IaH is one of the key dimensions of internationalization processes in higher education, particularly important in times of restrictive mobility of students. Even before the Covid pandemic, IaH has been discussed as a core dimension of internationalization, and it refers to the integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the curricula and experiences of students during their studies (Beelen & Jones, 2015). The IaH perspective is valued by universities for its assumed contribution to high quality learning contexts, and as such is increasingly embedded in the official narratives of universities and faculties across Europe.

In our presentation we focus on ‘internationalisation at home’ (IaH) conceptions and experiences of students in Swedish Universities. Sweden has provided a very active HE policy context for investing in internationalization, and for the development of internationalization strategies (Alexiadou & Rönnberg; SOU, 2018:3). In addition, several universities and courses in Sweden use English as the medium of instruction, almost universally at the post-graduate level; have high numbers of international researchers and lecturers; invest in international research collaborations; and, take active part in international networks and research activities. But, the way in which IaH is developed, integrated and experienced by the students can vary greatly, across institutions but also within faculties, and departments. Universities mediate internationalization policies and put institutional strategies in place to serve their own mission, institutional objectives, and given their history, size and location (Knight, 2011; Kwiek, 2020; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005). In addition, the different academic and disciplinary organization of Sciences and Social Science faculties frame the engagement with internationalisation differently.

Theoretically we view the disciplinary perspectives as key in the ways in which IaH is organized and practiced (see also Iosava, L., Roxå, 2019; Leask & Bridge, 2013). Disciplines, as ways of organizing and defining knowledge domains (Becher and Trowler, 2001; Klein, 1990), academic practices and socialization of students (Biglan, 1973; Trowler et al., 2014), shape learning and teaching cultures, as well as the attitudes of teachers, researchers and students towards teaching practices, education values, and philosophies (Neumann, 2001; Sawir, 2011). Internationalisation of the student experience through the curriculum and teaching and learning practices, will have different meanings across the disciplines, and the professions they correspond to (Leask & Bridge, 2013).  Following Becher’s (1989) and Biglan’s (1973) classifications of disciplines into ‘hard pure/applied’ and ‘soft pure/applied’ we study the ways in which ‘home students’ in the Natural and Social Sciences in two Swedish universities position themselves towards internationalization.

In particular we address the following research questions (a) How do students from different disciplinary contexts experience internationalization in their studies? (b) what are the subject specific narratives that define their position? and, (c) what do students view as the disciplinary and institutional facilitators and obstacles in integrating internationalization in their studies?

In our study, we expect institutional and disciplinary contexts and cultures to play an important role in the understanding and experience of internationalisation when we examine the students’ narratives from different universities and faculties. Our comparative focus of students in two different Universities and in the Sciences and Social Sciences faculties aims at examining the influence of the different subjects and perceptions of the subject, and the organization of teaching and research work, on internationalisation. Our research design is qualitative and consists of 67 in-depth interviews with students across four different faculties in 2 large universities in Sweden. All the students had completed a minimum of 2 (and in several cases 3) years of university education at the time of the interview and they come from a range of disciplines within Natural Sciences (Astronomy, Chemical Physics, Theoretical Physics, Civil and Mechanical Engineering) and Social Sciences (Education, Economics, International Business, and Political Science). Our interview agenda addressed (i) internationalization through the curriculum and course activities; (ii) language of instruction and seminar work; (iii) subject knowledge; and, (iv) students’ views on their future career. We analysed the data through a thematic analysis and the construction of second order categories, which were reviewed through the research questions and literature concepts.

Our findings suggest first, that epistemologically-grounded conceptions about the discipline shape the students’ position towards internationalization. The students’ conceptions of their respective subject along its disciplinary organization, knowledge content and relevance, research basis, contextual location, and practice, define a typology of positions along the national-international axis that in turn, and shapes both their views and their expectations around internationalization. Internationalisation in the Natural Sciences is seen as normalized, something that we also find amongst the students of Economics, all sharing the construct of the subject ‘universality’ in its content, method and research basis. Equally strong views on an internationalized discipline, the students from the ‘soft pure/applied’ subjects of International Business and Political Science articulate discourses of universality in relation to the relevance of their subject’s knowledge basis, its contextual and interdisciplinary basis, and its international practice. In the other end of the spectrum, the Education students view their subject as national in its context, definition, regulation and practice, with limited possibilities for internationalization of its content or pedagogy. Second, the articulations around the nature of disciplines are also connected to pedagogical approaches to the teaching of subjects as experienced by the students, with varying degrees of connection to internationalization. The strong differentiation of the student positions according to their disciplinary locations has implications for the embedding of IaH across different subject areas. At the same time, we find that the different university affiliation of students does not seem to have any influence on their views and positions. Disciplinary identifications are clearly stronger than institutional ones with regard to IaH issues. Third, there is more agreement across the students on what facilitates or inhibits internationalization in the students’ experience mainly at the university level, but also significant variation regarding different aspects of internationalization and their relevance for international or intercultural learning.

Alexiadou N., & Rönnberg L. 2021. Transcending borders in higher education: Internationalisation policies in Sweden. European Educational Research Journal Doi:10.1177/1474904120988383 Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines, Milton Keynes, , UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Becher, T. and Trowler, P.R. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines. , (2nd ed.), Buckingham, , UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. 2015. Europe calling: A new definition for internationalization at home. International Higher Education, (83), 12-13. Biglan, A. 1973. Characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, pp. 195-203. Iosava, L., Roxå, T. 2019. ‘Internationalisation of universities: Local perspectives on a global phenomenon’, Tertiary Education and Management 25: 225-238. Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit. Wayne State University Press. Knight, J. 2011. Five myths about internationalization. International higher Education, (62). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8532. Kwiek, M. 2020. ‘What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: changing national patterns in global contexts’, Studies in Higher Education. Epub. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749254 Leask, B., & Bridge, C. 2013. Comparing internationalisation of the curriculum in action across disciplines: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Compare, 43(1), 79–101. Luijten-Lub, A., Wende M.V., Huisman, J. 2005. ‘On cooperation and competition: A comparative analysis of national policies for internationalisation of higher education in seven western European countries’, Journal of Studies in International Education 9(2): 147-163. Neumann, R. 2001. Disciplinary differences and university teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 26:2, 135-1. Robson, S., Almeida, J., & Schartner, A. 2018. Internationalisation at home: Time for review and development? European Journal of Higher Education, 8:1, 19–35. Sawir, E. 2011. Academic staff response to international students and internationalising the curriculum: the impact of disciplinary differences, International Journal for Academic Development, 16:1, 45-57. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., Bamber, V. 2014. Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.