Search

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.

The aim of this article is to set the scene for the following special issue, which contains four papers relating to research on parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in different jurisdictions. In Continental Europe, Parliaments (although in a rather different range: more in countries such as Italy and Spain, less in countries such as Germany) have developed a more-in-depth approach in scrutinising the quality of legislation, i.e. a set of tools, standards and bodies to scrutinise it downstream, than that of Westminster jurisdictions. In the latter, a high-standard quality of legislation is guaranteed upstream by having bills drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, although in the United Kingdom there is currently a debate concerning the opportunity to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation. The hypotheses of this research were that the aforementioned models of parliamentary scrutiny are differently shaped in those jurisdictions due to the drafting model and the form of government established there. Against this background, the United States Congress is a very different animal: due to the peculiarities of the legislative process in the presidential system, the scrutiny in Congress relies on multiple parties. The reason why articles have been commissioned here is to test now on a larger scale the aforementioned hypotheses, which have already been partially proved in a previous article mainly concerning Italy (E. Albanesi, 'Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Quality of Legislation within Europe' (2021) Statute Law Review). This time the analysis will focus on two Continental European parliamentary systems (Spain and Germany), one jurisdiction belonging to the Parliamentary Counsel/Westminster model (Canada) and one presidential system (the U.S.). The articles published here seem to support on a larger scale the aforementioned hypotheses. The article on Canada also helps reflect upon the opportunity to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in Westminster jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]