Internationalization within school and educational psychology: Perspectives about positive indicators, critical considerations, and needs

Abstract

As the final paper within this special issue on Internationalization in School and Educational Psychology, this paper documents broad perspectives about internationalization from multiple school and educational psychologists who have worked in various contexts (e.g., in different professional roles and geographic locations). Based upon three core questions that contributors responded to, the paper systematically integrates all perspectives according to two primary categories: Strengths or Positive Indicators and Considerations, Concerns, and Needs. The former category is discussed with respect to three themes that emerged from contributors’ responses: (1) internationally focused scholarship, (2) presence and work of international organizations, and (3) study abroad, exchange, and international collaboration. The category pertaining to concerns and needs was also thematically summarized according to three topics: (1) power, paternalism, and neoliberalism, (2) paucity of critical dialogue and research, and (3) linguistic and financial barriers to internationalization. From the shared perspectives, concluding remarks are presented in the context of how the discipline can continue discourse and activities that, through internationalization, help to offer more equitable opportunities for professionals in the field and the communities they work to support.

A working definition and conceptual model of internationalization for school and educational psychology

“…The definition and use of “school and educational psychology” in the present paper is consistent with how it is described within Begeny ()—including the occasional naming of the discipline simply as “school psychology” or “educational psychology” for concision, as well as the acknowledgement that much more debate and work is needed to develop one or more definitions that represent international and local perspectives (see Bernardo et al., ). Before proposing my working definition and conceptual model of internationalization, it will help to briefly summarize some of the content from the introduction to this special issue.…”

“…In my view, although multinational collaboration is common as a type of internationalization work, it is not a requirement of doing work related to Category 1 or the other two categories described later. More specific types of Category 1 internationalization work include (1) empirical work that adapts, evaluates, and describes a school‐based intervention, assessment, or other form of practice (e.g., consultation) from one cultural or linguistic context to another (e.g., Dang et al., ); (2) scholarship that describes and utilizes theories, constructs, and/or methods that are not often described or used within Western scholarship or practice (e.g., Amesty & Paez, ; Bernardo, Yeung, Resurreccion, Resurreccion, & Khan, ); (3) scholarship focusing on topics of importance for school psychologists that come from regions or countries otherwise underrepresented in the scholarship (e.g., Amesty & Paez, ; Bernardo et al., ; Dang et al., ; Kim et al., ); (4) multi‐country collaboration that through theory, practice, or methodology utilizes values or norms that are representative of multiple cultures (e.g., Bernardo et al., ); and (5) scholarship that gathers relevant information to improve understanding about the discipline in an international context (e.g., generating estimates about the number of school psychology professionals in one or more countries, or conducting survey research about school psychology practices or needs within one or more countries).…”

“…Category 3 work is distinct from Category 2 work because the focus of Category 3 is about internationalization in school and educational psychology broadly, and not specifically focused on one or a small number of components or goals. Two examples of Category 3 scholarship are (1) critical, conceptual, and/or summative papers that seek to improve understanding about issues related to internationalization in the discipline (e.g., the present paper, as well as Begeny, and Bernardo et al., ); and (2) empirical work that seeks to understand, assess, or improve internationalization of the discipline (e.g., an empirical assessment of professionals’ perspectives, goals, or understanding of internationalization— it is worth noting that such work has not been completed yet, but is much needed). Although school psychology does not yet have many examples of Category 3 scholarship at this time, such work exists in other subdisciplines.…”

“…The article by Bernardo et al. () elaborates on these types of complex questions and potential barriers.…”

An overview of internationalization and its relevance for school and educational psychology

“…With such analyses, we may find, for example, that internationalization could have more negative than positive consequences for some professionals, or that the reasons and approaches to advance internationalization are not broadly supported and subsequently could minimize the benefits of internationalization in some nations where school and educational psychology is practiced. Although I have yet to identify scholarship that argues against promoting the forms of internationalization discussed previously, concerns have been raised about how it might be promoted (see, for example, Begeny et al., ; Leung et al., ; Ng & Noonan, ) and how its theoretical conceptualization may lack critical considerations, such as the redistributive (versus recognition) dimensions of social justice (Arfken, ; Bernardo et al., ). Therefore, it is both logical, and in the true spirit of internationalization, that intentional efforts be made to give more dialogue and representative voice about the potential advantages and/or disadvantages of internationalization for school and educational psychology.…”