The new era of international relations and all permeating globalization led to unprecedented changes in the role of a state and concomitantly the role of the higher education (HE) sector (Del Canto Viterale, 2018; Eggins, 2003; Snellman, 2015; Sporn, 2003; van der Wende, 2004). Shifts in university role, changes in organizational structure and revision of its objectives and outputs grandly impacted the field of HE, increasing attention of old and ‘new’ stakeholders such as industry looking forward to results of empirical research (Evans, 2015). The term ‘internationalization’ serves as the response of universities to challenges posited by rapid global advancements and new realities. Pressure to accommodate foreign students and to provide internationally recognized programs becomes an imperative for higher education institutions (HEI) (Teichler 2004, cited in Sporn 2003). Although internationalization is a well-researched topic, we lack knowledge on how internationalization of doctoral schools in education specifically takes place and how it comes to deal with contradictions of timeliness supposedly linear processes. This paper addresses these issues, through the narratives of four leading figures of an international doctoral school of education in Central-Europe. Semi-structured interviews were recorded as a pilot study of a larger research on the process of internationalization of a doctoral school of education, and we used thematic analysis in order to process the data. Four faculty members (two male and two female participants) in lead administrative roles of a doctoral school of education have been interviewed, depicting personal narratives and lived stories of how internationalization was quite a challenging experience though contemporary necessity. Findings revealed how the imperative to internationalize can polarize the work of the faculty unit creating ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of this change. The four stories of faculty members, who came from various walks of lives, have commonalities and dissimilarities. All participants voiced similar rationale and impetus behind the process of internationalization, which was “forced” but so much “needed”. The process of individual and collegial learning, changes in organizational culture were also highlighted underpinning organizational development that took place systemically.

Del Canto Viterale, F. (2018): University as a global actor in the international system of the 21st Century. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6 (1), 169-198. Eggins, H. (2004): Globalization and reform: necessary conjunctions in higher education. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Globalization and Reform in Higher Education. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Snellman, C.L. (2015): University in Knowledge Society: Role and Challenges. Journal of System and Management Sciences. 5 (4), 84-113. Sporn, B. (2003): Trends relating to higher education reform in Europe: an overview. In H. Eggins (Ed.), Globalization and Reform in Higher Education (pp. 117-130). Berkshire, England: Open University Press. van der Wende, M. C. (2004): Europe. In J. Huisman & M. Van der Wende (Ed.), On Cooperation and Competition National and European Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education (pp. 17-51). Brussels, Belgium: Lemmens. Wihlborg, M. & Robson, S. (2018): Internationalisation of higher education: drivers, rationales, priorities, values and impacts, European Journal of Higher Education, 8:1, 8-18. Wu, H. & Zha, Q. (2018): A New Typology for Analyzing the Direction of Movement in Higher Education Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(3), 259-277.