Internationalizing the curriculum: Assessing the Impact of Public Diplomacy on International Relations

Transcription

1 Internationalizing the curriculum: Assessing the Impact of Public Diplomacy on International Relations Ş. İlgü Özler Associate Professor SUNY New Paltz The aim of the conference is to define and discuss the impact of internationalized higher education on international relations. In considering the internationalization of higher education as public diplomacy, we need to pay attention to national policies, system and campus level commitments and curricular practices. Before measuring the impact of international education, it is first necessary to consider the types of programs that fit this definition. Here I will describe the various types of curricular practices in internationalized education including, but not limited to dual diploma programs, experiential learning programs (Model UN, Model EU), collaborative on-line international learning, and exchange programs. These internationalized experiences can then be used to develop further studies in assessing the role of internationalized education as public diplomacy and how these experiences impact international relations directly and indirectly. I will first review the theories that underlie the perceived benefits of international education. In the United States the goal of the Under Secretary of the State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has been articulated as: support[ing] the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world. Building soft power through the establishment of relationships is the aim of public diplomacy. From a global perspective, the goal of public diplomacy is to create a more stable and peaceful world through a positive change in public attitudes toward what is foreign and developing greater mutual understanding among different nations. Public diplomacy goals can be achieved in both multilateral contexts (ie the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations) and bilateral settings through social, economic and political discourse. Public diplomacy becomes especially important if we accept the notion that the norms, beliefs and understandings of elites within states matter in shaping international relations (see Kratochiwill and Ruggie 1986). Constructivist international relations theorists have argued that national interest is not objective and static, but a social construction that develops through interaction. Through social discourse between states, there are changes in norms, beliefs and understandings that constantly reshape national interest (Wendt 1992; Barnett 1993; Finnemore 1996). International higher education institutions are at the core of where this discourse occurs. Liberal theorists in international relations have consistently demonstrated through rigorous empirical studies that three variables, economic development, democratic politics and participation in intergovernmental organizations, contribute to a more peaceful and stable global politics between states (Boehmer, Gartzke, Nordstrom 2004; Russet, Oneal and David

2 1998). Education and especially higher education institutions are at the heart of generating citizens capable of advancing all three of these processes. Interactions between citizens from different states, which eventually turn into bilateral or multilateral peaceful interactions on economic and cultural fronts, have important political implications. For example, higher trade interdependence between states leads to lower levels of conflict. Yet trade requires individuals with the cultural knowledge to effectively conduct business with those from other nations, knowledge that is often gained in the context of higher education. Democratic peace theory, also well supported by empirical studies, tells us that democratic states do not go to war with other democracies. Higher education institutions have been at the core of cultivating democratic citizenship with a strong tradition in pluralism, tolerance, human rights and justice (see Englund 2002). Therefore, an internationalized education is essential to create a well informed citizenry who can live up to the task creating a more stable world. Cooperation on social, political and economic fronts creates stability. All three variables, economic interdependence, democracy and multilateralism are mutually reinforcing with a feedback mechanism for further creating better conditions for international relations (Russet, Oneal and David 1998). Therefore, I propose that an internationalized curriculum, which is at the heart of public diplomacy, is key to the development and enhancement of foreign policies that lead to a stable and peaceful world. States achieve mutual gains by engaging in public diplomacy and international education plays a prominent role in this process. The internationalization of education can be defined and conceptually organized by using a typology presented by Knight (2005). She divides the internationalization process into two levels. At the first level, there are national policies, programs and funding provided by agencies of government. Education ministries have been the central agencies focusing on the issue of internationalization. Universities are impacted by the policies set by government agencies in providing financial support for programs. The government policies are also key for enabling exchanges through the issuing of visas and permits for students. The ease of travel is important for creating opportunities for international learning for students. At the second level, there are a wide variety of educational institutions (here the focus will be limited to universities). According to the global survey of universities conducted by the International Association of Universities of UNESCO (Knight 2003), universities offer two major sets of reasons for prioritizing internationalization. First, there are academically motivated reasons, which include increasing and enabling exchanges, teaching collaboration, betterment of academic standards and research related collaboration among students. The desire to have a more diverse faculty and student body is another academically related motivation. Second, the survey reveals that universities are also motivated by political, social and economic goals in the internationalization of their curriculum. Among these goals are greater cooperation, better international and intercultural understanding, and increased development assistance. Additionally, universities in many developing countries see the internationalization of education as an opportunity to create new fields of work for young people. Among the respondent universities, internationalization is believed to help improve understanding of 2 P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y

3 regional issues and advances regional integration (see Knight 2003, pp 8-9). It should be noted that these surveys provide the perspective of university administrators. An expansion of these surveys to other constituencies, including faculty and students, may provide different insights to internationalization of higher education. For example, educational community would benefit from additional analysis of international academic programs based on different curricular models experienced by the students. These students move on to become the practitioners of international relations with direct influence on foreign policy or citizens with indirect influence on international relations with states. The logical connection between the skills developed through international education and improved relations between states is clear. Yet, there is very little reliable research that verifies that connection. Nor is there research on how different types of international education may be more or less effective in advancing these goals. How can we connect the individual experiences of students to global results in mutually beneficial outcomes for states? We face a challenge in demonstrating empirically a causal link between the educational experience of students, faculty and other citizens in internationalized educational settings and their impact on relations between states. Most studies show that the American participants in international exchange/citizen diplomacy programs gain intercultural competency, foreign language fluency, and improved academic, professional and career prospects. Participants from other countries, in addition to the outcomes mentioned, have a tendency to create new programs and organizations in their home countries with the knowledge acquired in the United States. These studies find continued partnership and contact between the participants and countries they have visited (see Bhandari and Belyavina 2011 for full report on the studies). Yet, despite these positive indicators, so far, the studies that examine the effect of international education on international relations have remained inferential. They tend to focus on the effects such programs have on the participants themselves and they are typically based on a self assessment of the experiences of the students. Bhandari and Belyavina (2011) reported on the findings of several studies evaluating the impact of programs at the high school, volunteer and university levels. These studies were focused on programs with goals of building citizen diplomacy. In their assessment of these studies, they find that there is a problem with establishing quantifiable, immediate, tangible impacts (Bhandari and Belyavina 2011, 1). In addition, the lack of standard measurement in these studies prevents comparisons between programs and their reliance on self reporting and evaluation by the funding agencies may yield less reliable results. A study designed to address some of these gaps in knowledge would have to go beyond typical program assessment by seeking to identify the connections between the academic practice of international education and its economic, social and political consequences for international relations. This line of research can start by examining international education at SUNY campuses, the largest comprehensive higher education system in the world that has wide ranging international programs. By identifying the different programs provided by the SUNY institutions, we may be able to more systematically assess experiences. Subsequently we can seek to establish a causal link between the international experiences of students and international relations. The question is whether students who experience internationalized learning are more likely to contribute socially, economically and/or politically to build better 3 P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y

4 relations between states. In essence, does public diplomacy of this sort really lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for states to state relations? In order to focus this analysis, attention here is limited to those programs that give students experiential learning. The first types of international educational experiences are those that take the students out of the country. A second type takes place at home, but with an internationalized curricular focus. Programs with an international country visit component Exchange programs are programs that provide students with direct experience living in and taking courses in another country for a period of time. Through these programs students develop language and communication skills as well as a rich cultural understanding of the country that they are visiting. Students who stay in the homes of natives for accommodation may develop a deeper connection to and understanding of the country relative to those that house students in residence halls or similar group lodging situations (especially when students visiting from abroad are housed with large numbers of students from the native countries). Those residing with natives of the country also develop better language skills than students who stay in isolated international student dorms. Regardless, exchange students gain direct exposure to a foreign culture and do so for a greater period of time than other types of international experiences. Study Tour programs tend to be short term and focused on a specific area of study, such as history, art, politics or society within one country. The ability to directly study and learn in the country of interest clearly has added value relative to typical classroom courses. The experience is intensive and focused, but limited in time such that students do not get a chance to immerse themselves in different aspects of the culture they are visiting. Yet, students have a chance to become experts in a specific area of interest in another country. Dual Diploma programs are those programs in which students are admitted to two universities in two different countries. Upon completion, students attain a single degree from two institutions. These programs give students immense exposure to the other country s educational system. Students are able to take advantage of the curricular diversity in their home country and the partner institution abroad, while gaining in depth cultural experience that comes with spending considerable time in another country. Unlike exchange programs where students have limited curricular exposure to the host country s courses, dual diploma program students need to fulfill all the requirements for graduation in both countries. This means that Dual Diploma students are exposed to both countries general education requirements and get longer time to experience the foreign country than an ordinary exchange student. Domestic courses with an internationalized component Collaborative On-Line International Learning (COIL) courses organized through the efforts of the SUNY Global Center are designed with the goals of developing a network for international on-line education. In this model students and faculty collaborate using the best available and most appropriate technology to create innovative ways of sharing information and ideas 4 P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y

5 virtually across continents. Classes are taught by faculty at both home campuses who collaborate or divide work in various ways. The program identifies as one of its goals to foster the sustainability of on-line international scholarship, by promoting the "bottom-up" culture of individuality, entrepreneurship and creativity inherent in the academic community. These courses enable students from the participating countries to exchange ideas and discuss different issues in the course work through the creative use of technology without having to leave their home campuses. These classes have a unique advantage for students as they get exposed to the ideas of two different professors from two different countries while being able to carry on discussions with a full class of students in their partner country. This differs markedly from the experience of a lone exchange student in a class composed primarily of native students. In the COIL experience having equal representation of students from two different countries enables a more balanced and fruitful exchange. Among the other types of courses taught domestically with an international component are the simulation classes such as Model Organization of American States, Model European Union and Model United Nations. These programs allow students to step into the shoes of officials from other countries and practice diplomatic interactions. Given their assigned role, this experience enables students to develop knowledge in certain issue areas affecting the international community as well a deep understanding of the position of the country that they represent. Developing an understanding of foreign policy positions of other states is helpful in allowing students to relate to the relative positions of other countries. They are then able to assess their own interests in relation to the cost to other states. Other domestic models for international education include fieldwork classes that involve internships at international organizations (these can be done abroad as well, providing for a richer international experience). An internship at an international organization, either an international non-governmental organization (INGO) or an intergovernmental organization (IGO), allows students to develop an internationalized perspective. INGOs and NGOs tend to approach issues such as development, human rights, and peace from the global common perspective. This takes into consideration the perspective of the international community, as opposed to that of one specific country. Students who do internships in one of these organizations can gain a truly global perspective through this type of experience. There are also hybrid courses that expose students to the study of international relations by visiting the United Nations and other agencies around it. The United Nations has long maintained a unit dedicated to public lectures for schools and other organizations. In these types of classes, students gain knowledge of the work of the UN through briefings by United Nations officers, country missions and non-governmental organizations. These students are exposed directly to the inner workings of the international community and the dilemmas these international civil servants face day to day. Students are able to develop an appreciation for the interests of different states represented in the international community. The UN is the organization that creates an environment in which the states can find ways to cooperate and come to mutual agreements. Yet, the students are also made aware of the power relations and the different dynamics that arise due to the institutional design of the UN. Thus, the students become informed about the needs and demands of different countries while developing an understanding of the role that their own country plays as an actor in the international system. 5 P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y

6 As discussed above, there are many different programs through which curriculums have been internationalized. There is little doubt that students who participate in them learn and grow in ways that are valuable for them, and indirectly for others with whom they come into contact. This is especially important for students who ultimately obtain roles whereby they can influence international relations or even for any active citizen who is politically engaged. But assessing what kind of effect and how much of an effect such programs can have is difficult. One of the many challenges in undertaking the development of such a measure is that students are engaged in a wide range of educational pursuits. In some of these cases, where the students are directly studying international relations, it may be easier to measure changes in their outlook or specific policy positions following an international curricular experience. The career choices of these students may also reflect their experience in international programs. In cases where the students are studying arts, culture, social and economic issues, the impact and connection to international relations may be more difficult to establish. Thus in designing a study to assess the impact of internationalized educational experiences on international relations, there may be a need to differentiate among programs with curricular content in international politics and other program areas (such as arts, culture, history, etc.). The idea that public diplomacy through internationalized education can improve ties between nations is a promising hypothesis that we should seek to study. We can sort through the complicating factors such as the diversity of internationalized experiences through careful design. Here I have provided an overview of internationalized curricular experiences at SUNY institutions and some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with them. Question remains, how can we verify the impact of these programs so that we can expand those that work best and strengthen those that have the potential to offer more. In thinking about future research, we should consider designing studies that can assess the foreign policy beliefs and outlooks, career trajectories and life choices made by those students who have had internationalized educational experiences relative to those who do not. We can refine this type of research through the design of comparative studies that look at outcomes for different types of international educational experiences. 6 P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y

7 Citations: Barnett, Michael Institutions, Roles and Disorder: The Case of the Arab States System. International Studies Quarterly 37: Bhandari, Rajika and Raisa Belyavina Evaluating and Measuring the Impact of Citizen Diplomacy: Current Status and Future Directions. Institute of International Education, Washington, D.C. Boehmer, Charles, Erik Gartzke, Timothy Nordstrom Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace? World Politics 57: Englund, Tomas Higher Education, Democracy and Citizenship The Democratic Potential of the University? Studies in Philosophy and Education 21: Finnemore, Martha National Interests in International Society. University Press. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie There State of the Art on the Art of the State. International Organization 40: Knight, Jane Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Priorities: 2003 IAU Survey Report. UNESCO: International Association of Universities, Paris, France. Knight, Jane An Internationalization Model: Responding to New Realities and Challenges, in de Wit, H., I. Cristian, J. Knight (eds.) Higher Education in Latin America, World Bank Publications: Herdnon, VA. Russet, Bruce, John Oneal and David Davis The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International organizations and Militarized Disputes, International Organization 52: Wendt, Alexander Anarchy is what States make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46: P u b l i c D i p l o m a c y