Deborah Peel is a lecturer in the Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Gordon Stephenson Building, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ; email: dpeel@liv.ac.uk. Andrea Frank is Deputy Director (Planning, Housing and Transport) at the Centre for Education in the Built Environment, Cardif University, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardif CF10 3ND; email: franka@cardif.ac.uk. Contemporary global and competitive environmental and economic forces have been described as constituting an unprecedented challenge for universities (Bartell, 2003). Adopting a UK perspective, internationalisation has been identifed as ‘one of the most signifcant drivers of change facing the modern university’ (Taylor, 2004, 168) and educational policy more widely (Middlehurst, 2002). An expanding breadth of policy and scholarly literature and journals dedicated to internationalisation afrm its reach and importance. In short, the idea of internationalisation, in its various (and contested) articulations and interpretations (Qiang, 2003), has been identifed as representing a new paradigm for education in the twenty-frst century (Gacel-Ávila, 2005). Yet, despite the widespread agreement on the importance of internationalisation, it is critical to note that there is no universally accepted defnition of internationalisa- tion. Nor does the idea fnd systematic articulation, being variously conceptualised as: a process (internationalising curricula or teaching practices); a place (the international classroom); or a commodity (the international student). Disciplinary diferences are seen as having a ‘situating efect’ with respect to interpretation and operationalisation; it is argued, for example, that subjects such as marketing and business have actively engaged in forms of ‘student trade’ (Haigh, 2002, 50). Other subjects, Haigh suggests, may not, to date, have exploited such avenues, although, writing in the context of geography, he ventures that there is considerable potential for promoting a more multi- cultural and inclusive geography curriculum. It follows that fundamental questions remain to be addressed as to how individual disciplinary communities formulate and develop the opportunities of taking a more international perspective and the degrees to which this is presented as international, multicultural and/or inclusive. In this Lead Paper, we consider how planning as a discipline is tentatively constructing its stance with respect to this complex educational driver. Through a review of the literature, the purpose of the Lead Paper is to stimu- late debate around the educational dimensions of the internationalising dynamic and TPR, 79 (1) 2008 Deborah Peel and Andrea Frank, with comments by David Amborski, Robin Boyle, Alex Fubini, Taner Oc and Tim Heath, and Vanessa Watson and a response by Andrea Frank and Deborah Peel Planning Education Forum The internationalisation of planning education: issues, perceptions and priorities for action TPR79_1_05_Forum.indd 87 1/7/08 10:12:56