Developing an institutional language policy in the complex scenario of internationalization

Introduction

The signing of the Bologna Agreement in 1999 brought far-reaching effects for those involved in language management, teaching, learning, and research. Since the Agreement, we have seen a remarkable shift in the perception of languages, and also in the realization of internationalization in Higher Education (henceforth HE).

This brief article is aimed at giving an overview of how the need for an overarching institutional language policy evolved, the considerations underpinning it and the implementation of it at the University of Padova, a large state university in north-east Italy. This paper is not intended as an in-depth analysis of the development of the policy, or an analysis of stake-holder positions, or an evaluation of the success (or lack of success) in implementing a Language Policy (henceforth LP). Instead, it aims to provide an approach to drafting an LP which veers away from a prescriptive set of regulations and practices.

The Bologna reform was aimed at building a solid basis “for successful learning mobility, cross-border academic cooperation and the mutual recognition of study periods and qualification” (EHEA report), that is, the initial intentions aimed to standardize student and staff mobility in terms of learning credits and conditions, enabling those in mobility to be fully rewarded by a European education with all its benefits. At the time of the reform the ‘degree-seeker’ student was not contemplated, and the rare degree-seekers enrolled in Italian universities were considered no differently from domestic students.

The EHEA report also underlined the role of “enhancing the quality and relevance of learning and teaching” even though it has been widely noted that the implementation of reforms outlined in this ambitious project has been at times patchy. Nevertheless, it has led to far-reaching and irreversible changes.

One of the main aims of the Bologna Process was to make European HE more homogeneous and globally competitive by opening up a forum and promoting dialogue regarding reforms in HE, including recognizing the relevance of languages within its overarching guidelines.The shift in direction led by the Bologna Process has profoundly influenced academic life, in all its aspects while also leading to widespread reflection on the role of, and ownership of language in the HE environment. Whether this influence has brought about all the expected changes and predicted benefits is frequently discussed at the level of university governance. Very often, however, language centres and linguists in general are rarely invited to the discussion table.

Since 1999, internationalization has been seen as both a strategy and a goal in HE, and as CélioConceição (2020) argues, it is noteworthy that very often it is the economic impact of internationalization that takes priority in HE policy-making and governance. This, in turn, is a result of the relation of language to the organization and function of HE at all levels - such as teaching, research, and governance - tends to have been neglected. He argues that the conception of an LP must be made clear and that “the concept of language must be revisited within its relation to acquisition, construction and dissemination of knowledge in an ecological perspective multilingual practices in HE, emphasizing that there is no science without languages and without linguistic diversity” (p.231).

1. What is language policy?

One of the more important outcomes deriving from the Bologna process is the recognition of the importance and promotion of multilingualism, multiculturalism, and the resulting need to devise policy documents for HE. This form of policy which could also be called institutional LP should be distinguished from other types of language policy which are often aimed at preserving cultural and linguistic diversity, defending linguistic rights, and safeguarding political and linguistic minorities.

Since the Bologna Declaration was signed over 20 years ago, University Language Centres have sometimes found themselves at the interface between university governance and the reality of language within the university, as used by academic and administration staff, and students, as well as the shift towards internationalization. This interface has not always been a comfortable one as all sides needed to adjust. The change in direction promoted by the Agreement has, however, allowed Language Centres to raise their collective voices. It has generated a flow towards becoming more active and more aware of language acquisition, and the definition of language learning and teaching. This raised awareness has provided fertile ground for the development of LP documents.

It is necessary at this point to clarify what is intended by LP, which has been defined in many ways, and in the last years has led to a further subdivision into types including institutional, community and educational language policies. Kaplan and Baldouf (1997) defined LP as “a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned language change in the societies, group or system” (p. XI). This very broad interpretation provided a foundation on which to build various lines of thought. Some years later, Spolsky (2004) developed it further and argued that three essential components of an LP needed to be distinguished, that is, the language practices, which includes the varieties which make up the linguistic repertoire, language ideologies which includes beliefs about language and its use, and efforts to modify or influence these practices which may be by intervention and/or management practices.

LPs have existed for some years in political, social and cultural arenas and within these it is suggested that some general issues should be discussed, such as the role of language and languages in society. In the context of the University of Padova this means the role of English recognised as an international language which, in turn, should not exclude other international languages such as German or French, or the local language (in the case of the University of Padova, Italian, or even dialect), observable language practice and language management. Therefore, it is necessary to take into consideration the agents involved including academic staff, students, governance, stakeholders and the local community. It also means influencing management decisions such as what languages should be taught, in what contexts and to what level, and the implementation of new practices, procedures and processes.

It could be assumed, therefore, that a LP in HE can never be “materially stable, policies are instead conceptualized as always in a state of production” according to Hurdus and Lasagabaster (2018). As was the case with many HE institutions in Italy (and presumably the rest of Europe) the concept of a LP was not immediately clear to university governance. After explanation and clarification of the reasoning behind the LP, it was also necessary to outline and present the expected benefits of devising this policy to the University governance.

In 2022 the University of Padova, which is the second oldest in Italy, celebrated its 800th year, and it is interesting to note that for 796 of those years the university had no formal language policy despite being historically an international university. Like most European HE Institutions, recently the University of Padova has seen a very rapid development in the area of internationalization which has had a profound influence in all aspects of academic life.

The process of internationalization is very often interpreted to be a means of offering a gateway to teaching in English in general, or providing a (not clearly defined) ‘Englishization’ of the curricula. Informed debate has often been missing, as has serious research into the implications of internationalization, in particular as regards the use of languages.

English Medium Instruction (henceforth EMI) has been actively promoted by the University of Padova and has been aimed at attracting international degree-seeking students to a range of English-taught courses. The ever-increasing number of courses offered in English (mainly post-graduate) and the massive increase in international students enrolled has been very satisfying. Yet, despite the success of this initiative, or possibly because of its success, it became clear several years ago that a series of issues had yet to be faced. Among these was the need for a LP, and discussion of the evolution of internationalization in the context of EMI. Equally important has been the question of actively preparing academic and administrative staff for teaching in English and the important question of dealing with the influx of international students.

It is interesting to note that a formal institutional LP came long after the emergence of EMI, rather than before it when it may actually have been useful when discussing the role and methodologies of EMI within the process of internationalization.

2. Why is a language policy necessary?

Given the nature of a LP, it was generally agreed that in order to be effective it would be inappropriate to be laying down rules regarding language use within the university. It was also considered inappropriate to use a policy to outline which languages should be taught and to whom and to what level.

In drafting the LP, we took the view that the main aim of an LP involves the organization and effective functioning of a large university at all levels (that is, teaching, research, governance), and also involves all personnel (including academic, technical and administrative staff, and stakeholders) and recognizes the importance of being able to create a language environment which reflects and promotes the University’s role in the international sphere.

It was necessary to take into account the language(s) which would be used for academic purposes, including teaching, research and publication, on the one hand, and on the other not to lose sight of the role of the LP in maintaining the University’s identity, and in improving services and communications. It was also necessary to evaluate the terms ‘English Medium Instruction’ and ‘internationalization’ and their definitions. We took the view that the availability of English-taught courses should not be used as a measure of successful internationalization. It was inevitable that there would be a divergence between opinions and points of view held by language teaching experts on the one hand and University governance on the other. However, the LP itself became a tool for negotiating this divergence. While it is widely recognized that successful internationalization of HE requires an effective LP, it is the negotiation of different concepts of language use, and the role of language in knowledge, that leads, in turn, to a successful implementation of this LP.

In the last 10 to 15 years there has been a widely documented and swift move towards internationalization, and this is especially the case in Italy. The recommendations of the Bologna declaration have been translated by many university policy makers into an intense recruitment campaign for international students, along with a growing list of English-taught courses. Generally, the initial belief was that internationalization could only lead to ‘better things’ which would include higher numbers of international students enrolled, higher rankings and most importantly, increased funding. Offering courses taught entirely in English was also seen as a ‘good thing’, together with the widespread suggestion that lecturers could simply switch the language of their course from Italian to English and translate their lecture slides.

Grin (2010) has argued that universities have five main uses of languages: languages taught as subjects; language as a medium of instruction, language as used in research, languages used by administration, and that of communication, which is reflected in the University of Padova LP which is discussed below. The same areas are echoed by Liddicoat (2013) and are expanded slightly by Lauridsen (2013) to include language support for lecturers, researchers, librarians, administration staff, and go further to include languages of the wider community.

It is interesting to note too that in the transition from the Bologna Declaration towards internationalization, language is almost never discussed explicitly. Apart from the rare occasions when language-related issues are mentioned, reference to language is mostly in a negative sense, that is, the negative effects of a lack of language competence on the part of students and/or teaching staff. In the context of internationalization, language has tended to be backgrounded, and the role of an LP as fundamental in the process of internationalization has been lacking. In many Italian universities, numerous English-taught programs were inaugurated based on good intention and a sense of innovation rather than careful planning.

At the University of Padova, in 2013, a project was presented coinciding with the first EMI courses for teaching staff. This project was funded by the International Relations Office and coordinated by the Language Centre (the Centro Linguistico di Ateneo, henceforth CLA). The aim was limited to helping lecturers improve their language skills, especially pronunciation and grammar. At the same time the CLA was also approached by academic staff who had been asked to teach in English, but felt themselves to be in difficulty, not so much regarding language skills, but rather the need to adapt their teaching style to the international classroom. This bottom-up approach allowed the CLA to respond in practical terms, recognizing that quality EMI is not based on grammar and pronunciation. The response was a move towards lecturers and their needs, rather than towards the governance in general.

With the support of the International Office the LEAP project (Learning English for Academic Purposes) got underway offering language and communication skills to academic staff, as well as a personalized support service for lecturers and topic-specific workshops. Now, nearly 10 years later, the activities continue to involve all stakeholders including administrative and academic staff and students. As part of this project a research group was formed which studied language and methodological aspects of EMI, in terms of all stakeholders. The research - mainly qualitative analyses - was based on a comprehensive follow-up of teaching methodology, student and staff expectations, interviews and needs analyses etc., which have been widely published.

3. The language policy document

In drawing up the Language Policy document, the main objective was to lobby university governance to raise awareness of a more holistic language approach to EMI, and to avoid a prescriptive approach in the form of rules and guidelines ‘governing’ language use within the university. The aim was to redefine the notion of Englishization of the curricula, and the University, and to provide support for all questions regarding language use within the university on a higher and more visible level. Thus, the document is not limited to defining which languages, to what level, and by whom. Instead, it provides guidelines for the use of languages in intercultural communication, language training for academic, technical and administrative staff, raising awareness of language competence, all of which promote a language environment within the university which supports research as well as the international and local communities and stakeholders. At the same time the LP aims to ensure effective and successful communication and cooperation between all stakeholders.

The LP which has now been published (available on the University of Padova website) brings together the findings and experiences of the LEAP project, and the expertise of a further workgroup which collaborated in devising the LP. In all of the areas of language usage listed above, it was necessary to firstly identify and then evaluate the University’s needs, and at the same time carefully and tactfully suggest changes and modes of facing some of the issues which were inevitably raised.

As in many HE environments, these issues included undoing several enduring beliefs such as the proposal that internationalization requires everything to be translated into English, which also raises the question of why only English to the exclusion of other commonly taught languages. The perception that English automatically boosts prestige was also widespread, as was the suggestion that all courses could be offered in EMI in the future, and the perception that the use of Italian language is in some way ‘second best’.

In fact, to the surprise of many, the principal consideration of the LP document was to underline the role of Italian as an official language. It continued by discussing how languages should be adopted for teaching, research, for services and administration and for external communication. The document does not prescribe language use, but rather reflects how language choices should be weighed up, how the guidelines can be implemented, and future prospects.

4. International students

The CLA is working closely with the International Relations Office to promote Italian language for incoming international students and the unexpected speed of the process of internationalization at the University of Padova has seen a huge increase in the number of these students enrolled in EMI courses. The colorful (and at times complex) current situation sees 77 different first languages (with the greatest proportions being 12% Farsi, 9% Turkish, 9% Arabic). There are 95 different countries of residence of international students and 104 different countries of citizenship. Further, in the last 5 years, there has been a 300% increase in international degree-seeker students, with over 2,000 students currently enrolled and well over 2,000 exchange students.

With these steadily increasing numbers, it is evident that EMI is now well integrated into academic life, and an effective LP is essential to guaranteeing the success of internationalization and to meet the needs of this multilingual and multicultural community.

Conclusion

The work of the multi-disciplinary group devising the LP does not finish with the publication of the document. To develop the LP further and to constantly monitor areas where the document needs to be applied, or adjusted, a specialized committee will be appointed. The LP will need to adapt to new and changing situations as they evolve, this may include different fluxes of students and courses taught in English, and even a changing international situation. Thus, the LP is intended as a dynamic document which needs to be regularly monitored and updated where and when necessary to keep abreast with inevitable changes.

As well as being a particularly useful document for the policies of internationalization, the LP has also been an incisive document in demonstrating the complexities and wide-ranged implications of EMI and language issues in the process of internationalization. The discussion of language elements in university management are now in writing and visible. However, we still find language being used as a measure of quality of a programme; that is, it is implied that EMI courses are intrinsically more important, or of a higher quality in that they contribute to the process of internationalization. We also find that language, in general, is not always perceived as a powerful vehicle of communication, but rather a static channel of information.

As far as an institutional LP is concerned, the University of Padova LP is not concerned with levels of language to be attained, the content of degree courses, incentives for language competence, etc. It does not intend to be prescriptive. The key is to be dynamic and flexible, and the aim has been to lay out a document which explains the implications which should be evaluated when making decisions about language use.

To further develop the LP the working-group nominated aims to be present, but not to reprimand, to intervene, and to be objective in adding further areas to the LP where and when necessary. The group will act as observers, to add to the coherence, identify any weaknesses and to propose necessary changes as they evolve rather than to enforce the LP as a set of regulations.