Considering the State and Status of Internationalization in Western Higher Education Kinesiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While internationalization is among the top strategic priorities of universities and colleges globally, research into the expanse of internationalization in the kinesiology discipline is not well researched. Given this gap, critical consideration of the state and status of the phenomenon is needed. Knowing more about what is being done in the name of internationalization within kinesiology and reflecting on how those actions and outcomes are aligned, or not, with key theoretical guidance is necessary in order to plan for improvement accordingly. For these reasons, this paper first provides a primer on internationalization in higher education, including how the phenomenon has come to be defined as well as key contemporary critiques associated with it. In particular, we highlight Beck’s (2012) theoretical concept of ‘eduscape’ to critically consider the influences of globalization on internationalization within higher education kinesiology as well as Khoo, Taylor, and Andreotti’s (2016) principles of intelligibility, dissent, and solidarity to consider the ways kinesiology scholars engage critically with internationalization processes. Presented next is a review of the kinesiology literature that is explicitly focused on internationalization. Then, the results of a pilot survey into the views of National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE) members and other Western kinesiology scholars on internationalization is reported next. The paper concludes with recommendations as to how NAKHE and the broader community of Western kinesiology scholars might best navigate internationalization moving forward. We recommend the complexity-informed and principle-driven approach of inclusive leadership as a means of pursuing cognitive justice in the 21st century.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".