Internationalization is a phenomenon influenced by competitive, geo-political and economic factors as higher education (HE) institutions across the world strive to improve their market position, prestige and power. As such internationalization strategies often focus predominantly on international collaborations as a basis for increased staff and student mobility, joint-programme delivery and collaborative research projects. These activities provide the evidence of an ‘international outlook’ that influence HE institutions’ position in global rankings, and signify an approach to internationalization, conceptualised by Knight (2006; 2015) as ‘internationalization abroad.’ In recent years this approach has generated significant critique with growing calls to rethink and reconceptualise internationalization in line with more values-based and qualitative drivers (Beelen and Jones, 2015, Jones et al., 2016; Wihlborg and Robson, 2017).

Alternative approaches explore the transformative potential of internationalization to develop individual and collective awareness, engagement and agency to address future global challenges. These approaches can be considered more equitable and inclusive, since they incorporate novel, pro-active and flexible ways to offer internationalized experiences to all staff and students, and in particular the non-mobile majority (Robson, Almeida and Schartner, 2017).

Our symposium focuses on novel methodological, theoretical and practical approaches through which internationalization can become meaningful for individuals and communities in HE, developing identity and sense of self in the world (Killick, 2013), and enhancing intercultural perspectives and competencies. The notion of Internationalisation at Home (IaH) has been debated for more than a decade but has yet to become embedded as a key strategy in many HE institutions (Beelen and Leask, 2011, 2012). We suggest that it is timely to revisit and redefine the concept and to assert that opportunities to develop awareness and engagement with internationalization at personal and pedagogic level requires new ways of planning, collaborating, designing, and delivering both formal and non-formal learning experiences. Internationalizing learning experiences and outcomes does not depend on where or in ‘what country’ the HE experience is situated (Aerden 2014; Leask 2015). Cross-national webinars, networks and programmes, involving different learning environments/domains/media, and languages of instruction, can encourage active knowledge and identity building as a constructive process both in real time (synchronous) and asynchronous activities.  With a more constructive approach to internationalization, personal transformations (Mezirow, 2009) involving cross cultural perspectives and competencies, internationalised skills- or mind-sets (De Wit & Hunter, 2015; Leask 2015; Knight, 2015; Robson, 2011; Wihlborg et al., 2016) become attainable.

The papers included in this second session of the symposium explore the role of mobilities, experiences at the home institution, engagement with the social actors in HE (teachers, leaders, students, peers), and the language(s) included or excluded in international learning opportunities, to influence transitions between HE contexts and learning phases, and shape learning and identity. They employ a range of methodological approaches, from biographical narrative interviews to survey and mixed methods approaches, to provide insights into higher education staff and students’ experiences of internationalization. They reflect the inclusion and exclusion experienced by individuals in transnational transitions into HE, and as they adapt to different HE contexts and demands, (re)using and (re)building knowledge to develop a sense of self-in-the-world (Killick 2013). The insights gained into how HE staff and students experience internationalization will lead to discussion about how HE institutions can cultivate skills for life and work in a global economy, promote critical thinking and civic responsibility, build cultural, social, economic and symbolic capital, provide opportunities for individual and collaborative transformative learning and thus contribute to the quality and relevance of HE.

Beelen, J., E. Jones. (2015). “Re-defining Internationalization at Home.”59–72., A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, P. Scott, Eds. The European HE Area. Springer. de Wit, H., F. Hunter. 2015. “The Future of Internationalization of HE in Europe.” International HE, 83, 2–3. Beelen, J., Leask, B. (2011). ‘Internationalization at Home on the Move’. ’Internationalization of European HE. Raabe. Jones, E., Coelen, R., Beelen, J., De Wit, H. (Eds.) (2016). Global and Local Internationalization. Sense. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of HE: New Directions, New Challenges. IAU. Paris. Knight, J. (2015). Is Internationalization of HE Having an Identity Crisis? A.M.Maldonado & R. M Bassett. The Forefront of International HE. (75-87). Springer. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. London: Routledge. Mezirow, J., Taylor, E.., 2009. Transformative Learning in Practice. Wiley Robson S, Almeida J, Schartner A. 2017. Internationalization at home: time for review and development? In ‘Internationalization of HE: drivers, rationales, priorities, values and impacts’ EJHE 8(1) Wihlborg, M, Robson S, (2017). Editorial ‘Internationalization of HE: drivers, rationales, priorities, values and impacts’ EJHE 8(1) Wihlborg, M, Friberg, E. (2016). Framework for a virtual nursing faculty and student learning collaboration between Universities in Sweden and US. Nurse Education Today, 41, 50-53.