| Summary/Abstract |
The contemporary context of higher education around the world is characterised by increasing international ‘contacts’ between higher education systems. These include increased ‘flows’ of international students, as well as rapidly growing numbers of academic collaborations through international research partnerships and transnational teaching programmes. Yet, much of the literature on international students tends to focus on how international students, and Chinese students in particular, may lack particular Western academic knowledge and values. Identifying groups as, for example, ‘Asian’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘Confucian culture heritage’ learners runs the risk of stereotyped views of international students and the desirability (for all students) of attaining only ‘Western’ academic knowledge and skills. The rise in the internationalisation of universities around the world has seen not just an increase in international student numbers, but changes to the ‘four Ps’ of higher education: policies, programmes, pedagogy and partnerships. Interestingly, the direction of student flows is beginning to change from mainly ‘east’ to ‘west’, and there is a growing interest in how these interactions can lead to more globalised and intercultural learning outcomes not only just for international students, but also for local students and staff. This article draws on theories of transculturalism, contact theory and the core principles of the UK Higher Education Academy’s Internationalising Higher Education Framework. In the context of the proliferation of universities’ internationalisation policies and the increasing cultural diversity of university staff and student populations, these theories and principles can provide a foundation for examining how increased contact between Western and Asian higher education systems can lead to learning and knowledge outcomes that can better serve individuals and organisations in the current ‘global era’. It reports research that illustrates how academics’ notions of ‘scholarship’ and ‘learning’ in both contexts are either shared or differ and points to how the common academic values can be the basis for mutual understanding, and the differences can be the source of mutual learning.
|