See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263764244

Internationalisation of higher education and nation building: resolving

language policy dilemmas in Lithuania

Article  in  Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development · February 2014

DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.874431

CITATIONS READS

23 272

2 authors:

A. Bulajeva Gabrielle Hogan-Brun

University of Helsinki Vytautas Magnus University
2 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   608 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Current Issues in Language Planning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabrielle Hogan-Brun on 16 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Internationalisation of higher education and

nation building: resolving language policy
dilemmas in Lithuania

Tatjana Bulajeva & Gabrielle Hogan-Brun

To cite this article: Tatjana Bulajeva & Gabrielle Hogan-Brun (2014) Internationalisation of
higher education and nation building: resolving language policy dilemmas in Lithuania, Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35:4, 318-331, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.874431

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874431

Published online: 05 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 630

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 4, 318–331, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874431

Internationalisation of higher education and nation building: resolving

language policy dilemmas in Lithuania
Tatjana Bulajevaa* and Gabrielle Hogan-Brunb
a
Education Department, University of Vilnius, Universiteto Str. 9-410, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania;
b
German Department, Nadelberg 4, University of Basel, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland
(Received 20 November 2013; accepted 9 December 2013)

Our paper discusses trends and challenges faced by Lithuanian Higher Education (HE)
internationalisation policy processes in the context of European and global inter-
nationalisation tendencies. Using 2001–2011 EU mobility statistics and data from
recent HE Lithuanian strategic programmes aimed at promoting the internationalisa-
tion of university education (for 2009–2010 and 2011–2012), we discuss implications
of these developments for the country’s language (education) policy and its practical
implementation. The officially practiced policy approach that aims to strengthen the
national language and culture (as is visible throughout the post-Soviet space) faces
challenges with the development of societal multilingualism. This contrasts with
Western policy practices, where common/mutual rationales and approaches seek to
support multilingualism and multiculturalism. In the Baltic region, protectionist
national political instruments have had to address dilemmas that have arisen in
connection with Western-mediated HE internationalisation processes. This has led to
the deployment of different internationalisation policy rationales that promote global
and regional cooperation. New approaches focused on linking Baltic language studies
centres with departments of Baltistics and Indo-European studies have worked to
establish stronger bonds with structures at foreign universities. As a consequence
common interests in the study, research, development and promotion of the languages
in the Baltic are now more widely shared, both regionally and internationally.
Keywords: HE policy; internationalisation in HE; HE language policy; Lithuania

Introduction

In response to a more integrated world economy and improved travel and communication
technology, almost every government around the world, from Canada to Gambia, is making
an effort to internationalise higher education. (Gibney 2013, 39)

This quote from Times Higher Education points to the fact that internationalisation is
growing broader and deeper (Gibney 2013) and that its dynamics are changing too.
Increasingly, developing countries are finding ways to take up a (greater) share in the
space of expanding global Higher Education (HE). But in sociopolitically transforming
settings such as the Baltic countries, adapting domestic policy to facilitate such moves
can call into question the role of national language policy and its relationship with the HE
sphere in general. Our analysis below of the evolving language (education) political
landscape explores means to reconcile ethnocentric1 with Eurocentric approaches to HE

*Corresponding author. Email: ttjnbulajeva@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 319

from a Lithuanian perspective. With our focus on internationalisation of HE in the context

of nation (re-)building we explore the interaction between (EU-wide) and Lithuanian
practices, asking: how have global initiatives shaped domestic approaches to HE? and
vice versa how have domestic responses contributed to an extended view of HE
internationalisation globally? The dual roles of HE as a transmitter of (national) heritage
and as a tool fostering intercultural communication and knowledge exchange, and the
potential of international developments in HE policy for regional and global cooperation
are discussed.
Since post-Soviet independence in the early 1990s, HE and education in general were
considered across the Baltic a largely national affair, aimed at strengthening national
cultures and languages.2 An extensive legal apparatus was set up to reinstate the national
languages (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian) as a fully functioning medium of the
communication in the respective country’s public domain, including use in education and
HE. The rationale and implementation process Baltic-wide have been widely analysed
(Hogan-Brun 2007; Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun 2008; Hogan-Brun et al. 2009), as have
language ideological debates surrounding EU accession (Hogan-Brun 2005). In due
course, international pressures to locally open up the HE space ran up against the barrier
of national language protectionist approaches, as backed by an extensive legislative
apparatus.3 According to law, university education has to be in the state language. The
possibility of Baltic HE playing a greater role in the international space has been
dependent on local resourcefulness in integrating national with global (ex-)change
processes. Overall, despite some state interventions, the general development of the
regional HE landscape has been responsive to market trends. This can be explained by a
gradual shift in the local understanding of the symbolic social capital in growing together
with expanding international social, cultural and economic cooperation and collaboration.
The paradigm shift has involved increasing recognition of internationalisation as one
of the effects of globalisation. Both notions gradually came to be seen as dynamically
linked, with the latter as the catalyst and the former as the response. In due course,
internationalisation of HE became one of the ways for the Baltic countries to respond to
the impact of globalisation (Bulajeva 2005). During the past decades, HE responded to
this trend with growing numbers of students choosing to study abroad for different
reasons. The various societal driving forces in support of mobility for education include
increasing migration of qualified workers in the globalisation of trade and economy; the
necessity to train a more educated and skilled workforce to meet the requirements and
demands of the developing economies and emerging markets in home countries, and the
desire to develop and promote better intercultural understanding.
The need to implement means for the development of student and teaching staff
mobility in HE was stated in the 1998 Sorbonne Declaration. Internationalisation of HE at
the European policy level formed from the very beginning part of the Bologna
Declaration (1999). This document was signed by 27 member states, including Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania.4 According to the Policy Brief of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD 2004), the process of HE internationalisation has
undergone different developments in its 25 member states5 and regions that were
analysed. Student mobility for instance has been policy-driven in Europe and demand-
driven in the Asia-Pacific region. In the last two decades of the twentieth century, the
number of foreign students in OECD countries has doubled, amounting to 1.6 million.
The four most popular destinations remain English-speaking ones (the USA, the UK,
Australia and Canada), hosting more than half (54%) of all foreign students in the OECD
(2004) area.
320 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

A rapidly increasing demand for transnational education has necessitated the

conception of new forms of internationalisation including a variety of cross-border
education options. Apart from mobility in the physical sense (i.e. going abroad to study),
students today are also provided with opportunities to take a distant course offered by a
foreign university and receive a university degree without leaving their home country.
Programme mobility is the second most common form of internationalised cross-border
education offered as e-learning or as face-to-face education at partner institutions abroad.
The third type of HE internationalisation employed nowadays is institution mobility,
which involves more financial risks and is manifest in the opening of new foreign
campuses, branches or affiliated institutions of universities and foreign learning centres
by educational providers (OECD 2004; see also Gibney 2013, 39).
This variety of HE internationalisation manifestations shows that different responses
exist to globalisation at a national level. Lithuania has so far mainly focused on fostering
student mobility. No Lithuanian universities are currently involved in institutional
mobility with branches in other countries, but they are obliged to promote internationa-
lisation and to offer course units in foreign languages. To date, there are no comparative
national data available on the areas of study covered in mobility programmes or as to
whether (which) local universities are strong or weak on certain topics which would
influence emergent tendencies.
In what follows, we first discuss the main HE internationalisation policy trends in
Lithuania against the background of developments within the EU. We then identify
challenges (mobility and the complexity of the internationalisation policy framework)
faced there during the course of EU-mediated HE internationalisation processes. Since
these clashed with national language policies that form a central part of the post-
independence nation (re-)building project, political instruments were used to address and
resolve language policy dilemmas that have arisen during the course of this change
process. We go on to show how newly developed national political strategies for the
promotion of internationalisation of HE in Lithuania have made it possible for the country
to function within the framework of the EU’s political space whilst at the same time
further pursuing the independent state-building policy project.

Main HE policy trends in the EU

In the early 1990s, different rationales were used to integrate the international dimension
in HE. Among the arguments were, according to Aigner, Nelson, and Stimpfl (1992)
interest in international security, maintenance of economic competitiveness and fostering
human and intercultural understanding. Similarly Warner (1992), in analysing assump-
tions underlying HE internationalisation policy agendas, proposed three models as
rationales for internationalisation: the competitive model introducing international content
into curricula, making institutions and states more competitive in the global economic
marketplace; the liberal model, in which the primary goal of internationalisation is seen as
self-development in conditions of global changes, influencing all spheres of life and HE
in particular; and the social transformation model, in which the most important goal of
internationalisation of HE is aimed at social transformation, equity and social justice, as
well as the development of students’ international, intercultural awareness and active
citizenship.
A qualitative leap forward in HE internationalisation, which occurred in the the
second half of that decade, entailed a move from casuistic and scattered international
activities with actions towards systematic and strategic policies and related activities of
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 321

internationalisation (Teichler 2008). The Sorbonne Declaration (signed in May 1998 by

France, Germany, Italy and the UK) called for the harmonisation of the architecture of the
European HE system. Subsequently, the Bologna Declaration (signed in June 1999 by the
ministers in charge of HE from 29 European countries, Lithuania being one of them)
initiated the creation of European HE Areas. This was primarily aimed at establishing
new convergent structures of study programmes and degrees across Europe and at
fostering temporary intra-European student mobility linked to the introduction of the
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) system and international cooperation. It also
stressed the necessity to promote worldwide mobility, aiming to make European HE more
attractive for students from elsewhere. The 2000 Lisbon Treaty then emphasised the
central role of HE in the further development of the knowledge economy. This gave
impetus to international cooperation in HE which became an EU supported activity. Over
the past decades, internationalisation moves have duly accelerated in Europe and
worldwide. In successive conferences of ministers in charge of HE (Prague 2001; Berlin
2003; Bergen 2005; London 2007; Leuven 2009; Bucharest 2012), the political agenda of
the Bologna Process was gradually extended, providing concrete proposals for further
policy development.
With a globally interconnected economy and rapidly increasing levels of migration
and information circulation, cross-border mobility has become a reality for a growing
number of young people.6 Consequently, the remit of HE internationalisation in Europe
has widened from a focus on student mobility to policy strategies that pertain to
curriculum and staff development, quality assurance and management, human resources
and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) development. Newly emerging
internationalisation policy trends have been evidenced in other early studies too. Zha
(2003) for example pointed in his analysis of international HE practices to four different
approaches used in the development of internationalisation policy: the activity approach
that is mainly focused on the promotion of curriculum development, student and faculty
exchange and assistance to international students; the competency approach that
emphasises the development of competencies in students, faculty and staff of HE
institutions to enhance their international knowledge and intercultural skills; the ethos
approach for the creation of organisational culture and a psychological climate supporting
intercultural education internationally in HE institutions; and finally, the process approach
that stresses the importance of integrating the international and intercultural dimension
into teaching and research, and education services (Zha 2003, 252–253). At the national
level, differences in the actual pace of HE internationalisation policy implementation
naturally depend on particular approaches chosen.
Gradually, HE internationalisation moves underwent a paradigm shift, with the (early)
cultural and academic rationales giving way to the economic principle (Van der Wende
2001). As a consequence, the (traditional) cooperation model came to be replaced by a
greater focus on competition, particularly on the global HE market. Mainly Anglo-Saxon
countries (Australia and the USA) have chosen a competitive approach, with many other
European counterparts operating more along cooperative lines. Amidst these dynamics,
the European Union’s dual aims became to foster growing cooperation between the
institutions among the EU member states, and also to enhance international competitive-
ness of European HE with Anglo-Saxon countries. According to Van der Wende (2001,
250–256), the strengthening of cooperation has chiefly been a European policy response
to global competition.
322 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

Internationalisation challenges to Lithuanian HE

In this section, we discuss two major internationalisation challenges related to language
policy in Lithuania’s HE, namely mobility and the complexity of internationalisation
emerging from the Bologna Process. Mobility features as the key objective in the above
named HE conferences documents. The Green paper (Green Paper Promoting the
Learning Mobility of Young People, 2009) sees transnational mobility as one of the
fundamental ways for individuals to acquire essential new skills and strengthen their
future employability as well as their personal development.
The pace of internationalisation in Lithuanian HE was initially quite slow and
mobility has from the start represented a particular challenge. Tables 1 and 2 present
participation rates of foreign and Lithuanian students and teachers in the ongoing
Erasmus mobility programme. The slow growth in exchange activities has mainly been
due to a poor command of foreign languages (in terms of western languages for outgoing
students, and of Lithuanian occasionally chosen by incoming ones) (Juknytė-Petreikienė
2011; Želvys 2006; Zygmantas 2011).
Table 1 shows that, whilst the number of in-coming students has increased annually
over the span of a decade, it is still below the rate of the out-going cohort. Although both
ratios are in flux, clearly Lithuanian as a less-widely used and taught language cannot
compete with English. Students tend to be more focused on stronger languages. But, as a
result of changed HE policies (that regard student mobility and participation in
international exchange programmes as important HE quality criteria in the newly
introduced institutional HE accreditation process), the situation has improved consider-
ably (Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2008–2010 metų programa). Whilst in
the academic year 2001/2002 the ratio of in-coming and out-going students was 1:10, in
2011/2012 it had grown to 1:2 (see Figure 1).
In terms of teacher mobility, the numbers of in-coming and out-going individuals
have also gradually increased throughout the decade as is evident in Table 2. Compared
to the level of Erasmus student participation, the figures for teachers however are more
moderate. But the situation is improving since the numbers of both in-coming as well as
out-going academics have been increasing annually. For university staff choosing to work
abroad, the main obstacle has also been lacking communicative skills associated with a
low level of mastery in English (Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2008–210
metų programa, p. 6). Undoubtedly EU membership since 2004 has been positive for

Table 1. Lithuania’s student participation rates (Erasmus mobility programmes 2001–2011)

Academic year Incoming students Outgoing students

2001/2002 85 829
2002/2003 137 1001
2003/2004 218 1194
2004/2005 414 1473
2005/2006 628 1910
2006/2007 1008 2082
2007/2008 1112 2653
2008/2009 1241 3000
2009/2010 1339 3002
2010/2011 1503 3418
Source: Lietuvos švietimas skaičiais (Lithuanian Education in Numbers) 2011. Studijos (2012). http://www.
mosta.lt/stebesena/lietuvos-svietimas-skaiciais-studijos.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 323

Figure 1. Balance of Outbound vs. In-coming Erasmus Students in 2010–2011.

Source: The Erasmus Programme (2010–2011). A Statistical Overview. September, 2012, p. 27.
Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/1011/report.pdf.

Lithuanian mobility. Yet, in spite of recent developments, this is still considered as below
par when compared to other member states’ participation rates (see Figure 1).7
More generally, Figure 1 shows that the goal set in the 2009 Leuven Communique
that ‘mobility should lead to a more balanced flow of incoming and outgoing students’
has not (yet) been reached in many EU member states (including Lithuania). There may
be a persisting challenge in the pursuit of the stated aim calling ‘upon each country to

Table 2. Lithuania’s HEI teacher participation rates (Erasmus mobility programmes 2002–2011)

Academic year Incoming teachers Outgoing teachers

2002/2003 190 332

2003/2004 222 427
2004/2005 325 571
2005/2006 325 648
2006/2007 427 755
2007/2008 681 988
2008/2009 902 932
2009/2010 834 999
2010/2011 754 1278
Source: Lietuvos švietimas skaičiais (Lithuanian Education in Numbers) 2011. Studijos (2012). http://www.
mosta.lt/stebesena/lietuvos-svietimas-skaiciais-studijos.
324 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

increase mobility, to ensure its high quality and to diversify its types and scope’.
According to this, ‘[i]n 2020, at least 20% of those graduating in the European HE Area
should have had a study or training period abroad’ (Leuven Communique 2009, 4).
Another major challenge that arises for Lithuania is caused by the complexity of the
internationalisation policy framework as recommended by the Bologna process in terms
of its combined (political, economic, academic and cultural/social) internationalisation
rationales (as defined by Knight 1997). The need to pursue the economic rationale, aimed
at enhancing its international economic, scientific and technological competitiveness,
clashes with the country’s political vision, which since regaining independence (in 1990)
has been a priority HE policy. This is strongly concerned with the preservation and
promotion of national (Lithuanian) culture, identity and language. The ethnocentrically
oriented national policy of Lithuanian HE contrasts with the Eurocentric cultural/social
rationale of the Bologna process that emphasises fostering intercultural understanding,
communication and international cooperation.
By contrast the academic rationale, i.e. improvement of the quality of HE, and
ensuring greater compatibility of study programmes, awarded degrees and qualifications,
has from the start been widely supported as a central means for boosting mobility. This
was in recognition that the globalising international labour market requires the HE system
to equip graduates with academic, linguistic and intercultural competencies and
qualifications that are internationally competitive. Measures were gradually adopted to
provide a sound foundation for student and teacher mobility, as well as enhancing their
knowledge of other languages and cultures.

Lithuania’s language policies in higher education

According to the principles formulated by the Council of Europe (2001, 168), the
European language education policy aims to promote individual plurilingualism. This
concept is defined by the amount of languages an individual can use and by a person’s
potential or actual ability to participate in intercultural activities and communicate in
several languages with varying proficiency. In an increasingly mobile Europe, an
individual’s capability to use several languages is of social importance, as it is likely to
contribute to a society’s multilingual and multicultural orientations, which in turn can also
reap economic benefits (Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun 2008).
But, owing to its ethnocentric language orientation,8 Lithuania’s policy did not match
with that of the EU promoting multiculturalism and multilingualism on joining it in 2004.
In the 2001 national population census, only 17% of the population reported being able to
speak English, 8% German and 2% French. Since joining the EU, Lithuania’s language
landscape has changed gradually. According to the Special Eurobarometer 386 (2012,
EU27), 38% of the Lithuanian population claimed they knew English, 14% German and
80% could still use Russian (Special Eurobarometer 386 2012). For the new generation
who were no longer proficient in Russian (as it had ceased to be a compulsory subject at
school), the main European languages were gradually introduced into school and HE in
line with EU language policy trends (Bulajeva 2009). This took effect in the course of a
decade, resulting in the national language policy development’s greater agreement with
EU international principles and the Bologna process objectives. At the same time,
increased labour force mobility has resulted in a ‘brain drain’, which propelled ways to
reach out to the Lithuanian diaspora through linguistic support (‘Protų nutekėjimo’
mažinimas ir protų susigrąžinimas 2007).
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 325

Evidently, the development of Lithuania’s HE internationalisation policy is closely

related to its national language policy practices in using political means to improve the
situation of language learning and teaching in HE. It seems that, despite being bound to
the goals of the Bologna process, Lithuanian politicians continue to be faced with
language policy dilemmas. On the one hand they are pursuing the nation rebuilding
project aiming to strengthen the state language (Lithuanian), on the other hand this policy
presents an obstacle to enhancing knowledge of other foreign languages as would be
necessary for internationalisation and international cooperation. These contraditions
manifest themselves in Lithuanian policy documents.
According to the Law on the State Language (Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės
kalbos įstatymas 1995), all of the country’s national institutions (including education
institutions) should use Lithuanian for oral and written communication in both the public
and semi-public domains (Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas 1995, 1).
Article 11 of the Law further states that ‘the state will guarantee the residents of the
Republic of Lithuania the right to acquire general, vocational, higher post-secondary and
university education in the state language’ (2).
The Law on HE and Research (Lietuvos Respublikos aukštojo mokslo ir studijų
įstatymas 2009) is Lithuania’s main HE reform document. In article 3, it defines the main
research and policy priority areas as follows:

The State shall give strategic priority to Lithuanian studies that deal with the core tasks of
preserving, enhancing and developing national identity. HE and research institutions, to the
extent that they participate in the implementation of this priority, shall be regarded as
carrying out activities of strategic importance. (3)

The above Law, which is the main HE policy document, also defines wider priority areas
such as: European humanistic and democratic tradition; compatibility with the provisions
of the European HE area; orientation towards international quality standards; participation
in the international and European research area. Attention has hence been paid to the
European dimension, with the Bologna process policy goals taken into consideration for
possible solutions to be found. Hence, whilst Article 49 of the Law the medium of
instruction for all HE institutions states: ‘The medium of instruction in state HE
institutions shall be the Lithuanian language’, it concedes that ‘other languages may be
used in teaching if:

(1) the content of a study programme is linked to another language;

(2) lectures are delivered or other academic events are headed by teaching staff
members from foreign states;
(3) studies are carried out pursuant to joint study programmes or study programmes
on completion of which a double qualification degree is awarded and a part of
these programmes is carried out in other countries; non-state HE institutions in
which the medium of instruction is a language other than the Lithuanian
language, or conform to the cases set out in paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article;
(4) Studies are carried out in pursuance of programmes intended for enrolled foreign
nationals or in the case of a study exchange’. (43)

Although the Lithuanian language is prioritised, this Law has, compared to the situation
before, eased the conditions for other languages to be used in HE institutions. In
particular, these new regulations have helped widen the palette for foreign language
326 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

degrees and for courses in English offered in international study programmes for
incoming students.9 Thus, overall, EU-wide HE policy initiatives and the Bologna
process have had a liberalising influence on Lithuania‘s national education policy.

Lithuanian policy strategies: promoting internationalisation and resolving language

policy dilemmas
In this section, we analyse two successive recent Lithuanian policy strategy documents
that were developed for the promotion of internationalisation in HE with the aim to
resolve national language policy dilemmas.
Lithuania’s national Programme for the Promotion of Internationalisation in Higher
Education, developed for 2008–2010 (Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2008–
2010 metų programa), has mainly worked towards ensuring quality and competitiveness
in dealing with the aforemetioned internationalisation challenges. The programme’s
guidelines call for greater international cooperation with researchers and professionals
from abroad to improve Lithuanian HE. Arguably, for this purpose, it is necessary to
renew the legal system in order to create favourable legal conditions for foreigners to
study and to work in the country.10
In its rationale, the programme points to several weaknesses in the current system. It
refers to the scarcity of study programmes in Lithuania offered in foreign languages; the
relatively small number of teachers with good English language skills, with many lacking
the necessary competence to teach and develop learning materials in a foreign language;
the limited information that is available about the course units delivered in foreign
languages at Lithuanian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); insufficient financial
support, hindering student and teacher mobility. These system-internal deficiencies are
deemed in the document to slow down the pace of internationalisation (Aukštojo mokslo
tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2008–2010 metų programa, 6).
The programme (Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2008–2010 metų
programa 7) also sets priorities for the development of international cooperation in HE.
This is firstly envisaged with neigbouring Latvia, Poland and Estonia; secondly, with
countries hosting sizeable communities of Lithuanians (Ireland, Argentina, Brasil, the
UK, Spain, the Russian Federation, especially its Kaliningrad region and Germany);
thirdly, with Scandinavian countries; fourthly, with non-EU countries providing compet-
itive HE (Australia, Japan, the USA); and finally with the rapidly developing economies
of India and the People‘s Republic of China.
In addressing the dilemmas spinning from the duality of the national (Lithuanian) and
European policy objectives, the above programme uses different policy rationales for the
promotion of Lithuania’s HE internationalisation. In terms of the seemingly irreconcilable
political and economic rationales, it recommends a dual approach as follows. Politically,
there is a perceived need to strengthen the country’s position and role in the world.
Economically, HE internationalisation is considered as making a contribution to this in
raising skilled human resources that are necessary for international competitiveness. The
academic rationale includes objectives relating to the achievement of international
academic standards as set by the Bologna process for teaching and research to enhance
the quality of the HE system and its institutions. Attention is also paid to the cultural/
social aspect that concentrates both on the role and place of the national (Lithuanian)
culture and language, and the importance of promoting understanding of foreign
languages and cultures.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 327

The successor Programme for the Promotion of Internationalisation in Higher

Education for 2011–2012 (Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo 2011–2012 metų
programa) further underpins the development of Lithuania’s HE internationalisation. In
pursuing mainly the cooperative approach, it pays particular attention to the political and
cultural/social rationales as the national HE policy priority goal. The focus is on the
promotion of Lithuanian studies (Lituanistica) in foreign countries, both in terms of
research and teaching as part of Baltic studies (Baltistica). At present there are 30
Lithuanian and Baltic studies centres worldwide (Baltistika ir lituanistika užsienyje; see
http://baltnexus.lt/nuorodos/baltistikos-centrai-uzsienyje/). These usually form part of
universities (some of them have the status of institutes or departments), where the
Lithuanian language and culture are taught and researched alongside Baltic languages. In
a third of the centres students are also offered independent study programmes of
Lithuanian (Baltic) studies, and in two-thirds Lithuanian or Baltic languages are provided
as optional/free choice course units. At the same time, the level of financial support by
the local governments for these study programmes is being reduced in some of the
foreign universities. The 2011–2012 Programme, which provides support for Lithuanian
(Baltic) studies centres, particularly stresses as one of the priority goals the promotion of
international cooperation and projects of Lithuanian HEIs with these centres. It also aims
to create favourable (legal and financial) conditions and provide financial support for
foreigners and especially for emigrants of Lithuanian origin, their children, grandchildren
and great grandchildren returning to study in Lithuania, whilst also reconsolidating their
national (Lithuanian) identity. A further programme objective is to provide support for
academics internationally, especially for cooperation between the researchers at home and
Lithuanian colleagues working at universities abroad. It is envisaged that this would help
to reduce the ongoing ‘brain drain’ of staff.
The objectives set out in the 2011–2012 programme aimed at supporting Lithuanian
(Baltic) studies centres go some way towards resolving existing language policy
dilemmas in promoting internationalisation and international cooperation whilst also
continuing with the national project to strenghten the Lithuanian language and culture.

Recent developments in the internationalisation of Lithuanian HE

The political strategies, once implemented, have helped improve the development of
Lithuania‘s HE internationalisation. As the political means in the above mentioned HE
Internationalisation Promotion Programmes show, it was possible to secure ways of
addressing political priority goals having quite different, seemingly contadicting
(ethnocentric and Eurocentric) orientations. Positive results have been achieved from
2009–2012 in terms of (out-going and in-coming student and out-going teacher) mobility
in HE as evidenced by the statistics discussed above. The number of Lithuanian students
enrolled at foreign universities has been rising consistently for some time. According to
Eurostat data, 4% of students with Lithuanian citizenship were being educated full time at
EU HE institutions by 2009, which represents an increase of 15% from 2008. Almost half
of this Lithuanian cohort abroad (47%, i.e. 10 times more than in 2005) has chosen
universities in the UK. Other popular countries are Germany (17%), Denmark (8%) and
Poland (6%) (Eurostat 2009).
These data on the number of out-going participants signal a possibly increasing ‘brain
drain’ tendency among students. Some authors have been concerned about the outcomes
of internationalisation. For instance, Van der Wende (2003) hinted that transnational
education could be detrimental to smaller nations and languages. Others perceive support
328 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

for out-going student mobility as investing in emigration since many of them do not
return after graduation (see Želvys 2006). Andere (2004) warned that governments of
less-developed countries should not involve themselves in the international HE market,
because in promoting mobility and international education they use scarce and costly
resources of the state. Many Lithuanians at large are in fact worried about the possible
effects of an ongoing ‘brain drain’ without a corresponging gain (‘Protų nutekėjimo’
mažinimas ir protų susigrąžinimas. [Decreasing of ‘Brain drain’ and returning of brain
gain].Tyrimo ataskaita. 2007).
On the other hand, efforts to attract more foreign students to be educated in Lithuania
have been fruitful. According to the latest data provided by the Department of Statistics
of Lithuania (Lietuvos švietimas skaičiais 2011; Studijos 2012), some 4500 foreign
students were enrolled in Lithuanian HE institutions by the start of the academic year
2011–2012. This figure, which comprises 2.5% of all students in Lithuanian HE,
represents an increase by 8% compared to the preceding academic year. Most of these
(86%) are from European countries (Belarus, Russia, Spain, Poland, Ukraine), 10% from
Asia (mainly Israel, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, India), 1.5% from Africa (Nigeria, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Namibia), 1.5% from North America, 1.5% from South America (Peru, Brazil,
Argentina) and 0.1% from Australia. The majority of these foreign students were enrolled
in the first study cycle, with 78% working towards a bachelor degree, 21% seeking
Master’s degrees and 1% studying at the third cycle, aiming for a doctorate.
In the face of these developments, there has been growing pressure on HE institutions
to market and present their courses in foreign languages. This approach needs staff with
good communicative foreign language (particularly English) skills so as to perform
effectively in diverse settings, which requires investment. According to data provided in
the e-book ‘Study in Lithuania’ (2012), there are at present 168 study programmes11
offered to foreigners by two types of HE institutions: non-university colleges awarding a
professional bachelor and universities providing study programmes in all three study
cycles. One hundred and sixty-eight of these are delivered in English, 50 in Russian, four
in German and one in French. Five Lithuanian universities also run Lithuanian language
courses of different length and intensity. The University of Vilnius plays a leading role
with all its Faculties being involved in offering in-coming students an overall choice of
783 courses in 55 subject areas.

Summary
In this paper we have examined the challenges presented by Western-mediated HE
internationalisation processes for their implementation in Lithuania and more widely
across the Baltic states. Since the restitution of independence, the country has officially
practised an ethnocentristic approach to language (and education) policy. Joining the EU
and signing the Bologna Declaration have initiated changes in the trajectory of the
national HE internationalisation policy. Dilemmas that have since arisen are rooted in the
fact that as an EU member state, Lithuania has had to reconcile itself with Eurocentric
and global tendencies and share common policy rationales supporting multilingualism
and multiculturalism, whilst as a young independent state it is also intent on promoting
and strengthening the national culture and language. Our analysis of the strategic
documents (2009–2012) aimed at fostering internationalisation of HE in Lithuania shows
that it has been possible to find political solutions to address these contrasting policy
trends, mainly in fostering student and teacher mobility. National political instruments
have also been developed with the aim to consolidate the study of Lithuanian and other
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 329

(state) languages in the wider Baltic region. At the same time, different policy rationales
and approaches that are in tune with the EU and Bologna process are employed to
enhance cooperation with Baltistics and Indoeuropean studies at foreign universities to
pave the way more globally for Baltic HE internationalisation practices.

Notes
1. The term ‘ethnocentric’ used here is featured widely in anthropology. Bennett (1993) defines
ethnocentrism as the belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own ethnic group or culture. In
our case this is firstly manifest in legitimising Lithuanian as a state language; in a wider sense
it is understood as priority being given to the development and protection of national identity
and culture. Underlying causes of this tendency can be differently interpreted. It is gernerally
understood to form a core part of nation (re-)building processes in Post-Soviet countries (cf.
Butovskaya and Falger 1999).
2. We use the terms national and state language interchangably to designate the constitutionally
anchored official status of, in this paper, Lithuanian in Lithuania (see Law on the State
Language of The Republic of Lithuania).
3. Issues surrounding this evolving (HE) policy landscape across the Baltic in the wake of EU
accession were analysed in Savickienė and Kalėdaitė (2005, 442–452), Bulajeva and Hogan-
Brun (2008, 396–422) and Hogan-Brun (2010).
4. Lithuania (as all the Baltic states) saw as one of its post-independence key missions to join
western organisations. This culminated when it acceeded the European Union (on 1 May
2004) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (on 29 March 2004).
5. These 25 OECD countries are: France, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Norway, Italy,
Belgium, Japan, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Korea, Germany, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, Ireland, the UK, Portugal, Hungary, New Zealand, Australia,
Finland and Spain (OECD 2004).
6. From 2000 to 2008, the percentage of tertiary students enrolled abroad increased by 85%,
with an estimated 3.3 million outside their country of citizenship by 2008 (European
Commission 2011).
7. The Lithuanian HE mobility figures, whilst slightly below the EU mean scores, are close to
those of other medium sized countries such as Greece, Hungary or Romania. But, according to
the 2009–2010 strategy document, the situation could still be improved when compared with
the percentages of the countries at the top.
8. After regaining independence in 1991, the language policies in Lithuania aimed to preserve
and strengthen the national (state) language and culture to meet the present day challenges of
globalisation (Valstybinės kalbos politikos 2003–2008 m. gairės, 2003: 1–2). As a result the
country’s sociolingistic context has changed rapidly.
9. Some private educational institutions have opted for other languages (such as Russian) as the
medium of instruction but certificates are not usually nationally accredited.
10. According to the existing Law on the State Language (Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės
kalbos įstatymas, 1995) foreign specialists cannot be legally employed on a regular basis
without a certified state language competence.
11. This is published in three languages: Lithuanian, English and Russian and can be found at
www.smpf.lt/lt/.../study_in_lithuania_leidinys_. It defines Lithuanian studies (Lituanistica) as
investigating the Lithuanian language, literature and folklore. Baltic studies (Baltistica) is a
branch of contemporary linguistics studies of Baltic languages, Baltic history, culture and
mythology. The Baltic languages group is the most archaic group of Indoeuropean languages.
It includes two living languages (Lithuanian and Latvian) and five extinct ones used in the
past by several Baltic tribes: Old Prussian, Old Curonian, Yotvingian (Sudovian), Semigallian,
and Selonian. There are about 4.7 million speakers of Lithuanian and Latvian (most of them
live in Lithuania and Latvia). Beside three million living in Lithuania, large groups of native
speakers of Lithuanian also live in Belarus, Poland, the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Spain,
Australia, Germany (Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas, 1995).
330 T. Bulajeva and G. Hogan-Brun

References
Aigner, J. S., P. Nelson, and J. R. Stimpfl. 1992. Internationalizing the University: Making It Work.
Springfield: CBIS Federal.
Andere, E. 2004. “The International HE Market: Mexico‘s Case.” Journal of Studies in
International Education 8 (1): 56–85. doi:10.1177/1028315303257116.
Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo. 2008–2010. metų programa. [Programme of Promotion
of Internationalisation in HE 2008–2010]. Accessed August 9. http://www.tar.tic.lt/Default.
aspx?id = 2&item = results&aktoid = 2AD6B8FB-F5C0-4167-A61B-00282B7B0C47.
Aukštojo mokslo tarptautiškumo skatinimo. 2011–2012. metų programa. [Programme of Promotion
of Internationalisation in HE 2011–2012]. Accessed August 9. http://www.tar.tic.lt/Default.
aspx?id = 2&item = results&aktoid = DA317DFC-21BF-4C41-B24E-3C43DC3FD9D1.
Bennett, M. J. 1993. “Towards a Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Education
for Intercultural Experience, edited by R. M. Paige, 21–71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bulajeva, T. 2005. “Aukštojo mokslo internacionalizavimas globalizacijos sąlygomis. [Internatio-
nalisation of HE in the Conditions of Globalization].” Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia 14: 179–186.
Bulajeva, T. 2009. “Užsienio kalbų mokymas: daugiakalbystės ir mokymo ankstinimo link [Foreign
Language Education: Towards Multilingualism and Early Language Learning].” In Lietuvos
švietimo politikos transformacijos [Education Policy Transformations in Lithuania], edited by
S. T. Bulajeva and L. Duobliene, 209–236. Vilnius: VU leidykla.
Bulajeva, T., and G. Hogan-Brun. 2008. “Language and Education Orientations in Lithuania:
A Cross-baltic Perspective Post EU-accession.” The International Journal of Bilingualism and
Bilingual Education 11: 396–422.
Butovskaya, M., and V. S. E. Falger. 1999. “The Rise of Ethnocentrism in the Former Soviet Union
as a Confirmation of the In-group/Out-group Kin Selection Paradigm.” In In-group/Out-group
Behaviour in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective, edited by K. Thienpont and
R. Cliquet, 223–238. Brussels: Vlaamse Gemeenschap, NIDI CBGS Publications.
Council of Europe. 2001. “Common European Framework in Its Political and Educational
Context.” Accessed August 9. http://www.coe.int/tdg4/linguistic/Source/CECR_En.pdf.
European Commission. 2011. “External Education Policies and Tools. Developments, Trends and
Opportunities in the Internasionalisation of Education in the EU and its Member States. Policy
Brief Based on the Mapping Study. Mapping Member States’External Education & Training
policies and Tools (2010). DG EAC 2011.” Accessed August 9. http://ec.europa.eu/education/
pub/pdf/international/mapping_en.pdf.
Eurostat. 2009. “Eurostat Yearbook 2009: Education (Tables and Graphs).” http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab = table&init = 1&plugin = 1&language = en&pcode = t2020_41.
Gibney, E. 2013. “A Different World.” Times Higher Education nr 2, January 31.
Green Paper Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People. 2009. Accessed March 11. http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = COM:2009:0329:FIN:EN:PDF.
Hogan-Brun, G. 2005. “The Baltic Republics and Language Ideological Debates Surrounding their
EU Accession. In Language and Social Processes in the Baltic Republics Surrounding EU
Accession.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26: 367–377. doi:10.1080/
01434630508668410.
Hogan-Brun, G. 2007. “Education in the Baltic States: Contexts, Practices and Challenges.”
Comparative Education 43 (4): 553–570. doi:10.1080/03050060701611946.
Hogan-Brun, G. 2010. “Language and Education at the Margins of the European Union: Policies,
Practices, Challenges.” Comparative Education 46: 3–12.
Hogan-Brun, G., U. Ozolins, M. Ramoniene, and M. Rannut. 2009. Language Politics and
Practices in the Baltic States. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press.
Juknytė-Petreikienė, I. 2011. “Aukštojo mokslo internacionalizuotų studijų kokybės vertinimo
parametrai. [Higher Education Internationalised Studies Quality Assessment Parameters].”
Daktaro disertacija Doctoral Diss., VDU, Kaunas.
Knight, J. 1997. “Internationalization of Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework.” In
Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries, edited by J. Knight and
H. deWitt, 5–19. Amsterdam: EAIE.
Leuven/Lovaine-la-Neuve Communique. 2009. “The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher
Education Area in the New Decade.” Accessed December 24. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/
hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/leuven_louvain-la-neuve_communiqu%C3%A9_
april_2009.pdf.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 331

Lietuvos Respublikos aukštojo mokslo ir studijų įstatymas [Law on HE and Research of the
Republic of Lithuania]. 2009. Accessed August 9. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.
showdoc_l?p_id = 343430. or English version at http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.show
doc_l?p_id = 366717.
Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas [Law on the State Language of The Republic of
Lithuania. 1995. Accessed August 9. http://www.vlkk.lt/i/istatymai/2kalbos_ist. doc or English
version http://www3lrs.lt/cgi-bin/getfmt?C1 = e&C2 = 21941.
Lietuvos švietimas skaiciais. 2011. [Lithuanian Education of 2011 in Figures. Studies]. Studijos
2012. http://www.mosta.lt/stebesena/lietuvos-svietimas-skaiciais-studijos.
OECD. 2004. Policy Brief. Internationalisation of Higher Education. OECD Observer, August
2004. Accessed January 20. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/60/33734276.pdf.
‘Protų nutekėjimo’ mažinimas ir protų susigrąžinimas. [Decreasing Brain Drain and Brain Gain].
Tyrimo ataskaita. 2007. Accessed March 15. http://www.smm.lt/svietimo_bukle/docs/tyrimai/
es/Protu%20nutekejimo%20mazinimas_ataskaita.pdf.
Savickienė, I., and V. Kalėdaitė. 2005. “Cultural and Linguistic Diversity of the Baltic States in a
New Europe.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26 (5): 442–452.
doi:10.1080/01434630508668415.
Sorbonne Joint Declaration. 1998. Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the
European Higher Education System. http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Sorbonne_declara-
tion.pdf.
Special Eurobarometer 386. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.
Study in Lithuania. 2012. Study in Lithuania 2012. Accessed January 20, 2013. www.smpf.lt/lt/
.../study_in_lithuania_leidinys.
Teichler, U. 2008. “Internationalisation of Higher Education: European Experiences.” Accessed
March 11, 2013. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/summer_school/literature/internationalisation.pdf.
The Treaty of Lisbon. 2000. “Taking Europe into the 21st Century.” http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/
index_en.htm.
The Bologna Declaration. 1999. “The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher
Education: Explanation.” http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf.
“The European Higher Education Area: Achieving the Goals.” Communiqué of the Conference of
European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19–20 May. 2005. http://www.
bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050520_Bergen_Communique.pdf.
The Bologna Process. 2020. “The European Higher Education Area in the New Decade.” Communiqué
of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-
la-Neuve, 28–29 April 2009. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/
documents/leuven_louvain-la-neuve_communiqu%C3%A9_april_2009.pdf.
The Erasmus Programme. 2010–2011. A Statistical Overview. September, 2012, p.27. Accessed
March 15, 2013. http://ec.europe.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm.
Valstybinės kalbos politikos. 2003–2008. m.gairės [State Language Policy Guidelines for the Years
of 2003–2008]2003.
Van der Wende, M. C. 2001. “Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and Contrasting
Paradigms.” Higher Education Policy 14 (3): 249–259. doi:10.1016/S0952-8733(01)00018-6.
Van der Wende, M. C. 2003. “Globalisation and Access to HE.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 7 (2): 193–206. doi:10.1177/1028315303007002006.
Warner, G. 1992. “Internationalization Models and the Role of the University.” International
Education Magazine 8 (1): 21.
Želvys, R. 2006. “Internacionalizacijos iššūkiai Lietuvos aukštajam mokslui [The Challenges of
Internationalisation for Lithuania‘s HE].” Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia 17: 140–146.
Zha, Q. 2003. “Internationalization of Higher Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework.”
Policy Futures in Education 1 (2): 248–270. doi:10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5.
Zygmantas, J. 2011. “Adult Newcomers’ Difficulties in Learning Lithuanian: An Ethnographic
Case Study.” Doctoral diss., Vilnius.

View publication stats