Interpreting International Mindedness in Dutch State-funded International Schools: an educational leadership perspective

The prominent role of the International Baccalaureate in shaping an understanding of IM

Although the term pre-dates the establishment of the International Baccalaureate (IB), IM is now often associated with international schools and particularly with the four educational programmes offered by the IB (Primary Years Programme, Middle Years Programme, Career-related Programme, Diploma Programme). Much of the recent debate over the nature of IM has centred on the IB’s interpretation of it. Hill (2012, 2015) notes how much of the early development of the idea of IM was driven by practitioners who were influential in shaping the development of the IB Diploma Programme (DP), and who have continued to play a prominent role in interpreting what is meant by IM. While the IB’s interpretation of IM has changed and developed since the early 1970s (Hill, 2012), some enduring themes continue to run through all the IB programmes that shape both the organisation’s understanding of IM and the wider debate on the nature of IM. There is an emphasis on engaging with global issues, the need for intercultural understanding, and the importance of developing critical thinking skills in creating an internationally-minded outlook. Most recently the IB describes IM as an overarching construct that forms one of four foundational and interrelated elements that underpin the IB’s mission ‘to create a better and more peaceful world’ (2019: 1).

Along with the increased use of the term IM by the IB, there has also been a growth in literature on IM that has tried to develop a stronger academic base and justification for the use of the term (Metli and Lane, 2020; Barratt Hacking and Taylor, 2020). As a major proponent of IM, Hill (2015) has tried to identify the roots of IM in differing cultural traditions. He sees this in the ideas of collective agency in the East (from Confucius 551-479 BCE), learning as a holistic process in the West (from ancient Greek writers), and ideas of respect and undertaking life-long learning (from the Muslim world). In the case of Metli and Lane (2020), a revised framework for considering IM was offered, while Barratt Hacking and Taylor (2020) have sought to broaden our understanding of IM by looking at it from a posthuman perspective that focuses less on human exceptionalism.

Despite these developments, it has been argued that the term IM remains a vaguely defined idea that needs a stronger conceptual base (Bunnell, 2014; Savva and Stanfield, 2018). Currently, the IB claims to promote three elements of IM across all four IB programmes: intercultural understanding, global engagement and multilingualism (Barratt Hacking et al, 2017). However, the extent to which this is achieved is a matter of debate. Perry and Southwell (2011) argue that intercultural understanding is a complex process that involves much more than just knowing about other cultures, and needs to be based on understanding rather than only on description. Singh and Qi (2013) feel that global engagement is the least recognised of the three elements, and that it falls short of providing a more critical vision of IM that seeks to highlight issues of global inequality stressed by writers including Davies et al (2018) and Starkey (2018). Although the importance of multilingualism is stressed by Barratt Hacking et al (2017), it has also been argued that there is a danger that the dominant role of English as the medium of instruction in so many international schools can lead to a form of linguistic imperialism (Grimshaw, 2007) or represent another tool that supports individuals to better fit into a global market economy (Hébert and Ali, 2013; Benson and Elorza, 2016).

The subjective and socially constructed nature of IM comes through strongly in academic literature. Despite Hill’s (2015) claim, the current dominance of western intellectual cultures in the formation of our understanding of IM is noted in several academic studies (Singh and Qi, 2013; Sriprakash et al, 2014; Castro et al, 2015; Barratt Hacking et al, 2017), as is the need to broaden this to include non-western intellectual cultures. Tensions between local and global allegiances and an understanding that the implementation of IM is always contextual are also identified as an ongoing challenge (Singh and Qi, 2013; Castro et al, 2015). The idea that IM is a tool that can be used for greater socio-economic advantage by an elite rather than as a tool for making the world a better place is also a recurring theme (Singh and Qi, 2013; Sriprakash et al, 2014), as is the feeling that IM may be seen as a utopian idea that may be deferred to the future rather than addressing what can be done today (Singh and Qi, 2013). All these studies highlight that the IB’s interpretation of IM remains a contested concept that is open to multiple interpretations. Tensions remain between differing forms of IM that, on the one hand, promote character development and an awareness of global issues and, on the other, may focus more on self-advancement (Haywood, 2015; Savva and Stanfield, 2018). As noted by Singh and Qi (2013: 5), ‘Because of its ambiguity, international mindedness lends itself to a variety of uses, abuses and non-uses’. Currently, the academic literature seems to suggest that the IB’s interpretation of IM falls short of Hill’s (2012, 2015) idea of IM as a powerful concept that encapsulates the idea of our common humanity and responsibilities as guardians of the planet and as the essence of international schooling.

The need to consider other related concepts

As a new and relatively underdeveloped concept, IM lacks the strong theoretical base of related concepts such as cosmopolitanism (Marshall, 2011b), and it has been suggested that ‘Closer connections of the term with other related research could strengthen the theoretical base of IM’ (Castro et al, 2015: 194). The concept of IM, as used in this article, is therefore being placed within what Marshall (2006) terms ‘the big terminology debate’, which seeks to identify what best describes the essence of international education. While the term IM may be popular within the international school community, other related terms also emerge from the academic literature, including human rights education (Starkey and Osler, 2010), world or global citizenship (Niens and Reilly, 2012; Stein, 2015) and cosmopolitanism (Osler and Starkey, 2003; Gunesch, 2007).

The concepts of global citizenship education (GCE) and cosmopolitanism are not without their own areas of ambiguity and debate. The influence of western values on the concept of global citizenship has also been noted. Stein (2015) argues that there is a need to challenge underlying ideas of western superiority and a need to look at global citizenship through other eyes. Dill (2012) argues that although GCE is based on a premise of providing a vision of the good, in reality global [Western] individualism works against this. Other writers (Davies et al, 2018; Starkey, 2018) note the need for a greater focus on human rights and a social justice perspective. Andreotti (2006) views this in terms of the difference between a soft and a critical form of global citizenship. She argues strongly for the need to acknowledge power imbalances and promote ideas of social justice. However, despite these limitations, both human rights education (HRE) and GCE provide a greater emphasis than IM on action and on our responsibilities as guardians of the planet.

Nevertheless, there are many areas of similarity between how the IB programmes interpret their aim of making the world a better place through education and how those who promote HRE and GCE see the role of education. Academic literature indicates that all three approaches (IM, HRE and GCE) stress the importance of collaboration, understanding differing perspectives, and the needs of others in bringing about a more peaceful and just world. All three support the development of key proficiencies (knowledge, skills and multilingualism) and a cosmopolitan outlook (attitudes, values, personal identity), and encourage active global citizenship. However, there are also differences in focus. The idea of IM as expressed by the IB initially arose from an international school context. It reflected the needs of culturally diverse school communities that sought to develop intercultural understanding and a common set of values across the whole school community. It was aimed at building consensus rather than presenting a challenge to accepted norms. In contrast, HRE and GCE have developed from a national context that sets out to challenge preconceived national narratives (see Akkari and Maleq, 2020 for a range of national examples), and present a form of education that highlights issues of inequality and injustice in the world. For the IB, there is a greater focus on intercultural understanding and the transformational effect of IM on individuals’ attitudes. For HRE and GCE, the focus is more on the resulting action of global citizens and its transformation of societal attitudes as a whole. While these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they do represent different areas of focus and potential tension (Dill, 2012).

Currently, IM remains a weakly defined concept that lies within a broader range of more established concepts that seek to identify the essence of what constitutes a global outlook. While all these concepts are open to a range of interpretations, IM as a concept has perhaps suffered from being used widely before the theoretical constructs underpinning the concept have been explored. Despite the claim of Barratt Hacking et al (2017) that the idea of IM is maturing through discussion and debate, those seeking to provide it with a more theoretical base are hampered by an initial lack of clarity, and it is argued by authors including Skelton (2015) that the term IM is still in danger of becoming whatever anyone wants it to be. As illustrated by the findings outlined in the next section of this article, one consequence of this is that for those seeking to promote IM in international schools, IM presents challenges in terms of its interpretation and conceptualisation. IM can be transformative and can contribute to the common good, but it can also lead to a form of personal advancement. Drawing on Andreotti’s (2006) idea of soft and critical global citizenship, academic literature suggests that IM as it is currently conceptualised leans more towards a soft form of international education rather than a critical one.

A conceptual framework for IM

To understand how educational leaders respond to the challenges of interpreting IM, this section provides a framework for considering how IM may be conceptualised. It draws on literature on IM, HRE, GCE and cosmopolitanism. Savva and Stanfield (2018) raise the question of whether IM is different from other related concepts or whether it is only a repackaging of them. It is acknowledged that the framework developed in this article for considering IM represents a repackaging of IM rather than highlighting any fundamental differences with these other related concepts. However, by repackaging the common elements of these concepts, it is possible to identify three interlinked areas that together provide a conceptual framework to consider what educational leaders of international schools understand by IM. These areas encompass knowledge and understanding of the world; a cosmopolitan outlook; and active global citizenship, that require the development of a range of proficiencies, skills, values and behaviours.

The first area may loosely be described as developing individual proficiencies that increase an individual’s knowledge and understanding of the world. It is argued that to be internationally minded, individuals need to have a desire to seek out information about the world and understand the significance of this within the context in which they are living (see Marshall, 2011a; Pike, 2013). This involves learning about the complex relationships between unity and diversity in a local, national and global context, and making personal sense of them (Banks, 2013). It is also argued that it is important for individuals to have the skills to interpret and look critically at the information with which they are presented (Mark, 2011) and recognise the legitimacy of multiple points of view (Starkey, 2015). It involves, too, the development of soft skills. In this context, Arthur et al (2008: 7) note the importance of ‘learning through participation and developing skills such as how to negotiate, to compromise, to collaborate, to exercise leadership, to communicate and to listen’. Although less prominent in the literature, a third area identified as an important proficiency to develop is that of being multilingual. It is argued that language learning and acquisition is closely linked to acting interculturally (Byram, 2008; Benson and Elorza, 2016). Thus, being knowledgeable about the world, having the skills to interpret that knowledge, and being multilingual provide a bedrock on which individuals may become more aware and critical of the world in which they are living. These represent key proficiencies for internationally minded individuals.

However, the development of these proficiencies comes with its own challenges. It involves a personal inclination and desire to be knowledgeable about the world around us. At a macro-level, it is argued that wider societal forces often make this very difficult to achieve. It may involve challenging preconceived ideas of what is important to know that are based on a dominant western view of the world or a western way of thinking (Singh and Qi, 2013). While the intention of promoting multilingualism may be linked to increasing intercultural understanding, it is argued that in practice multilingualism manifests itself more in the desire of non-English speakers to be fluent in English in order to compete successfully in a global marketplace. This can have the effect of reinforcing a form of linguistic imperialism rather than increasing intercultural understanding (Grimshaw, 2007).

Being internationally minded involves more than the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and being multilingual. Drawing on the literature surrounding cosmopolitanism, a second area that emerges is what can loosely be described as the development of a form of cosmopolitanism that values cultural diversity and self-awareness, and feeling at home in the world (Golomohamad, 2008; Mukherjee, 2020). It includes aspects of sensitivity and competence in appreciating, valuing and respecting cultural differences and being able to interact effectively in intercultural situations (Perry and Southwell, 2011). It involves the development of mutual tolerance, respect and understanding (Osler and Starkey, 2006) and the desire to celebrate and appreciate diversity, locally, nationally and globally (Banks, 2008). It also involves a sense of self-awareness about what influences a person and how this impacts their outlook towards IM (Mukherjee, 2020). Pike (2008) sees it as putting forward a set of moral principles and codes of conduct that are global in scope. Referring to the work of Kwame Anthony Appiah, Mukherjee (2020) sees this combination of global outlook and a sense of personal ethnic identity as a form of rooted cosmopolitanism. The outlook becomes part of a personal identity that reflects how individuals and institutions see themselves and their place and responsibilities in the world. The development of a cosmopolitan outlook may be partly developed through the building up of IM proficiencies identified earlier, but they are also a matter of personal choice, inclination and outlook. A cosmopolitan outlook is something that can be encouraged, but it cannot be imposed on individuals.

Drawing on the literature surrounding global citizenship, a third element of IM emerges that incorporates the ideas of personal identification with global concerns, along with active engagement in the world that represents a form of personal commitment to making the world a better place (Starkey, 2015). While the IB (2019) refers to global engagement, there is a more well-established literature base on global citizenship. The historical development of the concept of global citizenship and the discourse surrounding it is well charted (see Marshall 2011a, 2011b). Heater in many ways sums up the hopes of those who advocate the need for active global citizenship when he notes that it:

imposes the need to know about and understand world issues as well as local and national ones, and to be concerned about, even involved in, the problems facing the planet and its inhabitants, especially those most disadvantaged.

(2002: 5)

A review of literature has indicated that IM is currently an underdeveloped concept, and that for IM to represent the ideals of international education more closely, it needs to draw more heavily on related concepts. Drawing on the literature surrounding these concepts, this section has identified three interlinked areas that together provide a conceptual framework to consider what it means to be internationally minded: knowledge and understanding of the world; a cosmopolitan outlook; active global citizenship. Figure 1 presents an idealised vision of what it means to be internationally minded and contribute to making the world a better place.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A conceptual framework for IM that represents the ideals of international education.

The interrelated nature of these areas is very important as they combine to create what may be regarded as an internationally minded person. At the intersection of Knowledge and understanding of the world and Cosmopolitan outlook there is an appreciation of our place in the world. At the intersection of Knowledge and understanding of the world and Active global citizenship there is an understanding of the global challenges that we face, and an identification of what action is required. At the intersection of Cosmopolitan outlook and Active global citizenship there is a willingness to do something about it and an identification with the struggles of others (Starkey and Osler, 2010). At its most aspirational level, IM involves a sense of responsibility, an obligation to act to help others and to challenge inequality and injustice (Osler and Starkey, 2006; Banks, 2008, 2014).

While literature identifies the characteristics and actions required to be internationally minded, there is less emphasis on the practical challenges that individuals face in maintaining a personal commitment to being internationally minded. Ultimately, being internationally minded is a life-choice. It is a critical way of viewing the world. It is personally demanding and involves a constant process of learning and unlearning, and self-critical analysis. It is also demanding because the concept is currently ill-defined and is fractured and incomplete. This article addresses a gap in the research literature by exploring how educational leaders in a group of international schools respond to this challenge, and how they develop their own personal and professional understanding of IM.

Methodology

A qualitative approach to the research was undertaken to gain a detailed understanding of the complex issues arising from the interaction of educational leadership and IM in a Dutch state-funded International School (DIS) context (Scott, 2022). As noted by Cohen et al (2011), it is essential that methods adopted to capture the life experiences of participants are fit for purpose. In-depth interviews were selected as the most appropriate method for this study, conducted within a semi-structured format with an emphasis on open-ended, non-leading questions that focused on the personal and professional experiences of the participants (King and Horrocks, 2010).

A total of 21 educational leaders took part in the research from 13 DIS (both primary and secondary) in The Netherlands. In the context of this study, the term ‘educational leader’ refers to personnel who have some form of positional power within their school and who have direct responsibility for the shaping and promotion of the values and ideals of their school. The 21 participants interviewed covered a wide range of profiles in terms of nationality, gender, role and level of experience. The schools selected were all part of a wider group of state-funded international schools and offered curricula supportive of the ideas of IM. Almost all the schools offered one or more of the IB programmes and/or the International Primary Curriculum (IPC). Although leaders from only 13 out of a total of 24 DIS participated in the research, major categories were covered in the research in terms of age-range, size of school, size and nature of urban location, length of time established, and curriculum offered. The 21 interviews generated data in the form of written transcripts, which were analysed based on the research questions, pre-arranged themes emerging from the conceptual framework, and previous knowledge. As transcripts were read, analysis also focused on themes of interest that emerged from the interviews.

While it is acknowledged that the population from which data is drawn is limited in terms of types of international schooling, the contextual similarities enabled an in-depth understanding of how individuals respond to an issue within a broadly similar context. It is also acknowledged that the study did not include triangulation in terms of methods of collecting data or range of participants (Cohen et al, 2011). However, the focus of the research was on the lived experiences of the educational leaders themselves and how they see their role in the promotion of IM rather than necessarily on what is happening in reality in their schools. The research did not seek to consider how others might judge the educational leaders’ views or actions, and was not geared towards generating statements on the effectiveness of IM, but rather on understanding how one group, educational leaders of DIS, view the issue. The validity of the research relates to the aim of generating an understanding of educational leaders’ perspectives that may subsequently be used to provide a framework or to generate criteria to explore how other sections of a school community view an educational leader’s role in the promotion of IM.

It has been noted that ‘While interview studies do not aspire to generalisability, their findings can have implications for other settings’ (Mears, 2012: 174). Certainly, in the case of this research, no claims are made about the universal nature of the findings. However, although any specific findings of this study are particular to the context of DIS, it is possible to highlight ‘potential significance for other settings and situations’ (ibid: 175).

Finding 1: Promoting values associated with IM is seen by participants as integral to everything they do as educational leaders

A major theme running through responses from the participants was the importance they ascribe to maintaining the values of IM as a central feature of their schools. As such, they see themselves as educational leaders who are promoting a vision for their schools rather than only as professional managers who are ensuring the smooth day-to-day running of the schools (see Machin, 2014). Participants felt that promoting the values of international education was integral to everything they did as educational leaders. Reflecting the views of writers including Tarc (2018), one participant expressed it as: ‘international mindedness is an inherent part of all my roles. It’s not the Friday afternoon job!’ Another commented that ‘I would hope that the way the school is led reflects the school’s ideal vision on intercultural [awareness] or international mindedness.’

All participants identified with the idea of their schools offering a different dimension from schools that offer a national curriculum, or that writers including Walker (2004) would see as international only in name. While, like Pearce (2013), participants noted that student diversity in part shapes the nature of their schools, what they also felt marks them out as different from other schools is that they are based on common values and expectations that focus on developing intercultural awareness (see Bunnell et al, 2016). The responses from participants support Hill’s (2012) assertion that it is the values that underpin the school that are the primary factor in making it an international school, rather than the diverse national composition of a school community. Marshall (2011) raises important questions related to whether international schools have the commitment and capacity to develop ideas associated with IM and the creation of a better world through education. In the case of the participants in this study, findings make clear their agreement that such a personal commitment on their part is essential.

Finding 2: Participants face difficulties in interpreting IM

Despite this personal commitment, evidence from this study indicates that for many participants their capacity to promote an idealised IM vision (see Figure 1) is hampered by the lack of a strong theoretical foundation on which to build their understanding of IM. Although the term IM may be used widely in international schools, findings from this study concur with views of authors including Bunnell (2014) and Savva and Stanfield (2018) who feel that IM currently lacks a strong theoretical foundation. Participants commented on the challenges of developing understanding of a concept the definition of which seems to be living, growing, constantly changing and open to personal and institutional interpretations (see also Castro et al, 2015). The idea that IM is subjective and open to multiple interpretations was a recurring theme (see also Savva and Stanfield, 2018). In keeping with the views of Skelton (2015), many of the educational leaders interviewed regarded the vagueness and abstract nature of the concept as the major challenge for them in defining IM. Others expressed confusion as to how the term IM might differ from other related terminology such as intercultural understanding or global education (see Marshall, 2006). This sense of frustration, felt by many participants, was summed up by one participant who reflected that:

I quite honestly believe that the reason this question is so difficult to answer is because the more we think about it, the more abstract the whole concept becomes, because you start to say ‘well, does it really exist?’

The issue of whether or not the lack of a consistent definition of IM is a problem met with differing responses. For some, the most important thing was that definitions of IM were not right or wrong, only different. They felt that this provided them with greater flexibility to interpret IM in a way that was relevant to their school context. However, one participant highlighted the challenges of such an approach in commenting that:

I don’t want it to make it appear that any version [of IM] is acceptable, because I don’t want to have a relativistic version of international mindedness . . . . . There are certain pre-conditions, as far as the United Nations is concerned, about what is acceptable, in terms of human beings’ values and cultures and rights and responsibilities. That also has to frame this definition of international mindedness.

Echoing the findings of studies carried out by Sriprakash et al (2014) and Barratt and Hacking et al (2017), concern was also raised by several participants that within IM there may be an over-reliance on values that come from a predominately western intellectual and cultural tradition. The challenge of making the concept meaningful and age-appropriate was also a recurrent theme (see Skelton, 2015). Overall, participants felt that the vague and abstract nature of the concept made it difficult for them to define IM adequately. A general sense of unease was expressed by them as to how to go about the process of defining IM, and a feeling that they were ill-equipped to do this.

Finding 3: Participants favour a soft rather than a critical interpretation of IM

The lack of a strong theoretical base to draw on led some of the participants to focus on a narrower understanding of IM than that presented above (Figure 1), with the stress being on intercultural competence or international connectedness rather than on active global citizenship. The focus tended to be on the individual receiving the benefits of IM through the development of knowledge, skills and multilingualism, rather than on giving to others through service. Despite the concept of global citizenship coming through strongly in the review of literature as a manifestation of a person’s identification with global concerns (see above), only two of the educational leaders made specific reference to the importance of developing ethically responsible global citizens as part of IM. This was surprising given that global citizenship is a term used by the Council of International Schools (CIS), the IB and the IPC. One participant went as far as to reject the term as inappropriate:

because to be a citizen, there are rights and responsibilities associated with it; paying taxes, having the right to vote, and that’s not what we mean.

This respondent viewed the idea of global citizenship much more in contractual terms rather than as part of a person’s identity, global outlook and obligations (Osler, 2015).

Referring to Heilman’s (2010) description of what she sees as three major components of global awareness, the educational leaders could be said to be aware of the importance of two of these. They are aware of the importance of developing knowledge of global issues, and of acknowledging multiple perspectives and cultures. However, there is less awareness of the third component, that seeks to understand the world through interrelated systems and that questions systems of global oppression and uneven power relations, and that is a feature of more critical forms of international education (see Davies et al, 2018 and Starkey, 2018).

Findings from this study suggest that while most educational leaders in this context do not see IM as merely a means of self-advancement (see Haywood, 2015 and Savva and Stanfield, 2018), their interpretation of IM falls short of Hill’s (2012, 2015) more aspirational claims for IM. Group differences related to power imbalances in society are barely considered (see Leeman and Pels, 2006). Evidence from this study indicates that most educational leaders interviewed are promoting what Andreotti (2006) describes as a soft rather than critical form of international education.

Finding 4: The primacy of personal and professional experiences over an academic understanding of IM

For many of the educational leaders interviewed, their initial engagement with the idea of IM had not been planned but seemed to have arisen through what they described as chance. It had not been a conscious choice. For almost half of the participants, the initial decision to be involved in international education seemed to have been driven more by following their partners to The Netherlands and the practical necessity of finding a suitable job in an English-medium environment than by an active desire to work in an international school environment. While the educational leaders were working in an international school context their initial teacher training had been within a national context, which could shape the lens through which they view international education. Participants’ understanding of IM was, therefore, initially based on their previous national training and the school context in which they now found themselves, rather than being based on an academic understanding of IM or the broader field of international educational studies.

Several respondents noted how their early childhood experiences helped to shape their views, ranging from the type of schooling they had to their exposure to different cultures. For several, it was the personal experience of having been taught in international schools that proved to be a positive experience for them and a contributing factor in their decision-making. One person specifically commented that she ‘wanted to be back in [this kind of school], precisely because of its mission and my passion for what it does and how it does it’. Others commented on how their current family set-up, comprising a mix of different nationalities, impacted positively on how they viewed IM. They saw themselves as living IM on a day-to-day basis.

The stimulus of working in an international school environment was also seen as a significant influence in terms of developing participants’ understanding of IM and how they saw themselves. Even for those who had previously worked in local schools with diverse student populations, working in an international school environment had influenced their understanding of IM. As one British participant expressed it:

I moved out when I was quite old, and I would have plodded merrily along thinking I was a very ‘right on’ multicultural, London teacher. But I didn’t have a clue. I didn’t have a clue really what those children and their families were going through to do that.

This was also the experience of one of the Dutch participants, who reflected that:

I was used to a [standard Dutch] school with 40 or 50 nationalities, coming from all over the world, struggling with finding a position . . . . . and being recognised as a person . . . . I saw that in international education, that was not seen as a problem, but as a gift that you could use in your education.

Along with the stimulus provided by the diversity within their schools, participants also commented on the importance of the professional dialogue and engagement that was part of their school contexts. As one person observed, concerning her developing understanding of IM:

It is something that I would say has come from my own experiences, but also, through . . . quite rigorous discussion with other colleagues . . . . to come up with my idea of what is international mindedness.

Responses to the question of what shapes the understanding of IM of educational leaders of international schools indicate that in the absence of a strong theoretical base, most participants draw on their lived rather than learned experiences to shape their understanding. The overall dominance of personal experiences and professional context in influencing educational leaders’ understanding of IM is reflected in comments made by one of the participants who has himself contributed to a peer-reviewed international education journal. He expressed the view that ‘of course, there is the stuff that I read, but mainly I think, it is in terms of the context [of the school]. That is what really helped me [in my understanding of IM].’

Findings from this study support the claims made by authors including Creswell (2013), Denscombe (2014) and Poole (2020), who stress the importance of understanding the lived experiences of individuals if we are to make sense of how they function within the world they inhabit. For many participants in this study, the experience of living and working in a different country has made them value the importance of developing a sense of intercultural understanding in order to function more effectively at both a personal and professional level.

Finding 5: IM is best viewed as a spectrum

That IM should be viewed as a spectrum, rather than as a fixed concept (as summarised in Figure 2), is borne out of interviews conducted for this study. At either end of the spectrum is an understanding of IM that lies outside the conceptual framework for IM proposed above (see Figure 1). At one end is using an increased knowledge of global issues for personal gain with little reference to how this might benefit others or the wider society. At the other end is imposing one’s world views on others with little reference to their own views. Responses from participants indicate that none of them identified with these two interpretations of IM. The majority presented a broadly similar description of the key areas of focus for IM, with a strong emphasis on personal development and the ability to engage with others that corresponds to the development of IM proficiencies and a cosmopolitan outlook identified in the conceptual framework. Nevertheless, only minimal reference was made to ideas associated with active global citizenship. Participants’ ideas of global engagement tended to fall into the category of implied action that might result in it being left largely to chance (see Blandford and Shaw, 2011). Overall, educational leaders tended to have a limited view of IM that is based on the need to understand personal relationships rather than on the need for greater understanding and engagement with global issues.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

A spectrum of international mindedness.

Implications of the findings

This study adds to the wider debate surrounding whether IM is an appropriate concept that embodies the ideals of international schools and international education (Marshall, 2006; Singh and Qi, 2013). Findings from this research present a mixed picture. On the one hand, the continued lack of a strong conceptual framework for IM means that the educational leaders interviewed promote a soft rather than a critical form of international education that falls short of encapsulating the more dynamic and aspirational aspects of international education (see Andreotti, 2006). Nevertheless, the findings also illustrate that despite this narrower definition of IM, participants do identify with the idea of their schools promoting some form of global vision, suggesting that despite the contested nature of the concept it is still a term that is broadly understood by educational leaders and, with a more comprehensive framework, has the potential to encapsulate the ideals of international education – and support Haywood’s (2007, 2015) assertion that in the absence of any better alternative, it is too early to reject the term. Rather than discarding the term IM, it would be preferable to revisit the concept and provide a clearer understanding of the importance of all the key elements of IM that draws on the wider literature base of global citizenship and HRE (see Figure 1). It may be that more needs to be done by the key proponents of IM (IB and IPC) to broaden its scope and to indicate clearly where it lies in the spectrum of forms of global education. A failure to do so will lead to a continued lack of clarity over exactly what is being promoted and a danger that the concept will lose credibility.