CBIEPhDRESEARCH

Ethical Considerations
for Internationalization:
Perspectives from Global
Citizenship Education
Kyra Garson
Introduction
A variety of globalizing influences have dramatically
shifted the environment of Canadian institutions of
higher education in the past few decades. Increased
global student mobility has quite literally brought the
world to our campuses. The presence of over 200,000
international students (Roslyn Kunin & Associates, 2012)
is only one factor contributing to increased cultural
diversity on Canadian campuses. Greater cultural diversity
derives from steady growth in the presence of Indigenous
students (AUCC, 2010; Malatest & Associates, 2004)
and new Canadian students (Statistics Canada, 2009).
Judging by the numbers, it would appear that higher
education is poised to become a site of intercultural
and global exchange. However, numerous scholars
(Abdi, 2011; Banks, 2009; Camicia & Franklin, 2010;
Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008; Kuokkanen, 2008; Otten,
2010) warn that looking at quantitative factors alone
may mask the continuation of potentially hegemonic or
assimilative traditions inherent in the academy. As Apple
states, higher education frequently continues to embrace
“an entire set of historical assumptions about ‘tradition,’
about the existence of a social consensus over what
should count as legitimate knowledge, and about cultural
superiority” (Apple, 2000, p. 68).
Although higher education has always valued the mobility
of scholars and ideas, the recent emphasis on international
activities has evolved to encompass much more than

scholarly exchange. Although many argue that the
rhetoric around internationalization is designed to
divert attention from competitive, market motivations
(Stromquist, 2007; Harris, 2008), others believe that
the internationalization of higher education offers
potential opportunities for real change in terms
of curriculum and learning outcomes in the form
of global citizenship education (Gacel-Avila, 2005;
Pike, 2008; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011).
This paper explores the links between international
education and global citizenship education in order
to understand the inherent convergences and divergences, and to consider how they can be connected
to achieve ethical approaches in institutional policy
and practice, and in teaching. The common themes
in the internationalization and global citizenship
education literature will be examined in order to
investigate the potential future trajectory of this area
of scholarship. Beginning with a brief discussion of
terms, the paper discusses the ethical dilemmas posed
for Canadian higher education in a globalized context
where the mobility of educational resources, paradigms
and students have become commonplace strategies
for many institutions. The final sections will discuss
the challenges of embedding global citizenship
perspectives within internationalization in higher
education and suggest future possibilities.

Discussion of Terms
Globalization has become an accepted paradigm
influencing lives and interactions around the world.
However it continues to generate a variety of contested
understandings often operating simultaneously
(Burbules & Torres, 2000; Conversi, 2010; Gaudelli,
2009; Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009; Santos, 2006;
Stomquist & Monkman, 2000). Furthermore,
globalization is generally framed through Western
scholarship (Abdi, 2011; Bourdieu, 2003; Santos,
2006) and therefore may not be inclusive of many
voices directly or indirectly impacted. Conversi (2010)
regards part of the lexical confusion as due to the
“failure to distinguish globalization as an ideology
and globalization as a practice” (p.48). Santos (2006)
conceptualizes globalizations in the plural, some of
which may be more or less benign; however, he
suggests, it is the growing set of prescriptions framed
by hegemonic, monocultural, neoliberal consensus that
are threatening. Burbules and Torres (2000) warn that
if education does not begin to seriously address the
prevalent neoliberal framing of globalization in tangible
ways it runs serious risks. The prevalence of globalization
taken as an inevitable truth for which no one is
accountable presents real danger for many (Burbules
& Torres, 2000; Popkewitz & Rizvi, 2009; Santos, 2006).
For Altbach and Teichler (2001) “Internationalization...
is an inevitable result of the globalized and knowledgebased economy” (p. 5). Yet we are reminded that “the
global dimension of higher education is not a sphere
of nature” (p.10) but represents the actions and decisions
of real people in real time. This is what Santos (2007)
refers to as the “determinist fallacy” which he suggests
“consists in transforming the causes of globalization into
its effects, obscuring the fact that globalization results
from a set of political decisions which are identifiable
in time and space” (p. 395). Burbules and Torres (2000)
also urge educators not to succumb to the rhetoric of
inevitability and suggest that they frame the discussion
going forward in a manner that positions the global
“in more equitable, and more just ways” (p. 61).
Internationalization is the most overt impact of
globalization on higher education. Here we meet with
another highly contested and variously interpreted
term. According to Knight (2004), the debate around
what internationalization means has been ongoing
since the mid-1980s. Thirty years later many scholars
still acknowledge confusion with the term among
stakeholders in higher education (Bond, 2006;
Enders, 2004; Harris, 2008; Knight, 2004; Oka, 2007;
Stromquist, 2007). Internationalization viewed as a
response to globalization frames internationalization
initiatives as a means to “cope with or exploit
globalization” (Altbach, 2004). These choices of response
form the basis of the divisions in the internationalization
literature: whether internationalization is framed as a
competitive, neoliberal educational market mechanism

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

for institutional revenue (Stromquist, 2007; Harris, 2008),
or as a vehicle for changes in curriculum relevant to
new global contexts (Gacel-Avila, 2005; Shultz, 2011;
Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011) or to intercultural education
(Bond, 2006; Deardorff, 2006; Leask, 2010; Paige &
Mestenhauser, 1999).
Although internationalization in higher education
refers to a number of activities including the mobility
of students, institutional partnerships and programs,
and the transnational marketing and delivery of
programs, the present discussion explores how the
processes of globalization and internationalization
impact the learning and teaching environment of
Canadian campuses. Therefore, the paper will use
Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalization as
“the process of integrating an international, intercultural,
or global dimension into the purpose, functions or
delivery of post-secondary education” (p.11).
Internationalization has spurred a revival of interest
in global citizenship (Gacel-Avila, 2005; Shultz, 2011;
Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011; Wright, 2011); yet, a review
of the global citizenship education (GCE) literature reveals
similar challenges in providing a singular definition
for the field (Abdi, 2008; 2011, Davies, 2006; Dower,
2008; Pike, 2008; Shultz, 2011; Swanson, 2011). Tarc
(2011) points out that if any one of the three words:
global, citizen or education is removed the meaning
becomes entirely different. Shultz (2008; 2011) admits
that the wide and varied use of the term may render it
meaningless but believes that it is these varied discourses
that potential for meaningful scholarship may emerge.
Davies (2006) also comments that concepts of global
citizenship have become too fragmented to be accepted
and embedded. Weber (2011) simplifies the fragments
to two competing discourses: one in which a social
justice paradigm prevails, the other where GCE becomes
a means to prepare learners for the global market
economy. This dichotomy is reminiscent of similar divides
in the internationalization literature (Knight, 2004;
Stromquist, 2007).
A review of the GCE literature reveals a number
of shifts which align with both the challenges and
opportunities offered by the internationalization of
higher education. These include a heightened emphasis
on the ethical dilemmas presented by globalization and
internationalization, a wider disciplinary distribution of
interest in global citizenship in relation to fields beyond
social sciences, and a particular focus on pedagogy,
curriculum development and the learning outcomes
potentially associated with global education. The
literature of GCE and that of internationalization share
some of the same concerns in terms of issues to consider
and barriers to overcome. However, despite superficial
alignment, they may be at odds in the present education
climate (Andreotti, 2011).

2

Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical enquiry does not yield a single way of
life or scheme of values for all — not even for
a single individual. Different ways of life embody
incompatible aspects of the human good. So,
in different contexts, may a single human life.
Yet no life can reconcile fully the rival values
that a human good contains (Gray, 2000).
In reviewing the literature of global citizenship education
(GCE) and that of internationalization, it is possible to
identify common and related themes that either implicitly
or explicitly raise ethical questions for higher education
as a direct result of globalization processes. As this
discussion will reveal, perspective plays a large part in
whether these issues are viewed as moral imperatives for
humanity or the responsibility of higher education toward
more immediate stakeholders. The main overlapping
issues involve the increasing influence of neoliberal
agendas on the conscience, capability and context
of higher education in addressing global education.
Many within the academy have resigned themselves to
internationalization being aligned with market outputs
while at the same time individual faculty members and
faculty groups manage to work innovatively within that
structure to provide experiential and even transformative
learning outcomes for students.
Much of the alignment of GCE educators to
internationalization is similar, both in optimizing
opportunities provided and recognizing systemic barriers
that block their larger efforts. As mentioned above,
many GCE scholars see internationalization as a vehicle
to move their agendas forward, as do “interculturalists”
and those interested in transformative, experiential
and, in some cases, service learning. Yet a great deal of
internationalization rhetoric and mission is immersed in
market frameworks (AUCC, 2007; Abdi & Shultz, 2008;
Stromquist, 2007; Harris, 2008, Marginson, 2007;
Shultz, 2011) which favour institutional and domestic
stability over global sustainability (Webber, 2011).
With the inclusion of education within the General
Agreement on Trades and Services (GATS), education
became a tradable commodity on the global market.
The opportunities for individual institutions to generate
revenue through internationalization initiatives without
ethical parameters has resulted in some questionable
enterprises motivated by aspirations for profit and
prestige over educational outcomes. Although
international education pursued commercial cross-border
arrangements prior to the inclusion of education in the
GATS, many scholars see GATS as the inevitable move
to the full marketization of education with numerous
potentially difficult or dangerous implications (Abdi,
2011; Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight,
2007; Giroux, 2002; Harris, 2007; Stromquist, 2007).
The commodification of education also has implications

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

Many within the academy have resigned
themselves to internationalization being
aligned with market outputs while at the
same time individual faculty members and
faculty groups manage to work innovatively
within that structure to provide experiential
and even transformative learning outcomes
for students.

for GCE. Swanson (2011) notes that the increase in
institutional support for global citizenship initiatives
hinges on the competitive approach now prevalent
in internationalization, and that these initiatives are
often used merely to legitimate mission statements
and branding (for example, to indicate cutting-edge
education). Furthermore, as sloganism is often used
vaguely and not tied to learning outcomes, it can serve
to endorse the very universalisms that global citizenship
initiatives should seek to diminish (Swanson, 2011).
Several scholars note the often inequitable direction
of international education initiatives, in particular the
North’s or West’s advantage in these endeavours that
may do little more than perpetuate inequities in terms
of access and opportunity. Altbach (2004) and Webber
(2011) both raise the issue of institutional access in the
South or East to resources and to publication that has
resulted in certain universities and locations dominating
research and funding. The larger issue for many scholars
is not the economic implications but the subtle imperialist
positioning of certain epistemologies as superior.
Although several scholars raise concerns that the present
educational trajectory continues to elevate Northern and
Western knowledge above others (Asgharzadeh, 2008;
Banks, 2009; Bates, 2005; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008;
Pidgeon, 2008; Santos, 2007; Schoorman & Bogotch,
2010), Abdi (2011) is perhaps the most outspoken in
this regard. Abdi (2011) urges educators to interrogate
inherent colonialist attitudes and assumptions about
peoples of the South, reminding us that systemic
and generational damage remains from previous
imperialist approaches that have resulted in not only
de-culturized and de-historized populations, but have
been instrumental in “de-citizenizing” as well.
The internationalization literature does not explicitly
attend to the question of epistemological superiority.
The closest concern comes in the form of discussion
regarding “brain drain” which raises questions
regarding the flow of talent but not necessarily systemic

3

epistemological inequities. Altbach and Knight (2007)
note uneven directional flows of students as a result of
international student recruitment, which they concede
presents potential benefit to the home countries of the
students but not to their educational systems in terms
of control of content or economic gain. Where we do
find attention put to knowledge variations, or at least
perspectives varied by cultural orientation, is through the
work of interculturalists or those who value intercultural
frameworks beyond their usefulness for preparing
students to do business in the global economy (Knight,
2004; Deardorff, 2006; Bok, 2009; Otten, 2003; 2009).
Conversely, the GCE literature is rife with warnings to
consider other epistemological orientations, particularly
from scholars cognizant of the historical imposition of
culture and norms, who argue that any genuine global
education curriculum requires an inclusive discourse
about what citizenship in a global context might look
like (Abdi, 2011; Andreotti, 2011; Pike, 2008; Swanson,
2011). To discuss education for global citizenship and
not consider alternative knowledge frameworks would
be nothing less than perpetuating colonialist subjugation.
Abdi (2011) frames his position within a historical
context:
The relationship between the West and the rest
of the world has not been a mutual understanding
of the certain commonalities of the global public
good. It was, undoubtedly, the mono-directional
ideological stampede that believes in itself and
cannot ascertain other intentions and possibilities
of life (p. 27).
GCE scholars go beyond observation of these problems
and put their attention to pedagogy in ways that
international education has not. GCE scholars have
highlighted the numerous difficulties of teaching global
citizenship in the face of complicated and misunderstood
histories that often confound the present (GuimaraesIosif, 2011; Krogman & Foote, 2011; Pigozzi, 2006;
Swanson, 2011). Complicity is a feature of the GCE
discourse, in the sense that it urges educators to teach
from historical contexts in order that students have the
opportunity to come to terms with their own complicity
in present and future issues (Abdi & Schultz, 2008; Abdi,
2011; Krogman & Foote, 2011; Shultz, 2011; Swanson,
2011; Wright, 2009).
Nonetheless, GCE scholars acknowledge the pedagogical
challenges, either in the framing of its complexity (Abdi,
2011; Shultz; 2011), the necessity of interdisciplinary
engagement (Pigozzi, 2006, Guimaraes-Iosif, 2011),
the difficulty of questioning the status quo (GuimaraesIosif, 2011), and the risk of GCE “essentializing” human
differences (Swanson, 2011, Tarc, 2011) or of reinforcing
binaries and stereotypes if the structural foundations of
such educational endeavours are not deeply questioned
(Swanson, 2011). Andreotti (2011) acknowledges

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

the necessity of carefully considered pedagogy for
international exchange:
They [exchanges] have the potential to provide
an exciting and highly motivating opportunity to
enable learners to engage productively with complex
and interdependent processes that shape global/
local contexts, identities and struggles for justice
today. However, depending on the approach and
methodology adopted, they can also reinforce
stereotypes, promote a patronizing attitude towards
the South and alienate students further in relation to
global issues and perspectives (pp.145-146).
These warnings parallel recent scholarship indicating that
domestic student mobility that lacks careful attention to
learning outcomes may not result in substantive learning
(Van Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012).
The focus of GCE on critical pedagogy is a welcome
contribution to the internationalization literature
which for the most part has not focused on pedagogy.
Notable exceptions are the work of Bond (2006) and
emerging scholar Oka (2007) whose dissertation is
entitled “Pedagogy of the Global” and provides a
comprehensive interrogation of internationalization in
light of history, subjugated knowledges and notions of
difference in developing a responsible citizenry. In line
with GCE scholars, Oka (2007) advocates for a critical
approach and identifies the transformative qualities of
a “global imaginary.” Pedagogical considerations aside,
distinct parallels are evident across the two bodies
of literature in regard to the challenges presented by
incorporating diversity of perspectives and difficult
questions into the present educational structure. Both
the internationalization literature and the GCE literature
identify systemic barriers, mainly the neoliberal forces
discussed above, but also institutional barriers in terms
of governance, accountability and organizational culture.

Institutional Barriers
Barriers exist for any change initiative within established
institutions. Institutions of higher education have
notoriously slow processes through which to incorporate
change. The limitations of these governance structures
are noted by GCE scholars (Pike, 2008; Weber, 2011;
Wright, 2009). The challenge can be illustrated through
the change in attitude shown by Pike: his early optimism
(2000) wanes to resolve, eight years later, when he
wonders why GCE “it is not at the forefront of politicians’
calls for additional funding or of parents’ concerns”
(Pike, 2008, p. 224).
Along with the rise of marketization and neoliberal
politics came an increase in accountability systems for
higher education. It is interesting to note that a search

4

in the Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC)
database for accountability in higher education produces
hundreds of articles of which the vast majority are
concerned with financial accountability and performancebased accountability that for the most part deals with
quantitative outputs. The higher educational system has
become an input-output model (Harris, 2009; Deardorff,
2006) in which outcomes are secondary and long-term
outcomes are rarely considered. Teichler (2004) comments
that the dialogue “focuses on marketization, competition
and management in higher education.
Other terms, such as knowledge society, global village,
global understanding or global learning, are hardly taken
into consideration” (p. 23). In the present neoliberal
market environment there are serious questions as to what
higher education is accountable for.

Faculty Issues
Another area of overlap is discussions of unprepared or
unwilling educators who may either feel discussions of
citizenship or global issues are not part of their subject
matter or that they are not sufficiently prepared to
manage such content or approaches. For the most part,
the internationalization literature focuses on faculty
resistance (Bond, 2006; Childress, 2010; Sanderson, 2008)
and faculty engagement (Childress, 2010; Stohl, 2007).
Bond (2006) concludes that some faculty are making the
necessary shifts in terms of content and delivery required
by internationalization; however, she finds that these are
pockets of motivated individuals who are not necessarily
encouraged or supported within their organization.
Sanderson (2008) concurs that educators need to
be supported by the institutional culture to embrace
international, intercultural and global aspects of both their
content and delivery. Childress (2010) devotes an entire
book to the institutional strategies and structures required
for faculty to widely engage in internationalization but
falls short of incorporating pedagogical frameworks.
From the perspective of GCE the emphasis is less
on resistance or engagement, but more on the
unpreparedness of educators to incorporate content
they are not well grounded in (Davies, 2006; Abdi, 2011,
Pigozzi, 2006; Tarc, 2011). Tarc (2011) suggests that in
order to move GCE towards a more collaborative, inquirybased practice, the required thinking is not “teaching
for global mindedness” but “teaching to learn to teach
for global mindedness” (p. 72). Guimaraes-Iosif (2011)
claims that educators must begin to question the type of
citizens that result from higher education. Others assert
that the teaching of global citizenship frameworks is the
responsibility of higher education to ensure sustainability
for future generations (Wright, 2009) or even a “moral
imperative” (Blades & Richardson, 2006, p. 116) for
education.

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

Student Attitudes
Student attitudes are increasingly worrisome. Côté
and Allahar (2011) describe this general malaise as
“unengaged entitlement.” Wright (2009) claims that
higher education produces “blind contributors” to
sustainability issues, through the approach, programming
and facilities of institutions. She exemplifies the point
with personal experiences in which she was teaching
a mandatory course in sustainability issues; she was
repeatedly challenged by students questioning the
relevance of the content to their particular program.
Increasingly higher education caters to – and in fact
competes with other institutions to attract – the
“consumer student” who is uniquely focused on
obtaining the required certification to get a job or to
compete in the marketplace. More unsettling still is Tarc’s
(2011) discussion of an insidious “making a difference”
ethos that underlies many global education initiatives
intended to engage students.
Indeed, in the social imaginary of the privileged
West, there is a heightened demand to ‘do good’
and ‘be empowered’ as circumscribed by an
individualist ‘making a difference’ paradigm. Many
‘transformative’ acts of empowerment seem situated
within a kind of market-oriented, individualist,
consumer, charity mix (p.69).
For Tarc (2011) this ethos teaches that responsibility
is not public and frames social action as a vehicle to
gaining social capital. Andreotti (2011) also reveals
similar findings through three case studies. Particularly
unsettling was a Make Poverty History campaign
prior to the Gleneagles Summit where students were
recruited to volunteer. The website led off with a set
of “provocative” questions:
Are you amazing?
Do you want to be part of making poverty history?
If so, [NGO A] wants to hear from you! (p. 149)
Andreotti’s (2011) analysis found the campaign’s
recruiting material promised that participation would
increase respect and boost one’s CV which “suggests a
narcissistic approach to activism” (p. 151). Dower (2008)
insists that those who have the privilege to consider
themselves global citizens represent the global elite and
in this, may reflect the imbalances and inequities they
claim to challenge.

5

Present and Future
Trajectories
Consulting the GCE literature it is possible to discern
shifts that may influence how internationalization is
will be framed in the future. Considering traditional
rationales for and approaches to internationalization,
we see a change in emphasis within De Wit’s (2002)
and Knight’s (2004) internationalization rationales, from
primarily political and economic toward socio-cultural
and academic rationales. This is evidenced by the number
of academics in a variety of disciplines who combine
internationalization and global education in their
scholarship (Davies, 2006; Foote, 2011; Noddings, 2010;
Shultz, 2011; Wright, 2009). In tandem with this trend
is Knight’s (2004) approaches model that has moved
from activity and competence toward process and ethos.
A second, related shift is that the GCE literature reveals
more attention to pedagogy and curriculum in producing
global citizens: whereas much of the internationalization
literature assumes global learning outcomes simply by
virtue of proximity or mobility, GCE scholars are seriously
considering the impacts of such endeavours and the
critical role of education in a globalized context (Abdi,
2011; Abdi & Shultz, 2008; 2011; Pike, 2008; Dower,
2008; Gacel- Avila, 2005; Swanson, 2011; Tarc, 2011;
Wright, 2009).
The potential GCE scholarship to infuse ethical
considerations into the internationalization process and
ethos is substantial. At minimum, internationalization,
as an established agenda for higher education, provides
an environment “ripe for contestation” (Swanson, 2011,
p. 124).
On the other hand, careful consideration of potential
obstacles is in order. First, the concept of global
citizens can be usurped to serve the neoliberal
frameworks in which much of internationalization
is firmly rooted. Furthermore, global citizenship is
not a priority for neoliberal agendas, indeed “global
thinking is not in the best interests of the global market”
(Pike, 2008). Governance and operational issues will
also hinder progress. In Canada in particular, they are
highly complex due to provincial jurisdiction in education
and federal roles in international relations and research.
As a result, Canadian GCE has little policy support
(Weber, 2011).
Another issue is that the terminology is unclear, and
is enacted and advocated for through a variety of lenses
for a variety of means (Davies, 2006, Shultz & Abdi,
2008, Tarc, 2011). The problematic of interpretive
variation threatens to “reify difference as much as hide
the dangerous universalisms they evoke, entrenching
silences in the attempt to create a new platform for
a set of global justices for all” (Swanson, 2011, p. 122).
This is the danger that Abdi (2011) warns of in which

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

GCE becomes yet another mechanism of subjugating
the disenfranchised through frameworks imposed
upon them.
Another possibility is that support for global citizenship
may be dismissed as utopianism (Gumaraes-Iotif, 2011),
for example by those in positions of privilege who tend
to prefer the status quo.

internationalization, as an established
agenda for higher education, provides
an environment “ripe for contestation”

Recommendations
The calls to action in the GCE literature offer conceptual
frameworks on how to proceed. Already noted was
the necessity to critically frame all endeavours in sound
pedagogy that allows spaces for collaboration and
dialogue among all stakeholders, institutionally and
internationally. Swanson (2011) urges a pedagogy of
“glocalization” in which the concept of citizenship can
be simultaneously informed as local and global. Other
scholars recommend a framework that addresses local
orientations and needs first and can be extended to
the global sphere (Pike, 2008; Shultz, 2011). Krogman
and Foote (2011) recommend finding ways to balance
privilege with responsibility, while others urge reciprocity
and balance (Noddings, 2006, Webber, 2011), and
others urge holistic, historic thinking (Abdi, 2011;
Pike, 2008; Wright, 2009).
The passion and purpose in the CGE literature strongly
suggest that advocates will carry on despite adversity.
Dower (2008) believes that global education provides
optimism and that “things can improve through the
efforts of those in a position to act” (p. 47). Although
Pike (2008) concedes that the future of global citizenship
education is uncertain, he insists on the imperative
to resist complacency, stating that “what it might
conceivably contribute to the Twenty-first century
remains unknown, but the dangers of education
without a global perspective are starkly evident in
the history of the Twentieth” (p.219).

6

References
Abdi, A.A., & Shultz, L. (2008). Educating for human
rights and global citizenship: An introduction.
In A.A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.). Educating for human
rights and global citizenship (pp.1-11). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Abdi, A.A. (2011). De-Monoculturalizing global
citizenship education: The need for multicentric
intentions and practices. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi, &
G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education
in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices,
policies (pp. 25-39). New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing Inc.
Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalisation and the university:
Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary
Education and Management 10, 3-25.
Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization
of higher education: Motivations and realities.
Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4),
290-305. doi: 10.1177/1028315307303542
Andreotti, V. (2011). The question of the “other” in
global citizenship education: postcolonial analysis
of telling case studies in England. In L. Shultz,
A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global
citizenship education in post-secondary institutions:
Theories, practices, policies (pp.140-157). New York,
N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Apple, M. W. (2000). Between neoliberalism &
neoconservatiosm: Education and conservativism in
a global context. In Burbules N. C., Torres C. A. (Eds.),
Globalization and education: Critical perspectives.
New York: Routledge.
AUCC (2008). Internationalization: A force for
change in Canadian universities. Retrieved from
http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/
internationalization_card_e.pdf
Blades, D.W., & Richardson, G.H. (2006). Restarting
the interrupted discourse of the public good:
Global citizenship education as moral imperative.
In G.H. Richardson & D.W. Blades (Eds.). Troubling
the canon of citizenship education (pp.115-123).
New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Bok, D. (2009). Foreword. In D.K. Deardorff, The sage
handbook of intercultural competence (pp. ix-x).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Bond, S. (2006). Transforming the Culture of Learning:
Evoking the International Dimension in Canadian
University Curriculum. York University/Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations
Symposium: “Internationalizing Canadian
Universities: Practices,Challenges and Opportunities”
Retrieved from http://international.yorku.ca/global/
conference/canada/papers/

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

Bond, S. (2009). World of Learning: Canadian PostSecondary Students and the Study Abroad
Experience. Ottawa: CBIE.
Childress, L.K. (2010). The twenty-first century
university: Developing faculty engagement in
internationalization. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang.
Côté, J. & Allahar, A. (2011). The lowering of higher
education: The rise of corporate universities and
the fall of liberal education. Toronto: University
of Toronto
Deardorff, D.K. (2006). Identification and assessment
of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of
Studies in International Education 10, 241-265.
doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or
framework for action? Educational review 58 (1),
5-25. doi: 10.1080/00131910500352523
Dower, N. (2008). Are we all global citizens or are only
some of us global citizens?: The relevance of this
question to education. In A.A. Abdi & L. Shultz
(Eds.). Educating for human rights and global
citizenship (pp. 39-54). Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Gacel-Avila, J. (2005). The internationalization of higher
education: A paradigm for global citizenry. Journal
of Studies in International Education 9, 121-136.
doi: 10.1177/1028315304263795
Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture,
and the promise of higher education: The university
as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational
Review, 72 (4), 425-463.
Gray, J. (2000). Two faces of liberalism. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Guimaraes-Iosif, R. (2011). Rethinking citizenship
education in higher education institutions through
the lens of critical pedagogy: educating the
local and global emancipated citizen. In L. Shultz,
A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global
citizenship education in post-secondary institutions:
Theories, practices, policies (pp. 76-93). New York,
NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Harris, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university.
Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (2), 346-357.
doi:10.111/j.1469-5812.2007.00336.x
Kezar, A. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and
examining the charter between higher education
and society. The Review of Higher Education, 27(4),
429-45. doi:10.1353/rhe.2004.0013

7

Krogman, N. & Foote, L. (2011). Global citizenship and
the environment: Embracing life in all its forms. In L.
Shultz, A.A. Abdi & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global
citizenship education in post-secondary institutions:
Theories, practices, policies (pp.108-119).
New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Knight, J. (2007). Implications of cross-border education
and GATS for the knowledge enterprise. UNESCO
Forum on Higher Education, Research and
Knowledge.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled:
Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal
of Studies in International Education 8(5), doi:
10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and
Checkpoints. CBIE Research Series Number 7.
Ottawa: CBIE
Knight, J. & de Wit, H. (1999). Quality and
internationalization in higher education.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
Marginson, S. (2007). Globalization, the “idea for a
university” and its ethical regimes. Higher Education
management and Policy 19(1), 31-45.
Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity
in higher education. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7 (1), 12-36. doi:
10.1177/1028315302250177
Otten, M. (2009). Academicus interculturalis?
Negotiating interculturality in academic communities
of practice. Intercultural Education, 20(5), 407-417.
doi: 10.1080/14675980903371266
Pike, G. (2000). A tapestry in the making: The strands
of global education. In T. Goldstien & D.
Selby (Eds.), Weaving Connections: Educating for Peace,
Social and Environmental Justice. Pp 218-241
Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating
for global citizenship. In A.A. Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.).
Educating for human rights and global citizenship
(pp.223-238). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Pigozzi, M.J. (2006). A UNESCO view of global citizenship
education. Educational Review, 58(1) pp. 1-4.
doi: 10.1080/00131910500352473
Roslyn Kunin & Associates, Inc. (2009). The economic
impact of international education in Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/
education/assets/pdfs/RKA_IntEd_Report_eng.pdf
Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the
internationalization of the academic self.
Journal of Studies in International Education 12.
Sage. Doi: 10.1177/1028315307299420

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in
higher education: How prepared are the educators? In
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol.11:2,
180-204.
Shultz, L., Abdi, A.A., & Richardson, G.H. (2011).
Global citizenship education and the role of
the academy: A critical introduction. In L. Shultz,
A.A. Abdi, & G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship
education in post-secondary institutions: Theories,
practices, policies (pp.1-12). New York,
NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us:
The role of the faculty in the internationalization
of higher education in the coming decade.
Journal of Studies in International Education,
Vol. 11 No. 3/4, Fall/Winter 2007 359-372
DOI: 10.1177/1028315307303923
Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a
response to globalization: Radical shifts in university
environments. Higher Education 53, 81-105
doi:10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5
Swanson, D. (2011). Parallaxes and paradoxes of global
citizenship: Critical reflection and possibilities of
praxis in/through an international online course.
In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi, & G.H. Richardson (Eds.).
Global citizenship education in post-secondary
institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 120-139).
New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Tarc, P. (2011). Bridging(representations of) the “global
present” with the life-world of the classroom:
Researching toward “learning to teach” global
citizenship education. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi, &
G.H. Richardson (Eds.). Global citizenship education
in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices,
policies (pp. 64-75). New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing Inc.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on
internationalization of higher education.
Higher Education. 48, pp. 5-26.
Vande Berg, M., Paige, R.M., & Lou, K.H. (2012). (Eds).
Student learning abroad: What are students are
learning abroad, what they’re not, and what we
can do about it. Sterling, VA: Sylus.
Weber, N. (2011). Global education in higher education
institutions in Ireland, the United Kingdom and
Canada: Complemtarity and conflict in the global
university. In L. Shultz, A.A. Abdi, & G.H. Richardson
(Eds.). Global citizenship education in post-secondary
institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp.249-259).
New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Wright, T.S.A. (2009). Sustainability, internationalization,
and higher education. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, (118), pp. 105-115. doi: 10.1002/
tl.357

8

About the Author
Kyra Garson is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Education
at Simon Fraser University. Her research interests include
intercultural and global learning outcomes of undergraduate
students through internationalization, internationalization
at home initiatives, and interculturalizing curriculum
through faculty development. In her professional role as the
Interculturalization Coordinator for The Centre for Student
Engagement and Learning Innovation at Thompson Rivers
University, she works to enhance intercultural and global
perspectives across campus. Kyra is an instructor for Queen’s
University’s International Educators Training Program (IETP) and
has developed and delivered workshops across Canada. Kyra is
the 2011 recipient of the Internationalization Service Award,
a CBIE Excellence Award recognizing outstanding service to
international education.

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES
A series for new researchers in the field of international education
ISBN: 978-1-894129-75-6
ISSN: 1183-4404
© 2012 Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE)
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author.

Canadian Bureau for International Education

220 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 1550
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Z9
613-237-4820
research-recherche@cbie.ca
www.cbie.ca

CBIE PhD RESEARCH SERIES

9