International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education: The Self, Pedagogy and Culture [1st ed.] 9783030486211, 9783030486228

Citation preview

International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education The Self, Pedagogy and Culture Jan Katherine Bamford

International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education

Jan Katherine Bamford

International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education The Self, Pedagogy and Culture

Jan Katherine Bamford Guildhall School of Business and Law London Metropolitan University London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-48621-1    ISBN 978-3-030-48622-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Front cover image © Alex Linch / Shutterstock This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For my Mother

Preface

In seeking to write this book, I wished to allow the views, perceptions and experiences of those participating in intentional higher education activities to be acknowledged and given recognition. The book draws on work undertaken as part of a doctoral research project on international joint degrees offered in London and France but also my experiences of establishing international joint double degrees in France, the USA, Holland and Sweden over a number of years and the management and coordination of those joint Masters programmes of study. It was undertaken in order for the outcomes for the students to be given fuller consideration and for the challenges, benefits and journeys that need to be navigated for those undertaking an international higher education experience to be given a space for consideration and understanding. I wanted to highlight the importance of understanding differing communication patterns and how communication across different cultural groups within an educational environment is an enriching aspect of the educational experience. It is given a lot of attention in the business world, and whilst the European Union has acknowledged the importance of developing cultural fluencies, there appears to be more work needed to be undertaken within the field of higher education, in particular, in understanding the negotiations undertaken by individuals in ‘international’ spaces and the development of cultural fluencies in the academic environment. There is a need for educationalists to understand more about vii

viii Preface

the way cultural learning is achieved on international programmes of study. The potential gap in our understanding and application in higher education might be in part due to the cross-disciplinary nature of the subject of (inter)cultural communications and cultural learning and the fact that the delivery and development of curricula is subject focused. Ownership and delivery of this aspect of the educational process therefore remains an area that needs to be given further attention by educationalists. This was true of the business courses that were the focus of this study but the same can be observed to be true of other subject fields where the cultural background of the student body is given insufficient attention. Perhaps there is also, as yet, insufficient acknowledgement within higher education of the importance of students’ differing communication patterns and the impact that this can have on the learning process in any field. The sector has witnessed increasing numbers of international students in higher education and increasingly culturally diverse classrooms, as well as a growth in internationalisation activities by higher education institutions. The internationalisation of the student body brings with it yet further needs to consider the experiences of those students, as the overwhelming evidence in the literature suggests that there continue to be challenges to bridging communication gaps amongst different student groups and between students and their lecturers. The research outlined in this book evidences the experiences of the participants in international joint double degrees who nearly all originated from countries other than the UK. Observations of student interactions over the years were an important factor in undertaking research to explore in more detail the impact of these differing communication patterns from the students’ perspectives. These communications are thrown into sharp focus when culturally heterogeneous groups study on a programme delivered in more than one country and when they travel together. This was particularly true of the need to understand in more depth the impact of these challenges when students make an international transition more than once during a one-­ year course as part of an international joint double degree. It seemed that the importance of relationships to understanding others and making transformational transitions has been a neglected aspect of the education and that this relationality discourse needed to be examined in more

 Preface 

ix

depth. More understanding is still needed in understanding the impact on cultural identities and the development of individuals’ agency that international transitions and negotiations have. There is certainly more discussion to be had with regard to the existential and ontological aspects of the higher education process. The work sits firmly within the existential in terms of its parameters because of its focus on relationships and the link between relationships and learning in a cultural context. It is not a philosophical work, although necessarily some acknowledgement is given to being in higher education and the ontological challenge of such programmes of study. I have not attempted to enter into a discussion about multiculturalism, migrants and global cultural shifts, but rather I have focused on the student experience of international joint double degrees and the link between the cultural context of these programmes and pedagogy, as current literature points to a need to know more about the student experience of such programmes of study. It is accepted, however, that this aspect of the transitions that are made and the development of the self as a consequence of the cultural encounters that take place does require further discussion and that there is scope for further work to be undertaken. There is certainly more discussion to be had with regard to the existential and ontological aspects of the international higher education process. I was informed and inspired by the students who participated in the programmes of study that were the subject for this research and by the international students I have taught as well as by all the international students I have encountered during the past 30 years working in higher education. I hope that in some measure this book allows educators to be better acquainted with the challenges that need to be overcome for those participating on international joint double degree programmes, as well as seeing those students as mutual players in the higher education forum. My view is that the international higher education process is framed and informed by a context of mutuality between institutions and participants. Whilst a mixed methods approach was taken to the collection of data and some of the discussion is based on questionnaire responses, a large part of the discussion is drawn from the qualitative data collected over a period of three years during the last decade. The data discussion is drawn

x Preface

specifically from the data gathered from a suite of programmes offered in the UK and France. The qualitative data consists largely of policy documents, field notes from participant observations and semi-structured interviews with participants. The different sources allow for some triangulation of the responses and strengthen the reliability of the data. However and perhaps, inevitably, I recognise that the interview data draws on the perceptions of the participants. This is both its strength and its weakness as perceptions are just that and are situated in a particular time and place and conditioned by the complex cultural identities of those participants. The perceptions are important however, in understanding the ‘lived reality’ of our higher education experience for students during the time they participated in their international joint double degree experience. The participants’ responses cannot therefore be viewed as one dimensional and are framed by individuals’ views of the world at the particular time they were offered. Perception and memory are not stationary and the lens through which they are recounted is limited by those perceptions and may shift according to the ebbs and flows of the memory. They were however formed by a particular view at a particular time and by how a person views themselves in a situated context. This view may be governed by mood, for example, at that particular point in time. They provide situated insights therefore and not a continuation of experience, hence the emphasis placed in the narrative that this research provides a ‘glimpse’ of the experience of international higher education. There were however clear themes that arose from the interview data, verified by observations and echoed in the literature. The participants’ views are sometimes challenging and sometimes make for some uncomfortable reading with regard to their culturally framed responses. I have repeated these uncomfortable sections of students’ interviews both for impact and to ensure that I have presented their experiences in a way that is as true a representation of their observations of their experiences as possible. The situated insights provided are corroborated by the previous research undertaken, by my experiences of working with international students and the way in which the themes that were identified present a rich picture. The discussion of the ‘lived reality’ therefore provides this rich and in-­ depth picture of the experience of this form of international higher

 Preface 

xi

education. It has allowed for the multitude of complexities in which deeply held cultural beliefs, values, behaviours, traditions and approaches to others inform the educational experience, give that educational experience an agentic dynamic and allow educators to understand the mutuality construct for such programmes of study. London, UK

Jan Katherine Bamford

Acknowledgements

In writing this book I would like to acknowledge those who have supported me throughout my research, remembering that without the grace of ΙησουϛΧριστος nothing is possible and to whom all is owed. Send out your light and truth that they may shine through the earth, because I am earth without form and void until you enlighten me. Pour out from above your grace; flood my heart with the dew of heaven…. (Thomas á Kempis 1979: 126)

In addition, I owe my very deepest debt of gratitude to my interviewees and students without whom this work would not have been possible and who generously gave of their free time to tell me about their experiences on their international joint degrees. I hope that the contents provide faithful representations of your cultural experiences and truly reflect the encounters which formed part of your education. Any errors or omissions may be fully laid at my door! To my family for their loving help, kindness, support and advice, particularly to my son Harrie and brother Nicholas for your rigorous critiques and supportive input and to my brother Daniel for all the support he has always given me. I would also like to acknowledge the input of my colleagues for talking through ideas and to all those who patiently sat through my many conference presentations and those whom I bored xiii

xiv Acknowledgements

with my discussions of international higher education. I would also like to thank Clare for her helpful comments on reading through my drafts and to all those colleagues who have offered words of encouragement along the way, thank you for your endless support.

Bibliography Thomas a Kempis. (1979). The Imitation of Christ. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Contents

1 Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions and Influences in International Higher Education  1 2 Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 45 3 The International Higher Education Environment: Adding Value Through International Joint Double Degrees 81 4 The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees as an Internationalised Curriculum: A Glimpse of a ‘Window to the World’119 5 Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International Joint Double Degree139 6 Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed Approaches to Pedagogy as Part of the International Joint Double Degree Experience175 7 The Use and Importance of Group Work on International Joint Double Degrees211 xv

xvi Contents

8 Final Reflections235 Bibliography259 Index279

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Example of the learning process in an international joint double degree 25 Fig. 4.1 International joint double degree programme structure 124 Fig. 4.2 Modelling the student’s perspective on internationalising the curriculum in an international joint double degree programme 126 Fig. 8.1 A student in an international education environment 248

xvii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Differences in terminology in the literature 31 Table 3.1 Culture and group work: open-ended questionnaire responses on cultural learning 105 Table 5.1 Student responses on developing intercultural awareness 161 Table 5.2 Example of potential stereotyping 162 Table 6.1 Differences in approaches to teaching and learning in France and the UK, adapted from Darricotte and McColl (2008: 50) 183 Table 6.2 A representative example of demographic statistics for students undertaking international joint double degree 195 Table 6.3 The experience of the modus docendi in London and France 197 Table 6.4 The effectiveness of teaching and learning approaches 205

xix

1 Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions and Influences in International Higher Education

Introduction The purpose of this work is to consider the role of international joint double degrees in the context of international higher education, along with the international transitions of the individuals participating in these degree programmes. In this introduction, I focus on some of the broad debates around the internationalisation of higher education and explore the way in which international joint double degrees can be seen to represent the essence of internationalisation, recognising that the market environment is a key driver for international activity. The work focuses for the most part on the level of the individual and the individuals participating in international joint double degrees who originated from countries other than the UK. Although the analysis is grounded in the micro, the meso and macro levels of internationalisation are given some attention in order to better understand that experience and the agentic outcomes for the individual participating in such programmes of study. This view from the ground considers the development, context and implementation of international joint double degrees, exploring the intellectual challenges, attractions and rewards, with an understanding of © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_1

1

2 

J. K. Bamford

the recipient in mind. The work focuses on these recipients’ experiences, who were international students, as a consequence of their participation in the international joint double degrees. I invite readers to consider the vehicle of culture as key to unlocking the international transitions students make in the international spaces offered by such programmes of study, such as the culturally heterogeneous groups on a programme delivered in more than one country who travel across borders together. It is these international transitions situated in a context of cultural interactions that are at the heart of this work. The importance of seeing culture as a vehicle in contemporary society, for understanding the individuals’ experience in higher education, is underpinned by theorists such as Benhabib (2002) and his work on culture in the global era and also previous work undertaken on the cultural interactions of students in higher education (Bamford and Pollard 2019). Further, due to the interconnectedness that the international classroom represents, we need to ‘distill coherence out of the multiplicity of conflicting narratives and practices’ where we can be ‘attentive to the positioning and repositioning of the other and the self, of “us” and “them” in this complex dialogue’ (Benhabib 2002: 41). This leads us inexorably to underlining the importance of an experiential approach as an aspect of the learning in higher education. International education provides an overarching construct for the development of participants’ agency. This agency can be seen to arise from the international transitions that are steeped in the relational cultural encounters. These cultural encounters represent a mutuality context to international higher education that is rarely acknowledged. The students become partners in their educational experience and the cultural encounters occur between them, the institutions and the countries they visit. The student experience of internationalisation therefore informs the direction and flows of internationalisation for these individuals, teaching staff and institutions and ultimately at governmental level. The book allows us not only to reflect on the expectations of political actors as posited by Papatsiba (2005) but also to understand the influence on the individual actors—here the students—on the process of the internationalisation of higher education, which has further import for both economies and other globalising drivers. This involves dealing with difference at the level of the individual, so internationalisation is experienced and

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

3

that experience is framed by mutuality between the actors. Asgary and Robbert (2010) acknowledged that there is a dearth of research on international dual awards. This remains the case and little of the current research offers a glimpse into the student experience of these programmes of study and the challenges that they navigate when experiencing this form of internationalisation.

Culture and Pedagogy The underlying thematic axis of the book is the interplay between culture and pedagogy and the way in which these themes play out in the field of international higher education and demand the attention of educators. They are foci for this work that seeks to understand the juxtaposition of culture and pedagogy in relation to the student experience of international joint double degree programmes. Through developing a lens of the lived reality of such programmes of study and the interplay between culture and pedagogy, we understand better the way in which policy may affect the educational experience. The glimpse of the experience through a construct of mutuality permits us to explore in greater depth what the nature of international higher education is and the implications of the European Union (EU) policy and promotion of a culture of mobility through initiatives such as international joint double degrees. It provides a link between the individualism of the experience and the universalism displayed in the policy context as well as underlining the importance of the consideration of the individual and seeing the student as a partner in the international transitions that such degrees epitomise. A construct of ‘thou affects me’ (Buber 2004)—this includes staff and institutions as well as students—can be seen to be at the heart of these types of programmes. The discourse that follows offers an approach for practitioners and a background for developing an understanding of the students’ perspective. Ultimately, it allows for a glimpse into the experience of such international programmes that, to date, has been limited in the literature. Alexander’s (2000) work on culture and pedagogy established how interlinked the cultural context is to the educational process. It is worth noting that there is some alignment of this work with those of Alexander

4 

J. K. Bamford

(2000: 32), in terms of ‘commitment to the pursuit of understanding, the improvement of policy and the amelioration of practice’. Although the methodological dimensions which Alexander provides for policy-directed international comparative study cannot be aligned with the present work, his linking of the macro position with the micro, together with the need to understand the human face of education rather than purely national constructs, is all important for the amelioration of practice. He describes his own project as having an ‘eclectic’ paradigmatic basis as it employs both quantitative and qualitative methods that are not driven by a policy study. Similarities can be drawn with the research that was undertaken here; however, it should be noted that the focus for Alexander’s extensive research was comparative of primary education, whereas this study is a case study of international higher education. However, the importance of the link between national culture and pedagogy, established by Alexander, is acknowledged here and applied in the field of higher education thus seeking to distinguish this work from others looking at the experience of the international classroom. The link between culture and pedagogy has been further developed by the growth of students who are mobile across international borders for educational purposes driving a need to consider a cross- and intercultural element to pedagogic practice where educational spaces are linked to the development of intercultural awareness. Recent work by those such as Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017)—in terms of the development of intercultural competences in international higher education—and Jackson and Oguro (2018) has looked at the development of intercultural interventions in study abroad. To some extent this work represents an extension of this work in the specific context of international joint double degree programmes of study. It links the two aspects of culture and pedagogy: that is, national cultures and pedagogy and culture in the international classroom within the context of international joint double degree study. In addition, international joint double degrees add the dimensions of international mobility and different learning environments to the experience of students’ relationality with each other and the way they learn. The chapters draw together the themes of cultures of learning, different approaches to pedagogy and the international classroom and student mobility. The work thus offers a reinterpretation of the

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

5

definition of international higher education that focuses on and is generated at the individual level through the student experience. The value of cultural encounters as an agentic vehicle is promoted by such programmes of study and therefore they are inexorably linked to notions of being in education, offering the potential for the self-formation that Marginson (2014) discusses.

Seeking Relevance in International Activities As institutions seek to offer ‘relevant’ higher education experiences for students, arguments justifying the need for contemporary and engaging perspectives to the design of the curriculum in higher education have been promoted by a number of authors. International activities inevitably form part of this search for relevance in the contemporary competitive international higher education environment. Barnett and Coate (2005) outline that responsibilities fall on both tutors and students, where those who design curricula are considering the student experience, as a ‘curriculum is in part a curriculum-in-action and therefore a curriculum design is itself design-in-action’ (2005: 45). Whilst the focus for this research is not on the curriculum design, the point made with regard to the student experience enriching and informing the curriculum is fundamental: the learning on international joint double degrees is informed by both the student’s experience of it and the relationality between the students in juxtaposition with their mobility across national boundaries and institutions, forming is the basis for their cultural learning. Thus the international joint double degree fulfils Barnett and Coate’s (2005) knowing, acting and being conceptualisation of relevant curricula in contemporary higher education, and such theoretical positioning should be at the forefront of the development of these types of international initiative. The student experience can be seen as an important aspect of the development of a ‘culture of mobility’ in international higher education and more particularly of the international joint double degree itself, given the emphasis on graduate employability and skills development. Barnett and Coate (2005) outline three aspects for consideration for higher education curricula in a changing world, and all three focus on the student

6 

J. K. Bamford

engagement with the curricula, which is crucial to inform that curricula. The first of these is student knowing, meaning students’ personal engagement with knowledge; the second is the students’ acting, where it is the students’ own actions that are important. This points to a more employability-­orientated curriculum: this is represented here as international mobility which is an important dimension to the internationality of the programmes, allowing for the development of cultural fluencies. Finally and thirdly, there is a need to consider the students’ being in higher education: …as we have seen and as employers are increasingly noting, a changing world calls for certain kinds of human capacity and dispositions and for self-awareness and self-confidence. The self is implicated in a changing world. No longer can the wider norms and practices be indorsed: individuals have to work things out for themselves in their own situations. Individuals have to become selves, strong, open, resilient and critical selves. (2005: 48)

Notions of students’ being in higher education are also alluded to by Montgomery (2010) in her discourse on understanding the international student experience of UK higher education. The use of a constructivist approach to students’ realities and negotiations informed this exploration and the development of an understanding of the importance of cultural background and cultural awareness within the international curriculum. The issue of being in international higher education is addressed here briefly in order to establish and link the theoretical basis for such considerations. Barnett and Coate (2005) emphasise the importance of the consideration of students’ being as an aspect of the curriculum development in higher education, but the issue of being is given further attention here as a consequence of the need to consider the context of the students’ relationality with each other in international higher education. Students’ relationality is part of their mode of learning (modus discendi).1 This relationality in international higher education can be defined as the  The Latin is used here not just to evoke notions of the wandering scholar, peregrinatio academica (Ridder-Simmons 1992), on which the Erasmus programme is based but also the first European university teaching qualification was referred to as licentia ubique docendi (Reugg 1992). 1

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

7

students’ being in relation to each other in the classroom, dependence on each other, their interactions with the institutions and the culture in which they are studying: this determines their modus discendi. It is framed by a context of mutuality. Further, as Barnett (2007) suggests, if genuine higher education is a matter of self-travel and not just intellectual travel (he talks of educational voyages which cause ontological discomfort), then students’ relationality is an integral part of the international higher education process. A student’s higher education voyage incorporates their being in higher education as part of the educational process, and this requires the signification of ‘others’ (Levinas 2006). This is particularly demonstrated in the use of group work, explored more fully in Chap. 7. The ontological discomfort that is witnessed and often arises as a result of a sojourn in another country and interacting with others from different cultural backgrounds bears testimony to the need to understand the ‘lived reality’ of the participants: the need to understand the interconnectivity of such programmes of study and the mutuality of the experience in order to improve the experience in order to meet the expectations of all the parties involved. If the students’ modus discendi (mode of learning) is being in relation to others, ontological discomfort is a likely result and higher education institutions need to frame this comfort from the perspective of a learning experience. As a result, the modus discendi of those experiencing international higher education informs the modus docendi (mode of teaching) of those with responsibility for the delivery of that education. The recent Trends 15 and 18 reports and the Paris Communiqué (2018) underline the importance of considering teaching and learning approaches within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Sursock (2015: 15) states that student-centred learning and the preparation of graduates for the labour market and society will continue to be objectives for the EHEA. The pedagogic thread of this work was initially developed through an analysis of existing work in the field and through framing the international education experience within an idea of differentiating the modus docendi and modus discendi in international education in order to better understand the educational experience from the participants’ perspective and as a cultural encounter, in other words the apparent disconnect

8 

J. K. Bamford

between the teaching delivery and the way in which the education is received. The terminology is used to permit an analysis of the students’ teaching and learning experiences in different countries and in different institutions, as well as framing their experience with ideas of a personal engagement with the curriculum, through knowing, acting and being, as promulgated by Barnett and Coate (2005: 60). In other words, the students’ way of learning and students’ relationality with ‘the other’ (Levinas 2006) centre around ideas of ‘becoming a student’, adapted from Nicholas Bamford’s (2010) notions of becoming a person. This engagement with ‘the others’ is integral to the international higher education process. The modus discendi is differentiated in order to underline and emphasise how learning is related to the experience of an international joint double degree. However, the perspective of the modus docendi also needs consideration as this is how students receive their teaching and learning in each institution. It aids the work in going further in terms of addressing the students’ perspective of international higher education: incorporating through an understanding of their modus discendi, in international joint double degrees, the approach that institutions should take to teaching and learning, as well as further developing international higher education as a meaningful activity for those receiving it. This permits the systemic analysis of the learning framework in international higher education referred to by Kehm and Teichler (2007). In other words, when considering whether international joint double degrees achieve the ontological discomfort referred to by Barnett (2007), we need to consider whether the experience necessarily generates self-­ reflection and awareness which has to be in relation to others (Levinas 2006; Bamford 2010) in order for learning to be achieved. However, it is important to emphasise that the intention of this work is not to explore ontological meaningfulness in higher education but to consider whether international joint double degrees can be considered as a meaningful activity in relation to the experience of international higher education. Reference has been made to notions of ontological discomfort as part of the international higher education experience in the context of cultural encounters and engagement as such encounters bring with them a disruption to meanings.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

9

The students experience differences between two nationally developed approaches to teaching and learning, both with each other and with the countries in which they are living. The institutions have to adjust to each other and develop effective monitoring in order to provide a coherent experience and programme of study, and the students have to make cultural adjustments on different levels in relation to fellow students, their host institution and the country in which they are studying. This work is therefore ambitious in terms of attempting to consider all these issues and understand the way the experience of so many layers of difference becomes part of the learning process. However, a rich description is offered through the thematic analysis of the in-depth interviews that took place with the participants in the case studies that are highlighted in this work. The depth of cultural interaction and encounter is what determines the reality for all the participants: hence the research attempts to engage with the data at that level.

The Methodological Approach Taken Pring (2004) underlines the importance of taking an approach that allows for a rich picture of the experience to be offered. He provides us a focus for some key concepts in education in relation to the individual and their personal development, not least a notion of the role of education in bringing about transformation and the importance of the personal. The following statement provides a clear and succinct description of the educational process: Education nurtures the distinctly human qualities and capacities, particularly those concerned with knowledge and understanding … the concept of person presupposes a form of consciousness, a capacity to experience the world, not merely to interact physically with it. That consciousness is shaped by different forms of understanding. These can be ever more refined through learning. Indeed, education aims to introduce the growing mind to forms of understanding which transform and make more intelligible one’s view of the world…one aspect of that understanding of the world is the recognition of other people as persons—that is as centres of ­consciousness

10 

J. K. Bamford

in their own right with the capacity to think, to feel and to experience in the light of those thoughts…. Third, a person with such understandings has the capacity to relate to other persons in a distinctive way—not only as one physical object to another but as one centre of consciousness to another. Persons share a world of meanings, not just a physical world of space and time. (Pring 2004: 18)

These words provide us with a frame for emphasising the importance of understanding human action in the world as part of the educational process which, in this case, is via the umbrella of the international joint double degree. The following chapters offer a glimpse into the ways in which higher education can achieve such growth. This is considered through the lens of the experience of EU educational policy in action: namely, the encouragement of pan-country higher educational collaborations and student mobility within the European Higher Education Area and wider. Much of the inspiration for the design of the qualitative aspects to this project can be attributed to the research that Alexander (2000) carried out into culture and pedagogy. This study unpacks the dimensions of international higher education for the students involved and aids in understanding how consciousness is shaped through different forms of understanding. The interpretation of the individuals’ experience and of the researchers’ interaction with their world of meanings is therefore as important as the meaning given to the experience by individuals. The construction of meanings for those studying in international higher education is framed by the actors, that is, those participating in international higher education through their cultural encounters. It is worth noting that this construction of meaning is limited by space and time and the perspective of the individuals involved. However, the themes that arose in the data provide a bridge to the variations in perception, whilst allowing for nuances of difference. Gargano (2009) talks of the need to bring the student negotiations in international education into view and this is an important aspect of this work: to consider students’ relationality with each other and the way they learn so that their negotiations and their consequences are given a voice and an epistemic space for pedagogic engagement is provided.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

11

The importance here is that, as Gargano (2009) expresses it, the ‘lived reality of transnational social spaces’ allows us to understand both the experience and the transitions that occur, allowing us to gain further insight into how these transnational social spaces contribute to the learning processes. A mixed methods approach was taken to the collection of data with the following sources used: 52 semi-structured interviews with students and staff; bi-weekly observations of the students, both inside the classroom during their time at the UK institution over a period of three years and outside the classroom but still within the institutional environment; monthly observations in France; a questionnaire (n=81) which focused on students’ cultural awareness and the different teaching and learning approaches of each institution (n=64 for the teaching and learning questions); and EHEA policy documents as well as UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) policy documents and institutional collaborative provision audits and institutional strategy documents. The questionnaire data provided descriptive statistics to allow for a fuller picture of the participants to be developed, for example, key demographic data with interview data allowing for a rich picture of the lived reality to be built. The research approach was designed as a move away from ‘researching upon the other-the insignificant deviant’, to ‘researching with the significant different’, and therefore this approach underpins the aforementioned mutuality dimension of both the analysis and the approach to understanding the experience. This had epistemological implications and demanded a reconsideration of the participants’ (the researcher and the researched) subjectivities and the subsequent interplay with data collection and making interpreting meaning, especially in face-to-face interaction (Pring 2004: 549–550). Thus both the collection and the analysis of the data had a dialogical dimension: allowing the reader to engage with the data so that an understanding of the experience could be achieved, an understanding of the “lived reality” of the students in this educational space.

A thematic analysis of interview data was undertaken, with themes generated through the literature and policy documents and observations

12 

J. K. Bamford

and a complex picture of the case emerged (Ritchie et al. 2003; Rapley 2011). This approach was found to be the most appropriate method for establishing a rich description and developing an understanding of the students’ experiences on international joint double degrees. In terms of the data in this case, there were two initial strands for the analysis, that of culture and of pedagogy around which the research questions were based. These two strands form the focus for the analysis and stem from Alexander’s (2000) work. Alexander’s work provides a justification for looking at these two aspects within one case as this is the way that international higher education touches those that experience it. These strands generated further focused themes for analysis which were broken down into sub-themes, for example, stereotypical references which were analysed under the theme of culture. These themes were applied within a framework of a thematic analysis of the transcripts of the interviews and the observational field notes. The interview transcripts were systematically analysed by reading and re-­ reading up to four times in order to draw out themes and establish a narrative for the case (Simons 2009). The book highlights some of the major themes which have been threaded through the chapters and layered in terms of the macro, meso and micro challenges for those involved in the delivery and participation of such programmes of study.

International Joint Double Degree Programmes and the Policy Context Dale (2010) offers us some insight into the development of a Europe of Knowledge2 which international joint double degrees represent and the call by the European Union for higher education (HE) institutions in Europe to create further opportunities for student mobility within the EHEA. This mobility drive is evidenced in policy documents such as the  The European Commission first coined the phrase Europe of Knowledge as early as 1997. ‘Real wealth creation will henceforth be linked to the production and dissemination of knowledge and will depend first and foremost on our efforts in the field of research, education and training and on our capacity to promote innovation. This is why we must fashion a veritable “Europe of knowledge”’ (CEC 1997). This was further developed under the Lisbon Agenda in 2000. 2

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

13

Prague and Berlin Communiqués, 2000 and 2003, respectively, as well as through EU initiatives such as Erasmus Mundus, which have influenced higher education institutions’ international activities. The continuing importance of the policy agenda and institutional involvement with this agenda within the EHEA is further evidenced in the Leuven Communiqué (2009). Leuven sets a target of mobility within Europe of 20% of graduates by 2020 (the 20/2020 target). It requires that institutions establish partners in another country within the European Higher Education Area in order to facilitate the mobility of higher education students. One way to achieve this is through the establishment of international joint double degrees (Erasmus Mundus degrees) or international joint double degrees with a partner institution. The implementation and discussion of this policy is evidenced by the Trends reports. Crosier et  al. (2007) in Trends V indicated that many institutions in Europe have experimented with the development of joint programmes or that they are intending to do so. They found that the majority of joint programmes are in the second cycle (i.e. Masters level). Their report underlines the importance of international joint double degrees for the Bologna Process and the need for the analysis of the international joint double degree experience at Masters level. Crosier et  al. state that: At this stage, it would seem reasonable to suggest that joint programmes are playing a significant role in constructing the European Higher Education Area, by giving institutions opportunities to work together and learn from each other. (Crosier et al. 2007: 31)

Both the Institute of International Education (2011) report on joint double degree programmes and the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB 2011) report on internationalisation highlight the importance of such programmes as a focus for future institutional international approaches to student education. The European University Association (EUA) Trends 2015 report notes their continued importance to the EHEA, and Kuder et al. (2013) note that they have become a regular part of internationalisation portfolios for institutions around the world (Kuder et al. 2013: 17).

14 

J. K. Bamford

A report by Sweeney (2010) for the Higher Education Academy acknowledges and lists the benefits to staff and students of a European dimension to higher education, which is one of the aims of the Bologna Process. Sweeney recognises that mobility arrangements in institutions have benefits for staff and students in terms of encouraging a European dimension. This raises an important consideration for this research: that is, the mutuality, as made reference to above in terms of the mutuality for students and of the experience of international mobility for both institutions and students. For example, it enhances the attractiveness of institutions and provides cultural enrichment for individuals. Sweeney (2010: 11) refers to the need to develop a ‘culture of mobility’, which arises as a consequence of the Bologna Process. He states that this mobility culture should encompass the setting up of joint degrees with partner institutions outside the UK. Further, the need for such types of mobility requires a flexible and innovative approach to the curriculum.

Institutional Drivers at Play It is worth noting that the debate with regard to the international activity of higher education institutions is linked to the need for higher education institutions to find additional sources of funding and the search for innovative programmes to develop is linked to this. A commercialised driver to higher education initiatives, for example, seeking to establish such programmes merely to recruit more international students potentially undermines the strategic international partnership debate and presents us with some challenges in terms of the motivational drivers for international educational initiatives. There appears to be a tension between commercialisation drivers which result in the international activities of higher education institutions and the drivers that seek to develop internationalisation for other reasons. This tension is evidenced in areas such as maintaining the expectation of a quality experience for students in a number of ways, the need for international travel and maintaining the quality processes of UK institutions in partner institutions overseas. In other words, the commercialisation and financial drivers for internationalisation may sit at odds with the conceptual motivations of ‘internationalists’

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

15

for international joint double degrees. We see this conceptual motivation evidenced in the European policy approach (Davies 2009; Dale 2012); for example, Bruch and Barty (1998) commented that institutions which ignore the international dimension to higher education do so at their peril and that institutions that want to be successful in attracting international students need to ensure that they take the quality of their academic and welfare provision seriously. They argue that: In recent years the rapid expansion of HE together with funding problems has led to an anxiety that quality may be undermined. The recruitment of international students has become a priority for institutions as they have sought to increase income from other sources than central government. How far is current interest in internationalisation commercially driven and how far does it represent a commitment to an ethos that is not primarily connected with income generation? How far are the arrangements for international students part of a planned strategy to internationalise the institution and how far are they simply add-on facilities to boost recruitment? (1998: 25)

What is interesting to note is that these comments were made in 1998 and are still as relevant today in terms of whether the issues are being addressed as institutions seek to try and move away from the ‘deficit’ model of students coming from other countries that much of the literature points to (Marginson 2012). Bruch and Barty’s comments pose some focal realities for institutional policy with regard to international higher education and for the experience of international students, particularly in institutions with large numbers of international students. They ask the following questions: Are the arrangements made by higher education institutions for international students part of a planned strategy to internationalise their institutions? Or are they stop-gap solutions to deal with growing numbers of international students? Or, indeed, do they represent the financial imperatives to grow international student numbers? The points that Bruch and Barty (1998) make are reinforced by the experience of the international joint double degree, where international students move between two institutions. Therefore there remain questions relating to the quality of

16 

J. K. Bamford

provision of the education on such programmes as the international joint double degrees and, as acknowledged by Palermo et al. (2018), where the crossing of borders is involved and where more than one institution and national education system are involved and additionally the practice of the award of two diplomas for one programme of study—an issue that is explored in more detail in Chaps. 2 and 3. With reference to international joint double degree programmes in the EU, we might ask does the harmonisation of cycles of education within the Bologna area, for example, and the award of credits or the credit recognition systems amount to true equivalences, and is the experience of differences in teaching and learning approaches between institutions managed carefully? When acknowledging that joint Masters programmes are not problem-free, Davies (2009) makes the following observation based on his findings from a survey of Masters awards in Europe: One academic informant described the difficulties posed by variable entry points, credit weighting, workloads, learning outcomes—all compounded by incongruent national legislations. The difficulties meant that the course structure was not always clear to students and that course coordination was not always transparent, requiring a strong element of ad hoc compromise and approximation. (2009: 54)

This comment from Davies with regard to the award of grades in France and the transfer to British grades is an example of such approximations. If nothing else, this comment reinforces the need for careful consideration of the ethical dimensions as the complications in working across national education systems clearly have an impact on the student experience and raises questions with regard to transparency. Authors such as Burbules and Torres (2000) present a more critical perspective highlighting the need to recognise the impact of the commercialisation process in higher education on those that experience it. The global knowledge economy perspective embedded in the internationalisation literature has been strengthened recently with clear links being made between student trans-border mobility, international employment and the internationalisation of higher education, with examples given by Rodrigues (2002), Castells (2002), Martinez (2009) and Shattock (2009).

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

17

The driver and link between financial imperatives and institutional international activity cannot be underestimated as the growth in transnational higher education programme evidences. However, as Palermo et  al. (2018) acknowledge, particular consideration needs to be given to this aspect of the international joint double degree; although the raising of international profiles may be achieved, the programmes are resource-­ intensive and commercialisation objectives may be met on a more long-­ term way. The potential value that these programmes offer to both institutions and for students is given more attention in the next chapter.

 he Demand for International Joint Double T Degrees from an Institutional Perspective The focus for much of the international collaborations between institutions offering international joint double degrees seems to be at the postgraduate rather than the undergraduate or doctoral levels (Palermo et al. 2018). This is highlighted by the EUA Trends reports and the AACSB (2011) report. Davies (2009) echoes the finding that joint programmes of study are more likely to be offered at Masters level and states that they are likely to grow in popularity because of the demands of the market. His findings indicate that a large majority of higher education institutions surveyed for his study were planning to develop more international joint double degrees. The possibilities for these types of programme are also noted in an AACSB (2011) report on the globalisation of higher education with Kuder et al. (2013) acknowledging that there has been a worldwide growth in collaborative degree programmes. He asserts that this is due to the ability to pool resources, design unique programmes of study, raise their global profiles and attract additional students. According to Palermo et al. (2018), this predicated growth has yet to take place. The potential for market popularity has been examined from the student perspective in order to explore its veracity from the standpoint of the consumer. In terms of the students’ view of such programmes, they were asked to rank, from 1 to 8 in order of importance, a series of statements that reflected their reasons for undertaking such a programme of

18 

J. K. Bamford

study. The analysis revealed the importance of the award of a double diploma as one of the most attractive aspects of international joint double degrees. Responses attracted an average of 2.29 as a ranking, with 1 being the highest-ranked response. This would seem to support the view of the EUA that international joint double degrees are an area for future international growth and international collaboration for higher education institutions. The importance of imbuing course development with marketing approach can be seen to be more evident in some institutions and is particularly evident in the competitive business school environment in France. Schule (2006) acknowledges that certain types of institution in Europe, such as the Instituts Superieurs de Commerce also known as Grandes Écoles (Blanchard 2009), have used double degrees in order to increase their competitiveness (2006: 4). Schule also acknowledges the positive aspects of international joint double degrees with regard to joint curriculum development but also highlights the possible difficulties for international joint double degree programmes, providing a checklist for consultation for institutions considering such collaborative ventures. He states that institutional profiles need to be given careful consideration since the differences between, for example, a professional approach to education and a theoretical approach could prove significant. Schule does not give further detail on what the potential differences nor how they might prove significant. The issue of different institutional approaches is given significant attention by Palermo et al. (2018) who present us with strategies to address such differences at the planning stage. A misalignment of approaches and messaging can result in disruption for the student experience, so understanding their differences is important at the planning stage. The importance of institutional messaging can be seen to be linked to understanding the student experience of these programmes and the challenges and benefits for the recipients.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

19

 efining an International Joint Double Degree D Programme and the Need for Additional Skills In terms of understanding how institutions should approach the development and delivery of international joint double degrees, it is important to define what an international joint double degree is, as there is much interchangeability in the use of the terms such as double diploma, joint degree and dual degree: the terms have different connotations in different national environments. This challenge is acknowledged by Knight (2013), when commenting on the ‘plethora of terms used to describe international collaborative programs’ and the confusion that arises as a result (2013: 2). Knight distinguishes between joint degrees, offering one joint qualification, and double degrees, offering two awards. My interpretation for the purposes of the discussion herein is that the term ‘international joint double degree’ is an international programme of study offering an integrated curriculum. It is delivered jointly in more than one institution and across national borders, awarding single or multiple diplomas. Within the literature and, in practice, within the higher education environment, there are variations to the use of the terms joint degree, joint double degrees, international double degrees, dual degrees and so on. A fuller discussion of the usage and meanings of these terms and their import is provided in Chap. 2. The Council of Ministers of Europe in the ministerial summit in Berlin (Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Berlin Communiqué 2003) confirmed the key features of a joint degree outlined from the Stockholm seminar (2002) as being: Two or more institutions in two or more countries are participating. The duration of study outside the institution should be substantial and continuous eg: 1 year at bachelor level. Joint degree programmes should require a joint study programme settled on by cooperation, confirmed in a written agreement between institutions. Joint degrees should be based on bilateral or multilateral agreements on jointly arranged and approved programmes with no restrictions concerning study fields or subjects.

20 

J. K. Bamford

Full use should be made of the Diploma Supplement and the ECTS in order to ensure comparability of qualifications. A joint degree should preferably be documented in a single document issued by the participating institutions in accordance with national regulations. Joint degrees and study programmes should require student and staff/ teacher mobility. Linguistic diversity in a European perspective should be ensured. Joint study programmes should have a European dimensions [sic] whether physical mobility or intercultural competence in the curriculum. (2002: 2–3)

These key features of an international joint double degree present challenges for students and for the institutions concerned as highlighted in the work of Kuder et al. (2013) and Palermo et al. (2018). As Palermo et al. support, the challenges required of such programmes of study result in only the very capable individual undertaking such programmes of study. Differing levels of ability will always be a consideration anywhere on a Masters course, but they are particularly important on an international joint Masters course where the pressures of international mobility within a small timeframe, as well as adaption to different cultures, teaching and learning expectations, arguably require additional skills of those who participate. The higher education process is designed to challenge and push boundaries, thus encouraging students to achieve excellence within their chosen field. There is a clear tension between the maintenance of the challenging educational environments created by international joint double degrees and perhaps even elitism which such degrees represent and the facilitation of mass education and more international mobility in higher education. The following line from Homer’s ‘Iliad’, which is also the motto for the University of St Andrews (2006) as well as others, offers an insight into the way some higher education institutions position themselves, how they promote their pedagogic values and the way they expect students to meet educational challenge and intellectual achievement: “Αἴεν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων” Ever to excel and be the best above all others. (The Iliad, Book 6: 208)

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

21

The motto represents the cultural influence of aspirations to excellence in societies such as the UK where individual achievement is aspired to but which is also an important feature of the education system. The quote forms part of a discussion between two characters about identity and having pride in your background and your heritage and bringing glory to your ancestors. Where you are from frames your activity and informs your actions. It carries the weight of the unchanging nature of human beings in understanding and knowing their connections, where they are from and where they are going to. Cultural identity and achievement are connecting factors that do not require the contemporary global shifts in politics and economics to be acknowledged but rather form part of our imaginings and aspirations. They are thus inexorably linked to the higher education context and there appears to be some synergy with the opportunities offered by international joint double degrees: the graduate of such programmes having aspired to excellence to meet with the demands of the ‘changing world’ where international employment opportunities are desired by many. The award of two Masters diplomas for one programme of study suggests that something extra or additional has been achieved over and above that which is achieved by a student who receives only one award for their programme of study. This work also seeks to present a critical examination of whether the demands of the international joint double degree education justify this proposition as well as exploring this concept within the educational framework that has been promoted by the convergence of education systems driven by the Bologna Process and the establishment of the European Higher Education Area. Kuder et al. (2013) acknowledges that whilst more institutions are entering into such collaborative programmes of study, institutions often enter into them without a full exploration of the strategic implications and the challenges of managing such programmes, let alone undertaking their development in consultation with students in terms of programme design. Palermo et al.’s (2018) analysis of the way in which international dual awards should be designed is insightful and useful for practitioners in understanding the challenges. However, both the institutional and the student perspective require further consideration because of the context of mutuality for these programmes. There are questions that remain unanswered. Is the award of two Masters diplomas justified given the

22 

J. K. Bamford

demands of such programmes of study, or is it merely double counting and ‘fudging’ of two national education systems to placate policy makers? Is it merely giving ‘two for the price of one’? In order to explore notions of ‘excellence’, the dimensions of international education have been explored with the research focusing on the experience of teaching and learning and also of the cultural encounters and interactions of those participating in such programmes.

 he Significance of International Joint Double T Degrees Within the Field of International Higher Education International joint double degrees have become an important aspect of international activity for higher education institutions. Monné and Morel (2013) acknowledge the importance of joint degrees, particularly highlighting Erasmus Mundus joint degrees, for promoting international cooperation especially as international mobility is a requirement of such a degree. Kuder et al. (2013) similarly acknowledges the growth of international joint and double degree programmes both within the EHEA and more widely. Whilst it is recognised that the Bologna Process calls for increased mobility to promote cultural fluencies and job opportunities, we should also pause to consider whether international joint double degrees are distinguishable from the everyday global influences on individuals’ lives (Kehm and Teichler 2007) and whether they offer anything additional for individuals. Do global media networks and information technology now offer a substitute for physical mobility to the extent that the need to be physically mobile as part of a degree does not offer anything exceptional? Is mobility as part of an international joint double degree different to other types of mobility within international higher education? In addition, one may question whether universities are inventing reasons for mobility where none exists. This is particularly pertinent when more and more European institutions are offering their courses in English rather than the native language of the host country, thus reducing the possibility

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

23

of exposure to learning in a language other than English in the higher education classroom, despite the demands of Bologna. One might also question whether language learning should be an aspect of the international joint double degree experience. It is hoped that this question is addressed in this work both from the perspectives of the potential rewards for individuals and institutions alike. The cases explored in this work offer an example of where the language of instruction in both institutions is English. One might observe that students are obtaining a French Masters award, for a course where the language of instruction and assessment was English, and for most of the students obtaining the award, this does not reflect any ability to speak French. The same would be true of course for Masters delivered in two different English-speaking countries, for example, the UK and the USA, so perhaps the issue is about the crossing of borders within one course and not the language of instruction as such courses are still international. Knight (2013) poses some questions around the language of delivery for joint programmes. These relate both to issues of quality around ensuring equity in delivery if students are required to study in the native language and also around the potential domination of English as the language of communication and of delivery. Anglicisation of the higher education sector is a concern for international educators and the fact that international collaborative programmes may be encouraging the overuse of English could be construed as these types of programmes lending themselves to undermining the object they are seeking to achieve—cultural fluencies. This critical stance is given further impetus by the fact that financial incentives have been seen to be the single most important determinant for the encouragement of joint double degree initiatives by higher education institutions (Knight 2006; Davies 2009), and institutional motivational drivers for engaging in such programmes are discussed above and elaborated on further in Chaps. 2 and 3. By exploring this point a little further, we can observe that all the names of the programmes that were the subject of this research have ‘international’ as part of their title. The students were all ‘international’ as they all studied overseas either in London or in France (or in both) and came from a third country of origin. These aspects in themselves can be viewed as internationalisation as they represent internationalisation at

24 

J. K. Bamford

home (Robson et al. 2018) and internationalising the curriculum (Leask 2015): so we can then ask in what ways is the international joint double degree experience distinguishable as a particularly international experience. It is hoped that this question is addressed in this work both from the perspectives of the potential rewards for individuals and institutions alike. A broad definition of the internationalisation of higher education is offered by Yemini (2015) who defines internationalisation as “the process of encouraging the integration of multicultural, multilingual, and global dimensions within the education system, with the aim of instilling in learners a sense of global citizenship”. The international joint double degree aims to meet this definition. At the time of writing, Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) figures (2017/18) indicated that international student recruitment in UK higher education in that year was 458,490 international students enrolled. An ‘international classroom’ in UK higher education institutions is therefore not an unusual phenomenon. Does an international title, and the recruitment of a diverse student body which is required to be mobile to accomplish their international education, sufficiently differentiate international joint double degrees? Mobility alone does not offer an answer. In terms of the educational experience it offers, what differentiates the international joint double degree is the student experience of studying in two different national contexts. In addition, the dimensions of international higher education—for example, cultural interactions, international mobility, the relationality between students and the way students experience the learning environment—allow the exploration of that experiential aspect of the education process. These dimensions are holistically linked in the international joint double degree in the concrete reality of classroom life. Despite these important questions, the argument presented here— supported by relevant data—is that these international joint double awards epitomise a truly international higher education in the sense that students engage with internationality on a number of levels in an experiential and cultural context. They require students to be mobile across borders, allowing for the possibility of increased cultural knowledge and language skills, and provide the completing students with what they may consider to be transferable and multiple skills important in the global job market. In addition, the students receive two Masters awards which

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

25

provide evidence of qualifications in more than one country’s higher education system. This appears to be an influential factor for students choosing the joint Masters award programmes.

 he Dimensions of International Higher T Education on International Joint Double Degrees The following model illustrates the process of international higher education for those participating in an international joint double degree. The dimensions of international higher education are represented as elements of the educational experience on international joint double degrees (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1  Example of the learning process in an international joint double degree

26 

J. K. Bamford

This visualisation of the student experience of international higher education illustrates the elements of the engagement as a systematic learning process. In the following chapters, I demonstrate that the internationalisation of higher education has to be seen as a systematic learning process that is dependent on the student’s engagement with that learning process and their mode of learning (modus discendi) in which the host culture, the other students, their higher education institution and language play a role. In order to situate the research which examines the experience of education in more than one country, where students are regarded as overseas students for at least a part of or all of their course, the broader internationalisation debate is addressed so that the work can be situated as a representation of that debate at institutional and individual level.

 he Broad Debates on International T Higher Education The broad perspectives relating to the internationalisation of higher education are explored briefly below through a number of themes: firstly, through an exploration of the link between globalisation and mobility and the underpinning reasoning for higher education to have an international perspective; secondly, the policy initiatives which encourage international mobility, the link between the commercialisation of higher education and international activity; and finally, the importance of national frameworks for education within an international higher education environment. From the literature, it can be observed that a tension exists in higher education between nation-state frameworks for the delivery of higher education and the demands of internationalisation in the form of student mobility and the commercialisation of higher education. This context is critical in understanding the experience of international higher education: it is therefore revisited as a theme of the experience. Authors such as Castells (2000) have been influential in arguing that trans-border information flows have extended the far-reaching influences of globalisation and have brought, for example, expectations of access to

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

27

products and cultures from around the world. Matthews’ (2000) ‘cultural supermarket’ thesis illustrates this point more directly by arguing that globalisation has influenced individuals’ lifestyle choices and layered their cultural identities allowing for a normalisation and everyday engagement with different cultural influences and tastes. These global influences have been filtered through the higher education environment and are acknowledged as being important in terms of the context in which the international joint double degree is situated. That is, the global economic forces in contemporary society have had an influencing and possibly even driving effect on international higher education policy and on student behaviours. They cannot be separated from it in terms of being influencing factors of individuals’ responses and perspectives at any point in time. Granell’s (2000) observation that globalisation has created a pressure for change that is worldwide can be seen to be reflected in the education systems of the world’s largest economies in terms of the growing demand for mobility of their student populations. Knight’s (2006) research suggests that Western institutions are more engaged in internationalisation activity, than Eastern institutions, such as the recruitment of international students to their universities. As a result of her survey on internationalisation, and its higher response rate from developed countries, Knight makes this debatable observation, given the amount of international recruitment that is taking place in Hong Kong, for example. Research such as Knight’s points to international student mobility as having a directional context. For Western English-speaking countries, this seems to be inwards mobility, and for other countries, it would appear to be outward mobility: for example, Chinese students coming to the UK are an exemplar of inwards mobility. There is scant evidence of UK student mobility to China, although countries such as Singapore, Japan and China are attracting increasing numbers of foreign students. This inwards and outwards positioning is a useful reminder of different perspectives in terms of underlining that the word ‘international’ drives different behaviours in each higher education institution. It also drives different national behaviours as well as different behaviours in regions in the world and amongst individual students. Altbach and Teichler (2001) echo this in stating that the growth in inwards mobility is principally amongst industrialised nations. It is also worth noting that Western perspectives

28 

J. K. Bamford

dominate the literature. The following discussion attempts to contextualise the relationship of globalisation and internationalisation with student mobility across borders. There is no single definition of internationalisation that can be regarded as offering a definitive position and the different perspectives complicate the discussion. What is immediately apparent, however, from the literature is that international activity by higher education institutions can be seen to be multi-faceted and, to some extent, the definition of internationalisation has to be regarded as subjective. The differences in interpretation and usage are acknowledged by Knight (2004) who suggests that part of the issue is the confusion between the activity and the process of internationalisation. There is also a difference between national approaches and those at institutional and individual levels, with Knight arguing that individual and institutional approaches represent a bottom-up approach and national- and sectoral-level approaches offer a top-down approach. Therefore, with regard to the interpretation of internationalisation, the national position will be different from the individual interpretation. In addition, the activities associated with internationalisation have a different emphasis within different national frameworks. The definitions offered in the relevant literature have some broad basis of agreement but more than one author comments on the fact that there is no one single definition. For example, Yang (2002) offers the following observation: At the heart of any serious discussion of internationalisation lies a conundrum. Despite many attempts to formulate a “tight” definition the core idea remains conceptually elusive (Callan 1998). There is no simple, unique or all encompassing definition of internationalisation…. While universities world-wide are promoting internationalisation, achieving a common definition has not proved simple. (2002: 81)

Although this observation was made in 2002, and the definition can be seen to be even broader as underlined by Yemini’s (2015) position, there remains the challenge of agreeing on one accepted definition. Soliman et  al. (2019) observe that there has been a shift in terms of broadening the definition of internationalisation, which:

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

29

reflects its increasing importance to universities as a concept and as a set of activities. Although internationalisation can be considered to be an input to various other activities in a university, including teaching and research, it has become increasingly important as a performance measure (or to be more precise, a set of performance measures) in its own right. (2019: 1415)

The increased importance of internationalisation—as a strategic positioning for universities—does not, however, change the fact that variations in usage of terms and approaches such as ‘transnational’, ‘cross-border’ and ‘global’ leave challenges in understanding and identifying a definitive position for those less well versed in the nuances of the debates. The challenges filter into what Kuder et al. (2013) refers to as a lack of clearly defined strategy in institutions when it comes to collaborative endeavours such as international joint double degrees. Soliman et al.’s (2019) study supports the position that internationalisation strategies are situated in time and space for each institution. Further, this may present a problem in presenting research as being ‘internationally’ based or in arguing that the research addresses issues of an international or transnational nature since a cross-country perspective or transnational perspective is often offered through the lens of institutions situated in particular countries. It is worth remembering, as Green (2002) points out, that globalisation has not given rise to, as yet, sufficiently democratic or transnational bodies that have reduced the need for societies to be organised around nation-states. As Green argues, despite the enthusiasm of globalists such as Scott (1998), there is no convergence of national education systems into a single model. Even if one were to take into consideration the Bologna Process, the alignment of degree lengths has not resulted in one model of delivery throughout Europe. Further, Davies (2009) findings demonstrate that some creative practices are necessary to overcome difference when partner institutions collaborate with each other across borders. Gargano (2009) argues that certain fields involving mobility of people, ideas and objects are better defined as ‘transnational’ and, although this may be a more comfortable (meaning?) term and the preferred term for Gargano, it is also problematic as it is most commonly used for transnational education delivery (TNE) where British higher education is delivered overseas and not involving the

30 

J. K. Bamford

movement of second-country nationals. It is thus a significantly different experience for the students from the internationalisation at home (Knight 2004) category. Knight (2004) outlines that the word ‘global’ is contested and does not lend itself well to certain concepts that do not have clearly linear homogenising perspectives, despite the broad policy debates which attempt to place them as such. The words ‘global’ and ‘globalisation’ have therefore been avoided in this book in order to focus on the institutional and individual levels of activity. However, whilst I distinguish globalisation in terms of its use as a descriptor in this work, its influence in terms of the marketisation of higher education is acknowledged. The present work therefore acknowledges the globalisation discourse and its importance to the recruitment of international students due to the influences of economic competition (Bolsmann and Miller 2008). Table 1.1 provides a brief overview of some authors’ contemporary conceptualisations within the globalisation and internationalisation discourse and their relationship with higher education. Whilst this typology may be a rather oversimplification of the debates, the intention is to identify the levels of operation to which the terms apply in order to demonstrate why there has been a reliance on the term international higher education in this book. Table 1.1 also attempts to provide a view of the usage of the terms in relation to their application at international, institutional and individual levels. It is recognised that the breakdown of terms used in the table is by no means definitive, but it serves to provide an indication of the positioning of this book in relation to the use of these terms: Whilst there is an abundance of literature on the internationalisation and globalisation of higher education, much of the discourse surrounding the definition can tend to be circular. Globalisation is taken to mean the global flows in economies, technology, people, values and ideas. Its influence on higher education is recognised in terms of the increased competition and marketisation that is a consequence of these flows (Bolsmann and Miller 2008). The aim of the present work is an exploration of international mobility that is required as part of the international joint double degree as part of an internationalised curriculum and the ‘lived reality’ (Gargano 2009) for the individuals involved of that activity. The activity of crossing a border together reflects De Wit’s (2002)

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

31

Table 1.1  Differences in terminology in the literature Term in literature

Some of the leading authors

Level of Usage and definition application

Supranational/ Global flows in Altbach and economies, people, global Teichler (2001) values, knowledge De Wit (2002) and ideas Scott (1998) The convergence of Green (2002) markets Knight (2004) Teichler (2004) Naidoo (2007) Beerkens (2004) Robertson (2010) Enders and Fulton (2002) (Nb. this list is illustrative only and many more could be included) National, sector Internationalisation Knight (2004, 2006) ‘the process of and integrating an Kreber (2009) institutional— international, Yemini (2015) it is a process intercultural or and is global dimension differentiated into the purpose, from functions or globalisation delivery of postas the ethos secondary does not education’ (Knight centre around 2004: 11) competition ‘the process of (Kreber 2009) encouraging the integration of multicultural, multilingual, and global dimensions within the education system, with the aim of instilling in learners a sense of global citizenship’ (2015: 21) Globalisation

(continued)

32 

J. K. Bamford

Table 1.1 (continued)

Term in literature

Some of the leading authors

Level of Usage and definition application

The international classroom Recruitment of international students Purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students, within domestic learning environments International higher De Wit (2002) Historical basis: the education (IHE) Dixon (2006) international classroom When students cross national borders The activity of students and staff across borders Definitions, Comparative Green (1990) comparisons of education Crossley and different national Watson (2003) systems and international education Transnational (TNE) Global Alliance for Any teaching or learning activity Transnational Education (GATE) where the students are in a different De Wit (2002: 146) country to the host Naidoo (2007) country National boundaries are crossed Used interchangeably with cross-border education Internationalisation Knight (2004) at home Turner (2006a and b) Beelen and Jones (2015) Robson et al. (2018)

Institutional level—the recruitment of international students Institutional and individual level

Institutional and individual level

National and institutional levels

Institutional level

(continued)

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

33

Table 1.1 (continued) Term in literature Cross-border/ offshore/ borderless education

Joint and double Masters

Internationalising the curriculum

Intercultural competence/ intercultural effectiveness Cultural competence

Some of the leading authors

Level of Usage and definition application

Confusion of terms; Observatory on Borderless Higher however, they all mean crossing Education national Knight (2006) boundaries in order to study A Masters delivered Davies (2009: 12) by two or more Schule (2006) higher education Institute of institutions (HEIs) International awarding single or Education multiple diplomas Leask (2015) Incorporates international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the learning outcomes, content, teaching methods and assessment methods Activities of Deardorff and internationalisation Arasaratnamin relation to the Smith (2017) development of Stone (2006) individuals’ cultural Nieto and Booth awareness or (2010) competence McAllister et al. (2006)

National and institutional level

International, national, institutional and individual level Institutional and individual level

Institutional and individual level

(continued)

34 

J. K. Bamford

Table 1.1 (continued) Term in literature Global competences/ global citizenship Planetary citizenship Cosmopolitanism

Some of the leading authors

Level of Usage and definition application

Individual level Hunter et al. (2006) ‘having an open Spencer-Oatey and mind while actively seeking to Stadler (2009) understand cultural Haigh (2009) norms and Sanderson (2008) expectations of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment’ (Spencer-­Oatey and Stadler 2009: 130–131) Cosmopolitanism means being able to critically reflect on one’s own values in order ‘to dismantle the barriers that obstruct a legitimate understanding and acceptance of the other’ (Sanderson 2008: 287)

conceptualisation of international higher education. This is echoed in de Ridder-Symoens (1992a) notions of the wandering scholar, peregrinatio academica, on which the Erasmus programme is based. This level of international activity is witnessed at individual and institutional and at international level in terms of the EU policy on higher education.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

35

We can see the internationalisation discourse reflected at the level of the individual by those such as Sanderson (2008), who conceptualises about the critical reflection that needs to takes place with persons being able to critically reflect on their values and become cosmopolitan. This ability is ‘underpinned by openness, interconnectivity, interdependence, reciprocity and plurality’ (2008: 288). He states that cosmopolitanism is a choice and that intercultural contact does not necessarily result in learning and creating a mutual understanding between parties. This theme is threaded throughout this work, both in terms of the banal cosmopolitanism that equates to Matthew’s (2000) global supermarket thesis and with regard to the ability to understand and accept the other which Sanderson outlines as a true cosmopolitanism. The need to find a common ground for cultural encounters and intercultural interactions is reflected in the work of Arkoudis et al. (2013). The relationship between the development of intercultural awareness, or cosmopolitanism as it is referred to by Sanderson, and the experience of an internationally designed curriculum, here reflected in the international joint double degree, is symbiotic. Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) acknowledge that higher education is uniquely placed to address the development of intercultural competence. Whilst briefly explored in Chap. 5, the focus for this work is not the development of intercultural competence, but primarily the link between understanding cultural encounters, building intercultural awareness and the international joint double degree experience. The theme of this work is the importance of the cultural encounters which frame the educational experience and the international transitions made by individuals.

 he Importance of Understanding the Student T Experience of International Joint Double Degree Programmes This notion of enrichment for both staff and students aids us in representing such programmes as operating within a construct of mutuality: that is, the mutuality between the student experience of joint programmes

36 

J. K. Bamford

of study and the need for institutions’ development of such programmes based on the student experience of them. It differs from the policy position where the tone is one of presumption with regard to both the importance and benefits of such programmes. The call in the Leuven Communiqué (Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, 2009) for higher education institutions to provide backing and support for mobility in the EHEA demands innovative curricula to facilitate those calls for mobility; therefore, some reflection on the context for that curriculum development is appropriate. The curriculum cannot be considered in isolation: it is informed by the student experience as well as the student experience being informed by the international joint double degree curriculum. Thus, a notion of mutuality permits us to explore in greater depth what international higher education is and the implications of the promotion of a ‘culture of mobility’ through initiatives such as international joint and international joint double degrees. The importance of understanding culture in contemporary societies and cultural encounters is underlined by Benhabib (2002). His call to position ourselves so as to understand the other and the multiplicity of conflicting narratives in the contemporary seem never more prescient, and there is a responsibility on educators to be attentive to the challenges around the complex dialogues which frame cultural encounters and interactions.

The Glimpse into the Individual Experience To gain insight via this glimpse into the international joint double degree experience, we are required to acknowledge that the experience of the different cultures of the countries involved, together with the different institutions, staff and other students, informs our knowledge of international higher education at an individual level. The focus in this study has therefore been on the student experience: however, this individual level of analysis is also seen at the staff and institutional level. Papatsiba (2005) provides some support for the need to focus on the individual level of analysis:

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

37

Beyond the widespread acceptance of further promotion of student mobility (van der Wende 2001) it is important to investigate the extent to which mobility outcomes at the individual level of mobile students reflect the perceptions and fulfil the expectations of political actors. It is also legitimate to tackle the underlying “legitimating ideas” or “rationales” that accompanied the institutionalisation of student mobility by political actors since they are likely to mark future promotion of mobility. (Papatsiba 2005: 173)

The need for the analysis of the broad policy arrangements at the individual level, as alluded to by Papatsiba, is specifically addressed in Chap. 2 where the issues of institutional implementation of the policies and of the political actors are considered. The analysis undertaken at the level of the individual offers an interpretation of the policy advocated by the political actors as referred to by Papatsiba (2005). This reinforces the broader context and the positioning of this work, including notions of the importance of an in-depth examination of the effects of this approach to international higher education from the student perspective, undertaken through the analysis of the different pedagogic and cultural aspects to the student experience, as a consequence of studying in two countries.

Concluding Comments The discussion in this chapter has focused on the rationale for the study, the methodological approach taken, the policy context for international joint double degrees and some of the key terms that required discussion due to the different usage and terminology that arise in different countries around the world. Whilst it is important to acknowledge the place of the drivers for internationalisation activities that are undertaken by institutions, with marketing and recruitment activities being key activities that make such initiatives possible and take them forward, the focus in understanding all the aspects and challenges that such programmes of study may throw up should be on the student participants. The themes of culture and pedagogy that are threaded throughout this work bring into sharp focus the importance of considering the participants as the

38 

J. K. Bamford

co-­creators of their educational experience. The data collected on their experiences allows a rich and in-depth picture to be built of all the aspects of these forms of programme and the complexities that need to be considered and which should inform educationalists involved in the development of international curricula.

Bibliography AACSB. (2011). Globalization of Management Education: Changing International Structures, Adaptive Strategies and the Impact on Institutions. Bingley, UK: AACSB International. Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Asgary, N., & Robbert, M. A. (2010). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an International Dual Degree Programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 317–325. Bamford, D.  N. (2010). Person, Deification and Re-cognition: A Comparative Study of Person in the Byzantine and Pratyabhijna Traditions, Unpublished Thesis, University of Chichester. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Barnett, R. (2007). A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Europe Calling: A New Definition for Internationalization at Home. International Higher Education, 83, 12–13. Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (2004). Global Opportunities and Institutional Embeddedness: Higher Education Consortia in Europe and South East Asia. CHEPS/ UT. [Online]. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.utwente.nl/chepsdocumenten/thesisbeerkins.pdf.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

39

Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Bolsmann, C., & Miller, H. (2008). International Student Recruitment to Universities in England: Discourse, Rationales and Globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 75–88. Bruch, T., & Barty, A. (1998). Internationalizing British Higher Education: Students and Institutions. In P.  Scott (Ed.), The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SHRE and Open University Press. Buber, M. (2004). I and Thou (2nd ed.). (Ronald Gregor Smith, Trans.). London: Continuum. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge. Callan, H. (1998). Internationalisation in Europe. In P.  Scott (Ed.), The Globalisation of Higher Education (pp. 44–57). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Vol. I, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castells, M. (2002). The Construction of European Identity. In M. J. Rodrigues (Ed.), The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher and Education. (2009). Leuven Communiqué, The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade Joint Declaration of the European Ministers. [Online]. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.ond. vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_ Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf. Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). EUA Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Universities Association. Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge. Dale, R. (2010). Constructing Universities’ Responses to Europe’s Lisbon Agenda: The Roles of the European Commission in Creating the Europe of Knowledge. LLAKES Research Paper, 19.

40 

J. K. Bamford

Dale, R. (2012). From ‘Not Quite Falling Out of the Sky’ to Europe’s Flagship Programme for Worldwide Academic Cooperation: The Emergence and Significance of Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning, Crisis and Social Change Conference, University of London, LLAKES. Davies, H. (2009). Survey of Masters Degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992a). Mobility. In H. Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Deardorff, D.  K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L.  A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge. Dixon, M. (2006). Globalisation and International Higher Education: Contested Positionings. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 319–333. Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Blurring Boundaries and Blistering Institutions. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher Education in a Globalising World. International Trends and Mutual Observations. A Festschrift in Honour of Ulrich Teichler. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gargano, T. (2009). (Re)conceptualizing International Student Mobility: The Potential of Transnational Social Fields. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 331–346. Granell, E. (2000). Culture Globalisation: A Latin American Challenge. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(3), 89–93. Green, A. (1990). Education and state formation. In Education and State Formation (pp. 76–110). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Green, A. (2002). Education, Globalisation and the Role of Comparative Research. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Haigh, M. (2009). Fostering Cross-Cultural Empathy With Non-Western Curricular Structures. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 271–284. Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (Eds.). (2018). Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad. London: Routledge.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

41

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on Internationalisation in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260–273. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, J. (2013). Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas. In M.  Kuder, N.  Lemmens, & D.  Obst (Eds.), Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Knight, J. (2015). International Universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 107–121. Kreber, C. (2009). Different Perspectives on Internationalization in Higher Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, 1–14. Kuder, M., Lemmens, N., & Obst, D. (2013). Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Levinas, E. (2006). Humanism of the Other (N.  Poller, Trans.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Marginson, S. (2012). Including the Other: Regulation of the Human Rights of Mobile Students in a Nation-Bound World. Higher Education, 63(4), 497–512. Marginson, S. (2014). Student Self-Formation in International Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–22. Martinez, R. (2009). Entrepreneurialism and the Internalization of Higher Education in a Knowledge Society. In M. Shattock (Ed.), Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press. Matthews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. London: Routledge. McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in Intercultural Learning: Examining the International Experience Through a Critical Incident Approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367–381. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Naidoo, V. (2007). Research on the Flow of International Students to UK Universities: Determinants and Implications. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(3), 287–307.

42 

J. K. Bamford

Nieto, C., & Booth, M. (2010). Cultural Competence: Its Influence on the Teaching and Learning of International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 406–425. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Papatsiba, V. (2005). Political and Individual Rationales of Student Mobility: A Case-Study of ERASMUS and a French Regional Scheme for Studies Abroad. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 173–188. Prats Monné, X., & Morel, C. (2013). Joint Degrees: A top priority of the European Union’s mobility and cooperation program. Global perspective oninternational joint and double degree programs. New York: Institute of International Education. Pring, R. (2004). The Philosophy of Education. London: Continuum. Rapley, T. (2011). Some Pragmatics of Data Analysis. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Reugg, W. (1992). Themes. In H.  Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying Out Qualitative Analysis. In J.  Ritchie & J.  Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robertson, S.  L. (2010). The EU, ‘Regulatory State Regionalism’ and New Modes of Higher Education Governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1), 23–37. Robson, S., Almeida, J., & Schartner, A. (2018). Internationalization at Home: Time for Review and Development? European Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 19–35. Rodrigues, M.  J. (Ed.). (2002). The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Sanderson, G. (2008). A Foundation for the Internationalization of the Academic Self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307. Schule, U. (2006). Joint and Double Degrees Within the European Higher Education Area: Towards Further Internationalisation of Business Degrees. Paris: Consortium of International Double Degrees. Scott, P. (Ed.). (1998). The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

1  Introduction to Joint Degrees and the Debates, Tensions… 

43

Shattock, M. (Ed.). (2009). Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and The Open University Press. Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage. Soliman, S., Anchor, J., & Taylor, D. (2019). The International Strategies of Universities: Deliberate Or Emergent? Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1413–1424. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The Global People Competency Framework: Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3272/. St Andrews University. (2006). Coat of Arms. [Online]. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/about/university/coatofarms/. Stockholm Seminar. (2002). Joint Degrees Within the Framework of the Bologna Process. [Online]. Retrieved August 30, from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Stockholm_results.pdf. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. European University Association. Sweeney, S. (2010). Bologna Process: Responding to the Post-2010 Challenge. York: Higher Education Academy. Teichler, U. (2004). The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher Education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26. Turner, Y. (2006a). Chinese Students in a UK Business School: Hearing the Student Voice in Reflective Teaching. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(1), 27–51. Turner, Y. (2006b). Students from Mainland China and Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Business and Management Degrees: Teasing Out Tensions of Culture, Style and Substance. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 3–11. Yang, R. (2002). University Internationalisation: Its Meanings, Rationales and Implications. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81–95. Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation Discourse Hits the Tipping Point: A New Definition Is Needed. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(1), 19–22.

2 Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees

Before a consideration of the experience of international joint double degrees is undertaken, it is necessary to consider both the frameworks and policy debates that have surrounded the development of such programmes of study in more detail. The significance of international joint double degrees is considered in this chapter as a cornerstone of European higher education policy. The growth in such degrees has been encouraged as a result of both the Bologna Process and the Bologna Process Follow-Up Group and yet, as Palermo et al. (2018) acknowledge, they remain marginal in student numbers and income generated. This is despite the strategic benefits of rebalancing geopolitical educational relationships, sharing of resources and raising of international profiles and internationalising the curriculum. We see the Leuven Communiqué promoting international joint double degrees as a cornerstone of harmonising activity in Europe and a locus for the development of cultural fluencies and global labour market training. It is argued that the skills needed to operate—and gain employment advantage—in a global environment are seen as an outcome of such education programmes. The Institute of International Education’s (IIE’s) support for the growth in international joint double degree programmes is based on findings of a survey of 180 © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_2

45

46 

J. K. Bamford

higher education institutions (Kuder and Obst 2009), as they are a way to offer students international experiences which have the potential to prepare students for successful international careers. The degrees that are the focus for this work are within the field of business education and differences in approach and emphasis may vary in different subject fields. However, whilst is it important to understand differences in subject delivery and institutional interactions framed around the nature of the subject taught, research has indicated that the link between pedagogy and culture and the importance of understanding cultural interactions in the classroom vary little with the subject that is being taught (Bamford et al. 2014): the principles and findings discussed therefore have some relevance across all subjects. The discussion in this chapter offers a contextualisation to this argument of applicability of the rewards and challenges of such programmes through an exploration of the landscape within which international joint double degrees are developed and offered. This contextualisation is framed initially by a discussion of the definitional challenges and then further by the macro and meso policy debates relating to student mobility and consideration of the current climate for international joint degrees. However, according to Kuder and Obst (2009), institutions offering international joint double degrees appear to be polarised in a small number of countries such as France, Germany, the UK, Spain and the USA. The claim is that they promote diverse language and ‘cultural fluencies’, which will prepare students for successful careers. The possibility of students gaining transferable skills required by the global job market and obtaining certificates which evidence qualifications in more than one country’s higher education system appears to make such programmes of study attractive to both institutions and students. Culver et al. (2012), when looking into the added value that such programmes offer graduates, verified this to be the case and highlighted that further study of these types of programmes needed to be undertaken. Their added value is given some further consideration in the next chapter. The aim of this chapter, however, is to focus on the policy and institutional context for such programmes of study. Data was gathered through 12 in-depth interviews with practitioners and managerial, teaching and administrative staff involved in international joint double degree programmes. Participant

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

47

observations were also undertaken alongside an analysis of the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency’s reports on institutional collaborative provision. The intention here is to consider the challenges of offering international joint double degrees focusing on the key themes arising from the literature and the data. These are the policy context, quality assurance, the international competitive environment for higher education, the development of a relationship between staff, international branding and the motivations for engaging in such collaborative programmes. However, before exploring the contextual and structural challenges for international joint double degrees, we need to examine definitional challenges as there is not only a considerable amount of confusion and lack of clarity around terminology but also a need to understand the structures and the chosen titles of the programmes.

 he Use of the Term International Joint T Double Degree As highlighted in Chap. 1, there are challenges around terminology and what is understood by the term international joint double degree. The three terms of ‘double diploma’, ‘dual award’ and ‘joint degree’ are used in common higher education parlance to mean both the same or different things, depending on those using the terms and the country in which they are used. The challenges around meaning and terminology continue, with Palermo et al. (2018) choosing to use the term of international dual degree (IDD). In this work the term international joint double degree is used to denote a course where two degree titles are achieved on successful completion of a course that is jointly delivered by two partners. There are variations in the usage of this term which is often used interchangeably with the terms joint awards, dual awards and double diplomas. The difference in usage of the terms in France and the UK is an example of how institutions both interpret and operate differently within a national context.

48 

J. K. Bamford

An example of the usage in France is that the term double diploma is common parlance for referring to the French institutions’ overseas activities. For example, for many French business schools, a double diploma can be achieved by their students with partner institutions through simple articulation agreements. This is the case in many French business schools and a cursory glance at their websites confirms this common usage. The French institution that was partnered for the international joint double degrees examined in this case listed some 40 double diploma opportunities with overseas partners. These double diplomas were not joint programmes of study as the curriculum was not agreed by both partners, with the opportunities primarily being offered as a study abroad opportunity. The study abroad students obtain a potential partners’ degree through the recognition and transfer of the home institutions’ equivalent European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits without any need for the development of a joint curriculum of study. The benefit is the increased international student mobility opportunities for the host institutions’ students. The effect of this is that students are sent to an overseas partner with which there is a recognised credit agreement between institutions and cohorts of students take one or two years of an established degree programme. The partners have a collaborative agreement which ensures that there is a matching of the degree credit on the partner’s courses, or for dedicated top-up one-year degrees at undergraduate level. Students will then return to their home institution to receive an award as well as qualifying for the partner institution’s award. Those students engaging in this collaborative articulated type of agreement achieve a double diploma. This is a very simple model for international higher education and extremely effective for the home institution and often financially lucrative for the partner institution as it is often not Erasmus based. UK institutions appear to have infrequently developed this form of outward student mobility. For the institutions involved in such arrangements, whilst some costs are incurred in terms of servicing the students and visits to partners, it does not involve the same commitment to collaboration as with the full international joint double award, nor indeed is there a need for transparency and awareness of teaching methods. In other words, a so-called double diploma may actually only involve a year-long study opportunity abroad rather than a full

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

49

collaboration of curriculum, with all that implies. The joint curriculum model necessarily presents more challenges and requires more transparency and communication between the institutions. Some further elaboration of the meaning is therefore necessary. Palermo et al. (2018) define an international dual award as: those TNE experiences where two (or more) HE institutions collaborate to offer to prospective students the participation in two separate programmes in different countries and the possibility to achieve two distinct award qualifications at an equivalent level upon completion. (2018: 47)

Palermo et al. (2018) expand on this succinct definition with the following clarification: IDD programmes differ from simple dual awards as in these a student can obtain two separate degrees in two distinct subjects within the same institution (Michael and Balraj 2003; Kuder and Obst 2009). IDD programmes also differ from joint degrees as in these two international institutions collaborate to share the delivery of one programme in a process of TNE and the student is awarded one single title upon completion. (2018: 47)

However, when compared with the collaborative articulation model above, this clarification has the potential for additional confusion and needs further discussion. The inclusion of a notion of separatedness of the programmes distinguishes the IDD from the international joint double degree programme as well as from the Erasmus Mundus model where one title is awarded, as suggested in the last sentence of the quote above. In addition, the linking with TNE might also present some confusion in understanding the form of delivery because of the associations with TNE of purely overseas delivery. Schule (2006) deals with the definition of joint and double degrees separately in as much as they are separate phenomena for him. He defines the terms in the following ways: Joint degree: a single diploma issued by two or more institutions offering an integrated study programme. The single diploma (bachelor, Master,

50 

J. K. Bamford

Doctor) is signed by the rectors of all participating universities and recognised as substitute of the national diplomas. [sic] Double degree: two nationally recognised diplomas issued separately by the universities involved in the integrated study programme. (2006: 3)

If a programme has an integrated programme of study, it is important to acknowledge the joint nature of the curricula as this will reflect on the experience of the modes of teaching (modus docendi) and the modes of learning (modus discendi), as discussed in Chap. 6. Schule (2006) makes the comment that the legal environment in Europe has prevented the truly joint degree programme, in the sense that one institution has to be responsible for the final award. This position appears to be strongly influenced by the Erasmus Mundus model. He therefore considers a full joint degree to be a form of programme operating outside national regulatory frameworks, since the latter govern the award of a Masters title. Schule’s view of an integrated curriculum is that students undertake modules in the host institution that are part of other existing courses. This was the case with the courses that students, who are the focus of this study, experienced: Palermo et al. (2018) appear to have employed a similar approach. This proves to be a challenge for the student experience and results in misaligned expectations to the extent that institutions embarking on such programmes of study need to be aware of the mismatch, as outlined by Palermo et al. (2018). Throughout much of his paper, Schule makes reference to joint double degrees (JDDs). Davies (2009) defines joint Masters as being ‘a Masters delivered by two or more HEIs awarding single or multiple diplomas’ (2009: 12). Although this latter definition is more accessible, Schule’s definition is more precise. For the purposes of this work, an international joint double degree is an international programme of study offering an integrated curriculum. It is delivered jointly in more than one institution and across national borders, awarding single or multiple diplomas. It is important to include the use of the word ‘international’ in the definition in recognition of the link with this type of educational programme as a driver of international higher education which, in turn, is inexorably linked to global flows in economies and communication.

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

51

 lobalisation in Relation to Student Mobility G and International Joint Double Degrees Increased international mobility might be seen as an inevitable side effect of increased trans-border information flows that result from global communication networks (Castells 2000). The plethora of literature on internationalisation evidences that the contemporary higher education environment has become focused on the ‘international’ dimension and part of this dimension is the increased mobility of students across borders. The European University Association’s (EUA’s) Trends 15 report confirms the continued growth in internationalisation strategies for higher education institutions and that joint programmes can be seen as a hallmark of European higher education and a way of capitalising on European culture, linguistic and academic diversity (Sursock 2015: 43). The Trends 15 findings show that institutions in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Turkey are most active in international joint programmes and that 70% of these courses are at Masters level. There are however different types of student mobility. The mobility of students across borders can be divided into two broad categories: those students who are mobile across borders as individuals and as a consequence of their own motivations for studying abroad and those students who are required to do so as part of their course or who are taking advantage of their institutions’ partnership arrangements. This study encompasses both types of student mobility. There is evidence that the influence of the European Union (EU) and Bologna Process (BP) is creating a climate for furthering internationalisation in higher education, with a particular emphasis on mobility. This influence cannot be underestimated. It links the two types of student mobility outlined above and is the driver for both. In highlighting the post-Bologna situation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), Dale (2010) reinforces the EU contribution to the harmonisation of higher education with its outward-looking positioning in educational terms under the auspices of Bologna and the EU in promoting a Europe of Knowledge to the rest of the world. Having witnessed the success of Bologna at policy level, countries outside the EHEA (e.g. the USA) have expressed an interest in Bologna (Dale

52 

J. K. Bamford

2010; Guttenplan 2011). The fact that countries outside the EU wish to engage in harmonising higher education underlines that Bologna implies more than regionalisation. Joint degree collaborations and student mobility are central to this. A press report in the New York Times (Guttenplan, 28 March 2011) illustrates that joint and dual degrees are of interest to institutions in the USA and more widely. For the EU the development of cultural fluencies is important to the development of future graduates’ skills for employment in a global job market and offers a motivating factor for students to engage in cross-border mobility. Papatsiba (2006) echoes this view of the Bologna Process as furthering internationalisation. She argues that it represents a paradigmatic shift of internationalisation policies in higher education and is a response by higher education to the requirements and challenges of ‘the globalisation of societies, economies and labour markets’ (2006: 96, citing Kalvemark and van der Wende). Altbach and Teichler (2001: 10) reinforce this perspective, commenting that ‘higher education is increasingly seen as a central element in the economic future’. The Lisbon Agenda’s call for a Europe of Knowledge (Dale 2010) and the promotion in Bologna have inexorably linked economic concepts to the higher education environment in all member states.

 he Importance of Mobility and Policy T Initiatives in International Higher Education As we have seen from the of the policy context in Chap. 1, the European Council of Ministers has promoted student mobility as part of the Bologna Process, with the Leuven Communiqué (2009) representing the entrenchment of facilitators for that mobility at institutional level. Altbach and Teichler (2001) comment: It is more and more difficult to coordinate policy and programs in a context of expanding initiatives from an increasing number of institutions. Yet, there has never been a time when coordination and research relating to exchange and internationalization are more important precisely because of

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

53

their importance and centrality to the higher education enterprise worldwide. (2001: 8)

Their call for research into mobility and exchanges is therefore entirely in keeping with this research project and provides a rationale for the project being carried out. The need for a focus on the experience of international joint double degrees is further supported by Knight’s (2006) findings. Her survey for UNESCO provides a statistical perspective of the internationalisation activities of higher education institutions around the world. The results from the survey show that 82% of the respondent institutions have an internationalisation policy in place: this represented a 19% increase on the 2003 survey. The findings identified that the top three common forms of institutional policy were outgoing mobility opportunities for students, international institutional agreements and international research collaborations. The outgoing mobility opportunities were ranked as the number one growth area for European higher education institutions (HEIs). Again, this is relevant to the present research. Knight (2006) comments: It is interesting to see that double degree programs seem to be the most promising new form of collaboration and are even ranked higher than visiting scholars and recruitment of non-fee paying international students. (2006: 126)

The perception is that student mobility is currently the most popular and well-supported internationalisation activity for higher education institutions. Davies (2009), in a comprehensive survey on Masters programmes in the European Higher Education Area, argues that institutions are most likely to target the second cycle (of Masters-level courses) for joint degree collaborations. This underlines the importance of this research in its examination of the student experience of international joint double degree programmes.

54 

J. K. Bamford

 he Success of Student Mobility T Under Bologna Despite its regional reach, the European Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)1 (and the EHEA) is aimed at the encouragement of a globally mobile workforce or, at least, a mobile workforce within the EU. The Trends V (Crosier et al. 2007) report provides some useful statistical analysis of the success of mobility initiatives together with recommendations for future action within the EU. This includes the development of more joint postgraduate programmes that will encourage student mobility. The Trends discussion also underlines the rationale for research on the experience of such programmes. Sursock and Smidt’s (2010) report presents a picture of the achievement of the Bologna action lines and the harmonisation activities within the EHEA. However, one might observe that the language and claims of the Trends reports, couched as they are in the successes and achievements of the BP, require further consideration, particularly at the experience level. The evidence points to a need to understand more about the experience and value of student mobility. The growth in international joint double degrees can be viewed as inextricably linked to the BP, as they would be difficult to manage without the alignment of credits for which BP is responsible. In contrast to the positive view presented by the Trends reports, for example, Papatsiba (2006) writes that although the BP policy discourse suggests a convergence, this does not appear in practice. Recent research points towards transparency as opposed to the harmonisation of educational structures, although transparency is an important development. Certainly, transparency is imperative for the experience of international joint double degrees. We can observe that a comparison of education systems reveals differences between educational systems. Although Bologna has attempted to harmonise those systems, there has been no real convergence (Papatsiba 2006) across national boundaries. This is particularly true in the case of the UK which has maintained a ‘three plus one’ structure compared to a ‘three plus two’ structure for Bachelors and  The LLP is the EU Lifelong Learning Programme and Erasmus mobility falls within this programme. 1

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

55

Masters. There are also differences in France and Germany with their ‘three plus two model’. And in Holland there is a model of 240 ECTS for a Bachelors and only 60 ECTS for a Masters, thus demonstrating yet another variation. One must also not forget that the difficulties are more far-reaching than simply norms of behaviour and cultural practice. For example, another issue is the place of higher education in the legal framework of the EU, as Dale (2010) highlights. The field of education is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, and deference has to be made to national frameworks of operation. The British legal framework is very different to that of continental Europe; thus an example of the complexities involved for the harmonisation process is offered by the UK approach to Bologna and the interpretation on credit transfer. It is acknowledged that there is a need for more transparency as promoted by Altbach and Teichler (2001) in their call for the ethical dimensions of international education to be given more consideration. The focus on the experiences of students facilitates an understanding of the need for a more transparent educational process; the recognition of their voice, together with a consideration of international education through a construct of mutuality, allows for an ethical perspective to be given further attention.

International Joint Double Degree Programmes and the Policy Context An underpinning concept for both the development and promulgation of international joint double degrees from the European perspective is the development of a Europe of Knowledge. International joint double degrees represent the call by the EU for higher education institutions in Europe to create opportunities for students’ mobility which would help to reinforce a sense of European identity and citizenship. Dale (2010) offers us some insight into the development of a Europe of Knowledge. This mobility drive is evidenced in policy documents such as the Prague and Berlin Communiqués, 2000 and 2003, respectively, as well as

56 

J. K. Bamford

through EU initiatives such as Erasmus Mundus which have influenced higher education institutions’ international activities. The continuing importance of the policy agenda and institutional engagement with this agenda within the European Higher Education Area is further evidenced in the Leuven Communiqué (2009). Leuven set a target of mobility of 20% of graduates within Europe by 2020 (the 20/20 target). It required that institutions establish partners in another country within the European Higher Education Area in order to facilitate the mobility of higher education students. One way to achieve this was through the establishment of international joint double degrees with a partner institution. However, this may be considered to be one of the most ambitious modes of collaboration because of the expectations of a ‘joint’ curriculum delivered across institutions and across national borders. The implementation and discussion of this policy is evidenced by the Trends reports, commissioned by the European University Association. Crosier et  al. (2007) in Trends V indicated that many institutions in Europe have experimented with the development of joint programmes or that they were still intending to do so. They found that the majority of joint programmes were in the second cycle (i.e. Masters level). Their report underlines the importance of joint degrees for the Bologna Process and the need for the analysis of the joint degree experience at Masters level. Crosier et al. state that: At this stage, it would seem reasonable to suggest that joint programmes are playing a significant role in constructing the European Higher Education Area, by giving institutions opportunities to work together and learn from each other. (Crosier et al. 2007: 31)

With the launch of the EHEA in 2010 and the recognition of internationalisation as an important driver of change in the context of the Bologna Process, Sursock and Smidt (Trends 2010) comment that joint degree programmes can be seen as encouraging inter-university collaborations. Reports produced by the Institute of International Education (2011) on joint double degree programmes, together with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB 2011) on

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

57

internationalisation, highlight the importance of such programmes as a focus for future institutional international approaches to student education. From a UK perspective, Sweeney (2010: 11) refers to the need to develop a ‘culture of mobility’, which arises as a consequence of the BP. He states that this mobility culture should encompass the setting up of joint degrees with partner institutions outside the UK. Furthermore, a flexible and innovative approach to the curriculum is required when considering the need for the development of opportunities for mobility. It is certainly the case that curriculum development which relies not just on cross-institutional collaboration but also cross-country collaboration is underscored by the need for both innovation and flexibility at both an institutional and individual level.

 he Current Environment for International T Joint Double Degrees The focus for much of the curriculum collaboration between institutions in Europe seems to be at the postgraduate rather than the undergraduate or doctoral levels. This is highlighted by the Bologna Trends reports and an AACSB (2011) report. Davies’ (2009) findings on Masters programmes in Europe chime with these findings that joint programmes of study are more likely to be offered at Masters level and are likely to grow in popularity because of the demands of the market. His findings indicate that a large majority of higher education institutions surveyed were planning to develop more joint degrees. This is also noted in the AACSB (2011) report. Palermo et al. (2018) note that this anticipated growth has yet to be achieved. The drivers for institutions engaging in this type of activity appear to be largely centred around globalising initiatives but there is some indication of variations in primary drivers. Schule (2006) acknowledges that certain types of institution in Europe, such as the Instituts Superieurs de Commerce—also known as Grandes Écoles (Blanchard 2009)—have used double degrees in order to increase their competitiveness (2006: 4). Schule states that institutional profiles need to be given careful

58 

J. K. Bamford

consideration since, for example, the differences between a professional and a theoretical approach to education could prove significant. The competitive, branding and market environments when these international joint Masters were developed, by schools of business in France, were quite different to the UK environment for post-92 institutions. At the start of the collaboration, the differences were acknowledged by the partners: they were considered to be a strength, offering each institution the potential to benefit from attributes that they could not offer, such as location (Forte and Bamford 2008). One of the key areas of concern for the suite of programmes that were the focus for the research was the application of ECTS credits, established by the Bologna Process. An example of this challenge is the possible difficulty in measuring and equating credits for differing workloads in institutions. This concern, which was a constant consideration, arose during the original negotiations but also during the formal quality approval of the courses and seemingly during the administration of the courses. Schule states that the issue of equating credits can become a ‘major obstacle to international mobility unless the participating universities show a flexibility not built into the ECTS system’ (2006: 28). Whilst acknowledging that joint Masters are not problem-free, Davies (2009) observes that national frameworks compound the challenges in regard to a lack of clarity of information and clear understanding of the challenges, together with the difficulties posed by variable entry points, credit weighting, workloads and learning outcomes. This can result in ‘ad hoc compromise and approximation’ (2009: 54). One of the challenges witnessed and referred to by interviewees was in relation to ECTS credits and the differences in achievement expectations at each institution. For the programmes in this study, there were a different number of subjects being (offered?) studied at each institution, and there was an apparent difficulty in the translation of grades from one system to another. In London assessments were marked out of 100 and in France they were awarded marks out of 20. On the surface this does not seem problematic but it became apparent that very few of the students achieved an overall Distinction from the London institution—for example, over three courses in one year, only three students achieved an overall Distinction in their Masters from a sample of 98 students. The evidence

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

59

suggests that students did not receive a Distinction for a 15/20 grading and yet this is equivalent to 75% in the UK, where 70% would receive a Distinction classification. The aggregation of grades across a number of modules between the two institutions meant that students simply did not achieve the higher band of grades. The institutions thus had to renegotiate grade equivalences as more flexibility between the two institutions was required in the translation and of their marking standards. This seems to evidence the approximations referred to by Davies (2009). It reinforces the need for a careful consideration of the difficulties in working across national education systems as there is an impact on the student experience. Both institutions learnt the importance of the need for transparency. These differences and difficulties were commented on by tutors in interviews as a frustrating aspect of the programmes and were a source of continual compromise. In terms of the future it is natural to assume that the British withdrawal from the European Union (i.e. Brexit) may have an impact on the development of international joint double degrees with European partners. However, the UK will continue to be a signatory to Bologna so the credit structures that facilitate the development of such programmes of study will remain unaffected. Potentially, Brexit could see an increase in the development of such programmes within UK institutions seeking to maintain their European links and remain competitive. The current COVID-19 crisis is also likely to impact on the international higher education landscape, again potentially increasing the demand for such programmes of study where the need for physical mobility has been reduced following the development and reliance on online delivery by education institutions across the globe.

The Quality Assurance Position Quality assurance—both in terms of planning and in terms of the delivery of the programmes—is raised by Culver et al. (2013) and Palermo et al. (2018) as a challenging aspect of international joint double degrees for the participating institutions. There are two focal points for the quality assurance discussion: the first being the operational challenges of

60 

J. K. Bamford

integrating quality assurance across transnational borders and the second being a more philosophical challenge. This latter aspect of quality assurance is commented on by Schule (2006) with regard to the issue of two awards being given for one programme of study. He cites the Coimbra Group’s2 position of concern at not being able ‘to catch two fishes with one hook’. There is certainly a question of ethics to consider with regard to the issue of an award of two Masters diplomas for the same work. However, this conflicts somewhat with how such courses are situated within the ‘market’ where the promotion of such courses relies on the possibility of students gaining a double diploma. Observation of both institutions’ marketing activity demonstrated that emphasis was placed on this achievement and thus it became a marketing tool. This raises a question with regard to the demand of the market taking precedence over ethical concerns in this sort of collaborative activity. Certainly, this particular aspect of such programmes of study raises questions with regard to issues of quality which may ultimately undermine the credibility of the joint double Masters awards. Schule’s (2006) solution to the problem of the possibility of a wilful misrepresentation on the part of students with regard to their qualifications is that the diploma and diploma supplement should clearly state that the award is part of a double diploma. The responsibility for ensuring quality as far as UK institutions are concerned is expressed by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)3 in their Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision: Degree awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities, irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than the degree awarding body are implemented securely and managed effectively. (QAA Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision 2018: 9)

The current QAA Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision (2018) appears somewhat more flexible than previous Codes in that specific  A network of 40 European universities formed in 1985 consisting of some of the most prestigious and oldest universities in Europe. 3  British national higher education quality awarding body. 2

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

61

reference is made to joint degrees. The focus for concern is that institutions should recognise and manage the risks for the learners. This presents some synergy with the approach of the Bologna Follow-Up Group. The focus for delivery is placed firmly on the learners’ experience and this has now been reinforced and strengthened through the Paris Communiqué (2018). The weight of this responsibility for institutions is outlined in this excerpt from a QAA Institutional Audit Report: The Code is based on the key principle that collaborative arrangements, whenever and however organised, should widen learning opportunities without prejudice either to the standard of the award or qualification or the quality of what is offered to the student. Further, the arrangements for assuring the quality and standards should be as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for programmes provided wholly within the responsibility of a single institution. This remains the case even when the partner organisation is itself also an Awarding Institution, as with joint or dual awards. (1999: paragraph 7, 1999 QAA Code of Practice: cited in the QAA (2008: 4) Outcomes from Institutional Audit Report)

The tone of this 2008 report is explicit in expressing concern with regard to learners in collaborative partnerships and the need to ensure that quality standards are open to scrutiny. It is interesting to note that as far as the UK is concerned, the onus for the responsibility of quality assurance always remains with the UK institution. Any reliance on a partner’s quality processes and reputation appears to be insufficient from the perspective of managing quality assurance, and due diligence is required when learning opportunities are offered in another institution (QAA 2018: 19). The Trends 15 report acknowledges joint degrees have presented a challenge for QA agencies and that joint programmes can be subject to multiple QA procedures that perhaps fail to capture their ‘jointness’ and essence (2015: 45). One approach to this problem is to seek to work with a European Quality Assurance Register–listed (ENQA-­ listed) agency and approach the work on the basis of a commitment to agreed guidelines. With regard to the joint curriculum aspect to joint degrees, the QAA’s position appears to place further burden on UK institutions’ ability to

62 

J. K. Bamford

accredit work done by students in an overseas partner institution without moderation of that work by the UK institution. An example of this can be seen in a QAA collaborative links report (QAA 2006) on one UK institution which failed to demonstrate that the quality concerns of the QAA had been met with regard to its postgraduate double Masters activity with a French partner. The partnership audit report demonstrates that onus for quality assurance for international joint programmes lies with the UK institution rather than the overseas partner as far as the UK Quality Assurance Agency is concerned. The report outlines that crediting work undertaken in another institution, namely, the Masters dissertation, did not meet the expected transparency and quality assurance standards. The ownership of the dissertation appeared to be as an important aspect of maintaining the standards expected of postgraduate higher education in the UK.  This appears to place an additional burden on UK institutions and it presents a potential further hurdle for the development of such programmes of study. The report goes further in underlining the importance of UK quality assurance. The report concluded: … in allowing the partners of dual awards to be considered as “equal partners”, taking full responsibility for assessment and the confirmation of marks but not requiring the independent scrutiny of student work, the University is failing to ensure the proper oversight of the standards of its awards. Accordingly it is essential for the University to assure the standards of all its awards in collaborative provision, with particular reference to external examiners’ oversight of dual award programmes. (QAA 2006: 27, paragraph 105)

The tone of this excerpt illustrates and reinforces the theme of transparency and effective management of collaborative partnerships and that the monitoring of academic standards for British degrees must be maintained by British higher education institutions. It underlines the need for British institutions to continue to monitor standards with an emphasis on the necessity to consider the quality of the student experience at the partner:

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

63

Validation is for a specified time period of up to five years, followed by revalidation, which concentrates on the programme, not the partnership as a whole. The partnership is not, therefore, routinely subject to further scrutiny, and revalidation gives little explicit consideration to its developing nature or to partner institutions’ continuing suitability to deliver University programmes other than in a commercial sense. Given both the lack of formal risk assessment procedures at approval and the limitations of partner evaluation at revalidation, it is considered advisable for the University to implement such procedures at approval and revalidation as are necessary to ensure partner institutions’ initial and continuing capacity to maintain the quality of the student experience and appropriate academic standards. (QAA 2006: 25)

It is clear from the wording above that reliance on the Bologna-­ implemented ECTS credit scheme is potentially insufficient to meet the QAA criteria and, from a UK perspective, UK external examiners need to confirm that the standards of marking required of UK postgraduate education are being met. The tone of the report is reflected by Culver et al.’s (2013) conclusions on the difficulties in achieving quality assurance in multi-country degree programmes. Whilst Beerkens’ (2004) work aids in understanding the nature of collaborative networks of higher education institutions, the view that these networks have become so important that the nation-state is losing its grip on higher education institutions and that international benchmarks are necessary (2004: 19) has not yet been realised. The discussion above reflects the continued importance of nation-state frameworks for higher education. These rarely allow for only one diploma to be awarded jointly from different institutions. Schule (2006) and Guruz (2011) both comment on the difficulties with regard to this despite the introduction of the ENQR in 2008. The Trends 2015 report identifies that the top-rated response on a question with regard to what the somewhat challenging aspects of joint programmes are for institutions is the integration of programmes into the institution. Legislative constraints are listed as ninth from ten possible constraints so they appear to not have been a high priority. This supports the growth in the international joint double degrees as opposed to awards which seek to offer one joint diploma. Knight (2013) comments on legal and administration

64 

J. K. Bamford

barriers as likely to have made international joint double degrees more popular. So important is this aspect of these types of programmes that Palermo et al. (2018) discuss the need for a strategic position. The need to evaluate the quality processes as part of the framework for development and implementation of international joint double degrees is a key part of the WHEEL (Weigh the Partnership, Heed Practices and Customs, Evaluate Quality Assurance Processes, Establish Completion Requirements, Lay Down the Programme Management Plan) framework developed by Palermo et al. (2018).

 he Need for Compatibility Between T the Institutions For an international joint double degree experience to be successful, there is a need for a strong level of cooperation between partner institutions. Thus some assessment at the start of the collaboration on the compatibility of partners is required. This should be considered in terms of both individual relationships, which might be likened to a marriage (Forte and Bamford 2008) with ups and downs, miscommunications and incidents as well as successes, and the need for compatibility between partners being a priority. The success of the partnership will depend on the strength of the relationship between individuals in the institutions involved in order to ensure the sustainability of the programme and the partnership. The way in which the institutions interact with each other is important in order to ensure a holistic international higher education experience for the participating students. The dimensions of difference in international higher education, highlighted in Chap. 1, have the potential for enhancing the experience and producing additional educational benefits. However, care needs to be taken with regard to the communication between the institutions, the transition of students and staff, the provision of support to aid in negotiating the different modus docendi (mode of teaching) of each institution and the cultural encounters that are part of the experience. Palermo et al. (2018) have commented in detail on the need for compatibility between the institutions and have proposed a

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

65

model for institutions that are considering embarking on such programmes to follow. Their model is based on an analysis of staff involved in the delivery of such programmes. What is clear as being fundamental to the success of transnational integrated programmes of study is the need to maintain strong communication between the institutions and a suitable transparent support network. Beerkens (2004) underlines the importance of the compatibility of the higher education institutions involved in a collaboration, to the extent that it is a precondition for the collaboration to succeed. With reference to the partnership relationship between institutions, a course leader made the following comments on the way in which the two institutions engaged in the collaboration: A clear lead from the top has encouraged the development of the relationship. The lead is based on a personal friendship but also a recognition of the financial imperatives which characterise any joint initiative. Each director has helped the relationship by appointing a liaison person at each institution and although the personalities may have changed in the course of institutional reorganisation, the recognition of the value of the relationship remains as strong as ever. (Course leader, France)

The second excerpt from the same interview offers another example of the importance of the role of institutional liaison. Hence the importance of the role of institutional liaison. I have described this role as the “catalytic converter” in the relationship as problems can occur in other parts of the relationship which have to be resolved post hoc. It is also becoming clear that the role has an internal development dimension—explaining why and how the relationship adds to the strength of both institutions. The education is delivered according to the rules determined by the host institution and mutual standards are accepted. (Course leader, France)

The QAA places a strong emphasis on the importance of the liaison tutor in ensuring the quality and equivalence of experience in educational terms of each institution. What is interesting to note here is the importance given to the ‘financial imperatives’ in the comments, thus

66 

J. K. Bamford

tending to confirm—albeit maybe only from the French perspective— the link to financial drivers for institutions engaging in international education. The QAA Code of Practice (2004: 11, paragraph A6) warns institutions against financial or other temptations that may compromise standards. In the quote from the course leader above, the financial basis for the relationship is underlined by the use of the words ‘financial imperative but reinforced with the use of the word ‘value’. Beerkens’ (2004) identification of the need for ‘chemistry’ between the actors would appear to be reflected in both the tone and the words of this interview and also in comments made by other staff. The cultural differences between each institution were observed on a number of levels and led to cultural learning at both institutions.

 he Institutional Rationale for Embarking T on International Joint Double Degrees As Beerkens (2004: 2) succinctly underlines, universities are currently bound in their behaviour by their national limitations. Palermo et  al. (2018) also acknowledge the challenges for institutions and participants involved in international higher education. The interviews that were carried out with practitioners and managerial, teaching and administrative staff from both institutions underlined these challenges and reinforced the need for planning, mapping and continual communication across all levels of operations. Kuder et al. (2013), Knight (2013) and Palermo et  al. (2018) all acknowledge that institutions engage in this type of internationalisation activity for a number of reasons ranging from financial to internationalising the curriculum or—for Erasmus Mundus programmes which are not the focus of this work—in order to promote a Europe of Knowledge. Both the French institution in the case study and many of the highranking Grandes Écoles have sought accreditation from the American AACSB and European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) in order to market themselves internationally. According to AACSB, seeking accreditation has a direct relationship with internationalisation activity,

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

67

and the engagement in delivery of an international joint double degree can also be seen to be part of this differentiation and market positioning for institutions. The position of AACSB and the branding of higher education institutions are considered in more detail in the next chapter. The course leader from the French institution expressed the following views on international benchmarking with regard to both institutions: The French institution is in the process of positioning itself as a quality destination for students in its national market using international accreditations (AACSB, EQUIS). Depending on various French student publication surveys the school appears between 11th and 18th position amongst the Grandes Écoles of which there are 39. Last year it appeared in the top 40 European management programmes in the FT classification. The London institution has a different profile and is considering accreditation with AMBA. It boasts a maximum rating of 244 in teaching quality excellence… (Course leader, France)

These comments in relation to international branding display that both league position and global branding were important to the French institution and that they expected their partners to reflect similar ambitions. The interview with the dean of the London institution also demonstrated the important role of the accrediting bodies on the operations of both institutions whilst acknowledging that the approach of the French had influenced his thinking in this area. The motivational aspirations of the French school in offering international joint double degree programmes were echoed in the staff responses at the London institution. A number of the staff made reference to the internationalisation motivation as identified in the Trends reports (Culver et al. 2007; Sursock and Smidt 2010). However, the globalising influence of such programmes seemed to dominate their strategic thinking. This is illustrated in the response to a question to the decision maker at the London institution: The French School is a business school of some standing in the European scene, and it has to be said that their reputation was significant in my  The 24 is a reference to the 24/24 the London institution received from the QAA.

4

68 

J. K. Bamford

­ ecision to progress this relationship. That being said, its genesis I think d relates to the fact that I take the view that in the world in which we’re currently living, globalisation being the way that you might describe that world, it’s extremely important that students get exposed to alternative ways of looking at business and management practice. So the idea of a collaboration with the French School in the course area was attractive to me because I think it allowed those students to have that exposure to ways of looking at business and management practice. So I think that was the primary motivation for the collaboration, and we’ve attempted to develop similar models with other institutions in different parts of the world. (Manager in the London institution)

If we compare this response to that given by the French course leader, we can see issue of finance (funding?) is not given the same emphasis, perhaps reflecting the private funding model for the French Grandes Écoles. These elite schools charge in the region of 8000–16,000 euros per year as opposed to a similar cost for the whole course in the UK. The difference in these financial arrangements and costs (?) and the student profile were justified in the interviews in terms of the need for flexibility for change that the London institution had to show in order to continue with the partnership. The following comments illustrate this point: In terms of the financial arrangements, for example, it became clear to me quite early on that the students that they were recruiting to the programme were different to the students that we were recruiting. They typically looked to recruit internally within the French school and the students that they recruit therefore bring less money to the pot than is the case for the students that we recruit who typically are international full cost students. And so we’ve had to be aware of the fact that it could look from their perspective as though we’re the people earning all the money and they’re the people doing all the work. So that’s a sensitivity and that’s had to be reflected in the financial arrangements. I think we’ve also learnt quite a lot about the differing approach they have to validation. They tend to be very focussed on a title and once that title has been agreed, what the professors get up to within the programme is rather more down to the professors than would be the case here where we have to go through a validation that specifies learning outcomes for the modules, for the course. And we have to deliver

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

69

on those, so there is a very different approach to validation which is interesting. (Senior manager in London)

A number of aspects to this excerpt are interesting, the first being the misunderstanding displayed in the excerpt that the French students pay a total amount for the whole course rather than a fixed fee each year, the former being the approach in the UK. There is a cultural difference that this manager has not reflected on. He has also misunderstood the amount of fees paid by the French students. The second striking aspect is the comment regarding the quality procedures and the admission that they (i.e. the French) may be doing all the work in terms of the contact hours and modules that are delivered in France. This discussion of the numbers of hours in a class (module?) is a theme that arose in the interviews with the students and is discussed in detail in Chap. 6. The number of hours was clearly a difference in the teaching and learning approach of the institutions which, for the English management, raised some financial concerns as, on the surface, the French appeared to offer more class contact time. There is also the issue of measurement of achievement. In the UK this is measured through meeting the learning outcomes, whereas the French institution had no such measure. It is more familiar to UK pedagogy parlance. This learning outcome parlance was referred to by other French staff as a difference which was difficult to overcome. The interview data from the staff at the French institution illustrated a difference in approach to international collaboration and to international activity in general, as well as to the administration and promotion of such programmes and the motivational aspects of engaging in such activity. So I think it is a good idea to have a joint degree, a double degree programme, because I want to send the students abroad because I want them to realise how we have to learn and they have to know how to be independent, which is not the case in France… (Course leader in France and tutor at other GEs)

There was a clear desire to provide the opportunity for engagement with ‘others’, as well as a reflection that the Grande École system does not allow for the development of independent learning. When asked about

70 

J. K. Bamford

their students’ views on difference, French tutors responded that there is a negative attitude amongst French students to different pedagogies and that an experience of an ‘independent study pedagogy’ would be beneficial to them. A comment from an international director at a French school illustrates the different approach with regard to teaching and learning and most specifically of learning outcomes: …the profs are the doyens, the knowledge base, espousing their own research and their own professional experiences to the students …And so the idea that you will have checks and balances in a curriculum that ascertains whether the learning outcomes have been met doesn’t exist. (International director of French GE)

The point about learning outcomes is important as it illustrates a fundamental difference in approach compared to British universities. Whilst the ENQR requires that institutions in Europe now frame their courses in a learning outcomes format, this comment underlines that there is a different approach within French institutions which creates a challenge. It is clear from the QAA report that the status (interpreted here to mean league table positioning) of an institution does not circumvent the requirement of UK quality processes. This quality assurance requirement reinforces the need for UK institutions to strictly adhere to the UK quality procedures, and it does not facilitate differences in approach to pedagogy, the curriculum and assessment. The Bologna position is one of harmonisation and therefore it does not aid with navigating difference. It therefore provides institutions with little guidance on how to address issues of difference. The comments made with regard to learning outcomes above are just one example of the differences which directly affect students and how they negotiate with the institutions.

Institutional Culture When asked about the different cultures of each institution, a manager in the London institution made the following comments:

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

71

(Laughing) I don’t know whether culture has much to do with it. I think that reputation has something to do with it and I think that finances have something to do with it. I’ve already mentioned that we’ve had to modify our thinking on the financial side to reflect the financial realities as they impact on the French School. I think the French School are [sic] collaborating with us, largely because of our position or our location. They want to offer their students a London experience and that they think is attractive to those students. We want to offer an experience to our students which is international, perhaps rural France wouldn’t be the obvious location. But what we’re offering them is an experience of a business school which is accredited by EQUIS and by AACSB which has some cachet and some value to our students, I think. (Manager at the London institution)

The interesting aspect of this interview excerpt is the interviewee’s laughter in relation to the mention of culture, perhaps demonstrating that the issue of cultural interactions had not featured in the internationalisation strategy of the London institution despite the recognition of cultural difference between the British and the French at other times during the interview. In addition, the word ‘value’ at the end of the quote is used with regard to branding by international bodies which does not address the student experience. The importance of the location of London is also underlined here which is seen as balanced against the benefits of elite branding. Some French staff’s response on the issues of culture was that the cultural difference between the institutions had an impact on students in terms of the rules and norms of behaviour. Much of this difference in their view was related to the fact that the cohort of students in France recruited to the dual awards came from the ESC5 programme and that MSc programme resided administratively under the ESC structure. This was despite its international students who were recruited by the London institution, underlining that the joint programme was integrated into an existing programme in France. The difference in the French students’ background and approach to their studies was a factor in some of the  The École Superieure de Commerce (ESC) programme is normally three years following two years of classes préparatoire after the Baccalaureate. It is the main programme of study offered in all Grandes Écoles that are members of the Chapitre des Grandes Écoles. 5

72 

J. K. Bamford

administrative difficulties as students from France came from an integrated programme of study, whereas students joining in London were new to the course. When specifically asked about the cultural differences between the institutions, the following response was elicited from one of the course leaders in France: It would appear the university treats the business school as ‘another partner’: in some instances with little difference from a franchise college. My institution probably sees itself as ‘privileged’ and certainly an (?) equal partner for two reasons: the course has been very successful financially and the business school has invested heavily in raising its profile nationally and internationally. (Course leader, France)

Here a clear acknowledgement is made of the difference between the two institutions which creates a gap that needs to be bridged. There appears to be a criticism of the London institution’s approach, which again underlines the need for clear channels of communication and the development of transparency as referred to by Davies (2009). The comments also underline the difference in approach to the administration of the course at each institution. These differences in administrative approach require clear communication between partners in order to ensure the sustainability of international joint double degree programmes.

 he Experience of Mobility in International T Higher Education As discussed in Chap. 1, the issue of mobility is at the heart of the European agenda and is integral to the experience of international higher education. Whatever the form of the mobility, the engagement in the activity of country mobility means all students participating in such activity are international students. The discourse on student mobility can be divided into two broad categories: firstly, mobility relating to notions of internationalisation in terms of higher education institutions recruiting international students who come to the UK, for example, for their

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

73

higher education, and secondly, mobility relating to study abroad sojourns taken within the context of the home institution programme of study. It is not necessarily the case, however, that these categories present different issues for the student experience: an analysis of the literature demonstrates that international mobility raises broadly the same issues regardless of the type of that mobility. A more pertinent question is perhaps the student’s length of stay as that has implications for transition and adjustment. A shorter stay will leave less time for an acculturation process (Berry and Sam 1997) to take place. The importance of acculturation for students in higher education is made reference to by Borg et al. (2010) in relation to international PhD students. O’Neill and Cullingford (2005) argue that the experience of overseas study promotes introspection. Time spent abroad can become a rite of passage so a personal reappraisal becomes central to the individual: the personal stress of such an experience that may be encountered can lead to positive outcomes such as greater self-knowledge. They state that ‘the crucial experience of being overseas is not cultural accretion but cultural self-knowledge’ (2005: 122). This link between mobility, reflection and self-knowledge was explored in the data. The focus on reflection and self-knowledge can be seen as fundamental to the higher education process and is echoed in Barnett and Coate’s (2005) work in their analysis of the key elements of the higher education curriculum. Reflection and self-knowledge are linked with cultural awareness and identity together with the ability to develop intercultural awareness as a consequence of the learning process in international higher education, thus giving the learning a heuristic aspect. The change of emphasis to education, being seen as learning awareness and communication with others, can be seen as the sort of shift in knowledge production in higher education to which Barnett and Di Napoli (2008) make reference. It incorporates a change in identity as part of the learning process. An example of the experiential importance of mobility is offered by Jones’ (2005) discussion on learning from mobility. Her findings, and in particular the comments made by her students on overseas mobility with regard to ‘broadening of horizons’, are especially important as they offer a frame for the analysis of the learning that takes place from an experiential perspective. She argues strongly in favour of the benefits of the

74 

J. K. Bamford

experiential learning that students acquire from overseas mobility, for example, the ‘development of an awareness of difference and the encounter with/experience of being the “other”’ (Jones 2005: 72). These acknowledged benefits of mobility offer a different perspective to those who argue that the financial imperatives are at the root of internationalisation activity.

Enriching the Student Experience The notion of enrichment for both staff and students helps us to present a context of mutuality between the student experience of joint programmes of study and institutions’ development of such programmes. It differs from the policy position where the tone is one of presumption with regard to both the importance and benefits of such programmes. This presumption is promulgated in policy documents such as the Leuven Communiqué (2009) in its call for higher education institutions to provide backing and support for mobility in the EHEA and the demands for the development of innovative curricula to respond to those calls for mobility; therefore, some reflection on the context for such curriculum development is appropriate. The curriculum cannot be considered in isolation: it is informed by the student experience as well as the student experience being informed by the international joint double degree curriculum. Thus, a notion of mutuality allows us to explore in greater depth what international higher education is and the implications of the promotion of a ‘culture of mobility’ through initiatives such as international joint double degrees. The link between the individualism of the experience and the universalism displayed in the policy context is achieved here through the vehicle of culture, in this context of mutuality, which bridges the economic, social, religious and political fields for individuals and is not necessarily bound by national parameters. The international joint double degree presents an opportunity to develop the interconnectedness that the policy makers perhaps had in mind and to develop an ‘ingroup’ mentality through the cultural encounters offered in the international classroom. The experience therefore allows us to develop some of the coherence from the multiplicity of conflicting narratives and practices

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

75

that Benhabib (2002) refers to, where we can be ‘attentive to the positioning and repositioning of the other and the self, of “us” and “them” in this complex dialogue’ (Benhabib 2002: 41). This leads us to the notion of an experiential approach as an aspect of the learning in higher education. As Triandis (2018) acknowledges, culture can be a layered prospect and is not necessarily bound by country identity—the international joint double degree presents an opportunity for a cultural ingroup through participation in the joint degree programme. As a consequence, it is important to consider the students’ being in higher education, as argued by Barnett and Coate (2005) and Barnett and Di Napoli (2008), as part of a more contemporary approach to curriculum development and identity in higher education. The arguments put forward here place an emphasis on being in higher education due to the emphasis on the students’ relationship with each other as being at the heart of the learning process in international higher education. To reinforce the importance of this, Barnett and Coate (2005) comment: …as we have seen and as employers are increasingly noting, a changing world calls for certain kinds of human capacity and dispositions and for self-awareness and self-confidence. The self is implicated in a changing world. No longer can the wider norms and practices be endorsed: individuals have to work things out for themselves in their own situations. Individuals have to become selves, strong, open, resilient and critical selves. (Barnett and Coate 2005: 48)

Notions of students’ being in higher education are also alluded to by Montgomery (2010) in her discourse on understanding the international student experience of UK higher education. When we bring these ideas of being in international higher education to the fore, they underline how the development of an understanding of the student experience is inextricably linked to the policy context which has been promoted as a consequence of the Bologna Process.

76 

J. K. Bamford

Concluding Comments The discussion in this chapter has attempted to explore the context within which international joint double degrees are offered with particular focus being given to the international landscape and institutional approaches to develop such programmes of study. The rewards, challenges and benefits for higher education institutions considering embarking on collaborations to develop such programmes of study have been given some attention and the concept of their educational value is given more attention in the next chapter. The claims made by the AACSB that joint degrees appear to represent the future for international higher education activity emphasise the importance of understanding the challenges that such programmes create as well as the potential benefits. Whilst the programmes extant in this work are focused on the delivery of business education, it remains the case that the discussion of the international landscape for institutions is relevant for all. The contextualisation presented through the themes explored in this chapter allows the reader to understand the ways in which these themes are echoed in the individuals’ experience of participation in such programmes of study. The themes explored in this chapter therefore reflect the key priorities for institutions in ensuring that full consideration is given to aspects of the partnerships that will impact on the student experience of the programmes. The importance for transparency underlines all of these considerations as well as the need for an ethical context to the delivery of international higher education which requires further consideration both from institutions and from policy makers. There is certainly a tension with regard to the pull of market forces in the international higher education environment, and from a UK perspective, the warnings from the QAA with regard to the temptations of financial benefits need to be heeded. In this case it seems that financial benefits provided an incentive for the institutions to develop the international joint double degrees and thus appear to be an important driver in the development of such programmes. The continued marketisation of higher education, the increased use of technology and the influence of Erasmus Mundus and EU policy and bodies such as AACSB will inevitably result in a rise in these types of

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

77

programmes where the education experience is a shared process between one or more higher education institutions and the students. If these courses are to be educationally useful, more work will need to be done to ensure greater integration in the design and delivery of the courses.

Bibliography AACSB. (2011). Globalization of Management Education: Changing International Structures, Adaptive Strategies and the Impact on Institutions. Bingley, UK: AACSB International. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Bamford, J., Djebbour, D., & Pollard, L. (2014). Does Subject Matter, Matter? A Comparison of Student Engagement in Culturally Diverse Classrooms in Urban, Cosmopolitan Higher Education Institutions in the UK. Investigations in University Learning and Teaching, 9, 26–35. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education. Barnett, R., & Di Napoli, R. (Eds.). (2008). Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives. London: Routledge. Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (2004). Global Opportunities and Institutional Embeddedness: Higher Education Consortia in Europe and South East Asia. CHEPS/ UT. [Online]. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.utwente.nl/chepsdocumenten/thesisbeerkins.pdf. Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and Adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 3, Social Behavior and Applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Borg, M., Maunder, R., Xiaoli, J., Walsh, E., Fry, H., & Di Napoli, R. (2010). International Students and Academic Acculturation: The Role of Relationships in the Doctoral Process. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

78 

J. K. Bamford

Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Vol. I, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher and Education. (2009). Leuven Communiqué, The Bologna Process 2020  – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade Joint Declaration of the European Ministers. [Online]. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.ond. vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_ Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher and Education, Paris Communiqué. (2018). Paris, May 25th 2018. [Online]. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from http://www.ehea2018.pans/Data/ElFinder/s2/Communique/ EHEAParis2018-Communique-final.pdf. Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). EUA Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Universities Association. Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K. P. K., & Dooley, J. E. (2013). Collaborative Dual-Degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 40–61. Dale, R. (2010). Constructing Universities’ Responses to Europe’s Lisbon Agenda: The Roles of the European Commission in Creating the Europe of Knowledge. LLAKES Research Paper, 19. Davies, H. (2009). Survey of Masters Degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. Forte, P., & Bamford, J. (2008). Reflections on Managing International Masters Programmes Internationally, ALHE 2008 Conference, December 3–5, Canterbury. Guruz, K. (2011). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: State University of New York Press. Guttenplan, D. (2011, March 28). Dual-Degree Programs Are Gathering Steam. New York Times. Jones, H. (2005). Broader Horizons and Greater Confidence: UK Students’ Learning from Mobility. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, J. (2013). Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas. In M.  Kuder, N.  Lemmens, & D.  Obst (Eds.),

2  Contextualising International Joint Double Degrees 

79

Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and Double Degree Programs in the Transatlantic Context  – A Survey Report. New  York, NY: Institute of International Education. Kuder, M., Lemmens, N., & Obst, D. (2013). Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. O’Neill, D., & Cullingford, C. (2005). Cultural Shock or Cultural Acquisition? The Experiences of Overseas Students. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Making Higher Education More European Through Student Mobility? Revisiting EU Initiatives in the Context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education, 42(1), 93–111. QAA. (2004). Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Section 2: Collaborative Provision and Flexible and Distributed Learning (Including e-learning) (2nd ed., pp. 1–42). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2006). University of Westminster: Collaborative Provision Audit Report. Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2008). Outcomes from Institutional Audit, Collaborative Provision in the Institutional Audit Reports (pp. 1–28). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2018). Quality Code on Collaborative Provision. [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/chapter-b10_-managing-higher-education-provision-with-others.pdf?sfvrsn=8c02f781_8. Schule, U. (2006). Joint and Double Degrees Within the European Higher Education Area: Towards Further Internationalisation of Business Degrees. Paris: Consortium of International Double Degrees. Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. European University Association.

80 

J. K. Bamford

Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher Education. Brussels, Belgium: European Universities Association. Sweeney, S. (2010). Bologna Process: Responding to the Post-2010 Challenge. York: Higher Education Academy. Triandis, H. C. (2018). Individualism and Collectivism. London: Routledge.

3 The International Higher Education Environment: Adding Value Through International Joint Double Degrees

Although there are many aspects to the higher education added value discourse, possibly the foremost being the contentious issue of whether higher education adds value in an economic sense, Barnett et al. (2016) provide us with a fulsome discussion and some valuable insights of the issues in their work. Educationalists would argue that indubitably they do, as all education adds value. Inevitably this then leads to the question—in what way? The purpose of this chapter is to explore whether the transitions offered by international joint double degrees provide something ‘additional’ to what mere international travel can offer, for example, increased global employment prospects as a result of globalised economies. Or can it offer something that study for a degree in one overseas location cannot offer, a model which is experienced by most international students? It is not my intention to unpack the complex concept of value, particularly as it suggests something economic or that an economic value needs to be considered when embarking on any higher education project. This concept of value is considered here in terms of the rewards and challenges that should be weighed for both individuals and institutions.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_3

81

82 

J. K. Bamford

The Institutional Perspective Given that international joint double degrees are possibly one of the closest forms of international partnerships, the way in which the institutions work together is of import for two reasons: firstly, for the institutions, they need to frame the partnership as an institutional transition in order to provide a ‘joint’ programme, and, secondly, it is of import for the students. This chapter begins with a vignette to provide context for the reader before considering further the challenges that the vignette points to, which can be thrown up by cross-national and cross-institutional working and the value of such partnerships. It is interesting to note that Palermo et al. (2018) analyse these challenges in detail whilst Karvounaraki et al. (2018) highlight the benefits of international and institutional strategic partnerships within the European area. The vignette, whilst presenting a situated narrative of the experience of a strategic international partnership, provides insights into the impact of institutional strategic international positioning. It has been constructed from narratives provided through the staff interviews and from field notes constructed over a period of two years.

Vignette 1: How the Institutions Work Together The collaboration began with a chance meeting and a casual discussion with a French academic who wanted to visit a London institution. The meeting was the first of many meetings with the international director of the French institution. A shared vision of the possibilities for international studies was immediately apparent, as were the possibilities for joint collaboration with the respective institutions. Despite this, it took four years before the first course was ready to recruit students. In order to establish the collaboration, compromise was a necessary element together with understanding and negotiation—negotiation of cultural norms and negotiation with regard to the differing national frameworks for education in order to consider how a programme might be jointly delivered. Throughout these discussions, possibilities for miscommunication and misunderstanding were enormous. The differences between the institutions were numerous and obvious but it was often the everyday differences, which had not been evident at the planning stage or in negotiations, that emerged. They appeared and evolved even once the

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

83

partnership had borne fruit and as the numbers of courses and enrolled students grew. When the collaboration commenced, the French institution was small, and although the students were principally French in terms of cultural background, it had a strong international vision. It was located in a small French town and was part of the elite group of the Grandes Écoles for business. At the time the collaboration began, the school was listed in the top 20 of over 200 business schools in France. It had been awarded elite accreditation by EQUIS and AACSB and was rated highly in the Europe-wide rankings of business schools by the Financial Times. Their resources were not stretched in the same way as most UK institutions in terms of either impacting on class sizes, facilities offered to students and student support or the marketing of their programmes. The French institution was typical of a mid-ranking Grande École (there are only 40 that are part of the elite group known as the Conference des Grandes Écoles). In addition, the French institution could respond and react very quickly to the market, to student demands and to other changes which were very different to the UK institution. A market ethos underpinned the delivery of their education. This was unexpected aspect of the partnership for the UK institution. The London partner was a large urban institution and had an extremely diverse student population with over 5000 international students. Postgraduate classrooms in business were mostly heterogeneous in terms of the students’ country of origin with no single group represented in any dominant numbers. The UK quality processes were bureaucratic and required courses to be externally moderated. Meanwhile the French institution had a panel of industry experts to whom they reported annually, but the discussion and input from this panel was informal and advisory only. No external moderation of academics was required either at the approval of the course stage or annually. The changes that were made annually in the first few years were to accommodate student observations on areas for improvement. The only real commonality between the two institutions was the desire to offer an ‘international course’ experience. The students and tutors negotiated these cultural differences continually throughout the first academic year and, as this year progressed, the differences in the institutions, the mode of teaching and the students became more apparent. The compatibility between the institutions, however, was the ability to be flexible and the importance and attractiveness of a London location in the international market—as well as the ‘chemistry’ between colleagues on both sides that facilitated understanding and communication. In order to maintain the collaboration, compromise was a necessary element as well as understanding and negotiation—of cultural norms and of national

84 

J. K. Bamford

frameworks for educational delivery. The possibilities for miscommunication and misunderstanding were enormous; for example, the potential disdain of French lawyers for English contract law was observed when a conversation between the international director and a French lawyer was broadcast on a speaker phone. This involved an emotional reaction from a French lawyer who was heard screaming at the international director of the French institution at the prospect of the contract being governed by English law. Another example of what might be perceived as a mismatch in the collaboration—and certainly evidences the very different modus operandi of the institutions—was the accreditation by a prestigious international body of the French institution. The London institution had to commit to seeking accreditation themselves in order to continue with the partnership. Whether the London institution would have this ambition without the pulling influence of the French is doubtful. Seeking such accreditation pushed London institution further in the direction of internationalisation. Despite this, and the need for continual creativity and flexibility on both sides in designing and delivering postgraduate international joint double degrees, the common vision and the chemistry between the partners, as well as the influences of future income generation and of European policy initiatives, were positive enough for the collaboration to succeed. The culture of each organisation was very different. The London institution was very large and very bureaucratic: an idea for a new course could take two years in the planning and processing stages—and even then may not come to fruition. At the French institution things seemed to take a few months and the institution had a captive audience from which to recruit students as a result of the ESC programmes. In France financial decisions and adjustments were made quickly and did not seem to be a cause of limiting and responsive action which was the case in the UK. In contrast the London institution was able to make adjustments for the next academic year which resulted in a mismatch in terms of reaction times. The administration of the programmes was also undertaken differently and considerable communication was needed; sometimes there were misunderstandings and at times exasperation as the coordinators tried to negotiate between two very different and sometimes immovable systems. An additional problem for the London institution was that admissions, accommodation and degree-­ awarding powers were all managed centrally and the school had no possibility of changing centralised systems. The school itself managed some elements but it required a lot of effort and internal negotiation—the need for interventions

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

85

and change was continual. Administration difficulties created challenges for colleagues from both institutions. An example of the difficulties for the students was the visa application processes—communication with embassies was often difficult and time-consuming and the result was not always positive; for example, students were refused entry visas for France, or extended visas for the UK so they could not get a visa for France. Despite the support that was provided by both the London and the French institution, both received complaints that they had not done enough to help the students and some transferred from the joint programmes because they found the visa process too onerous. The staff in both institutions did not know how much more help could be given as the process was reliant on external national bodies. Students felt the institutions had a responsibility to ensure that their international transitions, in terms of their movement to another country, would be successful. However, the team considered this to be a very important aspect of their ability to offer international education and the international course team felt that every year they needed to spend more time discussing how/if they could improve the system. The view of the staff was that the support that the students required was sometimes exhausting and the more support they provided, the more the students appeared to need.

To those involved in the negotiations, the physical distance, institutional differences and cultural opposites appeared to be difficult to overcome and the potential for misunderstanding was significant. However, it was also clear to those involved that the potential benefits for students in terms of the educational experiences and the institutions were a driving force and it was a belief in those benefits on both sides that drove the collaboration forward. What follows below is a discussion of the way the institutional drivers and the marketing of the international joint double may impact aspects of the student experience. These types of programmes need to be considered in terms of a context of the mutuality of the international joint double degree experience if such programmes are to achieve the bold claims made with regard to the achievement of cultural fluencies and cultural learning, thus meeting the added value that appears to be an important factor in developing such programmes of study. The mutuality between students, staff and institutions is an important aspect of the added value that such programmes offer.

86 

J. K. Bamford

Adding Value Through Global Branding? There is evidence that many of the high-ranking Grandes Écoles seek accreditation from Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS accredited by the European Foundation for Management Development, EFMD) in order to market themselves internationally. According to AACSB, seeking accreditation has a direct relationship with internationalisation activity. This was true of the French institution in this case. The AACSB report on the globalisation of management education (2011) provides some useful insights into business schools’ motivation for engaging in international activity. It acknowledges that in 2004 the primary reason for deans to internationalise their institution was the heightened educational experience of the students. However, in the 2011 report, it states that financial motivations have increasingly played a more important role in ‘forming strategic program alliances’ (AACSB 2011: 14). It underlines the importance of international accreditation as being as much about ‘the pursuit of excellence (along globally recognised standards of quality) as it is about branding and positioning in the globalizing worlds of business and higher education’ (2011: 70). Staff from both institutions examined in this research commented on the institutional motivations for engaging in international joint double degree study, although the driving forces of finance and international branding were more strongly expressed by the French institutions’ staff. The AACSB also states that one of the purposes of international accreditation is to eliminate the need for ‘potential collaborative partners to understand the differences between national accreditation schemes’ (2011: 70). This should be noted that this statement asserts that international accreditation is more important than national accreditation; this contradicts the view that the QAA has adopted as highlighted in the discussion in Chap. 2. The AACSB report provides a lot of case examples highlighting the importance of ranking, accreditation and reputation in terms of schools’ student exchange alliances and the selection of partners. The importance of these aspects of an institution’s profile is given greater weight when it

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

87

comes to programme alliance partners which, in this instance, would be assumed to refer to dual award partners. The acknowledgement of these factors by the AACSB presents an important backdrop for the behaviour and motivation of institutions. An affirmation of the importance of such factors in the planning, development and delivery of international joint double degrees is provided by Palermo et al. (2018) who further acknowledge that the custom and practice of institutions is an important dimension to successful implementation and delivery. It was observed that the approach to global marketing from the perspective of both institutions needs to be closely aligned as there is some expectation that partners should reflect similar ambitions. It may however be true that models of behaviour may be ‘borrowed’ by the other institution allowing for alignment. This is another learning opportunity for institutions where close interaction may result in changes in behaviour that lead to alignment.

 he Value of International Students Studying T in UK Higher Education Classrooms The importance of the international dimension to a higher education institution’s (HEI’s) activities, particularly in many Western countries, is probably reflected most strongly in the recruitment of international students. As we have noted, one of the institutional drivers for embarking on an international collaboration that develops an international joint double degree is to further internationalisation activities, and certainly in this case, this was also matched with a desire and hope of increased recruitment of international students. An aspect of the international joint double degrees is the enhanced internationalisation of the classroom through the cultural diversity of the student body. The corpus of literature on the international student experience is therefore relevant to this discussion when considering this dimension of the added value of such programmes. Much of the discussion with regard to the international student experience was developed in the latter part of the 1990s, exemplified in works such as McNamara and Harris’ (1997) edited book which has proved to

88 

J. K. Bamford

be a seminal work. The work is useful in the contextualisation of some of the perceived issues relating to the teaching and learning of overseas students. What McNamara and Harris’ edited text provides, therefore, is a basis for further exploration of the issues relating to the teaching and learning of international students in UK institutions. It could be argued that much of the research that has been undertaken problematises international students in UK higher education, seeing them as a challenge. Given the modus docendi discourse explored above, we can see that a cultural mismatch can lead to dissonance and a possible negative approach in addressing the challenges posed. It is evidenced in the categorisation of regional or national characteristics in the learning environment, for example, Turner (2006a, b) who refers to Chinese and British learner characteristics. The miscommunication of expectations between tutors and culturally heterogeneous students can be cause for concern. A different approach is offered by Furnham’s (1997) cultural contextualisation through the analysis of the impact of the study abroad experience. Furnham’s research focuses on the experience of being an international or overseas student in UK higher education and the consequent effects of culture shock. Trahar (2011) highlights the potential difficulties and the complexity of the issues involved and explores the students’ cultural perspectives in detail. Since 2000 we have seen some important and frequently cited works which are given some attention due to the relevance that they bear to this work in understanding the experience of UK higher education for those coming from another country and the ways in which international joint double degrees can be seen to enhance an international educational experience. Biggs (2003) focuses on the quality of teaching and learning in higher education and on the teacher approach to international students. Whilst his model of teaching international students is useful for reference in terms of a recognition of the university approach to learning, the identification of ‘difficulty and difference’ is problematic in terms of the question of the transition of international students to their new environment. Biggs is emphatic that it is not in his view that international students suffer different transitional problems from those of host country students who transfer from high school to higher education by stressing that the issue is more the extent to which international students are affected. He

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

89

presents a useful model for analysis of the international student experience through a threefold model of that experience, with problems arising from socio-cultural adjustments, language factors and learning and teaching problems due to ‘culture’, all of which are themes addressed by various writers. In addition, Biggs (2003) provides some useful discussion of the misconceptions commonly held about teaching international students; for example, he cites some familiar and frequently repeated statements, such as misconceptions relating to plagiarism or rote learning which support generalisations about international students. What is important is that, in his consideration of the teaching approach for international students, Biggs acknowledges the need for a teaching approach that accommodates a cultural context. He comments that he recognises that such an approach is still a deficit one and that, in fact, ethnicity is irrelevant to good teaching practice. However, this message is somewhat lost as the references he makes concerning international students are in conjunction with the delivery of problem-based learning in Hong Kong and relate to a homogeneous group of students. If we consider that in many cases an international or heterogeneous classroom is one where heterogeneity of students and teacher is understood to mean more than mono-cultural or dual cultural, then the basis for his analysis, despite the possible validity of his statements, loses its strength. He attempts to address this challenge by stating that the principles apply to all cultures, although his framework of reference is students from Far East Asian countries. In addition, one must bear in mind that much of the problem-­ based learning (PBL) that he makes reference to is team-based. As we will see in Chap. 7, there are considerable issues regarding heterogeneous groups and assessments that have a group focus. However, he does advocate Volet and Ang’s (1998) contextual approach to teaching which is in line with the arguments presented here. If we apply Biggs’ discussion in relation to international students’ experience of pedagogy in the UK, the cultural context is an important theme. The difficulties with different discourse styles and transition to the UK, as well as factors that arise as a result of cultural differences, are also highlighted by researchers such as De Vita (2005) and Katsara and Gil (1999). Authors such as Swisher and Schoorman (2001) look at cultural differences with regard to learning styles. Their view is that cultural values

90 

J. K. Bamford

influence socialisation practices, which then affect the way people prefer to learn. They found that students differ in their approaches to learning and demonstrate differences in communication patterns. These differences are evident in students from different cultural backgrounds. They provide examples of the characteristics of different cultural groups in terms of their learning styles and thereby underline the importance of avoiding stereotypical assumptions. The link with learning to the socialisation of the learners is relevant here since the link between cultures and approaches to learning is an important element of the international classroom. However, as the focus for this work is not on the difference in learning styles, this issue is not explored further. Whilst we can see that some commonalities arise as a consequence of different cultures in the classroom (e.g. we can see a discussion of this in Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) work on cultural scripts for learning), a thorough analysis of the importance of learning styles requires a different emphasis and analysis. In pursuing the discussion of international students and their classroom experience, however, the importance of the link between the communication between students in the classroom environment and their culturally steeped communication patterns is an aspect that needs further exploration. De Vita and Case (2003) echo this emphasis on culture when they question whether the approach to teaching in UK universities considers whether the learning needs of both home and international students create barriers arising from diversity in the classroom and which need to be overcome. This underlines the importance of the social and cultural dimension to the classroom. The student engagement with this aspect of the classroom experience has been a key part of this research in terms of students’ relationality, in other words, their learning in relation to ‘others’. The signification of ‘others’ is given prominence in the work of Levinas (2006). Coate (2007) highlights the importance of such an approach in culturally diverse classrooms. A different approach is via a discussion of students’ different cultural backgrounds, in terms of a diversity narrative, and is offered by Tomlinson and Egan (2002), Cathcart et al. (2006), Maxwell et al. (2000) and others. This narrative focuses on the impact of diversity in the classroom and difficulties encountered by students as a result of engaging with diverse communities in the classroom. As Marginson (2012) points out, this has

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

91

the potential to present non-UK students in a deficit light, as a challenge that needs to be accommodated. Examples of this discourse which focuses on the negative context of experience are offered by those such as by Maxwell et al. (2000) who, when looking at the learning adjustments of Southeast Asian students, consider the difficulties of studying in the UK when coming from different countries. These discussions offer an important dimension in relation to notions of cultural difference in terms of the diversity discourse. It is interesting to note that authors within the field of cross-cultural management suggest that even if the subject taught is cross-cultural management, the divisions caused by the cultural diversity in the classroom are difficult to overcome. Van Gyn et  al. (2009) highlight another broad consideration that colours the discussion in relation to international education, international students and pedagogy: …the dominant Western paradigm for teaching and learning remains intact, and, consequently, internationalization efforts frequently do not go beyond additions, which are not well integrated with the rest of the curriculum…For higher education curricula to be inclusive of international students and prepare all students with intercultural knowledge and competence, a fundamental change in perspective on teaching and learning on the part of those responsible for curriculum development, and equally important an expanded view of internationalisation is required. (2009: 26)

According to these authors, there is a view that, for some, Western curricula promulgate an imperialist approach to the international higher education environment and that the curricula used in much of the UK have not been amended to take account of the increased number of international students in the classroom. This critical view of the teaching approaches in UK classrooms is explored further in Chap. 6 from the perspective of the learning experience on the international joint double degrees and the challenges encountered by students which need to be weighed carefully against the benefits.

92 

J. K. Bamford

 he Presumptions Made by Higher T Education Institutions The use of the word ‘international’ in course titles suggests a broader educational experience, and courses that employ this word should go beyond a mere addition to standard UK curricula, employing an international dimension to the teaching and learning. This issue is one which this research seeks to explore as there is an active element to the use of the word international in international joint double degrees in that students are required to study in more than one country. Additionally, international negotiations on such programmes are another aspect of the curricula that can be considered as ‘international’; it is the use of group work both for classroom activity and for assessment. The groups are culturally diverse and require ‘international’ negotiations from those students engaging in this type of activity. Culver et al. (2012) consider the value added for students undertaking collaborative dual-degree programmes at postgraduate level. Their approach is survey-based and focuses on the experience of engineering students and addresses four different stakeholder groups: alumni, faculty, current students (of which there were only 14) and employers. The exact nature of the collaborative programme is unclear from the paper although from its findings it can be established that Milan in Italy and the USA were the locations for the study. Culver et al. write that the lack of an all-encompassing definition for these types of programmes is problematic in terms of giving value to them. This is a useful perspective. They also found from a follow-up focus group with six students based in Milan that the students’ view of Erasmus mobility was that it was an ‘excuse to party’. Romantic encounters also featured as part of the experience. Increases in self-confidence as a consequence of navigating educational and language hurdles in another country were an important part of the experience, but the need to spend extra time and money was also an aspect of the experience. The difference with the present study and that of Culver et al.’s (2012) research is that their focus was in determining the ‘value’ of such programmes both to the students and to future employers. Their findings outlined that despite personal growth there had been no real increase in students’ marketability. However, they

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

93

deduce that the value of dual degrees is the learning in two cultures which, they comment, echoes the transformative learning findings of Erichsen (2012) and Hamza (2010). This further supports the exploration of the cultural learning on these types of programmes. This study echoes these studies by examining the student experience in more depth and particularly the importance of cultural interactions to the educational experience and underscoring the value of these programmes through the cultural encounters that they facilitate. Further, it moves the field forward in demonstrating the value in international joint double degree education which should be seen in a context of mutuality, where the relationship between the institution and the students is a two-way process and the students are partners in their learning. Jamsvi’s (2012) findings indicate that the concept of mutuality is embedded in the policy agenda for international higher education, thus underlining the importance of the mutuality context for international joint double degrees.

 Critical Perspective of Institutional A ‘Marketing’: Recognising the Value in Institutional Messaging A challenge may result when custom and practice diverge from the perspective of the students and the messaging about the degrees, international transitions and the experiences from institutions is not closely aligned. This was observed in the form of a more successful marketing/ branding strategy on the part of the French institution whilst the evidence from the UK suggested that the emphasis on image and commercial activity was perhaps not as focused as was witnessed in French business schools. This is commented on by Blanchard (2009) who highlights the competitive nature of the French schools which clearly fits with the value discourse but also needs to be reflected in partners messaging as well as within the collaboration strategy. The differences in approach to marketing the courses and institutions were commented on by some of the students. Certainly, one of the students was very critical of the outward-looking focus of the French

94 

J. K. Bamford

institution which they felt had little regard for the ethical dimension which should be evident when it came to engagement with the students. The student came to the marketing communications course from an academic position in a Canadian university and was possibly more reflective about the educational context and pedagogical approach than others, with regard to the content of the course, the learning opportunities and the practices she witnessed. The cultural and academic background of the student bears some relation to the views expressed: (C): My real problem was fundamentally as I think I’m buying a degree. It’s very—from my perspective, extremely superficial. (I): In London or in France or both? C: In France. In London, I had some real problems with the class sizes and the contact with the instructors. And I wrote this to someone and asked, that I was a cash cow being moved through with as little contact and institutional resuscitation as possible…But, I talked to the instructors individually and I thought they were phenomenal in their response to me, maybe because I was in the middle of a personal crisis. But we all had a textbook regardless of some of the content; I felt the courses were quite light. But I could have [inaudible] the library resources were good, I did end up picking up articles and looking at, maybe because I was thinking about a dissertation. But I actually did independent research in London. I don’t think anybody does independent research here. (Canadian student) This last sentence is an important observation and chimes with the exploration on the differences in the modus docendi in the two institutions in Chap. 6. Whilst these comments provide some useful insight into the international joint double degree experience from one student on one international joint double degree, it once again underscores that the cultural context of the students must be borne in mind. This student came from Western Canada, so an understanding of the British system was to be expected. Despite this there is criticism of class sizes and contact time, resulting in a feeling of neglect. A reference to

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

95

standards—where she states she is ‘buying a degree’—is highly critical. There was an undercurrent of this critique elsewhere in the data but there was a lack of willingness by students to express it more openly for fear of undermining their educational achievement. It goes to the heart of this discussion about added value and the heart of this work in considering the challenges both for staff and students of international joint double degrees. When asked to reflect further on the more favourable view expressed by some of the French element of the degree, she made the following comments: A small group, seminar style, you’re in touch with your instructor, there’s lots of discussion of ideas. Hands on, you feel like you’re engaged. Yes, all of those things are Masters level but from my perspective as an instructor, it’s very superficial. I’m sorry but if I do the analysis—… I get 12 hours of instruction without a textbook, that’s less than my first-year students get. I’m thinking my gosh, I’m too hard on my students. I think there are those things that make them think they are part of an institution, part of a university. They’re important, they’re in a class, they’re in a cohort, whereas it’s very easy to lose that sense in London…They weren’t kept constantly reminded that they’re elite students in their dissertation. So I think that’s part of the reason that they think that. One of the things, reasons I suggested to P in her cultural relations is the person I was talking to yesterday said to me, when I complained about not having a textbook and not having reading. They said no, well that’s the French style, you expect that you are just going to copy down the words of your instructor. That was an epiphany for me because I kept thinking is this just a chintzy school? Or is it French education? And I didn’t know who to blame. (Canadian student)

These comments are corroborated by those of tutors and represent a critical view of the experience in France. This also underlines that little explanation was provided of the differences in teaching and learning approaches between the institutions, again further explored in Chap. 6, resulting in the potential for student confusion and the need for transparency. Palermo et al. (2018) echo the need for this vital element of transparency. Further, the communication gap is brought into focus by the fact that these comments came from a student working in education,

96 

J. K. Bamford

who is a native speaker of English. One can only wonder at the miscommunication for others as a consequence of differences in cultural norms and language. The effects of market orientation, and the contemporary culture of PR or ‘spin’ on schools, are referred to by Green (1997) and this can be applied to the higher education context. Therefore, the conclusion on the response to entrepreneurialism in higher education may not be influencing the curricula in the way that Temple (2009) suggests that it should do in the UK. It appeared that there is more potential to adopt a commercial approach in France and the ‘commercial’ culture of higher education appeared to be more apparent. The UK HEIs benefit from this international commercial environment in terms of student recruitment, with the large number of international students recruited to UK institutions being well documented, although as yet international joint double degrees do not appear to have contributed significantly to the growth in international student numbers. However, the deficit model and discourse with reference to international students, as highlighted above, still appear to be widespread and further thought needs to be given to ‘customer care’ approaches, as expressed by students participating in the programmes of study. General evidence of the challenges for the international student experience is well documented. Large class sizes and few contact hours do not seem to meet expectations. For the experience of the international joint double degree, the inevitable comparison of the modus docendi in each institution brings this into sharp focus.

The Value for Students of Study Abroad International joint double degrees have to be seen in the context of the encouragement of international student mobility and study abroad initiative even though a more committed endeavour is required from all those participating. In terms of expounding a view of the value of study abroad, the development of students’ global competences or skills, or a cosmopolitan view of the world, seems to have become the dominant discourse (Haigh 2009; Spencer-Oatey and Stadler 2009; Killick 2016). In considering this discourse, an exploration of the implications and

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

97

presumption of cultural development is required, for example, a review of when cultural awareness becomes intercultural learning or intercultural competence and what intercultural learning means for students’ development. However, Pedersen (2010) presents us with some counterintuitive findings on national frameworks or structures on students’ learning as her findings indicate that study abroad does not automatically result in cultural learning. She argues for the need for intercultural teaching or training as part of the international higher education process. There is evidence to suggest that without reflective spaces the cultural learning achieved by international mobility may be limited and Pedersen’s work chimes with this perception. The issue of intercultural communication is strongly linked to the internationalisation debate in the pedagogy literature. David Coulby (2006), who examines the theoretical underpinning of intercultural education, offers a critical perspective to the presumptions that are frequently made. He demands that the connection between contemporary higher education and intercultural learning should be recognised. He states: Interculturalism is a theme, probably the major theme, which needs to inform the teaching and learning of all subjects. It is just as important in medicine as in civics, in mathematics as in language teaching. Similarly, it is just as vital at university, as it is in the kindergarten. If education is not intercultural, it is probably not education but rather the inculcation of nationalist or religious fundamentalism. (2006: 246)

Coulby’s takes a critical stance with regard to the intercultural theorising that is widespread in the literature. He argues that the last few years have seen interculturalism become part of the mainstream discourse in education to the extent that the term has replaced multiculturalism in much of this discourse. The distinction between intercultural competence and cultural awareness is an important theme that requires further exploration. Culture appears to inform all aspects of the educational experience; this is supported by the literature in the context of an international higher education. However, a question remains as to whether the cultural encounters that occur can be considered to be a meaningful activity in terms of the educational experience. The question is whether

98 

J. K. Bamford

international learning is a result of cultural interactions and what the nature of that learning is in order to define international higher education as a meaningful activity. The difficulties with using the existing pedagogical practices of UK higher education, even within the context of a module that is delivering a cross-cultural syllabus, are highlighted by Turner (2009). She admits in her study of postgraduate students that, whilst students learnt something of other cultures in groups, her attempts to enhance social integration through the use of groups were not successful and that explicit teaching content failed to overcome attitudinal and interactive difficulties. The issue of contact with students from other cultures and cultural interaction has to be viewed as a focal point for meaningful interaction and activity in transnational social spaces. Can attitudinal and interactive difficulties be overcome through the international mobility on an international joint double degree and through the development of ingroup identity? The experience of group work for students is returned to later in Chap. 7. What is clear is that cultural engagement happens at a number of levels: it has to be seen as something more than the ontological discomfort that arises as a consequence of the learning process (Barnett 1990) in order to claim it as part of the validity of international education. This raises questions with regard to both the differences in pedagogy in a course that arise through study in two countries and the cultural interactions that take place between the host institutions, the host cultures and the students from different cultures. ‘Culture’ frames the student experience as their modus discendi has a correlation with their cultural background. The discourse on ‘culture’ relates to that on globalisation, to which reference was made at the start of this chapter. As Matthews (2000) argues, contemporary cultural identities and the growth of people’s mobility in globalised economies create a cultural supermarket with regard to cultural identity. Educational mobility can be seen as a facet of the cultural supermarket construct described by Matthews; we wear Italian shoes, listen to American music, eat Sushi and have the possibility to be educated in countries other than the country of our birth. Benhabib’s (2002) broad discussion on the claims of culture in the global era explores some of the contemporary

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

99

debates. He contextualises the nation-state debate within the parameters of multiple cultural identities and the complexities of citizenship. This macro view contextualises the effect of global drivers’ on cultural identity and cultural pluralism which, he argues, is based on false epistemological assumptions. The debate around the fragmentation of national cultures and pluralism is key to the pressures placed on educationalists with regard to raising cultural awareness and/or developing cultural skills. Benhabib’s critique is pertinent to the arguments promulgated in this work with regard to the need to acknowledge the impact of cultural encounters and the development of the self within the educational forum. He states: Understanding the other is not just a cognitive act; it is a moral and political deed. Theories of strong incommensurability distract us from the many subtle epistemic and moral negotiations that take place across cultures, among individuals, and even within individuals themselves in dealing with discrepancy, ambiguity and conflict. (2002: 31)

He made this comment when presenting an argument that the lines between universalism and relativism have been too polarised and that, in fact, universalism can have some value when considered in a discourse context. He argues that universalism can have a moral element which is useful and that human beings are to be considered as moral equals regardless of race, gender and cultural and religious background. The issue here is matching this premise to the way interaction takes place between human beings in the educational environment and understanding where the responsibility lies for institutions involved in facilitating cultural interaction in an international environment. Trahar (2011) echoes the need to move away from dualistic notions with regard to cultural engagement in the international higher education environment. Stoer and Cortesao (2000) argue that culture is the heart of identity. Identity and its reaffirmation (or confirmation) are crucial to the fragmented and complicated cultural structures of contemporary European society. If education is a transformative process (Barnett 1997; Twigg 2005), this transformation and cultural engagement go to the heart of who we are as human beings. Within this conceptual context, we can see the importance of considering the link with the research on culture and the higher

100 

J. K. Bamford

education environment as evidencing a position that recognises culture as part of the learning process. This has traditionally not been part of the pedagogical design of programmes of study but comes into view as a result of researching the international joint double degree experience, thus underlining the importance and relevance for research into such degrees. Taking this further, in terms of offering an approach which incorporates cultural learning as part of the curriculum design, it is important to understand that teaching and learning for international students can be divided into three broad categories: firstly, that of the teacher experience, centred around the mode of teaching (modus docendi); secondly, that of the general experience of international students of higher education with teaching and learning as an aspect of that, in other words, their mode of learning (modus discendi); and thirdly, that of the cultural and social engagement of international students with the host culture in the context of education; this encompasses both of the first two categories and also constitutes the experience of international higher education. This underlines the relevance in developing an understanding of the students’ mode of learning (modus discendi) in international higher education. A review of the existing work on the different approaches to teaching and learning, of both the UK and France, allows us to explore further, under the umbrella of the international joint double degree experience, another aspect of the way that the international joint double degree experience is impactful to cultural learning. Barnett (1990) informs us that students, through higher education, can undergo change as persons through the critical approach to learning in higher education institutions. This again puts an implicit emphasis on the modus docendi (rather than the modus discendi of the students) as the implication is that it is the institution and tutors who inculcate this critical approach to the students. In challenging this epistemological framework, the emphasis on undergoing change is placed on the modus discendi which is crucial to the acquisition of knowledge in an international higher education environment. Whilst Barnett does speak of knowledge acquisition on a personal level, with the realisation of knowledge being a

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

101

transformative process, he leaves this observation at the general level. Variation of the engagement of this process will occur according to the modus discendi of an individual student. The realisation of knowledge, or rather the depth of the realisation of that knowledge, is therefore dependent to a large extent on the individual student and the mode in which they are operating at the time of their education. This is argued to be culturally steeped. For example, it is difficult to see how tutors or institutions can force students to become more culturally aware or to acquire intercultural skills if they have no wish to do so. As with the field of internationalisation generally, there has been a proliferation of literature with regard to the experiences of international students in a learning context and the perceived issues facing higher education institutions as a consequence of recruiting large numbers of international students. Some further consideration needs to be given to the context of this realisation of knowledge for international students in terms of the influencing factors on their modus discendi. How do international students, from different cultural backgrounds and different education systems, with different learning experiences as well as different levels of competence in English and who have different strengths in the sub-­ skills of English in terms of oral or written levels of English, fare in a system that encourages independent learning? This is addressed to some extent by Welikala and Watkins (2008), in their analysis of the differing cultural scripts of international students, and also in Trahar’s (2011) work. The intention here is not to address all these variables in terms of their link with the realisation of knowledge (as there are too many) but to raise and highlight the importance of the cultural aspect of international higher education under the auspices of the international joint double degree and highlight the benefits for students’ learning.

102 

J. K. Bamford

 he Meaning of Culture in Culturally Plural T Learning Environments An important aspect then of international joint double degree study is the experience of travel and study abroad together and the possibility for more in-depth cultural interactions as part of the educational experience and the potential for enhancing cultural awareness, which is discussed in more detail in Chap. 5. However, some consideration here needs to be given to the additional education value that such cultural interactions, encounters and engagement offer. In order to explore this, in the first instance, it is essential to understand what we mean by culture. Following the discussion of mobility, this section examines in more detail the link between international student mobility and cultural learning. McNamee and Faulkner (2001) establish the link between cultural learning and the curriculum, providing a theoretical underpinning for the exchange experience in cultural terms. They argue that the meanings that individuals draw on to make sense of events in their lives fall under three broad headings: social relationships, activities relating to work and leisure, and convictions to ‘idea systems’ which include political and religious beliefs. Their paper is useful, firstly, in providing a clear framework for the way in which peoples’ interaction is an educational experience but, secondly, with regard to the meanings that these interactions generate within the context of a sojourner1 experience. This of course is directly relevant to this research. Although the sojourner experience in their paper centres around the discussion of academics’ mobility rather than students, the issues discussed by McNamee and Faulkner can be correlated to postgraduate students who are required to undertake a period of study abroad as part of their course. The extended quote below highlights the issue of ‘culture shock’ and the way in which a person experiences disruption to the meanings of the three categories highlighted earlier in this paragraph. This is exaggerated when the period abroad requires involvement with the new culture that is more in depth and prolonged than, for example, short periods of foreign travel:  Sojourner is taken to mean someone who embarks on a considerable period of stay in another country. 1

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

103

The culture of the group—norms, roles, values, beliefs, rituals, traditions— represents the boundary between members and non-members. Culture provides what one needs to know to function as a member in good standing within various groups to which the person belongs. Culture gives one both a way to make sense of the world and an orientation to it. It represents a set of assumptions about how the world works and how people within the group are expected to relate to one another. Culture includes guidelines for acceptable behaviour, including appropriate gestures, words, tones and demeanour expected in rituals of greeting, eating and meeting and so on. Culture shock occurs when a person is removed from a familiar cultural setting and is placed in new and unfamiliar one. It represents a loss of cues and symbols of interaction that otherwise help to provide coherence, consistency and predictability in the conduct of social life (Weaver 1993). The resulting disorientation creates tension, stress and confusion that is almost always unsettling and often traumatic. (McNamee and Faulkner 2001: 67)

The definitions of culture and culture shock provide an important framework for the academic and social experiences of the postgraduate students who are the focus of this research. Further, it supports the development of the model of interaction for students presented in Chap. 1. Ward et  al.’s (2001) comprehensive discussion of the psychological issues relating to culture shock that is experienced by immigrants and sojourners adds further support for consideration of this as part of the learning process. Of particular relevance to this research is their discussion of issues focusing on identity, acculturation and intercultural contact of sojourners. They argue that social identification theories highlight the complexity of the basis around which individuals form their identity and which are constantly redefined as ‘identity changes in response to temporal, cultural and situational contexts’ (2001: 106). The temporal, cultural and situational context of international joint double degrees creates an environment where changing identities in higher education (Barnett and Di Napoli 2008) are witnessed in the education experienced by the students. Further, Ward et al. (2001) outline relevant models of acculturation such as Bochner’s functional model (cited in Ward et al. 2001) of friendship networks, underlining the situational potential for acculturation for international students. Students are identified as having academic

104 

J. K. Bamford

objectives which distinguish them from other types of sojourners such as business people, and it is these distinguishing academic objectives that require exploration in order to understand the importance of mobility as part of the international higher education process. The academic objectives of the sojourners are therefore an important contextualisation of their experiences and interactions. Furnham (1997) expands on the issue of adjustment and the difficulties of culture shock when academic study involves mobility that is either prior to the start of the course or during the course. Most sojourner studies look at some of the psychological aspects of mobility and the processes involved with being an overseas student in terms of the issues for sojourners. However, students from different cultural backgrounds might bring different levels of response in relation to the engagement with a new culture and a new environment which have not as yet been given full consideration. Furnham called for further empirical work on the possible positive effects of culture shock. In other words, the transitional experience of educational mobility may not be negative for those who are already from a diverse background and who may adapt more easily. Bamford and Pollard (2019) highlight that those who already come from an ‘international’ background make international transitions more easily and the same levels of culture shock are not witnessed and the experience of a new environment can be a positive one. In the case of the international joint double degrees discussed here, students arrive in the UK from their home country and experience a semester of study in London and then a semester of study in France before undertaking a work placement which could be anywhere in the world. The students registered at the French institution came to London for a semester and then returned to France for a semester. The evidence demonstrated that some students formed close bonds with the other ‘international’ students on the course and that this bonding eased the difficulties that a person might face in terms of transitioning from different cultural environments, which can mitigate against culture shock. The definition of culture offered by McNamee and Faulkner is therefore important for the context of this study. Their discussion of the relevant literature identifies the volume of relevant research in this area (e.g. Altbach and Teichler 2001; Cullingford and Gunn 2005) but also that

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

105

themes for research into these experiences include adjustment problems and networks of friendships, as well as cultural frames of learning, as identified by, for example, Bamford et  al. (2002), Bamford (2006), Hyland et  al. (2008), Valiente (2008), Trahar (2009), Turner (2009), Montgomery (2010), Trahar (2011) and Killick (2014). Exemplifying this argument as a metaphor, cultural experience can be seen as the filling that glues the layers of the educational cake together: that is, the experiences of foreign travel and the adjustments to other rules and norms of behaviour and the development of cultural awareness are glued together though this common thread which frames the learning outcomes.

The Value of Experiential Learning This rationale for this discussion of experience is driven by the responses of the students to a question on the basis of their cultural learning. The responses in Table 3.1 exemplify the experiential aspect of international joint double degree study. The responses exemplify the ‘value’ of such international educational programmes. Table 3.1   Culture and group work: open-ended questionnaire responses on cultural learning Because of the different nationalities, it was sometimes difficult to find my place in the group…we did not have the same methods to conduct group projects. It was sometimes very hard. (French student) I am quite disappointed that half of my degrees are based on group work. Whilst this is real world related, it’s quite inappropriate to give Masters degree based on group work as I have different standards than classmates. (US student) Group works helped a lot to learn a lot about other cultures. In most of them we worked in limited time periods so you can clearly see how people act when they are stressed and there is pressure on them. (Unidentified) Group work helped identify different personalities and ways of working and behaving; nothing from the course assisted; learning about other culture entirely depends on the individuals. (Unidentified) Everyone knew about different cultures existing and clashing in this course beforehand. However, experiencing group work in ever-changing groups led to the actual experiencing of that fact. No one can ‘teach’ about cultural differences; one has to experience it first hand to get a feeling. (Unidentified)

106 

J. K. Bamford

These comments exemplify the clear emphasis placed by the students on the experiential aspect of cultural learning. Some students demonstrated recognition of challenges that are part of the cultural learning process: I have to say I had two groups with only French and another group in communication with other foreigners, a German and I don’t know from where she comes but whatever. With the French was like usual I used to be…my nature is to handle everything to split the work and stuff, so with French I am used to. But with the foreigners everybody everyone sticks to his habits, so of course the good thing is that according to the experience, for example, we come from business school, we are used to group projects but some of them had already worked in the communication field and some of them had already internships about that, on that. The positive aspect is sharing knowledge different knowledge. We had a better perception of the work but the problem was our different methods of working. For example, German write a very…they go straight to the point. When we ask them to do something it’s that, that, that, they don’t develop. Us French Brrrrrr…we speak, we speak details and stuff like that so it was a bit hard at that point. Finally we got on well and found a compromise but it was hard. By being like that I think and I talked to the person in question that we skip a lot of things, like going straight to the point is very good but after how about the references and the literature review. I think that it’s not negative it’s difficult, this is the difficult aspect of the group work with foreigners but besides it was more positive than negative. (French student)

One of the interesting aspects of this comment is the constant reference to foreigners, underlining that the London group of students were viewed as outsiders, or ‘outgroup’ members (Neuliep 2011), by French students. This created a tension between the two groups as those from the French institution appeared to view the ‘others’ as not having a common approach to work.

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

107

 oes Studying Abroad Lead D to the Development of Intercultural Skills? Taking this idea of the experience of different cultures further, Pedersen’s (2010) analysis of US students studying abroad and their development of intercultural skills raises the need to consider the link between the development of these skills and the study abroad environment in higher education. Through the use of the Intercultural Development Inventory developed by Bennett (1993), Pedersen was able to compare the responses of different groups participating in study abroad, in relation to both intercultural learning and the impact that study abroad has on intercultural learning. Her findings demonstrate that, contrary to previous studies, study abroad alone will not in itself develop intercultural learning and that, in order to achieve this in study abroad programmes, the curriculum must include a forum for intercultural learning or training. It is important to note that in Pedersen’s study, in comparison with those on international joint double degrees, students in the group surveyed by Pedersen lived and travelled together and were homogenic in terms of national background; the method used did not allow any exploration of the source of the intercultural learning and whether it could have been as effectively achieved by staying in the country of origin (which was the USA in this case). What is important, however, about Pedersen’s research is the link with cultural learning and the curriculum, both in terms of the classroom subjects but also the question that is raised as to whether travel and study in another country automatically produce an additional skillset to that envisaged by subject specialists. The complexity of this field and the link between education and cultural competence is reflected on by McAllister et al. (2006). Their reflective approach to the analysis of cultural meanings and search for ‘thick description’ of the cultural experience has more in common with the present work in terms of the need to understand the experience from the recipient perspective than Pedersen’s work which does not focus on the developmental activity of international higher education. Pedersen’s work points to the need to develop intercultural skills training as part of the international joint double degree experience, adding educational value to the subject curriculum.

108 

J. K. Bamford

The Expectation of an International Career An added importance to the acquisition of cultural skills is the expectation expressed by students of ‘becoming international’ which they felt would lead to an international career. This was accompanied by a preference expressed for receiving a dual award as they viewed that this would enhance their own marketability: having two qualifications from two countries other than their own. Studying on an international joint degree was therefore viewed by most participating students as having the potential to enhance their internationality. The students were asked about their view of international joint double degrees and were asked to rank, from 1 to 8 in order of importance, a series of statements for their reasons for undertaking such a programme of study with the receipt of dual diploma being the highest-ranked response and the expectation of an international career being ranked the second most important. The importance of undertaking an international course because it could lead to an international career was strongly expressed by some students in interviews: For me maybe it’s a kind of experience of working in an international environment because if I have this course, if I will finish education I am going to work in an international company, a big company and nowadays the staffing big companies they are all international and to know how to get on well with people from different cultural backgrounds. (Russian student)

Other students expressed the expectation that it would be relatively easy to become ‘international’ through being on an international course and mixing with other international students. The expectation of employability in an international environment was also expressed. However, the reality of the first semester was often stressful and demonstrated difficulties in understanding others with a possible lack of communication with peers and sometimes disillusion. Stone (2006) refers to ‘international knowledgeability’ as consisting of:

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

109

knowledge that pertains wholly or mainly to a specific nation or group of nations…global or generic knowledge that is broadly relevant and transferable across borders. (2006: 337)

This ‘international knowledgeability’ is not acquired through an intuitive or osmotic process but needs to be honed and aided in its development, or perhaps encouraged through a pedagogy which recognises cultural difference and allows for individuality even within the context of nationally defined rules and norms of behaviour. Students come to the UK with the expectation of a ‘British’ education (Bamford et al. 2002). This is not what is meant by a pedagogy that encourages international knowledgeability; that is, it is not travel overseas for education but rather the incorporation of the recognition of difference within the pedagogy as part of the education process. This is how institutions and policy makers envisage individuals’ acquisition of the transferable skills so often referred to. There was clear evidence of this reflection from some of the students, particularly from North American students. An example of such reflection on communication with others from different international backgrounds can be seen in this excerpt: I definitely think that a good portion of my education here is going to come from the students I am interacting with in addition to my reading and research and everything. You know, just the little nuances there every day, businesses culture, personal and social culture. You get that from interacting with people. (American student 2)

This offers some depth to the reflection which was greater in some students than others with the latter merely reflecting on the experience broadening horizons rather than on the achievement of international learning. The student below was also reflective of how the communication with others in an educational environment would be useful in the future: I think that there are a lot of parts of social nuances that translate into business. Maybe it’s just kind of anything from the levels of intimacy when you

110 

J. K. Bamford

are greeting another business person. For example, in France women kiss each other on either cheek and they think it’s funny that being from the USA I would maybe shake somebody’s hand or if I know them well enough to give them a hug, but obviously that’s different in a business setting. That probably wasn’t the best example but you know, I think that it will kind of give you a gauge for what cultures need a little more personal space when you’re in business and what to expect and what not to expect. (American student 1)

The findings of the first semester in an international course, which by its very nature was a heterogeneous environment, would seem to support the view that ‘international knowledgeability’ needs to be honed. Much of the literature (Turner 2006a, b; Hyland et  al. 2008; Trahar 2009; Killick 2014; Jackson and Oguro 2018) concerning international students’ experiences of higher education in the UK demonstrates that international students have difficulty in making the transition to their new educational environment, and whilst the benefits have been outlined by students above, these need to be balanced against those experiencing a negative experience. Understanding the issues that arise as a result of the cultural interactions in an ‘international’ classroom would therefore seem to be essential for educational institutions, if they are to focus on a broader educational agenda that is not framed within nation-states alone. As Coulby (2006) suggests, cultural encounters in higher education need to be considered as an educational experience that is intercultural in essence. This point is directly related to what this project is seeking to establish, that is, whether the model of international higher education, which is being explored here, is able to develop students’ awareness with regard to their cultural interactions as well as looking at how these students cope with the differences in the modus docendi at each institution. This intercultural theme is given further importance through the work of people such as Turner (2006a, b) who makes reference to the ‘emotional turbulence accompanying the intercultural transition between education systems’ (2006a, b: 40). Her findings demonstrated that travel between educational systems requires personal reflection on the part of the participants as well as an assessment of the personal cost involved in

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

111

such transfers. In terms of an overview of the experiences, therefore, this analysis of the initial impressions and interactions is important with regard to individuals’ development as well as their intercultural development and relationality to each other. A real issue was that some students were not aware that some elements of their behaviour could cause ‘others’ to feel unsettled, thereby creating tensions and uncertainty with regard to how to respond. They were not aware that the other students do not have the same tacit cultural knowledge which is needed to create familiarity. Field note observations from the first semester indicated that a clear example of this was the tendency of French students to speak to each other frequently during class and group work in lowered tones in their own language. This not only unsettled their peers and their tutors but those engaging in this behaviour did not appear to be aware of the consequences of this or of how fellow students viewed this mode of behaviour.2 The observations of this interaction proved to be an interesting dynamic to the classroom and clearly caused tensions in certain groups. One cannot help but observe how difficult it is to overcome tacit cultural behaviours if they conflict with students’ own cultural programming (Hofstede 2003). Of course, there is a risk of being accused of essentialising cultural behaviour when commenting in this way, and there is a difference in observing a tendency with regard to cultural norms and with stereotyping. For this reason, De Vita (2001a) comments on the importance of avoiding stereotyping: Stereotypes are about categorising a group of people on the basis of false preconceptions that are developed to degrade others as a way of strengthening our own self-image. Because interactions with people from the stereotyped groups are processed through mental categories that make up the stereotype, stereotypes cause major distortions in the way we communicate and interact with others, inhibit the development of trust and cultivate divisions. (2001: 169)

 There appeared to be a temptation for French students to speak sotto voce in French in class greater than for the English-speaking students because the class is not being conducted in their language. 2

112 

J. K. Bamford

The interviews that were carried out during the first semester highlighted that for international cohorts there are some presumptions made by students when expressing their expectations of an international course. These presumptions were made by students concerning their ability to interact with those from other cultures within an international environment, which is an extension of the view of multiple identities presented by Lyotard (1984). However, observation of the students’ behaviour in the classroom demonstrated contradictions regarding the actuality of their interactions in terms of their intercultural awareness. This actuality was in juxtaposition to students’ expectations, which were expressed in the interviews. These expectations were of becoming more ‘global’ or more ‘international’. Is the expression of achieving multiple identities or rather intercultural adaptability superficial only and at the level of understanding the other’s cultural rules rather than understanding the other or not seeing the other as culturally different? The interaction between students and interview data suggested that the picture is complex. In terms of the international aspect to the classroom, the question is posed as to whether it should be the aim of the higher education environment to use the cultural difference in the classroom as a learning opportunity where students can experience an aspect of internationalisation at first hand. This brings an ethical dimension to the classroom itself. De Vita observes: Discussions taking place in the multicultural classroom can truly provide the best lessons in cultural diversity and how to recognise, respect and turn the “cultural baggage” that each student brings to the classroom into a positive experience for all (including the tutor). An opportunity, therefore, to learn from our differences, achieve cultural synergies and celebrate everyone. (De Vita 2001: 174)

Some of the students felt that their peers should be more open to the learning opportunities—in terms of the cultural encounters—that international joint double degrees can offer. Coulby (2006) underlines the point by stating how difficult it is to actually understand another culture. This difficulty should not, however, preclude attempts to do so and classroom interaction appears to be a natural forum for the development of

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

113

‘intercultural’ awareness. An aim of truly ‘international education’ surely must have such a focus.

Concluding Comments In this chapter I have attempted to consider some of the ways in which international joint double degrees might seem to be adding value to the international higher education landscape. I have acknowledged that the focus here has not been on value considered from an economic perspective but rather on the less quantifiable aspects of the value that such programmes may offer in an educational sense for both the institutions that are involved in their delivery and for the participating students. The added value for institutions was considered through the enhanced ability to gain recognition on the international stage and through the raising of the institutional international profiles. This can be achieved through global branding and international marketing opportunities, where institutions can achieve economies of scale through joint marketing activities and perhaps engage in activities such as the pursuit of institutional accreditation such as AACSB which had previously not been a consideration or a priority. There are opportunities for educational learning as a result of cross-border delivery, for example, the potential for staff to have international teaching and research opportunities. Institutions are also afforded an opportunity to internationalise their curricula in line with the intentions of policy makers such as the European Union and their national governments offering both home and overseas students enriched educational opportunities. The discussion was balanced with the possible challenges posed to the value that such programmes may pose and the student perspective of these challenges with a particularly critical point being made by one of the students above with regard to the fact that she felt sometimes as if she was buying a degree and the educational value was for her at times diminished. This critical view takes further the work of those such as Culver et al. (2013) in offering a very personalised perspective of the added value that are offered by such programmes of study. However, the value can be seen in the broadness of the experience, the cultural interactions that take

114 

J. K. Bamford

place and the relationships that are formed and are at the core of the experience and the resulting agency that is developed. It is worth noting that perhaps institutions should engage more fully with the participating students as the co-creators of knowledge. Additionally, it is hoped the discussion of the cultural interactions and cultural learning that is highlighted in the chapters that follow can shift the discourse around international students to a more positive discourse as an aspect of the co-creation discourse in international higher education.

Bibliography AACSB. (2011). Globalization of Management Education: Changing International Structures, Adaptive Strategies and the Impact on Institutions. Bingley, UK: AACSB International. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G., & Weber-Newth, I. (2002). Some Features of the Cultural and Educational Experience of International Students in the UK. BEST Conference, Edinburgh. Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G., & Weber-Newth, I. (2006). International Postgraduate Students in London: Some Features of Their Expectation and Experience. Journal of Cyprus Sciences, 4, 25. Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Bristol: SRHE and Open University Press. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham, UK: SHRE and Open University Press. Barnett, R., & Di Napoli, R. (Eds.). (2008). Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives. London: Routledge. Barnett, R., Temple, P., & Scott, P. (2016). Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. London: Trentham Books. Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

115

Bennett, M.  J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (2nd ed.). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Cathcart, A., Dixon-Dawson, J., & Hall, R. (2006). Reluctant Hosts and Disappointed Guests? Examining Expectations and Enhancing Experiences of Cross Cultural Group Work on Post-graduate Business Programmes. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 13–22. Coate, K. (2007). Unknowable: International Students in English Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Conference, Brighton. Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural Education: Theory and Practice. Intercultural Education, 17(3), 245–257. Cullingford, C., & Gunn, S. (Eds.). (2005). Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K. P. K., & Dooley, J. E. (2012). Collaborative Dual-Degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 40–61. De Vita, G. (2001a). Learning Styles, Culture and Inclusive Instruction in the Multi-cultural Classroom: A Business and Management Perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. De Vita, G. (2001b). The Use of Group Work in Large and Diverse Business Management Classes: Some Critical Issues. International Journal of Management Education, 1(3), 27–35. De Vita, G. (2005). Fostering Intercultural Learning Through Multicultural Group Work. In Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All (pp. 75–83). London: Routledge. De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the Internationalisation Agenda in UK Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383–398. Erichsen, E.  A. (2012). Learning for Change: Transforming International Experience as Identity Work. Journal of Transformative Education, 9(2), 109–133.

116 

J. K. Bamford

Furnham, A. (1997). The Experience of Being an Overseas Student. In D.  McNamara & R.  Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Green, A. (1997). Education, Globalisation and the Nation State. London: Palgrave. Haigh, M. (2009). Fostering Cross-Cultural Empathy With Non-Western Curricular Structures. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 271–284. Hamza, A. (2010). International Experience: An Opportunity for Professional Development in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 50–69. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile Books. Hyland, F., Trahar, S., Anderson, J., & Dickens, A. (2008). A Changing World: The Internationalisation Experiences of Staff and Students (Home and International) in UK Higher Education. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://escalate.ac.uk/4967. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (2018). Introduction: Enhancing and Extending Study Abroad Learning Through Intercultural Interventions. In Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Jamsvi, S. (2012). Internationalization  – For Whom and Why? A Discourse Analysis of the Concept of Internationalization in National Policy Documents. In Improving Student Learning Through Research and Scholarship: 20 Years of ISL, Improving Student Learning Symposium 2012. Lund, Sweden; Oxford: Lund University; Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Karvounaraki, A., Subramaniam, S., Hristov, H., Ojala, T., Jonkers, K., Huisman, J., & Goenaga, X. (2018). Mapping of European transnational collaborative partnerships in higher education. Katsara, R., & Gil, M.  C. (1999). The Experiences of Spanish and Greek Students in Adapting to UK Higher Education: The Creation of New Support Strategies. Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex. Killick, D. (2014). Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of Globalization. London: Routledge. Killick, D. (2016). Internationalization and Diversity in Higher Education: Implications for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. Levinas, E. (2006). Humanism of the Other (N.  Poller, Trans.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

3  The International Higher Education Environment: Adding… 

117

Lyotard, J.  F. (1984). The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Marginson, S. (2012). Including the Other: Regulation of the Human Rights of Mobile Students in a Nation-Bound World. Higher Education, 63(4), 497–512. Matthews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. London: Routledge. Maxwell, G., Adam, M., Pooran, J., & Scott, B. (2000). Cultural Diversity in Learning: Developing Effective Learning for South East Asian Hospitality Students. Cross Cultural Management, 7(3), 3–12. McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in Intercultural Learning: Examining the International Experience Through a Critical Incident Approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367–381. McNamee, S. J., & Faulkner, G. L. (2001). The international exchange experience and the social construction of meaning. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 64–78. McNamara, D., & Harris, R. (Eds.). (1997). Overseas Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Neuliep, J. W. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pedersen, P. (2010). Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Year Long Study Abroad Programme. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70–80. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The Global People Competency Framework: Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3272/. Stoer, S. R., & Cortesao, L. (2000). Multiculturalism and Educational Policy in Global Context (European Perspectives). In R. A. Morrow & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and Education: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Swisher, K., & Schoorman, D. (2001). Learning Styles: Implications for Teachers. In C. F. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural Education for the 21st Century. London: Addison Wesley Longman.

118 

J. K. Bamford

Temple, P. (2009). Teaching and Learning: An Entrepreneurial Perspective. In M.  Shattock (Ed.), Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press. Tomlinson, F., & Egan, S. (2002). Organizational Sensemaking in a Culturally Diverse Setting. Management Learning, 33(1), 79–97. Trahar, S. (2009). Has Everybody Seen a Swan? Stories from the Internationalised Classroom. In E.  Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives (pp.  143–154). New  York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Trahar, S. (2011). Developing Cultural Capability in International Higher Education. London: Routledge. Turner, Y. (2006a). Chinese Students in a UK Business School: Hearing the Student Voice in Reflective Teaching. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(1), 27–51. Turner, Y. (2006b). Students from Mainland China and Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Business and Management Degrees: Teasing Out Tensions of Culture, Style and Substance. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 3–11. Turner, Y. (2009). “Knowing Me, Knowing You” Is There Nothing We Can Do? Pedagogic Challenges in Using Group Work to Create an Intercultural Learning Space. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 240–255. Twigg, C. (2005). Overseas Students in Higher Education. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot: Ashgate. Valiente, C. (2008). Are Students Using the “Wrong” Style of Learning? A Multicultural Scrutiny for Helping Teachers to Appreciate Differences. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 73–91. Van Gyn, G., Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., & Preece, A. (2009, Summer). Education for World-Mindedness: Beyond Superficial Notions of Internationalization. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118. Volet, S.  E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally Mixed Groups on International Campuses: An Opportunity for Intercultural Learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 5–23. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The Psychology of Culture Shock (2nd ed.). Hove: Routledge. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

4 The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees as an Internationalised Curriculum: A Glimpse of a ‘Window to the World’

Reproduced here with the kind permission of Sense Publishers: ‘A window to the world’: the challenges and benefits of transnational joint Masters programmes for internationalising the curriculum. In: Green, W. & Whitsed, C. (Eds). Critical perspectives on internationalizing the curriculum in disciplines: Reflective narrative accounts from business, education and health. Sense Publishers: Dordrecht, Netherlands.

This chapter is reproduced here with the kind permission of Sense Publications. It is included here to offer a narrative perspective and glimpse into the ‘lived reality’ of staff and students involved in joint Masters degrees offered in two countries. It is written in a personal narrative format and provides an in-depth insight into the management of such programmes. It has been slightly adapted to fit within the parameters of this current publication. The programmes discussed required students studying Business—specifically, Marketing Communications, Tourism and Finance—to study in both the UK (London) and the Poitou region of France. In telling this story, I drew on ten years’ experience as the international student coordinator for a business faculty with a responsibility for developing internationalisation. In that role my position afforded me a unique perspective © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_4

119

120 

J. K. Bamford

on student experiences of this type of internationalised curriculum, that is, the joint Masters as I initiated international contacts, developed programmes, recruited students and oversaw their graduation and moves into employment. Being involved in programme coordination gave me an insight into the multiple challenges that such programmes present as well as the huge potential they offer students for growth and learning. One observation, which I will develop further in this chapter, is that my colleagues and I began with the erroneous expectation that cultural learning would happen by osmosis once students took up the opportunity to study in two countries. We came to recognise how wrong this was! The challenges we encountered encouraged me to research the experiences of students and staff in these programmes as well as develop workshops that would facilitate cultural orientation and intercultural learning. Field notes I recorded during the first two years of the programmes’ development inform my narrative. These field notes are part of a larger data set, which I gathered for my research into international joint double degree programmes. In this account, I hope to offer insight into the opportunities these types of programmes afford students and staff for intercultural learning, growth and understanding and to give ‘voice’ to that experience from an international student coordinator’s perspective— a voice which is rarely heard and yet is significant in light of Leask’s (2009) definition of internationalisation of the curriculum. Therefore, one goal in writing this chapter is to shed light on the complexities involved in engaging in projects aimed at curriculum internationalisation and in particular international joint double degree programmes from the perspective of an international student coordinator. My inspiration and motivation to understand these complexities and for writing this chapter arise out of reflections on Benhabib’s views on culture. To amplify, if students are to benefit from the interconnectedness that the international classroom and internationalised curriculum represent, they need to be able to ‘distill coherence out of the multiplicity of conflicting narratives and practices’ and be ‘attentive to the positioning and repositioning of the other and the self, of “us” and “them” in this complex dialogue’ (Benhabib 2002: 41). ‘Distilling coherence’ is the challenge. The ‘interconnectedness’ of both staff and students, and thus the experience of the international joint double degree, is an important

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

121

aspect of learning in this type of internationalised curriculum. The emphasis on interconnectedness is devolved from the need for coherence. Where students are ‘mobile’ between two countries within the space of nine months, as part of an international joint double degree, linking the educational experience and a notion of enhanced diversity becomes important. This is especially relevant in an era of acknowledged cultural diversity in the higher education classroom. In order to enhance my own narrative, I have incorporated a vignette, taken from my field notes and excerpts from a couple of interviews with students participating in the marketing course, which are representative of the views expressed by students. One of these excerpts provided the inspiration for the title above, that such courses can provide a ‘window to the world’. I am grateful for the reflections of colleagues and students who participated in the programmes—it was their reflections, which gave me an understanding of the educational process and the way that such programmes can be seen to be offering a ‘window to the world’. In the following, I first outline briefly the institutional contexts of the international joint double degree programmes. Due to space constraints, I only provide a small window into the many challenges our institutions, administrators, academic staff and students had to navigate. Therefore, I limit this overview to issues relating to communication. This is followed with a brief sketch of the international joint double degree programmes within the context of internationalisation of the curriculum. I then develop my narrative with a focus on the notion of interconnectedness as a necessary ingredient in the process of internationalising the curriculum.

How the Collaboration Began The collaboration between the institutions began with a casual conversation. Meetings followed. As collaborators we found we had a common vision of wishing to explore the possibilities for ‘international’ business education at postgraduate level. This led us to develop our joint postgraduate degree programmes. The differences between the institutions were obvious and numerous, but not thought to be so insurmountable

122 

J. K. Bamford

that they would stifle the fledgling collaboration. In the following I shall relate the story of our coming together. The French institution was small and although the students were principally French in relation to their cultural background, it had a strong international outlook when the collaboration commenced. It was located in a small French town and was part of the elite group of 40 Grandes Écoles (La Conférence des Grandes Écoles) higher education establishments and was typical of a mid-ranking Grande École. These schools, established by Napoleon, are privately funded and unique to the French higher education system. For those who wish to pursue a career in business, they are the preferred choice for their continuing education. Bourdieu (1989) describes the importance of the Grande École and the acquisition of cultural capital for French students, which is a deeply engrained aspect of French higher education culture. Our French partner was ranked highly in French league tables and was accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS). It was not moderated externally, although industry advice and expertise was offered annually to each course leader from a panel of industry experts. Changes were made by the French institution annually in the first few years of the collaboration, in order to accommodate student observations on the need for improvement. Their resources were not stretched in the same way as most post-92 UK institutions, which was reflected in class sizes, facilities offered to students, student support or the marketing of their programmes. The French institution was able to respond quickly to the market, to student demands and to change—a contrast to my own institution. The market ethos, which therefore underpinned the delivery of their education, was unexpected for my UK colleagues. My own institution, located in London, is very different. It is a large urban institution, at the lower end of the UK league tables, and had, at the time of the collaboration, over 5000 international students. Postgraduate business programmes were mostly heterogeneous in terms of the students’ country of origin with no single group being overly dominant in number, except for the French students. The quality processes were bureaucratic and courses required external moderation.

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

123

The only real commonality between the two institutions was the desire to offer an ‘international course’ experience. The French institution was aware of the differences in standing between the institutions, but flexibility and location of the university in London were important—as well as the ‘chemistry’ and enthusiasm between colleagues on both sides that facilitated understanding and communication. Beerkens (2004) observes the need for ‘chemistry’ between collaborating partners to ensure longevity in an international collaboration. Facilitating administrative communication is important in the broader context of the internationalisation of the curriculum as defined by Leask (2009), as being: The incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning processes and support services of a program of study. (2009: 209)

Thus, Leask underlines for us the importance of incorporating an international dimension to the support services as well as teaching and learning processes in an internationalised curriculum. The administration for the international joint double degree programme demanded a great deal of communication between colleagues within the schools and between the institutions. Even so, there were misunderstandings and, at times, exasperation as the coordinators tried to negotiate between two very different and sometimes immovable systems. Despite these institutional and cultural differences, both institutions recognised the opportunities for offering a curriculum that better supported student learning outcomes related to the intercultural dimensions of an internationalised curriculum and the development of transferable skills and the broadening of horizons. These benefits were thought to far outweigh the challenges. The challenges faced and benefits gained are given further elaboration below.

International Joint Double Degrees The Masters programmes were referred to as ‘international joint double degrees’ because ‘joint’ denotes the aim of achieving interconnectedness

124 

J. K. Bamford

within the curriculum, where the curriculum is intentionally structured on an international, cross-country and cross-institutional format for delivery. Chapter 2 provides more depth on the definition of an international joint double degree. Developing interconnectedness became one of the key challenges for the student experience. In the literature and in practice, there is much interchangeability in the use of the terms such as double diploma, joint degree and dual degree. The terms can have different connotations in different national environments. I relied on Davies’ (2009) definition: ‘joint degree’ denotes a course or programme of study where two-degree titles are achieved for a course that is jointly delivered by two partner institutions in different countries. Two Masters diplomas were awarded to students, not only because this was seen as attractive to potential students in demonstrating achievement in two countries but also because it was the most practical approach. At present there is no international framework to support the award of single diploma delivered from institutions in different countries. Students were recruited by both institutions and the course began for all students in the semester. The student body consisted of 23 different nationalities with one-third French, who were recruited by the French partner. The international joint double degree programmes, as indicated in Fig.  4.1, were structured in four blocks and the teaching lasted nine months: firstly, students were required to complete a semester of instruction in the UK; this was followed by the second semester in France. The third block was a four-month internship and the course ended with the completion of a dissertation. The structure of the programme afforded

Fig. 4.1  International joint double degree programme structure

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

125

students significant opportunities for international and intercultural learning. However, the structure also created numerous challenges for students, as they had to navigate two quite different approaches, structures and systems of higher education. From my observations, the navigation of these challenges resulted in students developing considerable transferable skills, such as resilience and flexibility and the ability to deal with cultural difference. In the UK institution, the modules were taught over a semester of 12 weeks. In addition to the total of 9 hours per week in class, students were required, as in many other British institutions, to undertake independent reading that would increase the hours of study to at least 40 per week. In contrast, in the French system, common to Grandes Écoles, class time was an average of 22–25 hours per week (Darricotte and McColl 2008), and students were taught in block format and covered 8 subject areas over a semester. They were provided with all their reading materials and little independent research was required or expected in this pedagogical approach. The delivery of the curriculum therefore appeared to be very different.

International Joint Double Degrees and Internationalising the Curriculum Leask’s (2009) definition of internationalising the curriculum is a useful reference point to better understand the international context of joint Masters degrees. At the design stage, the curriculum focused on the subject discipline and was developed by subject specialists. It was internationalised through the make-up of the student body and through the delivery in two countries. Initially, the intercultural dimension to the teaching and learning processes was absent. As stated above, from my perspective, these degrees began with the assumption that students would develop intercultural skills by osmosis, or as a by-product of studying in two countries; therefore, there was scant attention paid to the interculturalism referred to by Leask within the curriculum. However, the failure of cultural learning by osmosis became very quickly apparent.

126 

J. K. Bamford

subject knowledge

international classroom

country A

student language learning/ intercultural knowledge

country B

Fig. 4.2   Modelling the student’s perspective on internationalising the curriculum in an international joint double degree programme

In order to make sense of the student’s perspective of these joint programmes, I have represented the multiple layers of complexity diagrammatically in Fig. 4.2. Figure 4.2 demonstrates how students engage with all the aspects of internationalising the curriculum as defined by Leask (2009), that is, the subject knowledge taught in different cultural contexts, differences in students’ cultural backgrounds in the classroom, differences in the national cultures of the countries where the programmes were delivered as well as differing programme support structures and different languages in the two countries the programmes were delivered in. Observations of the situation for students and staff in the programmes, however, suggested differing levels of engagement at an individual level, thereby embedding a complexity into the educational process that was not anticipated by either myself or the others involved in the design of the programmes that I coordinated. I observed that the differences

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

127

between the institutions in each respective country and the cultures of the host countries as well as the differences in subject knowledge had a profound effect on students. However, this varied from individual to individual. In other words, the administrative staff, teaching staff and students across the institutions coped with the differences in very individual ways, and what might be seen as trifling incidents, such as a requirement to fill a form out in French, caused distress for some students and were embraced as a learning opportunity by others. The visa application process for France was an example of the difficulties that students encountered. It was time-consuming and frustrating and sometimes resulted in an undesired outcome; for example, a number of Russian students were refused entry visas for France or were told to speak French to communicate with Embassy staff. Little thought, at the course development stage, had been given—even by the respective international offices—to this important aspect of cross-border mobility. Developing the intercultural skills necessary to deal with such bureaucratic issues challenged all of those involved, both staff and students, and, indeed, some students transferred out of the course because they found the visa application negotiation too stressful. The emphasis in the French institution on a ‘client’ relationship approach was very new to the UK institution. Students found this difference between the institutions a challenge right at the start of the teaching year. At the induction, which took place in the UK institution, to the largest programme, visiting French colleagues highlighted the importance of their institution’s league table ranking. This was unexpected and uncomfortable for the British staff and perhaps did not sit comfortably with UK norms of behaviour. The issue of status seemed to have a relationship with contact hours for students. The international students recruited by the UK institution were informed by their French peers they had many more hours in class in France, which caused dissatisfaction amongst the international students in the very first few weeks of the course. To counter differences, adjustments were made to the UK semester to give the students more classroom hours, such as a semester of additional French language classes. The standard format for contact hours, however, could not be changed from the other Masters courses, due to university-wide regulatory frameworks.

128 

J. K. Bamford

An additional problem for the UK institution was that admissions, accommodation and degree awarding powers were all managed centrally and the UK institution was not able to be reactive in the same way as the smaller French institution. The admissions process caused problems every year which appeared unresolvable as a result of structural difference. For example, the UK institution would estimate student numbers prior to the start of the course, but some students would not turn up; therefore, numbers were not always accurate. French faculty found this a bizarre process as they expected prospective students to provide a deposit or full fees prior to arrival, guaranteeing the numbers who would enrol. The French assessment approach demanded close group working with an assessment to be submitted every two weeks. The town was small and their accommodation was within walking distance of the institution. Group non-attenders were simply fetched from the accommodation! It seemed that the intimacy of this environment and focus on tasks left little opportunity for students to dwell on their differences, which so frequently happened in the UK. The interviews undertaken explored this difference between assessment approaches. It appeared that acceptance of cultural difference was necessary in order to complete the common task and there had been fewer of the disagreements than were evident in the UK semester. I surmised that the semester-long teaching with assessments set only in the final weeks, which was the model in the UK, perhaps allowed for a non-acceptance of different modes of learning. Arkoudis et al. (2013) maintain that in learning environments such as those like in the UK, where students are spending less time on campus and less time interacting in informal settings, it is important that academics plan and integrate within the formal curriculum learning activities that increase student peer-to-peer interactions. To address the potential for ‘non-interaction’ in the London university, first-semester field-trips were introduced into the programme induction, and students were required to spend three days with each other and their tutors playing games, receiving some intercultural education and interacting with each other prior to the start of teaching. These ‘residentials’, introduced after the programmes, had been running for three years and were the only aspect of the curriculum that formalised any intercultural learning. Staff and students reported the introduction of the residential produced

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

129

positive outcomes. Reflecting on the management of the programmes, it seemed that dealing with difference, particularly cultural difference, early in such programmes should be a fundamental part of the learning experience. In the international joint double degree programmes, this is now an important experiential element in curriculum. The format for the delivery and learning experience enriched the educational experience of the students and offered the institutions and staff an opportunity to internationalise the curriculum at a number of different levels in line with Leask’s (2009) definition mentioned earlier. It was often the small things which highlighted the need for more cultural awareness. It was surprising, for example, to witness American students’ negative reaction to achieving what any UK tutor would think were good grades. On exploring this it became clear that we had presumed that postgraduate students would be able to translate the differences between grading systems themselves and follow the guide provided in the handbook. We realised that what seemed obvious to staff had caused a good deal of distress amongst students. It seemed that minor disruptions in cultural norms can produce learning outcomes but can also present challenges. Despite this, it was evident that the opportunities for growth, the development of transferable skills and the broadening of horizons far outweighed the challenges. The importance of being able to relate to and understand those with whom you are studying requires the development of competences beyond those that are subject-based. The next chapter explores this in more depth. A common perception on the part of policy makers is that a period of study overseas leads to the acquisition of transferable skills important in the global labour market. These can no longer be regarded as merely linked to language acquisition but have become part of a broadly defined internationally skilled graduate. The Global People competency framework developed by Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009) is an example of a transferable skills framework. Norris and Gillespie (2009) underline the importance of overseas study opportunities for those wishing to have international careers. However, this research highlighted the complexity and multi-layered aspects of the experience as well as the need for reflection on the coherence of the experience. It appears that if students are to benefit from intercultural experience, they need reflective spaces built

130 

J. K. Bamford

into the curriculum. In those spaces, they need support as they reflect on the significance of different cultures of learning and understandings of interconnectedness.

 ultures of Learning and Notions C of Interconnectedness Alexander’s (2000) seminal work on national cultures and pedagogy emphasises the importance of the interplay between culture and pedagogy. According to Alexander (2000: 564), ‘pedagogy manifests the values and demands of a nation, community and school as well as a classroom’. Alexander’s analysis helps us to understand the importance of considering differences in national pedagogies and how these might impact on learning. Although the importance of culture with regard to the learning environment is widely documented, it is not always foregrounded, as our case demonstrates. Such differences can add layers of complexity for academic staff and students, particularly in programmes such as international joint double degrees where the time abroad is relatively short. Negotiating differing ‘cultural scripts’ (Welikala and Watkins 2008) and established ‘cultures of learning’ (Cortazzi and Jin 1997) within the context of one learning environment is challenging enough (Mott-Smith 2013), but across two learning environments in the context of the international joint double degree, this has proved exponentially more so. By way of simple illustration, in the Australian context, Arkoudis et al. (2013) highlight the challenge international students have in establishing relationships with domestic students over the course of a three-­ year degree. A semester-long sojourn only increases the challenge. Observation of the interactions between the students confirmed that they appeared to acquire intercultural skills through their interactions with each other, for example, when they were required to work closely with each other through their group work activities. Interestingly, Arkoudis et al. (2013) observed this occurring in the Australian context. Stone (2006) argues that in order to identify the benefits of the international experience, appropriate teaching methods, opportunities for staff

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

131

and students to develop ‘global citizenship’ (2006: 336) competencies and an understanding of the values and behaviours of other cultures need to be developed, placing the emphasis on staff to encourage students’ interaction and—in this case—interconnectedness. This cultural knowledge acquisition goes to the heart of the higher education pedagogical approach, as De Vita (2000) argues. Such views also informed the understanding and the development of the international joint double degree programmes. How students made sense of their experiences in the programmes is exemplified in the following analysis.

The Students’ Perspectives The following excerpt is from an interview with a Canadian student. It encapsulates the views of many of the students interviewed. The student said: I think it’s amazing. I mean I talk to some people who complain about how things are done and it’s really easy to get your back up about frustrations but if we talk about… and one of the things I’m fascinated about is inter-­ cultural communications. Hello—people do it differently and that’s okay and it’s not your way. It’s like—go back to kindergarten and realise that part of (pause)—if you say you want to work in a global environment you have to realise that people are going to do it differently and it’s a great opportunity, not only with the street group from such a diverse background but actually understanding that you are going to walk in, it’s like a huge home stay. You walk into 2 different cultures and say hey, this is how they do it and that’s fine. It’s different because you’re a window of the world, we’re so insular I think.

These positive and engaging comments provide an example of the initial optimism that was expressed by students on the programmes. It also allowed insight into students’ views of an internationalised curriculum and the possibilities for cultural learning. The excerpt below is from one of the American students, who also reflected on the cultural education dimensions of a joint Masters programme:

132 

J. K. Bamford

I was so excited about the opportunity to actually go and to really become well versed in the language I feel like you have to live in the place where they speak it. I guess I just thought well I’m young it’s great to have that opportunity to live in as many places as possible because it’s not really until you live there that you really understand the culture, I think. (American student)

Here the international motivation and engagement with other cultures are clear. It is perhaps also worth noting that both these students were from North America and the opportunity to study in France and the UK was important as it offered an experience of learning in two countries other than their own. Similar views were echoed by many of the other international students. At the same time, I noted some reluctance on the part of non-French students to learn French. This was noted by staff in both institutions and was a cause for concern. It seemed that learning French was not part of students’ motivation for doing the course, although learning English was. Students made little use of the free French language classes offered in France. This was surprising and points to a need to reflect on the educational purpose of a course delivered in English and taught in different countries. However, de Ridder-Symoens (1992a) points out that in the medieval universities in Europe, Latin was the lingua franca, so teaching in one language across different countries is not a new concept. Perhaps a successful internationalisation of the curriculum could be framed in a common language after all. Reflecting on the views expressed, it seems that students’ interactions, along with the experiences of staff and students, provide us with a glimpse into the ways that intercultural learning can be fostered and encouraged in programmes such as international joint double degrees. It also highlights the need for the current work in order to understand the ‘lived reality’ (Gargano 2009) of staff and students and negotiations in courses taught across countries. Additionally, it informs cultural contexts, firstly, to understand the efficacy of such programmes in achieving their stated outcomes and in evaluating their overall potential as a model of an internationalised curriculum and, secondly, in order to begin to understand

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

133

the importance of such programmes of study. The following vignette, drawn from field notes, is offered as a way of underscoring and illustrating student negotiation in the international joint double degree learning context.

 ignette: An Insight at the End of Teaching V in France I arrived in France on a beautiful sunny June day—it was the end of the formal teaching and examinations. My train was late so I was left instructions on how to get to where the students were, by the Course Leader at the French end, at the Reception. The directions were not clear and after wandering around the medieval streets for a while I could hear the sound of non-French voices and laughter. As I approached a rather beautifully renovated French house some of the students I knew came out with their cameras. As they saw me, they said “hello”, and I was immediately propelled into the midst of their joie de vivre at completing their exams and finishing in France, “forever!”, as some said. I had arrived at their end of term “social” which was being held at one of the tutors’ houses. The students were high in spirits and very happy that it was all over. (They had of course forgotten about the fact that they still had a dissertation to write and an internship to do.) Many expressed to me, within a short time of my arrival, that they were very, very tired. What was clear on walking into this segment of their life was there was a lot of bonhomie amongst them. I can’t say how many group photos were taken but certainly of the 30–40 students who were there nearly all wanted a photo of the group with their tutor. One of the French students had brought a plain T-shirt and was getting everyone’s signatures on the shirt. What was also evident was that I had walked into a “family group”. They all appeared very close and were comfortable in each other’s company and their different cultures no longer seemed to be a separating factor. When we were inside the house a lot wished to talk to me and I tried to say hello to as many as possible. Some commented that they had become even closer and that they had got to know everyone rather than a few select people as had been the case in the UK, where the group was a lot more disparate. This was clear just from mixing with them at this social event—the comments made to me just reinforced what I was witnessing. However, despite this engagement with each other it was also clear that many were leaving the town in France that day, almost after their

134 

J. K. Bamford

party in fact. I saw two of the Greek girls at the airport a mere three hours later. Their desire to leave France was compelling—they said they had enough! Others were leaving the day after, including the handful of French students who were there. In fact, two of the French students were starting their placement in France the following Monday—it was Friday. They had decided to complete their dissertation by September so they did not have time for a break. The two Greek girls told me that they had decided not to hand their dissertation in until December; they were very clear about this and said they couldn’t—they were exhausted, and that the semester in France had been very intense.

The semester in France had facilitated the interaction amongst the students, where classes were smaller and they were dependent on each other for their social life. They had learned about others’ cultures and had established an international network of friends. This was evident from the Facebook groups established each year, which were maintained long after the end of the course and which past students used to network from all over the world.

Reflections of Dealing with Difference Members of staff involved with coordinating these programmes confirmed the deeply embedded differences in administration practices between our two institutions which presented challenges every year, such as the transfer of credits—despite Bologna! ‘Difference’ defined the institutions and approaches. Different grading systems, different awards of credit and different deadlines and term dates were ongoing issues, yet not insurmountable. The differences between the institutions’ cultures, their approaches to the delivery of the curriculum and the different approach to the work environment, as challenging and perplexing as they were for all, afforded numerous opportunities for new learning and understandings to emerge. These experiences have shaped not only my views but those of both institutions. These challenges represented opportunities for cultural learning. On a personal level I returned to French classes and took modules with undergraduate students in order to improve my language ability. This achieved two outcomes, the first being one which was hoped for—the increased knowledge and ability to communicate in

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

135

French, something that has since proved invaluable. The second was unexpected, which provided a valuable and experiential insight into the difficulties of understanding ‘others’ whose native language is not the language of classroom communication. I appreciated how difficult it can be to understand the regional accents of others when one is learning a foreign language in a multi-cultural classroom. This was a revelation for me and something to which I had previously not given much thought. It reinforced my view that enhancing the tutor’s intercultural awareness is as important as facilitating students’ intercultural learning. For students, the negotiation of difference represented a challenge at every level—all those who did not come from the French institution— this meant the challenge of living in two new countries for a period of nine months. This was a challenge even for those who were native speakers of English. When this was explored with some of the students at the end of their course, they reflected that it had brought personal growth and that they needed to reflect on the experience in order to understand that growth. It appears that negotiating difference is an important aspect of international joint double degrees in as much as it presents not only the challenge but also the learning opportunity. However, in order to facilitate this learning, transparency and communication of that difference is a fundamental requirement. By this we mean that the challenges imposed by an educational experience offered in two institutions are enhanced by those institutions being based in separate countries with different cultural norms and different pedagogical approaches, but in order for these challenges to become learning opportunities, the differences in the pedagogical approach, differences in national culture and differences in students cultural backgrounds need to be recognised and discussed. Wherever possible, those differences should be clearly outlined at the start. This is a delicate process for everyone involved, as recognised by Palermo et  al. (2018). The benefit is that it broadens the horizons of both the practitioners and the students. The learning opportunities in our students’ culturally heterogeneous classrooms in a globally mobile higher education environment reflect what Leask (2009) calls for in an internationalised curriculum.

136 

J. K. Bamford

These insights and reflections have been modelled (?) by Palermo et al. (2018) into a structured approach to the institutional management and development of such programmes. Palermo et al. refer to the programmes as international dual degrees. The challenges around definitional difference and the electing for the term ‘international joint double degree’ are explored in full in Chap. 2.

Bibliography Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (2004). Global Opportunities and Institutional Embeddedness: Higher Education Consortia in Europe and South East Asia. CHEPS/ UT. [Online]. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.utwente.nl/chepsdocumenten/thesisbeerkins.pdf. Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1989). La Noblesse d, Etat: Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for Learning Across Cultures. In D. McNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Darricotte, A., & McColl, R. (2008). Teaching and Learning in an Environment Challenged by Cultural Diversity. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhancing the International Learning Experience in Business and Management, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism. Newbury, UK: Threshold. Davies, H. (2009). Survey of Masters Degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. De Vita, G. (2000). Inclusive Approaches to Effective Communication and Active Participation in the Multicultural Classroom. Active Learning in Higher Educationm, 1(2), 168–180. Gargano, T. (2009). (Re)conceptualizing International Student Mobility: The Potential of Transnational Social Fields. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 331–346.

4  The ‘Lived’ Experience of International Joint Double Degrees… 

137

Leask, B. (2009). Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. Mott-Smith, J.  A. (2013). Viewing Student Behavior Through the Lenses of Culture and Globalization: Two Narratives from a US College Writing Class. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 249–259. Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How Study Abroad Shapes Global Careers: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 382–397. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992a). Mobility. In H. Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The Global People Competency Framework: Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3272/. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

5 Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International Joint Double Degree

This chapter explores the juxtaposition between the policy position of promoting the importance of international joint double degrees due to the possibilities of developing cultural fluencies for students and the possible reality for students of experiencing cultural difference and cultural transitions in such programmes. This juxtaposition raises some interesting questions that need to be explored further. The reality highlighted in the data points to a picture of complexity and the need to consider a construct of mutuality in the development of such programmes. The discussion draws from the data gathered from interviews with students and questionnaire responses to the open-ended questions posed with regard to students’ cultural interactions and experience of cultural difference. There were 84 respondents. The complexities of their experiences are evidenced both in terms of the students’ differing cultural backgrounds and their responses to the challenges of different cultural encounters in the classroom and with regard to the cultural experiences of participating in an international joint double degree, such as navigating different national cultures and different pedagogic approaches. The encounter with cultural difference appears to be a significant aspect of the international joint double degree experience. These encounters both at the level of the © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_5

139

140 

J. K. Bamford

student and the institution and in terms of national cultures raise questions about the need for self-awareness and reflection. The evidence suggests that some consideration needs to be given both to the disruption of meanings that students experience and the impact of that disruption which is played out during the international joint double degree experience and—more fundamentally—with regard to the way in which the human condition experiences difference. According to Sanderson (2008), there is a link between the development of the academic self and internationalisation. This chapter reflects on this position and the implications for students participating in international joint double degree programmes. This further leads us to a consideration of what we mean by culture in the context of higher education and some of the tensions that arise; for example, some of the observations on cultural difference are made—both consciously and unconsciously— by students from different cultural backgrounds participating in international joint double degree programmes. In a criticism of Knight (2006), Sanderson (2008) states that the real process of internationalisation is taking place within institutions. This happens as a result of the cultural encounters that take place in the classroom and on campus and—in the case of student sojourners—in the culture to which they have travelled. The internationalisation process and potential for international interconnectedness appear to be brought into sharper focus when the education is delivered in two or more institutions based in different countries so that the student crosses borders as part of the programme of study with an international group of students. Whilst Sanderson’s work is focused on the mode of teaching (modus docendi), he presents an important contribution to the internationalisation literature, through the idea of the development of the academic self, through a process of critical self-­ reflection and through the development of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has gained more attention; for example, Rizvi (2009) has written comprehensively on the subject of cosmopolitanism in a learning context, and Appiah (2008, 2018) has addressed the issue more generally in relation to cultural identity. Whilst the focus for this work is not particularly on a discussion of the development of cosmopolitanism, the discussion is important in framing students’ cultural interactions in higher education (Bamford and Pollard 2019).

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

141

The development of self-awareness and the understanding of cultural others have an important role within the international higher education environment. This is particularly true of some of the pedagogic practices that may be employed in institutions, for example, group work activity and assessment, which bring cultural difference and understanding of others into sharp focus. This learning and assessment activity has also been the subject of much academic writing, and its importance in relation to the international joint double degree experience is considered in more depth in Chap. 7. It is worth noting that the level of engagement with cultural difference and developing cultural awareness of others is an individual pursuit. That is, what is true for one is not necessarily true for another and the need for reflection and the development of self-­awareness will vary for individuals as will the conscious attribution of these engagements to the self-formation process. One person may find different cultural nuances appealing, whereas another may not or, indeed, they may not notice different nuances in behaviour that can be attributable to cultural difference. The use of swear words is an example; for some this may be a cause of offence, whereas for others less so. This can be attributable to cultural frames of reference. They offer an example of a cultural encounter that varies at the individual level but which few acknowledge as attributable to cultural difference. Hunter et al. (2006) identify that culturally defined terms are relativistic and difficult in the sense of being able to offer a clear position to defend. Issues around cultural complexity and their import in the experience of study abroad are discussed by Holliday (2018). Observations, conversations and interviews with students indicated the import of the cultural interactions that took place and that they were ‘encounter’ experiences, so that the discussion of such cultural encounters appears critical in understanding the education experience.

What Do We Mean by Culture? There was some discussion in Chap. 3 of the author’s understanding of culture in relation to the student experiences on a joint degree. The definition provided by McNamee and Faulkner (2001) is an important

142 

J. K. Bamford

framing for the discussion, and drawing on their work, some further attention is given here to what is meant when we use the term culture, in terms of a general discussion of culture both as an aspect of difference amongst differing groups of people and as a way in which an individual may view the world. Both are relevant to a person’s higher education experience of cultural difference and to higher education in an international context and indeed both require further exploration. Geertz’s approach to culture as being an ‘ingredient’ of human beings and not merely an ‘accessory to human thought’ (1973: 83) is adopted here to underline why this social aspect to studying in another country needs to be considered. Therefore, culture is, according to Geertz, part of the ‘fabric’ of the individual and, as such, inevitably part of the higher education experience which, for the purposes of this analysis, is broken down into the three aforementioned aspects of that experience outlined by Biggs (2003). It is an ‘ingredient’ of the ‘recipe’, to continue the metaphor, of knowledge acquisition in the making of those individuals’ experiences. The environment presented is, in that sense, a new learning space where more than just subject knowledge is acquired and a broader ‘higher’ education is achieved through soft skill acquisition and the engagement with others. This links the international joint double degree experience to the backdrop of the broad debates referred to in the previous chapters. McNamee and Faulkner’s (2001) exploration of the link between cultural learning and the curriculum allows us to connect culture and pedagogy in a formalised way where we understand that the norms, values, rules, behaviours, rituals, beliefs, social connections, dress and traditions will determine the membership of any group. In terms of the importance of this for the international joint double degree, we might present this argument as a metaphor where the cultural encounters on the international joint double degree might be seen as the filling that glues the layers of the cultural-educational cake together, that is, the students’ cultural backgrounds, the experience of different educational systems, international travel and cultural interactions. The experiences of foreign travel and the adjustments to other rules and norms of behaviour and the development of cultural awareness through multi-­ layered cultural encounters allow for a holistic experience that enhances the classroom experience and the curriculum.

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

143

Intercultural Skills Development Through International Mobility? The link between studying overseas and cultural learning remains the subject of much debate and the literature challenges the presumption of cultural learning. Holliday (2018) acknowledges the need to permit a space for ‘learning’ to take place by allowing for interrogation and reflection on the encounters that have been experienced. Pedersen’s (2010) analysis of US students studying abroad and their development of intercultural skills raises questions around the link between the development of intercultural skills and the study abroad environment in higher education. Pedersen was able to compare the responses of different groups participating in study abroad, in relation to both intercultural learning and the impact that study abroad has on that intercultural learning, through the use of the Intercultural Development Inventory as developed by Bennett (1993). Her findings demonstrate that study abroad alone will not in itself develop intercultural learning and that, in order to achieve cultural learning in study abroad programmes, the curriculum must include a forum for intercultural learning or training. Pedersen’s findings are informative but as Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) have noted, it is difficult to understand the development of interculturality through the use of a skills inventory alone. It is important to interrogate the experiences in order to achieve a richer picture of the impact of such cultural encounters. It is worth noting that in much of the literature, the interrogation of cultural learning experiences focuses on groups who are homogenic in terms of national background, as was the case with Perdersen’s (2010) analysis. This differs from cohorts who are participating in study abroad as part of an international joint double degree. Even though we can differentiate the case of the experience for students on international joint double degrees, the literature on cultural learning in study abroad scenarios is important in acknowledging the complexity of the experience and the challenges in identifying the potential source of intercultural learning, as well as considering whether cultural learning could have been as effectively achieved by staying in the country of origin. There are a number of studies on the link between cultural learning and the curriculum, as

144 

J. K. Bamford

exemplified in studies such as Pedersen’s, in terms of both the classroom subjects and the question that is raised as to whether travel and study abroad automatically produce an additional skillset to that envisaged by policy makers. The complexity of this field and the link between education and cultural competence are reflected on by Jackson and Oguro (2018b), amongst others. McAllister et al.’s (2006) insightful approach to the analysis of cultural meanings and their search for ‘thick description’ of the cultural experience have a lot in common with the present work in its approach and focus on the need to understand the experience from the recipient perspective as well as the developmental potential of international higher education.

‘Cultural Scripts’ and Students’ Relationality This developmental potential is dependent on the experience of cultural encounters which are situated and framed by both the personal and the relational context. We can see through the work of Deardorff  and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017), Killick (2016), Montgomery (2010), Trahar (2011) and Welikala and Watkins (2008) how culture plays an important role with regard to teaching and learning for international students in the UK and more widely. The students’ learning depends on the communication between the tutors and the students and also, and perhaps most importantly, between the students themselves. The findings from the international joint double degree data underline the importance of cultural encounters and the development of students’ relationality through the exploration of travel to two countries as part of the learning experience. The relationality students have with each other becomes an important aspect of their learning. Using the model presented in Fig. 4.2, we can see how the findings from the international joint double degree research build on Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) and Deardorff  and Arasaratnam-Smith’s (2017) research where the importance of understanding the context of culture in relation to the learning environment is brought to the fore. Students’ relationality is dependent on the recognition of their differing ‘cultural scripts’ as identified by Welikala and Watkins (2008). That is, the different forms of communication derived

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

145

from cultural norms and behaviours will frame students’ communication patterns and thus their relationships. Perhaps it is obvious to observe that individuals’ culture, in terms of the background and cultural identity, which each person brings to the university setting (Bamford and Pollard 2019), is at the heart of how individuals engage with each other and their host country. Students’ relationships with each other, their relationality to each other, are therefore dependent on their cultural background. One approach to interpreting and analysing the communication that takes place amongst students is by framing the cultural backgrounds of students through reference to Hofstede’s (2003) categorisation of different cultures. For example, due to its categorisation of norms of behaviour, Hofstede’s categorisation of individualist and collectivist societies (2003: 50) provides a useful framework of reference when looking at cultural interactions. Hence, his work is frequently referenced in the literature. Although often critiqued, for his perceived liminal approach and over-generalisation of along national categories, his work on the way in which cultures can be analysed and grouped still provides a useful frame for understanding cultural difference and how individuals from different cultures might communicate with each other. It has allowed for a broad analysis of cultural difference. Therefore, we can draw from Hofstede’s work that the interactions between peoples are definable through their ‘cultural programming’: the cultural background of individuals ‘programmes’ those individuals with regard to the way they communicate with each other. Whilst this work does not rely on Hofstede’s categorisations, it is useful to draw on some of his discussion to frame an analysis of the ways that people from different cultures relate to each other and the ways they may approach any given situation. For example, Hofstede’s (2003) power distance analysis1 is a useful framework of reference for the behaviour of those coming from France compared to those who come from Sweden. Hofstede found that the Swedish and French scored very differently on his power distance scale and he observes that Swedes react differently to inequalities in their society, as there is a low power distance ratio in Sweden. Hofstede also  According to Hofstede (2003: 28), ‘…the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’. 1

146 

J. K. Bamford

found the UK to have a small power distance ratio as well as being individualistic, whilst France, although individualistic, has a high power distance ratio. This is because French society is regarded as highly stratified and authoritarian whilst being individualistic at the same time. Using Hofstede’s analysis of power distance, Barker (1997) highlights this issue of cultural expectations and norms of behaviour within an educational context, making it clear that mismatches of norms of behaviour and understanding can create a cultural schism. He comments on the mismatch of the expectations of the students and the reality of their experience of UK higher education. We can see this through this mismatch evidenced through the British emphasis on self-directed learning most clearly epitomised by the phrase ‘reading for a degree’, whereas many overseas students expect far more in the way of contact time with their tutors than they receive in the UK: The mismatch then continues from different understandings of the purposes of university education, to the roles of lecturers and tutors and to the responsibilities of the students themselves. It is compounded by the ever-­ worsening staff-student ratio, the reward system for staff in higher education and, potentially by any over-enthusiastic selling of British higher education abroad and inadequate orientation and preparation of overseas students for study in Britain. (Barker 1997: 120)

Both Barker (1997) and Twigg (2005) use Hofstede’s analysis of national cultures with reference to the educational environment. Whilst there is a different emphasis in Twigg’s work, it appears that we might accept, on the basis of the evidence in the data and the literature, that rules and norms of behaviour are defined from cultural codes and that these differing codes are carried into the educational environment. These codes may also be tacit (Matthews 2000) which can create another layer for the possibility of miscommunication between students. These tacit and explicit rules of behaviour require consideration as an important element of the learning process in the sense of a ‘culture of learning’ (Cortazzi and Jin 1997). These cultures of learning are part of the contemporary higher education classroom which incorporates the different cultural backgrounds of the students, the culture of the host institution and the

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

147

host culture. Welikala and Watkins (2008) provide further explanation in referring to ‘cultural scripts’ which will govern students’ interactions with lecturers and other students and their communication in the classroom. We can observe that there are different modes of accepted communication practices in different cultures which stem from the norms of behaviour of a particular culture. The potential for miscommunication can be seen from Barker’s (1997) explanation on the UK’s power distance rating which is low, or which might be regarded as a low context culture (Hall 1989), when compared to the power distance rating of other countries, or high context cultures. This can result in an experience that is distancing for students; for example, the British practice of lecturers asking students to refer to them by their first name indicates a low power distance interaction, which is difficult for students from a country with a high power distance rating to accept. A question then arises as to how to bridge the gulf between the above frames of reference and the modus docendi employed through national frameworks of operation. It is unlikely that students and staff can simply be expected to change their attitudes and values because they find themselves in an environment; therefore transition, adaption and the development of awareness of others are important challenges to consider. This is an ethical question and Barker offers the solution of raising awareness of the expectations of UK higher education. In order for students to navigate the cultural differences they encounter on an international joint double degree, awareness of differing cultural scripts, the differing modus discendi and the expectations for the modus docendi require careful consideration.

Intercultural Awareness and Developing Students’ Relationality The cultural interactions between students fall broadly under the heading of intercultural communications. Stone (2006) identifies the internationalisation of student learning as being the two constructs of ‘international knowledgeability’ and ‘intercultural competence’ which underlines that

148 

J. K. Bamford

there are different levels of engagement with cultural encounters in international higher education. It can be argued that international joint double degree facilitates the deeper intercultural competence level of learning, although perhaps competence is not the most appropriate term as a result of the complexity involved around the use of this particular word. Intercultural learning can be seen as aimed at encouraging a deeper form of cultural awareness, in terms of it being the ability to interact with those from other cultures, rather than demonstrating mere knowledge of other cultures. The development of intercultural awareness can be viewed as embedding students’ relationality with each other within the course, where the learning community is firmly established and communication is not restricted by cultural barriers. The importance of developing intercultural awareness amongst students as part of the higher education process has been given considerable attention. Those such as Killick (2016) and Deardorff and Arasaratnam-­ Smith (2017) present a complex picture, and arguably the gap in understanding identified by McAllister et al. (2006), in terms of the development of intercultural awareness, remains. In other words, there is a gap with regard to establishing the way or how the acquisition of intercultural learning or awareness takes place. It has been explored by researchers such as Deardorff and has been given some attention in this book as it has in much of the literature on the topic. McAllister et al. analyse the international experiences and intercultural learning of students through a critical incident approach, stating that intercultural competences are a requisite of professional knowledge and part of businesses’ core activities but that: Currently however, a gap in the knowledge base exists as to the learning processes that underpin the acquisition of such intercultural understandings, knowledge and competence. Such a gap is or should be of concern to all educators in entry level professional programs…. Establishing intercultural competence among professionals is about more than developing an awareness that culture is an issue in everyday practice. It is about developing the ability to identify and challenge one’s cultural assumptions, one’s values and beliefs and developing empathy and connected knowledge. (2006: 367)

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

149

The ability to develop empathy and to challenge cultural assumptions is an important frame for the discussion of what is meant by intercultural awareness. It provides an accessible and working definition for the assessment of the intercultural perspective of international higher education as well as clarifying what is meant by the EU when making reference to the development of cultural fluencies. How can we seek to understand what such a concept might mean within the context of subject-based education and connected travel overseas? Is the development of the academic self inexorably linked with cultural transitions and cultural learning which can only be achieved through a critical incident approach that an international joint double degree experience offers? The issue of heterogeneous interactions is highlighted by Coate’s (2007) work and the following excerpt illustrates just one of the difficulties that students have: …sometimes I just keep silent and don’t speak with people just because it takes me a lot of effort to think about something in English and to express myself in English. Sometimes it’s very difficult. (Russian student 1)

It is interesting to note this Russian student’s expression of insecurity. In class she appeared confident and communicative. The issue of silence is problematic in terms of the modus docendi in the UK and represents an environment of non-communication in the classroom and perhaps distancing. The importance of communication as an aspect of the classroom experience is central to the student experience. It provides a focus for the development of their cultural awareness. In order to facilitate communication, there is a need to develop their consideration of the ‘other’ (Levinas 2006). The classroom provides a space for the encouragement of students’ relationality where effective communication is the result, rather than a categorisation of the ‘others’. Therefore, there is a need for students’ relationality in educational terms. It is anticipated in such a learning environment that the dangers of stereotyping will be removed. Stereotyping is an aspect of cultural encounters which will be returned to later in the chapter. It supports Coulby’s (2006) call for the need for intercultural education to aid negotiation between cultures, rather than

150 

J. K. Bamford

maintaining an approach where the focus is merely to raise awareness that there is more than one culture. The challenge is that teaching and classroom interaction tends to follow the latter approach (Bamford and Pollard 2019) and cannot be defined as intercultural education. It is often centred around the subject discipline with perhaps some cross-cultural interaction in groups, although students are often left to manage their group conflicts. The culturally heterogeneous environment requires students to negotiate with those from other cultures and there is a presumption that such negotiation is straightforward. Expectations are high from both the teaching and the learning perspective and of the cultural experience. Leask (2009) points out that the international classroom requires teachers to be able to use the cultural diversity in the classroom as one of the resources available to them and, to be able to do this, they must also develop intercultural skills. The position outlined by De Vita (2005), who stated that universities are failing to make the most of the opportunities that are provided through the recruitment of international students by ‘promoting genuine internationalisation and fostering intercultural learning’ (2005: 75), appears to be still the case from recent research (Bamford and Pollard 2019). Certainly, the interviews exploring the experience of international joint double degree students in the London semester, together with many of the interactions in class and with the host culture, cannot be defined in positive terms.

 ultural Learning and the Development C of Ingroup Identity In the context of an international higher education, surely culture informs all aspects of the experience, but a question remains as to whether it can be considered to be a meaningful activity in terms of the educational experience. The question remains whether international learning is as a result of cultural interactions experienced together and what the nature of that learning is in order to define international higher education as a meaningful educational activity.

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

151

In this discussion of what we mean by cultural learning, another dynamic that requires reflection is the issue of ‘tacit’ cultural knowledge, as referred to by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1994) and which, in Matthews’ (2000) terminology, relates to levels of cultural shaping of which one is unaware. This tacit cultural knowledge, which has had little attention paid to it, becomes very important when the students interact with each other in their learning spaces. Students’ being in the classroom in relation to others is an important part of the international education process. The observations of the student groups highlighted that a lack of awareness of others’ ‘tacit’ cultural behaviour can make the group work environment unsettling. An example would be the way a person uses their hands in a conversation or their tone of speech. What is acceptable in one culture is less acceptable in another and can cause irritation, and there is often little opportunity for reflection on the cause of that irritation. Students’ relationality is a key aspect of group work where interactions are fundamental to the success of the group. As the issue of group work was such an important theme in interviews, it will be returned to in Chap. 7. The difficulties with using the existing pedagogical practices of UK higher education, even within the context of a module that is delivering a cross-cultural syllabus—such as cross-cultural management—are highlighted by Turner (2009). She admits in her study of postgraduate students that, whilst students learnt something of other cultures in groups, her attempts to enhance social integration through the use of groups was not successful and that explicit teaching content failed to overcome attitudinal and interactive difficulties. The issue of contact with students from other cultures and cultural interaction has to be viewed as a focal point for meaningful interaction and activity in transnational social spaces. Can attitudinal and interactive difficulties be overcome through the international mobility of an international joint double degree and through the development of ingroup identity? The experience of undertaking travel together can be seen as the sort of critical incident identified by McAllister et al. (2006) and the bonding that arises appears to overcome many attitudinal and interactive difficulties as we witnessed from the vignette in Chap. 4. Through the development of the ingroup identity, another layer of the students’ identity is created. It is formed through

152 

J. K. Bamford

a bonding experience of international travel and cultural encounters and becomes a dominant identity as far as their international joint double degree experience is concerned. It appears to overcome the different cultural backgrounds that students arrive with. However, this ingroup identity does not necessarily equate to achieving cultural fluency but might be considered to be merely ingroup identity which endures over the period of the course and as part of social media groups that were established every year.

Issues with the Definitions of Intercultural Competence and/or the Development of Cosmopolitanism Much of the literature in this area is supportive of the view that international education is inexorably linked to the development of intercultural learning or of intercultural skills and potentially intercultural competences (Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017). However, it is important that we question whether students are developing some sort of cultural awareness as a result of their international experiences or whether international higher education is developing intercultural competence and to what extent. Nieto and Booth (2010) talk of the need to ‘truly understand’ each other as the world becomes a smaller place (2010: 406) and that ‘intercultural sensitivity’ is central to the role of education. Their study is important as they investigate the influence of individuals’ cultural competence on university teachers and students. Although intercultural competence is a term that is frequently used, as Deardorff (2006) acknowledges, there remain variations in the understanding of the term and some expectation that it should somehow be intuitively grasped. There is also variation in the way the same aim is expressed, whether this is—to name a few—cosmopolitanism, intercultural competence, interculturality, intercultural awareness, intercultural learning or global competence. Are there differences in these terms or are they broadly used to refer to the same issues?

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

153

Having said this, there are a number of studies relating to the development of intercultural competences within an educational context (Deardorff 2006; Stone 2006; Haigh 2008; Nieto and Booth 2010), and Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith’s (2017) edited work provides a detailed analysis of ways in which intercultural competences can be developed. Stone (2006) uses the term the ‘intercultural effectiveness’, defining this as being ‘the ability to interact with people from different cultures so as to optimise the probability of mutually successful outcomes’ (2006: 338). This thereby frames the intercultural debate in the context of a workable reference point for the analysis of the cultural interactions that students on international joint double degrees can be seen to be having. The term intercultural competence becomes loaded with expectations that require measurable outcomes, which may not have been the aim when the curriculum was developed. Vague notions of cultural fluencies do not seem to fulfil these expectations. Stone outlines the reasons for his use of specific terms: for example, he chooses the word ‘effectiveness’ over ‘competence’, clearly stating that his choice of this word is a result of the need to avoid some of the stigma attached to the word ‘competence’. This latter word implies lower-order skills training; it appears to be used variously by different stakeholders. Stone’s objection to using the word ‘competence’ does not seem to have been followed by others, but the point is taken here and I have tried to avoid using the word. In the cases that are the focus for the discussion here, there was no expressed aim on the part of the institutions to engage in international joint double degrees programmes for the purposes of the development of intercultural competences, although negotiations often had lofty ambitions: these are often expressed in the language the Bologna Follow-Up Group prefers, such as the development of cultural fluencies. Stone’s promulgation of the term intercultural effectiveness still leaves some challenges as it still implies that we can measure the way students interact in cultural terms. A preferred approach is the development of intercultural awareness as a meaningful activity. Perhaps there is also a need to understand ourselves before understanding others and this self-reflection is a necessary element of intercultural training.

154 

J. K. Bamford

Hunter et al. (2006) suggest that global competences are a contested concept and that their definition is relative, supporting the notion that understanding yourself is important when understanding others. They note that language learning is a necessary facet for understanding others. Has the debate moved on from this position? We can certainly observe that more research on the development of intercultural competence has taken place, for example through Deardorff’s (2017) work, but there is variation in the use of models and approaches to understanding what intercultural competence is. The development of awareness and understanding remains a key concept which allows for a frame for cultural encounters as experienced on international joint double degrees.

 nderstanding Culture in Relation U to Students’ Learning Highlighting the importance of culture with regard to the students’ learning experiences illustrates a view that the internationalisation process in higher education has the potential to result in an existential conundrum for higher education students as it shifts the emphasis from the study of their subject. It facilitates a sort of a ‘meze’ of experience in an educational context, leading to the development of a cosmopolitan dimension to higher education that has not been given much attention by higher education institutions, particularly in the UK (Bamford and Pollard 2019). Higher education is another element of the cultural ‘fabric’ of meaning for individuals in the contemporary world. A quote from Lyotard illustrates the point: Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald’s  food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and “retro” clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games. (1984: 76)

This statement is useful in that it provides some sense of the nature of a cosmopolitan lifestyle which may form part of an individual’s

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

155

expectations of the way they lead their lives. It provides a useful illustration of the multiple identities that may be involved in the everyday life of individuals on a superficial level and offers a guide in explaining the influences on students embarking on an international course and the value which they think the experience offers them. Such courses and experiences perhaps offer an example of Matthews’ (2000) cultural supermarket thesis and levels of cultural shaping. This is discussed in more detail below. These potential cultural aspirations form part of the expectations of an international course and students’ views are explored below.

Students’ Aspirations of Cultural Learning An eclectic approach referring to culture and life was reflected in the interview with relation to the students’ motivations when asked why they undertook a programme of study in the form of an international joint double degree which was offered in at least two countries. An example of such aspirations is offered from the following excerpt from a student’s interview: To be honest I probably won’t say I have two degrees because as an educator I frankly don’t think you can get two Masters Degrees in a year. So I will choose one of them because I think that’s what, I mean I like the idea and I love the idea of actually looking at two different institutions because internationalisation is a huge issue back home. So that was really why I liked the idea about going to France and the fact that you do it in English made it completely accessible. (Canadian student)

This comment raises the issue of cultural difference and the international context being accessible because the teaching was conducted in English as well as the importance of English as the lingua franca for the international learning, as this made the country mobility accessible to her. It is also important as it reflects awareness of the ethics of students being rewarded twice for the same piece of work and that for some the experience was about becoming more international.

156 

J. K. Bamford

One of the American students also reflected on the cultural education aspect of a joint Masters programme, which included living in a different country as part of the educational experience: I was so excited about the opportunity to actually go and to really become well versed in the language I feel like you have to live in the place where they speak it. I guess I just thought well I’m young it’s great to have that opportunity to live in as many places as possible because it’s not really until you live there that you really understand the culture, I think. (American student)

The international motivation and engagement with other cultures is again clear from this quote. It is perhaps also worth noting that both these students were from North America and the opportunity to study in France was important even though neither spoke French. A similar sentiment was echoed by many of the international students. Coulby’s (2006) work underlines the importance of communication with people from different cultures in education. However, there was a lack of acknowledgement in interviews of the need for learning to be in both the host languages as part of the acquisition of cultural knowledge. This is a concern and raises questions with regard to students’ motivations of being international which were so strongly expressed in interviews. The students’ expectations of ‘international’ potentiality were commonly expressed in the interviews, with the excerpt below providing an example: Yes, I think anywhere you live you kind of figure out what’s around you and what people expect. If you live here you know how to get the message out. I know what works in Los Angeles but I’m not sure it work s here yet but I think living here and having the experience here you understand what people are like and what people are receptive too. I think marketing is kind of like a general foundation anyway but it becomes more specific to the area. So London has its channels of communication that are used a certain way versus France, which I’m not sure yet because I haven’t been there. But I think if you live in a place that how you pick it up. With the course, I think, it’s just how to do something and how to apply what you know. I

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

157

think it’s a great combination of a lot of different things this course, which is ultimately why I chose it. (American student)

This student expected and presumed that he would be fine in relating to individuals from different cultures because he was Hispanic and lived in California. In reality, his behaviour deeply offended two Far East Asian students who later transferred from the course because of what they perceived to be intimidation in their group. The student lacked awareness that his behaviour and that of other members of his group had caused deep offence to other students (see Appendix 1, Vignette 1). He was mortified when he realised that the behaviour that he considered as normal had caused offence. This is just one example of a critical incident where cultural difference proved difficult to overcome and the learning curve was not comfortable for any of those students involved. It also provides an example of the problems of negotiating between different cultures where the use of offensive behaviour, involving swear words in another language, did not carry the same meaning for those from the Western culture. An educational environment that brings students together for very short periods of time and requires them to work closely together to produce a piece of assessed work is something that has been argued to be extremely difficult even for those from the same culture (Bamford et al. 2006) and creates additional tensions that frequently result in stress for students. However, it also creates a space for acquiring cultural knowledge. Twigg’s (2005) findings demonstrated that if students can function in a multicultural network, they will adapt to the new environment more effectively.

 Common Cultural Heritage, Cultural A Learning and the Host Cultures This section continues to explore the narrow focus of the students’ cultural learning. The data demonstrated students’ cultural engagement only with fellow students and little or no engagement with their host cultures.

158 

J. K. Bamford

The evidence suggested knowledge or awareness of the cultural heritage of the host cultures of both institutions was minimal. This presents a distinguishing and separating feature between the intentions of the educational sojourner and the tourist sojourner. Both institutions are located in environments of cultural heritage. London presents obvious examples, whereas the French institution was located in a provincial historical town. There was a common historical heritage between the two places and a mere stroll through the town in France permitted access to such historical information and its connections with London. Another aspect of cultural difference with the host cultures was the built spaces of the institutions and their locations to which, again, students made little reference. There was a noticeable contrast between the picturesque French town with its medieval architecture and the urban environment of the London institution. The data demonstrated a lack of recognition by students of the cultural heritage of both London and the particular region in which the French school was located. This cultural heritage dimension to the host cultures was not mentioned and yet the ambiance and location of one’s living space have an important impact on individuals’ transition to a new environment. The interview comments on the host cultures referred to food and fashion (or styles of dress). The implication of this is that the historical locations do not appear to provide students with any cultural capital. Cultural heritage appeared to be of surprisingly little significance to students’ learning about difference on these joint Masters. The focus for the cultural experience of the students was on the differing cultural scripts (Welikala and Watkins 2008), which were largely based on the students’ interactions with each other, reinforcing the importance of those interactions to their educational experience.

Cultural Shaping The findings leave questions unanswered about the exact nature of the cultural learning that took place and some further exploration is required. Matthews (2000) posits that cultural identity in contemporary societies comprises three different levels of ‘cultural shaping’. The only level that is achievable, recognisable and most accessible to students in terms of

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

159

cultural learning is the ‘cultural supermarket’ level. The first level of ‘cultural shaping’ is what he refers to as ‘deep’ cultural conditioning, such as language and social behaviours which determine views of the self and how we comprehend the world. Because we think in our native language, we can never be truly aware or objective about this cultural level of influence (2000: 12). Matthews states that this level of shaping is below the level of consciousness and so often involves behaviour that is taken for granted on the part of the subject; thus, it is difficult for there to be any objectivity or consciousness with regard to that behaviour. The consequence of this is the possibility for miscommunication and misunderstanding and the potential for stereotyping. The data for this study illustrates this potential for stereotyping as well as the importance of relationships in overriding cultural preconceptions. There was evidence of students accommodating ‘others’ cultural behaviour as the ‘others’ became known to them as individuals and it is this relationality that allows for misunderstanding and miscommunication to be overcome. The data provided examples of misunderstandings and miscommunication which for those involved were difficult to resolve. The outcomes can be categorised in acceptance or rejection of difference. Accepting difference however was clearly not the same as understanding difference and thus becoming empathetic. It leaves questions about the development of a true understanding of cultural behaviours, particularly where most are communicating in a language that is not native to them which, in this case, was English. With regard to the rules and structures of the societies in which we inhabit, there may be little control but there is some ability for recognition or signification for individuals. This is the second level of ‘cultural shaping’. This is exemplified in the UK classroom for many overseas students who have difficulty in referring to their lecturer by their first name. This common practice requires a change in cultural behaviour that can for many students be difficult to navigate. For those from high context cultures (Hall 1989), such behaviour shows disrespect and therefore, for some, causes confusion and discomfort and, even where awareness of difference is achieved, the individual often continues the same pattern of behaviour.

160 

J. K. Bamford

The third level of ‘cultural shaping’ is the ‘cultural supermarket’ level of influence which is fully accessible and controllable for all individuals who can make behavioural adjustments. Matthews makes reference to the globalised lifestyles of the contemporary era as an illustration of this. In applying this form of cultural shaping, education might be viewed as another addition to the eclectic lifestyle of successful individuals, who, for example, eat Chinese food at home, fly to other countries for their weekend leisure, wear Italian shoes and buy French handbags. The data for this case indicates familiarity with, and understanding of European cultures and an expectation of cultural adjustments that are required to live in other countries. Despite this, interview data evidenced some contradictory positions on cultural awareness and understanding with individuals either consciously or unconsciously revealing culture shock and stereotyping, perhaps indicating that the cultural transitions were more challenging than anticipated. Matthews argues that, from his anthropological perspective, there is a universal basis for ‘self ’. He does not address the universality of recognition or signification of the other self as demanded by Levinas (2006). Recognition of the identity of the other is necessary for communication with others which is so integral to notions of positive cultural encounters and the development of the ontological awareness proposed by Jones (2005) as a consequence of the study abroad experience. However, Matthews’ (2000) analysis of the different levels of ‘cultural identity’ and his ‘cultural supermarket’ thesis are useful in understanding the questionnaire responses. The deep level of cultural shaping throws light on the interview responses which clearly showed culture shock or a disruption of meaning which caused distress. The description of the ‘cultural supermarket’ for individuals’ cultural identity in a more internationalised environment seems to be appropriate both in terms of the student responses and the identification of intercultural competences made by, amongst others, Deardorff (2006); Hunter et  al. (2006); Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009); Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017); and Arasaratnam-­ Smith (2017). Leaving aside the question of deep cultural shaping which is for many unknowable as we cannot see ourselves as others see us, we can look to understanding cultural shaping at the intermediate and to what Matthews refers to as the cultural supermarket level which in turn allows for a richer interpretation of the individuals’ cultural encounters.

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

161

Increasing Intercultural Awareness In order to understand the students’ views on what had furthered their intercultural awareness, they were asked an open-ended question on what had developed their intercultural understanding. Students’ nationalities are referred to merely as a guide to understanding their cultural background rather than as categorising their responses. A variety of views have been provided here in order to demonstrate the different emphasis that individuals placed on different aspects of their experience. The findings support the need to consider individuals’ negotiations in international higher education (Table 5.1). These responses are of interest as they demonstrate that the students categorised other students in terms of national characteristics. Therefore, whilst the questionnaire responses demonstrate some aspects of cultural learning, the learning appears to replicate Hofstede’s (2003) approach to culture by defining it in terms of national characteristics. This type of categorisation of cultural behaviour may be viewed as appropriate for the business environment, where anticipating or understanding general cultural norms is important in order to predict consumer behaviour but in terms of the development of awareness of others’ differences was often inappropriate. The potential for stereotyping was a strong theme that emerged from the interview data. It evidenced a ‘cultural supermarket’ level of cultural interaction with a clear need for more awareness and empathy to be developed amongst student groups. Table 5.1  Student responses on developing intercultural awareness Adaptability to work with people from different backgrounds is crucially important. (Indian student) Meeting people who have different cultural background is open-minding. Human experience is above all to me. (French student) Awareness of time management issues. (German student) I learnt little new! I come to France and the UK every year anyway. (Egyptian student) Living together are the ones that taught me from other cultures. Students are one of the most valuable assets on the programme. (Venezuelan student) The best example was when we compared McDonald’s offer in our different countries of origin: rice in Malaysia, no beef in India, etc. (French student) It is not necessarily the programme that made me more culturally competent. (German student)

162 

J. K. Bamford

Stereotyping A stereotype is a categorisation of race, gender and national origin in terms of distinguishing characteristics or behaviours that have positive or negative connotations (Neuliep 2011). The difficulty is that human beings like to order and structure their world and categorise their experiences; however, such categorisation can lead to stereotyping. This categorisation is very evident in the data but very few interviewees seemed aware that over-generalising or negative categorisation can be seen as stereotyping. However, the North American students were very aware of this issue and there were several comments made with regard to the desire to avoid making any stereotypical comments. It was interesting to note therefore that they were subject to the most stereotypical references by others. Some examples—which came from questionnaire and interview responses to a question seeking examples of cultural learning—of these stereotypes are provided in Table 5.2. The data demonstrated that there is a fine line between the need to categorise in order to give communications with others meaning and potential stereotypical commentaries. The elements of Deardorff’s (2006) intercultural competence model are not evident here, and whilst the last example is perhaps the most opinionated example of dealing with the Table 5.2  Example of potential stereotyping Americans wear flip-flops. (Questionnaire response) Italians talk a lot. (Questionnaire response) Working with French people—they are very goal-­orientated and thorough. British people like referencing and research, etc. Americans—very laid back in their work ethic, less research. They tend to just re-word, paraphrase and jazz up material we have been given rather than do their own research. Good with words and strong written and verbal communication. Italians—very flaky when it comes to work approach. (Questionnaire response) The French culture was horrible. Everything was horrible. Every time we talked to our landlord, he was horrible. Every time we wanted to get money he was horrible. The French people were,… to pay the electricity,… that was horrible. I speak a little bit of French and I was talking to a person on the phone and I’m like, “I’m trying to explain here that your webpage doesn’t work. We want to pay electricity, just tell us where we can do it on line!” (Interview response)

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

163

host culture, the views expressed are representative of those expressed in the responses. We can observe that little adaption to the host culture took place. The following excerpt from a Greek student demonstrates another example of stereotypical phraseology in the description of both host cultures: I prefer British people because they may be snobbish but they’re snobbish in a very different way like French people seem to know everything in the world, they are supposed to be right in everything they never do something wrong, all people in the rest of the world have to behave the way the French person behaves. It’s like everything is about them, everything like chauvinists. (Greek student)

In addition, a number of interviewees, particularly those from North America, made reference to an incident involving a tutor who had made a stereotypical reference in class. There was dismay expressed at the lack of action taken by the French institution for a derogatory reference that was viewed by many as racism towards the Chinese. Many of the European students and the institution itself shrugged it off, whereas all the North American students responded with outrage, making a request for some action to be taken. This is a clear example of a cultural difference in communication. The importance of learning about the ‘others’ in the classroom for both tutors and students and of developing the students’ relationality is highlighted from the description of this incident.

Learning About ‘Others’ Whilst the aforementioned data indicates that cultural learning needs to be supported, the positive responses from the questionnaire identified that the encounters resulted in an increase in cultural learning. Students perceived themselves as developing their intercultural skills. However, this might be considered superficial cultural learning as it related to increased knowledge of greeting styles and interaction styles rather than the development of an understanding of ‘others’ cultural identity. Jones

164 

J. K. Bamford

(2005) refers to students crossing international boundaries as opening themselves up to the development of ‘ontological awareness’, which is the capacity to ‘identify component parts of the previously taken for granted’ (2005: 73). Thus, the ontological security that comes from knowing the frameworks of one’s culture and society is disrupted so that individuals become more aware of behaviours that previously gave no cause for reflection. We have seen that students’ interpretation of their cultural awareness appears to be along the line of Hofstede’s (2003) categorisation of national cultural behaviours. Institutions need to facilitate the development of an ontological understanding of the position and importance of individuals’ cultural identity in an educational setting, which is essential in the epistemic space and for the all-important development of relationality. If we follow Jones’ argument, existing and being educated within individuals’ own culture equates with ontological security. On the international joint double degree, there is a need for us to reflect and question ourselves as individuals in cultural terms in order to signify the ‘other’. The data echoes Jones’ findings of personal growth but the tendency for students to categorise others was also striking and appeared to be more dominant than any reflection on personal growth in both the interview and survey responses. Despite this, some level of ontological awareness was evident. This can be seen in general terms of a demonstration of an increased awareness of others’ cultural norms in interviews and in the questionnaire open-ended responses. One of the students who made frequent stereotypical references in her interview also made the following remarks: I realised the importance of considering the others’ point of view. Now I know the importance of considering the others’ point of view. Now I know it’s not about being right or wrong but the perspective is more important and dialogue can boost our knowledge and know how. (Greek student)

Here we can see the development of this student as a consequence of her cultural encounters. The emphatic repetition of the words ‘now I know’ underlines the impact of the change and the reflection process. It demonstrates the development of cultural skills with an awareness of others and the possibility for empathy, adaptability and flexibility. There was

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

165

not a consistent picture in the data that exemplifies the depth of reflection this student achieved as it varied from individual to individual. However, others expressed similar development.

Learning from the Challenges to Cultural Communication When interviewees were asked to give an example of communication difficulties, the following response is one example of some of the challenges encountered: I can’t, no. I would talk to somebody on the subway and because my French would be not obviously the French that they could understand and sometimes I would stop and make a pause to think of the word that I have to use, they would be okay faster please because I have someone else waiting for me. Then I would talk to them in English because that would be the faster way and they would be I am sorry, you are in France and you have to talk French. I got this behaviour and you are in France and you have to speak to me in French, I got this in banks HSBC which are supposed to be international, I got this in Societe de General and other banks, I got this in the University itself in the Reception, yes. Every letter that we were receiving in our Inbox was in French, yes. If you could not speak French you could not live there, you have to be with someone else. Marguerite if she wanted to get a mobile for example she had to pick me, if she wanted to go to the kiosk thank god that they knew us because there was only one of two so she would go Orange I told her how to say Orange SIM card, Orange, [one word] like the ten Euros and that’s it. If she wanted to pay for something, she would look at the till and she would pay and that’s it. It was hard. It was hard, it was really difficult. Even the menus were basically in French in the restaurants. (Greek student)

The surprise expressed here about the fact that the communication was in French in France is concerning in the sense of a lack of management of expectations on the part of the institutions and the individuals. It points to the concerns raised by Knight (2013) with regard to collaborative

166 

J. K. Bamford

programmes’ use of English. This student was not a native speaker of English but clearly felt more confident in communicating in English. However, despite the examples of challenges some students provided in their interviews which might be anticipated given the context of study and the international mobility required, the question remains as to whether such programmes of study offer cultural learning and something additional to the subject curriculum. There were clear illustrations of learning, adapting, awareness of others and acceptance expressed in the data. This suggests that for some students the requirement of living in a different culture adds to the educational process. In a question posed to students  with regard to whether there was any learning about French culture, some students outlined that they  felt they had acquired more knowledge: Definitely, definitely. The whole concept of the French being snobs. Living there and it’s so hard to try to explain exactly what it is because it’s something that you just live and experience and you learn about without even realising that you’re learning about it. So, the way sometimes they’re not necessarily the most friendly but then learning to appreciate when they are friendly and when they’re not. Just the various culture elements which are very hard to put into words, especially if you have to stop and think about all the little bits and pieces. But did I learn anything? Yes. What can I say that I learnt though? I lived there for a couple of months. Just, I think just being there and just watching the way they dress or getting on to public transport or not talking on your phone. Just over time you just learn to appreciate or pick up some of the manners. When I first got there, I was like oh the French are so snobbish and then I was coming back to London for a trip and was thinking oh, the British are so loud, what is this! So without knowing it I had begun to appreciate some of their characteristics. I think over time you just begin to pick up small little bits and pieces that at the end create a larger picture such as when you talk or how you talk or the way you dress or you don’t dress. Or the way you order or even restaurant services and how you order and whether or not you’re allowed to stand up and go and get a menu by yourself. So just all these little bits and pieces that you begin to appreciate and learn what is considered to be acceptable and not. (American student)

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

167

This shows some initial culture shock in terms of a disruption of meanings which is at first expressed negatively but is later followed by acceptance in terms of the culture, behaviour and—most significantly—adaption and awareness of difference. It underlines the importance of a ‘lived’ experience and immersion. In some interviews there was evidence of the maintenance of the students’ existing cultural identity and a lack of acceptance of either or both host cultures. The following comments from a Greek student demonstrate difficulties in adaption and some stereotypical comments, although there is recognition that individuals should not be categorised: First of all, I knew about French culture and people and the rest, I knew that I would hate it because I hated it since I was in school when I was learning French. The only thing that I got from it is that it confirmed by first impression that yes France sucks. Yes. Apart from a few things like the food … and all that. France sucks. Yes. For me it’s like out of the picture as a…apart from the south of France like Nice and Cannes and there are very… (pause) Yes. I am not saying that if I see a French person I am like ‘Oh my god’, I am not like that obviously, I accept everyone, it’s just that I know from before that we can not, for example, be in a romantic relationship. In business it could be okay because they are very like not disciplined but they are very focused in what they do and they are very ambitious because they want things to get done and they are very…they want to be the first. In business if you want to be as much the best you can be it’s production, it’s official, effective for business. But when it comes to relationships like friendships, like other relationship they’re bad for me for a Mediterranean person they’re not suitable. I am very giving, they are like a wall, you can go as much as there, after that doesn’t go. And they have their own culture, because there have been a couple of French and another…. I could see that they were having very many differences and disputes and arguments because of the fact that he’s French and he would rather talk to French with his friends, rather than include this girl in his group of people, because she doesn’t speak French. And they had to all speak English so she could understand. (Greek student)

168 

J. K. Bamford

On the contrast between the acceptance of British and other cultures, the following comments were made: Being in London I learned how to apologise even if I just nudge someone, yes that is…. I think I just got used to it. it’s not that I believe that this is the right thing to do, I totally believe that, but since I was a kid because my father is like that, I knew that this is the proper way to do it. I was always keen on guys for example that would open the door for me, so I was always in that kind of behaviour. But living in Greece all my life I learned how to not be bothered, but I said okay fine, since you don’t do it I don’t have to do it. But being here I just got used to it again and I am apologising all the time…. Because my father obviously lived in a culture that’s based on British culture.

This demonstrates the student’s awareness of difference and a willingness to adapt to it but also that the disruption to meanings was less critical for her in London as she was more familiar with the language and cultural behaviours. Such responses led to the introduction of a residential weekend prior to the start of the course in the UK in order to manage student expectations and provide a framework for cultural learning, both in terms of a closed environment that facilitated initial cultural encounters and also in terms of a theoretical discussion and a space for the development of intercultural skills. This proved extremely successful as demonstrated by the responses with regard to cultural interactions. The social networks and social media groups, however, did not necessarily change and tensions were always evident in cultural terms, particularly in relation to assessment challenges such as group work.

Students’ Interactions with the Institution We have already seen that there is a need for transparency as part of the international joint double degree experience. Obst and Kuder (2014) and Palermo et al. (2018) underline the importance of ensuring the transparency in such programmes of study, and this appears particularly true for

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

169

the student experience and for an institutional framing of their cultural encounters. However, the data evidences that this transparency was not always apparent from a student perspective. An example of a student reacting to the British institution learning environment in what may be viewed as a distancing way is offered in the following extract: They give me so many projects and you do it in groups and it gave me a shock…. I have the skills to study again but I never had a dissertation like this. In four months you have six dissertations. Every day I’m so worried … every day I check with my parents, with my sister, I’m so worried about how I can pass this. (Malaysian student)

The issue is how to overcome the potential impact of heterogeneous characteristics of the group and to develop an environment that allows for cultural encounters and transitions to be made, referred to as the common ground talked of by Arkoudis et al. (2013). This accommodation for the transitions that are required should come from the institutions through the modus docendi, thus creating an identity with the institutions involved in the international joint double degree experience. The findings suggest that this may not have been achieved in the first semester, but variables around the location and the institution may have an effect on such transitions. Developing a sense of belonging to an institution has been shown to be important to students’ development and this can be challenging in urban environments (Bamford and Pollard 2019). An international environment in a cosmopolitan city does not automatically facilitate successful cultural interactions either between the students and the institution or between the students themselves. Again, the development of cultural awareness needs to be honed and encouraged.

Concluding Comments McAllister et al. (2006) recognise the importance of reflection on the part of an individual in developing general cultural awareness. The student’s comments below illustrate a reflective tone in response to a question

170 

J. K. Bamford

concerning the importance of living in another country to the development of cultural awareness: I think living is essential because it’s one thing for me to say this is how we do it. That’s me, this is my perception and it’s as much as I want to share with you and it’s almost theoretical versus practical. I can tell you how to get a phone but until you actually have to do it, you don’t walk into the office, see what it smells like, and look at what the forms are. (Canadian student)

This hints at the experiential element of international higher education which is referenced to by Kehm and Teichler (2007). One of the ways of highlighting differences in culture is to produce cultural categories. An example is provided in Hofstede’s (2003) work. He has produced the model by which many business researchers choose to frame such generalisations, and these categorisations are applied by some researchers in an educational setting. An example is offered by Turner (2006b) who highlights the differences between Chinese and British learners. Whilst it seems that these cultural generalisations may be unavoidable and they appear in much of the literature, it is important, as Holliday asserts (2018), to avoid political and popular tropes when attempting to analyse students’ cultural interactions. It is also important not to essentialise cultures in an educational space as there is a need to dispel the barriers in communication rather than enhance and entrench them. There are challenges to this however, as Holliday states: There are ideological conflicts within theory itself. Even within the postcolonial tradition there are arguments that seek to preserve rather than interrogate essentialist categories in an attempt to counter Western with equally marginalising non-Western stereotypes. (Holliday 2011: 117)

As Holliday (2018) further asserts, educators need their own cultural experience to be able to assess and critique as well as sort out the types of intercultural negotiations referred to above and it cannot be simply a ‘set of syllabus’ (2018: 208) items. A space for reflection, discussion and consideration is required on the part of both educators and students so that

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

171

cultural encounters and the resulting negotiations are integrated into the educational process. The opportunity for group work on the course provides a forum to address the possibilities offered by interacting within the heterogeneous group, thereby producing an opportunity for a homogeneity to develop within the group in terms of ingroup identity. If it is facilitated correctly, there are possibilities for intercultural learning. However, group work also has its risks (Turner 2009) in terms of enhancing the fragmentation within the group, and the data demonstrates that this was observed amongst some of the groups. The subject of group work is returned to in more depth in Chap. 7. It is also important to reflect on the cultural shaping thesis promulgated by Matthews (2000). His analysis of different levels of cultural shaping allows us to reflect on the potential complexities around cultural interactions and that in fact cultural awareness training and the development of intercultural competence are difficult to achieve.

Bibliography Appiah, K.  A. (2008). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Management Revue, 19(4), 340–341. Appiah, K.  A. (2018). The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity. London: Profile Books. Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (2017). Intercultural Competence: An Overview. In Intercultural Competence in Higher Education (pp. 7–18). London: Routledge. Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G., & Weber-Newth, I. (2006). International Postgraduate Students in London: Some Features of Their Expectation and Experience. Journal of Cyprus Sciences, 4, 25.

172 

J. K. Bamford

Barker, J. (1997). The Purpose of Study, Attitudes to Study and Staff-Student Relationships. In D.  McNamara & R.  Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Bennett, M.  J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (2nd ed.). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press. Coate, K. (2007). Unknowable: International Students in English Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Conference, Brighton. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for Learning Across Cultures. In D. McNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural Education: Theory and Practice. Intercultural Education, 17(3), 245–257. De Vita, G. (2005). Fostering Intercultural Learning Through Multicultural Group Work. In Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All (pp. 75–83). London: Routledge. Deardorff, D.  K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Deardorff, D.  K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L.  A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures (2000 ed.). New  York: Basic Books. Haigh, M. (2008). Internationalisation, Planetary Citizenship and Higher Education Inc. Compare, 38(4), 427–440. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1994). The Seven Cultures of Capitalism. London: Judy Piatkus Publishers. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile Books. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural Communications and Ideology. London: Sage Publications. Holliday, A. (2018). Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of Culture. London: Routledge.

5  Experiencing Cultural Difference as part of an International… 

173

Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (2018b). Introduction: Enhancing and Extending Study Abroad Learning Through Intercultural Interventions. In Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Jones, H. (2005). Broader Horizons and Greater Confidence: UK Students’ Learning from Mobility. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on Internationalisation in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260–273. Killick, D. (2016). Internationalization and Diversity in Higher Education: Implications for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, J. (2013). Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas. In M.  Kuder, N.  Lemmens, & D.  Obst (Eds.), Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Leask, B. (2009). Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. Levinas, E. (2006). Humanism of the Other (N.  Poller, Trans.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Lyotard, J.  F. (1984). The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Matthews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. London: Routledge. McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in Intercultural Learning: Examining the International Experience Through a Critical Incident Approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367–381. McNamee, S. J., & Faulkner, G. L. (2001). The international exchange experience and the social construction of meaning. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 64–78. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

174 

J. K. Bamford

Neuliep, J. W. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nieto, C., & Booth, M. (2010). Cultural Competence: Its Influence on the Teaching and Learning of International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 406–425. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Perdersen, P. (2010). Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Year Long Study Abroad Programme. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70–80. Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards Cosmopolitan Learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 253–268. Sanderson, G. (2008). A Foundation for the Internationalization of the Academic Self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The Global People Competency Framework: Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3272/. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Trahar, S. (2011). Developing Cultural Capability in International Higher Education. London: Routledge. Turner, Y. (2006b). Students from Mainland China and Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Business and Management Degrees: Teasing Out Tensions of Culture, Style and Substance. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 3–11. Turner, Y. (2009). “Knowing Me, Knowing You” Is There Nothing We Can Do? Pedagogic Challenges in Using Group Work to Create an Intercultural Learning Space. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 240–255. Twigg, C. (2005). Overseas Students in Higher Education. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot: Ashgate. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

6 Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed Approaches to Pedagogy as Part of the International Joint Double Degree Experience

This chapter explores the differences in institutional pedagogy, the learning and teaching approaches and the engagement and experiences of the students studying under those different approaches. The two most recent Trends reports (2015, 2018) evidence a shift in the discourse for the European University Association (EUA) together with a greater focus on pedagogy, teaching and learning methods for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This focus change is underpinned by the Paris Communiqué in 2018 where the following statement was made: For the past 20 years, the core mission of the Bologna Process and the main objective of structural reforms have been to ensure and enhance the quality and relevance of learning and teaching. Lifelong learning is increasingly important to our societies and economies as well as to our citizens’ wellbeing. Now it is time to add cooperation in innovative learning and teaching practices as another hallmark of the EHEA. We therefore commit to developing new and inclusive approaches for continuous enhancement of learning and teaching across the EHEA, and can succeed only if we do so in close collaboration with the European higher education community, in full respect of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. (Conference of the Council of Minister Responsible for Higher Education, Paris Communiqué 2018: 3) © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_6

175

176 

J. K. Bamford

An analysis of these international joint double degree cases and students’ experience poses questions with regard to the systemisation of teaching across international borders. An analysis of the international joint double degree experience throws up issues of culture and pedagogy and the students’ relationality. Whilst the Council’s support for a focus on teaching and learning is welcome, the call to enhance cross-border cooperation in innovative approaches to teaching and learning will place the international joint double degree even more at the heart of cooperative initiatives due to the intimacy (Palermo et al. 2018) that such programmes foster. The discussion of pedagogic difference is strengthened by students’ responses to a questionnaire on the teaching and learning in each institution which was delivered to three different cohorts. The questionnaire responses were rated on a five-point scale and focused on the experience of various aspects of the teaching and learning in each institution and the effectiveness of the respective pedagogical approaches for the students’ learning. Field notes from observations in both London and France provided further insights into the student experience. The challenges around the use of group work as part of the pedagogic approach and assessment are dealt with in Chap. 7. The object of the analysis was to identify whether there were differences in the modus docendi (mode of teaching, from doceo, meaning I teach in Latin) of the institutions offering the joint Masters programmes and to consider this in the context of the student experience of international joint programmes. Dale (2012) identified that little consideration had been given to the student experience of studying in two countries as part of one programme of study when the joint Erasmus Mundus policy was developed. The findings from this research project point to the need for there to be a much fuller consideration of the challenges that await students studying on such programmes. The discussion here is framed in terms of the institutions and the students’ modus discendi (mode of learning) as this forms the lens for the students’ experience of the institutional pedagogy. It is to be expected that the mode of teaching (modus docendi) at each institution, given the different national frameworks of education, may vary in pedagogical approach both at the institutional and at the national level.

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

177

The data highlighted a perceived difference in the modus docendi at each institution in the cases considered in the sample, which raises issues of the need for transparency and quality in relation to the academic experience for the students. A large differential in the approach of the modus docendi experienced by the students suggests that more thought needs to be given to the ethical dimensions of international higher education, as highlighted by Altbach and Teichler (2001), due to the potential disruption to the student experience offered by a multiplicity of teaching practices. It surely demands that some attention be given to the need to understand the way students engage with and negotiate the perceived difference in order to create coherence. Transparency and communication would seem to be significant aspects of facilitating the students’ modus discendi. In terms of pedagogical approach and educational approach, there appears to have been little discussion of the way such international education is received by the students. I highlight in Chap. 2 that, through the Bologna Process, the European Council and the Bologna Follow-Up Group, international joint Masters programmes in the EHEA have been encouraged, yet differences in pedagogical approach and attitude have attracted little attention. This issue is of concern in that the policy makers encouraging such programmes have done so little to consider the impact on those experiencing this type of degree education. This is not necessarily because every institutional experience should be the same or similar in term of pedagogic approaches, and indeed difference in approach is one of the strengths of such programmes because of the growth encountered as a result of the challenges presented, but rather the impact of the transitions made by the students negotiating so many levels of cultural difference, as highlighted in Chap. 4, has been given such little attention. There has been some discussion of the convergence of higher education at the national level of education systems as a result of Bologna but, according to Papatsiba (2006), little actual convergence has taken place despite the harmonising aims of Bologna and the European Higher Education Area. Harmonisation of the international joint Masters experience would seem, in light of this, to be a challenge—if indeed harmonisation of experience is possible. The data from the study illustrates that

178 

J. K. Bamford

although ECTS1 presents an example of some systems level convergence between the UK and France, there is little real convergence in terms of the experience of international joint double degrees. The students’ negotiations of difference appear to require more than an alignment of ECTS credits to overcome the issues of difference in the modus docendi. This lack of any real convergence echoes the views expressed by Papatsiba (2006). It is of course important to note that notions of national modus docendi need to be loosely defined as there is variation between institutions and indeed subjects. However, cultural difference is arguably an overriding factor (Dennehy 2014) for international joint double degrees. The question of cultural difference in an educational context has been given considerable attention in Chap. 5 so it will not be repeated here except to acknowledge that those reflections on cultural difference will of course impact on the issue of learning approach, the modus discendi as well as the modus docendi. Alexander (2000), when acknowledging that there are standard educational norms, states that: …no decision, or action which one observes in a particular classroom, and no educational policy, can be properly understood except by reference to the web of inherited ideas and values, habits and customs, institutions and world views which make one country, or one region, or one group, distinct from another. (2000: 5)

The engagement of the students within international higher education has to be viewed in the context of culture, as outlined by Alexander (2000) above. Alexander highlights the potential complexity of the encounters here and the cultural context to the different aspects of the education that the students will receive. It seems obvious to say that there are huge variations in the application of, but not necessarily, the essence of the modus docendi within the UK itself. Despite this variation, observation confirms that there is a cultural difference with institutions and the modus docendi in institutions in France. This difference is further complicated by the binary system of  European Credit Transfer System.

1

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

179

higher education which appears to be particular to France (Blanchard 2009). There are large differences in the environment, constituency, entrance requirements and modus docendi in the elite Grandes Écoles (Bourdieu 1989; Blanchard 2009) compared to the state universities in France and UK universities. The findings point to pedagogical differences at a national level which is echoed in Alexander’s (2000) work on culture and pedagogy. This difference was observed in the responses of students and staff in interviews conducted for this research. Interviews with students from all the international joint double degree programmes showed little variation in the response they made in observing the differences in pedagogic approach, indicating variations in the subject within the business field would appear to be negligible compared to the cultural differences between England and France. The data pointed to the fact that the pedagogical approach in the Grande École was preferable to students from countries other than the UK and France. There appeared to be a preference for the teaching and learning in the Grande École because of the small classes and the longer amounts of time in class, as well as the reading packs provided by tutors.

Do Differences in Education Systems Matter? The structure and delivery of international joint double degrees throw into sharp focus that there are considerable differences in national frameworks for the delivery of higher education, the way in which the curricula are structured and delivered and the way in which institutions are run. The data supported Papatsiba’s (2006) argument that there is no evidence of convergence of education systems at structural and process level. In fact, at the student experience level, there are very real differences between educational institutions in different countries. Of course, such a comment can be made about educational institutions in the same country although language and societal cultural difference do not have a role to play. For the sake of argument, therefore, let us accept the general position that within national frameworks for higher education we can see structural, process and curricula differences which will impact on student experience. Deer (2002) argues that these differences, particularly

180 

J. K. Bamford

between England and France, stem from the culturally and historically based national differences in educational approach. We therefore return again to the issue of difference and the linking axis of culture and pedagogy which frames this text. To understand this in more detail, I have outlined the educational environment of French business schools, Les Grandes Écoles, in more detail below.

The Modus Docendi in France In seeking to understand the context of the pedagogy of the French institution, some consideration of the French system and approach is necessary. This section addresses some of the relevant literature on French business schools. Deer (2002) very helpfully provides a general comparison between the two educational systems of France and the UK and outlines the differing national approaches that have governed their development. Whilst Deer’s text is aimed at a discussion of the education systems generally, some attention is paid to the historical development of the two-tier higher education system in France which is quite different to the UK. Some background to the history of this development is offered by Zeldin (1980) who outlines how the emphasis on les valeurs françaises, such as liberté, fraternité and égalité, influenced the organisation of the national frameworks, such as, in this case, education for the promotion of French national identity: Civilisation implied a whole social, economic and political programme to be carried out in cooperation with like-minded citizens and, inevitably, against those whom one would label as obscurantist and reactionary. It was egalitarian but also elitist. It was universal but also nationalist. (1980: 8)

This contradictory perspective of the French state towards egalitarianism and elitism is an important feature of the French higher education system, the implications of which require further exploration within the context of the modus docendi in international higher education. Zeldin provides us with the history of the development of higher education in France, demonstrating how the focus for the professional approach of the

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

181

Grandes Écoles was promoted. When read in conjunction with Deer (2002), it becomes clear that different levels of appreciation need to be applied to the French national system of education, with the Grandes Écoles being subject to a different frame of operation to the universities. What is also clear is that the mode of teaching in France reflects les valeurs françaises and students need to negotiate this when engaging with the culture of the host country. Calmand et  al. (2009), in their analysis of the Grandes Écoles (GE) system, underline the different approach of the French national system in terms of higher education and illustrate the specialist approach of the French institutions that offer business education. They state that Grandes Écoles provide access to better general knowledge, transferable competences, attitudes and personal skills valued by employers for the highly skilled professions than the universities in France. They have small student staff ratios and have a far more homogenous student body (Bourdieu 1989; Brezis and Crouzet 2006). In terms of the Grandes Écoles’ engagement with international higher education, Blanchard’s (2009) discussion on their development and their approach to internationalisation offers some insight. Blanchard highlights that there has been a change of focus for their activity from business schools to management schools in order to be more competitive internationally, but there is little evidence that this has changed their teaching approach. Darricotte and McColl (2008) argue that the ESC Rennes has changed its approach and has differentiated itself from other Grandes Écoles by taking an international approach to pedagogy. This perspective may be problematic as the nature of the difference with pedagogy in French schools is broader than issues of cultural diversity in the student body as they suggest. For example, Darricotte and McColl admit that their school has French management and administration and that the student staff ratio is small (as typical of Grandes Écoles), as well as class time being typical of Grandes Écoles with three-hour blocks given to each session. The fundamental difference of an elitist approach to the recruitment of the students is key to both the delivery of the teaching and to the attitude of the student body even if the Grande École is not a top-tier school such as HEC. They make an interesting observation that within their international environment and pedagogical approach, students’

182 

J. K. Bamford

complaints typically refer to difficulties with others, which they presume is a result of personality rather than cultural difference. This important observation is critical to the discussion of the data in the present case where the findings demonstrate that the opposite is true of the students’ presumptions of others. They also comment that success in their international environment is dependent on the personality of the individuals concerned but, again, offer little evidence for this observation. If we reflect on Hofstede’s (2003) dimensions of culture, where France would be considered as an individualistic culture, the emphasis on individual personality is not surprising, nor is the link with success and achievement. Their presentation of a tabled overview of the differences between UK and French education is reproduced below (Table 6.1): Whilst the representation of difference portrayed above is a useful guide, it must be remembered that it is not evidence-based but rather it is offered, as Darricotte and McColl state, as a guide for students and is based on their own experiences and observations (2008). They also make some additional supportive comments such as the typical approach of a French student to interactive sessions. This would be that they have not had their money’s worth and that the tutor does not know their subject. In addition, they comment on other cultural challenges such as the difficulties that French students have with being silent in class. These comments may be viewed as generalisations and there is limited literature on approaches to pedagogy in the GEs which illustrates a gap for further exploration in the context of the international joint double degree experience.

 he Educational Environment T of the Grandes Écoles The French higher education system, with its system of the Grand Écoles established by Napoleon, is unique to France and might be perceived as being a significantly different system of higher education from other national approaches. On the international stage, Grandes Écoles present themselves as a natural ally to higher education institutions engaging in

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

183

Table 6.1  Differences in approaches to teaching and learning in France and the UK, adapted from Darricotte and McColl (2008: 50) Classical French System

Competitive examination Elitist Cartesian Low failure rates Teacher A ‘font’ of knowledge Lectures No course book Distributes handouts Provides a ‘correction’ Teacher takes responsibility

Student Takes notes Learns after lecture Does exercise after class Student follows teacher Student is passive Student expects right answer

Pure case method, e.g. Harvard High failure rates in programme Competitive culture within school Encourages participation Animator pushes students to do analysis and find alternative solutions Uses a course book as a base Uses inductive method of learning Forces students to defend solutions Student reads theory and reads case and analyses case (including in a group before class) Student takes responsibility for the process

Classical UK system Relatively competitive entrance based on A levels

Teacher is an expert Lectures about points which interest him/or key elements Discussions in tutorials/small groups Expects students to learn outside of classroom

Student responsible for own learning Student expected to read around topic Student expected to be knowledgeable Student expected to synthesise theory

commercial activity. They are competitive, elite schools that are focused on market perceptions and demand, whereas the French state institutions offer education on an open-access basis. However, the French educationalists’ view of higher education is, as Deer (2002) comments, not particularly geared towards the harmonising drivers of European policy, a view that was confirmed in interviews with French staff. Deer cites issues in

184 

J. K. Bamford

both admission policies and practices, together with the recognition of qualifications from those who work in these elite institutions (Deer 2002), as differences that arise from the French system. These differences, at the micro level of institutional collaboration, represent disparities between the UK and French institution. Most of the French students had entered the Grande École two years previously through the classes preparatoires route followed by the concours2 that elite Grandes Écoles stage. For those students, a semester at another institution occurred in their second or third year of their studies at the French institution. On the issue of partnerships, Deer comments with regard to Grandes Écoles that: For professionals in institutions with the highest social status, entering into a partnership with foreign institutions or individuals has been a particularly difficult exercise for they have needed to select their partners, students or institutions carefully not only to preserve their status but also to satisfy their interests both at national and international level… the professional elite has appeared divided on this matter…. (2002: 157–158)

The tension alluded to by Deer for these elite French schools places an additional burden of difference on any potential partnership as there is a competitive and hierarchical situatedness to the partnerships framing. The tension is further embedded by the potential for a lack of reflexivity on challenges of differences between the partners, such as a lack of awareness or acknowledgement that the Grande École system is generally limited to France. Blanchard (2009) acknowledges this. This difference can be seen to play out at all levels of communication and interaction at the institutional and staff levels, and it also has the possibility of playing out at the student level. Despite this, French institutions remain as some of the highest participators in international joint double degree programmes.

 Competitive oral entrance examination.

2

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

185

The Modus Docendi in the UK It is often presented that Western institutions engage with student learning in broadly the same manner as each other. For example, the discourse with regard to pedagogy is framed in terms of the development of critical thinking skills which, according to Barnett (1997), is a defining concept for Western universities. This work questions the presumption that all Western institutions teach in the same way. Barnett states that the ‘overwhelming message of the sociology of knowledge is that the academic identity is maintained within definite cognitive frameworks with their own norms, values and territorial defences’ (1997: 15). However, the framework for the delivery of that knowledge is firmly located within the national frameworks that have a cultural basis for the format of delivery (Alexander 2000). This is distinguished from the habitus of those engaging in the academic life, as described by Bourdieu (1984), which can also be categorised as a cultural grouping. The implication therefore is that there is a national and institutional identifiable academic culture, the norms and values of which reflect the society and institution in which it is located. This nationally framed cognitive framework is therefore reflected in the mode of teaching, the modus docendi. It is argued that the mode of teaching is essentially a culturally steeped activity that can be differentiated in terms of an emphasis on a national framework of delivery which reflects the national and institutional culture. Simply put, national culture is an influencing factor on the institutional pedagogical framework which then influences the teaching and learning environment. Further, it is argued that, despite institutional differences, there is a common and identifiable modus docendi for higher education in the UK. The literature focusing on the French higher education system also displays a common framework, particularly in relation to the Grandes Écoles. However, the British and French frameworks are different. Some authority for the differences in national approach between the English and the French is provided by Deer’s (2002) work, who presents a detailed analysis of the differences between the two education systems, including higher education, from a policy perspective. Deer’s work does not, however, look at the student experience or, indeed, present a cross-country

186 

J. K. Bamford

comparison of the experience for students. The issue of the different student experiences in different national systems is dealt with later in this chapter, but it is clear from Deer’s work that the two national systems operate with different drivers. What may also be deduced from the literature is that, despite a common cultural background, there is variety and flexibility in delivery of teaching and learning in UK higher education institutions, particularly within business schools. A common feature seems to be the use of group work (Nordberg 2008; Pokorny and Griffiths 2010). This will be returned to and discussed in more depth later in this chapter. There appears to be a general understanding that the pedagogic approach in the UK is characterised by its encouragement of independent learning, although this term is somewhat vague. Evans and Morgan (1998) provide us with some sense of what this phrase means in their acknowledgement that independent learning means: All sorts of things, people use it with very different meanings and assumptions about the nature of learning and the purposes of post-compulsory education…. With these contrasting meaning of independent learning, ranging from a teacher-centred curriculum followed by a student in isolation, to a student-centred curriculum and lifelong learning, the term needs to be used with care if it is to be of any value for critical reflection on our practice. (1998: 69–70)

From this description a student studying in isolation can be seen to be as a potential aspect of the pedagogic approach when using the description independent learning. If one returns to Hofstede’s (2001, 2003) analysis of cultures, this approach is not surprising as the UK has an individualistic culture and the encouragement of individuals’ independence is a core cultural value. The emphasis on the education of individuals is designed to encourage skills that develop independence. The most famous obvious example of this independent learning can be seen in the UK’s elite institutions, which arguably offer us some of the most visual emblems of English culture. The Oxford Tutorial System (Palfreyman 2008b) offers a cultural example. Palfreyman states that the basis for the acquisition of knowledge at Oxford University is through

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

187

the Socratic method, which can be defined as challenging students through a process of questioning about beliefs and views and requiring them to arrive at answers through a process of critical reflection. Palfreyman concludes that Oxford offers a liberal education by ‘adequately engaging the higher education student in a continuous academic discourse so as to maximise critical thinking’ (2008: 39). He goes further and states that ‘Higher education only matters if it is a liberal education that teaches people to think critically and reflectively’ (2008: 12). He uses italics for higher in order to emphasise that the higher education offered at Oxford is more than tertiary education which is preparation for the workplace. This perhaps demonstrates a difference in ethos between the pre-92 and post-92 institutions, although it should be noted that encouragement of independence and individuality is a pervading value of English education. Although much of the focus in many of the post-92 institutions is preparation for the workplace through employability initiatives, and thus the curriculum has a tertiary framing, the ethos remains pervasive. In other words, the national cultural framework overrides institutions’ own cultural frameworks. The emphasis on the independent development of higher-order critical thinking skills is viewed as an essential aspect of all university education in the UK. As we shall see later in the chapter, there is a different emphasis in the privately funded French Grandes Écoles. Although Oxford does not offer what might be considered as the standard mode of delivery of education as experienced at other UK institutions, the contact time with tutors is broadly similar in all UK institutions and is dictated by subject field with science subjects typically having more contact hours. A survey on the ‘Academic Experience of Students in English Universities’ by J.  Cemmell and B, Bekhradnia (2008, HEPI Report no. 36) states that the average amount of time spent in class is 14.2 hours per week, with an equal amount of time expected in independent study. The example of the Oxford Tutorial System is given for two reasons: firstly, as both Oxford and Cambridge Universities are the ‘gold standard’ for UK higher education at the top of international league tables and thereby raising the profile of UK education overseas and, secondly, in order to emphasise the commonality of the independent study approach in UK institutions. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

188 

J. K. Bamford

benchmark statements also illustrate the UK approach and emphasis on the development of critical thinking skills. Further, although there are institutional differences in the modus docendi, these differences could be viewed as a sliding scale of delivery, with institutions such as Oxford at one end of that scale and urban post-92s at the other, with the independent approach being encouraged through the Socratic method in the former. The HEPI (Sastry and Bekhradnia 2007) report underlines that contact time also depends on subjects as well as institutions, with philosophy, for example, attracting an average of only 9 hours per week across English institutions. In terms of a market view for the UK, however, this approach of fewer contact hours compared to potential international partners may need to be reconsidered. The HEPI (2008) highlights that UK higher education degree courses risk being considered ‘study light’ in terms of too little contact time. This is an important issue for UK institutions in terms of international comparisons of higher education. In addition, the HEPI (2007) report highlights that there is little real difference in terms of contact time between the post-92 and the pre-92 institutions. Further, to underline and emphasise this point, study skills texts which offer guidance to students on studying in the UK often describe the UK pedagogical approach as being focused on independent study. Lowes et al. (2004) and Cotterell (2008) are just two examples. The expression ‘independent learning’ is also referred to in much of the literature in relation to the experiences of international students’ learning.

 he Educational Environment T of Post-92 Institutions Whilst the French system of higher education evidences very clear differences between elite institutions—Grandes Ėcoles and the state-funded universities with open access—the British system also exemplifies a system with large differentials between higher education institutions. One example can be seen in the overarching differences between the post-92 institutions (the former polytechnics) and the pre-92 institutions, with

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

189

the former continuing to offer more vocationally oriented qualifications and often requiring lower entrance qualifications. However, the past ten years have seen a blurring of this difference, with many post-92 competing successfully, particularly in international markets, with some of the pre-92s on an equal basis and with many pre-92 institutions offering more vocationally oriented courses. The focus herein is on the experience of a post-92 institution and represents, to some extent, a blurring of boundaries. Arguably, whilst UK institutions are also differentiated, they are united by common national boundaries and language and a commonality of ethos and pedagogic understanding, and this appeared evident in the data, thus supporting the point made by Alexander (2000). Certainly, whilst this appears to be a nuanced point, there was an observable ethos compared to the pedagogic approach in institutions in France or the USA. The discussion with regard to institutional cultural difference has been framed along national parameters although an acknowledgement that in-country difference exists is made. The historical, political and cultural contexts in which higher education institutions operate are regarded as having primacy for each institution in terms of pedagogic approach and with regard to the impact on the student experience in educational programmes that cross national boundaries.

Differences in the Courses at Each Institution The structure of the courses is made reference to again (as illustrated in Chap. 4, Fig. 4.2), in order to underline the complexity of the levels of difference involved with each aspect representing a new transition and stages of difference for students. As part of the first stage of the joint Masters, students took three modules in their UK institution over the period of a semester and are required to attend class for nine hours each week and then are assessed at the end of the teaching period. Students travelled to their next country immediately on completion of this semester to complete a further eight modules of study, thus more than doubling the number of subjects; teaching was delivered in two weekly blocks with one

190 

J. K. Bamford

week of teaching and once a week of group work, followed by an assessment for each module. Exams were taken at the end of term. The difference in classroom hours and pedagogical approach might be regarded as a significant factor. Following the taught aspects of the course, students are required to complete an internship and a dissertation in order to gain the two Masters title. There is the potential for variance in terms of the Masters dissertation where students registered at one institution, for example France, would hand a dissertation at their institution of registration. Such a structural variance had to be considered by the partners and built in to address institutional regulatory differences; for example, French students were required to complete their Diplôme de Conference des Grandes Écoles by a September deadline, whereas students registered in the UK, on completion of an internship, might be offered another three months of study before handing in their dissertation. This is just one example of the potential national difference in approach to course delivery and required quality procedures. It can be the case that the two institutions are both schools of business, but the funding structure in each country creates a push-pull factor that results in the different programme structures. For example, the French écoles are funded through the local Chamber of Commerce and undergo annual monitoring3 which involves a panel with industry representation; meanwhile, a UK state-­funded university is monitored by the QAA and the Office for Students.

The Students’ Perceptions of Difference The collaboration of two institutions could be perceived as a challenge, given the differences in national systems. Data from questionnaires completed by students undertaking a suite of programmes in the UK and France presents a disparity in responses with regard to their experience of each institution. The data from the students’ perspective evidenced that the ethos and pedagogic approach of each institution was more diverse than had been anticipated. The French institution’s message of elitism,  A British term and process, there is not really a French equivalent.

3

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

191

common to the Grande École (Deer 2002), and the consequential potential for future employment were observed as being successfully communicated to students and thereby confidence in the French approach was conveyed. In contrast, the UK institution had a very different ethos without the possibility of future management employability being constantly reinforced. This finding from the data demonstrates another degree of difference and challenge for the international joint double degree experience. Deer’s (2002) detailed discussion of British and French education aids in understanding the differences with the French system, in particular the ethos underpinning the elite French schools of business. This ethos falls in line with Bourdieu’s (1989) analysis of French higher education with its emphasis on the acquisition of social and cultural capital. This aspect of French culture was represented in the tone and comments of French students in the interviews and contrasted with students recruited by the London institution. Although the interviews in the first semester underlined the importance of the acquisition of English as a skill to improve employment prospects by nearly all the students, the French students emphasised this the most strongly. The concepts of enhancing work prospects, language learning and social and cultural capital acquired were clearly connected in the student responses. Darricotte and McColl (2008) further underline the elitism of the ‘classical system of French education’ in their pragmatic discussion on diversity in French business schools.

Students’ Perceptions of Prestige The embedding of ideas of elitism naturally leads to an emphasis on hierarchy. This is expressed in the most basic way by the importance given to league table positioning. In France this can be seen at both an institutional and student level. Blanchard (2009), in her analysis of the management of French Grande Écoles, underlines the importance of league tables and market positioning in the French system. Interview data echoed this

192 

J. K. Bamford

view, with some students confirming that they understood a market game was being played out and the British lack of focus on market positioning in this regard was puzzling to them. A French student observed: My point is the first time it was in the league it was not so high, very, very, very low. It was one of the last so everybody thinks okay it’s so bad that you … they don’t want to be in this position. It’s part of the game and for a business position its not so good but I don’t agree with newspapers, there is some influence, some advertising, its part of the game. (French student)

This observation, whilst poorly expressed, suggests that the lack of league position is the very worst position for an institution. French students regard the position of the Grande École on the league table to be important for their future and therefore influential in their experience of their education. The data demonstrated a single-mindedness on the part of the French Grande École students with regard to the important link between the ‘school’ and their future employment prospects; this appeared to be a strong driver for their educational engagement. This focus was less evident in students from other national backgrounds. A lack of league table position could impact on the future employability of its students, which would be unthinkable for the Grande École. The tone of the comments was critical towards what was perceived as a lack of focus in the UK approach. Observations also evidenced an element of competitive positioning between each institution as well as the elite positioning of the French institution at various points during the research period, for example, during introductions to students and in the promotional material. Generally, despite the elite claims made by the staff at the French institution, most students regarded the French institution as a middle-ranking institution albeit the highest-ranking Grande École to which they could gain admission following their classes preparatoires.4

 Specialist schools that take students for two years post-Baccalaureate and prepare them for the entrance exam (the concours) to the Grande École. 4

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

193

 tudents’ Perceptions of Pedagogy: S Differences in the Modus Docendi The challenge for student international transitions is also brought into focus on closer inspection of the modus docendi of each institution. Whilst interview responses reinforce the questionnaire findings that students expressed a preference for the French system—due to more class time and information5 provided by tutors—a more complicated picture emerges through analysis of the interviews. For the French students, it became evident that this preference was also influenced by the locus for their undergraduate education, whether this was at a state French institution or whether they were ESC6 Grande École students, perhaps due to the difference in ethos and pedagogical approach of these institutions, something that is noted by Deer (2002). Whilst acknowledging this difference, there was however a clear critique of the learning and teaching at the London institution,7 with its emphasis on independent study and less class contact time. We can generalise here that this modus docendi is similar to other UK institutions and that independent study and class contact times are similar in many UK institutions, as already demonstrated by Cemmell and Bekhradnia (2008). It is worth noting that overseas students come to the UK with what Welikala and Watkins (2008) describe as differing cultural scripts. These cultural scripts and cultures of learning (Cortazzi and Jin 1997) then dictate, to a greater or lesser extent, the adaptability or ease of transition to the UK system. This ease of transition will be further challenged by a model of delivery where only one semester is spent in the country and in an urban environment where the learning community is challenged by a commuter student paradigm (Maguire and Morris 2018; Thomas 2012, Thomas and Jones  2017; Bamford and Pollard 2018, 2019). Teichler (1998) helps us to further understand this point when he comments that:  Such as lecture notes and journal articles and relevant textbook chapters.  Many French students are ESC (École Supèrieure de Commerce) students; they study at the Grande École for three years and gain a Diplôme de Conferences des Grandes Écoles. 7  The London institution received a ‘broad confidence’ rating from the QAA for the university as a whole and for its partnership audit. 5 6

194 

J. K. Bamford

Administrators, academics and students are so much socialized to take the national conditions of HE for granted that they are hardly aware of the extent to which they are national rather than global players. (1998: 88)

This socialisation is reflected in the modus discendi for each student. The culture of modus docendi for each institution is inevitably and inexorably linked to national frameworks for education where the delivery takes place and, as stated above, is a culturally steeped activity. Thus, the experience of the international joint double degree is fraught with the potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication as transitions are not seen through to fruition. This is particularly true for the communication in a classroom context which takes on greater importance when mobility occurs from one national framework to another. The effect is enhanced when the timeframe is effectively only nine months. Encountering different pedagogies and understanding the expectations of the different approaches to teaching and learning requires students to exist outside their own expectations and understandings, in addition to coping with the stresses of living and studying in another country (Bamford 2006).

The Demographic Background of the Students The data presented below is from the questionnaire that was issued to students from two cohorts over two consecutive years, with n = 64 from a possible 108. The questionnaire was used to provide descriptive statistics indicative of the demographics of the cohorts and perceptions of the different aspects of teaching and learning in each of the institutions. The demographic breakdown of these respondents to indicate their representation of the total sample is provided in Table 6.2. An analysis showed that 76.1% of the respondents were female and that French students constituted 34.3%, with the majority of the respondents having come from ‘other’ countries. These were Canada, USA, Greece, Italy, Germany, Egypt, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey, Thailand, India, Norway, Brazil, Slovakia, Albania, Cayman Islands, Spain and Japan. As would be expected in terms of

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

195

Table 6.2  A representative example of demographic statistics for students undertaking international joint double degree Demographics of respondents (n = 64) UKa France Other Grande École Average age Males Females Parents with degree (father) Parents with degree (mother) Parents with Masters Parents with Doctorate Studied abroad before Worked abroad Travelled widely (overseas) Travelled on holiday a

10 22 32 21 24.2 15 48 19 19 27 22 31 37 35 58

This is to some extent an anomalous figure as the London institution did not define them as UK students for fees purposes (their country of domicile and education being overseas)—only one was defined as a UK student

social-economic class predictors for those doing Masters programmes, most had parents that had undertaken higher education, with 34.3% having parents with Doctorates. In terms of previous study abroad, 48.4% had previous experience prior to undertaking the course and 54.6% had travelled widely, with 90.6% of respondents having previously travelled abroad on holiday. This demonstrated overwhelmingly that students had exposure to other cultures through travel prior to joining the course. This may mitigate arguments for international joint double degrees being a means of developing global perspectives for students. However, it may also be argued that this previous travel experience was limited by a tourist perspective rather than a sojourner perspective when a deeper cultural immersion can be achieved. It was observed that even though some had studied abroad before, this did not appear to enable country transitional and institutional transition to any greater extent than for students who had not studied abroad previously.

196 

J. K. Bamford

The Modus Docendi Experience The following table presents an analysis of various aspects of the students’ teaching and learning experiences at the two institutions. It appears to present a rather stark contrast between the experiences of the students at the UK institution and those of the students at the French institution. The final column singles out the French responses (34.3% of the students) to illustrate that there is little difference between their views and the views of all the respondents (Table 6.3). The table presents cumulative totals of the rated responses of good or very good (from a Likert scale of 1–5, with 1 being very poor and 5 very good) of the experiences of each item listed at each institution. The questions enabled a comparison of experiences and highlighted the differences. In order to be able to manage the data in a representational format, the frequency scores for good and very good were added together. The French students’ responses were extracted and are represented as percentages in the table above in column two. These students may be seen as different and distinct from the rest of the cohort as they had already been studying in the French institution for one or two years, following their classes preparatoires prior to going to London. Their semester in London therefore seems to be regarded more as a study abroad pathway rather than an integrated joint programme of study. Given this additional dimension to the respondents, it was important to extract their responses to identify any significant variation in their responses. The table above indicates that this was not the case and, in some instances, the French response was more favourable to the London institution than the aggregated ratings of the international respondents. However, there is still a clear preference expressed by the French students for the modus docendi in the French institution. If we look at some of the high scores given for aspects of teaching and learning, there is a higher percentage of the total higher responses from French students: for example, the group work rating at the French institution is 72.72% compared to the total respondents rating of good or very good of 60.3%. Of note is that 55% of students felt the course structure was better in France, despite the joint design. It perhaps underlines the difficulties in delivering an international

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

197

Table 6.3  The experience of the modus docendi in London and France Teaching and learning experiences at both institutions

Percentage responses for good and very good percentages

Percentage of total of French-only responses

London: course structure France: course structure London: independent research France: independent research London: appropriate module content France: appropriate module content London: appropriate assessment methods France: appropriate assessment methods London: information provided in class France: information provided in class London: usefulness of lectures France: usefulness of lectures London: usefulness of seminars France: usefulness of seminars London: requirement of independent reading France: requirement of Independent reading London: effectiveness of group work France: effectiveness of group work London: access and availability of tutors France: access and availability of tutors

15 55 33

18.18 45.45 31.8

38

31.8

49

9

63

63.6

20.6

27.27

39.6

45.45

15

27.27

67

72.72

20.6

18.18

63.4

63.18

17.4

22.7

52.3

63.6

42.8

36.36

47.6

45.45

42.8

45.45

60.3

72.72

34.9

31.31

55.5

63.6

198 

J. K. Bamford

joint double degree experience, as the institutions appear to have left an impression of two separate halves with no connectedness in terms of an understanding that they were participating in a joint programme of study. It suggests that the international transition was separate (what does separate mean here?) for each institution in each country. The responses below provide further insight and reinforce the findings of difference in the modus docendi between the two institutions. I wasn’t expecting the fact that in England the teaching is so light and they expect you to work a lot at home. (French student) I realised the big difference between the two different education systems and that was a huge surprise. The practical approach of the French system was something more close to my educational background in contrast with the English individual research that took me a while to adapt. (Greek student)

These comments illustrate a lack of expectation of difference and suggest that there is a need to manage expectations on such programmes to facilitate the international transitions. The findings appear to demonstrate a clear preference for the lectures, seminars, course structure, assessment methods and availability of tutors as implemented in the French institution, with a significantly higher percentage rating them as either good or very good. Some of the responses to an open-ended question on the differences shed more light: It was very difficult for me to adapt myself to the English education system: there were few hours in class, a lot of readings. I prefer my own education system, I feel that I learn more that way. (French student) In London the classes were too infrequent whilst in France there were too many. (UK student) The part of the adaption I was most dissatisfied with was the lack of explanation about grading system differences, the extremely long lag between learning grades from the London institution and the French institution so if there was a discrepancy it was too late to do anything about it and lastly the lack of clear objective for the assessments, …otherwise it was very vague and made the grades appear too arbitrarily assigned. (US student)

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

199

This last comment is an example of many similar comments made with regard to grading criteria and difficulties in adjusting to the differences. It has a critical tone, particularly with regard to academic standards. This may reflect the discomfort with the different modus docendi, a seeming objection to the different pedagogies and assessment practices and a lack of familiarity, expressed as a lack of cohesion and transparency between the two. Altbach and Teichler (2001) comment on the importance of this transparency as do Palermo et al. (2018) who make specific reference to a joint dual award context. The data highlights that French students were a large and more homogenous cohort, if we use nationality as a defining characteristic; it is clear that their experience of the international joint double degree varied from those recruited by the London institution. This further suggests that homogeneity in terms of the international joint double degree experience may be difficult to achieve. An excerpt from another French student on a Finance Masters programme reinforces the perspective of the French students on the differences between two institutions: I don’t know if the others will agree with me but I think it’s basically a difference in philosophy, goal of the studies. In France, business schools tend to project to make the students professionally ready at the moment they graduate,…technical or most of the technical issues understood and be able to use them. And almost not any information training once they get in companies, only just to adapt themselves to the new way of working. Whereas in England and not only England but all universities using Anglo-­ Saxon model around the world, they tend more to make the students adaptable and be able to catch up very fast, and be able to adapt and understand any new type of work, any new field very quickly. That’s the example I get from friends where I have for instance friends who did anthropology at LSE and she got recruited in bank for instance. Because she had very good grades in this field and she was really able to catch up extremely fast. Whereas in France it’s something you don’t really see. You go in field while you are studying and you stay in this field at least for the first year…. (French Finance Masters student 1)

The benefits of a liberal education have been commented on by Palfreyman (2008) and the excerpt above appears to echo notions of the

200 

J. K. Bamford

development of critical thinking skills in British universities. It belies the view that overseas students have no awareness of the expectations of the London institution. It also reinforces that perceived differences in the modus docendi are played out in the experience of the international joint double degree. The comments from another student were pragmatic and offered a different view of higher education in terms of dealing with disciplining the young and ‘forcing’ them to engage with their academic studies: Our system in France is based in such a way that you force the students, because you know that they are not going to work because they have a social life, too. And very young and they want to enjoy. So in such a way that they force students to work on a daily basis. Like week by  week by week, because if you don’t work for 3 weeks you are going to have forgotten one month after what you did before. So it bets on the fact that students won’t work … while here it’s the opposite. You’re students, you pay, so you are responsible, so you are supposed to work at home at least 5 hours per hour of class. (French Finance Masters student 2)

There is evidence that students may prefer the more directed pedagogical approach that the Grande École appears to offer and this may provide reasons for the French modus docendi receiving more favourable responses.

The Requirement of Independent Learning The responses regarding the questions on independent learning require some further exploration as both institutions received very similar scores with regard to the requirement for independent reading. The London institution received a 42.8% rating as good or very good and the French institution received 47.6% of the same ratings. An analysis of interviews conducted with staff and students indicated that students are required to undertake little independent research in France and that the majority of information was provided to students via the classroom environment. Observations on differences in library facilities reinforced the low expectation with regard to independent reading in the French business school.

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

201

The data evidenced that in France, 75% of the information for students’ courses was provided by tutors in class with the remaining 25% being gathered independently outside class. One student described this as a 75/25 balance, and for the UK the balance was vice versa. The score for the London institution’s independent reading therefore takes on greater importance as it is based on students’ use of libraries and online databases, rather than the reading pack which was given out by tutors to each student at the French institution. Certainly, those delivering the teaching provided some interesting insights into the modus docendi in France compared to the UK.  An interview with one of the tutors provides some further insights. The use of tone and language in the excerpt below underlined a clear view of difference between the institutional approaches that appear to be negative with regard to the French approach. This could be explained as the tutor appears to have some difficulty in accepting the differing pedagogical approaches of the UK and France. What we can take from the excerpt however is the acknowledgement of a lack of coherence and transparency in the two parts of the course: Tutor 1 (T1) Yes, one thing that I haven’t quite got my mind around yet is this question of the comparative level of study for what is allegedly an integrated coherent Masters qualification. Interviewer (I) That’s an interesting question. T1 It is a very interesting question. And I’d be very interested to stick my nose in some other Grande École and see where they come out. But there appears to be still some gap between our respective understandings…. I’d say they had a very distorted view about what a Masters experience is. I In what sense? T1 I’d say that they are not required or encouraged to develop skills which Masters students here would take for granted, particularly in terms of assimilation of theory, critical thinking. Even fairly rudimentary research. I But then you say, almost half the course in France is taught by London tutors? T1 Yes, a bit less than half. Three modules out of eight are taught by London people. But—

202 

I T1

J. K. Bamford

The two bits—it doesn’t add up? Well they add when you know that those three people have to water down quite substantially the content of what they deliver in order to deliver it there. When you start out, you start out delivering what you think should be delivered at Masters level and then you find out that they actually aren’t enjoying it or they don’t like it or they don’t do it very well or they complain. And so you water it down, that’s what I’ve done progressively. So I’m very popular there now but it’s because I deliver something which is closer to undergraduate level than Masters level.

Observations and interviews with tutors confirmed that students receive only marginally more teaching time per subject in total and the reality was nearer parity, although the mode of delivery in block format in France presented itself as a difference. For Grandes Écoles the standard format is that classes take place from 9 to 12 and 2 to 5 each day. There is also a clear emphasis on processing the teaching in an intensive way, as opposed to encouraging a philomathic8 mode in the students. Fish (2013) echoes the need for business curricula to be centred around a more philosophical approach to learning, and the two institutions displayed a clear divergence in this regard. Despite this thought, the lectures in France were more useful. The dependence on part-time lecturing staff appears to be a common occurrence in Grandes Écoles, which is referred to by Darricotte and McColl (2008). Observations of French business schools confirm that this is a common approach, and there is frequently no further contact with tutors once the block teaching (of typically one or two weeks) is concluded, except for tutors’ role in marking the group work. The first assessments for each module in France were written pieces of group work. Ironically the result of this block approach was that subject tutors rarely had further contact with students once their block delivery was completed.

 Love of learning.

8

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

203

 re the Perceived Benefits of More Class A Time Real? It may be that what we have to deduce from this mixed picture is that most international students assessed their experience at the French institution as better than it actually was. This claim can be made as more in-­ depth probing on teaching and learning approaches with both staff and students did not elicit any further evidence of a preferential educational experience apart from greater satisfaction with small classes. Perhaps what is being underlined here is that the UK modus docendi reflected an encouragement of independence and the development of critical thinking skills and that these expectations were not sufficiently outlined to students and thus the transitions that were required were not sufficiently enabled as part of the pedagogic approach. The French approach seemed to suit international students who appreciated more contact time and information provided by tutors as well as a perceived closer interaction with tutors. The French institution’s course leader for the Finance Masters commented: We are slaves to the students, they email at 2 in the morning and expect a response, the questionnaire does not indicate the way we have to work. (French course leader of the Finance course)

The factors that appeared to contribute to the favourable student responses in the questionnaire were the more intimate and caring environment and the focus on activities with each other, together with an approach to the subject that was more pragmatic than theoretical. This intimate environment encouraged a philomathic aspect to the modus discendi which aided the international transition; it was as a consequence of—and was dependent on—the students’ relationality in the international classroom. The importance of developing relationality amongst student groups cannot be underestimated for those from differing cultural backgrounds (Bamford and Pollard 2018) as it frames the educational experience and aids in developing the ‘common ground’ referred to by Arkoudis et al. (2013). It appeared from the data that the modus discendi at the Grande École was directly linked to students’ professional future and cannot be seen as

204 

J. K. Bamford

philomathic in the general sense. For the international students, the environment created a dependence on each other which built their relationality in connection with their learning. The two are therefore linked and resulted in a positive experience for most students at the French institution. The students’ views of the effectiveness of teaching approaches were collected and the frequencies for effective and very effective have been aggregated and are represented as a percentage in Table 6.4. The French institution received notably higher scores for module content, module materials and information provided in class. Interestingly, in comparison to the experience ratings, the London institution’s score for the effectiveness of lectures on their learning was 60.3% effective or very effective, compared with the French institutions receiving 61.9%. This was also corroborated in the interviews where there is little criticism of the lecturers’ delivery in either institution. Perhaps the students’ view with regard to their experience is directly related to how much information the tutor provided in class. In the French institution, all the tutors were required to provide all reading material to students at the start of the course. The library score was also interesting as the rating for the London institution was notably higher. The library facilities were commented on by some of the students for their importance in relation to their learning experience. The students also appeared to acknowledge that the French institution was more adapted to international students as 46.6% of students rated their adaption as effective or very effective compared to 30.1% at the British institution. The access to tutors score is of interest as, again, observations at the French institution as well as tutor interviews identified that most of the London tutors were not as accessible as the tutors in France. This was so even though the latter were not full-time members of staff but were visiting lecturers and only available for the week they were teaching in France. The data indicated that the only tutor who was accessible in France throughout the course was the course leader. This is a common feature of the Grande École approach as confirmed by Darricotte and McColl (2008). At the French institution, the course leader took a very active role in tutoring all the students for all the subjects taught during the semester. This was very different to the UK.

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

205

Table 6.4  The effectiveness of teaching and learning approaches Effectiveness of teaching and learning approaches

Aggregate of effective and very effective as a percentage (N=64)

London: clear goals France: clear goals London: independent research France: independent research London: module content France: module content London: module materials France: module materials London: assessment methods France: assessment methods London: quality of teaching France: quality of teaching London: lectures France: lectures London: seminars France: seminars London: information in class France: information in class London: library France: library London: group work France: group work London: access to tutors France: access to tutors London: study support France: study support London: adaption of content to international students France: adaption of content to international students

30 49.2 31.7 38 20 60.3 17.4 58.7 30 46 12.6 73 60.3 61.9 17.4 49.2 22.2 61.9 60.3 25.3 36.5 46 22.4 52.3 20.6 20.6 30.1 46.6

Concluding Comments The discussion presented in this chapter establishes that it is important to give some consideration to the cultural diversity and the internationality of any cohort of students on an international joint double degree. It is important that the teaching and learning methods address issues relating to differences in cultural norms, a lack of familiarity with approaches taken in each institution and possible issues related to communication,

206 

J. K. Bamford

language and discourse styles in order to aid the international transitions that are required on such programmes of study. There is a need to understand the different cultures of learning that students bring with them and that their modus discendi is likely to be different to the institutional modus docendi. The data underlined that the more intimate environment of the French school, together with the shorter time spent on group projects, was one way to ease the international transitions that proved disruptive to the learning process. It is worth noting that the transferable skills to which the students frequently made reference were part of the learning outcomes for the module or, indeed, the courses. Yet they are clearly the result of the cultural encounters in which the students engaged as part of the learning process. The teaching and learning data identifies the experience of difference for students and the lack of transparency in their international joint double degree experience. This underlines the importance of a cohort approach to the delivery of such programmes and chimes with the findings of Palermo et al. (2018). The issue of difference has significant implications for the student experience of international joint double degrees, and they should expect to experience coherence and transparency in the delivery of such programmes. The teaching and learning approaches in each institution appeared to be significantly different that the ‘jointness’ of the programme was undermined and transitions could be viewed as more challenged. The implications for a joint Masters course are quite stark, as it could not be called ‘joint’ in teaching and learning terms, but only on the basis of the title and the award. The notion of joint Masters awards is therefore called into question in terms of what is actually meant by the use of the word ‘joint’. In this instance where each institution offers its own award for the programme, the reality is perhaps merely the ‘outsourcing’ of a semester by each institution. Pedagogy in higher education institutions is rooted in national culture, as Teichler (2008) observes, and as Palermo et  al. (2018) confirm, institutions embarking on such programmes of study need to engage in careful administration and planning in order for such programmes to be sustainable.

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

207

Bibliography Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Bamford, J. K. (2006). International Students and Their Experiences of UK Education: Strategies for the Improvement of Their Academic and Cultural Experience of Studying in the UK. SRHE Annual Conference, Brighton. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2018). Developing Relationality and Student Belonging: The Need for Building Cosmopolitan Engagement in Undergraduate Communities. London Review of Education, 16(2), 214–227. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham, UK: SHRE and Open University Press. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus (P.  Collier, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1989). La Noblesse d, Etat: Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Brezis, E. S., & Crouzet, F. (2006). The Role of Higher Education Institutions: Recruitment of Elites and Economic Growth. In T. S. Eicher & C. Garcia-­ Penalosa (Eds.), Institutions, Development and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Calmand, J., Giret, J. F., Guegnard, C., & Paul, J. J. (2009). Why Grande Ecoles Are So Valued? 17th Annual Workshop of the European Research Network in Youth, Burgundy University, Youth Transitions at Risk, Insecurity, Pecantry and Educational Mismatch in the Youth Market. Dijon: IREDU-CNRS. [Online]. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ halshs-00419388/.

208 

J. K. Bamford

Cemmell, J., & Bekhradnia, B. (2008). The Bologna Process and the UK’s International Student Market. HEPI Report No 36. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for Learning Across Cultures. In D. McNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Cotterell, S. (2008). The Study Skills Handbook (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Dale, R. (2012). From ‘Not Quite Falling Out of the Sky’ to Europe’s Flagship Programme for Worldwide Academic Cooperation: The Emergence and Significance of Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning, Crisis and Social Change Conference, University of London, LLAKES. Darricotte, A., & McColl, R. (2008). Teaching and Learning in an Environment Challenged by Cultural Diversity. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhancing the International Learning Experience in Business and Management, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism. Newbury, UK: Threshold. Deer, C., & M.  A. (2002). Higher Education in England and Wales Since the 1990s. Oxford: Symposium Books. Dennehy, E. (2014). Is Deep Learning Rewarded? A Quantitative Study on the Relationship Between Learning Approaches and Academic Scores. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 5(1), 54–68. Evans, T., & Morgan, A. (1998). Independent Learning Confronts Globalization: Facilitating Students Development as Learners. In C.  Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Students Learning Outcomes: Proceedings of the 1998 6th International Symposium. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Fish, A. (2013). Reshaping the Undergraduate Business Curriculum and Scholarship Experiences in Australia to Support Whole Person Outcomes. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 53–69. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile Books. Lowes, R., Peters, H., & Turner, M. (2004). The International Students Guide: Studying in English at University. London: Sage. Maguire, D., & Morris, D. (2018). Homeward Bound: Defining, Understanding and Aiding ‘Commuter Students’. HEPI Report 114. Higher Education Policy Institute. Nordberg, D. (2008). Group Projects: More Learning? Less Fair? A Conundrum in Assessing Postgraduate Business Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 481–492.

6  Differences in Institutional and Nationally Framed… 

209

Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Palfreyman, D. (2008a). Higher Education, Liberal Education, Critical Thinking, Academic Discourse and the Oxford Tutorial as Sacred Cow or Pedagogic Gem. In The Oxford Tutorial: ‘Thanks You Taught Me How to Think’. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. Palfreyman, D. (Ed.). (2008b). The Oxford Tutorial: ‘Thanks You Taught Me How to Think’ (2nd ed.). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Higher Education Studies. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Making Higher Education More European Through Student Mobility? Revisiting EU Initiatives in the Context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education, 42(1), 93–111. Pokorny, H., & Griffiths, D. (2010). The Ethics of Assessed Group Work: A Voyage Through a Post-92 Institution to Uncover the Myths of Enhanced Learning Through Group Work Assessment. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhanced Learning Through Assessment. Newbury: Threshold Press. Sastry, T., & Bekhradnia, B. (2007). The Academic Experience of Students in English Universities. HEPI Report. Teichler, U. (1998). The Role of the European Union in the Internationalisation of Higher Education. In P. Scott (Ed.), The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Teichler, U. (2008). Student Mobility: Where Do We Come From, Where Are We Going to Inside the EHEA? Fostering Student Mobility: Next Steps? Involving Stakeholders for an Improved Mobility Inside the EHEA Conference, Brussels, 29–30 May 2008. Thomas, L. (2012). What Works? Student Retention and Success. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Thomas, L., & Jones, R. (2017). Student Engagement in the Context of Commuter Students. London: The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP). Retrieved from http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/projects/2018/ Commuterstudentengagement.pdf. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Zeldin, T. (1980). France 1848–1945: Intellect and Pride (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7 The Use and Importance of Group Work on International Joint Double Degrees

The subject of group work, with its potential for the development of an understanding of others, is referred to in Chap. 3 in the context of adding value to the international joint double degree experience; group work activity, whether assessed or merely a classroom cooperative activity, provides a locus for the development of the ‘common ground’ referred to by Arkoudis et al. (2013). The theme of group work features prominently in teaching and learning literature, with authors such as Pokorny and Griffiths (2010) acknowledging the benefits together with the challenges. It is a common approach to engaging students in subject material in class and a mode of student assessment in business schools throughout the UK and France. The findings from the project demonstrated the frequency of the use of group work for both assessment and as a pedagogical approach across all courses in both countries. It appeared to be more widely used in the French institution, particularly for the assessment of subjects which were taught in intensive block format over two weeks. As a form of cooperative work, it has recognised pedagogic benefits and increases active or deep learning (Entwistle 2009) of a subject through the engagement with the subject matter.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_7

211

212 

J. K. Bamford

However, there is a difference between collaborative work and cooperative work; whilst the two are often blurred (Strauss and U 2007), there is an important distinction for the students, as collaborative learning becomes unpopular because it is often assessed. This distinction was represented in findings. Group work was found to be important in encouraging cultural interactions and learning and the development of cultural fluencies: however, it was unpopular amongst students. The distinction between cooperative and collaborative approaches is important here. Cooperative work allows the development of intercultural awareness but collaborative assessed work has the potential to create cultural misunderstandings because of the focus on summative assessment. If we consider group work in cultural terms and apply collectivist theory (as developed by writers such as Triandis (2001) and Triandis and Berman (1990)), the benefits are clear, as the group will succeed in their task because of their consensual approach. When undertaking cooperative work, group members appear to adopt a collectivist approach and demonstrate collectivist values with the focus on the group goals and achievements, as opposed to prioritising individual achievements. However, for a culturally heterogeneous group, the challenge of an assessed collaborative piece of work may present a challenge where there is the potential for misunderstanding, due to differing cultural expectations and norms of behaviour. There are two levels to this challenge to consider: firstly, the possible heterogeneous approach of a group that may be inevitable with students from different countries collaborating on a piece of work and, secondly, in terms of the task itself, for example, the difficulty in producing a group piece of writing where students from different countries may have developed different writing styles that are a result of individual writing development and also culturally framed discourse styles. The collaboration and group grading of the learning outcomes versus the focus on individual achievement represent a conundrum for students and staff alike. In cultural terms, the pedagogic approach for both British and French education is on the individual’s achievement, reflecting the Cartesian mindset of the French. If we compare this to the requirement for a collectivist approach to tasks which is more familiar to those from certain cultures, such as the Chinese culture (Triandis 2001; Hofstede 2003), the different

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

213

approach to tasks can lead to the possibility for misunderstanding as there may be competitiveness within the group for those not from a collectivist culture. In other words, the emphasis on individual achievement versus the dependence on collaborative action creates the potential for tensions within any cross-cultural group. We need to give some further thought therefore as to the meaning of a culturally heterogeneous classroom and the relationship between cultural heterogeneity and working in a group. The critical incident described below was witnessed in the first semester and is drawn from field notes made from observations of student interactions.

Vignette 2: Student Interactions A module for one of the international joint double degree courses in the first semester in London required students to carry out an assessment in groups. The groups were self-selected in the first teaching session when students had little previous knowledge of each other, except that gained through initial conversations in Induction. Observation of classroom interactions had provided some insight and had demonstrated that all the group work for the module was not going as well for some groups as it was for others. For example, in groups containing two or more French students, the French students were speaking in French to each other which excluded other members of the group, thereby causing a slight but observable tension. However, this did not seem to be too much of an issue in class and seemed to be generally accepted amongst the student groups. The view of classroom interactions changed considerably following a discussion with one of the female international students. Approximately midway through the term, an international student from Malaysia requested that she transfer out of the course. This was a surprise. This student’s disposition was of a positive nature; she was always very polite and helpful to others. She had previously said that her sister was living in France and had regularly commented on how much she was looking forward to going to France. The tone and approach of the conversation on this particular occasion was however very different. In the past, conversations with her had revolved around the importance of the intercultural interaction aspect of the course. It was therefore surprising that she no longer wished to travel to France; such was the apparent strength of

214 

J. K. Bamford

her enthusiasm and sincerity in previous conversations. Her initial explanation was that her Japanese friend, on the same course, had decided to transfer course and she was pleased with her decision and therefore she wished to do the same. However, because the change of heart was so surprising, the conversation continued with some probing for the reasons for the complete change of heart. It did not take too much questioning to discover the real issues behind both her transfer and that of her Japanese friend. Listening to her experiences I was in part surprised but also not surprised to hear of some of the difficulties her group had in communicating with each other, although she had no difficulty in communicating with me. She described her feelings of inadequacy in her group and that this directly affected her choice not to go to France in that she could not see how she would be able to cope with adapting to a new culture and a new country. In addition, it was a great surprise considering that her sister was living in France and before she had expressed how keen she was to join her. She seemed to be adopting an absolutely opposite position to the one she had held earlier in the term. On further probing with regard to this, it became clear that there were other causes for her change of heart: it was the behaviour of the other members of her group that had so deeply affected both her and her friend that she felt she was unable to continue on the course. Indeed, from her description of the way she was treated her choice was understandable. Neither she nor her friend had been able to assert themselves within the group and establish either boundaries of behaviour or equality of treatment; they felt powerless to address what might be described as the abusive behaviour of other members of the group. She told of failed arrangements for meetings with two of the other girls from France who failed to turn up to five of the seven arranged meetings. She had been told, “you don’t understand the topic”, and every time she spoke she was told, “you don’t understand”. One of the French girls had said to her that she always got good grades, “so don’t worry about me as I always do my work at the last minute”. She continued by saying that she had been particularly offended by the American male in the group using a French swear word every time she or her friend spoke up or tried to assert themselves with regard to meeting or completing the work. As soon as he muttered this word the two French girls, with whom he lived, laughed. This made the student and her Japanese friend feel very uncomfortable as they felt they were not being treated with respect and were being laughed at by the other three. They were also both shocked at the use of such a word; the student confirmed, with her sister living in France, the meaning and could not bring herself to repeat the word either in English or in French, even though it was in a language she did not speak.

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

215

In addition to this, when the student had asked to contribute, the swear word was used again and she was told that she was not allowed to contribute. The tutor gave his permission to change groups, but it was clearly too late to influence both her decision and that of her friend to leave the course. The American student was Hispanic from California and gave the impression both in words and in demeanour of his confidence in interacting in a multi-cultural environment. A conversation with this student at first demonstrated that there was no issue. Initially, there were denials of swearing and then an admittance that he had sworn in French as a joke without directing it at anyone. He was surprised that his swearing was viewed as offensive and he seemed shocked that he may have caused any offence and he did not appear to have given it much thought. It appeared from his reaction and comments that his behaviour and actions in the group had been bravado in front of the French girls with whom he lived. He had not considered the effects and feelings of exclusion experienced by the other two girls who were quietly spoken. Neither had he comprehended the insecurity that the French girls chatting in their native language had incurred and which was then reinforced by his swearing in French. In fact, he appeared to be mortified when he realised the offence he had caused and he immediately offered to apologise to the two girls which, it was agreed, was the correct course of action. The apology unfortunately came too late as the two female students said they felt too offended to be able to travel with the group to France and they transferred to another course.

This vignette offers an insight into cultural encounters within the classroom environment between students that are often not obvious and the importance of managing such encounters and creating opportunities for self-formation (Marginson 2014), from the challenges that such encounters may bring.

The Impact of the Heterogeneity of the Group The first thing to note in this discussion of group work is the international make-up of each group, hence the use of the word ‘heterogeneity’ herein. Each group of students undertaking group work assessments for each of the modules had a mixed cultural make-up. This heterogeneity may be seen as a challenge given the different cultural communication

216 

J. K. Bamford

patterns we have acknowledged in previous chapters. In addition, group membership alternated with each module, resulting in a possible change in the group every two weeks during the semester in France. This might have an impact of disruption to group communication with group cohesion and ‘forming’ (Tuckman 1965) requiring a start from scratch every two weeks. Arguably, the cultural diversity of a particular cohort of students can have an impact on the teaching and assessment methods by adding another dimension to the debate of the traditional—for example, didactic—approach versus innovative teaching and learning methods. The rationale for a close examination for the inclusion of group work is that it was spontaneously raised in interviews by many of the students. Authors such as Montgomery (2009, 2010) and Trahar (2011) have explored the importance of culture in the classroom. The amount of group work assessment in post-92 institutions (Bamford and Pokorny 2010) clearly has implications for the student experience, as the data indicated, because of these cultural interactions. The amount of group work assessment increased in the second stage of the international joint double degrees in France, largely due to the mode of delivery in France. De Vita (2001b) argues that cultural diversity can produce a positive experience for groups but there can be some difficulties. For example, a multi-cultural group will not share the same cultural assumptions as ‘mono-cultural’ groups. Individuals work through the expected norms of their culture. If the group does not address its cultural differences, it may lead to difficulties in the group function. This was echoed in Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) research. The findings here demonstrated that the teaching on the courses did not take into account the different cultural backgrounds of the students. There was no evidence that tutors provided a clear explanation of the group function, its importance and its relevance to the subject being taught as well as the beneficial results of the cultural learning that could take place. In addition, it is clear from the way students framed their comments on group work that there was no support given to them of how to navigate their cultural encounters and also the importance of taking on board the different cultural norms of the other group members so that the members can function as a group. This is not

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

217

uncommon and demonstrates that more attention needs to be given on how the workgroup dynamics can influence the learning environment.

The Cultural Dimension of the Classroom A theme confirmed by both the literature and observations of the student experience on these and other courses is that the international joint double degree experience brings the cultural heterogeneity of the classroom in sharp focus. We have seen that the complex dimensions of both the teaching and the students’ learning approaches require that assessment activity must be contextualised in cultural terms in order for students to benefit from the heterogeneous environment in which they find they have to engage. This view is concretised by De Vita (2001a) who comments: …higher education institutions have a social responsibility to design learning tasks which foster students’ development of inter-cultural adaptability. (De Vita 2001: 32)

However, there is a tension that institutions and teachers have to address in that there appeared to be a clear preference expressed for more traditional teaching methods where the classroom communication is teacher to student and is not dependent on peer negotiation or indeed peer input. There is some echoing here of Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) research which concluded that students from some cultures regard the classroom as the place where their tutor does all the talking. Group work is either an alien learning concept or, just simply, not popular. The following excerpt from an interview with a Japanese student illustrates this point and underlines the potential for difficulties in negotiation between peers as well as challenges for expectations, highlighting some familiar challenges for the learning environment: Japanese student (J) For me personally, the group work was most difficult. Interviewer (I) Why was that?

218 

J. K. Bamford

J  Because I’ve never done it before in my life. In an academic environment. I So was it difficult because you had to work with people you’ve never met and who are from different countries? J Yes, so many factors. I Can you tell me what? J Like the way we just collaborate, communicate, the pace of the work and just some of … were quite disastrous. One of them, but some of them were really good. I So give me an example of what was disastrous and what was good. J Like sometimes I couldn’t be in touch with one of the group members and he or she just doesn’t turn up to the meeting and he or she doesn’t seem to care. Also other people have to do it all, that’s the situation. The excerpt highlights the issue of communication difficulties and a lack of ability to resolve them with some of the group members. The student continued by underlining that a small campus environment aids this pedagogical approach as group members who fail to turn up could simply be collected from their accommodation. There was some recognition as well as reflection by the student that cultural learning did take place although there needs to be an educational space for the benefits of this reflection to be explored: J It was a good kind of opportunity to learn how I should react, I should behave in a group work and how other group members were expecting me to do. I What did you learn about how to behave in your group work? J Oh, I already have to be very, I have to take initiative or contribute a lot, as much as possible. When prompted for some of the positive aspects of group work, the student made the following comments which are again representative of the student group: J It’s fun. It’s fun to try to complete one subject with friends. And because it’s not only your work, you get a lot of new ideas from other

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

I J I J

219

people so it’s very stimulating, and you see yourself better when you are put in a group. And what am I like? And what did you feel—you learnt something about yourself? Yes, kind of positioning myself in a psychological way, personality wise. What did you learn about you? I can be quite shy, like I am a less active talker compared to other group members, especially—but I think I have a strong sense of responsibility…

This recognition of shyness as expressed by the student was explored further and the response indicated not only the cultural context in terms of her perceived difference to others but also some self-reflection and a learning opportunity: Maybe, yes. I’m not always blah blah blah blah, just I choose timing to say something. So somebody just don’t see me speaking at all because I’m always waiting for the timing to be able to speak. (Japanese student)

The reflection appears to illustrate not only that the student is expressing a cultural norm with regard to waiting for others to speak but also an understanding of the cultural norm that others expect of her in terms of her communication patterns. This demonstrates awareness of both her own patterns of communication and the communication patterns of others. Again, the cultural learning was explored in more depth and it seemed from the responses of this Japanese student but also other students that the group work provided a space for cultural interaction and observation. The student also demonstrates that she has reflected on her own cultural behaviours and how they differ from others. J It’s very clear, for example when I am in a group work with Greek girls or Italian girls, some South European people like they talk really lively and very loud. And they are very straightforward. Whereas we, or Japanese, we are very, always try to listen and … talk now. And then I have no chance to speak, unless I really try hard. Some group works, my idea has not been counted for example a few times it happened. But I mean, it’s not because they ignored me, just because I missed the timing to say something.

220 

J. K. Bamford

I How do you feel about that? J I felt it’s not very sensible things to keep on doing it so I started to change my attitude, especially after I went to the town in France. I In that you changed? J Yes, and towards the end of the group works, I felt much more comfortable. Here we see that the student is reflecting that she has had to adapt culturally in order to engage with the modus docendi of both the UK institution and the French institution. The student talks of feeling more comfortable and adapting her behaviour, demonstrating a shift in her behaviour as a result of her cultural encounters and the benefits of behaving differently.

The Appropriateness of Assessing Group Work Group work is often regarded negatively by students for differing reasons but it continues to feature prominently in business education in both the UK and France. Li and Campbell’s (2008) study, for example, illustrates that whilst group discussion was valued, group assessments with shared grades were unpopular. This view of shared grades versus individual work was reflected in the findings. This tension was summed up by an American student who commented that: The overwhelming majority of the grades and assessments come from group work. This was a definite struggle for me in the beginning because I was coming from law school, which was incredibly competitive on an individual level, as well as just being from the US, where group work isn’t that prevalent as you know! This is also a struggle if you are coming from a background other than marketing, because many of the students are very knowledgeable in the subject already. But because of the group work and the dynamic of the people you are working with, it allows someone who is not knowledgeable on the subject (like I was) to utilize their peers as living resources! (US student)

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

221

Group work can therefore be viewed as a challenge for students transitioning from different education systems, and the prevalence of group work assessments was not always welcomed, but there was some reflection on the benefits of the approach. This reflection chimes with Li and Campbell’s (2008) findings that weaker students are happy to participate in group work as it allows them to rely on the stronger members of the group. However, in the example above, this student was not necessarily weaker but lacking in some of the subject knowledge of the others. This tension between the group and the individual requires some further consideration. Bamford and Pokorny’s (2010) research echoes this promotion of confusion and mixed messages with regard to the use of group work assessment. The modus docendi can place an emphasis on collaborative work in the form of assessment of the group task, but the expectation of the modus discendi is on the individual learner in terms of ways in which performance is calculated. In group work the individual’s relationality with the other students takes on an additional dimension when being assessed in relation to others; this is even stronger in the international joint double degree experience. A Venezuelan student commented ‘All of us hate group projects, everyone hates group projects’. This may be due to the fact that the assessment does not reflect the importance of the group interaction as well as the subject matter. It can cause resentment and stress and could be seen as misleading students when considerable emphasis is placed on independent learning. The student below commented at length on the issues as she saw them. She provided particular examples of difficulties with individuals in the groups she had been in and how stressful she had found the negotiations. The group work incident below demonstrates the depth of feeling and distress which are clearly visible: That was horrible the way of assessing that, thank God I came first in both. But I came first because we had, the first time we had a huge breakthrough was good. And the second one, the financial one, that’s another complaint that I have. We were, I’m not kidding, I wrote an e-mail to my Finance teacher of one of my last semesters and my undergraduate [inaudible] and I was like you’re giving me this in English. Please help me, I am about to die. We had to make decisions on things, and they’re like no, you have a

222 

J. K. Bamford

Finance person in your group. My Finance person was never there, he’s not from the group, from our group because we were mixed with French students. He was obnoxious, he treated all very bad, every time we were like can you please do this, we don’t know how to do this, we don’t know how to calculate these things. No, I hate it. Are you kidding me? If you hate it, great but how are you going to get a good grade? And he got the same grade as I did because the three of us and the other girl, there was 3 of our programme and another girl that thank God, she helped. Because we were going crazy and he got the same grade as we did for doing nothing. So we had to work all this with 5 people, a group project with so much stress, you don’t have time to negotiate things like that. That specifically, group project we hated. And besides that, it’s just—group projects are awful. (Venezuelan student)

From this student’s perspective, there seems to be little value in ‘group projects’, which is the term she is using for assessed group work. She clearly demonstrated her communication skills and was able to articulate the problems. She compared the challenge to the workplace, where someone loses their job if they do not perform, which she saw as the opposite outcome for the group project, where students who did not work benefited from the work of others. Culturally, this student was confident in raising what she saw as issues in the interview. It is clear from the transcripts that others had been more circumspect in their comments but resentment and critique were still expressed and there was little support for this form of assessment expressed. Some further thought therefore needs to be given to the ordeals (this word is appropriate as it was used by some students to describe the situation) of this form of modus docendi and a weighing of the benefits against the challenges.

Individuality Versus the Group It is perhaps self-evident that there is a tension between the group and the individual, particularly when it comes to an assessed piece of work. Individual motivations are significant in students’ attitude to group work assessment and whether they liked it or indeed accepted it as a mode of

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

223

assessment. One of the students made the following comments with regard to the difficulty of what he saw as a democratic process to group work: That was a really hard thing as well. I told you I don’t like my work to be reflected on other people’s work. Yes, it was like I accepted democracy, I just had to accept that, although I am not afraid to voice my opinions, I did it several times on the course. (Norwegian student)

This demonstrated the frustration with the group work process and with an individual being assessed through such a process. Of course, frustration is influenced by the fact that his individual grade, which contributed to his overall Masters award, depended on the work of others. Despite the fact that working in groups has positive outcomes in cultural terms, one has to question whether it is ethical to assess postgraduate students in this way, when the degree algorithm is based on the combination of individual grades for each module. This particular student did not gain a distinction from the UK institution. A review of the overall degree achievements for one year reveals that only 3 of the 98 students achieved distinctions, with the majority of grades being merits. Whilst this could be attributed to individual performance or other variables such as the disruption caused by international travel, entry profiles for students would have suggested that a higher proportion of distinctions would be awarded and the results did not match the profile of other Masters programmes. As Palermo et al. (2018) suggest, the profile of international joint double degree students is generally likely to be more highly achieving students because of the challenges that such programmes of study present. A Spanish student also expressed concern about the challenges of the individual versus the group but for different reasons. He felt the desire to work as an individual and that the amount of group work does not accurately reflect the experience of the workplace: Student (S) But I don’t like the idea of all the time working in groups, I think that’s not the point. Interviewer (I) In what way?

224 

J. K. Bamford

S In the real life you are not going to work in groups all the time. So I prefer sometimes to work individually. I But don’t you think in real life, particularly in the marketing, you work as a team, you have to work as a team? S Yes, sometimes but not all the time. Because all their projects were group projects. I Was this in France? Or in the UK, or both? S In France. In the UK was group projects as well but… I don’t know, sometimes you go to your group, you want to do something, the others don’t want to do it and you just say OK, I do whatever you want and that’s all. But you don’t really put the effort in, and -. Yes, and me, I’m a kind of unusual person, so I don’t like—I like to work in groups but this is not all the time so much. I Do you think you learnt anything from working in a group? S Yes, of course. I Like what? S I don’t know! Yes, I know how to deal with people, how to [inaudible]. I know what is your role inside the group. (Spanish student) We can see from this excerpt that this student is uncomfortable in the group situation although he still acknowledges that he learnt from it; he has difficulty expressing his emotions but his discomfort with the group process is clear. In contrast, whilst forming group friendships can provide important support in terms of a community of practice, the formation of strong bonds can also present a challenge and possible discomfort for group members if there is a misbalance in the workload. A student on a different course made the following comments on the difficulties with working in a group with people who had become her friends: There were problems only because I think—and this is something that maybe carried over, but S knows. I think what’s kind of difficult is that we became such close friends. But sometimes it’s hard to draw the line between friendship and getting your work done. And so often times like in my final group project, which S wasn’t in my group, there was a huge conflict because one of the girls that was in the class, her English I would say wasn’t—I mean it was fine. But in terms of turning in a presentation, I had

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

225

to change quite a bit of it. And in turn, I really hurt her feelings and as a friend, it’s really difficult to have that boundary. If it’s someone that I didn’t know very well, it would have been easier for me to be like hey, I’m sorry like this is our group project, this is what we have to do. But it’s really hard to be a bit, I don’t know, demanding I guess in a group when you’re really close. (US student)

This abstract from her discussion related to the group work in France where a smaller campus environment resulted in a community of practice. In contrast in London, where modules were taken with others from other courses, responses to the group work process were also critical but the challenges presented themselves differently and the tension between the individual and the group was thrown into focus with the student echoing the Norwegian student’s view above: Exactly but if you’re doing group projects and you’re the only one that feels that way, it is incredibly difficult, incredibly, because I don’t have time necessarily—like I’m not here to get everyone else a high distinction. (American student)

In addition, she also expresses concern that in London she was studying with the students who were not on the same course and that some of these students were not so proficient in the English language as those who were on her course: I think English was more advanced in France. So as far as the content, like the English communicating wasn’t nearly as hard. Second, I don’t know about—I don’t know what scores you have to get here in English but I feel sometimes I wonder if people in my group how they could have got into a Masters programme in London, really. (American student)

The student raises an interesting point about the impact of the difference in delivery between the UK and France. In France, the module timetable, group work times and delivery were so short that there is no time to dwell on the group dynamics or the discomfort that arose from group interactions. The delivery of a module over 12 weeks in London seemed to allow ‘space’ for disagreements to arise:

226 

J. K. Bamford

I feel really bad, on this before I forget. I think another reason why it was easier in France is because we did have less time, we didn’t have time to procrastinate. I didn’t have more than 24 hours to get upset with my group. I mean really and now it’s drawn out over the semester. So we’re trying to meet and no one can come, and I’m trying to send out e-mails and no one replies. But at home we all lived together, we had to, we were forced to turn it in the next day. So we were in turn, we had to work together. (American student) Yes, and this is the thing for some of us, for me and for some others, we are used to doing everything at the last minute. You are used to doing everything since the beginning. (Estonian student)

Another issue for the American student was that she was the only native English speaker in her group. She felt this dynamic impacted on group relations and also meant more work for her. Therefore, the cultural and linguistic make-up of the group is also important as the participation of native English speakers may result in those individuals bearing much of the burden of the workload. As Pokorny and Griffiths (2010) have argued, it is difficult to undertake written work as a group and inevitably one member of the group will take the responsibility for the writing. This burden may inevitably fall on one or more native English speakers in a group activity and assessment.

The Competitive Aspect of Group Work Some students recognised that the emphasis on group work encouraged competition which appears contrary to its objectives. Rather than encouraging cooperation, one of the Greek students witnessed how competitive students were with each other: (G) Yes, you start to fight because in the simulation games you have to be the first, everybody is trying to get the first position and if you get to be the last you actually dropped out. It’s like if you fail, so everybody tried not to fail, so they preferred to go up to high instead of

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

227

just take the chance, take a risk to be the last one. We were within the group having fives and I didn’t because my group was amazing, but other groups I could hear that there were problems like why did you do that, and we’re not supposed to do that and you don’t listen to me. Anyway growing competition even with the group … L for me was like a brother and I could see that the first simulation he was looking at me like that, I told him are you serious or are you just so competitive, and just said I will beat you down. But then he realised that it’s just a game so we took on a very different aspect of whatever will happen will happen. But yes you could see that if there wasn’t this bond between students you could actually think get serious conflict there. (I) Interesting. Do you think culture added to that? G Of course. I In what way? G Of course, of course. I didn’t experience this because we were…as I told you I am flexible so I learnt how to adjust because I was with three French basically, me and I don’t remember if there was…four French and me imagine. One of them was T so it was like as if he wasn’t French. The other three one was K which was one of the students that I told you I have never met until the second semester so she was like such a nice French woman, never talks, never does anything. And the others too were not from the same course, they were from another course, so that was new. And they were okay, they were all French, they were talking French but thank God I could understand what they were saying and when I didn’t understand it was T who told me okay we will do this and this and this, do you agree. But in other groups there were students that were more like strong and loud and they would want their opinion to be listened and to be followed like a leader or something. And if anybody else would disagree they wouldn’t care, they would just want their way or the highway, it would be like this way. But I didn’t experience that, I am sure you can get interviews that they will talk to you about these things because they don’t want to go that person and name things.

228 

J. K. Bamford

The issue of the cultural approach to communication in the group and the recognition of the benefits of working in a group are important dimensions to the students’ engagement with this type of classroom and assessment activity. Clearly, this student felt that competition added to the miscommunication within groups. This echoes Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) findings on understanding the impact of differing cultural scripts in the classroom. Students from cultures that are focused on the achievement of the individual and are listed as individualistic by Hofstede (2003), for example, felt this type of working to be a hindrance, for example, the Norwegian and American student above. Alternatively, for others it could mean that students would ‘lose face’ with each other, for example by admitting they were struggling with the language and so there are issues around the ‘silent’ student voice. We saw this in some of the comments from the Japanese student above. All this needs to be borne in mind when devising teaching and learning approaches for a culturally heterogeneous group. What appeared to be an outcome of the experience in France and travel to another country was that the mobility on the international joint double degree creates the potential for emotional bonds between the students which, on the whole, were not undermined by the challenges that have been outlined with regard to the group process. These bonds, which saw students through their communication challenges and bridged potential cultural boundaries, are acknowledged by the aforementioned Greek student. The requirement of and need for interaction with each other in a small environment affected all students and enhanced their modus discendi.

The Transferable Skills Argument When considering the role of contemporary universities (Barnett 2015), we might take the view that degree study should prepare students for the workplace. Cushner and Brislin (1996) talk of human interaction as being the neglected dimension of business. This is particularly true of postgraduate business students where institutions and tutors should be aiding students with human interaction skills. Tutors frequently argue that group work in the higher education setting, in terms of developing

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

229

employability skills, is the reflection of the actual business practice of working with others (Bamford and Pokorny 2010), and in the international joint double degree environment, this appears to be more keenly felt. Group work aids students in achieving a ‘deep learning’ (Entwistle 2009) of the subject. However, having a group assessment could appear to be rather contradictory as difficulty in communication could undermine the learning process and this could be a concern in the international joint double degree environment when so many other cultural challenges are presented. Whilst tutors may be clear about the benefits, group assessments on the courses were not based on the assessment of a group skills and this skill was not reflected in the learning outcomes of modules or courses. Normally, learning outcomes are worded with a focus on an individual’s achievement, in line with the modus docendi for UK higher education, and this was the case for all the courses which were the focus for the research.

Social Interactions The data from the interviews supports the importance of group work in terms of social and cultural engagement, but the reality was that the social factor only became relevant once all the students had travelled together to another country. Here, the constant group work assessment and the intimate environment created a more social environment for students. As this student states: But then again, like I said, each of us are from a different culture so we bring in our own cultural attributes. And trying to work together is what makes it hard. But there are times when I can sit back and look and realise like wow, especially in France. This is amazing, we are all, each of us are from a different country and (a) we’re best friends and (b) we can work together so well. Here in London it’s been just different, again like for the reasons, I can’t really state why, there are just differences, bigger, more stressful, people aren’t on the same motivational level. It’s a completely different setting but it’s still here in London sometimes when you’re finished

230 

J. K. Bamford

with the piece of work and you did a really good job, you can look back and say like ah, that’s really cool that we were all able to do that. And that’s the best part of group work, not the little pieces in between. (US student)

However, it was also clear that there were still group conflicts. This social aspect to group work has been argued by Pokorny and Griffiths (2010) to be an important aspect to group ‘forming’ and by Montgomery (2010) to be the enjoyable aspect of the international environment. The interviews with the students supported this and demonstrated the importance of understanding the students’ view of the course in a holistic way. Montgomery (2010) goes on to comment in her study that group work was seen by many students as an opportunity to develop transferable skills and to gain knowledge from working with others. From the data it is certainly clear that social bonding between the international students took place in France rather than in London: No, in the first semester to tell you the truth we were not bonding, because London is big and they would live one there and one there, so apart from one group of people that were all together, like me, L, M and all other, French people for example either they were friends that I’ve never actually seen until France semester, it was like wow. French people did not come with us apart from a few exceptions like T for example and I don’t remember who others, and in France I could see that even in the group of the people that knew each other already since London there was a competition growing. And we were divided into groups A1 and 2, A & B I don’t remember, and thank god not in my group but the other group they most of the students told me that the competition was really high. In my groups things were more loose because of the students that there were involved in the group, I was fortunate let’s say. (Greek student)

This very honest account of the social relationships on the course again demonstrates the dimension of difference with regard to the experience of the international joint double degree. The environment in London was distancing and students did not get to know each other well. This changed after they travelled to France and were dependent on each other for their social relationships, their academic work and the support they provided

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

231

to each other. This is when we can perceive the international transitions taking place on a much deeper level. The data evidenced a community of practice that informed both the study environment and the social environment and post-study environment. This closeness was evident when observing the students in France and this continued between those who returned to London. The success of the teamwork approach is dependent on the members identifying reward interdependence and role interdependence (Colbeck et al. 2000). The findings indicated that personalities and culture can hinder the group process. This was enhanced by the different cultural backgrounds of the members of a group and different communication approaches. This chimes with Welikala and Watkins’ (2008) findings on students’ differing cultural scripts and understanding of when to talk and underlining the importance of finding a common ground referred to by Arkoudis et al. (2013). For students from different cultural backgrounds who were unfamiliar with working in groups, this perhaps presented further challenges. This becomes more of a concern when the time for adaption is so short, with the courses lasting for a year and a semester only being spent in each country.

Concluding Comments The arguments presented in this chapter point to the importance of understanding the cultural dimension of any cohort of students, in terms of understanding the challenges and benefits for teaching and learning methods that use group work as one of the main vehicles for engagement with subject matter and the assessment methods. These differences relate to issues around variances in cultural norms and a lack of familiarity with approaches taken in the countries of delivery and, in particular, issues related to communication, language and discourse styles. These differences should be viewed in a positive light if intercultural adaptability is developed amongst student groups. It will, as De Vita (2001) comments, result in increased group performance. The dependence of individuals on each other as a result of the multiple transitions undertaken and the

232 

J. K. Bamford

differences in pedagogic approach, as well as the degree to which the group is able to reach a consensus, is unpredictable and potentially unsatisfactory. It appears that when so much of the assessment is dependent on group productivity, intercultural awareness training is necessary in order to transition and avoid group conflict, as was evidenced in the vignette of group conflict. The data underlined that the more intimate environment of a small campus school such as that in France, together with the shorter time spent on group projects, is one way to overcome all the issues of group work that are so well documented, such as not turning up to meetings. The data demonstrates that, although students found the group processes stressful, a lot of learning did take place and that, although this was intensive, it was in the end more fruitful. The disruption to meaning creates a learning opportunity if expectations are managed and there is a further opportunity provided for reflection. It is worth noting that the transferable skills, such as cultural learning, which were frequently made reference to by students were not part of the learning outcomes for the module or for courses. Yet such transferable skills would appear to be the result of the group work process. The opportunities for cultural encounters and international transitions to take place, through the development of the awareness of cultural difference and the implications for the international joint double degree experience, are thrown into focus by this discussion of group work.

Bibliography Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Bamford, J., & Pokorny, H. (2010). Collaborative Learning or Mass Market Conveyor Belt Education: A Discussion of the Use of Group Work Assessments and Their Relationship to Learning in HE. Paper Presented at the Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, University of Hertfordshire. Barnett, R. (2015). Understanding the University: Institution, Idea, Possibilities. London: Routledge.

7  The Use and Importance of Group Work on International… 

233

Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorkland, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60–83. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Vita, G. (2001a). Learning Styles, Culture and Inclusive Instruction in the Multi-cultural Classroom: A Business and Management Perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. De Vita, G. (2001b). The Use of Group Work in Large and Diverse Business Management Classes: Some Critical Issues. International Journal of Management Education, 1(3), 27–35. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile Books. Li, M., & Campbell, J. (2008). Asian Students’ Perception of Group Work and Group Assignments in a New Zealand Tertiary Institution. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 203–216. Marginson, S. (2014). Student Self-Formation in International Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–22. Montgomery, C. (2009). A Decade of Internationalisation: Has It Influenced Students’ Views of Cross-Cultural Group Work at University? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 256–270. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pokorny, H., & Griffiths, D. (2010). The Ethics of Assessed Group Work: A Voyage Through a Post-92 Institution to Uncover the Myths of Enhanced Learning Through Group Work Assessment. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhanced Learning Through Assessment. Newbury: Threshold Press. Strauss, P., & U. A., (2007). Group Assessments: Dilemmas Facing Lecturers in Multicultural Tertiary Classrooms. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 147–161. Trahar, S. (2011). Developing Cultural Capability in International Higher Education. London: Routledge.

234 

J. K. Bamford

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. Triandis, H., & Berman, J. (1990). Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Current Theory and Research in Motivation, 37, 41–133. Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65(6), 384–399. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

8 Final Reflections

Introduction The previous chapters have explored and sought to understand the experience of the education offered on international joint double degrees through providing a glimpse of the negotiations of the individuals participating in such programmes and their cultural encounters and interactions. Whilst this is intended to be a glimpse of the experience, a rich description of the experience of the actors involved has been provided in the previous chapters. No apology is made for the focus of this work being on the student experience as educators could benefit from understanding the spaces that are required to achieve epistemic growth. Through a particular case example, the discussion offers a context to further the understanding of the student experience of international higher education, their international transitions and the resulting personal growth. Practitioner views were also examined as were reports from the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and a sample of the policy documents from the Bologna Process Communiqués. The dimensions of international higher education, as seen in the international joint double degree experience, were identified as being students’ cultural interactions, © The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_8

235

236 

J. K. Bamford

international mobility, the relationality between the students and the way students experience the learning environment. These were explored giving a primary emphasis to the culture which is identified by the data as providing an overarching dimension that informs not only the geopolitics on the internationalisation of higher education but which also frames the personal development, educational growth and critical cognitive processes of those participating in international joint double degrees. The lens of the personal allows insights into the complexity of the issues for students, staff and institutions. The necessity of understanding the negotiations of individuals on international joint double degrees was justified due to promotion of such programmes within the higher education policy context of the European Union—most specifically, the ‘Europe of Culture’ and ‘Europe of Knowledge’, as evidenced in the Council’s Communiqués and the research undertaken in the Trends reports. In addition, the findings highlight the need to understand and deal with difference as part of the international higher education process, for individuals, institutions and policy makers.

 he Implications for International Higher T Education of the Student Experience of International Joint Double Degrees In Chap. 1, the questions were posed whether, firstly, international joint double degrees are distinguishable as an education process from international higher education in general and, secondly, whether international higher education—exemplified by international joint double Masters—is distinguishable from higher education and in particular from Masters degrees offered and taught in one country but which have large numbers of international students. I have sought to take a critical view of whether joint double degree courses are merely taking advantage of ‘market opportunities’ such as the demand for sojourner experiences as part of the contemporary globally mobile environment as well as the importance of international joint double degrees in internationalising higher education. The chapter considered the key contexts for the learning in such

8  Final Reflections 

237

programmes of study with Chap. 3 considering in more detail whether there is additional value gained by this type of mobile educational experience, in particular the value-added through the development of intercultural awareness. In Chap. 2 the current policy debates around international joint double degrees were considered and the way in which the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has supported the development of such programmes of study. It acknowledged that whilst the focus for this work has not been Erasmus Mundus programmes, the student experience can equally be applied to those programmes of study, given they are joint Masters programmes. Some of the broader debates were examined—including the debates in relation to the Bologna Process—as they underline the importance of the issues raised by this study for the policy context. The focus for much of the discussion on international joint double degrees has pointed to the need for an in-depth examination of the ‘lived reality’ of international higher education, and the student negotiations and cultural encounters have been explored under the auspices of the international joint double degree. The interactions between students and the extent that the international classroom facilitates intercultural learning, along with the larger question of what the education on international joint double degrees adds to the educational process of a Masters degree, have been considered from both the student and the institutional perspective. The consideration of the institutional perspective in Chap. 2 highlighted that issues relating to the value of such programmes of study should be given further attention including the need for transparency and maintenance of national quality frameworks. Added to this, Chap. 6 gave consideration to the differences in the teaching and learning approaches of institutions and the implications of these differences for students and their personal growth as a result of their experiences. The difficulties arising out of the practice of group work assessments were clearly witnessed in Chap. 7, which is devoted to understanding the importance of this type of assessment practice both in terms of developing cultural awareness and in terms of personal growth that can be achieved through the negotiation of difference and conflict. The findings confirmed that there is a need to aid students in their cultural

238 

J. K. Bamford

negotiations as well as dealing with institutional difference; this includes understanding the differences in the assessment frameworks of each institution as well as the modus docendi. These issues of difference become integral to the students’ negotiations in international higher education, and they permit us to see how classroom interaction can enhance intercultural learning amongst students. Transparency was found to be a significant issue from the experience, both in terms of institutional communication and in terms of the differences between teaching and learning in the institutions. The need for transparency highlights that the ethical context of international higher education requires further consideration both from institutions and from policy makers. It needs to be borne in mind that whilst financial and strategic benefits provide incentives for institutions engaging in international higher education, quality assurance must remain at the forefront of the negotiations and development of such programmes of study. Financial incentives are linked to the market forces which have been so dominant in relation to the growth of international higher education. Such forces might be viewed as creating tensions for the student experience as the motivation for engaging in such initiatives is not the education experience. The arguments presented with regard to the marketisation of higher education are a backdrop to international higher education activities and must not overshadow the quality assurance context, which appear to be being given more attention by policy makers, as exemplified by the Paris Communiqué (2018) and highlighted in the EUA Trends 15 and 18 reports. The tensions with regard to the institutional perspective were also explored in Chap. 2 and the claims that international bodies, such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), make about international joint double degrees appearing to represent the future for international higher education activity were analysed. Evidence suggests that these tensions impact on the students and may result in a poorer educational experience. The unresolved tensions incur further challenges to ensuring transparency. Chapter 6 explored the different modus docendi of each institution which resulted in a degree of ‘separateness’ between institutions rather than ‘jointness’, thus highlighting again the issue of difference in the teaching and learning style of each institution. The

8  Final Reflections 

239

separateness of each institution is further entrenched by national frameworks of quality monitoring and regulations: these provide the structures for Masters education that institutions must follow in order to maintain governmentally set standards of quality. The UK QAA position was examined both in terms of the Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision and through an example of an institutional audit. The wording of both documents highlights that the delivery of UK higher education overseas must be subject to UK quality procedures. Interview data from staff in French institutions confirmed that the QAA approach was likely to be challenging for French institutions. Another difference that was highlighted was the ‘global branding’ approaches of the institutions which impacted on the student experience as it was linked to recruitment to the courses and institutional messages of status. This had an influencing effect—both positive and negative—on students’ attitudes to their host institutions. Returning to the question of ‘eliteness’ in international higher education raised in the introduction, we can observe that the content of the courses did not appear to give the students an ‘elite’ educational experience in terms of intellectual challenges in the classroom. When compared to a Masters taught in one institution, ‘eliteness’ is achieved in the international joint double Masters degree in experiential terms due to the development of self-awareness, personal growth and the development of agency. This is realised through the uniqueness of the experience, the social network of contacts and transferrable skills that students appear to acquire and in terms of the embedded and overriding cultural dimension which achieves cultural learning. The experiential aspect of the international joint double degree required personal reflection as part of the students’ modus discendi in order to respond to their cultural encounters. These programmes of study empower students, reflected by Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) who place the student experience at the centre of the pedagogic paradigm. This experiential learning takes on an importance that was not anticipated by the institutions; it was a consequence of the group work assessments that became a forum for the cultural learning, the demands of cross-country mobility at postgraduate level and the cultural encounters that took place.

240 

J. K. Bamford

The acquisition of transferable skills has been identified in the students’ expectations of the course, but the means as to how this would be achieved was not given sufficient consideration either before or on completion of the course. Exposure to learning in two different countries had not been considered to be the focus for the cultural learning; therefore, little attention was given to an exploration of the experience of different cultures, country or institution. Exposure to the host country cultures was found to be limited as students mixed and operated in an ‘international bubble’ consisting of other international students and this is not uncommon as a study abroad experience. This could have been addressed, as the first semester demonstrated that ‘international knowledgeability’ (Stone 2006) could have been more honed and developed through teaching the students how to deal with difference and to raise their cultural awareness. In order to offer an international higher education experience that is distinguishable, this awareness would appear to be fundamental, both in terms of their experiences on the international joint double degree and with regard to the development of their ‘international knowledgeability’. An educational ‘space’ for reflection is key to cultural learning as those such as Pedersen (2010) and Arkoudis et  al. (2013) acknowledge. The findings in Chap. 6 indicated that different modi docendi in institutions, together with the differing personalities and cultural backgrounds of students, can hinder the success of the teaching and learning on international joint double degree Masters programmes. There was considerable evidence that, in terms of the teaching and learning experiences of the courses, the group process was a source of tension as well as learning. The more intimate environment in the French institution allowed difficulties to be overcome due to the need for reliance on each other and the ‘international bubble’ in which students existed. The data evidences a clear preference for the environment in the French institution identifying a number of reasons. These include student perception of closer contact with tutors, more hours in class and a social dimension to the courses that cannot be achieved in a large urban institution. The potential for difference between the two teaching and learning methods of the two institutions and the experiences of the students call into question the appropriateness of the word ‘joint’ to describe such a programme of study.

8  Final Reflections 

241

In Chap. 5 we saw that ‘international knowledgeability’, defined by Stone (2006), could be achieved through reflection on cultural encounters through the engagement with cultural ‘others’ and the personal development as a result of the experiences of studying in two countries. This extent of this knowledgeability varied between individuals and depended to a certain extent on students’ willingness to reflect on difference and learn from the experience and the empathetic qualities that were developed. There was clear evidence that students became aware of different cultural scripts for learning and of different norms of behaviour which had an effect on peer interaction, an important influence on their group learning. Whilst there was evidence of cultural learning, there was also some tendency, demonstrated in the data, to categorise or stereotype cultures negatively, resulting in cultural learning being undervalued. Few students had much contact with the host cultures and the data supports Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith’s (2017) position of importance of educators across all disciplines to embed intercultural training and for pedagogy to be steeped in an active approach which facilitates and encourages the development of intercultural competences, such as empathy, cultural humility, curiosity and awareness. The French students responded in a very similar way to questions on culture and most stated they had become more ‘open-minded’ as a consequence of the experience, which Brown and Holloway (2008) identify as a consequence of students’ adjustment to their new learning environment. The best way to describe the additional value offered by such international programmes of study is by returning to the broader question of what is the point posed by Kehm and Teichler. The relationality between individuals is significant to the experience and therefore needs to be emphasised and considered as part of the teaching and learning approaches on such programmes of study, with an understanding of cultural difference incorporated into the modus docendi. In order to achieve the additional value that such programmes of study have the potential to offer, reflection appears to be fundamental to deriving meaning from the experience. The international joint double degree can be seen as providing an educational space for epistemic growth. The programmes were not developed in a construct of mutuality but the outcome was the development of a

242 

J. K. Bamford

construct of mutuality in order to ensure the success of such programmes of study. Mutuality is a framework that supports a pedagogic approach that allows for more reflection, more one-to-one working and mentoring to achieve epistemic growth. Many students commented that the interviews conducted for this research had provided them with this reflective space. Prior to the current COVID-19 crisis, most contemporary pedagogic approaches, both at an international level and for nationally based programmes, require that institutions and tutors deliver programmes in a context of direct proximity with students, although these are driven by the responsiveness of technology to learning demands, for example, and recognising the importance of instantaneous response exemplified through the use of iPad, smartphones and laptops. Such technology reinforces the framework of the personal, the responsive and interactive and the importance of programme delivery in a construct of mutuality which requires broader acknowledgement from educators.

The Mutuality Perspective Mutuality is a construct which necessarily drives this form of joint education although the recognition of the construct for the operation of such programmes of study requires more general recognition. The basis for appreciating this construct requires some consideration of the historical context of university education in Europe. History offers us an appropriate perspective in understanding the way in which international joint double degrees are situated as offering an international higher education. The historical context frames notions of mobility as being part of a university education and as such is not new. De Wit’s (2002) work points to the importance of understanding the historical context of European mobility. He comments that the ‘wandering scholar’, peregrinatio academica (de Ridder-Symoens 1992a; De Wit 2002), was the norm for medieval European universities. The Erasmus programme draws its name from one of these medieval wandering scholars, underlining the importance of understanding this historical context of mobility and that internationalism is not a recent phenomenon for higher education institutions. Scott (1998), however, criticises attaching too much importance to the

8  Final Reflections 

243

notion of the ‘wandering scholar’, as the nation-state did not exist in medieval Europe and so viewing international education as having this context is potentially spurious. Despite this, notions of mobility, as being part of the higher education process, remain an aspirational aspect of the education process, particularly for the European Union and organisations such as the Institute of International Education. The tone of EU communications reflects these ideals as well as the difficulties of implementing the conceptual within the nation-state framework which are rarely acknowledged. If we understand such programmes as being defined by the ‘wandering scholar’, we understand further the importance of the student perspective as the driver for the paradigm. The recruitment of international students to the UK has been the focus for much of the existing body of work on the international student experience of higher education. The financial imperatives have made such activity central to university marketing and overseas activity. The recruitment of international students to UK universities is referred to by Turner and Robson (2007) as ‘symbolic internationalisation’ because it does not involve any real engagement with internationalisation on the part of an institution. Knight (2004) refers to the recruitment of international students as ‘internationalisation at home’. It is this commercialised dimension to internationalisation that Scott is referring to as it cannot truly be seen to echo the aspirational tones of the EHEA in terms of encouraging mobility as part of the education process. The international joint double degree offers a different perspective to both the recruitment of international students and the international student experience discourse. Whilst the commercial undertone still exists for the international joint double degree, the effect of the educational experience aligns with the peregrinatio academica as an ideal; it is not just through the differing modus docendi in the classroom that this is achieved but additionally through the cultural encounters that take place, the mobility of the students between two countries, the experience of studying in two or more countries and the engagement with different cultures as part of one programme of study. The work of Culver et al. (2012) allows us to understand the value-­ added for students undertaking collaborative dual-degree programmes at postgraduate level as seen in Chap. 3. This work chimes with their findings that cultural learning and self-formation are the primary outcomes

244 

J. K. Bamford

for these types of programmes. The position taken here is that this format, the international joint double degree, should be seen in a context of mutuality, where the relationship between the institutions and the students is a two-way process and the students are partners in their learning. Jamsvi’s (2012) findings indicate that the concept of mutuality is embedded in the policy agenda for international higher education, thus reinforcing the importance of the mutuality context for international joint double degrees. The positioning of international higher education in a context of mutuality has now become a recognised and impactful pedagogical perspective, seen through the work of Healey and Healey (2019) and others and as witnessed by the International Students as Partners Institute, for example. It is a strength for these types of programmes and more should be made of this dimension. A construct of mutuality, in terms of the relationship between institutions and the students, with students seen as partners in their learning, is a cornerstone of the experience of international joint double degrees and is significant to the achievement of cultural learning.

 he Importance of Understanding T the Student Perspective In presenting a glimpse of the student negotiations and lived reality of the educational experience of postgraduate joint double degrees, this work allows educators and the reader insights into the complexities of the experience of internationality. Very few studies have attempted to provide a window into the complexities of the experience, in particular, how dealing with cultural encounters and other key differences is a fundamental element of the learning process together with the importance of the experiential nature of such programmes. The research approach allowed for a rich picture of the individuals’ experience and insights into the densities of the cultural interactions on such programmes, together with the importance of embedding of the experience of difference as part of the learning process.

8  Final Reflections 

245

This rich profile ‘paints a picture’ of the intricacies of the international parameters of the international joint double degree experience, taking into account the students’ countries of origin, their previous experience of education systems which inform the modus discendi, the different modus docendi of each institution, the differing cultures of each institution, the dominant language of instruction and students’ relationship with it and the cultural heterogeneity of one group of students interacting with a culturally homogenous group in a new culturally heterogeneous environment followed by the experience of a culturally homogeneous environment. If we consider the issue of language alone, we can see an example of these convolutions where students are taught in the vernacular English language which is different from their own and also have to communicate with others who are not native speakers; French students study in their own country and another country but not in their native language; all non-native English speakers have to attain intermediate English prior to entry, but this is not academic English, and then they have to negotiate in a third country where the language is, for most students, not one they are familiar with. At every level, we can see from the student perspective the asymmetry of the experience. Geertz’s (1973) view of culture as the ingredient of human beings is mixed differently for each individual’s recipe of knowledge acquisition, and this case study brings this into sharp focus. The rich picture painted by the findings from the data allows us insights that have previously only been touched on and will help to inform the individuals embarking on such programmes of study, the institutions which offer them and also the policy makers who, according to Dale (2012), have given little thought to the experience of such higher education programmes of study. In reflecting on the importance of the mutuality context of the individuals involved, a context of ‘thou affects me’ (Buber 2004), as the focus for these types of programmes, this work presents a framework for the development and implementation of international joint double degrees. This includes staff and institutions as well as students. It highlights that the acknowledgement of the cultural encounters that the students experience in such programmes is vital to the success of international higher education. Whereas most of the existing literature has focused on either

246 

J. K. Bamford

the student experience or the policy context, these perspectives cannot be considered in isolation: a framework of mutuality that is underpinned by a construct if ‘thou affects me’ is fundamental. If international higher education does not develop within this context of mutuality, it cannot be considered to offer more than long-term travel opportunities. The three aspects of Barnett and Coate’s (2005) higher education curricula represent the theoretical basis for the context of mutuality to form part of an educational approach where students are partners in the education they receive. The consideration of students’ being in relation to international higher education activity can be seen as an aspect of the way students learn with culture informing both the modus discendi and the modus docendi. The acknowledgement of students’ being in higher education goes to the heart of the educational experience and notions of academic identity as argued by Barnett and Di Napoli (2008). As such, an exploration of the students’ negotiations on international joint double degrees addresses the call by Gargano (2009) to research students’ negotiations. Yet more understanding is needed given the complexity of issues identified. In understanding the relevance of such programmes of study, these ‘negotiations’ feed into more general notions of international higher education, internationalising the curriculum and internationalisation at home. What, for example, gives an international joint double degree added value that is additional to education in one country with a class of international students? Clear themes of the educational experience of international joint double degrees are their experiential focus and the reliance placed by the students on each other. Thomas and Jones (2017) acknowledge the importance of both mutuality in building a common understanding and also of the importance of human relationships which in this case aided the development of interculturality. The way that students learn stems from the relationality of students with other students. In attempting to provide students with an understanding of their global environment, the educational process relies on the students to develop an understanding of each other through experiencing (exploring?) their relationships with each other in and out of the classroom. This relationality which formed part of the educational process was evident throughout the data.

8  Final Reflections 

247

 he Importance of International Joint Double T Degrees for Intercultural Learning The findings from this data set clearly demonstrate that, despite the focus for these international joint double degrees being on business education with cultural learning not being integral to the courses, the international classroom and international mobility achieved increased cultural awareness. This is illustrated by the fact that students felt that they had increased their awareness of their own cultural norms and that, to some extent, they acquired intercultural awareness. There was clear evidence that students became aware of their different cultural scripts for learning (Welikala and Watkins 2008) and that differing norms of behaviour can affect peer interaction. However, it is argued that this increased cultural awareness may only be at the ‘cultural supermarket’ level (Matthews 2000) as outlined in Chap. 5. There is some evidence of learning of what Matthews defines as second-level cultural learning, but little acceptance of those different rules of behaviour. There was also clear evidence of categorisation of national behaviours which resulted, to some extent, in bias or stereotyping. Unfortunately, this did not necessarily result in cultural learning with regard to the host cultures. Very few of the students appeared to have sufficient contact with English or French culture to have an in-depth understanding of those cultures. The French students’ responses were always framed in the same way as each other, that they had become more ‘open-minded’, thus demonstrating that their cultural level of awareness had expanded beyond their own socio-economic subculture. The extent of this was however unclear. What we can say is that the evidence demonstrates that there are certainly surface-level intercultural skills and awareness acquired on international joint double degrees. This occurs through the international classroom and in the international higher education environment, but any deeper level of cultural development and knowledge requires development of the relationality between individuals. The recognition and acknowledgement of cultural awareness requires integration into the curriculum. It is dependent on the relationality between the students which needs to be facilitated through the teaching and learning approaches on an international higher education

248 

J. K. Bamford

course. The context of the international joint double degree experience and the way students engage with it is illustrated in Fig. 8.1. The data demonstrates that, in the international higher education environment offered by an international joint double degree, individuals’ negotiations vary in emphasis but that their modus discendi incorporates cultural learning. This cultural learning varies with individuals, but the more reflection there is, the more effective it would seem to become. We can conclude that a space for reflection is necessary in order to derive meaning and epistemic growth from the international joint double degree experience. The importance of communication as an aspect of the classroom environment is central to the student experience. It provides a focus for the development of their cultural awareness. In order to facilitate communication, there is a need to develop consideration of the ‘other’ (Levinas 2006). The classroom provides a space for the development of students’

Fig. 8.1  A student in an international education environment

8  Final Reflections 

249

relationality where effective communication is the outcome, rather than a categorisation of the ‘others’. The international joint double degree provides the ‘common ground’ (Arkoudis et al. 2013) where the students are forced to interact. This differentiates the international classroom on international degrees taught in one country where the difficulties of students communicating with others in a diverse classroom environment are acknowledged by those such as Arkoudis et al. (2013) and Mott-Smith (2013). Therefore, there is a need for students’ relationality in educational terms. It is anticipated that, in the learning environment offered on the international joint double degree, the dangers of stereotyping will be removed. As Coulby (2006) has stated, the need for intercultural education is to aid negotiation between cultures as opposed to simply demonstrating that there is more than one culture. The challenge is that most of the teaching and classroom interaction is not defined as intercultural education and is centred around the subject discipline. However, the culturally heterogeneous environment and collective travel on the international joint double degree requires students to negotiate with those from other cultures in a way that they do not have to do if they remain in the same country. This could be argued in this case to be as a consequence of the more intimate environment in France, but the common ground that was witnessed amongst the students was based on the common experience they held together that bound them together—despite their differences. Expectations are high from both the teaching and the learning perspective and of the cultural experience. Leask (2009) points out that the international classroom requires teachers to be able to use the cultural diversity in the classroom as one of the resources available to them; and to be able to do this, they must also develop intercultural skills. The course demonstrated that international joint double degrees encourage an emphasis on being in higher education because of the emphasis on the students’ relationship with each other as being at the heart of the learning process in a context of internationalising the curriculum. There are multiple dimensions of difference which structure the student experience, but the construct of mutuality for institutions and students and the relationality that students experience with each other frame the educational experience and add value to degree outcomes.

250 

J. K. Bamford

 nderstanding the Impact of Different U Pedagogical Approaches The discussion in Chap. 6 identified that there were differences in the modus docendi of the institutions. In offering this comparison, we gain a better understanding of the challenges for educators and for students. A comparison of pedagogic approach in other countries to aid in developing educational understanding is reinforced by the seminal work of Alexander (2000) in looking at the importance of link between culture and pedagogy. Jackson and Oguro (2018b) calls for a space for pedagogic intervention and the findings herein buoy this call. Bamford and Pollard (2019) comment that there has been little shift in UK higher education institutions in terms of addressing cultural difference in the classroom. This challenge remains the same for such international joint programmes of study. The findings pointed to pedagogical differences between the two institutions which can be identified as being at both institutional and national level, thus echoing Alexander’s work. The students’ views of the differences were highlighted as being polarised in terms of students’ preferences towards their experience of the French institution. Whether this pedagogical difference can be applied to other subject fields would require further exploration, but indications from interviews were of a difference in the philosophy of the pedagogical approach between the institutions and that this may be applied to other subject fields. The discussion explored in Chap. 6 clarifies that the UK approach to teaching and learning is steeped in notions of independent study and less class contact time. Whilst this varies across subjects, it is a culturally steeped approach common across the British system—perhaps most commonly evidenced in the use of the term ‘reading’ for a degree. The comparison of the pedagogic approach in the two institutions offers us a glimpse of these differences through the student and staff experiences of those differences. The data confirmed the work of others such as Blanchard (2009) and Bourdieu (1989) in respect of the approach of the Grandes Écoles to the delivery of their education. The data indicated a clear preference for the French system and this was surmised to be due to the fact that many of the students on the

8  Final Reflections 

251

courses were educated in systems other than the UK and that the larger numbers of hours in class represented a style more akin to their own education cultural norms, in terms of familiarity of approach; or perhaps the preference was simply that the institution was small enough for their voices to be heard and that they were paid more attention by staff. One semester appeared to be too short to adjust to the UK system or even acculturate. The implications of this comparison of the teaching and learning styles appear to suggest that these Masters awards were ‘joint’ only on the basis of the title. The delivery of the curriculum in teaching and learning terms did not appear to be ‘joint’. Despite the physical environment of the institutions, the comparison of the experience in terms of the similarity of classrooms and the format for delivery of teaching evidenced a communication gap which gave an impression of ‘separatedness’ in a teaching and learning context. An explanation of these differences by the institutions, as well as the importance of the cultural context of the institutions, was needed in aiding students to understand the pedagogical approach of each institution. The institutions made adjustments as a result of the student voice and introduced a ‘cultural’ residential weekend at the start of the course to provide students with a space for the development of cultural awareness, but it is argued that this space needs to be embedded within the course—and even towards the end of the course—in order that the worldview had the potential to be developed and honed with a holistic pedagogical approach encouraged.

 nderstanding the Need for Reflexive Position U in Framing Cultural Encounters A rich picture of the experience of the cultural encounters that take place in international higher education has been given and has allowed for the in-depth exploration of the individuals’ voice. The research approach has been offered through a specific case in order to allow for this rich picture to be conveyed and for insights to be gained. As Simons (2009) highlights, the insights offered from an exemplar can be seen as invaluable in presenting an informed position drawn from an in-depth investigation.

252 

J. K. Bamford

The limitations of this approach are acknowledged as are other influencing factors such as the cultural norms and language of the researcher. These were viewed as limiting for both the interpretation and collection of the data as all the research data was collected in English as this was the lingua franca for the courses and for all the students. For this reason, the researcher decided not to conduct interviews in French with the French students as this would have had a differential effect on the data responses, although data was also collected in France. The researcher could not have communicated in the native language of all the respondents involved on the programmes of study. In addressing the possible reliability and validity and limitations of relying on interviews alone, the data was triangulated through the questionnaires and observations and through sources other than interviews and questionnaires, such as the QAA reports, and texts, such as Zeldin (1980) and Bourdieu (1989). It is also acknowledged that the respondents’ views were offered and are limited by factors such as space and time, memory of events and the perspective of events as seen and witnessed by those actors. The cultural norms of the students both in the interview responses and the questionnaire responses would also have had an effect on those responses. The interview process itself was limited by the cultural parameters of interviewer and interviewee behaviour. The interviewer was clearly more able to engage with interviewees from some cultures than others, for example, those from Latin cultures who appeared to be more comfortable in an interview environment, exemplified in the interview with the Venezuelan student whose dialogue evidenced little hesitation in responding to questions. There was evidence displayed on analysis of the interviews that the dialogue was more engaged with respondents from certain cultures, perhaps because the dialogical context of the interview was more suited. The status of the researcher as an employee of one institution could also be viewed as limiting as there may be a bias towards one of the institutions. With this in mind the researcher tried to maintain an objective position and take a reflexive position in the interpretation of the data. Another consequence of this was that access at the French institution was

8  Final Reflections 

253

problematic, so observations could not be carried out to the same extent as in the UK. However, this has to be balanced against the insight gained from the familiarity with the institutions involved which facilitated the building of a rich picture of the case and offers a deeper insight into the operations and experiences of the actors involved and draws on a quasi-­ ethnographic approach that is common to educational research (Alvesson 2003).

 oncluding Remarks: And the Need C for Further Research? The work was concerned with understanding international joint double degrees in terms of how they are developed and delivered and also how they are received and thus experienced by students in their learning and their (inter)cultural experience. The theme of culture can be seen as an overarching dimension—both of the experience and with regard to the self-formation (2015) of individuals and the development of transferable skills and critical cognition. The theme of culture has acted as the thematic axis for the analysis of the experience of this form of international higher education. It was threaded through all aspects of that experience including the teaching and learning in each institution. However, this theme of culture did not arise as part of the formal curriculum on any of the courses but arose from students’ relationality and country mobility and was framed through their international transitions. The award of two Masters diplomas for what amounts to the same work appears to be double counting but the pressures of the market mean that this is unlikely to change. A discussion of ethics thus becomes a central concern for both the students and institutions of higher education for this and other reasons, such as the need for transparency and quality of experience. The fact that the whole course is delivered in one language also negates the basis for the award of two separate diplomas and raises ethical questions with regard to the basis for two Masters diplomas being

254 

J. K. Bamford

awarded. On the other hand, national frameworks for education make the award of one diploma for a joint course difficult to achieve; the legal reasons and operational challenges for this are identified by Knight (2013). Despite the success of the Erasmus Mundus programme, for example, as yet there is no supranational body with the authority to validate transnational programmes of study. It would be a pity if ‘market forces’ promoted an environment where ‘fudging’ of credits, the ‘separateness’ of joint programmes and the award of two Masters for the same content became the standard practice rather than the seeking of transparency across national borders and equality of experience, as this would undermine the pursuit of excellence. What is clear is that there is a need to consider the student experience and that the future of this kind of provision is dependent on it. It is apparent that the engagement in international joint double degree activity by institutions and students is framed by the experience of it and its success is reliant on the experience of it. The symbiosis between the institutions and between the students is evident and the thread of that symbiosis runs throughout. It is proposed that students’ communications and interactions are fundamental aspects of their learning in such programmes of study and a ‘space’ needs to be created when designing curricula that allows for student reflection and develops their openness and awareness in order to promulgate an acceptance of the ‘other’. The aim of developing communication, awareness of the other and mutual understanding or cosmopolitanism through personal reflection enhances the relevance of such curricula and seeks to achieve the knowing, acting and being conceptualised by Barnett and Coate (2005). A need to find a common ground for interactions across cultures is critical and this can be achieved through the shared travel and experience of another new culture together in the international joint double degree. This shared experience provides a bonding experience that separates these types of programmes from other forms of international higher education. As Arkoudis et al. (2013) point out, successful student interactions across cultures require further action on the part of tutors in a culturally heterogeneous classroom. This glimpse into the students’ negotiations and interactions within the context of these degrees permits us to understand how this

8  Final Reflections 

255

might be achieved, but personal reflection is a fundamental element of achieving such learning. It seems important to observe that challenges remain for the systemisation of cultural learning although it is acknowledged that those such as Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) (in the context of intercultural competence development) and Jackson and Oguro (2018b) (in the context of intercultural interventions in study abroad) are providing examples and frameworks for action as to how this might be achieved. There remains a need for further research about the nature and development for both students’ and staff’s cultural learning, given Matthews’ work on cultural shaping and the challenge of understanding our cultural behaviours at the deepest level. The nuances and complexities involved remain open to research for the development of further understanding, allowing for variations at the level of the individual in terms of their particular cultural journey. The opportunity of the international joint double degree provides a space for the development of this further understanding as well as the importance of a construct of mutuality and the dialogical element to such educational programmes. The future will surely see a growth of international joint double degrees. The continued marketisation of higher education, the increased use of technology and the influence of Erasmus Mundus and EU policy will inevitably result in a rise in these types of programmes where the education experience is a shared process between one or more higher education institutions and their students. If these courses are to be a success educationally, more work will need to be done to ensure greater integration in the design and on the delivery of the courses in order to develop pedagogies which will help the students learn from their intercultural experiences.

Bibliography Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for Close Up Studies  – Struggling with Closeness and Closure. Higher Education, 46, 167–193.

256 

J. K. Bamford

Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education. Barnett, R., & Di Napoli, R. (Eds.). (2008). Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives. London: Routledge. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Bourdieu, P. (1989). La Noblesse d, Etat: Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The Adjustment Journey of International Postgraduate Students at an English University: An Ethnographic Study. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 232–249. Buber, M. (2004). I and Thou (2nd ed.). (Ronald Gregor Smith, Trans.). London: Continuum. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher and Education, Paris Communiqué. (2018). Paris, May 25th 2018. [Online]. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from http://www.ehea2018.pans/Data/ElFinder/s2/Communique/ EHEAParis2018-Communique-final.pdf. Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural Education: Theory and Practice. Intercultural Education, 17(3), 245–257. Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K. P. K., & Dooley, J. E. (2012). Collaborative Dual-Degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 40–61. Dale, R. (2012). From ‘Not Quite Falling Out of the Sky’ to Europe’s Flagship Programme for Worldwide Academic Cooperation: The Emergence and Significance of Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning, Crisis and Social Change Conference, University of London, LLAKES. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

8  Final Reflections 

257

Deardorff, D.  K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L.  A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge. Gargano, T. (2009). (Re)conceptualizing International Student Mobility: The Potential of Transnational Social Fields. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 331–346. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures (2000 ed.). New  York: Basic Books. Healey, M., & Healey, R. L. (2019). 2019 Student-Staff Partnership Comes of Age. York Advance HE. [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he. ac.uk/news-and-views/student-staff-partnership-comes-age. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (2018b). Introduction: Enhancing and Extending Study Abroad Learning Through Intercultural Interventions. In Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Jamsvi, S. (2012). Internationalization  – For Whom and Why? A Discourse Analysis of the Concept of Internationalization in National Policy Documents. In Improving Student Learning Through Research and Scholarship: 20 Years of ISL, Improving Student Learning Symposium 2012. Lund, Sweden; Oxford: Lund University; Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2013). Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas. In M.  Kuder, N.  Lemmens, & D.  Obst (Eds.), Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Leask, B. (2009). Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. Levinas, E. (2006). Humanism of the Other (N.  Poller, Trans.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Matthews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. London: Routledge. Mott-Smith, J.  A. (2013). Viewing Student Behavior Through the Lenses of Culture and Globalization: Two Narratives from a US College Writing Class. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 249–259. Pedersen, P. (2010). Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Year Long Study Abroad Programme. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70–80.

258 

J. K. Bamford

de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992a). Mobility. In H. Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P. (Ed.). (1998). The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage. Thomas, L., & Jones, R. (2017). Student Engagement in the Context of Commuter Students. London: The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP). Retrieved from http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/projects/2018/Commuter studentengagement.pdf. Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and Cooperative Impulses to Internationalization: Reflecting on the Interplay Between Management Intentions and the Experience of Academics in a British University. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 1(1), 65–82. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Zeldin, T. (1980). France 1848–1945: Intellect and Pride (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography

AACSB. (2011). Globalization of Management Education: Changing International Structures, Adaptive Strategies and the Impact on Institutions. Bingley, UK: AACSB International. Alexander, R. (2000). Culture & Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Altbach, P.  G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalisation of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for Close Up Studies  – Struggling with Closeness and Closure. Higher Education, 46, 167–193. Appiah, K.  A. (2008). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Management Revue, 19(4), 340–341. Appiah, K.  A. (2018). The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity. London: Profile Books. Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (2017). Intercultural Competence: An Overview. In Intercultural Competence in Higher Education (pp. 7–18). London: Routledge.

© The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8

259

260 Bibliography

Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., et al. (2013). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 222–235. Asgary, N., & Robbert, M. A. (2010). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an International Dual Degree Programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 317–325. Atfield, R., & Kemp, P. (Eds.). (2008). Enhancing the International Learning Experience in Business and Management, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism. Newbury: Threshold Press. Bamford, J.  K. (2006). International Students and Their Experiences of UK Education: Strategies for the Improvement of Their Academic and Cultural Experience of Studying in the UK. SRHE Annual Conference, Brighton. Bamford, D.  N. (2010). Person, Deification and Re-cognition: A Comparative Study of Person in the Byzantine and Pratyabhijna Traditions, Unpublished Thesis, University of Chichester. Bamford, J.  K. (2014). A Window to the World. In Critical Perspectives on Internationalising the Curriculum in Disciplines (pp.  45–58). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Bamford, J., & Pokorny, H. (2010). Collaborative Learning or Mass Market Conveyor Belt Education: A Discussion of the Use of Group Work Assessments and Their Relationship to Learning in HE. Paper Presented at the Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, University of Hertfordshire. Bamford, J., & Pollard, L. (2019). Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives. London: Emerald Publishing Limited. Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G., & Weber-Newth, I. (2002). Some Features of the Cultural and Educational Experience of International Students in the UK. BEST Conference, Edinburgh. Bamford, J., Marr, T., Pheiffer, G., & Weber-Newth, I. (2006). International Postgraduate Students in London: Some Features of Their Expectation and Experience. Journal of Cyprus Sciences, 4, 25. Bamford, J., Griffiths, D., Pickford, P., & Pokorny, H. (2007). Exploring Groupwork: Perspectives from a Staff-Based Action Research Project. Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Conference, Brighton. Bamford, J., Djebbour, D., & Pollard, L. (2014). Does Subject Matter, Matter? A Comparison of Student Engagement in Culturally Diverse Classrooms in Urban, Cosmopolitan Higher Education Institutions in the UK. Investigations in University Learning and Teaching, 9, 26–35.

 Bibliography 

261

Barker, J. (1997). The Purpose of Study, Attitudes to Study and Staff-Student Relationships. In D.  McNamara & R.  Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Barker, C. (2000). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Bristol: SRHE and Open University Press. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham, UK: SHRE and Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2007). A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2015). Understanding the University: Institution, Idea, Possibilities. London: Routledge. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw-­Hill Education. Barnett, R., & Di Napoli, R. (Eds.). (2008). Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives. London: Routledge. Barnett, R., Temple, P., & Scott, P. (2016). Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. London: Trentham Books. Batram, B. (2007). The Sociocultural Needs of International Students in Higher Education: A Comparison of Staff and Student Views. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 205–214. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Europe Calling: A New Definition for Internationalization at Home. International Higher Education, 83, 12–13. Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (2004). Global Opportunities and Institutional Embeddedness: Higher Education Consortia in Europe and South East Asia. CHEPS/ UT. [Online]. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.utwente.nl/chepsdocumenten/thesisbeerkins.pdf. Beerkins, E. (2008). The Emergence and Institutionalisation of the European Higher Education and Research Area. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 407–425. Beerkins, E., & Derwende, M. (2006). The Paradox in International Cooperation: Institutionally Embedded Universities in a Global Environment. Higher Education, 53(1), 66–79. Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bennett, M.  J. (1993). Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (2nd ed.). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

262 Bibliography

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and Adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 3, Social Behavior and Applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press. Blanchard, M. (2009). From “Ecoles Superieures de Commerce” to “Management Schools”: Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools. European Journal of Education, 44(4), 586–604. Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Framework. (2005). A Framework for Qualifications in the European Higher Education Area. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050218_QF_EHEA.pdf. Bolsmann, C., & Miller, H. (2008). International Student Recruitment to Universities in England: Discourse, Rationales and Globalisation. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 75–88. Borg, M., Maunder, R., Xiaoli, J., Walsh, E., Fry, H., & Di Napoli, R. (2010). International Students and Academic Acculturation: The Role of Relationships in the Doctoral Process. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus (P.  Collier, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1989). La Noblesse d, Etat: Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Brezis, E. S., & Crouzet, F. (2006). The Role of Higher Education Institutions: Recruitment of Elites and Economic Growth. In T. S. Eicher & C. GarciaPenalosa (Eds.), Institutions, Development and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The Adjustment Journey of International Postgraduate Students at an English University: An Ethnographic Study. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 232–249. Bruch, T., & Barty, A. (1998). Internationalizing British Higher Education: Students and Institutions. In P.  Scott (Ed.), The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SHRE and Open University Press. Buber, M. (2004). I and Thou (2nd ed.). (Ronald Gregor Smith, Trans.). London: Continuum. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.

 Bibliography 

263

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Callan, H. (1998). Internationalisation in Europe. In P.  Scott (Ed.), The Globalisation of Higher Education (pp. 44–57). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Calmand, J., Giret, J. F., Guegnard, C., & Paul, J. J. (2009). Why Grande Ecoles Are So Valued? 17th Annual Workshop of the European Research Network in Youth, Burgundy University, Youth Transitions at Risk, Insecurity, Pecantry and Educational Mismatch in the Youth Market. Dijon: IREDU-CNRS. [Online]. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ halshs-00419388/. Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Vol. I, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castells, M. (2002). The Construction of European Identity. In M. J. Rodrigues (Ed.), The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Cathcart, A., Dixon-Dawson, J., & Hall, R. (2006). Reluctant Hosts and Disappointed Guests? Examining Expectations and Enhancing Experiences of Cross Cultural Group Work on Post-­graduate Business Programmes. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 13–22. Cemmell, J., & Bekhradnia, B. (2008). The Bologna Process and the UK’s International Student Market. HEPI Report No 36. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. Coate, K. (2007). Unknowable: International Students in English Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Conference, Brighton. Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorkland, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects. Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60–83. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (2001). Prague Communiqué, Towards the European Higher Education Area. [Online]. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from http://www.ond.vlaaderen.be.hogeronderwijs0/bologna/documents/MDC/PRAGUE-COMMUNIQUE.pdf. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (2003). Berlin Communiqué. [Online]. Retrieved August 30, 2010, from http://www. europeunit.ac.uk/sites/europe_unit2/bologna_process/decision_making/ prague_2001_and_berlin_2003.cfm.

264 Bibliography

Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (2009). Leuven Communiqué, The Bologna Process 2020  – The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade Joint Declaration of the European Ministers. [Online]. Retrieved October 29, 2011, from http://www.ond. vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_ Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Paris Communiqué. (2018). Paris, May 25th 2018. [Online]. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from http://www.ehea2018.pans/Data/ElFinder/s2/Communique/ EHEAParis2018-Communique-final.pdf. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for Learning Across Cultures. In D. McNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Cotterell, S. (2008). The Study Skills Handbook (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural Education: Theory and Practice. Intercultural Education, 17(3), 245–257. Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). EUA Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Universities Association. Crossley, M., & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge. Cullingford, C., & Gunn, S. (Eds.). (2005). Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K. P. K., & Dooley, J. E. (2012). Collaborative Dual-­Degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 40–61. Curtis, S., & Klapper, R. (2005). Financial Support Systems: The Student Experience in England and France. International Journal of Social Economics, 32(1/2), 121–132. Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dale, R. (2010). Constructing Universities’ Responses to Europe’s Lisbon Agenda: The Roles of the European Commission in Creating the Europe of Knowledge. LLAKES Research Paper, 19. Dale, R. (2012). From ‘Not Quite Falling Out of the Sky’ to Europe’s Flagship Programme for Worldwide Academic Cooperation: The Emergence and

 Bibliography 

265

Significance of Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning, Crisis and Social Change Conference, University of London, LLAKES. van Damme, D. (2001). Quality Issues in the Internationalisation of Higher Education. Higher Education, 41(4), 415–441. Darricotte, A., & McColl, R. (2008). Teaching and Learning in an Environment Challenged by Cultural Diversity. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhancing the International Learning Experience in Business and Management, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism. Newbury, UK: Threshold. Davies, H. (2009). Survey of Masters Degrees in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. De Vita, G. (2000). Inclusive Approaches to Effective Communication and Active Participation in the Multicultural Classroom. Active Learning in Higher Educationm, 1(2), 168–180. De Vita, G. (2001a). Learning Styles, Culture and Inclusive Instruction in the Multi-cultural Classroom: A Business and Management Perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165–174. De Vita, G. (2001b). The Use of Group Work in Large and Diverse Business Management Classes: Some Critical Issues. International Journal of Management Education, 1(3), 27–35. De Vita, G. (2005). Fostering Intercultural Learning Through Multicultural Group Work. In Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All (pp. 75–83). London: Routledge. De Vita, G. (2007). Fostering Intercultural Learning Through Multicultural Group Work. In Teaching International Students (pp.  87–95). London: Routledge. De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the Internationalisation Agenda in UK Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383–398. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Deardorff, D.  K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Deardorff, D.  K., & Arasaratnam-­Smith, L.  A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application. London: Routledge. Deer, C., & M.  A. (2002). Higher Education in England and Wales Since the 1990s. Oxford: Symposium Books.

266 Bibliography

Dennehy, E. (2014). Is Deep Learning Rewarded? A Quantitative Study on the Relationship Between Learning Approaches and Academic Scores. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 5(1), 54–68. Dixon, M. (2006). Globalisation and International Higher Education: Contested Positionings. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 319–333. Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Blurring Boundaries and Blistering Institutions. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher Education in a Globalising World. International Trends and Mutual Observations. A Festschrift in Honour of Ulrich Teichler. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ENQA. (2009). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. 3rd ed. Helsinki, Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Erichsen, E.  A. (2012). Learning for Change: Transforming International Experience as Identity Work. Journal of Transformative Education, 9(2), 109–133. Evans, T., & Morgan, A. (1998). Independent Learning Confronts Globalization: Facilitating Students Development as Learners. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Students Learning Outcomes: Proceedings of the 1998 6th International Symposium. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Fish, A. (2013). Reshaping the Undergraduate Business Curriculum and Scholarship Experiences in Australia to Support Whole Person Outcomes. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 53–69. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2003). The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text. In N.  K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Forte, P., & Bamford, J. (2008). Reflections on Managing International Masters Programmes Internationally, ALHE 2008 Conference, December 3–5, Canterbury. Furnham, A. (1997). The Experience of Being an Overseas Student. In D.  McNamara & R.  Harris (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. Gargano, T. (2009). (Re)conceptualizing International Student Mobility: The Potential of Transnational Social Fields. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 331–346.

 Bibliography 

267

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures (2000 ed.). New  York: Basic Books. Granell, E. (2000). Culture Globalisation: A Latin American Challenge. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(3), 89–93. Green, A. (1990). Education and state formation. In Education and State Formation, 76–110. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Green, A. (1997). Education, Globalisation and the Nation State. London: Palgrave. Green, A. (2002). Education, Globalisation and the Role of Comparative Research. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Guruz, K. (2011). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: State University of New York Press. Guttenplan, D. (2011, March 28). Dual-Degree Programs Are Gathering Steam. New York Times. Haigh, M. (2008). Internationalisation, Planetary Citizenship and Higher Education Inc. Compare, 38(4), 427–440. Haigh, M. (2009). Fostering Cross-­ Cultural Empathy With Non-­ Western Curricular Structures. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 271–284. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1994). The Seven Cultures of Capitalism. London: Judy Piatkus Publishers. Hamza, A. (2010). International Experience: An Opportunity for Professional Development in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 50–69. Han, S. (2009). Competence: Commodification of Human Ability. In K. Illeris (Ed.), International Perspectives on Competence Development: Developing Skills and Capabilities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, International Students and Perceived Discrimination: Implications for Educators and Counsellors. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), 157–172. Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural Distance, Mindfulness and Passive Xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to Explore Home Higher Education Students’ Perspectives on ‘Internationalisation at Home’. British Journal of Educational Research, 38(6), 877–902. Healey, M., & Healey, R. L. (2019). 2019 Student-Staff Partnership Comes of Age. York Advance HE. [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he. ac.uk/news-and-views/student-staff-partnership-comes-age.

268 Bibliography

Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. Language & Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press. HESA. (2019). Students in Higher Education Institutions. [Online]. Retrieved December 16, 2019, from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-from. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile Books. Holliday, A. (2017). Commentary. In J. Jackson & S. Oguro (Eds.), Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad. London: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2018). Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of Culture. London: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural Communications and Ideology. London: Sage Publications. Homer. (2003). The Iliad (E.V. Rieu, Trans.).London: Penguin Homeri Opera. (1920). Tomus I, Iliadis Libros I–XII Continens Editio Tertia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. Hyland, F., Trahar, S., Anderson, J., & Dickens, A. (2008). A Changing World: The Internationalisation Experiences of Staff and Students (Home and International) in UK Higher Education. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://escalate.ac.uk/4967. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (Eds.). (2018a). Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad. London: Routledge. Jackson, J., & Oguro, S. (2018b). Introduction: Enhancing and Extending Study Abroad Learning Through Intercultural Interventions. In Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Jan Bamford, Lucie Pollard, (2018). Developing relationality and student belonging: The need for building cosmopolitan engagement in undergraduate communities. London Review of Education 16 (2):214–227. Jamsvi, S. (2012). Internationalization  – For Whom and Why? A Discourse Analysis of the Concept of Internationalization in National Policy Documents. In Improving Student Learning Through Research and Scholarship: 20 Years of ISL, Improving Student Learning Symposium 2012. Lund, Sweden; Oxford: Lund University; Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

 Bibliography 

269

Jones, P. (2000). Globalization and Internationalism: Democratic Prospects for World Education. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield. Jones, H. (2005). Broader Horizons and Greater Confidence: UK Students’ Learning from Mobility. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Jones, E. (Ed.). (2010). Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Karvounaraki, A., Subramaniam, S., Hristov, H., Ojala, T., Jonkers, K., Huisman, J., & Goenaga, X. (2018). Mapping of European transnational collaborative partnerships in higher education. Katsara, R., & Gil, M.  C. (1999). The Experiences of Spanish and Greek Students in Adapting to UK Higher Education: The Creation of New Support Strategies. Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex. Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on Internationalisation in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260–273. Killick, D. (2014). Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of Globalization. London: Routledge. Killick, D. (2016). Internationalization and Diversity in Higher Education: Implications for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. London: Macmillan International Higher Education. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. CBIE Research Paper No. 7. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions, New Challenges. Paris: International Association of Universities. Knight, J. (2013). Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas. In M.  Kuder, N.  Lemmens, & D.  Obst (Eds.), Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Knight, J. (2015). International Universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 107–121. Knight, J. (2016). Transnational Education Remodeled: Toward a Common TNE Framework and Definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47.

270 Bibliography

Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2012). International Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs. In The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 343–357). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Kreber, C. (2009). Different Perspectives on Internationalization in Higher Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, 1–14. Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and Double Degree Programs in the Transatlantic Context  – A Survey Report. New  York, NY: Institute of International Education. Kuder, M., Lemmens, N., & Obst, D. (2013). Global Perspectives on International Joint and Double Degree Programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education. Leask, B. (2009). Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Leki, I. (2001). “A Narrow Thinking System”: Nonnative-English-­Speaking Students in Group Projects Across the Curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 39–67. Levinas, E. (2006). Humanism of the Other (N.  Poller, Trans.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Li, M., & Campbell, J. (2008). Asian Students’ Perception of Group Work and Group Assignments in a New Zealand Tertiary Institution. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 203–216. Livingstone, D., & Lynch, K. (2000). Group Project Work and Student-­Centred Active Learning: Two Different Experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 325–345. Lowes, R., Peters, H., & Turner, M. (2004). The International Students Guide: Studying in English at University. London: Sage. Lyotard, J.  F. (1984). The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Maguire, D., & Morris, D. (2018). Homeward Bound: Defining, Understanding and Aiding ‘Commuter Students’. HEPI Report 114. Higher Education Policy Institute. Marginson, S. (2012). Including the Other: Regulation of the Human Rights of Mobile Students in a Nation-Bound World. Higher Education, 63(4), 497–512. Marginson, S. (2014). Student Self-­ Formation in International Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–22.

 Bibliography 

271

Martinez, R. (2009). Entrepreneurialism and the Internalization of Higher Education in a Knowledge Society. In M. Shattock (Ed.), Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press. Matthews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket. London: Routledge. Maxwell, G., Adam, M., Pooran, J., & Scott, B. (2000). Cultural Diversity in Learning: Developing Effective Learning for South East Asian Hospitality Students. Cross Cultural Management, 7(3), 3–12. McAllister, L., Whiteford, G., Hill, B., Thomas, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in Intercultural Learning: Examining the International Experience Through a Critical Incident Approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367–381. McNamara, D., & Harris, R. (Eds.). (1997). Overseas Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge. McNamee, S. J., & Faulkner, G. L. (2001). The international exchange experience and the social construction of meaning. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 64–78. Montgomery, C. (2009). A Decade of Internationalisation: Has It Influenced Students’ Views of Cross-Cultural Group Work at University? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 256–270. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Mott-Smith, J.  A. (2013). Viewing Student Behavior Through the Lenses of Culture and Globalization: Two Narratives from a US College Writing Class. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 249–259. Naidoo, V. (2007). Research on the Flow of International Students to UK Universities: Determinants and Implications. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(3), 287–307. Neuliep, J. W. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nieto, C., & Booth, M. (2010). Cultural Competence: Its Influence on the Teaching and Learning of International Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 406–425. Nordberg, D. (2008). Group Projects: More Learning? Less Fair? A Conundrum in Assessing Postgraduate Business Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 481–492.

272 Bibliography

Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How Study Abroad Shapes Global Careers: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(3), 382–397. O’Neill, D., & Cullingford, C. (2005). Cultural Shock or Cultural Acquisition? The Experiences of Overseas Students. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Obst, D., & Kuder, M. (2009). Joint and Double Degree Programs: An Emerging Model for Transatlantic Exchange. New  York: Institute for International Education. Obst, D., Kuder, M., & Banks, C. (2011). Joint and Double Degree Programs in the Global Context: Report on an International Survey. New York: Institute for International Education. Osmond, J., & Roed, J. (2010). Sometimes It Means More Work: Student Perceptions of Group Work in a Mixed Cultural Setting. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Palermo, O.  A., Bisignano, A.  P., & Mercado, S. (2018). The Design of International Dual Degree Programmes as Effective Transnational Education Experiences. In Exporting Transnational Education (pp.  45–66). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Palfreyman, D. (2008a). Higher Education, Liberal Education, Critical Thinking, Academic Discourse and the Oxford Tutorial as Sacred Cow or Pedagogic Gem. In The Oxford Tutorial: ‘Thanks You Taught Me How to Think’. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies. Palfreyman, D. (Ed.). (2008b). The Oxford Tutorial: ‘Thanks You Taught Me How to Think’ (2nd ed.). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Higher Education Studies. Papatsiba, V. (2005). Political and Individual Rationales of Student Mobility: A Case-Study of ERASMUS and a French Regional Scheme for Studies Abroad. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 173–188. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Making Higher Education More European Through Student Mobility? Revisiting EU Initiatives in the Context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education, 42(1), 93–111. Pedersen, P. (2010). Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Year Long Study Abroad Programme. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70–80. Plato. (2003). The Republic (P. Shorey, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press. Pokorny, H., & Griffiths, D. (2010). The Ethics of Assessed Group Work: A Voyage Through a Post-92 Institution to Uncover the Myths of Enhanced

 Bibliography 

273

Learning Through Group Work Assessment. In R. Atfield & P. Kemp (Eds.), Enhanced Learning Through Assessment. Newbury: Threshold Press. Prats Monné, X., & Morel, C. (2013). Joint Degrees: A top priority of the european Union’s mobility and cooperation program. Global perspective on international joint and double degree programs. New  York: Institute of International Education. Pring, R. (2004). The Philosophy of Education. London: Continuum. Pring, W. (2010). A Case Study of an In-class Silent Postgraduate Chinese Student in London Metropolitan University: A Journey of Learning. TESOL Journal, 2, 207–214. QAA. (2004). Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Section 2: Collaborative Provision and Flexible and Distributed Learning (Including e-learning) (2nd ed., pp. 1–42). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2006). University of Westminster: Collaborative Provision Audit Report. Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2008). Outcomes from Institutional Audit, Collaborative Provision in the Institutional Audit Reports (pp. 1–28). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. QAA. (2018). Quality Code on Collaborative Provision. [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/chapter-b10_-managing-higher-education-provision-with-others.pdf?sfvrsn=8c02f781_8. Ragin, C. (1992). Introduction: Cases of What Is a Case? In What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rapley, T. (2011). Some Pragmatics of Data Analysis. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Reugg, W. (1992). Themes. In H.  Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reynolds, M., & Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: A Critical Perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267–278. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992a). Mobility. In H.  Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (Ed.). (1992b). A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

274 Bibliography

Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying Out Qualitative Analysis. In J.  Ritchie & J.  Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards Cosmopolitan Learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 253–268. Robertson, S.  L. (2010). The EU, ‘Regulatory State Regionalism’ and New Modes of Higher Education Governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1), 23–37. Robson, S., Almeida, J., & Schartner, A. (2018). Internationalization at Home: Time for Review and Development? European Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 19–35. Rodrigues, M.  J. (Ed.). (2002). The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: A Strategy for International Competitiveness and Social Cohesion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). ‘“Canaries in the Coalmine”: International Students in Western Universities. In J.  Carroll & J.  Ryan (Eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Sanderson, G. (2008). A Foundation for the Internationalization of the Academic Self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307. Sastry, T., & Bekhradnia, B. (2007). The Academic Experience of Students in English Universities. HEPI Report. Schule, U. (2006). Joint and Double Degrees Within the European Higher Education Area: Towards Further Internationalisation of Business Degrees. Paris: Consortium of International Double Degrees. Schwandt, T.  A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, P. (Ed.). (1998). The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press. Shah, S. (2004). The Researcher/Interviewer in an Intercultural Context: A Social Intruder! British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 549–575. Shattock, M. (Ed.). (2009). Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and The Open University Press.

 Bibliography 

275

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage. Soliman, S., Anchor, J., & Taylor, D. (2019). The International Strategies of Universities: Deliberate Or Emergent? Studies in Higher Education, 44(8), 1413–1424. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Stadler, S. (2009). The Global People Competency Framework: Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. [Online]. Retrieved August 20, 2011, from http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3272/. St Andrews University. (2006). Coat of Arms. [Online]. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/about/university/coatofarms/. Steve O. Michael, Leela Balraj, (2003). Higher education institutional collaborations: An analysis of models of joint degree programs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25(2):131–145. Stockholm Seminar. (2002). Joint Degrees Within the Framework of the Bologna Process. [Online]. Retrieved August 30, from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Stockholm_results.pdf. Stoer, S. R., & Cortesao, L. (2000). Multiculturalism and Educational Policy in Global Context (European Perspectives). In R. A. Morrow & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and Education: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge. Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356. Strauss, P., & U, A. (2007). Group Assessments: Dilemmas Facing Lecturers in Multicultural Tertiary Classrooms. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 147–161. Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. European University Association. Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher Education. Brussels, Belgium: European Universities Association. Sweeney, S. (2010). Bologna Process: Responding to the Post-2010 Challenge. York: Higher Education Academy. Swisher, K., & Schoorman, D. (2001). Learning Styles: Implications for Teachers. In C. F. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural Education for the 21st Century. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Teichler, U. (1998). The Role of the European Union in the Internationalisation of Higher Education. In P. Scott (Ed.), The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

276 Bibliography

Teichler, U. (2004). The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher Education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26. Teichler, U. (2008). Student Mobility: Where Do We Come From, Where Are We Going to Inside the EHEA? Fostering Student Mobility: Next Steps? Involving Stakeholders for an Improved Mobility Inside the EHEA Conference, Brussels, 29–30 May 2008. Temple, P. (2009). Teaching and Learning: An Entrepreneurial Perspective. In M.  Shattock (Ed.), Entrepreneurialism in Universities and the Knowledge Economy: Diversification and Organisational Change in European Higher Education. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press. Thomas a Kempis, (1979). The Imitation of Christ. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Thomas, L. (2012). What Works? Student Retention and Success. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Thomas, L., & Jones, R. (2017). Student Engagement in the Context of Commuter Students. London: The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP). Retrieved from http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/projects/2018/ Commuterstudentengagement.pdf. Tinker, C., & Amstrong, N. (2008). From the Outside Looking in: How an Awareness of Difference Can Benefit the Qualitative Research Process. The Qualitative Report, 13(1), 53–60. [Online]. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-1/tinker.pdf. Tomlinson, F., & Egan, S. (2002). Organizational Sensemaking in a Culturally Diverse Setting. Management Learning, 33(1), 79–97. Trahar, S. (2009). Has Everybody Seen a Swan? Stories from the Internationalised Classroom. In E.  Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives (pp.  143–154). New  York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Trahar, S. (2011). Developing Cultural Capability in International Higher Education. London: Routledge. Trahar, S., & Hyland, F. (2011). Experiences and Perceptions of Internationalisation in Higher Education in the UK. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5), 623–633. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-­Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. Triandis, H. C. (2018). Individualism and Collectivism. London: Routledge. Triandis, H., & Berman, J. (1990). Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Current Theory and Research in Motivation, 37, 41–133.

 Bibliography 

277

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65(6), 384–399. Turner, Y. (2006a). Chinese Students in a UK Business School: Hearing the Student Voice in Reflective Teaching. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(1), 27–51. Turner, Y. (2006b). Students from Mainland China and Critical Thinking in Postgraduate Business and Management Degrees: Teasing Out Tensions of Culture, Style and Substance. International Journal of Management Education, 5(1), 3–11. Turner, Y. (2009). “Knowing Me, Knowing You” Is There Nothing We Can Do? Pedagogic Challenges in Using Group Work to Create an Intercultural Learning Space. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 13(2), 240–255. Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and Cooperative Impulses to Internationalization: Reflecting on the Interplay Between Management Intentions and the Experience of Academics in a British University. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 1(1), 65–82. Twigg, C. (2005). Overseas Students in Higher Education. In C. Cullingford & S. Gunn (Eds.), Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot: Ashgate. Valiente, C. (2008). Are Students Using the “Wrong” Style of Learning? A Multicultural Scrutiny for Helping Teachers to Appreciate Differences. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 73–91. Van Gyn, G., Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., & Preece, A. (2009, Summer). Education for World-­ Mindedness: Beyond Superficial Notions of Internationalization. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118. Vita, G.  D. (2005). Fostering Intercultural Learning Through Multicultural Group Work. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Volet, S.  E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally Mixed Groups on International Campuses: An Opportunity for Intercultural Learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 5–23. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The Psychology of Culture Shock (2nd ed.). Hove: Routledge. Watkins, K. E., & Cseh, M. (2009). Competence Development in the United States of America: Limiting Expectations Or Unleashing Global Capacities. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Competence Development. London: Routledge. Welikala, T., & Watkins, C. (2008). Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

278 Bibliography

van der Wende, M. (1996). Internationalising the Curriculum in Dutch Higher Education: An International Comparative Perspective. Ph.D.  Dissertation, Utrecht University. van der Wende, M. (1998). Quality Assurance in Higher Education and the Link to Internationalisation. Millenium, 3(11), 20–29. van der Wende, M. (2000). The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the Transparency and Competitiveness of European Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, 3(2), 3–10. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yang, R. (2002). University Internationalisation: Its Meanings, Rationales and Implications. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81–95. Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation Discourse Hits the Tipping Point: A New Definition Is Needed. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(1), 19–22. Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods) (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeldin, T. (1980). France 1848–1945: Intellect and Pride (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Index1

A

C

AACSB, see Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Adding value, 81–114, 211 Anglicisation, 23 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), 13, 17, 56, 57, 66, 67, 76, 83, 86, 87, 113, 122, 238

Categorisation, 88, 145, 149, 161, 162, 164, 170, 247, 249 Chapitre des Grandes Ecoles, 71n5 Classes preparatoires, 71n5, 184, 192, 196 Coimbra Group, 60 Collaboration, 10, 17, 18, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56–58, 64, 65, 68, 69, 76, 82–85, 87, 93, 121–133, 175, 184, 190, 212 Collectivist, 145, 212, 213 Communication, vii, viii, 23, 49–51, 64–66, 72, 73, 83–85, 90, 94, 95, 97, 106, 108, 109, 119, 121, 123, 131, 135, 144, 145, 147–149, 156, 160, 162, 163, 165–168, 170, 177, 184, 194, 205, 215–219, 222, 228, 229, 231, 238, 243, 248, 249, 251, 254

B

Being, ix, 5–8, 75, 246, 249, 254 Bologna Process (BP), 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, 45, 51, 52, 54, 56–58, 75, 175, 177, 237 Bologna Process Follow-Up Group, 45  Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s) 2020 J. K. Bamford, International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8

279

280 Index

Comparative education, 4 Constructivist, 6 Cosmopolitan, 35, 96, 154, 169 Cross-border education, 113 Cultural competence, 107, 144, 152 Cultural encounters, ix, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 22, 35, 36, 64, 74, 93, 97, 99, 110, 112, 139–144, 148, 149, 152, 154, 160, 164, 168, 169, 171, 206, 215, 216, 220, 232, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243–245, 251–253 Cultural fluencies, vii, 6, 22, 23, 45, 46, 52, 85, 139, 149, 152, 153, 212 Cultural interactions, 2, 9, 24, 46, 71, 93, 98, 99, 102, 110, 113, 114, 139–142, 145, 147, 150, 151, 153, 161, 168–171, 212, 213, 216, 219, 235, 244 Cultural knowledge, 24, 111, 131, 151, 156, 157 Cultural scripts, 90, 101, 130, 144–147, 158, 193, 228, 231, 241, 247 Cultural shaping, 151, 155, 158–160, 171, 255 Culture, 2–5, 46, 70–72, 84, 102–105, 120, 130–131, 139, 141–142, 154–155, 157–158, 176, 212, 236 Culture of mobility, 3, 5, 14, 36, 57, 74 Culture shock, 88, 102–104, 160, 167 Curriculum, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18–20, 24, 30, 35, 36, 45, 48–50, 56, 57, 61, 66, 70, 73–75, 91, 100,

102, 107, 119–136, 142, 143, 153, 166, 186, 187, 246, 247, 249, 251, 253 D

Double degree, vii–x, 1–5, 8, 10, 12–27, 29, 30, 35–37, 45–77, 81–114, 119–136, 139–171, 175–206, 211–232, 235–249, 253–255 Dual awards, 3, 21, 47, 49, 61, 62, 71, 87, 108, 199 E

Ecole Superieure de Commerce (ESC), 71, 71n5, 84, 193, 193n6 ECTS, see European Credit Transfer System Educational environment, vii, 20, 99, 109, 110, 146, 157, 180, 182–184, 188–189 Education policy, 27, 45, 236 Eliteness, 239 Employability, 5, 108, 187, 191, 192, 229 ENQA, see European Quality Assurance Register ENQR, 63 EQUIS, see European Quality Improvement System Erasmus, 6n1, 34, 48, 54n1, 92, 242 Erasmus Mundus, 13, 22, 49, 50, 56, 66, 76, 176, 237, 254, 255 EUA, see European University Association

 Index 

EU Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), 54, 54n1 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), 20, 48, 55, 58, 63, 178, 178n1 European Higher Education Area (EHEA), 7, 10–13, 21, 22, 36, 51, 53, 54, 56, 74, 175, 177, 237, 243 European Quality Assurance Register (ENQA), 63, 70 European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), 66, 67, 71, 83, 86, 122 European Union (EU), vii, 3, 10, 12, 13, 16, 34, 51, 52, 54–56, 59, 76, 113, 149, 236, 243, 255 European University Association (EUA), 13, 17, 18, 51, 175, 238 Europe of Culture, 236 Europe of Knowledge, 12, 12n2, 51, 52, 55, 66, 236 G

Global branding, 67, 86–87, 113, 239 Global citizenship, 24, 131 Globalisation, 17, 26–30, 51–52, 68, 86, 98 Grandes Ecoles (GE), 18, 57, 66–69, 71n5, 83, 86, 122, 125, 179, 181–185, 187, 188, 191–193, 192n4, 193n6, 200, 202–204, 250

281

Group work, 7, 92, 98, 105, 106, 111, 130, 141, 151, 168, 171, 176, 186, 190, 196, 202, 211–232, 237, 239 H

HEPI, 188, 193 HESA, 24 Heterogeneity, 89, 213, 215–217, 245 High context culture, 147, 159 Higher Education Academy (HEA), 14 Homogeneity, 171, 199 I

Independent learning, 69, 101, 186, 188, 200–202, 221 Individualist, 145 Institute of International Education (IIE), 13, 45, 56, 243 Instituts Superieurs de Commerce, 57 Interconnectedness, 2, 74, 120, 121, 123, 124, 130–131, 140 Intercultural communications, 97, 147 Intercultural competence, 4, 20, 35, 97, 147, 148, 152–154, 160, 162, 171, 241, 255 Intercultural knowledge, 91 Intercultural learning, 97, 107, 120, 125, 128, 132, 135, 143, 148, 150, 152, 171, 237, 238, 247–249

282 Index

International classroom, 2, 4, 24, 74, 90, 110, 120, 150, 203, 237, 247, 249 Internationalisation, viii, 1–3, 13–16, 23, 24, 26–30, 35, 37, 51–53, 56, 57, 66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 84, 86, 87, 91, 97, 101, 112, 119–121, 123, 132, 140, 147, 150, 154, 155, 181, 243, 246 Internationalisation at home, 24, 30, 243, 246 Internationalisation of higher education, 1, 2, 16, 24, 26, 236 Internationalising the curriculum, 24, 45, 66, 119–121, 123, 125–130, 132, 246, 249 International joint double degree, vii–x, 1–5, 8, 10, 12–27, 29, 30, 35–37, 45–77, 81–114, 119–136, 139–171, 175–206, 211–232, 235–249, 253–255 International knowledgeability, 108–110, 147, 240, 241 J

Joint degree, vii, 1–38, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 61, 69, 75, 76, 108, 124, 141 Jointness, 61, 206, 238 L

Leuven Communiqué, 13, 36, 45, 52, 56, 74 Licentia ubique docendi, 6n1 Low context culture, 147

M

Marketisation, 30, 76, 238, 255 Methodological approach, 9–12, 37 Modes of learning, 6, 7, 26, 50, 100, 128, 176 Modus discendi, 6–8, 26, 50, 98, 100, 176, 194, 203, 206, 228, 239, 245, 246, 248 Modus docendi, 7, 8, 50, 64, 88, 94, 96, 100, 101, 110, 140, 147, 149, 169, 176–182, 185–188, 193–194, 196–201, 203, 206, 220–222, 229, 238, 241, 243, 245, 246, 250 Mutuality, ix, xi, 2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 21, 35, 36, 55, 74, 85, 93, 139, 241–246, 249, 255 O

Ontological, ix, 7, 8, 98, 160, 164 Oxford Tutorial System, 186, 187 P

Paris Communiqué, 7, 61, 175, 238 Pedagogical approach, 94, 125, 131, 135, 176, 177, 179, 181, 188, 190, 193, 200, 201, 211, 218, 250–251 Pedagogical differences, 179, 250 Pedagogic intervention, 250 Pedagogy, ix, 3–5, 10, 12, 37, 46, 69, 70, 89, 91, 97, 98, 109, 130, 142, 175–206, 241, 250, 255 Peregrinatio academica, 6n1, 34, 242, 243 Philomathic, 202–204 Post-92s, 58, 122, 187–189, 216

 Index  Q

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 11, 47, 60–63, 65, 66, 67n4, 70, 76, 86, 187, 190, 193n7, 235, 239, 252

283

Study abroad, 4, 48, 73, 88, 96–102, 107, 141, 143, 144, 160, 195, 196, 240, 255 T

R

Relationality, viii, 4–8, 10, 24, 90, 111, 144–151, 159, 163, 164, 176, 203, 204, 221, 236, 241, 246, 247, 249, 253 S

Self-awareness, 6, 75, 140, 141 Self-formation, 5, 141, 215, 243, 253 Social interactions, 229–231 Sojourner, 102–104, 102n1, 140, 158, 195, 236 Stereotyping, 111, 149, 159–163, 247, 249 Student mobility, 4, 10, 12, 26–28, 37, 46, 48, 51–55, 72, 96, 102

Transferable skills, 46, 109, 123, 125, 129, 206, 228–230, 232, 240, 253 Transitions, viii, ix, 1–3, 11, 35, 64, 73, 81, 82, 85, 88, 89, 93, 104, 110, 139, 147, 149, 158, 160, 169, 177, 189, 193–195, 198, 203, 206, 231, 232, 235, 253 Transnational higher education (TNE), 17, 29, 49 Trends reports, 13, 17, 54, 56, 57, 67, 175, 236 U

UNESCO, 53 W

WHEEL, 64