Internationalizing the curriculum: Assessing the Impact of Public Diplomacy on

International Relations
. lg zler
Associate Professor SUNY New Paltz
The aim of the conference is to define and discuss the impact of internationalized higher
education on international relations. In considering the internationalization of higher education
as public diplomacy, we need to pay attention to national policies, system and campus level
commitments and curricular practices. Before measuring the impact of international education,
it is first necessary to consider the types of programs that fit this definition. Here I will describe
the various types of curricular practices in internationalized education including, but not
limited to dual diploma programs, experiential learning programs (Model UN, Model EU),
collaborative on-line international learning, and exchange programs. These internationalized
experiences can then be used to develop further studies in assessing the role of
internationalized education as public diplomacy and how these experiences impact
international relations directly and indirectly. I will first review the theories that underlie the
perceived benefits of international education.
In the United States the goal of the Under Secretary of the State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs has been articulated as: support[ing] the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals and
objectives, advance national interests, and enhance national security by informing and
influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the
people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world. Building soft
power through the establishment of relationships is the aim of public diplomacy. From a global
perspective, the goal of public diplomacy is to create a more stable and peaceful world through
a positive change in public attitudes toward what is foreign and developing greater mutual
understanding among different nations.
Public diplomacy goals can be achieved in both multilateral contexts (ie the United Nations and
other intergovernmental organizations) and bilateral settings through social, economic and
political discourse. Public diplomacy becomes especially important if we accept the notion that
the norms, beliefs and understandings of elites within states matter in shaping international
relations (see Kratochiwill and Ruggie 1986). Constructivist international relations theorists
have argued that national interest is not objective and static, but a social construction that
develops through interaction. Through social discourse between states, there are changes in
norms, beliefs and understandings that constantly reshape national interest (Wendt 1992;
Barnett 1993; Finnemore 1996). International higher education institutions are at the core of
where this discourse occurs.
Liberal theorists in international relations have consistently demonstrated through rigorous
empirical studies that three variables, economic development, democratic politics and
participation in intergovernmental organizations, contribute to a more peaceful and stable
global politics between states (Boehmer, Gartzke, Nordstrom 2004; Russet, Oneal and David

1998). Education and especially higher education institutions are at the heart of generating
citizens capable of advancing all three of these processes.
Interactions between citizens from different states, which eventually turn into bilateral or
multilateral peaceful interactions on economic and cultural fronts, have important political
implications. For example, higher trade interdependence between states leads to lower levels of
conflict. Yet trade requires individuals with the cultural knowledge to effectively conduct
business with those from other nations, knowledge that is often gained in the context of higher
education. Democratic peace theory, also well supported by empirical studies, tells us that
democratic states do not go to war with other democracies. Higher education institutions have
been at the core of cultivating democratic citizenship with a strong tradition in pluralism,
tolerance, human rights and justice (see Englund 2002). Therefore, an internationalized
education is essential to create a well informed citizenry who can live up to the task creating a
more stable world. Cooperation on social, political and economic fronts creates stability. All
three variables, economic interdependence, democracy and multilateralism are mutually
reinforcing with a feedback mechanism for further creating better conditions for international
relations (Russet, Oneal and David 1998).
Therefore, I propose that an internationalized curriculum, which is at the heart of public
diplomacy, is key to the development and enhancement of foreign policies that lead to a stable
and peaceful world. States achieve mutual gains by engaging in public diplomacy and
international education plays a prominent role in this process.
The internationalization of education can be defined and conceptually organized by using a
typology presented by Knight (2005). She divides the internationalization process into two
levels. At the first level, there are national policies, programs and funding provided by agencies
of government. Education ministries have been the central agencies focusing on the issue of
internationalization. Universities are impacted by the policies set by government agencies in
providing financial support for programs. The government policies are also key for enabling
exchanges through the issuing of visas and permits for students.
The ease of travel is
important for creating opportunities for international learning for students.
At the second level, there are a wide variety of educational institutions (here the focus will be
limited to universities). According to the global survey of universities conducted by the
International Association of Universities of UNESCO (Knight 2003), universities offer two major
sets of reasons for prioritizing internationalization. First, there are academically motivated
reasons, which include increasing and enabling exchanges, teaching collaboration, betterment of
academic standards and research related collaboration among students. The desire to have a
more diverse faculty and student body is another academically related motivation.
Second, the survey reveals that universities are also motivated by political, social and economic
goals in the internationalization of their curriculum. Among these goals are greater cooperation,
better international and intercultural understanding, and increased development assistance.
Additionally, universities in many developing countries see the internationalization of
education as an opportunity to create new fields of work for young people. Among the
respondent universities, internationalization is believed to help improve understanding of
2|Public Diplomacy

regional issues and advances regional integration (see Knight 2003, pp 8-9). It should be noted
that these surveys provide the perspective of university administrators. An expansion of these
surveys to other constituencies, including faculty and students, may provide different insights
to internationalization of higher education. For example, educational community would benefit
from additional analysis of international academic programs based on different curricular
models experienced by the students. These students move on to become the practitioners of
international relations with direct influence on foreign policy or citizens with indirect influence
on international relations with states.
The logical connection between the skills developed through international education and
improved relations between states is clear. Yet, there is very little reliable research that verifies
that connection. Nor is there research on how different types of international education may be
more or less effective in advancing these goals. How can we connect the individual experiences
of students to global results in mutually beneficial outcomes for states? We face a challenge in
demonstrating empirically a causal link between the educational experience of students, faculty
and other citizens in internationalized educational settings and their impact on relations
between states.
Most studies show that the American participants in international exchange/citizen diplomacy
programs gain intercultural competency, foreign language fluency, and improved academic,
professional and career prospects. Participants from other countries, in addition to the
outcomes mentioned, have a tendency to create new programs and organizations in their home
countries with the knowledge acquired in the United States. These studies find continued
partnership and contact between the participants and countries they have visited (see Bhandari
and Belyavina 2011 for full report on the studies). Yet, despite these positive indicators, so far,
the studies that examine the effect of international education on international relations have
remained inferential. They tend to focus on the effects such programs have on the participants
themselves and they are typically based on a self assessment of the experiences of the students.
Bhandari and Belyavina (2011) reported on the findings of several studies evaluating the impact
of programs at the high school, volunteer and university levels. These studies were focused on
programs with goals of building citizen diplomacy. In their assessment of these studies, they
find that there is a problem with establishing quantifiable, immediate, tangible impacts
(Bhandari and Belyavina 2011, 1). In addition, the lack of standard measurement in these
studies prevents comparisons between programs and their reliance on self reporting and
evaluation by the funding agencies may yield less reliable results.
A study designed to address some of these gaps in knowledge would have to go beyond typical
program assessment by seeking to identify the connections between the academic practice of
international education and its economic, social and political consequences for international
relations. This line of research can start by examining international education at SUNY
campuses, the largest comprehensive higher education system in the world that has wide
ranging international programs. By identifying the different programs provided by the SUNY
institutions, we may be able to more systematically assess experiences. Subsequently we can
seek to establish a causal link between the international experiences of students and
international relations. The question is whether students who experience internationalized
learning are more likely to contribute socially, economically and/or politically to build better
3|Public Diplomacy

relations between states. In essence, does public diplomacy of this sort really lead to mutually
beneficial outcomes for states to state relations?
In order to focus this analysis, attention here is limited to those programs that give students
experiential learning. The first types of international educational experiences are those that take
the students out of the country. A second type takes place at home, but with an
internationalized curricular focus.
Programs with an international country visit component
Exchange programs are programs that provide students with direct experience living in and
taking courses in another country for a period of time. Through these programs students
develop language and communication skills as well as a rich cultural understanding of the
country that they are visiting. Students who stay in the homes of natives for accommodation
may develop a deeper connection to and understanding of the country relative to those that
house students in residence halls or similar group lodging situations (especially when students
visiting from abroad are housed with large numbers of students from the native countries).
Those residing with natives of the country also develop better language skills than students
who stay in isolated international student dorms. Regardless, exchange students gain direct
exposure to a foreign culture and do so for a greater period of time than other types of
international experiences.
Study Tour programs tend to be short term and focused on a specific area of study, such as
history, art, politics or society within one country. The ability to directly study and learn in the
country of interest clearly has added value relative to typical classroom courses. The experience
is intensive and focused, but limited in time such that students do not get a chance to immerse
themselves in different aspects of the culture they are visiting. Yet, students have a chance to
become experts in a specific area of interest in another country.
Dual Diploma programs are those programs in which students are admitted to two universities
in two different countries. Upon completion, students attain a single degree from two
institutions. These programs give students immense exposure to the other countrys
educational system. Students are able to take advantage of the curricular diversity in their
home country and the partner institution abroad, while gaining in depth cultural experience
that comes with spending considerable time in another country. Unlike exchange programs
where students have limited curricular exposure to the host countrys courses, dual diploma
program students need to fulfill all the requirements for graduation in both countries. This
means that Dual Diploma students are exposed to both countries general education
requirements and get longer time to experience the foreign country than an ordinary exchange
student.
Domestic courses with an internationalized component
Collaborative On-Line International Learning (COIL) courses organized through the efforts of
the SUNY Global Center are designed with the goals of developing a network for international
on-line education. In this model students and faculty collaborate using the best available and
most appropriate technology to create innovative ways of sharing information and ideas
4|Public Diplomacy

virtually across continents. Classes are taught by faculty at both home campuses who
collaborate or divide work in various ways. The program identifies as one of its goals to foster
the sustainability of on-line international scholarship, by promoting the "bottom-up" culture of
individuality, entrepreneurship and creativity inherent in the academic community. These
courses enable students from the participating countries to exchange ideas and discuss different
issues in the course work through the creative use of technology without having to leave their
home campuses. These classes have a unique advantage for students as they get exposed to the
ideas of two different professors from two different countries while being able to carry on
discussions with a full class of students in their partner country. This differs markedly from the
experience of a lone exchange student in a class composed primarily of native students. In the
COIL experience having equal representation of students from two different countries enables a
more balanced and fruitful exchange.
Among the other types of courses taught domestically with an international component are the
simulation classes such as Model Organization of American States, Model European Union and
Model United Nations. These programs allow students to step into the shoes of officials from
other countries and practice diplomatic interactions. Given their assigned role, this experience
enables students to develop knowledge in certain issue areas affecting the international
community as well a deep understanding of the position of the country that they represent.
Developing an understanding of foreign policy positions of other states is helpful in allowing
students to relate to the relative positions of other countries. They are then able to assess their
own interests in relation to the cost to other states.
Other domestic models for international education include fieldwork classes that involve
internships at international organizations (these can be done abroad as well, providing for a
richer international experience). An internship at an international organization, either an
international non-governmental organization (INGO) or an intergovernmental organization
(IGO), allows students to develop an internationalized perspective. INGOs and NGOs tend to
approach issues such as development, human rights, and peace from the global common
perspective. This takes into consideration the perspective of the international community, as
opposed to that of one specific country. Students who do internships in one of these
organizations can gain a truly global perspective through this type of experience.
There are also hybrid courses that expose students to the study of international relations by
visiting the United Nations and other agencies around it. The United Nations has long
maintained a unit dedicated to public lectures for schools and other organizations. In these
types of classes, students gain knowledge of the work of the UN through briefings by United
Nations officers, country missions and non-governmental organizations. These students are
exposed directly to the inner workings of the international community and the dilemmas these
international civil servants face day to day. Students are able to develop an appreciation for the
interests of different states represented in the international community. The UN is the
organization that creates an environment in which the states can find ways to cooperate and
come to mutual agreements. Yet, the students are also made aware of the power relations and
the different dynamics that arise due to the institutional design of the UN. Thus, the students
become informed about the needs and demands of different countries while developing an
understanding of the role that their own country plays as an actor in the international system.
5|Public Diplomacy

As discussed above, there are many different programs through which curriculums have been
internationalized. There is little doubt that students who participate in them learn and grow in
ways that are valuable for them, and indirectly for others with whom they come into contact.
This is especially important for students who ultimately obtain roles whereby they can
influence international relations or even for any active citizen who is politically engaged. But
assessing what kind of effect and how much of an effect such programs can have is difficult.
One of the many challenges in undertaking the development of such a measure is that students
are engaged in a wide range of educational pursuits. In some of these cases, where the students
are directly studying international relations, it may be easier to measure changes in their
outlook or specific policy positions following an international curricular experience. The career
choices of these students may also reflect their experience in international programs. In cases
where the students are studying arts, culture, social and economic issues, the impact and
connection to international relations may be more difficult to establish. Thus in designing a
study to assess the impact of internationalized educational experiences on international
relations, there may be a need to differentiate among programs with curricular content in
international politics and other program areas (such as arts, culture, history, etc.).
The idea that public diplomacy through internationalized education can improve ties between
nations is a promising hypothesis that we should seek to study. We can sort through the
complicating factors such as the diversity of internationalized experiences through careful
design. Here I have provided an overview of internationalized curricular experiences at SUNY
institutions and some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with them. Question remains,
how can we verify the impact of these programs so that we can expand those that work best
and strengthen those that have the potential to offer more. In thinking about future research,
we should consider designing studies that can assess the foreign policy beliefs and outlooks,
career trajectories and life choices made by those students who have had internationalized
educational experiences relative to those who do not. We can refine this type of research
through the design of comparative studies that look at outcomes for different types of
international educational experiences.

6|Public Diplomacy

Citations:
Barnett, Michael. 1993. Institutions, Roles and Disorder: The Case of the Arab States System.
International Studies Quarterly 37: 271-96.
Bhandari, Rajika and Raisa Belyavina. 2011. Evaluating and Measuring the Impact of Citizen
Diplomacy: Current Status and Future Directions. Institute of International Education, Washington,
D.C.
Boehmer, Charles, Erik Gartzke, Timothy Nordstrom.
Organizations Promote Peace? World Politics 57: 1-38.

2004.

Do Intergovernmental

Englund, Tomas. 2002. Higher Education, Democracy and Citizenship The

Democratic Potential of the University? Studies in Philosophy and Education 21: 281287.
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society.
University Press.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell

Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie. 1986. There State of the Art on the Art of the
State. International Organization 40: 753-75.
Knight, Jane. 2003. Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Priorities: 2003 IAU
Survey Report. UNESCO: International Association of Universities, Paris, France.
Knight, Jane. 2005. An Internationalization Model: Responding to New Realities and
Challenges, in de Wit, H., I. Cristian, J. Knight (eds.) Higher Education in Latin America, World
Bank Publications: Herdnon, VA.
Russet, Bruce, John Oneal and David Davis. 1998. The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for
Peace: International organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950-1985. International
Organization 52: 441-467.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what States make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics. International Organization 46: 391-425.

7|Public Diplomacy