Speaking Truth to Power: Exploring Geopolitics in U.S. Campus Internationalization Plans

• In Event: 18.026 - International Higher Education and Geopolitical Power: Critical Perspectives on University Activities in the United States

Abstract

The increasing commitment to internationalization through mission statements, strategic plans, and special taskforces is well-documented among US universities (Childress, 2009; Helms, Brajkovic, & Struthers, 2017). While scholars describe campus internationalization as a tool to engage in practices ranging from diplomacy (Peterson, 2014) to hegemony (Kim, 2011), less is empirically understood about how the language US universities use to define their internationalization efforts connects to these broader geopolitical concepts. Using critical discourse analysis, my study will engage this knowledge gap by addressing the questions: How are discourses of purpose, implementation, and impact presented within US higher education internationalization plans? How do geopolitics emerge within US higher education internationalization plans?

This study is informed by the construction of geopolitics through a postcolonial lens (see Bhaba, 1994; Said, 1979; Spivak, 1995). The postcolonial turn centers geopolitics on “the asymmetry of power relations and the reproduction of subordinating modes of representation” (Slater, 2004, p. 194). Scholars that integrate postcolonial theory into geopolitical analysis (for example, Sharp, 2011; Slater 2004) critique western imperialism and cultural hubris; promote respect and reciprocity in North-South relations; and foreground non-western knowledges. I use this perspective to consider the ways in which US campus internationalization plans reify and/or resist discourses of US power, dominance, and influence in global politics and economies.

I utilize critical discourse analysis (CDA), which centers on language as a form of social practice in relation to how issues of power, equality, and dominance are reproduced in texts (Janks, 1997; van Dijk, 2008). Through CDA, I analyze the discourse(s) present in US universities’ internationalization plans as well as consider how these plans connect to broader discourses regarding US higher education as a geopolitical tool. The data sources for this study include campus internationalization statements, plans, and strategy documents from 37 US universities who are members of the Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA). To begin the analytic process, I first identified the stated purpose, approaches, and desired impact of each institution’s internationalization documents. Next, I engaged in analysis utilizing Fairclough’s (1989, 1995) three dimensions of CDA: 1) text analysis 2) processing analysis and 3) social analysis.

Findings illustrate consistent use of language such as “mutual benefit,” “intercultural understanding,” and “diverse perspectives” to frame universities’ purpose and approaches to internationalization and relationships with other countries. Yet, in contrast, most institutions also include nationalist, hegemonic, and/or neoliberal statements to describe the desired impact of internationalization. For example, expressing that a commitment to internationalization will make universities: an “investment of choice” to global stakeholders; prepare their students for an “increasingly globalized, connected, and competitive workforce;” and make them a “premier destination” for international scholars/students. These competing discourses (internationalization as a diversity-oriented, civic responsibility versus a means of status and resources) both emerge as geopolitical tools that position the US as a power player and other regions as vulnerable or weak. This study contributes to understanding how US campus internationalization efforts reflect and are reflected by US dominance and advantage within global society.

Author

• Chrystal George Mwangi, University of Massachusetts - Amherst