This article argues that the chief challenge for developing and sustaining internationalization in the context of the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century is the engagement of the faculty. It argues that although higher education has been successful in providing mechanisms for student mobility because institutions have not successfully engaged the faculty that mobility is not as sizeable as it should be, but also, in and of itself, will not deliver the learning, discovery, and engagement that we seek through internationalization. To capture the faculty's interest in, and commitment to, internationalization, we need to move beyond the conceptualization of the internationalization or globalization of higher education in terms of how the different aspects of teaching, research, and service functions of the university are becoming more “internationalized” and examine how these activities encourage greater learning and discovery. Our challenge is to convince faculty that their scholarship and teaching will benefit from these efforts by considering the risk and reward structures within our institutions and faculty cultures.
Engberg, D., & Green, M.F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
2.
Fulbright, J.W. (1945). Introducing the Fulbright Hays Act in the Senate . Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://us.fulbrightonline.org/about_programhistory.html
3.
Fulbright, J.W. (1976). Speech on the thirtieth anniversary of the Fulbright Program. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://stuact.tamu.edu/stuorgs/fulbright/history.html
4.
Hudzik, J. (2004). Why internationalize NASULGC institutions? Challenge and opportunity. Retrieved on September 1, 2006, from http://www.nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/WhyInternationalize.pdf
5.
Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, Bologna. (1999, June). Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.elfa-afde.org/html/legal_sorbonne_declaration.html
6.
Kelly, W. (1970). Cartoon for Earth Day. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm
7.
Kramsch, C. (2005). Post 9/11: Foreign languages between knowledge and power. Applied Linguistics, 26 (4), 545-567.
8.
Kuenzi, J., & Riddle, W.C. (2005). National security education program: Background and issues updated January 21, 2005. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31643.pdf
9.
Lasswell, H.D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Lasswell, H.D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas: A series of addresses (pp. 37-51). New York: Harper.
11.
Rogers, E. (1994). A history of communication study. New York: Free Press.
12.
Siaya, L., & Hayward, F.M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses, Washington, D.C. American Council on Education. Summary retrieved on September 1, 2006, from http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2003_mapping_summary.pdf
13.
Simcock, B. (1989, January). United States-Japanese trade negotiations . Lecture presented at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
14.
Sorbonne Joint Declaration, joint declaration on harmonization of the architecture of the European higher education system. (1998, May 25). Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/io/cop034_sorbonne_declaration.pdf
15.
Spellings Commission Draft Report. (2006). Retrieved on September 1, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html
