Memo, International Seminar on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue in Higher Education

4Final Report, IAU Experts Seminar on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue, Nov. 2004

IAUs Experts Seminar on

Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue

12-13 November 2004, Hosted by Central European University, Budapest Hungary

Final REPORT

Contents:

Background and rationale

IAU Actions to dateThe Budapest Seminar

ProgrammeProjectSeminar outcomes

4.Role(s) for IAU5.Suggestions for action

Conclusions

AnnexesI. List of Questions to Seminar participantsII. List of Case studies prepared by Seminar participantsIII. IAU Institutional Questionnaire. An Introduction

The IAU Working Group on Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue

Background and rationale

Since many countries around the world are becoming increasingly multicultural and since, at the same time, living together peacefully in such a multicultural context remains elusive, IAU launched a Working Group on Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue (WGID). The WGID was established to stimulate discussion, engage institutions in reflection on the topic of Intercultural Learning and Dialogue and propose actions to be undertaken locally and globally: in short, to guide the Associations activities in this area. The group met for the first time in Quebec City in 2002.

The focus of the International Association of Universities being global, and its work being geared towards issues of global importance, IAU always aims at offering multiple perspectives on issues of key importance to its Members.

From 2002 until 2004, the working group was chaired by Paolo Blasi, Former Rector of the University of Florence, Italy and IAU Administrative board Member. It included:

Chair Paolo BlasiFormer Rector University of Florence Member Brenda Gourley Vice-Chancellor Open University Member Madeleine Green Vice-President American Council on Education Member Zixin Hou President Nankai University Member Wataru Mori Former President University of Tokyo Member Moussa Ouattara Former Rector University of Bobo Dioulasso Member Istvan Teplan Executive Vice-President Central European University Secretariat Hilligje Vant Land Coordinator, Program Development IAU Secretariat

Since 2004, Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue has become one of IAUs three thematic Priority fields of action.

IAU Actions to date

Creation of IAU WebPages on Intercultural Dialogue (http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/intercultural-dialogue" http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/intercultural-dialogue).

The IAU 12th General Conference, held in So Paolo, Brazil, in July 2004, focused on The Wealth of Diversity. The Role of Universities in Promoting Dialogue and Development. The third thematic Debate was on The role of Universities in promoting dialogue; it was followed by 4 related parallel workshops (see Workshop series 3 at: http://www.iau-aiu.net/civicrm/event/info?id=123&reset=1" http://www.iau-aiu.net/civicrm/event/info?id=123&reset=1). Some of the papers presented are to be published in the Conference Highlights (Spring 2005).

In November 2004, IAU organized an International Experts Seminar on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue.

The Budapest Seminar Organized by IAU and hosted by the Central European University (CEU), this Seminar has been sponsored by: Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF), the Ford Foundation, the Department of Foreign Affaire and International Trade (DFAIT), Canada, and UNESCO, through its Participation Program 2004-05.

The IAU Experts Seminar on Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue was generously hosted by the Central European University, in Budapest, Hungary, on November 12 and 13, 2004. It gathered specialists from all around the world to discuss issues and share their expertise related to the overall theme of intercultural learning and dialogue in higher education. The diversity of cultural, historical, national and linguistic backgrounds of the people who took part in the Seminar was in itself a very unique and stimulating starting point for the discussions held in Budapest. This very diversity initiated rich discussions even on issues such as what is understanding?, what is exchange? and What can we call expertise? The debates were intercultural, interdisciplinary and different institutional and structural perspectives were introduced. The experts were selected to include teachers, researchers and senior higher education administrators.

On the basis of the IAU Experts Seminar on Higher Education and Intercultural Learning and Dialogue, held at the Central European University (CEU), in Budapest, Hungary, in November 2004, proposals for action are currently being developed.

1.The programme

The Seminar theme was introduced by three different presentations:

Prof. Rizvi, Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, USA, presented a cultural globalisation perspective in his paper entitled Identity, Culture and Cosmopolitan Futures; Dr. Stenou, Director, Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue, UNESCO, Paris, France, talked about The role of Universities in Promoting Intercultural Learning and Dialogue: UNESCOs Perspective on the benefits of Diversity;Prof. Lasonen, UNESCO Chair, Institute of Education, University of Jyvskyl, Finland and Prof. Proulx, Department of Psychology, Universit de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada jointly developed the Seminar discussion paper entitled A Conceptual Framework for Intercultural Learning and Dialogue in Higher Education.

Based on these presentations, the Seminar discussions revolved around three specific topics, which were to cover various aspects of the higher education institution at which issues of intercultural learning and dialogue may be most importantly addressed:

Diverse Student Populations;

Intercultural Teaching, Learning and Research;

Institutional Responses; Transforming the Campus.

Aims

The Seminar was not meant to be conclusive, on the contrary; its aim was to help define possible starting points for future IAU work in this field. Amongst expected outcomes, the discussions were geared towards:

Developing a better appreciation of the scope of the topic;Developing a better understanding of key concepts;Learning from experiences (sharing of good practices); Exploring how best to translate theory into practice;Identifying ideas and suggestions for a future IAU Agenda and Action Plan.

Prior to the Seminar the invited experts and the IAU Member Institutions were invited to contribute the following documents:

Papers: some Seminar participants were invited to make a presentation and to prepare a written contribution (see the programme online);A series of questions was sent to all Seminar participants; the collected responses were used to gear the Seminar discussions in Budapest (see List of Questions, Annex I);Case studies: the Seminar participants have been invited to contribute a case study meant to outline institution strategies, policies or practices or programs relevant to the promotion of intercultural learning and dialogue within higher education (see: List of Case studies, Annex II);An IAU Institutional Questionnaire was sent out to all IAU Member Institutions; the responses received have been summarized. The list of Institutions which responded is enclosed under Annex III at the end of the document.

4. Seminar outcomes

The following main ideas and concerns were expressed:

Clarity of terms and values should be sought. Dialogue is for instance a concept that in itself needs clarification: the danger of potential simultaneous cacophonies was stressed. The concept of identity is another example of a term that needs clarification: what is identity; how is it perceived; how does it influence dialogue, etc.

Addressing issues of Intercultural Learning and Dialogue means adopting not only a local, but also a global and universal perspective;Intercultural learning and dialogue is not yet present on the agenda of institutional leadership. The jargon used should be carefully chosen. The danger to sometimes use the word and the concept of culture as a euphemism, since Culture can be used for almost anything, was stressed.

Out of these 4 major clusters of questions were raised:

Question 1: How multicultural are some of the discussions about intercultural dialogue? To what extent are these issues of an academic or administrative nature? Do the two aspects interact?

Question 2: When addressing issues of intercultural dialogue, is it possible to avoid misunderstandings? How does one access or understand realities one is not familiar with?

Question 3: When focusing on learning, how can information be translated into knowledge, keeping in mind the contextual values of both information and knowledge? Does knowledge mean understanding?

Question 4: If work towards the clarification of terms and concepts were to be envisaged (IAU had been envisaging a Glossary of terms), such work should be viewed as a process; it should not be viewed as a static list of definitions but rather as a place for debate. Such a Glossary project would need to open the discussion to diverse voices. An electronic debate around a set of terms could be initiated on the IAU Website.

The following needs were identified:

To develop a Glossary of terms, concepts, and potentially values: UNESCO offers its support for the development of the conceptual framework to enhance contact between disciplines.To educate educators and leaders; gather information on and develop teacher training in ILD; offer support to academic staff often ill equipped to address issues of intercultural dialogue, thus enabling faculty and senior administrators to become learners again. The leadership could do more to institutionalise value-based education. As was said in Budapest, This is not a question of adding spice to the stew but of changing the recipe. Learning to look at things differently is a real challenge.To gather and share information on actions (good practices/case studies) undertaken on campus. Practices and Cases need to be contextualised.To include the issue of internationalisation at home in the discussion and actions undertaken under ILD. The relationship between what happens on campus and in the world outside needs to be analysed. To assess the potential flexibility of the curriculum: in general it can be stated that the curriculum is already packed and it seems difficult to integrate new dimensions. Still it is important to integrate issues of intercultural learning and dialogue into student learning; To assess the national character of the curriculum. Teaching and learning is, per definition, always located somewhere. Compulsory courses on broader issues related to ID could be developed. It is also worthwhile to determine what, in a curriculum, is and needs to remain national or locally focused;

To assess the (national) power structures: universities remain for the most part national in nature. Even when academic freedom and autonomy is respected, national governing bodies often define the academic policies and practices;To bring issues of Intercultural Learning and Dialogue to the attention of governments;To debate the existing tensions between the cultural and the commercial: academic mobility is often market driven: in such context, what attention is given to intercultural learning and dialogue? To assess and understand discrepancies between policy and practice.

4.Role(s) for IAU

The discussions which took place in Budapest, allowed to take stock of the challenges facing higher education institutions at the local level and those facing IAU at the global level.

The various calls for actions and needs identified during the Seminar provided the context for the ensuing discussion on the potential role IAU could play. It was clear that an overall IAU strategy would be required so as to frame IAU work in this field in the future. Since the IAU Administrative Board was newly elected (July 2004), it was expected that its first meeting could devote time to exploring such an overall strategy.

For the participants, IAU, considered as a safe place for discussion, could help: Build bridges between people and between the local and the global;Make the difference in policy by forcing the issue of ILD into the debates, and getting it on agenda of higher education leaders;Collect and analyse higher education institutions mission statements; links will be made available on-line; Develop an IAU Policy Statement on ILD;Conduct an institutional survey on ILD in practice;Develop staff and student mobility programs and opportunities and disseminate information on relevant opportunities;Provide a forum for sharing good practice and expertise.

5.Suggestions for follow-up action

Based on the above, the following initial suggestions for IAU action were made:

5.a.Edit written contributions to Seminar

As indicated above (see: paragraph 3 above), these contributions include:

Papers, case studies, responses, reflections and comments stimulated by a series of questions prepared by IAU; Completed IAU Institutional Questionnaires.

The richness of these documents is invaluable but difficult to share in the format in which they were provided. In order to allow for wide circulation, the different documents need further reworking and analysis. The following steps are envisaged:

Further analyse the documents submitted by the participants;Further analyse the completed Institutional Questionnaires;Publish these outcomes together with a series of selected articles in the Fall 2005 Issue of Higher Education Policy (see: http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/presentation" http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/presentation);Research in the area of intercultural learning and dialogue could be promoted through the IAU/Palgrave Essay Prize: it is proposed the 2006 edition of this Prize be devoted to the subject of Higher Education and Intercultural Dialogue (see: http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/iaupalgrave-prize" http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/iaupalgrave-prize)Language is important in intercultural dialogue. Documents will at first be translated to and published in French thanks to a grant received from AUF. The Seminar participant from Lebanon also offered to translate these into Arabic.

5.b.Development of services, such as:

A discussion forum (Chat room site) on Intercultural Dialogue and Learning could be launched;

Development of IAU WebPages on Intercultural Dialogue: these could include:

An analytical bibliographical database and offer access to other existing resources;An Internet based Library of Case Studies: this necessitates clear guidelines for reworking the submitted Case Studies; Case studies need to be introduced, and contextualised; Heads of IAU Member Institutions should also be invited to submit Case studies on the subject.Access to specific resources for higher education leaders, to help bring the topic of Intercultural Learning in the Global Context on the agenda. Leadership training and development exists; IAU could focus on bringing a global dimension to it.

Workshops, Seminars, Conferences to: Provide forums for dialogue; Raise awareness; Influence the leadership; Involve a broader group.

Targeted audience: University presidents, researchers, professors and administrators as well as students.

Possible formats: Big splash Conference Leadership development workshops Local seminars to bring IAU Member Institutions together

5.c. Development of the Network

IAU proposes to develop an Institutional Network from among IAU Membership.

It is suggested that this Network of interested institutions could help to develop and apply an intercultural self-assessment system or process designed to serve as a means to:

Learn more about ILD and its applications into higher education; Improve the visibility of ILD issues in higher education; Enable institutions to enhance their efforts to create a multicultural learning environment for students and staff.

This kind of intercultural self-assessment would help the Association to gain a better understanding the situation in different institutions around the world.

The self-assessment process may include a series of annual (virtual) meetings and other events such as Team study visits aiming at strengthening the Network. Such self-examinations could lead to the identification of problems or weaknesses and possible solutions which ultimately would be shared internationally. The process will be started in 2005. Future developments will depend on success and finances.

This means that a strong fundraising strategy and campaign should be initiated to support this kind of long term project.

Conclusions

The outcomes of the Seminar were briefly presented to the IAU Administrative Board, on 3-4 December 2004. The overall reaction was positive. It was however suggested that the Executive Committee (to meet in May 2005) further analyse each of the actions suggested. Amongst others, the following issues will be addressed in more detail:

What unique contribution can IAU bring?Who should join the working group? How do we involve experts that participated in Budapest on an on-going basis? How can the IAU Membership be best involved?How can activities in this field be financed?How to get the topic on the leadership agenda?

This report has been sent to the Budapest Seminar participants for information, review and improvement. The finalised document is circulated to the IAU Board Members for information and possible comments.

Annex I List of Questions to Seminar participants

What initiatives can universities take to educate their staff and students to live and work in a multi-cultural society? How can behavior be changed and skills imparted?

Are there specific policies and practices that you are aware of within universities to enhance intercultural learning and dialogue?

Are there examples of innovative approaches to teaching, and learning, which build on cultural diversity?

What role should higher education have in promoting intercultural dialogue and understanding outside the university, e.g. to its local community?

Where would you draw the boundaries for intercultural dialogue in higher education? What disciplinary/cross disciplinary fields should be included?

Do you see ways in which the Institutional Network on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue could be launched, developed, implemented and maintained?

What other initiatives could IAU undertake to assist higher education institutions in the promotion and development of intercultural dialogue?

Annex II

List of Case studies prepared by Seminar participants

Suggestion is to invite the authors of the following Case Studies to contextualize and provide an introduction to these Case Studies in order to post them on the IAU WebPages on Intercultural Learning and Dialogue under a section to be called Case Studies.

Leah E. Abayao, Mainstreaming Intercultural Education, University of the Philippines Baguio

Roseli Fischmann, Living Together, Investigating together, in search of Growing Together, University of So Paulo, Brazil

Irina Kraeva, Curricular Options for Teaching Language through Culture, Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia

Gordon Mitchell, World Religions in Dialogue, University of Hamburg, Germany

Devi Moodley-Rajab, Through Different Eyes: A cross-cultural look at ourselves, University of Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa

Rajendran Naggapan, Teachers Teaching Students of Multicultural Background: A Case Study of Malaysia, University Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia

Sharada Nayak, The Campus Diversity Initiative, Educational Resources Center, India

Millicent E. Poole, Intercultural Dialogue in action within the university context, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

Mohammad Munir Saad El-Dine, The Role of the Universities in Fostering The Islamic-Christian mutual living and Dialogue. A Lebanese Endeavor, Imam Ouzai College of Islamic Studies

Annex III.

List of Member Institutions which responded to the IAU Institutional Questionnaire

The IAU Institutional Questionnaire is available online see: http://www.iau-aiu.net/id/id_budapest.html

Argentina: - University of Cordoba

Australia:- Deakin University- Edith Cowan University- Queensland University of Technology- RMIT University- University of Tasmania

Bangladesh:- Independent University- Islamic University of Technology

Belgium:- Universit Libre de Bruxelles

Canada:- Universit du Qubec Montral- Universit du Qubec Rimouski- University of Manitoba- Universit du Qubec- Memorial University of Newfoundland

China:- Hong Kong Baptist University- Nankai University

Colombia:- University of Boyaca

Czech Republic:- Masaryk University in Brno

Denmark:- Roskilde University

Estonia:- University Nord

Finland:- bo Akademi University

France:- Universit de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines- Universit de Nantes

Germany:- University of Duisburg-Essen- Aachen University

Ghana:- University of Cape Coast

Greece:- Democritus University of Thrace

Iran:- Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Japan:- Tokyo Institute of Technology- International Christian University- Nara Womens University- Kyoto University

Jordan:- Jordan University of Science and Technology

Kazakhstan:- Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

Kenya:- The Catholic University of Eastern Africa

Lebanon:- University of Balamand- Universit Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth

Lithuania:- Law University of Lithuania- Vilnius University

Madagascar:- Universit dAntananarivo Madagascar

Malawi: - University of Malawi

Morocco:- Universit de Rabat

Moldova:- Universit Libre Internationale de Moldova

Mongolia: -National University of Mongolia

Norway:- University of Bergen

Pakistan:- Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology

Palestine:- An-Najah National University

Poland:- The Main School of Fire Service

Portugal:- University Fernando Pessoa

Russia:- Moscow State Linguistic University- St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University

South Africa:- University of Kwazulu Natal- Durban Institute of Technology

Spain:- Universidad de Oviedo

Sweden:- Stockholm University

Switzerland:- University of Zurich

Tanzania:- The Open University of Tanzania

Turkey:- Hacettepe University

Ukraine:- Prydniprovska State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture

United Kingdom:- University of Ulster

USA:- California State University- University of North Carolina