Academics are the main vessels in the implementation of Internationalisation at Home, but they often feel lost at sea as they encounter multiple challenges in this endeavour. To support them in engaging in Internationalisation at Home teaching practices, this poster examines the challenges they face and describes a range of appropriate support mechanisms.

Introductory paragraph: Globalisation and technological development are steadily reshaping the landscape of higher education (HE) and making new demands on higher education institutions (HEIs) to prepare their graduates for the challenge of living and working in a globally connected world. According to the OECD (2018), global awareness and social and cross-cultural skills are highlighted as 21st-century skills that students need to succeed in their future careers.

The covid-19 pandemic served as an accelerator to prioritise local internationalisation activities at many higher education institutions (HEIs). Internationalisation of formal curriculum at home is one of such activities that has the power to bring the benefits of internationalisation to all students, not only the mobile ones. To make this happen, university teachers need the expertise to become capable of designing and facilitating international practices in their disciplines.

The view of teaching staff as key players in internationalisation at home/internationalisation of the curriculum (IaH/IoC) is well established. However, even though teachers, in theory, may be aware of their role, research shows that there is great uncertainty about how to carry out their responsibility in practice. HEIs stand in front of the important task: equipping their teaching staff with the competencies to manage the challenges and opportunities that the international classroom brings.

This presentation will give an example of meeting this demand by introducing an ongoing initiative in creating a staff development course driven by the network for Strategic Internationalisation for Swedish University Colleges (HÖNSI).

A group of researchers, teachers, curriculum developers and international officers representing six Swedish HEIs have planned the joint course with the aim to increase the awareness of academic teachers about their role as intercultural educators and to support them in how to integrate an international, intercultural and global perspective in their own practice to increase their students’ intercultural competence. Our session will present the course plan, its learning objectives and contents. In addition, the dialogic planning process and its challenges will be discussed, for example, the balance between theory and practice and the didactic/educational issues: what is internationalisation, why internationalisation and how to ‘do’ internationalisation?

Over the past decade there has been an increase in scientific publications addressing intercultural competence (IC) of students. The sheer volume of publications available makes it difficult to determine the extent, breadth, and nature of research within the area. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the state of peer reviewed research related to IC, including academic disciplines addressing the issue, regions of the world conducting research, types of interventions used to foster IC and how outcomes are being evaluated. Six databases were searched, resulting in 15,128 articles. A total of 464 met the inclusion criteria. A trend was observed towards studying IC in interdisciplinary student populations as well as a post-COVID-19 trend towards more online interventions. Most research was conducted in North America (n = 198; 42.7%) within the discipline of education (n = 87; 18.8%). The most common intervention was pedagogical approaches delivered at the students’ home institution (n = 161; 34.7%). Results highlight a gap in research from the Global South and a lack of consensus regarding appropriate tools for evaluating IC. Continued work is required to determine the effects of specific interventions and to support educators in identifying appropriate tool(s) for measuring outcomes.

The purposes of meat inspection have been formulated for more than 100 years as (a) protecting health of consumers, (b) maintain the reputation of the meats in home and export markets, and (c) detecting communicable diseases of animals before they have spread beyond easy control. Today, one would add to protect animal welfare, clarify that protecting consumer health includes both chemical and biological hazards, and add food fraud to the issues of reputation. To transform the scientific knowledge into modern meat safety assurance systems (MSAS), the risk managers need to understand the social capital in the meat value chain to align the behaviors of farmers, food business operators and competent authorities with technical knowledge. The meat value chain could be perceived as a commons – a material or immaterial property held jointly by the members of a community, whom may govern access to and use of the property through social structures, traditions, and/or formal rules i.e. social capital. The social capital and food safety culture amongst farmers and food business operators is a key driver for successful meat safety while information asymmetry increases risks for a tragedy of commons scenario. Ostrom's core design principles for stable commons could inform the design of MSASs. Tools for reducing the information asymmetry and building trust and social capital between all stakeholders within the meat value chain include the food safety culture, food chain information, use of health epidemiological indicators, sensors and block chains, industry/private standards, and the applying system approach from farm to fork.

Introductory paragraph: Internationalisation is more than student mobilities. This thesis is not new to higher education institutions, yet the theory often does not follow the practice. But the Covid-19 pandemic has proved that there is a whole world of opportunities beyond the studies abroad. The question that remains: will pandemic finally make a path for Internationalisation at Home?

Internationalisation at home. Internationalisation of the curriculum. Internationalisation of teaching and learning. ‘A dear child has many names’ and in all, educators are key. Yet, not all academics support internationalisation or are supported by their institutions. This session will compare the results of the SUCTIA project on internationalising academics and research on institutional support for internationalisation provided to academics by 29 Swedish HEIs.

Higher education institutions’ work with internationalisation is often managed by a small group of people who decide about the strategic direction and priorities. But what happens if we open the door for discussion to all staff? This article describes how a virtual Appreciative Inquiry summit can support the implementation of the ‘Internationalisation at Home’ strategy at the institution-wide level.

Globalization and technological development are steadily reshaping the landscape of higher education (HE) and making new demands on higher education institutions (HEIs) to prepare their graduates for the challenge of living and working in a globally connected world. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), social challenges including globalization, migration, and increased social and cultural diversity, will affect the future of education. Global awareness and social and cross-cultural skills were highlighted as 21st-century skills that students need to succeed in their future careers (OECD, 2018). Universities can address these challenges and foster active, responsible, and engaged global citizens by incorporating deliberate interventions within their formal curriculum. Accordingto Leask (2015), an internationalized curriculum has the power to acknowledge the importance of intercultural and international skills and knowledge, as well as cultural awareness and the ability to think in a local, national, and global context. Data from the Global Survey Report of the International Association of Universities (IAU) indicated that 88% of HEIs globally considered Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) as important (Marinoni, 2019). Yet, most HEIs find it challenging to pursue an inclusive and systematic approach toward the IoC (Killick & Foster, 2021).

This article explores current Internationalization of the Curriculum practices and perceptions among teaching staff at a middle-sized Swedish University. Further, this article elaborates on enablers and blockers that local teaching staff face in their efforts to internationalize the curriculum. This work will serve as a foundation for stimulating the reflection and discussion amongst teams of teaching staff about the IoC in their disciplines and how to navigate future opportunities to further internationalize curricula.

Introductory paragraph: Seven months after the World Health Organization announced that the COVID-19 outbreak was a pandemic, higher education institutions in Europe still remain under pressure to deal with the disruption caused by the pandemic in the most appropriate way, reducing the negative effects on teaching and learning, research and societal engagement.

Higher education institutions’ work with internationalisation is often managed by a small group of people who decide on the strategic direction and priorities. But what happens if we open this strategic door to all staff? This poster describes how the Appreciative Inquiry method (a tool often used for organisational development) can support the implementation of an Internationalisation at Home strategy throughout your institution.

Objective: The scoping review outlined in this protocol aims to identify the key characteristics and types of available evidence in the area of implementation and measurement of Internationalisation at Home (IaH)/Internationalisation of the Curriculum (IoC) in Higher Education (HE) since 1999.

Introduction: IaH/IoC has received increased attention during the last past few years, but despite that, many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) find it challenging to implement it. The IaH/IoC indicators are often not included in the HEIs’ monitoring/evaluating strategy, which complicates the assessment of the effectiveness of such an implementation.

Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed or grey literature published in English or Swedish, from 1999 or after, and describing the implementation and/or measurement of IaH/IoC. Articles focusing on individual aspects of curricula will be excluded, as well as articles focused on educational settings other than higher education.

Methods: The JBI methodology will be combined with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist, PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) to guide the execution of this scoping review. Literature searches will be performed based on the main concepts of the review. The following databases/platforms will be searched: Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ES), ERIC (ProQuest), Education Database (ProQuest), APA PsycInfo (ProQuest). A grey literature search plan following the Godin et al. (2015) search strategies will be implemented. Data extraction will be executed based on a pre-determined framework, and data will be analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods.