LIST OF PANELS

Research Question: What theoretical and conceptual approaches from policy studies help unpack the internationalization of higher education as public policy?
 
“Internationalization is seen as one of the major forces impacting and shaping higher education in the 21st century” (Knight, 2008, ix). It has become a tool in addressing complex policy issues such as aging demographics, attracting talent and pursuing technological innovations. There are overwhelming amount of policy documents guiding internationalization activities at local, regional and global levels (European Commission, 2013; OECD, 2016). While practice is booming, theorizing is lacking.
 
Internationalization of higher education is commonly understood as a processfocusing on motivations and rationales (e.g. Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight, 2008), challenges and consequences (Knight, 2015) and management and stakeholder experiences (Guo & Guo, 2017; Bedenlier et al., 2018). However we propose to speak of internationalization of higher education as a core area of public policyengaging and impacting all levels of government, involving a wide range of policy actors and cutting across a diverse range of policy sectors, education, economy, immigration, trade, foreign relations, research & innovation, to name just a few.
 
We argue that as public policy internationalization of higher education is fundamentally challenging the traditional roles, responsibilities and relationships between the different levels of governments, introducing a new network of policy actors and changing the roles, purposes and functions of the (higher) education sector. However, missing in the current literature is a policy perspective to analyze the formation, implementation, appropriation and impact of the internationalization of higher education. 
 
This panel provides an opportunity for scholars of public policy and/or higher education to examine the internationalization of higher education using rich theoretical and conceptual frameworks from policy studies. We are interested in understanding local meanings of internationalization policies while simultaneously recognizing the influence of transnational policy networks (Ball, 1998; Ball et. al, 2017; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Diem & Young (2015) emphasize the importance of examining policies within their historical, social, economic, cultural, and political contexts, recognizing that these contexts produce particular “local” versions of policy (Ozga, 2005, 207, see also Taylor, 1997; Vidovich, 2007).
 
We want to give credence to scholars like Vidovich (2007) in “removing policy from its pedestal” and in our policy analysis of internationalization of higher education explicitly linking, “the ‘bigger picture’ of global and national policy contexts to the ‘smaller pictures’ of policies and practices” within provinces, local communities and institutions (p. 285). In doing so, while maintaining and ascribing a role for the government as more than just “an actor among actors”, we want to examine the multiplicity of actors that shape internationalization of higher education policy that have become central to the study of governance. We find Howlett, et als. (2009) three core dimensions of public policy a particularly useful framework to highlight different elements of internationalization as public policy: 1) policy subsystems- policy actors who interact to determine the content and process of public policy making; 2) institutional regimes- structures and institutions that serve to constrain and influence these actors efforts; and 3) policy paradigms- ideas and knowledge that inform their deliberations and actions.
 

References:
 
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305.
 
Ball, S. (1998). Big Policies/Small World: An Introduction to International Perspectives in
Education Policy. Comparative Education, 34 (2): 119–130.
 
Ball, S, C. Junemann, D., Santori (2017). Edu.net. Globalisation and Education Policy Mobility.
London: Routledge.
 
Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Two decades of research into the internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the journal of studies in international education (1997-2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 108-135.
 
Diem, S. & Young, M. D. (2015). Considering critical turns in research on educational
leadership and policy. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (7), 838 – 850.
 
European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European higher education in the world. Retrieved on September 25, 2014 from http://www.nuffic.nl/bibliotheek/European-higher-education-in-the-world.pdf.
 
Guo, Y., & Guo, S. (2017). Internationalization of Canadian higher education: discrepancies between policies and international student experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 851-868.
 
Howlett, M., Perl, A., & Ramesh, M. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
 
Knight, J. (2015). Internationalization: A decade of changes and challenges. International Higher Education, (50).
 
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Sense Publisher: Chicago.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2016).Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en
 
Ozga, J. (2005). Modernizing the education workforce: a perspective from Scotland. Educational
Review, 57 (2), 207-219.
 
Rizvi, F. & B. Lingard (2010).Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge.
 
Taylor, S. (1997). Critical Policy Analysis: exploring contexts, texts and consequences.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18 (1) 23- 34.
 
Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: some theoretical framings and practical
possibilities. Educational Review, 59 (3), 285-298.

Internationalization of higher education has become a tool in addressing complex policy issues such as aging demographics, attracting talent and pursuing technological innovations. There are several policy documents guiding internationalization activities at local, regional and global levels (European Commission, 2013; OECD, 2016). While practice is booming, theorizing is lacking. Internationalization has been predominantly conceptualized from the process perspective focusing on motivations and rationales (e.g. Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight, 2008), challenges and consequences (Knight, 2015) and management and stakeholder experiences (Guo & Guo, 2017; Bedenlier et al., 2018). What is missing in this literature is a policy perspective.
 
There is a clear need for a more fuller and comprehensive understanding of how internationalization policies have emerged, how they interact and shape internationalization processes in local spaces and how they (re)shape and (re)define the purposes, functions and roles of higher educational institutions. The research question guiding the work is the following – What theoretical and conceptual approaches from policy studies help unpack the internationalization of higher education as public policy?
 
This panel invites researchers from diverse disciplines to examine how internationalization of higher education policies can be theorized and conceptualized. Our intent is to gather perspectives across stakeholders and intersecting policy areas (especially immigration, global affairs, foreign policy and trade) that help illuminate the particular “local” and “global” dimensions of policy.All accepted papers must have a distinct theoretical and/or conceptual approach, supported by empirical examples. Papers must provide an analysis of the three core dimensions of public policy (Howlett, et al., 2009): 1) policy subsystems- policy actors who interact to determine the content and process of public policy making; 2) institutional regimes- structures and institutions that serve to constrain and influence these actors efforts; and 3) policy paradigms- ideas and knowledge that inform their deliberations and actions.