Managing internationalisation versus managing diversity? Global imperatives and national trajectories in German and Polish universities

ABSTRACT

In institutions of higher education, both internationality and diversity are highly valued. Yet the relationship between these two values often remains undefined. On the one hand, the ‘internationalisation imperative’ and the ‘diversity imperative’ can be regarded as two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, they are perceived as two different tasks and are associated with different groups, interests, and organisational units. To better understand their nexus, this article presents a comparative analysis of German and Polish universities. It identifies the administrative units and actors responsible for managing internationalisation and diversity. Mixed methods were used, including surveys in university administrations, publicly available data from universities’ websites, and qualitative interviews with practitioners in both fields. The results illustrate how the traditional ‘International Offices’ and the more recently established ‘Diversity Offices’ are equipped and related to each other. Regarding internationalisation, German and Polish universities have comparable national trajectories as both institutionalise this task at the administrative level and within university leadership. At the same time, there is a gap between the two countries in terms of how they deal with the diversity imperative. Finally, the article raises the practical question of whether the respective units need to reconceptualise their relationship in the future.

KEYWORDS:

• Internationalisation
• diversity
• university administration
• Germany
• Poland

Introduction

Both internationalisation and diversity are key topics for higher education studies and have been thoroughly researched for decades, particularly since the 2000s. Until recently, however, the two bodies of literature have rarely been connected with each other. Systematic reviews about internationalisation refer to diversity only sporadically (Bedenlier, Kondakci, and Zawacki-Richter 2018; Kuzhabekova, Hendel, and Chapman 2015), and those about diversity relate at best indirectly to internationalisation (Berg 2020; Byrd 2019). This is surprising, as internationalisation and diversity can well be regarded as two sides of the same coin: for example, several demographic dimensions of diversity, such as race, ethnicity or religion, are related to international and transnational backgrounds of members of the academic community. In the higher education context, nationality itself is essentially a diversity category (Dedoussis 2007; Maximova-Mentzoni and Egeland 2019). Against this background, some scholars have pointed out that internationalisation contributes to cultural diversification and has the potential to enhance multicultural education on campus for all students (Nada and Araújo 2019; Olson, Evans, and Shoenberg 2007; Otten 2003). More recently, critical internationalisation studies elaborated on how decolonial perspectives open up new perspectives on how internationalisation, diversity, and power inequalities are interlinked (Buckner and Stein 2020; Stein 2021).

Despite the interconnected relationship between internationalisation and diversity, they have mostly been treated as unrelated tasks in the administration of higher education institutions (HEIs). This separateness may be partly due to historical contingencies and organisational inertia. Competing interests of two professional groups, as pointed out for the US context, might also play a role (Chow 2019; Mitchell and Vandegrift 2014; Smith and Ota 2013). As a result, ‘International Offices’ (IOs) and ‘Diversity Offices’ (DOs) took different institutional pathways and mostly operated in isolation of each other (Bell, Donaghue, and Gordon 2018; Cunningham et al. 2023).

The organisational trajectories of these units and their relationships to each other vary depending on national contexts (Caruana and Ploner 2010; Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, and Stöber 2019; Haapakoski and Pashby 2017). Until recently, however, the global debates about internationalisation and diversity have been dominated by Anglo-Saxon perspectives. The diversity imperative, in particular, is closely interlinked with campus politics at US-Universities (Palfrey 2017; Wood 2003), which as an answer have invested heavily in the establishment of DOs (Kwak, Gavrila, and Ramirez 2019; Thomas 2020). However, these ‘new kids on the block’ are rarely connected to the ‘old school’ IOs. The situation is different in countries in the Western semi-periphery, such as Germany and Poland, who cannot compete with these well-equipped organisational units in terms of resources. Their HEIs are not driven by student-fees, and correspondingly offer less fee-based services and structures. On the one hand, they often lag behind the Anglo-Saxon universities when it comes to establishing new management tasks. On the other hand, as the new organisational standards are not yet mainstreamed, the situation is more open, so there could be room for alternative national developments.

Against this background, this article takes a closer look at how university administration and management in these two countries relate to the two imperatives of internationalisation and diversity. We aim for a comparative analysis of the organisational units and actors responsible for managing the two tasks. However, the assessment of these organisational structures is quite challenging. While in most universities IOs are well-established and accessible, DOs do not exist in a standardised form; rather, they are in the making. Our study, therefore, presents a snapshot of a moving target. The results are meant to enable fruitful conversations between researchers and practitioners interested in how the management of internationalisation relates to the management of diversity – and the other way around.

We formulate two research questions. First, against the background of the neo-institutionalist assumption that HEIs around the world are adapting to both the internationalisation and the diversity imperative, we ask whether there is evidence of institutional isomorphism in the way German and Polish universities manage internationalisation and diversity – or whether there are national trajectories that limit the explanatory power of neo-institutionalist theories. Second, we ask how practitioners working in senior administrative positions – both in IOs and DOs – assess the situation, how they conceptualise the relationship between the two imperatives, and how they envision future organisational structures.

In the first section, the theoretical background is presented. Then, the research design and data collection are described: We started with an email survey, focusing on the first research question, and then used the preliminary results as a starting point for qualitative interviews with the administrators, to answer the second research question. The main part outlines the results of the survey conducted among German and Polish universities. In the discussion part, we integrate the practitioner’s perspectives from the qualitative interviews with our interpretation. The conclusion points to follow-up questions and limitations of the study.

Theoretical background

Definitions

Internationalisation and diversity have been subject to much debate both in the practice of higher education management and in the academic literature, resulting in a wide range of related terms, interpretations and understandings. Both concepts have an intricate history and their meaning is highly context-dependent. Generally, internationalisation can be viewed as a dynamic, multi-dimensional and complex change process (Chan and Dimmock 2008; Knight 2004; Stein 2021). Traditionally, the internationalisation activities in HEIs have been equated with the movement of education across national borders. Beyond that, other programmes focussed on curricular internationalisation and the internationalisation of faculty. The first aspect has been summarised as ‘internationalisation abroad’, the second as ‘internationalisation at home’ (Knight 2004). Another, more recent debate has demanded that HEIs move beyond elitist notions of mobility and address questions of inclusion and equity (de Wit and Jones 2018). More generally, there is a critical tradition in the literature that problematises the instrumental orientation of traditional notions of internationalisation (Stein 2021). To summarise, while internationalisation is generally seen by HEIs as relevant and important, there are different rationales of why this is the case (de Wit 1995; Hudzik 2015; Knight 2004). The imperative to internationalise therefore can take various forms depending on national context and local circumstances. For example, as international students pay considerable fees in the Anglo-Saxon HE system, the economic rationale for internationalisation is traditionally strong in these countries. In Germany and Poland, in contrast, socio-cultural and political motives prevail.

The concept of diversity is even more ambiguous than the concept of internationalisation because it is grounded not primarily in the sphere of higher education, but rather in the ‘social imaginary’ of modern societies (Vertovec 2012). Originally, it relates to a semantic field of words that describe heterogeneity, plurality, or simply difference; later it acquired a more specific political-cultural meaning (Wood 2003). In the context of equal opportunity frameworks and in organisation development, the concept of diversity is not identical, but inseparable from questions of equity and inclusion (Tienda 2013). Today, the triad ‘diversity, equity, inclusion’ – in whatever order – has become a common combination, not least as a name for administrative units responsible for managing diversity (Claeys-Kulik, Jørgensen, and Stöber 2019; Özturgut 2017; Scott 2020). More recently, these concepts have also been associated with the notion of ‘belonging’ (Chin 2019). Nevertheless, ‘diversity’ is commonly used as an umbrella term or placeholder that includes these other concepts.¹ In the higher education context, diversity traditionally referred to the presence and special needs of individuals that differ by race, ethnic background, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, age, class or physical ability (Gurin et al. 2002). The management of diversity has therefore often been legitimised in terms of normative or legal arguments (Scott 2020). Beyond that, diversity has also been foregrounded in higher education policy discourses to improve institutional excellence (Kwak, Gavrila, and Ramirez 2019) and research impact (AlShebli, Rahwan, and Woon 2018). To summarise, the debate on diversity in higher education is based on both social justice and epistemic arguments.

Neo-institutionalist perspectives

We use a neo-institutionalist lens to better understand how management processes and organisational structures are influenced by global imperatives as well as by national context (Christensen and Gornitzka 2017). The main idea of neo-institutionalist theory is that organisations adapt to expectations from their societal environment to gain legitimacy and secure resources. For example, universities create diversity management units because this is a ‘must have’ for any modern organisation (Kwak, Gavrila, and Ramirez 2019; Oertel 2018; Pineda and Mishra 2023). Universities thus adapt their formal structures to the ‘myths’ of their institutional environments (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Doing so, they become increasingly similar, they copy each other as they aim to adapt – a process that results in ‘institutional isomorphism’ (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Neo-institutionalists are particularly interested in those myths of modernity that have come to define the ‘world polity’, ‘world culture’ or ‘world society’ (Drori, Meyer, and Hwang 2006). Against this backdrop, internationalisation and diversity may be seen as eminent examples of global imperatives that are part and parcel of such a world culture.

Viewed from this perspective, it is not surprising that HEIs around the globe are adopting certain formal structures and standardised administrative units. On the organisational level, internationalisation is managed by various strategic units and actors, such as international offices, deans, vice rectors (VR) or vice presidents (VP) for international affairs (Bell, Donaghue, and Gordon 2018; Tamtik and Kirss 2016). Diversity, on the other hand, is managed by another set of administrative units and actors, such as Equal Opportunities Offices (EOOs), representatives for disabled persons, chief diversity officers and other senior-level roles (Kwak, Gavrila, and Ramirez 2019; Oertel 2018; Williams and Wade-Golden 2013; Wilson 2013). In this article, we use Diversity Office (DO) as an umbrella category that includes all these units and actors, although this designation is not as typical and well-established as International Office (IO).

It is important to note two limitations of the neo-institutionalist framework. First, critics have pointed out that the ‘global’ in this tradition often is equated with Western notions of modernity and that ‘global diffusion’ basically means the process of the non-Western world imitating the colonial power centres (Go 2013). The diversity imperative is a good example of this fallacy. To test the globality of the semantics of diversity in higher education, Pineda and Mishra (2023) conducted an extensive content analysis of scholarly publications and found that there is ‘a movement in the semantics of diversity across countries, but this is confined to countries in the Global North’ (Pineda and Mishra 2023, 879). That notwithstanding, the authors point to existing bodies of literature in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Furthermore, if we look beyond the higher education context, there is a growing body of comparative diversity management literature focusing previously ‘under-researched countries’ (Georgiadou, Gonzalez-Perez, and Olivas-Luján 2019; Klarsfeld et al. 2019). We cannot assess here whether the diversity imperative may thus become more global in the future. When we talk about both internationalisation and diversity as global imperatives, we draw on an established way of framing these debates – while acknowledging that both imperatives have particularistic origins in the West.

The second limitation of the neo-institutionalist framework relevant for our study is related to the relationship of the ‘global’ and the ‘national’. The theoretical assumption that there are processes of isomorphism does not preclude that the formal structures of HEIs are influenced by national contexts. While the two imperatives are omnipresent (and insofar ‘global’), they may differ in relevance, impact, as well as in their content. On the ground, institutions and actors may hold different views of what exactly internationalisation or diversity means, of the rationales behind their implementation and the best strategic approaches.

Case selection and national contexts

This study covers universities from Germany and Poland. Both countries have strong traditions in international exchange and in attracting international students. At the same time, and partly because English is not the main language of instruction, they are not comparable to the Anglo-Saxon countries in terms of attractivity; they belong to the ‘semi-periphery’ of the Global North (Sin, Antonowicz, and Wiers-Jenssen 2021). Both countries represent a unique higher education landscape, with their own history, academic traditions, publishers and journals. In both countries, the European Commission’s emphasis on the ‘creation of knowledge societies’ and on ‘widening higher education participation’ to include previously underrepresented groups has been a key medium of the internationalisation and diversity imperative (Pineda and Mishra 2023). However, within the European Union and regarding their cultural and historical background, Germany and Poland represent contrasting positions. We chose Germany because its higher education policy has been systematically oriented towards the West since 1945 and the very idea of ‘internationalisation’ has been closely intertwined with the idea of ‘Americanisation’ for decades. We chose Poland as an example of a former Eastern bloc country that radically turned to the West in the 1990s and 2000s, but was also confronted with increasing Euroscepticism since the 2010s. During the conservative government between 2015 and 2023, it had become very difficult even to talk about ‘diversity’ – this indicates that the global diversity imperative discussed above has not been equally ‘imperative’ in the two countries.

Regarding the implementation of diversity management, there are different legal traditions in the two countries. Generally, in Germany, EOOs (traditionally focussing on gender issues) and Disability Offices are legally required. Employers are obliged to comply with the General Equal Treatment Act, preventing discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, worldview, disability, age or sexual identity. In our study, we understand these offices and legal frameworks as part of the diversity infrastructure at HEIs. However, the diversity management practice in German universities often exceeds these ‘minimal’ infrastructures and includes additional units and working groups.

At Polish universities, EOOs are not legally required. The only obligation determined in the Higher Education Law is to provide conditions for people with disabilities to fully participate in the process of education and research. Offices of Disability Services are responsible for these matters. There is a lack of a comprehensive law regulating discrimination in higher education. However, the European Commission’s Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025 and the legal basis of the Horizon Europe framework programme for 2021–2027 resulted in universities starting to appoint persons responsible for gender equality plans, and equal treatment. These positions and the Offices of Disability Services are understood in our study as cornerstones of the diversity infrastructure at Polish universities.

Research design and data collection

We applied a mixed-method study design that included surveys in German and Polish university administrations and a collection of publicly available data from the universities’ websites, followed by qualitative interviews. The goal of this approach was to use complementary and iterative data sources to develop a rich understanding of this relatively unexplored study area. Quantitative data collected from surveys provided a depth of knowledge on the organisational infrastructure (administrative units and staff, as well as leadership roles) relevant for the implementation of internationalisation and diversity strategies. Internet research increased the data basis and verified whether the universities participating in the study were over- or underrepresented in the survey. The qualitative interviews were used to discuss the results of the first survey with the practitioners in the IOs and DOs.

The data collection was conducted in several stages. Following the exploratory logic of the research design, we discussed at each stage what kind of data would be relevant for the next stage. The project started with two email surveys formulated in German, Polish, and English. The first (conducted in October 2021, see Appendix 1) addressed the heads of the IOs and contained seven questions about internationalisation structures, diversity structures, and cooperation between the IOs and those unit(s) and actors responsible for diversity, equity, and inclusion. The second survey (conducted between January and March 2022; see Appendix 2) addressed employees in diversity-related fields. In the German case, we chose the heads of the EOOs, as they are to be found in each university. In the Polish case, where no such standardised offices exist, we identified various people in different functions who are responsible for equal opportunities, gender, and/or disabilities. The second survey comprised only five questions because those on internationalisation structures were excluded. In addition, an open question invited comments on the challenges of ongoing processes to institutionalise diversity. We deliberately conveyed these surveys via email instead of using online tools, to enable the participants to answer informally and to directly contact the project leaders for clarifications and additional comments. The questionnaires were distributed to all comprehensive universities and universities of technology in Germany (75 in total) and Poland (36 in total). This group represents not only the leading research universities but also the majority of students in these two countries (see Appendix 3 for a full list). Thirdly, all websites of the above-mentioned universities were assessed regarding the existence of VPs or VRs responsible for internationalisation and diversity (August 2022). This step was necessary as we did not get sufficient information about the role of university leadership in the initial surveys.

Fourthly, after the first version of the paper was finalised and in the review process, the practitioners in the IOs and DOs were contacted again (October 2023). In the German case, we invited those who already had participated in the email-survey; in the Polish case, where the initial response rate had been low, we once more sent invitations to the complete list of practitioners. They received a summary of our study and were invited for qualitative video interviews to discuss the results. From those responding positively, 15 were selected for an interview (9 from Germany and 6 from Poland, see Appendix 4 for further details). All interviewees agreed to the processing and use of the anonymised data for research purposes. The audio recordings have been transcribed and in part translated into English. To identify the relevant themes in the interviews, a qualitative content analysis was conducted (Kohlbacher 2006). To develop the category system, we combined deductive category application and inductive category development. In this process, general themes were connected with specific codes (see Appendix 5).

The response rates of the surveys and the interview requests are summarised in Table 1. In the following section, we present the results of the initial email surveys and website searches. Given the exploratory intentions of the research and the relatively small absolute number of responses from Polish universities,² we restrict the analysis to descriptive statistics. It is these results that were later presented to the participants in the qualitative interviews. Their comments and the further information we received in these conversations will be presented in the discussion section.

Table 1. Response rates.

Email survey	Responses from International Offices (IOs)	Responses from Diversity Offices (DOs)	Overlap (answers from both IOs and DOs)	Total
German Universities (n = 75)	41% (n = 31)	32% (n = 24)	9% (n = 7)	64% (n = 48)
Polish Universities (n = 36)	25% (n = 9)	14% (n = 5)	3% (n = 1)	36% (n = 13)
Qualitative interviews			Expressions of interest	Interviews conducted
Practitioners from German Universities (n = 53)			23% (n = 12)	17% (n = 9)
Practitioners from Polish Universities (n = 59)			17% (n = 10)	10% (n = 6)

Survey results

Administrative units responsible for managing internationalisation and diversity

A key goal of the surveys was to identify the administrative units for managing internationalisation and diversity at German and Polish universities. Table 2 shows that these organisational infrastructures are quite different. Regarding internationalisation, 77% of the German respondents named only one administrative unit (typically a comprehensive IO with various functions), while 23% pointed to several responsible units or referred to cross-sectional tasks. For the Polish universities, in contrast (though the absolute number is quite low here and therefore not representative), 33% of the respondents mentioned one such central administrative unit, while 67% pointed to several units. At first glance, this indicates that responsibility for internationalisation is more fragmented in the Polish case. However, there is an IO at each of these universities, but there are also deans who are responsible for setting up cooperation and exchange programmes.

Table 2. Administrative units responsible for internationalisation and diversity.

	Respondents mentioned NO administrative unit	Respondents mentioned only ONE administrative unit	Respondents mentioned SEVERAL units or referred to cross-sectional tasks	Total
Units responsible for internationalisation
German Universities	0%	77% (n = 24)	23% (n = 7)	100% (n = 31)
Polish Universities	0%	33% (n = 3)	67% (n = 6)	100% (n = 9)
Units responsible for diversity
German Universities	0%	50% (n = 24)	50% (n = 24)	100% (n = 48)
Polish Universities	46% (n = 6)	31% (n = 4)	23% (n = 3)	100% (n = 13)

Compared to internationalisation, the diversity imperative is less systematically institutionalised. However, diversity issues are reflected in the organisational structures of universities, either directly or indirectly. As already explained, there are EOOs in all German universities, and offices supporting people with disabilities both in German and Polish institutions. The extent to which we find further units and roles differs. All German respondents mentioned at least one administrative unit responsible for diversity: 50% of them pointed out one specific unit and 50% understood the administration of diversity as a cross-sectional task or referred to several administrative units. In the Polish case, in contrast, 46% of the respondents mentioned no administrative unit at all, 31% referred to one such unit and 23% to several. This clearly illustrates a different understanding of diversity, and also that it is not (or not yet) equally well institutionalised in Polish universities as compared to the German ones.

As the concept of diversity in Germany has for a long time mostly been associated with gender, it is not surprising that 44% of all respondents assigned the main responsibility for diversity to the EOOs. One email comment pointed to the problem that given scarce resources, diversity cannot be treated yet in all its dimensions, therefore ‘the focus is still strong on equality in the sense of men and women’. This dilemma is also mentioned in some interviews, where DO representatives pointed to the problem that due to scarce resources, not all diversity tasks are equally supported. However, respondents also pointed to various other administrative units dealing with diversity, such as executive departments, a coordination office to implement diversity policies, anti-racism units or various diversity and disability representatives – but none saw responsibility at the IOs. Often two levels of responsibility and two social roles can be distinguished: First, the executive offices and actors responsible for strategies and networks; and second, the administrative offices and contact persons responsible for the students and employees looking for help and support.

In the Polish universities, there were no administrative units comparable to German EOOs. However, the equation of diversity and gender is similar to the German context. Therefore, some respondents did not relate the diversity imperative with the existing compulsory units responsible for support for disabled people. Instead, different kinds of structures were mentioned, like the office for social responsibility, the team for anti-discrimination strategy and mediation, the team for equity policy, specialists in equity issues, committees for counteracting discrimination and mobbing, and cross-sectional temporary projects. Additionally, in some universities, an ombudsperson or plenipotentiary for counteracting discrimination were established. In the interviews, the responsible administrators emphasized that such structures are not common, and if they exist, they have only been in place for a few years.

Although IOs and DOs operate independently, most do cooperate in one way or another. In Germany, 48% of respondents described the cooperation as close or on a regular basis, while 36% referred to project-related teamwork. In 10% of the cases, cooperation was denied, but the need for a closer working relationship in the future was emphasized. 6% of the respondents did not answer the question. In turn, in Poland, close cooperation was indicated by 23% of the respondents, while 8% pointed to specific projects. Another 15% emphasized the necessity of cooperation even though they could not mention concrete examples. Remarkably, 46% of the respondents highlighted that due to the absence of a unit responsible for diversity, cooperation did not exist. 8% of the interviewees did not answer. Additionally, IOs in both countries stressed their own contributions to diversity rather than pointing to complementary DOs with more specific expertise. Often, they emphasized the necessity of intercultural diversity and defined internationality (that is, the plurality of nationalities) as a crucial part of diversity. Some also pointed out the growing attention to inclusion and gender-related topics regarding international student exchange.

Number of staff working in the administrative units

A criterion for comparing the relevance allotted to different administrative units both within and between HEIs is their number of staff, in absolute terms (measured in full time equivalents, FTE) as well as relative to the university size (measured by the number of students). Since such data is not publicly available, we asked both the heads of the IOs and the actors representing the DOs to estimate the number of staff working in their area. Table 3 summarises the results and our calculation of the relative size against the number of students for which the administrations are responsible.

Table 3. Number of staff working in International Offices (IOs) and Diversity Offices (DOs).

	∅ number of staff (FTE) working in IOs	∅ number of staff (FTE) working in DOs	Relation IO staff / DO staff
German Universities	20.9 (median 13,8)	6.2 (median 6,0)	3.4 : 1
Polish Universities	13.4 (median 13,0)	1.7 (median 0)	7.9 : 1
	∅ number of students, domestic and international, per employee (FTE) in IOs	∅ number of students, domestic and international, per employee (FTE) in DOs	Relation staff per student in IOs / staff per student in DOs
German Universities	1338 (median 1079)	4206 (median 3333)	3.1 : 1
Polish Universities	1851 (median 1881)	8368 (median 6195)	4.5 : 1

At German IOs the average number of staff was 20.9 (variation from 6 to 50 FTE), at Polish IOs it was respectively 13.4 (variation from 4 to 22 FTE). Though the German universities are slightly better equipped in this regard, the numbers are remarkably close and illustrate that the existence of IOs with a certain size is typical in both systems. The situation is different in the units responsible for diversity issues, which are in both countries relatively new. At German DOs, there were on average 6.2 people (FTE) employed, and in Polish universities, it was only 1.7 (mostly on temporary positions).

Vice rectors and vice presidents for internationalisation and diversity

Another indicator for the prominence of the two imperatives is whether a university assigns a VR or VP for internationalisation and/or diversity. Table 4 summarises the respective answers from the respondents. To control this data, the answers to our survey were complemented by internet research for the full sample of universities. Again, significant differences in the responsibility range of VRs/VPs become visible.

Table 4. Vice rectors (VR) or vice presidents (VP) responsible for internationalisation and/or diversity.

Email survey	Respondents mention a VR/VP responsible for internationalisation	Respondents mention a VR/VP responsible for diversity	Respondents mention a VR/VP responsible for BOTH internationalisation and diversity
German Universities (48 respondents)	81%	73%	25%
Polish Universities (13 respondents)	77%	23%	8%
Internet research	There is a VR/VP with explicit reference to internationalisation	There is a VR/VP with explicit reference to diversity	There is a VR/VP explicitly responsible for BOTH internationalisation and diversity
German Universities (n = 75)	73%	57%	21%
Polish Universities (n = 36)	58%	0%	0%

At German universities a VR/VP for internationalisation is quite typical: 81% of the survey responses and 73% of universities’ websites indicate that such positions exist. In most cases, the responsibility of VRs/VPs for internationalisation is combined with other duties; in 25% of cases (according to the survey data) and 21% (in line with the internet research) with responsibility for diversity. In other words: a quarter of the German universities aim for a combination of the two imperatives at the leadership level, thus indicating an integrated approach. In contrast, the number of VRs/VPs responsible for diversity at German universities is lower. 73% of the German respondents declared to have a VR/VP who deals with diversity; the internet research yields only 57%.

In turn in Poland, 77% of respondents declared to have a VR/VP responsible for internationalisation, while such information was found only on 58% of universities’ websites. The differences between the figures may result, on the one hand, from the over-representation (in our study) of those universities that are more active in internationalisation, and on the other hand from the lack of official mentioning of internationalisation on the universities’ websites because it is performed by several members of the university leadership. In only 8% of cases (as per survey data) it was merged with diversity management. Among Polish universities, 23% indicated having VRs/VPs responsible for diversity, although the internet research does not show anyone officially performing such duties. The differences probably result from not directly listing the management of diversity among the VRs’/VPs’ duties online. One of the interviewees, who worked as an ombudsperson at a Polish university, stated: ‘I know only one Polish university where there is a Vice Rector directly, explicitly responsible for diversity. Just one (…) out of 350 institutions of higher education’ (P_DO_2).

Discussion and conversations with the practitioners

Our surveys show that German and Polish universities have comparable national trajectories regarding internationalisation as both systematically institutionalise this task at the administrative level as well as within university leadership. In Germany, the management of internationalisation is more centralised than in Poland, and the IOs are slightly better equipped in terms of staff. Regarding the management of diversity, the differences are much more significant. Even though the global diversity imperative is tangible in both countries, there is a gap regarding the extent to which corresponding administrative units have been established. Many activities in Polish universities address the special needs of people with disabilities because this is legally required. However, other dimensions of diversity are relevant only to a very limited extent in the administrative infrastructures of Polish universities. Nevertheless, there are also similarities: Both in German and Polish universities the management of diversity is fragmented, and in neither case are the emerging DOs as well established as the traditional IOs.

The data presented so far displays a snapshot of a moving target. Roughly one year after the data collection, we conducted interviews with the practitioners to discuss our findings. It became clear from these conversations that a lot had already changed and that the debate about the future challenges and opportunities of managing internationalisation and diversity is far from over, not least with regard to the intersection of these tasks. The parliamentary election in Poland in October 2023 brought a political shift so that some actors in the universities were willing to speak more openly about issues of diversity. Therefore, we use the discussion part of this paper to let the study participants co-interpret our findings and assess future directions in the development of administrative units and responsibilities. Relevant themes in these conversations have been the political background, the context-dependent understandings of diversity, the plurality and fragmentation of diversity related tasks, the relationship of IOs and DOs, and finally the responsibilities of the university leadership.

Political background

One Polish interviewee remarked that it does not make sense to talk about the separation of IOs and DOs, because the latter ‘do not exist’ (P_DO_2). Another pointed to a political climate in which ‘some people believe that they [DOs] are not necessary at all’ (P_DO_1). In contrast, in his opinion, ‘it is very important that there are such offices’, because their very existence would be ‘a signal to the academic community that this topic is important’ (P_DO_1). However, the hurdles appear to be high. According to one interviewee, Poland is ‘a very conservative society’, and for political reasons people in administration ‘cannot use the word “gender”, or “gender equality”, they are prohibited’ (P_DO_3). Nevertheless, the practitioners also point to current changes fuelled both by external and internal factors. For one, they see that ‘the question of diversity (…) was more and more important for the general public in the last years’ (P_DO_2). Secondly, all Polish diversity experts emphasised the role of the European Union in enforcing the establishment of gender equality plans and other diversity measures. This role of the European Union as a pacemaker was also indicated by an IO representative, who remembers how the ECTS credit system ‘forced quite interesting changes that are effective now’ (P_IO_1).

At first sight, in Germany the political climate regarding diversity issues has been less problematic in the recent past. However, we also got one comment from a university located in the Eastern part of Germany where it is expected that the political power in 2024 might shift to a right-wing populist party. Here, the interviewee talks about a shifting ‘large scale political climate’ that may result in a drawback on diversity projects in the coming years (G_DO_5b). At the same time, interviewees felt compelled to put even stronger emphasis on diversity issues in order to counteract such developments.

Understandings of diversity

In the governance of higher education, there are clear incentives to promote both the internationalisation and the diversity imperative – at least as long as the national political climate does not become hostile to these issues. However, the ‘world culture’ imagined by neo-institutionalist theory often is quite vague in regard to what exactly is expected from individual universities. Against this background, we asked all interview participants if there is a specific way of understanding diversity at their universities. The answers were surprisingly similar, most pointed to a broad and open-ended understanding, and many brought up the three interconnected terms ‘diversity’, ‘equality/equity’ and ‘inclusion’. One respondent remarked that ‘ultimately, we are all guided by similar categories’ (G_DO_2). A representative from a Polish IO indicated that historically, diversity meant ‘being a student from different countries and different cultures and backgrounds‘; while more recently, they ‘started to think about diversity as something that is internal within the university’ (P_IO_1). In the German case, the interviewees more explicitly listed concrete topics and dimensions, such as anti-discrimination measures, educational needs of first-generation students, migration background, inclusion of people with disabilities, age and family situation, sexual identities and LGBTQ communities – however, in contrast to their Polish colleagues they mostly did not include internationality as a diversity issue in itself.

It is noticeable that in the Polish context, family aspects seemed to be more prominent than in Germany. For example, one interviewed ombudsperson pointed to an employee survey illustrating that people did see ‘family’ as more important than ‘gender’ when reflecting about inequalities (P_DO_3). Another ombudsperson pointed out that they approach families in an intersectional and intergenerational way: ‘we have mothers or fathers taking care for children or persons taking care of other members of family, so-called sandwich generation, people who are caught taking care of our children and elderly parents the same way’ (P_DO_2).

Diversity Offices: fragmentation and consolidation

Our survey clearly indicates that the organisational field of diversity management is more fragmented than the internationalisation area. This was confirmed by interviews where the DO representatives talked regularly about the division of labour between different actors and subunits in this field, particularly the traditional equal opportunities officers and the more recently established positions for people dealing with other diversity issues. Generally, the interviewees emphasised that there is ‘a lot of cooperation’ (G_DO_2) and a ‘constant exchange’ (G_DO_4). In the Polish case, the interviewees pointed to ‘task forces on certain issues related to diversity’ (P_IO_1). However, there can also be tensions within the diversity field: In the email survey, respondents pointed to a lack of understanding and awareness about diversity issues and the work of diversity professionals within the university. Some alluded to power struggles between the established EOOs and the emerging DOs, worrying ‘that diversity replaces equality’. Such potential conflicts were also broached in some interviews: ‘As long as we have very limited resources, the two topics are naturally also somewhat in competition’ (G_DO_2). Nevertheless, the practitioners in the interviews mostly did not talk about conflict but stressed the independence and the different goals of the various actors.

In view of the fragmented organisational structures we asked the interviewees whether it made sense to consolidate or centralise the various tasks in comprehensive DOs, following US and UK precendents. Reactions to this question differed greatly: Several German respondents thought that would be fine in theory but difficult in practice. One professor, whom we interviewed in her role as the rector’s plenipotentiary for internationalisation, argued that to centralise the various tasks might be ‘a form of closing off or locking away a discourse and actually a cross-sectional task (…) into a sub-unit’ (G_IO_1b). In her view, it’s therefore more important that the different units ‘know about each other and actively exchange information at the interfaces’ (G_IO_1b). However, several other interviewees, both from German and Polish universities, assumed that such comprehensive DOs might be realised in the future: ‘These are simply topics that belong together: equality, diversity, inclusion’. Though, she added, ‘in Germany, I always have the feeling that things are moving very slowly (…) on the other hand, it’s getting more and more’ (G_DO_2). In the Polish context, the interviewees emphasised that the development depends on the political climate as well as on internal and external pressures. Nevertheless, they see the option in the future: ‘So I think the Diversity Offices might be something which is in front of us but does not exist yet’ (P_IO_1).

Cooperation between IOs and DOs

As mentioned above, internationalisation and diversity management have historically mostly been treated as unrelated tasks. The inherent relatedness of the two tasks, however, raises the question whether the separation of IOs and DOs may be an obstacle for future developments. Our survey results show that bridging the gap between the units is a concern for the senior administrative staff. As one respondent puts it in a written comment: ‘In the medium to long term, it would be desirable for the two areas to be even more closely interlinked’.

In the interviews, most practitioners agreed that a close cooperation between IOs and DOs is necessary and helpful. But they were quite sceptical about actually creating comprehensive ‘Offices for Internationalisation and Diversity’. The Polish representatives were more decisive in this regard: ‘In my opinion, these departments employ people with completely different competences (…) they should be separate offices’ (P_IO_3). In the German case, responses were a bit more ambiguous. Those representing the IOs stressed their specific tasks, of which many were not related to diversity. For example, one head of an IO had a clear understanding of the core function of an IO: ‘In my view, international offices are first and foremost translators of systems (…) So I have to somehow understand how they work out there so that I can get in touch with them, so that I can somehow organise an exchange or collaboration’ (G_IO_1a). For him, this is different to what DOs are doing.

Some representing DOs, on the other hand, were afraid that ‘diversity’ may be reduced in its dimensions or even subsumed to ‘internationalisation’ if the two units should be merged. Therefore, as one interviewee summarised, ‘the separation makes total sense (…) what’s important is good cooperation’ (G_DO_2). Nevertheless, we find that several practitioners can relate to the idea of such a comprehensive new structure – at least in theory: ‘I can imagine it at the administrative level, even if we're refraining from it at the moment’ (G_IO_3). Some interviewees stated that there are other, rather pragmatic forms of merging topics within the university, such as establishing round tables or project groups. Finally, there are universities that founded new units committed to cross-sectional tasks, e.g. under the umbrella of ‘university culture’.

Responsibilities at the level of university leadership

In the German case, while most interviewees do not believe that IOs and DOs will merge in the future, their views are more heterogeneous when talking about responsibilities at the level of university leadership. Some interviewees were critical about bringing these ‘soft topics’ together and suggested that for the diversity agenda, it would probably be better ‘if you put research and diversity in one Vice-Rectorate’ (G_DO_2). Other practitioners were more positive about merging responsibilities because they saw a coordinating role as well as a representative function with the responsible VR/VP: ‘It is perhaps part of the university leadership to recognise (…) what questions (…) we need to ask ourselves’ (G_DO_1). One head of an IO argued that it would be helpful ‘if one vice rectorate had both topics in mind at the same time’ (G_IO_4). Another more pragmatic line of reasoning in the interviews pointed to the workload of VRs/VPs: One interviewee mentioned that their VR for internationalisation and diversity is ‘permanently travelling’ and therefore less available for the diversity challenges at home (G_DO_2).

Because in Polish universities diversity usually is not institutionalised at the level of university leadership, the interview partners from these institutions perceived this question as rather theoretical. That notwithstanding, they commented that ‘this isn’t a bad idea’ (P_DO_3), and that ‘it would be good if there was a vice-rector for diversity if his competencies included these two issues’ (P_DO_1). To summarise, there was a tendency in the interviews to disagree with merging the two topics at the level of the administration, but more agreement in thinking them together at the level of the university leadership.

Conclusion

This paper contributes to understanding the global and national relevance of internationalisation and diversity imperatives. It shows how these imperatives are institutionalised within the university administration and leadership in German and Polish universities. Furthermore, practical questions of higher education governance and management are addressed. When looking at the existing academic and political rationales for both internationalisation and diversity, it is rather surprising that so far university leaders and managers seem relatively inattentive to the complementary logic of the two imperatives. Given that both imperatives, particularly in the context of the European Union, remain influential and given that administrators in the IOs and DOs deal with increasingly complex and overlapping issues, the question is how to design the relationships between the different units. As a thought experiment one may envision comprehensive ‘Offices for Internationalisation and Diversity’. It was evident in our interviews, however, that German and Polish universities are unlikely to embark on this path in the near future. Viewed from a neo-institutionalist standpoint, this isn’t surprising. Following the precept of institutional isomorphism, one would rather assume that German and Polish universities follow the US and UK trends and elaborate specialised DOs vis-à-vis the established IOs. From a normative and critical standpoint, however, it could be argued that the fragmented organisational forms constrain the very values they stand for. The goal of our paper was to provide empirical background knowledge that can be used to discuss future directions in the management of internationalisation and diversity.

In any case, the limitations of the current research should be acknowledged. Although we were successful in getting a preliminary insight into the number of staff working in the internationalisation and diversity units, this data has to be handled with care. As the understanding of internationalisation and diversity depends on the organisational context as well as on individual actors, the IOs and DOs represented in this study may include or exclude activities – and administrative staff – that in other places are categorised differently.

Future studies should address not only the plurality of actors dealing with diversity and internationalisation but also those managing other societal expectations. Again, if universities participate in the neo-institutionalist ‘world culture’, then similar processes of institutional isomorphism are likely to be found also in other administrative areas, dealing with, for example, science communication, community engagement, sustainability or technology transfer. Analysing the (relational) changes of various workforces over time would not only illuminate the inner structures of university administrations but also offer an indicator about the importance of certain values and social issues for present-day universities.

More generally, it seems important to open the ‘black box’ of the university administration. Official higher education statistics contain detailed data on students and academic staff but there are very limited numbers on the third group, the administration and the managerial class. More fine-grained data would be necessary to contribute to critical debates about a ‘new managerialism’ in higher education (Deem and Brehony 2005) and about the role of ‘third space professionals’ (Smith et al. 2021).

Finally, future studies should investigate whether and how the university’s awareness of internationality and diversity is connected to students’ and academics’ perceptions of the two imperatives. An important question here is whether students and academic staff are drivers of these imperatives, demanding, for example, institutional reforms, or whether the institutionalisation of the imperatives is a top-down procedure. At the same time, it is worth taking a more general sociological perspective and examining the external drivers of the two imperatives. What societal or political developments have led them to play a role in university governance and management in the first place?

Disclosure statement

This article has been published under the Journal’s transparent peer review policy. Anonymised peer review reports of the submitted manuscript can be accessed under supplemental material online at (https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2024.2348680).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Kaldewey

David Kaldewey is professor for science studies and science policy at the University of Bonn, managing director of the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) and co-spokesperson of the Rhine Ruhr Center for Science Communication Research (RRC). He holds a doctorate in sociology from Bielefeld University. He has published widely on the changing relationship of science, society, and politics. His research interests include the identity work of scientists and science policy makers, the crisis of truth as a challenge to science communication, and the sociology of universities in world society.

Małgorzata Rymarzak

Małgorzata Rymarzak is assistant professor in the Department of Investment and Real Estate at the University of Gdansk. She is an economist and real estate management specialist (including campus management). Her latest research focuses on educational management. She was Postdoc Researcher at TU Delft in the Netherlands, a visiting scholar at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), an affiliate academic in the UK in the Bartlett, UCL’s Faculty of the Built Environment and guest researcher at Vienna University of Economics and Business.

Berit Stoppa

Berit Stoppa is higher education manager at the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and associated researcher at the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) at the University of Bonn. Before, she was director of the DAAD Information Center Accra, lecturer at universities in Ghana and Benin, and scientific manager for the FIW in Bonn. She is conducting research on sociocultural diversity and gender strategies in Ghanaian Universities and has been involved in various empowerment projects for female scientists in African higher education systems.

Katharina Schmitt

Katharina Schmitt has been active in the internationalisation of Higher Education for the past twenty years and has held various positions at German and US universities. She headed the International Office at the University of Greifswald, worked for the College of Global Studies at Arcadia University and the International Office at the University of Bonn. For TU Dresden, she established the Staff Unit Internationalisation and is currently part of the Campus Life team. Her focus lies on issues of social responsibility in internationalisation.

Laila Riedmiller

Laila Riedmiller is a research assistant at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Chair of Political Theory and Intellectual History). Her research interests include feminist theory, epistemology and the relationship between science and politics. In her PhD project, she focuses on right-wing extremist notions of temporality. Before, she was a research assistant at the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW), where she worked on various projects on the topic of internationalisation, digitalisation, and diversity. Since her time as a student, she has been involved in university politics and student’s representation in the areas of diversity and gender equality.

Notes

1 Therefore we primarily talk about ‘diversity’ in this study. However, in the surveys and interviews we also referred to the other terms to open up a semantic field in which the respondents could position themselves with some flexibility. In German, we used the words ‘Diversität’, ‘Chancengleichheit’, and ‘Inklusion’, and in Polish the words ‘różnorodność’, ‘równość’, and ‘włączenie społeczne’.

2 The lower response rate of the Polish Universities itself may be caused by the national context and the specific political and cultural controversies surrounding the global diversity imperative.