Even though Europe is largely considered to be the best example of internationalisation, achievements of various countries differ and the biggest challenges, according to the European Parliament, are seen in South and Central Eastern Europe (CEE). The European Union body notes that the majority of internationalisation strategies are still mostly directed towards mobility, long-term and short-term economic benefits, attracting and/or teaching talented students and researchers as well as towards international reputation and visibility of the university (European Parliament, 2015, p. 28-29). The most popular definition of internationalisation is proposed by Jane Knight (2004) and updated by Hans de Wit and Fiona Hunter (2017) which defines internationalisation as “the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (p. 27).
While there is quite a lot of research regarding both theory and implementation of internationalisation, the majority of publications on internationalisation are contributed by authors from the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Contributions by researchers from Central and Eastern European authors remain low in number (Bedenlier, Kondakci, & Zawacki-Richter, 2018). Out of those concerned with internationalisation in Central and Eastern Europe, the majority of researchers conceptualise internationalisation based on the definition provided above and aside from introducing different concepts (e.g. Europeanization (Dakowska & Harmsen, 2015; Dobbins, 2015; Vukasovic, 2013) do not re-conceptualise internationalisation.
The proposed research focuses on the discursive construction of the concept of internationalisation in Central and Eastern Europe. In terms of educational goals, an international(-ised) curriculum empowers the future university graduate to work in the increasingly global job market and the society at large. It has its own conceptual misgivings such as the internationalisation/Westernisation debate or the issues of language in countries where English is not an official language but at its core it is mostly concerned with preparing students for the increasingly diverse world they will encounter upon graduation. Administrative bodies of universities, however, are often more concerned with how international dimension can be measured and how this can then be translated into higher positions in University rankings, more well-paying international students and general prestige (Wihlborg & Robson, 2017). In this way, internationalisation can be stripped of its educational purpose and become a part of the wider higher education globalisation discourse and merely a means to an end.
In my research I conduct a discourse-conceptual analysis on various genres of texts from universities across Central and Eastern Europe in order to elaborate on how internationalisation is discursively conceptualized across universities in the region under study. Central to the analysis is the notion of concept as “a concentrate of several substantial meanings” (Kosseleck, 2004, p. 85) that arrives to discourse studies from the study of conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte). As discourse becomes more and more conceptual (and such is the case with internationalisation), introduction of certain notions central to Begriffsgeschichte provide critical discourse analysis the necessary tools for analysis of discourses dominated by concepts rather than actors. Another such notion is that of a semantic field which refers to the relationships that a concept has with similar (sister) concepts or opposite (counter) concepts in a particular spacio-temporal context (Krzyżanowski, 2016). The construction of the semantic field of internationalisation across Central and Eastern European universities is, therefore, the goal of this research.
