Contemplative reflections on international education: Transformative possibilities

Abstract

A commentary in response to this special issue theme and published articles.

I am most grateful to be invited to write this commentary, and to have been able to read and engage with each of the original and diverse submissions to this Special Issue, in response to the challenge put out by the editors. I found their perspectives, provocations and informed but open stance refreshing and exciting to consider new or different avenues to explore. I am writing from my perspective from Melbourne, Australia, after working, teaching and researching within the ‘international education sphere’ for over 20 years. I am a critical and reflective thinker who believes deeply in the importance of subjective experience/s, diversity/difference (in macro/micro contexts) and the importance of balancing this alongside the available ‘data’ and official statistics produced by a range of actors, with a range of intents.

The structure I chose to use for this commentary relates to ‘personal interruptions’: thoughts that influence (or contribute to) my flow of ideas as I write. I use italics to identify these more personal and potentially problematic reflections, in an attempt to incorporate elements of the perspectives and personal interests that inform my practice and my work. I will always value the emergence of the author’s personal subjective positioning within a piece of writing and am grateful to be given the opportunity to practice and demonstrate my way of doing this in this commentary.

The editors of this Special Issue have framed their hopes for the emergence of new insights in terms of ‘epistemologies, pedagogy, teaching, learning, intercultural communication and competency, professional growth, and institutional capacity in the Asia region’. I have thoroughly enjoyed engaging with a range of informative explorations of programs and places, experiences and perspectives, and largely bypassing the usual competitive marketing, data-driven international higher education (IHE) discourses. It is a relief to be given access to ‘insider stories’ of complex transformational possibilities that acknowledge differences, value varied perspectives and highlight the importance of nurturing intercultural respect and collaboration throughout the Asian region.

Personal interruptions: contemplative reflections

A secret . . . or maybe a confession . . . International Education Mobilities to me is exciting; an opportunity to learn something new, something different, to challenge oneself, to break down the comfort barriers, to leave one’s home and all that is familiar, in order to see, feel, experience something that is different. Pursuing transformation through tangible experience; never to unknow or to diminish what one knows, but always to learn in order to build on what one knows. To pursue different ways of being, seeing, understanding; as a way to construct different and more broadly informed ways of doing and being. For me, the primary motivation to study and work in International Education was never about pursuing happiness, or wealth, or even comfort, but about experience – visceral experience and reflection, building stories in which I am one of the characters. Not all good, not all bad. At times weak, at times strong, at times in/vulnerable, in/sensitive, in/secure, im/patient. Shifting between a sense of belonging and being always on the periphery, fleeting moments of pleasure, of pride, of shame and acute embarrassment. This is the stuff of personal growth. This opens possibilities for‘transformation’.

Truth is, I experienced all of these things at different times of my own educational journey. And that was even before I left my country of birth, Australia. So why international education? Any type of education in itself can (and, I think, should) offer transformative experiences but, even after my bachelor’s degree, I still felt the need to embark on a quest to understand more deeply the differences in cultures and ways of thinking, in other parts of the world. I wanted to put myself out of my own comfort zone (which was never really a place of comfort or belonging anyway). After travelling as a tourist, dropping in and passing through a number of countries, I still craved to know more. I wanted to know from the inside, I wanted to live among people, to navigate and experience different ways of thinking and being, in order to build my understanding of difference, and perhaps as a way to know myself better. I eventually volunteered to work overseas, spending a year in Lao PDR (2016–2017) and a total of nearly three years in the Solomon Islands (to end 2019) which had a huge impact on my ongoing study and research knowledge and interests in better understanding and experiencing difference. The idea that international education and student mobilities can and do provide other options with the possibility of such learning and transformation, serve to re-validate my earlier dreams of being involved in such an exciting prospect for further writing and research all of these years later. The articles in this Special Issue take different views of international education mobilities (IEM). They all serve to tell us something we perhaps knew a little or almost nothing about. They take us to highly diverse international locations and systems, some of which sound so familiar, some that seem to offer the reader reflections of those types of visceral moments I referred to above.

Interruption: Whilst considering common International Education discourses I recognize the gaping inconsistencies that are most often ignored or sidelined, such as the many various indistinct historical, political and geographical boundaries that are further disrupted by economies, kinships, mobilities, communications, languages and unequal access. I can’t help but think about the existing barriers in place; metaphorical fences and gates and the gatekeepers that keep them locked, who corroborate to retain power and freedom in certain localities and not others. Some are locked in; some are locked out. Some want access to worlds on the other side, whilst some want to retain the security of what they know. ‘Comfort’ is always comparative – happiness, contentment, joy, challenge, fulfillment, belonging, pain, suffering, having meaning, loneliness, fear – these make up a full life – do they make up a life of comfort? Surely breaking through those fences and gates are not done simply for the sake of ‘comfort’? And yet the marketing discourses still promote this idea of experiencing ‘comfort’ during, and as a result of, International Education.

So this is where I am excited by an alternative International Education discourse presenting opportunities for ‘transformations’, both personal and social.

Phan (2017) discusses complexities, cross fertilizations, blurred boundaries; of power not being dichotomous – not one side versus the other, of Asia’s desire for the West, of the West’s need to assert its arrogance over Asia, of Othering that occurs, legitimized and fed by those who can profit, wherever they might sit. Globalization destabilizes and creates hybrid locations – in between, neither one nor the other. We are pointed to power dichotomies within the Asian region, power hierarchy among Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, to a regional Vietnamese university not seeing fit to ‘compete’ with universities in Singapore and Malaysia, to benefits that can be offered by comparing contextual relevancies, but not necessarily in terms of ‘quality’ or ‘rigor’, that seems somehow measured against ‘western’ ideals of what that might mean in terms of higher education (HE) outcomes. What are the measures of quality and rigor in terms of Asia and elsewhere, and how might they change over time? What are their origins, how are they operationalized? And if these are decided, whose interests are thereby served?

In my mind, transformation does not mean letting go of, or dismissing/rejecting, what you know and believe. It does not mean starting out again, dismissing your knowledge, beliefs and understandings, and taking on something completely new, different or alien. I would like to believe that any course of study has the potential to lead to transformation, and, if that could be accurately measured, that would be the primary measure of quality. I note that the transformations described in some of these Special Issue articles highlight a sense of curiosity, of desire, of limited access or opportunity, and an inherent interest in the lives and being of others. This type of ‘transformation’ may not be valued or articulated in terms of ‘success’ or, indeed, recognized as valuable by either the institution or the student subject.

Kheir (2021, this issue) links the idea of ‘desires, aspirations and imaginaries’ with transformation, in relation to ‘non-elite students’ studying in Taiwanese institutions. The author notes the students’ ‘poorly defined image of Taiwan both geographically and culturally’, as well as their desire to encounter and explore culture and language. Taiwan is described as ‘an accessible window to the West’.

Interruption: I wonder, aspirations – what is meant by that? How do ‘aspirations’ link with transformation? Is anyone’s aspiration the desire to be transformed? And does transformation relate to physical as well as psychological change? Growth? Development? Does this also equate then, to ‘leaving one’s home’, to coming to an in-between place, of not quite belonging?

Kheir goes on to suggest that ‘their desires to study abroad were primarily driven by aspirations to leave their marginalized minority statuses at home and a desire for a more inclusive society, or “desire for the West” (Phan, 2017), and English in their study-abroad experiences’. Hence, their time in Taiwan being described as a ‘steppingstone’ to further pursue their desires, within their means, to move to the ‘West’. While the author relates different factors for students’ aspirations and valuing of international education experiences through tales of agentic relationships and friendships developed with international peers, is this still perceived in terms of a desired place within the superiority of the West? Do these desires for participating in these experiences to enable further fulfillment of aspirations in countries where English is the dominant language, or alternative destinations, and making connections with ‘new demographics of young people and the formation of inter-Asian and south–south spatial imaginaries’ reflect recent shifts, or perhaps, a reflection of the less recognized desires, aspirations and imaginaries? This could hardly be fulfillment or the direct result of study-abroad promotion. This denotes a deeper investigation into motivations, desires and destinations – that is, transformations whether intended by the host institutions or not.

Phan (2018) brings attention to the types of ‘complex, multidimensional, and interactive processes’ that can enable us to better recognize and understand unexpected transformations that may emerge from marginal spaces. These seem to come from both students and teacher/academics finding their own ways to work with what is available to find advantages and ‘pockets of possibilities [that are . . .] somewhat organically born out of such precarious marginality’ (2018: 795). These complex ‘precarious’ places seem to come alive in Lipura’s (2021, this issue) plural discourses of ‘everyday transformations’ including freedom, diversity, distinction, resistance and discomfort for Korean students in India; and Bruneian students in Vietnam (Kumpoh et al., 2021, this issue) experiencing personal growth and transformations including adjusted perspectives, understandings and attitudes, and new skills of adaptability, sensitivity and resilience. Each of these studies serves to help the reader better understand the possibilities of place(s) and localities, so called ‘quality and rigor’, different forms of teaching/learning/participating, and different qualities desired and/or developed through TNE participation. This moves us away somewhat from simply narrowly measuring the economic benefits, the official university ratings, elite status and competitiveness.

In my own previous work, I wanted to focus on the ‘experience’ of studying abroad (see Leve, 2011). To do this, I had to navigate my way through the ‘official’ data and documentation that were copious and easily available. It was far more difficult to find out about the actual lived experiences of international students that were not somehow tied to the commercialization and commodification of this experience, which led me to label the majority of the available literature as ‘gray’ literature; advocatory texts that served to market, mediate and maintain a certain construction of what this experience should be like (and, hence, desirable and ‘worth the money’). The types of ‘transformation’ that come from struggles, adaptations and ‘discomforts’ experienced during this study abroad by individuals were far more interesting to me than the officially sanctioned data collected and shared by IHE institutions and nationally supported international education programs and providers that raise (export) revenue that depends so much on reputation and high ratings.

I am reminded of the time when the internationalization/globalization discourse seemed mostly about competing on economic terms, the needs and demands for English-language/western tuition revenue, and the potentiality that ‘Asia’ could fill this need without having to depend on western institutions to provide it. At that time (I’m referring primarily to the 1990s), there was a concurrent discourse about the ‘problems’ with Asian students (language deficiencies, rote learning, lack of criticality, passive learning) and the need for western-trained scholars and teachers, to teach them ‘how to do it right’ – effective teaching and learning in a western tradition. I was acutely aware of the challenges these international (primarily Asian) students confronted in terms of language, culture and status in relation to ‘knowledge’ and different ways of knowing and learning. I often thought about how much easier it might be if they were learning the content in a more familiar context, where their preferred (and familiar) learning styles were considered, not as ‘deficit’ or problematic, but signifying differences, and learning about other ways of doing, being, knowing as part of the content, rather than expectations of them to change by superficial emersion or osmosis.

Interruption: I remember running programs with a local Melbourne university, for practicing (government sponsored) South Korean teachers to undertake an immersive program in English, incorporating training in localized pedagogical practices. I worked with two groups that had very successful experiences, outcomes and wonderful feedback. The third group seemed not happy at all. My understandings that underpinned my teaching and planning were that I was not the ‘expert’ in pedagogy, most particularly in their context. So built into my planning was to ask them to ‘educate’ me in terms of their own teaching and classroom pedagogy, so we could explore how my knowledge in ‘Western pedagogy’ for Culturally and Linguistically diverse learners to improve their English language skills, and to understand different ways of thinking and teaching/learning, could best fit and work in their context/s. The feedback was along the lines of ‘we already know this, why do we need to tell you’; ‘You’re not telling us anything we don’t already know’; ‘we know the theory already’; and most perplexing, ‘what you’re telling us will not work in our context’.

Oleksiyenko et al. (2021, this issue) introduce perspectives from the ‘Asian Tiger’ countries’ ‘repositioning strategies’ that respond to progress in terms of societal raised levels of income and world-class universities (WCUs). This article highlights WCU roles in ‘improving the spread of the wealth educationally’, ‘improved access to the world-class excellence’, shifts in the ‘flows of international talent’, and thereby resulting in ‘a more equitable and democratic development of the region and the world’. Although there seem to be some suggested ideological similarities, this broader systemic overview differs somewhat from Hanada and Horie’s (2021, this issue) discussion of the East Asian Leaders Program (EALP), a ‘trilateral/trilingual exchange program’ that includes students from Japanese, Chinese and Korean universities and is led by the governments of the three countries.

The results of the EALP include participants developing traits that seem to epitomize the huge potential value of international education and that often seem absent or are neglected by host countries/institutions offering more competitive and less truly collaborative ‘world-class’ programs.

These include the cultivation of students’ attitudes and skills for mutual understanding, including acceptance/willingness to understand, ability to consider different perspectives, self-expression and assertion, initiative and resilience. These are consciously built into the program, content and expectations. Students are forced to confront conflict and various issues that arise both in and outside the university and to develop ways to overcome and build intercultural competence through these experiences, within a framework that differs from the more common reliance on the individual student making adjustments, and hosts avoiding any such disruptive challenges for the student subjects. The program as described seems to epitomize a non-competitive equal standing for students and institutions alike, with mutual shared and collaborative benefits for all, bypassing the power dynamics between bilateral sender/receiver localities, Asia/West dichotomies, and constructed notions of ‘prestige’ being used as a primary selling point. I would certainly be interested in reading other such studies providing comparative perspectives of participants from each of the three countries.

As I read through the study on cooperative activities incorporating inter-Asian transformative mobility for Bruneian students in Vietnam (Kumpoh et al., 2021, this issue) as part of a degree-bearing course, in which volunteerism and community engagement is incorporated, I’m inspired by the originality of the contribution, and reminded of other ‘peripheral’ stories and locations that do not tend to be part of the dominant discourses around IEM, and get buried among other thematically appealing topics. The authors discuss the benefits, the pedagogical and preparatory insights into how programs might better benefit participants in more socially just and impactful ways, rather than simply being about individual opportunities. They discuss the challenges but balance these with student statements of what they achieved and how they ‘grew’ through the experience, including the challenges, discomforts and inconveniences. The student participants were prepared and knew what they were going into, and clearly rose to the challenges, and experienced impactful transformational engagements between themselves and the host society throughout the process. I look forward to reading and sharing other stories and possibilities that come out of such challenging yet transformative experiences as part of a broader conceptualization of international education in relation to ‘peripheral’ locations as both a source and destination for students.

Final Interruption: Today I joined a Webinar, ¹ proposing to discuss a new report on ‘Student Voices’ which examines ‘meaningful engagement between international and domestic students’ in Australia and New Zealand higher education. Even with the focus on recent COVID lockdowns, online education and travel restrictions, I felt as if I was transported directly back to 20 years ago when the same questions, challenges and difficulties were being discussed, with a few ‘good practice examples’ being introduced to demonstrate successful ways of alleviating the desire for ‘meaningful engagement’. I was transported back to how it felt to be asking ‘difficult questions’, disrupting the underpinning ‘market’ discourse, and raising ideas of the potential value of discomforting experiences, potential for ‘transformation’ and rising to the challenge, rather than the tired old ‘what can we do to fix it (while we actually keep it all the same)’ rhetoric. The fact that the report was based on research undertaken by ‘a leading researcher on international education sentiments, market dynamics, demand and drivers’ made me appreciate my engagement with the prospects and possibilities being explored in this Special Issue even more.

The articles in this Special Issue have given me hope for and ideas of new considerations, being enacted by what could be construed as in the ‘competition’ – HE institutions in the Asian region that are enacting, measuring, valuing and defining the overseas study experience in different and more engaging ways. I look forward to these transformative opportunities within IHE mobilities moving us all forward in our imaginaries, and our realities, and, most particularly, inviting and including the voices of those coming from, or learning from/within, peripheral and ‘less-developed communities’. Between the ‘West’ and ‘Asia’, there are many more regions to be considered, and about which we need to learn more. We are not the same, we are all of one world, with all of our rich differences. We all have much more to learn about each other and, if these opportunities can be built into HE opportunities, I look forward to hearing about more examples and further opportunities to build better, more compassionate, caring and socially just futures, whatever our career/study choices, and about the ‘new insights’ as proposed by the editors of this Special Issue. As the editors of this Special Issue suggest, a concept within international education discourses of ‘humanistic international education’ across different regions of the world could be highlighted, examined, shared, encouraged and learnt from as an aspirational alternative to the types of common discourses that are still all too common, yet unfulfilling in terms of the types of socially transformative opportunities, experiences and opportunities as detailed in this Special Issue.