Abstract
This study aims to examine the organisational change within the framework of internationalisation in doctoral programmes of educational studies (DPEd) in the Hungarian context. The literature on internationalisation overwhelmingly projects the perspectives of international students, whereas the experiences of faculty and staff are missing from the overall picture. We seek to mediate this gap by scrutinising the experiences of educational professionals. The transitioning condition of the nationally shaped educational field is under the strong imperative to internationalise pursuing an interrelated set of objectives. The study's theoretical framework is built on the interlinked conceptual grounds of the internationalisation of doctoral programmes and the policy implementation in educational studies including teacher education. Dialectic theory as a change framework opted for this study that accounts for colliding forces in higher education. Ten narratives of educational professionals depict idiosyncratic experiences contributing to country and actors' representation saturating this field of educational policy. The results attest to layers of converging trends in DPEd and diverging practical responses.
Introduction
Higher education (HE) has encountered colossal changes in the last few decades. As an innovative and reactive policy to address the challenges of ever-growing globalisation, the internationalisation of HE is imperative and a priority (Buckner & Stein, 2020; De Wit & Altbach, 2021). Originating in the Middle Ages, this notion became an integral element of strategies for comprehensive and specialised universities (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Kondakçı & Van Den Broeck, 2009). All cycles of the Bologna system of HE across the European region have been actively incorporating major pillars of internationalisation with varying success (Kehm, 2007; Kottman, 2011). Given the massification of HE and the today's interconnectedness, academic mobility has become one of the most visible and predominant elements of internationalisation (Del Canto Viterale, 2018; Rudakov & Yudkevich, 2021). While the current pool of literature portrays primarily international students' perspectives, the experiences of teaching staff – one of the main constituencies of the change process are often missing (Bulut-Sahin & Kondakçı, 2022; Sulaimanova, Csereklye, Győri, & Horváth, 2023). To dilute this homogeneity of representation and to fill this gap, we aim to contribute to the conceptual saturation of this topic through narratives and lived experiences of study participants. Educational professionals in this study were part of an at-home internationalisation initiative in DPEds. This peculiar field of studies faces a major transition now gradually opening to cosmopolitanism and the larger global audience from being locally anchored (Koh, Pashby, Tarc, & Yemini, 2022). Following the Berlin Communique (Guth, 2006), the doctoral level of HE became an important aspect of the international research agenda promoting the significance of doctoral research and its equally important implications. Changes in doctorate education occur on a supra-national level indicating convergence in its structure and requirements, whereas on a national level, it diverges in terms of types of PhD programmes, supervision, and study processes (Kehm, 2007; Rudakov & Yudkevich, 2021).
In what follows, we gauge the idiosyncratic narratives of ten leading figures in DPEds of Hungary that add to the overall picture of internationalisation transformations in the Eastern European (EE) region. The results aim at a twofold contribution to the conceptual base of internationalisation on a doctoral level. Firstly, it brings the peculiarity of DPEds to the limelight of academic research and discussion, and secondly, it depicts the unrecognised stories of key actors in this process. As the title suggests, policy convergence and practical divergence recur at various levels of higher education posing challenges requiring strategic decisions as well as personal determination and perseverance (Nerad, 2010; Rudakov & Yudkevich, 2021). We begin with the theoretical perspectives at the outset followed by the research questions and methodology, concluding the paper with the result remarks corresponding to the discussion.
Theoretical perspectives
The concept of international education dates to the wandering scholars of the Middle Ages (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Rominger, 2018), however, the novice policy implementation is a heterogeneous choice of universities (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). The paradigm shift prioritised in the Salzburg Principles (Kottman, 2011), the internationalisation of doctoral education has moved from the margins to the centre of educational academic inquiry. It is high on the HE agenda and addresses omnipresent pressing issues of decreasing funds, ever-growing diversity, and globalised labour market requirements (Jones & de Wit, 2013; Teichler, 2017). According to Nerad (2010), graduate schools are actively integrating change dimensions including the Englishisation of doctoral programmes leading to enrollment of international students. The implementation of internationalisation policy may considerably diverge based on the programme context and institutional capacity (Rudakov & Yudkevich, 2021), despite the converging global trends in doctoral education (Nerad, 2010).
The less investigated niche of educational studies, including teacher education has not been at the epicentre of changes until recently. Safeguarded by national-orientedness, this discipline is now catching up with the overarching research in the internationalisation of HE and earning attention for its immense impact and long-term outcomes (Koh et al., 2022).
The existing literature on the exact topic of analysis proved to be scarce, hence, we utilised studies from three major areas as the theoretical summary below - the internationalisation of doctoral programmes in general, the cases of internationalisation in educational studies including teacher education, and relevant organisational change frameworks implying the adaptation process of DPEds emanating from the external internationalisation imperative.
Internationalisation of DPEds: Europe framework and Hungary
The climate of HE today is highly volatile, and universities worldwide need to adapt to constant external changes (Paradeise, 2019). A shift to a knowledge-based economy merits rising public attention and anticipation towards doctoral education outcomes, which are perceived as the bearers of innovation through original research (Ruano-Borbalan, 2022; Thomson & Walker, 2010). Its steerage occurs on various levels according to supra-national, national, or institutional regulations pursuing different rationales. Depending on the expected outcomes and results, the rationales of internationalisation strategy bifurcate into political, economic, academic, and socio-cultural types (Knight, 2004). The political goal concerns cross-border reputation and foreign policy matters, while the economic objective aims at financial gain (Zha, 2003). Academic rationale improves research and curriculum, whereas socio-cultural type promotes national identity and intercultural understanding as part of the policy (Knight, 2004). In the European context, major shifts and supra-national harmonising activities of relative convergence were introduced through the Bologna declaration and the Lisbon strategy leading to the creation of the European Higher Education Area (Kehm, 2006). English language of instruction as the accessory to internationalisation also contributed to the convergence trend and became a widespread choice in attracting international students and diversifying domestic campuses (Ryan, 2012). A major initiative, the Erasmus programme, brought further standardisation of nationally different HE systems enabling short-term mobility opportunities for students and staff (Kehm, 2006). Regional-level policies and joint initiatives between the European countries contributed to the salient type of internationalisation, Europeanisation, a phenomenon inherent to the continental focus and reference (Teichler, 2004).
Countries of the former socialistic block of the European Union, however, have joined the Europeanisation discourse recently, adding their diverging educational traditions, preparedness, resources, and strength of political will to the discourse (Dakowska & Harmsen, 2015; Kovačević, Bitušíková, & Dagen, 2022). In the context of the EE countries, Europeanisation implied gradual alignment and integration of several Western educational features (mobility programmes, credit transfer system, research partnerships) into a former state-planned educational context so they could engage and cooperate on more cohesive terms (Dobbins, 2017; Pusztai, Fekete, Dusa, & Varga, 2016).
In this study, we focus on the internationalisation experiences of Hungarian DPEds that have undergone reforms of ‘catching up’ with the Western HE systems as part of Europeanisation (Dakowska & Harmsen, 2015). A series of shifts in HE governance concurring with the political changes introduced a wave of reforms that targeted larger enrolment rates, expansion of universities and integration of European dimensions into HE (Kozma, 2008; Pusztai et al., 2016; Pusztai & Szabó, 2008). If the earlier Erasmus programme enabled intra-regional cooperation and mobility, in 2013 the state-funded scholarship scheme Stipendium Hungaricum (bilateral agreements between Hungary and sending countries) yielded internationalisation augmentation beyond the region (Lannert & Derényi, 2020; Rudakov & Yudkevich, 2021). As a result, inbound student mobility has become a dominant element of internationalisation at home (Kovacs & Kasza, 2018; Orechova, 2021).
Internationalisation of education studies and teacher education
The terrain of educational studies including teacher education is transitioning from a strong anchorage and long-term national base to a ubiquitous and inevitable internationalisation (Leutwyler, Popov, & Wolhuter, 2017). Driven by a diverse student community and pressure towards teachers to develop more competencies, the educational programmes in the European region are undergoing major changes (Abraham & Von Brömssen, 2018). The current pool of literature presents predominantly cases of mobility activities and exchange programmes that are part of teacher education curricular and a major part of the internationalisation abroad pillar that concentrates on obtaining intercultural competencies abroad (Knight, 2004). Most studies focus on the internationalisation experiences of pre-service students accentuating the policy and the programme specificity (Alexiadou, Kefala, & Rönnberg, 2021). Mantel, Kamm, and Bieri Buschor (2022) unearth the outcomes and expectations from international internship placements as part of practical learning in teacher education. Pedersen (2021) also focuses on mobility activities that are part of the national policy to propel students‘ participation and skills development. Amidst the galore of student studies, the voices of educational professionals have not surfaced in the discussion denoting their invisibility on the canvas of internationalisation (Dewey & Duff, 2009). Hence to mediate this insufficiency, we emphasise the change experiences of educational professionals as part of internationalisation at home in three comprehensive Hungarian universities.
Organisational change within the framework of internationalisation
The EE region, including Hungarian HE, underwent a “bewildering array of internal and external forces of change in the past 25 years” (Dobbins, 2017, p. 684). The fundamental principle of internationalisation policy dwells on the idea of change and is manifested in new dimensions integrated into the purpose, function, and delivery of HE (Knight, 2004). The initial injection of Western European dimensions is superimposed by an added wider scale of internationalisation via the state-promoted framework. According to Kozma and Polónyi (2022), the emphasis of this scheme was attracting international students to diversify and promote Hungarian universities. While foreign students’ experiences are regularly monitored and summarised by Tempus Public Foundation, a state agency (Kupriyanova & Ferencz, 2022), the experiences of university teaching and administrative staff – as the immediate facilitators of this change – go unrecognised.
According to Marshall (2018), each university is placed in a unique context that frames how an organisation perceives itself and impacts its ability to change. Therefore, this study locates the impetus of change in the internationalisation of DPEds and argues the significance of the unique agency of the ‘change-makers’.
Existing change theories examining the process of transformations in HE, mostly adopted from organisational studies, public policy and managerialism, tackle its governance element (Baschung, 2010; Bleiklie, Enders, & Lepori, 2017; Vlachopoulos, 2021). However, since this nuanced study aims at unearthing narratives of lived experiences, we prompted the change model that would consider the specificity of human agency and transformation perceptions within the framework of internationalisation (Bedenlier & Zawacki-Richter, 2015). In the same vein, Kondakçı and Van Den Broeck (2009) argue for the significance of human agency, including cognitive sources such as reflexivity and change in frame of reference. They also emphasise the impact of organisational culture on change interventions that are typically slow and fragmented in the context of HE (Kondakçı & Van Den Broeck, 2009). Against this backdrop, Kezar (2001) presents six different theories that highlight varying perceptions of change in HE including the change agents and conceptualises driving forces of the process.
Based on the typologies of change models in HE, we utilised the dialectical model through Kezar's (2001) prism that argues for the ambivalent clashing ideas generating change processes in universities. Martin (2009) defines the dialectic theory of change as quite straightforward and highlights how it rests on unease or rupture - “the conflict between organizational inertia and organization renewal” – that leads to its survival (p. 154). Vlachopoulos (2021) also corroborates the dialectic and paradoxical nature of HE and implies that its rational support for change coexists with irrational resistance to it. Kezar (2001) espouses the applicability of this model, which has a strong explanatory power in educational settings.
Research questions
To bridge these gaps in the internationalisation literature, we have arrived at three underlying research questions. We investigate the perceived forces and rationales driving the policy implementation but also analyse organisational change scenarios that either converge implying institutional isomorphism or idiosyncratically diverge in DPEds (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
The main research questions are as follows:
How did internationalisation change the modus operandi of DPEds based on collected narratives?
What are the underpinning drivers of the internationalisation process of DPEd according to the participants' perceptions?
How do the underpinning rationales of change converge or diverge based on the participants' narratives?
The answers regarding the perceived impact deploy the process of the operational changes in a workflow resulting in the newly offered English language programme and admission of international students. Responses highlighting rationales explain the reasons nested and invested in novice policy implementation. Based on two major research questions the third overarching question enables the juxtaposition of the overall internationalisation scenarios. Two research questions establish a synopsis for the third question of either convergence or diverging practices within the DPEds.
Method
Considering the specificity of research questions that unearth personal experiences, perceptions, and narratives regarding change related to internationalisation, the overarching research paradigm and its footing are anchored in interpretivism (Wernet, 2014). To collect in-depth and wealthy narratives of study participants we opted for the qualitative narrative inquiry for this study (Lal, Suto, & Ungar, 2012) via the conventional interview instrument (Butina, 2015). The open-ended questions of semi-structured interviews enabled garnering stories and experiences of ten leading higher education professionals from three comprehensive universities in Hungary that constitute fundamental data and empirical evidence.
Participants/instrument
The interview questions were to motivate a participant to share his or her experience and expertise at length. To reach this goal, at the outset, we outlined generic questions or broad topics that should be addressed during the interviews. The final questions of semi-structured interviews consisted of three main themes corresponding to the research questions:
- -Changes in modus operandi of DPEds implying integration of novice practices and dimensions into the function and delivery of the doctoral programme.
- -Perceived drivers and rationale underscoring the internationalisation in each of the DPEds.
- -Convergence or diverging scenarios during the internationalisation in respective DPEds.
These broad topics allowed further development of more precise questions with the key element of keeping them open and flexible so they would elicit comprehensive responses encouraging participants to tell their stories on their terms. Since the interviews were semi-structured, participants were at liberty to construct their narratives based on highlighting specific elements of their interest while omitting irrelevant topics.
The sampling procedure was dictated by rigid yet intuitive criteria. It was assured that all participants held full-time employment in the investigated English language doctorate programmes. Three doctoral programmes in Hungary offer full-time English language degrees in education studies or teacher education. The final sample size by the time of writing the manuscript reached 10 people (n = 10) with a 5:5 gender ratio. The varying final number of representatives from these three programmes was not a controllable dimension but was based on their consent to participate in this study. Positions of the participants ranged from founder and head of doctoral school/programme to core and faculty members of DPEd (Table 1). We anonymised the identity of participants to safeguard their personal information. For instance, the founding head of the program is coded FH, whereas the number next to the code refers to the order of the investigated university.
Gender, positions of the participants and corresponding codes
| University | Title | Gender |
| U1 | Former Head (ForH1) | Male |
| Founding Head (FH1) | Female | |
| Head of programme (HP1) | Female | |
| Core member (CM1) | Male | |
| Faculty member (FM1) | Male | |
| U2 | Founding Head (FH2) | Male |
| Head of programme (HP2) | Female | |
| Core member (CM2) | Female | |
| U3 | Founding Head (FH3) | Male |
| Head of programme (HP3) | Female |
Procedures and data analysis
The interview questions were tested via a pilot study that allowed revisitation of some questions and evaluation of various contingencies during different phases of the inquiry. The pilot setting allowed us to probe the narrative approach and yielded significant findings ensuring fit for the research design and methodology responding to the main research questions.
The audio recordings of interviews were manually transcribed verbatim while the data text was read and re-read multiple times (İpek & Karaman, 2020). The deductive approach enabled the juxtaposition of results against previous studies showcasing whether our findings support existing literature. On the contrary, findings that stem from the interviews undetected in the literature imply the inductive approach (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014; Willig, 2014).
The authors received full approval from the Research Ethical Committee of Eötvös Loránd University. The participants' consent forms and consent for further data text processing for this research were collected before the recording. We ensured all participants could withdraw their participation at any time if they felt discomfort. All the data are safely stored and kept due the expiration date approved by the Research Ethical Committee.
Example of the coding process as part of the data analysis
Citation: Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation 7, 1; 10.1556/2059.2024.00107
The applied narrative analysis has a dual focus, firstly on how stories are told and shaped by people and the surrounding context of the situation, but also on how the context is shaped by the very narratives (Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2017). We considered this approach to data analysis close to ideal unearthing both narratives and their undivided context. We agree on the utmost importance of the contextual parameters of the macro-level and analysing micro-level study narratives that cannot be detached from the context. We concentrated on rendering core narratives from the interviews through the initial data coding (Fig. 1) that subsequently led to the emergence of solid topics.
Ethical permission
Full approval from the Research Ethical Committee of Eötvös Loránd University was received to safeguard participants and their identities. The personal data was anonymised for precautionary matters – securing their identities. Detailed data on Ethical permission can be provided upon request.
Results
Direct quotes of participants point to a distinctive picture of the internationalisation process of Hungarian DPEds. Each participant described shifts on a state level that were truncated into the university life and faculty levels. The institutional affiliation was further narrowed to individual lived experiences that involved a reflective depiction of the retrospective events.
The main themes emerging from the data were compiled into categories depicted in Table 2. We review each category in a sequential manner consistent with the order of research questions. Verbatim excerpts in bold are the authors' emphasis corresponding to the research questions.
Emerged categories from data following the inductive approach compiled by the authors
| Research questions | Emerged categories |
| How did internationalisation impact the modus operandi of DPEds based on the collected narratives? | Generational and linguistic organisational restructuring |
| Varying modes of change (ad hoc, gradual integration) | |
| Pedagogical approach change | |
| Limited opportunities for international students | |
| What are the drivers of the internationalisation process of DPEd according to the participants' perceptions? | Financial rationale, foreign policy compliance and professional curiosity |
| Incremental internationalisation - reputation building | |
| How do the underpinning rationales of change converge or diverge based on the participants' narratives? | The state-funded scheme followed the initial EU-financed programme |
| Top-bottom implementation in compliance with foreign policy | |
| Gradual integration of international dimensions |
“We were able to see that the old way of a leading a doctoral school or working in a doctoral school is not good anymore” (FH1).
“… lot of old fashioned lecturer went leaved institute and this young generation who they follow me…” (HP3).
“Since the elder faculty of members didn’t really speak good languages, especially the English, it was difficult for them…” (HP1).
“… there was a big pressure… from the faculty leadership that we should attract scholarship students because they bring money… So, the first international students arrived eh… into an organization which was not at all prepared to receive them… Nothing like that existed…” (ForH1).
“Most of the colleagues were absolutely unprepared for this…” (CM1).
“But since that time there was not a choice, we had to start this program, we had to start teaching in English…” (HP1).
“… it was the initiation of the ministry of not education… but they prof… what kind of minister… minister Palkovics ehm this is Palkovics doktrina” (HP3).
“… it was one of the central aims of the doctoral school to have the students to get integrated into the international scientific community…” (ForH2).
“Somehow, internationalization was always present even in our in the former DS… So, it was more natural process…” (HP2).
“… that yeah this is a different type of student that I get used and maybe I need to approach them differently to get out the most out of their learning experience.” (FM1).
“We should integrate the international students more to Hungarian research community, not to ‘hungarize’ them… but … are rootless in this sense…” (CM1).
“…but here they are not able to collect data because in Hungarian schools students use Hungarian language that’s why to find good…not only research question but a population is not easy…” (HP3).
“So, there was… there was a big pressure from the from the faculty leadership that we should attract Stipendium students because they bring money… I would say it stronger than the professional goals…” (ForH1).
“… but university rectors told us that ok we try to be we university of XY we try to be part of the best 200 universities of the world.” (HP3)
“We did have international students even before this Stipendium Hungaricum scholarship. And we had many visiting international professors as well… However, um, it was not our decision to open our doors to international students. It was, um… consequence of politics…” (CM2).
The final category presents a synopsis of trajectories emanating from diverging footings and rationales of each DPEd (Table 2). The overarching state initiative brought the isomorphic collective opportunity for the internationalisation of DPEds, however, different levels of preparedness, diverging rationale and capacity led to varying outcomes. While implementation and delivery of newly launched programmes were institutional prerogatives, the state-provided programme secured international applicants and funding per capita. Each programme deploys a unique scenario of response to change.
“… without the well-funded X project, this internationalisation process would have been much more painful.” (ForH1).
“In 1990… we started restructuring our training system… we established a research library in English… from the very beginning we focused on ah English, so publishing in English and learning in English…” (FH2).
“We have to show us and we have to invite ehm invite international students and government eh give us for this project very big ehm…” (HP3).
The national interest in promoting Hungarian universities converged in the state-initiated framework of internationalisation that provided equal opportunities to all three DPEds. However, each DPEd has its niche and occupies a certain internationalisation phase based on its history and capability. Though each doctoral school diverged initially and had varying foundations for internationalising their educational studies programme, they currently all enroll international students and participate in the state-funded full-time degree awarding initiative.
Discussion
We contributed to bridging the major chasm between faculty members' agency and internationalisation in DPEd (Dewey & Duff, 2009; Kondakçı & Van Den Broeck, 2009). The common trends detected in the literature such as Europeanisation and Englishisation apply to the locality and programmes at the heart of this study (Dobbins, 2017; Ryan, 2012). However, while doctoral schools are perceived as more internationalised compared to the other two cycles (Lannert, 2018), the process of organisational change within the framework of internationalisation is an area largely understudied. This study also mediated this gap and presented unique findings of participants' narratives attending the shifts within DPEds.
While there are homogenous forces and tendencies of converging nature, the local response to change emanates from the historical and cultural context (Stromquist, 2007). In the case of Hungary, there was a significant expansion of programmes offered in English (Lannert & Derényi, 2020), and educational programmes indeed expanded their repertoire beyond the borders of the nation-state. However, our findings convey the message of challenging and rapid interventions. The change process is deemed necessary and a conscientious choice in DPEds accompanying the wave of internationalisation. According to our results, the decision of management to internationalise these programmes implied generational change to maneuver the emergence of an English programme. In addition to linguistic adjustments, some participants accentuated the overwhelming workload that was part of the newly launched doctorate programmes during times of ad-hoc arrangements. Despite the alterations in student-faculty dynamics referring to cognitive change towards student-centredness and somewhat reflexivity (Kondakçı & Van Den Broeck, 2009), a minimised interaction between local and foreign students, linguistic and academic constraints of the latter hamper the research creativity and diversity that could have borne more fulfilling results (Seeber & Lepori, 2014). This led to partial internationalisation and superficial policy in place (Bergman, Negretti, Spencer-Oatey, & Stöhr, 2023).
The organisational culture of academia is an ambiguous system of social norms and values (Burke & Noumair, 2015), where the autonomy and internal multiple power structures of a university rather exacerbate, curb or slow the process of change (Kondakçı & Van Den Broeck, 2009). In addition to internal complexity, the external change dimensions indubitably permeated DPEds (Pedersen, 2021). Most participants recognised the global aspect of education and its inherent national anchorage (Leutwyler et al., 2017) but they also comprehend the imperative to internationalise the field of education science due to its ultimate social justice enabler role (Alexiadou et al., 2021). As evidenced by three varying scenarios of DPEd, the change process has a complex intertwined set of rationales. According to the study participants, financial incentives and foreign policy compliance are among the top objectives in DPEds supporting findings by Kozma and Polónyi (2022) and Lannert and Derényi (2020). However, one of the three DPEds is an outlier in the earlier gradual integration of international dimensions that eventually joined the state-wide initiative.
We explored DPEds currently enrolled in a state scholarship programme which sets a unifying overarching framework. Each programme had a unique scenario of internationalisation inferring varying practical solutions within the given singular country case. The scholarship programme has brought converging opportunities to internationalise, however, various levels of preparedness have led to diverging responses to this policy. Our study corroborates Rudakov and Yudkevich's (2021) argument on parallel trends worldwide toward diversity and heterogeneity, while simultaneously supra-national global tendencies contribute to the unification of doctoral education worldwide.
The dialectic model by Kezar (2001) and Van De Ven and Poole (1995) precisely stresses the opposing approaches and ambivalent forces at play in HE depicted in the results chapter, while all basal concepts in this study contain antithetical participles. The overarching principle of internationalisation has an ambivalent substance as a response and the agent of globalisation (Knight, 2012), whereas educational studies are between competing notions of local focus and international imperative (Leutwyler et al., 2017).
Conclusion and limitations
This study contributes to the existing research gap of internationalisation in DSEds and adds the learnings of HE professionals which are frequently blurred from the overall picture (O'Reilly, Hickey, & Dermot Ryan, 2013). The contribution and implications of this study are twofold – theoretical and practical. The experiences of the main actors contribute to the augmentation of EE patchwork-like cases (Orechova, 2021) and the outcomes of this study deliver crucial findings weaving a realistic picture of the internationalisation tapestry. The practical value of the study provides recommendations on the potential avoidance of drawbacks and pitfalls. Despite the high autonomy, independence, and relatively isolated culture of HE (Tierney, 1988; Weick, 1976) this study recommends supporting and maintaining more resilient academic communities denoting its salient culture and process of change (Dewey & Duff, 2009).
This study focused on the transitioning state of the educational subject field at the doctorate level. Future research addressing this limitation could delve into the other cycles that offer educational programme degrees. Another avenue of exploration could be zooming in in the research design phase and concomitantly during data collection on a specific shorter period selecting a certain interval in the narrative or history of a participant that would fine-grain the narratives of internationalisation. To attain greater contribution, future research could explore multiple subject fields and state cases juxtaposing them against each other to provide comparative findings of extreme significance.
Funding
No financial support was received for the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Data availability
The data supporting this pilot study findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Abraham, G. Y., & Von Brömssen, K. (2018). Internationalisation in teacher education: Student teachers’ reflections on experiences from a field study in South Africa. Education Inquiry, 9(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1428035.
Alexiadou, N., Kefala, Z., & Rönnberg, L. (2021). Preparing education students for an international future? Connecting students’ experience to institutional contexts. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315321998498.
Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530151002.
Baschung, L. (2010). Changes in the management of doctoral education. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01405.x.
Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2015). Internationalization of higher education and the impacts on academic faculty members. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499915571707.
Bergman, B., Negretti, R., Spencer‐Oatey, H., & Stöhr, C. (2023). Integrating home and international students in HE: Academic and social effects of pair work PBL assignments online. Journal of Studies in International Education, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153221150117.
Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., & Lepori, B. (2017). Setting the stage—theory and research questions. In Palgrave Studies in global higher education (pp. 3–29). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53865-5_1.
Buckner, E., & Stein, S. (2020). What counts as internationalization? Deconstructing the internationalization imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878.
Bulut-Sahin, B., & Kondakçı, Y. (2022). Conflicting perspectives on the internationalization of higher education: Evidence from the Turkish case. Journal of Studies in International Education, 102831532211262. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153221126245.
Burke, W. W., & Noumair, D. A. (2015). The burke-litwin model of organisational performance and change. In W. W. Burke, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Organisation development: A process of learning and changing (3rd ed., pp. 145–159). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780133892482/samplepages/9780133892482.pdf.
Butina, M. (2015). A narrative approach to qualitative inquiry. American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.28.3.190.
Dakowska, D., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Laboratories of reform? The europeanization and internationalization of higher education in central and eastern Europe. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.977318.
De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898.
Del Canto Viterale, F. (2018). University as a global actor in the international system of the 21st Century. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6(1), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-6(1)-2018pp169-198.
Dewey, P., & Duff, S. M. G. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty views on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9207-z.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
Dobbins, M. (2017). Exploring higher education governance in Poland and Romania: Re-Convergence after divergence? European Educational Research Journal, 16(5), 684–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116684138.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Guth, J. (2006). The Bologna Process: The impact of higher education reform on the structure and organisation of doctoral programmes in Germany. Higher Education in Europe, 31(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720601058930.
İpek, Ö. F., & Karaman, A. C. (2020). Systemic change in a higher education institution: Inquiring into organizational and instructional transformation. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 34(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-09516-6.
Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2013). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 35–54.
Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in europe: New structures and models. In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 132–153). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839404683-007.
Kehm, B. M. (2007). Quo vadis doctoral education? New European approaches in the context of global changes. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00308.x.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. Washington DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457711.pdf.
Knight, J. (2004). An internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in Higher Education, 8, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832.
Knight, J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878.
Koh, A., Pashby, K., Tarc, P., & Yemini, M. (2022). Editorial: Internationalisation in teacher education: Discourses, policies, practices. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2119381.
Kondakçı, Y., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Institutional imperatives versus emergent dynamics: A case study on continuous change in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9204-2.
Kottmann, A. (2011). Reform of doctoral training in Europe: The emergence of a new form of educational governance. In J. Enders, H. de Boer, J. File, B. Jongbloed, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe (pp. 39–54). Sense Publishers.
Kovačević, M., Bitušíková, A., & Dagen, T. (2022). Emergence of current European thinking and policies on doctoral education. European Journal of Education, 57, 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12515.
Kovacs, L., & Kasza, G. (2018). Learning to integrate domestic and international students: The Hungarian experience. International Research and Review: Journal of Phi Beta Delta, 8(1), 26–43. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210836.pdf.
Kozma, T. (2008). Political transformations and higher education reforms. European Education, 40(2), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.2753/eue1056-4934400202.
Kozma, T., & Polónyi, I. (2022). National strategies of internationalisation: The case of Hungary. In L. Cremonini, J. Taylor, & K. M Joshi (Eds.), Reconfiguring national, institutional and human strategies for the 21st century, converging internationalizations. Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05106-7_10.
Kupriyanova, V., & Ferencz, I. (2022). Attraction and support of international Ph.D. Students, lecturers and researches in Hungary: State-Of-The-Art, challenges and areas of improvement. Budapest, Hungary: Tempus Public Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.tpf.hu/docs/palyazatok/sh_aca_attractioan_and_support_of_international_phd_students2203071333.pdf.
Lal, S., Suto, M., & Ungar, M. (2012). Examining the potential of combining the methods of grounded theory and narrative inquiry: A comparative analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1–22. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/lal.pdf.
Lannert, J. (2018). International students in Hungarian higher education institutions. Tempus Public Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.tpf.hu/docs/palyazatok/international_students_in_hungarian_heis_cm_2018_web1902051528.pdf.
Lannert, J., & Derényi, A. (2020). Internationalization in Hungarian higher education. Recent developments and factors of reaching better global visibility. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 346–369. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2020.00034.
Leutwyler, B., Popov, N., & Wolhuter, C. (2017). The internationalization of teacher education: Different contexts, similar challenges. Current Business and Economics Driven Discourse and Education: Perspectives from Around the World BCES Conference Books, 15(1), 66–78. Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.
Mantel, C., Kamm, E., & Bieri Buschor, C. (2022). International teaching internships for future teachers: Potential and challenges for learning. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09313-4.
Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/173831738240.
Marshall, S. J. (2018). Introduction. In S. J. Marshall (Ed.), Shaping the university of the future. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7620-6_1.
Martin, A. (2009). Mechanisms of dialectical change. Management Revue, 20(2), 149–157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41783611.
Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540–553). SAGE.
Nerad, M. (2010). Globalization and the internationalization of graduate education: A macro and micro view. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 1–12.
O'Reilly, A., Hickey, T., & Dermot Ryan, D. (2013). Higher education professionals' perspectives on international student experiences of life and learning in Ireland: A qualitative study. Irish Educational Studies, 32(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2013.826334.
Orechova, M. (2021). Internationalisation of higher education in central and Eastern Europe: Conceptualisation of the definition inside the region. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 46, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.15388/actpaed.46.2021.8.
Paradeise, C. (2019). Stormy weather on higher education: Globalization and change. Revista Brasileira De Ciências Sociais, 34(100). https://doi.org/10.1590/3410019/2019.
Pedersen, T. D. (2021). Mobilising international student mobility: Exploring policy enactments in teacher education in Norway. European Journal of Education, 56, 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12451.
Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2017). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 1163–1201). Sage Publications.
Pusztai, G., Fekete, I., Dusa, Á., & Varga, E. (2016). Knowledge brokers in the heart of europe: International student and faculty mobility in Hungarian higher education. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.14413/HERJ.2016.01.04.
Pusztai, G., & Szabó, P. Cs. (2008). The Bologna process as a Trojan Horse: Restructuring higher education in Hungary. European Education, 40(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934400205.
Rominger, R. (2018). Building bridges and growing wings through doctoral education: A literary meta-analysis. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n3p171.
Ruano-Borbalan, J.-C. (2022). Doctoral education from its medieval foundations to today's globalisation and standardization. European Journal of Education, 57(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12522.
Rudakov, V., & Yudkevich, M. (2021). Doctoral education: Global perspectives. International Higher Education, 23–24. https://doi.org/10.36197/ihe.2021.105.11.
Ryan, J. (2012). Internationalisation of doctoral education: Possibilities for new knowledge and understandings. Australian Universities' Review, 54(1), 55–63 Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ968523.pdf.
Seeber, M., & Lepori, B. (2014). The internationalization of European higher education institutions. In Knowledge, diversity and performance in European higher education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472000.00012.
Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-1975-5.
Sulaimanova, N., Csereklye, E., Győri, J. G., & Horváth, L. (2023). ‘To go or not to go’: Organizational determinants of academic staff participation in teaching mobility – a structural equation modelling approach. European Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2294742.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151528.
Teichler, U. (2017). Internationalisation trends in higher education and the changing role of international student mobility. Journal of International Mobility, 5(1), 179–216. https://doi.org/10.3917/jim.005.0179.
Thomson, P., & Walker, M. (2010). Doctoral education in context: The changing nature of the doctorate and doctoral students. In M. Walker, & P. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion (pp. 9–26). Abingdon: Routledge.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981868.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510. https://doi.org/10.2307/258786.
Vlachopoulos, D. (2021). Organizational change management in higher education through the lens of executive coaches. Education Sciences, 11(6), 269. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060269.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875.
Wernet, A. (2014). Hermeneutics and objective hermeneutics. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 234–246). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.
Willig, C. (2014). Interpretation and analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 136–149). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.
Zha, Q. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5.
