Renewed perspective on social space, and the distinctions of space as abstract and place as embedded concept, allow a fruitful analysis of university internationalization (Larsen and Beech, 2013). In this paper, I analyze how space and place are redefined from the institutional and individual perspectives, including global, European and local references.

Universities’ institutional development could be traced through geographical references, both space and place are redefined from the Middle Ages, to the period of growing national alignment, and towards current engagement with the state along with growing outward activities.

Higher education institutions renegotiate their spatial belonging. Two important aspects of space relevant to the modern university and its functions involve the ideas of global and local. On the one hand, the university aims to position itself internationally and participates in the global competition. On the other hand, the university typically aims to perform important local functions. Hence, there is a dichotomy of alignments either with locally established or international practices. Then, I consider educational developments around internationalization. There is a unifying tendency of making higher education systems similar and educational experiences comparable; this coincides with internationalization efforts. Alternatively, there is an idea of educational benefits derived from navigating through diverse educational environments and obtaining different degrees in different countries. The lenses of space and place being redefined enhance the analysis of this internationalization reasoning.

The complex relationship with the nation-state is another aspect where spatial ideas are fruitful for analysis. This uncovers the ideas of power; for instance, the language debate reveals national vs. international controversy. On the one hand, studies in foreign language are suggested as future of educational development. On the other hand, the instruction in the national language carries an important cultural function (Wang, Ho, 2012). Teichler makes an overall claim that that some internationalization practices can bring in the devaluing of national culture, weakened academic and cultural diversity, and even neo-imperialism (Teichler 2004). Lastly, Altbach points out the inequalities in globalization, which represent a serious challenge to internationalization development. Therefore, internationalization arguments are constructed with the multidimensional geographic references. For instance, an understanding of internationalization as a response to globalization involves at least two spatial references. First, there an idea of the world as small place with limited resources; this makes competition a necessity. Yet, opportunities and strategies in participating vary. Second, there is a notion of the interconnected world; this highlights the need for the international education with a cosmopolitan claim; this discourse could also involve critical perspective on curriculum and organization of studies.

Cosmopolitan theory contains spatial references, the idea of internationalization as a common space. Sobré-Denton defines it as “a state of ‘identity without borders’ that is accessible to those able to engage in voluntary migration across multiple cultures and the subsequent intellectualization of such an experience” (Sobré-Denton, 2010, p.81). Therefore, it implies travel or organized experiences of diversity. In relation to education, this either could be a change of space (mobility), or organized space (international degree studies). This alleviates diverse ideas of knowledge production within internationalization, that are not theorized enough.

The focus of this paper is on the developments theorized as ‘spatial turn’; they affect many areas, from knowledge production to institutional positioning. First, I explore this idea in the scholarship on modern education politics. Second, I analyze policy documents and interview transcripts with a focus on the numerous references to the ‘common place’ created by internationalization. My research question is the following: What kind of spatial references are used in the arguments about internationalization, and how does this inform our understanding of the institutional development and everyday university processes? Idea of language as a social practice is a starting of analysis. Constructing and reinforcing social reality through linguistic identification is at the core of my inquiry (Wodak, 2001). My analysis is based on the academic literature, Finnish internationalization documents, and 40 interviews of teachers and students of the international master’s programs in Finland. I narrow down the discussion to one type of references – spatial characteristics, and how they relate to internationalization. This allows me to determine the latent nature of everyday internationalization processes, inclusion and exclusion, national and cosmopolitan tendencies expressed through the seemingly neutral characterizations of space (Wodak & Meyer, 2002). Internationalization, as it appears from the respondents’ perspective, is about people. They are the objects of the internationalization; they constitute the environment and the primary resource of internationalization. This means, for instance, taking people as a primary source in the classroom discussion and creating a common learning space. This requires the university to construct the studies so that they would be interesting to the diverse students. This also means constructing university services so that they would include people in the academic system. The university’s agency is determining the environment at the university. Internationalization is a part of development cycle for the institutions; it is having its share in the inputs and benefits of the institution. The progress in this area could be captured through the characteristics of the place.

The concept of space has several aspects in internationalization. First, the diversity is measured through different geographic location. At the same time, the particular national origin of student and scholar has no role in education. Second, internationalization attaches certain meaning both to homogeneity of educational systems as an opportunity for the internationalization, and to the diversity of the study environments as a value for education. Finally, expanding geography applies to everything in education: applicants from all over the world, curriculum tackling different perspectives and global possibilities for the applicants. The university, as a research and study destination, also has geographic dimension; it has to be internationally attractive for the applicants from all over the world. Lastly, there are two ideas related to space, which I uncovered through my data analysis. There is an understanding of international set up, which is necessary for the academic knowledge creation. This is an abstract place with the diverse perspectives and common understanding, which is fruitful for science advancement (Hautala, 2011). Further exploration of this idea would tell me more about the international contributions to the content of studies. Then, there is a political idea of internationalization as a way to create a place. The example would be the creation of Europe through various education initiatives. Apart from mobility and other ways to enhance regional links, there is a process of geographic mythmaking (Woolf, 2012). Seemingly homogenous systems might reveal core differences in practices. This perspective is fruitful in exploring internationalization as image-making.

Altbach, P. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3–25. Hautala, J. (2011). International academic knowledge creation and ba. A case study from Finland. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9, 4–16. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.23 Larsen, M., Beech, J. (2014). Spatial Theorizing in Comparative and International Education Research. Comparative Education Review, 58 (2), 191-214. Sobré-Denton, M. (2010). The emergence of cosmopolitan group cultures and its implications for cultural transition: A case study of an international student support group. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 79-91. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.007 Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26. Wang, L., Ho, H. (2012). Internationalization versus Localization. The Case of Primary Education in Taiwan, International Education Studies, 5(4). doi:10.5539/ies.v5n4p39 Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer (Eds.): Methods of critical discourse analysis, vol. 1. London: Sage (Introducing qualitative methods), 1–13. Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (2002) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage Publications Woolf, M. (2002). Harmony and Dissonance in International Education: The Limits of Globalisation. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6 (5). DOI: 10.1177/1028315302006001002