Commentary to Part III: Why Is “Being International” So Attractive? “Being International” as a Source of Legitimacy and Distinction

  • Florian Waldow


The commentary chapter argues that the quality of “being international” is now commonly used as a source of legitimacy and distinction both by individuals and organisations. “Being international” is a concept particularly well suited to these purposes because it is relatively vague and therefore open to a range of interpretations. Partly because of this conceptual indeterminateness, it can be easily connected to a wide range of other educational concepts and desired outcomes and can therefore be agreed on as a goal by quite diverse coalitions of actors. The commentary piece concludes by arguing that “being international” may have become one of the rationalising and legitimating “myths” (in the neo-institutionalist sense) surrounding and thereby shaping education.


  1. Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J., & Nikita, D. P. (2014). The global middle class and school choice: A cosmopolitan sociology. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), 81–93.Google Scholar
  3. Bellmann, J., & Waldow, F. (2007). Die merkwürdige Ehe zwischen technokratischer Bildungsreform und emphatischer Reformpädagogik. Bildung und Erziehung, 60(4), 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht: Schriften zu Politik und Kultur. Hamburg: VSA.Google Scholar
  6. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Dazert, D. (2017). Distinktion als Lebensform: Eine qualitative Untersuchung ausgewählter Werke von Erasmus sowie Adolph v. Knigge. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 15(1), 2–3.Google Scholar
  9. Hartmann, M. (2016). Die globale Wirtschaftselite: Eine Legende. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  10. Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 14–15.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ramirez, F. O. (2012). The world society perspective: Concepts, assumptions, and strategies. Comparative Education, 48(4), 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sklair, L. (2001). The transnational capitalist class. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  15. Waldow, F. (2012). Standardisation and legitimacy: Two central concepts in research on educational borrowing and lending. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education (pp. 411–427). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Zymek, B. (2009). Prozesse der Internationalisierung und Hierarchisierung im Bildungssystem: Von der Beharrungskraft und Auflösung nationaler Strukturen und Mentalitäten. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(2), 175–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Waldow
    • 1
  1. 1.Vergleichende und internationale ErziehungswissenschaftHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations