key: cord-0059101-s0godwzr
authors: Bamford, Jan Katherine
title: Final Reflections
date: 2020-08-01
journal: International Joint Double Degrees and International Transitions in Higher Education
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48622-8_8
sha: 486c61dcb60523af9daeb2821c201f117bb42250
doc_id: 59101
cord_uid: s0godwzr

This chapter summarises and reflects on the conclusions drawn in previous chapters. It considers the importance of international joint double degrees to the future of internationalisation, as well as the challenges that have been highlighted throughout the book, that institutions and individuals engaged in international higher education need to give some consideration to. The chapter highlights that the lens of the personal allows insights into the complexity of the issues for students, staff and institutions. It argues that if these courses are to be a success educationally, more work will need to be done to ensure greater integration in the design and on the delivery of the courses in order to develop pedagogies, which will help the students learn from their intercultural experiences.

The previous chapters have explored and sought to understand the experience of the education offered on international joint double degrees through providing a glimpse of the negotiations of the individuals participating in such programmes and their cultural encounters and interactions. Whilst this is intended to be a glimpse of the experience, a rich description of the experience of the actors involved has been provided in the previous chapters. No apology is made for the focus of this work being on the student experience as educators could benefit from understanding the spaces that are required to achieve epistemic growth. Through a particular case example, the discussion offers a context to further the understanding of the student experience of international higher education, their international transitions and the resulting personal growth. Practitioner views were also examined as were reports from the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and a sample of the policy documents from the Bologna Process Communiqués. The dimensions of international higher education, as seen in the international joint double degree experience, were identified as being students' cultural interactions, international mobility, the relationality between the students and the way students experience the learning environment. These were explored giving a primary emphasis to the culture which is identified by the data as providing an overarching dimension that informs not only the geopolitics on the internationalisation of higher education but which also frames the personal development, educational growth and critical cognitive processes of those participating in international joint double degrees.

The lens of the personal allows insights into the complexity of the issues for students, staff and institutions. The necessity of understanding the negotiations of individuals on international joint double degrees was justified due to promotion of such programmes within the higher education policy context of the European Union-most specifically, the 'Europe of Culture' and 'Europe of Knowledge', as evidenced in the Council's Communiqués and the research undertaken in the Trends reports. In addition, the findings highlight the need to understand and deal with difference as part of the international higher education process, for individuals, institutions and policy makers.

In Chap. 1, the questions were posed whether, firstly, international joint double degrees are distinguishable as an education process from international higher education in general and, secondly, whether international higher education-exemplified by international joint double Masters-is distinguishable from higher education and in particular from Masters degrees offered and taught in one country but which have large numbers of international students. I have sought to take a critical view of whether joint double degree courses are merely taking advantage of 'market opportunities' such as the demand for sojourner experiences as part of the contemporary globally mobile environment as well as the importance of international joint double degrees in internationalising higher education. The chapter considered the key contexts for the learning in such programmes of study with Chap. 3 considering in more detail whether there is additional value gained by this type of mobile educational experience, in particular the value-added through the development of intercultural awareness.

In Chap. 2 the current policy debates around international joint double degrees were considered and the way in which the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has supported the development of such programmes of study. It acknowledged that whilst the focus for this work has not been Erasmus Mundus programmes, the student experience can equally be applied to those programmes of study, given they are joint Masters programmes. Some of the broader debates were examined-including the debates in relation to the Bologna Process-as they underline the importance of the issues raised by this study for the policy context. The focus for much of the discussion on international joint double degrees has pointed to the need for an in-depth examination of the 'lived reality' of international higher education, and the student negotiations and cultural encounters have been explored under the auspices of the international joint double degree. The interactions between students and the extent that the international classroom facilitates intercultural learning, along with the larger question of what the education on international joint double degrees adds to the educational process of a Masters degree, have been considered from both the student and the institutional perspective.

The consideration of the institutional perspective in Chap. 2 highlighted that issues relating to the value of such programmes of study should be given further attention including the need for transparency and maintenance of national quality frameworks. Added to this, Chap. 6 gave consideration to the differences in the teaching and learning approaches of institutions and the implications of these differences for students and their personal growth as a result of their experiences. The difficulties arising out of the practice of group work assessments were clearly witnessed in Chap. 7, which is devoted to understanding the importance of this type of assessment practice both in terms of developing cultural awareness and in terms of personal growth that can be achieved through the negotiation of difference and conflict. The findings confirmed that there is a need to aid students in their cultural negotiations as well as dealing with institutional difference; this includes understanding the differences in the assessment frameworks of each institution as well as the modus docendi. These issues of difference become integral to the students' negotiations in international higher education, and they permit us to see how classroom interaction can enhance intercultural learning amongst students. Transparency was found to be a significant issue from the experience, both in terms of institutional communication and in terms of the differences between teaching and learning in the institutions.

The need for transparency highlights that the ethical context of international higher education requires further consideration both from institutions and from policy makers. It needs to be borne in mind that whilst financial and strategic benefits provide incentives for institutions engaging in international higher education, quality assurance must remain at the forefront of the negotiations and development of such programmes of study. Financial incentives are linked to the market forces which have been so dominant in relation to the growth of international higher education. Such forces might be viewed as creating tensions for the student experience as the motivation for engaging in such initiatives is not the education experience. The arguments presented with regard to the marketisation of higher education are a backdrop to international higher education activities and must not overshadow the quality assurance context, which appear to be being given more attention by policy makers, as exemplified by the Paris Communiqué (2018) and highlighted in the EUA Trends 15 and 18 reports.

The tensions with regard to the institutional perspective were also explored in Chap. 2 and the claims that international bodies, such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), make about international joint double degrees appearing to represent the future for international higher education activity were analysed. Evidence suggests that these tensions impact on the students and may result in a poorer educational experience. The unresolved tensions incur further challenges to ensuring transparency. Chapter 6 explored the different modus docendi of each institution which resulted in a degree of 'separateness' between institutions rather than 'jointness', thus highlighting again the issue of difference in the teaching and learning style of each institution. The separateness of each institution is further entrenched by national frameworks of quality monitoring and regulations: these provide the structures for Masters education that institutions must follow in order to maintain governmentally set standards of quality. The UK QAA position was examined both in terms of the Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision and through an example of an institutional audit. The wording of both documents highlights that the delivery of UK higher education overseas must be subject to UK quality procedures. Interview data from staff in French institutions confirmed that the QAA approach was likely to be challenging for French institutions.

Another difference that was highlighted was the 'global branding' approaches of the institutions which impacted on the student experience as it was linked to recruitment to the courses and institutional messages of status. This had an influencing effect-both positive and negative-on students' attitudes to their host institutions. Returning to the question of 'eliteness' in international higher education raised in the introduction, we can observe that the content of the courses did not appear to give the students an 'elite' educational experience in terms of intellectual challenges in the classroom. When compared to a Masters taught in one institution, 'eliteness' is achieved in the international joint double Masters degree in experiential terms due to the development of self-awareness, personal growth and the development of agency. This is realised through the uniqueness of the experience, the social network of contacts and transferrable skills that students appear to acquire and in terms of the embedded and overriding cultural dimension which achieves cultural learning. The experiential aspect of the international joint double degree required personal reflection as part of the students' modus discendi in order to respond to their cultural encounters. These programmes of study empower students, reflected by Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) who place the student experience at the centre of the pedagogic paradigm. This experiential learning takes on an importance that was not anticipated by the institutions; it was a consequence of the group work assessments that became a forum for the cultural learning, the demands of cross-country mobility at postgraduate level and the cultural encounters that took place.

The acquisition of transferable skills has been identified in the students' expectations of the course, but the means as to how this would be achieved was not given sufficient consideration either before or on completion of the course. Exposure to learning in two different countries had not been considered to be the focus for the cultural learning; therefore, little attention was given to an exploration of the experience of different cultures, country or institution. Exposure to the host country cultures was found to be limited as students mixed and operated in an 'international bubble' consisting of other international students and this is not uncommon as a study abroad experience. This could have been addressed, as the first semester demonstrated that 'international knowledgeability' (Stone 2006) could have been more honed and developed through teaching the students how to deal with difference and to raise their cultural awareness. In order to offer an international higher education experience that is distinguishable, this awareness would appear to be fundamental, both in terms of their experiences on the international joint double degree and with regard to the development of their 'international knowledgeability'. An educational 'space' for reflection is key to cultural learning as those such as Pedersen (2010) and Arkoudis et al. (2013) acknowledge.

The findings in Chap. 6 indicated that different modi docendi in institutions, together with the differing personalities and cultural backgrounds of students, can hinder the success of the teaching and learning on international joint double degree Masters programmes. There was considerable evidence that, in terms of the teaching and learning experiences of the courses, the group process was a source of tension as well as learning. The more intimate environment in the French institution allowed difficulties to be overcome due to the need for reliance on each other and the 'international bubble' in which students existed. The data evidences a clear preference for the environment in the French institution identifying a number of reasons. These include student perception of closer contact with tutors, more hours in class and a social dimension to the courses that cannot be achieved in a large urban institution. The potential for difference between the two teaching and learning methods of the two institutions and the experiences of the students call into question the appropriateness of the word 'joint' to describe such a programme of study.

In Chap. 5 we saw that 'international knowledgeability', defined by Stone (2006) , could be achieved through reflection on cultural encounters through the engagement with cultural 'others' and the personal development as a result of the experiences of studying in two countries. This extent of this knowledgeability varied between individuals and depended to a certain extent on students' willingness to reflect on difference and learn from the experience and the empathetic qualities that were developed. There was clear evidence that students became aware of different cultural scripts for learning and of different norms of behaviour which had an effect on peer interaction, an important influence on their group learning. Whilst there was evidence of cultural learning, there was also some tendency, demonstrated in the data, to categorise or stereotype cultures negatively, resulting in cultural learning being undervalued. Few students had much contact with the host cultures and the data supports Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith's (2017) position of importance of educators across all disciplines to embed intercultural training and for pedagogy to be steeped in an active approach which facilitates and encourages the development of intercultural competences, such as empathy, cultural humility, curiosity and awareness. The French students responded in a very similar way to questions on culture and most stated they had become more 'open-minded' as a consequence of the experience, which Brown and Holloway (2008) identify as a consequence of students' adjustment to their new learning environment.

The best way to describe the additional value offered by such international programmes of study is by returning to the broader question of what is the point posed by Kehm and Teichler. The relationality between individuals is significant to the experience and therefore needs to be emphasised and considered as part of the teaching and learning approaches on such programmes of study, with an understanding of cultural difference incorporated into the modus docendi. In order to achieve the additional value that such programmes of study have the potential to offer, reflection appears to be fundamental to deriving meaning from the experience.

The international joint double degree can be seen as providing an educational space for epistemic growth. The programmes were not developed in a construct of mutuality but the outcome was the development of a construct of mutuality in order to ensure the success of such programmes of study. Mutuality is a framework that supports a pedagogic approach that allows for more reflection, more one-to-one working and mentoring to achieve epistemic growth. Many students commented that the interviews conducted for this research had provided them with this reflective space. Prior to the current COVID-19 crisis, most contemporary pedagogic approaches, both at an international level and for nationally based programmes, require that institutions and tutors deliver programmes in a context of direct proximity with students, although these are driven by the responsiveness of technology to learning demands, for example, and recognising the importance of instantaneous response exemplified through the use of iPad, smartphones and laptops. Such technology reinforces the framework of the personal, the responsive and interactive and the importance of programme delivery in a construct of mutuality which requires broader acknowledgement from educators.

Mutuality is a construct which necessarily drives this form of joint education although the recognition of the construct for the operation of such programmes of study requires more general recognition. The basis for appreciating this construct requires some consideration of the historical context of university education in Europe. History offers us an appropriate perspective in understanding the way in which international joint double degrees are situated as offering an international higher education. The historical context frames notions of mobility as being part of a university education and as such is not new. De Wit's (2002) work points to the importance of understanding the historical context of European mobility. He comments that the 'wandering scholar', peregrinatio academica (de Ridder-Symoens 1992a; De Wit 2002) , was the norm for medieval European universities. The Erasmus programme draws its name from one of these medieval wandering scholars, underlining the importance of understanding this historical context of mobility and that internationalism is not a recent phenomenon for higher education institutions. Scott (1998) , however, criticises attaching too much importance to the notion of the 'wandering scholar', as the nation-state did not exist in medieval Europe and so viewing international education as having this context is potentially spurious. Despite this, notions of mobility, as being part of the higher education process, remain an aspirational aspect of the education process, particularly for the European Union and organisations such as the Institute of International Education. The tone of EU communications reflects these ideals as well as the difficulties of implementing the conceptual within the nation-state framework which are rarely acknowledged. If we understand such programmes as being defined by the 'wandering scholar', we understand further the importance of the student perspective as the driver for the paradigm.

The recruitment of international students to the UK has been the focus for much of the existing body of work on the international student experience of higher education. The financial imperatives have made such activity central to university marketing and overseas activity. The recruitment of international students to UK universities is referred to by Turner and Robson (2007) as 'symbolic internationalisation' because it does not involve any real engagement with internationalisation on the part of an institution. Knight (2004) refers to the recruitment of international students as 'internationalisation at home'. It is this commercialised dimension to internationalisation that Scott is referring to as it cannot truly be seen to echo the aspirational tones of the EHEA in terms of encouraging mobility as part of the education process. The international joint double degree offers a different perspective to both the recruitment of international students and the international student experience discourse. Whilst the commercial undertone still exists for the international joint double degree, the effect of the educational experience aligns with the peregrinatio academica as an ideal; it is not just through the differing modus docendi in the classroom that this is achieved but additionally through the cultural encounters that take place, the mobility of the students between two countries, the experience of studying in two or more countries and the engagement with different cultures as part of one programme of study.

The work of Culver et al. (2012) allows us to understand the valueadded for students undertaking collaborative dual-degree programmes at postgraduate level as seen in Chap. 3. This work chimes with their findings that cultural learning and self-formation are the primary outcomes for these types of programmes. The position taken here is that this format, the international joint double degree, should be seen in a context of mutuality, where the relationship between the institutions and the students is a two-way process and the students are partners in their learning. Jamsvi's (2012) findings indicate that the concept of mutuality is embedded in the policy agenda for international higher education, thus reinforcing the importance of the mutuality context for international joint double degrees. The positioning of international higher education in a context of mutuality has now become a recognised and impactful pedagogical perspective, seen through the work of Healey and Healey (2019) and others and as witnessed by the International Students as Partners Institute, for example. It is a strength for these types of programmes and more should be made of this dimension. A construct of mutuality, in terms of the relationship between institutions and the students, with students seen as partners in their learning, is a cornerstone of the experience of international joint double degrees and is significant to the achievement of cultural learning.

In presenting a glimpse of the student negotiations and lived reality of the educational experience of postgraduate joint double degrees, this work allows educators and the reader insights into the complexities of the experience of internationality. Very few studies have attempted to provide a window into the complexities of the experience, in particular, how dealing with cultural encounters and other key differences is a fundamental element of the learning process together with the importance of the experiential nature of such programmes. The research approach allowed for a rich picture of the individuals' experience and insights into the densities of the cultural interactions on such programmes, together with the importance of embedding of the experience of difference as part of the learning process. This rich profile 'paints a picture' of the intricacies of the international parameters of the international joint double degree experience, taking into account the students' countries of origin, their previous experience of education systems which inform the modus discendi, the different modus docendi of each institution, the differing cultures of each institution, the dominant language of instruction and students' relationship with it and the cultural heterogeneity of one group of students interacting with a culturally homogenous group in a new culturally heterogeneous environment followed by the experience of a culturally homogeneous environment. If we consider the issue of language alone, we can see an example of these convolutions where students are taught in the vernacular English language which is different from their own and also have to communicate with others who are not native speakers; French students study in their own country and another country but not in their native language; all non-native English speakers have to attain intermediate English prior to entry, but this is not academic English, and then they have to negotiate in a third country where the language is, for most students, not one they are familiar with.

At every level, we can see from the student perspective the asymmetry of the experience. Geertz's (1973) view of culture as the ingredient of human beings is mixed differently for each individual's recipe of knowledge acquisition, and this case study brings this into sharp focus. The rich picture painted by the findings from the data allows us insights that have previously only been touched on and will help to inform the individuals embarking on such programmes of study, the institutions which offer them and also the policy makers who, according to Dale (2012) , have given little thought to the experience of such higher education programmes of study.

In reflecting on the importance of the mutuality context of the individuals involved, a context of 'thou affects me' (Buber 2004) , as the focus for these types of programmes, this work presents a framework for the development and implementation of international joint double degrees. This includes staff and institutions as well as students. It highlights that the acknowledgement of the cultural encounters that the students experience in such programmes is vital to the success of international higher education. Whereas most of the existing literature has focused on either the student experience or the policy context, these perspectives cannot be considered in isolation: a framework of mutuality that is underpinned by a construct if 'thou affects me' is fundamental. If international higher education does not develop within this context of mutuality, it cannot be considered to offer more than long-term travel opportunities. The three aspects of Barnett and Coate's (2005) higher education curricula represent the theoretical basis for the context of mutuality to form part of an educational approach where students are partners in the education they receive. The consideration of students' being in relation to international higher education activity can be seen as an aspect of the way students learn with culture informing both the modus discendi and the modus docendi. The acknowledgement of students' being in higher education goes to the heart of the educational experience and notions of academic identity as argued by Barnett and Di Napoli (2008) .

As such, an exploration of the students' negotiations on international joint double degrees addresses the call by Gargano (2009) to research students' negotiations. Yet more understanding is needed given the complexity of issues identified. In understanding the relevance of such programmes of study, these 'negotiations' feed into more general notions of international higher education, internationalising the curriculum and internationalisation at home. What, for example, gives an international joint double degree added value that is additional to education in one country with a class of international students? Clear themes of the educational experience of international joint double degrees are their experiential focus and the reliance placed by the students on each other. Thomas and Jones (2017) acknowledge the importance of both mutuality in building a common understanding and also of the importance of human relationships which in this case aided the development of interculturality. The way that students learn stems from the relationality of students with other students. In attempting to provide students with an understanding of their global environment, the educational process relies on the students to develop an understanding of each other through experiencing (exploring?) their relationships with each other in and out of the classroom. This relationality which formed part of the educational process was evident throughout the data.

The findings from this data set clearly demonstrate that, despite the focus for these international joint double degrees being on business education with cultural learning not being integral to the courses, the international classroom and international mobility achieved increased cultural awareness. This is illustrated by the fact that students felt that they had increased their awareness of their own cultural norms and that, to some extent, they acquired intercultural awareness. There was clear evidence that students became aware of their different cultural scripts for learning (Welikala and Watkins 2008) and that differing norms of behaviour can affect peer interaction. However, it is argued that this increased cultural awareness may only be at the 'cultural supermarket' level (Matthews 2000) as outlined in Chap. 5. There is some evidence of learning of what Matthews defines as second-level cultural learning, but little acceptance of those different rules of behaviour. There was also clear evidence of categorisation of national behaviours which resulted, to some extent, in bias or stereotyping. Unfortunately, this did not necessarily result in cultural learning with regard to the host cultures. Very few of the students appeared to have sufficient contact with English or French culture to have an in-depth understanding of those cultures. The French students' responses were always framed in the same way as each other, that they had become more 'open-minded', thus demonstrating that their cultural level of awareness had expanded beyond their own socio-economic subculture. The extent of this was however unclear. What we can say is that the evidence demonstrates that there are certainly surface-level intercultural skills and awareness acquired on international joint double degrees. This occurs through the international classroom and in the international higher education environment, but any deeper level of cultural development and knowledge requires development of the relationality between individuals. The recognition and acknowledgement of cultural awareness requires integration into the curriculum. It is dependent on the relationality between the students which needs to be facilitated through the teaching and learning approaches on an international higher education course. The context of the international joint double degree experience and the way students engage with it is illustrated in Fig. 8.1 .

The data demonstrates that, in the international higher education environment offered by an international joint double degree, individuals' negotiations vary in emphasis but that their modus discendi incorporates cultural learning. This cultural learning varies with individuals, but the more reflection there is, the more effective it would seem to become. We can conclude that a space for reflection is necessary in order to derive meaning and epistemic growth from the international joint double degree experience.

The importance of communication as an aspect of the classroom environment is central to the student experience. It provides a focus for the development of their cultural awareness. In order to facilitate communication, there is a need to develop consideration of the 'other' (Levinas 2006) . The classroom provides a space for the development of students' Fig. 8.1 A student in an international education environment relationality where effective communication is the outcome, rather than a categorisation of the 'others'. The international joint double degree provides the 'common ground' (Arkoudis et al. 2013) where the students are forced to interact. This differentiates the international classroom on international degrees taught in one country where the difficulties of students communicating with others in a diverse classroom environment are acknowledged by those such as Arkoudis et al. (2013) and Mott-Smith (2013) . Therefore, there is a need for students' relationality in educational terms. It is anticipated that, in the learning environment offered on the international joint double degree, the dangers of stereotyping will be removed. As Coulby (2006) has stated, the need for intercultural education is to aid negotiation between cultures as opposed to simply demonstrating that there is more than one culture. The challenge is that most of the teaching and classroom interaction is not defined as intercultural education and is centred around the subject discipline. However, the culturally heterogeneous environment and collective travel on the international joint double degree requires students to negotiate with those from other cultures in a way that they do not have to do if they remain in the same country. This could be argued in this case to be as a consequence of the more intimate environment in France, but the common ground that was witnessed amongst the students was based on the common experience they held together that bound them together-despite their differences. Expectations are high from both the teaching and the learning perspective and of the cultural experience. Leask (2009) points out that the international classroom requires teachers to be able to use the cultural diversity in the classroom as one of the resources available to them; and to be able to do this, they must also develop intercultural skills. The course demonstrated that international joint double degrees encourage an emphasis on being in higher education because of the emphasis on the students' relationship with each other as being at the heart of the learning process in a context of internationalising the curriculum.

There are multiple dimensions of difference which structure the student experience, but the construct of mutuality for institutions and students and the relationality that students experience with each other frame the educational experience and add value to degree outcomes.

The discussion in Chap. 6 identified that there were differences in the modus docendi of the institutions. In offering this comparison, we gain a better understanding of the challenges for educators and for students. A comparison of pedagogic approach in other countries to aid in developing educational understanding is reinforced by the seminal work of Alexander (2000) in looking at the importance of link between culture and pedagogy. Jackson and Oguro (2018b) calls for a space for pedagogic intervention and the findings herein buoy this call. Bamford and Pollard (2019) comment that there has been little shift in UK higher education institutions in terms of addressing cultural difference in the classroom. This challenge remains the same for such international joint programmes of study.

The findings pointed to pedagogical differences between the two institutions which can be identified as being at both institutional and national level, thus echoing Alexander's work. The students' views of the differences were highlighted as being polarised in terms of students' preferences towards their experience of the French institution. Whether this pedagogical difference can be applied to other subject fields would require further exploration, but indications from interviews were of a difference in the philosophy of the pedagogical approach between the institutions and that this may be applied to other subject fields. The discussion explored in Chap. 6 clarifies that the UK approach to teaching and learning is steeped in notions of independent study and less class contact time. Whilst this varies across subjects, it is a culturally steeped approach common across the British system-perhaps most commonly evidenced in the use of the term 'reading' for a degree. The comparison of the pedagogic approach in the two institutions offers us a glimpse of these differences through the student and staff experiences of those differences. The data confirmed the work of others such as Blanchard (2009) and Bourdieu (1989) in respect of the approach of the Grandes Écoles to the delivery of their education.

The data indicated a clear preference for the French system and this was surmised to be due to the fact that many of the students on the courses were educated in systems other than the UK and that the larger numbers of hours in class represented a style more akin to their own education cultural norms, in terms of familiarity of approach; or perhaps the preference was simply that the institution was small enough for their voices to be heard and that they were paid more attention by staff. One semester appeared to be too short to adjust to the UK system or even acculturate. The implications of this comparison of the teaching and learning styles appear to suggest that these Masters awards were 'joint' only on the basis of the title. The delivery of the curriculum in teaching and learning terms did not appear to be 'joint'. Despite the physical environment of the institutions, the comparison of the experience in terms of the similarity of classrooms and the format for delivery of teaching evidenced a communication gap which gave an impression of 'separatedness' in a teaching and learning context. An explanation of these differences by the institutions, as well as the importance of the cultural context of the institutions, was needed in aiding students to understand the pedagogical approach of each institution. The institutions made adjustments as a result of the student voice and introduced a 'cultural' residential weekend at the start of the course to provide students with a space for the development of cultural awareness, but it is argued that this space needs to be embedded within the course-and even towards the end of the course-in order that the worldview had the potential to be developed and honed with a holistic pedagogical approach encouraged.

A rich picture of the experience of the cultural encounters that take place in international higher education has been given and has allowed for the in-depth exploration of the individuals' voice. The research approach has been offered through a specific case in order to allow for this rich picture to be conveyed and for insights to be gained. As Simons (2009) highlights, the insights offered from an exemplar can be seen as invaluable in presenting an informed position drawn from an in-depth investigation.

The limitations of this approach are acknowledged as are other influencing factors such as the cultural norms and language of the researcher. These were viewed as limiting for both the interpretation and collection of the data as all the research data was collected in English as this was the lingua franca for the courses and for all the students. For this reason, the researcher decided not to conduct interviews in French with the French students as this would have had a differential effect on the data responses, although data was also collected in France. The researcher could not have communicated in the native language of all the respondents involved on the programmes of study.

In addressing the possible reliability and validity and limitations of relying on interviews alone, the data was triangulated through the questionnaires and observations and through sources other than interviews and questionnaires, such as the QAA reports, and texts, such as Zeldin (1980) and Bourdieu (1989) . It is also acknowledged that the respondents' views were offered and are limited by factors such as space and time, memory of events and the perspective of events as seen and witnessed by those actors.

The cultural norms of the students both in the interview responses and the questionnaire responses would also have had an effect on those responses. The interview process itself was limited by the cultural parameters of interviewer and interviewee behaviour. The interviewer was clearly more able to engage with interviewees from some cultures than others, for example, those from Latin cultures who appeared to be more comfortable in an interview environment, exemplified in the interview with the Venezuelan student whose dialogue evidenced little hesitation in responding to questions. There was evidence displayed on analysis of the interviews that the dialogue was more engaged with respondents from certain cultures, perhaps because the dialogical context of the interview was more suited.

The status of the researcher as an employee of one institution could also be viewed as limiting as there may be a bias towards one of the institutions. With this in mind the researcher tried to maintain an objective position and take a reflexive position in the interpretation of the data. Another consequence of this was that access at the French institution was problematic, so observations could not be carried out to the same extent as in the UK. However, this has to be balanced against the insight gained from the familiarity with the institutions involved which facilitated the building of a rich picture of the case and offers a deeper insight into the operations and experiences of the actors involved and draws on a quasiethnographic approach that is common to educational research (Alvesson 2003).

The work was concerned with understanding international joint double degrees in terms of how they are developed and delivered and also how they are received and thus experienced by students in their learning and their (inter)cultural experience. The theme of culture can be seen as an overarching dimension-both of the experience and with regard to the self-formation (2015) of individuals and the development of transferable skills and critical cognition. The theme of culture has acted as the thematic axis for the analysis of the experience of this form of international higher education. It was threaded through all aspects of that experience including the teaching and learning in each institution. However, this theme of culture did not arise as part of the formal curriculum on any of the courses but arose from students' relationality and country mobility and was framed through their international transitions.

The award of two Masters diplomas for what amounts to the same work appears to be double counting but the pressures of the market mean that this is unlikely to change. A discussion of ethics thus becomes a central concern for both the students and institutions of higher education for this and other reasons, such as the need for transparency and quality of experience. The fact that the whole course is delivered in one language also negates the basis for the award of two separate diplomas and raises ethical questions with regard to the basis for two Masters diplomas being awarded. On the other hand, national frameworks for education make the award of one diploma for a joint course difficult to achieve; the legal reasons and operational challenges for this are identified by Knight (2013) . Despite the success of the Erasmus Mundus programme, for example, as yet there is no supranational body with the authority to validate transnational programmes of study. It would be a pity if 'market forces' promoted an environment where 'fudging' of credits, the 'separateness' of joint programmes and the award of two Masters for the same content became the standard practice rather than the seeking of transparency across national borders and equality of experience, as this would undermine the pursuit of excellence.

What is clear is that there is a need to consider the student experience and that the future of this kind of provision is dependent on it. It is apparent that the engagement in international joint double degree activity by institutions and students is framed by the experience of it and its success is reliant on the experience of it. The symbiosis between the institutions and between the students is evident and the thread of that symbiosis runs throughout. It is proposed that students' communications and interactions are fundamental aspects of their learning in such programmes of study and a 'space' needs to be created when designing curricula that allows for student reflection and develops their openness and awareness in order to promulgate an acceptance of the 'other'. The aim of developing communication, awareness of the other and mutual understanding or cosmopolitanism through personal reflection enhances the relevance of such curricula and seeks to achieve the knowing, acting and being conceptualised by Barnett and Coate (2005) . A need to find a common ground for interactions across cultures is critical and this can be achieved through the shared travel and experience of another new culture together in the international joint double degree. This shared experience provides a bonding experience that separates these types of programmes from other forms of international higher education. As Arkoudis et al. (2013) point out, successful student interactions across cultures require further action on the part of tutors in a culturally heterogeneous classroom. This glimpse into the students' negotiations and interactions within the context of these degrees permits us to understand how this might be achieved, but personal reflection is a fundamental element of achieving such learning. It seems important to observe that challenges remain for the systemisation of cultural learning although it is acknowledged that those such as Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017) (in the context of intercultural competence development) and Jackson and Oguro (2018b) (in the context of intercultural interventions in study abroad) are providing examples and frameworks for action as to how this might be achieved. There remains a need for further research about the nature and development for both students' and staff's cultural learning, given Matthews' work on cultural shaping and the challenge of understanding our cultural behaviours at the deepest level. The nuances and complexities involved remain open to research for the development of further understanding, allowing for variations at the level of the individual in terms of their particular cultural journey. The opportunity of the international joint double degree provides a space for the development of this further understanding as well as the importance of a construct of mutuality and the dialogical element to such educational programmes.

The future will surely see a growth of international joint double degrees. The continued marketisation of higher education, the increased use of technology and the influence of Erasmus Mundus and EU policy will inevitably result in a rise in these types of programmes where the education experience is a shared process between one or more higher education institutions and their students. If these courses are to be a success educationally, more work will need to be done to ensure greater integration in the design and on the delivery of the courses in order to develop pedagogies which will help the students learn from their intercultural experiences. 

Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction Between Domestic and International Students in Higher Education

Cultural Journeys in Higher Education: Student Voices and Narratives

Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education

Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives

Ecoles Superieures de Commerce" to "Management Schools": Transformations and Continuity in French Business Schools

La Noblesse d, Etat: Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps

The Adjustment Journey of International Postgraduate Students at an English University: An Ethnographic Study

Intercultural Education: Theory and Practice

Collaborative Dual-Degree Programs and Value Added for Students: Lessons Learned Through the Evaluate-E Project

From 'Not Quite Falling Out of the Sky' to Europe's Flagship Programme for Worldwide Academic Cooperation: The Emergence and Significance of Erasmus Mundus, Lifelong Learning

Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis

Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches

Re)conceptualizing International Student Mobility: The Potential of Transnational Social Fields

The Interpretation of Cultures

2019 Student-Staff Partnership Comes of Age. York Advance HE

Introduction: Enhancing and Extending Study Abroad Learning Through Intercultural Interventions

Internationalization -For Whom and Why? A Discourse Analysis of the Concept of Internationalization in National Policy Documents

Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales

Joint, Double, and Consecutive Degree Programs: Definition, Doubts, and Dilemmas

Using Formal and Informal Curricula to Improve Interactions Between Home and International Students

Humanism of the Other

Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket

Viewing Student Behavior Through the Lenses of Culture and Globalization: Two Narratives from a US College Writing Class

Assessing Intercultural Effectiveness Outcomes in a Year Long Study Abroad Programme

A History of the University in Europe I: Universities in the Middle Ages

The Globalisation of Higher Education

Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching

Case Study Research in Practice

Student Engagement in the Context of Commuter Students. London: The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP)

Competitive and Cooperative Impulses to Internationalization: Reflecting on the Interplay Between Management Intentions and the Experience of Academics in a

Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning

France 1848-1945: Intellect and Pride