Judy L Hutchinson – Koinonia Educational Associate Scholar. University of Notre Dame, USA
In recent years, internationalisation has increasingly been framed in ethical and socially responsible terms. Scholars such as Jane Knight (2004) have long emphasised that internationalisation is not an end in itself, but a process intended to enhance the quality and purpose of higher education. More recent frameworks, such as the Internationalization in Higher Education for Society (Brandenburg et al., 2020), push even further, arguing that international engagement should serve the public good rather than institutional prestige alone. Deardorff’s (2006) work on intercultural competence similarly places emphasis on attitudes such as respect, openness, and responsibility. This growing moral vocabulary reflects a recognition that global engagement is never neutral; it always shapes human relationships, priorities, and opportunities.
This shift in language is significant. Words such as solidarity, global responsibility, and the common good now appear regularly in strategic plans and conference sessions. Yet, in practice, internationalisation remains deeply tied to recruitment targets, rankings, and competition for global reputation. Ethical aspirations and market logics continue to co-exist, often uneasily.
The shift from internationalisation primarily serving institutional goals toward internationalisation for society (Brandenburg et al., 2020) marks an important development. Yet even within this shift, questions remain about what is meant by society, and what counts as contribution. Does society mean local communities, global networks, underserved regions, or simply the institution’s own stakeholders? Is internationalisation successful because it increases mobility numbers? Because it improves employability? Because it enhances institutional reputation? Or because it contributes to more just and humane global relationships?
Intercultural competence frameworks have likewise contributed valuable language around openness and respect (Deardorff, 2006). However, they tend to concentrate on individual dispositions rather than on institutional purpose. They describe the qualities students should develop, but say little about the moral commitments that should shape institutional partnerships, priorities and strategy. Without a thicker account of educational purpose, the language of responsibility risks remaining aspirational.
This is not a criticism of existing scholarship. It is an observation about scope. Internationalisation literature frequently operates at the level of policy and practice, while leaving deeper anthropological questions implicit. Yet those questions matter, particularly for institutions that claim to be mission-driven.
What is less frequently acknowledged is that many of the concepts now shaping internationalisation discourse did not originate within international education itself. They draw from longer intellectual and moral traditions that have wrestled for generations with the questions of human dignity, responsibility and the common good. Catholic Social Teaching (CST) is one such tradition. It has developed over more than a century of reflection on social, economic, and political life (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). It articulates principles such as human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good. These principles are not limited to internal ecclesial concerns. They offer a coherent account of what human flourishing requires within an interconnected world. While these principles arise from a Catholic intellectual tradition, their emphasis on human dignity, the common good, and global responsibility resonates far beyond religious boundaries. For institutions that describe themselves as mission-driven, particularly Catholic universities, this raises an important question: if such a framework already exists, why is it not more visibly shaping international strategy?
From Principles to Practice
If these principles are taken seriously, they would shape internationalisation differently.
Human dignity suggests that students are not simply participants in a global marketplace, nor are partner institutions instruments for institutional advancement. International engagement becomes less about extracting value and more about recognising the intrinsic worth of persons and communities across borders.
Solidarity shifts the focus from competition to mutual responsibility. In practical terms, this might affect how partnerships are both selected and sustained. Rather than privileging prestige alone, institutions might ask whether collaborations are reciprocal, whether they contribute to local capacity, and whether they reflect shared commitments beyond institutional branding. For instance, a partnership designed primarily to boost mobility numbers looks very different from one intentionally structured to support local research capacity, strengthen community engagement, or advance shared academic goals.
The common good challenges the assumptions that internationalisation primarily serves institutional growth. Instead, it asks how global engagement contributes to broader social, intellectual and human flourishing. This does not eliminate financial realities, but it reframes them within a larger moral horizon.
The idea of Integral Human Development (IHD), articulated in Populorum Progressio (Paul VI, 1967) and developed in contemporary scholarship (Sedmak, 2023), further expands this vision. Education is not limited to professional preparation or intercultural exposure. It concerns holistic formation, looking at the person intellectually, socially, morally, and spiritually. Internationalisation, when viewed through this lens, becomes part of a formative process rather than a strategic add-on.
The Question of Depth
Many contemporary internationalisation frameworks now employ language that echoes these principled commitments. Yet the presence of shared vocabulary does not necessarily indicate shared foundations. Concepts such as dignity, solidarity, or the common good can remain aspirational if they are not grounded in a coherent understanding of the human person and the purpose of education. Catholic Social Teaching does not merely supply values; it offers a structured moral framework (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004). The question, then, is not whether the language of responsibility is present, but whether it meaningfully shapes institutional decision-making.
Internationalisation is unlikely to move beyond market logic through aspiration alone. If institutions genuinely seek to align global engagement with social responsibility, the issue is not simply adopting new language, but clarifying the frameworks that guide institutional choices. For mission-driven universities, particularly those within the Catholic tradition, these resources already exist. For others, the invitation may be similar: to ask whether internationalisation is anchored in a coherent vision of human flourishing, or whether it remains primarily a strategic instrument.
REFERENCES:
Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask, B. and Drobner, A. (2020) Internationalisation in higher education for society (IHES): Concept, current research and examples of good practice. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).
Deardorff, D.K. (2006) ‘Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), pp. 241–266.
Knight, J. (2004) ‘Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), pp. 5–31.
Paul VI (1967) Populorum Progressio. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004) Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Sedmak, C. (2023) Enacting Integral Human Development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books