The overall awareness of responsible internationalisation has increased during the last few years. But how to address this highly topical and complex issue? We asked Tommy Shih, senior lecturer in Business Administration and with research interests in innovation and industrial networks; geopolitics and international collaboration in research. He is also working as a senior adviser at Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT).
Hi Tommy Shih! What has been your and Sylvia's input during the work with the new report?
”We have had regular meetings and close contacts with the investigators during this process where we have presented and discussed our research results. Much of the research has been about developing a principled approach to responsible internationalisation. Sylvia and I have been involved in policy for many years, working on the internationalisation of higher education institutions, both nationally and internationally. Because of this, we have been able to provide in-depth empirical as well as theoretical knowledge of what internationalisation looks like today; its historical context and the global, organisational and national challenges currently increasing in complexity. As it is quite difficult data to collect and complex material to absorb, we have supported the investigation with tools and knowledge to simplify and explain.”
Do you have any overall comments or reflections on the content of the interim report?
”I think the report adequately explains the difficulties in finding a balance between transparency and security. It provides a background to the problem and suggests a way forward. Of course, national guidelines need to be developed in the next step and there is some way to go. Still, I am positive that now – with the work that has begun – there are better conditions for driving the ambition of responsible internationalisation forward.”
In the interim report, you are quoted as distinguishing between research security and responsible internationalisation, with the former requiring compliance and the latter requiring sound responsibility. What can this mean in practical terms for a researcher here at LUSEM?
”Most of what happens in international research collaborations will not be based on compliance but on discretionary decisions, i.e. judicious responsibility. What this means in practice is that discussions about what is appropriate behaviour in different situations need to happen more systematically. Most people strive to be responsible. However, wanting to be responsible does not necessarily mean that you really are responsible in your international research collaborations. As with all norm creation, it needs to be explicitly discussed and institutionalised.
”It is not about guidelines for detailed behaviours, but what principles do we start from and how does this affect the possibility of continuing to have meaningful collaborations – from the individual to the institutional levels?”
The report mentions that there is a need to establish a culture of responsible internationalisation in higher education institutions. You have touched on this in your previous answer, but how do you propose to go about it? How are Swedish universities doing right now?
”Being responsible is not something you just think you are; it is a behaviour that must be actively shaped and built. I think awareness of this has increased in recent years. However, the problem is that there are so many complex issues that it is not easy to know what you actually should and must do. Because of this, there are more and more guidelines, which provide greater clarity, but at the same time, it can also be a bit too much to deal with. Most proposals and guidelines are also not something that researchers have to follow, which means that they are often not followed or that researchers do not familiarise themselves with them.”
”Building a culture is about researchers and teachers wanting to take responsibility voluntarily – rather than through coercion – based on what is proposed as good practice.”
”Swedish higher education institutions have, as I said, taken this message on board. But they are large and complex organisations. There are differences within and between organisations, and also between the depth of understanding. Some do better than others. But overall, there is quite a lot of room for improvement, including at Lund University.”
”On the positive side, awareness and interest have increased, which the government report in itself is a proof of.”
