Internationalisation-at-home (IaH) is one of the key dimensions of comprehensive internationalisation processes in higher education (Hudzik 2011). Driven by globalisation influences on higher education, IaH is valued by universities for its assumed contribution to high quality learning contexts, increase of students’ intercultural and international competences, and the formation of global citizens (Dagen and Fink-Hafner 2019; Hudzik 2011). It refers to the ‘purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions’ into the curricula and experiences of students during their studies (Beelen and Jones 2015:76), and as such, is increasingly embedded in the narratives of universities and faculties across Europe and beyond.

Sweden has provided a very active policy context for investing in internationalization, and for the development of internationalization strategies (Alexiadou & Rönnberg; SOU, 2018:3). A recently conducted inquiry urged the government to adopt a more systematic approach towards policies and practices on internationalisation (SOU 2018:3; 2018:78). It suggests, among others, that ‘All students who earn university degrees have developed their international understanding or intercultural competence’ (SOU 2018:3), and thus, connects the wider internationalisation debates to university curricula. Universities mediate internationalisation policies and enact strategies to serve their missions, and institutional objectives, given their history, size and location (Alexiadou and Rönnberg 2022). In addition, the different academic and disciplinary organisations of natural and social science faculties frame the engagement with internationalisation differently (Knight, 2011; Kwiek, 2020; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005).

In our presentation we focus on ‘internationalisation at home’ (IaH) conceptions and experiences of students in two large Swedish Universities.

Theoretically we view the disciplinary perspectives as key in the ways in which IaH is organized and practiced (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 and their universities’ internationalization policies.

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.

Epistemologically-grounded conceptions about the discipline shape the students’ position towards questions of 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. Second, the particular 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 the theme of internationalization. The strong differentiation of the student positions according to their disciplinary locations has implications for the embedding of IaH across different subject areas (Clifford, 2009). 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 Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines, Milton Keynes: 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: 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, 195-203. Clifford, V. A. 2009. Engaging the disciplines in internationalizing the curriculum, International Journal for Academic Development, 14:2, 133-143. Dagen, T., Fink-Hafner, D. 2019. Impact of Globalisation on Internationalisation of Universities. Ljubljana: Založba FDV. Hudzik, 2011. Comprehensive Internationalisation: From Concept to Action, Washington D.C: Association of International Educators. 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). 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. 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.