note: Those with an asterisk are featured as case studies in this article. Those in italics have passed away. Those in bold are individuals who migrated to the U.S. from countries such as Czechoslovakia, Germany, and Hungary.

provides examples of such champions, past and present, from various campuses. It is only illustrative and by no means comprehensive.

While the individuals featured above are activist practitioners on campus, others promote internationalization through their research and scholarship on international education.

Table 10. Prominent Scholars of International Education.

Scholar/Intellectual	Country	Area of Contribution	Institution(s)
Philip Altbach	USA	Internationalization of higher education	Boston College (retired)
Darla K. Deardorf	USA	Intercultural competence and its assessment	Duke University
Hans de Wit	The Netherlands	Internationalization of higher education	Boston College
Ruth Hayhoe	Canada	Understanding the Chinese world	University of Toronto
Geert Hofstede *	The Netherlands	Dimensions of culture, “software of the mind”	IBM and Maastricht University
John K. Hudzik	USA	Comprehensive internationalization	Michigan State University; NAFSA (retired)
Christopher Johnstone	USA	Inclusive internationalization	University of Minnesota
Jane Knight	Canada	Defining internationalization	University of Toronto
Betty Leask	Australia	Internationalization of the curriculum (IoC)	LeTrobe Univeristy
Bengt Nielsson **	Sweden	Internationalization at Home (IaH)	Malmö University
Josef Mestenhauser	Czech Republic/USA	Comparative internationalization; interdisciplinary/systems thinking	University of Minnesota
R. Michael Paige	USA	Impact of study abroad, development of intercultural competence	University of Minnesota
Phan Le Ha	Vietnam/Brunei	Mediocrity in international education	Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD).
Rabindranath Tagore	India	Liberal studies and internationalization; visionary thinker, Nobel laureate	Visva Bharati University
Hanneke Teekens	The Netherlands	Understanding international students	Twente University; NUFFIC (retired)
Frances Vavrus	USA	Critical and comparative internationalization, understanding Africa	Wisconsin
Michael Woolf	UK	Critical internationalization	Foundation for International Education

Note: Those in italics have passed away. *The most widely cited social scientist in Europe. **Considered the “father of IaH”.

provides examples of prominent international education scholars whose thinking and writings have inspired and influenced the ideas and best practices presented in this article. The list is only illustrative and by no means comprehensive.

Deardorf et al. [100] recently compiled a valuable, edited reference book on international higher education, to which many of the leading scholars in the field contributed. Among those contributing were Philip Altbach, Hans de Wit, John Hudzik, and Betty Leask.

3.3. Case Studies of Exemplary Thinkers/Champions, Programs, and Projects

3.3.1. Case Study of Josef Mestenhauser

Josef Mestenhauser emigrated from Prague, Czechoslovakia, to the United States and eventually arrived in 1950 as a graduate student in political science at the University of Minnesota. He served in numerous roles as a student, administrator, professor, and diplomat. He was a passionate advocate for students, an international educator and leader, and a visionary in developing methods and mindsets devoted to the development of international education.

“Joe”, as he insisted he be called, created critical concepts that remain foundational to the development of the field of international education we know today. He believed “international education is multidimensional, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and global” [35] p. 70 and challenged the entire educational system, its institutional governance, and the cultural boundedness of other disciplines and professions based on these disciplines. Joe approached education and international education with a systems lens where the concept of culture is at its core.

The features of systems theory or thinking include differentiation and integration. Differentiation is the identification of parts of the system and their relationships with each other and the whole, while integration stands for their unity (p. 70). The intention of applying systems thinking to education and the evolving emergence of international education is to understand the whole system, its governance, and its structures, while also recognizing, and countering, its widespread fragmentation. Culture, a complex concept that manifests itself beyond our values, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, is the “operating system” of our brain (p. 71). It is a “box” that one must intentionally leave or transcend in order to understand what exists outside of that box. Forced to escape war for freedom in the United States, Joe knew well the influence of others on his freedom of experience and mindset.

With systems thinking as a foundation, Mestenhauser produced numerous presentations, articles, book publications, and other knowledge sources focused on key concepts and applications in higher education, illustrating the characteristics of international education. He wrote about the scope of international education as unimaginably vast and an “interdiscipline”. He believed it creates its own knowledge, is conceptually unique, and its goals are unattainable. Joe outlined the major challenges consisting of: (a) a lack of historiography; (b) theory missing in action; (c) a lack of integration into higher education; and (d) university structures that prohibit its integration (pp. 74–77). Our culture typically minimizes complexity and tries to place knowledge neatly into siloes—a core challenge given the unprecedented knowledge explosion of international education (p. 79).

Joe rarely left a meeting, a panel presentation, or a keynote, without inviting others to act and contribute to the field of international education. In that sense, he practiced democratic internationalization. He was rarely satisfied and was often critical. He said that international education could never be fully achieved as an end goal. And students are at the center, and culture is at the core.

For the co-editors of Mestenhauser and the Possibilities of International Education: Illuminating Pathways for Inquiry and Future Practice, which includes Mestenhauser’s final manuscript, D’Angelo, O’Brien, and Marty [35] summarize Joe’s voice and calls to action in four ways: (1) lead for the future, not just for the past and present; (2) shift away from dualistic/binary, simplistic thinking and explore diverse myriad mindsets; (3) intentionally include a greater diversity of people and ideas; and (4) always start with theory (pp. 216–219).

3.3.2. Case Study of Dr. Kathleen Bowman, a Champion of Internationalization

Interestingly, Dr. Bowman was a distinguished alumna of the college where Dr. Mestenhauser taught. From 1989 to 1994, she was Vice-Provost for International Affairs at the University of Oregon. Then, from 1994–2006, she was president of Randolph-Macon Women’s College. At Oregon, Dr. Bowman spearheaded many international initiatives, such as the creation of a new Center for Asia and Pacific Studies and the establishment of a new International College. She also encouraged a wide-range of creative international outreach activities (see the case study of international engagement with the community, University of Oregon). She was also particularly active in promoting and securing external grants to internationalize the university. Major grants were received from organizations such as the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, the Freeman Foundation, the Luce Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education (Title VI area studies center), USIA, Fulbright, the Japan Entrepreneurs’ Association (JEA), and the Asia Society. Bowman’s background as a former program officer of the Fred Meyer Foundation and administrator in the university’s development office provided her with valuable fundraising skills. As president of Randolph-Macon, fundraising and internationalization were two of her top priorities. She actively promoted interdisciplinary programs in international and Asian studies to enhance the college’s liberal studies curriculum. She also created the Pearl S. Buck President’s Award for Globalization.

3.3.3. Case Study of Julius E. Coles, an Inner/Outer [101]

Coles is a classic example of what Harlan Cleveland [90] termed an inner/outer, an individual working in both the academy and in the world of praxis. He was one of the first African-Americans to study at Princeton, receiving a MPA from its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He then went on to have a distinguished career of 28 years as a diplomat with the U.S. Agency for International Development. He served as mission director in both Senegal and Swaziland. Upon retiring from the State Department, he became the first Director of the Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center at Howard University, 1994–1997, with the mandate to enhance international education at this historically black institution. Then, from 1997–2002, he was director of the Andrew Young Center for International Affairs at Morehouse. Following that, he became president of Africare from 2002–2009, and raised approximately $400 million in support of African development, particularly at the village level. He then returned to Morehouse to again become director of the Andrew Young Center until his retirement in 2022. With his in-depth knowledge of Africa, he played a major role in internationalizing Morehouse and enhancing its curriculum in the neglected area of Africa. He also led numerous study-abroad trips to Africa and Latin America. In 2007, he received the James Madison Medal from Princeton, the highest alumni award given by that university, for his dedicated service to the common good. He was also a case study in the major Study Abroad for Global Engagement research project [67]). As an undergraduate, he studied abroad and traveled widely in Europe to places such as Finland and Yugoslavia. As a graduate student, he conducted field research in Central America. His case is an example of how universities can utilize former practitioners in the international arena who return to campuses to effectively assist in internationalization efforts. Another notable example of this type is Dr. Clifton Wharton [102], the first African-American to graduate from SAIS at Johns Hopkins University. After doing important work for the Rockefeller Foundation in Southeast Asia, he later became the dynamic president of Michigan State University.

3.3.4. Case Study of M. Peter McPherson, President of Michigan State University, 1993–2004 [103]

McPherson was the first ever former Peace Corps volunteer to become the president of a major research university. He served in the Peace Corps from 1964 to 1965 in Peru. That led to his developing a strong interest in food and agricultural issues. Like both Coles and Wharton, he is another example of an inner/outer. Prior to becoming president of MSU, he was the first ever former Peace Corps volunteer to serve as director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 1981–1987, and, from 1987–1989, was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Earlier, he had served as a special assistant to President Ford. There were 171 viable candidates to become president of MSU, and his selection had huge implications for the internationalization of MSU. The detailed story of MSU’s early internationalization prior to McPherson was provided by Hembroff, et al. [103].

Under his dynamic leadership, MSU became one of the nation’s most international universities, ranking sixth among US research universities [79]. The empirical data from the Horn study conveniently coincided with the end of his tenure as president of MSU. Under his leadership, MSU became number one in the country in terms of attracting international students. Facilitating that outcome was his priority to halt the escalation in tuition increases to improve access to MSU. Furthermore, MSU became one of the leading universities in the country by having its students study abroad, with over 2000 going abroad each year.

After leaving his post as president of MSU, McPherson moved to Washington, DC, but continued his internationalization commitments. He was appointed to head a congressional committee related to funding the Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation [104]. He also provided valuable leadership for the Partnership to End Hunger and Poverty in Africa. Then, from 2006 to 2022, he became president of the Association of Land Grant Universities (ALGU), the oldest and largest organization of this type. To conclude, McPherson was truly a champion of internationalization.

3.4. Case Studies of Exemplary Programs

3.4.1. Case Study of CAMPUS Asia

This is a truly exemplary program that is distinctive in many ways. Its origins trace back to the Japan-China-Korea Committee established in 2010 to design the CAMPUS Asia program. Its rationale was primarily the lack of mutual understanding among the youth of China, Japan, and Korea. It is a strategic trilateral partnership, among a university in China, the Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GUFS) (near Hong Kong), a private university in Japan, Ritsumeikan University (RU) in historic Kyoto, and Dongseo University (DU) in Korea. The distinctive features of this program can be summarized as follows:

At a time when study abroad programs are generally getting shorter and shorter, in this program, students spend two years overseas in two different countries. Thus, in terms of the duration criterion, it scores really high with all students in the program, with half their undergraduate education outside their own country. Because of this long duration, students must become trilingual, studying two Asian languages in addition to their own. Those designing the program realized the many benefits of students developing multilingual minds (“multilingual matters”). Nearly all study abroad programs across the globe are bilateral, not trilateral, as this program is.

With its emphasis on the development of mutual understanding, the program directly addresses the crisis of representation [56,57,58], cultural/historical miseducation, and historical amnesia. The program involves much relearning and exposure to new and diverse perspectives. As with the International Cooperative Learning project (see case study), students work in intercultural teams with an equal number of participants from each country.

Many international initiatives are never rigorously or systematically assessed, and there is only anecdotal evidence regarding their impact or effectiveness. Fortunately, Hanada and Horie [31] empirically analyzed the impact of the CAMPUS Asia program on Japanese participants. They found that their mutual understanding of China and Korea improved and that their intercultural sensitivity was enhanced (meaning less ethnocentrism and prejudice). Their findings confirm the validity of Allport’s social contact theory.

3.4.2. Volunteers in Asia (VIA)

This exemplary program was the vision and brainchild of Dwight Clark, Dean of Freshmen, in the early 1960s at Stanford University. In 1960, about one-third of Stanford undergraduates were studying abroad as an integral part of their liberal education. In this regard, Stanford was way ahead of its time. Individuals were studying abroad for two quarters at Stanford in Italy, Stanford in France, or Stanford in Germany. But Dean Clark, while acknowledging the value of these international experiences, was aware that they were flawed “island programs” in which many students had little interaction with the local population. Furthermore, Dean Clark had the prescience to anticipate the future rise of Asia and its growing importance (see [105]).

The new Peace Corps of JFK, partially a kind of U.S. “soft power” response to the “Ugly American” syndrome of the influential novel by Lederer and Burdick [106], inspired Dean Clark to have Stanford establish its own “Peace Corps”, but only focused on Asia. He was also way ahead of his time in realizing the great value of international internships [107]. VIA, Dean Clark’s dream, would not have all the political baggage associated with a US governmental entity representing US interests abroad. Also, Stanford’s VIA could go to countries such as Indonesia, where US government volunteers were not welcome. Sukarno kicked out the US Peace Corps in 1964. Many VIA volunteers were to have valuable experiences in Indonesia. An example was Sheldon Shaeffer, who served with VIA in Ambon, Indonesia. His last professional position was as Director of UNESCO’s Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, 2001–2008, and prior to that, for three years he was Director of UNICEF’s Global Education Programme (see

Table 11. Examples of Knowledge Production by Former VIA Volunteers.

Name of Volunteer(s)	Title of Publication	Publisher	Date
Connie Chu	The Story of VIA: Adaptive Servant Leadership for Sustainability.	University of Minnesota	2024
Ken Darrow and Brad Qualmquist	Transcultural Studies Guide	VIA	1977
Ken Darrow and Mike Saxeman	Appropriate Technology Sourcebook: A Guide to Practical for Villages and Small Communities	Appropriate Technology Project, VIA	1986
Dark G. Schroeder	Staying Healthy in Asia, Africa, and Regions of the World	VIA	1988
Sheldon Shaeffer	Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and Evidence in Policy Making	The World Bank	2014
Paul Strasburg	Volunteers in Asia: An Overview	Goshen College	1989
Richard H.Thompson	Volunteers in Asia: Taiwan and China Programs	University of Virginia	1990
Craig Thorburn	Teknologi Kampungan: A Collection of Indigenous Indonesian Technologies	ATP VIA	1982
Terry George	The On-Your-Guide to Asia	C. E. Tuttle	1983
Lisa Uyenphuong Vu	Beyond the International Volunteering Experience: Former Volunteers as Practitioners of Unofficial Development in Vietnam.	University of Minnesota	2015

).

Dean Clark, recognizing the importance of economies of scale and the value of strategic partnerships, invited Pomona and UC-Santa Cruz to join VIA. He was also particularly creative in finding ways to make VIA more affordable for students. For example, VIA students developed and published tour guides to Asian countries where volunteers were active and distributed them to airline passengers in exchange for highly discounted air tickets. Without any major subsidies from Stanford, VIA has been financially sustainable for over 60 years, a great credit to Clark’s leadership and management skills.

Given VIA’s success, many universities approached Clark, asking him to open its doors to students beyond the initial consortium. He finally agreed to do this in the 1990s, though most volunteers continue to be from two of the initial three universities (Stanford and UC-Santa Clara). There are now also volunteers from schools such as UC-Riverside. A VIA UC-Riverside alumna has just completed the first ever comprehensive study of VIA.

The Singaporean economist of education, Dr. Pang Eng Fong [108,109], introduced the valuable evaluation tool of tracer studies to systematically assess what happens to the alumni of educational or training programs. Thus far, VIA’s success is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. There has been no systematic, much needed, tracer study of VIA alumni and their life paths.

Related to VIA’s impact and influence, the four Ds framework introduced earlier may be useful. Who goes? Where do they go? How long do they stay? And how in-depth is their experience? The VIA archives can provide answers to the second and third questions, but a systematic tracer study is essential to answering the first and fourth questions. VIA is probably weakest in terms of the first question. It is likely exclusive and elitist, and is not an inclusive program, with little participation from groups such as blacks and those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds (see [61]).

One outcome variable emphasized in the SAGE study is knowledge production. This is a domain in which VIA clearly excels. In the World Catalog, there are 319 books related to VIA, mostly books written by former VIA volunteers and/or about VIA projects, particularly those about sustainable development in various Asian countries, where VIA volunteers serve.

3.4.3. Case Study of the Minnesota Studies in International Development (MSID) Program

In the 1980s, the University of Minnesota’s Minnesota Studies in International Development (MSID) program emerged as an idea from a series of informal staff and faculty discussions focused on innovation with shared values and goals for transformational education. At the time, the model was progressive, leading with experiential pedagogies, cultural immersion, and mutual accountability and commitment by faculty, staff, and students. Over time, the model shifted from faculty- and discipline-centric governance to a more centralized model.

The MSID program began as a full academic year program focused on international development and social justice in permanent locations conducive to developing deep, mutually beneficial, in-country relationships towards sustainable, long-term outcomes. The initial development of university-wide faculty and staff engagement, including units such as the LLC (the Living-Learning Center), OSLO (the Office for Special Learning Opportunities), and EDP (the Educational Development Program), formed a foundation for and investment in experiential field learning, a pedagogy that was then ahead of its time at higher education institutions. MSID leveraged an already well-established on-campus unit called the ISTC (the International Study and Travel Center), characterized by promoting study abroad in nontraditional locations and embedding more formal intercultural expertise in ISAO (the International Student Advisers Office) and the Department of Speech Communication.

Two critical figures in the initial group of faculty were geography professor and new Office of International Programs director, Phil Porter, and R. Michael Paige, professor of international/intercultural education, who had been involved with VIA at Stanford. Porter expressed concerns about who the next generation of experts would be and how they would be prepared to contribute to the development challenges of the future. His primary focus was the reality of poor people who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of programs such as those of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

With a key philosophy and values at the core, Porter distilled the basic principles of the new MSID program:

“The philosophy comes first. There is much in the underdeveloped world that isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing … There are aspects of wholeness and human scale that it would be well to preserve—aspects that have characterized human life and settlement for tens of thousands of years ... A second element of philosophy is that the best people to figure out what is the right course for change are the people who are going to do the changing and who will undergo change. A third element is that we change ourselves by doing ...”

The intention of this unique program was to motivate students early in their lives to want to learn more about the conditions of life for people in less developed countries and to consider devoting their lives to addressing the challenges together. Additionally, it was “to strengthen the capabilities of the university to respond to the needs of Third World countries in the development of their human and natural resources.” As proposed, the project consisted of three major components: a development studies minor; a development studies seminar; and overseas internships. All three components were driven by an understanding of development as an integral process. Students who went on to work in development came from many different fields. They might be well trained in economics, engineering, anthropology, or agriculture; yet many had little understanding of development as complex, holistic, interdisciplinary, and value-laden. Attention to parts with no understanding of the whole could be enormously destructive. Although it was appropriate for future development practitioners to be well grounded in a discipline, the university had a responsibility to help students contextualize their specialized knowledge.

A critical goal of the MSID program for students was one of fundamental transformation and not just change [74,110]:

“Transformation is about far more than the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills. It is the spirit as well as the mind, about values as well as ideas, about relationships as well as self-knowledge, about action as well as understanding. Change happens, transformation is intentional. It is a response, an attitude. It is renewal and growth.”

Personal transformation is closely linked to the urgent task of societal transformation. It can be argued that the planet has never faced such a pervasive threat to its survival as it does today. The crisis manifests itself in many ways: severe strains on local and global environmental systems; a global health crisis; growing political, social, and economic insecurity; a rapidly widening gap between rich and poor, between the powerful and powerless; growing cultural homogenization; and an erosion of the human spirit. MSID strives to help its participants develop a critical understanding of why the world is in crisis and to examine what that understanding might imply for the way they lead their own future lives.

Fostering Lifelong Learning Habits of Thought and Engagement

The knowledge, skills, worldviews, and commitments students acquire through MSID are not just for the present. MSID seeks to foster in its participants nine lifelong habits of mind, heart, and action. The program has been deliberately designed to help its participants acquire these nine habits, namely: (1) think, feel, and act holistically; (2) extract meaning from experience; (3) understand the intimate power between knowledge and power; (4) savor and embrace diversity; (5) be mindful of the global context; (6) take a long-term perspective; (7) cultivate empathy; (8) foster community; and (9) translate insights and values into action.

3.4.4. Case Study of the International Cooperative Learning Project, 1993–2000

This unusual project involved a strategic partnership among Nihon Fukushi University (a Japanese social work university), the University of Oregon (UO), Chiang Mai University (CMU) (Thailand), the National University of Laos (NUOL), the Royal University of Phnom Penh (Cambodia), and Vietnam National University (VNU), Hanoi. This innovative initiative was made possible by the academic entrepreneurship of Dr. Kathleen Bowman (see case study), Oregon’s Vice-Provost for International Affairs. On a fund-raising trip to Japan, she visited various Japanese foundations and “shopped” innovative ideas generated by UO faculty members. Among the many foundations visited was the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. A program officer there who had been an IVS volunteer in Vietnam liked an idea proposed by the author of this paper. The project envisioned was to have multicultural teams of students conduct fieldwork in mainland Southeast Asian countries and learn first-hand about development problems and issues. The foundation advised Professor Fry of the UO to meet with Professor Terushi Tomita of Nihon Fukushi University to prepare a proposal to conduct a pilot project to test the idea. Professor Tomita, interestingly, had the same kind of project in mind. The two professors subsequently met at the East-West Center in Hawai'i to develop a proposal to conduct a pilot project in Chiang Mai, Thailand, which was funded.

After conducting a highly successful pilot as a one-month project in Chiang Mai in 1993, Tomita and Fry wrote a proposal for a full four-year project, which was successfully funded. Programs were then implemented in Thailand (2), Laos, and Vietnam. Five students from each of the participating countries received full scholarships to join the project. To promote inclusive internationalization, each university was encouraged to recruit for cultural diversity. Among the participants from CMU were Hmong and Karen students, and the UO students included Native Americans and Asian-Americans. Since all students were fully funded by the grant, those with low SES were not excluded. The program was highly successful, with many positive outcomes, including confirming the validity of social contact theory. For example, despite historical “bad blood” and animosities, Cambodian and Vietnamese students bonded extremely well. Multicultural teams always had one student from each of the six participating countries.

A second four-year round of funding was approved, but without scholarships for the Japanese and US students. Also, a service learning component was added in this second phase. In this second phase, additional financial support was obtained from the Freeman Foundation and the Tokai Bank Foundation. Programs were implemented in Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia. The last program featured being at the majestic Angkor Wat in 2000 for the turn of the century. The program duration was one to two months, depending on country costs. The total funding for the program over eight years was approximately one million USD. Tomita et al. [32] published a book describing the program and its impact and outcomes. One moving chapter provided testimonials by former participants about how the experience had transformed their lives. Among the notable examples was a Khmer alumna who went on to complete a doctorate at Nagoya University and then returned to Cambodia to direct Development Studies at the Royal University of Phnom Penh. Another example was a student who went on to become the first Karen woman ever to get a graduate degree in the U.S. and subsequently became the director of a major international NGO related to environmental preservation. During the eight-year period of grant funding, over 200 students participated in the program. A rigorous retrospective tracer study is needed to systematically assess the impact of the program [108]. Sadly, like many other innovative international programs, the project was not sustainable without external funding for a variety of reasons. During his seven decades of engagement with international education, the author of this paper feels that this was the best program with which he was ever involved.

3.4.5. Case Study Related to Impactful Short-Term Study Abroad

Studying abroad is an integral part of international education. The face of this dimension has changed dramatically in recent decades. Currently, about 58% of study abroad is short-term, meaning three months or less, and often only two or three weeks in duration. This is much different than in the “good old days”, when students normally went abroad for one semester or one academic year. Given the rather harsh criticism of this short-term genre as nothing more than glorified cultural tourism by scholars such as Michael Woolf [68], the Korean scholar Kyoung-Ah Nam became intrigued by whether this kind of study abroad could be meaningful and impactful. Interestingly, Ishakova et al. [111] refer to this phenomenon as international educational tourism. Nam decided to examine closely, as extreme cases [84], two University of Minnesota short-term programs noted for being robust and rigorous, one in the Netherlands and one in Thailand/Laos. The motto of the University of Minnesota is “driven to discover.” Nam [112] wanted to learn whether short-term study could be impactful, and, if so, what ensures that.

In her study, Nam compared and contrasted these programs in Europe and Southeast Asia. Because of space limitations, the focus here is only on the Thai/Lao program. Both programs were approximately three weeks in length and offered during the intersession between the spring and summer semesters.

The Thai/Lao program has many distinctive features, which can be summarized as follows:

(1)

The program is comparative, an approach emphasized by Mestenhauser [35]. Students spend time in both Northeast Thailand and the Lao PDR.

(2)

Little or no time is spent in tourist areas such as Bangkok, Chiang Mai, and Phuket/Pattaya, and there are no tourist activities.

(3)

The basic operating principle is the power of experiential education.

(4)

Their major academic assignment is to carry out a mini-ethnography as a way to engage with local communities.

(5)

Inspired by the thinking of Paul Freire [113,114], there is the expectation that students learn to write in Thai. They receive free textbooks that are used by pre-school Thai children. This is a truly empowering activity. At the end of the three-week program, their Thai calligraphy is evaluated by a Thai language teacher. Some are able to write Thai quite elegantly. Also, in terms of spoken Thai and Lao, students have some basic training in survival Thai and Lao as part of their basic orientation, which is carried out at the Hmong Cultural Center near the campus. Orientation sessions are an important part of the program and they focus on strategies for how to learn about and compare Thai and Lao cultures, not knowledge acquisition.

(6)

To maximize their time interacting with locals, little time was spent either on their own group processes or extensive reading assignments.

(7)

The students stay in Thai university dorms and have a Thai roommate.

Three examples of rather unusual program activities are as follows: First, friendly sports matches are organized with U.S. students and athletic teams from Thai and/or Lao universities. After the games are over, there are social mixers for students to get to know each other. Second, students, as part of their experiential learning, spend about three days at a Santi Ashoka Buddhist site, where they live like monks, experience some genuine suffering, and they become familiar with the basic principles of Buddhism. Third, the final day of the program is in the megacity of Bangkok. The students spend the entire morning becoming familiar with Bangkok’s largest “slum”, Khlong Toey, and its culture and environment [115,116]. For most students, this is their first ever “slum” experience and a real eye-opener. One of the first important things they learn is not to use the pejorative term “slum”. They also become familiar with the inspiring philanthropic work of the “slum angel”, Khru Prateep [117].

In the afternoon, students visit a prestigious private university, Assumption, and attend a mixer with its students. Its Suvarnabhumi campus is palatial and majestic (see Figure 1). Then, on the final evening, to conclude their Thai/Lao sojourn, there is an awards banquet at a prominent Thai university. The students themselves are empowered to select the winners of the various awards. Then, a gift is given to the winner, often related to the award received. An award, for example, for the student who learned the most Thai would be a pocket Thai dictionary. Another award would be for the student who made the most Thai/Lao friends during the program, and, of course, there is an award for the person with the best Thai calligraphy. Normally, all students receive at least one award/gift. Usually, a total of about 40 awards and gifts are given.

3.4.6. Case Study of International Engagement with the Community, University of Oregon, 1980–2000

Eugene, the home of the University of Oregon (UO) (“Nike University”), is primarily known as the track capital of the world and for its close relationship with Nike [118]. Little is known about its dynamic, creative international outreach initiatives. Despite neither being a land nor sea grant institution, its leadership (President David Frohnmeyer and Kathleen Bowman, V-P for International Affairs, see case study) became deeply committed to internationalization.

As an important genre of IaH, Oregon implemented a number of impressive outreach programs and projects to serve the larger community. Several of these projects are now briefly described:

With valuable assistance from the Northwest Area Foundation, the UO assisted the Eugene 4-J School District to develop the country’s first ever international high school. This has been a highly successful and sustainable initiative. One of its most popular and notable courses is one on comparative world value systems, titled appropriately so that comparative “religion” can be taught in a public school.

In another related project, the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies (CAPS) and the Yamada Language Center assisted with an assessment of the nation’s first ever Japanese immersion school, Yujin Gakuen.

Another quite different kind of project organized by CAPS in collaboration with Dain Rauscher, an investment firm, involved monthly investment in Asia seminars. The countries featured, for example, were Vietnam, Thailand, India, China, Japan, Indonesia, and Korea. UO experts provided information on the economies of these countries and their likely futures. The idea was not to persuade participants to invest in these countries, but to make them aware of opportunities to diversify their investment portfolios. They also learned about how they could invest in these countries risk-free through no-load country funds. Companies can go “belly up”, but countries will always be there. There was no charge for these seminars, which became quite popular.

The next quite unusual project involved a middle school in Eugene, Jefferson, and was funded by a grant from the Asia Society. A group of students in the 8th grade devoted a whole year to the study of the Mekong River and related countries and cultures. It was a classic example of the benefits of project learning and also educational competency building and interdisciplinary studies [119,120], but in which there was also considerable knowledge acquisition. Teachers were not “sages on the stage”, but advisors assisting students in learning about the Mekong and the countries/cultures of the region. They produced a research newsletter about what they were learning. Through this activity, they developed their writing, word processing, and research skills. Among the fascinating topics studied were the hydrology of the Mekong River, the impact of dams being built on the river on down-stream communities in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, the preservation of water dolphins in the river, and the amazing reverse flow of a major tributary connecting to the great Tonle Sap Lake in central Cambodia. At the end of the year, the students had the opportunity to meet President Corazon Aquino of the Philippines and proudly tell her about their exciting project. The African-American principal of the school, Dr. Bob Bolden, went on to win the principal of the year award in Oregon.

There is a boutique movie theater near the UO. This became the site of the next outreach project. The UO, in cooperation with the theater, organized a Southeast film series featuring both Western and Indigenous films. After each film, a panel of experts would discuss with the audience how the film may have misrepresented or distorted Southeast Asian countries and cultures. Among the films featured were “The Year of Living Dangerously”, “Sunset on the Chao Phraya River”, and “Indochine”. This outreach project responded directly to the “crisis of representation” and Said’s [56,57,58] Orientalism.

The final project was a Fulbright one involving a month of fieldwork in Cambodia. Many of the participants were educators and educational administrators from the Eugene 4-J School District. To increase the diversity of the group, there were also a few UO faculty members and students (both domestic and international). Prior to departure, there were seven required orientation sessions, including a class on survival Khmer. The focus of the study tour was on developing in-depth curricula (to be used back in the states) on Cambodia by seeing the area first-hand and collecting all kinds of learning materials, such as maps, artwork, music, proverbs, novels/literature, and other books about Cambodia. A highlight of the trip was a visit to Angkor Wat, the largest religious monument in the world and a prominent human-made wonder of the world. Professor Joseph Mestenhauser (see case study) organized many trips of this type for community members who visited places such as the Czech Republic, Belarus, and the Kyrgyz Republic.

4. Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions

4.1. Limitations

With a limited number of case studies, statistical generalization is impossible. Instead, the aim is to seek a deep understanding (the verstehen approach) [89]. and insights related to the phenomenon being researched. In terms of the extensive statistical data presented, they are only descriptive. Data analysis involving the development of complex analytical explanatory models was not conducted. This is an important area for future research.

4.2. Future Research

Much additional future research is needed, particularly to rigorously assess the outcomes of the internationalization of higher education. There are far too few systematic tracer studies of the impact of internationalization efforts and initiatives. Such studies are essential for providing a strong rationale for enhanced funding for the internationalization of higher education. While this article directly assesses the complex and problematic sustainability problem, much more research is needed to identify the major ways to attain both sustainability and excellence in international higher education.

4.3. Final Reflections: Best Practices for Excellence and Rigor in International Education

Based on the insightful thinking of leading international educators across the globe and multiple case studies of exemplary programs such as VIA and CAMPUSAsia, a set of best principles are presented to promote in-depth inclusive internationalization education, rather than shallow internationalization, which is too often exclusive/elitist and/or mediocre.

Case studies supporting the best practices are indicated in parentheses to link findings with conclusions. These best practices can be summarized as follows:

(1)

Ensure that the academic leaders for study abroad programs have the “right stuff” and avoid having the “blind lead the blind” syndrome, which inevitably leads to mediocrity [18,19,121,122] (see the case study related to impactful short-term study abroad).

(2)

Since a lack of sustainability plagues many outstanding innovative programs, it is important to develop endowments to foster long-term sustainability (see case studies of VIA and the International Cooperative Learning Project).

(3)

Given the current model and culture of higher education, faculty recruitment by discipline will likely prevail. However, visionary leaders in higher education should recruit for cultural diversity and international/intercultural experience (McPherson case study).

(4)

Stress should be placed on the development of in-depth programs that are impactful and transformative [74]. (case study of VIA).

(5)

Both interdisciplinary area studies and international/global studies programs need to be promoted, not marginalized [119,120]. Those in the traditional academic disciplines frequently dismiss area studies programs as being too descriptive with inadequate theoretical foundations. Indiana University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison are to be commended for having developed so many high-quality area study centers (see Table 6). Given the emphasis on academic specialization, faculty members are often in isolated silos, and they are “learning more and more about less and less” (Mestenhauser, cited in [35] p. 12). Key policy issues such as growing global inequality and climate change require rigorous interdisciplinary and systems thinking to be adequately addressed (the case study of Josef Mestenhauser).

(6)

Given the context of a rapidly globalizing world, all undergraduates should take at least one significant international/intercultural course and have international/intercultural experience (study abroad and/or internship) (case study of the International Cooperative Learning project and Allport’s social contact theory).

(7)

In most doctoral programs in the U.S., doctoral students must demonstrate proficiency in either another language or statistics. Essentially, to optimize their inquiry skills, they need both competencies. Knowledge of other languages opens up access to more diverse perspectives and is found to enhance creativity [26,27] (case study of CAMPUS Asia).

(8)

Major universities should have a vice president or vice provost for international affairs to actively promote internationalization and related partnerships [123,124]. Also, each major college in a university should have an associate dean responsible for internationalization initiatives. The dynamic dean of the School of Public Health, Dr. John Finnegan, at the University of Minnesota (UM) used this model in a highly effective way.

(9)

It is not enough to internationalize universities. They must engage in outreach both locally and globally to promote global literacy [36] and enhance citizens’ quality of life and well-being [125]. A notable example was the creation of the nation’s first international high school, with the assistance of the University of Oregon through a grant from the Northwest Area Foundation (case study of international engagement with the community, the University of Oregon).

(10)

More systematic research and tracer studies [108,109] must be carried out to document the positive outcomes of international education. Currently, too much of the evidence is only anecdotal. Without such empirical data, it will be difficult to persuade key policymakers at various levels to provide increased financial support for international education. A noteworthy example in this regard is Bellarmine University’s [126] assessment of the intercultural sensitivity of its entering freshmen class and then, in a post test, reassessing this measure for graduating seniors. Other examples of rigorous empirical assessments of the impact of study abroad are the SAGE study on the impact of studying abroad on global engagement [67,127], reseach on how studying abroad can be transformative [74], the Georgia state system study of the impact of studying abroad [128], and the Georgetown study on how studying abroad relates to intercultural development [129].

(11)

Finally, sports is nearly always on the home page of universities, but internationality is nearly always missing, showing the low priority given to international education. A university’s international activities and initiatives deserve a presence on the home page.

This final concluding reflection is a kind of evidence-based advocacy inspired by Arygris’ et al. [78] development of action science. It is based on a creative synthesis of insights and wisdom from the diverse case studies presented and my own personal decades of experience in promoting the internationalization of higher education.

It is impossible to have a genuinely sound liberal education without an international/intercultural component [21,126,130]. The current commercialization and vocationalization of higher education are associated with a concomitant decline in respect for both liberal education and the humanities. Students need to think long-term and consider the liberal education option with a strong international/intercultural component. That choice will prepare them well to work effectively in an increasingly multicultural world, in an unknown turbulent/disruptive VUCA/BANI era, not for a specific job but for any job anywhere, to flourish adaptively in diverse cultural environments [131], to enhance their “software of the mind” and their global literacy, to develop their cultural capital [20,21], and perhaps most importantly, to enjoy life-long continual learning. The final outcome may well be optimal health and happiness, not economic material wealth [125].