Internationalisation in US higher education: studying the Middle East in the American university

Abstract

This paper examines the organisation of the production of knowledge about international issues in US higher education, drawing on six case studies of Middle East studies. We review three key findings. First, we suggest that the American model for studying ‘the international’ is rooted in a default, and outmoded, way of thinking about international issues, which we call ‘thinking nationally’. Second, we find that teaching and research about the Middle East are centred in the humanities rather than in the social sciences. Third, we suggest that professional schools, rather than the arts and science core, are emerging as drivers of innovation in teaching and research about the Middle East on US campuses.

Keywords:

• internationalisation
• higher education
• Middle East studies
• production of knowledge

Acknowledgements

The data drawn upon in this article were gathered as part of a US Department of Education‐funded evaluation of Middle East Studies centres, conducted by the Social Science Research Council. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 2006 Middle Eastern Studies Association Meeting, the 2007 Comparative International Education Society Meeting, and at workshops at the Social Science Research Council and at NYU. The authors are grateful to helpful comments on earlier versions from Kathy Hall, Shamil Idriss, Seteney Shami, Mitchell Stevens, and Lisa Stulberg.

Notes

1. We define ‘serving the national interest’ as policies and practices that promote, protect, and preserve the American nation and society. The national interest is in flux and is historically situated. For example, during the Cold War, containing Communism was considered by many to be in the national interest. Today, some consider promoting democracy in the Middle East to be in the national interest.

2. This figure includes both long‐ and short‐term study abroad programs, and both undergraduate and graduate students.

3. The structure of teaching and research about ‘the international’ varies at liberal arts colleges, which do not house Title VI centres. However, many faculty members at liberal arts colleges are products of Title VI support, having done their graduate work at universities with Title VI area studies centres. Further research is needed to determine what kinds of variations in teaching and scholarship on ‘the international’ might be evident at liberal arts institutions.

4. For more information on the scope of the NRCs, see: ‘Title VI, Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended’. Available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/nrcflas-laws601-602.pdf

5. For a review of critiques, see Szanton (2003).

6. As Heydemann (2002) points out, Martin Kramer’s book Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America was at the centre of this critique. For examples of critiques, see Kurtz (2001, 2003) and Pipes (nd).

7. The case studies were part of a US Department of Education evaluation of area studies centres, and served as pilot study research for a more comprehensive study of area studies centres that was conducted from 2007 to 2009.

8. The exact title and geographic scope vary across the sites. Some centres also include ‘Slavic’ in the title of their centre.

9. The following conventions are employed in this report in order to distinguish between quotations from formal and informal interviews. Direct quotations, which come from transcribed audiotapes, are distinguished by double quotation marks (“ ”), including the longer blocked quotations. Direct quotes from handwritten notes are noted by single quotation marks (‘ ’).

10. Such issues were prominent at the height of the Cold War, as seen through the development of Soviet Studies or national events and issues such as Sputnik or the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The revived interest in security and defense issues after September 11 follows a relative lull in interest in such issues in the wake of the end of the Cold War.

11. Although our study centred on the Middle East, we observed disciplinary imbalances at the Latin American and Slavic, Russian, East European, and/or Eurasian Study Centers that were included as comparison units.