Senior International Officers as Peacebuilders: Reframing Internationalization for Equity in a Divided World

• In Event: Critical Perspectives of Internationalization in Higher Education

Proposal

Amid intensifying political polarization, cultural misunderstanding, and widening global inequities, research universities face unique challenges. Their dual obligations to advance global scholarship while responding to local communities create tensions that deepen divisions or foster peace. Senior International Officers (SIOs), who lead internationalization in these institutions, occupy a critical space where higher education intersects with diplomacy and equity. Building on findings from a recent dissertation study of SIOs at U.S. research universities, this paper extends that work to examine how these leaders enact peacebuilding, reframing internationalization from transactional logics to values-driven commitments of reciprocity and dignity.
This framing also connects to a longer intellectual tradition of higher education as a vehicle for peace. From post-World War II reconstruction and the founding of UNESCO (Singh, 2010) to more recent efforts linking universities to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNESCO, 2017), higher education has long been positioned as a site for dialogue, reconciliation, and shared progress. SIOs extend this legacy by acting as institutional peacebuilders, leveraging partnerships and intellectual exchange to advance universities and to promote collaboration across divided contexts.
Relevance
Research universities are often seen as global standard-bearers, yet their internationalization strategies have been critiqued for reinforcing inequities and privileging Western institutions (Altbach & Knight, 2007; de Wit, 2020). By centering the voices of SIOs in U.S. research university contexts, this study highlights how these leaders resist transactional models and advocate for ethical engagement prioritizing dignity and shared purpose. Their peacebuilding roles demonstrate how research universities can reclaim autonomy from political interference and foster equity and shared values. By resisting political capture and fostering equitable partnerships, SIOs continue this legacy while adapting to contemporary global divisions.
Conceptual and Theoretical Overview
This paper’s analysis engages with contingency theory, emphasizing leadership strategies that adapt to institutional culture, politics, and shifting global conditions (Donaldson, 2001), and intellectual leadership theory, highlighting the reflective, values-driven roles of academic leaders (Macfarlane, 2013). This framework illustrates how SIOs at U.S. research universities navigate situational complexity while advancing ethical commitments, enabling internationalization to be reframed as a relational, justice-oriented practice.
Research Methodology
The paper draws from qualitative research with 15 SIOs at U.S. research universities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in two rounds, complemented by analysis of internationalization plans. Data analysis used open and axial coding, generating themes around equity, peacebuilding, and partnerships (Simmons, 2017). Member checking, thick description, and peer debriefing enhanced trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Themes
SIOs at U.S. research universities consistently reframed internationalization as a relational, justice-oriented practice rather than a revenue line or prestige project. Interpreted through a layered, integrated framework (world culture theory, Rawls’ theory of justice, contingency theory, intellectual leadership, and Steger’s multidimensional frames), five themes emerged:
1. Reciprocal Partnerships and Capacity Building
Participants emphasized partnerships that build capacity rather than accumulate MOUs. As one SIO put it, “We also visit universities when we go to [program region], to think about how they can partner with some of these schools...” This outward-facing work is paired with internal strategy setting to ensure priorities reflect transparency. Within the layered framework, SIOs recognize structural inequities, design fair agreements, and adaptively secure trust (Knight, 2004; Lanford, 2020).
2. Global Citizenship and Student-Centered Purpose
Leaders tied peacebuilding to student formation: “…And at the end of the day, this is all about students. This work...is about students.” Through Steger’s cultural and ideological frames, SIOs linked global citizenship to reciprocity and responsibility, advanced through intercultural outcomes and SDG initiatives (Deardorff & Jones, 2012; UNESCO, 2017).
3. Diplomatic Engagement and Institutional Vision
SIOs described themselves as institutional diplomats who convene and align stakeholders: “Achieving a vision involves bringing people together to help articulate a common vision.” They also managed perception gaps: “…There’s a major perception issue of what we represent, and how we can contribute to the overall mission.” Here, structural pressures and normative commitments intersect, with SIOs exercising adaptive leadership to advance collaborations.
4. Contingent Strategies for Equity and Crisis
Leaders highlighted improvisation: “You can’t herd the cats, but you can decide where to put the milk.” During crises, equity required rapid coordination and student care: “We were scrambling like everybody else, at all phases of it...” Contingency theory explains their adaptive responses, Rawls underscores protecting the least advantaged, and intellectual leadership emphasizes sustaining justice-oriented practice.
5. Ethical Advocacy and Justice-Oriented Metrics
SIOs questioned prestige and revenue logics. One noted, “They don’t often even talk about curriculum internationalization...what do we do with the remaining 90%?” Another observed concerns about international enrollment: “But they suddenly see all these international students on campus...we’re taking them and excluding [state] residents.” Leaders argued for metrics privileging reciprocity, curricular change, and community benefit, consistent with Rawls’ fairness principles (Rawls, 1971; Mace & Pearl, 2021).
Significance
By situating peacebuilding within the research university context, this study demonstrates that SIO leadership is operational but also deeply ethical and diplomatic. Their work suggests that when internationalization is reframed around reciprocity and solidarity, research universities can act as independent agents of peace in divided societies. Implications include rethinking leadership development for international education professionals, embedding peacebuilding into institutional strategies, and cultivating partnership models that prioritize long-term trust.
The layered framework underscores that peacebuilding is a byproduct of internationalization and a central responsibility. By weaving together structural critique, justice-oriented principles, and adaptive intellectual leadership, SIOs demonstrate how internationalization can be reframed as a practice that builds equity and trust across the Global South and Global North, directly aligning higher education with the pursuit of peace in a divided world.
For practice, this study suggests that leadership development programs for future SIOs should embed technical expertise as well as skills in conflict mediation, cultural humility, and peace-oriented partnership building (Macfarlane, 2013). For policy, while internationalization is evaluated through enrollment or rankings, it highlights the need to for measures of reciprocity, inclusivity, and long-term trust (Mace & Pearl, 2021). For institutional strategy, it points to the importance of positioning peacebuilding as a core outcome of global engagement, aligning research universities with their societal responsibilities in divided contexts (Steger, 2020).
 

Authors

• Iyonka M. Strawn-Valcy, Georgia Institute of Technology

• Michael Lanford, University of North Georgia