Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Educational leaders’ understandings of internationalization : a case study Soodeen, Claudius 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2018_september_soodeen_claudius.pdf [ 1.18MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0368547.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0368547-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0368547-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0368547-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0368547-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0368547-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0368547-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

EDUCATIONAL LEADERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: A CASE STUDY  by CLAUDIUS SOODEEN B.A., The University of Winnipeg, 1990 M.A., Athabasca University, 2010  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Educational Leadership and Policy) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  May, 2018 © Claudius Soodeen, 2018   ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Educational Leaders’ Understandings of Internationalization: A Case Study  submitted by Claudius Soodeen  in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership and Policy  Examining Committee: Thomas J. Sork, Educational Studies Supervisor  Shauna Butterwick, Educational Studies Supervisory Committee Member  Gerald Fallon, Educational Studies Supervisory Committee Member Amy Metcalfe, Educational Studies University Examiner Marlene Asselin, Language & Literacy Education University Examiner  Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Shafik Dharamsi, Dean - College of Health Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso Supervisory Committee Member  Supervisory Committee Member   iii Abstract Internationalization has become an important focus and activity in higher education and merits an answer to the questions of how it is understood by educational leaders making decisions about its implementation and for what purposes it is being undertaken. This qualitative case study used semi-structured interviews to explore educational leaders’ understandings of internationalization and the impact of those understandings on their decisions about internationalization. Big Prairie College’s longstanding and complex context of international engagement has set the stage for current ways of ‘doing’ and understanding internationalization. Leaders’ life experiences with diversity, difference, and discomfort have also helped to shape their views of internationalization as a comprehensive phenomenon that influences all areas of the College and the world. However, they are also influenced by the pragmatic realities of running and sustaining a college, the mandate to contribute to the local and national economies and workforces and a responsibility to help make the world a better place. In reality, international student recruitment seems to be not only the focus, but also the most visible manifestation of internationalization. Implementing comprehensive internationalization (CI) requires leaders to expand their understanding of internationalization from being an end in itself. It also requires clearer communication of their goals and meaningful engagement of the internal community in decision-making processes. There are also the challenges of faculty development and support, collective accountability for achieving clearly defined goals, acting ethically and allocating sufficient resources across competing initiatives. CI is possible if leaders begin to act on stated values, create a more inclusive decision-making environment, and pursue financial and non-financial goals with equal vigour, perhaps relying on Social Innovation programming to provide an appropriate environment.  iv Lay Summary Often, in higher education, internationalization is criticized for being “only for the money”. However, such critiques are often made without full knowledge of what senior leaders are really trying to accomplish. While the reality of increasing costs and diminishing government funding do necessitate entrepreneurial activity and international student recruitment is especially lucrative, financial gain may not be the only intended goal. The results of this study indicate that leaders do understand internationalization beyond the obvious and most visible financial/instrumental aims. However, they admit that this has neither been communicated successfully nor fully achieved. Their stated understandings of internationalization are influenced by particular life experiences, rooted in dominant philosophical paradigms and constrained by political and practical realities. The result is a form of internationalization reliant on international recruitment, and that is still aspiring towards a more comprehensive implementation with social/transformative goals.  v Preface This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, C. Soodeen.  The names of participants have been changed and the site of research has been given a pseudonym. UBC Ethics Certificate number H14-03422 covered the interview findings discussed in Chapters 4-5.   vi Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xi Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Drivers ......................................................................................................................................... 5 The problem. ............................................................................................................................ 6 Rationale. ................................................................................................................................. 8 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 10 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 15 Background and Context ........................................................................................................... 16 Internal policies and strategies. ............................................................................................. 18 BPC strategic plan. ................................................................................................................ 21 Organization of this Dissertation ............................................................................................... 25 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 27 Globalization ............................................................................................................................. 28 Globalization’s impact on education. .................................................................................... 29 Linking Internationalization ...................................................................................................... 38 Internationalization in a globalized world. ............................................................................ 38 Models of internationalization. .............................................................................................. 41 Multiplicity—A Continuum of Decision Points ....................................................................... 56 vii Local and global. ................................................................................................................... 58 Adaptive and additive. ........................................................................................................... 59 Leadership Concerns ................................................................................................................. 61 Connecting Multiple Perspectives ............................................................................................. 72 Looking at Practice .................................................................................................................... 75 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 81 Chapter Three: Methodology and Methods .................................................................................. 83 Case Study ................................................................................................................................. 83 Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................................... 89 Rigour and Credibility ............................................................................................................... 91 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 95 Analysis Methods ...................................................................................................................... 96 Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 99 Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................... 100 Policy Landscape ..................................................................................................................... 100 Understandings of Internationalization, Pathways, and Impact on Practice ........................... 105 Purposes/Benefits of Internationalization ............................................................................... 120 Leaders’ Roles in Internationalization .................................................................................... 129 Strategic leadership.............................................................................................................. 130 Operational leadership. ........................................................................................................ 131 Challenges ............................................................................................................................... 132 Philosophical/perceptual. ..................................................................................................... 133 Practical. .............................................................................................................................. 137 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 164 Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 165 Past—Commercial Beginnings ............................................................................................... 168 Present ..................................................................................................................................... 171 Overview. ............................................................................................................................ 171 Community and communication. ........................................................................................ 172 viii Comprehensive internationalization: Understandings, definitions, and purposes. .............. 177 Local and global. ................................................................................................................. 181 Broadening Understandings .................................................................................................... 186 The Imagined Future ............................................................................................................... 197 Social Innovation and Internationalization ............................................................................. 201 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 206 Chapter Six: Summary, Conclusions, Further Research, and Recommendations ...................... 208 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 208 Understanding of internationalization. ................................................................................ 208 Purposes and benefits of internationalization. ..................................................................... 209 Challenges of implementation. ............................................................................................ 209 Limitations of this Study ......................................................................................................... 210 Further Research ..................................................................................................................... 211 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 213 Shifting understanding. ........................................................................................................ 214 Communication. .................................................................................................................. 215 Expansion of internal network. ............................................................................................ 215 Policy. .................................................................................................................................. 216 Strategy. ............................................................................................................................... 217 Social innovation. ................................................................................................................ 217 Concluding Thoughts .............................................................................................................. 219 References ................................................................................................................................... 222 Appendix A—Backgrounder & Interview Questions ................................................................. 250 Appendix B—Consent Form ...................................................................................................... 252 Appendix C—Invitation E-mail .................................................................................................. 254   ix List of Figures Figure 1—Internationalization within an Ecosystem of Multiple Paradigms .................. 82 Figure 2 - Interview Results Matrix ................................................................................. 96    x List of Abbreviations ACCC—Association of Canadian Community Colleges (now Colleges and Institutes Canada—CICan) ACDE—Association of Canadian Deans of Education AUCC—Association of Universities and College of Canada (now Universities Canada) BPC - Big Prairie College—Pseudonym for site of research CBIE—Canadian Bureau for International Education CICan—Colleges and Institutes Canada IE—International Education NAFSA—National Association of Foreign Student Advisers SI—Social Innovation    xi Acknowledgements First and most importantly, I thank God for His ever-present guidance and strength, without which neither this dissertation nor my degree would have been successfully completed. I am also grateful for the support and prayers of my family throughout this long and sometimes arduous academic journey. I am also grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Tom Sork and my committee—Dr. Shauna Butterwick, Dr. Shafik Dharamsi and Dr. Gerald Fallon—for your guidance, support and challenging insights that made me think hard and helped me to ultimately achieve a balanced, nuanced and clear piece of academic work. To my participants—THANK YOU! Your responses were thought-provoking and our conversations engaging. Without your investment of time, this project would not have come ‘alive’ as it did and would not have been possible. To the EDST Office Staff—thank you for your responsiveness, student-centred outlook and understanding. To my colleagues—thank you for your support over the years. Claudius Soodeen Micah 6:8 1 Chapter One: Introduction Internationalization has become an important focus and activity of/in higher education (Mihut, Altbach, & de Wit, 2017) and as such, merits an answer to the questions of how it is understood by educational leaders making decisions about its implementation and for what purposes it is being undertaken. Hudzik (Mihut et al., 2017, p. 283) places shared responsibility for internationalization on not just faculty and managers, but also on senior leadership, who “[set] institutional tone, [reaffirm] institutional values and [coordinate] overarching priorities” (2017, p. 284). Jooste and Heleta (Mihut et al., 2017) “propose that future research in the higher education internationalisation field follows the critical social research approach, which questions how institutions, policies, and frameworks are formulated and implemented in practice” (Mihut et al., 2017, p. 6). While I acknowledge the value of this type of research, I believe that asking about leaders’ understandings of internationalization is a reasonable first step to the critique of actions and policies. That we are able to discuss internationalization  within the context of a community college (or just ‘college’ since some have dropped ‘community’) indicates an evolution of the mandates of community colleges in Canada and of the global reality in which they exist, over the past 50 years or so (Levin, 2000). College mandates have broadened from being primarily technical training institutions with an economic role to play, to being “good corporate citizen[s]” (Levin, 2000, p. 2) that “included socially beneficial activities such as service learning, where community needs were addressed by student projects” (p. 2). Internationalization, stemming from the expanded mandate of one Canadian college, is the focus of this study. This qualitative case study utilized semi-structured interviews to explore my primary research question: “From the perspective of Big Prairie College’s (BPC - a pseudonym) educational leaders, what understandings do they have about internationalization and how do 2 these understandings impact their practice—their decisions about internationalization”? This broader narrative of internationalization opens up the complexity of this phenomenon and the environment in which it exists and portrays what likely influences how leaders experience and understand it. I use Knight’s (2003) well known and broadly adopted (including at BPC) definition of internationalization as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (p. 2). These functions include curricular and research activities. However, the following expanded definition helps to clarify an ultimate purpose for internationalization: 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. (de Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015, p. 283) In this research, ‘leader’ refers to those in formal positions at the director and executive level who collectively are responsible for setting direction, developing and communicating vision and strategic direction related to all aspects of the College including internationalization.  In the context of this study, I am using the term “understand” to mean “perceive the meaning of” or “perceive the significance, explanation, or cause of” (Barber, 2005a). I am using the term “understanding” to mean “an individual’s perception or interpretation of a situation” including their “knowledge of a subject” (Barber, 2005b). So my intention in this study was to discover, through interviews, the understandings of internationalization held by College leaders. I postulated that these understandings were shaped by the complex interplay of values, beliefs, education, and experience of these leaders. Although I did not set out to directly discover how all of these factors influenced their understandings of internationalization, I hoped by engaging 3 them in conversations about internationalization at the College that they might reveal some of the factors that they believe shaped their views. Values are the principles and standards these leaders hold regarding the purposes of internationalization and making decisions about its implementation (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011b). Beliefs refer to the convictions leaders hold regarding why and how internationalization is realized (Oxford English Dictionary, 2011a). Such values, beliefs, and understandings may come from personal life experiences, education, and philosophical stances or knowledge gained from exposure to the literature. The term ‘ideology’ is used in this dissertation in reference to neo-liberalism and related ‘-isms’, despite its contested nature (Fine & Sandstrom, 1993; Gerring, 1997). In most instances, I use the term as the authors being discussed use it. Arguments against its use include its vagueness, variableness of meaning and conflation with similar terms (e.g., worldview, system, beliefs, creed, myth) (Fine & Sandstrom, 1993; Gerring, 1997); and its resultant positioning as a “cluster concept” (Sartori, 1969, p. 398). However, instead of discarding the term, my use follows Fine and Sandstrom’s (1993) definition of ideology as “a set of interconnected beliefs and their associated attitudes, shared and used by members of a group or population, that relate to problematic aspects of social and political topics. These beliefs have an explicit evaluative and implicit behavioral component” (p. 24). In other words, ideology in this sense represents multiple and related beliefs that are held by and drive a group of people to take particular actions. Neo-liberalism and other related terms, defined later, fit with this conception of ideology. Considering multiple, co-existing values (i.e., that internationalization must achieve social, financial and workforce development aims) helps us to move beyond simplistic characterizations of what leaders believe and practice. Instead, we should recognize that leadership of internationalization occurs in a complex environment of educational goals, 4 institutional financial sustainability, politics, and globalization. This environment influences institutional internationalization activities, directions, purposes, and aims. Such complexity is evident in the literature and in various institutional policy and strategic documents. For example, the Federal Government’s International Education Strategy (Chakma et al., 2012), while presenting internationalization’s value proposition as a driver of Canada’s economic growth and future prosperity, brings with it recommendations such as doubling the number of international students in Canada by 2022 (p. xiii) that provinces, and subsequently institutions, have to at least seriously consider. As provincial governments try to align with such goals, institutions follow suit (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, 2010; Big Prairie College, 2016c). Maringe and Woodfield (2013) note the imperative to keep higher education institutions financially viable through increasing tuitions and recruitment as economies and funding to institutions become tighter. Pickert and Turlington (1992), writing on the role of college presidents in leading internationalization of their institutions, assert that systemic change—a “readjustment of priorities and a commitment to support a long-term international mission” (p. 15) —is mandatory. Exerting influence on faculty perceptions and attitudes to effect such change is crucial, but is not an easy task and adds to the complexity of the environment in which leaders make decisions. These are just some of the factors related to internationalization that senior leaders need to engage with and point to the complexity of the environment that impacts their understandings and practices of internationalization. Practice includes, but is not limited to, support for and allocation of resources to various international-related initiatives whether revenue-generating or not; supports and mandates for curriculum adaptation and so forth. My research is intended to shed light on leaders’ understandings of internationalization and to create a space for dialogue (Deardorff, 2014) about how these can be brought to light and 5 understood by those they lead. Personally, and at a more general level, knowledge of how leaders reconcile and balance multiple values and then set direction and implement decisions in complex environments will help me to do the same in my own spheres of leadership. My specific interest in internationalization stems from particular academic and professional experiences. My M.A. studies brought me into contact with international students who, to my surprise, had very divergent views from each other and from the literature from their homeland on the same issue. My research consequently focused on a more inclusive, internationalized post-secondary curriculum that would intentionally expose students to the diversity of perspectives held by ‘ordinary’ people outside of Canada. My subsequent professional work as project manager for a faculty development project intended to increase intercultural awareness stemmed from my previous academic work and intensified my interest in how institutional leaders talked about and practiced internationalization and my awareness of some of its attendant ethical issues. I am simultaneously an insider and an outsider in relation to my research participants. I am an insider because by making presentations to, and having prior conversations about, internationalization with some leaders, I was brought into closer contact with them and their ideas. I am an outsider because I am not part of the leadership group, so was not privy to conversations at decision-making tables. Nonetheless, I regard them as colleagues concerned about creating and sustaining BPC’s educational environment. Drivers  “Only for the money” … “cash grab” … “revenue stream” —bold statements expressed to me by colleagues about why BPC ‘does’ internationalization. Some of these same colleagues have also expressed a belief that internationalization was potentially valuable for learning about other cultures and raising the level of academic performance in their classrooms due to 6 international student motivation (i.e., socially beneficial). One pragmatic observation was that while international tuition revenues were critical to sustaining the institution as a whole, it was reasonable for some of those monies to be returned to international students in the form of better supports. Direct supports include counselling, cultural awareness; indirect supports include faculty training on how to help international students integrate into BPC classroom environments. Yet another perspective insists that the College did not, and would not have undertaken internationalization solely for the money. Evidently, there exist different perspectives from different vantage points. Additionally, personal conversations with a colleague, integrally involved in international activities, uncovered a strong desire for a clear, rational, comprehensive international strategy to guide their efforts. A comprehensive strategy was one that not only acknowledged institutional challenges, but that also set goals and provided concomitant supports across all facets of the college. These and other conversations have led me to observe differing motivations for (financial, social, educational) and understandings of what internationalization is (student presence on campus, curriculum transformation) and differing interpretations of senior leadership’s understandings of it (noted above). My curiosity about BPC leaders’ understandings of internationalization was piqued. Why did these different understandings of internationalization exist and persist? Which one(s) dominated, why and with what effect on their decisions about its implementation? These questions begin to uncover the complexity of leadership and of the environment in which leaders take action and make decisions.  The problem. The main problem of interest to me is the lack of a clear public articulation of what values are driving internationalization processes or of how our senior leaders fundamentally understand internationalization; although, various activities and reasons for 'doing 7 them' are described in institutional documents. Multiple understandings of internationalization, primarily activity-based, are embedded in strategy and policy documents about the nature and motivation for internationalization that encompass a variety of terms and concepts that are not clearly defined. For example, Policy A11 (Big Prairie College, 2006), currently the sole policy dealing with international education (IE), states that “an awareness of our global community and the resulting internationalization of our College can be achieved through …” (Big Prairie College, 2006) then proceeds to list several activities including international student recruitment, international partnerships, and curriculum that reflects global realities. Two understandings of internationalization are apparent. The first is that internationalization results from an awareness of the global community. The second is that internationalization is activity-based, meaning that internationalization is seen as a particular set of activities—where, according to de Wit (2011a), “the means appear to have become the goal” (p. 1). However, which activities should take priority and how they will achieve internationalization, is not clear. Likewise, the Strategic Plan (Big Prairie College, 2012) lists “aggressive international student recruitment” (p. 19) as a means to achieving an enhanced global image and access to a bigger market and to achieving “a more diversified community of students to improve learning for all students” (p. 19) but does not discuss what learning or what improvements are desired and how those connect to internationalization. In fact, a search in that document yielded no instances of the word internationalization, so it remains unclear what the specific goal is. What is most visible is a rather flat, one-dimensional representation of internationalization as international student recruitment—leaving staff to presume and ascribe (perhaps incorrectly) motive. As will be discussed later, the findings show that decisions about internationalization, in one direction or another are not made in isolation; rather, they are made in a financial, social, political and 8 practical context, each aspect exerting its own influence. Rationale. Discovering what our leaders mean by ‘internationalization’ conceptually and practically, can help us in several ways. First, it can help staff to more clearly interpret and act on internationalization policies and strategies by clarifying what initiatives are desired and will be supported, what supports are likely to be approved and how such initiatives and support requests should be worded. There would also be a clearer understanding of the dominant conceptualizations that impact and guide the College’s internationalization activities. Fulton-Calkins and Milling (2005) stress that the “importance of establishing organizational values and making these values clear to individuals within the organization are leadership practices commonly accepted by most educators today” (p. 237). Furthermore, highly productive organizations require that leaders “must not only be aware of personal values but also must clearly present those values to others within the organization—[through] living them daily [or by making] a public statement, even in writing, listing the individual’s values” (p. 237). In addition to college staff, emerging or in-coming leaders may be able to examine these research findings for how participants in my study developed such sensibilities regarding internationalization and learn some strategies for balancing and prioritizing multiple values and narratives—especially those associated with internationalization. Leaders who may be trying to reconcile multiple understandings, motivations and aims in their institutions may be able to find compelling and helpful rationales applicable to their circumstances. Even though there may be policies or strategic documents in place that serve to guide practice, it is not only the interpretation of those documents by decision-makers (people) that ultimately influences practice. In fact, problems may arise when practitioners interpret these guidelines differently from how leaders do, as alluded to by Al-Youssef (2009, 2010). Resources 9 may not be available for planned activities or initiatives may not be ‘in sync’ with leaders’ priorities. Second, rather than simply imputing motives to senior leaders (e.g., they are only interested in generating revenue), we ought to first discover their motivations and if the situation warrants (i.e., if we believe that their stated aims do not align with their actions), then attempt critique. My research takes up the discovery aspect. A critical perspective is not necessarily conflictual but one that interrogates an idea, concept or policy to ensure that, at the very least, its ramifications are well understood and actually complementary to the stated aims of the institution. As Doolin and Lowe (2002) suggest, a critical perspective is concerned with uncovering dominant ideals and understandings and providing alternatives without falling into the trap of presenting “naïve Utopian ideals” (p. 71). For example, favouring the pursuit of ‘social benefits’ over ‘market’ (financially-motivated) models of internationalization whilst ignoring the fact that ‘doing good’ does require financial sustenance would be a naïve position to take.  Third, surfacing leaders’ (perhaps) multiple understandings may also be helpful when attempting to insert other viewpoints into policy and strategy. Is there room for such additions and how might they be pitched or framed so that they ‘fit’ or are at least understood? For example, if the dominant motivation is financial gain, why is this so and how might (or can) a leader successfully advocate for or justify an initiative that does not project a profit, but that does help achieve other worthwhile objectives? Now the question arises— is internationalization seen as a means, an end, or both? If the former, then to what end is it a means—what does it accomplish; if the latter, then of what value is it? If it can be both, how is that demonstrated? Of course, the larger body of work discussed in the following chapter, frames and 10 influences my topic and quite likely, my participants and existing policies and strategies. Significance of the Study Internationalization is an increasingly common activity in higher education according to a recent survey which emphasized that “over four-fifths of all Canadian universities identify internationalization as a top planning priority” (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2014, p. 9). According to a 2010 report “over 60% of colleges are engaged to some extent in … internationalization activities, and almost 70% have a dedicated office for international activities” (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, 2010, p. 2). Provincial and Federal governments are also getting into the ‘internationalization game’, identifying targets, directions and rationales for increasing international student recruitment, with benefits accruing in the areas of increased international trade, future economic prosperity (Government of Canada, 2014a) and global understanding (Government of _______, 2009). When my study was beginning in 2015-16, BPC was developing a new Academic Plan (AP) that included internationalization activities. As it was in its formative stage, the dialogue on what internationalization should be and how it should be implemented, was on going; as well, whether or not there were going to be any significant changes from what was currently in place was unknown. It was my hope that by undertaking this research at such a time, their understandings of internationalization might emerge and be clearly communicated to College staff. Additionally, my intention is that my observations, as an outsider to the leadership realm at BPC, may illuminate a different way of conceptualizing and then practicing/implementing internationalization at BPC.  More generally, as internationalization becomes more instantiated in post-secondary institutions (Altbach & Knight, 2007a; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 11 2014; Knight & De Wit, 1995; Lambert & Usher, 2013; Mertova, 2014) it is important to understand what values and perspectives are held by educational leaders who play a critical role (Opp & Gosetti, 2014) in shaping what internationalization looks like in their institutions. It is also useful to understand how multiple concerns are, for lack of a better word, reconciled in their minds and then incorporated into their practice—into the strategies and policies they develop. This knowledge may provide leaders in other institutions or those who are coming into leadership roles at the College with insight into how multiple understandings and aims of internationalization can inform their decisions. While internationalization is not an uncommon practice or academic topic with critical discussions ranging from its definitions, motivations, and precursors; its dangers and affordances, institutional planning and its relationship to globalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007b; Beck, 2012; Braskamp, 2009; Childress, 2009; Croom, 2012; Maringe & Foskett, 2010), the focus tends to be on the mechanisms, functioning and outcomes of internationalization. There are fewer studies of leaders’ understanding of internationalization, how that understanding influences their decisions and how they reconcile the complexities inherent with the various aims of internationalization towards implementation (Maringe, Foskett, & Woodfield, 2013). Leadership, both in and of educational institutions, is also widely represented in the literature through definitions of educational leadership, discussions of leadership traits, characteristics, and even educational leadership of internationalization. Leadership ‘in’ refers to informal leadership of particular aspects of internationalization; leadership ‘of'’ refers to formal, directive authority over policy. Educational leadership of internationalization is framed both as a visionary or executive function (e.g., those who lead institutions) (Bensimon, Neuman, & Birnbaum, 1989; Deardorff, 2012; Evans, 2006) and as an activity of exerting influence based on one’s 12 educational perspectives and values (Pandit, 2009). However, my search in various library databases and Google Scholar™ for literature on leadership “and” or “of” internationalization in higher education (especially in a Canadian context) yielded results that described leaders’ rationales for, intended outcomes of, and strategies for implementing internationalization. Unfortunately, the literature, generally, did not explicate how their understandings of internationalization impacted their prioritization of various strategies, especially in a college context. What follows is a brief discussion of some existing research that addresses my topic to some extent, thereby confirming its significance. From recent research, it is clear that educational executive leaders (e.g., Presidents and Chief Academic Officers) are catalysts for comprehensive internationalization who face multiple challenges of running an institution related to financial sustainability, social goals of education and so forth. Not only do they need to formulate and understand why they want to internationalize, they must be able to communicate these understandings and resultant visions and strategies to organizational members (Opp & Gosetti, 2014); in fact, there seems to be a desire for clear communication and direction (Al-Youssef, 2009, 2010; Deardorff, 2012).  Evans (2006) identifies that in her case study, administrators and faculty held divergent views on the purposes of internationalization (revenue generation vs. educative values) which was exacerbated by a lack of discussion (and I would add, a lack of understanding) about what leaders valued and why. Two questions in this regard are key for her: “how does one determine what is the correct imperative? Second, who is making that decision?” (Evans, 2006, p. 205). In my case, the first question is of interest while my focus on college leaders implies the answer to the second. Of course, national and international educational leaders have contributed to the literature 13 on internationalization strategies and motivations (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2014; Gao, 2014; Knight, 2015; Opp & Gosetti, 2014; Pandit, 2009; Yemini et al., 2015), and for the most part, while what their understandings are have been represented, how their understandings impact their decisions about the vision for and implementation of internationalization has been less visible. Engaging the institution on issues of internationalization, I believe, requires leaders to clearly articulate their understandings of internationalization and its purposes to internal and external stakeholders. My observations at BPC indicate a strong desire on the part of faculty and staff for such an articulation from our leaders. Given the discussion above, my study seeks to reveal how one institution’s educational leaders understand internationalization, and how professional and personal (e.g., life experiences) factors impact their decisions about internationalization. Prioritizing (deciding which aims will take precedence and when) the various aims of or narratives about internationalization allows leaders and their institutions to achieve particular goals. Additionally, in light of Federal and Provincial government trade and immigration mandates that include internationalization as a key aspect of international trade and local/national workforce development, it would be useful to learn how one group of educational leaders balance and prioritize the educational missions of colleges with their business, political and social aims. Discovering how one group of leaders do this may help other leaders do the same. The concern about international activities being (or not) just a money grab merits attention as it points towards which understandings and aims dominate, which do not, for what reasons and in whose minds. On this topic, two recent publications concerning the practice of internationalization have impressed upon me the timeliness and importance of investigating how 14 internationalization or international education is practiced and implemented in post-secondary education. The Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE, The Accord) (2014) and McMaster University (Deane, 2011, 2013b), both issued reports that address their respective concerns that internationalization be implemented not just for financial motivations but also for the ‘social good’ (or, in a principled way). Both documents, while raising questions about ethics and integrity in internationalization, also point to the existence of conflictual values (risks) such as “exploitative practices emerging from an exclusive or primary focus on profit maximization” (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 3). Moreover, as Deane (2011) adds, “in itself, the pursuit of a new market to support the ongoing business of the academy does not necessarily raise questions of integrity”(p. 10) except where there is the one-sided pursuit of an international agenda simply to increase revenues to the exclusion of “the adoption of an internationalized perspective in curriculum and program design on our campus” (Deane, 2011, p. 11). Institutional leaders will likely encounter and must attend to these dilemmas as they deal with finding a place for their institution in a global society. How leaders define and resolve (to some extent) such conflictual values are of interest to me as they impact my workplace’s international education and internationalization policies and practice. The choices of international tuitions, types of academic programs supported or not supported and internal faculty development programming are made based on held values and priorities. That a pan-Canadian body of educators developed the Accord indicates that the issues attendant to internationalization are pervasive and of importance to a broad audience. Within this context, looking at leadership is, as argued by Evans (2006), a crucial endeavour. One recommendation, stemming from her study on the rapid and market-driven growth of internationalization activities in university colleges in British Columbia, is that 15 regarding internationalization, Leaders are clearly challenged with the constant and rapid changes occurring as a result of political decisions, globalization, the increasing influence of market forces on their institutions, the changing demographics within their institutions, and related issues such as faculty retention and recruitment. How these leaders cope, or do not cope, would be useful for both scholars and practitioners to research and understand. (p. 212) My research follows Evans’ call for further study by particularly focusing on how educational leaders from one college understand internationalization as a concept and a practice. By investigating the external and internal forces that motivate them to embark on internationalization ventures and their identified outcomes, we can better interpret their vision as presented in institutional guiding documents (internationalization policies and strategic plans).  Research Questions Because I was interested in surfacing how leaders understood internationalization, and what value they placed on it, I reviewed the concerns and issues raised in the literature (e.g., motivations for and benefits and challenges of, internationalization) and these guided the creation of my research questions. The specific research questions that guided this study were: 1. How do senior leaders in BPC understand internationalization and what values and beliefs inform their understanding?  a. How do they define internationalization? b. How do they interpret internationalization as presented in College policies and strategies? c. What do they believe to be the benefits of internationalization for BPC? d. What are the expressed purposes of internationalization?  16 i. Do they, or are they required to, prioritize multiple purposes (e.g., financial, social, political)? ii. If so, how do they prioritize them? 2. How is internationalization implemented at the College? a. What influences particular implementation decisions? b. How do these leaders communicate with the staff involved with implementation? 3. What are the challenges faced by leaders when implementing internationalization policies? Background and Context In Canada, education is the purview of each province rather than of the Federal Government; however, where education ties into national aims of immigration, economic development and international trade, the Federal Government’s aims and strategies do influence institutional goals.  BPC is the largest institute of applied learning in the province (2015a) with over 29,000 full- and part-time students (MK, personal communication, 2018) and is one of 12 public and private post-secondary institutions—most of which are in the capital city. Internationalization is positioned, in policy, to be the result of IE (Big Prairie College, 2006). However, IE is a revenue-generating enterprise that is primarily based on recruiting students to the campus to take the same instruction as domestic students and to date is the de facto form of internationalization at the College. In addition to its International Education policy, BPC has identified strategies and goals that reflect some of the aims of the Federal and Provincial Governments. Financial concerns are a key focus for the College. Like its provincial counterparts, BPC received a 2% 17 increase to its operating grant for 2015-16 (the most recent data available at the time of writing) but still needed to find cost reductions to table a balanced budget for both 2014-15 and 2015-16 (Big Prairie College, 2015c). BPC has approximately 700 international students  (Big Prairie College, 2015b, p. 90) whose tuition generated gross revenue of over $3.5M in 2012-13 and over $4.5M in 2013-14 (KPMG LLP, 2014, p. 5). International partnerships with colleges in China, Japan, India, and Finland (Big Prairie College, 2014a, 2015b) also brought in undisclosed revenues (Big Prairie College, 2015b; KPMG LLP, 2014). An internal document (personal communication, 2015) which acknowledged the broad mandate charged in the College’s guiding International Education Policy (A11), also noted that BPC’s main focus for international education had been revenue generation. This focus along with the lack of resources allocated to activities such as internationalizing the curriculum, faculty development activities and risk management strategies for faculty teaching abroad presented a challenge to achieving ‘true’ internationalization. This document (personal communication, 2015) also positioned the international activities of BPC within the larger framework of Provincial and Federal goals for skilled workforce development and economic development with the desired outcome being that our students become contributors to the peace and sustainability of the local and global community. Internationalization is the means to this end, but can only occur with a clear philosophical statement explaining and guiding international activities. As this document was being created, the College was developing an “International Educator Certificate” to address some of the concerns related to gaps in instructors’ inter-cultural communication skills. Funding for this project came from the International Education Office’s Business Development Fund (funded by international tuitions) and was approved by the Vice-President who oversees that portfolio. Subsequently, our Curriculum Development Department was funded to hire an “international curriculum consultant” (the title was later changed to “intercultural curriculum consultant”); however, while the position has been filled, the incumbent’s 18 role in internationalization is yet to be determined. Thus, there appears to be a move towards achieving a broader implementation of internationalization although it remains to be seen what the shift in focus of this new position from international to intercultural means. Multiple understandings of internationalization are evident in the description above and paint a picture of the complex internal and external environment in which our educational leaders have to make decisions. Internationalization can be seen as a means to several ends—financial, societal and developmental. Sustainability of the institution, in general, is critical (with good reason) as is the sustainability of international-specific activities (e.g., international student support, faculty support, and so forth). Administratively, at the outset of this study, some senior leaders were interim in their role; however, I viewed that as an advantage. Although the institution was in flux, these leaders were involved in internationalization regardless of their role. Moreover, they brought perspectives from both their previous and current roles, which I believe enriched the data. Furthermore, internationalization policies and strategies pre-date the current group of senior leaders, so their perspectives may or may not be fully reflected therein. However, those are the current guiding documents and will now be examined. Internal policies and strategies. BPC has a long history of international education and partnerships with technical institutions around the world whereby international students come to the College for some length of time to study in various programs. The mandate to conduct such activities is set out in Policy A11. This policy recognizes that BPC exists within a global community with a responsibility to “provide students with the skills necessary to function in such an environment and to instill the attitudes of tolerance, understanding and personal dignity that set Canada apart in the international community” (Big Prairie College, 2006). The act of instilling occupational skills and attitudinal change is defined as internationalization: 19 … awareness of our global community and the resulting internationalization of our College can be achieved through:  • international linkages and exchanges for students, staff, and faculty … • the presence of international students within the College;  • the development of curricula which accurately reflects the global reality;  • leadership and participation in events and programs which foster and develop international understanding (Big Prairie College, 2006). The policy, in recognizing the importance of international involvement to the “quality of education offered to [Provincial residents]” (Big Prairie College, 2006), defines the parameters for such engagement. It states that BPC will: 1. Actively pursue opportunities in international development projects where the College has appropriate resources, expertise, and experience. 2. Manage international development and international student administration through an Office of International Education. 3. Recruit international students on the basis that: a. they do not displace Provincial residents; and b. they pay at least the full direct cost of their program. 4. Actively participate with business, government, and the voluntary sector in initiatives that promote global understanding (Big Prairie College, 2006). The first high-level list shows a desired multi-faceted approach to internationalization that includes international education (bullet #2) and mobility programs, curriculum development and building international understanding. The “presence of international students within the College” (Big Prairie College, 2006) is the purview of our International Education Department 20 and is the afore-mentioned vehicle for revenue generation. The second list provides some scope that defines and constrains the College’s implementation of international activities. Taken as a whole, however, this policy strongly tends towards activities designed for revenue-generation that do not ‘displace’ domestic students. Likely this latter constraint is in place because our funding is based on our primary mandate to serve the province’s students (Big Prairie College, 2013a, p. 3) but it would be useful to understand how our leaders interpret this constraint. The other policy in effect pertains to executive limitation, or, what the President can and cannot allow with regard to internationalization. Board Policy 2.21 (Big Prairie College, 2013a, p. 25) mandates, (“the President will [emphasis mine] encourage … international activities [and] will [emphasis mine] ensure ... revenue generation” (Big Prairie College, 2013a, p. 25)). It also limits the College President to undertaking international activities, within existing resources, which generate revenue not less than a full-cost recovery tuition rate. The Board’s Executive Assistant (K.G., personal communication, March 2014) also confirmed that the intent is to prevent provincial government funding from being used to subsidize international students. However, if a sufficiently important initiative of demonstrable benefit to the College and students but contrary to this policy was desired, the President could request that the Board make an exception. Funds generated by international activities are not so constrained, and the College has latitude on how they are used. In terms of regulation, these two policies allow and constrain international activity. In fact, not only is the College allowed to engage internationally, the President is directed to do so. We are directed to engage in business-oriented activities—both in terms of revenue-generation and in terms of meeting the economic aims of the Province. Concurrently, we are encouraged to build “international understanding” (Big Prairie College, 2006) and to help our students function 21 in the global community. Now, while the ‘business’ directives are fairly explicit, the ‘building understanding’ components are not as nicely defined—what do these mean? We ought to look at the strategic plan (SP) to ascertain the interpretation and implementation of these policy directives. BPC strategic plan. The SP (Big Prairie College, 2012) outlines key goals and methods for their achievement and further defines our understanding of internationalization. It is telling then that the first and fourth of four themes relate to fuelling “[The Province’s] economic growth and community development” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 2) and to maintaining the College’s viability (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 3). The business aims of the College are directly and clearly addressed. While that makes sense, given our role, further discussion related to fueling the economy yields some important and to me, troublesome language. In response to the pressures of globalization upon industry, we are “in the business of educating, training and supporting technology transfer” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 15) and that strategic partnerships with multiple stakeholders, including the Federal and Provincial governments, are “critical for the successful delivery of quality programming … linked to community [industry] needs and learner outcomes” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 15). It is within this context that international student recruitment is first mentioned and specifically aimed at provincial “workforce development” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 16). In fact, after acknowledging that one incentive to improve retention rates is to reduce costs associated with student attrition and that we are “in the knowledge business” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 19), the SP (2012) then declares the objective to “develop and implement more aggressive international student recruitment activities. As the economy and education continue to globalize, International Education will play a key role in promoting the worldwide image of the College and in opening new markets for programming” 22 (p. 19). Juxtaposed against this business proposition is the rationale that a diversified student community creates a better learning environment. The issue is that this is almost an ‘additive’ instead of an ‘adaptive’ approach with no publically articulated (i.e., within BPC) ‘specific learning activities’ that would replace mere proximity to international students for engagement with them. It is thus somewhat confusing to decipher which goal is intended to be primary. The intensity of the language suggests that business or pragmatic aims are primary to the more ‘human-related’ rationale. In relation to the College’s triple bottom line (people, planet, profits), international activities are positioned clearly within the strategic initiative of profits (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 24). This is not to say that profit-seeking ventures are wrong. In fact, in light of the “continuing cost pressures and revenue and funding challenges” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 25) facing BPC, it is quite prudent to look for additional revenue streams. Certainly, helping our students to be competent and successful global competitors has some value (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 29). However, if we have a policy directive (or a policy suggestion) in which the attitudinal attributes of understanding and global awareness are also to be pursued, why does the SP not include strategies towards these ends in any detailed or meaningful way? The measure for the attainment of ‘creating’ global competitors is a vague reference (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 29) to including global competencies in our programs, but what does this mean? I do not have an answer for this, but I do know, from personal involvement, that at least some of the non-economic factors are being addressed through professional development initiatives. Political drivers are also evident and closely linked to a Market Model (discussed in Chapter Two) (Hanson, 2010). For example, the Province, in 2009, in recognition of the growing importance of international cooperation in dealing with various transnational challenges and opportunities, developed a multi-pronged International Education Strategy (Government of 23 _______, 2009) to highlight its role in helping educational institutions achieve their IE initiatives. The Strategy came out of a previous document's vision that “... [the Province] can be recognized internationally as a competitive economic centre, a lucrative destination for investment, an attractive location for immigration and international study, and a caring member of the global community ...” (Government of _______, 2009, p. 4). Whether or not the financial aspects were intentionally listed first is unknown but still raises the question of what goals are primary.  The Strategy connected five areas of interest: international students, development projects and contracts, student and faculty mobility, offshore delivery and partnerships and internationalization. This latter area was defined as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, function or delivery of . . . education” (Government of _______, 2009). Premised on the demand for “our high-quality education”, the Strategy was tied to social outcomes of increased intercultural awareness and global understanding, bringing unique perspectives into contact with students and to instrumental outcomes such as economic and labour force development in the province and abroad. Exporting provincial curriculum and credentials abroad was also identified as a goal. Learning was mutual, however, as local students, instructors and communities would also benefit from developing international and intercultural perspectives as well as international networks of contacts. Of course, the financial rewards ($5B annually) of IE - recruiting international students - are also beneficial. Throughout the document, transformational goals were represented but to a lesser extent than, for example, instrumental (e.g., packaging and selling curriculum/training) and international development-focused goals (e.g., CIDA funded projects). The Provincial 24 government's role was generally to market the province as a desirable place, assist with coordinating efforts to execute initiatives or increase opportunities to partner, collaborate or undertake contracts abroad. This Strategy was not a prescription for specific initiatives in institutions, but it was positioned to serve as a model for institutional strategies, and it clearly set particular objectives that would enhance provincial reputation as well as economic and educational outcomes. Is BPC looking for such relevance? Its strategic plan (Big Prairie College, 2012) identifies our first strategic theme as being to “fuel [the Province’s] economic growth and community development” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 14). This theme is then linked to the aims of both the Provincial and Federal governments through “fostering … strategic partnerships and links with … all levels of government and labour to advance the goals of the College” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 15). The Plan also notes that the “challenge is to keep our services in sync to anticipate the needs of the economy” (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 15) and lists attracting international students as being a relevant strategic action. So in fact, BPC leaders are not just paying attention to government strategies, they are actively responding to them. I have briefly mapped out the institutional policy framework that guides how BPC defines and implements internationalization. The economic and political imperatives at both provincial and institutional levels speak to the necessity for stabilizing and sustaining the province and institution but are more defined and more prominent than the ‘human’ or social aspects of internationalization (e.g., building understanding). BPC’s policies seem to enable us to pursue worthwhile activities, but potentially constrain us from implementing initiatives that may be beneficial but not generate revenue or may, in fact, cost us money. BPC, from my examination of the literature, fits clearly into the market and liberal models but with, a perhaps 25 implicit desire to stimulate social transformation. This latter goal raises questions about their understandings of and priorities for, internationalization. For example, what do our educational leaders believe transformation to be and who or what becomes transformed? Which activities dominate or are prioritized? Organization of this Dissertation This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter One describes the drivers for my inquiry, as well as the background, significance, and focus of my study. Chapter Two then explores competing notions of internationalization in the literature; related leadership concerns; internationalization as embedded in institutional policy and strategic documents. Chapter Three describes my research method for eliciting the understandings of and perspectives on internationalization (the data) from educational leaders in my institution. Chapter Four presents my findings related to participants' understandings of internationalization and the underpinning values and beliefs as well as their envisioned outcomes and implications for practice. Chapter Five then frames those research findings and key themes in relation to the literature and the current institutional context. The evolution of leaders’ understandings is organized along the continuum of past, present and an imagined future that includes the potential linkage of internationalization and social innovation. Finally, Chapter Six summarizes the study, provides some recommendations based on my findings and analysis and offers concluding thoughts on the study’s limitations and subsequent directions for further research.   26 Chapter Summary Without a doubt, internationalization is of increasing importance in higher education. Institutional leaders identify international activity as a top priority requiring resources for reasons internal (e.g., revenue generation, intercultural awareness) and external (e.g., building the local economy, providing opportunity). There are also multiple pressures impacting leaders and their priorities; namely, external politics, internal policies and directives, finances and institutional sustainability, educational aims and obligations to local workforce development. Where and how internationalization fits may not be apparent. Since internationalization is also variously understood, without a clear understanding of how leaders conceptualize it, there may be institutional resistance or confusion about its aims and purposes resulting in missed opportunities, misaligned initiatives, and frustration by all involved. Leaders’ understandings of internationalization are informed by personal and professional experiences and the general nomenclatures and definitions from the literature. The next chapter situates internationalization within the broader theoretical context of the literature that shapes and explains perspectives on and practices of internationalization.   27 Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter presents a literature review that reveals perspectives from scholarly writing that sets the broader theoretical context of globalization, internationalization and their connection to education, which I then link to institutional conceptualizations. From these bodies of work are drawn general understandings of internationalization and definitions from particular institutions. Multiple viewpoints can be seen in the literature; namely, education as a public and a private good; education as a positional good (i.e., having primarily instrumental value); internationalization as an additive and adaptive process and of course, internationalization for financial and social benefit. Since my focus is on leadership, I also look at literature that delves into the primary concerns facing educational leaders that potentially impact their understanding and implementation of internationalization.  Internationalization of higher education takes place within the context of globalization, and BPC acknowledges its existence in, and the concomitant influence of, a globalized world on its endeavours (Big Prairie College, 2006). BPC, therefore, sees the need to educate students with the “skills necessary to function in [a global community] [and] actively participate with business, government, and the voluntary sector in initiatives that promote global understanding” (Big Prairie College, 2006). As such, it makes sense to pay attention to how such a world, in which globalization is one powerful phenomenon, influences critical activities such as internationalization. Therefore, the first section (Globalization) provides definitions and characterizations of globalization and links that concept to the commodification of higher education and internationalization. The transactional nature of contemporary education is eminently manifest in certain conceptions of internationalization, as will be discussed later in this chapter.   28 Globalization Definitions of globalization tend to characterize it as a flow of ideas, values, material and financial products and people in a free but increasingly privately regulated (Arthurs, 2005; Cragg, 2005) market. Such a market is unconstrained by national borders propelled by the rapidity and expanse of information transfer allowed by modern communication technologies (Bakhtiari & Shajar, 2011; Knight, 2004; Maringe & Foskett, 2010). Arthurs (2005) and Cragg (2005) both note that although globalized markets are said to be privately regulated by corporations, in reality, the state, representing the public interest, still intervenes to regulate or moderate what private interests can do. Globalization is also described as an overarching driver of international business, communication, and education (Bond & Lemasson, 1999; Stromquist, 2007). Benefits accrue in the form of shared knowledge and technology, supports for community development and intercultural understanding (Bakhtiari & Shajar, 2011, pp. 96-97). Paradoxically, these same flows create potential detriments for “developing and underdeveloped countries” (Bakhtiari & Shajar, 2011, p. 97). Detriments may exhibit as increased inequalities, new forms of cultural domination and colonization by “advanced countries”, and increased “conflicts between areas and cultures” (Bakhtiari & Shajar, 2011, p. 97).  Globalization directly impacts understandings of, and is often discussed in conjunction with, internationalization. In other words, it is a worldwide economic phenomenon that sets the stage for internationalization through the shaping of governmental, societal and educational conceptions of the world and subsequent actions; it is about the “world order” (Paige, 2005, p. 101). It is a social and relational phenomenon (Maringe & Foskett, 2010). Altbach and Knight (2007b), focus on higher education institutions’ responses to globalization in the form of academic, research and student recruitment programs designed to generate revenues. They 29 carefully point out that globalization is a concert of “the economic, political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement” (p. 290). In other words, the consequences of globalization, such as the rapid rise of knowledge societies and economies, have created a demand for highly educated people to drive economic growth. Underlying globalization is the notion of neo-liberalism—“a loosely demarcated set of political beliefs which most prominently and prototypically include the conviction that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard individual liberty, understood as a sort of mercantile liberty for individuals and corporations” (Thorsen, 2010, p. 15). This set of beliefs seeks to turn over all exchanges of goods and services to private, rather than public, organizations. It views education (for example) as a service to be bought, sold and traded based on supply and demand; in other words, it commodifies education. While this may be the case, Tarc (2012), mapping out the broad themes in globalization literature, cautions that we ought not to reduce “the term to another reified or statically-conceived category that interferes in the difficult work of careful observation and nuanced thinking on the objects of our inquiry” (p. 7). In other words, we should be attentive to the various dimensions and complexities of globalization rather than presenting it as just a negative or just a positive influence on education. Tarc (2012) also notes that scholars emphasize different dimensions of globalization and “find different uses in/for (theorizing) globalization” (p. 6) that are most relevant to their disciplinary discussions. I am therefore using descriptions of globalization that highlight its impact on the internationalization of higher education. Globalization’s impact on education. Globalization encompasses both material processes (e.g., the increasing trans-border flow of goods, services, finances, communication) and ideologies (e.g., neoliberalism) that result in a variety of economic, social and political 30 outcomes (Tarc, 2012). For example, while its accompanying neo-liberal philosophy has resulted in pressure to reduce public spending on education, it has also exerted pressure to expand higher education to meet the needs of the knowledge economy (Tarc, 2012). Globalization promotes the idea of education as a commodity to be bought, sold and traded in a 'free' market. Tarc (2012) notes that “these impacts can be related back to the increasing ties between education and economic principles” (p. 9). Thus globalization provides the impetus for certain kinds of internationalization efforts most recognizable in the form of recruiting international students at higher tuition rates. It also foregrounds the need to educate students to work and live in a world where intercultural competencies have particular, instrumental value.  Commodification of education. Globalization brings with it the neo-liberal notion that education is a commodity to be bought and sold for profit or financial surplus generated by educational institutions that function more and more like private entities in a global market. Knowledge, due to computerization in modern society, has become “exteriorised from knowers” (Roberts, 1998, p. 4). As such, education, instead of being a process of enlightenment, becomes a ‘thing’, a product, to be bought and sold at a price the ‘free’ market can bear by institutions of (higher) learning. These institutions are usually not concerned with production for the sake of profit, but within a market model, their function and operation are directed towards such goals (Bartlett, Frederick, Gulbrandsen, & Murillo, 2002). One stimulus for such entrepreneurial activity is the almost across-the-board decrease (or at least no increase) in Provincial government funding to public institutions resulting in the need for revenue generation. One advantage accruing, but perhaps not intentionally, is that Federal and Provincial governments, through higher education institutions’ international reach, reputation and ‘valued product’, can perhaps more efficiently meet their aims of increasing immigration, building trade partnerships and 31 realizing local economic prosperity. Springer (2012), drawing our attention to one understanding of neo-liberalism as policy and program (p. 136), cites greater efficiency through market mediation as one rationale for advancing this view. As a commodity, education is regarded to be a primarily private and positional good rather than a public good. Higher education institutions are considered “knowledge factories” rather than “centres of learning” where return on investment (ROI) is calculated in terms of dollars instead of social returns (e.g., student learning) (Tilak, 2009, p. 459). Additionally, education is seen to serve workforce development, industry needs and economic purposes (Kirby, 2008; Tilak, 2009). In other words, knowledge is not seen to be actively co-constructed or negotiated between specific people at specific times. This divorce allows knowledge/information to be commodified and bought and sold like any other product and powers the notion of education as a private and a positional (intrinsically or instrumentally valuable and dependent on relative ranking) good. A private good is exclusive and “rivalrous” (Kaipeng & Juan, 2012, p. 582) meaning that only some people can afford it and that there are limited opportunities to consume or access it—my consumption may exclude yours. The costs for private goods are set at what the market will bear, and essentially follows a 'user pay' model. However, higher education in Canada is not a pure private good, even though institutional capacity can dictate access, institutional policies can prevent displacement of domestic students by international students; such is the case at BPC. As a positional good, education is often framed as a scarce and valuable asset for career acquisition and advancement or personal prestige, rather than as being valuable for knowledge acquisition or learning in general (Halliday, 2016). Institutions internationally market the prestige and utility of their educational products on this basis. 32 The opposite view holds education as a public good. Gan and Liao (2012) describe a public good as ‘something’ with tremendous value to people, even to those who do not pay for or participate in it, but costs so much that an individual or small group of individuals would not profit from ‘owning’ it. Generally, this is the case with education. In Canada, public school (K-12) is considered a public good made available to everyone in society and paid for by provincial taxes. Typically, ‘consumption’ of this good by some does not diminish the opportunity for others to also consume or participate in education. Higher education in Canada is not a pure public good because those who do not pay cannot access it. However, society as a whole does benefit when people ‘get educated’. While not everyone can access higher educational offerings due to institutional capacity and individual finances, Tilak (2009) shifts our gaze away from the consumption of the good to the consumption of its outputs (e.g., knowledge). For instance, once disseminated, everyone can read/enjoy research results and cannot be excluded from 'using' them, and there is no additional cost for making results available to additional persons (Tilak, 2009). Of course, this too is problematic in that published knowledge coming out of higher education is not always freely available and is often restricted to those who can afford to pay publishers’ 'viewing' fees. Furthermore, while this knowledge is accessible to society through other public goods such as community and institutional libraries, barriers to this form of access also exist. Inequities of globalization. A subtle critique made by Altbach and Knight (2007b), is that globalization, and therefore internationalization, tends to favour the global North over the South in terms of knowledge ownership, power, finances, and control over education and related processes. However, the authors do note that mobility of students from south to north for educational purposes does benefit the ‘developing world’ even in the face of inequity. Tavenas 33 (2002) also advances the understanding that globalization is neither the “ultimate evil … nor the perfect and only path to prosperity” (p. 2), it is the reality in which our educational system functions and to which we must respond. “Globalization is a challenging evolution of the world that brings new opportunities but also new problems that must be researched, understood and managed, to create a global interdependence promoting a positive, equitable evolution of all countries and all citizens of the world” (Tavenas, 2002, p. 2). These latter issues—global (in)equity and problem-solving—draw attention to one possible purpose of internationalization, that is, to enlighten our students about the need to function, critically, in such a world, without creating additional advantage for the already privileged global North. Educational institutions play a pivotal societal role by equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to strive for equitable, transformational relationships. In a more pointed critique, Matthews and Sidhu (2005) in an Australian context, analyze globalization in relation to international education. They bring to the fore some of the power imbalances and implications for internationalization. Common definitions of globalization include depictions of 'the state' as having a minimal role in regulating the market. However, they point out that by embracing neo-liberal ideologies, the state has reduced public education funding and propelled institutions towards greater entrepreneurialism by 'selling' education to international students to generate revenue. Based on interviews with international students, they raise the issue of the dominance of English as the lingua franca of both education and national and individual “development and progress” (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005, p. 56). This development is especially concerning within the concept of a “globalising world which purports to offer a stunning profusion of possibilities” (p. 56) and in terms of education, “intercultural and crossnational approaches to curricula and pedagogy … interest in foreign languages, [diversified] 34 student demographies and … academic excellence” (p. 57). They point to the sinister side of international development inspired by colonialism: “early expressions of international education” in the form of education aid programmes, designed to create “an acculturated, governing elite in the colonies who were anticipated to support Western interests” (p. 56). Even today, a Western concept of how society should be governed and how people should behave or be accorded their status dominates. This then restricts the ability of international education to foster non-Western ways of thinking and doing.  Since international education is often presented as inevitable and as a “direct and desirable manifestation of globalization [they are not surprised that] educators use the terms ‘globalisation’ and ‘internationalization’ interchangeably” (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005, p. 56). This inevitability gives rise to the dominance of “commercial and technological expressions of global connectivity” (p. 57) which in turn reconceives educational institutions to be service providers responding to the need to produce “highly skilled knowledge workers” (p. 57). For them, the politically neutral language of trade (the market) mutes or devalues anything that cannot be explained by concepts of “consumer choice, autonomy and agency” (p. 57). For example, within market paradigms, these authors claim there is no critique of global flows of people, which are often framed as a smooth, benign and natural but which, in reality are “unmediated by structural problems such as poverty, war, failed states and an inequitable global trade” (p. 53). Within these flows are also seen inequities of opportunity, favouring the global elite; only those who can afford to be mobile are mobile on their own terms. When rising market demand is the main criterion for the success of international education, marketing and recruitment activities receive a disproportionate amount of resources and ROI is framed in terms of value for money. These become the markers of good educational practice and “efforts to fulfil 35 consumer demand may result in a conservative and narrow curriculum that devalues non-vocational, visionary and experimental activities” (p. 57). Ultimately, the global North/West maintains comparative national advantage because, globalisation of neo-liberal economics is partly responsible for the actions of governments in the ‘South/East’, which have curtailed investment in public education. Such push factors have reduced domestic capacity and propelled individuals and their families to seek an overseas education, often at significant personal cost. (p. 57)  Thus, we are generating the demand and supply of a specific kind of education with its own set of values related to language, form, and purposes. However, Matthews and Sidhu (2005) also acknowledge that students who desire a Western education are not necessarily being coerced by global forces. Some, just like domestic students, see this type of education as a pragmatic way to position themselves favourably in a global marketplace that is biased towards a Westernized education. Others may be seeking an education that is different from what is available in their home countries. Globalization as a driver of internationalization. Globalization is seen not just as a passive context—as a state of being—but as an active and fluid social, political and economic milieu in which knowledge, commodities, and people are increasingly connected, traded and exchanged. Beyond the control of institutions, this milieu actively drives internationalization of higher education and “is positioned as part of the environment in which the international dimension of higher education is becoming more important and significantly changing” (Knight, 2004, p. 8). My interpretation is, that within a global ‘free’ market in which commodities can be traded, education and knowledge (if regarded as commodities produced by post-secondary institutions) can be traded for a price. This has a direct effect on internationalization. 36 Maringe and Foskett (2010) define universities (and I would include colleges of applied learning such as BPC) as knowledge-production entities with multiple societal responsibilities (e.g., social, political and economic) and position internationalization (integrating an intercultural dimension into higher education functions) as a valid response to globalization. In this sense, internationalization is—and should be—a transformational activity that promotes equitable ways of being in this world by helping us first to understand and then interact with others in ways that we would like to be treated. Educational institutions, in reaction to the transactional orientation of globalization, legitimately carry it out. Of course, these institutions are simultaneously actors in the global education market, carrying out transactional activities related to ‘selling’ access to the knowledge they produce. Education, therefore, is dually construed; firstly as a quasi-public good for domestic students who pay subsidized rates; and secondly, as a private good for international students, who pay what is deemed to be the full cost of their education. We can see a partial example of this, where, in the province in which BPC is located, during 2002, international education tuitions, at one time frozen along with domestic tuitions, became deregulated (LG, personal communication, March 2014). The freeze was lifted only for international tuitions to allow institutions to increase revenues through entrepreneurial activity. Thus, institutions were now able to act in a manner similar to businesses, and charge international ‘clients’ whatever the competitive market would bear while domestic tuitions remained frozen. This move incorporated the tuition component of privatizing international education. International students were then responsible for the ‘full cost’ of their education plus whatever profit margin was deemed necessary by institutions. Roberts (1998) notes: The philosophy of 'user pays', routinely cited as a justification for charges in a whole range of public service areas, has become the order of the day in education [which] has 37 become a commodity… to be produced, packaged, sold, traded, outsourced, franchised, and consumed. (p. 5) Ziguras, Reinke and McBurnie (2003) echo this observation, asserting that “education is publicly referred to as an ‘industry’ as often as a ‘sector’, and institutions behave in an aggressively market-oriented manner unthinkable two decades ago” (p. 359). Within the Australian context, they note the growing demands of government for institutions to increase external funding “particularly by enrolling international full fee-paying students and commercialising research, and have obliged universities to do so by reducing levels of public funding” (Ziguras et al., 2003, p. 360). This conversion of education to an export service and to a selling feature to draw international students was successful to the tune of billions of dollars. In Canada too, “as an export, international education services have a significant impact on our economy … in 2010, international student expenditure on tuition, accommodation, and living expenses contributed more than $8.0 billion to the Canadian economy and more than $445 million in government revenues” (Chakma et al., 2012, p. 10). In the province where my study was carried out, during the same period, the contribution was $153.78M (Chakma et al., 2012, p. 11). While domestic tuitions have either been frozen or allowed to increase only at a modest rate, international tuitions have risen more dramatically. Roberts (1998) also draws our attention to the rhetoric surrounding education and curriculum in New Zealand (and it applies to international education as well) that is devoid of any talk of knowledge but replete with discussion of information and skills. BPC’s marketing mirrors this trend. Note some of the cut lines on BPC’s IE website:  • “Applied learning at Big Prairie College is one of the most affordable and efficient ways for international students to gain the job skills and experience needed to be 38 considered for immigration to Canada” (Big Prairie College, 2014c). • “As a student at BPC, you get to work with the most modern technology, helping you stay current with industry standards … Most of our programs are just one or two years long, allowing you to get a quick start on your career” (Big Prairie College, 2014d). These marketing info-bits illustrate the similarities to the New Zealand, and likely wider, context. BPC’s International Education enterprise is very focused on the practicalities of its activities and presents education in a very transactional fashion. For instance, students come to BPC to get an education that will yield some ROI such as a foot in the door to immigration, a better career in their home countries and so on. While attentiveness to the transactional realities of international education is necessary for realizing a financial return on investment, it also demonstrates that the notions of globalization and the commodification of education do influence how post-secondary leaders understand and direct internationalization in their institutions. Linking Internationalization If globalization sets the context in which educational institutions carry out their functions and obligations to society, internationalization, as one of those functions, is influenced by and takes various forms because of it. In this section, I focus on various definitions, models, forms and ideologies of internationalization. Internationalization in a globalized world. Internationalization while not synonymous with globalization is connected to it. Currently, globalization is the overarching framework in which a particular type of internationalization has emerged in higher education as a strategy to maintain a market share globally. Although having a variety of meanings to various people (Knight, 2004), internationalization can be broadly understood as a purposive response to 39 globalization by institutions that “includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and even individuals—to cope with the global academic environment” (Altbach & Knight, 2007b, p. 290). For instance, how do institutions adapt or create courses and curriculum that counter homogenous views of culture, business and education that tend to be perpetuated by globalization? Furthermore, addressing the multiple dimensions of higher education, it is “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery [emphasis mine] of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003, p. 2). This globalized environment promotes international research partnerships, student mobility across borders and the vestment of international perspectives into curricula. Braskamp (2009), offers a definition of internationalization complementary to the earlier one:  At its most general level it means the act of having a worldview that stresses global interdependence, stretching beyond any national, regional, ethnic, and racial boundaries. Within the context of higher education, it includes perceptions of culture, policies, practices, and programs at colleges and universities that promote and foster a global perspective for all members of the higher education community — students, staff, and faculty. (p. 3) This broad definition is not tied to a particular career- or business-related outcome. Here, knowledge is intrinsically valuable and can help to make us better citizens in the world. In fact, the outcome Braskamp (2009) stresses is having a “‘global perspective’ … which reflects both a global and a holistic human development perspective and encompasses two theoretical perspectives: student development and intercultural communication” (p. 4). He further characterizes internationalization as an anti-isolationist activity whereby educational institutions purposefully and directly link to other institutions outside their own country. The purpose here is 40 to acknowledge that, in his case, American educational ways were not superior to other educational ways and that Americans ought to learn from ‘others’. This, in my words, would be a reflexive and outward-looking education that instigates and sustains ‘outreach’ into other educational domains and opens itself for others to ‘reach in’ and influence to some extent its ways of knowing, being and doing. The definition from deWit et al. (Mihut et al., 2017), noted in Chapter One, positions internationalization across all facets of higher education; grounds internationalization activities in the notion of enhanced educational quality and contribution to society for students and faculty and alludes to the concept of comprehensive internationalization (discussed later). Maringe and Foskett (2010) remind us that while internationalization is a response to globalization, reciprocity exists between the two concepts: The intensification of student mobility that may result from an institutional strategy to increase overseas student recruitment contributes to the further intensification of globalization. Similarly, intensifying curriculum internationalization processes will result in making the university educational product more attractive and therefore help to increase student mobility in recruitment markets. (p. 2) So, in one sense, globalization has provided the impetus for the export of Canadian education into other countries and cultural contexts, while internationalization is, to some extent, the awareness and embedding of other cultural perspectives into Canadian educational environments and the ‘outreach’ of institutions into the world. Zeleza (2012), noting the symbiotic relationship between the two phenomena states, “if globalization provides the overall context in which the internationalization of higher education is taking place, it is propelled by the massification of demand for higher education and the commercialization of universities” (pp. 3-41 4). Universities and colleges are thus complicit in the perpetuation of globalization even as they are formulating responses to it via internationalization. This means that, to some extent, institutions have to be active in the global market (i.e., recruiting, researching, partnering) in order to realize the transformational/social impact or influence of their interpretation of intercultural learning. This also implies that Western perspectives on intercultural education are purveyed throughout the world, an extensive discussion of which is out of scope for this study.  Models of internationalization. Examining underlying principles is important for analyzing institutional phenomena since they underpin the very purpose of the institution and therefore impact what it does and why. Canadian colleges in general and BPC in particular are commissioned to align very closely with regional and provincial labour force needs and their activities will reflect that purpose and ideology. Stier (2004, 2010), suggests looking at ideologies as the foundation for internationalization rationales as they are more complex and are comprised of the, Principles, underpinnings, goals and strategies which structure and permeate the actions and beliefs of educators, groups, organisations or societies. Ideologies may be, partly or completely, conscious (e.g., as manifested in educational doctrines) or may take the shape of personal assumptions about internationalisation. (Stier, 2010) These ideologies correspond with the characteristics of various models of internationalization, such as in Hanson’s (2010) framework, which connects common worldviews associated with globalization to motivations for internationalization. Hanson (2010) presents the market model, liberal model and social transformation model of internationalization as an organizing tool. She identifies internationalization as one major component of globalization and summarizes it, in the context of higher education, as both the process of securing “global 42 market advantage” (p. 3) and the process of educating students to work in a globalized world. Within her three models can be found various understandings of internationalization and globalization. I will attempt to situate my selected literature and research project within these paradigms based on what I see as their primary elements. However, themes do cross categories, indicating simultaneous and multiple understandings of internationalization. Market model/instrumentalism. In the market model, with its underlying neoliberal philosophy that the private sector (companies, individuals and corporatized educational institutions operating in a competitive, unhindered global market), not government, creates economic growth  (Bockman, 2013; Harris, 2008; Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). According to Hanson (2010), “internationalization is centrally about increasing the global advantage of academic institutions through strengthened competitive position” (p. 3). In other words, it is viewed from an instrumental point of view (cf. Stier, 2010) —as a means to a financial end. Instrumentalism frames internationalization in terms of monetary or economic gain and establishes higher education as a means to spur entrepreneurialism and innovation, sustain economic growth and replicate desirable governmental aims and ideologies. The focus of instrumentalism is on measuring and quantifying internationalization goals, prioritizing recruitment targets geographically, enhancing global reputation and, in terms of educational outcomes, emphasizing immediately marketable skills. It is within this model that international education (IE) fits the best because although there may be other rationales and outcomes for it, the most visible aspects are instrumental. However, this oft-used term has a variety of overlapping meanings that range from providing an education to international students to social and individual betterment (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004; James, 2005). Both terms—internationalization and IE—are reflected in BPC policies, but 43 I propose that internationalization generally has broader implications (e.g., curricular transformation) and IE is one of its manifestations. For instance, internationalization policies or sentiments may result in the practice of bringing students to a campus or sending instructors to teach abroad, which I label as international education. I differentiate internationalization as being a more holistic endeavour evidenced in curricula, for example, and not solely tied to generating revenue. Therefore, this is my preferred term. Hanson (2010) contends that there is no evidence to suggest that the Market Model is the predominant model in North America although Deane (2011) argues that this has been a significant motive in higher education due to financial pressures. Altbach and Knight (2007b) and the Province’s International Education Strategy (2009) both confirm the significant financial contribution international students make to the U.S. and Canadian economies. For instance, in Canada, they contribute $5 billion annually (Government of _______, 2009, p. 3). The instrumentality can be seen in that latter document which, while advocating that recruitment and presence are not enough, explicitly states that, The economic gains from international students who study in [the Province] and then return home are huge. In future years, when foreign alumni are looking to expand business ties, the logical first place of choice will be _________. In 2006/07 there were over 6,300 international students in _________ with an estimated economic impact of almost $75 million. Simply recruiting international students is not sufficient to realize the benefits they can bring to our province. These benefits follow only if we ensure that international students have a high-quality learning experience in a welcoming and supportive environment, and that they have opportunities for sharing their perspectives and experiences with [citizens]. (Government of _______, 2009, p. 6) 44 A market orientation can also be observed in federal government documents that outline motivations and strategies regarding internationalization. Knight (2004) points out “the national/sector level has an important influence on the international dimension of higher education through policy, funding, programs, and regulatory frameworks” (pp. 6-7). National initiatives and strategies, therefore, impact how BPC attends to international education and internationalization. For example, it would be difficult to ignore the federal government’s goal to double the number of international students in Canada by 2022 especially with its strong belief that, international education is a key driver of jobs and prosperity in every region of Canada … As a key component of Canada’s new Global Markets Action Plan, this strategy will also help us advance Canada’s commercial interests in priority markets around the world and ensure that we maximize the people-to-people ties that help Canadian workers, businesses and world-class educational institutions achieve real success in the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing economies in the world. (Government of Canada, 2014c) Although education is a provincial matter, the Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy has positioned international education as a key economic driver both in terms of developing Canada’s labour force and in terms of “economic contributions from the direct export of Canadian education services abroad. Canadian schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities generate millions of dollars in tuition revenue from programs of study offered abroad” (Chakma et al., 2012, p. x). Education is positioned as an export commodity comparable to “unwrought aluminum … helicopters, airplanes and spacecraft” (Chakma et al., 2012, p. x). It thus falls within the purview of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (now Global 45 Affairs Canada) which is mandated to “… encourage the country's international trade and to lead Canada’s international development and humanitarian assistance” (Government of Canada, 2014b). Harris (2008), critical of market or neo-liberal models, draws out the larger perspectives of how various people in institutions and governments ‘see’ the world. That worldview, whether acceptable or not, is strongly represented in the documents I examined. For instance, the Government of Canada’s report, International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity (Chakma et al., 2012), positions international education as the catalyst for allowing Canadians to develop a “global perspective” (p. viii) and develop global networks and relationships all with a view to developing business and trade corridors or bridges. Canadian Government decision-makers (or those who determine the policies) value international “others” for what they can do for our prosperity rather than valuing what we can do for their countries’ prosperity. Thus, if government strategies advocate this ‘market model’ (Hanson, 2010), it makes sense that colleges and universities, looking for relevance at national and international levels, also adopt some or all of these values.  Liberal model/idealism. Altbach and Knight (2007b) are quick to point out that although institutions in Canada and elsewhere generally charge international students higher tuitions, based on the results of a 2006 survey by Knight, this is not a primary motivation; rather, research linkages and intercultural understanding are of more importance. This latter aspect can be seen in what they label as “traditional internationalization” (Altbach & Knight, 2007b, p. 293) wherein mobility programs, cross-cultural education and language education are put in place. Usher (2016) also points to data that confirms the significant contribution made by international student tuitions, but that also demonstrates that in many provinces, the “full cost” of education is in fact not being borne by international students.  46 Stier’s (2010), ‘idealism’ fits with the ‘liberal model’ (Hanson, 2010) which “suggests that internationalization is essentially about global cooperation and international and intercultural understanding” (Hanson, 2010, p. 3)  rather than about gaining market advantage, as in a market or neo-liberal model. It is about creating good citizens within the existing worldview. Idealism assumes that internationalization of curriculum and research is naturally desirable, that universities are in place to create good citizens, foster emancipatory thinking, and promote fairness, equity and justice: Idealism-inspired education debates global life conditions, injustices and sustainable development and aims to inoculate respect, tolerance, democratic values and an emanicipatory [sic] attitude among students so that they eventually demand a resource redistribution and a sufficient living standard for all people of the world. (Stier, 2010, p. 343) We can see this reflected in one recurring concept in the literature; namely, comprehensive internationalization. Its definition as “a commitment, confirmed through action, to integrate international, global, and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education … to advance the core learning, discovery, and engagement objectives of higher education in a twenty-first century context” (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012, p. 2) has been echoed by many authors and organizations (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2014; de Wit, 1999; Pandit, 2009; Stromquist, 2007) and mirrors Knight’s (2003) updated definition stated earlier. Essentially, in this perspective, the goal is for internationalization to impact every core dimension of an institution, including but not limited to, curriculum, partnerships, study-abroad opportunities and research). However, not every institution will find it feasible to implement it fully (Association of Universities and 47 Colleges of Canada, 2014). Put another way, “institutions are idiosyncratic in their priorities for action and will engage comprehensive internationalization in their own ways” (Hudzik, 2014, p. 9). While institutions such as BPC may not explicitly use the term ‘comprehensive internationalization’, its spirit is evident in the breadth of their statements of goals, strategies, and outcomes. Stromquist (2007) describing internationalization as a subtle manifestation of globalization that affects all facets of universities (and I would include colleges), brings our attention to her preferred concept—internationalism (Stromquist, 2007). This perhaps captures some of the values of the liberal model while providing a critique of the market model. From Jones (as cited in Stromquist, 2007, p. 82) she notes the stronger focus of this concept on “common sense notions of international community, international cooperation, international community of interests, and international dimensions of the common good,’’ … including promotion of global peace and well-being” (Jones, 2000, p. 31 as cited in Stromquist, 2007, p. 82). Of course, this begs the questions of exactly what is meant by ‘common’ and how common those notions are. Nevertheless, from Husén she highlights the focus on global citizenship. Internationalization, she proposes “refers to greater international presence by the dominant economic and political powers, usually guided by principles of marketing and competition” (Stromquist, 2007, p. 82). The latter, according to her, is the most dominant and directly results from globalization (the aforementioned principles of marketing and competition). This leads to a form of entrepreneurialism characterized by the search for new markets from which to recruit students, making programs more attractive in those markets and greater collaboration with and quicker responses to industry. Her study at a non-profit private US university (PU) highlighted a commonality between their and BPC’s definition and practice of internationalization; namely, 48 developing a global presence à la instilling global perspectives and trying to achieve a global reputation (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 19). Thus for Stromquist (2007), internationalization is a direct reflection of globalization, and its activities do not capture the social ‘good’ of internationalism. While that may be a useful distinction for her, I propose that there is enough room within existing definitions of internationalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007b) to include the values of internationalism. What is interesting to me is her characterization of internationalization as primarily an economic pursuit; this is reflected in other documents and articles discussed in this chapter. Similarly, Qiang (2003) agrees that internationalization of higher education is a country’s response to globalization. However, in the pursuit of a more comprehensive definition, he amplifies the earlier definition by arguing that “in many countries and settings” (p. 249) internationalization is not an end in itself but rather the means to developing higher education systems that meet international standards and are responsive to their global environment. Lemasson (1999) echoes this sentiment, adding that Canadian universities have “made a direct contribution to shaping today's world by pursuing their mission of preparing new generations for a world undergoing rapid change” (Bond & Lemasson, 1999, p. 4). This instrumental viewpoint seems to be mirrored in documents from BPC and the Federal and Provincial Governments and is one in which both the economic and social rationales of internationalization can exist. On this latter point, I would add that social benefits such as building understanding of and with people from different cultures or countries are also an ‘end’ that can be reasonably met via internationalization.  Social transformation model / educationalism. Related to the liberal model and an educationalist ideology (Stier, 2010) and in stark contrast to the market model exists a ‘social transformation model’ that shares with these other models the cross-cultural understanding 49 theme. While adding the element of “critical social analysis … [it] rejects the idea of market supremacy [and instead] calls for recognition … that globalization leads to increased marginalization of significant groups of people around the world” (Hanson, 2010, pp. 3-4). Internationalization, in its ideal form, needs to be about the pursuit of  “those research and educational activities that increase knowledge and awareness of inequalities both within and between nations … activities should be guided by principles of mutuality and reciprocity and be established through networks or partnerships” (p. 4). Reciprocity, in this case, implies the sharing of knowledge between institutions and learning from each other’s experiences and research leading to the development of “capable, globally responsive, and caring citizens through programs and curricula” (Hanson, 2010, p. 5).  Educationalism emphasizes learning for the sake of learning, lifelong and constructivist learning (learning from and with others) and focuses content to reflect global conditions. Out of this ideology comes the belief that the important outcomes of internationalization include intercultural competence and sensitivity, tolerance and respect for others. Internationalization at home (i.e., learning intercultural competencies without going abroad) enriches classroom dialogue and self-reflection. This is a close fit with what I call social goals of internationalization. I use this term as a ‘catch-all’ phrase for the non-financial outcomes of internationalization; namely, building intercultural competencies in students, staff, and faculty, enabling students to understand and be competitive in the global economy and so forth. These are evident in BPC’s stated goals and in general, are often framed as global citizenship skills whereby students are trained or educated to participate fully and contribute meaningfully to society (Boothroyd, 2005; Hanson, 2010). We are not unique in this regard. Joseph (2012), writing from the Australian context notes, “[the] 50 dominant discourses of internationalization of higher education and internationalization of the curriculum are focused on the ‘global university’ [or college] and developing the ability and skills of staff and students to work efficiently across different national and cultural systems” (p. 252). The Global Health and Local Communities course at the University of Saskatchewan is offered as an example of a transformational educational experience (Hanson, 2010). It aims to provide advanced students with an opportunity to develop a critical understanding of health concerns of disadvantaged people locally and globally and experience praxis and community involvement (Hanson, 2010, p. 8). Course requirements include community volunteerism, in-class interdisciplinary discussions, activities that promote students’ “self- and critical reflection on alternative paradigms and epistemologies … intended to disturb the boundaries of learned disciplinary, professional, class, and gendered ways of seeing” (p. 8). There is also a 6-week field study in Nicaragua during which students learn Spanish, live with a local host family and become oriented to the health, political and cultural issues in rural communities. Some students even continue their volunteer efforts for a short period afterwards (Hanson, 2010, pp. 8-9). The reported outcomes were generally positive in terms of ‘citizenship’ (community volunteerism) and personal transformation (i.e., incipient feelings of self-awareness, desire to question and dig deeper into issues) (Hanson, 2010, pp. 10-11). In my view, this course, while focused on taking Canadian students into a zone of new awareness domestically through class components and study abroad activities, could also be extended by the inclusion of purposefully including ‘international’ students to lend their perspectives and questions to critical in-class activities and discussions. Hanson’s (2010) characterization of market models and the rationale for a transformative 51 model, corresponds with the critique put forward by Harris (2008), who makes definite, unabashed charges in this regard. She connects internationalization to the concepts of the ‘neo-liberal’ (market model) university in which economic imperatives and instrumental reasoning overshadow or replace “knowledge … in its fullness” (Harris, 2008, p. 347). Characteristics of neo-liberalism—“strict adherence to the economic imperative … competitiveness, excellence and performance” (Harris, 2008, p. 347)—define the contemporary university (and in my case, the contemporary college). From this, we see branding and marketing campaigns similar to those of multinational corporations; business partnerships designed to generate income and the view of international students as an income stream. Thus, internationalization “is strongly associated with an economic rather than a cultural imperative [and yet] little inter-cultural exchange” (Harris, 2008, p. 348). Internationalization itself, as a strategy, has become the marker of excellence without much academic substance behind it. She claims that “a multi-directional approach [presumably curricular in nature] to pursue other paths that may excite or challenge students and teachers is [seen to be] not legitimate” (Harris, 2008, p. 349). This, she claims is a restrictive view of education that reduces it to a ‘thing’ that can be “measured, standardised and quantified” (Harris, 2008, p. 349); in other words, a commodity. This, in her view, equates internationalization with globalization and prompts her to question if– “internationalisation [has] any value other than its economic value; is it connected to good education” (Harris, 2008, p. 353)? Ultimately, she does believe there is transformative value to participants, stating “internationalisation must mean something. It would be a cultural rather than economic internationalisation because such an internationalisation degenerates into instrumentalism, and this robs higher education of what should be essential to it [and] would offer possibilities of a better global politics and economy” (Harris, 2008, p. 356). Deane (2011) comes close to Harris’ 52 observations in his critique of internationalization that is “merely the recruiting of foreign students to pay fees to a western institution [McMaster] so that they can become westernized” (Deane, 2011, p. 11), which is akin to colonialism. He stresses, though not as vigorously as Hanson (2010), the urgent need for a deeper form that includes “above all … the adoption of an internationalized perspective in curriculum and program design” (p. 11).  Stier (2010) saw the three ideologies represented in documents from 16 different universities across the world, including Canada. While there were differences between each institution’s overarching rationales for internationalization, there were points of agreement, notably in their mission to help students achieve various competencies and skills. However, while it is not clear if multiple ideologies were evident in the same institution, I would predict, given the trend in higher education towards funding freezes or reductions, increased public scrutiny, and calls for increased relevance to market needs, that instrumentalism might be the most visible ideology in internationalization endeavours. Elements of the market and liberal models are illustrated in the ACDE Accord (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 2), which bears closer examination as it too represents views agreeable to multiple institutions.  ACDE accord. The Accord (2014) notes, the “economic imperatives of globalization [that] have intensified the drive towards profit-seeking, standardizing, and potentially exploitative internationalization activities” (p. 2). BPC exists within the same context as the member institutions and is subject to similar economic pressures. In fact, the very need for an accord is framed in terms of benefits and risks emanating from universal pressures. At one end of the continuum, exist the benefits, primarily social goals; for example, enhanced educational experiences for students, increased intercultural understanding, and transformed curricula. There 53 also exists what it terms ‘system change’ characterized by an increased critical understanding of local and global connections, leading to perspective change on educational, social and economic practices (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 3). At the other end are the risks—the potentially harmful effects of internationalization; namely, exploitative practices resulting from a single focus on profit maximization. This is of particular concern since “funding for post-secondary education is increasingly under siege [and the solution is often the application of higher international fees] … concerns arise when financial goals supersede the educational, research, and community building goals of the program or institution” (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 3). Readers are warned that such a single-minded focus can create issues of privilege as only those with the means to access what we have to offer can engage. My observation is that this also limits how deeply our students can build an understanding of other cultures since they would not have the opportunity to interact with a larger pool of ‘cultural representatives’ (i.e., those who could not afford access). Now, these models and ideologies are not ranked in terms of ‘acceptability’—i.e., “market model = bad, social transformation = good”. Rather, they can be viewed as simply different ways of understanding which lead to different strategies, intended outcomes and, of course, consequences. They are also part of the discourse that influences leaders’ thinking and subsequent action. They are also not mutually exclusive in the sense that all international activities require some amount of funding and “that these ideologies to some extent overlap and [individually] … [do] not account for the vast array of aspects that the concept of internationalization embodies” (Stier, 2004, p. 93). This speaks to the complexity of practice in which multiple ideologies may be influencing action. These are multiple, co-existing ideologies of internationalization and 54 globalization highlight that promote, on the one hand, the value of social benefits, while on the other, acknowledge the impact of economic gain as a driver for international activities (e.g., international partnerships, student recruitment and so forth). In theory, for the purpose of analysis, they may be presented as oppositional—achieving one works against achieving the other. However, in practice, it may just be that economic gain is a powerfully overriding motivation borne out of need. For certain these concepts are inextricably connected; the question becomes that of how they are connected. Mapping ideologies. Pashby and Andreotti (2016), from a decolonial perspective, map various orientations of internationalization in higher education (universities) to international development and sustainability education (ESD). They position all three phenomena within a modern/colonial global imaginary. This imaginary is the meta-framework that shapes our understandings of the world by foregrounding its own value and outcomes while simultaneously, hiding the ugliness/violence/inequalities (Andreotti, 2014) generated in achieving those outcomes. What is interesting about their work in relation to my research is their observation of the complexity of the context of internationalization and furthermore, the complexity within which we have to work when addressing issues of internationalization. While there are three common discourses in the modern/colonial imaginary (neoliberal, liberal and critical), neoliberalism is commonly cited as dominant. The authors believe this is too simplistic an understanding. Instead, they propose a cartography composed of these three plus several “interfaces” composed of combinations of discourses—neoliberal-liberal, liberal-critical, neoliberal-critical and a fourth made up of all three discourses. These interfaces serve to give us a way to understand the similarities and differences with which higher education and attendant phenomena, such as internationalization, are conceptualized and critiqued.  55 Internationalization, according to the authors, is a pressing and pervasive phenomenon in higher education but is broadly and vaguely conceptualized. It tends not to deal with the bigger social issues (e.g., ethnocentrism) and reinforces a “deficit” view of diversity—that the global 'other' needs the advantages that a western/English education offers and that such an education will help them out of their struggles for better lives. Essentially a “they are broken, we can fix it” perspective. Furthermore, power imbalances are perpetuated by the very mobility initiatives that are intended to be helpful. Internationalization practices serve to reproduce the values of neoliberalism while suppressing critique. My example would be that certain social 'goods' of internationalization, such as, building understanding of and with others, becomes part of an institutions branding that furthers its financial goals. Ultimately, the authors claim, the dominant neoliberal economic rationale is so powerful that it prevents any other discourse - any critical observations about underlying assumptions or about who is truly benefitting from internationalization efforts. Attempts at critique may not be as transformative as one would think as all three orientations/discourses (neoliberal, liberal, critical), “propose (different) solutions that rely on the same grammar and desires of modernity” (Pashby & Andreotti, 2016, p. 782). In other words, they rely on the tenets of neoliberalism (e.g., the state as benevolent and equitable rather than self-interested and inequitable) and reproduce the status quo. Trying to change this all at once would be counter-productive (p. 783) since arguments and results would not even be understood by those we are talking to “particularly [by] the funders enabling the work” (p. 783). This sounds to be a rather gloomy outlook—how can change be effected, and to what extent, especially in a climate where institutions need to be entrepreneurial in order to achieve some measure of financial sustainability or stability? Globalization has created the conditions for education to be commodified and exported. 56 Depending on what factors influence institutions, internationalization becomes a response that most directly complements this phenomenon (as seen in market and liberal models) or that facilitates critique of the world and its forces (transformation model). However, leaders (and doctoral researchers) must be mindful that it might be impossible to fit into only one model. The literature has drawn our attention to the multiple pressures of financial restriction, political aims, and global mindfulness, all of which impinge on institutions such as BPC and must be addressed and balanced. Leaders are faced with a plethora of literature and multiple and varying definitions on this topic and must somehow make sense of it all and come to some degree of understanding which informs strategy and then practice. It is within this complex environment that I observe certain tensions. Multiplicity—A Continuum of Decision Points Multiple understandings of internationalization do not exist independently of one another; rather, there is typically some connection between them. For example, views that place primacy of social aims over financial aims may also acknowledge that achieving social benefits requires financial sustenance. While these two outcomes can also be said to be in tension with each other (maximizing one may minimize the achievement of the other), both aims are valuable to an institution and in fact, may be complementary - both may be simultaneously achievable. The literature (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014; Deane, 2011, 2013b; Hanson, 2010; Roper, 2013; Stromquist, 2007) identifies multiple notions of what internationalization is and how institutions should or do respond. Social and financial aims are two evident motivations (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014; Big Prairie College, 2006, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b; Deane, 2011; Stromquist, 2007). It costs money to mount and sustain programs regardless of their social value and a decision has to be made whether or not that money would 57 be better allocated elsewhere. The ACDE Accord (2014) indicates the potential for benefit and harm—a tension that exists between attending to financial concerns and realities and addressing the social aims we wish to achieve. To relieve this tension—to find space for both perspectives— the Accord recommends focusing on sustainability rather than profit, as the former “implies a relational [social] motive” (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014, p. 7). In other words, it is reasonable to ensure the long-term financial viability of internationalization efforts. However, Deschamps and Lee (2015), from the context of their study of rationales for internationalization in U.S. universities, caution that institutions ought to carefully consider whether or not their quest for quality education (vis-à-vis internationalization) is really a “convenient excuse to increase revenues” (p. 136). The following example further focuses our attention on linkages between and complexities of seemingly diverse understandings. In defining the space for and nature of internationalization at his institution, Deane (2013b) describes integrity as both “alignment and organizational structure … [and] truth to our values and mission” (p. 3) and that progress can only happen with “the appropriate structure and arrangement of resources” (p. 3). He asserts that “on this subject [internationalization], perhaps more than any other, integrity matters” (Deane, 2011, p. 10). He contends that in the last decade, internationalization has been aggressively and competitively pursued for two motives. First, Deane acknowledges that higher education legitimately has a space on the ‘world stage’ to discharge its “civic mission” which motivates institutions to equip graduates with the skills to live, work and relate as global citizens (Deane, 2011, p. 10). Second, he acknowledges that one motivation is financial. In a similar vein as the Accord (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014), he finds nothing that would “raise questions of integrity” (Deane, 2011, p. 10) in the pursuit of “a new market to support the ongoing business of the academy” (Deane, 2011, 58 p. 10). But, where institutions fail to properly support international students or where curriculum is not substantially ‘reoriented’ or where recruitment becomes an opportunistic business endeavour without grounding to academic priorities, a failure of integrity occurs (Deane, 2011, p. 11). He appears to juxtapose financial considerations with social goals by noting that internationalization should not be one-sided; rather, the two aims can or must co-exist. The extent to which either aim becomes primary depends on the institution and likely remains fluid since academic environments are dynamic and focus on attendant concerns may shift as needs and realities change (Knight, 2004, p. 7). Three sets of aims, local/global, education as public or private good (discussed earlier) and internationalization as additive or adaptive, are evident in the literature and foreground other understandings of internationalization. Local and global. Local and global concerns are two other areas evident in the literature, in the mandate of BPC to be a local educational institution, and in our recognition that our students will not only come from or remain within the Province (Big Prairie College, 2012, p. 5 & 11). Roper (2013) acknowledges that “globalization [becoming a global campus] does not represent a retreat from our commitment to provide access and success for … domestic students, faculty and staff” (p. 194); he further notes that the challenge is to “hold these two commitments [global and domestic] as being mutually important” (p. 194). He suggests deep reflection into our values and commitment to “elegantly transform[ing] the culture of the campus in a way that makes space for multiple worldviews and ways of being” (Roper, 2013, p. 195). Hudzik and McCarthy (2012), advocating for comprehensive internationalization of institutions, point out that creating a binary of local vs. global is a zero-sum game. Particularly important is their concern about the belief that “every classroom seat taken by an international student is one less available to a local student” (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012, p. 20) as this demonstrates a failure to, 59 recognize that our challenges increasingly have global origins as well as solutions. This view ignores the reality that local interests resonate on a global scale and vice versa. Resolution requires an understanding of the importance of global co-prosperities—that there is mutual gain in finding ways to integrate local and global efforts. (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012, p. 20) They acknowledge that resource constraints and policy or regulatory stipulations do exist, but if some effort and creativity are applied, are surmountable. Adaptive and additive. Understanding internationalization to be an adaptive or additive process influences how activities are implemented. The literature discusses, in various ways, the addition of international students or programs or activities vs. adapting curricula and institutional structures so that internationalization is attached to the core activities of the institution rather than being a goal in and of itself (de Wit, 2011a; Deane, 2011; Knight, 2011). In “Five Myths About Internationalization” (Knight, 2011), Knight notes the confusion about the definition and proposes that for a variety of reasons, including social exclusion by domestic students, simply recruiting international students to campus does not create an internationalized campus. deWit (2011a) echoes this argument, agreeing that internationalization is not the mere presence of even many international students. Bennett (2012), observes that “simple cross-cultural contact is not particularly valuable in itself … it must be prepared for, facilitated, and debriefed in particular ways” (p. 1) so that intercultural learning can occur. Moreover, Knight (2011) proposes that while not universally applicable, it speaks to the often unquestioned assumption that the primary reason to recruit international students is to help internationalize the campus. While this is a well-intentioned rationale, it often does not work out that way and, instead, serves to mask 60 other motivations—such as revenue generation or desire for improved rankings on global league tables. (Knight, 2011, p. 2) In seeming support of Knight’s position, the Information for Education Professionals (IEP) document (Government of ________, 2012) states that “Student diversity (international students, new Canadians, cultural diversity of student population, returning study/work abroad students) provides rich resources within the classroom. Student-centered learning activities create opportunities to share knowledge and achieve international learning outcomes” (p. 10). The implication is that having students from a variety of backgrounds, cultures and life locations makes for a positive or ideal learning environment when purposeful activities engage them in learner-centred, collaborative efforts. While an understanding of the phenomena associated with internationalization is important and pertinent to its implementation, we ought also to look at some of the concerns facing educational leaders that may influence their decisions about internationalization. If they see their role to be promoters of social transformation, internationalization in their institution may be characterized by policies and activities not necessarily intended to generate revenue or offset deficits. Rather, internationalization would support and integrate international students and their perspectives and introduce curricular elements that purposefully and critically collide viewpoints held by domestic and international students in order to promote deeper, more critical cross-cultural understandings. If, on the other hand, they see their role to be primarily that of a business entrepreneur, internationalization policies may emphasize placing their institution in the global, competitive market in order to ‘sell’ more of their educational products and to build global cooperation.  61 Leadership Concerns This section illustrates, through discussion of the literature and personal observation, the primary issues impacting leaders’ orientation to internationalization. Their personal experiences may dispose them towards certain motivations for internationalizing, but they are also publically accountable for their institution’s financial and operational viability. Therefore, it makes sense that this responsibility tempers and informs their decisions about internationalization activities. From the literature, however, it is evident that their fundamental understanding of internationalization may be limited, and that the eco-political environment in which they work strongly influences decisions about what aspects of it they privilege. Senior executives are critical actors in interpreting, defining and implementing internationalization-related strategies- especially when those efforts are intended to be integrated broadly—or comprehensively - who are typically selected for their roles because of their knowledge, level, and nature of experience. It then becomes important to discover how their current contexts and understandings shape how they prioritize various factors related to internationalization and leading an educational institution. Deardorff (2012) directly identified the importance of asking what perspectives and definitions senior leaders have about internationalization. She noted that the leaders she studied held a ‘traditional’ definition of internationalization as a process, as defined by Knight (2003) but also that it was unclear what was “involved in the process of internationalization [and] to what end” (Deardorff, 2012, p. 75). Generally, participants highlighted activities and processes related to teaching, learning, research and curriculum in their definitions. Since faculty (and I would add non-instructional staff) play a crucial role in internationalization, she believed it was then important for leaders to “more effectively engage faculty” (p. 75). 62 So, what are the concerns that leaders deal with in regards to internationalization? What are some of the ‘other’ perspectives that impact their decisions about internationalization? Given the complexity of their environment (Cafley, 2015) which requires them to keep their institutions running effectively and efficiently and with due regard to societal influences, I will categorize them broadly as financial, academic, political and resource/scheduling concerns. Cafley’s (2015) research on university presidents characterized their multi-faceted roles as encompassing activities related to strategic planning, innovation, image-setting and relationship management, and budget and academic oversight (pp. 25-26). From my observations in a college setting and from a recent BPC posting for a new president (Big Prairie College, 2015f), this also rings true for its college president. Furthermore, Cafley (2015) notes that “with so many competing priorities related to one’s role, the complexity of the role of a university president becomes an important element to fully understand” (p. 26). These responsibilities are of course shared amongst the senior leadership team; for example, academic concerns are the purview of the VP-Academic and financial and budget oversight falls within the realm of the VP-Finance. Internationalization-related decisions then, need to be factored into the overall balancing of these concerns. Levin (1995) commenting on the challenges of Canadian community college leadership, acknowledges that “studies of the community college, viewing it as part of a larger social system, show that it is affected by both internal and external conditions. The relevance of organizational behaviours is dependant [sic] upon the interaction between the institution and its environment” (pp. 109-110). This responsiveness, he notes, may explain the year-to-year changes in focus of institutions (e.g., on equity issues, partnerships and so on). He characterizes that environment (starting during the 1980s) as one in which colleges were vulnerable to social 63 and economic forces. “[These forces] (including greater institutional attention to issues of cultural diversity and equity as well as increased pressures for changes to methods of financing) no doubt challenged how colleges and universities were managed” (p. 112). Decision-making in this complex environment was value-based and needed to account for multiple concerns (Keast, 1996). Opp and Gosetti (2014), examining, amongst other things, the burgeoning pressure on colleges to internationalize, a phenomenon also occurring in Canada, and the reasons American colleges internationalize their campuses, position three key roles as drivers of such initiatives. The chief executive officer (CEO), the chief academic officer (CAO) and the chief student affairs officer (CSAO) equate to the more usual Canadian titles of President/CEO, Vice-President-Academic, and Vice-President-Students. Establishing their importance in envisioning and implementing internationalization, the authors researched the reasons and concerns these leaders had for internationalizing and discovered unique but also overlapping rationales. Overall, there were “academic, economic, social and national and foreign policy goals” (pp. 70-71) but each administrative group “emphasized different reasons for internationalizing” (p. 71). CEOs’ reasons for encouraging studying abroad, included how globalization was changing job prospects for students, requiring them to be able to work cross-culturally (p. 71). This focus on workforce development was likely due to “the role that they play in articulating the workforce and economic development missions of their colleges to [external stakeholders]” (p. 71). By contrast, CAOs and CSAOs focused more on internal stakeholder issues (faculty, staff, students) relating to the benefits of developing global awareness, diversity, tolerance, and understanding. Furthermore, presidents’ primary concerns involved persuading stakeholders about the educational and economic benefits while CAOs tended to be concerned with “tangible internal 64 supports for internationalization” (p. 72) or the lack thereof and with justifying providing professional development funding for faculty. Cuts in state funding were also of concern to presidents, especially as this impacted on their ability to support international students (p. 72). Curiously, revenue generation was a muted rationale, mentioned only in relation to being able to support international students rather than as a wholesale strategy for recouping losses in state funding. What these leaders meant by various terms or concepts (e.g., working cross-culturally) were not the focus of this article nor were they explored in any depth. However, they appear, at least on the surface, to coincide with rationales and concerns in the Canadian context. While the authors provided a clear overview of why leaders wanted to internationalize they did not delve into how they came to prioritize particular agendas. That executive leaders were catalysts for such initiatives meant, for them, that, we need to prepare a generation of community college leaders who have global experiences and a deep appreciation for the value and importance of internationalization. In particular, the CEOs, the CAOs, and the CSAOs in community colleges need to understand their individual and collective roles, reasons, facilitators, and challenges to comprehensive internationalization. (Opp & Gosetti, 2014, p. 74) Comprehensive internationalization, for these authors, means an intentional, systematic approach to ensuring that internationalization activities pervade (touch on all aspects of) the entire institution (Opp & Gosetti, 2014, p. 68). Pandit (2009), looks at internationalization through the lens of her discipline, Geography, but also as a senior educational leader. As a leader, she is concerned with the ethics of international engagement (e.g., the impact of international partnerships on the international partners) and about the effects that globalization may be having on higher education, especially 65 in “the light of … cutbacks in public funding of higher education” (p. 646). Her description of the American context is very similar to the current Canadian context of government funding cutbacks to higher education. She posits that “there is currently a struggle underway to define what international education is or should be and the values that the process of internationalization should advance” (p. 647). In relation to comprehensive internationalization, she highlights the areas of curriculum, study abroad, international student presence on campus and international collaborations and partnerships as critical areas of attention. For example, she argues that it is not enough just to have international students on campus; rather, it is imperative to foster “meaningful interaction between domestic and international students” (p. 651), reflecting the viewpoints of ‘additive and adaptive’ internationalization outlined earlier. While her focus was on the role that geographers could and should play in leading internationalization, it is not unreasonable to believe that her leadership perspectives were founded in her disciplinary roots. In other words, her concerns were those of an educational leader. Larsson et al. (Larsson, Boud, Abrandt Dahlgren, Walters, & Sork, 2005), recounting an international collaboration between multiple institutions note, the structures the actors operate within become very complex. Each partner institution has its own rules, traditions and convictions about academic rigor; its own bureaucratic structures and accountability frameworks; its own concerns about access and equity; its own terminology, methods, and schedules for organising academic work; and its own financial structures and policies. (Larsson et al., 2005, p. 64) From this, we can see that there are concerns related to structure, process, and values. Larsson et al. (2005), describing the planning process for this venture found: 66 a number of dominant structural obstacles and patterns of how these were surmounted during the processes. Four areas reflect substantive differences among the collaborating universities:  1. Local decision-making processes 2. Systems for examinations and grading [academic concerns] 3. Financial conditions 4. Information technology—in particular, the realities and possibilities for accessing the web. (p. 65) If these areas were important enough to present obstacles, then it is quite likely that they were also areas of great concern to the respective administrators/leaders. Bartell (2003) also noted a variety of concerns that are necessary to investigate in order to understand the internationalization process. These included faculty research activities, leadership, resource and facility availability, student integration and educational/social activities. Yemini et al. (2015) confirm that these themes, at least in an Israeli context with similarities to the Canadian environment, are in fact part of leaders’ subjectivities. In that study, leaders in colleges emphasized staff development, provision of international work experiences for students, research linkages with universities and cited a lack of resources (compared to research universities) as a critical constraint for internationalization (pp. 267-270). Personal career experience, they found, influenced perceptions of and perspectives on internationalization. Those who came to colleges with significant experience in universities were far less optimistic about internationalization success, whereas, those who were promoted from within colleges 67 demonstrated the opposite. Similarly, those with positive international life experiences or who had missed out on such opportunities were more inclined to push their students towards gaining such experiences (pp. 270-271). They observed that “both personal and contextual factors appear to influence significantly the motivation to internationalize” (p. 272) and that elevation of institutional status (i.e., colleges are regarded as second-tier institutions compared to universities) was also a key driver. Al-Youssef’s (2009, 2010) case study of the “meanings of internationalization in relation to an international strategy” (2010, p. 192) with middle and senior management staff at one UK-based university included a document analysis describing the various and sometimes ambiguous aims and purposes of internationalization for the institution. Such aims included student recruitment, research partnerships, staff and student mobility (e.g., exchange programs), enhanced international profile, curriculum internationalization and so forth (Al-Youssef, 2010). Ambiguity was noted in relation to how stated academic and research goals were to be achieved, how the international strategy Mission Statement defined the “university’s role in a global context” (p. 195). International “activity” was a dominant theme, over, for example, institutional cultural change, and internationalization was pictured as a, desired end-state [reflecting] a linear image of internationalization, moving from 'here' to 'there' through certain strategies. The question of how this is to be achieved remains unanswered in this document [the international strategy] alone. The word 'international' seems to refer to the arena within which a standard is set. (p. 196) The fragmented nature of views about what internationalization was and what it means was underscored by the interview responses. The international strategy for some respondents, presented a clear (previously noted ambiguities notwithstanding), high-level picture of what the 68 university wanted to achieve internationally (e.g., profile, ranking, strategic recruitment advantage, student academic success) and of what it had already achieved. Marketing management considered it a clear signal of its long-term commitment to a positive international ‘brand’. To others, it harmonized potentially divergent initiatives across the institution, provided justification for various international practices and importantly, created a “different mental model and a new way of thinking about internationalization and about partnerships - in short, a policy shift” (p. 198). On the ‘minus’ side, the strategy was regarded as lacking in direction and strategy, exclusionary of the non-academic side of the institution, too grounded in current activities (i.e., not aspirational) and devoid of any plan or ability to “change anything at the university” (p. 198). Indeed, change for some was a precondition for internationalization. Also viewed as an impediment to implementation was a perceived dominance of a market model approach that was top-down, too focused on rankings and driven by “financial factors alone” (p. 199). In this vein, several potential ‘tensions’ were enumerated. For example, educative vs. economic rationales for internationalizing; individual agency or role vs. ‘the institutional’ role (i.e., seeing the ‘university’ as a separate entity with its own (market and government-driven) agenda perpetuated by its senior leaders); and, connected to this latter tension, ‘bottom-up’ vs. top-down input on the strategy (p. 202). Multiple, intertwined narratives related to internationalization were clearly evident in this research and could be loosely grouped into two categories—internationalization as a financial strategy and internationalization hallmarked by “cooperation, partnerships and mutual understanding” (Al-Youssef, 2010, p. 203). Internationalization could thus be represented as a duality of financial/quantitative and social/qualitative imperatives; however, even within the latter frame, for some, these cultural aims were seen as “soft marketing” (p. 203) for achieving 69 the former, more material goals. The author’s concluding statement included the observation that multiple and in some instances, opposing, narratives, could be a barrier to strategy implementation resulting in lower levels of commitment and in-turn, unintegrated and therefore unsustainable internationalization. However, what her report did not (and did not purport to) delve more closely into was how these leaders managed, reconciled or came to terms with multiple pressures in implementation strategies. It also did not indicate how personally held views were reconciled with ‘external’ factors and therefore, how they impacted implementation. Closer to my research focus, a qualitative, ethnographic study by Yemini et al. (2015), looked at what factors influenced the diverse views, attitudes, and motivations of Israeli public college leaders responsible for internationalization. They focused on comparisons between “public colleges that were originally intended to serve unprivileged population [sic] …[investigating] for the first time the motivation and strategies employed by college directors in Israel to internationalize and address the differences in this matter apparent between leaders of different types of colleges” (p. 262). Noting a lack of research on “the personal motivations and quest of institution directors to internationalize” (p. 260), they explored the personal reasons their college directors had for wanting to internationalize and “engage in international, intercultural and global activities” (p. 266). While obviously within a different cultural and geo-political context which may bring its own influences (a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this study), these institutions are similar to BPC in terms of its current and historical raison d’être of serving the needs of its surrounding community—including those who are underprivileged or under-represented in post-secondary education (Big Prairie College, 2015d). Their data included professional motivations (why the institution internationalizes) as well as personal motivations (how personal histories and experiences impact views on 70 internationalization). They found wide variability in motivations across institutions. Moreover, “none of the college directors addressed financial benefits as the major factor in the drive to internationalize” (Yemini et al., 2015, p. 267) due to their focus on sending domestic students abroad and on research–related activities that benefitted faculty, not students. This “complex set of motivations for internationalization” and the need to fully (comprehensively) integrate internationalization into all activities and policies of the institution (Yemini et al., 2015, p. 261) meant that critical understanding of the diverse motivations was important for successful integration of internationalization throughout the institution (pp. 261-262). This was especially so because differing motivations lead to “different means and ends of internationalization” (Yemini et al., 2015, p. 262). Institutional contexts and underlying beliefs will help determine why internationalization is pursued and how. For example, concerns about finances, status and enriching student experiences will shape how internationalization is understood and implemented. However, the authors acknowledged the need to further “understand the influence of perceptions and motivations of institutional leaders on internationalization strategy in different types of institutions” (p. 274). Contemporary news releases and publications from post-secondary institutions also reflect the leaders’ complex decision-making environments. In one example, a former President of UBC characterized the 2015-16 budget process, which precipitated an increase in international student fees, as “tough decisions and tough conversations to have” (Bondarenko, 2015). These tough decisions needed to be communicated clearly in order to “think through how we make decisions and how we allocate resources and be very clear in where the budgetary pressures are at the university” (Bondarenko, 2015). Communicating such knowledge throughout the institution and especially to key actors in implementing internationalization helps them to 71 manage their own expectations and develop initiatives and requests consistent with institutional goals and priorities. From my own experience, some of the concerns have also been made explicit. On a recent internationalization project, costs associated with program development, support and delivery were of critical concern to my dean and to the senior executives who also raised questions about human resources, time, internal politics and program quality. Revenue-generation possibilities—one primary rationale for initiating this project - were also of interest since all extra income helps BPC’s bottom line. Our answers demonstrated recognition of their concerns so met with their approval. However, the focus of and rapidity with which the questions were sent, once the senior executives were apprised of the project, illustrated the concerns at the forefront of their thinking. Writing generally about leadership matters, Paul (2011), a former Canadian university president, discusses several key issues for contemporary presidents and these, I think, have import in terms of trickle-down to executive and decanal leadership levels. Of paramount importance are: student access and success (includes quality of the student experience); international outreach (and implicit internal impacts); financial issues (cross-cutting all dimensions); daily administration; external relations (political, collaborations, institutional profile and of course, fundraising); institutional governance (internal concerns of academic, political and financial import); and institutional autonomy (includes issues of innovative practices and inter-institution differentiation) (Paul, 2011, pp. 101-221). Evidently, there is much that a president must be mindful of; however, their responsibilities are shared with and delegated to others at the vice-presidential and decanal levels, as Paul acknowledges tangentially from time to time (Paul, 2011, p. 53). Egron-Polack (2011) also concurs that the senior leadership team (presidents and vice-presidents) are seen to be and feel the onus to be the “most notable internal 72 driver for the process [of internationalization]” (Egron-Polak, 2011, p. 2). Thus, it is appropriate to extend and position these themes as leadership team concerns while shifting them into the context of internationalization. It is important to note that the general areas of concern listed are transcendent, existing independently of and within internationalization efforts. In this section, I have outlined several commonly shared areas of concern to educational leaders, emerging from what I found in my review of the literature. The complexity of leaders’ practice—the complexity of the environment in which they must make decisions—is also evident in other studies. In my view, the precise details and exact nature of this complexity may be hidden from those outside leadership realms. Nevertheless, they do need to be rendered ‘public’ so that there is an understanding of the multiple values that leaders must consider when implementing internationalization policies and strategies.  Connecting Multiple Perspectives Given the multiplicity of views about internationalization, evidenced in the earlier discussion of paradigms, and the multiple values that institutional leaders may have or need to acknowledge in their decisions, it does not seem useful to try to constrain leaders in the conceptual ‘boxes’ of one paradigm or another. Furthermore, internationalization and its drivers tend to be discussed in the literature in terms of their discrete components; for example, the ideologies and models discussed earlier each seem mutually exclusive. This is necessary for theorizing and analysis but may provide too fragmented a view that misses the complexities of leaders’ values and contexts especially when leaders’ values seem to fit into multiple ideologies or models. The practical reality may be more complicated. In fact, the mechanisms that appear to be central to each paradigm (e.g., market-driven industry/profit-making) may be able to benefit the mechanisms in other paradigms. Describing multiple ideologies that exist simultaneously and 73 exert influence on a phenomenon or activity, Pashby and Andreotti (2016) do present conceptual ‘interfaces’ which “represent spaces where two or more discursive orientations overlap and/or where one orientation strongly frames, influences, and/or mediates another orientation” (Pashby & Andreotti, 2016, p. 778). But what might these ‘spaces’ look like in ‘real life’—in the world of practice? I propose that we should regard the practice of internationalization as existing in an ecosystem composed of various paradigms (composed of values, aims, models, and ideologies) that address multiple realities both idealistic and instrumental. In such an ecosystem, each aim could be separated from its parent paradigm and then reassembled as a whole, with a unified focus on internationalization efforts. By doing this, the parent paradigm of each aim is made explicit. The reason for doing this is twofold. Firstly, by acknowledging the underlying philosophies of each aim their affordances and pitfalls can be understood. For instance, the dangers of succumbing to just the pursuit of profit may include negative backlash from students or faculty and a lack of support for initiatives. Secondly, by not ignoring that each paradigm contributes something of value to the overall goal, it becomes far easier to achieve sustainable, socially productive internationalization outcomes. In taking this approach, each aim is tempered by the other paradigms so as not to become too idealistic or too mercenary. This ecosystem repositions the paradigms discussed earlier into a logical and valuable relationship in which the achievement of social good does not exclude pragmatic concerns but is nonetheless the ultimate goal. This can be done, as seen in the practice of Social Innovation (SI). SI is a multi-dimensional concept that brings together an array of values relating to business entrepreneurship, financial and economic gain and social benefit. It gives us a ‘way in’ to see how disparate ideologies, models, and values can be united to deliberately focus on social and transformative action. It is “the development and application of new or improved activities, 74 initiatives, services, processes, or products designed to address social and economic challenges faced by individuals and communities” (Goldenberg, 2004, p. iv). These solutions “are predominantly developed and diffused through organisations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007, p. 8). In other words, SI is an activity that brings new ways of thinking, doing and supporting, to bear on social needs, by organizations such as NGOs or educational institutions, explicitly tasked with solving social problems, rather than organizations whose mission is profit maximization. A more refined definition is offered: “new ideas (products, services, and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act” (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010, p. 3). This latter definition explicitly brings together social benefits, stemming from new ideas, with the means to sustain it through working together across sectors and areas of expertise. SI is also not a new concept, as there are examples harkening back to the 18th Century with Robert Owen’s radical retooling of textile factories as workplaces that cared for their employees through to the late 20th Century with Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank and more latterly Mondragon cooperatives and so forth (Mulgan et al., 2007). SI traverses sector boundaries with private enterprise, NGOs, individuals, governments, manufacturing, media, faith-based and educational organizations all having differing values and aims and all contributing to a solution in their own way (Mulgan et al., 2007).  The most relevant aspect of SI, for my purposes, is its conceptual framework. Just as internationalization has been positioned as a response to globalization, with desired outcomes that encompass multiple values, SI can be and has been a response to some form of dominant social problem and to globalization. While in internationalization discourse, multiple values or 75 activities are sometimes talked about as separate ‘things or activities’ that (may) need to be reconciled (e.g., socially beneficial vs. financially beneficial activities), in SI, there is inherent connection between the socially-conscious who see a need and advocate for a solution and those with the resources and tools to implement, scale and distribute the solutions: Often the innovative and creative ‘bees’ (social entreprneuers [sic] or inventors) need to find supportive “trees” (big organizations with the machineries to make things happen on a big scale). That in turn may demand formal methods to persuade potential backers, including investment appraisals, impact assessments, and newer devices to judge success, such as “social returns on investment” or “blended value.” (Mulgan, 2006, p. 153) Comprehensive internationalization is seen as a multiplicity of distinct endeavours such as revenue generation through student recruitment and research partnerships; social capital generation through faculty and student mobility programs. An ecosystem of paradigms mirroring an SI framework logically connects each endeavour in a sensible manner. In other words, SI is fundamentally an expression of multiple values in concert with each other; internationalization needs also to be discussed in such a manner. Looking at Practice  These themes and categorizations from the literature are reflected in practice-oriented documents from the wider Canadian context. I will use one example within which I will try to determine which, if any, of the four categories of concerns (academic, resource allocation, political and financial/economic) appear and which seem to be dominant or at least important and will then show some variations from other institutions.  The selected example, Douglas College, is one of many institutions (e.g. The University of Calgary, 2012; University of British Columbia, 2011; University of Waterloo, 2013) that 76 inscribe internationalization into their mission. Its documents are well articulated and clearly define internationalization which, according to them, goes beyond simple practice into a more ‘integrative’ mode. So, this example presents both a clear and interesting case which can be examined to determine what views are represented. In its research-based “Internationalization Plan”, Douglas College (2012), promotes itself as being “one of the most successful institutions in BC in attracting international students” (p. 1). It prides itself on moving past ‘first-phase’ internationalization efforts involving simple recruitment of international students,  into more advanced phases of international partnerships and following Knight (2003, 2004), into “the integration of an international/intercultural dimension into the … functions of the institution” (Douglas College, 2012, p. 2). Douglas College views internationalization as instrumental for “preparing students—the next generation of political, social, cultural and economic participants to live and work in a culturally diverse world” (Douglas College, 2012, p. 2). Pushing beyond the important link between internationalization and economic competitiveness for Canada and BC, the College positions internationalization as a catalyst for, promoting inter-cultural understanding, and the spread of human rights and democracy. As such, it is consistent with the core mission of post-secondary institutions to produce rational and empathetic individuals who can contribute to a respectful and peaceful global society, both locally and globally. (Douglas College, 2012, p. 3) This intersects with the liberal/idealistic paradigm (Hanson, 2010; Stier, 2004) with its focus on positive global contributions. However, while there is tacit implication of righting inequities, it is not clear from this document that they promote challenging the status quo or questioning what is meant by ‘rights’, conceptions of democracy or democracy’s value across contexts or what having a peaceful society means. The instrumentality, therefore, remains, as this 77 ‘understanding’ is, in the words of  Richard Levin, deemed critical for students to “achieve their full potential in [their] inevitably global careers [and for realizing] the best aspirations of humanity in the interaction among nations” (as cited in, Douglas College, 2012, p. 3). While pursuing internationalization is an important aspect of the College, it is also mandated by the Province to serve and meet the practical needs of its community (Douglas College, 2010). In fact, the strategic plan (Douglas College, 2010) clearly identifies alignment with labour market demand as a key strategy for meeting the goal of excellence in teaching. For the College, and in keeping with ‘market’ model values, “high quality education and training … is required to transform BC into a ‘knowledge-based’ economy and society” (Douglas College, 2010, p. 9).  Administrators (deans) who were interviewed for this internationalization plan advocated that internationalization should “fit the strengths and goals of their particular area vs a standardized approach” (Douglas College, 2012, p. 4). Further, they believed that in addition to international collaborations, there should be more focus on “getting international students to stay with us so that they complete their program at Douglas College before transferring, creating an international Douglas College alumni” (Douglas College, 2012, p. 4). A critical stance (or social transformative aim) does not appear in their public strategy. However, there is nothing precluding it from happening in the classroom as they do leave the door open to implement internationalization in a variety of ways based on the “needs and opportunities inherent in [specific] programs” (Douglas College, 2012, p. 5). In their strategic plan (Douglas College, 2010), promoted by their President and Board,  which pre-dates but provides high-level guidance for, the “International Plan”, prudent (sustainable) financial management is cited as a goal. Deane (2011), writing from his own context, cautions that this is a meritorious goal as long as it is not overshadowed by the drive to 78 make money. From publically available information, financial gain does not appear to be the primary motivation for Douglas College, although prudent financial management is. So, the influence of some of the external, overarching paradigms related to education and internationalization are evident in this document. But, what about the more practical concerns? To what extent do they appear? In keeping with and in addition to, some of the areas proposed earlier (financial, academic, political and resource/scheduling concerns), they identified the following list: the need for a centralized service to facilitate their internationalization efforts. International services included: training, catalyst for project/activity development, communication/information, evaluation, market analysis, logistical/administrative support, international expertise, contract management, recruitment/promotion, resource/funding development, and international/study abroad student advocate. (Douglas College, 2012, p. 5) This list, with its focus on primarily business concerns, illuminates a rationality (objective and data-driven) that might be expected within a market or even liberal model of internationalization. But what of transformational influence? Although these are worthy ideals intended to promote social good and mitigate harm, these are not dominant discourses in society; in fact, Hanson (2010) suggests that neo-liberal and liberal discourses are predominant. It is therefore unsurprising that these themes are muted within business-oriented strategic documents from an institution mandated and funded by the Provincial government to contribute to regional, provincial and national economic progress. However, strategic plans, as policy documents, are high-level guides that do not typically specify the means of achieving goals. However, Douglas College’s Strategic Plan (2010) does acknowledge that they are entering a phase of 79 internationalization in which there will be, the integration of an international / intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institution. This can happen through student and faculty mobility to increase knowledge, test assumptions, and build relationships. This shift requires a culture that is inclusive, welcoming, and willing to listen and respond to changes in the external environment. (p. 17) Such open-ended wording has the potential to encourage some measure of critique within course-level initiatives. What form this could take and whether it would be funded is open to speculation. However, what is clear is that the College’s leadership presents an understanding of internationalization that is in line with liberal and market models (Hanson, 2010) that is not all that dissimilar from other institutions. For example, the University of Calgary (2012) ties in their international activities even more tightly with the local, national and global economies, citing, an obligation to serve the needs of our community … a global energy and corporate business centre, and the fifth most livable city in the world. Our city—home to the second highest concentration of head offices in the nation—demands graduates, both domestic and international, who have a global orientation, are competitive in a global marketplace, and who can adapt to diverse cultural, economic, and governmental environments. Our province—Alberta, Canada’s fourth largest and one of its wealthiest—suffers from a shortage of professionals and skilled labour that is a key barrier to future economic growth. The recruitment of international students is increasingly recognized as an important element in a broader strategy for attracting highly qualified people to our country. (The University of Calgary, 2012, p. 1) The University of British Columbia’s “International Strategic Plan” (2011), likewise has 80 aims (global partnerships, increasing international student recruitment, being globally relevant and well-positioned, and so on) that resonate strongly with market and liberal aims, primarily in its desire for greater and more substantial international engagement and partnership in its research endeavours. As part of their ‘Year 1’ set of actions, they do (did) intend to “produce a statement of ethics for international engagement” (University of British Columbia, 2011, p. 28) but to date, I have been unable to find a copy of it to determine what, if any, contribution it makes to aims of internationalization other than market or liberal aims. Nevertheless, financial motives are sometimes explicit. Recently, several Ontario post-secondary institutions were the subject of a CBC news item (2015) on international student enrolment rates in Ottawa. Various institutional spokespersons justified increased international student recruitment, citing decreased Provincial government funding and declining domestic student participation:  “If you have rising costs, you have to have growth for you to survive,” said Doug Wotherspoon, vice-president of international, communication and strategic priorities at Algonquin. “So obviously when your domestic numbers are going down you want to supplement that and keep growing, so international is the place to look for that”. (CBC News, 2015) Internationalization can be a means to ‘survive’, and Algonquin College’s Strategic Plan (2012) clearly identifies financial sustainability in an era of increasing operational costs and “continued government restraint and rising inflationary pressures” (p. 18) as crucial to its ability to “deliver on its commitments [but does not negate the College’s] commitment to social and environmental factors” (p. 18).  81 These examples illustrate the commonality of particular descriptions and aims of internationalization across Canada, implying that the broader context of globalization influences how institutional leaders understand and implement internationalization. Market and liberal models are most common but there are also glimmers of transformational aims. Chapter Summary This selection of literature represents some existing perspectives that are also reflected in college and governmental understandings of internationalization as per their documentation. Even though financial motivations may not be the primary stated rationale for internationalization, institutions exist in a world that is globalized and informed by neoliberal perspectives that have led to pressures that make financial stability important. This sets up the environment in which multiple perspectives, ideologies and models exist within written policies, stated goals, and practice. On one hand, leaders may want to achieve social aims; on the other, financial pressures require some response. International student tuitions are a tempting source of revenue. If the de facto concern revolves around money, regardless of the reason, then it becomes harder to engage in activities that take resources away from revenue-generation. There might then be some resistance to change or to considering ways of implementing internationalization to help meet intercultural understanding goals. However, since BPC has stated goals relating to “development of curriculum which accurately reflects the global reality [and] leadership and participation in events and programs which foster and develop international understanding” (Big Prairie College, 2006, para. 2) it is prudent to discover how those goals are understood and planned to be implemented by its leaders. The literature points to multiple models and ideologies that illuminate the various understandings of internationalization and the concomitant policy or activity results. Non-82 transformational and non-critical ideologies tend to be more dominant in practice, possibly because colleges are closely tied to market aims of economic, workforce and industry development. The concept of social innovation—in which multiple aims are convened - serves to illustrate that it is possible to not just harness multiple aims of internationalization, but to achieve social and economic goals.  See Figure 1.     Figure 1—Internationalization within an Ecosystem of Multiple Paradigms 83 Chapter Three: Methodology and Methods For my research on how leaders at a particular institution understand internationalization and on the factors that influence their decisions about and implementation of internationalization strategies, a qualitative case study methodology was appropriate. Case Study A case study is appropriate when research questions take the form of ‘how’ or ‘why’ and when researchers have little or no control over the contemporary phenomenon under investigation (Yin, 2014, p. 2). Bryman (2001) characterizes case studies as “instances where the ‘case’ is the focus of interest in its own right” (p. 49) differentiating it from research in which the location or context is incidental. The case includes the phenomenon and its context. Cousin (2009) further describes case studies as an attempt to “provide a holistic portrayal and understanding of the research setting” (p. 423). While I am investigating individual leaders’ understandings of internationalization, taken together, these leaders, their understandings and location within BPC, even given any variations, direct the efforts (practice) of one college. As such, this research can be considered a case study. Big Prairie College, its policies, and its leaders comprise the ‘case’ (Cousin, 2009). Cousin (2009), discussing Stake’s (1995) categories of case studies, describes the ‘intrinsic case study’ as an opportunity for the researcher to learn more about what is happening with or in the case of interest. The unit of analysis can be a person, a department or, in my case, a group of leaders within my college. Stake (1995), cautioning that not everything is a case, characterizes it as a “specific … complex, functioning thing” (p. 2) and as a system of well- or not so well-functioning parts. He also situates people and programs as common ‘cases’ of interest in educational settings with the catalyst for such study to be “sincere interest in learning how they function in their ordinary 84 pursuits and milieus and with a willingness to put aside many presumptions while we learn” (p. 1). The function of a case study is primarily “particularization, not generalization [in which] we take a particular case and come to know it well … what its, what it does” (Stake, 1995, p. 8). In other words, its purpose is not to produce “grand generalizations” (Stake, 1995, p. 7) but rather to generate new knowledge of a particular situation; knowledge that may ultimately refine our understanding of the general. Within this process of building understanding, observation leading to interpretation (meaning making) is crucial. Interpretations, often made visible as assertions, are drawn from the researcher’s own body of knowledge and understanding but are accompanied by a strict recounting of observations or ‘stories’ and narratives (in the case of interviews) (Stake, 1995). The new, deeper knowledge or “thick description” (Ryle, as cited in Geertz, 1994, p. 5) pertains to particular complexities, conundrums and characters (actors). It enables investigators to understand the local nuances that are in accord or discord with general/global knowledge or theories associated with the phenomenon being researched. In the case of internationalization, there exists much general knowledge and theory in the literature from which we can infer values and understandings that may impact educational leaders’ practice or implementation of internationalization. However, to understand the leaders themselves—their thoughts and reflections about, and definitions of, internationalization in a Canadian context—requires a more focused and direct approach. During this research, my observations and personal conversations with colleagues about how internationalization is or is not practiced in BPC led me to the multiple understandings that exist and that each of us sees from our own vantage points. This is natural, but the danger is in remaining satisfied with understanding internationalization practice only from our own perspectives which may not be informed by other data or facts known to others. My perceptions 85 and those of others were previously uninformed by leaders’ narratives. Their understanding of internationalization and its implementation, however, are impacted by the realities - unseen to ‘non-leaders’ - of leading a post-secondary institution in our increasingly complex environment. Pushing towards a finer definition, Yin (2014) provides a two-fold definition of a case study. He first defines its scope as an in-depth, empirical (data gathered through observation) study of a real-world event of interest where “the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (p. 16). “Clear boundaries” refers to the ability to study a phenomenon independently of its context; for example studying leaders’ decision-making processes but not in any particular context. This leads to the second part of the definition, which describes the features of a case study. A case study, copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points … relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and … benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis. (Yin, 2014, p. 17) A case study is a single source of data containing multiple sources of evidence that allow in-depth analysis. While, strictly speaking, I was not triangulating data to find a single truth (i.e., the interpretation to end all interpretations), I was trying to understand and interpret what multiple leaders believe internationalization to be, using their own words. I was also comparing written policy to what leaders revealed in their interviews. In this sense, I am analyzing multiple sources in an attempt to form a fuller picture of this phenomenon. Tracy (2010), offers the term crystallization, a concept developed by Richardson (as cited in, Tracy, 2010, pp. 843-844) which refers to the “practice of using multiple data sources, researchers, and lenses [to] open up a more 86 complex, in-depth, but still thoroughly partial, understanding of the issue.” (Tracy, 2010, pp. 843-844). While I am the sole researcher, I am using multiple data sources and lenses (e.g., the Hanson Model, viewpoints from literature and institutional documentation and participant interviews), although I am gathering primary data through interviews, not through observation. Institutional documents provided a tangible record of actions and strategies for which leaders are accountable while interview data provided insights into how leaders conceptualize internationalization and its attendant factors. Furthermore, a case study typically takes place in a “naturalistic setting [in which] the research designer has not contrived all of the activities to be investigated, as in, for instance, the example of experimental design” (Cousin, 2009, p. 423). Naturalistic settings can be understood to be ‘real life’ rather than ‘lab’ settings. In my case, neither the setting nor the activity of interest was contrived; they were both existing phenomena. My ‘way in’ was to conduct interviews, analyze the text of policies and discuss decisions that have been made about internationalization-related initiatives. Yin (2014) further notes the all-encompassing nature of case study research that allows different epistemological orientations (e.g., realist, relativist or interpretivist) to be acknowledged. In the case of this research project, a relativist perspective (multiple realities with multiple meanings) best captured and described the situation. I am coming to the topic with a particular point of view, my participants had their own perspectives, and the literature presented the multifaceted nature of internationalization. Portraying these multiple perspectives is critical for understanding this complex topic. A case study, like any other research project, has a general design or logical connection between data collection and research questions; although Yin (2014) does note that this is not a historical feature and that a formal (scientific/experimental) design is not necessary for success. 87 He does recommend that having a design (discussed below) can strengthen the study and make it easier to do. My design, a single case (Big Prairie College) with a single unit of analysis (the leadership group), is described in the Data Collection section below.  Any one of five rationales justify a single-case design; namely, having a “critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal case” (Yin, 2014, p. 51). This case falls within the categories of common and revelatory. Common because internationalization is a common topic that is of increasing importance to BPC - it is embedded in policy and strategic documents. Revelatory, because it is rare to have access to and dialogue with institutional leaders about their understanding of internationalization—their thoughts appear primarily translated in the form of static documents and announcements. A second categorization—holistic or embedded (Yin, 2014)—looks at the complexity of the case. A holistic design has a single unit of analysis whereas an embedded case encompasses multiple units of analysis. My research looks at one institution’s leadership team via analysis of interviews and documents and does not contain discernable or logical sub-units, so appropriately can use a holistic design. Yin (2014) defines three types of case studies: explanatory, exploratory and descriptive. Explanatory studies seek to answer how or why a condition, phenomenon or event came to be (p. 238), while descriptive studies “describe a phenomenon … in its real-world context” (p. 238). Exploratory studies probe phenomena or events to “identify the research questions or procedures to be used in a subsequent research study” (p. 238). My literature and document reviews describe the phenomenon of internationalization in general and within the context of the College. However, my study goes beyond description and contains aspects of both explanatory and exploratory case studies. It investigated not only the relationship between leaders' understandings of and decisions about internationalization in a college, but it also proposes foci for further 88 research in a developing area of research. This case study in my institution provides unique data about how particular leaders, facing specific, though not necessarily unique, circumstances, conceive of internationalization and deal with its multiple narratives, leading to a particular implementation. Gaining insight into how leaders understand internationalization and prioritize its multiple values and narratives is valuable in a number of ways. First, leaders coming into the institution or people moving into leadership roles can understand how the Executive came to understand and implement internationalization as they did, and use that knowledge to help their own decision-making processes. Getting ‘into the heads’ of experienced leaders can benefit prospective leaders by providing a glimpse into the factors they have to account for, and in what priority, when making decisions. Second, this knowledge can help members of the institution understand the complexities of the college environment and leaders’ decision-making processes and perhaps come to a greater appreciation of the policies and strategies in place—that there is more than one side to the story. Third, this research may open a space for knowledge-based (rather than assumption-based) critical dialogue about decisions that appear to favour only certain values or when it appears that leaders’ understandings have not been realized in the institution’s activities. This case data also enliven our understanding of the literature by allowing us to see the extent to which these personal revelations or stories fit with some existing theories or conceptual frameworks. The data illuminate how the BPC context reflects descriptions and rationales for internationalization in literature, and in some cases point to gaps in the literature related to the uniqueness and complexities of our educational environment—a college of applied learning, rather than a university.    89 Data Collection Methods My main mode of inquiry was conversational, semi-structured interviewing of institutional leaders (executives and another high-level leader) who are responsible for setting, developing, recommending and implementing policy or strategic plans related to internationalization in the College (n=9). In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer does not adhere rigidly to a pre-determined set of questions but instead uses open-ended questions to start and maintain conversations.  After receiving ethics approval from the UBC and BPC REBs, I contacted each leader personally to inform them of my research and formally invite them via an e-mailed letter (Appendix C). This letter provided a project overview, the main interview questions (see Appendix A for full question set), the estimated time commitment, the assurance that participation was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time. The letter also contained a request to record interviews and handle follow-up questions via e-mail. The requisite contact information was included with a promise to keep them anonymous, to send interview transcripts for their review and to provide a copy of the finished dissertation if they wished. They were to indicate their consent via e-mail and a formal consent form (Appendix B). The main questions sent in advance were: I. To begin, please tell me what you understand internationalization to be. II. Do you see any differences between your personal perspective and institutional perspective on internationalization? III. What do you believe is the value of internationalization to BPC? IV. What are the benefits, costs and challenges? V. What are the primary factors for determining strategic international direction? 90 VI. What advice do you have for emerging and established leaders in this College or other similar institutions that may help them navigate the multiple values about and perspectives on internationalization? From my prior interactions with some of these individuals on the topic of internationalization, I was able to elicit, through a thoughtful approach and line of questioning, their interesting perspectives on theoretical (in some cases) and practical aspects of this topic. Clifford (nd) suggests that a productive approach to interviewing ‘elites’, in his case, high-ranking politicians, in mine, senior educational executives, is to use a mix of structured, semi-structured and open-ended interviews. They are allowed to provide their ‘expertise’, which allows “more latitude for the interviewee, but follows up with closed questions. This design allows elites to express their opinions in all their complexity, creating greater comfort with the subsequent “straightjacket” of closed questions” (Clifford, nd, p. 2). This one-on-one conversational, semi-structured approach allowed me to draw out specific leaders’ understandings and priorities; how they demonstrated the relationship between beliefs, policy and practice and how they described their strategies and practice (e.g., policies, plans and approved initiatives) in light of their values. I did not want my interviewees to feel as if they were being interrogated; otherwise, their responses might have been too guarded, but neither did I want to leave without necessary data. While set questions provided the touchstones for the conversation, follow-up, probing questions based on responses allowed me to dig deeper into what respondents meant and thus allowed a more accurate interpretation. Interviews were audio recorded to ensure that I accurately captured the discussion. Upon transcription of the interviews, I provided respondents with a review copy so they could amend their statements for clarity. Primary questions stemmed from the main research questions and themes and opened the conversation about values, beliefs and understandings, competing motivations and decision-making in complex environments and 91 advice for emerging leaders (Appendix A). Responses were followed up by probing questions. For instance, one leader raised a line of questioning that I had not previously considered and which I used in future interviews. Finally, before undertaking the research, I conducted several pilot interviews with leaders of internationalization efforts at another institution to test whether my questions would get the needed data. Based on their responses, I modified my questions. Rigour and Credibility Validity and reliability are two broad criteria for judging the quality of research. Validity refers to whether or not the research actually captures the phenomenon, activity or attitudes it purports to capture. Reliability has to do with the extent to which an instrument (e.g., interview questions) consistently assesses what it intends to. From Tracy’s (2010) universal markers of research goodness, the following criteria apply to qualitative research validity and reliability: rich rigour, sincerity, credibility and meaningful coherence (p. 839). Rich rigour is attained through carefully collecting sufficient data for making important claims, selecting an appropriate participant group and number of interviewees for the study’s goals and careful data collection and analysis (Tracy, 2010). “Enough data” is not equated just with sample size but also depends on uniqueness or scarcity. This project undertakes an examination of BPC leaders’ perspectives on internationalization, not a common commodity. We (employees) do not normally have the opportunity to hear the detailed thoughts and rationales of our institutional leaders. Further, the number of interviews encompasses those leaders who have a direct impact and decision-making authority on internationalization activities. A semi-structured interview approach provides a more complex device with which to probe deeper and obtain further details and meanings (Tracy, 2010, p. 841). Sincerity refers to openness and transparency of the process and researcher and includes 92 the reporting of one’s own biases and perspectives as well as a recounting of how the research was conducted, especially in terms of ethical considerations (discussed separately). This meshes with elements of Johnson’s (1997) discussion of validity in case studies that cover researcher bias, descriptive and interpretive validity and theoretical validity. Researcher bias is a threat to validity and appears when the researcher’s prior assumptions lead to finding “what they want to find, and then [writing] up their results” (Johnson, 1997, p. 283). It results from “selective observation and selective recording of information, and also from allowing one’s personal views and perspectives to affect how data are interpreted and how the research is conducted” (p. 284). Reflexivity (critical self-reflection) is one strategy for mitigating the effects of bias and can involve discussion of those biases, assumptions and how they may affect the research. In this dissertation, I have revealed some of my initial assumptions and background, and as I collected and analyzed the data, I noted my reactions, via margin notes, to responses and how they challenged or supported my assumptions. As well, after interviews, I wrote some reflective notes indicating what I thought was interesting or surprising about interviewee’s responses. Descriptive validity (Johnson, 1997) refers to “factual accuracy of the account as reported by researchers” (p. 284) and essentially requires that what was said is reported accurately, although not necessarily verbatim. Although a strategy for ensuring this form of validity is the use of observations and reports from multiple observers (triangulation) (Johnson, 1997), in my research, this will not be possible. An alternate strategy is to return interview transcripts to participants for their verification and audio record interviews. Such ‘member checking’ or participant feedback (Johnson, 1997) also applies to interpretive validity, or, “portraying the meaning attached by participants to what is being studied” (Johnson, 1997, p. 285). Tracy  (2010) reframes this as member reflections, a “practice that does not aim toward accuracy of a 93 single truth, but rather provides space for additional data, reflection, and complexity” (p. 848). Furthermore, she defines the credibility of a study’s findings as its “trustworthiness, verisimilitude, and plausibility” (Tracy, 2010, p. 842)—in other words, readers trust the results enough to act upon because they seem true and real. This can be achieved through an abundance of detail (e.g., thick description) which allow readers to draw their own conclusions. It can also be achieved through crystallization—the process of gathering multiple types of data (e.g., documents, interviews), the use of multiple researchers (not applicable in this case) and multiple theoretical frameworks (Tracy, 2010, pp. 843-844). As a researcher, I interpret, not just report, interview data. Thus it was important to ensure not only that I accurately portrayed participants’ “viewpoints, thoughts, feelings, intentions and experiences” (p. 285) by requesting feedback on my interpretations from them but also that I gave them the opportunity to review and further reflect upon their responses. I returned each participant’s verbatim transcripts to them for their review and when necessary, clarified my interpretations of their words to make sure I understood them correctly. From previous research experience, errors in my own understanding or in their articulation of a viewpoint are often caught and corrected by participants. Additionally, the use of direct (verbatim) quotations (Johnson, 1997), allows readers to read exactly what a participant said and form their own interpretations if desired. In all cases, transcripts were accepted as provided and four participants responded to my clarifying questions. One sent me some related information and suggested people for additional interviews. In another instance, a participant scheduled a follow-up interview to address outstanding questions but did not respond to subsequent emails with clarifying questions.  94 Theoretical validity (Johnson, 1997) occurs when theoretical explanations derived from the research fit the data (Johnson, 1997). For example, will the interview data support conclusions drawn about leaders’ understandings and decisions about internationalization? Will reasonable interpretations of their words be the basis for such conclusions? The danger of researcher bias—that I only look for and find data that corroborates my own views— is mitigated by what Johnson (1997) calls “negative case sampling”—looking for examples that do not fit my theory. In other words, not ignoring expressed values that fall into categories other than ‘liberalism’ and ‘market models’ of internationalization. Being sensitive to differing perspectives amongst leaders was especially important when summarizing the data, so that I did not carelessly group all leaders into a homogenous whole, ignoring individual differences in values. Meaningful coherence is the extent to which a study achieves what it sets out to achieve, using methods that that “partner well with espoused theories and paradigms” (Tracy, 2010, p. 848). For example, interviews coupled with member reflections can capture and confirm understandings of multiple realities—method and paradigm are therefore complementary. Further features of a meaningfully coherent study include ensuring that the literature reviewed is appropriately linked to the focus of the study, its methods, and its findings. In other words, each section of the research should explicitly relate to each other, or as Tracy (2010) notes, it “hangs together well” (p. 848). The literature serves to ground the findings and conclusions relate back to the literature and data. Coherence thus speaks to the reliability of the research. Do the conclusions follow the data? What about the literature—if not, why not? Searching for these forms of validity is to treat the data and participants in an ethical/honest manner. There are, of course, other ethical concerns in any research involving humans. 95 Ethical Considerations As my research involved senior colleagues within my own institution, I had to pay close attention to what questions I asked and how I asked them so as not to come across as critical of them or their work. To respect their privacy, I kept all interviewees anonymous, identifying them as Leader #1, #2 and so on, especially since masking the identity of my institution becomes problematic when attributing sources and because my linkage to the institution can be found on the internet. Framing my study as drawing upon their expertise rather than ‘investigating’ them also may have helped to mitigate any hesitancy on their part to share their perspectives. However, as I am not part of the leadership group, there may have been concerns about what information could be shared with me, although this does not imply that their responses were anything less than honest. It is important to note that this was a temporary ‘open door’ for one-on-one conversations with leaders, not an invitation into the decision-making circles. Thus, there was no risk that I would breach confidentiality in regards to strategic decisions. In addition to concerns about privacy, it is mandatory to be as clear and transparent as possible about the aims of the research, potential benefits and risks (although minimal), gaining informed consent, ensuring accurate representation of interviewees’ responses through providing them with transcripts and protecting and securing gathered data. Although I used a transcriptionist to transcribe interviews, as I have done in past research, I required them to sign a confidentiality agreement. In addition to gaining approval from the UBC Research Ethics Board (REB), my research was approved by my own institution’s REB, doubly ensuring that I conducted my research in an ethically responsible manner.   96 Analysis Methods Yin (2014) recommends ‘playing’ with the data to find “patterns, insights, or concepts that seem promising” (p. 135). This can involve tabulating the interview and document data, creating graphical representations or timelines (if applicable) to compare and contrast data and see themes. The use of charts allows thematic juxtaposition of responses and their connections to each model which in turn permits thought or expression patterns or non-patterns to be seen (Yin, 2014). Of course, given the complexity of the educational environment, there exists the possibility that the data will not fit neatly into any one category or model, requiring instead, the creation of new categories or models. This coincides with what Charmaz (2004) describes as using codes to fragment the data, allowing memos (researcher thoughts) to be inserted.  To initially organize responses into themes I used an Interview Results Matrix such as the example in Figure 2 below. The comments column was for my own notes related to further questions, themes, connections to the models outlined in the literature and connections or differences between responses. Responses related to the applicability of a social innovation framework to understanding how leaders interpret internationalization were also noted in this chart.  Figure 2 - Interview Results Matrix 97 While this process may seem to be a relatively straightforward endeavour—question-answer-probe etc. - De Fina (2009) adds an analytical complexity in the form of three questions to consider during data analysis: a) to what extent narrative contents were driven by the interviewer and to what extent they were proposed by the teller; b) how genres correlated with other aspects of the interview (for example, habitual narratives may be used by tellers in response to questions to depict experiences that for some reason they do not want to present as personal); c) what kinds of expectations were openly or implicitly negotiated. (p. 255) The first point speaks to the co-construction of knowledge between researcher and participant and power-relations between the two. For example, how open-ended were the questions and did the interviewer allow narratives or responses to emerge? What did the interviewer do/say or not do/say and how might that have affected the interview? What is the workplace relationship between the interviewer and respondent and to what extent were responses and questions shaped by those relations? These need to be examined and articulated as best as possible.  The second point looks at how interview responses relate to, in my case, existing documents and other interview data. What are the similarities and differences and what factors might account for them? What information is not being shared and why (e.g., confidentiality)? Does a response indicate a ‘party line’ or politically correct perspective? Probing questions tease out what is hidden—as much as possible and requires tact and sensitivity both in the interview and during analysis.  98 The third point looks at the context and setup of the interview; for example, to what extent will both parties have agreed to hold a conversation rather than just a question and answer session? Will we interact as colleagues with experiential and theoretical knowledge? What are the boundaries of discussion—in other words, what will be the challenge-response dynamic? By this, I mean that both parties can challenge underlying assumptions of questions and responses to dig for deeper understanding. For example, if a question seems to be predicated on a vague or inaccurate presumption, will the interviewee ask what is meant, or reframe the question or provide an alternative perspective? The questions that interviewees ask can be just as enlightening as their responses. While I am not using grounded theory methodology, it is useful to employ some of its techniques. Charmaz (2004) addresses the rigour of a grounded approach in describing its iterative nature. Analysis is conducted by “going back and forth between data gathering and analysis” (p. 166) which means going back to the field or in my case the source to clarify the analysis. Since I did not do field observations, I relied on two ways of going ‘back and forth’. The first was in situ during the interviews, wherein I clarified answers or elicited further details for an elaborated response—this also contributed to the co-construction of knowledge through dialogue. The second was after transcription whereby I returned transcripts to the respondents for their further input or clarification. These ‘clarifying conversations’ (my phrase) elicited a more fulsome account from interviewees.   99 Chapter Summary To investigate leaders’ understandings of and values about internationalization, I relied on policy and strategic documents for background information as well as semi-structured interviews to gather empirical data from leaders in my workplace. Utilizing elements of narrative inquiry nested within a qualitative case study, I investigated what they understand internationalization to be and how they interpret and prioritize its multiple narratives for implementation.   100 Chapter Four: Findings This chapter presents the findings generated by my interviews and by my analysis of policy and strategy documents. Participants were given the main questions in advance; in situ probing questions elicited further explanation and greater clarity. The data are presented thematically, using the interview questions as a framework. I first provide findings relating to policy enacted before the arrival of the leaders I interviewed. This informs us of some of the understandings of internationalization that impacted the College’s past and current activities. Next, I discuss what leaders revealed their understandings of internationalization to be, and how they described their respective roles related to internationalization. The final two sections detail the purposes and challenges of internationalization from their perspectives and their recommendations to new and existing leaders for implementing internationalization. As outlined in my literature review, there are mixed understandings of what internationalization is and what activities it includes. The responses of my participants mirrored this finding. Activities at BPC were oriented to ‘international development’ and as international student recruitment became a more critical endeavour, there needed to be some clarity on what BPC was trying to accomplish. Relying on common definitions from key organizations (e.g., CBIE) and authors (e.g., Knight), helped to begin addressing this shortcoming.  Policy Landscape International engagement is not a new or even recent phenomenon for BPC. It has been involved with international projects (e.g., Early Childhood Education) from the late ‘80s and early ‘90s (Leader #6). The complex environment that influences leaders’ decisions on internationalization includes Provincial government and College Board directions, institutional realities and leaders’ preferences. This long-standing situation has set the stage for BPC’s current 101 ways of understanding and ‘doing’ internationalization. While people and roles have changed over the years, what remains are particular definitions and directives embedded in policy that to some extent drive how internationalization efforts are currently pursued. According to Leaders #4 and #6, internationalization was not a well-understood or well-defined term or activity at BPC even up to 2012. International development was the initial focus, subsequently supplanted by international education - the recruitment of international students. Internationalization was not clearly understood in relation to those activities. Leader #6 described the context as follows: International education came about … I guess it's chicken and egg … in part through the desire for internationalization and in part, internationalization was a desired outcome of engaging international education, and so if you want to talk about which came first, in 1993 the College became Board governed. Before 1993 the college was part of the Department of Education and my understanding is … prior to 1993, the college engaged in international projects … I don't think there were a lot of international students or a lot of … marketing or recruiting of international students …. Regarding the Board Policy on international education, Leader #6 noted that “at the time it was created … it [International Education] was established as … a strategic business unit … revenue generation was, from the very beginning, a focus of the international education operations and mandate here … as an educator, I'd like to believe internationalization was also [part of the mandate]”. He further noted that IE was “of interest to the president [at the time] both corporately and personally” but to be accepted by the Board, IE had to be a full cost recovery venture that would not displace provincial students. Leader #6 noted that the foray into international recruitment was tentative, given that “at that time … we were under the new 102 Colleges Act and there were some discussions with the province and with our legal counsel whether, under the Colleges Act we actually had the authority, legal authority to engage in activity outside the province”. He also pointed out that even though various presidents embraced international ventures, the Board was fairly conservative so the executive had to be somewhat pragmatic in ‘selling’ the idea to them:  So you had a board who was very risk-averse; you had a president who had, I think, a personal interest and saw a way of making money and a way of helping to build the organization that didn't have that capability. The academics who wanted to support it were people who believed - who knew and understood what internationalization was, what it could do and what good things, and if we had to sell it to the board by saying we’re going to make money in doing it, okay, because we will make some money. Furthermore, even though at the time the College did have programs that supported immigration, Leader #6 did not think “that we aligned ourselves with the Province's, maybe the country's, immigration policy, goals, and objectives … of immigration and growing the workforce”. He suggested that as a public institution and as an instrument of public policy, this should be and would likely be corrected in the current College environment. He also pointed out that historically, there was some tension with IE being a strategic business unit (SBU) with a strong revenue- and profit-generating mandate and attempting to internationalize: “… it affects what you can offer, what you do, how you try to do it, and it can affect the internationalization elements that you can draw out of international activity”. In Leader #6’s responses, we see some delineation between the economic and social aims of internationalization as well as the acknowledgement of the powerful influence of market-driven motivations over how far social benefits could be pursued.  103 Leader #4 offered his perspective on IE and its link to internationalization: … it wasn’t really internationalization. International Ed was part of the 2012-15 Strategic Plan. Looking back on that now, it wasn’t a particularly strong statement. There was an understanding that we had to do something about International Ed. It appears under the profit section very much with the emphasis on International Ed [which] would be expanded or increased in order to increase profits. But it also is scattered in a couple other areas—within the student success piece, so that it was recognized that the student success piece had to include international students. So it was in those two areas. But there certainly was an emphasis on increasing the number of international students. Leader #4 also commented on how BPC’s policy on International Education (not internationalization) grew out of a particular history of IE: There are some things there that we do [currently] without a doubt … also in many ways, it reflects part of the evolution of International Ed. I wouldn't even bring the word internationalization into … the context of A11 [International Education Policy]. It's basically how IE evolved, because when it started … in the mid-90s, the focus was very much on contracts overseas. These contracts involved faculty and staff going abroad to work on development projects. But, as international student recruitment became a larger part of the College, Leader #4 saw that the executive team realized that they had to determine a new focus and came to realize that they needed to first define what they meant by internationalization. … we as an executive team identified 10-11 key items we felt that, within our mandate, we had to address because they were absolutely critical to the organization. International 104 Ed, as we referred to it in the beginning, was one of those. But as we got to the point of dealing with that and realizing that the language and thinking around that had begun to change, we began to talk about intercultural; we began to talk about internationalization. We realized a couple of things. One was we didn’t know where we were going. We didn’t know what the words meant. We didn’t have a definition for internationalization. We weren’t able to give International Ed. clear direction on the route that they were to travel …. So we realized that we had to sit down and say ‘alright, we’re comfortable with internationalization because we felt it gave us broader scope than just looking at bringing in more students which we were going to have real difficulty accommodating.  However, Leader #4 also pointed out that this policy (still in effect) is outdated. It does not address what he believes are key concerns going forward such as “teaching and learning, research, community, economic goals … how it influences our relationships … the risk of being abroad and the significant challenges that we experience in the classroom and [that] our faculty need support as well …”. These concerns have to do with the outcomes and inputs of internationalization—what does BPC want to accomplish in these areas and in what ways do these aspects contribute to internationalization? From the findings discussed in this section we can see that there was a strong alignment first with a liberal paradigm in the form of international development projects, and then with a market orientation in the form of a full-cost-recovery mandate, when it came to establishing the parameters for international student recruitment activities. However, when the shift towards intercultural skills and internationalization began, the leaders (prior to 2012) did not have the understanding or the language to define the terms or direct activities in a meaningful way. In fact, the primary policy governing all international activities was and still is, geared towards IE, 105 not internationalization. This policy still does not address the outcomes of, and inputs to, internationalization that have to do with teaching and learning, economic and community goals and so forth. Keeping in mind how the historical context has informed what exists today, the next section presents leaders' understandings of internationalization, how they were developed and what impact they have on their practice. Understandings of Internationalization, Pathways, and Impact on Practice Although participants were supplied with a backgrounder document that provided context for my research, a definition of internationalization was not presented. Participants were free to present their own perspectives when asked about their understandings of internationalization. Internationalization was dually understood as a financial/business venture tied to international student recruitment (international education) or business operations and as a social process leading to increased intercultural understanding, workforce development and citizenship. The close and sometimes overlapping relationship between IE and internationalization was evident across responses. For example, when asked about internationalization, some participants framed their responses in terms of IE activities such as student recruitment or exchange programs. Other participants framed their responses in terms of their experiences of cultural and language differences and the social dividends of domestic students’ empathy for the realities of international students. When asked how they came to their understandings, all participants cited personal events associated with their lived experience. For some, education, international travel or living abroad was a catalyst for broadening their understanding of internationalization; for others, family or professional relationships were key. Leader #1 recounted how personal experiences of significant changes in her cultural context have shaped her understanding: 106 I've experienced internationalization personally which is how I understand internationalization. I grew up in … a very white city [laugh]  … lots of Ukrainians and Germans and Russians and a very indigenous city but I didn't know it at the time because I wasn't cognizant of the importance of that in my life. Then I moved to Vancouver at the height of the Hong Kong influx after Expo ‘86 … and all of a sudden I … walked into this world that I didn't understand, and I was hearing 50 different languages on the bus and I was living with people from all over the world, and my mind got blown by the exposure to that. In addition to learning about the difference between people and cultures, she further described the “exhausting” experiences of learning to navigate and live while teaching in Japan and doing graduate studies in a very different cultural and national context. These experiences, from which she developed empathy for what international students go through, led her to characterize internationalization as an “embodied, lived experience … not a theoretical experience … and … not a theoretical undertaking”. So I might have a different view of internationalization than other people who haven't necessarily had that opportunity because what it brings to me is empathy for international students. Because I have experienced the exhaustion, the mental stress, the physical stress of transitioning in a culture …. I can't see how we can be successful educators if we don't have the competence necessary to understand what other people are going through and be able to provide the support necessary to do that successfully. Her education also helped to solidify her view of internationalization as intertwined with identity, itself inseparable from values. She went on to describe how personal values: 107 come from identity … to the narrativization of values. How do we tell our own stories? How do we see ourselves in culture? What language do we use to tell those identity stories? And then how does that translate into leadership on internationalization? Because ultimately, it comes down to the individual and his or her understanding of identity relative to the narrativization of culture, and how that translates into leadership on internationalization …. [Her academic work caused her to be] immersed in the cultural theory of this, in the critical theory of this; I've lived it as an international student … and I don't separate academic and personal. Thus, for her, internationalization is in part, relational - knowing yourself and building trusting, supportive relationships among people: It’s not just about a policy … it’s not just about an academic program … it’s about people; it’s about the humanity in each of us. It's about supporting the person to get to the goal in terms of where they want to be and program design comes into it. And I started very academically, right? And now I'm shifting into the value-based model of ‘how do we treat the people who’ve entrusted us with their lives to be successful in what they want to do’”? At the same time, Leader #1 discussed internationalization as a holistic, cross-cutting phenomenon that caused her to take into account international research and teaching partnerships, language training, and admission requirements. This practical side includes international student academic and workplace success and, institutionally, the realization that BPC and its students are impacted by global occurrences and have impact globally:  So [in] our School of Business, for instance, in the entrepreneurial program, many of those students may start businesses in Canada or go back and start businesses elsewhere 108 but they have global networks that can benefit the economic development of the province. In her opinion, BPC, especially because of the applied nature of its programming and its partnerships with multi-national companies, is compelled to locate itself within certain global events: It [internationalization] doesn't not touch everything. The Canadian dollar [laughs], tax, how much steel costs … in our programs how much the lumber costs or how much our line by line budgets are affected by global trends. We know as well, that the decrease in the resource sector—gas and oil in Alberta—is affecting our programs because employers are now hiring back Alberta employees that have been laid off instead of taking our co-op students. And so that's a global effect. Distinguishing international education from internationalization, Leader #1 described how “international education is a specific business line for me”, proposing that running a college with a $180M budget is like running a complex business. She did acknowledge that some people would take issue with likening a college to a business. I interpret this to mean that those individuals see educational institutions as having differing motives from those of profit-making businesses. Despite this controversial stance, Leader #1, from her life and educational experiences, tries to ensure that: our decisions take into account the complex layers and factors and are not superficial. So, that we are considering all aspects of it when we're making those decisions and we're all considering the impact on the person … we’re considering risk both to the student and the organization when we’re making those decisions. So from a decision-making perspective, I probably approach it with a much more comprehensive view of the issue. 109 Similarly, Leader #8 identified his family’s immigration history, travel and living abroad experiences and his educational background as crucial to opening his mind to “other ways of looking, [other] perspectives, different values and also the commonalities that we might have with other peoples and countries”. He also vividly described his role in helping immigrants become citizens as an activity that “shapes my love of bringing people here and then providing something for them and not promising them something that we can’t deliver on”. Internationalization, for him, is synonymous with IE and mobility but, goes beyond recruiting students to the College to providing ‘lived’ experiences for domestic students and College faculty through exchange programs, internationally focused applied research projects, and international work practicums. Leader #3 also discussed international education and internationalization as intertwined. Internationalization is, for him, related to “teaching and learning - bringing the internationalization perspective into the curriculum, to the course content, to the teaching methodologies … enhancing or improving the intercultural competence of staff, students and faculty”. For this leader, internationalization is not just learning about others, it is digging deeper into learning about what others do, learning how to communicate with them more effectively and respecting their point of view. International education—including its revenue-generating function - as part of internationalization, brings students and the College together so that we can learn from each other. He deferred to the Canadian Bureau for International Education’s (CBIE) definition of internationalization—“The active pursuit of activities which support the incorporation of an international perspective into all aspects of teaching and learning” (Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2017). This definition speaks to activities that relate directly to curriculum and that do not require travel abroad (internationalization at home). His response 110 also echoed Leader #2’s (presented later) focus on building intercultural and multilateral understanding and knowledge—that we need to have more than surface knowledge about the world for a variety of reasons including national and provincial economic aims. For Leader #3, building understanding of others had an instrumental purpose—trade. Internationalization is  … not only about how much we know about the outside world, it's about learning what the outside world is doing … because we live in a global society. We're not living as just [city or province-dwellers] or Canadians. We are doing trading in many, many countries. When you look at the trade list of countries, we're trading with more than 50 countries … and it's very important that we not only understand the culture and the belief system, the tradition there [other countries], but we need to find an effective way to communicate with them … a core piece is the intercultural competence - to be able to communicate effectively with other nationalities, other people in the world or else we will not be very successful in dealing with the Chinese … Spanish … Indians or the Brazilians, right”? But for this leader, the aims of internationalization were not solely instrumental, a developmental/liberal perspective and internationalization as a social venture is evident in his assertion that “we are global citizens. We contribute not only in trading but in the diplomacy of knowledge, right? We are sharing knowledge with others; we are trying to improve the world together”. His perspectives have come out of his lived experience—personal and professional. After living for 18 years in his home country, Leader #3 immigrated to Canada and had to not just learn about another culture and another set of views - a significant venture: 111 In order for me to be able to live and be part of a Canadian society, I have to learn their ways. I have also to understand their ways. But I find that in most cases for people who haven't been living in two different worlds … their views are not as broad … I know a lot of people in [this city] that never even have left [it]. Their views are only from CNN or from news channels … whatever they read and they really haven't experienced that true difference in culture, in ethnicity. His graduate studies also influenced his understanding of internationalization: I think getting to the Masters of Education level, I've done a lot of courses that specifically talked about internationalizing curriculum as well as about international education … I think those pieces broadened my academic view of why there is an importance in internationalizing the curriculum, internationalizing the teaching/learning perspective. Leader #4 also referred to his upbringing outside of Canada and to his family life that upon reflection shaped his view of internationalization. I was brought up in _________ so I went to school with people (Chinese, Indian, Australian, New Zealanders) … we had this very diverse international community in those formative years. So that was quite influential, having lived abroad for many years, even as a kid. We've got a fairly diverse family so that, obviously, influences some of my thinking about this as well - it's sort of in the background but it's certainly very much there.  The diversity of his personal community influenced how Leader #4 worked, especially his creation of high-performing executive teams—themselves a community of practice—in which he 112 learned more about internationalization: From a work perspective, I would say that the piece that is most important to me is the whole team approach. However we come together as a group and effectively solve this particular issue; whether it is internationalization, aboriginal education, some of the other issues we had to deal with, it's very much the whole team approach. And that is something that developed through my career. When asked about his understanding of internationalization, he too deferred to the full definition adapted from the CBIE: “the process of strengthening the College by integrating an international dimension into teaching, learning, research, community and economic goals of our institution. Internationalization shapes our values, influences our relationships and partnerships and impacts the entire college”. Like Leader #2, he too acknowledged the need to support international students to help them achieve success. Leader #2 initially characterized internationalization as “involving a globalization process” predicated on student recruitment and then specified that internationalization meant not only ensuring industry support in Canada and in their home countries, but also actually learning from and understanding the students and their needs here and back at home: We’re bringing students here to learn from us; we're learning from them … how we can work together in terms of supporting industries both in having industry supported in Canada and having industry and other partners supported in the home countries of where the students are coming from …  specifically with internationalization, we want to make sure that we’re understanding the students, what their needs are when they come here; how we can support places like [a partner institution] in China; how we can better support what we’re doing there in terms of education, how we can expand that into other 113 areas if we choose to go that route—making sure that the students are coming and getting what they need from our programming; supporting them with language training, providing the appropriate programming that they need to be successful either if they are staying here or if they are going back home and doing something in their home country. However, Leader #2’s perspective on Policy A11 illuminated another dimension of internationalization -- that it is also attitudinal not just a policy directive: I see this as a state of mind and a vision and mission as opposed to a policy. This isn’t something to me that is appropriate as a policy—as a directive - “you shall do this” or “you shall do that”. I think it is more just a mindset and the ability to be accepting of different peoples and different ways of doing things … That’s not a policy, that’s the reality of what we are living and what we should be living. When I probed about what ‘living’ meant, she highlighted equitable, fair, non-discriminatory treatment of all peoples, explaining that: The world is … much smaller than we realize very often, and it’s got a lot of problems, and we need to be working together to fix those problems … we can’t be looking at things in isolation in our little silos. We have to expand our reach; we have to expand our thinking and embrace differences and make them part of our everyday living—getting along with people, working together to solve the problems of the world instead of working at odds with each other. For her, internationalization was bound up in the phenomena of globalization, student recruitment, and the problem of students fitting into the existing curriculum and culture. For her, then, their very presence and different worldviews should be leading to curricular changes, and 114 international cooperation and development focused on solving ‘big’ problems. Her work experiences with people from different backgrounds, but particularly at BPC, were the primary catalyst for how she understands internationalization. More of it has been made apparent to me since I’ve come here … certainly, my knowledge has expanded more with working with [folks] who are intimately involved with the international students …. I’ve learned a lot from them and what they are doing and how they are managing things and what their challenges are … through discussions with the executive team; [and through] discussion with instructors and the union about some of the challenges the instructors face in terms of integrating students into their classrooms and making sure that they are being successful and the additional supports that are required to move that process along. Similarly, citing work and professional involvements (e.g., conferences and professional associations) as impacting her understanding of internationalization, Leader #5, positioned internationalization within the social sphere. It is a “basic value that needs to be interwoven into every aspect of what we do here at the college”. Highlighting its philanthropic values and knowledge sharing, she continued, “[it is] also about us giving to other countries who might not be as far advanced in some of the areas that we are, or vice versa” and the “sharing of knowledge and information to make this a better place in which we all can live”. Focusing on students, she believes that “we need to ensure that we are preparing our graduates for the global world—for the new world. Internationalization is going to be key to helping our students achieve that”. She emphasized that internationalization was not just tokenism—not just “changing our curriculum, or ‘let’s put up a few signs’. It’s about a very high-level global perspective in which we really are responsible”. Financial purposes were only a small part of it, and she was emphatic that 115 “what it doesn’t mean is bringing in international students so that we can increase our revenue … international education is not equivalent to internationalization”. Internationalization, for her, is also a lived experience much broader than international education, which she defined as “a process … of bringing in students to help meet the labour market needs of our province and providing them with high-quality education here and credentials so that they can achieve whatever goal they would like to achieve”. She agreed with my summation of internationalization as “the context which drives and shapes everything else”. She described her own cultural background as rich with custom and family bonding—“some of the cultural norms surrounding everything we did were based on [ethno-cultural] norms. The food, the celebrations, the family yelling across the table [laugh] so, that has become an inherent and important part of me!” This background has led her to believe that it is critical for, everybody here at the college to understand different cultural norms … so that we can actually build a common understanding of what’s important and how we can celebrate and really utilize … the most important aspects of every culture to enhance and enrich the college environment”. She summed up the impact of culture on her professional life: Probably because culture was an important aspect of my background, it continues to be an important part of my professional work as well. …  Professionally there’ve been many students that my heart aches [for] because sometimes they think that perhaps we’ve not really facilitated their success. Not because we didn’t want to, but because we didn’t have things in place that would have really met their individual needs … I want to make change to help those students be successful as well.  116 As with Leader #1, Leader #5’s understanding of internationalization has stemmed, in part, from vivid culture-related memories and life and workplace experiences, resulting in a profound desire to help students succeed and to explicate what internationalization is truly about: It’s important that I bring that forward and help educate people around the [leadership] table about what that means to any decisions we are making. I think that [has] been a key role for me. I also have to advocate for change within the college, so that we are making steps towards internationalizing our college. As leaders, we have to demonstrate, not only that we are taking international students in, but we have to demonstrate an expertise in internationalization and help people understand the good that it will bring about in the world, and our social responsibility towards helping the Province achieve that as well. Other participants also acknowledged such personal experiences as the foundation for their understanding. Leader #6, from an economic perspective, identified workforce and global realities as part of his understanding of internationalization but also included intercultural competencies as important: “the ability to work globally, work internationally, and that it's necessary to understand the cultures and the norms in those areas”. He further noted that because [Provincial] employers operate in a global economy, they need workers who have the necessary skills, competencies, and sensitivities to promote success. However, he also pointed out that internationalization, at least the intercultural aspects, could occur at the local level with, for example, interactions with Hutterite colonies. This conception comes out of his early experiences as an international student in New Zealand, as a backpacker through Asia, the Mediterranean, and Europe. He spoke to these international experiences: [I’ve had] some experience living in other environments, trying to conduct very modest enterprise - so to find a room, pay for a meal find a place, make your way around, 117 negotiate in marketplaces [laughs] - and also meeting a lot of other travellers … [Indonesians, Germans, Italians, Americans] … and a collective experience in working with each other and working in the environment we were in. That's small, and it’s not doing business in big scale. His learning from those travels also led him to realize how pervasive the English language was “everywhere we went in the world … we became much aware of the dominance and the privilege that goes with … the culture that we came from”. Additionally, the life of one of his family members who immigrated to Canada as a student and experienced the frustrations of trying to settle, marry and start a family here, also impacted him. Now, again part of internationalization - yes, he was Asian-African but was educated in a British kind of model school, spoke English [and other languages] very well … but that didn't do much for him here. [He] had some experience with trying to become an immigrant to Canada, trying to get landed immigrant status, trying to find employment, learning differences in culture, small though they may be, even if language wasn't a barrier. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped my understanding of internationalization. He felt his practice was impacted because, as he noted, he was “empathetic and sympathetic to the mandate [internationalization] that initially … wasn't universally adopted across the college, either by its leadership or its schools and its operations”.  While personal experiences do shape views on internationalization, Leader #7 also cited his previous career experience as the catalyst for his particular understanding of it—“I’m very aware of how important immigration and international studies are and [how important] the two of them linked together have become, to the [Provincial] economy and [the Province’s] society, 118 generally”. Even while acknowledging economic goals of internationalization, he noted: I am more interested in equality of opportunity generally … I interrupted an academic career to work ____________ and I wouldn't have said that the main thing was to increase immigration or even pursued diversity but I was very interested in …what I would describe as an inclusive and fair society. To me, immigration is a part of that. He complemented that experience with what he has learned from being at BPC. “Our own people who deal with international students … have actually taught me a lot about both what the advantages are and what some of the challenges are”. For him, “the most obvious thing is … attracting and educating more students from outside Canada at [BPC]. But I think, to my mind, that that doesn’t capture the broader picture”. This broader picture was both internal and external and involved other critical aspects—economic and social: It’s also about the integration or the international awareness that comes about as a result of that within the college, and thirdly it’s that component of enhancing [BPC’s] contributions to the provincial workforce by our role … I think, bringing about the most successful transitions of immigrants into the workforce and into citizenship [is important]. There’s another aspect of internationalization that I think is very underdeveloped and I don’t think it’s something we’ve really made much progress in. But in the future we have to put more of a focus on and that’s students [from this province] having the ability to actually go abroad and become educated. The theme of integration is echoed in Leader #7’s personal narrative of growing up as a boy in a predominantly white (“in fact even more so of Northern European stock”) neighbourhood and attending schools with little noticeable diversity. Contrasting that with the City of today: 119 [I’ve] really been able to see the changes that have come about in the province’s society and even just visibly within our community where I’ve lived most of my life in the City. And it really is true that we are an example and I think we should take more credit for that than we’re accustomed to doing - being very modest people. But we’re a really good example of how you integrate a very large percentage of new Canadians on an annual basis. He also spoke of the province now being seen as integrated into the global landscape:  There’s an awareness that [the province] exists in a much larger context now … for me … I think there’s been a very positive change in our communities and … I would say … that we can take pride in the fact that it’s actually come about in such a way that's had clear benefits and really very few downsides. The passion with which he spoke about the integration of new Canadians, the development of international awareness and the role of the College revealed several personal values. In fact, he had “interrupted an academic career” in order to pursue “equality of opportunity generally”. At the College, he experienced “a complete meshing of my personal values with the internationalization strategy”. His endeavours to position BPC as a key player in bringing in international students who become new immigrants help to “advance a vision of [the province] [and Canada] that I feel very strongly about”—a vision that places Canada as, a model for the rest of the world, and we actually should think about that more and talk about it more than we do. You look around the world and the borders are closing and you know people are insisting that ethnicities [and] religions can’t get along. I think Canada increasing its immigration, its refugee intakes … is a very strong statement that there is a 120 model that works and that it's one Canada has really been committed to for half a century now of multiculturalism and diversity. That internationalization should be comprehensive—embedded into teaching, research and innovation—was also a clear refrain. Referring to Policy A11 (International Education), Leader #3 identified comprehensive internationalization as “all of the specific activities that will contribute to internationalization … recruiting international students, [developing] more curriculum that reflects the global reality, leadership, and participation in events (community engagement) … the research component”. Leader #4, relaying the definition from an internal strategy document, emphasized that internationalization at BPC is “the process of strengthening the College by integrating an international dimension into the teaching, learning, research, community and economic goals of our institution. Internationalization shapes our values, influences relationships and partnerships, and impacts the entire College”. Similar definitions were echoed by Leader #5 in her definition of internationalization as being interwoven into all aspects of the College; and by Leader #7: “internationalization is not an adjunct or something off to the side of what the college is doing … Internationalization is part of who we are; it’s part of our identity”. Purposes/Benefits of Internationalization Leaders’ understandings of the purposes of internationalization were closely aligned. They noted that instrumental - economic, financial and political—outcomes and social benefit were both crucial for BPC. Intercultural understanding/competency, academic/workforce success, problem-solving/international development and so forth fit into the category of social outcomes. This latter set of benefits not only accrued to students but also to faculty and staff. Financial contribution can be broadly defined as tuition revenues, while economic gains are 121 defined as revenue-generation for the Province through international student spending and as the contribution of skilled graduates to the Province’s (and the Country’s) economic competitiveness. Leader #4, a retired College executive, from an historical perspective, noted: there's money there without a doubt but the reasons for [internationalization] are much broader than that … One thing we all have been very skeptical about is that you can make gobs of money in International Ed. We haven't. … There are benefits other than money. We can't have it suck our coffers dry, there has to be a financial rationale to do this, but there are many other benefits to us. Leader #2’s perspective, shared by Leader #8, was that financial outcomes were the side benefit to BPC but the educational and altruistic motivations were necessary and primary - “it can’t all be for money, if it’s the right thing to do then it's the right thing to do”. Leader #8 also acknowledged that,  if you want globalization, you may have to, from your bottom line, provide support to programs, to coordinators, to get students placed internationally … But if you’re cognizant of it and you say, well look, we want to be globally recognized? It’s going to cost us something …but if that’s our philosophy and that’s what we want as part of our programming and our vision for ourselves and our students, then so be it.  Revenue generation for Leader #2 was, therefore, a pragmatic concern:  The more money you have, the easier it is to accomplish some of these things. … you have to be way more creative if you don’t have that financial resource to provide the things that you need, whether it be people, time, equipment, whatever. 122 It was pragmatic also in terms of the sustainability of the institution - “with the shrinking percentage of funding that comes from the provincial budget, IE and other cost-recovery programs are likely to become increasingly important to the operations of the College” (Leader #2). Obviously, recruiting international students does generate revenue (Leader #7)—especially important in a context of financial constraint. Leader #5 admitted that, for so long, it’s been about international education here at the college. It’s about, “the reason that we are doing this is because we need to bring in additional revenue”, right? It’s not about all of those other benefits to our students, to our instructors, to our leaders in terms of why we are doing what we do. I’m helping to try to shift that … Leader #3 corroborated this analysis saying: “over … the past several fiscal years, the … focus of internationalization is mostly on … the … financial sustainability piece. As a college, we have not moved towards as much in terms of internationalizing the curriculum”. He added, [internationalization] has a huge impact financially for helping the college to be financially stable. Due to the … increased cost … in salaries, in infrastructure, the government increase every year is not able to support the overall financial sustainability of this college. And so financially, we, through the international students, are able to generate over $3M every year as part of the bottom line for this college - and that's just on average. Politically, it is important for BPC to align with governmental goals, as Leader #3 pointed out, when we develop any international education policy or international education plan or academic plan that specifically has international education in it, we study up on what [the Province] is looking [for] in terms of international education. Why is international 123 education so important? We study up on the Federal side, we study up on the [Provincial] Post-Secondary Education Strategy ... so the alignment of what we do as a public college is to meet those specific needs, those specific strategies because we are funded, but we are also an institution that contributes to the economic social prosperity of this province. And if this province requires those international, globally competent people, which it says it does, we need to be part of that, and we need to be a big player in that because this institution is a big player in the graduates that work in industries. Leader #8 also subscribes to this viewpoint, saying, “we continue to contribute to the labour market here. That’s our helping to grow the economies, bringing students in here”. However, he also believes that there are “less obvious goals” to be achieved, namely, “diversity of inclusiveness of experience of broadening views of sharing experience, dialogue, creativity, innovation”. Furthermore, he strongly affirms the value of mixing international and domestic cohorts/students because, at some points, we’ve brought in complete cohorts of international students. So you’ll have a group of 20 students from India taking one program, one cohort, they all sit together; there’s no experience - really. I mean the international students aren’t experiencing Canada in the way that they could in as rich a way, and our domestic students aren’t experiencing anything else or anything new. Drawing on his observations from an Applied Research Day, he advocated that mixing/blending students allows for an experience that “could be quite innovative - the kinds of projects that people work on from different perspectives, approaching problems and issues in different ways. So I think there’s a certain richness that could come out of that”. Others also share the view that while financial return may not be primary, some type of benefit does need to accrue to the 124 College. Leader #2 was emphatic: There needs to be some benefit to us, whether it's an economic benefit or some other kind of benefit, by establishing a global partnership that down the road is going to benefit us in some ways … As a steward of the resources, we need to demonstrate that there is a return on investment—whatever that return is, it doesn’t have to be financial, but whatever that return is we have to demonstrate that as being that this is something that we want to put our resources into. Benefit to domestic and international students was also of concern to participants. International student recruitment was seen as one vehicle for promoting intercultural understanding amongst students—especially important as workplaces are becoming increasingly diverse. Leader #7 strongly believed that not only was BPC obligated to provide this opportunity it did indeed fulfill its obligation in an organic, integrated fashion: workplaces are very diverse—there’re people from all continents of the world. Many of them have had their training in Canada but they come from different backgrounds. And to be successful in that kind of environment, you have to have a sense of how you deal with cultural difference … [BPC] is becoming a site where, if Canadian and [provincial] students didn’t experience that kind of diversity prior to their arrival at the college, it’s part of their education and it’s not even something that we’re advertising, that we’re trying to present to people as an educational course; it’s simply an element that is in the classrooms and in our institution. And I think that it’s very important that we cultivate that. That we address any issues that arise—although I don’t think there’ve been any significant ones.  125 Flow-through benefits (e.g., faculty members increasing their own intercultural development thereby enhancing their ability to meet the needs of international and domestic students) other than finances were of interest to Leader #6 who offered that, there’s the value to the College that allows us to bring value to our students. I guess maybe it’s required. I guess that there's also some extrinsic value - so being active in the global marketplace or in the broader way. It brings reputation to the college if we’re one of the colleges that do international activities. It brings opportunity for the college to have partnerships with other organizations, other colleges, and universities either here or abroad. It creates some opportunity to extend Canada's influence and reach by helping other countries develop capacity. However, Leader #3 cautioned that certain types of externally funded international development projects, while augmenting the College’s reputation in the global market, stretched our limited resources, required reliance on contractors and therefore did not bring revenue in and did not contribute to faculty members’ intercultural competency: The College’s reputation will get the benefit that we helped in an international development project. But the actual internationalizing of the curriculum or internationalizing helping our faculty and staff to learn more about what Malawi's like or you know communicate more effectively in Mozambique, there's no contribution there. So, while it is very important for the College to build up a brand that we want to be part of social transformation and part of the diplomacy of knowledge, we have to be very careful into looking at when exactly we're going to be able to reap those benefits rather than just sending contractors. We don't want to be part of a project just to be part of that 126 project. It has to contribute the whole internationalization piece … But if we're hiring a contractor, we'll not be able to [realize these goals]. Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1994; Fitzsimons, 2015) situates education and internationalization as tools for developing human capacity for economic development or progress. “Education and training are the most important investments in human capital” (Becker, 1994, p. 17); education is seen to be “primarily an economic device” (Fitzsimons, 2015, p. 1). Another form of flow-through benefit that reflects this perspective is, from the vantage point of some participants, the impact of the College’s internationalization efforts on the broader community. Leader #5 highlighted economic development, offering that internationalization includes “… bringing in students to help meet the labour market needs of our province and providing them with high-quality education here and credentials so that they can achieve whatever goal they would like to achieve”. Similarly, Leader #7 proposed that “… it’s very important that the college be seen as one of the main institutions that facilitates the internationalization of the Province’s workforce and make sure that the benefits of that are actually optimized”. He believes that, we have to be very attentive to what the province's overall, labour-force strategy is both now and into the future … increasingly, that’s an international strategy. We’ve gone from roughly about three thousand international immigrants in the late '90s, to now about 16—17 thousand; we’re headed for 20. So, it’s a huge part of [the Province’s] development strategy, and it doesn’t matter which Provincial government is in power—they’ve all endorsed this strategy, and all of the main business leaders have. So, [the Province] is building its skilled workforce in part through an immigration strategy and we've [the Provincial Government] designed a provincial nominee program that meets [its] needs, 127 that's tailored to our workforce needs. And I think … [the College] has an obligation to be part of that and to do what we can, and it’s a very significant role actually to support the overall strategy of fulfilling our workforce requirements of the future by drawing from international markets and using immigration as one of the tools. Agreeing that student recruitment and increased international awareness were important, he added that “thirdly, it’s [internationalization] that component of enhancing [BPC’s] contributions to the provincial workforce by our role and actually I think, bringing about the most successful transitions of immigrants into the workforce and into citizenship”. Believing that education is primarily for driving economic growth, Leader #3 emphasized that, Why are we training and providing students with education? Not just for education - because it supports the industry needs for employment … It's the same thing like having these international students, not only that they benefit the piece on that whole $310M but when they go to companies they can speak multiple languages, right? We have a lot of companies that nowadays - due to international trade - would need those kinds of skills, right? “Can you speak Portuguese? Brazilian Portuguese? Yes! Oh! Give me two more students, two more graduates of that” because they’re doing business in Brazil. So, there are huge, huge benefits overall. Regardless of how they ranked the financial/economic benefit, all leaders believed that other aims had to complement such motivations. For example, Leader #2 believed in the importance of learning from students and meeting their needs. Leader #3 noted that international students contributed to “learning what the outside world is doing … because we live in a global society” and Leader #5 similarly believed in the “sharing of knowledge and information to make this a better place in which we all can live”. Leader #7 proposed that these students help “the 128 integration or the international awareness [into the College]”. Moreover, participants also noted that faculty and the College community need to and can benefit from interaction with international students. Leader #2 believes that for faculty, staff and students: It develops more rounded people, exposing them to different life experiences. You gain whole new perspectives when you listen to some of the stories of some of the students that we have here and what they’ve gone through to get here, what their struggles are back at home. It does provide a whole new perspective to people and makes them realize maybe how good they’ve got it here, opens their eyes to what they can be contributing to help make other places better. Maybe it gives them the incentive to actually travel to other countries and see what they can do either as a volunteer or with work that they do there to help improve the lot of folks who are in poorer nations and don’t have the same kind of opportunities that we have. It just provides for a much more rounded life experience and more opportunities for folks to really contribute to humanity as a whole. Leader #4 also proposed an overall benefit of developing a worldview:  it shapes our values, influences our relationships and partnerships and impacts the entire college … that last part sort of sums it all up in that it defines who we are - that we are a college with a worldview; that we welcome people from wherever they come from; they're part of our community, we want to be part of theirs' when we work on partnerships and so on. So, it is this quantum leap from the college that I started in, which was all white and predominantly male, to something that is very diverse and increasingly diverse. Leader #1 built her case for undertaking internationalization by bringing to the fore the ‘circle of benefits’ that included: students’ global networks leading to BPC's access to new 129 technologies and knowledge creation with international partners, resulting in better academic programs. This understanding, in keeping with the expanded definition of internationalization by deWit et al. (2015), positions one purpose of internationalization to be enhanced educational quality. For her, internationalization also connects to our contribution to the world, our sharing of what we have learned with the world. The net benefits, as she described them, relate not only to academic programming but also to BPC’s global reputation or brand. These benefits achieve BPC’s mission that, “… we will be a globally recognized college.” So if there's nothing more explicit [laughs] in terms of the importance of internationalization, it's our Board mandate that says our students must be global citizens and must have a global mindset and our mission that says that we will be globally recognized. It's a perfect way to articulate how important internationalization is at the college. Leaders play particular roles in helping to realize these benefits. Leaders in this study expressed their understanding of their roles in relation to achieving these benefits and helping to move the internationalization agenda forward. Leaders’ Roles in Internationalization Overall, leaders’ roles in internationalization were characterized as indirect (i.e., a supporting role removed from direct decision making) and/or direct (to various degrees) and reflected, to some extent, their definitions of internationalization. At this level of leadership, involvement is typically strategic rather than operational; even those with operational components described their role in strategic/college-wide terms. According to one participant, it is “the executive’s responsibility [collectively] to set the mandate—this is what we expect” (Leader #4). 130 Strategic leadership. Given the various motivations for pursuing internationalization (e.g., revenue generation, workforce development and educational benefits), College leaders, collectively, are charged with the role of bringing “all those motivations together and stitch[ing] them together in a coherent policy and mechanism and … strategic plan so you can do the good thing” (Leader #6) - achieving the desired purposes and benefits of internationalization.  Leader #1, with strategic oversight of the academic aspects of internationalization, described herself as a cheerleader and role model. Internationalization is integrated into everything she does—setting inclusive and supportive (towards student success) academic strategy; ensuring that "we are embedding communications and intercultural competency in a program and how we are teaching our instructors and helping our faculty develop to teach students of diverse backgrounds and diverse language levels".  Leader #2’s ‘indirect’ involvement with internationalization is strategic and to some extent operational as her role is to ensure that support services are in place so that student recruitment and other international ventures can occur. Such services include budget advice and oversight to allow internationalization efforts to occur in a responsible manner. From an academic resource perspective, Leader #6 acknowledged that internationalization was never directly in his portfolio but “International Education called upon the delivery of programming and use of faculty from the schools and those were in my responsibilities”. His role, strategic and facilitative, was to ensure that those resources were made available to the IE Department. Leader #7 takes his mandate from the College. BPC had made internationalization its priority; therefore, it was his priority; specifically, in making connections and ensuring that internationalization remains “part of our identity”. This last sentiment, that of a collective identity, is echoed in part by Leader #5’s response that internationalization, while part of an 131 individual VP’s portfolio, is really an institutional responsibility—that “there’s never one person responsible for that, right?”. However, despite the collective nature of decision-making, Leader #7 offered that, ultimately it’s my responsibility to vet those plans, present them to the Board and to government, and once they’re adopted, to ensure that they actually become living documents—that they are effective and reliable guides to the way the College is setting priorities. Operational leadership. Leader #8’s role intersects with that of Leader #1. He summarized his primary objective as “quality assurance of programs” which he defined as ensuring the completeness or wholeness of programming/curriculum by aligning it to the College’s vision “to be globally recognized” making sure “that internationalization as a policy is there … that we have initiatives and opportunities within our curriculum that will allow for internationalization and that support it”. Program quality also “refers to whether it has the right supports or the right pathways that students can bridge into”. This then extends to making certain that the College hires faculty who are globally minded and supports existing faculty to build their understanding of the increased diversity in classrooms and how they can advance internationalization. Leader #3 also has a direct operational role. Internationalization, mandated in Policy A11, was integrally connected his department’s role to realize the College’s Internationalization policy across the institution as a whole. He too described his role as a facilitative one, saying that “… internationalization is not [me], it's not the International Education Office; it's about the whole college”. However, he also acknowledged his strategic responsibility to lead “the internationalization of the College” beyond the “financial sustainability piece”. This included 132 ensuring collaboration amongst academic departments in terms of embedding or integrating IE or internationalization into their curricula and supporting efforts to develop intercultural competence among students, staff, and faculty. However, he also recognized his responsibility to recruit more international students and to generate revenue. The strongest theme related to how leaders articulated their roles was that of collective responsibility, irrespective of how direct or indirect their role was. Each individual was committed to ensuring that they contributed to the overall success of internationalization through following their respective mandates. This articulated cohesion suggests that leaders are positioned to support comprehensive internationalization as a unified body; this is important for its implementation and success. However, assumed cohesion alone will not result in successful implementation. There are challenges to overcome. Internationalization exists at the nexus of philosophical/perceptual and practical challenges. Philosophical/perceptual challenges are those that emanate from how internationalization is understood and what understandings are not evident; practical challenges are those that pose barriers to implementation or that cause implementation to proceed in particular directions that may give rise to conflict. Challenges Participants offered candid views on what, in their experience, were the most significant tests and trials internationalization engendered or faced. Held values about the purposes for internationalization, how it is implemented and its priority within the College give rise to philosophical or perceptual challenges. Practical challenges emanate from the realities of costs, space, capabilities, legalities and so forth. However, while for the purposes of description I have categorized them in this manner, challenges often cross boundaries—perceptual challenges can 133 result in practical difficulties with implementing internationalization and vice-versa. Philosophical/perceptual. While internationalization was discussed as a fait accompli by participants, Leaders #4 and #6 noted that while some people question whether or not BPC should be ‘doing’ it, and are perhaps resistant to change, these leaders felt that BPC not only ought to be doing it but that we have no choice: I think being an educational institution, we'll always have internal questions, concerns about whether should we be doing this. Though I think it's a smaller voice, there is a parochial [narrow-minded] view on what educational institutions should be doing, but I think there's an overall realization that we have to be part of an international community and an international view of doing things. But you still have that parochial view that you have to deal with. (Leader #4) Leader #6 brought up a vivid point of contention with, one instructor who personally refused to accept a couple of students from China. They felt that it was inappropriate for us to be supporting them, helping them, transferring our knowledge to them. There was concern that they were engaged in reverse engineering certain equipment here in the college. So, there are some very strong personal feelings about how important internationalization is and how a modern college shouldn't be without it ... and if you have some feeling that, depending on who the country was and what their human rights history was, that this is not a country that we should be dealing with and supporting. While there was nothing to suggest that this was or was not a recurring issue, at BPC, from my perspective, it speaks to an ethical challenge. How do leaders address assumptions made about international students that are based on, or conflated with, actions of others from their home 134 countries? Ought they, the leaders, to evaluate the bases on which they venture into international partnerships or provide access to international students? If so, what criteria should they use? From the vantage point of how staff and leaders perceived such ventures, Leader #6 noted that if leaders (e.g., the Board, the President) were supportive, then “you’re on the team and you are helping”. However, he also commented that personal challenges might arise if there was a dissonance between what an individual was interested in versus what the institutional goal was. For example, too much of a revenue-generating mandate would be problematic if, “you wanted it to be internationalization; if you wanted it to be international education for revenue purposes you know maybe that makes sense” (Leader #6). Such differing values do exist in BPC as indicated by the following responses. Leader #1 shifted attention to the variety of understandings, values and philosophies about internationalization saying “there also isn't a comprehensive understanding of what internationalization is for the College; although, I think we actually made some gains there, but in terms of consistency of understanding, I don't think we have it”. Furthermore, how leaders, staff, and faculty describe internationalization provides a window into their own understandings and to some extent, what they expect from it and how they practice it: language is a cultural matter, right? Language itself embodies culture and values, and if we're not speaking the same language about internationalization we're not then being consistent as a leadership team relative to those values and those philosophies and that culture …. [It's] not just terminology …  it's about how we are framing internationalization as a strategy and that we are speaking the same language in terms of the value it holds for the whole institution …. So, when we talk about senior leadership using the same language, it’s also about knitting together the culture and the values and 135 philosophies of internationalization. But it’s a language that we have to learn … in some cases you have to bring it down to very basic levels before you can start building an understanding. She fears that “… if I go to talk to somebody about internationalization, that I have certain assumptions about a shared understanding and a shared knowledge and what I've realized is I can't make that assumption”. The challenge for her is “… education, difficult conversations [and] challenging ourselves” which she explained as follows: when I use a certain term or make a certain assumption and somebody challenges me “why are you saying it like that?”, “what do you mean by that?” Similar to the questions you are asking me now - “Tell me more about that?” Be curious about it, and make sure that I am confirming that we're meeting halfway on it, right? … Because ultimately, if we are not sharing values and understanding and we're not constantly testing that with each other and being brave enough to make sure we're challenging each other to confirm it, then we have the risk of misaligning the organization. This lack of a comprehensive and consistent understanding amongst College employees of what internationalization is poses a challenge (Leader #1, Leader #3). In fact, Leader #3 emphasized the existence of a ‘silo’ mentality that he believes needs to be reformed.  Internationalizing is challenging … because …. people see it as a separate component. It is not a separate component. It is not [my] initiative”. It's not an International Education Office initiative. It's a college initiative as part of the academic ring. He stressed that the use of formal strategic documents and policy helps to shift peoples’ minds away from separating internationalization from the core mission of BPC - “… we're trying to 136 transform that thinking into saying it’s a day-to-day part of the program. You cannot do a program without an international component to it”. This shift, he believes, will transform how we educate our students evidenced by, for example, incorporating international practicums into the curriculum, much like he has seen other colleges do. But has this shift occurred and to what extent? Leader #5, quite decisively said “no” when asked if anyone outside the executive had a holistic understanding of internationalization (as described in the College’s draft framework for internationalization). She concurred that “… there’s a lot more education and consultation that needs to occur across the College for people to really understand that”. Without this, “you don’t a get lot of buy-in if they don’t really understand the intrinsic value to internationalization” (Leader #5). One of the barriers to this type of understanding, in her opinion, is the fact that BPC only has a modest ‘study/teach abroad’ program: we are doing what is reasonably prudent when we are sending faculty and students abroad to learn … more about internationalization. I think there are some foundation steps that need to be developed before the institution will develop a really good understanding of what that is. But have we made strides? Yes … slow but sure. Philosophical challenges in how the pursuit of internationalization is perceived included a lack of a shared understanding of what internationalization means to the Executive and what it is intended to achieve. There was also the need to shift peoples’ thinking about internationalization from it being an additional business-oriented layer to it being a natural part of the College’s core mission. Some of these challenges, such as the lack of a unified or at least a well-understood definition of internationalization, are directly connected to practical challenges. However, there are additional practical concerns that leaders need to address.  137 Practical. Several themes emerged as participants discussed practical challenges to internationalizing the College: a) communication of understandings, values, and direction b) teaching, learning and student readiness c) accountability, risk management, and risk-taking d) strategic planning, policy, costs, and capacity Communication. Communication relates to how well leaders relay their understandings of, and values and directions for internationalization to the rest of the College. Communication amongst leaders and between leaders and the rest of the College was identified as an important challenge. Historically, communication in general from the Executive to the College was not as strong as it could have been but was improving (Leader #4). Regarding internationalization, “we didn’t know where we were going. We didn’t know what the words meant. We didn’t have a definition for internationalization. We weren’t able to give International Ed. clear direction on the route that they were to travel” (Leader #4). This too was improving, according to Leader #4, as senior leadership realized that they had to “be a lot more transparent, we had to get in front of things that were happening, we had to explain and justify why we were doing things in a certain way”. He was pragmatic in that “… you don't expect 2200 staff members to all agree with you, but I think if you can explain in a reasonable, coherent fashion, whatever it is you are explaining, you will be respected for that”. Pushback was the catalyst for deeper, enlightening conversations that could help to shape current and future direction. Leader #6 concurred that with the (then) revamped Policy A11, communication about what internationalization was and how BPC intended to respond was improving. He also noted that “for those who weren't interested, didn't know, didn't care, it probably didn't matter. For those who didn't agree with it, it probably didn't 138 matter”. For those who were interested, “it helped … give some background”.   However, current communication of Executive direction and perspectives is still on its trajectory towards an ideal state in terms of its quality and compelling nature—its clarity, specificity, and ability to engender understanding of leaders’ amongst other levels of BPC. Leader #2 worries that she has not been able to achieve the “… delicate balance between micro-managing and support and check-in and accountability”. This has led to assumptions that “others understand earlier than they do” and to the lack of clarifying conversations about what they do understand - “we just haven't spoken about it like that”. Leader #2 accepts some level of ambiguity in overarching themes related to internationalization as that allows the College to “tailor things into where you want to go” without compromising overall values. However, she believes that greater specificity in the finer details promotes buy-in by allowing people to,  understand all the reasoning behind things … again, for some folks, it won't matter. But for a lot of people, that extra effort to let them know what the reasoning process was behind things helps them be more accepting of whatever decisions are made and lets them understand things and see … where they might fit into the whole process, the impact it may have on them or the benefits that it may provide to them. On the other hand, she countered with the observation that “in some things, we do a good job, and in other things, we're still struggling … communication, of course, is always key … and I think we are slowly improving on that. We do have a ways to go”. Her response in the following exchange reinforced this: Interviewer: Throughout this interview so far, I’ve noticed the theme of humanity (e.g., providing opportunities to others, weighing benefits to people over costs, getting to know people, not just about people) of internationalization, humanity as a raison d'etre but also 139 as an outcome. Do you think that that message … comes through clearly to people below the 7th floor [non-executive] when we see their decisions? Leader #2: probably not as much as it should. And that‘s partially in the communication. It’s partially in terms of the audience because often people want to look after their own interest without looking at the larger picture. And a lot of times, at a senior level, you’re making decisions where you are trying to look at the broader scope and … that's not necessarily filtering down to the front lines. Leader #2 did describe one area of strength—“ We do a lot around change management—making sure that folks are brought in as much as possible, the reasons for changes are aligned, how it’s going to impact people are put out there so they know what to expect”. The struggle, she believed, tends to be related to deeper types of change:  [people here] don’t necessarily want to look at … finding ways to be more productive, finding ways to incorporate new ideas, new ways of thinking into what they're doing … We seem to be constantly talking about cultural shifts here, and we're slowly starting to move, but it’s going to be a while before we actually do make that big change to a different way of thinking about how we do things. However, she also thought optimistically about the new management structure - “Having a VP of Strategic Development, I think, is going to be our key position to moving us forward and making that shift”. Leader #3 was more direct in his assessment: “I don't think the true communication on what internationalization means has been communicated … and when/if it’s been communicated it's not been communicated consistently. At the leadership level, everybody has still a different 140 perspective on that”. Moreover, when asked if leaders do a good job of communicating what is required of the College to achieve internationalization goals, Leader #3 posed a question—“Well, how can leaders communicate clearly when they themselves have not been communicated clearly [to], and … don't know exactly how to go about internationalizing a curriculum, for example”? He continues that in his experience “people are still thinking that the focus is financial”. In agreement, Leader #5 framed communication as education about the College’s desired direction for internationalization, noting “I think that there’s a whole lot more education that needs to happen first for there to be a common understanding across the college”. The challenges, according to Leader #7, include the newness of some senior leaders and the size of the College. He prioritized relational communication—“… it is something you have to talk to people about and relate it to their program areas and … it is a sort of an ongoing process of talking to people and  … allowing them to be in the dialogue too, not just talking at them”. He too was positive but realistic—“I think there are quite a few people who are on board and [to whom] I feel I have been able to lay out my views and [who have] been able to lay out theirs and see the connections. But with all the campuses we have and the employees, no we're not there yet”. Leader #5 also agreed that building trusting relationships was key to being seen as credible and worth listening to. More importantly, it allowed some flexibility in negotiating alliances even when “at loggerheads”—“then I have to make a decision about losing the battle and winning the war … and that’s part of senior leadership. So can I give up this because in the long term there will be greater wins”? But, she continued, there is a cost: the toll it takes, really, is that you have to always be prepared to educate. You have to number one, build your understanding. And then number two, you have to be prepared to share that knowledge and understanding. You always have to be prepared to meet with 141 groups to discuss what that is. It takes a toll in terms of - we have [only] so much time and energy. In leaders’ estimation, the communication challenges can be overcome. Leader #4, citing the historical context, concurred that while some of the College may understand, “I think there has to be a real educational effort. Like anything else that we do in the college, people have to be involved. They have to understand where we're going and why we're going there”. This education could address the concerns of Leader #1—that using the same lexicon is important. Teaching, learning and student readiness. This challenge relates to how the leaders understood and articulated the academic challenges that stand in the way of internationalization at BPC. They recognized that current internationalization/IE efforts also take a toll on instructors and on teaching and learning in general. Several leaders identified that the exponential success of international student recruitment has been “wonderful from a revenue perspective” (Leader #1) but also countered that “our faculty members are dying, our chairs are dying … because they weren't expecting it, they weren't consulted on it and now they are getting pressured to take more [international students]”. “You will hear from some instructors ‘well you know, I’m being challenged because so many of my students don’t have the language that’s necessary’” (Leader #7). The challenge, therefore, is to provide enough supports, training and faculty development around intercultural competency so that instructors can “navigate different situations” (Leader #1) that arise in their classrooms because “our instructors are not trained to teach such a diverse group of students. They haven't been trained for intercultural competence” (Leader #3). Even though decisions regarding internationalization were “made very decisively only 6 or 7 years ago” (Leader #7), the change has been rapid and “we're currently trying to play catch-up and I’m sometimes kicking myself thinking, “we should have thought of that earlier, why we didn't think 142 about that earlier?” (Leader #1). However, because some of the challenges have to do with student language competency, “… it is hard to integrate language training simply because they are instructors of culinary or they are instructors of engineering and that wasn't what they were trained to do. So it means a different way of teaching, and it means we're looking for instructors that have different skill sets or could have those skill sets, so I think that is one of our big challenges” (Leader #7). Leader #6 did note that the very opportunities sought out by BPC resulted in some of the challenges: If half your class are international students, some who might speak the language, some not, and they come from a broad background, that can create a lot of opportunity in your class to discuss how things are done in different places … different value systems and different approaches people bring to solving problems and doing business, but it can also bring challenges. This trend will continue—“… the international component has gone from [around] 1 or 2% up to around 20%, and that’s a very significant change, and I think it’s on a steeper trajectory because I anticipate that growth will continue (Leader #7). However, he pointed out “… there still is a question of how we can support instructors who do find that there are communication issues within the class”. An associated challenge, also raised by Leader #7, adds growth issues to BPC’s commitment to “work-integrated learning” wherein “we need a larger network of employers that are willing to take on international students. It's been demonstrated just how valuable it is for the students, but we need more placements, and I think we're now being looked to by the Federal Government to have a much larger role in refugee settlement”. A challenge related to implementing new teaching and learning options comes in the form of outbound or exchange programs, which to date have not been very numerous or sought 143 after by faculty or students. The problem is the lack of “commitment from … the faculty or … from the students themselves because I don't think that they see that as a value … it is also because of family commitments. They can't be away for more than one week or two weeks, right?” (Leader #3). Leader #3 also identified that costs could be prohibitive for students, so one challenge would be to “develop partnerships that have no fees”. While he did not specify these, other resources (e.g., orientation, support during the process, follow up and debriefing) would also be important to put in place and may incur additional costs. Accountability, risk management, and responsibility. Accountability—the responsibility and obligation to execute strategies and plans - and risk management—the requirement to mitigate the negative impacts of activities—also pose practical challenges. Most participants raised the issue of risk management as a challenge in efforts to internationalize. Leader #1 identified “the unexpected risk mitigation that will happen if faced with a PR challenge”. Leader #2, echoing this concern, pointed to the unstable global atmosphere where there is “lots of potential risk … there are lots of things that you can’t control”. Leader #4 cautioned that due diligence on “things that will do harm to the College as has happened in other institutions [such as] phony transcripts and a variety of other things that have caused real harm to an institution's reputation. Leader #5 emphasized the need for a “very clear … policy on international risk management - or pieces of that needs to be included in an overall risk management policy for the college”. She is also cognizant that at this time, “there isn’t a good understanding of what it means to manage risks related to internationalization or international education … sometimes we do things without appropriate assessment, without a real understanding of what our involvement in something might mean to the College”.  144 Likewise, accountability was an important challenge identified by some leaders. Leader #1 identified one of the biggest challenges personally and organizationally was follow up: for us to think that once we have a plan, it's done, once we think that the Academic and Research Plan is going to drive international education because we've put in a line in there and it says we're going to lead in international education it's miraculously going to happen - it's not. And so I worry as somebody in leadership and I worry for the organization if we are not constantly keeping the strategic eye and making sure we’re doing the follow-up. Leader #3 observed the interaction between the complexity of the College’s operational and governance model and the need for accountability: People see it as, if someone is called manager of sustainability, or manager of [whatever] … the full accountability is that person. But you cannot have full accountability when you rely on everybody else. You only have full accountability when doing something when you have full control over that of the piece and you don't need anybody else. International education or internationalization requires every one of us including support staff to be part of that whole system, right? So everybody has to be accountable. It's quite a big thing to do, right? But I think we all need to start somewhere. His responses also implied that accountability results from setting clear outcomes and ensuring that those charged with implementation understand what they are to achieve—“… we talk about internationalizing the curriculum so how would that work? What does that mean? What is the example? … So we have to be very deliberate and not just tell the chair and the instructor “we need you to internationalize your curriculum” … they don't know if they have never done it before”. Referring to another institution’s initiatives for helping faculty understand 145 internationalization, he commented that “I think that's what we need, right? And again like you know, the goal has been set in the Academic Plan. We have to be able now to look at what are the actions and strategies to develop that”. Furthermore, for him (and for others such as Leader #5), Policy A11 (International Education) set a mandate and a foundation for everyone in the College—“because we are a public institution we need to be aligned with the [Provincial] Post-Secondary Strategy plus the [Provincial] International Education Strategy. So, we need to have a commitment to do that. Having that policy sends the message that we are committed … It [A11] indicates serious commitment … not only … compliance”. Accountability is further enshrined with the Academic Plan. “[When] the Deans and the Chairs develop their annual school plan or department plan … every year we will be reviewing that as a committee whether it's SAC (Senior Academic Committee) or whether it's an Academic Plan committee, to look at … what are the activities that are being done to contribute to internationalization” (Leader #3). In his view, A11 and the new Academic Plan indicate the College’s intention and commitment to internationalization; the challenge now is determining next steps - “The Academic Plan stated a lot of stuff, now, how do we go about doing it? What is the next step for everybody?” The theme of internationalization being ‘everyone’s’ responsibility (and therefore accountability) was echoed by Leader #5—“there’s never one person responsible for that, right? Because internationalization is everybody’s responsibility across the college, but in terms of being the one to lead that then I was the one responsible”. She continued, oftentimes, International Education at the College is viewed as a separate and distinct department. It’s about _______ going to a department saying, “can you take in another cohort?” It’s all about ________ trying to increase the revenue generated by international education. People need to accept ownership for all of that. And that’s one of the biggest 146 barriers … people don’t take ownership of what the college really needs to achieve: to continue to be responsive to an ever-changing world that we live in. In addition to the implication that the College needs to be responsive to the external community, she also alluded to the College’s accountability to meeting students’ needs, noting that there were instances in which the proper supports were not in place. The College is simultaneously accountable to the Board of Governors, especially since “this year our Board established [and] very clearly defined that the mandate of [BPC] is to produce globally competent citizens, and it’s not said in that way, but that’s the mandate” (Leader #5). Leader #8 brought this sharply into focus by highlighting the need for an ethical stance—“you don’t want to mislead people, so you have to be able to offer something that you can back-up as best as you can, right? As best as the college can”. In the context of BPC, which is mandated to “provide education and skills training that’s directly attached to the labour market”, his position is that the College ought to deliver, as best as it can, “what you promised people when recruiting overseas”. Providing students with outdated training would be akin to “educational malpractice”. Ethically, if you sign memorandums of agreement with other institutions, you can't over promise - you have to be careful about what you say you’ll do and actually carry through with it”. Relaying a particular example in which BPC had made specific commitments to a partner institution and then was unable to deliver, he questioned if it was a breach of ethics since the agreement was made in good faith and all efforts had been made to comply. Strategic Planning, policy, costs and capacity. These activities of and realities within educational institutions serve to reveal leaders’ values related to internationalization. While strategic planning was a recurring theme across questions, it, along with specific mention of other institutional instruments and measures, bears special attention. Most participants explicitly 147 or implicitly referred to some value in having and/or responding to a defined set of goals related to internationalization but within logistical and resource constraints.  Leader #1, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of strategic planning and policy, on the one hand, challenged the importance and necessity of Policy A11 - “I don't think anybody references the policy. I never heard it referenced in any sort of decision making … It’s not a driving factor in decision making”, while on the other, asserting that “we have had strategy … there have been decisions made along the way that have been informed and thoughtful, but it hasn't been articulated as part of a larger picture about ‘do we have a target’?” For her, the problematic is that international student numbers have been “growing without a plan”, although she did acknowledge that several years ago, International Education strategy was informed by the work of an IE Task Force but ended up with 49 priorities! However, that work was cut short “for a number of reasons”. Subsequently, a business plan, focusing on resource needs, target markets and enrolment, strengths, weaknesses opportunities and threats (SWOT) was developed. The implication, however, is that a bigger, more comprehensive plan is required - “I’m hopeful that with this next big comprehensive plan, a lot of that work [of the Task Force] would be embedded”. While international recruitment currently has a plan, “do we have a plan for internationalization of the college as a whole and all of its facets and its complexity - no!” Looking forward, Leader #1 “would much prefer a far more consultative process - that's who we are in post-secondary institutions” because “a plan isn't worth anything if it doesn't have buy-in and engagement from those who actually are affected by it”. The challenge will be the, merging of strategic direction with “what can we do to meet that need”. But they're coming with the ideas and actions, not us [senior leaders] because [BPC] does not have just one culture. It has as many cultures as there are programs or units or people, right? 148 And so we can't just say that every one of the programs is going to respond to that strategic direction in the same way because they're going to have different challenges, different capacity, different opportunity, different resources and so, different champions. Leader #6, classifying internationalization as a culture shift, astutely observed that “it takes time to change culture”. This planning would, as Leader #7 advocates, have to “fit our Strategic Plan … it's possible now and it's happening now in this year's budgeting process to ask, is this consistent with our plan? If it's outside of it and there are things we need to fund that are inside, then obviously they take priority”. He acknowledges that “budgeting is difficult and there will be things that are both within the strategic plan, you cannot fund them all”. The guiding principle is that decisions should be based on “Where do we need to be in 5 years? What does the reputation of [BPC] within [the Province] depend on the most? … That's the right question to be asking [but] it's still lots of work to turn that into budget decisions”. Leader #2 agrees that budget decisions are difficult: there are all kinds of limitations on resources and anything … the biggest challenge in my portfolio is coming up with the dollars to be able to do these things or the people or the time to be able to do the research that is needed [and] find the solutions that will work. When resources are lacking, creativity is crucial to achieving institutional goals, as Leader #3 notes—“you have to be way more creative if you don’t have that financial resource to provide the things that you need, whether it be people, time, equipment … you can’t totally ignore it [money] … because the world runs on money”. On the other hand, strategic planning requires that “there are certain things that you have to take into consideration beyond the financial goals and I do try and balance that … I'm successful sometimes and other times I'm probably not”. The 149 reality, for her, is that “we need to demonstrate that there is a return on investment—… it doesn’t have to be financial, but whatever that return is we have to demonstrate that this is something we want to put our resources into”. Strategic planning also requires looking at what types of programs the College has available that will attract students (Leader #6) and linking to Federal and Provincial Governments’ international strategies (Leader #3, Leader #1). Leader #3, in contrast to Leader #1, does see policy as a crucial link to strategy and to the College’s commitment to “help the Province’s strategy and plan for international education”. For other participants, strategic planning requires not only knowledge of internal capacities and constraints but the fortitude to ask whether or not BPC is the “best answer” for certain requests and the ethical stance of being honest with its “customers” (Leader #7). This participant, advocating a responsible, incremental approach to expanding internationalization and international education, commented that he,  would probably hesitate right now about jumping into any areas that are brand new because I think there is so much demand in the areas we are already into. I’d rather see an expansion for things we are good at, where we've developed a really strong teaching faculty and good connections with industry rather than try to start new things. This brings the benefit of a measured approach to the strategic planning process by allowing “the rest of the college to adjust to it [growth] and for us to assess the impacts”. Leader #1, in the same vein, calls for a “combination of strategic direction with capacity and resource and interest and support” so that each program, with their “different challenges, different capacities, different opportunities, different resources and so different champions” can respond appropriately to strategic direction. Leader #8 likewise advocates for “a clear vision of what we want to do … then the challenges after might be ‘do we have the funding? Do we know our inputs or out 150 outputs for what we’re trying to do?” Clarity of vision and rationales, for him, “takes away from some of the challenge”. While most of the discussion about internationalization focused on its ‘goodness’, there is also a caution about negative consequences for other groups of students. For example, capacity, for Leader #1 also includes domestic enrolment capacity and attendant politics: The first time that student calls the Minister and says, “I can't get into [BPC] because there are no more seats for domestic students, but I notice that you've increased your international student seats by 50% and yet I, as a [provincial] resident, can't get in. That call hasn't happened yet; I have no doubt it will. How are we going to respond to that? In fact, this is a current reality with the College’s request to convert domestic seats in one program to ‘international’ seats. The warning to her from the Province was clear - “Okay, but … first call to the Minister from a student saying that they can't get into the ________ program, means we have a conversation, right?” Leader #6 added the warning that the College needs to ensure that decisions about internationalization are “not detrimental to servicing Aboriginal people - not that it inherently is but if you are not careful, it could be”. Regardless of constraints, Leader #6 provided perspective borne through experience—“finding ways to do the good things that you can live with, you can make happen, you can fit within your constraints - but that's the same with just about anything the college does … because there is always more good work to be done than resources to do it”. Strategic planning sometimes also requires change. Leader #2 highlighted one challenge in this regard: we have the challenge of people not being happy about change for the most part. [BPC] has its own culture around that … there’s a lot of silos. There’s a lot of people who are 151 happy where they are and don’t want to be prodded … into a different direction. Or, they just want to be left alone to do their thing, and they don’t necessarily want to look at improving processes and improving ways of doing things—finding ways to be more productive, finding ways to incorporate new ideas, new ways of thinking into what they're doing. And that’s what I found has been a real challenge here in terms of trying to shift that culture a little. This mentality, for Leader #5 and others, requires “champions who have some knowledge and expertise”; while for Leader #6, “leadership in the College's role is to bring all those motivations together and stitch them together in a coherent policy and mechanism and [as] part of the strategic plan so you can do the good thing”. Speaking to one way of achieving this, he continued: From my perspective, one of them is putting it in an academic plan. If we truly believe this is valuable and important, then it should be reflected in our academic plans. I think shaving off the mercenary elements or downplaying the mercantile role, if you will … I think under the new organization, International Education now will be within the Learning [Academic] portfolio. In stitching together a coherent policy, the College has had to determine precisely what it wants, with some, perhaps, unintended consequences. Leader #2 noted that, we’ve changed the wording a number of times in terms of some of the strategic goals. We originally started out with some very specific stuff about globalization and wanting to have those partnerships, etc. … I think it’s been watered down a little. We’re trying to make it more inclusive to have both internal and external partnerships. And those external partnerships could be local, national, or international. They're trying to make it more 152 inclusive in that respect, but it may be diluting some of that international focus in doing so. The danger, she pointed out, lay in the fact that some people in the College may read this as deemphasizing the international community and linkages and “it may be something that, again, gets put on the shelf”. However, in her estimation ambiguity is only appropriate for high-level themes as that allows the College to “tailor things into where you want it to go” by selecting annual ventures but not for strategic initiatives because “you need to be specific about it”. Leader #3 also valued specificity, once high-level foundational themes have been established—“because right now we have four goals in the Academic Plan for internationalization. What specifically that means is the next thing. [What] does integrating international education into your teaching and learning mean”? Leader #8, in agreement, believes that specificity (through an international strategy) leads to “driven-ness” in that “you drive towards goals and if you don’t have clear goals, it’s hard to know where you’re going”. Leader #7 was relatively straightforward about the importance of clear strategic planning—“the new 5-year plan addresses internationalization as a fact and a desirable area of growth for the college. But I think we do have to keep it front of mind”. He continued, So that to me is where, the objectives of internalization and also dealing with some of the challenges, that’s really where it comes to bear, and it becomes a clear responsibility for me. It has to be integrated into the strategic plan, and then when the strategic plan gets turned into a set of priorities that we implement and that we attend to every year through the budgeting and the academic programming and processes and so on. We have to make sure that all of the objectives and the challenges are met and … I do have an ability to influence that. 153 For him, “one of the responsibilities of the leadership and obviously my responsibility [is] to make sure that a strategic plan really is an effective guide”. This outlook is tempered by the understandings that particular objectives may fall out of favour and that policies can and do change for various reasons. Leader #3 adheres to the principle that, there is always a reason why an institution or organization cannot do something that they have set themselves to do. And that could be a financial thing; it could be a resource thing, there could be a change of priorities. And that's why policies are updated quite frequently, right? … When there's a leadership change or when there's a Board of Governors change, there might be a different mandate, right? Policy A11. Participants and I both brought up the topic of the current International Education Policy (A11) as it was one of the few College documents about internationalization. There were mixed opinions about the (or a) policy, running the gamut from Leader #1 who did not put much weight on it relative to a strategic plan, to Leader #2 who believed that internationalization was attitudinal and not directed by policy, to Leader #3 who espoused it as indicating serious commitment to internationalization. So, policy for some is a directive, for others, it is not linked to specific action. However, Leader #6 put its value, at least historically, in concrete terms. In 1993, the College became Board governed and came “under the new Colleges Act, and there were some discussions with the province and with our legal counsel whether, under the Colleges Act, we actually had the legal authority to engage in activity outside the Province” (Leader #6). The policy, sanctioned by the Board, provided the College and the President the “authority to undertake activities outside the province”. He continued—“You can see the flow down, that having been part of the Board mandate to the President [it] becomes part of the Strategic Plan and was part of the Academic plan [and then] becomes a School plan, and it 154 gives validity and authority to the base of the department”. So for him, A11 was a necessary first step in providing the constraints (i.e., must do full cost-recovery and not displace local students) for undertaking international education/internationalization. It was a catalyst for internationalization: A11 broadens out a little bit and talks about internationalization more than international activities. It gives a little bit of a basis for or narrative why: we function as part of a global economy; education for our students for a lifetime or career success requires an awareness of global community. So it starts to expand a little bit [on] why we do that. And then some of the activities go beyond just international education: develop a curriculum which accurately reflects the global reality; international linkages and exchanges. Only one of the bullets is the presence of international students within the College. So A11 is where we take the international education or international activity policy of the Board and create an internationalization policy for the College. (Leader #6) However, it did not, and does not currently, provide a measure for “how effective are we at doing internationalization” (Leader #6). Leader #4, as mentioned earlier, took the view that it really was not about internationalization as much as it was a “bring-students-to-us” policy. Leaders #3, #5 and #8 believe that A11, regardless of its roots, is still valid today and does not pose a barrier to the current direction. It does, in their estimation, need to be “broadened a little bit more to reflect the new global reality and to maybe be more holistic to include internationalization and … the rules of operation for [BPC] around internationalization” (Leader #5). Leader #3 took a stronger stance: 155 a policy itself serves as a mandate, as a core foundation of what the college would do and should do. It's always going to be there, right? When we develop a plan, such as the Academic Plan or in the future, an internationalization plan, all of those pieces are aligned back to the policy. It's a foundation piece. Leader #8 proposed some terminology updates (e.g., replace the word ‘tolerance’ with a more appropriate term) and suggested that “there could be some more narrative around what does internationalization or international education mean for the College”. However, he did ask if there was a strategic plan for international education as that could stimulate broader discussion in the College and might mitigate any frustrations with not having a well-defined growth strategy. For example, he thought it would be useful to define the cap on the number of students BPC could support. Similarly, Leader #9 desired more “powerful” language which for her meant definitive, direct statements about what it is BPC wishes to achieve. In a follow-up conversation, she provided, as an example of more powerful language, a statement from the Strategic Plan: “Position the College as the institution of choice for international students and immigrants to the province”. Additional strength could come from “other language around our important role in supporting the labour market needs, as well as talk about competencies and attitudes related to thriving in a global economy that is rapidly changing” (Leader #9). Again in keeping with the perspectives of other leaders on responsible planning and growth, Leader #3 acknowledged that “while the A11 policy is very comprehensive. It doesn't mean that we have to do everything in one shot; there could be a multi-year plan”. One potential limitation of strategic planning or policy amendments posed a practical challenge for Leader #1. She questioned whether or not the term (internationalization) itself and its characterization as an activity, were problematic: 156 I know that internationalization and indigenization are intended to talk about the embedding of philosophies and concepts of intercultural understanding and the value of that work and that partnership with each other, at a fundamental values level. I'm not sure that as a label it’s the most effective way to sell it - as an activity - because I’m not sure that we can ever say that we've achieved it unless we've defined very clearly what achievement means. So, how do you know when you've internationalized the college to the point that we can actually say that we have? This dilemma was not resolved during the interview but points to the ongoing nature of anything related to expanding human knowledge and experience and especially to the cycle of planning, review, assessment and redirecting (or not) efforts to internationalize BPC. Priorities. Another practical concern is that of leaders’ priorities regarding internationalization. What do they want to see implemented and in what sequence? Are there competing goals and how are those negotiated? The complex nature of internationalization’s requirements and leaders’ roles are evident in the responses. While specific aspects of internationalization were discussed, there was the realization that, as a whole “it has to be integrated into the strategic plan, and then when the strategic plan gets turned into a set of priorities that we implement and that we attend to every year through the budgeting and the academic programming and processes” (Leader #7). This then sets the foundation for supporting specific initiatives. Several participants articulated the concept of balance or a balanced approach. Leader #2 tries to find that balance in looking beyond financial goals and at the practical resource constraints so as to get “the most bang for our buck”. When asked what led her to this approach, she replied:  157 it’s not something that’s in my consciousness every day; it’s just the way I’m built that I do try to do that balancing act. It’s a struggle sometimes but that’s just the way I am. And because of that, I often don’t understand those folks who are on either extreme end in terms of how they operate and why they are so extreme, and I can’t fathom being on those polar opposite ends. Her approach, with mixed success, is to “play the devil’s advocate” and ask “what about this? Have we thought about these things and how do we weigh these things over here?” Leader #6 provided a slightly different perspective on balance. He acknowledged that revenue-generation allowed the College to achieve its non-financial internationalization goals. For him, a balanced approach was one in which leaders say “these are some of the good things we want to do; here's how we can fulfill that mandate [for example] we can also support important provincial policy, an important Canadian policy and here's the resource-base we need to do it”. In fact, during his time at BPC he and the leadership team “engaged in trying to balance and create a broader value in that activity”. They discussed the “academic dividends” of internationalization and determined how to “take it from a purely monetary operation or being seen to be a purely monetary operation to being one that fits in the academic environment”. He also discussed balancing priorities concerning the College’s focus on Aboriginal education and its similarities with internationalization. Synergy was to be found in recognizing that “some of your population have different backgrounds … histories and cultures … languages, [and] … environmental conditions that they grew up in”. This applies both to indigenous and international students. Creating a supportive institutional environment could ‘move both up’, but he cautioned that if one is regarded as a secondary goal, “it can be seen to be a competitor to resources” and that “we should not support international education to the detriment of supporting … education 158 for Aboriginal peoples”.  Leader #1 also drew a corollary between indigenous and international students—“In many cases, our indigenous students are going through exactly the same thing as our international students … culture shock … language difficulty. The sociocultural experience is different, even across provinces”. Like Leader #6, she also proposed that “as an institution, we have to make some strategic decisions about some competing priorities - we have an indigenous initiative, we have an international initiative” and situated this within needing a “comprehensive plan and know[ing] what direction we're actually headed”. Leader #9, in response to the variety and number of priorities, proposed that we ought to work smarter and more efficiently in order to be more effective - “wherever possible, we need to link priorities. For example, efforts related to internationalization and indigenization of the College can be linked. Instructors can be training in cultural competency, which would help support all students”. Further to priorities, Leader #1 responded that, we are constantly looking at what our priorities are. How we allocate resources to drive growth and innovation and opportunity in areas of priority and what we see as an emerging needs and how we respond to those and how we lead into those. We often say we’re very responsive but in fact, we actually need to take a leadership position in order to be effective and retain legitimacy as a college. She named internationalization as a “huge piece” on the academic programming side, which includes international research partnerships, exchange programs and ensuring student success, noting that “internationalization and international partnerships can build our best practices, they can give us access to technologies that Canada doesn't have”. Linking this to both knowledge creation and global institutional reputation, she believes that “we can then take those practices and share them with the world and ultimately, [as] our mission now says ‘we will be a globally 159 recognized college’”. Internationalization at BPC is an important priority; in her words, this requires recognition “that our college-wide learning outcomes, to be embedded in our programs, require our faculty to be knowledgeable and … therefore setting the expectation that that be done but also then providing the support necessary to do that”. So, developing intercultural competencies within faculty is a priority as well as “support[ing] the work of the International Education office with our academic programs to find opportunities to build our international student enrolments where possible”. In concrete terms:  We’ve made a strategic decision to invest in indigenous education and indigenous achievement and in this budget coming up we've dedicated $175,000 to that … But that means that we're not placing $175,000 in internationalization; it doesn't mean we're not achieving those goals too, it just means we are not using the same resources to do them. So, one of the best decisions that we've made … in terms of strategy and the senior leadership team is to invest in internationalization, in new business development. So we've set aside $50,000 a year … and that has led to a number of new programs that would not have otherwise been [possible]. … but we had to make the strategic decision at the time to take that $50,000 and build it into a business development fund, and that would drive the business on the R&D side, and that's been very successful so far. (Leader #1) Similar to Leader #6’s perspectives, Leader #1’s responses indicate that competing goals need to be decided upon based on some criteria. In her words, when you have an academic and research plan you have a strategic plan; there are some pretty clear guidelines in those - hopefully - that help you prioritize … Where there are competing goals you have negotiation, you have creativity, you have “how can we 160 achieve both goals?” It's not necessarily an “either/or”… So, we are not making decisions solely based on safe financial sustainability to the exclusion of everything else. When new situations arise, leaders must also “re-frame” priorities. When asked what would happen to internationalization at BPC if recruiting students was no longer a possibility or, if the IE Office, for whatever reason, ceased to exist, Leader #1 replied that internationalization would not and could not stop. “We're already there, we're already global, we have no choice but to be and are already affected by international economies and cultures and philosophies, so I can't see it just evaporating”. While reduced recruitment would have a significant financial impact on the College and serious implications for immigrant/international student support: It could be that we re-frame and say we're no longer going to recruit International education students, but we're going to invest heavily in International development and student exchange. And so we're going to take a different tack, and we're not going to focus on bringing international students in, but we are going to focus on sending our students out. Along with the inevitability of internationalization and strategic plans (Leader #1, Leader #7), forward progress has to be balanced by analysis of internal capacity. “I think thoughtful, managed, planned growth is good and [so is] making sure we have the institutional capacity to support it including the engagement and competence of our instructors on the educational experience” (Leader #1). Leader #2 agreed with managed growth: “we’re trying to expand … as we see the opportunity and the ability and where there is that return on investment … we also need to really use a critical eye in looking at what we are doing. There’s probably some stuff that we need to stop doing just because there is no benefit to anybody”. Leader #4, from a historical context, identified “supports and training for faculty” as well 161 as supports for staff and students, as priorities. Leader #3 explicitly identified faculty development as a current priority—“one of those major goals is to integrate the whole international education component into teaching and learning, research into our policies which we have already”. He too referred to the Academic Plan as a guide but also pointed to Provincial Government aims as a compass for institutional priorities (e.g., establishing offshore partnerships and campuses). Knowing internal capabilities as well as constraints is crucial to determining final goals, and Leader #5 identified the establishment of a risk management plan as a necessary first step to promoting “international learning experiences for domestic students, faculty, and staff”. Another priority (personal and organizational), articulated by Leader #7 is the full integration of the “international component” with the “rest of the College’s programming and goals”. While he specifically referred to relocating the relatively isolated English language programming more centrally, there was a more general direction of natural and seamless integration of international and domestic students in courses—“we’re trying to present to people as an educational course; it’s simply an element that is in the classrooms and in our institution. And I think that it’s very important that we cultivate that; that we address any issues that arise”. He continued, we have to make sure that we get the full benefit of having a large, international cohort both in terms of the benefits we provide to those students who are coming to [BPC] from overseas, but also in terms of the benefits that [provincial] students get from their interaction. This seems to mesh with Leader #6’s recommendation of sustainable integration; especially, as “often these things will start off as … this new, special, different thing that we are going to start 162 doing”. He observed that this might generate some support and resistance, so,  it [internationalization] needs to be sustained over a long period of time. I think you need to shave off the speed bumps, and … you want to try to remove the controversy out of it if there is [any], so that it becomes part of our life and our values and what we do - it's not an exceptional activity or special activity. The difficulty of determining priorities is perhaps summed up with a comment from Leader #1—“as senior leaders, if we're coming into organizations, there's always going to be a trade-off; there's always going to be trade-offs between being student-centred and having to make difficult financial decisions”. This observation notwithstanding, participants seemed to have clear high-level priorities for internationalization and articulated the need to progress responsibly, ensuring that institutional goals did not outstrip institutional capacity.  There were, in keeping with the nature of the conversations, insights that addressed what other or new leaders could do in terms of setting the foundation for internationalization. Advice. There was a little reluctance on the part of some participants to give advice; however, valuable insights did emerge. Leader #1, initially “not sure that I’m worthy to give advice”, emphasized that leaders must “listen carefully to the language that is being used when people talk about internationalization and be curious about it”. Passive listening was eschewed in favour of “confirm[ing] absolute understanding and full support of the entire executive team” (Leader #1, Leader #5). Moreover, she recognized the difficult and long-term nature of implementing internationalization in her recommendation that leaders be “persistent and resilient; this is important work - it's too important not to do. People's lives depend on it … literally depend on it”. The importance of this work was also acknowledged by Leader #2, saying “there is no magic formula. There’s a lot of hard work involved in coming to correct decisions”. 163 Listening was also discussed within the context of networking with, and learning from, more experienced people in the field (Leader #3, Leader #5) as well as from internal team members (Leader #4). In the latter case, openness, transparency, and respect were identified as hallmarks of good leadership and effective teambuilding. Networking was not just an individual effort, but an organizational one as well (Leader #5) in which leaders must “get your institution involved in important political, not just political, but organizations that champion internationalization”. Leader #7 framed this as “[making] an effort to take the broadest view that you can” and taking an “institution-wide perspective” to “understand the institution and its possibilities from a lot of different angles”. This can be achieved by getting out of “your silo first” and then talking with people (e.g., staff, faculty, students) about their experiences, problems, and solutions. Political astuteness is also a critical characteristic for Leader #5 who pointed to the importance of understanding “the social, the political and the economic context in which you’re going to try and achieve [your goals] … Have some experts that you can draw on” Aside from actions in the relational domain, pragmatic actions were also seen as important. For example, defining a clear rationale for internationalization (e.g., revenue-generation, social good) (Leader #6, Leader #8); creating a strategic framework (e.g., policies and plans) to support initiatives (Leader #5); aligning institutional goals with governmental aims (e.g., immigration strategies) (Leader #3, Leader #6) and resourcing the initiatives “to the extent that you wish to work or to the level that you'd like to have” (Leader #6). However, having a plan or strategy should not constrain you to one path. Flexibility is crucial. Leader #6 also suggested that leaders should “be prepared to increase or decrease the level of activity just as you should be willing to increase and decrease the level of any activity you undertake, in order to meet training situations or resources or 164 whatever”. Along with this, it is important to “understand what the true costs are both in money and in time. … Any time that the executive, the management, the college, the dean, the instructors are putting into developing something, there's an opportunity cost” (Leader #6). This, he maintained, meant that institutions “can't do everything. And so we need to sharpen our focus”. However, he cautioned that, it is important how things get viewed and how they’re seen as activities of the College when we do them because they're a good thing, the right thing to do—they help our students, they help our employers, as opposed to, this is going to earn more money for the College … without exploiting international students. Accompanying this advice was an anecdotal story in which an institution’s president received a performance bonus for the work the employees did to generate revenue. This did not sit well with the employees who saw the situation as their hard work paying off financially only for the ‘boss’! Chapter Summary My analysis of BPC policies suggests that the current policy landscape strongly reflects a market and liberal focus and that leaders’ lived experiences are crucial to how they have come to understand internationalization. While the College is clearly mandated to meet provincial economic development and immigration goals, based on participants’ responses, there may be room for more comprehensive and transformative forms of internationalization. However, without clear, multi-way communication and a more communal decision-making process, this goal is unlikely to be achieved. What do these findings indicate in relation to my research focus and questions? The next chapter will discuss these findings in the broader context of the literature.  165 Chapter Five: Discussion This research aimed to discover what senior educational leaders at one college understand internationalization to be and how that understanding impacts their practice—their decisions about implementing internationalization. From the literature, it is clear that educational leaders are making such decisions in an increasingly complex environment (in the sense that there are many variables and impinging factors) with multiple pressures and stakeholders. Further, institutional documents relating to international education (IE) and internationalization list multiple reasons for and benefits of undertaking such activities, broadly categorized as educational, social and financial (Big Prairie College, 2006, 2016a, 2016c). Currently, financial and economic/governmental aims seem to be the primary driver, but the desire is for those aims to fit within the context of social and educational aims. It is also clear from the findings that leaders want internationalization to touch every aspect of the College. Therefore, at the outset let me state that while the current state of internationalization may not be the desired one, leaders interviewed do have some of the baseline understandings to help BPC achieve comprehensive internationalization. One systemic impediment to achieving this latter goal is the notion of communication as a one-way phenomenon—from leadership, who decide strategic direction, to employees, who ‘buy-in’ and follow. Dialogue with faculty and staff stakeholders seems to be for gathering information rather than for including them in decision-making. While undertaking the interviews, it occurred to me that leaders’ statements contained aspirational language - statements that better described what they would like to accomplish or where they felt the College needed to be, rather than the current state of affairs. This is completely in keeping with their role and mandate to advance the institution. Thus, it also made sense to enquire about the recent historical context - where the institution was in its thinking about internationalization and how that is reflected in current practice. This informs my analysis 166 of how ready or well-positioned the College is to achieve its aspirational goals. In other words, what has been the evolution of thought and practice of internationalization and what is needed for the College to move forward with its internationalization aims? Leaders, influenced by their life experiences in other countries and cultures or interacting with different cultures in their work environments, see internationalization as a comprehensive endeavour that yields financial and social benefits; however, they also worry that it is not understood clearly or similarly throughout the College. The findings also indicate an evolution or expansion over time of what internationalization is understood to be. This is not unique to the College. Haigh (2014), exploring the “multiple, coexisting, sometimes competitive narratives about the character and purposes of ‘internationalisation’” (p. 7) in universities, identifies several ‘layers’ that develop as the institution’s experience with internationalization grows and changes. He notes that “this development has been characterised by a sporadic, if progressive, expansion of concern from narrow pragmatic, institution-based financial issues to the role of higher education in global terms” (2014, p. 7). Haigh (2014) described narrow financial motivation typically exhibited through international student recruitment and increasing the ‘international enterprise’ of the institution, while higher-order rationales include developing intercultural skills within the institution, educating for global citizenship face-to-face and virtually, and so forth (pp. 10-16). These multiple layers roughly mirror the multiple rationales that others (e.g. Hanson, 2010; Qiang, 2003) identify, although usually as discrete components of internationalization rather than as a progression. Although Haigh (2014) focuses on universities, my research and experience in a college yields similar rationales and progression. In my research, despite the particularities of individual understandings, there was evidence of a collective understanding that has changed over time—from primarily market-oriented to a more liberal—hinting at a social 167 transformational—view of internationalization. The one layer in Haigh’s (2014) model that does not appear in BPC’s visioning is that of using online/e-learning technologies to bridge trans-national distances—to connect domestic with international perspectives. When this particular topic was raised in a post-interview follow-up, Leader #3 responded that the Government’s preference was that students study full-time, face-to-face. In fact, requirements for obtaining a post-graduation work permit stipulate against distance courses (Government of Canada, 2018; M. Smith, 2015). This constraint seems to work in favour of Canada’s immigration goals of bringing and retaining Canadian-educated students. There is then merit in looking at three time periods—the past, present and the imagined future—to see how internationalization was and is being construed, what has changed, what has not and how leaders want it to be in the future. In general, IE with a revenue-generation focus was the starting point with liberal notions of internationalization—international cooperation and intercultural understanding—also contained within policy but not fully realized. Presently, the market and liberal notions persist but there is increasing emphasis on the social goods over revenue generation and perhaps the seeds of adopting parts but not all of a social transformation model. From my analysis of the responses, several key themes emerged: commercialization, community, communication, collectiveness, and comprehensiveness. I will discuss the past and present contexts of internationalization at BPC within this framework; the imagined future emerges within these themes. Community includes notions of the College as part of a global community as well as our connection and responsibility to the local/national community. Comprehensive internationalization, in addition to having a broad-based impact on institutional activities, also includes the idea of integrating students and therefore ideas differently than is 168 currently done. Within this category, I include ethical considerations (how we conduct ourselves), risk considerations (how we protect ourselves) and financial/market considerations (how we sustain ourselves). Leaders, almost without fail, see internationalization as a collective responsibility, which then impacts how they interact, what values they hold and ultimately, what decisions are made about internationalization. Communication or lack thereof poses opportunities and barriers to understanding, acceptance, and implementation of new initiatives like internationalization. The recent historical context for internationalization (c. the mid-90s to c. 2014) laid the foundation for the present way of ‘doing’ internationalization and largely, the same values and motivations for it still exist today. The strongest characteristic of this time was/is the commercial/market focus. Past—Commercial Beginnings The College has a long history of international involvement but mainly in externally funded development projects focused on export (selling) of its “training capacity” (i.e., custom training programs) to lesser-developed countries. Thus, there was a strong commercial and traditional international development aspect to international activities under the banner of IE. In fact, the term itself (internationalization) might not have been an accurate depiction of what the College was doing at the time (prior to 2012). IE was the focus and even that, while part of the 2012-15 Strategic Plan, was not strongly stated. The emphasis was on bolstering international student numbers (Leader #4). Thus, internationalization, as the sophisticated, multi-faceted phenomenon inscribed in the literature and the research findings, was neither well understood nor well defined when it was first implemented at BPC. This market-driven focus (Hanson, 2010) of internationalization is a relatively easy way to enter this arena, especially since cost-169 recovery or revenue-generation usually has tangible benefits. Leaders noted that after the mid-90s, as a result of some senior leadership changes, the focus shifted from overseas contracts to international student recruitment and revenue-generation and set the foundation for current internationalization activities. Despite this initial single operational focus, Policy A11, as it was developed, certainly demonstrated some awareness of the other ‘goods’ of IE (attitudes of tolerance, understanding and personal dignity) that would be more associated with internationalization as we conceive of it today. However, it also strongly demonstrated values consistent with a liberal model such as a desire for enhanced international and intercultural understanding (Hanson, 2010) and increased global presence and educational influence (Stromquist, 2007). Achieving these would result in the internationalization of the College according to Policy A11. The historical and current view of internationalization at BPC with its market/liberal orientation is not uncommon. Levin (1995), confirmed that Canadian colleges in the mid-80s started to pay more attention to diversity and new avenues of revenue generation. Cudmore (2005), describing Ontario and Canadian college sector leadership involvement in internationalization, shows that initial international education efforts (c. the mid-80s- 90s) were indeed focused on government-funded international development contracts followed by increased interest in recruiting international students, primarily for revenue generation aims. Like its counterparts in the rest of Canada (Cudmore, 2005) BPC leaders, through policy, strategy and participant revelation, justified internationalization efforts by promoting the social goods of increased international and intercultural understanding, enhanced international reputation and so forth. In BPC’s province, colleges became board-governed in 1993 which allowed or pushed them to “be more responsive to community needs and to forge new relationships with other 170 agencies in both the public and private sectors” (Levin, 1995, p. 38). This also, according to Leader #6, opened the door to establish international partnerships and recruit internationally. So the milieu in which BPC was, and still is operating, has influenced its practice of IE and internationalization. This history evolved as new leaders with new ideas about implementing internationalization, new knowledge about intercultural competence and new perspectives on supporting faculty, staff and students came into the College. Concurrently, the broader professional dialogue (e.g., CBIE, ACDE) about internationalization began to explore it as more than just a revenue stream; the ethics of internationalization became more pronounced nationally. BPC leaders began to join various professional networks (e.g., CBIE, NAFSA), increasing their exposure to this broader discussion. With this infusion came a different understanding of IE and internationalization and different desires for how it manifests itself in the College. If there was little understanding of internationalization initially, what has changed now and in what ways? In the current context for internationalization we see what Khorsandi’s (2014) study on internationalization in universities revealed - the juxtaposition of “administrators making claims about how students can ‘make a difference in the world’, build their resumes and become global citizens; these processes occur alongside new pressures for universities [and colleges] to commercialize, make profits and compete” (p. 3). We can also see in the leaders participating in this study, a desire to build community, the need for comprehensive internationalization, the reliance on collective decision-making and the importance of communication.   171 Present Overview. Leaders were quite articulate in how they expressed their values and their understandings of internationalization. Of course, these leaders are new to BPC, so it is impossible to determine if individual understandings have changed over time. However, as a collective, they represent and provide direction to the College. The collective understanding of the College then has changed from a superficial to a perhaps more nuanced one.  Overall, leaders seem to be fairly familiar with definitions of and rationales for internationalization contained in the literature - several directly referenced common definitions. Such definitions include themes of global place and impact, commitment to intercultural/international understanding (process) and comprehensiveness. Likewise, leaders offered strong and candid comments about BPC’s strengths, weaknesses and future directions in internationalization. However, less apparent are specific strategies or directives related to internationalization of the curriculum, communication and what I term inter-relationality, that is,  an “attempt to build intercultural relationships at the individual and/or small group level expressly for learning purposes” (Soodeen, 2010). It was also clear that leaders adhered to what de Wit (2011a) frames as a “predominantly activity-oriented or even instrumental approach toward internationalization” (p. 1) in which the individual components or by-products (Knight, 2011) of internationalization are mistaken for the phenomenon of internationalization. For example, the presence of international students on campus is seen to be ‘internationalization’; whereas, that presence is just a by-product of pursuing (for example) higher academic quality. It is this view of internationalization—as an end in itself—that constrains the extent to which non-financial goals can be achieved; we may miss seeing the reasons (ultimate goals) for it. BPC is best characterized as being in an exploratory stage, where non-market/liberal notions of 172 internationalization are becoming part of the discourse. It is on the cusp of comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik, 2014; Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012). We will return to this later in this chapter. Community and communication. Community can have a variety of meanings, and in the leaders’ responses, I found three meanings: the global community, the institutional community, and the leadership community. The latter term reflects the solidarity of the leadership team as evidenced by the similarity in definitions, aims, and perspectives about internationalization and their comments about their collective responsibility to make decisions about internationalization. A sense of ‘place’ in the world—both global and local—is also evident in leaders’ responses. Globalization as an external pressure that impels educational institutions “toward greater international involvement” (Altbach & Knight, 2007b, p. 290) was reflected strongly in comments that acknowledged BPC’s existence in a global society; internationalization was linked to “globalization process[es]” (Leader #2). Seeing the College as a ‘corporate’ citizen in the world means that it has reciprocal responsibilities—both to benefit and benefit from the international and local communities. This was captured in comments about BPC ensuring the success of international students who choose to remain here and those who return to their home country; these students contributing to the labour market; BPC making the world a better place, and the financial and educational/social/reputational returns on investments. The internal community is also important vis-à-vis comments stressing the need for faculty development in the area of intercultural competence. There was stated concern for faculty’s mental well-being and expressed regret for neglecting it; leaders noted a conflict of values between increasing the number of international students and “making sure our faculty 173 members are supported” (Leader #1). Faculty development was thus deemed important in helping the College achieve its more pragmatic aims since faculty would be able to act as “diplomats of knowledge” (Leader #3). This latter term refers to the notion of the ‘diplomacy of knowledge’ publically articulated by David Johnston (2012) while Governor-General of Canada. He defined this as “our ability and willingness to work together and share our learning across disciplines and borders” (para. 2) to build harmony and stronger relationships between peoples. This notion shows the connection of the ‘internal’ community to the global community. Of course, this concern is important as faculty and staff are the ones who carry out the activities associated with internationalization on a daily basis. If the level of frustration experienced by instructors becomes detrimental to student success, then the positive outcomes of internationalization will not be fully realized. The College’s reputation may be negatively affected which in turn could reduce the number of students enrolling and corresponding tuition revenue. In addition to financial consequences, if faculty are unable to help achieve social outcomes, then the likelihood of deep intercultural understanding between domestic residents and international students is reduced. The importance of faculty understanding the true aims of the Executive regarding internationalization is somewhat captured in the anecdote from Leader #6 in which employees/faculty saw only their president benefitting from the work they did to generate revenue. Their subsequent (and undefined) actions caused a “real setback” for the college (Leader #6). Other responses also indicated that the rest of the College did not understand and therefore might resist leadership directions. Internationalization, like any other activity, needs to be seen as a college-wide activity, rather than only a personal one that emanates from the right intentions, intentions that speak to achieving benefit for students and/or employers, instead of simply making money for the college. 174 In the case of BPC, while executives may not be personally benefitting, the general principle holds—if the true aims of the Executive are not known and understood, then faculty and staff may be somewhat negative towards leaders and motivation to engage decreases. In the case of internationalization, this could be the view that “it’s all for the money”. From personal experience and internal research, this is a perception held by some employees. In 2014, an internal research project revealed that amongst faculty, there was concern that IE seemed only to be a source of revenue and not focused on education. Pointed commentary included such language as “filling our coffers”, “bags of money” and “cash cow”. BPC appeared to be only trying to ‘fill quotas’ or ‘increase our numbers’ in order to ‘get more money from government’ and that we valued international students’ money but not much more (Internal Document, 2014, p. 1). There were positive comments as well, typically related to their perceptions of the benefits of internationalization; such as, “getting exposed to people from other countries; increases our sensitivities to diversity” (Internal Document, 2014, p. 1). Thus, while the data from my study of leaders revealed that financial benefit was not the primary concern, this may not be the more general understanding across the College. Levin (1995), citing a study on community colleges in Canada, noted that “shared meanings and definitions enable the community college to function by allowing it to address and resolve its problems and conflicts” (Owen, 1993, p. 116, as cited in Levin, 1995). Openness and participatory interactions enable this. I interpret openness to include clear, two-way communication about values, aims, and directions. Taken together, a college that has shared understandings through all levels can then carry out the work (function) together towards common goals even though there may be differences of opinion. Indeed, Levin (1995) advocates that institutions should practice shared leadership, shared creation of missions and goals and tolerance for “dissent and criticism” (p. 116) in the pursuit of an effective organization. 175 As noted earlier, leaders agreed that clear communication has not been flowing from the Executive and that two-way communication is also not happening. Remedying this is important if BPC is to achieve Leader #2’s notion of getting along with one another and working together to solve problems. Or, if Leader #1’s analogy holds—that running a college is like running a business—a recent Conference Board of Canada (Conference Board) conference description contains an apt justification for employee engagement in a rapidly changing world: Thriving in today’s business world means having clarity of purpose, beyond profit.…  To authentically engage, your employees, customers and your community must believe in your purpose. Driving stakeholder loyalty and advocacy is vital to standing out from the crowd and succeeding in these changing times. (Conference Board of Canada, 2017a) A 2017 Conference Board study on employee engagement and the roles of leaders found that the majority of employees surveyed “believe the immediate manager, senior/middle management, and executive leadership are the most responsible for fostering an engaging culture” (Conference Board of Canada, 2017b, p. 4). As such, amongst the various strategies senior leaders can use to foster such a culture, open, transparent communication and effective cross-organizational communication ranked first and fourth respectively among the top 10. Further, Espiritu (2009) connects successful internationalization implementation with a particular institutional ethos and culture in which faculty members are able to make the necessary “cognitive shift … to include international components into curriculum” (p. 7) and in which there are incentives (e.g., time, funding) to support faculty development, international experiences for leaders and “campus-wide discussion and communication about the internationalization initiative” (p. 8).  Authentically engaging employees requires communication to facilitate clear understanding of leaders’ values and directions. Authentic, in this case, means honest, open and 176 clear communication, and this is one area in which BPC needs to improve. Several leaders acknowledged that their perspectives and values were likely not well understood or shared by the rest of the College. If leaders, with their primary role to influence the activities of others (Christie & Lingard, 2001) do not or are not able to communicate their true values and perspectives throughout the organization, their motives become susceptible to misinterpretation and they lose the ability to influence employees positively. In turn, this impairs the ability of employees to contribute to the overall vision of the organization, internalize particular values and subsequently act in a manner consistent with the goals and aims of senior leadership. What senior leaders in this study did achieve, but perhaps not perfectly, is a community of leaders. They all spoke about how internationalization is a collective responsibility of all senior leaders, each with their own and sometimes intersecting domains. The narratives from respondents had a high degree of similarity in terms of definitions, rationales, priorities and future directions. This is not surprising as leaders would be naturally discussing internationalization amongst themselves and are exposed to definitions of and rationales for internationalization in internal documents. Several leaders explicitly identified the team or leadership collective as being important to pursuing their vision for an internationalized college. In practice at the College, there are multiple leadership committees which provide forums for senior leaders (amongst others) to circulate ideas and knowledge about internationalization. My observation may be an obvious yet important one to note since it demonstrates that senior leaders do have a collective, somewhat unified vision, of what internationalization should and could be. This vision includes three components. First, the acknowledgement that revenue generation cannot be the sole focus. Second, that BPC needs to ensure the success of international students who choose to remain here and who choose to return home. Third, that the College needs to 177 contribute to the labour market via its internationalization efforts; and that it can help to make the world a better place through instilling intercultural competencies in its faculty, staff, and students. A unified vision is easier to discuss and disseminate across an institution than a fragmented one, so communication was identified as an area that needs improvement. Given leaders’ concerns about how well their values are understood throughout the institution, it remains to be seen how that discussion and dissemination can occur more fully. As I will mention later, it may be beneficial to broaden the ‘leadership circle’ to include those who do not have formal leadership roles but who are nonetheless leaders in the classroom or are thought leaders who think (and care) deeply and clearly about internationalization. Despite its alignment with conventional definitions, the College’s definition, in policy, of internationalization takes on an added dimension in light of the insights gained about leaders’ motivations and underlying principles. A more developed or broadened view of internationalization is evident in their responses. The findings indicate that leaders’ understandings of and rationales for internationalization are indirectly informed by internationalization literature, common practices amongst higher education institutions and viewpoints from professional organizations such as CBIE, and are tending towards a fuller, more comprehensive implementation. Comprehensive internationalization: Understandings, definitions, and purposes. By comprehensive, I do not only mean ‘touching all operational aspects’ of the College. I also mean a complex, well-rounded or multi-faceted understanding that encompasses a variety of views by the leaders as a group. In other words, following Hudzik and McCarthy (2012): Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service 178 missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (p. iv) This definition, through use of evocative words such as ‘commitment,’ ‘infuse,’ ‘embraced,’ and ‘imperative’ paints a word picture of a relentless pursuit and institutional embodiment of not just the activities but also the ideals wrapped up in comprehensive internationalization. Many authors (e.g., de Wit, 2011b; Knight, 2004; Rumbley & Altbach, 2016; Schoorman, 2000), while not necessarily specifying “comprehensive”, do use terms, such as institution-wide, or descriptions that imply the typical infusion of internationalization throughout all, or at least core, areas of an institution. While this fuller understanding is not entirely realized currently, responses from leaders indicated that they are familiar with the rationales for, opportunities afforded by, and issues associated with comprehensive internationalization. Thus, comprehensive internationalization remains an aspirational goal. This is not to say that an institution has to undertake “all types of actions associated with internationalization. Institutions are idiosyncratic in their priorities for action and will engage comprehensive internationalization in their own ways” (Hudzik, 2014, p. 9). BPC leaders have identified priority areas for continued and enhanced internationalization such as international research and partnerships, integration of international perspectives in curricula, intercultural competence amongst employees and students and so forth. Gains remain to be made in internationalizing these areas to the satisfaction of the leadership. In general, BPC leaders see internationalization as both a driver of change and a result of change. As a driver, its implementation (activities) helps to build intercultural understanding and 179 international cooperation and thus requires the institution to change how it teaches and integrates students into the College, how it invests in its staff and faculty’s intercultural competencies and how it conducts research. This, of course, drives other operational changes such as internal communication, risk analysis and so forth. It is also a result of changes globally, as discussed earlier, and its nature has also changed from its early days at BPC to now, due to new leaders with new perspectives, knowledge, and experiences. Given the wording of internal strategic and policy documents and the awareness of global issues (e.g., immigration/refugees) indicated in responses, I think it would be fair to conclude there is a consensus amongst leaders that international involvement is not only desirable, it is imperative and inescapable. Leader #1 put it this way—“we're already global, we have no choice but to be and are already affected by international economies and cultures and philosophies, so I can't see it just evaporating. [The Province] has never not been international”. In fact, while individuals expressed their definitions of internationalization differently, there was striking alignment with definitions as put forward by Knight (2003), Braskamp (2009), Hudzik and McCarthy (2012), the CBIE and so forth. These definitions identify integration of international and intercultural perspectives into education through research partnerships, exchange programs, and curriculum content as central to internationalization. In other words, internationalization should impact all aspects of the institution in some way—comprehensively. The College’s definition is “the process of strengthening the College by integrating an international dimension into the teaching, learning, research, community and economic goals of our institution. Internationalization shapes our values, influences relationships and partnerships, and impacts the entire College” (Big Prairie College, 2016b, p. 2). BPC leaders articulated this in several ways.  1. Learning about the ‘outside’ world and how best to communicate with other nationalities 180 (Leader #3) 2. Expansion of teaching and research partnerships (Leader #1, Leader #2) and workforce/societal contributions (Leader #7) 3. Positioning internationalization as a basic value to be interwoven into everything done at the College (Leader #5, Leader #7) Given that there was an identified preference for using existing definitions rather than creating unique ones, it is not surprising to see a close resemblance between BPC’s definition and those in the literature. Furthermore, if internationalization is to impact all aspects of the College, it is unsurprising that it would also flow into the financial (revenue-generating) side of the institution. This is especially relevant since financial resources are required to operate in an environment where costs are increasing, Provincial government funding is not keeping up (Leader #3), and the College wants to realize the social goods of internationalization (Leader #6). In other words, comprehensive internationalization, a desired state, is supposed to touch all aspects of an institution. This is not and cannot be limited to just the academic side, which relies on revenue for sustenance. Comprehensive internationalization contributes to the financial and reputational sustainability of the institution. Internationalization at the College is still influenced heavily by market aims and liberal ideas of mobility/recruitment, international cooperation, and development. Although partial mobility—recruiting students here—is a core element of internationalization at BPC, there was insistence that IE and internationalization are not the same and that the presence of international students is only a small part of internationalization. Others too, referenced both, explicitly and tacitly acknowledging that the two were related but not the same. However, international education, at least the recruitment aspect, is still what quickly comes to mind when discussing 181 internationalization, perhaps not unduly given that IE generated roughly $9M in tuition and project revenue during 2015-16. Internationalization is not merely the presence of international students; rather, it is also a process involving the integration and discussion of international perspectives. Thus, immigrant students, staff, and faculty or those with international/intercultural experiences and knowledge can contribute to this process. Several leaders noted this either explicitly or implicitly, so certainly the “understanding” of this core concept is present. IE (recruitment) is in a sense synecdochical—it has come to represent the whole process of internationalization. This may have an unintended reductionist effect of making internationalization appear to be just about money since “international education” is overseen by the IE Office — a revenue-generating unit. Local and global. We can also see local and global concerns embedded in leaders’ responses. They see the College as a local entity, with a local mandate that must not be ignored. This locality can be said to exist within, influence and be influenced by global realities. However, the focus currently seems to be more on pulling the global into the local—primarily through the rather standard practice of international recruitment. Beck (2012), notes that common strategies such as “study abroad, the recruitment of international students, and exchange programs tend to promote fixed ideas of the global as ‘going out there’ and the local as being ‘here,’ particularly in relation to culture and the notion of intercultural literacy” (p. 139). She offers the critique that this fixedness, along with the idea that internationalizing requires bringing people from elsewhere, ignores important local diversities and indigeneity. The global can become local and vice-versa through even “the desire for international study itself … [and] existing and proliferating cultural diversity of local Canadian communities” (Beck, 2012, p. 139). At BPC the strong focus on ‘the local’ is evident given the primacy of pulling international 182 students to study here. In the minds of leaders, however, and evidenced by comments about local cultural diversity and indigeneity, there appears to be a growing consideration that the local must encompass the global. This sets part of the foundation for a different kind of internationalization—perhaps on that is a little closer to a social transformative model. Dominant worldviews. How leaders’ responses reflect the local/global relationship is telling of the powerful influence of current dominant worldviews. Globalization has been characterized as blurring or eliminating national borders, bringing people together in a free and open market and exchange of ideas. In some contrast, internationalization, by its very name, reinforces the notion of multiple nations with national borders, with education crossing these borders. Internationalization is also positioned as a way to bridge these borders and differences in cultural and national identities and understandings, bringing people together in a mindful, equitable way. International cooperation as a (classic liberal developmental) value can be seen in comments such as “internationalization is also about us giving to other countries that might not be as far advanced in some of the areas that we are, or vice-versa” (Leader #5). The “vice-versa” aspect requires reciprocity which itself demands agreement to exchange knowledge. This can be seen in instances of BPC’s faculty exchanges in which an instructor from a partner institution visits to learn ‘Canadian’ teaching practices and curriculum. Fewer exchanges emanate from the College (personal communication, 2017). Leader #3’s reference to the “diplomacy of knowledge” (Johnston, 2012) also reflects a liberal model in which existing knowledge-sharing towards global enlightenment is the goal but without a concomitant and explicit critique of existing inequities in social and governance structures and systems. From participants' responses, there were multiple references to an 'outside world' often in relation to understanding what 'they' were doing. There were also implied references to the 183 “global” becoming “local” and vice-versa. However, it was more common to discuss bringing international students to Canada to become better acculturated to western norms, values and ways of doing things and then going back into the ‘world’ into their networks with ‘our’ knowledge and values. This reflects a traditional and dominant notion of development that positions the practices and thinking in the ‘West’ as the preferred way and the goal of all development. There are many critiques of this problematic notion (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005). Supporting immigration. In relation to supporting immigration strategies, internationalization appeared to be a process of decontextualizing people and re-contextualizing them in Canada. There was not always the ready acknowledgement about matters of mobility; that is, internationalization seemed to be possible only when ‘visitors’ (either students or newcomers) were able to travel to Canada. There was also strong recognition that the ‘local’ (our faculty and students) had to be prepared for meeting that ‘outside’ world within the local workplace. Internationalizing curriculum. While internationalization of curriculum is an explicit aim and there appears to be the intent for more than just tokenism (i.e., superficial representations of culture through mere embedding of examples), leaders still see this as a yet unattained goal—especially in the form of exchange or international learning options. This is not uncommon generally. According to a 2010 report, “it is also noticeable that 23% of colleges are not yet engaged in the internationalization of their curriculum [integration of international perspectives], and that 35% are not facilitating any international mobility of faculty or students” (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, 2010, p. 2). The report identified lack of funding as the primary impediment to mobility programs (sending domestic students and faculty abroad) (Association of Canadian Community Colleges, 2010, p. 4). At the College, curriculum 184 internationalization was similarly composed. As indicated in the previous chapter, to date, exchange programs (one form of student and faculty mobility) have not been fully realized. Local mandate. Since the College is clearly and strongly mandated to serve the local market, this may influence expectations of many students and faculty, who may not see immediate value or relevance in studying abroad. Indeed, Leader #3 noted that BPC does not do much outbound programming because “we don't see our students wanting to go out there. We don't see many of our instructors wanting to be out there … I don't think that they see that as a value”. So bringing students into the College becomes a primary strategy for creating a more diverse learning environment. Commentary about benefits and challenges presumed the presence of international students on campus, although not exclusively. This was especially evident in statements about the College contributing to the labour force and helping to meet the province’s immigration targets; the requirement for appropriate student supports; integration of students and so forth, as these require the physical presence of students. Because the International Education Department takes the lead on internationalization, it may be natural to default to thinking about their work when discussing internationalization. However, it is also true that student presence is a very visible and measurable phenomenon that the institution can use to gauge its internationalization progress. Of course, recruitment also allows revenues to flow into the College, but as discussed elsewhere, the claim is that this is not the main reason for internationalization. Internationalization, from my own experience at BPC, even a mere five or six years ago, was a very new concept and easily construed as international education—or at least, not easily disentangled from it. It is difficult (and probably folly) to completely ignore or leave market considerations behind. Clearly, with IE being a $9M (or more) enterprise, the College cannot 185 ignore its benefits. It is “used to offset deficits in other areas and help balance [the] budget [and] moves to the bottom line of the College to help balance [its] overall financial position” (Leader #2). Also, BPC by choice and mandate is tied to the Provincial government’s aims. By choice, because its leadership believes in governmental internationalization and immigration objectives, and by mandate, because it was created to respond to provincial labour market requirements. IE as internationalization. Regardless of the particularities of their views on this phenomenon, “internationalization as IE” was deeply embedded in leaders’ mindsets. From commentary about benefits and challenges, most were focused on service to international students, recruitment practices, admissions and management. On the other hand, there was recognition that IE was a component of internationalization but not, in and of itself, internationalization. On this basis, I think that awareness of the larger scope and complexity of the latter is growing, foreshadowing the trajectory towards comprehensive internationalization. Further, while there was mention of research, faculty development and curriculum, there was far less detail about strategies to achieve these aims or about how current leaders were going to resource redevelopment of curricula to reflect international perspectives—i.e., going beyond content and into generative discussions and so forth. They have, as Hudzik (2014) points out, grown “accustomed to the concept in terms relevant to them” (p. 8). International student recruitment has such a powerful impact on the College (and for most institutions) that its relevance is not only front-of-mind but inescapably so. Hudzik and McCarthy (2012) further point out that the reality of comprehensive internationalization (CIZN) is sometimes far removed from the ideal; if international activities already exist, “few senior leaders will want to wait for resolution of the macro-level issues before demonstrating results. The key to showing timely results is moving critical efforts forward in parallel rather than sequentially” (p. 3). The macro-186 sphere includes: • Building a broad leadership team that is committed to advancing CIZN • Linking CIZN to core institutional missions • Developing an institution-wide culture that supports CIZN • Articulating an overarching institutional vision accompanied by specific goals and expected outcomes (p. 3) Of this these items, BPC has accomplished the first two; the first as discovered through my study and the second via analysis of policy and strategic documents. However, a supportive institution-wide culture is still in early development stages, and BPC has not clearly articulated specific goals and outcomes—at least not publically and not in the draft Internationalization Mandate/Framework or the Academic Plan. Nevertheless, the reality is that recruiting international students (primarily) yields visible, relatively quick and needed results. Still, alongside leaders’ practical viewpoints, there exists an understanding that internationalization can be much more than what it is now. Broadening Understandings It is, I think, clear that market and liberal notions of internationalization were fundamental and are still embedded in the minds of College leaders. These views are still tied to the dominant notion of development in which the College is able to help those from the global  South acquire the skills and knowledge to progress, as defined by the global North (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005). However, responses indicated interest in or passion for internationalization as a lived experience, social responsibility/making the world a better place, integration of international and domestic students in the classroom and ethical considerations (defined mostly as living up to the College’s commitments and delivering what it says it will deliver). Despite the 187 focus on discrete activities, these views can lead to an enhanced practice of internationalization if the goals of each aspect are kept firmly in mind. In other words, they are a good starting point. Leading up to and including the timeframe of data gathering, an Internationalization Mandate/Framework (personal communication, 2015) was being developed by the executive and was intended to provide guiding principles for internationalization activities. This matrix consisted of four pillars—teaching and learning, research, community, and sustainability. Guiding principles included financial sustainability, brand reputation, quality and excellence, outcome measurement and reporting. Specific but non-measured actions were attached to each pillar and mirrored goals and aims outlined in other documents already discussed (personal communication, 2016). The value of this document, even in its (still) nascent stage, is that it demarcated a rather large but comprehensive territory in which internationalization was to occur. For example, in the ‘community’ category, collaboration with external stakeholders, building a supportive environment for international students and staff and contributing to social transformation processes around the world were identified. Further, strategies reflect the social, human and business/financial aims from my interview findings and demonstrate that leaders’ thinking goes beyond money. Unfortunately, to date, it has never left the draft stage, and my understanding is that the Academic and Strategic Plans, each containing high-level descriptors of strategies but without action items, have supplanted it. Multiple leaders spoke about internationalization as a lived experience and reminisced about intercultural contact whilst travelling, studying or working outside of their home province. Others were born in and resided for some time in other countries or experienced ‘otherness’ within Canada. As a ‘lived’ or embodied experience, internationalization can be understood relationally, beyond mere proximity to international students and beyond theoretical curricular 188 content. In most cases, it was not just being in another place that inspired these memories. Rather, it was actively living in a different place and trying to understand others through transacting and interacting with others as humans that made the memories—that “ innovation and learning is not bound by place, but rather aided by connections to other places and cultures” (Hudzik, 2014, p. 9). Their vivid depictions, I believe, connect deeply with the stated desire to do more than just bring students here. The values borne out of their experiences are reflected in statements about ensuring international student success, treating students ethically, integrating them with domestic students (rather than segregating them in cohorts) and giving them the opportunity for a better life. Additionally, first-hand experience is a rather different experience from engagement with internationalized curricula. I would propose that study leaders’ strong focus on students’ mobility in a globalized world grew out of their own lived experiences. Having come to that realization (explicitly or tacitly) these leaders now desire to provide similar opportunities to students and faculty. In fact, there was a quiet determination from those advocating that the College must provide opportunities for domestic students and faculty also to have these lived experiences. Pandit (2009), also an advocate for comprehensive internationalization, concurs that there must be a proactive effort, through curricular and co-curricular activities to foster “meaningful interaction between domestic and international students” (p. 651). These become mutual learning environments in which students gain comparative knowledge on various topics. Furthering the argument for study abroad programming, she states: Few of us need to be convinced about the value of studying abroad. The positive outcomes include becoming more proficient in a foreign language, becoming more 189 comfortable living and working in a different culture, gaining a significant cross-cultural understanding, and improving interpersonal and communication skills. (p. 649) Additional benefits include a life-changing expansion of imagination and greater creativity. I would add that faculty too would benefit similarly. However, while there are reasons (discussed earlier) that such programming has not seen a large uptake to date, if the concept resides not just on the desks but also in the minds of senior leaders, there is hope for creative solutions to these barriers. It is not enough for leaders to simply ‘know’; there has to be an intentional effort in which leaders “exert effective leadership for action to bring internationalization from a concept to reality and to engage the organizational change required to make it happen” (Hudzik, 2014, p. 58). Failing to engage the institutional community in a “dialog to build a culture of understanding and support for internationalization” (Hudzik, 2014, p. 58) along with not paying enough attention to creating a clearly articulated vision that delineates goals, roles, barriers and solutions, will thwart efforts to internationalize. While this critique is applicable generally, because outbound faculty and student exchanges were met with resistance, the focus on specific, meaningful actions by leaders who are responsible for charting a course and mobilizing the institution is appropriate. Further research on the specific challenges for outward-bound programs at BPC would be a useful undertaking in this regard. Of course, internationalization is more than just mobility and does not necessarily require it—we can learn a vast amount without leaving home (de Wit, 2011a). What is first required is the understanding that this is possible. Secondly, one needs to understand how to make it so. Making it so requires providing direction and resources to activities and initiatives that help educators learn how to create and sustain such environments. In the first requirement, I am proposing that a diversified student community creates a better learning environment only when 190 we move away from an ‘additive’ (mere proximity to international students) to an ‘adaptive’ approach that heightens engagement with them (de Wit, 2011a; Deane, 2011; Knight, 2011). Such a curriculum intentionally includes international perspectives and peoples but also requires domestic and international students to adapt to it. The second requirement speaks to leaderships’ ability to mobilize ideas and necessitates the actions in the third requirement. I am certain that there is at least cursory understanding that an integrative/adaptive approach is important given comments about mutual sharing of knowledge, integration of students with domestic students rather than separation via cohorts and so forth. Mobilization of this idea requires input from those outside of the leadership suite. In other words, the internal community should be invited into the conversation to help guide ideas into practice. This can help to build understanding about future opportunities, benefits and even challenges and in so doing, help to change the institutional culture surrounding internationalization in general and outbound programs specifically. By way of example, Hudzik (2014) cites the University of British Columbia experience which was described as “neither top-down nor bottom-up but rather one involving broad interactive exchanges up, down, and throughout the institution” (p. 61). Out of all of the planning activities undertaken, dialogue was one very effective way of transforming campus culture to one of understanding and support. Of course, instantiating such a process and then resourcing initiatives is rightfully left up to the leadership. The telling question will be the extent to which either of these will happen. However, de Wit (2011a) cautions against misconstruing mobility as internationalization and in general, against an “activity-oriented or even instrumental approach toward internationalization, which leads to major misconceptions about the nature of this development … where the means appear to have become the goal” (p. 3). In other words, 191 internationalization is often seen as an end in itself rather than as a means to several ends. Instead, he argues for an approach in which intercultural competencies, interpersonal/intercultural understanding and so forth are intentionally pursued through the process of internationalization with the ultimate goal being higher quality education. When coupled with the call for committed action in Hudzik and McCarthy’s (2012) definition of comprehensive internationalization, this intentional pursuit moves from a theoretical concept to become part of the normal operations; internationalization is by nature comprehensive, otherwise it is not really internationalization. Indeed, they present it as “continual adjustment to new challenges and opportunities within an evolving global landscape” (p. 2). Not only can the College (or any institution) not claim to have achieved internationalization it also cannot stand still or rest on its laurels by pointing to past projects, initiatives or successes. It must not only sustain its internationalization processes; it must analyze its current state, external changes and realities and its own ethical and philosophical stances, and strive to achieve, not internationalization, but its goods and outcomes. There is some recognition of this, but I am not certain at this point how much attention leaders will be able to pay to achieving this kind of internationalization. This is not to say that they never will be able to do this but for now, priorities stem from the mandates from Provincial and Federal governments which are clear and compelling. In the Academic Plan at least, international education/internationalization was not explicated as part of educational quality or student success. However, BPC’s College-Wide Learning Outcomes (CWLO) might be an avenue as they set the standard for what is expected of each graduate and include outcomes related to global awareness and intercultural competency. As noted earlier, faculty must therefore have intercultural skills in order to embed them in their teaching. Teaching environments and curriculum will have to provide the opportunities for 192 students to develop global mindsets and broader understandings of people and the world. Moreover, the financial stability of the institution is critical, and there are many other significant distractions (Leader #1, Leader #9) such as organizational restructuring, indigenous achievement, academic programming re-visioning and so forth which take people’s time and energy. Activities are relatively easy to quantify and measure, and they are familiar and relevant (Hudzik, 2014). On the other hand, some leaders are asking the right questions. For example, Leader #3 emphasized that we need to answer questions about what internationalizing the curriculum really means for the College and communicate that meaning. Leader #3, noting the separation of international and domestic students in the classroom, observed that this was so because there are no deliberate strategies to help instructors learn how to “teach such a diverse group of students” and help them learn from each other. While this was focused on faculty development activities, questions about why things are the way they are, what changes may need to happen and how to accomplish those changes are a good starting point. They can serve to open conversations that clarify and expand understanding but only if communication is not top-down but also bottom-up and opens up the decision-making processes to include faculty and staff. The sensitivity to global social betterment was evident in some comments, leading me to conclude that BPC leaders indeed are heading in their desired direction of comprehensive internationalization. There are currently very modest awards and sponsorships targeted towards refugee students through its Student Refugee Program and WUSC (World University Services of Canada); there are in fact refugee students on campus. By supporting refugee students in their education, the College is demonstrating, in a small way, its attentiveness to significant world issues. Exactly how or if the presence of these students has impacted others on campus is unknown. However, this at least connects concrete action to what leaders identified as core 193 values—acknowledging the humanity of others (Leader #1) and pursuing equality of opportunity and a fair and just society (Leader #7). On the other hand, there is still an instrumentality to this as Leader #7 strongly positioned service to students within the context of meeting provincial workforce needs. The question then is, to what extent is altruistic effort divorced from instrumental gain? On this point hinges the historical context/foundations for internationalization and the imagined/future state of internationalization. Generalizing this concept of altruism and instrumentalism to internationalization as a whole generates questions about its rationales and aims. Why is internationalization undertaken and for what purposes? What happens when stated aims and purposes are not borne out in reality? Comprehensive internationalization covers all aspects of an institution including its ethics. The ethics of internationalization—whether not being able to live up to the terms of partnership agreements or taking in students even if there are no jobs for them in their sector of interest (Leader #8, Leader #9)—are of concern to leaders. Acting ethically contributes to the sustainability of programming and the institution. As one leader put it, “in the end, it would come back to bite you” if the College has taken tuitions from students without regard for its obligation to provide them with job-ready skills for Provincial government-prioritized sectors and [if] the government in return refuses to grant them permanent residence (Leader #9). This would not play out well in the public eye and could damage BPC’s reputation and credibility. In fact, with international partnerships, legal requirements in partner countries may compel us to comply fully with contracts under threat of penalty. However, this also means that leaders do care that we conduct ourselves honourably, with integrity and deliver what we promise. Regarding other ethical aspects, leaders did not question the ethics of internationalization itself vis-à-vis its potential negative consequences (e.g., brain drain) or its connection to 194 colonization/colonialism (Beck, 2012; M. K. Smith, 2001); rather, it was a foregone conclusion that we should be doing it. That particular discussion is beyond the scope of this thesis but is a theme for further research. Ethical practice is not just related to business activity; it is also applicable to academic pursuits such as how intercultural competence (IC) are conceptualized and taught. Several participants noted that it was important for faculty and students to be interculturally competent and that IC training was needed for internationalization to be successful; however, IC is a contested notion (Halualani, Mendoza, & Drzewiecka, 2009). For example, the misguided notion of culture and nation being synonymous may lead to positioning IC as a (reductionist) way to understand ‘people’ from our trading partner countries, when in fact, any one country will have many cultures and many ways of representing those cultures. So faculty and students learn how to communicate with and understand “Chinese” or “Indians” or “Africans” in a reductionist fashion, without due attention to the particularities of context and individuality. To reduce complex and wide-ranging variabilities to a single concept is unethical as it paints an inaccurate picture of the people we are trying to understand. To be fair, conceptions of IC were not the focus of interviews, so the nuances of leaders’ deeper understandings of IC cannot be ascertained. However, I leave this brief notation as a caution that the lens through which leaders view internationalization and its components, guide and constrain what is seen and imagined, what is questioned and critiqued and ultimately what is put into practice. Therefore, IC training, well intended but unquestioned may do more harm than good. Another caution related to the dangers of uncritically accepting views of Canada as a model for multiculturalism and diversity (as per Leader #8’s assertions). The success of this ‘Canadian model’ is contested (Egbo, 2012; Simpson, James, & Mack, 2011; Tator, Henry, Smith, & Brown, 2006) and while I am not assailing the integrity of their views, viewing our 195 political systems as incontestable may moderate the possibility of a transformative paradigm of internationalization. On the other hand, looking at current activities regarding indigenous issues (e.g., the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action), their views of Canadian diversity may be fuller and more nuanced than what was revealed in my interviews. From the many responses that strongly emphasized the College’s mandate and role to supply workers and contribute to the economy and from the clear alignment with governmental aims and strategies related to immigration and labour force development, it is evident that those pressures factor quite largely in deciding the nature and extent of internationalization. Again, that these types of questions about ethics are part of leaders’ consciousness means that internationalization processes will likely have a system of checks and balances, even to the point of partnerships not being embarked upon because we do not reasonably believe we can meet them fully. This would also entail ensuring mutual benefit—that our partners benefit from any interactions and engagement with BPC and perhaps deciding to not enter into agreements where such assurances cannot be made. Risk analysis and management for international activities merits attention here, as more consideration is now being paid to it. The College leadership is realizing that it needs to protect itself and its employees from harm. Until now, the risks related to internationalization and international education have not been well understood and therefore not well assessed (Leader #5), leaving the College open to potentially harmful or embarrassing situations. Faculty teaching abroad are vulnerable to legal action or to harm from social unrest. The College itself could be harmed by entering into contracts it ultimately cannot fulfill or by partnering with those of dubious reputation. In this regard, regardless of how much money can be made, due diligence is required to adequately assess the impact of international activities. Internationalization, its 196 rationales, aims and consequences, needs to be understood more holistically than before. As this research was being conducted, a risk management plan was under development so that a robust operational foundation (protection of employees and students) could accompany a solid academic foundation (personal communication, 2016). Undoubtedly, there is a pragmatic element to this in terms of business continuity, financial sustainability and so forth but sensitivity to risk is also part of an overall ethical perspective in which an ethic of care for all involved tempers the pursuit of opportunity. Again, this indicates a move towards a more comprehensive, reflexive approach to internationalization that is likely far more sustainable in the long-term than a simple market-oriented approach. If an institution cares for and about itself, its ethics, its people, its students and its world (its local and global community) it will generate goodwill and forward-looking ideas, avoid pitfalls and be seen as a responsive and responsible place of education for many students. Thus, the College has moved from an understanding of internationalization as primarily concerned with international development, commercialization and recruitment, to one in which they understand those activities to be only part of the full picture. Operationally, a market model still prevails but tempered with the emergent understanding that sustainability in all of its manifestations, rather than profit, needs to be the underlying motivation (Association of Canadian Deans of Education, 2014; Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2014; Deane, 2011). BPC is on the cusp of achieving comprehensive internationalization. Drawing from responses that described activities or states of being that were not yet in effect, I turn attention now to the imagined future of internationalization at BPC.   197 The Imagined Future The past and present states of internationalization at BPC give rise to a potential future—an imagined but not imaginary one. Several themes from the findings were of interest to me as they coincided with factors for the successful implementation of comprehensive internationalization. Thus the first thing that stood out for me was integration which was either construed literally (integrating students in classrooms alongside domestic students) or implied (“interwoven into every aspect”). In fact, without integration, internationalization cannot be comprehensive. Other aspirational goals included outbound mobility and international research partnerships. Not an explicit goal but a necessary transformation and challenge is the development of a culture of understanding about internationalization and the leadership’s values and aims. This will require appropriate supports for faculty, staff, and students. Inextricably, communication and open, transparent engagement of the internal community will be necessary to meet this challenge.  Leaders, in their advice for others, hinted at this type of engagement. Actively listening to what your executive team says and making sure that everyone is on the same page was coupled with advice to build broad-based, effective networks and gain as broad a perspective of your context as you can. Now, if this type of engagement with other experts is beneficial amongst leaders, I propose that benefit would also accrue from widening one’s network of ‘experts’ to include those with front-line expertise or with differing perspectives and who are outside the leadership group. Misunderstandings can be discussed and potentially cleared up; vision can be brought into contact with on-the-ground realities and strategies and perhaps a pathway to organizational understanding can be made. Given that they also advised being cognizant of how activities and actions are viewed - that they are being done for the right intentions, it would seem 198 natural to connect directly with as broad a cross-section of the College as possible.  The vision seems to be the transformation of the institution into an inclusive, diverse and blended (i.e., domestic and international student together) learning environment in which outbound programs allow domestic students and faculty to experience other perspectives, methods, and knowledge in non-Canadian and non-Western contexts. These curricular activities would be complemented by international research partnerships in which there are mutual learning and benefit—i.e., all parties contribute and benefit equally. Ultimately, BPC’s employees, students, and alumni would contribute to making the world—at home and abroad, a better place. All of this would take place within a framework of care, ethics, and honesty that constrains our activities to projects for which our employees are well-prepared, that meet more than financial/economic goals (notwithstanding the necessity of revenue to sustain these activities) and with deliverables that we can reasonably deliver. As the ‘global’ goals are being met, there would also be a focus on learning ‘local’ with its diversities, inequities, and opportunities. While BPC will have to choose how this comes about, its leaders have articulated values and visions that start the internationalization process with an activity-based approach. However, this can lead to the integral, indelible and internalized cultural change necessary for this process to become a natural part of who we are and what we do. To paraphrase one leader, it becomes a state of mind reflecting the reality of what we are living and should be living. By their own admission, leaders’ values, aims and goals regarding internationalization are not well understood throughout the College. In fact, I have been involved in conversations that revealed resistance to opening up seats alongside domestic students for international students, relegating (in some cases) them to cohorts. I have also heard faculty who wanted to meet the needs of all of their students more fully but needed the opportunity to learn how to do 199 that. While there may be well-reasoned arguments about international students’ academic and language readiness for the type of work required at BPC, there needs to be more willingness and ability to transform teaching methods to reach a more diverse audience as well as additional supports provided to faculty, staff and students. There has also been skepticism about the real value of internationalization to the Executive and the concern that it (or at least the international education aspect) is just a money grab. So, first leaders need to involve a wider group of employees in the discussions—not only to provide feedback on decisions already or nearly made but to be part of the decision-making process itself. Values, goals and visions need to be clarified, and then the discussion needs to turn to how best to accomplish the shared vision. As mentioned before, this type of engagement contributes to the necessary culture of understanding. Concomitantly, leaders need to make some systemic changes that allow the time for learning and adapting—or synchronizing—to the internationalization process. Regarding priorities, the main one is linking internationalization to the Strategic Plan, and thus to the core mission of the institution. This has been done at a macro and operational levels (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012) but no metrics have been established in either the Academic or Strategic Plan. However, the terminology does not include internationalization; instead, the Academic Plan expresses the priority as “Lead the Way in International Education [emphasis mine]” (Big Prairie College, 2016a, p. 10). This is envisaged as “integrat[ing] international education [emphasis mine] into our core academic activities … and organizational culture” (p. 10). When I asked about the terminology, the response was that this was familiar, understandable wording for the College. I commend the thoughtfulness behind this but propose that embedding internationalization into such a critical document would have signalled the College’s intent to shift from what is seen to be (and is) a revenue-generating approach to a broader-based one. 200 Even if the new term were to bring puzzlement, it would open the door to clarification and further discussion—one strategy for engagement. Balancing financial and social outcomes of internationalization, as articulated in the findings, is also an important priority. In this case, balance also means responsible growth or achievement—i.e., not exceeding the capacity of the institution, as well as balancing within social outcomes (e.g., indigenous and international aims). Balance is achieved by decisions to do and not to do certain things. Hudzik (2014) outlines two mutually supporting levels of consideration when taking action to achieve breadth and depth in comprehensive internationalization. First, at the macro/strategic level, “a broadly supportive institutional culture that views CI [comprehensive internationalization] as an institutional priority and sees it as an imperative” (p. 62) is built. It is this level that “provides justification for giving priority and resources to CI” (p. 62). Second, at the operational/programmatic level, “concrete programs, activities, and projects” (p. 62) enliven strategic goals of CI. As suggested in the literature (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012), BPC is building both levels simultaneously, but has, through policy and strategy, defined a general scope within which programmatic initiatives can begin. Included are areas of strength, for example, research, intercultural competency development and integration of international students. Balance can also be considered as taking manageable steps - building on strengths, working with allies, looking for ‘quick wins’ and identifying scalabilities (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012). BPC has a good start on each of these criteria. Quick wins—or immediate successes—are certainly evidenced by the overall direction that focuses on building international student enrolments (a current strength) set for internationalization in the new strategic documents. The push for faculty development in intercultural competencies found allies in the departments tasked with creating such programming, as well as in some of the intended 201 recipients. Scalability can be found in leveraging and resourcing existing international research partnerships so that they can expand and create spin-off projects. In general, while College leaders have been able to identify, at a high level, areas of priority, currently, there is less detail on the operational front and about what will be resourced and to what extent. This is to be expected at such an early stage in the process. Balance between international non-international related activities will also have to be attained, and what that balance will be is still to be determined or at least made public. Social Innovation and Internationalization In the literature review I introduced the concept of social innovation (SI)—essentially “innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act” (Murray et al., 2010, p. 3)—as an example of how the multiple inputs and outputs of internationalization can be brought together. Recently, and subsequent to that discussion, BPC announced a major capital investment in an Innovation Centre that would host programming related to business innovation and ‘inclusive innovation’, including in the emerging areas of social innovation and Indigenous entrepreneurship”. While still firmly connected to the mandate to drive industry and provincial economic prosperity, there is also the promise of “students learning to thrive in the new economy … and tackle real-world problems” (Big Prairie College, 2017). Perhaps this new venture provides an opportunity to include an internationalization process. In the interest of full disclosure, this project is still in an embryonic stage, and there are few details about programming or even definitions of terms. However, it does present a ‘blank canvas’ of sorts for me to test out some ideas in the form of questions about what might be viable. The concept that education should be “not only of the mind but also of the heart” (TEDx, 2012) is not new or unique. A search on Google™ or on YouTube™ yields many articles, books, 202 videos and talks by various authors (Cohen, 1999, among others; Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education, 2011), including Nobel Laureates, who discuss this theme from a variety of perspectives - creativity and innovation, social learning, peace education and so on. One cross-cutting theme is that education should not just make you smarter but also make you more aware of how your knowledge can help solve or address problems in the world and how to actually mobilize that knowledge. As Leader #1 offered, it is also about focusing on supporting other people in the pursuit of their goals (not necessarily your goals for them). This, I believe, requires a measure of humility, an understanding of the limits of your knowledge and the restraint from imposing your will on others. My interpretation of the overall intent of internationalization at BPC is that it is to help students (and by necessity, faculty and staff) learn how to live in and better understand the world using the knowledge obtained at the College. This was expressed in interviews as “helping to make the world a better place” and “we’ve kinda all got to get along”. In guiding documents this sentiment is expressed as our Mission - “Together, we learn, teach, challenge, innovate and find solutions to build a better future” and Mandate—“Produce graduates with the necessary skills to be successful in the workplace; equipped with a global perspective, the ability to function in a diverse environment, and a capacity for continuous learning” (Big Prairie College, 2016a). At the same time, BPC is driven by its responsibility to build the local labour force and strengthen the Provincial economy through being responsive to the needs of industry sectors.  I am not sure that the first message gets through as clearly as the second one. Creating ‘job-ready’ graduates is far more common messaging than “creating critical thinkers who can question the status quo and provide intelligent, insightful responses and alternatives to strengthen local economies (here and abroad) and build respectful connections amongst various 203 communities to solve pressing problems locally and globally”. This would be my reasonable interpretation and explication of the Mandate statement above. The two objectives may seem disparate but are, in my mind and in the minds of BPC’s leaders, connected. Individuals and businesses typically need to generate income to live and help others. The problem is one of how to accomplish both in an institution of applied learning where the focus has been, and still is, on developing practical skills and where external regulatory or industry bodies direct much curriculum. Social Innovation, I think, captures and integrates both objectives as natural allies. Trying to change or adapt the core institution may be possible but may also be too cumbersome and slow. Precisely because it is outside the core mandate of the College, SI offers the opportunity for a more social transformative ‘turn’. Since the Innovation Centre is, by definition, a place where education can be new, different and more flexible, internationalization might also be implemented differently to achieve non-financial aims. For example, including international students (or even international community members) as virtual collaborators to work on SI projects might be a possibility. This would require further internal research and careful planning to accomplish. As for internationalization at BPC in particular, the neoliberal and liberal aims of the Provincial government exerts much influence generally on its mission and mandate, and this flows through to its aims for internationalization. This makes it difficult to connect any other discourse to its core mission. In looking at ways 'in' for other ways of thinking and doing, the language of the critical-neoliberal interface is likely a promising one for pragmatic reasons. Here, “critical strategies are used to defend interests framed in economic terms” (Pashby & Andreotti, 2016, p. 778). As well, given the College's positioning of indigenous student success as primary in its Academic Plan, the language of a liberal-critical interface, which recognizes 204 injustices and the institution's responsibility to address them (p. 778), is likely to be more generally acceptable. SI, as I have framed it, can utilize these interfaces, and their languages/grammars to, in small measure, allow the College to implement internationalization in a way that does not completely reproduce only neoliberal/market and liberal outcomes. Recall that in SI, social consciousness and business success are inextricably tied together (Mulgan, 2006) since business often has the means to sustain social problem-solving. Likewise, at BPC, comprehensive internationalization is not just about the money but requires it to sustain achievement of social aims. Therefore, the thinking behind both concepts is compatible. Because this is also a new venture, might there be fewer preconceptions about what and how things should work and therefore make it easier to communicate values and goals? Might faculty who participate in its programming also be predisposed to thinking differently about education and about various ways to bring people together to learn? Inclusive SI, by virtue of invoking educational and business lenses, may also attract more faculty—as a former professor of mine put it—“a broad umbrella gathers many”. Faculty may find something recognizable (e.g., more applied), agreeable or appealing to them in SI then see how aspects of internationalization make sense and be more understanding and willing to participate. Might it be possible to set up an applied research project in which domestic and international (here and abroad) students and businesses are brought together to identify and solve (at least up to the implementation stage) a social problem somewhere in the world? What might it mean if part of the problem solving involved communicating with each other despite differing language proficiencies? After all, if the point is to solve problems, should that not be the prevailing mindset in any case? Could this actually serve to build authentic intercultural understanding amongst participants? 205 Could internationalizing SI help achieve the non-financial goals of internationalization? If the focus was not so much on helping to meet immigration goals or even local labour force development, perhaps the education for global betterment aspect could be a catalyst for a new curriculum and come to the fore? Of course, I am not suggesting abandoning that part of our mandate, but since the idea would be to develop products and services that solve real-world problems, we would simply be bolstering academic pursuits that help meet other goals such as making the world a better place. For example, BPC already conducts world-class international research in Early Childhood Education (ECE) that impacts practice in the field locally and internationally. In its Business Administration and International Business programs, BPC involves students in projects that teach them about social innovation and gives them practical experience partnering with local businesses (Big Prairie College, 2015e). So there are parts of the College that already have a social-impact and social-transformation outlook. With Executive championship, this work could be extended into other disciplines as a model for other social innovation initiatives. These are suggestions I believe would help leaders achieve the social goals of internationalization that they say they want to achieve. In putting this idea forward, I am not ignoring the financial sustainability of such programming; instead, I propose that it would require innovative partnerships with industry/business and the Provincial government to offset costs. In the end, there could be spin-off benefits for BPC, the Province and business through eventual immigration or international partnerships, but those would be bonuses, not the main focus.   206 Chapter Summary To revisit the question of leaders’ understandings of internationalization, from their responses it is clear that they see it as an all-encompassing ethos that shapes the entire institution—pragmatically (financial sustainability), educationally (curriculum and engagement) and socially (global and local betterment). However, at this point, they admit that such comprehensive internationalization has not yet been achieved. There are also many other necessary issues to attend to concerning organizational structure and financial stability; internationalization and the attendant institutional cultural transformation is not their sole priority. Therefore, it will take time to mobilize their knowledge into practice. However, leaders are responsible for setting and clearly communicating an overarching direction and strategy, which I believe, given their comments, does need attention in the near future. To relieve a portion of the attendant workload, I suggest including a broader spectrum of College employees not just in discussions but also in ideation and decision-making processes. This may help to create more ambassadors for this process internally, just as one of the results of internationalization would be to create ambassadors for the College externally. As it stands, BPC is on the cusp of comprehensive internationalization—a necessary place to be but not a place to remain. Regardless of how or if BPC leaders decide to act on their knowledge and aspirations, there will be challenges to overcome. Their willingness to share how they came to hold their values related to internationalization allowed me to understand them a bit more than I had before. Moreover, it allows me to interpret their actions and comments differently from if I had not heard their stories. While I cannot speak for everyone at the College, a potentially powerful tool in starting to change institutional perspectives is the telling of such stories and allowing 207 employees to connect to their vision through seeing similarities in experiences. Often, we isolate leaders not only in terms of function but in terms of humanness—‘they don’t understand us’, ‘they don’t see what we see’ or other ‘them vs us’ statements. When personal stories are heard, they can bring us back to the fact that leaders are human too! More importantly, knowing their stated values gives us an interpretive tool for their visions with which we can not only ask questions but also hold them accountable. Considering the challenges, questions and complementary research topics raised this study, the next and final chapter will outline recommendations for practice, policy, and future research.   208 Chapter Six: Summary, Conclusions, Further Research, and Recommendations This final chapter provides the conclusions focusing on the key findings of my research along with some recommendations and a discussion of the study’s limitations. Summary and Conclusions Internationalization in higher education is a burgeoning phenomenon and touches most if not all institutions. However, internationalization is also a contentious issue with multiple and sometimes disconnected values and aims (e.g., financial and social) and misunderstood motivations. International engagement at BPC is not a new or even recent phenomenon as the College’s involvement with international projects since the late ‘80s has set the policy and strategy stage for the current implementation of internationalization. While their own life experiences with diversity, difference, and discomfort have shaped their views of internationalization, leaders were also influenced by the pragmatic realities of running and sustaining a college and its mandate to contribute to the local and national economies and workforces and help make the world a better place. Understanding of internationalization. Leaders understand internationalization to be a comprehensive phenomenon that impacts all areas of the College. BPC exhibits attributes of instrumentality, idealism and educationalism with, for example, its clear alignment to market and labour force, financial gain; its objective to develop understanding and respect for others; and its desire to build intercultural sensitivity and competence amongst employees and students. What is less evident thus far is the critical outlook that is more strongly identified with idealism and educationalism. Instrumentality still seems to be the primary lens—and it should be no surprise as the mandate for the College is to be aligned and responsive to industry and the labour force. However, the proclivities of leaders have given rise to “idiosyncrasies” that add aspects of the 209 other understandings. Perhaps then, the existing model might be best labelled as Social Instrumentalism. This is my term that reflects the connection to social innovation with its multi-faceted approach. Purposes and benefits of internationalization. Currently, leaders acknowledge that economic/financial outcomes are not the only reasons for internationalization; social benefit is also crucial for the College and some benefit—a return on investment—has to accrue to BPC. Social outcomes can be intercultural understanding/competency, academic/workforce success, problem-solving/international development and so forth. This latter set of benefits not only applies to students but also to faculty and staff and is demonstrated in how well they interact with and respond to students in and out of class. Financial contribution can be broadly defined as tuition revenues, as revenue-generation for the Province through international student spending and through graduating skilled workers, which contributes to provincial and national economic competitiveness. Financial return is vital for institutional sustainability. However, leaders expressed some understanding that if the College strongly believes in such ventures, “it can’t all be for money, if it’s the right thing to do then it's the right thing to do” (Leader #2). Thus, the College may have to recognize that ‘globalizing’ will cost something from its bottom line. Regardless of how they ranked the financial/economic benefit, leaders believed that such motivations had to be complemented by learning from students and meeting their needs. Ultimately, in the minds of those interviewed, the educational and altruistic motivations were necessary and primary. In practice, so far, financial and global reputation aims are the most visible. Challenges of implementation. Implementing their version of internationalization requires BPC leaders to clearly communicate their visions in the context of different views and 210 levels of buy-in. There are also practical challenges of faculty development and support, collective accountability, acting ethically, and allocating sufficient resources across competing strategic initiatives. So while BPC has not yet achieved its objectives, it is poised to do so. I believe the College will be better able to realize comprehensive implementation of internationalization if its leadership shifts away from understanding internationalization as an end in itself and as synonymous with a series of activities (de Wit, 2011b). Leaders must also act on stated values, meaningfully include the internal community in decision-making processes, and pursue financial and non-financial goals with equal vigour. BPC’s leaders will also need to decide how far the College will travel towards a Social Transformation model of internationalization, given its particular Provincial mandate and how they define social transformation in that context. If non-financial aims are important, it would then seem reasonable for BPC’s leaders to pursue collaborations that lead to increased knowledge (subject, cultural, global) and not have revenue as its primary goal. They may find Social Innovation to be a ready vehicle for implementing such a process. Limitations of this Study This case study was conducted at a single institution and engaged only senior/executive leaders, so only a partial view of the meaning of internationalization can be gleaned from the findings—partial both internally and within the Canadian college landscape. Furthermore, these findings, although consistent with the literature, cannot be generalized to other institutions and may not reflect views held by leaders elsewhere. It would be useful therefore to conduct comparative studies with other institutions (universities and colleges) in the province and other colleges to discover similarities and differences of understandings and practice. 211 Because I am not an executive leader at the College, it is quite likely that interactions with and information revealed to me would be different if I were an “insider” to that group. However, that is not to say that the data is suspect, since during our conversations those differences seemed to dissolve and we conversed as colleagues. As an outsider, I do not have some of the insights, stories or histories that might have triggered different responses. An insider (i.e., having experience at that level of leadership) may have different knowledge and relationships and therefore elicit different stories or more specific revelations. As an outsider, it would have been invaluable to have had the opportunity to shadow these leaders to observe what they said and did in their deliberations, discussions, and decision-making about internationalization. However, this could be an element of future research and would add a way of enriching interview data with observations from practice. Unsurprisingly, these leaders were quite busy and interview so follow up time was limited; although, all were quite generous with their time, some even scheduling two sessions so that we could finish a foreshortened first interview. Their busy schedules limited the opportunity to have more in-depth conversations. Given their limited time, I did not conduct a focus group, which could have deepened the conversation and allowed me to check some of my interpretations. Further Research While I was conducting this research, the College was in a period of reorganization administratively, reprioritization academically and uncertainty financially. An International Strategy was being finalized but has since been set aside; although, portions of it have been subsumed within BPC’s Academic Plan. Not knowing where or how things would end up likely impacted the responses; a follow-up study once the dust settles would clarify this and may allow 212 for different questions and deeper discussions. Furthermore, two Provincial budgets have since come down  - the first with no significant increase in funding and the second with a decrease, so the College will have to be creative in how it prioritizes and resources various initiatives and projects. The extent to which this emphasizes international student recruitment activities and tuition fees remains to be seen and likely should be documented. The social aims might thus be impacted in some way. Similarly, international research and partnerships, lightly touched upon in this study, would merit, I believe, their own investigation. Applied research is an area of strength for the College as are significant international partnerships in its Early Childhood Educator (ECE) program. Unfortunately, due to the organizational restructuring process, the leader overseeing applied research and partnerships was not in place during data collection, and I was unable to schedule an interview subsequently. However, the Strategic Plan clearly identifies international partnership development with industry and community organizations as necessary for its students, applied research and Provincial economic development. What forms this could take or if this could strongly connect with new social innovation initiatives would be interesting to explore; such a study might include discussion on priorities, ethics, global/local community development, capacity building, resource allocation and organizational change. Given the focus on a select group of leaders, this study cannot make any claims about how other College stakeholders, including students, understand internationalization. Any revelations in this direction are anecdotal, stemming from my own interactions with colleagues or based on what leaders had to say. Therefore, this would be a fruitful area for further research. Another area for further research would be a follow-up study on the recommendations and analyses in this dissertation, to check their practicality and impact on practice. 213 Finally, how and whether or not (or to what extent) a social transformative model (Hanson, 2010) fits within BPC’s vision would be revelatory research. Colleges of applied studies in Canada tend not to have strong activist leanings relative to universities. However, while education itself is potentially transformative and impacts society through educated individuals—is there any desire to question and interrogate, for example, government mandates or industry directions? This research would include digging further into the ethics of internationalization, looking at who is and is not benefitting including the impact on ‘sending’ countries. The ethics of internationalization were touched upon in responses and strategic documents but not fully explored due to time and scope constraints. Recommendations This section addresses the question of “who will know how to do what better” (Fallon, personal communication)—a natural question for research in a doctoral program primarily focused on investigating educational practice. One of the participants, when I asked about the value of my work, noted that it could help in developing a plan for IE (internationalization). Based on my research, analysis, and interpretation of the data, I will make recommendations in the following five areas: 1. Shifting/clarifying definition/understanding of internationalization 2. Communication 3. Networking/Active Listening 4. Policy 5. Internationalization Strategy Ensuring a solid underlying understanding of internationalization as a process and not just a set of disparate activities can help BPC leaders move towards a comprehensive approach. 214 Communicating that understanding across the College through bold and clear statements, and through very inclusive dialogue and decision-making can help to build an internal culture where internationalization becomes integrated and not an added on set of activities Shifting understanding. There is a tendency, even for those of us who are immersed in the literature, to discuss this process more as a goal in itself that can be achieved by doing activity X or Y—i.e., “we do exchange programs to internationalize” rather than “we do exchange programs to build respect for and understanding of other people”. There are several strategies (an internationalization circle (de Wit, personal communication, 2017)) for overcoming this misconception. First, “do a good analysis of context (why internationalize?), create awareness and commitment before planning, organizing and implementing, and also constantly review and look at the way it enhances the quality of education, research and service” (de Wit, personal communication, 2017). I think most leaders would agree with my reformulation of the goal statement above. Because internationalization is so tied to international education and student recruitment in the minds of leaders and likely most people at BPC, some of the resistance to the former based on dislike of the latter may be overcome if we focus on the outcomes rather than the process. I came across a short statement on diversity by Schoorman (2006) that captured the sentiment I am trying to convey. The original excerpt was: Diversity When an institution can be proud of it Is when we don’t have to mention the word at all. Not in our mission statements, nor our strategic plans.  It should be normal; the natural result of standard operating procedures. Replacing “diversity” with “internationalization”, clarifies my earlier statement about it being a 215 “normalized” way for us to educate. I think that by really clarifying and focusing on outcomes, leaders would have a more successful and perhaps easier time with integrating international perspectives throughout the institution. Assuming that communication was clear, pervasive and inclusive, awareness of the goals would be built. Continuous ‘quality assurance’ of internationalization, that is, constant monitoring and recalibrating operations and strategy as required to meet stated goals, would reinforce this understanding. Communication. Avoiding misunderstandings of leaders’ aims, values, and goals for internationalizing, requires clear communication, verbally and in writing about the aims of internationalization, the markers of success and priorities. Communication is not simply transmissive; it requires ensuring that what was said is heard and understood. To communicate well is also to listen—a theme brought up by Leader #1 - so there need to be opportunities for employees to engage directly with leaders to ask clarifying questions and interrogate responses. These could take the form of several “town halls” across campuses, complemented by transparent, detailed documentation. Then, of course, talk needs to be backed up by action. The community needs to see identified priorities being resourced and success markers being consistently pursued. If not, then they will quickly see the dissonance; skepticism and resistance will rise. In this pursuit of conveying leaders’ “minds” arises the necessity for precision and detail in laying out objectives and success indicators—what will be pursued, what will not, in what sequence and on what timeline. Of course, communication of this nature takes time and effort but when coupled with the next recommendation, can become a powerful transformer of institutional culture. Expansion of internal network. The literature (e.g., Levin, 1995) suggests that broadening networks to those not in formal leadership positions yields positive results in 216 building a culture of understanding about internationalization. My suggestion is that BPC leaders and the internationalization process itself would benefit from composing the group of decision-makers to include staff and faculty with insight, expertise, and experience in various areas of internationalization and who ultimately carry out the related activities. While much of the operational planning will occur in individual units or departments, a centralized body would ensure that: 1. Areas of overlap are identified and where possible, activities and resources combined for optimal results 2. Good ideas are not kept in silos but shared and improved upon by the entire institution 3. Challenges are solved communally or at least have ‘outside’ perspectives brought to bear on them 4. Resourcing is looked at from an institution-wide perspective as well as from departmental viewpoints If one goal of internationalization, as articulated by Leader #7, is to be inclusive, modeling such inclusiveness in the decision-making process would seem appropriate. Policy. Given leaders’ avowals that money is not the primary reason for internationalizing, and since they regard Policy A11 as not only a guiding document but also as a strong statement of serious intent, it would seem important to include a statement such as the following: That financial sustainability of internationalization efforts notwithstanding, the College will actively, ethically and prudently pursue goals that meet social aims, the achievement of which help to solve local and global challenges. 217 This mirrors and sharpens current wording that focuses on “international development projects where the College has appropriate resources, expertise and experience” (Big Prairie College, 2006) and can tie-in to social innovation projects. Concomitantly, to reflect that internationalization is a process, not a destination, the current wording—“An awareness of our global community and the resulting internationalization of our College can be achieved through:” should be changed to something like: The ability to work in and contribute to the betterment of our global community can be achieved through an internationalization process that includes: Strategy. The main concern with strategy documents is that they do not contain “performance indicators” or statements of how certain goals could be achieved and how we will know when they have been. This is not unusual, but there are examples from other institutions that do include metrics, although not exhaustive lists (Deane, 2013a; The University of Winnipeg, 2016). While leaders have left it up to individual departments or schools to determine their own measures and initiatives, having a central document would hold the entire College accountable for meeting specific goals and would be an additional way for leaders to communicate their understandings and intentions. Social innovation. The targeted nature of social innovation coupled with the similarities with the outcomes of internationalization—understanding, cooperation, inclusiveness, and so forth, may provide an agreeable forum for trying out various aspects and activities associated with internationalization. One recommendation in this area would be to: Develop at least one post-graduate certificate program utilizing a new way of teaching and learning in applied higher education. The intended outcome would be to increase the impact that students and institutions have in our evolving society and globalized markets by focusing 218 existing technical skills and business acumen on solving social problems. It would have the following characteristics: 1. Identification of a social problem by an “international” student or student cohort 2. Stakeholders/Audience: International students, Domestic students, Canadian/International industry/sector partners, BPC 3. Purpose: To develop innovation and entrepreneurship competencies in students in a collaborative, cross-national, intercultural environment focused on social innovation outputs. The main foci in developing the skillset would be: • Enhancing existing applied critical thinking skills through problem-definition, mentoring and implementation/piloting processes • Developing intercultural communication skills • Building a foundation for future and near-term economic growth domestically and internationally • Researching and realizing new teaching methods and pedagogies that mobilize theoretical knowledge through the application of a social innovation. 4. International students or sponsors with or without the College’s help would define a social problem in a (their) developing (home) country. BPC would provide the necessary educational supports and connections with the appropriate sector partners to see the innovative solution brought from “mind to market”. Domestic and international students would be involved in specifying the problem further, proposing solutions, learning how to develop, test, implement and ‘market’ solutions to potential business partners. 5. Initially, social problems that can be solved or mitigated (partially or fully) through technological (e.g., engineering, IT, or related fields) innovations would be the focus. For 219 example, water distribution or safety; structural safety; data management towards healthcare management systems and so forth. 6. A research component could be implemented through collaboration with a partner university’s Masters in Development Practice; MSc (Bioscience, Technology & Public Policy); MA, Master of Arts in Environmental, Resource and Development Economics (ERDE). Interested students in those programs could research the efficacy of the educational process/model or the impact of the SI itself. Concluding Thoughts The EdD program is “grounded in the belief that it is important for participants to engage in scholarly discourse about understanding, critiquing and improving practice in educational settings” (The University of British Columbia, 2017). It focuses on helping education practitioners in leadership positions develop their capacity for critique and improvement of practice. Leadership can be both formal and non-formal; in other words, leadership can be construed as ‘administrative/management/executive’ and, just as importantly, as ‘thought leadership’—thinking beyond one’s current practice/situation for its betterment. Rockquemore (2017) defines leadership broadly as “using your strengths to work for change you care about in a meaningful and consistent way” (Rethinking Leadership). Such a broad definition allows many people to fit into the category of leader irrespective of title and position. It is in the latter sense that I saw myself as a fit for this program. Even though I do not work directly in the field of international education or internationalization, I have been able to influence various components of that practice in my institution. During previous graduate work, my interests turned to the internationalization of curriculum during conversations with students from other countries whose perspectives were rarely (perhaps never) reflected in academic literature. I wondered how we 220 (educators and students) could expand our learning through meaningful interaction with the “international” other and how we could think and move beyond construing international recruitment solely in terms of markets and revenues. I found many whose thoughts mirrored mine and who also pointed out the barriers to these viewpoints being accepted in higher education. As I progressed through the EdD program, my assumptions were challenged—not necessarily because I was wrong in my thinking, but because I might have been missing some of the ‘data’ needed to draw certain conclusions. What did leaders think? What realities were they facing? Was there a way to accommodate both revenue generation and social benefit rationales for internationalization? These questions loomed larger with time. My research into the understandings of executive educational leaders—the ones who set direction for their institution—gave me insight into how they have come to understand internationalization in the way they do and the multiple concerns and accountabilities they have regarding running a college. Carefully listening to their words helped me bring together the two disparate (to some minds) worlds of financial and social outcomes. Since the College has to fulfill its economic and labour force development obligations, some of the non-financial aims of internationalization are not an easy fit. Furthermore, since its leaders very clearly articulated that money was not the primary driver for internationalization and that one educational outcome was developing globally- and socially-minded students, I wonder if social innovation could provide a framework that would help the College achieve its goals. Could social innovation, with its explicit privileging of both business and social betterment, actually be a better way to understand internationalization in all of its dimensions? Despite my research findings, I do not have all of the answers, but I am thinking more holistically and practically about internationalization than I was before. I am also more likely to 221 pause before jumping to a priori conclusions about leaders’ meanings and motivations. I hope that clarifying what internationalization is and trying to find a place for it within the paradigm of an Innovation Centre, will help the College more fully achieve its desired aims.  222 References  Al-Youssef, J. (2009). The internationalisation of higher education institutions: A case study of a british university. U507928 Ed.D., University of Bath (United Kingdom), Ann Arbor. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. Retrieved August 22, 2015 Al-Youssef, J. (2010). Challenges to institutionalizing internationalization in a uk university. In F. Maringe & N. Foskett (Eds.), Globalisation and Internationalisation in Higher Education : Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London, GBR: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from Retrieved August 23, 2015 Algonquin College. (2012). Algonquin college corporate reports.  Ottawa: Algonquin College Retrieved from Retrieved October 7, 2015 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007a). Higher education’s landscape of internationalization: Motivations and realities. Tradition and transition: The international imperative in higher education, 113-133. Retrieved August 12, 2015 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007b). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal Of Studies In International Education, 11(3-4), 290-305. doi: 223 10.1177/1028315307303542 Retrieved from Retrieved January, 2009 Andreotti, V. d. O. (2014). Aaacs 2013 closing keynote-actionable curriculum theory. JAAACS, 10(1).  Retrieved from Retrieved July 27, 2017 Arthurs, H. (2005). Private ordering and workers’ rights in the global economy: Corporate codes of conduct as a regime of labour market regulation. Ethics Codes, Corporations and the Challenge of Globalization, ed. W. Cragg, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 194-211. Retrieved March 4, 2018 Association of Canadian Community Colleges. (2010). Internationalizing canadian colleges and institutes: The first national report on international education and mobility.  Ottawa, ON: Association of Canadian Community Colleges Retrieved from Retrieved January 10, 2016 Association of Canadian Deans of Education. (2014). Accord on the internationalization of education.  Retrieved from Retrieved May 12, 2014 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2014). Canada's universities in the world (2014 internationalization survey).  Ottawa, ON:  Retrieved from 224 Retrieved August 11, 2015 Bakhtiari, S., & Shajar, H. (2011). Globalization and education: Challenges and opportunities. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 5(2).  Retrieved from Retrieved March 6, 2014 Barber, K. (Ed.) (2005a) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary  (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from Retrieved February 14, 2018 Barber, K. (Ed.) (2005b) The Canadian Oxford Dictionary  (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from Retrieved February 14, 2018 Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70. doi: 10.2307/3447513 Retrieved from Retrieved July 23, 2013 Bartlett, L., Frederick, M., Gulbrandsen, T., & Murillo, E. (2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 5-29. Retrieved February 17, 2018 Beck, K. (2012). Globalization/s: Reproduction and resistance in the internationalization of higher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 133-148.  Retrieved from 225 Retrieved February 6, 2014 Becker, G. S. (1994). Human capital revisited Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd edition) (pp. 15-28): The university of Chicago press. Retrieved  Bennett, M. J. (2012). Turning cross-cultural contact into intercultural learning. Paper presented at the Universidad 8th International Congress on Higher Education, The University for Sustainable Development, Havana, Cuba. Bensimon, E. M., Neuman, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative leadership: The "l" word in higher education. (1). Washington DC: The George Washington University. Retrieved January 18, 2009 Big Prairie College. (2006). Policy a11 - international education. In B. P. College (Ed.), (Vol. A11). ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2012). Strategic plan 2012-15. ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2013a). Board policy manual.  ____________: Big Prairie College. Retrieved  Big Prairie College. (2013b). Board policy monitoring - international education (2.21) (Vol. 5.3). ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2014a). Academic annual report - 2012/2013. ____________: Big Prairie College. 226 Big Prairie College. (2014b). College-wide learning outcomes  Retrieved July 5, 2014 Big Prairie College. (2014c). Live, work and study in the heart of canada  Retrieved May 27, 2014 Big Prairie College. (2014d). Why study at big prairie college?  Retrieved May 27, 2014 Big Prairie College. (2015a). About bpc  Retrieved June 27, 2015 Big Prairie College. (2015b). Academic annual report - 2013/2014. ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2015c). Big prairie college delivers balanced budget (July 8, 2015 ed.). ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2015d). Bpc history  Retrieved August 23, 2015 Big Prairie College. (2015e). Business students explore social innovation through newly launched partnership with national leasing  Retrieved March 5, 2017 Big Prairie College. (2015f). Position profile - bpc president and ceo. In B. P. College (Ed.), (August 16, 2015 ed.). ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2016a). Academic and research plan 2016-2021. ____________: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2016b). Internationalization plan 2016-21: Big Prairie College. Big Prairie College. (2016c). Strategic plan 2016-2021. ____________: Big Prairie College. 227 Big Prairie College. (2017). Advancing big prairie college’s innovation agenda: Big Prairie College. Bockman, J. (2013). Neoliberalism. Contexts, 12(3), 14-15. doi: 10.1177/1536504213499873 Retrieved from Retrieved February 6, 2014 Bond, S., & Lemasson, J.-P. (1999). A new world of knowledge canadian universities and globalization   Retrieved from November 14, 2009 Bondarenko, V. (2015). A conversation with arvind gupta, The Ubyssey. Retrieved from Retrieved August 3, 2015 Boothroyd, P. (2005). Global citizenship and ubc   Retrieved from December 2008 Braskamp, L. A. (2009). Internationalization in higher education: Four issues to consider. Journal of College and Character, 10(6).  Retrieved from Retrieved March 22, 2014 Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cafley, J. M. (2015). Leadership in higher education: Case study research of canadian university presidents with unfinished mandates. University of Ottawa. Retrieved from 228 Retrieved August 14, 2015 Cambridge, J., & Thompson, J. (2004). Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare, 34(2), 161-175.  Retrieved from Retrieved July 13, 2014 Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2014). Internationalization statement of principles for canadian educational institutions. Ottawa, ON. Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2017). Canada’s education abroad lexicon, September 13, 2017, from CBC News (Producer). (2015, September 30, 2015). International student enrolment on the rise in ottawa. CBCNews | Ottawa Website. Retrieved from Chakma, A., Bisson, A., Côté, J., Dodds, C., Smith, L., & Wright, D. (2012). International education: A key driver of canada’s future prosperity.  Ottawa: Minister of International Trade Retrieved from Retrieved May 11, 2013 Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 976-993. doi: 229 10.1177/1049732304266795 Retrieved from Retrieved September 1, 2015 Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal Of Studies In International Education, 13(3), 289-309. doi: 10.1177/1028315308329804 Retrieved from Retrieved March 22, 2014 Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2001). Capturing complexity in educational leadership.  Retrieved from Retrieved June 23, 2017 Clifford, S. (nd). Tipsheet - interviewing elites Duke Initiative on Survey Methodology (DISM). Duke University: Social Science Research Institute at Duke University. Cohen, J. (1999). Educating minds and hearts: Social emotional learning and the passage into adolescence: Teachers College Press. Conference Board of Canada. (2017a). Business [un]usual: Profit from purpose  Retrieved June, June 25, 2017, from Conference Board of Canada. (2017b). DNA of engagement: How organizations can foster employee ownership of engagement. (R-1615-17). Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada Retrieved from Retrieved June 25, 2017 Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. New York: Routledge. 230 Cragg, W. (2005). Ethics codes, corporations, and the challenge of globalization: Edward Elgar Publishing. Croom, P. W. (2012). Internationalization and institutional strategy. AUDEM