Internationalization in Higher Education and Research: Perspectives, Obstacles, Alternatives (Higher Education Dynamics, 62) 3031473345, 9783031473340

Citation preview

Higher Education Dynamics  62

Lars Engwall   Editor

Internationalization in Higher Education and Research Perspectives, Obstacles, Alternatives

Higher Education Dynamics Volume 62

Series Editors Peter Maassen, Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway Manja Klemenčič, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Editorial Board Members Akira Arimoto, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hyogo University, Kakogawa, Japan Elizabeth Balbachevsky, NUPPs-IEA/USP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Giliberto Capano, Political & Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Glen Jones, Ontario Inst for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Marek Kwiek, Center for Public Policy Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poznań, Poland Johan Müller, School of Education, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa Teboho Moja, Higher Education Program, New York University, New York, NY, USA Jung-Cheol Shin, Department of Education, Seoul National University, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul, Korea (Republic of) Martina Vukasovic, Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

This series is intended to study adaptation processes and their outcomes in higher education at all relevant levels. In addition it wants to examine the way interactions between these levels affect adaptation processes. It aims at applying general social science concepts and theories as well as testing theories in the field of higher education research. It wants to do so in a manner that is of relevance to all those professionally involved in higher education, be it as ministers, policy-makers, politicians, institutional leaders or administrators, higher education researchers, members of the academic staff of universities and colleges, or students. It will include both mature and developing systems of higher education, covering public as well as private institutions. All volumes published in the ‘Higher Education Dynamics’ series get peerreviewed (single-blind). The series is included in Scopus.

Lars Engwall Editor

Internationalization in Higher Education and Research Perspectives, Obstacles, Alternatives

Editor Lars Engwall Department of Business Studies Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden

ISSN 1571-0378 ISSN 2215-1923 (electronic) Higher Education Dynamics ISBN 978-3-031-47334-0 ISBN 978-3-031-47335-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Preface

The Academia Europaea, the European academy founded in 1988, has had a group focusing on Higher Education, Research and Culture in European Society (HERCulES) since 2004. Over the years, it has regularly arranged symposia on topics within its mandate, often in collaboration with the Wenner-Gren Foundations in Stockholm. Topics covered during the last decade include Trust in Universities (2011; Engwall & Scott, 2013), Bibliometrics (2013; Blockmans et al., 2014), MOOCs (2015; De Corte et al., 2016), Interdisciplinarity (2017; Žic Fuchs et al., 2018), University Governance and Creativity (2017; Krücken et al., 2018), Bridging Secondary and Higher Education (2019; Larsen, 2020) and Missions of Universities (2019; Engwall, 2020). The present volume on the internationalization of higher-education institutions continues this series. Originally planned to take place in May 2020, it had to wait two years due to the pandemic. The symposium was arranged by the HERCulES Group together with the Centre for Higher Education and Research as a Study Object (HERO) and the Swedish Centre for Studies of the Internationalisation of Higher Education (SIHE) at Uppsala University with economic support from the Åke Wiberg Foundation. In arranging the symposium, Mikael Börjesson and I had much appreciated assistance by Johan Boberg and Ashley Haru. For the work with this volume, sincere thanks go to Cornelia Gustavsson for editorial assistance and Donald MacQueen for language editing. The latter has been made possible through a grant from the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of Uppsala. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues in the O-forum seminar at the Department of Business, Uppsala University for valuable comments. Uppsala, Sweden

Lars Engwall

v

vi

Preface

References Blockmans, W., Engwall, L., & Weaire, D. (Eds.) (2014). Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance. Portland Press. De Corte, E., Engwall, L., & Teichler, U. (Eds.) (2016). From books to MOOCs?: Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher education. Portland Press. Engwall, L. (Ed.) (2020). Missions of universities: Past, present, future (Springer Series Higher Education Dynamics 55). Springer. Engwall, L., & Scott, P. (Eds.) (2013). Trust in universities. Portland Press. Krücken, G., Engwall, L., & De Corte, E. (2018). University governance and creativity. European Review, 26 (Supplement S1). Larsen, S. E. (2020). Educational transitions: A challenge to research, practice and policy. European Review, 27 (Symposium S1). Žic Fuchs, M. et al. (2018). Crossing over to the future: Interdisciplinarity in research and higher education. European Review, 26(Supplement S2), S1–S5.

Contents

Part I

Perspectives on Internationalization

1

Setting the Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lars Engwall

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education: Critical Reflections on Its Conceptual Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hans de Wit

17

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simon Marginson

33

3

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context: Internationalising Comparability and the Geo-politicalisation of Higher Education and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ellen Hazelkorn

Part II 5

6

7

3

55

Obstacles to Internationalization

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos: Multilingualism as a Sphere of Glocal Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman and Gili S. Drori

77

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marijk van der Wende

97

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate the Ambiguous Terrain Between Political Constraints and Aspirations of a Desirable Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and Karen Valentin

vii

viii

8

Contents

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis . . . . . 137 Robin Shields

Part III

Alternative Modes of Internationalization

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility, the Only Way to Equip Students with Intercultural Skills? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Robert J. Coelen

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Ashley Gunter, Markus Roos Breines, F. Melis Cin, and Parvati Raghuram

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms . . . . 181 Christine T. Ennew

Part IV 12

Major Messages, Bibliography and Name Index

Major Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Lars Engwall

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

About the Contributors

F. Melis Cin is Senior Lecturer in Education and Social Justice at Lancaster University, UK. She is a feminist researcher with a particular interest in exploring the relationship between education and international development. She investigates how education can be used as a peace-building tool in conflict zones and employs socially engaged art interventions as a way to understand the local meanings of peace in formal and informal education settings. Email: [email protected]. Robert J. Coelen is Professor of Internationalisation of Higher Education at NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, Director of the Centre for Internationalisation of Education at the University of Groningen, and Visiting Professor at Research Institute of Higher Education, Tongji University and at the International Teacher Centre of East China Normal University. Prior to these appointments, he was Vice-President International at Leiden University, and senior executive on internationalisation at The University of Queensland and James Cook University in Australia, especially focused on the recruitment of international students. He has worked for about 25 years in the field of international education after a successful Australian career in Molecular Virology. Email: robert.coelen@stenden. com. Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus, Distinguished Fellow, and Former Director of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) at Boston College, USA. He is founding editor of the Journal of Studies in International Higher Education, co-editor of International Higher Education, consulting editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education, and has a regular blog at University World News. He is a Senior Fellow of the International Association of Universities (IAU) and was a founding member and past-president of the European Association for International Education (EAIE). He has published many books and articles on the internationalisation of higher education. Email: [email protected].

ix

x

About the Contributors

Gili S. Drori is Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and Director of the European Forum at the Hebrew University. She also serves as President of the Israeli Sociological Society. Gili earned her academic education at Tel Aviv University (BA, 1986; MA, 1989) and Stanford University (PhD, 1997, Sociology). Her publications deal with globalisation and glocalisation; organisational change and rationalisation; world society theory; science, innovation, and higher education; technology divides; and culture and policy regimes. Email: [email protected]. Lars Engwall is Professor Emeritus of Management at Uppsala University, Sweden. His research has been particularly directed towards organisation studies. Among his recent publications can be mentioned Bibliometrics (ed. 2014 with Wim Blockmans and Denis Weaire, Portland Press), From Books to MOOCs? (2016, ed. with Erik De Corte and Ulrich Teichler, Portland Press), Defining Management (2016 with Matthias Kipping and Behlül Üsdiken, Routledge), Corporate Governance in Action (ed. 2018, Routledge), and Missions of Universities (ed. 2020, Springer). He has received honorary degrees from Åbo Akademi University and Stockholm School of Economics, and he is an elected member of a number of learned societies. Email: [email protected]. Christine T. Ennew is Provost at the University of Warwick where she supports the Vice Chancellor in the academic leadership of the University. Until 2016, she was Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Nottingham where she managed the University’s ambitious international strategy for five years. She also served for three and a half years as Provost and CEO of Nottingham’s first international campus, which is located to the south of Kuala Lumpur. She is currently a member of the Board of Directors for Common Purpose Student Experiences, a Fellow of the Head Foundation. Email: [email protected]. Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg is Associate Professor in Sociology of Education at Uppsala University. She is an anthropologist by training and holds a PhD degree in European Studies from Aarhus University (2019). Her work especially focuses on student flow from Eastern to Western Europe. Specialising in ethnography with a longitudinal methodology, she is particular interested in the lived experience of migration, the link between geographical and social mobility, and the labour market integration of student migrants. Email: [email protected]. Ashley Gunter is Professor in Geography at the University of South Africa. He obtained a PhD from the University of Johannesburg in 2012 and has been a Research fellow at the University of Oxford, The Open University UK, and the University of Edinburgh. He was joint-PI on a Newton Grant awarded in 2016 and is Co-I on an AHRC grant since 2020, conducting research on education in Africa, and has been awarded over R17 million in grant funding for these and other projects over the past decade. He is the Editor-in-Chief (Human Geography) of the South African Geographical Journal and is on the Steering Committee of the IGU Local Development Commission. Email: [email protected].

About the Contributors

xi

Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates education consultants and Professor Emerita, Technological University Dublin (Ireland). She is Joint Editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education. She is affiliated to the Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE), Oxford, and Research Fellow, Centre for International Higher Education, Boston College. Ellen is member of the Quality Board for Higher Education in Iceland, and UK Commission for the College of the Future. As UNESCO Lead, she recently wrote the 5-year Higher-Education Policy and Action Plan for Lebanon (2021). Ellen was Policy Advisor of Higher Education Authority of Ireland (HEA) and Vice President of Dublin Institute of Technology (now TU Dublin) (1995–2008). Relevant publications include Research Handbook on University Rankings: History, Methodology, Influence and Impact (2021); Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education (2016); Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence, 2nd ed. (2015). Email: [email protected]. Simon Marginson is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford, Director of the ESRC/RE Centre for Global Higher Education in the United Kingdom, and Joint Editor-in-Chief of Higher Education. He is also a Professorial Associate of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in the UK, and a member of Academia Europaea. Email: simon. [email protected]. Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman is Lecturer at the Faculty of Education in the Kibbutzim College. She received her PhD in Sociology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and did her post-doctoral studies at Stanford University. Her research interest lies at the intersection of Education Policy and Administration and Organization Studies. Her work focuses on issues such as globalisation and glocalisation, agency and actorhood in organisations, professional identity, and educational leadership. Email: [email protected]. Parvati Raghuram is Professor of Geography and Migration at the Open University. She has published widely on retheorising migration of international students and skilled migrants, particularly women in the IT sector and medicine. She undertook a project on international distance education in South Africa, exploring the experiences of Nigerian, Zimbabwean, and Namibian students in particular. She is currently leading a grant on contextualising peace education in eight African countries, which explores the decolonisation of education as a pedagogical challenge in interdisciplinary and intercontinental research. She has written for policy audiences, having authored reports for UNRISD and ILO. Email: parvati.raghuram@open. ac.uk.

xii

About the Contributors

Markus Roos Breines is a Researcher at Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research in Oslo, Norway. He has previously been Assistant Professor of Social Science at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, where he worked on a large project examining causes of child mortality in eastern Ethiopia. Among his postdoctoral positions, he has explored the future of digital education at the University of Edinburgh and researched distance education in Southern Africa at the Open University in the UK. His PhD in social anthropology focused on the relationship between internal migration and social mobility in Ethiopia (University of Sussex). Markus has published widely in academic journals as well as a book entitled Becoming Middle Class: Young People’s Migration Between Urban Centres in Ethiopia. Email: [email protected]. Robin Shields is Professor of Education at the University of Bristol. His research interests focus on the globalisation of education, particularly on new applications of quantitative data analysis. Robin is co-editor of the Comparative Education Review and has served on the Executive Committee of the British Association for International and Comparative Education (BAICE). His research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Higher Education Academy, and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. In 2013, he received the George Bereday Award from the Comparative and International Education Society for his application of social network analysis to international student mobility in higher education. Email: [email protected]. Karen Valentin holds a PhD in Anthropology from the University of Copenhagen (2002) and is an Associate Professor at the Department of Educational Anthropology, School of Education, Aarhus University. She has conducted research in Nepal, India, Vietnam, and Denmark within the fields of education, migration, urbanity, and youth since the mid-1990s. For the last decade and a half, her research has focused on the role of education in interrelated processes of geographical and social mobility in the context of, among other things, student migration from Nepal to Denmark. Moreover, she is a co-founder of The Migration and Integration Centre, Aarhus University. Email: [email protected]. Marijk van der Wende is Distinguished Faculty Professor of Higher Education at Utrecht University’s Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance. Her research focuses on the impact of globalisation and internationalisation on higher-education systems, institutions, curricula, and teaching and learning arrangements. She is also an affiliate faculty and research associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Guest Professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. She is member of the Academy of Europe, of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Global Higher Education at the University of Oxford, and of the Supervisory Board of the Open University of the Netherlands. Email: m.c. [email protected].

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

Opportunities for international top journal publication in different disciplinary areas. (Source: Engwall (2022)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

International student mobility: The number of international or foreign students enrolled in tertiary education for one year or more, 1998–2019 (millions). (Source: Author, adapting data in OECD, 2021) . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 40 Rise of the global collaborative network in science: Growth in the number of science papers and of the proportion of papers internationally co-authored, 1996–2020. (Source: Author, adapting data in NSB, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Slower growing (upper graph) and faster growing (lower graph) output in global science. (Source: Author adapting Scopus data from NSB, 2022, World Bank data. Graphs include only countries where researchers published more than 5,000 papers in 2020. Fractional paper count. World average GDP per capita $17,083 (2020). Abbreviations: p.a. per annum, USD U.S. American dollars, PPP Purchasing Power Parity, NZ New Zealand) . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . 45 The signs at the main hall of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Hebrew University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Logotype of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Grau’s 1958 font Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3

Four modes of internationalization of higher education . . . . . . . . . Drivers of higher-education internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible issues in higher-education internationalization . . . . . . . . .

Table 3.1

Leading universities in the total production of science, papers published in 2017–2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading universities in the production of high citation science (papers in the top 5% of their field) in Physical Science and Engineering (including Astronomy, Chemistry and Materials), Mathematics and Complex Computing 2017–2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 3.2

Table 11.1

8 8 9 43

48

Home versus host country of international branch campuses . . . 185

xv

Part I

Perspectives on Internationalization

Chapter 1

Setting the Scene Lars Engwall

Background Internationalization is an often-mentioned characteristic in relation to highereducation institutions these days. Governments tend to promote the internationalization of their universities and university colleges (see for example SOU, 2018:48). In addition, variables like citations in international journals, share of international faculty members and share of international students are important variables in evaluations, accreditations and rankings. As a result, there is a discourse focusing on “world-class” universities (Salmi, 2009; Shin & Kehm, 2012). Together these circumstances indicate a view of a global competition among all institutions of higher education in the world for faculty, students, financial resources, and above all, reputation. However, as will be discussed below, there are significant reasons to consider the embeddedness of universities in their local context. The current focus on internationalization may also give the impression that it is a recent phenomenon. This is far from true, however. The internationalization of higher-education institutions has very long traditions. The medieval universities attracted students of many different nationalities. For instance, before the oldest university in Northern Europe, Uppsala University, was founded in 1477, Swedes had to go to Cambridge and Oxford (Andrews et al., 2017), Leipzig (Andersson, 2014), Paris (Ferm & Mornet, 2021; Ferm & Andrews, 2021), and Vienna (Ferm & Kihlman, 2011). For other countries Haskins (1929), Mietke (1985) and Schwinges (1988) have reported similar international movements of students during the Middle Ages. Students were what is today called “free movers”, that is, they were going abroad for studies with nothing like the recruitment efforts that we see today. The general use of Latin in education at the time facilitated this mobility. With the L. Engwall (✉) Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_1

3

4

L. Engwall

passage of time, the international mobility of students has varied. As new national universities appeared, these could eventually handle the increasing demand for higher education. However, in the twentieth century, particularly after Second World War, studies abroad attracted more and more students. At the same time, university leaders found it appropriate to set up exchange programs and to recruit student internationally at a time when English had replaced Latin as the lingua franca. In addition to education, modern universities have the task to undertake research. Obviously, this task was - to put it mildly - limited in the Middle Ages. It is through the development of natural science from the seventeenth century and onwards that it has successively grown in significance, particularly since Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the University of Berlin in 1810, established the principle of combining teaching and research (Östling, 2018). A significant feature of this process has been internationalization. In fact, international contacts appear to be instrumental for the breaking of national paradigms. An early plea for the internationalization of research is New Atlantis (Bacon & Rawley, 1627). It provides the argument that since science results are for the common good, they should be exchanged freely. This reasoning inspired the foundation of a number of academies, among them the Royal Society in 1660 (Tinniswood, 2019). They were also instrumental in promoting the rapidly increasing international exchange of ideas in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Nybom, 2007). However, it is only after the introduction of bibliographic metrics by Eugene Garfield in the late 1950s and its wide use in research assessments that the internationalization of research has come into focus in a significant way (Cronin & Atkins, 2000). Against the above backdrop, this introductory chapter will elaborate on some aspects that are important to keep in mind in relation to the internationalization of research and education. After these two sections follows a presentation of the chapters of the volume.

Research A fundamental principle of research is that it should follow established rules and stand on earlier research. However, at the same time there are expectations that research should provide new knowledge, which may require the breaking of established rules and the link to earlier research. For those who attempt the latter, the response from the established research community is likely to be negative. The innovators may face what Lindbeck & Snower, (1988) labelled the insider-outsider problem. The insiders that control the field tend to favour their own ideas and therefore to turn down the new approaches and results. Therefore, Kuhn (1962) has pointed out that the acceptance of new paradigms requires that old generations disappear. However, there is a short-term alternative: international contacts (Engwall & Hedmo, 2016). As the innovative researchers look out from their own country,

1

Setting the Scene

5

they often find others abroad who are working along similar lines as themselves. In this way, informal international networks arise, which facilitate for the innovators to press onward. In many cases, with the passage of time, these informal networks turn into formal professional associations with regular conferences and journals. The ultimate sign of the institutionalization of the new approach is the publication of handbooks presenting various aspects of the field. Obviously, there are differences across disciplines in terms of the opportunities for the above-mentioned process to take place. The more integrated a scientific field, the stronger the barriers for innovators. Two variables are significant for this integration: task uncertainty and mutual dependence among scientists (Whitley, 1984). The lower the task uncertainty, the more scientists in the field agree on the research problem and the methods to handle them. Similarly, the higher dependence between scientists in the field, the tighter the control of its members. Therefore, fields with low task uncertainty and high dependence among scientists – for instance, physics, by Whitley (1984) labelled “conceptually integrated bureaucracy” – will have a higher integration and lower probability of deviations from the main paradigm. At the other end of scale, fields with high task uncertainty and low dependence between scientists – for instance, several disciplines in the social sciences, by Whitley (1984) labelled “fragmented adhocracy” – exhibit lower integration and higher probability of new approaches. As a result, we should expect internationalization as a driver for new types of research to be stronger in the less integrated scientific fields. However, in more integrated fields, internationalization may play a significant role through the assembling of researchers to large experimental facilities like CERN in Geneva and ESS in Lund. For all fields, international professional associations play a significant role in promoting international contacts and the exchange of ideas. With the passage of time, particularly after Second World War, these have multiplied. In the field of corpus linguistics, to take one example, three such organizations were founded in the 1960s, another three in the 1970s, and six additional ones after 1970 (Engwall & Hedmo, 2016, Table 2 and 3). For most, not to say all, of these organizations the founding of journals has been a key action with a successively growing number of titles. Referring again to corpus linguistics, three journals appeared in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, one in the 1990s, and four after the turn of the century (Engwall & Hedmo, 2016, Table 4). For another field, management studies, only a quarter of the 45 journals included in the Financial Times ranking of business schools in 2015 appeared before the 1950s, and the rest afterwards, particularly after the 1960s (Engwall, Kipping & Üsdiken, 2016, Tables 6.4, 9.2, 12.2 and 15.2). Other disciplines exhibit similar developments with an increasing number of titles. The expansion of the number of journals is closely associated with the growing number of scholars in the world and their need to disseminate their research results. The latter is particularly linked to the increasing tendency in evaluations of individuals as well as institutions to focus on the status of journals and the reception (citations) of articles rather than their actual contents. The basic reason for this is the emergence of bibliometrics, which has made it possible to calculate citation

6

L. Engwall

figures for articles, the h-index of authors (the number of papers h that are cited at least h times), and impact factors for journals (the mean number of times an article is cited in the last 2 years). Bibliometrics in turn has been an important input into rankings (Wedlin, 2006; Espeland & Sauder, 2016), accreditations (Hedmo, 2004), evaluations, and resource allocation, which all have reinforced the focus on the internationalization of research. The effect of the above has been a movement in many disciplines from publishing monographs in domestic languages towards presenting research results in journal articles in English. This works better in some disciplines than others. As shown in Fig. 1.1, the opportunities for international top-journal publishing are higher, the more universal the study object and the more formal the mode of presentation. According to this reasoning, generalising the differences between scientific fields, mathematics and theoretical physics belong to the upper right-hand corner of the diagram. Further down the third axis are other natural sciences and life sciences, followed by social sciences and before the humanities in the lower left-hand corner. An effect of internationalization is that researchers who belong to the lower part of the third axis in Fig. 1.1 make efforts to move upwards. For example, economists, who traditionally were focusing on problems related to the economy of their home country, are increasingly using formalized methods for studies of context-free problems: game theory, experiments, and the analysis of financial databases (see further Forslund & Henrekson, 2022, and Engwall, 2022). However, it is obvious that non-English speakers - in disciplines where the context matters and formalization in presentation is limited - are at a disadvantage Universality of study object Natural sciences

Opportunities for international top journal publishing

Life sciences

Social sciences

Efforts to move uppwards Humanities

Formalization of presentation

Fig. 1.1 Opportunities for international top journal publication in different disciplinary areas. (Source: Engwall (2022))

1

Setting the Scene

7

in their efforts to publish in English-language journals. As they start out with top journals as their target, they may then, after a number of rejections, end up in regional or even national journals that publish in English. Another effect of the focus on international publishing is the reduction of presentations in the native language and participation in the national debate. This is in contrast to the arguments of Gibbons et al. (1994) and Nowotny et al. (2001) that modern research has to move from a closed activity (Mode 1) to an interaction with stakeholders (Mode 2), as well as those of Etzkowitz (2008) that successful research stands on a collaboration within a triple helix comprising academia, industry, and government. In relation to the lack of avenues for publishing research results in native languages, there is an argument that this is less necessary in a time when there are strong pressures to present research results through open access (Suber, 2012). However, this does not solve the problem of communicating to the public, since academic publications these days - particularly as researchers are moving up the third axis in Fig. 1.1 – are very specialized and not readable for a broad audience. Obviously, research is an international activity and has become increasingly so. As argued above, internationalization may be significant for the development of scientific fields through contacts among academic entrepreneurs in different countries. In addition, large experimental facilities are significant in bringing together members of a scientific field from different countries. In relation to these arguments, the variations across scientific disciplines in terms of task uncertainty and the dependence between scientists are crucial. These have been particularly evident, as journal articles in English have become the recommended way to present research results. The effect has been that non-English speaking researchers - particularly in disciplines where formalization in presentation is low and context is important - are at a disadvantage. In order to compensate, they therefore tend to adapt their research towards more formalization and less context dependence. A significant driver behind this development is the use of bibliometrics in rankings, accreditations and international evaluations. One consequence appears to be that national research problems do not receive the attention they deserve.

Education As already mentioned by way of introduction, the mobility of students has long traditions. However, since the Middle Ages this mobility has become much more organized. A prime example is the Bologna process aiming at a similar structure of academic programs in all European countries: i.e., a three-year Bachelor’s, a two-year Master’s, and a three-year Ph.D. program. Behind this is an ambition to facilitate movements of European students between different countries. In addition, the European Union stimulates student mobility through its European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS). Individual institutions of higher education also emphasize internationalization of education more and more. They undertake various measures in order to

8

L. Engwall

internationalize. In analysing these activities, it is convenient to focus on two significant variables: (1) the origin of the students, and (2) the location of the delivery. For both variables, the obvious distinction is that between (a) the domestic country, and (b) foreign countries. It is thereby possible to identify four modes of internationalization of higher education (Table 1.1): 1. Import of ideas: Education of domestic students at home based on international knowledge. 2. Outsourcing: Education of domestic students in foreign countries by means of student exchange programs. 3. Insourcing: Education of foreign students in the domestic country through student exchange or active international recruitment. 4. Foreign direct investments (FDI): Education of foreign students at campuses abroad. The drivers behind the first mode of internationalization (import of ideas) are to provide international perspectives to the students and give them access to the state of the art (Table 1.2). In many fields, this means the use of textbooks published by Anglo-American publishing houses. The provision of international perspectives is also important for the second mode of internationalization (outsourcing). In addition, outsourcing plays a role in reputation building in relation to students by offering them opportunities for studies abroad. In the present world of rankings and accreditations, outsourcing helps to meet the conditions of these evaluation exercises. Assessments are also a significant driver for the third mode of internationalization (insourcing), as the share of international students is a widely used criterion. However, for insourcing, income is another significant driver. For many institutions of higher education, tuition fees have thus become a significant, positive part of budgets. Insourcing is also associated with hopes of brain gains, i.e., expectations that the foreign students are smarter than the domestic students are. In cases when Table 1.1 Four modes of internationalization of higher education

Origin of students Domestic country Foreign countries

Location of delivery Domestic country (1) Import of ideas (3) Insourcing

Foreign countries (2) Outsourcing (4) FDI

Table 1.2 Drivers of higher-education internationalization Origin of students Domestic country Foreign countries

Location of delivery Domestic country (1) International perspectives Access to the state of the art (3) Branding Income Brain gain

Foreign countries (2) International perspectives Branding (4) Branding Income

1

Setting the Scene

9

these foreign students stay, they are expected to add to the human capital of the institution and the nation. Brain gains do not constitute a driver for the fourth mode of internationalization (FDI). However, the two other motives of insourcing (branding and income) are valid. A campus abroad adds to the reputation of the institutions. At the same time, the reputation of the home institution is crucial for the possibilities of setting up a campus abroad. It is also crucial for the possibilities of gaining income from their foreign operations. It should also be noted that the fourth mode of internationalization has an alternative that does not require the creation of a foreign campus: international distance education. This means that an institution in one country delivers on-line education to students in another country. This mode of internationalization appears to have particular advantages in the Global South. In contrast to the setting up of a foreign campus, the income may be limited. However, there are also a number of issues associated with the four modes of internationalization (Table 1.3). In terms of the first mode (import of ideas), a fundamental problem in non-English speaking countries is constituted by language problems, i.e., that students do not understand the literature and that they are not given the fundamental concepts in their mother tongue. This may be disadvantageous as they enter their domestic labour market, which most students do. It may also be a problem – particularly in the humanities and social sciences – as the knowledge that the students acquire is associated with a context other than their own. Language problems are also associated with the second mode of internationalization. Students going to a foreign country obviously have disadvantages in terms of understanding and speaking. However, the major issue in relation to outsourcing is the quality problem. This is a fact, since outsourcing means that an institution is delegating to another institution its two fundamental tasks: teaching and examination. It is therefore extremely important for outsourcing institutions to be selective in their choice of partners. Earlier many institutions were eager to offer as many student exchanges as possible. With the passage of time, they have become more selective, limiting exchanges to those institutions that have certain accreditations or are above a certain ranking number. Also in relation to the third mode of internationalisation (insourcing), language problems appear (Pudelko & Tenzer, 2019). In non-English speaking countries, it means that the insourcing institution has to adapt to teaching in English in order to

Table 1.3 Possible issues in higher-education internationalization Origin of students Domestic country Foreign countries

Location of delivery Domestic country (1) Language problems Loss of context (3) Language problems Selection Careers

Foreign countries (2) Language problems Quality (4) Recruitment

10

L. Engwall

communicate with the international students. This means that the problems of understanding increase when importing ideas. Kjell Espmark, earlier one of the eighteen members of the Swedish Academy, has illustrated this in his writings. He reports that teachers estimate that their teaching in English instead in their mother tongue reduces their communication capabilities at 70 per cent. At the same time, students respond that their understanding of the teaching in English is only 70 per cent compared to when they are taught in their native language. Since 70 per cent times 70 per cent is 49 per cent, half of the teaching content is lost (Espmark, 2012, p. 156). In addition to language problems, insourcing presents more difficulties in the selection of students. For national students, credentials are relatively easy to assess since they are products of the national system. In addition, students are more physically available for interviews. This is in contrast with international students, whose credentials may be difficult to evaluate and who have to be interviewed digitally. There is also an issue in relation to insourcing in terms of the careers of international students. As many countries have restrictions on immigration, the foreign students have to go back to their home country after graduation. When doing so, they may face career problems, since the labour market in their home country may favour graduates from the national institutions. This is an effect of the significant role of reputation in labour markets, and the tendency for recruiters to favour candidates with a background similar to their own. Since the majority of the recruiters have a domestic education, graduates from other countries’ institutions tend to be at a disadvantage. An indication of this is the large amount of foreign welleducated taxi drivers in many metropolitan areas (Engwall, 2019). The fourth mode of internationalization (FDI), finally, is indeed the most radical way to internationalize. For this mode, the basic problem is recruitment of faculty and students. In terms of faculty, it is important for the image of the foreign campus that faculty members from the main campus teach. This appears to work well in the beginning, but over time the enthusiasm of these faculty members to commute to the campus abroad tends to decline. The solution is then to recruit nationals in the foreign country, but that obviously dilutes the image of the foreign campus. This in turn is related to the recruitment of students, who may hesitate to take part in an education that does not live up to the standards of the mother institution. As a result, there is evidence that the establishment of campuses abroad is associated with difficulties. These have been reinforced by an increased flow of foreign campuses, which has led to too many establishments, followed by withdrawals (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2014). Obviously, these problems are more limited in relation to international distance education. Since most students are domestic, the above means that the most significant mode of internationalization is the import of ideas.1 It is therefore important to focus more

1 Among the 19 countries that had the largest amount of international students as a share of the total higher-education population in 2020, the median value for domestic student was around 90 per cent.

1

Setting the Scene

11

on this mode and its pros and cons. This means a focus on the home market, which is crucial for most organizations, even for multinational companies. In the words of Douglass (2016), it is therefore appropriate to move from a focus on global rankings to national relevancy. At the same time, it is crucial to consider the implications of sending students abroad, bringing in foreign students and opening campuses abroad. As pointed out above, there are reasons to consider various problems associated with internationalization, particularly language problems and cultural differences. This in turn makes it sensible for academic leaders to take a step back and consider the effects on quality of teaching when internationalization pressures become very strong with an eye to enhancing the reputation of their institutions. Against the above backdrop, the present volume offers twelve chapters in four sections on the internationalization of higher-education institutions. Following this chapter, the first of these sections provides Perspectives on internationalization, while the second section addresses Obstacles to internationalization, and the third section presents Alternative modeof internationalization. A concluding section presents Major messages.

The Chapters of the Volume Hans de Wit is first out after this introductory chapter in providing an historical account of the development of internationalization in Chap. 2. He elaborates on the main trends, rationales and drivers at institutional, national and regional levels as well as key shifting paradigms. In so doing, he addresses a number of basic questions: ‘why’ (the rationales for internationalization), ‘what’ (the programmes and actions of internationalization), ‘how’ (the organization of internationalization), ‘impact’ (the outcomes of internationalization), ‘whom’ (partnerships) and ‘where’ (the context of internationalization). He concludes with critical reflections on future directions. In Chap. 3, Simon Marginson discusses the concepts of ‘globalisation’ and ‘internationalisation’ as phenomena occurring in higher education. This leads him to elaborate on the evolution of world science as a broadly distributed system with a remarkable growth of East Asian research in the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and computing. This, he argues, constitutes a challenge to the Anglophone hegemony in global language science publishing as well as the Western university model. In his view, European universities therefore have a crucial ethical and practical role in sustaining, in a manner consistent with academic values, open

Even in Australia, the country having the largest share of international students, about 70 per cent of students are domestic. For the United States, the share of domestic students is as high as 95 per cent (Statista, 2023).

12

L. Engwall

science and higher education and a constructive balance between national interests and global cooperation in the sector. Ellen Hazelkorn in Chap. 4 provides in turn an extensive historical account of a key component in the modern internationalization of higher-education institutions: the development of rankings. In this way, she demonstrates that efforts to compare institutions of higher education internationally have a long tradition but that the boom in rankings started around the turn of this century. Bibliometrics have thereby been crucial for their development, leading to corporate linkages between rankings and academic publishers. Her chapter also points out how higher education has become a significant component of policymaking of countries and regions as befits a geo-political environment. Rankings thereby constitute a significant phenomenon, stimulating ambitions and providing the basis for political and institutional decisions. Among the chapters in the second part dealing with obstacles to internationalization, Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman and Gili S. Drori address in Chap. 5 the implications of multilinguism. They demonstrate this by means of an analysis of multilingualism at Israeli universities, thereby illustrating a phenonomenon occurring in most non-Anglophone countries. The two authors have focused on language use in relation to three academic phenomena: mission statements, signage, and language requirements for faculty members. They conclude that institutions of higher education outside the Anglophone world operate in a mode of multilingual franca. In this way, their activities are glocal rather than global. Such institutions are embedded in a global field of science, academia, and higher education as well as engaged in their local society. In the following Chap. 6 Marijk van der Wende addresses threats to mobility and research collaboration by addressing the question “How open can it be?”. She demonstrates how geo-political tensions, security concerns, and illiberal trends have changed the conditions for internationalization in recent years. While there was earlier strong backing for open systems allowing for the mobility of students, faculty and open science, a backlash has occurred. States are increasingly defending borders and protecting themselves from unwanted transfer of knowledge and technology. It evident from the chapter that this has implications for academic freedom and openness, particularly in small open systems. Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and Karen Valentin in Chap. 7 pursue the argument further by addressing the motives of international students as well as their trajectories after graduation. By means of an ethnographic study of international master’s students from non-EU/EEA countries pursuing education at a Danish university, they demonstrate how the motives of students for moving abroad are multiple but often based on an urge to “get ahead” in life – in social, geographic and existential terms. In addition to acquiring a good education, their ambitions often include a wish to stay in the country of study after graduation. However, as is also evident from the chapter, many of the students have to give up these plans due to increasing immigration constraints. Instead - despite government aspirations of securing a highly qualified workforce - they have to leave for further international education and labour markets in other countries.

1

Setting the Scene

13

A further obstacle in relation to internationalization is its environmental consequences, as discussed in Chap. 8 by Robin Shields. He points out how dependent present-day international education is on the fossil fuel economy, particularly through its reliance on aviation. As a result, he argues, climate change constitutes a significant challenge to the international mobility of students. Therefore, he concludes that the future of this mobility is highly uncertain and is likely to undergo considerable changes. In the third section, dealing with alternatives to various obstacles, Robert J. Coelen in Chap. 9 points out how internationalization at home (Import of ideas in Table 1.1) can be, and should be, an important alternative, thereby providing students with diverse input in their studies. This alternative is particularly appropriate to consider as only a small part of the student population is internationally mobile. He argues that this alternative makes it possible to focus on intercultural competence in a broad sense. In so doing, it is important to design curricula to take advantage of constructs used for measuring intercultural competence. In this way, the education will contribute to the development of intercultural traits, intercultural attitudes and worldviews, and the intercultural abilities of students. In a similar way, Ashley Gunter, Markus Roos Breines, Melis Cin and Parvati Raghuram explore in Chap. 10 the diverse and specific forms of access to higher education that drive the demand for international distance education. As pointed out above, this mode of internationalisation has particular advantages in the Global South. Therefore, the focus of the chapter on African countries is a particularly important illustration. The authors demonstrate how the state of higher education on this continent influences study choices. Using empirical data from Nigeria, Namibia and Zimbabwe, they show how the demand for international education moves beyond individual choice and perspectives and is driven by broader country-specific socio-economic and development issues. In addition, they show that international distance education provides an alternative in places where it is difficult to access higher education and the ability to migrate for education is limited. A third solution to overcome obstacles to mobility of students is the establishment of international branch campuses (IBCs, FDI in Table 1.1), the most extreme mode of internationalization of higher education. Christine Ennew deals with this alternative in Chap. 11. After providing data regarding the evolution of IBCs, she relates this phenomenon to different perspectives from the general literature on internationalization. Thereby she is able to discuss motives as well as strategic and operational challenges for IBCs. She then illustrates these with the experiences of the University of Nottingham in Malaysia before the concluding discussion. The final Chap. 12, which together with a bibliography and indexes constitutes the fourth part of the volume, is an effort to draw conclusions from the earlier chapters, thereby focusing on the themes of the three preceding parts, namely: 1. Perspectives on internationalization, 2. Obstacles to internationalization, and 3. Alternative modes of internationalization. Finally, the chapter provides some thoughts for the future.

14

L. Engwall

References Alajoutsijärvi, K., Juusola, K., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2014). Institutional logic of business bubbles: Lessons from the Dubai business school mania. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 5–25. Andersson, R., Ferm, O., & Risberg, S. (2014). Swedish students at the University of Leipzig in the middle ages: Careers, books, and teaching. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Andrews, R., Ferm, O., Risberg, S., & Thomson, R. M. (2017). Swedish students at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford in the middle ages. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Bacon, F., & Rawley, W. (1627). Sylua syluarum: Or a naturall historie. In ten centuries. VVritten by the right Honourable Francis Lo. Verulam Viscount St. Alban. Published after the authors death, by VVilliam Rawley Doctor of Diuinity, late his Lordships chaplaine. London: Printed by I H and A Mathewes for William Lee at the Turks Head in Fleet-street, next to the Miter. Cronin, B., & Atkins, H. B. (Eds.). (2000). The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Information Today. Douglass, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500496 Engwall, L. (2019, April 19). Academic taxi drivers in a global marketplace. University World News. Accessed on February 12, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20191408093615670 Engwall, L. (2022). Listen to Eva Forslund and Magnus Henrekson, please! Econ Journal Watch, 19(September), 283–290. https://econjwatch.org/articles/listen-to-eva-forslund-and-magnushenrekson-please Engwall, L., & Hedmo, T. (2016). The organizing of scientific fields: The case of corpus linguistics. European Review, 24(4), 568–591. Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2016). Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. Routledge. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation. Espmark, K. (2012). I vargtimmen. Norstedts. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge. Ferm, O., & Andrews, R. (Eds.). (2021). Swedish students at the University of Paris in the middle ages II: Johannes Nicolai and his Extractio de Logica Burley. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Ferm, O., & Kihlman, E. (2011). Swedish students at the University of Vienna in the middle ages: Careers, books and preaching. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Ferm, O., & Mornet, É. (Eds.). (2021). Swedish students at the University of Paris in the middle ages I: Origin, studies, carriers, achievements. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Forslund, E., & Henrekson, M. (2022). The virtues of native discourse: Striking a balance between English and the native language. Econ Journal Watch, 19(September), 258–282. https:// econjwatch.org/articles/the-virtues-of-native-discourse-striking-a-balance-between-englishand-the-native-language Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage. Haskins, C. H. (1929). The life of mediaeval students as illustrated by their letters. In C. H. Haskins (Ed.), Studies in mediaeval culture (pp. 1–35). Claredon Press.

1

Setting the Scene

15

Hedmo, T. (2004). Rule-making in the transnational space: The development of European accreditation of management education. Doctoral dissertation from Uppsala University. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (1988). The insider-outsider theory of employment and unemployment. MIT Press. Mietke, J. (1985). Die Studenten. In P. Moraw (Ed.), Unterwegssein im Spätmittelalter (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung. Beiheft) (pp. 49–70). Duncker & Humblot. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press. Nybom, T. (2007). A rule-governed community of scholars: The Humboldt vision in the history of the European University. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 55–79). Springer. Östling, J. (2018). Humboldt and the modern German university: An intellectual history (L. Olsson, Trans.). Lund University Press/Manchester University Press. http://www.oapen.org/search? identifier=646121;keyword=Humboldt Pudelko, M., & Tenzer, H. (2019). Boundaryless careers or career boundaries?: The impact of language barriers on academic careers in international business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0236 Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank. Schwinges, R. C. (1988). Migration und Austausch. Studentenwanderungen im Deutschen Reich des Späten Mittelalters. In G. Jaritz & A. Müller (Eds.), Migration in der Feudalgesellschaft (pp. 141–155). Campus. Shin, J. C., & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition. Springer. SOU. (2018:48). (Official Reports of the Swedish Government 2018:48). Ökad attraktionskraft för kunskapsnationen Sverige. Norstedts. Statista. (2023). Countries with the largest amount of international students as a share of the total higher education population in 2020. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.statista. com/statistics/788155/international-student-share-of-higher-education-worldwide/ Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press. Tinniswood, A. (2019). The Royal Society. Head of Zeus. Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities, and boundaries in international management education. Edward Elgar. Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Clarendon.

Chapter 2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education: Critical Reflections on Its Conceptual Evolution Hans de Wit

Internationalization, a Multifaceted and Evolving Concept In 1995, Jane Knight and I wrote that “there is no simple, unique or all-encompassing definition of internationalisation of the university” and that it is not “helpful for internationalisation to become a ‘catch-all’ phrase for everything and anything international” (Knight & de Wit, 1995, p. 16).1 In 2018, 23 years later, we wrote that “that notion is probably even truer now” and that “internationalization has become a very broad and varied concept, including new rationales, approaches, and strategies in different and constantly changing contexts” (Knight & de Wit, 2018, p. xix). Rumbley et al. (2022) also note that “internationalization in higher education is a multifaceted and evolving phenomenon. It touches on a wide scope of issues and can be defined in a multitude of ways” (p. 19). And Hunter et al. (2022) in a critical overview and analysis of higher-education internationalization concepts and definitions note that “the concept of internationalization continues to be refined and revised, and theories and definitions adjusted to match new and evolving understandings” (p. 70). It is these two dimensions, multifaceted and evolving, that are key characteristics of the internationalization of higher education; and one can add, also of several of its components: study abroad, international students, internationalization at home, transnational or cross-border education, digitalization, the use of terms like ‘global citizenship’, and so on.

1 This chapter builds partly on previous publications by the author, including de Wit and Altbach (2021), and de Wit and Jones (2022). All opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the author.

H. de Wit (✉) Churchilllaan, Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_2

17

18

H. de Wit

Internationalization is not one model that fits all; its diversity is institutionally, locally, nationally and regionally defined and has changed and evolved over time in response to changing contexts and challenges. This adaptation to historical and geographical contexts is one of its strengths but at the same time it is, together with its multifacetedness, its major obstacle, as the meaning of ‘internationalization’ has been used by stakeholders in a diverse range of - in several cases even strongly opposing - meanings and policies. Related, there is a mixed use of ‘internationalization of higher education’ and ‘internationalization in higher education’, while in essence they are rather distinctive in their meaning and use, with the first describing and analyzing the conceptual process and the second the different manifestations of internationalization in higher education. There is also a discussion about the similarities and differences between ‘globalization’ and ‘internationalization’ of higher education. Altbach and Knight (2007) state that globalization is the context of economic and academic trends that are part of the reality of the twenty-first century, while internationalization includes the policies and practices to cope with the global academic environment. Brandenburg and de Wit (2011) observe that globalization in higher education is perceived as ‘evil’ while internationalization is perceived as ‘good,’ although in reality “activities more related to the concept of globalization (higher education as a tradeable commodity) are increasingly executed under the flag of internationalization” (p. 2). One can also ask what the difference or similarity might be between ‘comparative and international education’ and ‘internationalization’ (see for instance de Wit, 2002); and what is the difference between ‘international higher education,’ as reflected in the name of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education and its publication, or ‘global higher education,’ as reflected in the name of the Center for Global Higher Education at the University of Oxford, the two main research centers on international and global developments in higher education, and ‘internationalization of/in higher education.’ In summary, over the past five decades there has been a problematic sloppiness in the use of internationalization in the context of higher education, mixing and confusing the ‘why’ (the rationales for internationalization), the ‘what’ (its programs and actions), the ‘how’ (its organization), the ‘impact’ (its outcomes), the ‘whom’ (partnerships) and ignoring the ‘where’ (its context). Over the past half century, internationalization in and of higher education has evolved from a marginal and ad hoc range of activities to more comprehensive and central processes and policies. It has become a key strategic agenda for universities but also national and local governments around the globe. It is driven by a diverse range of rationales, organizational and program strategies, and includes the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders, internal and external to the system, but at the same time has resulted in many different approaches and actions. In this chapter, I address what have been and are the main trends, rationales and drivers at the institutional, national and regional levels, the different perceptions and meanings of internationalization in and of higher education, and what are key shifting paradigms? This will lead to a concluding critical reflection on what might be the future direction of internationalization as a concept and in practice in response to current drastically

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

19

changing global contexts. First, I provide a short overview of historical dimensions of and trends in internationalization in higher education to provide a historical context.

Historical Dimensions and Trends Many publications on the internationalization of higher education refer back to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period, when university students and professors traveling the roads of Europe were a familiar sight (de Ridder-Symoens, 1992). de Wit and Altbach (2021, p. 29) remark that [W]hile limited and scattered in comparison to the European Higher Education Area we know today, we may still speak of a medieval ‘European space’ defined by a common religion, a shared language (Latin), and a common set of academic practices.

By the end of the fifteenth century, the picture changed. Three quarters of the students went to study at a university in their own region, (de Wit & Merkx, 2022), the number of institutions increased substantially, and the nation state became the key base for higher education, replacing the city. Most universities originated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with a distinct national orientation and function. One can speak of a process of de-Europeanization (de Wit & Altbach, 2021, p. 30): Universities became institutions that served the professional needs and ideological demands of the new nation states in Europe. Mobility was rarely encouraged and was even prohibited.

de Wit and Merkx (2022) describe the period between the end of the Renaissance to the beginning of the twentieth century as predominantly national higher education, “more directed to developing a national identity and serving national needs and less to amassing universal knowledge” (p. 31). Scott (1998, p. 123) even goes so far as to state that “paradoxically perhaps, before it became an international institution the university had first to become a national institution – just as internationalization presupposes the existence of nation states”.

The Twentieth Century University and International Cooperation After World War I, promoting peace and mutual understanding through international cooperation and exchange came to the forefront. According to de Wit and Merkx (2022, p. 32) the first two decades of the twentieth century show a growth in mobility, in particular movement towards the United States, more attention from private organizations and foundations for study abroad, and the start of institutional exchange and study abroad programs.

20

H. de Wit

The U.S. took a leading role, mainly as a result of the increased immigration of scholars from Europe. After World War II, the Fulbright Program of 1946 strengthened the focus on peace and mutual understanding, but gradually rationales of national security and foreign policy took over. The Cold War became the principal rationale to foster an international dimension of higher education, in the U.S. but also in the Soviet Union. The post-World War II period is one of massification and differentiation in higher education. As Altbach et al. (2017, p. xii) state: [O]nce the privilege of an elite social class, gross enrolment ratios (the participation rate for the cohort between 18–24 years of age) in postsecondary education have mushroomed to more than 50% in many countries.

This has put pressure on national governments to react and resulted in a diverse range of responses: diversity without differentiation, differentiation between public and private higher education, differentiation within the traditional university sector between world-class universities and more national and regional institutions, and differentiation beyond the traditional university: the creation of universities of applied sciences and other types of professional education (Altbach et al., 2017). It impacted the internationalization in higher education, in particular through SouthNorth mobility of students. In the 1980s, the geopolitical context changed as a result of the strengthening of the European Community and the rise of Japan as an economic world power, challenging the economic and political dominance of the United States. Initiatives by the European Commission started to develop to stimulate research and development and student and faculty mobility among its members, even though the European Commission did not have a mandate to invest in education until the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The flagship ERASMUS program grew out of smaller initiatives that had been introduced in Germany and Sweden in the 1970s and a European pilot program in the early 1980s (de Wit, 2002). They paved the way for the Bologna Process as of 1999 and the realization of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (de Wit et al., 2015). Political rationales (competitiveness on the one hand and development of European citizenship on the other hand) were driving and continue to drive the Commission and its members - for instance through the European Universities Initiative of French president Emmanuel Macron, and the European University Strategy of the European Commission.

From Ad Hoc and Marginal to Strategic, and from Cooperation to Competition The end of the Cold War, the process of Europeanization and other forms of regionalization, as well as the global knowledge economy, have forced universities in the 1990s to respond to these developments and to become international actors themselves. National and regional programs stimulated and supported institutions of

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

21

higher education in their drive towards more strategic internationalization. But the end of the Cold War made national security less relevant as a driving rationale. In the course of the 1990s in both the United States and Europe, a shift took place towards economic competitiveness. van der Wende (2001) speaks in that respect of a change in paradigms from cooperation to competition, although not completely at the expense of the more traditional approach to internationalization. Where massification was and continued to be central in higher education, the increasing importance of the global knowledge economy - the increasingly technology- and science-based globalized set of economic relations that requires high levels of knowledge, skills, and sophisticated international relations - becomes the main development in higher education at the turn of the century, with researchintensive universities playing a central role. As de Wit and Altbach (2021, p. 32) state: Research universities are among the more internationally linked institutions. They have strong links with similar institutions around the globe, host international faculty and students, and in increasing numbers function in the global language of science and scholarship—English.

Excellence initiatives are being implemented in many countries, and competition for funding, talents, and access to top academic journals and to top positions in global rankings become driving forces for internationalization and mobility. They have brought about a differentiation within national systems, by separating an elite sector of world-class level universities from other, more nationally and regionally oriented, research universities. Rankings - national, regional, global, institutional, by discipline, and across an increasing number of other dimensions - have come to play a central role in the construction of excellence schemes. And although one can question the value of rankings – Blanco et al. (2022, p. 146) speak of “an unfortunate alliance of rankings and internationalization” - their existence is an indication of the importance of internationality in higher education and the knowledge society. Internationalization in the context of the knowledge economy is more related to exclusiveness, while in the context of massification it is more related to inclusion, an illustration of the opposing intensions and impacts of internationalization policies and strategies. In addition to the shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition and as such towards economic rationales, political rationales have become more dominant again, but then in a shift from peace and mutual understanding towards soft power or, as Knight (2020) calls it, knowledge diplomacy. While the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021 seemed to create a stimulating attitude for international collaboration in research, the current geopolitical tensions and increasing nationalism in the world have placed political rationales more at the forefront, but drifting away from an opportunity for international collaboration and exchange, as in the past, towards isolation and division. At the same time, the pandemic, in combination with technology, provided new opportunities for academic cooperation and exchange and a stimulus for a counter reaction to the competition paradigm, which over the past two decades emerged but waited for a momentum to move from principle to action.

22

H. de Wit

A Counter Reaction: From Competition Back to Cooperation? Internationalization over the past few decades has been primarily focused on mobility, of students, scholars and more recently also programs. As such it is an elitist and exclusive phenomenon in that only a small number of students, staff and institutions benefit from it, and in particular the Global North. It is also a process in which the main focus is still on mobility of a small minority of students, staff, programs and institutions, at the European level approximately 15–20%, in the USA approximately 10% but globally less than 2%. de Wit et al. (2022, p. 299) state: international student mobility might well contribute to increased global inequality between sending and receiving countries and institutions, as well as between students who have access to these opportunities and students who don’t. An international student recruitment policy also needs to address its serious ethical and social consequences.

Increasing concern about too much internationalization in the meaning of revenue generation and competition, in the sense of a shift from local to English language dominance, and by recruitment of international students at the costs of access and quality education for local students as well as adequate services (student housing), has become an important debate in politics, media and the higher-education community. de Wit et al. (2022, p. 299) in their analysis of international student mobility and recruitment in non-Anglophone countries, conclude that these countries should not be primarily driven by rationales of revenue generation, soft power, and rising in the rankings: Being driven primarily by those three rationales is unrealistic for most non-Anglophone countries, in particular in low- and middle-income countries, and will contribute to further global inequality and exclusion of systems, institutions, and individuals.

As a counter reaction to this exclusive focus on mobility, movements like ‘Internationalization at Home’ (Beelen & Jones, 2015), ‘Internationalization of the Curriculum’ (Leask, 2015) and ‘Comprehensive Internationalization’ (Hudzik, 2011) have emerged, starting around the turn of the century, trying to shift the focus on internationalization for all students, not exclusively for the small percentage of mobile ones. Also, the rather exclusive focus on only one of the three missions of universities, education, has been challenged with an appeal to more specific attention to internationalization of research (Woldegiyorgis et al., 2018) and for society (Jones et al., 2021). Although these appeals and a related call for virtual exchange or ‘Collaborative Online International Learning’ did resonate in words, in practice the focus continued to be on internationalization abroad, mobility. de Wit and Rumbley (2017) speak of rhetoric more than concrete action, and Leask, Jones and de Wit (=) of a struggle to move beyond good intentions and isolated examples of good practice. The Covid-19 pandemic and increasing concerns about climate change, inequality in society as well as geopolitical tensions, ask for a different approach to internationalization. A new generation of scholars, such as those involved in the Critical Internationalization Studies Network (CISN, 2022) is challenging the view of internationalization

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

23

dominated by Anglo-Western perspectives and forms of knowledge. Jones (2022, p. iv) argues that: Equality, diversity and inclusion, social justice, decolonization, global power relations and geopolitics, human rights, anti-racism, gender identity and equality, ethics, multiculturalism, and sustainability are just some of the related elements which all have a role to play in broadening our understanding of internationalization.

Even before the enforced changes in pedagogy brought about by the global COVID19 pandemic in 2020, Stallivieri (2020) and others were emphasizing the ‘virtualization of internationalization,’ also described as virtual mobility, virtual exchange or developing further Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) (see Rubin, 2016). And increasing concerns about the climate crisis make it clear that some former approaches to internationalization are unsustainable in the long term (see for example the work of the Climate Action Network for International Educators). It reemphasizes the critique of internationalization as a Western paradigm (Jones & de Wit, 2014; de Wit, 2020) and the call for ‘decolonizing the curriculum’ (Stein & Andreotti, 2016). Concerns around the decolonization and indigenization of curriculum in higher education are being linked with curriculum internationalization (Buckner & Stein, 2020; Bullen & Flavell, 2021; Leask, 2015; Stein 2017, 2021; Stein et al., 2020; Stein and Andreotti 2016).

Implications for the Meaning of Internationalization The definition of internationalization in higher education by Knight (2003, 2004) as “a process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education” (2004, p. 11) was widely accepted as a working definition and had its foundation in an earlier more institution-focused definition of internationalization as a process (Knight, 1993). It challenged the international dimensions of the higher-education sector from what had previously been a rather static, ad hoc and fragmented approach, based on activities and related administrative procedures, mainly tucked away in the international offices of higher-education institutions, and often related to governmental bureaucracies, termed as international education. The use of ‘international education,’ in particular quite common in the United States, reflects that previous approach, described by Groennings (1990, p. 16) as “a many-splendored chaos with momentum” and “a disorderly development, lacking clear definition, boundaries, and agreement”, and by Mestenhauser (1998) as unintegrated and fragmented. Instead, the Knight definition emphasized a process approach involving a wide range of internal (academics, students, administrators) and external (national and local governments, the private sector, international entities) stakeholders. Knight’s definition of internationalization as a process were an important step forward, but it brought new challenges to the forefront, as the process involved several

24

H. de Wit

misconceptions (de Wit, 2011) and unintended consequences (Knight, 2009), and left ample room for different approaches to an understanding of internationalization, including more competitive forms. In that respect, the gradual shift from the term ‘international education’ to ‘internationalization of higher education’ has not created more clarity about its meaning and focus.

Rethinking Internationalization About 10 years ago, Brandenburg and de Wit (2011, p. 15) called for critical reflection on internationalization, as there appeared to be an increasing discrepancy between internationalization perceived as “the last stance for humanistic ideas” and “the world of pure economic benefits allegedly represented by the term globalization.” Around the same time, Hudzik (2011) called for ‘comprehensive internationalization,’ embedding internationalization in all aspects, internal and external, of higher education. These ideas led further to viewing domestic diversity through this lens, which had already begun earlier. According to Knight (2004, p. 11) “internationalization is also about relating to the diversity of cultures that exist with countries, communities, and institutions,” while Jones and Killick (2007, p. 110) argue that “responding effectively to the diversity of international students and to the diversity of home students are in fact not two agendas but one”.

A Change in Emphasis In response to this broad range of concerns it was timely to update Knight’s (2003) definition, making it clear that the process needs to be intentional, and giving it a clear focus and direction. Accordingly, de Wit et al. (2015, p. 29) developed a revised definition of internationalization as the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.

As de Wit and Altbach (2021, p. 35) state, “this definition gives a normative direction to the process,” in distinction to the more neutral working definition of Knight. In that sense it can be seen as a providing more of an agenda of what internationalization should do, excluding other purposes and policies, as Craciun (2022, p. 57) correctly states. Such a more normative approach is also present in other meanings and definitions that have emerged over recent years, such as ‘comprehensive internationalization’ (Hudzik, 2011), ‘intelligent internationalization’ (Rumbley, 2015), ‘ethical internationalization’ (Pashby & Andreotti, 2016), ‘conscientious internationalization’ (Ledger & Kawalilak, 2020), ‘responsible internationalization’ (Stallivieri, 2019) and

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

25

‘humanistic internationalization’ (Streitwieser, 2019), each of them adding a normative label to the term ‘internationalization.’ Other definitions have a more focused normative approach: ‘learner-centred’ (Coelen, 2016), ‘forced’ (related to refugees, Ergin et al., 2019), and ‘coerced’ (Teferra, 2019). A term frequently used these days as alternative to internationalization is ‘global engagement,’ focusing more on the aspect of cooperation, networking and partnership. Hunter et al. (2022) also place the definition of ‘internationalization at home’ and ‘internationalization of the curriculum’ in that context and state that these rationale- and ideal-labeled definitions focus on actions and steps forward and have a strong scholar-practitioner origin. This new array of meanings, labels and alternative terms of internationalization illustrates the multifacetedness but also the sloppiness of the concept mentioned earlier. The same is true for several of its components. For instance: – One can question the difference between ‘internationalization at home’ and ‘internationalization of the curriculum.’ – Research and policies on international student mobility often do not distinguish between different types of student mobility, while there is a fundamental difference between ‘degree-seeking,’ ‘credit-seeking,’ and ‘certificate-seeking’ international students, both in their rationales, their experiences and their outcomes. – They also often ignore the difference in levels of international students (bachelor, master, PhD, continuing education), types of institutions (community colleges, universities of applied sciences, research universities, so-called world-class universities, etc.) and in their origins (high-income, mid-income or low-income countries) and motivations (cf. e.g., Choudaha et al., 2012, on the differences between highflyers, explorers, struggles and strivers). – In the area of cross-border delivery of education and transnational education, there is no common agreement not only on their meanings, but also on what they entail. – The same is true with the use of virtual mobility/virtual exchange/COIL and their distinction from distance education/online education/MOOCs. – Frequently used terms like ‘global citizen’ and ‘global engagement’ identify more with a notion of sympathetic perception of what it might entail than there being a clear common meaning and understanding. Some scholars suggest that ‘interculturalization’ might be a more appropriate term than internationalization given the central role of culture compared to international and global (Garson et al., 2016; Jones 2013, 2019). Enabling all our students to benefit requires “the intercultural [. . . .] to take precedence in our thinking over the international” (Jones, 2022, p. iii). This stronger focus on ‘intercultural’ is important and is linked to the political rationale for internationalization, but at the same time the current dramatic geopolitical tensions reemphasize ‘international’ as a political rationale.

26

H. de Wit

Lack of Strong Theoretical Foundation The theoretical foundation for the concept of internationalization of higher education has evolved over the last four decades. This is related to the fact, as de Wit and Altbach (2021, p. 17) state, that “[i]nternationalization is a process in constant evolution, which changes in response to local, national, regional, and global environments.” In 1996, Ulrich Teichler described research on international education as occasional, coincidental, sporadic and episodic. In the following years, an evolution in the conceptual thinking about internationalization in and of higher education took place. The conceptual and comparative analyses of internationalization in Europe, North America, Australia, Asia and Latin America, led by de Wit and Knight with colleagues from these regions and supported by international entities like the OECD and the World Bank (de Wit, 1995; Knight & de Wit, 1997, 1999; de Wit, 2002; de Wit et al., 2005; Knight, 2008) were instrumental in that evolution. The Journal of Studies in International Education, founded in 1997, was also an important factor in that process. In 2007, Barbara Kehm and Ulrich Teichler classified research on internationalization as having become more multidimensional and multifaceted, and more intertwined with research on other aspects of higher education. (Kehm & Teichler, 2007). There are currently more journals than the Journal of Studies in International Education focusing on internationalization, and internationalization has become one of the main themes in other higher-education journals, and there are many books, blogs and webinars on internationalization. As mentioned before, the notion of internationalization of higher education as a Western paradigm and dominated by Western authors, is increasingly more challenged and addressed by a more globally diverse scholar community. But the theoretical foundation is still rather weak; Lee and Stensaker (2021) speak of undertheoretization of the field. This lack of clarity in policies and practices as well as the theoretization of internationalization has led Daniela Craciun (2022, p. 57) to provide a further-updated definition: Internationalization is the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purposes, functions, and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to achieve intended academic, sociocultural, economic, and/or political goals.

According to her, this definition provides a better conceptualization of the process because (a) it includes all the key elements proposed by previous definitions; (b) it makes the definition more precise by stipulating the categories of benefits that can result from the process; (c) as the extension of the concept is increased, it applies to a wider universe of empirical cases that fall under the umbrella of internationalization; (d) it encourages systematic research into why, how, and with what results different actors are pursuing internationalization; (e) while, at the same time, remaining parsimonious.

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

27

This will not be the last attempt to define the internationalization of higher education, but it adds well to its conceptual evolution and further theoretization, as does the work by other rising scholars. As Hunter et al. (2022, p. 70) state: the concept of internationalization continues to be refined and revised, and theories and definitions adjusted to match new and evolving understandings. Aided by scholars and practitioners young and old, from traditional and new disciplines, this continuing process of conceptual evolution supports a crucial reflection on the values inherent in internationalization theories and practices.

Critical Reflections for the Future On a positive note, Jones and de Wit (2021, p. 44) observe that: far from becoming globalized in the sense of homogenization, internationalization strategy continues to develop beyond traditional understandings. Engaging with different political, economic, social, and historical factors in regional settings can offer new insights for those who choose not to imitate Anglo-western models.

And Thondhlana et al. (2021) argue that to mitigate the potential harmful effects of internationalization, there should be a balanced interplay around questions of globalization, regionalization, and nationalization, and that “issues of decolonisation, de-radicalisation and de-imperialisation are necessary for healthy international interdependence and mutual respect of sovereign nations” (p. 598). One should not ignore the positive potentials of internationalization in higher education but also be aware of the increasing inequality in its dimensions, which has only increased over the recent period. Internationalization as a process of higher education as well as of its diverse dimensions in higher education requires more clarity on the meaning, the rationales, its programs and its organization as well as its outcomes/impact. Accepting and describing its multifacetedness and historical and geographic contextuality is an essential starting point for its understanding. Owing to sloppiness in its use, internationalization of and in higher education has become an obstacle instead of its solution to the future of higher education, and it is too easy to blame external factors and actors. Both scholars and policy makers need to be clearer about what they mean and what the context is in which they use that meaning of internationalization and its different dimensions. As I wrote (de Wit, 2023, p. 205), reflecting on the contribution of Mestenhauser to the debate about internationalization: [T]he most important actions for the coming decade are the need to move away from shortterm neoliberal approaches to long-term societal interests, from international education as a benefit for a small elite towards global learning for all, and from a Western paradigm to a global and equal concept.

This is even more true than ever given the current geopolitical environment.

28

H. de Wit

References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1028315307303542 Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2017). Responding to massification: Differentiation in postsecondary education worldwide. Sense Publishers. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curai, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer. Blanco, G. L., Rumbley, L. E., & de Wit, H. (2022). Rankings and internationalization: An unfortunate alliance. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 137–149). Edward Elgar. Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62(Winter). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8533 Buckner, E., & Stein, S. (2020). What counts as internationalization?: Deconstructing the internationalization imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 151–166. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878 Bullen, J., & Flavell, H. (2021). Decolonising the indigenised curricula: Preparing Australian graduates for a workplace and world in flux. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1402–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1927998 Choudaha, R., Orosz, K., & Chang, L. (2012). Not all international students are the same: Understanding segments, mapping behavior. Accessed on August 25, 2022, from https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/255857496_Not_All_International_Students_are_the_ Same_Understanding_Segments_Mapping_Behavior CISN (Critical Internationalization Studies Network). (2022). Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://criticalinternationalization.net/ Coelen, R. (2016). A learner-centred internationalisation of higher education. In E. Jones, R. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and local internationalization (pp. 33–42). Sense Publishers. Craciun, D. (2022). What is higher education internationalization? In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 56–58). Stylus. De Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992). Mobility. In H. De Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe (Universities in the Middle Age) (Vol. 1, pp. 416–451). Cambridge University Press. de Wit, H. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and The United States of America. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and Association of International Education Administrators. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in The United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood. de Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64(Summer), 6–7. (Boston College Center for International Higher Education). de Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization in higher education: A western paradigm or a global, intentional and inclusive concept. International Journal of African Higher Education, 7(2), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v7i2.12891 de Wit, H. (2023). Mestenhauser’s influence on future of international education policy. In A. M. D’Angelo, M. K. O’Brien, & G. Marty (Eds.), Mestenhauser and the possibilities of international education: Illuminating pathways for inquiry and future practice (Internationalization in Higher Education series) (pp. 197–207). Routledge.

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

29

de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi. org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898 de Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2022). The history of the internationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 23–52). Sterling, VA. de Wit, H., & Rumbley, L. E. (2017). Professional development in international education: The example of the Boston College MA in international higher education. Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Handbook, 2017(3), 2–14. de Wit, H., Jaramillo, I. C., Gacel Ávila, J., & Knight, J. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension (Directions in Development series). World Bank. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. de Wit, H., Minaeva, E., & Wang, L. (Eds.). (2022). International student recruitment and mobility in non-Anglophone countries: Theories, themes and patterns (Internationalization in Higher Education series). Routledge. Ergin, H., de Wit, H., & Leask, B. (2019). Forced internationalization: An emerging phenomenon. International Higher Education, 97(Spring), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.97.10939 Garson, K., Bourassa, E., & Odgers, T. (2016). Interculturalising the curriculum: Faculty professional development. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14675986.2016.1240506 Groennings, S. (1990). Higher education, international education, and the academic disciplines. In S. Groennings & D. S. Wiley (Eds.), Group portrait: Internationalizing the disciplines (pp. 11–31). American Forum. Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. NAFSA. Hunter, F., McAllister-Grande, B., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2022). The evolving definitions of internationalization: A question of values. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 53–74). Stylus. Jones, E. (2013). Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money & Management, 33(2), 95–104. https://doi. org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763416 Jones, E. (2019, September 26). Is it time to pursue ‘interculturalisation’? Times Higher Education (THE). Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ittime-pursue-interculturalisation Jones, E. (2022). Problematizing the idea of curriculum ‘internationalization’. Journal of International Students, 12(1), i–v. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.4592 Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIE Networker, 28–29. Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2021). The globalization of internationalization? In D. Cohn & H. E. Khan (Eds.), International education at the crossroad (pp. 35–48). Indiana University Press. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2007). Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 110–111). Routledge. Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2021). Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153211031679 Kehm, B., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315307303534 Knight, J. (1993). Internationalisation: Management strategies and issues. International Higher Education Magazine, 9(1), 6 and 21–22. Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33(Fall), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391

30

H. de Wit

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization (Global Perspectives on Higher Education series 13). Brill. Knight, J. (2009). Internationalization: Unintended consequences? International Higher Education, 54(Winter), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2009.54.8412 Knight, J. (2020). Knowledge diplomacy: What are the key characteristics? International Higher Education, 100(Winter), 38–39. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and The United States of America (pp. 5–32). European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and Association of International Education Administrators. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and IDP-Education Australia. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Where have we come from and where are we going? In D. Proctor & L. E. Rumbley (Eds.), The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation perspectives into research, policy, and practice (pp. xix–xxiv). Routledge. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. Leask, B., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, December 7). Towards inclusive intercultural learning for all. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181205093157690 Ledger, S., & Kawalilak, C. (2020). Conscientious internationalisation in higher education: Contextual complexities and comparative tensions. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09650-0 Lee, J. J., & Stensaker, B. (2021). Research on internationalisation and globalisation in higher education: Reflections on historical paths, current perspectives and future possibilities. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12448 Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International education on the verge: In search of a new paradigm. International Educator, 7(2–3), 68–76. Pashby, K., & Andreotti, V. d. O. (2016). Ethical internationalisation in higher education: Interfaces with international development and sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 771–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1201789 Rubin, J. (2016). Nautical musings on local and global innovation and change. In E. Jones, R. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and local internationalization (pp. 75–79). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-301-8 Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80(Spring), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.80.6146 Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Leask, B. (2022). Trends in global higher education and the future of internationalization, beyond 2020. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Stylus. Scott, P. (1998). Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 108–129). SRHE and Open University Press. Stallivieri, L. (2019, August 31). Making the case for responsible internationalisation. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20190829092237117 Stallivieri, L. (2020, May 23). International virtual exchange needs greater support. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20200518150642841

2

Internationalization in and of Higher Education. . .

31

Stein, S. (2017). The persistent challenges of addressing epistemic dominance in higher education: Considering the case of curriculum internationalization. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S25–S50. https://doi.org/10.1086/690456 Stein, S. (2021). Critical internationalization studies at an impasse: Making space for complexity, uncertainty, and complicity in a time of global challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1771–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1704722 Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. d. O. (2016). Decolonization and higher education. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-287-532-7_479-1 Stein, S., Andreotti, V. d. O., Suša, R., Ahenakew, C., & de Souza, L. M. (2020). Who decides? In whose name? For whose benefit?: Decoloniality and its discontents. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 3(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17899/ON_ED.2020.7.1 Streitwieser, B. (2019, April 6). Humanism at the heart of internationalization. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20190405132624741 Teferra, D. (2019, August 23). Defining internationalisation: Intention versus coercion. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20190821145329703 Teichler, U. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An agenda for the future. In P. Blumenthal, C. Goodwin, A. Smith, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Academic mobility in a changing world (pp. 338–358). Jessica Kingsley. Thondhlana, J., Garwe, E. C., de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Huang, F., & Tamrat, W. (2021). The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global south. Bloomsbury. van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(01) 00018-6 Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804

Chapter 3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges Simon Marginson

Introduction Universities across the world have entered a new and difficult period. The worldwide landscape of higher education and scientific research is shifting rapidly, and geo-politics are likely to have transformative impacts in the sector. As with all new periods, it is difficult to read from within it but easier to reflect on the period that is passing. This constitutes a useful starting point.

The Transformation Since 1990 There have been great changes in the university world since the late 1980s, including the collapse of the Soviet model and the end of the Cold War worldwide; a great expansion and intensification of worldwide economic markets, which is now faltering; and the emergence and spread of the networked Internet world. In preparing the chapter, and a concurrent study of space-making and scale in higher education (Marginson, 2022e), the author reviewed approximately 200 articles, books and chapters published since 1990 on the international and global, in general and in higher education. There was a great flourishing of new work in spatial geography and global sociology from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. At that time globalization (the tendency to worldwide integration and convergence) was coming on The chapter is based on research that was conducted in the ESRC/RE Centre for Global Higher Education, supported by the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council under grant number ES/T014768/1. S. Marginson (✉) University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_3

33

34

S. Marginson

quickly, was stimulating a concurrent expansion of internationalization (relations between nations), and seemed to have open potentials. It seemed vital to understand the new possibilities. Much of the fecund work of those days has stood the test of time. Inevitably, also, the literature is also replete with errors of perception and overly normative propositions. In a mid-1990s review of international relations theory, E. Fuat Keyman (1997, p. 208) concluded solemnly that “it is becoming increasingly apparent that reality is not what it used to be”. Nor was social theory. Large claims and novel generalizations flourished. In Fukuyama, 1992, Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History declared an Americanized liberal order without end and in 1996 Manuel Castells identified another kind of universal in The Rise of the Information Society (Castells, 2000/1996). Many then believed that globalization in the economy, and communications and culture, would render the nation-state partly obsolete (e.g., Waters, 1995; Appadurai, 1996; Sassen, 2002). For a time this expectation was shared by two groups who disagreed on other points: neo-liberals who had been arguing for more room for the capitalist market since the 1960s, and liberal cosmopolitans for whom the horizon was the world society anticipated by theorists (e.g., Beck, 2000; Luhmann, 2012, p. 85). Much of the talk about globalization was ‘celebratory’, at least prior to the breach of Pax Americana in the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in 2001 (Calhoun et al., 2002), and the data on the gross inequalities triggered by free-wheeling global capitalist development. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (1999, p. 52) noted, claims about globalization tended to universalize a particular view of the world. In both scholarly work and popular discourse globalization was mostly seen as capitalist and inevitable, though some saw it as cultural (e.g., Robertson, 1992) or explored its economic aspects with a cultural lens (e.g., Appadurai, 1996). However, all agreed that globalization was spatial, bringing forward geographical ideas such as global/local vectors, flat networks, space-time compression and perspectival innovations like Appadurai’s ‘scapes’. This geographical imagining of globalization and the more general impact of geo-spatiality in the social sciences have left a permanent mark. However, 1990s predictions about the weakening of the nation-state form are now obsolete. The nationstate was relativised by growing global flows, but it was not displaced. It adapted. In the 1990s, Euro-American universities were absorbed into networked communications system, and as the decade proceeded the growing mobility of students, researchers, policies and ideas was evident. In emerging nations, the first effects of the enhanced global convergence in higher education were felt not in policy isomorphism or money flows but a new flood of Westernising knowledge and information (e.g., at Universitas Indonesia; Marginson & Sawir, 2006). Published global science and internationally collaborative papers expanded quickly. University partnerships and consortia spread. Anglophone institutions in the UK and Australia grew their international student enrolments, pegged out profit margins and absorbed revenue in neo-imperial ventures such as campuses offshore. US, UK and Australian institutions and public agencies initiated successive global ‘e-universities’, though these faltered for lack of customers. Stimulated both by these empirical global developments and the ferment about globalization in social theory, there was

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

35

explosive growth in the use of the terms ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ in studies of higher education, though the change in research and scholarship on higher education shows between the late 1990s and the end of the 2000s, a little later than in sociology, political economy and cultural studies. In papers on higher-education ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ were applied with many shades of meanings, and conflicting emotions about globalization. Some scholars sought to explain, theorize and shape perceptions of the emerging global relations (e.g., van der Wende, 2002; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Välimaa, 2004; Teichler, 2004; Dale, 2005; Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Others offered strategic advice for university leaders and the global businesses that some had developed, for example Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) on the drivers of global student mobility. As often in the pragmatic and primarily instrumental field of research on higher education, the practical papers that offered ways of coping and adapting to the new environment drew more early citations than the social theory papers, while the better theory pieces had a longer shelf life. Work on ‘internationalization’ led by Knight (e.g., 2004) and de Wit (e.g., 2002) steered between the two approaches and was very widely used by both scholars and practitioners, though much of the internationalization literature retained a nation-bound view and struggled to fully encompass globalization in higher education. Again, as with other scholarly literature, certain propositions in 1990s and 2000s higher-education studies travelled better than others. Hopes that the Internet would foster a new era of immersive networked science were realized, albeit with a large caveat, the exclusion of languages other than English, which the chapter discusses below. Fears that an Americanized global uniformity would displace the nationstate – and with it European policy and academic personality – turned out to be exaggerated. But the global competition imaginary has been profoundly felt. Arguably, no single global development has bitten deeper, especially at the level of the university as an institution, than the emergence of world university rankings.

Taking Stock In the light of the last three decades of change, and present tendencies, this chapter will advance six propositions about the new period in global and international higher education. The first five propositions are explanatory and the last is primarily normative. 1. The global scale in higher education should be distinguished from the national and international scale. They are not the same, though ‘methodological nationalism’ (Wimmer & Schiller, 2002) tends to block that awareness by making it difficult to see the global scale. Nor are globalization and internationalization a dialectical pair as some have argued (e.g., Scott, 1998), which would suggest another kind of identity. 2. Since the mid 1990s there has been more extensive and intensive internationalization – growing relations across national borders – and activity in

36

3.

4.

5.

6.

S. Marginson

the global scale in higher education and knowledge has expanded at an extraordinary rate. Communications, information flows, cheaper transport and greater mobility of persons have been crucial in these processes. Relations of both collaboration and competition have been fostered by all pan-national, national, institutional and individual agents. Arguably, the overall outcome has benefitted human society, joint and several. Global and international higher education and knowledge have fostered a Euro-American (and largely Anglo-American) world hegemony, blatantly neo-imperial in form and contents. This seems out of phase with the increasing multi-polarity in political economy: the spread of nation-building across the world and the rise of China and a range of non-Western middle powers. In higher education the non-Western countries have been drawn into the Western cultural hegemony but retain the scope for autonomous action, and national-cultural diversity may increase in future. As this suggests, and notwithstanding the ‘knowledge economy’ idea, the ontology of the higher education sector is partly separated from that of political economy. While economic globalization and educational/knowledge globalization have common roots in convergence through travel and communication, and while political economy is always a conditioning factor in higher education, the trajectory of globalization in the semi-autonomous higher education and knowledge sectors has been partly decoupled from the trajectory of economic (and capitalist) globalization. This has been shown strikingly in recent times: economic globalization is now in reverse, and political globalization is little developed, but the semi-autonomous internationalization and globalization of higher education and knowledge have continued to advance. However, this partial autonomy of higher education and knowledge is not a constant. Self-determining autonomy in the sector is now being newly overdetermined by geo-politics, with varying impacts across worldwide higher education. It can be argued that while, again, contexts vary, since 2015 or thereabouts the setting has become increasingly hostile to global and international relations in the sector. The normative implication is that it is becoming both more difficult and more important for scholars and scientists to advocate and sustain conditions of academic freedom and normalize collaborative cross-border relations with all agents in higher education.

The chapter now addresses each of these matters in more detail.

Geo-spatial Definitions of ‘Global’ and ‘International’ There is more than one kind of cross-border relation in higher education and knowledge. It is essential to distinguish between (a) the world understood as a mosaic of nation-states, the Westphalian world of multilateral international relations,

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

37

and (b) the world understood as an inter-dependent planetary sphere, the global scale, the world of ecology and, in part, of scientific knowledge, which spans above, beneath and across national borders and does not necessarily require them. This distinction is necessary for two reasons. On one hand, nation-bound thinking, politics, organization and funding are potent in higher education as in most sectors. On the other hand, there are imaginings and social relations in the global scale that are simply not confined to national containers. Global and national scales intersect at many points. Conditions or actions in one are often a condition of action in the other. But the global scale and the national/international scale are not the same, in general and in universities. How then to bring these two kinds of cross-border relation into the picture in a coherent manner? It is better to use geo-spatial nouns such as ‘international’ and ‘global’, and their process-oriented derivatives ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’, as neutral descriptors – rather than using these nouns as normative terms that are designed to conjure up spectres, or idea states, and thereby nudge people towards one or another kind of educational practice. It must be said that neutral geo-spatial terminology is not dominant in studies of international education. In that discussion, there are ideological understandings of ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ (for example Knight, 1999, 2004) that often dominate the conversation – for example a good/evil binary of internationalization and (economic) globalization. However, neutral spatial terminology is widely used in geography and political economy. In summary: • The term ‘national’ pertains to the territorially defined nation-state. The national scale of activity is normatively centred by government, law, policy, and national financing. • The term ‘international’ (inter-national) refers to cross-border passage or relations between two or more nations or between organisations or persons in nations. • The term ‘global’ pertains to phenomena and relations that span the world as a whole, or large parts of the world. The global scale of activity is affected by relations between governments, organisations and persons, but it has no normative centre. • ‘Cross-border’ relations is the term that includes both international and global connections and processes. • The term ‘internationalization’ refers to the strengthening of cross-border activities, connections and relations between nations. • The term ‘globalization’ refers to tendencies to worldwide integration and convergence. It combines three aspects: (1) materiality (the ecology is material, the Internet is material), (2) human imagining, and (3) social practices such as research exchange and collaboration, partnerships between universities, and university ranking. Globalization can occur in every and any sector of human activity. It is not confined to the economy nor intrinsically neo-liberal, capitalist or Western. Historically, world markets, trade and financial flows have played a key role in fostering global relations, though arguably, global communications have been as important since

38

S. Marginson

1990, religions were a major globalizing force in earlier times, and knowledge is always intrinsically globalizing. We should avoid scalar determinism, in which social relations are determined by scale alone. Globalization is not necessarily more competitive while internationalization is more cooperative, as was argued around 2000 by educators looking for a defence against WTO proposals for deregulated trade in education (e.g., Altbach, 2001). For example, global ecology is not intrinsically competitive. All kinds of social relations are possible, in either the global scale or the national/international scale. World Wars I and II were competitive inter-national conflicts (they also remade the global space). Internationalization is not necessarily a ‘response to globalization’ as in Knight (2003; see also Altbach & Knight, 2007). Many crossborder moves are made in the absence of identifiable global pressures. Some such international links, when repeated and sustained, lead to global convergence and integration, reversing Knight’s chain of causality. Nevertheless, the point is that the practices of globalization and internationalization are heterogeneous, spatiality distinct. They have differing political-cultural potentials. Internationalization practices are nationally nested and nationally variant, while global practices are often partly disembedded, though there are many different versions of globalization. Still, all else equal, international connections multiply in a globalizing setting, and vice versa. Not all international activity builds the space of global activity. The global scale is constructed by ideas, ideologies, materialities, infrastructures specific to that scale. Globalization is not external to higher education while internationalization is internal. Worldwide relations, and nation-states, each impact higher education from outside. At the same time, universities and researchers are ‘inner’ agents of both internationalization and globalization, though to a varying extent, depending on position and self-positioning. And it should never be forgotten that knowledge and research universities are now among the most globalized and globalizing of all human activities. However the nation-state may overhang them, agents in higher education have a special responsibility in constituting the global.

Post-1990 Expansion of the International and Global in Higher Education After 1990, there was a tremendous expansion in cross-border connections and infrastructures in higher education, bi-lateral and multilateral: in cross-border people and programme mobility, co-authored research, agreements and partnerships, policy transfers and adaptations. Internationalization has been vigorously pursued and broadly supported by most governments and universities. There have also been profound global developments. Arguably the most important have been the evolu-

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

39

tion of a robust networked global science system, resting on a single bibliometric pool of knowledge, and the global ordering of research universities via comparison and ranking, which has been taken up by media and government in many countries. There are also online learning platforms such as MOOCs, and university consortia. The full impact of global communications hit higher education in the late 1990s. There were a few years at the turn of the century when everything in higher education seemed to lurch, disembedded from its accustomed locations. With globalization “many incongruous facets of human existence have been forced together into a giant tumbler” (Yang, 2019, p. 68), an image Yang sources to Odora Hoppers (2009) – an example of the transfers endemic to both knowledge and globalization. Everything was then reworked and re-embedded again, more or less settling in the mid to late 2000s, though the temporality varies across the world. But the changes have continued to accumulate, especially in science and in global rankings. The growth of mobility, research networking, university agreements, consortia, recognition and quality assurance protocols, benchmarking, branch campuses and online delivery has fostered, and is sustained by, cross-border work as a ‘social imaginary’ in Taylor’s (2003) sense, meaning a set of norms, ideas, narratives, images and behaviours. Most often this imaginary is understood in generic terms as ‘internationalization’, though sometimes it is understood as ‘globalization’ in the sense of constructive world-building and/or an interdependent planet in the ecological sense. This social imaginary is shared within national systems of higher education and across borders. In it, internationalization (or globalization if that is the preferred term) is seen as normatively desirable and is often associated with liberal virtues of tolerance and liberal cosmopolitanism, perhaps also preparing students for global citizenship, and intercultural learning. However, unlike the social imaginary of modernity, or that of neo-liberalism, internationalization as a social imaginary is not widely shared outside higher education. Some but not all of the cross-border activity in higher education and knowledge has contributed to the creation of the distinctive global scale. Global activity is constituted by three kinds of process, in ascending order of global convergence and integration: extensive and repeated global connections, which start to take on a systemic form; cross-border global diffusion between countries and between institutions, through the processes of isomorphism discussed in institutional theory; and the formation of autonomous global systems (Marginson, 2022d). The line between intensified connections and global integration is not easy to draw, but cross-border connections are less embedded than is, say, the global research system. Visitor and migration protocols that welcome foreigners can be suspended by the stroke of a governmental pen. The distributed investment in the growth of global science, which is primarily sustained by grass-roots collaboration between scientists, is another matter.

40

S. Marginson

Cross-Border Student Mobility International student mobility is the cross-border process most obviously vulnerable to arbitrary policy action to reduce it or close it down. The fact that it has expanded by five and a half a percent per annum since 1998, which is a very rapid rate of sustained growth, indicates that the strength of the overall tendencies to internationalization and globalization (Fig. 3.1). Student mobility shows every sign of returning to its growth path once the pandemic no longer impacts travel, though in future it will be increasingly affected by geo-politics, as it was after 9/11, and perhaps by climate-change mitigation (Shields, 2019 and Chap. 8 by Robin Shields in this volume). The most internationalized component of the student population is the doctoral cohort. Almost a quarter of doctoral students are mobile, but the proportion of doctoral students that is international or foreign varies by national science system. Among the large research systems, UK (41% of all doctoral students in 2019) and France (38%) were highly internationalized in this respect while Germany (12%) and South Korea (14%) were not. Those systems where the proportion exceeded one third of doctoral students were, in descending order, Luxembourg (87%), Switzerland (56%), New Zealand, (50%) UK, France, Iceland, Denmark, Australia, Austria, Sweden, Canada and Ireland. In the United States the international student proportion had fallen to 25% in 2019. There is also much variation in the proportion of first degree and Master’s students that are inwardly and outwardly mobile (OECD, 2021). This points to the nationally nested character of the supply of international opportunities and of focused aspirations for mobility. Academic mobility, where we 7,0 6,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0

98 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 004 2005 2006 2007 008 009 2010 2011 012 2013 2014 2015 2016 017 2018 2019 2 2 2 2 2

19

to OECD countries

to non-OECD countries

Fig. 3.1 International student mobility: The number of international or foreign students enrolled in tertiary education for one year or more, 1998–2019 (millions). (Source: Author, adapting data in OECD, 2021)

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

41

lack robust comparative data, but where the growth of visits is likely to have been at least as rapid as the growth of one-year student mobility, seems more broadly spread in the form of outward mobility than in the form of inward mobility, where much of the flow is into the hegemonic academic systems of the U.S. (especially) and U.K., with significant traffic within Europe, into China, and regionally into Japan and Russia.

The Global Research System There has been a more rapid expansion in international connectedness in research (Fig. 3.2). Between 2000 and 2020, the proportion of all papers in Scopus that had international co-authors rose from 13 to 23% (NSB, 2022). This is inter-national collaboration facilitated by globalization, in the global research system. In some universities in Europe and the Anglophone world, the international proportion of papers exceeds two thirds; at Harvard it exceeds 50% (Table 3.1 and Leiden University, 2022). The commonality of the trend points to the way that the political economy of the network form (Castells, 2000/1996) facilitates cooperation in data exchange, virtual project collaboration and joint writing. This shows itself not only in the great growth of global collaboration in research but also in national co-authorship. The trends to absolute and relative growth of cross-border collaboration are common to all countries, though the level of internationalization varies. It tends to

3 500 000 3 000 000

international co-authors

2 500 000 2 000 000 1 500 000 national co-authors 1 000 000 500 000

locally produced

97 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 19

19

19

96

0

solely locally produced papers

solely nationally co-authored papers

internationally co-authored papers

Fig. 3.2 Rise of the global collaborative network in science: Growth in the number of science papers and of the proportion of papers internationally co-authored, 1996–2020. (Source: Author, adapting data in NSB, 2022)

42

S. Marginson

be lower in large national systems where there are more potential domestic collaborators. The international share of papers is especially high in Europe, facilitated by not only geographical and cultural contiguity but also by European research funding which mandates cross-country teams. The emergence of a global science system, with its paper output mediated and signified by bibliometrics, is arguably the most important global development in higher education since 1990 (Marginson 2022b, c). It is important to emphasize that this is a global development, not primarily a national and international development. Global science is outside the direct control of nation-states. Government funding and institutional infrastructure are essential conditions of global science, but governments do not control it. Studies by Wagner and Leydesdorff find that the global network has an autonomous trajectory that it is primarily bottom up, constituted by scientists themselves and positioned orthogonally to nation science systems (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005; Wagner et al., 2015).

Open Science Network, Distributed Science Capacity Measures of network betweenness suggest the global system has become more open to new entrants over time. The network structure encourages scientists in emerging systems, drawing on the common pool of knowledge and freely creating new networked associations, including ‘periphery to periphery’ networking (Wagner et al., 2015; Choi, 2012). Established countries and institutions do not create absolute barriers to entry. This helps to explain the increasingly distributed character of research capacity (See again Table 3.1). The top Anglophone universities continue to lead the world in their volume of high citation science, as shown by the fourth column, which indicates the number of 2017–2020 papers produced by each university that are in the top 5% of papers in their field by citation. Yet Chinese universities are rapidly improving their output and proportion of high citation papers. Tsinghua in China was fourth in the world on the total number of top 5% papers in 2017–2020, behind only Harvard, Stanford and Toronto, and ahead of Oxford. Of the 2017–2020 papers at Tsinghua 7.7% were in the top 5% (see the fifth column), the same level as the University of Michigan in the US and ahead of Toronto. Non Euro-American universities already dominate in the third column, which shows total science paper output. China has five of the seven universities with the largest output of papers (University of Leiden, 2022). The total papers measure is size dependent. Many of China’s double world-class designated universities are large in students and budgets. The size factor explains why there are few European universities in Table 3.1 (though in the future the mergers in France may modify this). Many North American universities are also relatively large. It looks like Chinese universities are producing more papers per faculty.

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

43

Table 3.1 Leading universities in the total production of science, papers published in 2017–2020

(1) University Harvard U Stanford U U Toronto Tsinghua U U Oxford Zhejiang U U Michigan MIT U College London U Cambridge Shanghai Jiao Tong U Johns Hopkins U Huazhong U S&T U Pennsylvania U Washington Seattle Columbia U UC – Los Angeles Cornell U Imperial Coll London Yale U National U Singapore UC – San Diego UC – Berkeley Peking U Central Southern U UC – San Francisco

(5) Proportion of papers in top 5% of field 12.2% 12.5% 7.3% 7.7% 10.4% 5.6% 7.7% 14.3% 9.3%

(6) Proportion of papers with international co-authors 54.4% 47.6% 59.1% 37.7% 71.1% 31.8% 41.2% 58.8% 68.2%

(2) Country USA USA Canada China UK China USA USA UK

(3) Total papers 35,050 17,187 24,260 22,311 16,499 29,091 19,609 10,503 15,560

(4) Papers in top 5% of field by citation 4,276 2,140 1,773 1,726 1,722 1,640 1,508 1,501 1,446

UK China

14,268 28,703

1,425 1,405

10.0% 4.9%

71.6% 31.4%

USA

17,708

1,404

7.9%

47.0%

China

21,654

1,311

6.1%

28.0%

USA

14,100

1,290

9.1%

38.9%

USA

14,847

1,267

8.5%

44.5%

USA USA

12,891 14,196

1,249 1,235

9.7% 8.7%

49.5% 47.8%

USA UK

12,869 12,092

1,203 1,195

9.3% 9.9%

47.4% 71.6%

USA Singapore

12,010 13,388

1,184 1,182

9.9% 8.8%

46.7% 70.8%

USA

12,641

1,172

9.3%

48.5%

USA

9,789

1,145

11.7%

54.3%

China China

19,874 20,131

1,137 1,102

5.7% 5.5%

37.3% 25.7%

USA

10,250

1,065

10.4%

42.5% (continued)

44

S. Marginson

Table 3.1 (continued)

(1) University Sun Yat-sen U Northwestern U U Chinese Acad. Sci. ETH Zurich

(5) Proportion of papers in top 5% of field 5.1%

(6) Proportion of papers with international co-authors 31.1%

(2) Country China

(3) Total papers 19,866

(4) Papers in top 5% of field by citation 1,006

USA

11,133

1,005

9.0%

39.6%

China

16,867

1,003

5.9%

26.9%

Switzerland

10,000

992

9.9%

72.1%

Source: Author, adapting data from Leiden University (2022). Original data from Web of Science. More than 95% of papers are in English. Citation data field normalized. Total and highly cited papers fractional count, co-authored papers number count. U University, IT Institute of Technology, UT University of Technology, S&T Science and Technology

Figure 3.3 compares two groups of nations according to the rate of growth of the role of their researchers in global science. The first group of countries is nations where global output grew more slowly than the world average growth between 2000 and 2020 of 5.15% per year. The second group of faster than average growth countries shows the plethora of relatively new players in science. Science in some of the newcomer countries is large. In almost half the group, the nation has a per capita income below the world average in PPP terms. China is now the largest producer of global science, having passed the US in Scopus papers in 2016, while India is the third largest producer ahead of Germany, UK and Japan. Not only is science no longer an oligopoly of North America, Europe and its settler states, Russia and Japan, it is no longer confined to rich countries. Globalization in science, along with state building and rising per capita incomes, has been profoundly transformative.

In Knowledge Content (Especially) and Organisational Models, Higher Education Remains an Anglophone Hegemony Yet in some respects, globalization in knowledge and higher education has not been transformative enough. In the contents of knowledge (especially) and in the organization of national systems and institutions and in the composition of the curriculum, international and global higher education stubbornly remain a Euro-American hegemony, and primarily an Anglo-American hegemony. To put it bluntly, despite the broadening distribution of capacity across the world it is a neo-imperial sector still.

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

45

Fig. 3.3 Slower growing (upper graph) and faster growing (lower graph) output in global science. (Source: Author adapting Scopus data from NSB, 2022, World Bank data. Graphs include only countries where researchers published more than 5,000 papers in 2020. Fractional paper count. World average GDP per capita $17,083 (2020). Abbreviations: p.a. per annum, USD U.S. American dollars, PPP Purchasing Power Parity, NZ New Zealand)

There is continuity here. Arguably, there have been two primary globalizations, and both have been imperial. The first wave, beginning in the sixteenth century and based on maritime transport, trade and military power, combined globalization with brutal European colonization. The second wave began about 1870, was interrupted

46

S. Marginson

by World War I, interwar protectionism, the Depression, fascism and World War II, and resumed in the 1980s. In the nineteenth century, it was carried by shipping and the expansion of open trading systems, buoyed by the spread of industry and rail, fuelled by migration, at an historic highpoint, and networked by the telegraph. Global time, the first synchronous global system, was established. Pre-World War I globalization was also the peak of worldwide colonialism and Anglo-European imperialism. In 1910, 90% of the world’s land area was Euro-American controlled or strongly shaped. From the 1980s onwards, globalization was again carried by trade and investment, plus cheaper transport, and global communications. More so than in the late nineteenth century, the Anglo-American powers dominated culture, language, education and science. The Internet began in 1989 in the US universities and its early dissemination in higher education (fortunately in some respects) embodied American faculty norms of unregulated civil cooperation and exchange. The Internet now reaches more than 60% of the world and its languages of use have greatly pluralized. But remarkably, Anglo-American institutions, disciplines, organisational norms and models are still almost as dominant in worldwide higher education and science as they were in 1990. Globalization and internationalization are unproblematic in the English-speaking world. They occur alongside local and national higher education and knowledge without displacing them. It is a different matter elsewhere, especially beyond Europe. As Yang (2014, p. 153) notes: The [orthodox] concept defines internationalization as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of higher education. It has served the field extremely well, especially in its analysis of activities at institutional level. However, this definition is only based on and thus suitable for Western experience. To non-Western societies, modern universities are an imported concept. They originated from Europe, spreading worldwide from the mid-nineteenth century to the present time mainly due to colonialism. Even the countries that escaped colonial domination adopted Western models as well. The European-North American university model has never been tolerant toward other alternatives, leading to the inefficacy of universities in non-Western societies, on whom a so-called “international” perspective has been imposed from the outset. What is lacking is an appropriate combination of the “international” and the local. Within the contemporary context of Western dominance, internationalization of higher education in non-Western societies necessarily touches on longstanding knotty issues and tensions between Westernisation and indigenisation. This is particularly true in China, a country with a continuous history of fostering unique cultural heritages for thousands of years.

The Critique of Western Domination Is Ignored in the West Anglophone universities have long been too complacent about this. The critique of orthodox Western ‘internationalization’ is not new. The problem has been that the critique has been consistently ignored, shutting out the global South and the rising East Asian powers. For non-Western societies, the imperative to internationalize

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

47

higher education in Western terms triggers major dilemmas, cultural disembedding and a profound subtraction of agency: And increasingly, it is less a Western hegemony than an Anglophone one. International connections, global diffusion and global systems all continually reproduce Anglo-American control. This is reproduced and institutionalized in global subjectivity. For example, the US and the UK enjoy a power of attraction in international education that no other nations can even closely match. The US is a large wealthy country that provides many career opportunities for graduates, but it is not as economically superior as it was – and for its part, the UK is neither very wealthy nor very welcoming of migrants. Yet both nations recruit as many international students as they wish. Numbers are supply not demand driven. Why? In a powerful recent article in Higher Education, Riyad Shahjahan and Kirsten Edwards (2022) argue that international educational flows are pulled towards relations of domination inherited from colonialism. International students and families across the world invest in ‘whiteness as futurity’. The US and UK are the ‘whitest of the white’. The desire for proxy whiteness animates non-white families even while it entrenches their collective disadvantage. The global research system is more hegemonic and more unjust than is the pattern of cross-border education. Over 95% of the publications in Scopus and Web of Science are in English. Latin, French, German and Russian are no longer global languages of science. Chinese, Arabic and Spanish have not become global languages of science, despite their demographic presence and their number of scholars. Endogenous (indigenous) knowledge is wholly excluded from the bibliometric collections. Papers published in non-English language are not translated into global English for all to read, as they could be and should be – we now have the software to do this, especially in science-based disciplines. The shutout is complete. The rising East Asian systems do increasingly well at global science but do so by being good in Western terms in their second language (Marginson & Xu, 2023). The global science pool is ordered in terms of abstract value (e.g., journal and citation metrics) which enables the calibration of a hierarchy of science countries and science universities. Here the exclusive dominance of English, which rests on two centuries of imperial power, helps to sustain the performance and prestige of the leading Anglo-American universities. In turn, they provide the model for the ideal university, the Global Research University or ‘World-Class University’ used as the template for global rankings. They are of surpassing excellence, on the basis of a standard that they control. In turn, they legitimate the definition of scientific knowledge that underpins their success. Global ranking (Hazelkorn & Mihut, 2021), and global publication and bibliometrics, form a circular system that closes global knowledge and tightly orders universities and countries on a vertical basis. The global rankings that emerged in 2003–2004 both normalized the market metaphor and stabilized Western and AngloAmerican dominance in higher education. Taking the argument of Shahjahan and Edwards, ranking also helps to perpetuate a colonial and racist hierarchy in the sector.

48

S. Marginson

Science and Higher Education in East Asia As noted, global scientific capacity has become more widely distributed in the last two decades, and as Table 3.2 demonstrates this is very apparent in physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computing. In those domains, universities in China and Singapore now produce more high-citation science than their Anglophone counterparts (Marginson, 2022a). In mathematics and computing, the leading 12 universities in the production of top 5% science in 2017–2020 were all from China and Singapore. In physical sciences and engineering, ten of the top 12 were from China and Singapore. Tsinghua in China was well ahead of the rest of the world in the combined tally of top 5% papers, and also led the world in top 1% papers with 283, followed by MIT with 220. The East Asian universities were not nearly as prolific in top 5% research in Biomedical and Health sciences, where the leading Table 3.2 Leading universities in the production of high citation science (papers in the top 5% of their field) in Physical Science and Engineering (including Astronomy, Chemistry and Materials), Mathematics and Complex Computing 2017–2020

University Tsinghua U Zhejiang U Harbin IT Huazhong U S&T Massachusetts IT Shanghai Jiao Tong U Nanyang UT U S&T Xi’an Jiaotong U National U Singapore Stanford U Tianjin U Hunan U Central Southern U South China UT

Country of Author China China China China

Number of Physical Sciences and Engineering papers in top 5% 988 670 578 600

Number of Maths and Complex Computing papers in top 5% 342 204 283 253

Total number of STEM papers in top 5% of their field 1,330 874 861 853

USA

633

177

810

China

601

196

797

Singapore China China

567 619 562

205 130 174

772 749 736

Singapore

512

173

685

USA China China China

529 523 536 502

153 153 127 148

682 676 663 650

China

477

165

642

Source: Author, adapting data from Leiden University (2022). Original data from Web of Science. Abbreviations: U University, IT Institute of Technology, UT University of Technology, S&T Science and Technology

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

49

21 universities are all Anglophone (including 16 from the US), the first non-UK European university is Copenhagen at 22 and the first Chinese university is Shanghai Jiaotong at 29. However, the East Asian output in the STEM fields, a domain strategically emphasized by many national governments across the world, indicates that the balance of science power has changed markedly. The global map is now multi-polar and the East is as strong as the West. In addition, since the late 1990s, tertiary educational participation has risen markedly in most countries (Cantwell et al., 2018) and is at Western levels or above in most of East Asia. In China, the gross tertiary enrolment ratio rose from 2% in 1985 to 58% in 2020 (World Bank, 2022). The educated quality of school leavers in the Chinese civilizational zone is relatively high. In the OECD’s 2018 PISA assessment the leading seven countries in mathematics were all from East Asia, plus Singapore in Southeast Asia, and students from these countries also dominated PISA in science and reading (OECD, 2019). The emerging multi-polar political economy, and the strengthening of non-Western countries in higher education and research, seems to be out of synch with the tight self-reproducing Anglophone cultural hierarchy in higher education. There is a lag here. How is this possible? It not only points to the historical overhang of imperialism, and the continuing strength of the US in the university sector; it says something fundamental about global higher education: its relative autonomy vis à vis global political economy.

Globalization in Higher Education and Knowledge Are Partly Decoupled from Globalization in Political Economy The dominant reading of globalization in higher education and knowledge is that it is a function or subset of the globalization of the political economy. In the global knowledge economy imaginary, knowledge is not only the key factor of production but is itself a source of value; science and, through science, technology shape the national competitive position; and world market formation augments the demand for mobile graduate labour. It is all simple, and it has a taken-for-granted status. Most people in leadership positions in government and higher education act as though they believe in it. The global knowledge economy narrative has material effects, in that it conditions governments to expand higher education and fund science budgets. However, it is an ideology, not an explanation, and is rather vacuous. In fact, the historical record suggests that internationalization and globalization in higher education are partly decoupled from globalization in the political economy. The expansion of world trade, offshoring and financial flows from the 1980s onwards, global communications and cultural flows in the 1990s, and the neoliberal policy emphasis on global markets, all affected the policy environment for higher education.

50

S. Marginson

The high global era in political economy has now passed. Trade fell from 61% of world GDP in 2008 to 58% in 2018. In 2018, before the pandemic, cross-border investment by multinational companies fell by 20%. Their rate of return has dropped from 10 to 6% and the multinational share of global profit is declining. Long-term Foreign Direct Investment was 3.5% of world GDP in 2007, but 1.3% in 2018. Global supply chains and offshoring of production are no longer expanding. ‘Selfsufficiency’ has become the policy buzzword in many nations (The Economist, 2019, 2020, 2022). But international and global universities are not primarily profit-driven, and they do not behave like multinational corporations. Nor do national science policy makers. When the globalization of the world economy began to stall, when nativist politics began to surge, when the US turned against engagement with China and against the open trading regime after 2016, when the tech industry was increasingly fragmented by geo-politics, internationalization and globalization in higher education and science continued without any apparent pause or slowing of the associated tendencies. From time to time student flows into particular countries have been affected. But communications and science have kept expanding across the world and in net terms so has the mobility of people in higher education, interrupted only (and largely temporarily) by the global pandemic. This shows that internationalization and globalization in higher education are neither a subset of neo-liberal economic globalization, nor can they be reduced to being a response to liberal economic globalization. The economy and higher education intersect, but the relation is more complex than has been suggested. Tendencies in higher education are affected by the political economy but not simply determined by it. This is partly because higher education policy and programmes are more nationally than globally driven, and partly because the sector has a measure of autonomy and its own dynamics. It has continued to foster global knowledge flows and global social and cultural integration, notwithstanding the AngloAmerican hegemony, and notwithstanding the weakening of worldwide integration in the economy and the more unstable multilateral political space that has emerged. However, there is limit to the extent to which, in this respect, higher education can remain insulated.

The Growing Impact of Geo-politics Nothing stays the same. The autonomy of higher education and knowledge, its partial separation from political economy, is not a constant. It is historically contextual. It also varies by country, and by institution. We can generalize though. It looks likely that in significant parts of the world, geo-politics is likely to end the era of normative internationalization and continuing global convergence and integration in higher education. Brexit has trumped what had been a fertile cooperation between UK higher education and the rest of Europe, fostered by the free movement of academic labour.

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

51

The US determination to retain global supremacy has triggered an era of securitization in science and technology. This is trumping collaboration between China and the West, including US-China co-publication, which in the 2020 data (NSB, 2022) was overwhelmingly the most important nation-to-nation collaboration in world science. US securitization plays out in visa restrictions, suspicion towards and investigation of faculty with joint appointments in China and the US and attacks on faculty who return to China through the 1,000 talents programme. Brain drain from China is acceptable but brain circulation is not. The US government’s China Initiative has led to blatant racial profiling of Chinese scientists working in the US. As Jenny Lee, Xiaojie Li and the Committee of 100 (2022, p. 2) put it in Racial profiling among scientists of Chinese descent, published earlier this year: Scientific discovery, which is fundamentally borderless, is being politically bordered. Geopolitical tensions between the United States and China have spilled over into academic science, creating challenges for many scientists’ ability to fully engage in research and innovation.

The Russian state, after two decades of struggling to kick-start internationalization of higher education and science, has now decisively turned its back on the whole project. Its catastrophic assertion of militarism in Ukraine and shut down of freedoms in Russian society and inside the universities have taken national higher education and science outside open collaborative cross-border relations, perhaps for decades to come. Nativist politics, intrinsically in tension with international connections and globalization, have gained major influence in the US, UK, India, Russia, Brazil and parts of Europe. China is on a different track but seems more aggressively nationalist in general, and may become more self-sufficient in higher education, especially if cross border people-to-people relations diminish. The volume of co-authored publications between Chinese scientists and scientists from the US and Australia is almost certainly trending downwards at present, and collaboration between Chinese science and that of other Western countries may also diminish. These are worrying signs that the emerging stand-off between China and the Anglophone world is beginning to bite. It remains to be seen to what extent European universities and science will follow the US lead in confronting China strategically at the cost of engagement and collaboration.

The Challenge for Those Committed to International Cooperation and an Open and Diverse Global Space The normative challenge for all of us is to maintain openness in international connections and the global space. While populism is a threat, the larger problem is the return of the Cold War state. It is surprising that most faculty have been silent in the face of the rise of national securitization. Security politics, with its core

52

S. Marginson

assumption that unregulated relations between persons cannot be trusted, is also radically at odds with academic freedom. The history of McCarthyism in the US in the 1950s shows how deadly it can be for creativity. It is crucial to identify the threats to global openness, and defend and advance conditions of partial institutional autonomy, a fuller academic freedom, and collaborative cross-border relations in education, research and scholarship, with all countries, institutions and persons – and if necessary to do so despite the policy, and against the will, of national governments. European universities have a crucial ethical and practical role in sustaining, in a manner consistent with academic values, an appropriate balance between national interests and global cooperation in higher education. Further, if global cooperation could be advanced by broadening inclusion in the global science system, for example by normalizing multilingual publishing and its inclusion in the bibliometric collections, cooperation in higher education and science would be more strongly protected from geo-political shifts. On the other hand, if the global knowledge system continues to be controlled by the Anglophone world to the present extent, then it will remain hostage to the global power plays of the Anglophone countries. Then if those nations decide to pursue a hardening of binarism and Cold War politics, they will engineer a decisive split in science and technology, and in university networks. If we fail in protecting global collaboration at this time, much of what has been achieved in the last three decades in internationalization and the creation of the global domain, through the largely self-regulating cross-border activities of institutions and persons – for example, the honest and autonomous scientific collaboration on existential global problems like climate, habitat loss and species destruction, food, water and cities – is at equally existential risk.

References Altbach, P. (2001). Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok. International. Higher Education, 23(2–4). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2001.23.6593 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1028315307303542 Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00079.x Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1999). On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327699016001003 Calhoun, C., Price, P., & Timmer, A. (Eds.). (2002). Understanding September 11. New Press. Cantwell, B., Marginson, S., & Smolentseva, A. (2018). High participation systems of higher education. Oxford University Press. Castells, M. (2000/1996). The rise of the network society: Economy, society and culture. Volume 1. The information age (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

3

The Globally Distributed European-American University: Tensions and Challenges

53

Choi, S. (2012). Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars?: International scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics, 90(1), 25–41. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0509-4 Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044528 de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in The United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Hamish Hamilton. Hazelkorn, E., & Mihut, G. (Eds.). (2021). Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact. Edward Elgar. Keyman, E. F. (1997). Globalization, state, identity/difference: Towards a critical social theory of international relations. Humanities Press. Knight, J. (1999). A time of turbulence and transformation for internationalization. CBIE Research, 14. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED549870.pdf Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International. Higher Education, 33(2–3). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391 Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Lee, J. J., Li, X., & Committee of 100. (2022). Racial profiling among scientists of Chinese descent. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.committee100.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/C100-Lee-Li-White-Paper-FINAL-FINAL-10.28.pdf Leiden University. (2022). CWTS Leiden ranking 2022. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2022/list Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press. Marginson, S. (2022a). ‘All things are in flux’: China in global science. Higher Education, 83(4), 881–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00712-9 Marginson, S. (2022b). What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822 Marginson, S. (2022c). Global science and national comparisons: Beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics. Comparative Education, 58(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068. 2021.1981725 Marginson, S. (2022d). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 492–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438 Marginson, S. (2022e). Space and scale in higher education: The glonacal agency heuristic revisited. Higher Education, 84(6), 1365–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00955-0 Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1014699605875 Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2006). University leaders’ strategies in the global environment: A comparative study of Universitas Indonesia and the Australian National University. Higher Education, 52(2), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-5591-6 Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/173831738240 Marginson, S., & Xu, X. (2023). Hegemony and inequality in global science: Problems of the center-periphery model. Comparative Education Review, 67(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 722760 Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). ‘Push-pull’ factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09513540210418403 NSB (National Science Board). (2022). Science and engineering indicators. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221

54

S. Marginson

Odora Hoppers, C. (2009). Education, culture and society in a globalizing world: Implications for comparative and international education. Compare, 39(5), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057920903125628 OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results, volume 1: What students know and can do. OECD. https://www. oecd.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i-5f07c754-en.htm OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ education-at-a-glance-2021_b35a14e5-en Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage. Sassen, S. (Ed.). (2002). Global networks, linked cities. Routledge. Scott, P. (1998). The globalization of higher education. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Shahjahan, R., & Edwards, K. (2022). Whiteness as futurity and globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 83(4), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00702-x Shields, R. (2019). The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217(20 April 2019), 594–602. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.291 Taylor, C. (2003). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41 The Economist (2019, January 19). Globalisation has faltered. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/24/globalisation-has-faltered The Economist (2020, May 16). Goodbye globalisation: The dangerous lure of self-sufficiency. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2020-05-16 The Economist (2022, June 16). The tricky restructuring of global supply chains. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/06/16/the-trickyrestructuring-of-global-supply-chains Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033769.69765.4a van der Wende, M. (2002). Higher education globally: Towards new frameworks for research and policy. In G. Neave, M. van der Wende, & J. Enders (Eds.), The CHEPS inaugurals 2002 (pp. 29–69). Twente University Press. Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2005.08.002 Wagner, C., Park, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS One, 10(7), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816 Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. Routledge. Wimmer, A., & Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: State building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1471-0374.00043 World Bank. (2022). Data and statistics. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalisation of education. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03397011 Yang, R. (2019). Riddled with gaping wounds: A methodological critique of comparative and international studies in education: Views of a professor. In L. Suter, E. Smith, & B. Denman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of comparative studies in education (pp. 63–78). Sage.

Chapter 4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context: Internationalising Comparability and the Geo-politicalisation of Higher Education and Science Ellen Hazelkorn

Putting Global University Rankings in Context Between January and 31 August 2022, the time of writing this chapter, over 18,000 articles were published on university rankings according to Google Scholar. Google itself reported an incredible almost 71 million entries over this period. This persistent interest in university rankings may seem a perverse obsession when set against the many challenges affecting higher education, arising from very significant “volatility/ instability” around the world (Usher, 2022b). Some explanation for this continued fascination comes from the New York Times of 17 March 2022, which published a detailed critique of Columbia University’s steady rise in the US News and World Report Best National Rankings to become No. 2 by allegedly misrepresenting its data. No other university has “matched Columbia’s extraordinary rise”. But, if true, why would a university which has ranked in the US top 18 since 1988 succumb to such actions? Gladwell (2022) phrases the question more pointedly: “Did Columbia University Cheat its Way to the Top of the US News Rankings?” According to the New York Times, “As long as the rankings are taken seriously by applicants, they’re going to be taken seriously by educators” (Hartocollis, 2022). This view is shared by the Washington Post in a story about California’s flagship. Hit by environmental regulations, the Governor intervened to ensure UC Berkeley could continue to enrol more students because “we live in an age when young people and their parents are so desperate to get their children into college they perceive as prestigious” (Olein, 2022). The level of desperation is mirrored in the 2019 bribery case, wherein thirty-three “famous” parents of college applicants were accused of

E. Hazelkorn (✉) Technological University, Dublin, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_4

55

56

E. Hazelkorn

paying more than $25 million between 2011 and 2018 in what became known as the Operation Varsity Blues bribery scandal (Wikipedia, 2022a). Universities are not exempt from this behaviour. A recent study (Baltaru et al., 2022) showing a strong correlation between rankings, student choice and financial sustainability may help explain this preoccupation, and why rankings continue to influence strategic decisions. In 2021, the former dean of Temple University’s business school, along with two co-conspirators, was convicted of fraud for falsifying data provided to U.S. News and World Report (Byrne, 2021; Swail, 2021). On March 11, 2022, he was sentenced to 14 months in prison for submitting false data (Jaschik, 2022a). In a similar case, Rutgers University, New Jersey, was charged with allegedly manipulating its graduate employment outcomes – an action which followed the chancellor’s announcement that improving the university’s ranking was his top priority (Chatlani, 2017; Jaschik, 2022b). Paraphrasing U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, it would appear that it is better to be listed in the rankings than ignored and invisible. The above vignettes point to the extent to which global university rankings (GUR) have evolved from being a transparency and accountability instrument to a key influencer of individual, institutional, government, policy, investor and public opinion, behaviour and decision-making. Their emergence beginning in 2003 with the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) corresponded with and responded to a period of accelerating trans-national trade and capital flows, and student and professional mobility. Their initial and continuing success has been their ability to compare the performance of different types, disparately resourced and contextually dissimilar institutions. By effectively devising an easily understood international comparative framework, global rankings challenged long-standing assumptions about quality, status and reputation. Heretofore, academics, institutions and countries had relied on self-assertion, local or personal intelligence and/or limited institutional and/or national data. Almost immediately, annual rankings sent shock waves through universities and governments. Their individual choices of indicators collectively became powerful reference points for national and international benchmarking. Because rankings rely predominantly on research and research-related indicators – the only internationally comparable data widely available – they have become the basis for measuring and asserting world-class excellence. In the absence of alternatives, rankings succeeded in fostering statusseeking “mimetic behaviour and shared notions of excellence” (van Damme, 2018), informing other forms of assessment and measures of achievement with knock-on implications for academic careers (e.g., Jaschik, 2022c). GUR’s were quickly championed by governments, individuals (students, academics and graduates) as well as by HEIs eager to maximise their own social and intellectual capital. Accordingly, GURs have become a key instrument through which to project ambition on the global stage. Governments and universities, as well as individual US states, have developed strategies and plans, and introduced targeted/excellence initiatives, linking the investment attractiveness of nations with the knowledge and talent producing capacity of higher education. GURs are now widely used to highlight and promote national comparative and competitive characteristics of research- and

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

57

resource-intensive universities and their countries to attract and retain highly mobile capital, business and talent as befits a geo-political environment. This chapter reflects on 20 years of global university rankings. Using broad strokes, it charts the role and influence of rankings in the context of two intersecting trends: the internationalisation of a framework for comparability and the geo-politicalisation of higher education and science. Both trends are interpreted in a strategic, pro-active, sense (Meunier & Nicolaidis, 2022). They are seen to be key components of a deliberate process of developing and using particular policy areas – in this case, higher education and science – to enhance sectoral or national interests rather than used to simply describe international and global dimensions. It is what Cadier (2019) refers to as the “discursive construction of an issue as a geopolitical matter”. In this vein, this chapter focuses on the way in which higher education and science has evolved over the last decades to become a key instrument for political competitive advantage. Rankings may have begun life as a transparency and accountability instrument aimed primarily at enhancing student choice but they have since morphed into a complex global intelligence business providing underpinning evidence for decision-making – in recognition that knowledge and talent are the essential currencies of the global era. Because national pre-eminence is no longer sufficient to guarantee success, these trends crisscross and interconnect, the former laying the ground for the latter. In doing so, higher education was transformed from being a nationally determined and oriented field to one with geo-political value and consequence. GUR arguably helped to define the global higher education and science system (Marginson, 2022). This evolution would have been impossible without the comparative evidence. There are two main sections to the chapter. The first looks at rankings in the context of an evolving international framework for comparability in the global era. The second section considers the way in which rankings have helped frame and make visible the global higher-education and science system as a geo-political chess game. The conclusion draws these two strands together discussing some implications of these developments.

Evolving International Comparability Framework The importance of data and use of quantitative indicators for measurement and comparison stretch back to the foundations of the modern nation state and the process of statecraft in the late nineteenth century. Higher education has traditionally relied on peerreview and self-reporting, but over the decades, and especially in response to calls for enhanced accountability and public sector reform in the late twentieth century, there has been a proliferation of different types of instruments – using a preponderance of quantitative indicators in a variety of “governance indices” – to drive, monitor and evaluate actions and outcomes across a growing aspect of public policy (Erkkilä & Piironen, 2009; Sauder & Espeland, 2009). As a result, a whole set of concepts and processes, such as quality assurance, qualification

58

E. Hazelkorn

frameworks, accreditation, audit, transparency instruments, performance frameworks and agreements, and benchmarking – to name just some – have emerged, with significant differences and approaches from country to country. A global framework for transparency and accountability – to assess, monitor and compare quality, performance and productivity – has been evolving. Rankings have been part of this trajectory and a contributor to it. The United States Bureau of Education began issuing reports on individual academic institutions in the 1870s, and the first accreditation agencies were established around 1900. The OECD began compiling statistical information shortly after it superseded the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) in 1961. It “collected cross-national data to identify long-term labour market needs, especially in the areas of science and technology” (Henry et al., 2001); country reviews served a similar purpose. The first “Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development”, known as the Frascati Manual, was published in 1963, becoming the international standard for R&D statistics across OECD countries and around the world (OECD, 1980). It laid the basis for the biannually published OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators since 1981, drawing on the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (see below). Indicators of Education Systems (INES) programme which feeds into Education at a Glance was launched in 1988 (National Research Council, 1995). It was joined by PISA (2000), PIAAC (2008) and TALIS (2008), followed by feasibility studies for an Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO, 2022). A meeting at the UNESCO Institute for Education led to establishment of the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA) in 1958 (IEA, 2022). The UNESCO International Institute was established in 1963. A decade later, in 1976, the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) framework was developed; it has gone on to inform qualifications frameworks around the world, and the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education (UNESCO, 2019). The UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) followed in 1999. Its aim was to develop and deliver timely, accurate, and policy-relevant statistics for international comparability, e.g., Global Education Monitoring Report, World Development Indicators and World Development Report, Human Development Report (UNDP), and SDG global database. In 1995, UNESCO, OECD and EUROSTAT began to jointly collect data on key aspects of education. The Sorbonne Declaration of 1998, which triggered the Bologna Process, was predicated on the free movement of students, faculty and workers across national boundaries. Mobility requires trustworthy information with the assurance that student/graduate performance and credentials will be recognised in other parts of Europe. Over the years, the EU has initiated and supported different initiatives which, in varying ways, aim to provide higher-education data and analytics for strategic decision-making at all levels of government and by all institutions, inter alia: U-Map (2022), U-Multirank (2022a), ETER (2022), CALOHEE (2022), ENQA (2022), EQAR (2022), DEQAR (2022), EUROGRADUATE (2022), EURITO (2022), Next-Generation Metrics (Wilsdon et al., 2017) and Open Science

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

59

(Council of European Union, 2016). The EU Strategy for Universities aims to combine them in one single place creating a European Higher Education Sector Observatory (European Commission, 2022). According to Cooley (2015, pp. 9–10), ninety-five such indices have been produced since 1990 “explicitly in the international realm targeting a diverse global audience of national policymakers, international bureaucrats, transnational activists, and media outlets” as part of the expansion of “global governance networks”. National governments have developed their own instruments for similar purposes. Cooley and Synder (2015), Rottenburg et al. (2015), Muller (2018) and Erkkilä and Piironen (2009) refer, in different ways, to this trend as “ranking the world”. This evolving international framework for comparability stands in sharp contrast with traditional approaches, which are guided by norms of peer review. This practice has been a cornerstone of the academy since the seventeenth century, and was based on the idea that only those within a given scientific discipline possess sufficient expertise to make judgements on the output and activity of their peers, through the “principle of mutual judgement by informed specialists” (Becher, 1989). In the US, quality assurance (QA) has been the shared responsibility of the “triad”, comprising the federal government, regional accrediting agencies, and state governments, supported by the academy. This led to a process by which standards were established and institutions accredited in the wake of massification post-WWII (El-Khawas, 2001). By the mid-twentieth century, the highly developed market nature of US higher education, coupled with high levels of geographic mobility and social aspiration, revealed a gap left by insufficient federal data and information and oversight. The Spellings Commission in 2006 urged new accountability measures based on “better data about real performance and lifelong working and learning ability” (Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006). In the UK, professional self-regulation characterized QA in universities prior to 1992 in contrast to polytechnics and colleges, which were subject to external review/ inspection. The creation of a unified system changed this. Across Europe, external QA began to be introduced via the Bologna Process and then spread internationally. The International QA Network for Higher Education (INQAHE) was established in 1991, followed by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation in the US in 1996 and the European Network (ENQA) in 2000; the Latin American RIACES and the Asia Pacific were formed in 2003 (Karakhanyan & Stensaker, 2020). Coming from a different direction than state-centric or -derived approaches to transparency and accountability are rankings. The first initiatives were individual efforts to track the origins of eminent “men”, informed by a combination of elitism as well as eugenics in the early 1900s (Hazelkorn & Mihut, 2021). Several different initiatives followed including efforts by the American Association of Universities and the US Bureau of Education to rate graduate schools and attempts by professional associations and states to create their own rating systems – although these were short-lived (Usher, 2017). Another historic bridge was crossed following the publication of Science Citation Index in 1961 and the Social Sciences Citation Index in 1966. Their significance lay in moving away from indicators associated with the “quality” of individuals to

60

E. Hazelkorn

indicators reflective of performance and productivity. The use of non-institutional data marked another important break from the past and has been a defining feature not only of rankings but of other instruments of comparability. The Carnegie Classification system was created by the Carnegie Commission of Higher Education in 1970 as an instrument for categorising different colleges and universities according to mission. It was never intended as a ranking, but it was and continues to be interpreted as such, and its terminology is often incorporated into US rankings. The first commercial college rankings, US News and World Report Best Universities (USNWR), were developed in the 1980s in response to massification and a discerning and mobile middle class (Wikipedia, 2022b). Its aim was to provide information to the demand-side, namely for parents and students, in contrast to previous academic or state modes of information collection. Initially it relied on reputational surveys of the opinions of university Presidents. Its early use of independent bibliometric data was a defining moment; after 1988, it introduced a wide range of different indicators. USNWR’s enduring achievement is illustrated by the success of its many derivative ranking products, and that the many rankings have overtaken the original newsmagazine. The Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) began life as a research project to showcase the gap between Chinese and other international/elite universities in response to the ambitious agenda set by the Chinese government. It was immediately followed by the Times Higher Education/QS world rankings. Today, there are almost twenty global rankings along with many more regional, national and specialist rankings (IREG, 2022). Their key innovation was their reliance on internationally available public data – which explains their overemphasis on research activity. There have been some efforts to generate new data based on peer, student and/or employer surveys or to encourage institutional submissions in limited circumstances – with plus and minus success. In the global era, perceptions of quality and performance depend on trustworthy comparative data and information. Despite presenting initially as an instrument to enhance student/parental choice, rankings’ substantive value has been to put higher education within an international comparative framework. By holding a mirror up to universities and nations, they have succeeded in exposing a gap between selfdeclaration and external verification in a simple yet dramatic fashion. Their success lies in publicly and effectively challenging national, university and individual claims of excellence using “scientific” data. In so doing, they exposed weaknesses in other approaches. Not only do rankings assess HEIs as well as countries against each other but they also highlight comparative/competitive advantages and disparities. While (international) comparison was never the intention of peer review or quality assurance, in the global era this is fundamental. Attempts to develop alternatives, such as the above-mentioned AHELO project, were loudly criticised and abandoned (Bothwell, 2015). This has left a huge gap in our knowledge and understanding of international higher education and global science – creating ideal conditions for realising Pearson’s forecast that education would be one of the “biggest growth industry[ies] of the tweny-first century” (Lingard, 2019, p. 141). The Global Institutional Profiles project was originally

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

61

developed in partnership between Times Higher Education (THE) and Thompson Reuters in 2009 (Clarivate, 2022). In 2014, THE announced its intention to establish the “world’s largest, richest database of the world’s very best universities” (Baty, 2018; Lim, 2021). Today, the Data Points Portfolio boasts 9 million data points from 3500 institutions from over 100 countries (THE, 2022b). ARWU, now operating as a consultancy, created the Global Research University Profiles (GRUP) containing information on approximately 12,000 universities (ARWU, 2022a). U-Multirank provides open access to its dataset on 2200 HEIs in 96 countries (Multirank, 2022b). However, rankings are a resource-intensive activity; the data is worthless without the capacity to monetise it through associated services. Thus, over the last 20 years, there has been closer alignment between rankings, publishing and data analytics. Five academic publishers have consolidated ownership of a disproportionate share of academic journals and papers in the natural and social sciences (Elsevier, WileyBlackwell, Springer, Taylor and Francis, and Sage). Via “mergers and acquisitions of academic content”, Elsevier and Wiley have strengthened their position by focusing on “academic services and data analytics” to create “end-to-end systems” designed to capture data across the “entire academic knowledge production cycle from conception to publication and distribution and subsequent evaluation and reputation management” (Posada & Chen, 2018; Coates et al., 2021). In addition, the research management systems encourage users (institutions, governments and individuals) to participate in the process and then use the systems and outcomes for their own strategic purposes. In the process, “vast data lakes” containing “triple-digit billions of data elements” are being created (Siwinski, 2019). The recent acquisition of US-based Inside Higher Ed by the Times Higher Education (THE Reporters, 2022) goes a step further. Not only does it create a “global higher education news powerhouse”, it facilitates THE access to the “world’s richest higher education market” (Usher, 2022a). Global rankings have had limited influence on the US domestic higher education and policy agenda, despite an earlier merger between the Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings (WSJ/THE) in 2014 (Usher, 2022c and THE, 2022a). A combination of selfreflexivity, the size of the higher-education system and the North American landmass have contributed to a perception that what happens beyond the US is not important. Its growing awareness of geopolitical challenges, especially from China, to its dominance in global science has been an eye-opener. Governments and HEIs which embrace an evidence-based decision-making approach are much more likely to “outperform institutions that make decisions based on belief” (Siwinski, 2019). Despite a burgeoning multilateral system of international organisations, networks and associations, no system for internationally reliable and comparable data is available; there are no common data definitions or data warehouse. Owning data-rich resources, as well as the smart tools to capture and interpret, is where the real money and power lies. Ultimately, the prize is getting “universities hooked on the rankings” so they can “sell their data division’s analytical services – which are geared to helping institutions understand how to improve themselves in those rankings” (Usher, 2022a). As one ranker told me, “As you know

62

E. Hazelkorn

that rankings themselves cannot make money, one has to find funding or make money to support ranking activities, it’s not an easy task.” (Private correspondence).

Geo-politicalisation of Higher Education and Science The spirit of internationalisation, collaboration and scientific exchange has been intrinsic to universities and the spread of and discourse around ideas. The rise of cities, the spread of literacy, the opening up of travel through the construction of roads and bridges, and the search for meaning lay the foundation for the transmission of knowledge. Travelling scholars became common, establishing connections between European, Asian and North African centres of learning. With the waning of ecclesiastical authority, universities became central to the search for scientific knowledge and understanding through “dialogical communication” which drew its legitimacy from the exchange of ideas “within and between societies” (Rüegg, 1992, p. 24). In 1190, Oxford welcomed its first international student. By the nineteenth century, networks were becoming a normal part of scientific endeavour. The first World Fair was held in 1867, and international scientific congresses were held annually from 1860; by the early 1900s, there were over 200 international scientific congresses a year (Pietsch, 2013). The first International Conference of Education was held in 1876. International science institutions were formed, in turn spawning international associations, periodicals, projects, research institutions and exchange programmes (Fuchs, 2004). The twentieth century saw growing correspondence between economic development and the growth of university networks and associations. The American Association of Universities (AAU) was established in 1900 to respond to growing concerns about the reputation of US higher education (Stensaker, 2018). The Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), established 1913, aimed to ensure communication between universities within the British Empire beyond independence and critically beyond borders. The American Council of Education (ACE) was formed in 1918 while in the UK, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), predecessor to Universities UK, came along in 1930. The Conference of European Rectors (CRE) was formed in 1959 on an initiative of the Council of Europe (Wächter 1999, 2000). With the birth of the Bologna Process in 1999, there was a need for European higher education to speak as one voice, prompting the formation of the European University Association (EUA) in 2001 (Nyborg, 2014). Many rector or university associations around the world have their origins around this time, with the Association of African Universities (AAU) being established in 1967 upon recommendations made at a UNESCO conference in 1962. Today there are approximately 1,719 organisations relating to “education”, and 2,912 for “research” of a total almost 70,000 international nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations (Shumate et al., 2019). The UN records 5,161 non-governmental organizations of which 90 have “education” officially in the title (Economic and Social Council, 2018). Brankovic (2018) identifies 185 national

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

63

and international university associations established since the end of the nineteenth century. A report for the World Bank describes an alphabet soup of 13 international and 48 regional tertiary education networks, promoting networking, facilitating staff/ student exchanges and organizing activities of different degrees of formality (Henard, 2020). They include organisations, associations, alliances, consortia, networks, leagues, federations, societies, groups, councils, etc. with the aim of “assessing, ranking and accreditation bodies; academic associations, scholarly societies and student unions; rectors’ conferences; networks of universities and umbrella organizations; global think-tanks etc. in the transnational mediation and circulation of ideas in the global university field” (Reuter et al., 2018, p. 3; see also Beerkens 2002, 2005; Hazelkorn & Gibson, 2024; Vukasovic & Stensaker, 2018; Wagner, 2008). In Europe, higher education has been a key component of European policymaking since the early days of the European Coal and Steel Community. The European University in Florence was first advocated at the Hague Conference in 1948 (Corbett, 2003). The Memorandum on Higher Education (1991) stressed “the dramatic importance of higher education for the economic future of the Community” followed by the Bangemann report in 1994, which advocated the benefits of the “information society” (European Commission, 1994). The 1996 OECD report, The Knowledge-Based Economy, (OECD, 1996) positioned higher education as the engine of growth. These ideas were rearticulated in the Sorbonne Declaration (EHEA, 1998) as “a Europe of knowledge”. With the Lisbon strategy’s aim to make the European Union the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010” (European Presidency, 2000), Europe moved decidedly to embrace the knowledge economy, and to directly link higher education’s role in talent and knowledge production to Europe’s future. Not surprisingly, when ARWU burst onto the global scene in June 2003 it shattered perceptions of actual, presumed and/or desired status of universities, with implications for their nations. Less than a year later, the EU was told (Dempsey, 2004): Last year the Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Institute of Education ranked the world’s top 500 universities on academic and research performance. For the European Union, the news is not all that good. The study shows that 35 of the top 50 Universities in the world are American.

Over the past two decades, rankings have remained a consistent explicit/implicit theme of EU policy and communications (Hazelkorn, 2018; Hazelkorn & Ryan, 2013). Another example is China, which has pursued a steady and methodical strategy to restructure its higher-education and science system, creating a top and second tier, through the 985 Project, the 211 Project, and now the Double First-Class Plan, and using international collaboration to build capacity. Today it is the second largest scientific powerhouse after the US, with 14% of the top 10% most-cited publications (Clarivate, 2021; European Commission, 2019; Leydesdorff et al., 2021) and is forecast to be a global leader in science and innovation by 2050 (King, 2022;

64

E. Hazelkorn

Veugelers, 2017). China (inclusive of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) had nine universities in the ARWU top-100 in 2022 (with Tsinghua ranked 26) compared with none in 2003. More significantly, China had a whopping 84 in the top-500 in 2021 compared with 19 in 2003. China’s remarkably strong ascent has unnerved the US, whose position in global rankings has declined from 58 to 39 universities in the top 100, and from 161 to 127 universities in the top 500 (Sharma, 2021 and ARWU, 2022b). Maybe it’s not surprising that China is pondering a different approach as it exits the global rankings game (Holmes, 2022). Despite widespread disbelief about the influence of rankings, the lived experience of higher-education institutions and governments show rankings do influence strategies and policies, implicitly and explicitly. If in doubt, take a look at mission statements, policies, strategies and practices (e.g., Bonaccorsi et al., 2021; Diep, 2022; Diep & Gluckman, 2021; Yudevich et al., 2016). Ranking obsession is not just a feature of midrange national, regional, and specialist universities and colleges, and their stakeholders and governments, or of developing countries (Altbach and Hazelkorn 2017). Over recent years, I have fielded queries from developing and high-ranked universities around the world, all seeking information/advice on how to improve their rank in order to enhance their visibility and attract international students and collaborators. This explains why the French celebrated when the University of Paris-Saclay ranked 13 on the ARWU in 2021 (Campus France, 2022).1 A process of consolidation and investment had brought together ten faculties, four Grandes Écoles, the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, two memberassociated universities, and shared laboratories with the main national French research organizations. But there are “losers” too. Yonezawa (2021) explains that the arms race for investment in world-class universities became more expensive than Japan, with its already-mature higher-education system, could afford. Rather than seeing higher education as an innocent victim of status-seeking behaviour of students/parents (as implied by the aforementioned New York Times article), universities and their faculty are actively constructing and extending their own spheres of influence in a competitive, hierarchically differentiated status system (Bastedo & Bowman, 2011). Many universities (especially elite universities and their associations) have demonstrated a penchant for the research-oriented global rankings in preference to the more multi-dimensional U-Multirank or the teaching and learning alternative of AHELO. Indeed, there is evidence of a strong affinity between higher education’s own eagerness, and arguably necessity, to perform well internationally and the state’s necessity to promote and capitalise on higher education for mutual competitive advantage. As competition has accelerated between nations and universities for a greater share of the global marketplace, pursuance of “world-class” status is a shared strategy of trans-nationalizing elites with a mutual interest in strengthening their place in the global knowledge value chain. An underlying assumption of rankings is that higher-education institutions are comparable albeit unequal in quality and performance (Cantwell, 2021). Rankings holds

1

NB. it “fell” to 16 in 2022.

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

65

out the promise of improvement akin to meritocratic views that success is based on hard work rather than wealth or social class. Hence, excellence initiatives have been developed to alter this narrative by seeking to position a few universities at the top of the global hierarchy either by creating new universities, or merging and/or upgrading existing universities (Salmi, 2021). Forming bilateral and multi-lateral networks and associations has been an increasingly popular way to strengthen capacity and extend influence by partnering with peer institutions. However, as Calderon (2021, p. 395) argues: not all university networks stand equal. Networks which comprise research intensive and well-resourced universities from the most affluent nations tend to have greater public visibility.

Membership is carefully guarded, with criteria often determined by the status and rank of, and likely added value bestowed by, prospective members. Note how the AAU was thrown into controversy when it expelled the University of Nebraska for its poor research performance (Moore, 2011). Exclusivity amplifies the capacity of some networks to “exercise power over other networks and other stakeholders and influence public policy directions that advance their objectives” (Calderon, 2021, p. 389). The higher-education landscape may be an open and dynamic knowledge system with many more countries and higher-education institutions, and collaboration may be an intrinsic value. But it is also a tremendously competitive space, in which elite universities and their nations seek to reinforce and extend their influence and advance their objectives. Networks of universities, backed by governmentsponsored initiatives, aim to develop/strengthen global prominence through trade and recruitment missions,2 transnational education provision, and cross-border opportunities and university associations.3 Ultimately, networks and associations are not simply a means for collaboration but a vital tool for geo-politicalisation, deepening and extending influence and capturing access to resources and talent globally. This works both ways when membership is itself an instrument of geopoliticalisation. For example, in response to its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has been isolated from European/international higher-education and

2

For example, Irish government internationalisation strategy aligns higher education and national economic interests by associating international recruitment and research partnerships with countries/regions which are potential markets for Irish trade, and home to its ‘new’ diaspora – a term referring to international students/graduates of Irish universities who have since returned home (DES, 2010). 3 Examples include high-level initiatives, e.g., UK/US Study Group on Higher Education and Collaboration in Global Context (2009), and university networks, e.g., League of European Research Universities (LERU), Coimbra Group, Universitas 21, World University Network (WUN), Compostela Group of Universities (CGU), World Cities or the WC2 University Network, and the ASEAN University Network.

66

E. Hazelkorn

research programmes,4 and the UK’s access to the lucrative Horizon Europe research programme was temporarily halted due to sharp divisions over Brexit (Nicholson, 2022).

Conclusion Twenty years after the EU Lisbon strategy and almost 20 years since global rankings first appeared, the EU turned (again) to its universities to strengthen its position on the global stage. The EU objective is clear: to “reinforce universities as drivers of the EU’s global role and leadership” by aligning “policy priorities and investments at EU, national, regional and institutional levels”. The key to success is overcoming potential weaknesses (European Commission, 2022, Section 1): Universities have to remain competitive on a worldwide scene. Europe’s relative weight at global scale when it comes to research-intensive universities is shrinking.

The creation of European Universities, transcending borders and offering joint qualifications, is a step towards more competitive global institutions (Hazelkorn & Klemenčič, 2022; O’Malley, 2022a). That rankings remain significant enough that the EU countries – as well as other countries and universities – explicitly call them out, tells us almost everything we need to know about the geo-politicalisation of higher education and science. The massification and transformation of higher education from being a local institution with strong links to its city or regional benefactors to one of with a global remit has been one of the most noteworthy features of the last decades. The expansive network of international organisations, networks and associations is testament to how higher education has been a product of, a contributor to, and a beneficiary of globalisation. Adoption of the knowledge economy paradigm brought higher education and science into the centre of policymaking, transforming it from a social expenditure to an economic investment. How it performs relative to other institutions and countries is one of the main take-aways of the past decades. Because high-ranked higher-education institutions act as magnets for mobile investment, talent, and business – governments have latched on to their talentattracting and knowledge-producing capacities and capabilities. They are key components of statecraft, used to help project ambition and alter the global balance of power. GURs have been critical to this process telegraphing the geopolitical significance of higher education as well as encouraging its usage as a tool of geo-politics. They have helped to visualise and galvanise the international higher-education and global science system. In so doing, the global is portrayed as a chess game with different institutions and countries jockeying for position. 4

The EU, EUA and EHEA/Bologna Follow-Up Group amongst other higher education and scientific associations announced a cessation of collaboration and/or membership (EUA, 2022a, b, c; O’Malley, 2022b, c).

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

67

These developments necessitate an international framework of comparability. Yet, despite a legacy of individual initiatives, there is no comprehensive, integrated data and information system about international higher education and science. GURs – despite unrelenting criticism of their methodologies, data and indicators – have arguably filled this gap. Rankings have created a global knowledge intelligence ecosystem, becoming what Nayyar calls one of the “missing institutions” of globalisation (Nayyar, 2002, pp. 10–11). The essentialness of comprehensive data systems has propelled corporate integration, consolidation and concentration across rankings, publishing and big data creating a substantial end-to-end knowledge intelligence gathering, warehousing and analytics business – with inbuilt incentives for universities, researchers and governments to use the same products for competitive and strategic purposes. Without such information, it is not possible for either governments or institutions to govern, steer, develop and monitor their systems or institutions or achieve the objectives they and the public set for their societies. That the EU aims to establish an Observatory is a move in the right direction for Europe, but it is unlikely to move ahead swiftly. In the meantime, the higher-education and science communities and governments have effectively outsourced the privatisation of public data. With or without their involvement, the trend towards and need for international comparability will continue – outstanding issues concern ownership, governance and regulation. This chapter has tracked two interlinked trends: the evolution of an international framework for comparability, and the geo-politicalisation of higher education and science. Reflections on the last 20 years would be seriously remiss to ignore these developments and the role played by global university rankings.

References AHELO. (2022). AHELO main study. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.oecd.org/ education/skills-beyond-school/ahelo-main-study.htm Altbach, P. G., & Hazelkorn, E. (2017, January 8). Why most universities should quit the rankings game. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www. universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170105122700949 ARWU. (2022a). Global research university profiles GRUP 2019. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http://archive.shanghairanking.com/grup/index.html ARWU. (2022b). 2022 Academic ranking of world universities. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2022 Baltaru, R.-D., Manac, R.-D., & Ivan, M.-D. (2022). Do rankings affect universities’ financial sustainability?: Financial vulnerability to rankings and elite status as a positional good. Studies in Higher Education, 47(11), 2323–2335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2061447 Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41483768 Baty, P. (2018, January 16). This is why we publish the World University Rankings. Times Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ why-we-publish-world-university-rankings Becher, A. (1989). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). SRHE and Open University Press.

68

E. Hazelkorn

Beerkens, E. (2002). International inter-organisational arrangements in higher education: Towards a typology. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13583883.2002.9967086 Beerkens, E. (2005). Transnational actors in the European higher education area: European opportunities and institutional embeddedness. In W. Kaiser & P. Starie (Eds.), Transnational European Union: Towards a common political space? (pp. 170–190). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203016534 Bonaccorsi, A., Belingheri, P., Blasi, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2021). Institutional responses to university rankings: A tale of adaptation and cognitive framing. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings (pp. 210–230). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/ 10.4337/9781788974981.00026 Bothwell, E. (2015, October 2). OECD’s Dirk Van Damme says debate on Ahelo was “low quality.” Times Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. timeshighereducation.com/news/oecds-dirk-van-damme-says-debate-ahelo-was-low-quality Brankovic, J. (2018). How do meta-organizations affect extra-organizational boundaries?: The case of university associations. In L. Ringel, P. Hiller, & C. Zietsma (Eds.), Towards permeable boundaries of organizations?: The case of university organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations) (Vol. 57, pp. 259–281). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733558X20180000057010 Byrne, J. A. (2021, April 17). Anatomy of a business school rankings fraud. Poets & Quants. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://poetsandquants.com/2021/04/17/anatomy-of-abusiness-school-rankings-fraud/ Cadier, D. (2019). The geopoliticisation of the EU’s eastern partnership. Geopolitics, 24(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477754 Calderon, A. (2021). The geopolitics of university rankings: Not all regions and university networks stand equal. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 382–398). Edward Elgar. CALHOEE. (2022). Measuring and comparing achievements of learning outcomes in higher education in Europe. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.calohee.eu/ Campus France. (2022). The 2021 Shanghai ranking: France consolidates its position. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.campusfrance.org/en/the-2021-shanghai-ranking-franceconsolidates-its-position Cantwell, B. (2021). Ideas for theorizing the geopolitics of higher education in the global rankings era. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university ranking: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 354–365). Edward Elgar. Chatlani, S. (2017, October 4). Rutgers chancellor says improving institution’s ranking is top priority. Education DIVE. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.educationdive. com/news/rutgers-chancellor-says-improving-institutions-ranking-is-top-priority/506523/ Clarivate. (2021). Highly cited researchers 2021. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https:// clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/11/Executive_Summary_Highly_Cited_ Researchers_2021.pdf Clarivate. (2022). Global institutional profiles. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/globalprofilesproject/ Coates, H., Liu, L., & Hong, X. (2021). Reputation risk rating and the commercialisation of higher education. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 413–424). Edward Elgar. Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493504.pdf Cooley, A. (2015). The emerging politics of international rankings and ratings: A framework for analysis. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press.

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

69

Cooley, A., & Synder, J. (Eds.). (2015). Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance. Cambridge University Press. Corbett, A. (2003). Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurs: Towards a new history of higher education in the European Community. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 315–330. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1503507 Council of the European Union. (2016). The transition towards an Open Science system. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/ en/pdf Dempsey, N. (2004). Address by Noel Dempsey, T. D., Minister for Education and Science at the Europe of Knowledge 2004 Conference, April 24, 2004, Liege, Belgium. Earlier available at http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10861&ecategory=40268& sectionpage=12251&language=EN&link=link001&page=10&doc=20781 DEQAR. (2022). DEQAR: Quality at your fingertips. Accessed on March 2, 2023, from https:// www.eqar.eu/qa-results/deqar-project/ DES. (2010). Investing in global relationships: Ireland’s international education strategy 2010–15. Department of Education and Skills, Dublin, Ireland. Accessed January 17, 2023, from https:// assets.gov.ie/24400/a46c03d90bf24e54a83776a383baa9d4.pdf Diep, F. (2022, , June 16). Where the rankers meet the ranked: An annual conference illustrates college rankings’ enduring dominance. Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/where-the-rankers-meet-the-ranked Diep, F., & Gluckman, N. (2021, September 13). Colleges still obsess over national rankings: For proof, look at their strategic plans. Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-still-obsess-over-national-rankingsfor-proof-look-at-their-strategic-plans?cid=gen_sign_in Economic and Social Council. (2018). List of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council as of 1 September 2018. E/2018/INF/5. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1657187 EHEA. (1998). Sorbonne declaration. Accessed January 10, 2023, from http://www.ehea.info/ page-sorbonne-declaration-1998 El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, developments and future prospects. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001292/1292 95e.pdf ENQA. (2022). The European association for quality assurance in higher education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.enqa.eu/ EQAR. (2022). Reliable information on quality of European higher education and its assurance. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.eqar.eu Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2009). The iron cage of governance indicators. In R. W. Cox (Ed.), Ethics and integrity in public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 125–145). M. E. Sharpe. ETER. (2022). European tertiary education register. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// www.eter-project.com/ EUA. (2022a). EUA President’s letter. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://cdn.flxml.eu/r143a213cae65ddd4969b431d5f26c801848e815973a9abf6 EUA. (2022b). Statement of Bologna Process parties on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://eua.eu/partners-news/844-statement-of-bologna-processparties-on-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine.html EUA. (2022c). EUA suspends membership of 12 Russian universities following statement by university leaders. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://eua.eu/news/842:euasuspends-membership-of-12-russian-universities-following-statement-by-university-leaders. html EURITO. (2022) Research & innovation indicators. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http:// www.eurito.eu EUROGRADUATE. (2022) Survey 2022. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www. eurograduate.eu

70

E. Hazelkorn

European Commission. (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://op.europa.eu/en/ publication-detail/-/publication/44dad16a-937d-4cb3-be07-0022197d9459 European Commission. (2019). China’s R&D strategy. Accessed on March 19, 2022, from https:// ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/foresight_en European Commission. (2022). Commission communication on a European strategy for universities (No. COM(2022) 16 final). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022DC001 European Presidency. (2000). Presidency conclusions: Lisbon European Council. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm Fuchs, E. (2004). Educational sciences, morality and politics: International educational congresses in the early twentieth century. Paedagogica Historica, 40(5–6), 757–784. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0030923042000293751 Gladwell, M. (2022, March 15). Did Columbia University cheat its way to the top of the US news rankings? Oh, MG. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://malcolmgladwell.bulletin.com/ columbia-university-web-illusions-us-news-rankings/ Hartocollis, A. (2022, July 8). Columbia loses its No. 2 spot in the U.S. News rankings. New York Times. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/issue/ todayspaper/2022/07/08/todays-new-york-times Hazelkorn, E. (2018). Reshaping the world order of higher education: The role and impact of rankings on national and global systems. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2018.1424562 Hazelkorn, E., & Gibson, A. G. (2024). Governing global higher education and science – IONAs and ever-renewing webs of interconnection. In P. Shroff, J. Sheth, & J. Garrison (Eds.), The global and digital governance handbook. Routledge. (forthcoming). Hazelkorn, E., & Klemenčič, M. (2022, January 20). Strategy seeks “inclusive excellence” for European HE. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220120133817396 Hazelkorn, E., & Mihut, G. (2021). Introduction: Putting rankings in context. Looking back, looking forward. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 1–17). Edward Elgar. Hazelkorn, E., & Ryan, M. (2013). The impact of university rankings on higher education policy in Europe: A challenge to perceived wisdom and a stimulus for change. In P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, & J. Brennan (Eds.), The globalization challenge for European higher education: Convergence and diversity, centres and peripheries (pp. 79–99). Peter Lang. Henard, F. (2020). Collaborating to compete. The global landscape of international tertiary education networks. The World Bank. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Pergamon. Holmes, R. (2022, June 18). Is China really quitting the international rankings? University Ranking Watch. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/2022/06/ischina-really-quitting-international.html IEA. (2022). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.iea.nl/ IREG. (2022). IREG inventory on international rankings. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://ireg-observatory.org/en/initiatives/ireg-inventory-of-international-rankings/ Jaschik, S. (2022a, March 14). Ex-Dean gets 14-month sentence in rankings scandal. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ quicktakes/2022/03/14/ex-dean-gets-14-month-sentence-rankings-scandal Jaschik, S. (2022b, April 18). Are rankings being rigged (Again)? Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2022/04/18/arerankings-being-rigged-again

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

71

Jaschik, S. (2022c, May 31). Britain to give visas to graduates of top universities worldwide. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ quicktakes/2022/05/31/britain-give-visas-graduates-top-universities-worldwide Karakhanyan, S., & Stensaker, B. (2020). External quality assurance: The landscape, the players and developmental trends. In S. Karakhanyan & B. Stensaker (Eds.), Global trends in higher education quality assurance: Challenges and opportunities in internal and external quality assurance (pp. 11–36). Brill/Sense Publishers. King, H. (2022, March 20). China is making new billionaires much faster than the U.S. Axios Markets. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.axios.com/china-new-billionairesfaster-us-5ab941fc-e8f8-42af-a249-bb7901d05081.html Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Zhang, L. (2021). Are university rankings statistically significant?: A comparison among Chinese universities and with the USA. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(2), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0014 Lim, M. A. (2021). The business of university rankings: The case of Times Higher Education. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 444–454). Edward Elgar. Lingard, B. (2019). The global education industry, data infrastructures, and the restructuring of government school systems. In M. P. do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi, & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement (pp. 135–136). Palgrave Macmillan. Marginson, S. (2022). What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822 Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, K. (2022). The geopoliticization of European trade and investment policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(S1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms. 12932 Moore, D. (2011, May 7). Nebraska sacked!: Was expulsion from the AAU reprisal for leaving. BR. Sports News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/693354nebraska-sacked-was-expulsion-from-the-aau-reprisal-for-leaving-the-big-12 Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press. Multirank. (2022a). Universities compared your way. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// www.umultirank.org Multirank. (2022b). New feature: U-Multirank provides open-access to all its data. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.umultirank.org/press-media/umultirank-news/u-multirankprovides-open-access-to-data/ National Research Council. (1995). Education Indicators Project (INES). In International comparative studies in education: Descriptions of selected large-scale assessments and case studies (pp. 29–41). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9174/ international-comparative-studies-in-education-descriptions-of-selected-large-scale Nayyar, D. (2002). Towards global governance. In D. Nayyer (Ed.), Governing globalization: Issues and institutions (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press. Nicholson, C. (2022, July 26). Commission rejects calls for UK and Swiss access to Horizon. Research Professional News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-horizon-2020-2022-7-commission-rejects-callsfor-uk-and-swiss-access-to-horizon/ Nyborg, P. (2014). The roots of the European University Association. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://eua.eu/component/attachments/attachments.html?task=attachment&id= 853 O’Malley, B. (2022a, January 21). European degree at heart of EU strategy for universities. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220121143311811 O’Malley, B. (2022b, March 6). Russian union of rectors backs Putin’s action in Ukraine. University World News. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220306120204111

72

E. Hazelkorn

O’Malley, B. (2022c, March 5). European Union halts scientific cooperation with Russia. University World News. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20220305125136996 OECD. (1980). Measuring science, technology, and innovation. OECD. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMR.1980.4288982 OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www. oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD%2896%29102& docLanguage=En Olein, H. (2022, March 17). California NIMBYs learn a lesson: Don’t mess with college admissions. Washington Post. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/2022/03/17/california-nimbys-learn-lesson-dont-mess-with-college-admissions/ Pietsch, T. (2013). Empire of scholars: Universities, networks and the British academic world 1850–1939. Manchester University Press. Posada, A., & Chen, G. (2018). Inequality in knowledge production: The integration of academic infrastructure by big publishers. ELPUB, 2018. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https:// hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01816707/document Reuter, M., Oberg, A., & Wijkström, F. (2018). Governing a transnational field: Civil society organizations as intermediaries in global university governance. Paper prepared for the 13th ISTR conference, Amsterdam. Rottenburg, R., Merry, S. E., Park, S.-J., & Mugler, J. (Eds.). (2015). The world of indictors: The making of governmental knowledge through quantification. Cambridge University Press. Rüegg, W. (1992). Themes. In H. De Ridder-Symoen (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe (Universities in the middle ages) (Vol. 1, pp. 3–34). Cambridge University Press. Salmi, J. (2021). Do rankings promote academic excellence?: World-class universities in perspective. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 455–472). Edward Elgar. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82. Sharma, Y. (2021, June 23). Is the world splitting into opposing science “blocs”?. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20210623120943916 Shumate, M., Pilny, A., Cooper, K. R., & Atouba, Y. (Eds.). (2019). Yearbook of international organizations, 2019–2020. Guide to global civil society networks. Volume 5: Statistics, visualizations and patterns. Union of International Associations and Brill. Siwinski, W. (2019). University rankings organisations need to do more. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 10, 2019. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https:// thechronicleofeducation.net/2019/06/10/university-rankings-organisations-need-to-do-more/ Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances: Enhancing control, capacity, and creativity in dynamic environments. Voprosy Obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow, 2018(1), 132–153. https:// doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2018-1-132-153 Swail, W. S. (2021). College rankings, big business, and fraud. The Swail Letter on Higher Education. Accessed on 5 December 2022, from https://theswailletter.com/2021/11/30/ college-rankings-big-business-and-fraud/ THE. (2022a). Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education college rankings 2022. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022#!/ page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats THE. (2022b). THE data points product portfolio (pp. 1–20). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/standard-page-paragraphs/attach ments/the_datapoints_0.pdf THE Reporters. (2022). Times Higher Education acquires inside higher Ed. Times Higher Education, January 10, 2022. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. timeshighereducation.com/news/times-higher-education-acquires-inside-higher-ed

4

Putting Global University Rankings in Context. . .

73

U-Map. (2022). The European classification of higher education institutions. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http://www.u-map.eu UNESCO. (2019). Global convention on higher education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.unesco.org/en/education/higher-education/global-convention Usher, A. (2017). A short global history of rankings. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society (pp. 23–53). Routledge. Usher, A. (2022a, February 2). Two rankings stories you may have missed. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://myemail.constantcontact. com/One-Thought-to-Start-Your-Day%2D%2DTwo-Rankings-Stories-You-May-HaveMissed.html?soid=1103080520043&aid=rRSz_U8ZNmE Usher, A. (2022b, August 20). The age of volatility. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://higheredstrategy.com/the-age-of-volatility/ Usher, A. (2022c, November 11). The new WSJ/times higher education rankings. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://higheredstrategy.com/ the-new-wsjtimes-higher-education-rankings/ van Damme, D. (2018). Dynamics of inequality, convergence and differentiation. Keynote presentation: Constructing higher education evaluation systems for the global era. Tsinghua University/OCED. Veugelers, R. (2017). The challenge of China’s rise as a science and technology powerhouse. Policy Contribution, 2017(19). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://bruegel.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/07/PC-19-2017.pdf Vukasovic, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances in the Europe of knowledge: Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724572 Wächter, B. (1999). European associations in higher education. European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 3(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022996713945 Wächter, B. (2000). Handbook of European associations. A practical guide to academic networks in Europe and beyond. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.lemmens.de/dateien/ medien/buecher-ebooks/aca/2000_handbook_of_european_associations_in_higher_ education.pdf Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press. Wikipedia. (2022a). 2019 college admissions bribery scandal. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal Wikipedia. (2022b). U.S. News & World Report. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report Wilsdon, J., Bar-Ilan, J., Frodeman, R., Lex, E., Peters, I., & Wouters, P. (2017). Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/report.pdf, https://doi.org/10.2777/337729 Yonezawa, A. (2021). Reimaging university identifies through rankings in Japan: The transformation of national policies and university behaviours in the broader East Asian context. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 231–246). Edward Elgar. Yudevich, M., Altbach, P. G., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.). (2016). The global academic rankings game: Changing institutional policy, practice and academic life. Routledge.

Part II

Obstacles to Internationalization

Chapter 5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos: Multilingualism as a Sphere of Glocal Paradox Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman and Gili S. Drori

Introduction The analytic distinction between internationalization and globalization parallels the distinction between organizational strategy and organizational ethos. In higher education, internationalization revolves around the increasing mobility of students, faculty, and research funding, whereas globalization refers to the long-standing translocal ethos of science, academia, and higher education. Multilingualism serves as a sphere for expressing both strategy and ethos: Academia operates in the global and epochal lingua franca (Mauranen, 2012), namely Latin in the Middle Ages, German in the nineteenth century and, currently, English, which expresses the global and humanistic unity of science and academia while enabling strategic acts of communications and mobility. Nevertheless, for higher-education systems outside the global core (i.e., in societies whose native language is different than the dominant academic lingua franca), multilingualism frames the paradox of glocality (see Stevens & Giebel, 2020), global-local orientation. Seeing scant study of multilingualism and glocality in higher education, in this chapter we outline paradoxes driven by multilingualism in an Israeli research university.1 We analyze the debates about multilingualism around three academic practices: (1) organizational identity as expressed in the university’s mission documents, in English and in Hebrew; (2) the

1

This study is generously supported by a 2019 research grant from the Eshkol Institute at the Hebrew University. We acknowledge the contributions of Ido Katz and Lior Beserman-Navon to data compilation and of Ben Bornstein and Or Gil to content analyses. R. Mizrahi-Shtelman (✉) Faculty of Education, Kibbutzim College, Tel Aviv, Israel G. S. Drori Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_5

77

78

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

use of non-native languages in the university’s public space, namely in signage; and (3) language requirements on faculty members. We conclude that universities outside the global core exist in a multilingual state of being: They operate in a mode of multilingua franca (Cohen & Kassis-Henderson, 2017, pp. 12–14; Janssens & Steyaert, 2014; Makoni & Pennycook, 2012), namely a lingual mode that involves speaking, writing, and thinking in multiple languages simultaneously. Importantly, we argue, such a multilingua franca state of operations reflects a glocal, rather than global, ethos that bridges, on the one hand, embeddedness in the global field of science, academia, and higher education and, on the other hand, higher education and science’s relevance to and engagement with the university’s local society.

Internationalization and the Paradoxes of Glocality in Higher Education While the internationalization of higher education is strongly advocated worldwide, internationalization itself remains broadly defined, encompassing various rationales, approaches, and strategies. Knight (1994, p. 21) described internationalization as a dynamic process that integrates and infuses an international dimension into teaching and research. Over the years, the emphasis of internationalization in higher education changed from academic and cultural exchange to developments such as branding, international programs, and global rankings (Knight & de Wit, 2018). Currently, internationalization in higher education customarily includes several activities and processes, such as mobility of students and staff, changes to curricula to engage international students, reliance on international quality-assurance standards, inter-institutional cooperation in education and research, and the establishment of university offices to drive such internationalization initiatives. This expanded scope has complemented traditional internationalization – i.e., the mobility of students and faculty – with new forms thereof, such as provider mobility – which refers to opening branch campuses in foreign countries (Knight & de Wit, 2018; Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) – and “internationalization at home” – which refers to, for example, integration of English-language courses as a part of academic degrees – (Beelen & Jones, 2015). Moreover, internationalization in higher education may be defined in reference to – possibly as a reaction to – globalization (Qiang, 2003). Altbach and Knight (2007) defined globalization as the context of economic and academic trends and internationalization as the policies and practices carried out by higher education institutions in response to the forces of globalization (Tight, 2021). While globalization refers to the long-standing ethos of science, academia, and higher education as translocal, internationalization in higher education is the strategic initiative that is drives the opening of curricula and research to maximize the worldwide mobility of students and faculty (Bamberger et al., 2019).

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

79

The various meanings attached to the concept of internationalization illustrate its complexity and richness. A key element of internationalization is its application in diverse cultural and higher-education systems (Qiang, 2003). Although internationalization is considered a change agent among high-, middle-, and low-income societies (de Wit & Altbach, 2021), it is remolded by its different local meanings and practices in those societies, resulting in different conclusions as to whether internationalization outcomes lead to a positive or negative total impact (George Mwangi et al., 2018). Maringe et al. (2013) noted the different motivations for and reactions to internationalization in different parts of the world: In the West, the prime driving force for internationalization of universities is commercial; in East Asia and the Middle East, the impetus is cultural; and in the universities of the global South, the motivation relates to curricular value. Altbach and Knight (2007) argued that developed countries, especially the large English-speaking nations, provide most internationalization services. This is evident in the flow of international students to these universities, in franchisers of academic programs to foreign providers, and even in international accreditations. The purchasing countries are Asian and Latin American middle-income countries and, to a smaller extent, the poorer nations of the developing world. Although no distinct internationalization model exists, it is mainly regarded as a westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly Englishspeaking paradigm (de Wit, 2019). These patterns raise important questions (e.g., Al-Zoubi & Abu-Orabi, 2019; Ram, 2015) about the way higher-education institutions, especially those situated outside the global core, are balancing being “global” while at the same time prioritizing their local culture, including their language (Buckner, 2019). Internationalization in countries where English is not the native tongue must function in a multilingual mode, in which English is the primary language for scientific exchange and academic publication and the native language is used for instruction and administration (Mizrahi-Shtelman & Drori, 2022). Fabricius et al. (2017) illustrated what they called the linguistic paradox of internationalization, which shows that the more expansive internationalization becomes, the more convergence there is on English as the language of instruction and exchange. Therefore, multilingualism captures the complexity of the institutional context of globally embedded organizations and the challenges of higher education’s internationalization.

Multilingualism – Between Strategy and Ethos for Universities Language is essential in forming and maintaining organizations (Schoeneborn et al., 2019) because it offers meaning and legitimacy to the organization’s practices, routines, and procedures (Phillips & Malhotra, 2017). Therefore, investigating language use is a way to study societies, institutions, organizations, and their identities (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000; Bastardas-Boada, 2012). Due to intensifying globalization,

80

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

organizations in general (but especially universities) are facing the issue of linguistic diversity and multiplicity, namely multilingualism and driving the “multilingual turn” in management and organization studies (see Cohen & Kassis-Henderson, 2017; Piekkari et al., 2020). Multilingualism is defined as the “ability of societies, institutions, groups, and individuals to engage regularly with more than one language in their day-to-day lives” (European Commission, 2007, p. 6) and, therefore, is studied at both individual and organizational levels (Cenoz, 2013). Recognizing that multilingualism is not as simple as proficiency in multiple languages but is a state of being in a plurallanguage social context, our definition and understanding of multilingualism stems from studies that have invoked the term multilingua franca (e.g., Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). The multilingua franca approach reframes the diversity of languages as creating a new linguistic mode where languages are connected and blended into each other, blurring the boundaries between different languages or between cultures (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). This definition corresponds to the notion of glocality, accentuating dimensions of hybridity and complexity. In the following section, we discuss multilingualism in higher education along two axes: first, multilingualism as tracing the internationalization-related dilemmas of glocality and, second, multilingualism as both ethos and strategy in higher education. Multilingualism traces the internationalization-related dilemmas of glocality, especially in societies positioned outside the global core and whose native language differs from the dominant academic lingua franca. Global exchange and competition in higher education, as well as the current form of global hegemony, have positioned English (and specifically American more than British English; Jenkins, 2019) as the global lingua franca (Bhatt et al., 2022; Doiz et al., 2013), thus facilitating the internationalization of higher education. On the one hand, English is a mark of global orientation and thus is accepted as a necessity for students, faculty, and administration to succeed in higher education (Bhatt et al., 2022). On the other hand, Englishization, defined as “the process in which the English language is increasingly gaining ground in domains where another language was previously used” (Gabriëls & Wilkinson, 2021, p. 14) is regarded as damaging and weakening the national language and as cultural imperialism (Phillipson, 2015). In the European context, the advance of multilingualism in higher education and convergence around English was driven mainly by the Bologna process, initiated in 1999 (Graddol, 2006), and the Barcelona agreement (Valdera Gil & Crichton, 2020). While such “soft law” calls for education systems to expose students to two languages in addition to their native language, in reality, English has become compulsory as one of the “two other languages” (Williams & Stelma, 2022). In other regions, such as the Gulf states (Macaro et al., 2018) or the East Asian area (Doiz et al., 2011; Rose & Galloway, 2019), multilingualism in higher education, like internationalization, was shaped by international economic perceptions of academic exchange and advancement. Overall, multilingualism – the introduction of non-native languages to higher education, which foreign languages are introduced, and the types of academic activities to which these languages are introduced – signal the global-

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

81

local orientation of the higher-education system and of higher-education organizations (HEOs). Second, in higher education, multilingualism is both an ethos and a strategy. The reliance on “globalese” – that is, on an epochal global language – is a constitutive element of academia, science, and higher education. As noted earlier, since its inception, academia has relied on a common language to allow for exchange of ideas and mobility of academics. Over the millennium-long history of the institution of the university, such common language changed from Latin in the Middle Ages to German in the nineteenth century to English in the current era. The combination of a global language for science and a native or local language for daily life necessitated multilingualism for every academic and for every academic organization. And yet, with the institutionalization of internationalization as a formal strategy of HEOs over the past decades (see, Altbach & Knight, 2007; de Wit, 2019), multilingualism, too, has become an organizational strategy for HEOs. The “strategization” of multilingualism is a part of the hyper-organization of higher education (see, Bromley & Meyer, 2015; Frank & Meyer, 2020), which involves the formalization of multilingualism requirements and the professionalization and bureaucratization of multilingualism initiatives. In this way, the ethos is translated into strategic action: Cultural preferences that bind the academe are now translated into organizational planning, allocation of resources, assessment procedures, and the like. And, importantly, such structures, practices, and behaviors have come to be imbued with the paradoxes of glocality. To further explore glocal paradoxes driven by multilingualism, we focus on an Israeli research university and analyze the debates about multilingualism around three academic practices: (1) organizational identity as expressed in the university’s mission documents, in English and in Hebrew; (2) the use of non-native languages in the university’s public space, namely in signage; and (3) language requirements on faculty members. By focusing on organizational practices, we show how strategic and routine decisions regarding multilingualism reveal higher education’s glocal dilemmas.

Tales of Multilingualism in an Israeli Research University How do HEOs in countries whose native tongue is not English negotiate their state of multilingua franca? To investigate the dilemmas of glocality that are driven by the field-wide pressure toward internationalization and related Englishization, we turn to Israeli HEOs. They serve as unique exemplars of such dilemmas and debates. At their founding in the early twentieth century, they were the epicenter of the “language war” surrounding the revival of the Hebrew language and the rejection of diasporic languages; importantly, current language-related debates in Israeli HEOs, now reframed as related to internationalization strategy, are imprinted by that “war” of early Zionist linguistic revival. Considering this legacy – which ties language, nationality, and academe – the following section describes the unique historic

82

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

context and current manifestations of the challenges of glocality, internationalization, and multilingualism in which Israeli HEOs are currently embedded.

Israeli Higher-Education Field: Background and Scope Prior to the 1948 founding of the state of Israel, Israeli academia originated in the establishment of three institutions: the Technion in 1924, the Hebrew University in 1925, and the Sieff Institute, later renamed the Weizmann Institute of Science, in 1934. Today, Israeli higher education is a mature institutional field that comprises sixty accredited HEOs, the Council of Higher Education (CHE), which acts as both regulator and buffer from political pressure, and approximately 333,000 students. These HEOs include ten universities (nine public and one private), twenty-nine colleges (twenty public and nine private), and twenty-one teacher colleges (all public). While the Israeli higher-education system is a vibrant institutional field, the number of international students, which is a key feature of internationalization, is particularly low compared to the OECD average (Bamberger, 2019). Among the various explanations for the relatively small number of international students in Israel are the security situation, restrictive immigration rules, and the almost-total dominance of Hebrew as the language of instruction in higher education (Bamberger et al., 2019). Despite these various restrictions, Israeli policy promotes internationalization and supports the international rank of Israeli HEOs. This is evident in the compliance with worldwide ranking, through a commitment to research excellence (Yemini, 2017), and research partnership with elite universities from all over the world (Bamberger et al., 2019). At the same time, because of regulatory centralization and the overwhelming share of Israeli students, Israeli higher education can be described as a local sector. This global–local hybrid, or glocality, of Israeli higher education is also evident regarding language: While Hebrew is the dominant language in higher-education instruction and administration, English is the main language of research (see, Dor, 2004; Waterman, 2018). Importantly, adding to the centrality of language in the glocality of Israeli higher education is the imprinting on Israeli academia by the “language war” of the early 1900s. The language war concerned the language that should be commonly used by the emergent Jewish–Zionist society in Ottoman-ruled Palestine (Safran, 2005), sparked by a decision about language of instruction in the Technikum (later renamed the Technion). In 1913, the Technikum’s Board of Trustees decided that the language of instruction would be German because of its worldwide stature as the language of the sciences. The ensuing debate subsided with the 1914 reversal of the board’s earlier decision, the designation of Hebrew as the Technion’s language of instruction at its opening in 1924, the addition of “Hebrew” to the name of the first university as “The Hebrew University of Jerusalem”, and the Hebrew University’s 1925 formal declaration of Hebrew as the language of instruction. These acts confirmed the victory of the Hebrew language over foreign languages in pre-State

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

83

Israeli academia (see, Cohen, 2007; Efrati, 2004; Even-Zohar, 1981; Stroumsa, 2013) and reveal that academia is the sphere in which such battles were fought and won. To this day, Israeli academia continues to be marked by the language war waged during its founding years (Chowers, 2017), even if debates over the language to use changed from Hebrew versus German to Hebrew versus English. The persistence of such debates confirms the inherent paradox of multilingualism and the protraction of global–local tension in Israeli academia. Considering this historical legacy, how is an Israeli HEO, simultaneously driven to stand prominently among the world’s leading universities and guarantee its relevance and impact within Israeli society, to negotiate multilingualism? The answer to this question can be found in the routine practices of Israeli HEOs, especially Israeli research universities. In the following section, we elaborate on several university practices that reveal the challenges of multilingualism and related glocal dilemmas. Following an analysis of multilingualism in all Israeli HEOs, we continue by focusing on the Hebrew University, which stands unique because it is Israel’s oldest university and is tied to the ethos of the revival and use of Hebrew language. On the Hebrew University’s special attitude to Hebrew, Halperin (2013) wrote: The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, inaugurated in a festive ceremony on Mount Scopus on April 1, 1925, was to be the jewel in the crown of the reborn language – a site for the secular consecration of the Hebrew linguistic and literary tradition that had existed since the days of the Hebrew prophets. When, two years later, a Yiddish newspaper editor in New York offered a sum of money to found a chair in Yiddish at the university, zealous defenders of Hebrew distributed fliers calling a Yiddish chair an ‘idol in the sanctuary.’ The proposal was shelved.

We analyze multilingualism in self-identification statements and spatial arrangements, as well as in the university guidelines for faculty and teaching. Additional academic practices – such as publication strategy, tenure and promotion assessment, or grading policy – are also affected by multilingualism, but we here focus specifically on exemplary academic practices that are directly tied to internationalization, namely to the mobility of students and faculty and to policies related to or derived from such mobility.

Multilingualism in Mission Statements Following managerialist pressure to strategize and reform based on an articulated outline of vision and goals, Israeli HEOs increasingly produce and publicly display formal mission statements. Defined as the “enduring statement of purpose that reveals an organization’s product or service, markets, customers, and philosophy” (Pearce & David, 1987, p. 109; Stearns & Borna, 1998, p. 90), such selfidentification statements are widely recognized to express the identity of the HEOs and reveal their organizational culture (see, Dumay et al., 2017; Stensaker, 2015).

84

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Indeed, seeing the ubiquity of this identity and culture narration among HEOs, Mizrahi-Shtelman and Drori (2022, p. 3) conclude that: researchers have investigated the practice and its meanings in Germany (Kosmützky, 2012; Kosmützky & Krücken, 2015; Oertel & Söll, 2017), the United Kingdom (Connell & Galasiński, 1998; Davies & Glaister, 1996; Seeber et al., 2019), Israel (Mizrahi-Shtelman & Drori, 2021), Scotland (Kuenssberg, 2011), Turkey (Efe & Ozer 2015), Ukraine (Hladchenko, 2016), Spain (Arias-Coello et al., 2020), and the United States (Morphew & Hartley, 2006; Palmer & Short, 2008; Taylor & Morphew, 2010; Young, 2001) and across world regions (Bayrak, 2020).

The issue of multilingualism has only recently been applied to the study of HEOs’ mission statements (see, Mizrahi-Shtelman & Drori, 2022). This study, which analyzed online mission statements of Israeli HEOs from 2000 onward, confirmed that the Englishization of higher education (Earls, 2016), which is sweeping institutions in numerous other non-Anglophone countries (Bennett, 2014; Björk, 2019; Solovova et al., 2018), was also obvious in Israel. We found that, in 2021, the overwhelming number of Israeli HEOs (53 of 61 total) offered general online information and mission statements in English alongside their Hebrew-language mission statements. Far fewer online mission statements and informational webpages appeared in other languages: Arabic (36), French (5), Russian (4), and Spanish and Chinese (1 each).2 Moreover, all ten Israeli research universities had their websites and their mission statements available in both Hebrew and English, while English website and mission statements were absent only in small and mostly religious academic colleges or in teacher colleges. This pattern shows that, indeed, more globally oriented HEOs (research universities) conduct themselves in a mode of multilingua franca, whereas HEOs that are more oriented toward local communities (colleges that are officially defined as religious-Jewish) renounce multilingualism. This bifurcation of the Israeli higher-education field, which marks the poles on the scale of glocality, also means that Israeli research universities are more stricken by paradoxes of glocality. How does multilingualism attenuate the identity of Israeli HEOs and specifically that of Israeli research universities? In an earlier study comparing Hebrew- and English-language mission statements of Israeli HEOs (see, Mizrahi-Shtelman & Drori, 2022), we found that, first, Hebrew-language mission statements primarily emphasized teaching, followed by research and excellence; English-language mission statements primarily emphasized the theme of locality, with teaching, excellence, ranking, and research following. Second, we found that such differences in thematic emphases mapped onto state-mandated HEO categories – differentiating among research universities, academic colleges, and teacher colleges. This confirmed the finding that internationalization varies by tier (de Wit et al., 2015) and that such variation is associated with degree of global or local orientation. Third, we

2

Until 2018, Arabic was recognized as one of the three official state languages, alongside Hebrew and English; 2018 legal changes demoted it to the status of a “special language.” The implication is that use of Arabic is no longer required of state agencies.

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

85

found that, over time, the thematic emphases further diverged across the three HEO categories: Even in the short period 2000–2018, research universities increasingly emphasized research, ranking, and excellence, more so in Hebrew than in English narration. Last, we found that Hebrew- and English-language mission statements were very rarely verbatim translations, and, in some cases, the statements were utterly different texts in both content and style. We concluded (Mizrahi-Shtelman & Drori, 2022, p. 15): whereas Israeli HEOs have somewhat cohesive images of their foreign audiences (as implied by the somewhat smaller differences in the English-language texts among the three statemandated HEO categories and over time), their images of local audiences are highly differentiated (as implied by the growing divergence among the three HEO categories in their Hebrew-language texts).

This drove us to the conclusion that “marketing and internationalization considerations propel the identity and communication strategies of Israeli HEOs.”

Spatiality and Visuality of Multilingualism Multilingualism also gains spatial dimensions and gets visually embodied (see, Blommaert et al., 2005). Such multimodal manifestations of multilingualism in HEOs are captured in directional signage on campus, university emblems or logos, advertisements and placards, monuments and commemorative signage, and the like. On campus, the strong link with Hebrew is striking, even if internationalization strategies and pressures toward multilingualism over the past two decades have brought new languages into the spatial and visual domains of Israeli HEOs. For example, despite visitors’ complaints about projecting an inhospitable atmosphere, the Hebrew University’s campus on Mount Scopus was marked almost exclusively with Hebrew-language signage. The recent ongoing initiative to introduce new signage to the Mount Scopus campus, whose buildings are infamous for their confusing layout, is designed mostly around visual and numeric markers and thus bypasses the challenge of linguistic diversity. Multilingual signage includes Hebrew and English and, very rarely, Arabic. This is also true in the buildings of the university’s international school. In contrast to functional signage, general signage, such as the sign at the main hall of the Faculty of Social Sciences displaying the faculty’s name and the names of its various disciplinary departments (see Fig. 5.1) ceremonially appears in Hebrew, English, Arabic and Chinese. In all multilingual signage, the hierarchy is clear: Hebrew is followed by English, then, if appearing at all, Arabic, followed by “exotic” languages. In virtual space, namely on the university’s websites, Hebrew and English are used almost exclusively. While the website also exists in Arabic, only an ongoing diversity initiative drove the expansion of its content; until recently, the Arabic version included only very limited information and most led to the Hebrew- or English-language versions of the website. Moreover, despite the substantive link of

86

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Fig. 5.1 The signs at the main hall of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Hebrew University

certain academic units or initiatives to other cultures and their language markers, the website displays no other languages. Even the academic units of regional studies, which are prime candidates to reference the region’s relevant languages, very rarely display a language beyond Hebrew and English on their webpages. For example, the Department of Russian and Slavic Studies’ page does not display any Cyrillic font or text in Russian or other Slavic languages, the Division for German Language and Literature’s page includes no use of German, and the Department of Romance Studies, which centers on French and Italian cultures and displays the flags of both France and Italy, includes no linguistic links with French or Italian on its page, while the page of the Department of Asian Studies relies only on Hebrew and English, though its logotype includes the Chinese character for the word “literature.” Only the Department of Arabic Language and Literature has a language other than Hebrew or English (here, Arabic) dominate the screen. The hierarchy of languages was also evident in the 2013–2014 discussions around the Hebrew University’s rebranding campaign and the redesign of its logo. The logo designed in the mid-1950s included only a visual mark, without accompanying lingual marks. Over the years, it has been unofficially redesigned, sometimes quite dramatically; all such redesigned versions added the university’s name, and some also added the year of founding. Such wording came in Hebrew and English, but never other languages. Building on the historical significance of the original 1950s logo, the 2013–2014 rebranding campaign conservatively modified

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

87

the logo’s geometric form, added color, and formalized the logotype by officially deciding on the wording to accompany the symbol (Oberg et al., 2018). The decision was to add the university’s name in Hebrew and English only, creating two version of the logotype – aligned to the right for use in Hebrew-language documents and aligned to the left for non-Hebrew use (University, 2014, p. 6). The prominence of Hebrew is built into the design in several ways. At first, the design team’s proposal, following Arielle Shekel’s original design, also included a three-language version of the logotype that added Arabic to the Hebrew and English, but the campaign chose the logotype with only Hebrew and English wording. The justification was “technical,” rather than ideological. The dominant opinion was that the addition of a third language dwarfed the proportions of the symbol, and that it was the symbol’s design that gave the brand impact. Therefore, while the university did create a three-language version, it regards it as a “3rd language option,” suggesting that the use of Arabic is merely one of all design options for thirdlanguage versions (University, 2014, p. 22). Noticeably, this third-language version is only aligned to the right, matching the alignment of both Hebrew and Arabic. Additionally, the prominence of Hebrew is evident not only in that the first line of the logotype’s wording is in Hebrew and its second line in English, but also in the size of the font: Because the university’s name in Hebrew includes three words, the English-language name stretches over five words, and the logotype’s wording is “boxed,” the proportion of the fonts is 1.5:1 (see Fig. 5.2 for the various logotype versions). Overall, the history of the logo and its recent rebranding into a logotype conveys both Englishization and power relations. Impacting visuality in general, in both on-campus and online signage, is the matter of font – that is, printable or displayable typography or text characters in a specific style – which adds a cultural tone to communications. Importantly, the

Fig. 5.2 Logotype of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

88

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Fig. 5.3 Grau’s 1958 font Universal

design and display of fonts tracks the development of a hierarchy of languages at the university. First, the Hebrew University created its own font. In the 1950s, with the commissioning of an architectural design of the new Givat Ram campus and a new logo, the Hebrew University also commissioned renowned Judaica designer Emanuel Grau to design a new typography unique to the university (see, Oberg et al., 2018, pp. 85–87; Shekel, 2012). Grau’s 1958 font was named Universal (see Fig. 5.3) and, we assume, the name references an iconic sentence from Einstein’s 1925 open letter written for the inauguration ceremony of the Hebrew University: “A University is a place where the universality of the human spirit manifests itself.” Second, the Universal font was designed for Hebrew only, even if over the years various Latin fonts were placed alongside it in signage. Third, the Hebrew University’s 2014 rebranding campaign revived the use of Universal by formally adding it to the logotype, creating a digital version of the print font, and designing a slightly reworked signage version. The accompanying non-Hebrew font – for print, logo, or signage – has not been redesigned; rather, the choice of font for English, Arabic, or Chinese is drawn from existing fonts in their “sans” version, allowing for resemblance of calligraphic aesthetics without the actual expense of designing matching (and proprietary) non-Hebrew font. Third, it is important to note that the typographic design is devoid of the Orientalist sentiments and aesthetics of early Zionism. Though the original architectural design of Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus (Dolev, 1998) and the logo and typographical designs of the Bezalel School (Israel’s oldest tertiary education institution) display the Oriental aesthetics of the new “Hebrew” culture, Universal font can be described as modern, formal, geometric, “clean,” and even humanist. Overall, the university’s use of typography affirms the prominence of the Hebrew language and its status as a modern and enlightened national language.

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

89

Language Requirements on Faculty Members How do internationalization and related Englishization impact the recruitment process of academic faculty? Formally, the recruitment of faculty is contingent on academic merit, and, at a research university, such merit is scaled by global academic standards. This opens the door to the recruitment of faculty who are neither Israeli nor Hebrew speakers. Given that teaching, especially at the undergraduate level, is overwhelmingly in Hebrew (see below) and that academic leadership activities are conducted mostly in Hebrew, this internationalization of faculty recruitment differentiates between Hebrew-speaking and non-Hebrew speaking faculty, discourages non-Hebrew speaking faculty from pursuing certain teaching and leadership positions, and may also lead such faculty to feel a sense of alienation from the informal life of the academic community. In their effort to balance the benefits of international faculty recruitment with the challenges of integrating non-Hebrew speaking faculty, Israeli research universities try to have it both ways. For that, they relinquish the language requirement as a threshold recruitment criterion and make efforts to assist newly recruited faculty with Hebrew acquisition. For example, the Hebrew University does not impose any guidelines regarding language skills of faculty; while international candidates are alerted to the position in which they may find themselves as non-Hebrew-speaking faculty, and thus a normative signal is sent, the criterion of Hebrew language proficiency is not formally applied in the hiring process. In addition, non-Hebrewspeaking faculty are offered language lessons. If they are on track to Israeli citizenship, language lessons are sponsored by the Ministry of Integration; if they are not eligible for such state sponsorship, then the Hebrew University sponsors their Hebrew language lessons at its International School. In summary, while not a formal precondition for the internationalization of faculty recruitment, proficiency in the Hebrew language is a marker of the paradox of glocality. Dilemmas associated with multilingualism are manifested in the language of instruction in Israeli higher education, because internationalization has been the impetus for recent debates around multilingualism in teaching. Internationalization builds a diverse student body and, while such diversity enriches the learning experience, it also requires English-language instruction. Yet, English-language instruction is most demanding for Israeli students whose secondary education was in Hebrew or Arabic, and such instruction is suboptimal if faculty are not fully proficient in instructional English. And, as an administrative rather than pedagogical burden, if English-language instruction is separated from the “general” tracks of academic studies, it requires a doubling of the number of courses. This burden is heavy even for countries with low numbers of incoming foreign students, such as Israel (see, Maoz, 2016). Israeli universities encourage “internationalization at home,” which allows Israeli students to benefit from classes taught by foreign guest professors and from English-language instruction of core curricula, without the added cost and challenge of travel to foreign universities. As a result, Israeli universities that wish to deepen internationalization further through instruction, by

90

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

whichever means, are torn between such options for balancing the pedagogical and scientific considerations of multilingualism in teaching: How much non-Hebrew instruction to introduce? At what level of studies, in which disciplines, and in which foreign language is non-Hebrew instruction most impactful? Note that the dilemmas surrounding such issues do not pertain to language studies – for example, building proficiency in Spanish for students whose academic studies, especially for advanced degrees or in research tracks, focus on Spanish or Latin American topics. Rather, the dilemma concerns the language of instruction for core courses and full-degree academic programs. Currently, the Hebrew University’s regulations specify that the language of instruction is Hebrew (2021, Section 6.1.3) and requires threshold proficiency in Hebrew and English (2021, Sections 5.1 and 5.2). Moreover, although academic studies in these languages for non-native speakers remain a challenge, starting in 2021–2022, the university’s regulations also require that undergraduate students take at least two elective courses of their core disciplinary curriculum in English (2020–2021 Teaching Policy and Procedures, Section 5.4). Regulations also designate which languages may be used for written assignments (2020–2021 Teaching Policy and Procedures, Section 9.1.4): 9.1.4 Language of the assignment. 9.1.4.1 Assignments must be written in Hebrew. When the language of instruction in a course or in a particular teaching program is not Hebrew, assignments can be submitted in the language in which the course/teaching program was taught. 9.1.4.2 Upon request by the student and with the approval of the course teacher, assignments in a language other than Hebrew can be submitted. 9.1.4.3 Master’s degree thesis – Upon request by the student and with the approval of the supervisor, the Faculty Teaching Committee may approve the submission of a thesis in English or, under special circumstances, in another language. In addition, doctoral dissertations may be written only in Hebrew and English (2021–2022 Teaching Policy and Procedures, Section 9.2.2). Still, seeing that doctoral dissertations may also be assembly of published or publishable articles (also in the non-experimental sciences), this regulation tracks publications toward these two languages.

Concluding Comments: Internationalization, Multilingualism, and Glocality Outside the Global Core Multilingualism is forced onto HEOs in academic spaces where the dominant language is not English. The HEOs’ attitudes toward multilingualism, and so toward internationalization, are evident not only in their formal declarations (which are often a reflection of the sweeping global trend to internationalize) but also in their routine actions and practical arrangements. In the previous section, we reviewed how three such routine actions and practical arrangements implement multilingualism in an Israeli research university. Overall, we showed that linguistic plurality is prevalent in Israeli HEOs, evident in their self-presentation online and on-campus and in their creation of guidelines that relax the Israeli-Zionist zeal for the exclusive use of Hebrew. We also showed that while all Israeli HEOs are, practically by definition,

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

91

glocal, their varied approaches to multilingualism expose their varying glocal orientations: Research universities are more oriented toward international science and academia than are small, regional, or religious colleges that cater solely to local students or focus their instruction on specifically Israeli or Jewish curricula. Internationalization of higher education in Israel has changed over the centurylong history of Israel’s academic community, transitioning from diasporic visions of internationalization that focuses on luring students from the Jewish diaspora (Sinuany-Stern, 2019; Trahar, 2017) to a strategic twenty-first-century version of internationalization (driven by international ranking and competition). Indeed, currently, internationalization and multilingualism in Israeli higher education emphasize student mobility and international (English-language) publication profiles of researchers, both of which are calculated into the international ranking of HEOs (Bamberger, 2019). Given that internationalization compels Israeli HEOs to make strategic decisions about multilingualism in higher education, the impact of internationalization/multilingualism goes beyond its stated goal of academic advancement and negotiates the identity of Israeli academia. Like Israeli HEOs, their counterparts worldwide that are in a state of multilingua franca face the paradox of glocality. Stevens and Giebel (2020, p. 123) highlighted the spatial paradox of international higher education: While “academic institutions historically are servants of particular cities, regions, and nations, and one of their essential functions has been to connect particular places with world affairs,” internationalization drives them to seek reputation and cooperation worldwide, far beyond their locale. Fabricius et al. (2017) highlighted three paradoxes stemming from internationalization: those concerning linguistic pluralism, intercultural understanding, and competitiveness. The linguistic paradox revealed in those authors’ analysis of Danish higher education is that: as the student population becomes more ‘international’ as a result of increased transnational mobility, and as the latent linguistic diversity increases in consequence, the number of languages which the students can be expected to have in common, as a group, decreases. (p. 583)

In these various ways, internationalization has a centripetal impact on language in higher education: Internationalization compels Englishization and forces a state of multilingual franca on all HEOs in non-English-speaking societies. Moreover, in such societies, HEOs are “born multilingual,” to paraphrase the notion of “born global” (e.g., Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). In other words, HEOs in non-English speaking societies are shaped by the paradoxes of multilingualism, internationalization, and glocality.

References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1028315307303542

92

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886300362002 Al-Zoubi, A., & Abu-Orabi, S. (2019). Impact of internationalization on Arab higher education the role of association of Arab universities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 8(1), 69–85. Arias-Coello, A., Simon-Martin, J., & Gonzalo Sanchez-Molero, J. L. (2020). Mission statements in Spanish universities. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2018.1512569 Bamberger, A. (2019). International student mobility in Israel. International Higher Education, 96(Winter), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.96.10774 Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). Neoliberalism, internationalisation and higher education: Connections, contradictions and alternatives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569879 Bastardas-Boada, A. (2012). Language and identity policies in the ‘glocal’age: New processes, effects and principles of organization. Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut d’Estudis Autonòmics. Bayrak, T. (2020). A content analysis of top-ranked universities’ mission statements from five global regions. International Journal of Educational Development, 72(January), 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102130 Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 59–72). Springer. Bennett, K. (2014). Introduction. The political and economic infrastructure of academic practice: The ‘semiperiphaery’ as a category for social and linguistic analysis. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing: Discourses, communities and practices (pp. 1–12). Palgrave Macmillan. Bhatt, I., Badwan, K., & Madiba, M. (2022). Critical perspectives on teaching in the multilingual university. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517. 2022.2058295 Björk, B. C. (2019). Open access journal publishing in the Nordic countries. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1231 Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002 Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford University Press. Buckner, E. (2019). The internationalization of higher education: National interpretations of a global model. Comparative Education Review, 63(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/703794 Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(March), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Chowers, E. (2017). Violence and the Hebrew language: Jewish nationalism and the university. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 16(3), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2017. 1295700 Cohen, U. (2007). University vs. society in a period of nation building: The Hebrew University in pre-state Israel. Historical Studies in Education, 19(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.32316/hse/ rhe.v19i1.274 Cohen, L., & Kassis-Henderson, J. (2017). Revisiting culture and language in global management teams: Toward a multilingual turn. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595816684882 Connell, I., & Galasiński, D. (1998). Academic mission statements: An exercise in negotiation. Discourse & Society, 9(4), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009004003 Davies, S. W., & Glaister, K. W. (1996). Spurs to higher things?: Mission statements of UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 50(4), 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273. 1996.tb01706.x

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

93

de Wit, H. (2019). Internationalization in higher education: A critical review. SFU Educational Review, 12(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v12i3.1036 de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi. org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898 de Wit, H., Yemini, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Internationalization strategies and policies in secondtier higher education institutions. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 127–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-20877-0_9 Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-971X.2011.01718.x Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.642349 Dolev, D. (1998). Architectural orientalism in the Hebrew university: The Patrick Geddes and Frank Mears master-plan. Assaph: Studies in Art History, 3(12), 217–234. Dor, D. (2004). From Englishization to imposed multilingualism: Globalization, the internet, and the political economy of the linguistic code. Public Culture, 16(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10. 1215/08992363-16-1-97 Dumay, X., Draelants, H., & Dahan, A. (2017). Organizational identity of universities: A review of the literature from 1972 to 2014. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 3, pp. 99–118). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S2056-375220170000003006 Earls, C. W. (2016). Evolving agendas in European English-medium higher education: Interculturality, multilingualism and language policy. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer. Efe, I., & Ozer, O. (2015). A corpus-based discourse analysis of the vision and mission statements of universities in Turkey. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1110–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1070127 Efrati, N. (2004). The Hebrew University and the Hebrew language. In H. Lavsky (Ed.), History of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: A period of consolidation and growth (Vol. II, pp. 305–336). Magnes Press. European Commission. (2007). High level group on multilingualism. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Even-Zohar, I. (1981). The emergence of a native Hebrew culture in Palestine: 1882–1948. Studies in Zionism, 2(2), 167–184. Fabricius, A. H., Mortensen, J., & Haberland, H. (2017). The lure of internationalization: Paradoxical discourses of transnational student mobility, linguistic diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Higher Education, 73(4), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9978-3 Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2020). The university and the global knowledge society. Princeton University Press. Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2021). Introduction: The tension between monolingualism and multilingualism. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam University Press. George Mwangi, C. A., Latafat, S., Hammond, S., Kommers, S., Thoma, H. S., Berger, J., & Blanco-Ramirez, G. (2018). Criticality in international higher education research: A critical discourse analysis of higher education journals. Higher Education, 76(6), 1091–1107. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0259-9 Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. British Council. Halperin, L. (2013, January 18). Hebrew U. embraces English: A vote to officially allow English at the Jerusalem institution of a longer history of Zionist concessions. Tablet. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/hebrewuniversity-embraces-english

94

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Hebrew University. (2014). Brand manual. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://brand.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/brand/files/huji_brand_ book.pdf Hebrew University. (2021). Teaching policy and procedures 2020/21. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://en.studentsadmin.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/studentsadmin.en/files/ takanon_-2021_-english.pdf Hladchenko, M. (2016). The organizational identity of Ukrainian universities as claimed through their mission statements. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13583883.2016.1236144 Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2014). Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding: Toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.9 Jenkins, J. (2019). The internationalization of higher education: But what about its lingua franca? In K. Murata (Ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective: Exploring the higher education context (pp. 15–31). Routledge. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. CBIE Research, No. 7. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED549823.pdf Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400071 Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95(Fall), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.95.10715 Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between mission and market position: Empirical findings on mission statements of German higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.617466 Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference: Analyzing institutional and organizational specificities of universities through mission statements. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015. 1006013 Kosmützky, A., & Putty, R. (2016). Transcending borders and traversing boundaries: A systematic review of the literature on transnational, offshore, cross-border, and borderless higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 8–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315315604719 Kuenssberg, S. (2011). The discourse of self-presentation in Scottish university mission statements. Quality in Higher Education, 17(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.625205 Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444817000350 Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blakledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 439–453). Routledge. Maoz, L. (2016). Internationalism in higher education. International students in Israel: Suggestions for policy. Prepared for the Israel Council for Higher Education. Maringe, F., Foskett, N., & Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.746548 Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press. Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., & Drori, G. S. (2021). World-rank and/or locally relevant?: Organizational identity in the mission statements of higher education organizations in Israel, 2008–2018. Minerva, 59(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09414-5

5

Internationalization Between Strategy and Ethos. . .

95

Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., & Drori, G. S. (2022). Ivory tower or tower of babel?: The challenge of multilingualism for the globally embedded university. Higher Education, 85, 1–23. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-022-00894-w Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00221546.2006.11778934 Oberg, A., Drori, G. S., & Delmestri, G. (2018). Where history, visuality, and identity meet: Institutional paths to visual diversity among organizations. In M. A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos, & D. Jancsary (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Multimodality, meaning and institutions (Vol. 54B, pp. 71–99). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2017000054B003 Oertel, S., & Söll, M. (2017). Universities between traditional forces and modern demands: The role of imprinting on the missions of German universities. Higher Education, 73(1), 1–18. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0013-0 Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (2008). Mission statements in US colleges of business: An empirical examination of their content with linkages to configurations and performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 454–470. Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275821 Phillips, N., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Language, cognition and institutions: Studying institutionalization using linguistic methods. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 392–417). SAGE. Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (Vol. 3, pp. 19–42). De Gruyter Mouton. Piekkari, R., Tietze, S., & Koskinen, K. (2020). Metaphorical and interlingual translation in moving organizational practices across languages. Organization Studies, 41(9), 1311–1332. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840619885415 Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5 Ram, D. (2015). Challenges for Hebrew in higher education and research environments. In F. X. Vila & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language policy in higher education: The case of medium-sized languages (pp. 103–131). Multilingual Matters. Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343 Safran, W. (2005). Language and nation-building in Israel: Hebrew and its rivals. Nations and Nationalism, 11(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2005.00191.x Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R., & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782284 Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2019). Factors affecting the content of universities’ mission statements: An analysis of the United Kingdom higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1349743 Shekel, A. (2012). The Hebrew University rebranding case study. Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem. Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2019). International students from the diaspora and higher education in Israel. National Resilience, Politics and Society, 1(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.26351/NRPS/1-2/3 Solovova, O., Santos, J., & Veríssimo, J. (2018). Publish in English or perish in Portuguese: Struggles and constraints on the semiperiphery. Publications, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10. 3390/publications6020025 Stearns, J. M., & Borna, S. (1998). Mission statements in business higher education: Issues and evidence. Higher Education Management, 10(1), 89–104. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ568857 Stensaker, B. (2015). Organizational identity as a concept for understanding university dynamics. Higher Education, 69(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9763-8

96

R. Mizrahi-Shtelman and G. S. Drori

Stevens, M. L., & Giebel, S. (2020). The paradox of the global university. In S. Rider, M. A. Peters, M. Hyvönen, & T. Besley (Eds.), World class universities: A contested concept (pp. 123–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7598-3_9 Stroumsa, S. (2013). Hebrew and English in the research universities in Israel. The Hebrew, 61, 1–8. (in Hebrew). Taylor, B. J., & Morphew, C. C. (2010). An analysis of baccalaureate college mission statements. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9162-7 Tight, M. (2021). Globalization and internationalization as frameworks for higher education research. Research Papers in Education, 36(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522. 2019.1633560 Trahar, S. (2017). “Learning to see the person, not the culture or the faith”: Critical reflections on internationalizing higher education in Israel. European Education, 49(4), 276–292. https://doi. org/10.1080/10564934.2017.1344863 Valdera Gil, F., & Crichton, H. (2020). Mother tongue plus two languages: Are Scottish primary teachers confident to deliver? Language Learning Journal, 48(4), 454–468. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09571736.2018.1448430 Waterman, S. (2018). Hebrew in the daily life of Israelis. In S. D. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), Handbook of the changing world language map (pp. 1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-73400-2_125-1 Williams, D. G., & Stelma, J. (2022). Epistemic outcomes of English medium instruction in a south Korean higher education institution. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 453–469. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2049227 Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization under intractable conflict: The influence of national conflict on Israeli higher education institutions’ internationalization efforts. European Education, 49(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2017.1392249 Young, R. B. (2001). Colleges on the cross roads: A study of the mission statements of Catholic colleges and universities. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 21(2), 65–81.

Chapter 6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege Marijk van der Wende

Introduction During the past decades, the internationalization of higher education has been spurred by increasing openness. Countries opened their territorial and administrative borders, consequently, higher-education systems gradually opened up, allowing growing mobility of students, researchers, scientific knowledge, data, and funding, thus creating optimal conditions for universities to enlarge their resource basis in terms of both human and financial capital, to compete, to collaborate, as well as to address global challenges and to contribute to the global common or public good. Universities are seen as core institutions of an open society, a condition and foundation for open, democratic, fair and sustainable societies, by nurturing human talent and independent knowledge creation and dissemination (EU, 2022a; Utrecht University, 2021). They increasingly subscribe to the principles of open science as a way to conduct research in open connection with society. However, openness cannot any longer be taken for granted in the changing geo-political context. Rising geo-political tensions, security concerns, and illiberal trends jeopardize institutional autonomy, academic freedom and potentially weaken universities’ ability to fulfill their role as described. The question “How open can it be?” addresses the growing tensions between openness, institutional autonomy, academic freedom and (national/European) security interests and looks at how in open systems the national capacity (sovereignty) to coordinate higher education may be jeopardized.

M. van der Wende (✉) Utrecht University’s Faculty of Law, Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_6

97

98

M. van der Wende

The European Context: Paramount Openness Challenged Questions around openness are particularly relevant in the context of the European Union (EU), known as a strong proponent of open borders, open systems, and open science. However, it is uncertain at this point whether and how the EU will be able to sustain these principles and, in fact, to protect its higher-education sector in response to the growing tensions around as well as within the old continent and the challenges these pose to its internal cohesion. What can be the role of the EU, in relation to the Member States, and based on which competences will it be able and allowed to act? When speaking about the EU today (summer 2022), we may wonder where it ends and where it stands. In terms of where it ends, its borders are shifting indeed. Shortly after losing the UK as a Member State over Brexit in 2020, unexpected expansion eastward was announced in June 2022, by granting the status of candidate country to Ukraine and Moldovia - as well as Georgia as pending on specific priorities of the European Commission (EC) regarding its membership application - thus adding potentially three more countries to the list of five which already have such status.1 This was a clear and extremely rapid response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only 4 months before. With this new war, Europe’s borders are back. The idea of the world as a global village has already been suffering for several years, and Europe’s idea (l) of open borders – that is, opening internal borders without sufficiently protecting the external ones - has been called (and proven) naïve. Indeed, in Europe, too, we realize that borders in geographical/territorial, as well as political/ideological sense do exist and may be contested. What’s more, we see that European borders can be “bloody borders.”2 As to where the EU stands, at this point it seems to stand more united than perhaps expected in defending its values and its security. Member States were quickly united in their decisions to file economic sanctions against Russia in early March 2022, followed by a series of increasingly heavier packages since. This is remarkable for the EU, since foreign policy is not its strongest competence, mostly based on diplomacy and cooperation, but, for serious decisions, dependent on the agreement of all EU countries (EU, 2022b). Its economic competences (its mandate in trade, see below) are much stronger, and the sanctions on Russia are indeed mostly in this domain (economic sanctions, export control). As we will discuss below, these sanctions, and more broadly, the EU’s actions based on its trade mandate, are impacting higher education in Europe. In particular, they may affect institutional autonomy and academic freedom as key values and pillars for its role in a democratic

1

EU Candidate countries are: Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Potential candidates are: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (EC, 2022a). 2 This term was coined in Huntington (2000), referring to the clash between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. In the current conflict on Europe’s eastern border it could relate to Orthodox Christianity, fundamental to Russia’s history, revived after the fall of communism, as a basis of its Eurasian ideal and part of its ideological rage against the west. See also Snyder (2018).

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

99

and open society. Meanwhile, the EU is confronted with the fact that its values are externally not shared as widely as the Union may have thought, as well as with the challenge to sustain these values internally. How is it operating in this arena, with what consequences for its Member States and its higher-education sector?

Academic Values and Freedom Under Pressure Academic freedom is a fundamental right, as laid down in Article 13 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU): “the arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint and academic freedom shall be respected” (CFREU, 2012, Article 13). According to the Global Academic Freedom Index 2020, EU countries enjoy a relatively high level of academic freedom. However, it also shows that the EU is surrounded by countries with a somewhat or even substantially weaker level (AFi, 2020). It is more widely acknowledged that while academic freedom is fundamental to the quality of education and research, and is recognized in many official documents, it remains poorly understood, and is under attack in many places (Global Public Policy Institute, 2021). Empirical research provides evidence of the impact of illiberal trends on academic freedom, especially in countries not tightly linked to world society or liberal international order (Schofer et al., 2022). Such concerns led to the relaunch of the Magna Charta Universitatum, also in 2020. The document, initially signed in 1988 by rectors, gathered at the occasion of the nine-hundredth anniversary of Europe’s oldest university in Bologna, defines the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy (Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum, 2022a). At its tenth anniversary an observatory was installed to monitor the implementation of these principles, acknowledging that Europe had changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the new political situation of an open territory in which national borders were less and less important (Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum, 2022b). After a widely consulted review process, the 2020 version re-states that for universities “Academic freedom is their lifeblood; open enquiry and dialogue their nourishment” (Noorda, 2021). Research on values in the European Higher Education Area (Jungblut et al., 2020) confirms that the mean level of academic freedom has decreased across the EHEA in the last decade, especially in participating non-EU Member States, observing divergence rather than convergence with respect to key values. EUA, IAU, Scholars at Risk all report the same trend: the Old Continent faces rising populism and illiberal attitudes toward institutional autonomy and academic freedom. That this may also be the case within the EU was notably demonstrated by the case of Hungary against the Central European University (CEU) and its Academy of Sciences (Krull & Brunotte, 2021). The EU responded by triggering an Article 7 disciplinary procedure against Hungary for undermining democratic rules and breaching the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union. The European Parliament prompted a Recommendation in Defense of Academic Freedom, and the European Court of Justice ruled in 2020 that expelling the CEU

100

M. van der Wende

was incompatible with the CFREU’s articles on academic freedom and the WTO GATS provisions on the free movement of services (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2020). This ruling is seen as important case law, expected to set precedent in strengthening academic protections across Europe (van der Wende, 2021). Hence the importance of the 2020 Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research, signed by the relevant ministers of the EU Member States (and the EU Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth), stipulating the role and responsibility of their governments in the protection of freedom of scientific research. It underlines the importance of ethical standards and integrity and declares that academic freedom entails the right to share, disseminate and publish research results openly (Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research, 2020).

The EU’s Openness Revised These trends are obviously not what was hoped for in 1998/99 when at first four (the Sorbonne Declaration) and consequently 29 (the Bologna Declaration) European countries engaged in the process of creating the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), followed by the initiative on the European Research Area (ERA) in 2000. Both are considerable successes, leading to the world’s largest multi-country public spaces for higher education and research, including 28 EU countries (ERA) and even 49 EU and non-EU countries for the EHEA (as counted before Brexit and the suspension of Russia’s membership of EHEA upon its invasion of Ukraine). The EU supports them with massive budgets of over 30 billion euros for Erasmus+ and over 90 billion for Horizon Europe for 2021 to 2027. All of this was built on the EU’s ambitions to invest in higher education, research, and innovation, and its strategy of openness, which had always been situated as ‘a cornerstone’ in its ‘cooperation with the rest of the world’ (EC, 2021), as illustrated in 2014 by opening up the ERASMUS+ and Horizon2020 programs to the world. The introduction of Open Science followed in 2016. Quickly after, however, the EU’s openness was challenged by weakened multilateralism, resulting from the 2016 US elections and the Brexit referendum, by security threats felt from illiberal states such as China and Russia, and by what in fact seems to be a shifting globalization paradigm. A recent study on Eurasian relations in higher education (van der Wende et al., 2020) analyzed how Western globalization was based on the paradigm of openness: open borders, open (free) trade areas, open Internet, open innovation, open access, open science. This is underpinned by the liberal values of an open society, the great promises of an open Internet for liberal democracy, as much as by the (neo-)liberal logic for economic growth, but perhaps taking the inherent values of freedom, including academic freedom, and security (personal, national, and cyber) for granted. Meanwhile, especially China’s divergent value-mix was promoting an alternative globalization paradigm with preference for economic growth and security over openness and freedom (van der Wende, 2020, pp. 59–60).

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

101

The study demonstrated how the changing geo-politics, China’s rise in higher education and science research, and the growing tensions between the US–China resulted in a shift in EU–China relations. After an almost 30-year period of growing dialogue, partnership and increased openness in R&D and higher-education cooperation, the EU turned away from China as its “most important strategic partner” in 2018, labelling it only 1 year later as a “systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance” (Ibid., p. 11). These changing relationships between the US, China and the EU would have their impact on higher education and research collaboration. Consequently, the China–EU study delivered the question: “How open can it be” with respect to the EU’s global higher education and R&D strategies and with respect to Open Science in particular. In response to these geopolitical changes, the EU’s global strategy quickly shifted from “open to the world” to “strategic autonomy” (Council of the European Union, 2016). This concept, promoted by the then (2017) newly elected French President Emanuel Macron, is borrowed from security and defense policy and refers to the “capacity to act autonomously when and where necessary and with partners wherever possible” (Ibid., p. 2). It became part of the EU’s Global Strategy doctrine to improve its defense capabilities, including the setting up of a European Defense Fund in 2017, and central to the next European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, which started in 2019. This “geopolitical commission” saw the need to complement soft power (with typical instruments such as cultural and academic exchange) with a harder power dimension. It announced that collaboration should be regarded as a tool of union policy and that specific actions will be limited to Member States only if this serves the EU’s strategic interests. With these and other actions, the EU actually started to reduce its openness. Strategic autonomy was widened in 2020 to include technology, research and innovation (Borrell, 2020; van der Wende, 2022; Zubașcu, 2021) and developed even further in the aftermath of the Covid-19 crisis. Consecutive actions were taken to erect barriers for participation in EU research projects against Chinese and US companies to avoid unwanted knowledge and technology transfer (2020). Non-EU scientists, especially from non-associated countries, were to be excluded from sensitive Horizon projects; awareness grew of foreign interference in research, funding conditions and regulation on dual-use export controls were enhanced, including internal compliance requirements for universities (EU, 2021). A toolkit to help mitigate foreign interference in research and innovation was presented (EC, 2022c). These actions clearly put the EU’s openness, including its open access and science approach, and the conditions for international cooperation of universities in a different context and perspective..3 The EU’s acknowledged in 2021 (EC, 2021, p. 1) that

It should be noted that these measures are “country agnostic” vis-a-vis third countries. Not only China and Russia but the US may also be concerned, for instance in relation to its Big Tech companies. They are thus not only meant to protect universities against foreign interference by 3

102

M. van der Wende

the openness in cooperation that characterizes EU action is taking place in a transformed global environment. Other major science powers are now spending more on science than the EU as a percentage of gross domestic product, geopolitical tensions are rising and human rights and fundamental values such as academic freedom are being challenged. [. . . .] The EU should more assertively promote a level playing field and reciprocity to respect fundamental values and principles.

Protecting Autonomy, Freedom, and Security in the EU’s Multi-Level Governance Context Further analysis (van der Wende, 2022) indicates that the notion of a more assertive role of the EU was supported by Member States’ requests for it to level the global playing field for scientific cooperation, to protect knowledge dissemination against foreign interference from countries where academic freedom, research integrity, data security, and intellectual property rights would not be at EU standards, or in cases where it may be used also for military purposes (dual use), or infringe human rights. On their side, European universities, referring to the CFREU, had urged governments and public authorities to protect their autonomy and academic freedom, against illiberal threats from within as well as from outside (ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe, 2019). A call on the EU makes sense in relation to the CFREU as well as for its weight as a regulatory force in the global arena. But how could the EU actually respond given its rather limited competencies in higher education? Or could it perhaps use its more potent competencies in other domains? According to the Treaty on the Function of the EU (TFEU, 2012), one can identify three different levels of competences of the EU (2022b). For policy action in the field of education, the EU only has a (rather weak) supporting competence, meaning that the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the actions of EU member states (TFEU, art. 6). In the field of research, the EU has a (somewhat stronger) shared competence with the member states of the European Union. This means that the EU and the member states are both able to legislate and adopt legally binding acts (TFEU, art. 4). The EU has an exclusive competence in the area of ‘common commercial policy’ (trade policy) (TFEU, art. 3), which implies that the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts (Member States are able to do so themselves only if given the powers by the EU to implement these acts).4 Based on its (overall) subsidiarity principle, it could be

surveillance states, but also by threats from “surveillance capitalism”, regarding data that should be safeguarded in the public domain (see UWN, van der Wende, 2022; Maex & Bakker, 2022). 4 In addition, there are the special competencies of the EU where it can take measures to ensure that Member States coordinate their economic, social and employment policies at EU level, which include common foreign, defence, and security policy (EU, 2022a, b).

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

103

expected that it would only use its stronger competences; in case this would be more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. The recently enhanced EU regulation on dual-use export controls is an interesting example of how the EU is using its (strongest) exclusive trade competence,5 where it may affect areas where it only has (weaker) shared or supporting competences, namely in research and education, and where it could thus potentially interfere with the sovereignty of the Member States in these areas. Dual-use export control regulates the international transfer of items, including knowledge, which could serve both civilian and military purposes and was recently enhanced in the light of increased geo-political tensions. Recent research (Stalenhoef et al., 2022) is looking into its implications for research organizations, in particular universities and individual academics working therein, since the regulation may limit academic activity in the open dissemination of knowledge (both in teaching and research), when seen as posing security risks, and may consequently give rise to intricate tensions with the protection of academic freedom and the institutional autonomy of universities. This tension was acknowledged in the related guidance provided by the European Commission (EC, 2020): academic freedom is a fundamental right guaranteed by the CFREU, however, not exempting researchers and research organizations from complying with regulations that are established to safeguard the security interests of the EU and of its Member States. [Here] research disciplines within Science, Technology and Engineering are more likely to be affected by dual-use export controls than academic activities in Humanities, Social Sciences and Economics.

It should be noted in this respect that in principle no freedom is unlimited or absolute. The CFREU recognizes in this regard that (CFREU, 2012, art 52.1): Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

On this basis, the Dual-Use Regulation identifies the safeguarding of international and national security as a legitimate basis for restricting academic freedom.6 However, and on the basis of the same article, it is important that its essence be respected, restrictions be provided by law, and the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity be taken into account when curtailing academic freedom. Our study suggests that its impact on academic freedom would therefore depend on national implementation, since it is in the end up to their authorities to decide whether or not an export license is granted. Consequently, it will be important to see

5

Regulation (EU) No 2021/821 of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (recast) (EU, 2021). 6 Regulation (EU) No 2021/821 of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (recast) (EU, 2021, Recital 2).

104

M. van der Wende

the policies and rules adopted by the Member States concerning the practical consequences, especially in relation to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Variation can be expected here, because countries’ compliance with CFREU Art. 13, may vary. This was demonstrated before with respect to the case of Hungary. But there is wider group of countries (including Belgium, Cyprus, Poland, and the Netherlands) that were seen to be only in ‘partial compliance’ (Beiter et al., 2016). To illustrate: academic freedom is as such not anchored in the Dutch Constitution, but referred to in its Higher Education and Research Act (2022) (WHW article 1.6), stating “Academic freedom is respected at higher-education institutions and teaching hospitals.” Nevertheless, what should be understood as ‘academic freedom’ is not specified in this Act.7 The Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences attempted to address this lacuna in a report on academic freedom, where it was defined as “the principle that staff of academic institutions are free to perform their scientific research, disclose their findings and teach” (KNAW, 2021). Its modest aim was to provide an initial impetus for further exploration and discussion, without, however, seeking further grounding in CFREU or national legislation. The Netherlands, known for its open economy, open higher-education system, and strong advocacy of open science, but increasingly also aware of security risks, introduced National Knowledge Security Guidelines (2022). These refer to the legal frameworks provided by the EU dual-use regulation and by international sanction regimes, as well as to national codes of good practice and research integrity. It underlines that academic freedom and institutional autonomy are guaranteed in the Dutch Higher Education and Research Act, however, and, as mentioned, without further specification or definition (Ibid., p. 41). Similar security measures at a national level have recently been implemented in a range of other countries, including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the UK. In various contexts, the paradigm shift from openness to security led to concerns about university autonomy being at risk and threats to academic freedom (Myklebust, 2022a). Moreover, universities may be struggling with the related compliance requirements, which seem difficult to scope in terms of breadth, as they may also imply the obligation to exercise due diligence on possible human rights violations resulting from dual use exports (Myklebust, 2022b).8 Further research could shed light on how national authorities view the impact of these dual-use export-control regulations on universities in the light of the competences of the Union, on the one hand, and those of the Member States, on the other. In other words, it could explore a possible ‘competence creep’ in the area of education and research and look further into what has been called the EU’s “competencies conundrum” (Garben, 2015), also seen as regulating universities “through the backdoor.”

7 8

As is also the case in the CFREU (2012, art 13). For more details, see: Stalenhoef et al. (2022).

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

105

The different types of legal provisions for protecting security, on the one hand, and academic freedom, on the other, show the complexity of the multi-level governance context of the EU. At the same time, definitions of academic freedom tend to be vague and the ways in which it is, or should be, protected may vary across Member States, while the EU does not seem to have adequate competences in the relevant areas in order to effectively protect it. Weaknesses in this protection may thus occur, in line with increasing reporting that academic values are under pressure and academics are facing threats regarding their academic freedom from both state and non-state agents. A situation also acknowledged by the European Commission (EC, 2022b).

Tensions Between Freedom and Security: A Balancing Act? The above illustrates the challenges to openness as an enabling condition for universities to thrive in a global context, and it reveals the rising tensions between freedom and security. In a balancing act, the EU is seeking to find its way to “Open Strategic Autonomy.”9 On the one hand, regulating for security, while realizing that universities have to remain competitive on a worldwide scene, and, on the other, calling on Member States “to strengthen and respect university autonomy in its various dimensions and to promote and protect academic freedom and integrity.” Stressing that both “academic freedom and institutional autonomy are under pressure,” and that the former cannot be isolated from the latter (EC, 2022b, p. 3). As set out in the previous sections, academic freedom is a fundamental right and a core principle of the EU and as such is anchored in the CFREU; however, it is not directly supported by sufficient legal competencies at the EU level to actually protect it. It is therefore no surprise that the EC calls on the Member States in these matters. The politicized nature of this balancing act and the complexity of the EU’s multilevel governance context were further demonstrated upon the EU’s economic sanctions on Russia’s upon its invasion of Ukraine. The EU Commissioner responsible for research named it a threat to open research, stressing that: “European research and innovation programmes have a tradition of openness, but geopolitical changes put this at risk” and immediately banned Russia and Belarus from EU-funded research projects (O’Malley, 2022). This was quickly followed by a majority of Member States which included science and technology in their list of economic sanctions on Russia and consequently expected (or instructed) their universities to suspend collaboration with Russian universities. But despite the seemingly

9

The question mark in the headline refers to the debate on whether the tension between security and academic freedom should be considered as a balancing act at all. Various authors (e.g., Furedi, 2016, Chap. 9, and Fukuyama, 2022b) point in this respect to the threats to academic freedom coming from within (e.g., academic capitalism, postmodernism, illiberalism, intolerance for different views, cancel culture, woke, etc.

106

M. van der Wende

overwhelming consensus behind these decisions, questions were raised whether this was not questionable from an academic freedom and institutional autonomy perspective. Notably the Secretary General of the League of European Research Universities (LERU) challenged the EU’s capacity in this respect and commented10: The EU does not have a legal basis to protect universities against governments which violate the basic rules on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The European Court of Justice had to use the General Agreement on Trade in Services of the World Trade Organisation to act against Hungary because it had no other mechanism in place to punish the Hungarian government for forcing the Central European University to move from Budapest to Vienna. [. . . ..] Let’s clean up the situation in the EU first before preaching to the rest of the world.”

Whether, and under which circumstances, the EU, or even national governments, actually have the authority to command their universities to cut such ties (as with in this case Russian partners) is a discussion that also arose in various national rectors’ conferences, as it is seen to interfere with institutional autonomy. The Dutch universities eventually agreed with the formulation that they decided to freeze ties “[a]t the request of the government [. . .] while keeping opportunities open for peer-to-peer collaboration when appropriate,” thus upholding the principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom (Universities of the Netherlands, 2022a).11 Such careful consideration is not only legal in nature, but also in line with the first principle of the Magna Charta Universitatum (2022a), which states that “research and teaching must be intellectually and morally independent of all political influence and economic interests”. The case demonstrates how the EU is indeed using its exclusive trade mandate while attempting to balance freedom and security. The case also reveals how such measures can jeopardize our own fundamental principles and values. The risk of insufficiently respecting and protecting European values by taking measures that would infringe institutional autonomy and academic freedom and for which we criticize countries such as China, also emerged from the China–EU study referred to above. We are shooting ourselves in the foot and thus the call “to clean up the situation in the EU first before preaching to the rest of the world” seems justified. However, this requires action not only at the European or national levels; universities should also be aware of the risk that compliance with new security regulations may affect their integrity and the rights, wellbeing, and safety of their own academics (and other employees) and students. Compliance protocols should be in line with good governance, thus balanced with the rights of all parties involved, and accompanied by moral compass and counsel. Over-compliance and consequent risk avoidance for sensitive research areas or self-censorship should be eschewed.

10

LERU’s Secretary Genereal, Kurt de Ketelaere (March 2022) quoted in Zubașcu (2022). This was after a letter was published by the Russian Union of Rectors backing the Kremlin’s official line on Ukraine, which was a turning point also for other rectors conferences in Europe, as well as the EUA (Universities of the Netherlands, 2022a). 11

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

107

Protecting Values in a Free Trade Context: GATS Back on Stage? Further research in this area will be undertaken, guided by the question: How can the university, its institutional autonomy and associated duty to protect academic freedom, be uphold and enhanced in a world in which openness is being challenged and the core values of an open society are under siege?12 More specifically, its legal-policy dimension will focus on what role and responsibilities institutions at various levels of governance in the EU (European Commission, Council, Member States) have in this respect and how these are divided and coordinated. Is the EU sufficiently equipped to protect the university, its institutional autonomy, and in particular academic freedom as it is enshrined in the CFREU (2012, article 13), against both internal and external threats? As discussed above, the ECJ ruling on the case of the Hungarian government against the CEU was partly based on this article and is considered important case law, which is hoped to strengthen academic protections across Europe. It is certainly relevant in this respect, but it was also based on WTO trade law, and this may thus bring GATS back on the higher-education stage at the same time. We already heard about GATS in higher education around 2000, when the US proposed bringing higher education as a tradable service under GATS (to be negotiated under the Doha Round). This idea was strongly rejected, especially in Europe, where higher education was not seen a tradable service, but as a public good (van Vught et al., 2002; Vlk et al., 2008). Yet we now see the trade context for higher education coming back, after all, for ruling against foreign infringement, in export control, as part of economic sanctions, and – who knows – for a post-Brexit agreement in higher education between the UK and the EU. It would fit the EU’s “Open Strategic Autonomy” concept by which it aims to advance EU values through EU trade agreements and internal regulations (and reform the WTO). But how will it be received by the European higher-education sector this time around?

Openness Challenged from Within The trends discussed in the previous sections, mainly concerned pressure on the EU’s openness as coming from outside, and how this is urging the EU to stand together more than perhaps expected beforehand. However, external factors are not the only threat to open systems and open borders. The EU’s openness is also being challenged from within.

Research on “Openness Challenged: The University at Risk?” will be undertaken as part of Utrecht University’s strategic research theme “Institutions for Open Societies” and will also include a historical and educational dimension (Institutions of Open Societies, 2022). 12

108

M. van der Wende

Open borders and students’ rights as EU citizens to study in any EU country under the same conditions as nationals of that country have greatly supported internationalization in terms of the much-desired student exchange (or short-term credit mobility). However, it has also generated, upon the implementation of the Bologna Process, increasingly uneven flows of degree students, which may represent a burden for especially small and mostly publicly funded higher-education systems. I have theorized these challenges for open higher-education systems by combining Ansell’s (2010) higher-education trilemma (cost, quality, and access) with Rodrik’s (2017) globalization trilemma (globalization, democracy, and national sovereignty), illustrating the consequent challenges for effectively steering open higher-education systems, with potentially the fueling of neo-nationalism and antiinternationalization trends (van der Wende, 2021, 2022; see also Bovens, 2020, p. 11). Based on insights from system theory, it postulates that when (social) systems are positioned openly to their (global) environment, internal conditions may be affected by the flows across the system’s boundaries. If there is a need to achieve or maintain a desirable condition (balance) within the system, it is necessary to control or manage the flows across its boundaries. In maintaining an equilibrium in a highereducation system, governments face the well-known trilemma of balancing access, cost, and quality. In open higher-education systems, governments also face the “globalization trilemma,” balancing national sovereignty, (hyper) globalization, and democracy. In an open higher-education system, these two trilemmas thus interact, implying that achieving or maintaining an equilibrium is a complex task, because the national steering capacity (sovereignty), needed to balance access with the costs and quality of higher education, is being reduced. This is especially the case in the EU, where students’ rights (free mobility) are not necessarily in line with the legal instruments of national or regional authorities, or higher-education institutions, to regulate the consequent cross-border flows. This makes especially open systems in smaller countries with attractive, i.e., high-quality, affordable, and internationalized higher-education provisions vulnerable to antiinternationalization and neo-nationalist trends. Such trends can be found in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and were also part of the turn away from the EU context by the UK and Switzerland.13 Ministers are then caught between national goals for economic growth requiring highly skilled immigrants for R&D performance and other labor-market demands, on the one hand, and pressures from nationalist-populist parties, emphasizing national identity, cultural traditions and the national language, on the other. In such polarization, universities in turn can become easy targets of populist critique on internationalization as “elitist cosmopolitanism” and other anti-globalization discourse promoting higher education as a welfare state arrangement “for our own

13 Not an EU or EEA member, but previously connected to EU programs such as ERASMUS and Horizon.

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

109

citizens first.” A kind of discourse that may also find buy-in from within universities among both students and academics. In the Netherlands, this situation has become problematic: data for 2021/22 show that almost a quarter of all higher-education students and even 40% of freshmen in research universities are internationals (CBS, 2022). Especially the total number of international students from Europe has surged in recent years (to 76% of all internationals in 2021/22). This is likely in part a post-Brexit effect, although the number of German students (the largest group) remained mostly stable around 25,000 for more than a decade. EU students pay fees equal to those for domestic students and thus require an equal amount of governmental funding.14 The overall higher-education budget has been increased but did not keep pace with the actual growth in enrolment, and thus the per capita funding has decreased by some 20% over the last two decades (Universities of the Netherlands, 2022b). Consequently, quality is at stake. This case clearly demonstrates how the internal equilibrium can become disturbed in an open system. Despite various calls for more control and pressure from across the political spectrum (legislative proposals to make Education in Dutch compulsory gained a majority in Parliament), both the government and the universities failed so far to find sustainable solutions.15 Reluctance to further regulate admissions, which would affect Dutch as much as any other EU applicant, or to reduce teaching in English (about one third of bachelor and three quarters of master programs are taught in English at Dutch research universities (Nuffic, 2022), result in continued and ucontrollable growth of universities – some of them, as it seems, unwillingly attaining sizes of over 40,000 to 50,000 students, far beyond their capacity to keep teaching quality and research performance in balance, with mounting complaints about work pressure as a consequence. With this, not only the system is out of control, a number of Dutch leading research universities are as well. Besides opposing political stances, the public debate around these problems seems to be suffering from confusion regarding the costs and benefits of international students. One criticism is that the aspiration that universities would attract international students for income collapses, given the negative trend in per capita funding sketched above. Even those (non-EU) who pay full fees can hardly be seen as cash cows, considering the substantive costs of developing and running bilingual programs and campuses, or even switching completely to English, with consequences for also all administrative staff, administrative processes, and campus arrangements. This in contrast with English-speaking countries where international students can be enrolled on a marginal cost basis. Economic arguments concerning their contribution to the Dutch economy need to be refined with respect to fields of study; demand for STEM graduates is more substantial than for those from SSH fields. Specification of numbers relevant for undergraduate and graduate levels are

14

Annual fee for EU students was 2143€ p.a. in 2021, governmental funding per student around 15,000€ for the same year. Non EU/EEA students pay in principle full fees. 15 They were halted by Senate and withdrawn by a new Minister after elections in 2021.

110

M. van der Wende

often lacking. This situation is unhelpful given the Dutch political context where anti-immigration, nationalist and anti-EU discourse is never far away, not only at the national level, but also locally where shortages in student housing are worsened by the strong influx of international students. This is an argument easily used against them by certain student parties. Our theory demonstrated why restoring equilibrium in an open system is complex, but this is not an excuse for ignoring or neglecting the consequences of uncontrolled growth when quality, work pressure, and the role of universities in their society is at stake. At the same time, the benefits of an open system and internationalization are essential for the sector (around 40% of its faculty is international, with peaks between 50–70% at the PhD level in STEM) and proper to the history and character of the country and should be cherished. Hence, the government and institutions should face the situation as a shared responsibility to adjust the conditions for admission and student enrolment to the characteristics of an open system. These problems may also occur in other small and open systems, as was recently reported from Norway (not an EU but EEA country, where students basically enjoy the same rights as in the EU). Here, too, the question whether universities can have too much internationalization is on the table, although the situation is less unbalanced than in the Netherlands. The University of Oslo thus reported some 15% international students, and the in- and outgoing flows of students seem to be more balanced. Nevertheless, internationalization at Norwegian universities is seen as to have reached a tipping point, and here, too, the argument of protecting the national language against the influx of English as the lingua franca tends to add fuel to an already heated debate. It focuses on tension between the university as a central institution in the nation state and the inherently international character of its main functions. Especially when international professors are in the majority, academia’s role in serving society and contributing to democracy would be jeopardized (Gornitzka and Stolen, 2021). This brings us back to the beginning of our chapter: universities as core institutions of an open and democratic society. Does openness put that role at risk? From an EU perspective, the social role of universities and the notion of citizenship are not bound to national borders (EC, 2022b, p. 1, 10): Excellent and inclusive universities are a condition and foundation for open, democratic, fair and sustainable societies as well as sustained growth, entrepreneurship and employment. [. . . .] Universities are key to promote active citizenship, tolerance, equality and diversity, openness and critical thinking for more social cohesion and social trust, and thus protect European democracies. Universities have an active role to play in preparing graduates to be well-informed European citizens. By teaching and awareness raising actions, they support anchoring European values in society.

The question is precisely what values are meant here, since “European values” vary across countries, communities, and generations within the EU (Atlas of European Values, 2022). Given the current divergence and tensions, open borders could therefore both contribute to as well as challenge this aim. At the same time, the overall context should be clear: “Europe needs thriving universities to contribute

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

111

implementing the European Union political agenda, as they cut across many different key initiatives taken recently for recovery and resilience” (Ibid., p. 1). It can be said that internal differences or tensions between a national and European levels and roles are part and parcel of the European project, which is based on democratic values after all (despite the democratic deficits seen in the functioning of the Union itself). Yet beyond that, universities are also expected to address global challenges and to contribute to the global common or public good. Tensions seem to be on the rise there as well. Especially their ambitions for global reputation have been criticized for “jeopardizing universities’ national mission and relevancy in the societies that give them life and purpose” (Douglass, 2016). Others have called them “footloose cosmopolitan academic jet sets” (Bovens, 2016). Universities seem torn between two lovers: the nation state as the main provider of legitimacy and resources, on the one hand, and the open European and wider international space for additional opportunity and relevance, on the other. An open system ideally combines these two, but as this chapter has illustrated, maintaining with openness also their internal equilibrium – and thus the legitimacy of their universities as providers of public good – requires a careful and complex balancing act. The fragility of open systems cannot be denied in this respect, especially in a changing global context in which liberalism and democracy have not been embraced as widely as once expected by the West. Or when in fact liberal democracy is in decline and the core values of an open society are increasingly under siege. We shall see whether and how open systems will stand, with the EU as their particular testing bed. Will it be more EU, a return of the nation state, or should the “logic” of open systems be revised? (See further, van der Wende, 2022, pp. 35–36). With a view to the complexity of the combined trilemmas, the globalization trilemma in particular as it entails the risk of reducing national sovereignty, as a condition to control internal redistribution of higher education as a welfare-state arrangement (Ibid, p. 25). That could meet Fukuyama’s (2022a) turn to the argument that the national state is inescapable with respect to the social contract with its people whose liberal rights, even though they may be universal, are meaningless if they cannot be enforced by a state. And thus, that liberalism needs the nation, after all.16 He acknowledges the tension between national identity and liberal universalism and holds that a liberal state is perfectly justified in granting different levels of rights to citizens and non-citizens, because it does not have the resources or the legal powers to protect rights universally. We noted the complexity of this principle in the EU context, where such differentiation is basically not allowed and levelling the rights of EU students becomes a daunting task if this implies the weakening of domestic privileges. Fukuyama (2022b) sees the EU, which was created as an antidote to the nationalism

16

A turn to liberal nationalism also emerges in recent work by Nussbaum (2019), seeking a middle way between the nation state as a practical site for realizing cosmopolitan goals and the largest unit to play a fundamental moral role for human autonomy.

112

M. van der Wende

that led to twentieth-century world conflicts, in that respect as a success beyond all hopes. However, acknowledging that liberalism may be at a crossroads with Russia’s invasion in Ukraine. This war is a clear sign that the post-WWII global liberal order, with which the rise and success of open systems was strongly intertwined, has become fragile. Illiberal trends affect higher education, possibly driving it into more nationalist or instrumentalist directions (Schofer et al., 2022). The debate on the role of the nation state has been re-opened. The EU is at the test for protecting the values of open systems.

References Academic Freedom Index (AFi). (2020). Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from Academic Freedom – V-Dem ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe. (2019). Academic freedom and institutional autonomy: Commitments must be followed by action, joint statement by ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe. Accessed on 12 Aug 2022, from https://eua.eu/downloads/content/academic%20freedom%20 statement%20april%202019.pdf Ansell, B. W. (2010). From the ballot to the blackboard: The redistributive political economy of education. Cambridge University Press. Atlas of European Values. (2022). Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/ education-dissemination-publications/evs-publications/atlas-of-european-values-album/ Beiter, K. D., Karran, T., & Appliagyei-Atua, K. (2016). Academic Freedom and its protection in the law of European states; measuring an international human right. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 3(3), 254–345. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00303001 Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research. (2020). Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/shareddocs/downloads/files/_drp-efr-bonner_erklaerung_en_withsignatures_maerz_2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Borrell, J. (2020, December 3). Why European strategic autonomy matters: Blogpost by the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and European Commission vice-president. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/why-european-strategicautonomy-matters_en?s=171 Bovens, M. (2016, November 8). Er is een gevaar dat universiteiten zich loszingen van de rest van de samenleving. DUB. Accessed on 5 Dec 2022, from https://dub.uu.nl/nl/achtergrond/%E2% 80%98er-een-gevaar-dat-universiteiten-zich-loszingen-van-de-rest-van-de-samenleving%E2% 80%99 Bovens, M. (2020). The open society and its challenges. In M. Bovens & M. Düwell (Eds.) The open society and its future (pp. 5–11). IOS Think Paper Series, 1. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/IOS%20Think%20Paper%20Series%20%231.pdf CBS. (2022). 40 percent international first-year students at Dutch universities. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/11/40-percent-international-first-year-stu dents-at-dutch-universities CFREU. (2012). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Accessed on 21 Aug 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2012/326/02 Council of the European Union. (2016, November 14). Council conclusions on implementing the EU global strategy in the area of security and Defence. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https:// www.consilium.europa.eu/media/22459/eugs-conclusions-st14149en16.pdf Court of Justice of the European Union. (2020). Judgment in Case C-66/18 Commission v Hungary. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202010/cp200125en.pdf

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

113

Douglass, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500496 EU. (2021). Regulation (EU) No 2021/821 of 20 May 2021 for control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items. Official Journal of the European Union, L2016/1. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0821&from=EN European Commission (EC). (2020). EU compliance guidance for research involving dual-use items (draft version for Targeted Consultation). Accessed on 1 Sept 2020, from https://trade.ec. europa.eu/consultations/documents/consul_183.pdf European Commission (EC). (2021). Communication on the global approach to research and innovation Europe’s strategy for international cooperation in a changing world. COM(2012) 252 final. Accessed on 7 Aug 2021, from ec_rtd_com2021-252.pdf (europa.eu) European Commission (EC). (2022a). Commission communication on a European strategy for universities (No. COM(2022) 16 final). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://education. ec.europa.eu/document/commission-communication-on-a-european-strategy-for-universities European Commission (EC). (2022b). Candidate countries and potential candidates. Accessed on August 5, 2022, from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm#:~:text=Albania %2C%20the%20Republic%20of%20North,possible%20request%20for%20transition%20 periods European Commission (EC). (2022c). Commission publishes a toolkit to help mitigate foreign interference in research and innovation. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://research-andinnovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/commission-publishes-toolkithelp-mitigate-foreign-interference-research-and-innovation-2022-01-18_en European Union (EU). (2022a). Division of competences within the European Union. Accessed on 21 Aug 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/division-of-compe tences-within-the-european-union.html European Union (EU). (2022b). Foreign and security policy. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https:// european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/foreign-and-security-policy_ en#:~:text=The%20EU%27s%20joint%20foreign%20and,in%20the%20EU%27s%20interna tional%20role Fukuyama, F. (2022a). Liberalism and its discontents. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fukuyama, F. (2022b, March 17). Academia shares blame for demise of liberalism. Times Higher Education. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/ francis-fukuyama-academia-shares-blame-demise-liberalism Furedi, F. (2016). What’s happened to the university?: A sociological exploration of its infantilisation. Routledge. Garben, S. (2015). Confronting the competence conundrum: Democratising the European Union through an expansion of its legislative lowers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1), 55–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu021 Global Public Policy Institute. (2021). Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.gppi. net/2021/03/11/free-universities#:~:text=The%20Academic%20Freedom%20Index%20is,fur ther%20contribute%20to%20such%20debates Gornitzka, Å., & Stolen, S. (2021, October 16). Can universities have too much internationalisation? University World News. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20211013103911307a Higher Education and Research Act. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek - BWBR0005682 (overheid.nl) (Dutch version only). Huntington, S. P. (2000). The clash of civilizations? In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 99–118). Palgrave Macmillan. Institutions for Open Societies. (2022). Openness challenged: The university at risk?. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/en/research/institutions-for-open-societies/interdisciplin ary-research/academic-foundations/openness-challenged-the-university-at-risk

114

M. van der Wende

Jungblut, J., Maassen, P., & Elken, M. (2020). Quo Vadis EHEA: Balancing structural continuation and political variety. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 391–415). Springer. KNAW (2021). Summary. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-0 5/20210217-summary-webversie-advies-Academische-vrijheid.pdf Krull, W., & Brunotte, T. (2021). Turbulent times: Intellectual and institutional challenges for universities in Germany, Hungary and Poland. In J. A. Douglass (Ed.), Neo-nationalism and universities: Populists, autocrats, and the future of higher education (pp. 92–116). Johns Hopkins Press. Maex, K., & Bakker, M. (2022). The university in the age of platforms and algorithms. In A. M. Cauce, Y. Flückiger, & B. van der Zwaan (Eds.), Universities as the fifth power?: Opportunities, risks and strategies (pp. 39–51). Glion Book. Myklebust, J. P. (2022a, July 4). Research security rules: Is university autonomy at risk?. University World News. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20220531144822860 Myklebust, J. P. (2022b, July 18). Universities say new rules will hurt international research. University World News. Accessed on 21 Aug 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=2022071815404711 National Knowledge Security Guidelines. (2022). Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://open. overheid.nl/repository/ronl-5379d1b4f8b9784bf518251032507a965be9c92d/1/pdf/National% 20Knowledge%20Security%20Guidelines.pdf Noorda, S. (2021). A new Magna Charta Universitatum. International Higher Education, 107(Summer), 5–6. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14551 Nuffic. (2022). Incoming degree mobility in Dutch higher education 2021–22. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.nuffic.nl/sites/default/files/2022-04/Incoming-degree-mobility-inDutch-higher-education-2021-22.pdf Nussbaum, M. C. (2019). The cosmopolitan tradition. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. O’Malley, B. (2022, March 5). European Union halts scientific cooperation with Russia. University World News. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20220305125136996 Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum. (2022a). Magna Charta 1988. Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://www.magna-charta.org/magna-charta-universitatum/mcu-1988 Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum. (2022b). History. Accessed on 7 Aug from https://site. unibo.it/magna-charta/en/magna-charta-universitatum/history Rodrik, D. (2017). Populism and the economics of globalization. Harvard University Press. Schofer, E., Lerch, J. C., & Meyer, J. W. (2022). Illiberal reactions to higher education. Minerva, 60(December), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09472-x Snyder, T. (2018). The road to unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books. Stalenhoef, C., Kanetake, M., & van der Wende, M. (2022). The implications of the EU’s dual-use export control regulation 2021/821 for universities and academics. RENFORCE Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4248860 TFEU. (2012). Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (C 326/ 47). Official Journal of the European Union. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF Universities of the Netherlands. (2022a). Dutch knowledge institutions suspend partnerships with Russia and Belarus. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www.universiteitenvannederland. nl/en_GB/nieuws-detail.html/nieuwsbericht/828-p-strong-hulp-aan-oekra-iuml-ense-russischeen-belarussische-studenten-en-medewerkers-aan-nederlandse-universiteiten-strong-p Universities of the Netherlands. (2022b). Quality of education and research under pressure from drop in funding per student. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://www. universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/drop-in-government-funding

6

How Open Can It Be? The Promise of Open Systems and Open Science Under Siege

115

Utrecht University. (2021). Contributing to the future of open societies IOS plan 2022–2025 (p. 8). Accessed on 7 Aug 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/IOS%20plan%202022-202 5.pdf van der Wende, M. (2020). EU–China cooperation along the new silk road: A balanced approach towards common goals? In M. van der Wende, W. C. Kirby, N. C. Liu, & S. Marginson (Eds.), China and Europe on the new silk road: Connecting universities across Eurasia (pp. 33–66). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003.0003 van der Wende, M. (2021). Neo-nationalism and universities in Europe. In J. Douglass (Ed.), Neonationalism and universities: Global perspectives on politics and policy and the future of higher education (pp. 117–140). Johns Hopkins University Press. van der Wende, M. (2022). Open systems in a changing global context. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), A research agenda for global higher education (pp. 19–41). Edward Elgar. van der Wende, M., Marginson, S., Liu, N. C., & Kirby, W. C. (2020). Introduction: China’s rise and the new silk road in global context. In M. van der Wende, W. C. Kirby, N. C. Liu, & S. Marginson (Eds.), China and Europe on the new silk road: Connecting universities across Eurasia (pp. 1–17). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003. 0001 van Vught, F. A., van der Wende, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2002). Globalisation and internationalisation: Policy agendas Ccompared. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 103–121). Kluwer. Vlk, A., Westerheijden, D., & van der Wende, M. (2008). GATS and the steering capacity of a nation state in higher education: Case studies of The Czech Republic and The Netherlands. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14767720701855584 Zubașcu, F. (2021, June 29). EU rewrites rulebook on science and technology cooperation with the rest of the world. Science|Business. Accessed on 28 Aug 2022, from https://sciencebusiness.net/ technology-strategy-board/news/eu-rewrites-rulebook-science-and-technology-cooperationrest-world Zubașcu, F. (2022, March 10). New EU rules for international research already outpaced by shifting geopolitics, critics say. Science|Business. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https:// sciencebusiness.net/news/new-eu-rules-international-research-already-outpaced-shifting-geo politics-critics-say#:~:text=The%20European%20Court%20of%20Justice,move%20from%20 Budapest%20to%20Vienna

Chapter 7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate the Ambiguous Terrain Between Political Constraints and Aspirations of a Desirable Life Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and Karen Valentin

Introduction A growing body of research has established that international student migration is not merely a question of pursuing an education abroad and returning to one’s country of origin with a foreign diploma (e.g., Collins et al., 2017; Findlay et al., 2017). Rather, post-graduate trajectories are dynamic and multifaceted and seldom fit into a classic ‘stay and return’ model (Geddie, 2010; Tan & Hugo, 2017). Many attempt to settle down after graduation or move on to new destinations. Opportunities for settlement of international students, however, vary widely from country to country depending on, among others, current demands for a highly educated labour force, immigration policies and, more broadly, dominant political climates (Hawthorne, 2018). Denmark provides an interesting case in this regard because of its ambiguous approach to the recruitment of international students. In the mid-2000s, the Danish government made deliberate attempts to attract more international students in order to secure a highly qualified future workforce (CIRIUS, 2007). In 2018, despite a declared need for both low- and high-skilled labour, the number of places allocated for international students was reduced significantly. Meanwhile, over the past two decades, immigration policies have been consistently tightened, making permanent settlement in Denmark a difficult goal to achieve, especially for those coming from countries outside the European Union (EU). Consequently, and despite Danish

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg (✉) Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] K. Valentin Department of Educational Anthropology, School of Education, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_7

117

118

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

employers’ cry for qualified foreign labour, many international graduates have difficulty getting a foothold on the labour market. The EU/non-EU divide is indeed powerful in determining human movement in today’s world, both when it comes to the imaginaries of young people seeking an education abroad, the possibilities for realising such aspirations and the prospects for settling down in particular localities after graduation. There is by now ample scholarly evidence that this is further reinforced by the so-called Global North/ South divide and that the mobilities of young people from postcolonial countries are generally more restricted, not just in legal and economic terms, but also due to racialisation and differential academic credential systems that make some students from some countries of more ‘worth’ (Brooks & Waters, 2011). While it is hard to refute the fundamentally different and uneven conditions that structure human movement, there is also a set of common experiences that tie together student migrants as a category of newcomers to Denmark, irrespective of their national origin. These relate not just to the uncertainties of the immigration bureaucracy, limited access to the labour market and financial constraints, but also to their ability to form social networks, excitements of seeing new places and long-term ambitions. In practice, thus, migration trajectories are shaped not just by dominant mobility regimes (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013), but also through everyday negotiations played out by different groups of mobile subjects (Yeoh & Huang, 2011), in this case international students. Through the lens of the education-migration nexus (Robertson, 2013) and based on ethnographic data collected over a period of 7 years (2013–2020), this chapter addresses post-graduation mobility, imagined and practised, among non-EU/EEA student migrants in Denmark.1 While the category of non-EU/EEA students includes a wide range of people and nationalities, positioned differently in the global economy, they are covered by the same legal regulations when they come to Denmark. Unlike EU/EEA and Swiss students, who are entitled to free higher education and who can stay and work in Denmark under the EU regulation on freedom of movement, non-EU/EEA students need a student residence permit. At the same time, compared to EU/EEA students, they have very different prerequisites – economically, socially and academically – for enrolling in an educational programme and for establishing themselves on the Danish labour market upon graduation. Meanwhile, young people from across the world have continued to come to Denmark for their studies, settled temporarily and anchored themselves socially in ways that may have been essential for postgraduate life, even if this sometimes takes unexpected turns. While many students express a keen interest in staying in Denmark after completing their studies, they are used to orienting themselves towards and navigating increasingly globalised education and labour markets. This opens pathways that many may not have foreseen, whether this involves moving across the Atlantic, to a provincial town in Denmark or back home to their country of origin;

1

Higher education in Denmark is also free for students from the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland.

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

119

and whether to find work related to their field of education, enrol in a new educational programme or take up unskilled work in an entirely different field. The aim of this chapter, thus, is to explore how student migrants navigate between political constraints and aspirations of establishing a desirable life – from their initial choice of study destination to their gradual engagement in Danish society during their studies and the choices they eventually make upon graduation. A focus on a wide range of students from different countries outside EU/EEA, across the global North/South divide, opens for a more nuanced understanding of student migration that focuses not just on differential access to particular destinations and unequal positions in global hierarchies, but also on commonalities and shared experiences in everyday contexts. It thereby allows us to transcend dominant representations of student migrants from South to North, East to West or North to North as fundamentally different from each other and instead draw attention to the common human ability to confront and navigate new and unknown worlds (Grønseth, 2013).

Intersecting Mobilities in Student Migration: Analytical Framework With its focus on post-graduate mobilities among non-EU/EEA students in Denmark, the chapter speaks into the vast and overlapping research fields of student mobility and highly skilled migration, in particular the scholarship that addresses the uneven conditions characterising internationalisation of higher education and related forms of education-related migration (Brooks & Waters, 2011). Embedded in the broader scholarship on the driver complexes – or structural forces – that shape migration (Van Hear et al., 2018), student migration, from especially post-colonial and post-socialist countries to Europe, North America and Australia, has often been portrayed as part of calculated, rational strategies to enhance economic and social status through long term settlement after graduation (Luthra & Platt, 2016). Highlighting the intersection between education and work, studies have emphasised how transnational student migration functions as an avenue for entering labour markets through more or less legal pathways (Baas, 2007; Fong, 2011; Pan, 2011). Another strand of research has described student travel as a temporary sojourn and a vehicle for self-realisation and personal transformation (Amit, 2010; Brown, 2009; Gmelch, 1997) – a rite de passage that marks the transition from youth to adulthood (Gabowski et al., 2017). As a critical corrective to the understanding of migration as a product of rational decision-making, scholars have pointed to ‘desire’ (Collins, 2018) and ‘imagination’ (Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, 2021; Salazar, 2011) as explanatory frameworks for human movement. This is also mirrored in studies on student migration which have focused on its aspirational logic and the way in which more diffuse ideas of a ‘better future’ factor into and shape mobility trajectories, often in conjunction with ongoing processes of class formation and identity-making (Kölbel, 2018; Sancho, 2017; Valentin, 2015).

120

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

Taken together the scholarship on student migration points to the multiple and often overlapping motivations that steer young people towards an education abroad, make them choose certain locations over others and incite them to settle down, move on or return home. In light of our focus on post-graduate trajectories, and thus the potential future role of international students as highly skilled workers (Eskelä, 2013), studies on highly skilled migration are equally useful in order to understand the challenges that many international post-graduates encounter in their educationto-work transition. Importantly, the scholarly debate has drawn attention to the socially constructed character of skills (Liu-Farrer et al., 2020) and related to this the devaluation of skills, knowledge and qualifications that many highly educated migrants experience upon labour market entry (Bailey & Mulder, 2017). This is equally true in the context of Denmark – regardless of whether the highly skilled migrants have obtained their degree in Denmark, in their home country or a third country (Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, 2022; Niraula & Valentin, 2019; Liversage, 2009). Acknowledging that movements in space are inherently linked to movement in social position (Sheller & Urry, 2006), the following analysis approaches student migration and post-graduate trajectories through a focus on mobility as interrelated processes of social and geographical movements with an emphasis on education as a driving force in these processes (Olwig & Valentin, 2015). In line with Paolo Boccagni’s (2017) study of immigrant domestic workers in Italy, we explore the aspirational dimensions of student migration in a temporal perspective – as a dynamic between retrospectively reported aspirations and continued mobility practices as these evolve over time. Capturing a subject’s relation to possibilities, migrant aspirations reflect the transformative potential of migration (Carling & Collins, 2018) and may range from calculated strategies of upward social mobility through educational advancement to more diffuse ideas of exploration and selftransformation, at times linked with feelings of stagnating in one’s place of origin. Such narrated pre-migration feelings of ‘no-future-at-home’ (Boccagni, 2017, p. 8) also relate to what Ghassan Hage has coined ‘existential mobility’, which links conceptions of human viability with ideas of upward social mobility and gains its force from a fear of getting lost or stuck in otherwise familiar environments (Hage, 2005, pp. 470–472). As our empirical examples in the forthcoming discussion illustrate, fear of existential immobility, along with other factors, such as academic ambitions, curiosity, prospects of future job opportunities, and potential long-term settlement, has played a contributing role for many international students to leave their place of origin. While aspirations remain a driving factor for the mobility of the students, we highlight how these are constantly moulded by their concrete everyday contexts and the ways that factors such as legal status and social networks, including romantic relationships, become decisive for whether the students’ stay in Denmark or leave for somewhere else. In other words, how expectations of life after graduation are realised or not depends on the concrete opportunities and constraints students encounter during an educational stay in Denmark. Associated with an aspiring global middle class, it is fair to say that international students generally represent a relatively uncontroversial category of mobile people compared to many other migrant groups. Nonetheless, their movements must be

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

121

understood within the context of existing ‘regimes of mobility’, that is ways in which states and changing international regulatory and surveillance mechanisms influence individual mobility and immobility and thereby contribute to a normalisation of certain forms of movement while criminalising others (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013, p. 189). This study covers a broad category of student migrants from countries outside the EU/EEA who enter Denmark on equal terms because of their status as non-EU/EEA citizens but are nonetheless differently positioned and received in Denmark due to their various nationalities. This approach helps us to move beyond mobility and immobility as binary categories associated with those who move and those who do not and instead to pay attention to the different conditions under which people move in various ways (Lin et al., 2017, p. 170). Through a combined focus on the aspirational dimensions of student migration, the regulatory frameworks in which it is embedded and everyday concerns of student migrants, the analysis below will unpack the international students’ trajectories – from their initial motivations to embark for a study in Denmark, their attempts to establish a life in Denmark post-graduate and their onwards journeys.

Methodological Background This chapter is grounded in our shared interest in the intermezzo between higher education and international student migration. It draws on empirical data from an ethnographic research project conducted by Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg on international master’s students at a Danish university, exploring their motives for embarking on study in Denmark and their experiences from abroad.2 Over a period of approximately 24 months (2013–2015), participant observation was conducted in the students’ classrooms and private homes, in cafés and in churches, at their work and, in some cases, in their home countries upon their return.3 The extensive participant observation at various locations created an intimate familiarity with the events, feelings, and norms of the students’ lives (O’Reilly, 2005). In addition, repeated narrative biographical interviews were conducted with 65 students representing 32 different nationalities. The interviews focused on the – in the students’ eyes – key events leading to their mobility as well as their experiences abroad. The narrative approach entails a focus on people’s lives, perceptions, and experience. Narratives are never one-to-one depictions of lived realities but always

The study is a part of a broader research project, ‘Internationalisation and social practice within the field of Danish Higher Education’ (2011-2016), funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark. 3 This study, on which this chapter is based, was conducted as a part of Mette GinnerskovDahlberg’s PhD project. It therefore follows Aarhus University’s ethical guidelines, entailing, among other things, that informed consent has been obtained by all research participants. Followup interviews were conducted after the completion of the PhD project itself and thus with renewed informed consent. All names of research participants have been anonymized. 2

122

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

moulded by the narrator and the context of which the narrator is a part. Narratives as a tool of inquiry thus build on the assumption that meaning is ascribed to phenomena through experience as well as the presumption that the only way to know something about other people’s experiences are from the expressions that they give them (Eastmond, 2007). The students travelled from countries inside and outside the EU, but all attended the same university in Denmark. While the study takes into account the EU/non-EU divide, in this chapter we primarily focus on the 23 participating full-degree non-EU/ EEA students. This includes students from the following 17 countries: Ghana, Rwanda, Cameroon, South Africa, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Argentina, China, Thailand, India and the United States. The interlocutors were all master’s-level scholarship students studying in the field of humanities at one of Denmark’s larger universities. Due to the very limited number of universities in Denmark, for reasons of anonymity, we cannot reveal more contextual background of the institution. However, compared to other categories of international students in Denmark enrolled mostly as fee-paying students in business and vocational colleges, the students on whom this chapter is based were relatively privileged due to their scholarships, covering both tuition fees and living expenses. Likewise, the universities, including the one in focus, have not been subject to same level of accusations of exploitation and unregulated intake of students from post-colonial countries as has been case for business and vocational colleges (Valentin, 2012). As we will discuss later, the vast majority left Denmark following their graduation, often due to difficulty in getting jobs matching their academic profile, and returned to their countries of origin or travelled to other destinations. To trace the graduates’ evolving life trajectories and geographical routes upon graduation, follow-up interviews were conducted with 15 non-EU graduates (representing 11 of the above-mentioned countries) who were willing to share their continued journeys and stories, in the period 2015–2020. It is this longitudinal perspective that allows us to explore the transition from student to graduate through the relationship between imagination and action (Lipura & Collins, 2020) and indeed how the students’ experiences and narrations transformed over time in relation to their lived experiences.

Denmark as a (Long-Term) Destination for Foreign Students Since the mid-2000s, Denmark has witnessed a steady increase in the inflow of international students, hosting around 22,000 international full-degree students annually (UFM, 2018). However, the discourses surrounding international students in Denmark are ambiguous. On the one hand, international students are viewed as a cultural and, as a potential future workforce, economic asset. The Danish government has become increasingly preoccupied with the retention of international graduates, consistently emphasising their value for the Danish labour market (UFM,

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

123

2018). On the other hand, internationalisation and rising multiculturalism in Danish society are often discussed in negative terms, with foreign nationals portrayed as endangering a presumed mono-cultural Danish nation-state inhabited by an ethnically homogeneous population (Rytter, 2019). Such concerns are often linked to the welfare state and a fear of losing historically achieved welfare benefits to ‘newcomers’ (Jöhncke, 2011). Among the broad cohort of international students, the two respective categories of EU/EEA and non-EU citizens provoke different concerns, both politically and publicly. Students from EU/EEA countries are entitled to many of the same welfare benefits as Danish citizens, such as free higher education and monthly study grants. By contrast, non-EU/EEA citizens have since 2006 had to pay tuition fees to study in Denmark and are not entitled to welfare benefits. Some non-EU/EEA students are nonetheless fortunate enough to get a scholarship, as is the case for the students who are the focus of this chapter. In August 2018, despite ambitions of retaining international students, the Danish government announced a significant reduction in the number of English-language university programmes, particularly at the master’s level. By doing so, the government hoped that they could restore the balance between the inflow and outflow of international students by arresting the influx of students from EU member states, who, they claimed, were reaping welfare benefits (i.e., free education and the Danish student grant) only to leave the country shortly upon graduation (UFM, 2018). The retention of international students, thus, is filtered through immigration policies and delicate policy environments that often run counter to politically declared intentions of internationalising higher education (Mosneaga & Agergaard, 2012). After graduation, EU/EEA students can stay and work in Denmark under the EU regulations on freedom of movement and do not need a residence or work permit, whereas policies facilitating the transition into the Danish labour market of students from non-EU/EEA countries are less straightforward and characterised by frequent policy changes and adjustments. Between 2007 and 2016, following their graduation non-EU/EEA students could apply for a so-called Green Card, which provided them with an opportunity to obtain a 3-year residence permit. The intention behind the Green Card scheme was to secure a highly educated foreign workforce, but it was discontinued in 2016 due to a claimed mismatch between the academic qualifications of the Green Card holders and the low-skilled work many of them ended up performing (Niraula & Valentin, 2019). The suspension of the Green Card scheme threw further suspicion on a broad group of Danish-educated international graduates, especially those from Asian and African countries, who were accused of having used their student residence permit to gain access to a low-skilled labour market. In other words, the accusation was that they had come to Denmark with intentions other than studying (Valentin, 2012). Today, non-EU/EEA citizens receive a job-seeking permit that allows them to stay in Denmark for up to 6 months following their graduation to search for a job. During this period, they may work no more than 20 h per week and are not entitled to social benefits. In addition to the job-seeking permit, master’s and PhD graduates have since 2015 been able to apply for a so-called ‘Establishment Card’, the purpose of which is to allow international graduates to get settled in Denmark. A residence

124

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

permit under the Establishment Scheme can be granted for a period of 2 years, although foreign graduates may apply for a 1-year extension of the Establishment Card if in employment related to their qualifications. Those applying for residence through this scheme must prove that they have sufficient funds to support themselves for the upcoming year, which is over DKK 89,376, corresponding to 12,000 EUR (New to Denmark, 2022). Other potentially relevant paths to a residence permit include the Pay Limit scheme, which allows immigrants to enter the labour market when they have a job offer that pays more than DKK 436,000 (58,625 EUR). Students with the ‘right’ job profile may also apply through the Positive List, which lists professions where there is currently a shortage of qualified professionals in Denmark (New to Denmark, 2022). As such, the politically ambiguous approach to student migration, constant changes to legislation and corresponding bureaucratic procedures, and the differential treatment of different categories of international students mean that graduates have to navigate an ever-changing legal terrain that often puts them in positions of great uncertainty and requires continuous reconsideration of the possible paths open to them.

Existential Impasse and Post-graduation Aspirations As mentioned above, from the perspective of the Danish state, international students are considered both a potential asset and a potential threat to the sustenance of the Danish welfare society. But for young people ready to embark for an education abroad, Denmark is seen as a catalyst for the realisation of multiple aspirations, hopes and strategies rather than a reflection of academic ambitions of where to obtain the best education. The ethnographic material reveals that motivations for coming to Denmark for study were multiple, overlapping and often somewhat incidental – ranging from possibilities for obtaining a scholarship, the existence of established social networks, a desire for adventure and prospects for future professional careers to strategies of long-term settlement. Irrespective of their social background, explanations given by the students consistently underlined how unsatisfactory life conditions of varying nature - material, educational, professional or psychological - had initially sparked the urge to move abroad. It is intrinsic to us as humans to feel that we are ‘going places’ and ‘it is only when we ‘feel stuck’ symbolically that we start dreaming of moving physically’ (Hage & Papadopoulos, 2004, p. 112). Thus, many migrants hope that physical mobility will free them from a sense of what Ghassan Hage calls ‘stuckedness’, that is, the feeling of being cornered in a place with limited opportunities for agency (Hage, 2015, p. 36). While the students departed from different countries and continents, they all spoke of study abroad as a means to counter feelings of being ‘stuck’ or moving ‘too slowly’ in their countries of origin – even if such feelings were triggered by very different life circumstances. There is a

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

125

tendency to think of education as a linear passage between different qualification levels and life stages (i.e., bachelor’s degree to master’s degree to the labour market), yet some students in our sample pursued an education in Denmark after graduating from university and entering full-time employment in their home countries. They had found themselves embarking on what they viewed as less desirable career paths, meaning that study abroad became a solution to ‘fix’ a sense of existential impasse. Take Yen, for example. Having pursued a master’s degree in Canada, she returned to her home country of China, where she worked for several years in a large corporation. However, after some time, she felt that she was not in the right place professionally. An education in Denmark thus meant taking a break from the labour market while simultaneously embarking on a new professional path. Her specific choice of Denmark was predominantly based on the good impression she had received from family members already living in the country. Hence, the fact that she already had a social network in Denmark seemingly made it a ‘safe’ choice. Yen’s explanations furthermore exemplify how the urge to study abroad, for some students, was prompted by the desire to explore other parts of the world while avoiding being stuck in a treadmill of adult commitments. In a similar manner, Bruce, an American citizen, explained how his previous work situation in the United States had made him keen to move abroad: And then I worked for about a year and a half as a social worker, and I was not very happy with the job. So about six months before going here, I had the idea of wanting to go somewhere else.

There was a radical element to his decision, since Bruce, at that point in time, had never travelled outside the United States. Despite his limited experience with international travel, he was attracted by continental Europe and, somewhat accidentally, stumbled upon an interesting study programme in Denmark. Hence, even though the study programme was important, the initial desire to go abroad was not sparked by academic ambitions but in his words, by the urge ‘to go somewhere else.’ The students above shared another feature – they reckoned that the most plausible scenario involved an immediate return to their home countries upon graduation. For other students, the sense of ‘stuckedness’ was not merely a question of their individual trajectories. They saw their home countries as incapable of offering a desired life trajectory, regardless of individual efforts. Mainly originating from countries in post-colonial or post-socialist countries, the majority of these students defined themselves as middle class. While these students were drawn to the thought of fun and adventure, many also viewed student migration as instrumental in countering the absence of opportunities to create predictable futures under precarious labour-market conditions in their countries of origin (Valentin, 2015; Bygnes & Erdal, 2017; Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, 2021). Studying abroad was an integral part of a strong desire to migrate more permanently, and thus they anticipated that their foreign ventures would continue upon graduation. Lejla stated very clearly that for her, a university degree in Denmark was a ‘ticket to leave Bosnia.’ Despite having

126

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

grown up in a middle-class family with well-educated parents, Lejla experienced a mismatch between her visions of ‘the good life’, including a continuous sense of moving forward, and her social realities in Bosnia. High levels of nepotism and corruption, she claimed, prevented her from finding employment in academia. Obtaining good marks at the university did not offer any guarantee of employment reflecting her academic qualifications. Hence, because of her feeling of having ‘nofuture-at-home’ (Boccagni, 2017, p. 8), she saw no other option than to pursue a life outside Bosnia. For Lejla, the sense of stagnation was born out of a lack of possibilities for social advancement and her inability to access a desirable career. Some students saw Denmark as a springboard to ‘launch’ an international career, like Bandile from South Africa, who regarded a Danish master’s degree as providing a competitive advantage in the labour market when compared to a degree from his home country: A Danish master’s degree would give me a lot of opportunities in terms of if I want to do my PhD, let’s say in Cambridge or Oxford. Then with the qualifications from here, it won’t be too difficult compared with the qualifications from Africa; you probably would have to write some tests to adapt to their standard maybe. But if it was from here – a full degree from here – then even in terms of job opportunities, I think that would mean a lot.

Arpa from Thailand was more intent on staying specifically in Denmark upon graduation. While she was thrilled at the prospect of travelling and exploring Scandinavia, what she regarded as an exotic part of the world, she was also very clear in terms of her aspirations of moving to Denmark on a more permanent basis: My first choice [upon graduation] is to be in another country. My first choice is Denmark, so I will try my best to stay here. So, I will try to get a job here first. If I cannot succeed in finding a job – because my visa only allows me six months after graduation to search for jobs – I will go back to my country and apply to a Danish company over there. I would prefer to stay abroad because of the living conditions and the salary that I would be given. I could support my family and send the money back to Thailand.

In addition to securing the wellbeing of her family, the words of Arpa underline how, early in the migration process, she was acutely aware of the many administrative constraints and how being a non-EU/EEA citizen potentially could impair her longterm migration aspirations. As indicated previously, for many non-EU students arriving in Denmark after 2006 (where tuition fees were introduced for non-EU citizens), a scholarship was crucial to their decision and ability to migrate. Indeed, while the students’ financial circumstances obviously differed, for most students in this study, their access to a degree programme was dependent on a scholarship. This reliance on scholarships also included students from (upper-) middle-class families, who underlined that it was a necessity due to the enormous differences in wages and costs of living between Denmark and their home countries. Even though Adi’s parents were both doctors, studying in Northern Europe would have been off limits without a scholarship due to the marked economic differences between a life in Denmark and in India. He explained: ‘Denmark was an accident in the sense that [it] is where the money was.’

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

127

Graduation and Aspirations of Long-Term Settlement According to Sarah Lipura and Francis Collins (2020, p. 352), research on student migration has tended to treat students’ life course as ‘biologically determined, linear and progressive rather than also considering the social constructedness, unpredictability and mutability of life course.’ Following student migrants over a longer period, however, makes it possible to explore how their aspirations may change as a result of their lived realities abroad – thereby acknowledging the complex relation between long-term aspirations and the mobilities that emerge over the life course (Findlay et al., 2017). As the examples in the previous section show, post-graduation aspirations differed among the students upon their arrival in Denmark. Some saw an immediate return to their home countries as the most plausible outcome upon graduation, while for others, student migration was entangled with aspirations of long-term settlement abroad. If we travel through time and zoom in on the period just after their graduation, we find a far wider and, indeed less dichotomous, range of aspirations. As highlighted earlier, foreign education had, in the case of Lejla, initially been a ‘ticket to leave Bosnia’, when finding that good grades at the university did not guarantee employment that reflected her academic qualifications. However, to her great surprise, graduating with a Danish master’s degree did not place her in the favourable position she had once so vividly imagined. To stay or not to stay in Denmark was completely conditioned on finding a job that paid in line with the Pay Limit scheme (58,625 EUR) within a short period of time: So yeah, I have like six months to find a job here and there is more at stake for me than people who came here to get an exchange experience – you know, a university-laid-back experience – and after that they go back to their own country. So yes, the level of seriousness is different. I’m frustrated about the different opportunities for non-EU and EU citizens. So many people have so many opportunities in the European Union, and they don’t even think about that. Some of them are not even using their possibilities or they are just taking it for granted. It’s just very frustrating because I have to put so much effort, so much stress, think about papers all the time, think about am I eligible to apply for that with my passport and visa. People here have so much more opportunity than I do, and they are not using it.

In the quote, Lejla expresses her frustration with the geographical limitations and paperwork coming with her non-EU status. Graduation, instead of being a purely celebratory milestone in her life, was thus accompanied by a feeling of panic, and she seemed increasingly unsure about her future geographical coordinates. She even explained how studying in Denmark had radically changed how she viewed her home country, Bosnia and Herzegovina: I used to think about Bosnia as the worst. I thought it had so many shortcomings, I don’t know, so many flaws and so many bad things that I wanted to run away from. But when I came to Denmark, it put my country in another perspective; oh we are not that bad actually, we have so many good things and we have so many things that other countries do not have, for example Denmark. I had to go really far away from Bosnia to see it clearly.

128

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

Interestingly, Lejla was no longer completely averse to the idea of returning to her home country. She felt that Bosnia and Herzegovina – despite nepotism and the lack of job opportunities – was characterised by a human warmth that Denmark lacked. Indeed, there were several examples of students who had initially been convinced that they were ‘over and done’ with their home countries, but who began to see these countries in a different and indeed more positive light while living abroad. Some of these students were taken aback by the immense longing to be close to their families in their everyday life that evolved while they were studying abroad. Other students had initially thought of their study abroad as a transitory experience but became keen on staying in Denmark or moving to a third country. However, like Lejla, they too were often caught off guard especially by the legal difficulties in settling in Denmark following graduation and the extent to which their mobility was structured by existing ‘regimes of mobility’ (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013, p. 189). Like the majority of the student migrants in this study, it was above all else a scholarship that brought Anna to Denmark from North Macedonia. While Anna was among the students who from the outset professed an interest in long-term settlement, it was not until she had spent time living in Denmark that she knew that she wanted to stay on. Upon graduation, she initially worked in different low-skilled jobs but was eventually employed in a job that paid above the minimum required by the Pay Limit scheme. However, when her contract was terminated unexpectedly due to cutbacks in the company, her legal status as a non-EU/EEA citizen forced her to return to North Macedonia on very short notice. With time, she managed to find a job in an international North Macedonia-based company that, compared to local standards, was well paid and characterised by acceptable working conditions. Even though Anna was content with the work environment, she felt trapped in her home country due to the juridical obstacles of not being an EU-citizen. Indeed, she was more than ready to return to Scandinavia if the right job opportunity arose. Like most non-EU/EEA students, Anna’s onward migration was highly dependent on finding employment that could facilitate a residence permit. Sometimes, this made her feel that her life was dependent on the mercy of ‘EUropean’ employers. At one point, she was almost recruited to work for a company located in the EU, but she was eventually deemed too complicated to hire due to her status as a non-EU/EEA national. She even applied for Bulgarian citizenship, which, if granted, would allow her to work and reside more or less freely within the EU. While Anna did not become a Bulgarian citizen, she fought her way back to Denmark when she – strongly assisted by her network in Denmark – was offered a job in late 2019 with a salary above the minimum required by the Pay Limit scheme. During a conversation in February 2020, she explained how she felt increasingly rooted in Denmark – not least after having moved in together with her Danish partner. However, she also underlined that this evolving rootedness was bittersweet since the growing attachment to the country also increased the anxiety of being deported if she lost her job again. Both Lejla and Anna’s stories, and the problems they face in their aspirations of making a life for themselves in Denmark, capture how many non-EU/EEA graduates find the transition into the Danish labour market anything but smooth – regardless of

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

129

the Danish government’s aim of retaining international graduates. Many of the student migrants discovered that a local university degree was rarely enough to guarantee them jobs that mirrored their academic qualifications in the country of graduation. Anna’s long-awaited return to Denmark was conditional on finding wellpaid employment that could secure a Danish residence and work permit, but also on having valuable social contacts who would recommend her for such jobs. Thus, non-EU/EEA students are constantly reminded that their ability to make plans for the future are highly contingent on the decisions of the regulatory body (Robertson, 2011, p. 107). Moreover, they repeatedly have to reconsider their possibilities and their ‘next move’ – when they graduate, when they lose their jobs and when their residential permits expire, or when they simply feel the urge to get ahead. In addition, our findings underline how international graduates are not equally positioned in relation to the Danish immigration system. As mentioned, one option available for non-EU/EEA graduates is to apply for an Establishment Card, which, if granted, gives them up to 3 years to find a job matching their academic qualifications. To apply for this scheme, however, graduates must have around 12,000 EUR in their bank accounts, which many of the students in our study did not; nor did they have families who could assist them financially. In their study from Australia, Shanthi Robertson and Anjena Runganaikaloo (2014, p. 220) highlight how student migrants, in navigating bureaucratic and legal hurdles, even considered ‘marriages of convenience’ to achieve their migration goals, which demonstrates the role that marriage can play in the fulfilment of educational projects more generally (see also Neveu Kringelbach, 2015). In a similar way, our findings indicate that having a Danish partner can play a significant role in terms of non-EU/EEA graduates’ possibilities (and willingness) to stay in Denmark (see also Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, 2022). In fact, of the four graduates who were still residing in Denmark in 2020, three were able to stay in the country because of having a Danish partner. Jobwise, having a partner allowed them greater flexibility, because the graduates could accept jobs that paid less than was required by the Pay Limit scheme. Isidora made it very clear that marrying her Danish partner was the main factor for her continued presence in Denmark. Firstly, her partner was the reason why she continued her struggle to stay in Denmark, despite feeling unwelcome by the Danish state. Secondly, even when she found a job matching her educational profile after approximately 2 years of searching, it still paid 300 EUR less than the minimum monthly salary required by the Pay Limit scheme. Thus, it was marrying her Danish partner that ultimately tipped the balance in her favour. Even though Isidora was ‘happily married’, as she expressed it, she admitted that the decision to marry after approximately one and a half years of dating was fast-tracked by her insecure migratory legal status. In spite of high grades, prestigious internships, fluency in Danish and her Danish university degree, she continued to consider herself a persona non grata in Denmark, a source of immense frustration. Moreover, her explanations indicate how restrictive immigration policies may position graduates in difficult situations where they find themselves forced to get married sooner than they would have liked (Riaño, 2015).

130

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

Homecomings and Onward Journeys An important question remains: Where do the students go after they leave Denmark – in some cases as a deliberate strategy to seek opportunities elsewhere, in other cases against their wishes and as the result of failed attempts to settle? None of the student migrants expressed any desire to lead a nomadic lifestyle, but generally dreamed of living ‘grounded, secure and stable lives’ (Bygnes & Erdal, 2017, p. 114). However, for those keen on leading a life outside their home countries, such aspirations were complicated by their uncertain legal status and future destinations conditioned on being granted a visa (see Mosneaga & Winther, 2013). As indicated, the graduates in our study shared an awareness of the geographical limitations imposed by their passports. Even if they wanted to, onward migration was not necessarily an option, and most of the student migrants returned to their home countries – regardless of their country or region of departure – at least for a period. Only a small group moved straight on to other destinations, and these were typically ‘academic migrants’ – that is, students who got accepted into PhD programs in other countries. Certainly, some graduates were eager to (re)settle in their home countries. While Arpa from Thailand initially had plans to stay specifically in Denmark on a longterm basis, she returned to Thailand shortly after graduation because she, like other students, had underestimated the importance of living near friends and family. Back in her home country, she found employment in a well-renowned company and did not plan to leave her home country anytime soon. However, as highlighted by Anna’s story in the previous section, there are also many cases which accentuate how ‘the conventional “stay and return” construct is far too simplistic as a framework for understanding students’ future movements’ (Geddie, 2010, p. 115) and, as we show below, also their future aspirations. In fact, several viewed their home countries as only a temporary stopover. Regardless of having such aspirations, many of the ‘homecomers’ found, in line with Anna’s narrations earlier, that it was not necessarily easy to migrate to a new location. Miroslav returned to Serbia when his master’s thesis ended up taking longer to finish than initially estimated, leaving no time within the scope of his residence permit to search for jobs in Denmark. Moreover, he did not have the money required to apply for the Establishment Card. Before moving to Denmark, he studied in another Scandinavian country, which meant that, upon returning to Serbia in 2016, he had not lived in his home country for several years. Initially, Miroslav also thought of his return as a short-term solution until he managed to find employment abroad, but when interviewed in 2020, approximately 4 years after graduation, he still resided in his home country. Even though Miroslav was eager to go abroad again and had applied for numerous PhD scholarships and jobs outside Serbia, he had not been successful. While he had found a job matching his qualifications, he was not content with his situation and felt limited by his Serbian passport: Coming back here full time was like a shock. Nothing really works. I’m not an easily depressed kind of person. In that sense, it’s ok here. I have friends, I can hang out with people – I can get it out of my mind. However, in a sense, being here does get me down

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

131

occasionally. I’m thinking, ‘Shit, what am I doing here?’ or ‘This was not the way that it was supposed to be.’ I feel stuck.

Upon his return to Serbia, Miroslav felt parachuted back to square one and an everyday life characterised by a sense of existential ‘stuckedness’. A Danish degree had not brought the possibilities and lifestyle he had anticipated. He desperately wanted to return to Scandinavia but knew that this was dependent on him securing a job there. For every day that went by, he felt that his dream was slowly slipping away because of the lack of relevant work experience and the fact that his involuntary immobility made his international network difficult to sustain. Essentially, the sentiments expressed by Miroslav capture a pronounced tendency among the student migrants, where many returned to their home countries following failed attempts to settle in Denmark but remained determined to move abroad again – often to the EU or Anglophone countries – whenever the opportunity arose. While Oksana – following 6 months of failed job applications in Denmark – had worked several years in an international company in Ukraine, she was eager to find a scholarship that would allow her to pursue a master’s degree in another country. She hoped that adding additional repertoires of credentials to her educational profile – preferably from a prestigious university in the UK or US – would give her more opportunities for migration in the future. However, for her, new educational opportunities abroad were completely dependent on finding a scholarship that could finance her journey, which made the process of studying abroad again long. In fact, several of the graduates embarked on new educational paths, hoping to enhance their employability and carve out desirable futures in particular destinations – something that invites us to re-evaluate the term ‘graduation’, as it indicates something finished. Yen, for instance, went back to China after graduating in Denmark because she missed her family, only to apply for another master’s programme, this time in the United States. She claimed that she ‘wanted to learn IT-related stuff’ to broaden her possibilities for employment. Indeed, there was a tendency for graduates who had not been able to find employment related to their field of study to venture into ‘web programming’ and re-educate themselves in the field of IT, thereby optimising their professional profile in sectors where many countries have a labour shortfall. According to Jill Ahrens et al. (2016, p. 85), scholars often presuppose ‘that migrants leave their place of origin with a clear idea about the ultimate destination of their journey’, thereby ignoring the likelihood that, after settling in one place, migrants may travel to places they had not considered at the start of their journey. Our empirical examples consistently underline that onward migration is not merely a question of what ‘the heart desires’. Student migrants, as any other migrants, have to moderate and tailor their mobility around immigration regulations and job availability. Many of the students in this study felt as if they were at the mercy of the immigration regulations of EU member states. Irakli from Georgia, for instance, explained how he mainly chose to move to Germany due to their relatively lenient immigration regulation, despite his initial wish to stay in Denmark:

132

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

I did want to stay in Denmark, but it was incredibly hard. The visa requirements were impossible to comply with even though I graduated there. I mean, I examined the visa requirements thoroughly, and they were crazy.

In Germany, meanwhile, Irakli was able to get a job based on his self-taught computer-programming skills, making it an attractive destination. When he initially travelled to Denmark, he certainly had no clue that he eventually would live in Germany on a longer-term basis. As such, Irakli’s story exemplifies how the student migrants’ journeys often follow an ad hoc logic – a reaction to ‘a variety of reasons, such as disillusion, discrimination or disappointing job opportunities’ (Ramos, 2018, p. 1842) – rather than a neatly structured plan.

Conclusion Through the lens of student migration to Denmark, this chapter has addressed the issue of post-graduation trajectories, exploring the ways in which international student migrants from non-EU/EEA countries attempt to simultaneously develop a career, make a living and plan a meaningful future. In spite of the Danish government’s deliberate attempts to secure a highly qualified future workforce through the recruitment of international students, a simultaneous tightening of immigration laws, partly rooted in a fear of undermining the Danish welfare state, has made both shortand long-term settlement very complicated over the past two decades. The case of Denmark thus accentuates contradictory processes of student migration seen in other countries too, but in the context of a small welfare state, which is still grappling with how to tackle an increasingly multicultural population. For international students this is rendered visible in the often contradictory and confusing legal process, which they must creatively navigate in their everyday practices in order to establish a life in Denmark. The empirical cases have illustrated how the initial decisions to move abroad for educational purposes are multiple, but somehow often motivated by a profound urge to ‘get ahead’ in life – in social, geographical and existential terms. Graduation constitutes a critical point in a student’s mobility trajectory. Formally, it is the end of one educational journey and a potential steppingstone to a new, professional world. For student migrants, whose residential permits are conditional on their educational status, this is an even more critical point given the challenges of finding employment matching their qualifications. Embedded in powerful mobility regimes, the routes taken by international students are seldom straightforward, differing greatly depending on the students’ nationalities and economic capacities. International student migration is fundamentally uneven, opening doors to some, closing them to others (Brooks & Waters, 2011) and it is well known that students from non-EU countries, especially those from post-colonial and post-socialist countries, are

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

133

generally more restricted when it comes to settlement in EU, including Denmark. Our findings do not refute the claim that studying abroad can be a strategy for permanent settlement or that the motivation for doing so is often linked to economically and politically insecure conditions in students’ home countries. However, this does not mean that the students have no academic ambitions or that they are only using education to acquire a residence permit in Denmark. In fact, short-term goals of improving one’s skills and obtaining an academic qualification coexist with longterm aspirations of settling down, all of which are seen as integral to a desirable life. Both public and academic discourse tends to portray student migration from postcolonial and post-socialist countries to Europe, North America and Australia as an outcome of calculated, rational decision-making in attempts to achieve upward social mobility, whereas internationally circulating students from the latter regions and countries are generally seen as being engaged in processes of self-realisation and personal transformation. This has resulted in rather stereotypical representations of young people from different parts of the world and, related to this, the motivations and the types of agency they are ascribed depending on their material conditions. Without ignoring the structural barriers that are certainly more pertinent to students of some nationalities than others, this chapter has shed light on the commonalities – in terms of anxieties, hopes and everyday practicalities – that tie international students together as a category of newcomers to Denmark irrespective of social position and national background. Bringing to the fore a focus on the everyday negotiations and concerns through which student migrants encounter new and shifting settings (Yeoh & Huang, 2011), we are reminded of the importance to approach (student) migrants not just as subjects in mobility regimes and institutional immigration logics, but also through their shared experiences as humans (Grønseth, 2013). Moreover, the longitudinal approach informing this chapter has provided a unique perspective on the dynamic relationship between aspirations and ongoing mobility practices (Boccagni, 2017). It has done so by accentuating the overlapping geographical, social, and educational journeys of international students and, not least, the ways in which these are assessed and change over time, creating unexpected openings and closures in terms of future possibilities. Moreover, shifts in geographical location, social status and educational level do not always occur in tandem or in accordance with dominant ideas of movement as linear progression. This leads to experiences of a disconnect in the lives of many international students, forcing them to rethink their plans for the future again and again. As pointed out by Francis Collins and Sergei Shubin (2015), p. 102), researchers should be careful not to overemphasise individuals’ ‘capacity to manage time as an objective, external entity that leads to particular endpoints.’ Certainly, our analysis supports this claim when highlighting how student migrants’ aspirations and mobility patterns are not static and foreseeable but, essentially, dynamic and largely unpredictable.

134

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

References Ahrens, J., Kelly, M., & Liempt, I. V. (2016). Free movement? The onward migration of EU citizens born in Somalia, Iran, and Nigeria. Population, Space and Place, 22(1), 84–98. https:// doi.org/10.1002/psp.1869 Amit, V. (2010). Student mobility and internationalisation: Rationales, rhetoric and ‘institutional isomorphism’. Anthropology in Action, 17(1), 6–18. Baas, M. (2007). The language of migration: The education industry versus the migration industry. People and Place, 15(2), 49–60. Bailey, A., & Mulder, C. H. (2017). Highly skilled migration between the global north and south: Gender, life courses and institutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(16), 2689–2703. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1314594 Boccagni, P. (2017). Aspirations and the subjective future of migration: Comparing views and desires of the “time ahead” through the narratives of immigrant domestic workers. Comparative Migration Studies, 5(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0047-6 Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, L. (2009). The transformative power of the international sojourn: An ethnographic study of the international student experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 502–552. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.002 Bygnes, S., & Erdal, M. D. (2017). Liquid migration, grounded lives: Considerations about future mobility and settlement among polish and Spanish migrants in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1211004 Carling, J., & Collins, F. (2018). Aspiration, desire and drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384134 CIRIUS. (2007). National strategi for markedsføring af Danmark som uddannelsesland 2007–2010. CIRIUS. Collins, F. L. (2018). Desire as a theory for migration studies: Temporality, assemblage and becoming in the narratives of migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384147 Collins, F. L., & Shubin, S. (2015). Migrant times beyond the life course: The temporalities of foreign English teachers in South Korea. Geoforum, 62(June 2015), 96–104. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.002 Collins, F. L., Ho, K. C., Ishikawa, M., & Ma, A.-H. S. (2017). International student mobility and after-study lives: The portability and prospects of overseas education in Asia. Population, Space Place, 23(4), e2029. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2029 Eastmond, M. (2007). Stories as lived experience: Narratives in forced migration research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem007 Eskelä, E. (2013). Migration decisions of skilled migrants. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 3(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2013-0004 Findlay, A., Prazeres, L., McCollum, D., & Packwood, H. (2017). It was always the plan’: International study as ‘learning to migrate. Area, 49(2), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/area. 12315 Fong, V. (2011). Paradise redefined: Chinese students, transnational migration, and the quest for citizenship in the developed world. Stanford University Press. Gabowski, S., Wearing, S., Lyons, K., Tarrant, M., & Landon, A. (2017). A rite of passage?: Exploring youth transformation and global citizenry in the study abroad experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1292177 Geddie, K. P. (2010). Transnational landscapes of opportunity?: Post-graduation settlement and employment strategies of international students in Toronto, Canada and London, UK. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.

7

Unpredictable Mobilities: How International Students Navigate. . .

135

Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, M. (2021). In search of a normal place: The geographical imaginaries of eastern European students in Denmark. Globalisation, Societies and Education. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14767724.2021.1954495 Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, M. (2022). Student migration from Eastern to Western Europe. Routledge. Glick Schiller, N., & Salazar, N. B. (2013). Regimes of mobility across the globe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.723253 Gmelch, G. (1997). Crossing cultures: Student travel and personal development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97) 00021-7 Grønseth, A. S. (2013). Introduction. Being human, being migrant: Senses of self and well-being. In A. S. Grønseth (Ed.), Being human, being migrant: Senses of self and well-being (pp. 1–26). Berghahn Books. Hage, G. (2005). A not so multi-sited ethnography of a not so imagined community. Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499605059232 Hage, G. (2015). Alter-politics: Critical anthropology and the radical imagination. Melbourne University Press. Hage, G., & Papadopoulos, D. (2004). Ghassan Hage in conversation with Dimitris Papadopoulos: Migration, hope and the making of subjectivity in transnational capitalism. International Journal for Critical Psychology, 12, 95–117. Hawthorne, L. (2018). Attracting and retaining international students as skilled migrants. In M. Czaika (Ed.), High-skilled migration: Drivers and policies (pp. 195–221). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198815273.003.0010 Jöhncke, S. (2011). Integrating Denmark: The welfare state as national(ist) accomplishment. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion and the Danish nation state (pp. 30–53). Cambridge Scholars. Kölbel, A. (2018). Imaginative geographies of international student mobility. Social and Cultural Geography, 21(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2018.1460861 Lin, W., Lindquist, J., Xiang, B., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2017). Migration infrastructures and the production of migrant mobilities. Mobilities, 12(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17450101.2017.1292770 Lipura, S. J., & Collins, F. L. (2020). Towards an integrative understanding of contemporary educational mobilities: A critical agenda for international student mobilities research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020. 1711710 Liu-Farrer, G., Yeoh, B. S., & Baas, M. (2020). Social construction of skill: An analytical approach toward the question of skill in cross-border labour mobilities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(10), 2237–2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1731983 Liversage, A. (2009). Finding a path: Investigating the labour market trajectories of high-skilled immigrants in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(2), 203–226. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691830802586195 Luthra, R., & Platt, L. (2016). Elite or middling?: International students and migrant diversification. Ethnicities, 16(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796815616155 Mosneaga, A., & Agergaard, J. (2012). Agents of internationalisation?: Danish universities’ practices for attracting international students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.690309 Mosneaga, A., & Winther, L. (2013). Emerging talents? International students before and after their career start in Denmark: International students in Denmark. Population, Space and Place, 19(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1750 Neveu Kringelbach, H. (2015). Gendered educational trajectories and transnational marriage among west African students in France. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939190 New to Denmark. (2022). Accessed on 15 Aug 2022 from https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-GB

136

M. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and K. Valentin

Niraula, A., & Valentin, K. (2019). Mobile brains and the question of ‘deskilling’: Highly educated south Asian migrants in Denmark. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 9(1), 19–35. https:// doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2019-0008 O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. Routledge. Olwig, K. F., & Valentin, K. (2015). Mobility, education and life trajectories: New and old migratory pathways. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 247–257. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939191 Pan, D. (2011). Student visas, undocumented labour, and the boundaries of legality: Chinese migration and English as a foreign language education in the Republic of Ireland. Social Anthropology, 19(3), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00159.x Ramos, C. (2018). Onward migration from Spain to London in times of crisis: The importance of life-course junctures in secondary migrations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(11), 1841–1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1368372 Riaño, Y. (2015). Latin American women who migrate for love: Imagining European men as ideal partners. In B. Enguix & J. Roca (Eds.), Rethinking romantic love: Discussions, imaginaries and practices (pp. 45–60). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Robertson, S. (2011). Cash cows, backdoor migrants, or activist citizens?: International students, citizenship, and rights in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(12), 2192–2211. https://doi. org/10.1080/01419870.2011.558590 Robertson, S. (2013). Transnational student-migrants and the state: The education-migration nexus. Palgrave Macmillan. Robertson, S., & Runganaikaloo, A. (2014). Lives in limbo: Migration experiences in Australia’s education–Migration nexus. Ethnicities, 14(2), 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468796813504552 Rytter, M. (2019). Writing against integration: Danish imaginaries of culture, race and belonging. Ethnos, 84(4), 678–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1458745 Salazar, N. B. (2011). The power of imagination in transnational mobilities. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 18(6), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2011.672859 Sancho, D. (2017). Escaping India’s culture of education: Migration desires among aspiring middle-class young men. Ethnography, 18(4), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1466138116687591 Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268 Tan, G., & Hugo, G. (2017). The transnational migration strategies of Chinese and Indian students in Australia. Population, Space and Place, 23(6), e2038. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2038 UFM. (2018). Offentlige indtægter og udgifter ved internationale studerende. Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet. Valentin, K. (2012). Caught between internationalization and immigration: The case of Nepalese students in Denmark. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences, 5(3), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2012.050304 Valentin, K. (2015). Transnational education and the remaking of social identity: Nepalese student migration to Denmark. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 318–332. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939186 Van Hear, N., Bakewell, O., & Long, K. (2018). Push-pull plus: Reconsidering the drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 927–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2017.1384135 Yeoh, B. S. A., & Huang, S. (2011). Introduction: Fluidity and friction in talent migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(5), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011. 559710

Chapter 8

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis Robin Shields

In 2021, UNESCO released the report Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021). Using the year 2050 as a horizon, the report seeks to establish a vision for education within a shared future for humanity and proposes a “new social contract” centred on cooperation, inclusion and interdisciplinary learning. In many senses, the Reimagining our Futures Together marks a departure from UNESCO’s previous work related to education policy. First, the 2050 horizon – nearly 50 years from the date of publication – is much longer than the timescales on which UNESCO usually works. For example, the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 target is only 15 years from their 2015 inception, a similar timescale to the Millennium Development Goals, and longer than initiatives such as the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (2005–14). Second, the language is more sobering or even darker than the idealistic and often optimistic tenor of UNESCO’s other publications. For instance, the report warns (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021, p. 30): As we move towards the mid-century milestone of 2050, the type of education we will need hinges, significantly, on what we can expect the world to look like [. . .] a scientific consensus has emerged that the decades leading to 2050, and the 2020s in particular, will be pivotal for the future of humans and all other life forms on Earth. The steps we take – or do not take – to reduce carbon emissions will determine what futures are possible in the 2030s and 2040s.

The report goes on to discuss existential challenges to human life, citing “democratic backsliding”, widening economic inequality and a quest for economic growth as reasons for this uncertain future.

R. Shields (✉) University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_8

137

138

R. Shields

While the report is framed broadly, Reimagining our Futures Together is also useful for contemplating the specific futures of international student mobility in higher education, and in doing so to better understand contemporary norms, decisions, and ways of working in this field. One way to do so is by considering how a student in higher education in the year 2050 might think about international higher education – and international student mobility specifically – in the 2020s? Might she see international student mobility today as laying important groundwork that has made her life better, including opportunities for study? Is she likely to enjoy the same or even greater opportunities for mobility? Alternatively, could she see mobility in the 2020s as a luxury of a bygone era, perhaps even one that seemed decadent or simply naive to the challenges facing humanity? This chapter discusses how international student mobility is implicated in global climate change and how those working within the field might address the existential crisis climate change presents. It begins by analysing how international student mobility is embedded within an unsustainable social and economic model and then analyses current discussions that critique this dependency and propose reforms. The chapter then uses Kate Raworth’s concept of the “doughnut economy” to consider how international student mobility might be re-envisioned to meet the doughnut’s description of a “safe and just space” (Raworth, 2017, p. 36).

The Carbon Economy and the Material Conditions of International Student Mobility In his often-cited 1919 essay “Science as a Vocation,” Max Weber focuses his analysis on what he calls “external conditions” of the university, as he puts it (Weber, 1946/1919): We political economists have a pedantic custom [. . .] of always beginning with the external conditions. In this case, we begin with the question: What are the conditions of science as a vocation in the material sense of the term?

For Weber, the conditions of science are those of work within a university, and he goes on to discuss and compare the employment arrangements of university academics in different countries and how they sustain themselves in order to continue scientific work. Applying the same perspective to international student mobility as it exists today yields the insight that its “external conditions” in the “material sense” are intertwined with the unsustainable economy of fossil fuels. In other words, international education as we know it today would not exist without the fossil fuel economy. This is first and foremost evident in the sector’s reliance on aviation. A hallmark of the modern era, international aviation has made mobility of all types possible on a scale that would have been unimaginable in previous generations. However, these expanded opportunities come with a high environmental cost when considered relative to other human activities. This is evident when the carbon emissions of air

8

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis

139

travel are compared to other human activities: a one-way flight from Shanghai to London releases 753 kg of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, much more than what an average citizen of Rwanda will produce over the course of a year (87.8 kg). The combined carbon emissions of degree-mobile students amount to approximately 14–38 megatonnes per year, which is comparable to the emissions of entire industrialised countries (Shields, 2019). Furthermore, these degree-mobile students constitute one part of global international student mobility, which also includes study abroad or credit mobility such as the Erasmus programme, short-term mobility programmes, etc. Many working within the field of international higher education might prefer to consider this dependence on aviation as a tangential or less-important aspect of their work, which they might argue is actually more concerned with education, personal development, development of intercultural competences, building tolerance, and other worthy and important activities. However, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed important insights into the depth of this dependency upon aviation: During the summer of 2020 nearly, all commercial aviation had reduced to an absolute minimum: flights were grounded (or nearly completely empty). One of the few groups that continued to travel were international students, at least where borders were open. Furthermore, when commercial flights were not available, some universities took the initiative to charter planes to fly students to their study destinations (Baker, 2020), demonstrating that aviation is not incidental to current models of international education but is actually an integral component. However, the entanglement between international student mobility and fossil fuels is not limited to aviation. Universities are also embedded within unsustainable economic models, and international study is often positioned as a human capital investment within these contexts (Gürüz, 2011). Thus, universities impart the skills to become a more productive worker in an unsustainable economy. This is not to minimise the many efforts that universities have taken to embed sustainability into curricula, pedagogies, and research, which have developed considerably in recent decades and are now deeply embedded in the design of many courses and degree programmes. Rather, it is to suggest that they are eventually utilised in competitive labour markets in which these knowledge and skills are deployed in unsustainable ways, regardless of the intentions underpinning their formation. Even where students work in knowledge-intensive fields far removed from the exploitation of fossil fuels (e.g., in software engineering, creative industries, etc.), they tend to be involved in value chains of production and consumption that eventually involve some combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, there is a shared ontology of many higher-education institutions and carbon-based economies that is difficult to escape. Finally, through their financial investments many universities are dependent upon unsustainable economic models. This dependency is most evident in the large endowments of elite institutions, many of which are invested directly in the fossil fuel industries or other sustainable forms of economic activity. It is not surprising then that fossil-fuel divestment has become a significant issue in the management of university endowments, which are largely concentrated in elite universities in the Global North (Grady-Benson & Sarathy, 2016). While there are some signs of

140

R. Shields

change – for example, the University of Oxford’s decision to divest its endowment from fossil fuels or universities banning fossil fuel companies from recruiting on campus (Carrington, 2022; University of Oxford, 2020) – there are also many examples of delay and avoidance, with divestment campaigns experiencing mixed success (2016). By extension then, the many benefits that association with these elite institutions confer, not least in terms of labour market advantages, must also be attributed through an indirect dependence upon the practices that cause climate change. Endowments are not the only source of how universities’ financial investments contribute to climate change: pension funds are also a significant concern (Jolly, 2022), as are the investments of research-funding councils. The UK’s Wellcome Trust recently grappled with the carbon footprint of its £32 billion investment fund; while targeting a “net zero” approach to investment, meaning it also acknowledged the difficulty of this approach, noting “it is challenging to say conclusively that net zero by 2040 or even 2050 will be possible without use of offsets, even if radical action is taken” (Wellcome Trust, 2021, p. 8). There is of course an important caveat that not all higher-education institutions or systems are dependent upon unsustainable practices in the same ways. The financial dependence on air travel is stronger in neoliberal systems where international student tuition fees form a major component of university budgets, with one report estimating that this income accounts for 45% of the budget of the UK’s research-intensive Russell Group (Dolton, 2020). However, the treatment of mobility as an unalloyed good of which more is inevitably better is far more widespread and common to many systems of higher education. This tendency is exacerbated by global rankings and an associated “competition fetish in higher education” (Naidoo, 2016), which provides universities a strong set of incentives to externalise the costs of a global status competition to the natural environment. State funding models of higher education and the structure of national economies also shape and determine how individual higher-education institutions are dependent on the economy of fossil fuels and implicated in the resulting damage to the climate. However, in nearly all cases, there are links to be found, and these links are usually stronger and more central to universities’ existence than generally acknowledged. Another caveat is that the total greenhouse gas emissions attributable to higher education and international education, in particular, are minimal in the overall global catastrophe that is unfolding. A critic of the analysis presented above could rightly point out that even if international student mobility were to cease completely tomorrow, climate change would still represent an existential threat to humanity. Therefore, the issues that arise from the universities’ dependence on the unsustainable social and economic models that are causing catastrophic changes for life on earth are primarily in terms of their implications for universities’ legitimacy and authority than the aggregate impact on the climate. However, the extent to which universities are directly dependent upon climate-harming practices and industries stands in ironic contrast to carefully constructed and widely projected self-images as agents of social transformation and social progress through knowledge production. For example, University UK,

8

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis

141

an association whose membership includes most UK higher-education institutions, asserts (Universities, 2010, p.17): Universities have a unique and critical role in helping to address the challenge of climate change. Our higher-education sector is a major player within the global search for solutions to environmental problems and in the development of more sustainable ways of living. Through their research and links with business and industry, universities are positioned to drive forward innovation in all areas of life.

The language used in the document is telling. Climate change is described as an “environmental problem” rather than a problem arising from particular social and economic practices, and universities’ role therein. The solution is innovation through close links with business and industry, reflecting and reproducing mainstream thinking about the “green economy” and its optimistic faith in the power of innovation to create substitutions for the unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels rather than complementing them with more sustainable technologies. In fact, evidence reaches the opposite conclusion, that efficiency-saving innovations and new technology are unlikely to displace carbon emissions unless accompanied by far-reaching lifestyle and social changes (Wiedmann et al., 2020). Without such changes, the growth-oriented nature of private industries and capitalist markets makes it far more likely that new technologies will add to rather than replace unsustainable economic activities. Thus, universities’ optimistic goal of addressing climate change through green technology runs the risk of complementing current unsustainable consumption with a parallel “green” economy, thereby failing to fully address the urgent and existential challenges of climate change.

Contradiction, Critique and Reform: Perspectives from Higher-Education Research Likely, in recognition of the ways in which higher education is entangled with climate change, a growing body of literature on higher-education leadership and management are urging greater attention to environmental sustainability in higher education. For example, Facer (2020) identifies ways that universities can respond to the challenges of climate change, ranging from day-to-day operations to re-examining the types of knowledge produced in universities. She makes a connection between the “headline” of the climate crisis and deeper underpinning epistemological and ontological assumptions that are embedded in higher-education institutions, linking the immediate challenges responding to climate change questions about how we perceive the role of universities and the ways they produce and circulate knowledge. Facer’s report, written for the Higher Education Policy Institute, also includes a clear role for policy changes, particularly in funding that would enable “community-based and online learning around green transitions” (Facer, 2020, p. 52).

142

R. Shields

In his book, The Ecological University: A Feasible Utopia, Ronald Barnett sets out a vision to transform the university to express “an active concern for the whole Earth (Barnett, 2018, p. 9). Barnett’s approach is idealistic, beginning with an explicit goal to counter the hopelessness and defeatism that can pervade any contemporary analysis of higher education. He locates the university at the intersection of seven ecosystems: knowledge, social institutions, persons, the economy, learning, culture and the natural environment. Barnett acknowledges these ecosystems are complex and interrelated. In analysis focusing on the climate, one also wonders about the question of dependency: are some of these ecosystems dependent upon one another, for example, can social institutions, persons or the economy exist without the natural environment? Indeed, the artificial distinction between persons and their natural humanity is both a defining characteristic of modernity and a driver of much environmental exploitation (Silova, 2021). McCowan (2023) focuses specifically on internationalisation and offers a broader framework for analysing the impact of internationalisation on the climate. This framework links various university activities (e.g., education, knowledge production, and public debate) in terms of their impact on the climate, which he distinguishes between being positive vs. negative and direct vs. indirect. He argues that these different activities and forms of impact show that internationalisation is not a “unitary force” but rather a set of choices about how to internationalise, including the actors involved and the forms of activities. All this work forms part of a larger and growing canon that proposes more ways in which universities can be transformed to become more sustainable (Amaral et al., 2015; Kohl et al., 2022; Velazquez et al., 2006). However, a question that remains concerns the social circumstances that give rise to and sustain a “greener” or more environmentally just university. To borrow Weber’s language, what are the “external conditions” – in “the material sense of the term” – that would enable such an institution to exist? It is perhaps easier to imagine and describe what an environmentally just institution would look like than it is to specify the social and economic systems that produce and sustain it, much less the transformative path to these social arrangements from current unsustainable systems. Like much research on higher education, literature on ecological reforms seems to ascribe much agency to universities. Indeed, the focus on universities as a topic of research almost dictates a belief that they are self-determined, autonomous actors rather than mere reflections of the wider society. However, by leaving the question of the external circumstances unanswered, the pathway to a sustainable university is unclear and difficult to chart.

Mobility in the Doughnut Economy Originating in her work for Oxfam and the United Nations, Kate Raworth’s metaphor of the doughnut economy is now a widely discussed and frequently applied conceptual framework for thinking about sustainable economies. The metaphor of

8

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis

143

the doughnut places human well-being in between two threatening spaces: the internal hole of deprivation and poverty and the external void of overconsumption resulting in planetary degradation. Like the confectionary for which it is named, the doughnut is a sweet and nourishing space of human wellbeing between these two extremes. Reflecting the circular nature of the doughnut, the space of human wellbeing is also sustainable in the sense that it is regenerative; it begins where it ends and in doing so represents the aspiration to “restore humans as full participants in Earth’s cyclical processes of life” (Raworth, 2017, p. 39). For the same reason, the doughnut is just, avoiding the poverty of deprivation and the generational inequities of unsustainable consumption. In addition to providing a compelling model for sustainable economies, Raworth also identifies the importance of orientational metaphors in our thinking about societies and the future. Drawing upon the writings of notable economists such as Paul Samuelson, she points out the prevalence of metaphors suggesting movement forwards and upward in the field of economics, noting “the idea of ever-growing output fits snugly with the widely used metaphor of progress being a movement forwards and upwards” (Raworth, 2017, p. 49). Orientational metaphors are also important in thinking about mobility itself, which, like the physical act of travel, is by definition “going somewhere”. International student mobility itself has been going places with a phenomenal growth in international student mobility since the turn of the twenty-first century (notwithstanding a decline in peak years of the COVID-19 pandemic). Where mobility goes next is an open question: does the field of international higher education expect this growth in mobility to continue ad infinitum? This fits with the strongly idealised and aspirational character of international mobility, which combines its ideals with the ideals of cosmopolitanism and universalism with individual self-actualization. However, it leaves questions of the material conditions that enable this utopian exchange, and, indeed, its by-products.

Responses from the Field Climate change, therefore, poses a fundamental challenge to international student mobility as it exists today, both in the material sense of the travel and energy it requires but also in its orientational metaphors and ways of thinking about higher education and the future. An emerging but rapidly growing body of literature investigates the ways in which climate change is already having an impact on international higher education in practice. For example, Campbell et al. (2022) investigate the views of international educators towards climate change, finding that they perceive climate change as both a threat to the field, but also an opportunity to transform international education to be more inclusive and equitable. Nikula et al. (2022) link these practitioners’ viewpoints to the concept of cognitive dissonance, or an “uncomfortable tension” that arises from inconsistent or incompatible beliefs, knowledge or attitudes. They note how international educational practitioners, for

144

R. Shields

example, those working in the field of study abroad “may recognize the real benefits of student mobility while simultaneously acknowledging the negative environmental impacts of the GHGs [Greenhouse Gasses] emitted from air travel” (Nikula et al., 2022, p. 5). They go on to describe the founding of the Climate Action Network for International Educators (CANIE), a grassroots non-profit initiative aimed at taking action on climate change from within the field of international education, as a potential way to address the paralysis and sense of helplessness that can arise from cognitive dissonance. Since its launch in 2019, CANIE’s mobilisation of individuals and institutions across the field of international education has grown substantially. Through a series of online events, a podcast, and its newsletter, CANIE has been successful at engaging international educators in serious conversations about climate change. Initiatives such as “Travel with CANIE,” through which attendees at international conferences showcase low-carbon travel on social media, have shown how international educators can still embrace in-person international engagement, and indeed enhance the experience of travel while taking action on climate change. A key milestone in CANIE’s development was the launch of the CANIE Accord in 2022. The CANIE Accord provides a framework and set of commitments for meaningful and coordinated action in the field of international education. Signatories agree to the Accord’s three key principles: to take immediate action; to collaborate, innovate and educate; and to develop climate solutions that advance social justice (CANIE, 2022). They also commit to working towards five self-selected targets from 70 possible options, which are organised into five broad themes (e.g., emissions accounting and reduction; travel; and climate education). These targets include items such as accounting for carbon emissions from international education, replacing physical meetings with online meetings, and introducing climate literacy for all globally mobile students (CANIE, 2022). While still an ongoing process, the launch of the Accord has been very successful, with signatories including well-recognized universities, societies and associations, and many other organisations working in the field of international education. The contributions of CANIE to the field of international education were recognized by the European Association of International Education (EAIE) through its President’s Award for 2022 (EAIE, 2022). In addition to responses from international educators, students’ views and activities on climate change are becoming particularly important in relation to international higher education, as part of robust youth activism related to the climate. This is evident in initiatives such as Erasmus by Train, which seeks to advocate rail travel for participants in the European Commission’s Erasmus student mobility programme (Erasmus by Train, 2021). Rail travel has significantly less impact on the climate than aviation; for example, a 1000 km rail journey will release just 3% of the CO2 (approximately 4.5 kg) that a flight of the same distance does (approximately 153 kg; DBEIS, 2021). While rail travel can often cost more, this is only because aviation unfairly externalises environmental costs that should actually be paid by the consumer. Erasmus by train aims to counteract these market forces by advocating for better connected rail within Europe and providing guidance for youth who wish to travel internationally by rail.

8

International Student Mobility and the Global Climate Crisis

145

It is difficult to imagine what international student mobility might look like in 2050, as it largely depends upon larger changes in societies and, in particular, how they are able to collectively respond to climate change. In many senses, international student mobility epitomises and embodies contemporary globalisation; it is predicated on high levels of connectivity, the formation of cosmopolitan identities, and the opportunities of open societies. However, these high levels of global integration are challenged from many directions: populist nationalism, shifting geopolitical alliances, and disruptions to international travel from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the long-term challenges of climate change have disrupted a long-term trend towards greater levels of integration and raise serious questions about whether this trend will continue in the future and what it might look like. The long-term future of international student mobility is therefore full of uncertainty, and in a larger sense it reflects the immense uncertainty, risk, and peril that characterise our contemporary response to climate change. However, by reflecting upon the challenges facing international student mobility and considering the ways in which the field might respond, we gain a broader understanding of how we might collectively respond to the existential challenges of climate change.

References Amaral, L. P., Martins, N., & Gouveia, J. B. (2015). Quest for a sustainable university: A review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 155–172. Baker, S. (2020). UK universities mull more charter flights in global student race. Times Higher Education. Accessed on 10 May 2020, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ukuniversities-mull-more-charter-flights-global-student-race Barnett, R. (2018). The ecological university: A feasible utopia. Routledge. Campbell, A. C., Nguyen, T., & Stewart, M. (2022). Promoting international student mobility for sustainability? Navigating conflicting realities and emotions of international educators. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/102831 53221121386 CANIE. (2022). The CANIE Accord. Accessed on February 8, 2023, from https://canie.org/thecanie-accord/canie-accord-documents/canie-accord-web Carrington, D. (2022, December 1). Fossil fuel recruiters banned from three more UK universities. The Guardian. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2022/dec/01/fossil-fuel-recruiters-banned-from-three-more-uk-universities DBEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). (2021). Greenhouse gas reporting: Conversion factors 2022. Accessed on May 11, 2022, from https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2021 Dolton, P. (2020). The economics of the UK university system in the time of COVID-19 (NISER Policy Paper 19). National Institute of Economic and Social Research. EAIE. (2022). President’s award. Accessed on December 22, 2022, from https://www.eaie.org/ community/awards/president-award.html Erasmus by Train. (2021). Erasmus + Interrail. Accessed on February 8, 2023, from https:// erasmusbytrain.eu/ Facer, K. (2020). Beyond business as usual: Higher education in the era of climate change (Debate Paper No. 24). Higher Education Policy Institute.

146

R. Shields

Grady-Benson, J., & Sarathy, B. (2016). Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: Student-led organising for climate justice. Local Environment, 21(6), 661–681. Gürüz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. (Revised and updated 2nd ed.). SUNY Press. International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. Jolly, J. (2022, January 23). UK’s biggest private pension fund to shift £5bn away from polluters. The Guardian. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/ business/2022/jan/23/uks-biggest-private-pension-fund-to-shift-5bn-away-from-polluters Kohl, K., Hopkins, C., Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Dlouhá, J., Razak, D. A., Abidin Bin Sanusi, Z., & Toman, I. (2022). A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(2), 218–236. McCowan, T. (2023). Internationalisation and climate impacts of higher education: Towards an analytical framework. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27(4), 567–585. Naidoo, R. (2016). The competition fetish in higher education: Varieties, animators and consequences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 1–10. Nikula, P.-T., Fusek, A., & van Gaalen, A. (2022). Internationalisation of higher education and climate change: A cognitive dissonance perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10283153221145082 Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Random House Books. Shields, R. (2019). The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217(20 April 2019), 594–602. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.291 Silova, I. (2021). Facing the Anthropocene: Comparative education as sympoiesis. Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 587–616. Universities, U. K. (2010). Manifesto for higher education. Author. University of Oxford. (2020). Oxford announces historic commitment to fossil fuel divestment. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-27-oxfordannounces-historic-commitment-fossil-fuel-divestment Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., & Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: What can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 810–819. Weber, M. (1946/1919). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth, & C. Wright Mills (Translated and edited), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). Oxford University Press. Wellcome Trust. (2021). The pathway to net zero for our investment portfolio. Accessed on December 2, 2022, from https://wellcome.org/who-we-are/investments/carbon-emissionsinvestment-portfolio-net-zero Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3107.

Part III

Alternative Modes of Internationalization

Chapter 9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility, the Only Way to Equip Students with Intercultural Skills? Robert J. Coelen

Defining Internationalization In 2015 de Wit, Hunter and Coelen revisited the commonly accepted working definition for internationalisation of higher education by Knight (2003) and modified it to read (de Wit et al., 2015, p. 283; italics are additions): The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.

This changed working definition added that this was an intentional process, seeking to make enhancements to all three functions of higher-education institutions (HEIs) to benefit all students and staff of the institutions as well as society at large. The outcomes should be more inclusive. It also emphasised that the goal of internationalisation was an enhancement of the quality of the three functions of higher-education institutions. The contribution to society should not just be driven by economic rationales, but also pay attention to socio-cultural, political, and academic motivations (de Wit, 1995; Knight & de Wit, 1997, 1999). Much has been written about changes in these motivations both within and between the four groups (de Wit, 2000; de Wit, 2002; van Vught et al., 2002) and at various levels (institutional and national; Knight, 2004). Overall, they constitute powerful drivers that sometimes affect one another. This chapter will focus particularly on the sociocultural rationale as far as it pertains to students. As such, the focus is on transforming the learner and the learning outcomes that can be achieved with internationalisation activities. This was worded in a definition of learner-centred internationalisation as (Coelen, 2016, p. 40): R. J. Coelen (✉) Campus Fryslân, University of Groningen, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_9

149

150

R. J. Coelen

Internationalisation of higher education constitutes the provision of an environment containing such elements that a learner is given the opportunity to attain achieved learning outcomes associated with international awareness and intercultural competence.

This definition focused on two intended learning outcomes, namely intercultural competence and international awareness, as important elements of what a graduated learner might be able to bring to bear on the work environment and of course, in line with the meaningful contribution to society part of the revised working definition (de Wit et al., 2015), what these learning outcomes might bring forth in the graduate’s functioning in society at large. This chapter is further focused on one of the two learning outcomes, namely intercultural competence development. It is noteworthy that the chapter by Coelen (2016) also mentioned that the learnercentred definition should not necessarily be limited to higher education. It referred to a possible chain of educational situations in which the learner was the constant and the chain the various educational levels a learner would traverse in their educational journey from primary to a terminal level of education, the total educational environment, thereby providing ample time to be able to learn the qualities required for intercultural competence.

Internationalisation at Home In 2000, Crowther et al. wrote a position paper on internationalisation at home. It was born out of an overarching concern for the large non-mobile majority of highereducation students, who would be missing opportunities and presumably would not have the same opportunity to become interculturally competent. At that time, less than 10% of higher-education students had been mobile using the ERASMUS mobility program (Wächter, 2000). The prevailing thought was that internationalisation activities consisted primarily of international mobility activities. Given the small proportion of mobile students, this gave the distinct impression of an elitist activity, whilst globalisation brought many cultures in much closer contact and into the work environment, and many societies became increasingly multicultural through migration. The need to ensure that all students became interculturally competent was strongly felt (Crowther et al., 2000). The solution was to examine what could be done at home in terms of internationalisation. Crowther et al. (2000) set out to examine, amongst other aspects, specifically the legislative and regulatory framework and how it impacted internationalisation at home (Wächter, 2000). It also focused on the “valuing of (cultural) diversity as a mutually enriching condition of social interaction in the academic environment” (Otten, 2000), the nature of internationalisation of the curriculum (Nilsson, 2000), and what specific qualities and skills academics were required to possess to be able to function in an international classroom occupied by local and international students together (Teekens, 2000). It is interesting to note that the editors (Crowther et al., 2000) chose to put cultural, as in ‘cultural diversity’, in brackets. Otten (2000) went on to explain that diversity should not just been seen in the context

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility,. . .

151

of nationality or ethnicity but include the wider social context of diversity due to gender, profession, and age (Adler, 1991; Henderson, 1994; Jackson, 1996). Nevertheless, the focus of this chapter shifted to the development of intercultural competence or intercultural sensitivity in terms of nationality or ethnicity to enable effective interaction with members of other cultures, both abroad and at home, the effect presumably of the central thought of the position paper about internationalisation. Internationalization at home was seen as bringing internationalisation efforts onto the campus to ensure that non-mobile local students also experienced the benefits of internationalisation. Fifteen years later Beelen and Jones (2015, p. 69) redefined internationalisation at home as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments”. In their paper, Beelen and Jones stressed that internationalisation at home does not require the presence of international students, although this could be of benefit. Acceptance of a broader concept of culture (Jones, 2013; Jones & Killick, 2013; Loden, 1996) would make every classroom have a diverse cohort of students and would provide opportunities to examine the international and intercultural dimensions of the curriculum. The prevailing notion was about multiple cultures (multicultural, due to the presence of local students with a migration background), rather than multiple nationalities (multi-national), although at times, especially in Loden (1996), there was mention of other sources of diversity, including spiritual beliefs, age, socioeconomic class, sexuality, and age. However, again the prevailing focus was on developing intercultural competence and some form of internationalising the curriculum (either formal or informal – Leask, 2015) remained strong in the arsenal of internationalisation at home.

Measuring Intercultural Competence This chapter contends that intercultural competence can be gained by activities that involve interaction with diverse others regardless of the source of diversity. To understand this argument, it is important to examine how intercultural competence has been measured successfully. There are many models (about 30) and related constructs (about 300) for intercultural competence. These constructs, in terms of personal characteristics, can be summarised into three content areas of intercultural traits, intercultural attitudes and worldviews, and intercultural abilities (Spitzberg & Chagnon, 2009; Leung et al., 2014). One of the instruments, developed by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000), the multicultural personality questionnaire (MPQ), gained wide approval and use and was regarded as one of only a few instruments to be most promising for assessing intercultural competence based on personality traits (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). Another test, the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS, Ang et al., 2007), based on the construct of cultural intelligence, which was founded in contemporary theories of cultural intelligence (Sternberg, 1986) has also been widely used for measuring intercultural competence. In a more

152

R. J. Coelen

recent review of both the MPQ and the CQS, as well as others, Chen and Gabrenya (2021) thought that, in terms of content validity, the MPQ was good, but it missed some possibly important personality traits for intercultural competence, such as being inquisitive, cosmopolitan, self-aware, and being non-judgemental. Relationship-based validities of this instrument (convergent, discriminant, and criterion) were also assessed as being good. The CQS emerged with good psychometric qualities and had high criterion validity. However, its convergence with social and emotional intelligence scales revealed it had poor discriminant validity. Indeed, Chen and Gabrenya (2021) asked what the CQS measures. For this chapter, it adds to the argument of being able to use other sources of diversity to develop qualities that assist individuals in becoming interculturally competent in the sense of national or ethnic diversity. However, it is not the intent of this chapter to provide an in-depth treatise of these instruments, but to use the MPQ and CQS as examples. The traits that are measured by the MPQ are based on the five broad personality traits of extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism that are used in general personality questionnaires such as the revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). However, such instruments have limited predictive value compared to more specific narrow traits (McCrae & John, 1992; Ashton, 1998; Paunonen et al., 1999). The MPQ measures cultural empathy, social initiative, flexibility, open-mindedness, and emotional stability (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). A closer inspection of the items used in the validated short form of the MPQ (Van der Zee et al., 2013; Hofhuis et al., 2020) for the subscale cultural empathy reveals that the items, including statements about sympathy with others, paying attention to the emotions of others, and good listening skills, do not so much ask about culture but are focused on empathy. The items of the other subscales (social initiative – tendency to actively approach social situations actively rather than waiting, flexibility – ability to easily switch from one behavioural strategy to another, open-mindedness – open and unprejudiced attitude toward cultural differences, and emotional stability – tendency to remain calm in stressful situations) also seem appropriate for predicting interaction with diverse others, regardless of the source of diversity. This leads to the suggestion that the MPQ might be also predictive of a broader competence – namely, the ability to be effective in working together successfully with diverse individuals. Indeed, in a recent explorative analysis (Korol et al., 2016), the MPQ was used to gauge the impact of a multicultural personality towards tolerance of diversity. Korol et al. (2016) proposed that this trait and the others in the MPQ were highly associated with tolerance of diversity. The notion that this tolerance is likely to extend beyond cultural diversity, as in national or ethnic diversity, is not hard to grasp. Coupling this with the current evidence that companies that embrace diversity appear to perform economically better than those that do not, as demonstrated by the EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) performance (Dolan et al., 2020), it appears likely that the cause of this is the individuals in a company that are effective at working with diverse others. The source of diversity that mattered most for performance enhancement, not surprisingly, varied by country and type of industry. Thus, an individual’s enhanced ability in this regard augurs well for the company in which they work. As companies

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility,. . .

153

increasingly embrace purposeful diversity, being able to effectively interact with diverse individuals may well become highly regarded. The CQS has four subscales relating to cognitive, motivational, behavioural, and metacognitive cultural intelligence. The cognitive component relates to knowledge of cultural norms, practices, and conventions. The motivational subscale predicts a willingness to direct energy towards learning and functioning in novel cultural contexts. Behavioural cultural intelligence relates to the ability to correctly perform verbal and non-verbal actions in diverse cultures, whereas the metacognitive component predicts proficiency in high-level processes by which knowledge is obtained and used, as well as conscious awareness of oneself in an intercultural context. It should come as no surprise that three of the four subscales (motivational, behavioural, and metacognitive) would likely be applicable to any source of diversity, whereas the cognitive component would require a minor adaptation to appear to be relevant for other sources of diversity and thereby predictive of knowledge about cultural norms, practices, and conventions of those cultures.

Definitions of Culture In this context, it is interesting to look at some definitions of culture, starting with the classic anthropological definition of culture (Tylor, 1871): The social behaviour, institutions, and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.

As well as that of Hofstede (2001): Collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.

In recent conversation, Richard Lewis was asked about his definition of culture, and he replied: “That is the way we do things around here”. It is noteworthy that all three definitions above do not specifically include nations or ethnicity as part of the definition of culture. Indeed, Hofstede specifically mentions that culture can specifically be applied to any human collectivity or category, be it an organisation, profession, age group, or even an entire gender (Hofstede, 2001, p. 10). It is most usual that upon the mention of the word ‘intercultural’ people tend to think of ethnic or national cultures. Indeed, we have words for interaction with diverse others when they belong to other cultural groups, e.g., interdisciplinary, interprofessional, intermarriage, intergenerational, interreligious, interparochial, intercollegiate or collegial intervision, interuniversity. We do not immediately refer to the word intercultural when describing interactions with persons from these various cultures. The focus of these words draws our attention to the nature of the culture (diversity source) at hand. Possibly, these terms contribute to a lesser consideration of these groups as other cultures and therefore also intercultural.

154

R. J. Coelen

The value of interacting with diverse individuals is extensive and manifests itself in diverse ways. About 15 years of research by McKinsey and Company (Dolan et al., 2020) has demonstrated a strong relationship between excellent business performance and embracing diversity. Their work became known in 2007 with a publication on gender diversity and has continued ever since, broadening the research to ethnic diversity and a wide range of countries. Also in academia, the value of embracing diversity has manifested itself. Uzzi et al. (2013) demonstrated with an analysis of about 18 million papers spanning all scientific fields that science with the highest impact generally follows a nearly universal pattern with two common features: The works are primarily grounded in exceptionally established combinations of prior work in the discipline but at the same time feature an intrusion of unusual combinations. These papers are twice as likely to become highly cited. Innovative combinations of prior work are rarely seen; however, teams are about one third more likely than single authors to insert novel combinations into traditional knowledge domains. These results clearly demonstrate the value of diversity in research teams. Kwiek (2015) studied the impact of international research collaboration on individual research output in eleven European countries involving more than 17,000 academics, comparing local only with international collaboration. He showed that, in all fields studied and in all countries, international collaboration was strongly correlated with substantially higher research output. There was variation in the extent of this across different disciplines, but always higher for international collaboration. In a more recent paper, Kwiek (2020) demonstrated that virtually all publication growth in the period of 2009 to 2018 was due to international research collaboration. He noted that the key to advancing international research collaboration was the individual scientist’s willingness to collaborate internationally. Ensuring that young students see the value of diversity from an early age would pave the way towards more international collaboration at a later age, should they become involved in academic work.

The Role of Diversity It is not difficult to find papers in many fields, where the authors in a team have quite different professional or academic backgrounds. An example of this is the paper by Heeman et al. (2019) where the co-authors were drawn from the fields of biomedical engineering, software engineering, surgery, and intensive care to develop a special version of imaging involving lasers in laparoscopic surgery. Many other examples abound. It is no longer possible to combine technology at the highest level with other academic disciplines without having the various disciplinary experts directly involved. In this sense, diverse teams perform better. In his book entitled The Diversity Bonus, Page (2017) makes the case for diverse teams at their prime being able to achieve a diversity bonus, a result that is beyond expectation if in such teams the available diversity can be expressed. He cites many

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility,. . .

155

examples of how the combination and expression of diversity have led to exceptional results. However, the practice of allowing diversity to be expressed involves cost. Teams need to learn how they can maximise conditions, including inclusion, for the diversity bonus to be reached. Page (2017, pp. 212–213) states: Practice, and therefore inclusion, entails cost. Schools, colleges, and universities can allay some of that cost by providing environments for young people to learn behaviors that produce diversity bonuses. [. . .] And, as might be expected, studies show that students who engage in diverse groups at school encounter more ideas and see the value of inclusivity.

At my own university, we have asked students who worked in multi-disciplinary teams on real-world problems (unpublished observations). They commented on their experience with statements like: “I did not know there were so many perspectives on this problem”, or “It was great to have IT students as part of the team, we did not have to go all the way down to the basics, the expert was in our midst”, and “It broadened my outlook on collaborative teams”.

Especially the first and last statements above certainly underline exactly what Page (2017) said. All three are a testimony to the ideas of a mixed team for the paper by Heeman et al. (2019) where the multidisciplinarity was the basis for an excellent result. Recent results from our own research group have shown that apart from a general appreciation for having to work in a diverse group – although not every student appreciates this, there is also a separate construct for appreciating diversity when it is relevant to the task students need to perform as a team. This task-specific appreciation for diversity can therefore be manifested by ensuring that tasks set by the lecturers involve the available diversity amongst groups of students. A relatively simple example would be to ask students of an international business programme, with international students in the cohort, to work in teams and create a business plan for doing business in a country that is represented by some of the students. There is little doubt that every team in the class would endeavour to get a student from that country as a member of their team. This gets a little more complicated when the discipline generally works with tasks for which international diversity offers little benefit. Nevertheless, at universities, we have the privilege of the presence of multiple disciplines, and it would take not too much imagination to have students work in multi-disciplinary teams and solve challenges that benefit from a multidisciplinary approach. This suggests that as universities, we can, and we should, follow up on the suggestion put forward by Page (2017) to give students the opportunity to gain experience to understand the value of embracing diversity. Given that diverse teams are the mainstay of human progress, we owe it to the next generation to equip them with the wherewithal to be able to work effectively in such teams. Indeed, we need to get them to a level of appreciation that they actively seek out diversity to overcome challenges. If we wait with this until they participate in tertiary education, we are too late and could only hope to repair and make do. Young children in primary education can already recognise and use diversity to achieve goals. When children in the first year of primary education start to play

156

R. J. Coelen

competitive sports in the class and two children are asked to pick their teams each in turn selecting a team member until the two teams are complete. Initially they will pick their friends and the popular children in the class. However, after several games a very definitive hierarchy starts to develop in which the team choosers know exactly whom to ask first to be on their team for their scoring or defensive play abilities. In other words, these children recognise the diversity of skills that are required and more importantly, who possesses these skills. All this to win the game. Unfortunately, classroom instruction does not go beyond recognising the value of working in teams and being healthy through sports. It takes teacher-education programmes that recognise the need to equip teachers with diversity-competent teaching skills to bring about this change.

Conclusions Finally, I think it is important to recognise that the diversity of disciplines at university will have competing diversity priorities. It is therefore important to acknowledge this, and in further developing academic teaching skills, we should be mindful not to think of internationalisation or activities that deal with other sources of diversity as something that should be evenly distributed across the whole university. Let the academics decide which sources of diversity are important and relevant for their discipline, but encourage them to seek this out. The benefits of this are manifold, not least the potential research output. In answer to the question whether there are other ways than just internationalisation activities to equip students with intercultural skills, I conclude with saying that there are many sources of diversity that are both relevant at the disciplinary level and more generally as sources with which to equip students with basic knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and ethics (KSAVE) and appreciation for diversity and intercultural competency regardless of the culture they need to interact with.

References Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behaviour (2nd ed.). Kent Publishing. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 289–303. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer International.

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility,. . .

157

Chen, X., & Gabrenya, W. (2021). In search of cross-cultural competence: A comprehensive review of five measurements instruments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.02.003 Coelen, R. J. (2016). A learner-centred internationalisation of higher education. In E. Jones, R. J. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and local internationalization (pp. 35–42). Sense Publishers. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home. A position paper. European Association for International Education. de Wit, H. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and The United States of America. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and Association of International Education Administrators. de Wit, H. (2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. Internationalization of higher education: An institutional perspective. UNESCO/CEPES. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in The United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., & Coelen, R. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education in Europe: Future directions. In H. de Wit, F. Hunter, L. Howard, & E. Egron-Polak (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education (pp. 273–287). European Parliament, DirectorateGeneral for Internal Policies. Dolan, K., Hunt, V., Prince, S., & Sancier-Sultan, S. (2020, May 19). Diversity still matters. McKinsey Quarterly. Accessed on August 29, 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/ featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-still-matters Heeman, W., Dijkstra, K., Hoff, C., Koopal, S., Pierie, J.-P., Bouma, H., & Boerma, C. (2019). Application of laser speckle contrast imaging in laparoscopic surgery. Biomedical Optics Express, 10(4), 2010–2019. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.10.002010 Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace: Issues and strategies. Quorum Books. Hofhuis, J., Jongerling, J., Van der Zee, K. I., & Jansz, J. (2020). Validation of the multicultural personality questionnaire short form (MPQ-SF) for use in the context of international education. PLoS One, 15(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244425 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75). Wiley. Jones, E. (2013). Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money and Management, 33(2), 95–104. https://doi. org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763416 Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum: Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312473655 Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391 Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and IDP-Education Australia. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.

158

R. J. Coelen

Korol, L., Gonçalves, G., & Cabral, M. (2016). The impact of multicultural personality on tolerance of diversity in a sample of Portuguese university students. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 18(2), 57–74. Kwiek, M. (2015). The internationalization of research in Europe: A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572898 Kwiek, M. (2020). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749254 Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. (2014). Intercultural competence. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489–519. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229 Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. McGraw Hill. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849–873. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0022022113492891 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 21–28). European Association for International Education. Otten, M. (2000). Impacts of cultural diversity at home. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 15–20). European Association for International Education. Page, S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press. Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3%3C389::AID-JOB917% 3E3.0.CO;2-G Spitzberg, B. H., & Chagnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 3–52). Sage. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence?: Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 3–15). Ablex. Teekens, H. (2000). Teaching and learning in the international classroom. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 29–34). European Association for International Education. Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture. John Murray. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474 Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3C291::AID-PER377% 3E3.0.CO;2-6 Van der Zee, K., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (2013). Multicultural personality questionnaire: Development of a short form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 118–124.

9

Is Internationalisation at Home, as an Alternative to Student Mobility,. . .

159

van Vught, F. A., van der Wende, M. C., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2002). Globalisation and internationalisation: Policy agendas compared. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 103–121). Kluwer. Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home: The context. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 5–14). European Association for International Education.

Chapter 10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights? Ashley Gunter, Markus Roos Breines, F. Melis Cin, and Parvati Raghuram

Introduction There is now a vast literature on internationalisation of higher education encompassing different modalities of internationalisation from institutional co-operation to branch campuses and transnational university networks to curriculum (Knight, 1997; Anderson & Maharasoa, 2002). In schematising this literature (Findlay et al., 2011) argued that most of this research focuses on the demand side, i.e., why students choose to move and where, rather than the supply side, i.e., on the role that economic, social, and cultural value play in the selection of students’ study locations (Findlay et al., 2011). Student destinations that are perceived as educational hubs may facilitate further mobility (Shields, 2013) by improving their human and social capital (Gopal, 2016) or job prospects because of the availability of poststudy visas. Moreover, the presence of friends and family or a thriving social and cultural scene can also attract student migrants (Prazeres, 2019; Beech, 2015).

A. Gunter (✉) Department of Geography, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] M. R. Breines Department of Migration, Integration and Skills, Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] F. M. Cin Centre for Social Justice and Wellbeing in Education, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK e-mail: [email protected] P. Raghuram Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_10

161

162

A. Gunter et al.

For Findlay (2011, p. 163) supply-side theories would, on the other hand, stress that the mobility of international students is strongly shaped by the financial interests of those who organize, supply and market elite higher-education opportunities within the global economy.

This chapter suggests that this reading of demand-side literature is inadequate as it has looked at demand as individually driven or shaped by families and social networks (Beech, 2015). It argues that thinking of internationalisation through the lens of educational demand and access to education in home countries offers a structural perspective to demand that is often missing in studies of internationalisation. Moreover, it argues that even though access issues may be addressed at national levels, a more cosmopolitan ethic points to the need to think of internationalisation in relation to transnational rights. In doing so, the chapter makes several distinctive contributions. First, it links two literatures that are not often brought together, i.e., that on internationalisation and that on access to higher education in global South contexts. It investigates inadequate and unequal access to education as two drivers of internationalisation. Secondly, these two are also, for the first time, looked at through the lens of international distance education (IDE), a topic that has received much less attention than other forms of internationalisation. The chapter addresses the demand-side factors that encourages students to choose IDE. It explores the state of higher education in origin counties and how that influences study choices. In doing so, we look at how the demand for international education moves beyond individual choice and perspectives and is driven by broader country specific socio-economic and development issues. Thirdly, we also contribute to current literature by focusing on Africa, a continent where there is growing demand for higher education but where internationalisation has been less well studied with Jowi et al. (2013) and Sehoole (2006) constituing exceptions. We examine how issues of access to higher-education provision in Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Namibia lead to demand for IDE at University of South Africa (UNISA), one of the world’s leading providers of distance education. Although the focus of our research is on students who do not relocate, we suggest that student mobility too is likely to be influenced by questions of access. Exploring the contingent and contextual access issues across three sites raises questions about how IDE is not only an asset and commodity to be consumed by students of middleand higher-income students, but also an issue of development goals and rights. In this chapter, we look at questions of access as they play out within national boundaries and explore how IDE provides a solution to issues of access. In doing so, we also build a case towards an international imagining of responsibility for higher education, an issue we turn to in the conclusion. The chapter thus ends by pointing to why these issues need to be considered in research on internationalisation.

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

163

Internationalisation and Access: An Inadequate Conversation International Distance Education Internationalisation has become a central concern for universities chasing income from student fees, for cities where such universities are located and whose economies have benefited from student expenditure and for countries that count this income as an important export earner (Mittelmeier & Cockayne, 2022). Countries have therefore adjusted their migration policies to attract students. Concomitantly there has been a growth in interest in international student mobility. This form of mobility benefits students too, as international exposure improves job prospects and access to international job markets (Irfan et al., 2017). Thus, Waters (2018) argues that students who study abroad get greater value from their mobility compared to those who have an international education “at home” as they accrue mobility capital. Mobility capital has been referred to as a component of human capital (MurphyLejeune, 2002) or as a form of capital that exists alongside the economic, social, and cultural capitals that Bourdieu (1984) first articulated. Mobility capital, like other types of capital, is a form of value accretion that is only available to individuals who already own some socioeconomic capital, i.e., the ability to travel; therefore, it is considered a luxury rather than a need. It is therefore situated in particular classes, who can deploy and convert different forms of capital to accrue new ones through mobility. However, not all international students travel abroad to attend university. The ability to benefit from value circuits accruing in remote locations is especially applicable to students who benefit from various forms of international education such as IDE, i.e., those who remain in their home country but access study programmes overseas. This group is an important but neglected group in studies of internationalisation. In a world where access and participation in higher education is extraordinarily unjust for different geographies and for different people due to structural, economic political or historical complexities and lack of equal opportunities, IDE offers an opportunity to access higher education. Distance Education (DE) allows disadvantaged students to receive quality education from a different location without physically travelling there (Subotzky & Prinsloo, 2011). Students in rural areas, secure locations such as jails, remote locations such as submarines, and those unable to relocate due to disability are overrepresented in the DE sector. These students are also unlikely to be able to afford to move (Breines et al., 2019). In fact, DE enables students to overcome the limits of their locations and to access the benefits of studying in other locations. They can broaden their perspectives and acquire the capital of international studies earned in another location, but without mobility. Focusing on how mobility capital is acquired without the actual movement of the student is especially valuable since it allows us to consider the range of international student experiences beyond that of the stereotypical privileged student migrant.

164

A. Gunter et al.

While both International Distance Education (IDE) and online education are methods of learning that transcend traditional geographical and temporal boundaries, they are distinct. IDE refers to an educational strategy in which the learner and learning resources can be located far from the education provider (Keegan, 1996). This includes a variety of delivery methods, such as correspondence courses, which are not always digital. Online education, on the other hand, is a subset of distance education that refers specifically to education transmitted exclusively via the internet (Naidu, 2006). Consequently, all online education can be considered IDE, but not all IDE must be online education. This is an essential distinction to consider, as the digital divide in Global South countries can limit access to online education (Unwin et al., 2010). In contrast, IDE, with its broader delivery methods, may better accommodate the various technological capabilities and resources of students. It is also important to note that the relationship between students and teachers in an IDE system can vary considerably, from being personal in the case of mail correspondence to being essentially anonymous in massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Alexandron et al., 2019). These distinctions impact the pedagogical and interactional dynamics in these educational settings. Consequently, recognising the nuanced distinction between online education and IDE is important in order to comprehend the various opportunities and challenges that these modalities of learning present within the internationalization of education. A focus on such distance education is particularly apt at the present moment. There has been a proliferation of DE modalities due to rising technical inputs, such as internet provision, and because of the diversification of delivery methods. For instance, a significant portion of the DE offering is also open and informal, i.e., it does not require any prior qualifications and may be taken in small modules, frequently for free, as is the case with the expansion of open educational resources and MOOCs. Most importantly, there is increasing interest in distance education models following COVID-19, when many institutions of learning began to adopt a hybrid model. It led to greater recognition of how internationalisation at a distance can be full-time and at degree and post-graduate levels (Mittelmeier et al., 2020). Thus, distance education widens access and internationalisation of distance education and increases the geographical spread of this access. Internationalisation thus has the ability to increase inclusiveness, albeit into educational programmes. The curriculum is often shaped by colonial legacies (Gunter & Raghuram, 2018; Teferra, 2017), but, given the status of such internationalisation in terms of rankings and the perceived benefits in terms of jobs and opportunities for migration (Mittelmeier et al., 2022), IDE can be a major draw.

Access to Higher Education Access is an important issue in research on African higher education. Although much of the research on ISM argues that students who migrate are usually from middle and upper classes (Findlay et al., 2011; Brooks & Waters, 2011 ), the

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

165

evidence from Africa challenges this pattern. For instance, research on Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa (Walker & Mkwananzi, 2015; Mkwanazi & Mbohwa, 2016) show that students move in multiple ways, including as refugees. Once they have established their presence or arrived in the country, some of them aspire to education for upward social mobility or as a way of exiting from their precarious and insecure lives. Likewise, political instability in Nigeria (Umar & Abu, 2016) or lack of educational provision in several African countries (Teferra & Altbach, 2004) leads to migration for education. The dominance of Asian narratives in the internationalisation literature has meant, however, that these questions of access that are apparent in the literature on internationalisation in Africa are not adequately considered. The question of who can access what kind of higher education institution and how this access is enabled is particularly important in Africa as there is unmet demand, and only a small proportion of the population gains access (UNESCO, 2020) due to insufficient tertiary capacity, lack of education provision, political factors (e.g., strikes) or unaffordable costs of fees (Johnstone, 2004). There is a moral side to this demand, because access to higher education has not been conceptualised in quite the same way as access to basic education in international declarations. Basic education is seen as a moral imperative, as a right to be guaranteed legally for everyone without any discrimination, and states are seen as accountable to protect, respect, and fulfil the right to basic education in international declarations (e.g., EFA or Millennium Development Goals) and in grassroots movements (e.g., women’s movements emphasise access to basic education more than higher education) whereas there have been few normative statements about international development and higher education until recently. However, this perspective has begun to change as the connection between access to higher education and International Distance Education (IDE) becomes more apparent. Access to higher education is frequently hindered by economic constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of quality educational resources, particularly in contexts of the Global South (Marginson, 2007). IDE presents a strategic response to conventional educational barriers by enhancing accessibility and leveraging the flexibility of learning from any global location, often at a more economical price point compared to traditional learning institutions (Paul & Tait, 2019 ). Consequently, IDE opens doors to individuals who might otherwise be precluded from pursuing traditional higher education due to geographical constraints, economic limitations, or political factors. However, SDG 2030, for the first time, has taken a step towards change. It highlights the importance of tertiary education and promotes it as a target in its own right and as crucial for enabling many other goals. SDG4 was introduced to “ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university”, thus moving the highereducation agenda to a more normative developmental focus (United Nations, 2018, p 27). The aim is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” especially in sub-Saharan Africa and

166

A. Gunter et al.

Southern Asia and for vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, indigenous people, refugees, and poor children in rural areas. The adoption of higher education as a right on its own in the SDGs led to a growing body of work (Unterhalter, 2019; Boni et al., 2016; McCowan, 2018) on higher education’s public-good role for delivering development outcomes, such as training public professionals for better health-care services, poverty reduction, food security and capacity building (Unterhalter & Howell, 2021). This literature stresses that higher education has the capacity to promote development by extending the value and impact of teaching and research to communities in the global south. Yet, access is a significant caveat in achieving this vision. Access is influenced by a range of factors, including personal factors, such as norms and social factors, like gendered capabilities. However, we focus on three aspects of access that IDE addresses: (i) inadequate provision of higher education, (ii) physical access emanating from the location/place of higher-education institutions and the lack of infrastructure, and (iii) political/economic instability emerge as factors boosting demand for IDE. Inadequate provision of higher education speaks to the economic aspects of access. The literature focuses on two important factors: unaffordable university education that makes higher education inaccessible for the majority of citizens (Walker & Mathebula, 2019) and limited low-cost government loans and funds to cover higher-education fees (Schendel & McCowan, 2016). Inadequacy, however, also widens the access gap for historically disadvantaged communities. Inadequate provision in the context of high demand leads students to reach out for more affordable and flexible education such as IDE (Raghuram et al., 2020). Secondly, IDE also has the potential to provide flexible education that goes beyond the limits of place. Students can access higher education in their own time; even residential schools or block teaching can prevent those with caring responsibilities from accessing higher education. Not all students have the resources to spend concerted amounts of money and time on such endeavours. These questions of physical access are writ large when there are few institutions serving sparsely distributed populations as we will see below. Lastly, the political dimension of access is not only about inequalities related to class structure or status order but to the histories and contemporary patterns in educational provision. Historically colonial authorities in Africa established policies that either discouraged or prevented higher-education expansion (e.g., Belgians) in colonised countries (Adriansen et al., 2015), other than for producing an elite that would play a role in colonial administration (e.g., British). Post-independence growth in higher-education provision was stymied, however, as aid policies by lenders such as the World Bank prioritised primary education. Together, this led to a gap between rising demand for higher education and actual increases in provision (Obamba, 2013; Raghuram, 2021). These legacies have set the ground for contemporary issues of access. The next sections focus on these issues as they play out in selected countries in Africa, but first we offer a brief outline of the methodology adopted in this study.

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

167

International Student Demand Since the end of apartheid and isolation, South Africa has been a regional education centre for Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, the country is perceived as an inexpensive location with high-quality education (Lee & Sehoole, 2015). Over 45,000 international students, the vast majority from the SADC area, attend the nation’s 26 universities (OECD, 2019). Many of these students are attracted to South Africa because of the renown of its educational institutions within Africa and the comparatively advanced state of its economy (Hiralal, 2015). As the need for higher education, increases in Africa, especially Southern Africa, private and branch campuses have proliferated in the country. Despite Bond and Monash University branch campuses withdrawing from South Africa due to tightening legislative constraints on overseas education, a number of other universities have campuses, and two publicly traded organisations give students a growing number of private higher-education options. While the country attracts over 30,000 students from SADC, there are also regional students who are unable to relocate. The University of South Africa (UNISA) has a big population of international students and offers all qualifications through remote learning (Karsenti & Collin, 2013). It provides a unique perspective on the goals of students without the means or ability to move who seek foreign credentials. For these students, international education is increasingly dependent upon distance education. UNISA is one of the world’s mega universities, with over 350,000 students, around 23,000 of whom are classified as international students (UNISA, 2021). The institution’s international student population is dominated by Zimbabweans and other students from SADC, followed by students from 29 other nations. Numerous regional and continental students are drawn by the absence of locational constraints, as they are not required to ever visit a UNISA campus or facility or even be in South Africa. UNISA has a lengthy history on the African continent, with the University of Namibia’s origins as a UNISA campus and campus centres in Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and Kenya at various times in the past. The institution had examination centres in 31 African nations before the move to online exams in 2020 (UNISA, 2017). As its mission is to be an “African University in the Service of Humanity”, UNISA has sought to expand its offerings to other African nations. This chapter is part of a larger collaboration initiative between UNISA in South Africa and the Open University UK (October 2016–June 2019) that has explored the role of UNISA in Africa. In this project, international distance students were defined as those students who did not live in South Africa but were registered at UNISA. This included both South African students living outside of their home country and non-South African citizens studying from their own country. A part of the study also focused on South African students, by way of comparison. Questionnaires were sent out via email to all students in the College of Science, Engineering and Technology (CSET); 1295 responses were received from a total of 19,506 students. From the returned questionnaires, 772 were international (i.e., non-South African) students from 24 African nations, and the remaining 523 were

168

A. Gunter et al.

South African. The project then purposively chose to focus on the two largest foreign-student cohorts in the sample, Namibian students living in Namibia (n = 139) and Zimbabwean students living in Zimbabwe (n = 311); a further group, Nigerian (n = 45) students were also selected as they represented the largest student cohort outside of SADC. From this cohort of questionnaires, a total of 135 students were selected for an interview, 85 in Zimbabwe, 40 in Namibia, and 10 in Nigeria. The interviews were conducted through Skype-to-phone in English, but due to the introduction of data protection regulations very early in the project, details of the participants could not be shared with researchers outside the UK, so the interviews drawn on in much of the project were done by one of the co-authors of this paper (see Cin et al., 2023). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded in NVivo using a combination of deductive and inductive methodologies depending on the research design’s major topics and the data’s emergent themes. The in-depth study of the data and the use of many data-gathering techniques allowed for a comprehensive understanding of education in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. In-country visits were conducted to all countries to build a context of higher education in each. Interviews with stakeholders in higher education of each country were conducted with policy makers, academics and academic management by the principal investigators to build an understanding of the larger context of higher education in each country and the environment that UNISA operates in these contexts. This chapter’s analysis is based on these interviews with key persons in the three countries – Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Namibia and from secondary data assembled as part of the project and then updated over time. This study’s selection of Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Namibia as its focal points was guided by specific considerations. Zimbabwe, as the country with the largest number of international students, was chosen to represent the preponderance of international student nationalities. Namibia, despite its relatively small size, falls precisely within South Africa’s sphere of influence, making it an intriguing research subject for comprehending International Distance Education (IDE) perceptions in countries with strong South African ties. Due to its relative independence and size, Nigeria was chosen as a contrast to South Africa’s sphere of influence, offering local students a broader selection of study locations. Despite this, Nigeria still sends a sizeable number of students to the University of South Africa (UNISA), presenting an intriguing instance for the evaluation of student choice dynamics within the context of IDE.

Nigeria – Inadequate Provision The massification and expansion of higher-education institutions in the global South, such as the growth of private universities and increase in the total number of places to enable access, does not always meet the growing demand. Particularly in Nigeria, the lack of provision has been pushing students to seek alternative educational provisions, including IDE.

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

169

As of January 2020, Nigeria had 43 federal universities, 52 state universities and 79 private universities (Ndofirepi et al., 2020) with at least one institution/college in each state to mitigate some of the educational exclusion that can be linked to geographical dispersion, religious affiliation, or ethnic group membership (Mukoro, 2013; Salihu & Jamil, 2015). The federal universities are the oldest higher-education institutions in Nigeria. The first was established in 1948 (University of Ibadan in Oyo State), but the number of institutions increased rapidly only after independence in 1960. By 1962, Nigeria had four universities, which increased to 12 by 1977 and 20 by 1983 (Kolinsky, 1985). The more than 40 federal universities are located in the Federal Capital Territory and across the 34 states, with the exceptions of Edo State and Taraba State, and are popular for offering face-to-face education with no tuition fee charged. Despite the increase in federal and state universities, there is an enormous and unfulfilled demand for higher education among Nigeria’s large population, as one of the Nigerian academics working in a Federal University said: Universities can’t cover the number of students – they are very oversubscribed [at the same time as there is a shortage of qualified staff]. For example, if having seven more universities we need 700 people more, but in the last few years, we have not produced these. We also need to improve quality of staff and there is a continuous brain drain.

A consequence of this ever-growing demand coupled with insufficient government funds to finance higher-education institutions (Ekpo, 2002; Okebukola, 2002) has generated a market for private higher education. As the growth both in demand and enrolment places strains on public higher-education institutions, the establishment of private institutions emerges as a response and a solution (Jamshidi et al., 2012). Over the past two decades, the number of privately held colleges has expanded dramatically in the southwestern region of Nigeria, which is the hub of political and economic activity (Moland, 2015). Unlike public universities, which are fully dependent on government subsidies, private universities have the flexibility to cope with the ever-increasing demand for higher education. However, most of these privately owned colleges demand high tuition fees in order to maintain excellence (Ajadi et al., 2008), taking the majority of their degrees out of the reach of most Nigerians and raising further questions about if they are established as profitmaking or highly commercialized non-profit higher-education institutions. Currently, the high tuition fees mean that only 5% attend private institutions in Nigeria (Federal Ministry of Education, 2016), and their provision also widens the existing inequalities in access to higher education instead of mitigating them.1 Both the expansion and privatisation of higher education meant that there have been significant increases in the number of student enrolments, but there continues to be inadequate provision. The report by the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Education (FME) for the period 1999–2016 indicates the admission rate; the number of students admitted across the entire public university sector, at both state and federal 1

The total enrolments in federal universities represent approximately 62% of the country’s university students, while 33% study at state universities (Federal Ministry of Education, 2016).

170

A. Gunter et al.

levels has increased from 5% of all applicants in 2002/03 to 9% in 2009/10 and 32% in 2014/15. A large part of this increase can be attributed to the opening of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) in 2002, a distance-education provider (Federal Ministry of Education, 2016). NOUN is the largest university, with a total of 450,000 students across all academic levels. However, not even NOUN absorbs the demand, as each year there are more than one million applicants who are denied university admission.2 The Ministry of Education points out that 1.7 million students apply, and hence there are more than a million applicants who do not get university places each year (Federal Ministry of Education, 2016). Also, the absence of efforts to counterbalance the infrastructural costs brings further increases in staff workload, class size, insufficient number of qualified academics to work to sustain an acceptable level of university education quality, and thus a reduction in the quality of instruction. The Dean of STEM argues: A major challenge facing the university is capacity. There are two options; we need more institutions and to improve infrastructure. But how can we build up? Only 60% of lecturers are PhDs. Some fields lack sufficient personnel.

These concerns were also echoed by students who highlighted that there is a dearth of quality study materials, groups, and a scarcity of lecturers with innovative ideas in line with current pedagogic styles. Yet another dimension of the challenges of higher education provision in Nigeria is admission. The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) is responsible for administering and managing the demand and supply of university education in the country. Its main responsibility is, according to Iruonagbe et al. (2015), to place the suitably qualified candidates in different universities. However, this is a highly complex process, as Officials in the JAMB pointed out: “A major factor is number of years it takes to get into higher education. Usually people will take several years trying to get the JAMB and get the papers.” Provision is also related to the government’s capacity to finance higher-education institutions. Funding higher education in general has been a major and persistent problem (Ekpo, 2002; Okebukola, 2002). The government budget to the education sector has consistently been below 8.8% of the total Federal Government expenditure (Lembani, 2019) and puts further strain on already ongoing financial issues universities have been facing. So, the dilemma facing the Nigerian university education system is twofold. On the one hand, the government and the universities face an ever-increasing demand for university education while, on the other hand, the government is unable to adequately fund the existing universities in the country. Nigeria has a number of universities, both private and public, yet despite the local supply, the demand is much larger. Local demand for international education is driven by a lack of funding for public universities, the cost of private universities and social factors that decrease

2

The total enrolments in federal universities represent approximately 62% of the country’s university students, while 33% study at state universities (Federal Ministry of Education, 2016).

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

171

the quality of education on offer, but also leads to dissatisfaction among staff and to staff strikes as a result. While it is clear that access to a university degree is a primary aim for students who see it as a path into the professional class, demand for international education is driven in Nigeria by a shortage of spaces in institutions that have a good reputation.

Namibia – Physical Access While higher education in Namibia is currently expanding and ever-larger numbers of students are accessing university, the distribution remains unbalanced (Ilonga et al., 2020; Mulvey, 2021). To meet the increasing demand, the three institutions, University of Namibia (UNAM), Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), and International University of Management (IUM) have launched branch and satellite campuses across the country. UNAM has 12 campuses and 11 regional centres located around the country. However, the connection between the main campuses and their satellite campuses is not always straightforward, leading to a number of logistical issues and lopsided distribution in how materials are being delivered (Nakale, 2021), affecting both the quality of education and the ability of students to complete their degrees. The public university infrastructure in Namibia, comprising 33 campuses and centres, still remains inadequate for the sparsely distributed population scattered across its enormous landmass (Lushu, 2020). The difficulty in physical access to campuses and unequal geographical distribution disadvantages students in remote areas. Ronald, a male student, remarked that the two institutions in this enormous country are located in the capital, Windhoek, which hinders the ability of many individuals to study while another Namibian student, Heather, explains the uneven distribution of campuses inhibiting access: it becomes costly because if you have to go [. . .] For instance, if you were to pursue full-time education, it would require you to stay in the city centre, and then it becomes costly because you must consider housing, transportation to and from the university, and tuition expenses. Consequently, this also plays a significant impact in persons pursuing higher education.

Thabo, another male student also highlights how the issue of physical proximity is related to infrastructural development: I come from the place, which is almost isolated. The development in my area is very low. So, it’s affecting education as well.

The lack of what he referred to as ‘development’ impacted not only people’s educational opportunities locally, but also their access to higher education. As a result of the long distances, challenges of relocating to Windhoek and issues related to satellite campuses, about 20% of the students at University of Namibia are studying through distance education Ilonga et al., 2020). However, Ronald goes no to explains:

172

A. Gunter et al.

There are a few distant education programmes in Namibia; however their administration is problematic. Many persons who have attempted remote education, particularly tertiary education, have encountered obstacles such as assignments being lost, things not being graded, payments not being recorded, and other problems.

These issues are partly related to Namibia’s relatively recent history of higher education. After Namibian independence from South Africa in 1990, University of Namibia was established in 1992, from a UNISA satellite centre, to serve as a centre of higher learning and research. As the demand for higher education increased, the capacity and the total number of students has markedly increased from 3,639 students in 1992 to 28,217 students in 2018. Namibia University of Science and Technology was established in 1994 and is also located in Windhoek (Hangula et al., 2018). To widen their participation, the education policy has focused on women (Agarwal et al., 2019) leading to an increase in their numbers. For instance, in the International University of Management 34% are male students while 66% are female (Hangula et al., 2018). In sum, the geographical challenges, relatively recent history and inadequate variety of local provision, along with familiarity with South African higher education due the relative recent and strong historical links, all make UNISA an attractive option (Dzvimbo & Moloi, 2013).

Zimbabwe – Political Issues Zimbabwean higher education has its roots in the unstable economic and political environment of the country, which severely impedes access by rendering the state incapable of adequately financing higher-education institutions (Dzvimbo, 2015). There are currently nine public and many private institutions with an estimated increase in full-time enrolment between 2018 and 2020 from 94,131 to 116,328 students (Mukeredzi, 2022). Nevertheless, the Zimbabwean higher-education system lacks the capacity to accommodate all its qualified school-leaving students. According to Dzvimbo (2015), over 300,000 pupils graduate from the Zimbabwean secondary school system (Ordinary certificate level) each year, but only 30% of them are integrated into the formal and informal work sectors (Sehoole & Jenny, 2020). The struggling economic status of the country and the inability of local institutions to keep up with the number of students seeking admission to higher education fuels demand for IDE as they pursue places in higher education abroad (Sehoole & Jenny, 2020). The loss of fee-paying students and the inadequate public funding has also led to the deterioration of infrastructure in universities (Mukwambo, 2020). The financial challenges are affecting the conditions for staff and subsequently the provision of education. Mark, a male student, mentioned that often: ‘staff do not teach the courses they develop or are given course to teach that they have not been involved in before’, that there is a ‘very heavy marking load that staff struggle to deal with’ and that staff ‘have to travel a lot to go to give classes at the regional centres, this takes away time from developing new course material.

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

173

As a result, Mark pointed out that many staff are demotivated not only because the pay is low but because they have to take on “additional work to make ends meet”. This had implications for students, and Mark explained that: Studying is a life-time investment, and I don’t want to invest myself in something that has so much negativity around it [higher education in Zimbabwe]. You read in the newspaper every day stories of corruption, lecturers looking for bribes to pass students. I had friends who were attending technical courses at these places, and they complained of poor administration and lack of quality in teaching. The lecturers are not always there, and the degrees may not be accredited or recognised thereafter. I also worried about the recognition of a Zimbabwean degree on the international stage, should I ever want to leave the country.

The issues of corruption in some Zimbabwean universities compromises the quality of education delivered discourage students from furthering higher-education degrees in their home countries. Tia, a female Zimbabwean student, says: I do keep a very close check on the media here, and the Zimbabwean university system and public education system in general had fallen from grace a few years ago. You read every day in the newspaper about corruption and professors seeking money to pass pupils. Friends of mine who attended technical courses at these institutions shared the same complaints.

Such incidents of corruption that permeate the administration of the country have deeply affected the university system, forcing students to question the quality of the education and the worth of the degree. This also closely related with the systematic breakdown in a number of national institutions in Zimbabwe that has led to massive migration from that country. This is further driving the need for international higher education, as local residents look for opportunities to migrate and leave the country as it grapples with almost constant economic crisis (Gukurume, 2019). Indeed, this migration started in Zimbabwe following the land reform of 2000 along with the nation’s uncertain political climate presents (Garwe & Thondhlana, 2019). Many senior and experienced academics have left the country in search of more favourable working conditions and salary packages at universities in South Africa and Europe that are better funded (Dzvimbo, 2015). While the challenges affect the provision of higher education, there are also attempts to improve the conditions. Currently, efforts are being directed at bringing back Zimbabwean-acquired higher qualifications to their former repute (McGrath et al., 2021). Attempts are being made to ensure that the qualifications meet internationally recognised standards and are considered credible. Increasing research capacity through a five-fold mission to teach, research, consult, innovate and industrialise is being encouraged (Murairwa, 2021). Universities are also becoming stricter in enforcing a PhD qualification for all teaching staff from a senior lecturing position and beyond (Mukwambo, 2020). The government is also seeking to make higher education more inclusive for women. Following the introduction of the Zimbabwe higher-education affirmativeaction policy in 2012, Mashininga (2012) reported a sharp increase in female student enrolments in higher-education institutions in the country. The policy effectively allowed female students to be admitted into programmes at slightly lower admissions scores than their male counterparts, and female enrolment figures have been

174

A. Gunter et al.

quoted at about 40% for many universities (Dalu, 2019). Many challenges still exist, however, for women attempting to access higher education: lack of adequate accommodation, lack of grants, sexual abuse and rape, victimisation by lecturers, lack of sanitary facilities, early marriages, poor access to affordable health care, gender imbalances in institutions, low female involvement in decision-making and in student bodies, low self-esteem, and lack of prenatal care (Vurayai, 2021), making all these issues a political problem. Although some policies have been implemented to increase women’s access to higher education, it still remains unwelcoming and unsafe for women. Given the political and economic state of the country and the inability of local institutions to keep up with the number of students looking for access to higher education, the demand for international education has risen significantly as students look internationally for places in higher education as well as a standard of education which they no longer feel is on offer in the country.

Conclusion: Higher-Education Access as the Driver of Internationalisation This chapter demonstrates that diverse and specific types of access to higher education fuel the demand for IDE, but it is crucial to note that they are formed by the dependence on global players, which makes it more difficult for the higher-education institutions in Africa to enter the market for the knowledge economy (Raghuram, 2021). Such politics of access cannot be considered in a vacuum independent of who gets higher education, where, how and why. This focus on access also helps us to think of internationalisation from the perspective of students, i.e., why engage in international study? Internationalisation can be an outcome of exclusion from national provision, but the market-led narrative of internationalisation has watered down the ethos of creating equitable and quality higher-education regimes as we internationalise (Walker & Wilson-Strydom, 2017). The inequalities we have highlighted in this chapter can also be seen in many parts of the world; they are not unique to Africa, but what they suggest is the importance of seeing higher education as a transnational right and developing a critical approach to state-centric approaches to argue for a moral responsibility for higher education. Cosmopolitanism, taken as Kantian universalism, considers the well-being of individuals of utmost importance wherever they are in the world and is also concerned with equality beyond the boundaries of the state with a concern for establishing justice transnationally (Brock & Brighouse, 2005). International higher education needs such an ethical agenda to make education more accessible. As the IDE community, we should be driven by the political duties we owe to people who are not citizens of the same country but whose lives are affected by our actions, and this moral obligation that we cannot live in a ‘duty-free’ culture without paying attention to the injustices in other countries or ensuring rights to survival at a threshold level is what distinguishes

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

175

cosmopolitanism from globalisation (Harvey, 2009). Some of these ideas sparked a discussion in the field of education whether it can respond to injustices and to what extent (Sehoole & Knight, 2013). We can argue that many of the initiatives taken across the world regarding education such as UNICEF, EFA, MDG, or SDGs are driven by the ethical concern and normative understanding of bringing equality to people with whom we share no ties of common citizenship. They are mostly driven by strong and thick cosmopolitanism (Dobson, 2006), which involves an obligation to justice, because of our mutual implicatedness and interconnectedness in a globalised world. Providing global equal access to tertiary education, i.e., taking up the imperatives of thick cosmopolitanism and its attendant demand to provide justice, requires the establishment of institutions and practices that foster access to higher education by people beyond the boundaries of the state in which the student happens to be (Held, 2018). In the absence of free/affordable, equal access to higher education in Africa, thick cosmopolitanism would imply that IDE could give us with an alternative route to identify higher education as a transnational right and a universal moral imperative. This perspective, recognizing the potential of IDE, begins to bridge the gap between the pressing demand for higher education and its supply, especially in regions with limited resources. The concept of universalism does not, however, imply ignoring the nuances of local, national, and regional circumstances and comprehending local negotiations, since doing so risks privileging or imposing Western concerns (Wilson et al., 1996). A consequence of such an act, as observed in many parts of the world, is the maintenance of colonial knowledge powers in the interest of becoming international, attracting international students, and promoting those institutions as highly competitive (desirable) institutions in the employment market.

References Adriansen, H. K., Madsen, L. M., & Jensen, S. (2015). Higher education and capacity building in Africa. Taylor and Francis. Agarwal, S., Matipira, L., Kangira, J., Kapenda, H., Mvula, E., Sazita, V., & Ndungaua, J. (2019). Research management and policy landscapes: A case study of higher tertiary institutions in Namibia. Journal of Management, 4(1), 12–42. Ajadi, T., Salawu, I., & Adeoye, F. (2008). E-learning and distance education in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503472.pdf Alexandron, G., Yoo, L., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Lee, S., & Pritchard, D. E. (2019). Are MOOC learning analytics results trustworthy? With fake learners, they might not be! International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29, 484–506. Anderson, B., & Maharasoa, M. (2002). Internationalisation of higher education: Facilitating partnerships between universities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(1), 15–21. Beech, S. E. (2015). International student mobility: The role of social networks. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(3), 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.983961 Boni, A., Lopez-Fogues, A., & Walker, M. (2016). Higher education and the post-2015 agenda: A contribution from the human development approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2016.1148757

176

A. Gunter et al.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Espace social et genèse des «classes». Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 52–53(1), 3–14. https://www.persee.fr/doc/arss_0335-5322_1984_num_52_1_3327 Breines, M. R., Raghuram, P., & Gunter, A. (2019). Infrastructures of immobility: Enabling international distance education students in Africa to not move. Mobilities, 14(4), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1618565 Brock, G., & Brighouse, H. (2005). The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Cambridge University Press. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Cin, F. M., Madge, C., Long, D., Breines, M., & Dalu, M. T. B. (2023). Transnational online research: Recognising multiple contexts in Skype-to-phone interviews. Qualitative Research, 23(2), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211024824 Dalu, M. T. B. (2019). Country report on Zimbabwe university education - 2019. Pretoria: UNISA-IDEAS. Accessed on 23 Jan 2023, from http://ideaspartnership.org/userassets/ Country_Report_Zimbabwe_2019_FINAL.pdf Dobson, A. (2006). Thick cosmopolitanism. Political Studies, 54(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00571.x Dzvimbo, K. (2015). The African university in the 21st century: The quest for self-financing in the Zimbabwe Open University. The Zimbabwean Journal of Education Research, 27(2), 187–204. Dzvimbo, K. P., & Moloi, K. C. (2013). Globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education in sub-Saharan Africa. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1–16. Ekpo, A. H. (2002). Issues in African higher education in the 1990’s and beyond. University of Uyo. Federal Ministry of Education. (2016). Nigeria digest of education statistics 2014–2016. Federal Ministry of Education. Findlay, A. M. (2011). An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of international student mobility. International Migration, 49(2), 162–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2435.2010.00643.x Findlay, A. M., King, R., Smith, F. M., Geddes, A., & Skeldon, R. (2011). World class?: An investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011. 00454.x Garwe, E. C., & Thondhlana, J. (2019). Higher education systems and institutions, Zimbabwe. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1636–1648). Springer. Gopal, A. (2016). Visa and immigration trends: A comparative examination of international student mobility in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 4(3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20091 Gukurume, S. (2019). Navigating the crisis: University of Zimbabwe students’ campus experiences during Zimbabwe’s multi-layered crisis’. African Identities, 17(3–4), 277–297. Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2018). International study in the global south: Linking institutional, staff, student and knowledge mobilities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(2), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1401453 Hangula, L., Kamwi Matengu, M., Likando, G., & Shanyanana, R. N. (2018). Higher education systems and institutions, Namibia. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1325–1330). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_464 Harvey, D. (2009). Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom. Columbia University Press. Held, V. (2018). Taking responsibility for global poverty. Journal of Social Philosophy, 49(3), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12254 Hiralal, K. (2015). Migration and education narratives of student mobility in South Africa. Oriental Anthropologists, 15(2), 331–344.

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

177

Ilonga, A., Ashipala, D. O., & Tomas, N. (2020). Challenges experienced by students studying through open and distance learning at a higher education institution in Namibia: Implications for strategic planning. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 166–127. https://doi.org/ 10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p116 Irfan, A., Rasli, A., Sami, A., & Liaquat, H. (2017). Role of social media in promoting education tourism. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9), 8728–8731. Iruonagbe, C. T., Imhonopi, D., & Egharevba, E. M. (2015). Higher education in Nigeria and the emergence of private universities. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(2), 49–65. Jamshidi, L., Arasteh, H., NavehEbrahim, A., Zeinabadi, H., & Rasmussen, P. D. (2012). Developmental patterns of privatization in higher education: A comparative study. Higher Education, 64(6), 789–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9529-0 Johnstone, D. B. (2004). Higher education finance and accessibility: Tuition fees and student loans in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 2(2), 11–36. Jowi, J. O., Knight, J., & Sehoole, C. (2013). Internationalisation of African higher education: Status, challenges and issues. In C. Sehoole & J. Knight (Eds.), Internationalisation of African higher education: Towards achieving the MDGs (pp. 11–31). Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/ edcoll/9789462093119/BP000003.xml Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2013). Distance education in Africa: A longitudinal study of the perceptions of 2,416 students. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 10(3), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.7202/1035580ar Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education. Psychology Press. Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries (pp. 5–20). European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and IDP-Education Australia. Kolinsky, M. (1985). The growth of Nigerian universities 1948–1980: The British share. Minerva, 23(1), 29–61. Lee, J. J., & Sehoole, C. (2015). Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: The case of South Africa. Higher Education, 70(5), 827–843. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10734-015-9869-7 Lembani, R. (2019). Country report on Nigerian university education – 2019. UNISA. Accessed on 24 Jan 2023, from http://ideaspartnership.org/userassets/IDEAS_Nigeria_Country_Report_201 9_FINAL.pdf Lushu, C. (2020). Distance students’ perception towards e-learning at Namibia University of Science and Technology’s regional centres. UNISA. Accessed on 13 Oct 2022, from https:// hdl.handle.net/10500/27995 Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333. Mashininga, K. (2012, February 19). Every lecturer to have a PhD by 2015. University World News. Accessed on 13 Oct 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20120217165816778 McCowan, T. (2018). Quality of higher education in Kenya: Addressing the conundrum. International Journal of Educational Development, 60(May), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2017.11.002 McGrath, S., Thondhlana, J., & Garwe, E. C. (2021). Internationalisation of higher education and national development: The case of Zimbabwe. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(6), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1684241 Mittelmeier, J., & Cockayne, H. (2022). Global representations of international students in a time of crisis: A qualitative analysis of Twitter data during COVID-19. International Studies in Sociology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2022.2042357

178

A. Gunter et al.

Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2020). Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906176 Mittelmeier, J., Gunter, A., Raghuram, P., & Rienties, B. (2022). Migration intentions of international distance education students studying from a south African institution: Unpacking potential brain drain. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14767724.2021.1947202 Mkwanazi, S., & Mbohwa, C. (2016). A township based business location for migrant’s businesses in South Africa: Cases of xenophobia. 33rd Pan Pacific business conference, paper no. 14. Miri Sarawak. Moland, N. (2015). Nigeria: An overview. In E. Amoako (Ed.), Education in West Africa (pp. 82–106). Bloomsbury. Mukeredzi, T. (2022, January 20). Women students dominate at tertiary education institutions. World University News. Accessed on 24 Jan 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20220116115440156 Mukoro, A. (2013). The phenomenon of gender inequality in access to and equity in university education in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(7), 129–142. https://doi.org/ 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n7p129 Mukwambo, P. (2020). Policy and practice disjunctures: Quality teaching and learning in Zimbabwean higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075079.2019.1596075 Mulvey, B. (2021). Global inequality, mobility regimes and transnational capital: The postgraduation plans of African student migrants. Sociology, 56(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10. 1177/00380385211037574 Murairwa, S. (2021). A sustainable Zimbabwe university-Industry collaboration framework. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 5(6), 160–168. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new strangers. Routledge. Naidu, S. (2006). E-Learning: A guidebook of principles, procedures and practices. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia. Nakale, A. (2021, August 18). Unam students bemoan slack service. New Era Live. Accessed on 13 Oct 2022, from https://neweralive.na/posts/unam-students-bemoan-slack-service Ndofirepi, E., Farinloye, T., & Mogaji, E. (2020). Marketing mix in a heterogenous higher education market: A case of Africa. In E. Mogaji, F. Maringe, & R. E. Hinson (Eds.), Understanding the higher education market in Africa (pp. 241–262). Routledge. Obamba, M. O. (2013). Uncommon knowledge: World Bank policy and the unmaking of the knowledge economy in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10. 1057/hep.2012.20 OECD. (2019). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ education/education-at-a-glance-2019_f8d7880d-en Okebukola, P. (2002). Globalization and quality assurance in higher education: A view from Nigeria. In International Association of Universities (Ed.), Globalization and the market in higher education: Quality, accreditation and qualification (pp. 113–119). UNESCO Publishing/Editions Economica. Paul, R., & Tait, A. (2019). International review of research in open and distributed learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20(4), 180–194. Prazeres, L. (2019). Unpacking distinction within mobility: Social prestige and international students. Population, Space and Place, 25(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2190 Raghuram, P. (2021). Interjecting the geographies of skills into international skilled migration research: Political economy and ethics for a renewed research agenda. Population, Space and Place, 27(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2463

10

Revisiting Access in Debates on Internationalisation: Transnational Rights?

179

Raghuram, P., Roos Breines, M., & Gunter, A. (2020). Beyond #FeesMustFall: International students, fees and everyday agency in the era of decolonisation. Geoforum, 109(February 2020), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.002 Salihu, M. J., & Jamil, H. (2015). Achieving equality of educational opportunity on access to university education in Nigeria: A case of policy implementation. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 17(2), 3–22. Schendel, R., & McCowan, T. (2016). Expanding higher education systems in low- and middleincome countries: The challenges of equity and quality. Higher Education, 72(4), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0028-6 Sehoole, C. (2006). Internationalisation of higher education in South Africa: A historical review. Perspectives in Education, 24(4), 1–13. Sehoole, C., & Jenny, L. E. E. (2020). South Africa as a geopolitical hub for migration and international student mobility. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 1(2), 99–108. Accessed on 13 Oct 2022, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hegp/issue/59139/785919 Sehoole, C., & Knight, J. (2013). The role of higher education internationalisation in meeting MDGS. In C. Sehoole & J. Knight (Eds.), Internationalisation of African higher education: Towards achieving the MDGs (pp. 177–193). Brill. Shields, R. (2013). Globalization and international student mobility: A network analysis. Comparative Education Review, 57(4), 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1086/671752 Subotzky, G., & Prinsloo, P. (2011). Turning the tide: A socio-critical model and framework for improving student success in open distance learning at the University of South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.584846 Teferra, D. (2017). African flagship universities in the era of “massification”. In D. Teferra (Ed.), Flagship universities in Africa (pp. 1–16). Palgrave Macmillan. Teferra, D., & Altbach, P. G. (2004). African higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21–50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:HIGH.000000 9822.49980.30 Umar, M. A., & Abu, B. A. (2016). Defence expenditures and political instability impact on economic growth of Nigeria. Актуальні Проблеми Економіки, 6, 110–118. UNESCO. (2020). Inclusion and education: All means all. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020. Accessed on 13 Oct 2022, from https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion UNISA. (2017). UNISA examination centre codes for 2017. Accessed on 24 Jan 2023, from https:// www.unisa.ac.za/static/corporate_web/Content/Register%20to%20study%20through%20 Unisa/UGH/Docs/Unisa-examination-centre-codes-outside-South-Africa.pdf UNISA. (2021). Unisa’s international students. Accessed on 24 Jan 2023, from https://www.unisa. ac.za/sites/myunisa/default/News/Articles/Unisas-international-students-profiled United Nations. (2018). The 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean. LC/G.2681-P/Rev.3. Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10(S1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12591 Unterhalter, E., & Howell, C. (2021). Unaligned connections or enlarging engagements?: Tertiary education in developing countries and the implementation of the SDGs. Higher Education, 81(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00651-x Unwin, T., Kleessen, B., Hollow, B., Williams, J., Oloo, L., Alwala, J., Mutimucuio, I., Eduardo, F., & Muianga, X. (2010). Digital learning management systems in Africa: Myths and realities. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 5–23. Vurayai, S. (2021). Challenges faced by female students in combined science education in Zimbabwe. Gender and Behaviour, 19(2), 18086–18097. Walker, M., & Mathebula, M. (2019). Low-income rural youth migrating to urban universities in South Africa: Opportunities and inequalities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(8), 1193–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1587705 Walker, M., & Mkwananzi, F. (2015). Challenges in accessing higher education: A case study of marginalised young people in one south African informal settlement. International Journal of

180

A. Gunter et al.

Educational Development, 40(January 2015), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014. 11.010 Walker, M., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017). Thinking about the university context and socially just pedagogies. In M. Walker & M. Wilson-Strydom (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies, capabilities and quality in higher education (pp. 3–19). Palgrave Macmillan. Waters, J. L. (2018). In anticipation: Educational (im)mobilities, structural disadvantage, and young people’s futures. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 39(6), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07256868.2018.1533541 Wilson, R., Dissanayake, W., Beller, J., Connery, C., Kelsky, K., Naficy, H., Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1996). Global/local: Cultural production and the transnational imaginary. Duke University Press.

Chapter 11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms Christine T. Ennew

Abstract The knowledge economy has a long history and, internationally, has been dependent on the mobility of individuals to engage with and transmit learning. But while individual mobility was widespread, the institutions most commonly associated with knowledge production and dissemination – higher-education institutions – remained stubbornly national – whether limited by the demands of domestic regulation or by protectionist approaches in potential destinations. This was all to change at the end of the 20th century and the past 30 years or so have seen almost seismic shifts in context, in policy and regulation, and in attitudes and behaviour. Now, the idea of institutional mobility is no longer seen as a being a bold, abnormal, overly risky or threatening choice and has become a realistic strategic option for a range of higher-education providers. This chapter charts the growth of international branch campuses in the broader context of international higher education. It explores motives and approaches, considers operational challenges and draws on the case of the University of Nottingham to address many of these issues in practice.

Introduction While we often think of the internationalisation of higher education as a relatively modern phenomenon, history tells us that students, educators and researchers have always travelled in search of knowledge (Gürüz, 2011; Perraton, 2014). Whether we reflect on the wandering scholars of ancient China, the arrivals at Plato’s Academy in Athens, the pull of Alexandria and Baghdad as centres of learning or the emergence of the great medieval universities of Europe, mobility was fundamental to the production and dissemination of knowledge. The knowledge economy has a long history; those individuals who were part of it had to be willing to travel and if they were not, their contributions would often depend on the mobility of others. Institutional structure developed over time – and the knowledge economy was formalised through universities, research institutes and learned societies. But while individual C. T. Ennew (✉) University of Warwick, Warwickshire, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_11

181

182

C. T. Ennew

mobility was widespread, the institutions most commonly associated with knowledge production and dissemination – higher-education institutions – remained stubbornly national, whether limited by the demands of domestic regulation or by protectionist approaches in potential destinations. As higher education evolved during the twentieth century, the diversity of providers increased and the costs of delivering to growing and young populations escalated.1 And thinking about how students might best be served changed. For a small number of private, “for-profit” universities, the idea of operating campuses in different geographic locations had always been an integral part of their underlying business model – a process of growing by getting closer to new and attractive markets. For some public and not-for-profit institutions there had long been a logic in establishing a physical presence overseas as a base to support outward student mobility. These initiatives aside, universities, have for the most, remained fundamentally geographically bound. However, the past 30 years or so have seen almost seismic shifts in context, in policy and regulation, and in attitudes and behaviour. Now, the idea of institutional mobility is no longer seen as a being a bold, abnormal, overly risky or threatening choice and has become a realistic strategic option for a range of higher-education providers. The late 1990s saw a change in the nature and scale of institutional mobility as a growing number of mainstream private and public (or publicly funded) universities sought to establish teaching and research activity outside of their home country in response to both an identified opportunity and active encouragement from host countries many of whom aspired to build “educational hubs”. The following decade saw this sort of approach becoming increasingly common and by 2012, the Observatory for Borderless Higher Education was able to report over 200 branch campuses in operation and a further 37 expected to start in 2012 and 2013. In 2017, they reported 269 and in 2022 the figure was over 300 (Garrett et al., 2017; C-BERT, 2022a). While institutional mobility has become more common, it is by no means widespread, and understanding of this process remains underdeveloped, despite a significant increase in research activity over the past decade. This chapter will consider the position of institutional mobility within the broader context of the internationalisation of higher education.2 After outlining the growth and evolution of the international branch campus (IBC) it will draw on perspectives from international business to understand why some institutions have chosen this approach and others have not. Building on this understanding of the motivations for the establishment of IBCs, a series of strategic and operational challenges are reviewed to provide 1 Although Paniagua et al. (2022) suggest that the first instance of institutional mobility may date to the sixteenth century, when “Spanish King Charles V signed a royal decree which chartered the first University of the Americas: the National University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru” (p. 1). 2 This chapter draws in part on the author’s experience of working with the University of Nottingham’s international campus, including a period spent leading the Malaysia Campus. It also draws on a number of the authors previous writings on this matter (cf. e.g. Ennew, 2012, 2014). The views expressed are those of the author alone and not the current or past employer.

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

183

some insights into the factors that may drive the success and longevity of this organisational form. The specific experience of one of the early adopters of the IBC format – the University of Nottingham – is reviewed to illustrate motives and challenges. The chapter closes with some reflections and thoughts about the future development of IBCs.

The Evolution of the International Branch Campus A typical starting point in any consideration of the evolution of an organisational type is usually to consider definitions. Wilkins (2021) highlights the difficulties of generalising about international branch campuses and draws attention to their diversity at multiple levels, and this is an important caveat. Nevertheless, it is probably worth briefly considering two widely cited definitions. The first arises from the extensive monitoring and analysis undertaken by the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT, 2022b), namely: An entity that is owned, at least in part, by a foreign higher education provider; operated in the name of the foreign education provider; and provides an entire academic program, substantially on site, leading to a degree awarded by the foreign education provider.

Wilkins and Rumbley (2018, p. 14) have developed and extended this definition as follows: An entity that is owned, at least in part, by a specific foreign higher education institution, which has some degree of responsibility for the overall strategy and quality assurance of the branch campus. The branch campus operates under the name of the foreign institution and offers programming and/or credentials that bear the name of the foreign institution. The branch has basic infrastructure such as a library, an open access computer lab and dining facilities, and, overall, students at the branch have a similar student experience to students at the home campus.

The extended definition makes explicit that the home institution has some formal control and/or responsibility for operations and requires a greater degree of comparability with the home campus, while easing restrictions on the types of programmes offered/awarded. The effect is that the second definition is probably broader in coverage although the differences between the two do not as yet manifest themselves in dramatically different outcomes in terms of monitoring the development of the IBC as an organizational form. Formal monitoring of the evolution of branch campuses has probably only happened in the past two decades – largely reflecting the period of most marked growth. Prior to the current millennium, the IBC was a recognised, but not terribly visible, organisational form. In an overview of the history of the IBC, Lane (2011) noted that US universities had been providing education outside of their home country since the mid-1930s onwards – but largely to serve US military personal in the US-owned canal-zone (later Panama). Indeed, arguably many of the earliest forms of IBCs were effectively enclaves – whether supporting home country

184

C. T. Ennew

students to undertake short term study in the host country or supporting significant expatriate communities as has more recently been in evidence in the growth of branch campuses of Indian and Sri Lankan universities in Gulf countries. In the 1970s, a number of private US universities opened branches internationally including Webster, Schiller and Aliant, but it was in the 1980s that growth accelerated with perhaps 30 US universities establishing campuses in Japan in response to a broader political agenda around strengthening the relationship between the two countries and the opportunity presented by economic growth in Japan. Chambers and Cummings (1990) describe these developments as “international cooperative ventures” and note an element of reciprocity – with US institutions establishing in Japan and Japanese institutions engaging in the US. They also highlight the many positive aspects of intentions and actions for institutions involved within the broad project but then proceed to chart a series of problems, including contractual, quality-related and market-related ones, such that laudable intentions translated into problematic engagements. Only Temple University continues to operate and does so with around 4000 learners from some 60 countries worldwide. The largely unsuccessful American-Japanese initiative of the 1980s did not significantly dampen interest in the prospect of establishing an international presence. However, the pattern of development moved away from system-level initiatives to institutional-level initiatives. The 1990s saw much greater diversity in terms of source and host countries. There was a much greater diversity of types – with a mix of small specialist institutions (in, for example fashion or business) establishing across a range of countries to serve specific markets – and larger and more broadbased institutions often responding to the emergence of educational hubs in the Gulf states and in Southeast Asia. In recent decades the evolution of international branch campuses has been monitored initially by the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) (cf. e.g., Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012), then by OBHE in partnership with the Cross Border Educational Research Team (C-BERT) hosted at the State University of New York, Albany (cf. e.g., Garrett et al., 2017) and most recently by C-BERT alone (see C-BERT, 2022a, b). Alongside the growth in numbers of IBCs, the IBC phenomenon has attracted a significant amount of interest from researchers (cf. e.g., Escrivà-Beltran et al., 2019; Wilkins, 2021). As Healey (2015) has demonstrated, counting IBCs is affected by the definition chosen, with slight differences between the OBHE and C-BERT definitions over time producing slightly different figures for new starts, population and exits. The following figures should therefore be viewed in that context and recognised as broadly indicative rather than perfectly accurate. Wilkins (2021), quoting (Garrett et al., 2017) suggests that there were around 70 IBCs in 2000; subsequent surveys by OBHE/C-BERT would suggest that this number had roughly doubled by 2004 and was close to 200 by 2010 (Healey, 2015). In 2016, C-BERT identified 248 and in 2017, they reported 269 operational IBCs. That same report noted 41 IBCs that had closed (C-BERT, 2017). Several years earlier, Kinser and Lane (2016) suggested that on average, IBCs had experienced a 10% failure rate since the mid-1990s.

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

185

Table 11.1 Home versus host country of international branch campuses Home country United States United Kingdom France Russia Australia Total Top 5 of total

No. of IBCs 2017 2020 76 86 39 45 28 38 21 29 18 20 248 305 73% 72%

Host country China (excl. Hong Kong SAR) United Arab Emirates Malaysia Singapore Qatar Top 5 of total

No. of IBCs 2017 2020 32 42 31 33 12 14 11 16 11 11 248 305 39% 38%

Source: C-BERT (2017) in Healey (2018) and C-BERT (2022a) (citing data for 2020)

Previous monitoring had highlighted the tendency for IBCs to be sourced from developed, Western economies with developing economies more likely to be hosts. Using C-BERT data, Healey (2018) quantifies this in Table 11.1, which demonstrates that in 2017, the home countries of IBCs were dominated by the US with the UK, Australia, Russia and France as other leading providers. These top five accounted for 73% of all IBCs. The degree of concentration across host countries is rather less, with the top five hosts accounting for 39% of IBCs. China is the dominant host country, followed by the four main hub destinations of UAE, Malaysia, Qatar and Singapore. The degree of concentration in home and host countries has declined slightly in 2020, alongside a continued increase in numbers of IBCs (305). This pattern was sometimes seen as evidence of the IBC as essentially a North-South phenomenon, but increasingly this is recognised as an oversimplification (Kinser & Lane, 2016; Healey, 2018). The most recent C-BERT (2022a) data highlights the significance of India (12), Turkey (7) Sri Lanka (6) China (6) as home countries as well as hosts. Growth in IBC numbers has been strong over the past two decades; the global pandemic 2020–2022 was thought to constitute a major challenge to the IBC model, and yet, despite the massive disruption to the sector as a whole, the prospects for growth remain good. Lane et al. (2021) report the opening of new IBCs in Morocco, Mexico and Indonesia in 2020–2021 and India’s commitment to open up its highereducation sector to foreign players was widely seen as a further boost to prospects for growth. A survey of IBCs (Kleibert, 2022) suggests that despite the impact of the global pandemic, IBCs remain optimistic about their prospects, although there is evidence of adaptation in strategic approach. In particular, the survey suggests that those IBCs that had relied on regional recruitment – as was the case with many Malaysian IBCs – switched their emphasis to their domestic markets. Lane et al. (2021) and Kleibert (2022) also note that IBCs were able to serve as ‘transit hubs’ supporting the home-country campus by providing an opportunity for would-be international students to start their studies at a time at which travel was difficult and, in some cases, impossible.

186

C. T. Ennew

Rationales for the Establishment of International Branch Campuses The previous section summarized the growth and development of the IBC, charting the significant increase in numbers over the past 30 years and the growing diversity of home and host countries. The number of IBCs has perhaps doubled in a less than two decades; student numbers are uncertain but may currently be close to 250,000; and despite the concerns about the impact in international higher education of the global pandemic 2020–2022, there continues to be optimism about the prospects for IBCs. However, Altbach and de Wit (2020) provide a note of caution and challenge the sustainability of the model. They point out that only 1% of universities worldwide have engaged with this approach to international higher education, and the number of students is perhaps only 5% of globally mobile students. They see IBCs as a small and niche activity, which has attracted far more research than their scale would warrant. Bennell (2019) also strikes a note of caution about the financial performance of TNE relative to the exporting model for international higher education but also notes the potential interdependence between the two with the movements of students from a host-country to a home-country campus. A cursory investigation of the approaches that organizations use to internationalise their activity reveals a considerable diversity in activity mix even within the same broad industry sector and higher education is no exception. Decisions on the nature and extent of internationalisation will be governed by a diversity of internal and external influences and the interactions between them. The nature of the product or service, the structural characteristics of relevant markets, regulatory and legal factors will all interact with provider-specific factors including capacity and capability and broader strategic position. In trying to understand the reasons for engaging with the IBC as an approach to internationalisation, a growing number of researchers draw on conceptual frameworks developed through studies of international business, and, while not suggesting that we treat universities as business, these frameworks may help us think through some of the issues around the development of the IBC.

Push and Pull Factors One very simple approach focuses on the categorisation of the drivers of international activity as push and pull factors – and these of course may relate both to the generic decision to move to international markets as well as the specific model of internationalisation. Pull factors that are commonly cited for IBCs include the domestic market demand (see for example Paniagua et al., 2022); the incentives provided by host governments/partners either directly or via Education Hubs (Knight, 2011; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012); and, of course, the broader impact on brand and reputation (see for example Escrivà-Beltran et al. 2019). Some institutions

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

187

have also highlighted the options to offer a better international experience to homecountry students (Altbach & de Wit, 2020) and the distinctive research opportunities that might be available. The incentive for host countries to create these pull factors is largely related to domestic capacity constraints, the costs of sending students overseas, the value of an IBC as an attractor for students from other regional locations and the opportunities to learn and acquire different sector-specific knowledge and expertise. Lane (2011) focuses attention on the value to hosts of programmes from prestigious systems; enhanced choice for students and enhanced domestic capacity. The latter is seen to be of particular significance where rapid growth in domestic/regional demand has outstripped domestic supply. While these motives are widely recognised, there is little evidence to demonstrate the extent to which IBCs deliver against such expectations (Wilkins, 2021). The possible exception is student-based surveys, which have highlighted the benefits of study in a transnational educational setting – including in relation to status of degree, employability and language proficiency (see for example Belderbos, 2019, in the context of Malaysia). While there is a general consensus that pull factors are perhaps the strongest drivers of IBCs, push factors should not be ignored, and the most commonly cited is domestic funding pressures, which may variously encourage export, contractual and investment forms of internationalisation. Limitations on the ability to grow the export mode (pressures of demand and capacity limitations) serve as a further push to various forms of transnational education.

The Uppsala Model of Internationalization Moving beyond the simple but important ‘pull-push’ perspective, the international business literature offers a number of frameworks to explain why firms select different modes of market entry during the internationalisation process. The Uppsala model (Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) tends to characterise internationalisation as a staged or incremental approach in which firms initially move into international markets by exporting before extending their commitment to new markets through contractual arrangements and finally moving to foreign direct investment. In a higher-education context, Mazzarol et al. (2003) talk about three waves of internationalisation, the first being the established export model – with students traveling from source to host country to study. The second wave they describe as a variety of forms of forward integration – effectively traditional transnational education with its focus on twinning programmes, franchising and validation in a variety of forms. The development of IBCs is their third wave, involving the highest level of commitment to a particular market. They describe these waves in the context of international education in Asia and while they argue that this evolutionary process is driven by increasingly high levels of commitment to a given market, they note that many institutions – for good strategic reasons – will never move beyond the first wave. Girdzijauskaite et al. (2019) also utilise the

188

C. T. Ennew

Uppsala model in thinking about the evolution of IBCs and suggest that while there is broad evidence of its relevance, it is perhaps simplistic with not all institutions in their study following a gradual and sequential process. Other related approaches – more commonly derived from transactions cost analysis – highlight the interactions between the dynamics of the industry and the market and the capabilities of the organisation. An approach based on transactions cost analysis will commonly focus on the choice of ways of operating, being driven by trade-offs between cost and control and risk and return (cf. e.g., Anderson & Coughlan, 1987). From this perspective, exporting at one extreme represents a relatively low-cost, low-risk model but often with limited marketing control, which is then contrasted with direct investment, which is considered to be relatively costly and higher risk but gives the organisation a high level of control over how its products are provided to a non-domestic market. While elements of this perspective have considerable relevance in higher education, the characterisation of exporting from a physical goods environment is perhaps unhelpful. The limitations associated with the export model in higher education are perhaps much less about control in any traditional sense and much more about the limited ability to grow activity due to capacity to absorb international students to a home campus and size of the market, which tends to be driven by the ability to fund international education. Conversely, when thinking about the investment model of internationalisation, the reverse is case, with the market being potentially larger because of reduced capacity constraints and greater affordability.

The Eclectic Paradigm One integrated approach to understanding modes of internationalisation was developed by Dunning (1980, 2001) and is described as the eclectic paradigm to refer to the fact that it brings together and integrates a number of different conceptual perspectives. The eclectic paradigm draws attention specifically to the idea that the choice of internationalisation mode is governed by three sets of factors: ownership, location and internalization (OLI). Embedded within this approach are many of the risk/return and cost/control trade-offs mentioned above. The OLI framework has been discussed in the context of international highereducation context by Ennew (2012), Shams and Huisman (2012), and Hickey and Davies (2022). Its focus is on the mode of internationalisation rather than the decision to internationalise per se, and in that context it is perhaps particularly well suited to understanding the factors that might explain the growth and development of the IBC. In essence then the preference for a particular approach to market entry for a given organisation is seen to be guided by the relative benefits associated with, (a) establishing a physical presence in a particular location, with (b) retaining formal ownership of a particular set of activities, and with (c) the consequences for operating costs of undertaking key activities internally.

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

189

Ownership advantages relate to any benefits that arise from the institution retaining ownership of the chosen route to market. Where ownership advantages are high, organisation will have a strong preference for some form of either controlled exporting or direct investment. Factors that might give rise to specific ownership advantages typically relate to the need or wish to protect certain organisation-specific assets and capabilities or indeed an awareness of the opportunities to exploit these. Existing research on IBCs suggests that the most pertinent examples might be specific teaching and research capabilities (Hickey & Davies, 2022) and the broader but related construct of brand/reputation (Girdzijauskaite et al., 2019). Such factors will play an important role in any form of internationalisation and will drive effectiveness as an exporter. However, once an institution extends beyond the export mode, then the need to protect know-how and issues around managing quality assurance potentially make direct investment an attractive, if costly, option. Location (country) specific advantages refer to the very specific benefits associated with having a physical presence in a given location. Where these advantages are identified, there will be an incentive for an organization to choose an investment mode over other forms of internationalization. Typically, such location-based advantages are based around access to resources (natural or human) and/or access to particular markets which could not be easily served other than by being physically present. Many service organisations do find that there are benefits from having a physical presence, and market access considerations are often of particular significance. In the case of higher education, there are arguments about physical presence in relation to both research and teaching. Indeed, arguably the host country initiatives to establish hubs directly recognise this point. Certain research opportunities – whether sites or funding – may be easier to access or even restricted to those in country. For teaching, a physical presence may be the only way to reach the relatively large proportion of students who are not actually mobile, and institutions, which see such opportunities as attractive, will tend to favour some form of in-country activity over purely relying on the export model. This is of particular relevance given some of the natural constraints that affect the export model in higher education. If students are unable or unwilling to travel to the institution, then a desire to reach talented students in country will require a physical presence. What form that takes may depend on the relative costs associated with direct investment models or contractual relationships. Internalization advantages arise when organizations find it cheaper to manage the process of creating a physical presence internally rather than relying on external partners. Where undertaking an activity internally leads to lower transactions cost, there will be a preference for direct investment over contractual arrangements with an external partner. In the context of higher education, when choosing between a contractual arrangement with a third party (licence/franchise) and a direct investment option, relative transactions costs will be a key consideration (Hickey & Davies, 2022). Given the difficulty of monitoring performance/delivery (quality assurance) and concerns about quality versus quantity, reliance on a third party exposes the home institution to opportunistic behaviour by a partner and requires carefully

190

C. T. Ennew

structured engagement and high levels of trust. Engaging with a third party will be preferred over the direct investment route if the costs – defined in their broadest sense – are lower. Different organisational assets and capabilities will influence the evaluation of relative costs – those with experience of franchising or other similar arrangements may find the costs of this route lower while others without the specialist expertise may see these third-party models as expensive and may prefer direct investment modes. The IBC route enables the higher-education institution to avoid many of the obvious the tensions that exist in partnership models (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007).

Lessons from the International Business Literature In essence, the international business literature provides a conceptual framework which tries to explain route to market based on considerations of cost and ability to protect and leverage organization specific resources and in so doing help us to understand the differences that are apparent between institutions. A dependence on the export model brings with it limitations on market size, but for some institutions this will be sufficient to enable the organisation to deliver its strategy. Increasingly, many higher-education institutions are recognising the benefits of some in-country presence as part of their internationalization activities. The direct-investment route – effectively the establishment of international campuses, study centres and research facilities – is characterised by relatively high direct costs, but the high level of control and protection for institution specific assets will make this route attractive for some institutions. Others, particularly those who have invested to build expertise in managing contractual relationships and who have appropriate systems to protect their know-how and brand may find the lower-cost franchising and licensing route more appealing.

Strategic and Operational Challenges The previous sections have considered the broader context of internationalisation in higher education, the evolution of one particular model – the IBC – and the factors that might influence the choice of this model. It is a model that in many respects, remains contested; definitions and models vary, institutional motives and operations are critiqued, there are disagreements around both impacts and future prospects and, of course, many operational challenges. The issue of definitions has been touched on in an earlier section; a practical manifestation of the debate about definition is the diversity of models and questions about what an IBC ‘looks like’. As Lane and Kinser (2013, p. 11) noted, there is massive diversity ranging from “rented storefronts to government subsidized architectural wonders.” They used survey evidence to identify five ownership models: the wholly owned, the government partnership,

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

191

the partnership with private investors, the rented and the academic partner model. However, this categorisation considers only the ownership of physical facilities; linked issues include ownership of the legal entity that operates in the country, the nature and control of what is delivered and how delivery is managed. That there is huge diversity should perhaps be unsurprising given the diversity of countries involved, the differing regulatory environments and the mix of institutional motivations. And that diversity may reasonably be seen as indicative of the ability of the key actors to adapt the format to context while retaining the core element of an institution being able to move to a different jurisdiction to deliver its core activities to a different community. The previous section reviewed a range of possible explanations as to why institutions would choose to establish an IBC. Debates about the purpose and impact of those IBCs is conditioned by the motivations of the universities establishing them and the countries that host them. Perhaps the most fundamental debate relates to the marketization of higher education and the relative importance of financial drivers of IBC activity (see for example Altbach, 2010; McBurnie & Ziguras, 2007). A common critique of the IBC approach is that it is essentially a manifestation of market driven ideologies with a focus on revenue generation and profit. Escrivà-Beltran et al. (2019) suggest that financial motives are probably the most widely cited reason for establishing an IBC, and similarly, Hickey and Davies (2022) also foreground the importance of revenue generation and profit/surplus; additionally, income diversification is sometimes cited as a consideration. A contrasting – but not necessarily independent – perspective emphasises brand-building and global prestige (see for example Mazzarol et al., 2003; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012). Survey evidence provided by Girdzijauskaite et al. (2019) also raises questions about the significance of revenue generation and point to the greater significance of brand and reputation as motivating factors. Bennell’s (2019) analysis of financial performance of UK IBCs raises questions about the ability of the IBC model to deliver significant financial returns, although he and others have noted that the IBC can have benefits in terms of improving export performance by channelling some students to the home campus. The experience of the University of Nottingham, discussed in more detail below, would suggest that direct financial benefits were limited (especially when compared to the institutional investment) although indirect benefits in terms of brand and reputation were significant, and there were additionally indirect benefits from the transfer of branch campus students to the UK campus. Alongside the debate around the relative importance of brand and reputational considerations versus direct financial benefits, we should not forget that other factors will come into play in some contexts. The growth in the number of Chinese IBCs is often seen as an exercise in soft power, as is the case with the two IBCs of Iranian origin, and the German model, of bi-national, German-backed institutions, such as the German universities in Cairo and Vietnam. (Ashour, 2018). In addition, of course we should not forget the more broadly based arguments that highlight students and research opportunities, although typically these would be subsidiary to the larger considerations.

192

C. T. Ennew

Debates about the motives and intentions of IBCs translate into diverse reflections on the impact, their success and their operational challenges. Impact and success are notoriously difficult to measure: as noted above, evidence of financial performance is partial and variable; there is perhaps more that is positive in terms of student experiences – whether relating to transnational education in general or IBCs in particular. Even so, there is evidence in some contexts of failures to wholly live up to student expectations (cf. e.g., Bhuian, 2016). More recently, although in a different setting, Belderbos (2019) finds evidence of branch-campus graduates being valued in terms of skills relevant to employers, although the findings suggest that the IBC experience is perhaps not as beneficial as a fully international experience. Claims of research impact and organisational learning are equally difficult to measure, although some studies have suggested a non-trivial impact on national outputs from research at IBCs (Lane & Pohl, 2020). Using data from China, UAE, Malaysia and Qatar, the authors find that for the period 2006–2016, the Field Weighted Citation Impact of articles produced by IBCs exceeds that of domestic institutions. However, it is important to note that they find that over 60% of IBCs have fewer than 10 publications, and research output is dominated by the major IBCs (Monash University Malaysia, Texas A&M Qatar, The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool and Weill Cornell Medical School Qatar) (Lane & Pohl, 2020). Notwithstanding the difficulty of quantifying fully the impact and success of the IBC model, significant numbers continue to operate, failure rates are perhaps lower than might be expected – Wilkins, 2016, quotes a figure of 10% – and host countries continue to seek to attract new providers, as was noted in the previous section. Now it would be unwise to see any of this through an uncritical lens; continued operation and longevity are not the same as success, but they are indicators that key actors continue to see value in this organisational form. Any understanding of the drivers of success with the IBC model will always be coloured by survivor bias – it is easier to observe and understand those that have survived as opposed to those that have not. The longevity of many IBCs has created the opportunity for research into the success and durability of IBCs (see for example Healey, 2018; Shams & Huisman, 2012; Hickey & Davies, 2022). Many of the drivers of success/durability are perhaps generic, factors that would be expected to drive the success of innovative projects: vision, leadership careful project planning and agility. Wilkins (2016) highlights the importance of systematic, analytic and data-driven approaches to understanding the environment, the industry and the organisational capabilities. In addition to the importance of well-informed and well-executed strategies as drivers of success, there is a growing interest in the significance of both entry strategy and delivery strategy. For example, Wilkins and Huisman (2012) used the lens of institutional theory to highlight the importance of IBCs securing organizational legitimacy at the point of market entry and thereafter in order to secure acceptance for the model amongst key stakeholder groups. The creation of a recognised global identity combined with evident commitment to both the home

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

193

country system and that of the host country is seen as key to ensuring institutional legitimacy. More broadly, Shams and Huisman (2012) argue that the key to success/longevity is the ability to balance global integration and local responsiveness. For students of international business, this may come as no surprise, but for an activity that is so nationally bound (for both source and host country), securing this balance is challenging (Healey, 2015). The IBC is a product of its home system, and this is often one of the key reasons why it is attractive to a host country. That creates a real need to maintain ‘credible comparability’ with the home institution to be legitimate and to deliver against its promises. At the same time, it must be able to fit to the local context, that is, the local higher-education system, the needs of the local job market and the broader social and cultural setting. If it cannot, then it will struggle to be seen as a genuine part of the domestic system; it will struggle to get government support and it will struggle to be seen as a genuine choice for students. Arguably, perhaps the greatest challenge for IBCs is getting the balance between being clearly associated with their country but locally embedded. A successful and durable IBC needs to work within two regulatory systems, managing challenges around curriculum and staffing and navigating varying degrees of cultural and societal distance (Shams & Huisman, 2012). Whether the initial motives for the establishment of an IBC are directly financial or more broadly focused around brand, reputation or indeed any other related factors, the ability to enter a market effectively and deliver education and research is very much dependent on the ability of institutional leadership and management to secure the right balance between the need to be aligned to the home system and adaptable to the host environment.

Institutional Mobility in Practice: The Case of University of Nottingham and Malaysia The University of Nottingham (UoN) was one of the UK pioneers in the development of institutional mobility. It is one of the UK’s larger universities with close to 40,000 registered students.3 It is comprehensive and research intensive and has a long tradition of welcoming international students. It was in the mid to late 1990s that UoN started to plan for the establishment of an international campus, and a branch in Malaysia opened in 2000 with a second campus opening in China in 2004 (see Ennew & Yang, 2009, for details).

3

As noted earlier, this illustration draws heavily on the author’s personal experience having been part of this process and the analysis should be seen in that context. Supporting evidence is provided where available. For information regarding the University of Nottingham, see University of Nottingham (2022).

194

C. T. Ennew

The earlier discussion highlighted the issue of pull and push factors that might drive an institution to look to establish an IBC. In the case of Nottingham, the university had recognised that the number of internationally mobile students as a small proportion of students worldwide and that demand for higher education was growing. Establishing a physical presence internationally would provide the opportunity to work with talented staff and students who would not or could not come to the UK. The locational advantages of a branch campus were quite explicit. An international campus would also provide some unique and valuable learning opportunities for UK-based students and staff, whether through mobility opportunities or simply through exposure to, and the opportunity to learn from, new and different perspectives. Research opportunities were also relevant – a physical base in another and very different setting would offer opportunities to undertake work that might be difficult, if not impossible in a UK setting. And, although it was probably never explicitly stated, an innovative development such as an international campus had the potential to impact positively on Nottingham’s reputation, globally. Push factors also played a role but were probably far less significant than pull factors. At the time, opportunities for growth in student numbers were becoming more limited in the UK – partly because of changes in the funding environment and partly because of changing demographics. In addition, as other countries became more active in terms of international student recruitment, it became increasingly clear that UK institutions would need to be innovative if they wished to continue to attract high-quality students and staff. These pull and push factors directed UoN to look at the option of developing a physical presence internationally, but further ingredients were needed for the initiative to progress. The belief in a distinctive education-and-research offer and a recognition of the value of the Nottingham brand were seen as key assets (indeed the value of the brand was explicit in many negotiations). UoN lacked the experience of protecting such assets through contractual links and placed considerable value on the reputational benefits of a campus that could be seen to be genuinely part of the UK-based institution. Delivery in terms of the resulting vision was underpinned by strong leadership, careful planning, governance that was robust but supportive and the financial strength of UoN. Externally, a range of factors directed Nottingham to target its interest to Malaysia. A number of countries were looking to position themselves as educational hubs (including UAE, Qatar and Singapore). Malaysia had formulated a bold ambition to be a major higher-education destination by 2020 and saw international university campuses as key to delivery. Malaysian students had been coming to study at Nottingham since the late 1940s, and there were many alumni in prominent positions in public and corporate life; their support, advice and encouragement played a major role in convincing UoN that Malaysia was the right destination and in convincing Malaysia that UoN was the right sort of institution to attract. The regulatory environment at the time required that UoN established a joint venture in order to secure the necessary approvals to operate. UoN chose to work with partners who were not directly involved in education but who could still provide operational support to the development of the campus. While UoN was

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

195

technically the minority shareholder in the joint venture, the legal agreement ensured that UoN had control of the educational and research activities of the new campus (and control of the brand). The Malaysia campus launched in 2020 from a city-centre base in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur with around 90 students; enrolments were lower than expected, and growth was slower than expected. While the reasons for this were difficult to unpick, UoN’s analysis pointed to a mix of factors. The UoN name had very high levels of recognition for students looking to study overseas but much lower levels of recognition amongst those planning to study in Malaysia; the newness of the IBC model gave rise to considerable nervousness amongst students and their parents, and scholarship provision was probably lower than it needed to be. The university responded with some significant re-balancing in terms of the business plan and a revised approach to recruitment; the timetable for new course introductions was adapted and a greater emphasis was placed on locally recruited staff who had greater market knowledge. Some 4 years later, with around 1,000 students, the branch moved to a purpose-built campus outside of the city. This campus was modelled on the parkland campus in the UK and included a locally adapted version of the iconic Trent Building. When the China campus moved to its parkland campus in the city of Ningbo, the development also included its version of the Trent Building. In both cases, the physical environment consciously sought to reflect and reinforce the UK brand and identity, a position that was reinforced through naming conventions, design of marketing materials and use of logos. The UoN approach to the operation of IBCs was to stress the idea of “one University, multiple campuses”. What this meant in practice was that the Malaysian campus (and subsequently, the campus in China) were expected to be full and integral parts of the UoN, in terms of the quality and standards associated with teaching, the broader student experience and an orientation to research excellence. In short, the campuses that UoN was to develop were not just teaching outposts (they were not just “branches”), they were meant to be functionally equivalent campuses. This did not preclude a willingness to adapt, and indeed the regulatory regime required some adaptation to the UoN’s provision. Constructive engagement with the regulator produced sensible compromises in many areas. And perhaps more significantly as the campus established itself and became embedded in the Malaysia system, a number of opportunities emerged for educational developments to be led from Malaysia (and China) as opposed to simply being directed by the UK (see for example, Kinser & Lane, 2016). The operational challenge for UoN related to delivery, specifically how to deliver the UoN educational and student experience at arm’s length from its UK base. Academic units were integrated across campuses to ensure that there was clear academic ownership of the degree programmes and the associated quality assurance processes. Similarly, close relationships were developed for professional services to ensure that policies and processes were shared across locations. From an HR perspective, both of UoN’s international campuses relied on the leadership of senior academics seconded from the UK campus working alongside locally recruited staff, although over time the balance shifted significantly to locally recruited staff.

196

C. T. Ennew

A major issue in taking this approach relates to the balance between standardisation and adaptation – how much should be identical across campuses and how much should be adapted to local context. UoN had to remain true to its core values including academic content, teaching style and the broader experience and facilities that surround that teaching and research. This mattered for two reasons. Pragmatically, an international campus can only really work if students (and indeed other key stakeholders) can be confident that they are receiving an education and a qualification that is comparable in quality and standards to that delivered in the institution’s home country. Morally, education is of such importance to individuals and to societies that those institutions who provide it must accept a responsibility to ensure that what they offer is right in terms quality and standards. However, it would also be wrong to ignore the need to adapt to local legal and cultural contexts. The social side of life on-campus, the ways in which programmes are marketed and engagement with society are all susceptible to, and indeed, require adaption to fit with the country in which the campus is located. The operating principles that guided the UoN initiative in Malaysia (and indeed in China) focused on the aspiration to be globally integrated and locally relevant. This was always going to be a long-term agenda, and it may be too soon to assess the extent to which this vision has been delivered although both campuses remain substantial examples of the longevity of the IBC model.

Discussion and Conclusions In many senses, internationalisation has always been part of higher education, but the tradition had long been that of scholars travelling to places of learning. The idea of mobile institutions is much more recent and much less well developed. While many other organisational types – most notably businesses – have been heavily dependent on moving between countries to support international engagement, higher-education institutions have largely remained in their domestic locations. In the past 30 years, that position has changed markedly; modes of internationalisation for higher education broadened from the mobility of people and programmes to encompass the mobility of providers – and in particular the IBC. There are inherent risks associated with the development of an IBC. Even with government and partner support, the financial commitments are significant; the projects are time consuming, and the reputational consequences of failure can be substantial. But they also offer institutions the opportunity to control their engagement beyond borders; the IBC format allows an institution to deploy key assets and capabilities (brand, reputation, curriculum, research expertise) in new settings and do so in a way that protects them from the opportunism of potential partners. It is not a model that will suit every provider and not one that will apply in every context, but where there are identifiable benefits from being in a different location, in a different country then the IBC will have the potential to bring a cost-effective level of protection and control.

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

197

The case study of the University of Nottingham provides an example of an institution that saw an opportunity to operate in a particular location and chose the IBC format because this was seen as the best route to protect its brand, reputation and educational expertise/assets. The approach was one that was appropriate for the institution concerned, one which had the potential to offer significant institutional benefits but which was also characterised by significant risks and challenges. The longevity and success of this model (and indeed many others) can be attributed to a number of factors, but perhaps the most significant have been related to an ability to span boundaries, to balance integration and responsiveness and secure legitimacy in both systems. Despite the logic that goes with the approach, the IBC model has attracted a considerable amount of interest – perhaps more than the scale of the activity justifies – and considerable controversy. For some critics it is a highly visible exemplar of the marketization of higher education with an unhealthy focus on securing additional revenue and profits; some regard IBC developments as costly distractions and others will argue that the model – and the tendency for hosts to be predominantly in the global south – may be little more than institutional neo-colonialism. The advocates of the model highlight the opportunities that the model offers to institutions, to students and to host economies and the way in which so many institutions have responded to the demand from home countries to host IBCs to support the growth of their highereducation systems. Arguably, the reality is one of diverse national and institutional motivations, and there will be cases where the financial imperative may be uncomfortably dominant and cases where the aspirations for mutual benefit have been of huge significance. The considerable diversity of motives, models and mechanisms for delivery combined with the relative newness of the format make generalisations difficult and challenging. Looking to the future is inevitably speculative. Altbach and de Wit (2020) have queried the longer-term sustainability of the model. Taking a critical perspective, they are unconvinced about the value that the format offers and argue that its significance has been overestimated. They highlight the real challenges that are associated with IBCs, including geo-political risk, host-country stability, the growth of domestic systems, academic freedom and of course financial sustainability. However, while the growth in numbers of IBCs may have slowed and some institutions have chosen to withdraw from their international ventures, the importance of the physical presence (the locational advantage) continues to be recognised and valued. Despite the pandemic, new initiatives remain under development, and indeed the pandemic shed light on the potential of IBCs to serve as transit hubs, thus increasing organisational flexibility in international markets. In addition, while domestic systems are expanding, the level of demand for higher education continues to outstrip domestic capacity in so many parts of the world, which would suggest that transnational education – including the IBC – will continue be an attractive option for some institutions and some countries. In many senses, that is perhaps the crucial point of reflection in terms of the future of the IBC. To the extent that we can judge success, the operation of an IBC requires a particular set of assets and capabilities – and, in particular, the ability to

198

C. T. Ennew

balance the need for home country integration and local responsiveness. Not all higher-education institutions have the required set of assets and capabilities, and those that have them may choose to deploy them in different ways. The model is one that brings complexity, risk and challenge, but also one that offers opportunities to both host country and home institution. In one or more of its diverse forms, it may be a sensible and viable mode of internationalisation for some higher-education institutions, but it will never have the universality of the traditional dependence on the mobility of people.

References Altbach, P. (2010). Why branch campuses may be unsustainable. International Higher Education, 58. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2010.58.8467 Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). Rethinking the relevance of international branch campuses. International Higher Education, 101(Spring), 14–16. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/ article/view/14269 Anderson, E., & Coughlan, A. T. (1987). International market entry and expansion via independent or integrated channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224298705100106 Ashour, S. (2018). Branding of Germany’s transnational education and its potentials in the Arabian gulf region. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1463936 Belderbos, T. (2019). The employability of international branch campus graduates: Evidence from Malaysia. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/HESWBL-02-2019-0027 Bennell, P. (2019). The financial returns to onshore and offshore overseas students at British universities. International Journal of Educational Development, 70(October), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102097 Bhuian, S. N. (2016). Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf region: Students’perspectives of service quality. International Journal of Educational Development, 49(July), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.05.001 C-BERT. (2017, January 20). Cross-Border Education Research Team: International campus listing. Accessed on January 21, 2017, from http://cbert.org/?page_id=34 C-BERT. (2022a). Cross-border education research team: International campus listing. (Data originally collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane). Accessed on May 2, 2022, from http://cbert.org/resources-data/intl-campus/ C-BERT. (2022b). Cross-border education research team: International campus definition. (Developed by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane). Accessed on May 2, 2022, from http://cbert. org/resources-data/intl-campus/ Chambers, G. S., & Cummings, W. K. (1990). Profiting from education: Japan-United States international educational ventures in the 1980s. Institute for International Education. Dunning, J. H. (1980). Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), 9–31. Dunning, J. H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13571510110051441 Ennew, C. T. (2012). Around the world in 80 ways: Routes to internationalisation in higher education. In C. T. Ennew & D. Greenaway (Eds.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 70–90). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137265050_6

11

The International Branch Campus: Motives and Mechanisms

199

Ennew, C. T. (2014, February 24). It still makes sense to build an overseas campus. The Conversation. Accessed on September 9, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/it-still-makes-senseto-build-an-overseas-campus-23200 Ennew, C. T., & Yang, F. (2009). Foreign universities in China: A case study. European Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policy, 44(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1465-3435.2008.01368.x Escrivà-Beltran, M., Muñoz-de-Prat, J., & Villó, C. (2019). Insights into international branch campuses: Mapping trends through a systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 101(August), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.049 Garrett, R., Kinser, K., Lane, J. E., & Merola, R. (2017). International branch campuses: Success factors of mature IBCs. OBHE/C-BERT. Girdzijauskaite, E., Radzeviciene, A., Jakubavicius, A., & Banaitis, A. (2019). International branch campuses as an entry mode to the foreign education market. Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9020044 Gürüz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. (Revised and updated 2nd ed.). SUNY Press. Healey, N. (2015). Managing international branch campuses. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(4), 386–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12082 Healey, N. (2018). International branch campuses: Management of. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_253-1 Hickey, R., & Davies, D. (2022). The common factors underlying successful international branch campuses: Towards a conceptual decision-making framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2037072 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalisation process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676 Johanson, J., & Wiederheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486. 1975.tb00514.x Kinser, K., & Lane, J. E. (2016). International branch campuses: Evolution of a phenomenon. International Higher Education, 85(Spring), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2016.85.9232 Kleibert, J. M. (2022, February 5). Post-pandemic, international branch campuses are upbeat. University World News. Accessed on April 29, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=20220202133655763 Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311398046 Lane, J. E. (2011). Global expansion of international branch campuses: Managerial and leadership challenges. New Directions for Higher Education, 155(Fall), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ he.440 Lane, J. E., & Kinser, K. (2013). Five models of international branch campus ownership. International Higher Education, 70(Winter), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2013.70.8705 Lane, J. E., & Pohl, H. (2020). Research productivity of international branch campuses. International Higher Education, 101(Spring), 20–21. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/ view/14273 Lane, J. E., Borgos, J., Schueller, J., Dey, S., Kinser, K., & Zipf, S. (2021, March 13). What is the future for international branch campuses? University World News. Accessed on April 29, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2021031012405285 Lawton, W., & Katsomitros, A. (2012). International branch campuses: Data and developments. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., & Sim Yaw Seng, M. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in international education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 90–99. https://doi. org/10.1108/09513540310467778

200

C. T. Ennew

McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education. Routledge. Paniagua, J., Villó, C., & Escrivà-Beltran, M. (2022). Cross-border higher education: The expansion of international branch campuses. Research in Higher Education, 63, 1037–1057. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09674-y Perraton, H. (2014). A history of foreign students in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan. Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2012). Managing offshore branch campuses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(2), 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311413470 University of Nottingham. (2022). Accessed on September 16, 2022, from https://www. nottingham.ac.uk/governance/universitycalendar/introduction.aspx Wilkins, S. (2016). Establishing international branch campuses: A framework for assessing opportunities and risks. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 38(2), 167–182. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1150547 Wilkins, S. (2021). Two decades of international branch campus development, 2000–2020: A review. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 311–326. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJEM-08-2020-0409 Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64(5), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-0129516-5 Wilkins, S., & Rumbley, L. (2018). What a branch campus is: A revised definition. International Higher Education, 93(Spring), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10416

Part IV

Major Messages, Bibliography and Name Index

Chapter 12

Major Messages Lars Engwall

At this point, it is appropriate to pull together the major messages of this volume, focusing on its three themes: Perspectives on Internationalisation, Obstacles to Internationalisation, and Alternative Modes of Internationalisation. Finally, the chapter will provide some thoughts about the Future of Internationalisation.

Perspectives on Internationalisation Defining Internationalisation According to Hans de Wit in Chap. 2, the concept of internationalization is not well defined, although it has become a positive buzzword in academia, often used to signal high quality. However, in 2015 Hans de Wit and his collaborators provided one such definition, last year developed by Daniela Craciun (2022, p. 57) into: the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purposes, functions, and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to achieve intended academic, sociocultural, economic, and/or political goals.

Obviously, as Hans de Wit notes in Chap. 2, this formulation “will not be the last attempt of defining internationalization of higher education”. Even for the present volume, it might be a bit narrow, since the definition focuses on just postsecondary education, not considering research, as is done in the introductory chapter and some of the other chapters (see e.g., Chap. 3 by Simon Marginson). An important reason for such an approach is that research constitutes a key activity of institutions of higher education. It is also significant for many of the evaluations of such L. Engwall (✉) Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7_12

203

204

L. Engwall

institutions. Rankings are thus, as demonstrated by Ellen Hazelkorn in Chap. 4, to a considerable extent based on research performance. The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), often cited as the Shanghai Ranking, thus only considers a university (ARWU, 2023): that has any Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists, Highly Cited Researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science. In addition, universities with a significant amount of papers indexed by Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) are also included [and rank them] by several academic or research performance indicators, including alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, highly cited researchers, papers published in Nature and Science, papers indexed in major citation indices, and the per capita academic performance of an institution.

Since research is to a considerable extent international, particularly in the natural sciences and the life sciences, it has a fundamental relationship to the internationalization of institutions of higher education. As a matter of fact, rankings and accreditations are drivers for internationalization by including different measures of internationalization in their calculations. As academic leaders strive to achieve higher prestige for their institutions, they tend to use internationalization as a means to enhance their reputation. In so doing, it is not obvious that they always primarily aim at “integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purposes, functions, and delivery of postsecondary education”. Instead, in practice it is common for their purpose to be branding. An alternative definition of internationalization of higher education in practice could therefore be: the intentional process of promoting the image of an institution by means of pushing faculty members to publish in high-prestige international journals and facilitating postsecondary international education at home and abroad.

Such a definition is also consistent with the widely spread notion of a global competition among institutions of higher education. However, as pointed out in Chap. 1, for most universities, the home market is the most important concern. Thus, Hans de Wit in Chap. 2 – like Robert J. Coelen in Chap. 9 – stresses that the mobility of students is restricted to a small part of the total student population. As a result, internationalization is “an elitist and exclusive phenomenon [. . .] in particular the Global North” where: the main focus still is on mobility of a small minority of students, staff, programs and institutions, at the European level approximately 15–20%, in the USA approximately 10% but globally less than 2%.

For doctoral students the situation is much different, however. According to Simon Marginson in Chap. 3, in 2019 many countries had a considerable number of foreign doctoral students: Luxembourg (87%), Switzerland (56%), New Zealand, (50%) and the United Kingdom (41%). Thus, while the bulk of postsecondary education has low shares of foreign students, doctoral programmes are highly international in many countries, particularly in the natural sciences and the life sciences. Similar statistics do not seem to exist for students that for various reasons have emmigrated from their home country. However, after decades of demographic mobility, such students constitute a particular challenge. In fact, they contribute to

12

Major Messages

205

internationalization and require the same response as students that are recruited internationally (cf., Hans de Wit in Chap. 2, referring to Jones & Killick, 2007). If so, they would be significant for “integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purposes, functions, and delivery of postsecondary education.”

Role Models While internationalization of academia has long traditions, it was, according to Simon Marginson in Chap. 3, not until the mid-1990s that it became more extensive and intensive. This was after deregulation of the world economy in the 1980s, followed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the creation of the European Union in 1993 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1994. The world was opening up, with fewer restrictions on the mobility of capital, goods, services and people as well as movements towards increasing democracy, tendencies that made Francis Fukuyama even to conclude that mankind had reached “the end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), i.e., the ultimate victory for free-market capitalism and liberal democracy. These changes in the political economy were definitely important for the internationalization of higher-education institutions. However, another significant boost was the development of the World Wide Web, opened to the public in 1991. It facilitated communication among academics and was crucial for the wide use of bibliometric information. Based on research from the 1960s by scholars such as Eugene Garfield and Derek John de Solla Price (Garfield, 1955, 1972; Price, 1965, 1976), citation analyses took off and would become a significant component in the ranking exercises appearing in the twenty-first century (see further Chap. 4 by Ellen Hazelkorn). The effect of these changes was an emphasis of international competition among higher-education institutions. The ranking lists provided evidence of status hierarchy among universities. As shown in Chap. 3 (Table 3.1) by Simon Marginson, universities from the United States have dominated the top. Therefore, these top universities have become the role models for institutions around the world leading to ambitions to become world class, thereby neglecting that these top US universities are not representative of their country. They constitute the tip of an iceberg, which contains a large number of less excellent institutions. While there were around 4300 institutions of higher education in the US in 2007, only 260 (6%) were research institutions (Cole, 2010, p. 6). However, Simon Marginson also demonstrates the dynamics of the system. According to data he is presenting, China in 2016 passed the United States in terms of the number of Scopus papers. This is particularly the case in physical science, mathematics and complex computing. Among the 15 universities with authors publishing top 5% cited papers in these fields, 11 of 15 institutions are Chinese, two from Singapore and two from the United States (Chap. 3, Table 3.2). In terms of language of communication, it is clear that English has taken over. Marginson thus reports that 95% of the publications in Scopus use that language.

206

L. Engwall

The Anglo-American example, boosted by bibliometric exercises, for some time increased the collaboration among scholars both nationally and internationally. However, in recent years co-authored publications between Chinese scientists and their counterparts from the US and Australia have declined in number, according to data presented by Simon Marginson. This appears to be an effect of increasing protectionist attitudes towards an aggressive authoritarian regime in China. It is also part of a general trend of a reverse in economic globalization and a stronger focus in many countries on national interests. At the same time, there are political forces for open access and open science, something that has its complications, as demonstrated by Marijk van der Wende in Chap. 6.

The Role of Rankings It is obvious from the above that the development of rankings has been very significant for the internationalization of higher-education institutions in the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first century. As mentioned above, they have contributed to the perception of a global competition among institutions of higher education. Against this backdrop, it is important to consider their advance. As shown by Ellen Hazelkorn in Chap. 4, their development is part of a process based on quality assessments by means of accreditations, i.e., systems determining whether a particular institution fulfils certain criteria required for admission to exclusive clubs of institutions. Another inducement for rankings were efforts from various international bodies such as OECD and UNESCO to compare systems of education in countries over the world. This in turn stimulated national bodies to look more closely at their institutions for higher education. Behind this was also a general trend in society of looking into performance – what Michael Power (1997) has labelled the audit society – and the application of management in a wider context than corporations, i.e., New Public Management (cf. e.g., Lane, 2000). However, the advance of bibliometric methods was crucial for the ability to measure performance by means of quantitative data. As Ellen Hazelkorn underlines in her chapter, this development was closely related to structural changes in the academic publishing industry. Parallel to the emergence of rankings, this industry underwent a strong concentration through mergers and acquisitions. The latter included to a considerable extent academic journals, many of them founded by academic professional associations. Many of these associations eventually – in view of the advanced systems for submission and reviewing developed by the publishing houses – found it appropriate to have the publishers to take over their journals.1 In this way, five publishing houses – Elsevier, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley-Blackwell – dominate present academic publishing. Of these,

1

For an account of the development of academic publishing mirrored by the management area, see Engwall et al. (2016, Chapters 6, 9, 12, and 15).

12

Major Messages

207

Elsevier holds a particularly significant position through its ownership of the database Scopus, thereby offering various publishing statistics. Among its competitors are the former Thomson Reuter Intellectual Property and Science Division, now part of Clarivate, which owns the platform Web of Science, and the Google platform, Google Scholar. Obviously, the concentrated publishing industry and these platforms constitute significant bases for rankings by providing input into rankings such as Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings as well as various other media rankings such as the US News and World Report Best National Rankings. The development also appears to be part of a self-reinforcing process, i.e., the more attention paid to rankings by politicians, academic leaders, and media at one point of time, the more effects they will have later on. The reason is the mimetic behaviour that characterizes most fields of organizations, (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In addition, ranking tables fit well with another development in modern society: the professionalization of sports, and the prominent position for the media reporting, not least the ranking of different teams in league tables. In this way, sport journalism provides a template for the reporting of other activities, academic work included. However, while league tables of hockey and soccer teams are based on very clear rules for computing scores, the calculations of academic rankings are less clear and are therefore now and then open for debate (see more below). The argument of a self-reinforcing process relates to Ellen Hazelkorn’s discussion of the geo-politicalization of higher education and science reinforced by rankings. The effect is that higher education and science are increasingly looked upon as an economic investment rather than a social expenditure. They constitute means to achieve advantages in a world of global competition. Particularly after the geopolitical changes associated with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was a focus on the economic battles between nations. Politicians therefore launched programs to increase the share of young people going into higher education, and increased research budgets. Some countries even responded to the rankings by merging existing institutions in order to improve their positions on the list. The most spectacular example, given by Ellen Hazelkorn, is the merger in France of a number of institutions into Université Paris-Saclay. That rankings have played a significant role appears evident form the following formulations from its website (Université Paris-Saclay, 2023): The University of Paris-Saclay is ranked in the Top 50 of the world’s best universities according to Shanghai Ranking in 11 disciplines. It is ranked 9th in physics (1st in Europe), 11th in agriculture, 20th in clinical medicine, 29th in telecommunications engineering and statistics, 30th in biotechnology, 32nd in automation and control and 41st in mechanical engineering. [. . .] The University has also made good progress in certain disciplines, such as pharmaceutical sciences, which is ranked 30th in the world, and chemistry, which is ranked 49th.

An alternative to mergers is bilateral and multi-lateral networks and alliances. For the formation of these, rankings definitely play a role in the selection of partners. Such alliances constitute one central part in present European policies through the

208

L. Engwall

European Universities Initiative, something entailing both potentials and perils (Maassen et al., 2022). Although rankings have a considerable impact on government policies as well as the governance of individual institutions, they are sometimes questioned. Ellen Hazelkorn provides some examples in the introduction of her chapter, among them the fraud committed by the former business school dean at Temple University. More recently, US elite law schools have boycotted U.S. News & World Report rankings since they consider that their method is “unnecessarily secretive and contrary to important parts of our mission” (Anderson & Svrluga, 2022). There is also evidence that business schools have been working to change the criteria for their rankings (Wedlin, 2006, pp. 88–89). It all boils down to the trust significant actors have in ranking methodology, and here there are reasons to believe that the elite institutions will keep quiet as long as the criteria are favourable for them. However, as they find them unfavourable, they are – like the US law schools – likely to react. There may also be more sweeping criticism, like that once heard against the ARWU ranking: “We prefer to be judged on living scientists, rather than dead Nobel laureates”.

Obstacles to Internationalization The Significance of Language The internationalization rhetoric stands on the assumption that all institutions of higher education are competing with each other and are playing the same game. However, as argued in the previous section, the top-ranked institutions differ in many respects from the lower-ranked ones and those outside the rankings. Top institutions tend to be more complete in terms of faculties and be more heavily involved in research, i.e., have characteristics rewarded in the rankings game. Among the differences, one stands out in particular: the native language of the country where the institutions are located. Since English has become the modern lingua franca in academia, scholars in countries with a native language other than English face disadvantages. As discussed in Chap. 1, these are less in research than in education but are nevertheless central. Here a study of the origin of authors in 15 management journals 1981–1992 and 2005–2009 (Engwall & Danell, 2011, p. 437) provides some evidence: In the first period, 6,608 papers were published, 5,989 (91%) of which had authors from the USA, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In the second period, the share for authors from these countries had fallen somewhat to 3,470 of 4,675 (75%). Nevertheless, the advantages of native English speakers are still strong. However, the major problems in countries where English is not the native language appear in the academic activities beyond research: teaching and administration. In the words of Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman and Gili Drori in Chap. 5:

12

Major Messages

209

Internationalization in countries where English is not the native tongue must function in a multilingual mode, in which English is the primary language for scientific exchange and academic publication and the native language is used for instruction and administration.

They illustrate this by empirical evidence regarding mission statements, signage, and language requirements for faculty members. They show that, although most teaching is in Hebrew, the majority of Israeli universities offer mission statements in English alongside their Hebrew-language mission statements. This has obviously the role of communicating their relationship to the international community. Again, we can see the efforts of branding. As the two authors say with reference to Knight and de Wit (2018), “the emphasis of internationalization in higher education [has] changed from academic and cultural exchange to developments such as branding, international programs, and global rankings”. The same appears to be true regarding signage. Despite the dominance of Hebrew-speaking faculty and students, they always have English texts as well. More complicated is higher-education instruction and administration. In the Israeli case, where most students are Hebrew speakers, the teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level, is mainly in Hebrew. This creates a certain problem as universities – in order to strengthen their international publication and ultimately their ranking position – hire non-Hebrew-speaking faculty members. Even if these to a certain extent can teach in English, the two authors point to limitations in what they can do. Experiences from the Netherlands, reported in Chap. 6 by Marijk van der Wende, even indicate negative reactions from students complaining about too many international students, too many faculty members and too much teaching in English. The complications with faculty members who cannot speak the native language are even greater when it comes to administrative duties and leadership positions, where such competence is crucial. A result is therefore, according to MizrahiShtelman and Drori, that such faculty members are discouraged “from pursuing certain teaching and leadership positions and may also lead such faculty to feel a sense of alienation from the informal life of the academic community”. Their integration with national faculty members is therefore a crucial task. A significant means for this is language courses, which is the case in Israel. There, the Ministry of Education even sponsors those on track for Israeli citizenship. However, at the end of the day, it is difficult to require international faculty members to speak the native language. As long as they deliver international publications to the benefit of the reputation of their institution, they have a powerful position. The major message from the Chap. 5 by Ravit Mizrahi-Shtelman and Gili Drori is to stress language as we look at internationalization in non-English speaking countries. This is extremely important since such countries have disadvantages in relation to English-speaking countries. Even if the latter – particularly the United States – provide role models for the academic field (see above), it is essential to bear in mind that there are so many countries where English is not the native language. For these countries, it is appropriate to label their working conditions as glocal: research is international, not to say global, with English as the language of communication,

210

L. Engwall

while teaching and administration are local with the native language as the means of communication.

Challenges of Mobility As pointed out above, the 1990s implied considerable changes, particularly in Europe, due to deregulation, the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of the European Union. Together, these events had fundamental effects on academia, with increasing exchange and mobility of scholars and students. Mobility became a mantra widely spread among countries with expectations that the movement of individuals would contribute to their welfare, in the same way as the benefits from free trade. However, the euphoria did not last long. As pointed out by Marijk van der Wende in Chap. 6, as thirty years have passed since the treaty of Maastricht, mobility is increasingly questioned for both research and education. Of course, open science and open access have been promoted for quite some time, but more recently the question posed by Marijk van der Wende – “How open can it be?” – has appeared more and more relevant. As there has been a discussion about brain drain and brain gain in terms of individuals, we have seen the same to be true for scientific results. The scepticism and the fear of unwanted knowledge transfer have increased with the increasing nationalistic and protectionist tendencies in the world. Significant events have been Brexit, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the coming into power of other authoritarian leaders – like Vladimir Putin in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Xi Jinping in China. Obviously, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has constituted a particularly drastic change in international relations. It has made Western institutions boycott their counterparts in Putin country. Although individual relationships would be possible to upheld, the fear of reprisals against Russian colleagues has inhibited scientific exchange. At the same time, quite a few Russian academics have gone west, leaving their home country. The above changes indeed have implications for academic freedom. An obvious example of its being under fire is the measures taken in Hungary forcing the Central European University to move from Budapest to Vienna. However, as pointed out by Marijk van der Wende, even more significant has been how openness and freedom in China have been downplayed in the interest of economic growth and security, encouraging the European Union to shift its global strategy from “open to the world” to “strategic autonomy”. The described developments have also had implications for student mobility. This is true both for the admission of international students and for their opportunities to stay in the country for their studies. Rules for both visas and residence permits have tended to become more restrictive. This change is related to an increasing xenophobia, which has had an impact on regulation in many countries. For instance, in the Netherlands, there was in the spring of 2023 a lively debate about the number of international students in Dutch universities (DutchNew.nl, 2023). The minister of Culture and Science even asked these institutions to abstain until further notice from

12

Major Messages

211

recruiting at international education fairs (Newmark, 2023). Similar debates are going on in other countries. de Wit and Altbach (2022) thus conclude that there is considerable confusion in many countries regarding international students (see also Mitchell, 2022): Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom consider international students mainly in commercial terms, as ‘cash cows’ – but show growing concerns about immigration. [. . .] Many countries in the Global North, including the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom, struggle between regarding international students as a part of increasing immigration on the one hand, and as necessary talent for their knowledge economies, to compensate for a shrinking educated labour force.

The main argument against the inflow of students is that domestic students have to be given priority. However, there are also signs of concern regarding the risk that foreign students, and particularly the Chinese ones, are leaking significant information to their home country. However, the mobility of students is not only a matter of entry conditions. Equally important are the futures of international students. Obviously, the argument regarding brain gain is based on the assumption that the smart foreigners will stay. At the same time there are, as shown by Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and Karen Valentin in Chap. 7, in countries like Denmark, severe legal restrictions for non-EU/EEA students regarding their opportunities to stay on after graduation. Many of the international students therefore have to go back to their home country or move to a third country. Doing so, they are likely to face difficulties in the labour market, because insiders, who tend to prefer hiring people with a domestic education and particularly those of their own, rule such markets. This in turn can be explained by the strong significance of institutional reputation in evaluating job candidates and that this reputation is nationally constructed. However, those staying in the country for their education also appear to face difficulties as is also shown in Chap. 7 by Mette Ginnerskov-Dahlberg and Karen Valentin. Similarly, Heinrich and Choy (2022) report from Australia – an Englishspeaking country where language problems should be limited – that international graduates face difficulties in getting jobs. Their full-time employment rate was thus reported considerably lower than that of the domestic graduates, and, when hired, they are paid less.

Environmental Concerns As pointed out by Robin Shields in Chap. 8, on top of increasing nationalism and protectionism, environmental concerns have become an increasing issue in relation to internationalization of higher education and research. A particular part of the emissions is associated with the frequent travelling of researchers to participate in international conferences, something so well described by David Lodge in his novel Small World (Lodge, 1984). Although the time of the pandemic demonstrated that it is possible to pursue the scientific dialogue by means digital solutions, it is clear that

212

L. Engwall

this travelling is coming back. The reason is simply that there is so much happening in conferences between formal sessions. Drivers of this development are the magnitude of professional associations, many of them founded during the latter part of the twentieth century (cf. e.g., Engwall & Hedmo, 2016). If the conferences of professional associations are likely to lead to continued and even increased travelling, it is clear that the pandemic demonstrated that digital meetings could replace travelling for short meetings. This would reduce carbondioxide emissions. Similar effects would also appear if train transportation replaced air travel. In this spirit, it has been argued that universities “as innovation drivers in science and technology worldwide, should be leading the Great Transformation towards a carbon–neutral society” (Helmers et al., 2021, p. 1). However, according to the cited study, which collected and analysed carbon foot printing data for twenty universities around the world, this does not so far seem to be the case. There are therefore reasons to believe that future pressures on universities, both externally and internally, to change their internationalization behaviour will be strong. Obviously, this will be the case particularly for intercontinental mobility, for which train transportation is not an alternative. Although these environmental concerns are more justified for the travel of researchers and university administrators, they also hold true for student mobility. Universities therefore have to make efforts to reduce carbon foot printing for this activity. Here, as pointed out by Robin Shields, trains should be the appropriate alternative, when possible. However, there are indeed limitations to this, as students tend to direct their demand for international education towards English-speaking countries on other continents than their own, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

Alternative Modes of Internationalization Internationalisation at Home The most natural alternative to mobility as a mode of internationalisation is obviously, as pointed out by Robert Coelen in Chap. 9, internationalization at home. It will not only be a way around obstacles but is also the mode that will be relevant for the majority of the student body, as only a minority go abroad for their studies. Through this type of internationalisation, national students should acquire international awareness and intercultural competence. Means to achieve this are more studies of foreign languages (in addition to English) and introducing more culturally relevant courses into the curriculum. In cases when a university has incoming students (insourcing in Table 1.1), it is important that these be integrated with domestic students. This is particularly important, since it is a common observation, and complaint, that foreign student stick together with their compatriots. As a result, their intercultural competence will not develop very much. There is even evidence that exchange programmes from different universities of one country to a particular

12

Major Messages

213

foreign university will strengthen the network of students at home, rather than provide them with intercultural competence. The fundamental point with internationalisation at home is to develop the interaction with representatives of other cultures. In view of the arguments above about increasing nationalism and protectionism, it is clear that the world needs better understanding of other cultures and mindsets. In addition to quashing conflicts, it also, according to studies cited by Robert Coelen, appears to have positive effects on the performance of organizations.

Distance Education Obviously, modern information technology provides another alternative for international education. Although there are a number of hampering factors for the implementation of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) (De Corte et al., 2016), the pandemic has demonstrated that digital solutions can be an important alternative in countries with limited access to higher education and limitations on mobility. This was clearly demonstrated in Chap. 10 by Gunter et al. for three African countries – Nigeria, Namibia, and Zimbabwe – which have various difficulties in meeting increasing demand for higher education. For Nigeria the provision has been inadequate, while long distances have been constraints in Namibia and different political issues have played a role in Zimbabwe. For students in all three countries, an alternative has been the distance education provided by one the world’s leading providers, the University of South Africa. Obviously, such education can generally be an alternative. However, it appears to be particularly appropriate on a continent like Africa and constitutes a form of internationalization quite different from the one that is in focus in most of the literature on the internationalization of higher education. However, from a developmental and equality perspective, it is fundamental. The potential for distance education became apparent after the outbreak of Covid-19. A major part of the teaching came to use digital solutions. As the pandemic calmed down, national students were eager to return to their campuses. However, for international students it should remain an alternative to travelling in cases where their government does not prohibit foreign online courses. In fact, such a prohibition occurred in early 2023 in China. After permitting students for two years to take part in online courses from foreign universities, the Chinese government banned such internationalisation (Sharma, 2023).

Branch Campuses Still another mode of internationalisation is branch campuses (FDI in Table 1.1), dealt with by Christine Ennew in Chap. 11. As she points out, this mode is a limited part of internationalisation of higher education, mainly a transfer from the West to

214

L. Engwall

developing countries. Although there has been some growth since the 1980s, the number of such campuses in 2022 did not exceed 300. According to Altbach and de Wit (2020), this figure means that only 1% of all universities run branch campuses and that these campuses have attracted only 5% of all globally mobile students. The reason for this limited adoption of the branch campus mode is that it is costly, with limited financial returns, and risky. Alajoutsijärvi et al. (2014) provide clear evidence of the latter for the creation of branch campuses in Dubai. Christine Ennew, on the other hand, concludes that failures are “lower than might be expected” but adds that some institutions have withdrawn from the field. The creation of branch campuses appears to be the result of many factors. However, once again, rankings appear to play a significant role. Through the establishment of branch campuses, universities add to the building of their brand and their global prestige. Obviously, a prerequisite is a demand for the education in question, something labelled by Christine Ennew as a pull factor. In addition, branch campuses provide an advantage over partnership; they are an alternative that is less demanding. On the other hand, the establishment of a branch campus provides governance advantages, i.e., the foreign institution gets better control over the operations. However, in order to be successful, it is also important for branchcampus owners to become legitimate through efforts to make the branch look as good as the main campus. A spectacular illustration of this, provided by Christine Ennew, is the construction of a replica of a building at the main campus of University of Nottingham when branches were set up in Malaysia and China. At the same time, it is important that a foreign establishment is regarded as embedded in the host country.

Looking Ahead As already pointed out in Chap. 1, it is important to make a distinction between research and higher education. Starting with research, we can expect continuing and even increasing internationalization, not least in times when digital solutions have facilitated cooperation among scholars globally. This has been particularly important for academic entrepreneurs, as they face resistance at home, and new ideas appear at the same time in different countries (Engwall & Hedmo, 2016). An additional contributing factor is the worldwide pressure to publish in internationally recognized journals, because of the aspiration for reputation on the part of individuals as well as their institutions. Therefore, as long as the rankings are there to praise such publishing, internationalization of research will thrive. Obviously, there will be changes among nations and institutions, but the dominance of a limited number of elite institutions is likely to remain. There are also reasons to believe that English will strengthen its role as the modern lingua franca, unless different governments for nationalistic reasons promote research on national problems and its publication in the mother tongue. However, the latter requires abolishing bibliometric measures, or that alternative rankings emerge. In fact, there are some

12

Major Messages

215

signs of the latter. Hazelkorn and Altbach (2023) report that entrants into the ranking business are focusing on such things as “sustainability, the environment and climate change, equity and social mobility, ethics and transparency and societal value and impact”. These alternative rankings might reduce the hysteria around being worldclass and instead move the focus to being nationally relevant (Douglass, 2016). This in turn might also help to maintain ethical standards. There is evidence that the race for prestigious publications has increased the fraudulent behaviour in academic publishing (Engwall, 2014) as well as unethical behaviour like that demonstrated by the Macchiarini case at the prestigious Karolinska Institutet in Sweden (Else, 2019). In terms of the internationalization of higher education, Hans de Wit and Robert Coelen pointed out in their chapters that it is an elite activity. Only a small fraction of the global student population takes part in such activities. A recent report by Studyportals (an international study choice platform) has also demonstrated that the international students are coming from a limited number of countries. Out of the around 200 countries in the world, just 14 (7%) account for 50% of the enrolment and 54 (27%) for 80%. Dominant providers of international students are China and India, who make up one-third (Mitchell, 2023). This concentration of countries providing international students could constitute opportunities for expansion of the international student body. At the same time, countries worldwide continue to invest in higher education, thereby making it possible for students to pursue their education at home. These new opportunities, together with the obstacles mentioned above and the embeddedness in local environments, are likely to hamper any further expansion. If so, internationalization at home and digital solutions would provide significant modes of internationalization. In the process of internationalization, it is likely that there will be increased organizing among institutions in different countries. There are already quite a few such organizations, such as the Coimbra Group, for long-established European multidisciplinary universities with high international standards, and UNICA, for universities from the capitals of Europe (see further Maassen et al., 2022). Within such organizations there is potential for cooperation. Even more significant are political moves such as the recent efforts within the European Union towards a joint European degree (Myklebust, 2023). On the other hand, in relation to these efforts, it is apparent that the increased integration between European institutions of higher education might strengthen barriers to non-Europeans. An interesting issue in relation to the collaboration between institutions of higher education is the possibility of mergers. We have seen such take place nationally in the Nordic countries and France. A question could therefore be whether we also eventually might see cross-border mergers. In the near future, this appears unlikely due to the strong nationally embeddedness of higher-education institutions. For the same reason, we should not expect international acquisitions. However, there might be cases where institutions from other countries establish themselves in a foreign country through cooperation with a domestic counterpart. This would mean a variant of establishing a branch campus, although with national anchoring.

216

L. Engwall

Obviously, political developments in the world will be of fundamental importance for the future of the internationalization of higher-education institutions. As already stressed above, the ascension to power of authoritarian leaders has had significant consequences for academic freedom and internationalization. For the future, it is indeed important to keep in mind the formulations in a 2023 issue of University World News (2023) Elections can profoundly impact on universities and colleges. New leaders and parties have new political agendas, and higher education is frequently prominent on their lists, with implications for funding, teaching and research, staff and students, and interactions with society and the economy.

The implication of this paragraph is that the internationalization of higher education and research is in flux. Over the years, we have observed vicissitudes facing internationalization. Events in the 1980s indeed boosted internationalization, while more recent political changes in the world have worked in the opposite direction. We should wish that openness, which is a crucial characteristic of academic work, will have a renaissance in the not-too-distant future. If so, we should also hope that the significant actors will listen to the message of Brandenburg and de Wit (2011, p. 4), that they understand internationalization and globalization “not as goals in themselves but rather as means to an end”.

References Alajoutsijärvi, K., Juusola, K., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2014). Institutional logic of business bubbles: Lessons from the Dubai business school mania. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 5–25. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). Rethinking the relevance of international branch campuses. International Higher Education, 101(Spring), 14–16. Accessed on February 12, 2023, from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14269 Anderson, N., & Svrluga, S. (2022, December 3). Law school revolt against U.S. News rankings gains steam: Whether universities will follow suit with a broader rebellion against the ranking giant is unknown. Washington Post. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. washingtonpost.com/education/2022/12/03/law-schools-protest-us-news-rankings/ ARWU. (2023). Methodology 2022. Accessed on January 3, 2023, from https://www. shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2022 Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62(Winter). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8533 Cole, J. R. (2010). The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, why it must be protected. Perseus Books Group. Craciun, D. (2022). What is higher education internationalization? In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 56–58). Stylus. De Corte, E., Engwall, L., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2016). From books to MOOCs?: Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher education. Portland Press. de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2022, December 3). Optimism trumps ethics in student recruitment ‘comeback’. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221129103238406&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0719

12

Major Messages

217

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 42(2), 147–160. Douglass, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500496 DutchNew.nl. (2023). MPs call for a curb on international students, more focus on Dutch. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2023/02/mps-call-for-acurb-on-international-students-more-focus-on-dutch/ Else, H. (2019). Scandal-weary Swedish government takes over research-fraud investigations. Nature, 571, 158. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05493-3 Engwall, L. (2014). The quality of quality assessments. In W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 95–106). Portland Press. Engwall, L., & Danell, R. (2011). Britannia and her business schools. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 432–442. Engwall, L., & Hedmo, T. (2016). The organizing of scientific fields: The case of corpus linguistics. European Review, 24(4), 568–591. Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2016). Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. Routledge. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Hamish Hamilton. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. Hazelkorn, E., & Altbach, P. G. (2023, February 11). University rankings: Assessing the newest kid on the block. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230208140628782&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0726 Heinrich, D. H., & Choy, S. (2022, December 10). Why international graduates find it hard to stay and work. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221210070604438&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0720O Helmers, E., Chang, C. C., & Dauwels, J. (2021). Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I: Objective comparison by standardized metrics. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33(30), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6 Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2007). Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 110–111). Routledge. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95(Fall), 2–4. Lane, J.-E. (2000). New public management. Routledge. Lodge, D. (1984). Small world: An academic romance. Secker & Warburg. Maassen, P., Stensaker, B., & Rosso, A. (2022). The European university alliances: An examination of organizational potentials and perils. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-02200951-4 Mitchell, N. (2022, December 2). Does the UK want more or fewer international students?: University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221202101857697&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0719 Mitchell, N. (2023, February 2). Universities urged to diversify overseas target markets. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=2023020210545874&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=GLNL0725

218

L. Engwall

Myklebust, J. P. (2023, February 8). Rectors back EC launch of European degree pilot projects. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230208101443382&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0726 Newmark, L. (2023, January 21). Universities oppose request to halt foreign recruitment. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20230121065335461&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_cam paign=GLNL0723 Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press. Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. Price, D. J. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306. Sharma, Y. (2023, January 31). China bans foreign universities’ online only courses. University World News. Accessed on February 12, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20230131132149728&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=GLNL0725 Université Paris-Saclay. (2023). Accessed on January 7, 2023, from https://www.universite-parissaclay.fr/en University World News. (2023, January 23). The multiple impacts of elections on higher education worldwide. Accessed on February 15, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ special-report.php?publication=global&report=ElectionsandHE Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities, and boundaries in international management education. Edward Elgar.

Bibliography

Academic Freedom Index (AFi). (2020). Accessed on August 28, 2022, from Academic Freedom – V-Dem Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behaviour (2nd ed.). Kent Publishing. Adriansen, H. K., Madsen, L. M., & Jensen, S. (2015). Higher education and capacity building in Africa. Taylor and Francis. Agarwal, S., Matipira, L., Kangira, J., Kapenda, H., Mvula, E., Sazita, V., & Ndungaua, J. (2019). Research management and policy landscapes: A case study of higher tertiary institutions in Namibia. Journal of Management, 4(1), 12–42. AHELO. (2022). AHELO main study. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.oecd.org/ education/skills-beyond-school/ahelo-main-study.htm Ahrens, J., Kelly, M., & Liempt, I. V. (2016). Free movement? The onward migration of EU citizens born in Somalia, Iran, and Nigeria. Population, Space and Place, 22(1), 84–98. https:// doi.org/10.1002/psp.1869 Ajadi, T., Salawu, I., & Adeoye, F. (2008). E-learning and distance education in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503472.pdf Alajoutsijärvi, K., Juusola, K., & Lamberg, J.-A. (2014). Institutional logic of business bubbles: Lessons from the Dubai business school mania. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 5–25. ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe. (2019). Academic freedom and institutional autonomy: Commitments must be followed by action, joint statement by ALLEA, EUA and Science Europe. Accessed on August 12, 2022, from https://eua.eu/downloads/content/academic%20freedom% 20statement%20april%202019.pdf Altbach, P. (2001). Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok. International Higher Education, 23(2-4). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2001.23.6593 Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). Rethinking the relevance of international branch campuses. International Higher Education, 101(Spring), 14–16. Accessed on September 13, 2022, from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14269 Altbach, P. G., & Hazelkorn, E. (2017, January 8). Why most universities should quit the rankings game. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www. universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170105122700949 Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1028315307303542

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7

219

220

Bibliography

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2017). Responding to massification: Differentiation in postsecondary education worldwide. Sense Publishers. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886300362002 Al-Zoubi, A., & Abu-Orabi, S. (2019). Impact of internationalization on Arab higher education the role of association of Arab universities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 8(1), 69–85. Amaral, L. P., Martins, N., & Gouveia, J. B. (2015). Quest for a sustainable university: A review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16(2), 155–172. Amit, V. (2010). Student mobility and internationalisation: Rationales, rhetoric and ‘institutional isomorphism’. Anthropology in Action, 17(1), 6–18. Anderson, E., & Coughlan, A. T. (1987). International market entry and expansion via independent or integrated channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224298705100106 Anderson, B., & Maharasoa, M. (2002). Internationalisation of higher education: Facilitating partnerships between universities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(1), 15–21. Anderson, N., & Svrluga, S. (2022, December 3). Law school revolt against U.S. News rankings gains steam: Whether universities will follow suit with a broader rebellion against the ranking giant is unknown. Washington Post. Accessed on February 9, 2023 from https://www. washingtonpost.com/education/2022/12/03/law-schools-protest-us-news-rankings/ Andersson, R., Ferm, O., & Risberg, S. (2014). Swedish students at the University of Leipzig in the middle ages: Careers, books, and teaching. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Andrews, R., Ferm, O., Risberg, S., & Thomson, R. M. (2017). Swedish students at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford in the middle ages. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. Ansell, B. W. (2010). From the ballot to the blackboard: The redistributive political economy of education. Cambridge University Press. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Arias-Coello, A., Simon-Martin, J., & Gonzalo Sanchez-Molero, J. L. (2020). Mission statements in Spanish universities. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2018.1512569 ARWU. (2022a). Global research university profiles GRUP 2019. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http://archive.shanghairanking.com/grup/index.html ARWU. (2022b). 2022 Academic ranking of world universities. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2022 ARWU. (2023). Methodology 2022. Accessed on January 3, 2023, from https://www. shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2022 Ashour, S. (2018). Branding of Germany’s transnational education and its potentials in the Arabian Gulf Region. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1463936 Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 289–303. Atlas of European Values. (2022). Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://europeanvaluesstudy. eu/education-dissemination-publications/evs-publications/atlas-of-european-values-album/ Baas, M. (2007). The language of migration: The education industry versus the migration industry. People and Place, 15(2), 49–60.

Bibliography

221

Bacon, F., & Rawley, W. (1627). Sylua syluarum: Or a naturall historie. In ten centuries. Written by the Right Honourable Francis Lo. Verulam Viscount St. Alban. Published after the authors death, by VVilliam Rawley Doctor of Diuinity, late his Lordships chaplaine. Printed by I H and A Mathewes for William Lee at the Turks Head in Fleet-street, next to the Miter. Bailey, A., & Mulder, C. H. (2017). Highly skilled migration between the Global North and South: Gender, life courses and institutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(16), 2689–2703. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1314594 Baker, S. (2020). UK universities mull more charter flights in global student race. Times Higher Education. Accessed on May 10, 2020, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ukuniversities-mull-more-charter-flights-global-student-race Baltaru, R.-D., Manac, R.-D., & Ivan, M.-D. (2022). Do rankings affect universities’ financial sustainability?: Financial vulnerability to rankings and elite status as a positional good. Studies in Higher Education, 47(11), 2323–2335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2061447 Bamberger, A. (2019). International student mobility in Israel. International Higher Education, 96(Winter), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.96.10774 Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). Neoliberalism, internationalisation and higher education: Connections, contradictions and alternatives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569879 Barnett, R. (2018). The ecological university: A feasible utopia. Routledge. Bastardas-Boada, A. (2012). Language and identity policies in the ‘glocal’age: New processes, effects and principles of organization. Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut d'Estudis Autonòmics. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41483768 Baty, P. (2018, January 16). This is why we publish the World University Rankings. Times Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/ why-we-publish-world-university-rankings Bayrak, T. (2020). A content analysis of top-ranked universities’ mission statements from five global regions. International Journal of Educational Development, 72(January), 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102130 Becher, A. (1989). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). SRHE and Open University Press. Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00079.x Beech, S. E. (2015). International student mobility: The role of social networks. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(3), 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.983961 Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 59–72). Springer. Beerkens, E. (2002). International inter-organisational arrangements in higher education: Towards a typology. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13583883.2002.9967086 Beerkens, E. (2005). Transnational actors in the European Higher Education Area: European opportunities and institutional embeddedness. In W. Kaiser & P. Starie (Eds.), Transnational European Union: Towards a common political space? (pp. 170–190). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203016534 Beiter, K. D., Karran, T., & Appliagyei-Atua, K. (2016). Academic freedom and its protection in the law of European states: Measuring an international human right. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 3(3), 254–345. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00303001 Belderbos, T. (2019). The employability of international branch campus graduates: Evidence from Malaysia. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 141–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/HESWBL-02-2019-0027

222

Bibliography

Bennell, P. (2019). The financial returns to onshore and offshore overseas students at British universities. International Journal of Educational Development, 70(October), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102097 Bennett, K. (2014). Introduction. The political and economic infrastructure of academic practice: The ‘semiperiphaery’ as a category for social and linguistic analysis. In K. Bennett (Ed.), The semiperiphery of academic writing: Discourses, communities and practices (pp. 1–12). Palgrave Macmillan. Bhatt, I., Badwan, K., & Madiba, M. (2022). Critical perspectives on teaching in the multilingual university. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517. 2022.2058295 Bhuian, S. N. (2016). Sustainability of Western branch campuses in the Gulf Region: Students’ perspectives of service quality. International Journal of Educational Development, 49(July), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.05.001 Björk, B. C. (2019). Open access journal publishing in the Nordic countries. Learned Publishing, 32(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1231 Blanco, G. L., Rumbley, L. E., & de Wit, H. (2022). Rankings and internationalization: An unfortunate alliance. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 137–149). Edward Elgar. Blockmans, W., Engwall, L., & Weaire, D. (Eds.). (2014). Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance. Portland Press. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002 Boccagni, P. (2017). Aspirations and the subjective future of migration: Comparing views and desires of the “time ahead” through the narratives of immigrant domestic workers. Comparative Migration Studies, 5(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0047-6 Bonaccorsi, A., Belingheri, P., Blasi, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2021). Institutional responses to university rankings: A tale of adaptation and cognitive framing. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings (pp. 210–230). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/ 10.4337/9781788974981.00026 Boni, A., Lopez-Fogues, A., & Walker, M. (2016). Higher education and the post-2015 agenda: A contribution from the human development approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2016.1148757 Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research. (2020). Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/shareddocs/downloads/files/_drp-efr-bonner_erklaerung_en_withsignatures_maerz_2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Borrell, J. (2020, December 3). Why European strategic autonomy matters: Blogpost by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and European Commission Vice-President. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/why-europeanstrategic-autonomy-matters_en?s=171 Bothwell, E. (2015, October 2). OECD’s Dirk Van Damme says debate on Ahelo was “low quality.” Times Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. timeshighereducation.com/news/oecds-dirk-van-damme-says-debate-ahelo-was-low-quality Bourdieu, P. (1984). Espace social et genèse des « classes ». Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 52-53(1), 3–14. https://www.persee.fr/doc/arss_0335-5322_1984_num_52_1_3327 Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1999). On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327699016001003 Bovens, M. (2016, November 8). Er is een gevaar dat universiteiten zich loszingen van de rest van de samenleving. DUB. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://dub.uu.nl/nl/achtergrond/% E2%80%98er-een-gevaar-dat-universiteiten-zich-loszingen-van-de-rest-van-de-samenleving% E2%80%99 Bovens, M. (2020). The open society and its challenges. In M. Bovens & M. Düwell (Eds.), The open society and its future (IOS Think Paper Series, 1) (pp. 5–11). Universiteit Utrecht.

Bibliography

223

Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/IOS%20Think%20 Paper%20Series%20%231.pdf Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62(Winter). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8533 Brankovic, J. (2018). How do meta-organizations affect extra-organizational boundaries?: The case of university associations. In L. Ringel, P. Hiller, & C. Zietsma (Eds.), Towards permeable boundaries of organizations?: The case of university organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 57) (pp. 259–281). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733558X20180000057010 Breines, M. R., Raghuram, P., & Gunter, A. (2019). Infrastructures of immobility: Enabling international distance education students in Africa to not move. Mobilities, 14(4), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1618565 Brock, G., & Brighouse, H. (2005). The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Cambridge University Press. Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford University Press. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, L. (2009). The transformative power of the international sojourn: An ethnographic study of the international student experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 502–552. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.002 Buckner, E. (2019). The internationalization of higher education: National interpretations of a global model. Comparative Education Review, 63(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/703794 Buckner, E., & Stein, S. (2020). What counts as internationalization?: Deconstructing the internationalization imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 151–166. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878 Bullen, J., & Flavell, H. (2021). Decolonising the indigenised curricula: Preparing Australian graduates for a workplace and world in flux. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1402–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1927998 Bygnes, S., & Erdal, M. D. (2017). Liquid migration, grounded lives: Considerations about future mobility and settlement among Polish and Spanish migrants in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1211004 Byrne, J. A. (2021, April 17). Anatomy of a business school rankings fraud. Poets & Quants. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://poetsandquants.com/2021/04/17/anatomy-of-abusiness-school-rankings-fraud/ Cadier, D. (2019). The geopoliticisation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. Geopolitics, 24(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477754 Calderon, A. (2021). The geopolitics of university rankings: Not all regions and university networks stand equal. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 382–398). Edward Elgar. CALHOEE. (2022). Measuring and comparing achievements of learning outcomes in higher education in Europe. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.calohee.eu/ Calhoun, C., Price, P., & Timmer, A. (Eds.). (2002). Understanding September 11. New Press. Campbell, A. C., Nguyen, T., & Stewart, M. (2022). Promoting international student mobility for sustainability?: Navigating conflicting realities and emotions of international educators. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/102831 53221121386 Campus France. (2022). The 2021 Shanghai ranking: France consolidates its position. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.campusfrance.org/en/the-2021-shanghai-ranking-franceconsolidates-its-position CANIE. (2022). The CANIE Accord. Accessed on February 8, 2023, from https://canie.org/thecanie-accord/canie-accord-documents/canie-accord-web

224

Bibliography

Cantwell, B. (2021). Ideas for theorizing the geopolitics of higher education in the global rankings era. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university ranking: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 354–365). Edward Elgar. Cantwell, B., Marginson, S., & Smolentseva, A. (2018). High participation systems of higher education. Oxford University Press. Carling, J., & Collins, F. (2018). Aspiration, desire and drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384134 Carrington, D. (2022, December 1). Fossil fuel recruiters banned from three more UK universities. The Guardian. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2022/dec/01/fossil-fuel-recruiters-banned-from-three-more-uk-universities Castells, M. (1996/2000). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. I, 2nd ed.). Blackwell. C-BERT. (2017, January 20). Cross-border education research team: International campus listing. Accessed on January 21, 2017, from http://cbert.org/?page_id=34 C-BERT. (2022a). Cross-border education research team: International campus listing (Data originally collected by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane). Accessed on May 2, 2022, from http://cbert.org/resources-data/intl-campus/ C-BERT. (2022b). Cross-border education research team: International campus definition (Developed by Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane). Accessed on May 2, 2022, from http://cbert.org/ resources-data/intl-campus/ CBS. (2022). 40 percent international first-year students at Dutch universities. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/11/40-percent-international-first-yearstudents-at-dutch-universities Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(March), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X CFREU. (2012). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Accessed on August 21, 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2012/32 6/02 Chambers, G. S., & Cummings, W. K. (1990). Profiting from education: Japan-United States international educational ventures in the 1980s. Institute for International Education. Chatlani, S. (2017, October 4). Rutgers chancellor says improving institution’s ranking is top priority. Education DIVE. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.educationdive. com/news/rutgers-chancellor-says-improving-institutions-ranking-is-top-priority/506523/ Chen, X., & Gabrenya, W. K., Jr. (2021). In search of cross-cultural competence: A comprehensive review of five measurement instruments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82(May), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.02.003 Choi, S. (2012). Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars?: International scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics, 90(1), 25–41. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0509-4 Choudaha, R., Orosz, K., & Chang, L. (2012). Not all international students are the same: Understanding segments, mapping behavior. Accessed on August 25, 2022, from https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/255857496_Not_All_International_Students_are_the_ Same_Understanding_Segments_Mapping_Behavior Chowers, E. (2017). Violence and the Hebrew language: Jewish nationalism and the university. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 16(3), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2017. 1295700 Cin, F. M., Madge, C., Long, D., Breines, M., & Dalu, M. T. B. (2023). Transnational online research: Recognising multiple contexts in Skype-to-phone interviews. Qualitative Research, 23(2), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211024824 CIRIUS. (2007). National strategi for markedsføring af Danmark som uddannelsesland 2007–2007. CIRIUS. CISN (Critical Internationalization Studies Network). (2022). Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://criticalinternationalization.net/

Bibliography

225

Clarivate. (2021). Highly cited researchers 2021. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https:// clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/11/Executive_Summary_Highly_Cited_ Researchers_2021.pdf Clarivate. (2022). Global institutional profiles. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/globalprofilesproject/ Coates, H., Liu, L., & Hong, X. (2021). Reputation risk rating and the commercialisation of higher education. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 413–424). Edward Elgar. Coelen, R. (2016). A learner-centred internationalisation of higher education. In E. Jones, R. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and local internationalization (pp. 33–42). Sense Publishers. Cohen, U. (2007). University vs. society in a period of nation building: The Hebrew University in pre-state Israel. Historical Studies in Education, 19(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.32316/hse/ rhe.v19i1.274 Cohen, L., & Kassis-Henderson, J. (2017). Revisiting culture and language in global management teams: Toward a multilingual turn. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595816684882 Cole, J. R. (2010). The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, why it must be protected. Perseus Books Group. Collins, F. L. (2018). Desire as a theory for migration studies: Temporality, assemblage and becoming in the narratives of migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384147 Collins, F. L., & Shubin, S. (2015). Migrant times beyond the life course: The temporalities of foreign English teachers in South Korea. Geoforum, 62(June 2015), 96–104. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.002 Collins, F. L., Ho, K. C., Ishikawa, M., & Ma, A.-H. S. (2017). International student mobility and after-study lives: The portability and prospects of overseas education in Asia. Population, Space Place, 23(4), e2029. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2029 Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493504.pdf Connell, I., & Galasiński, D. (1998). Academic mission statements: An exercise in negotiation. Discourse & Society, 9(4), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009004003 Cooley, A. (2015). The emerging politics of international rankings and ratings: A framework for analysis. In A. Cooley & J. Snyder (Eds.), Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press. Cooley, A., & Synder, J. (Eds.). (2015). Ranking the world: Grading states as a tool of global governance. Cambridge University Press. Corbett, A. (2003). Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurs: Towards a new history of higher education in the European Community. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 315–330. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1503507 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Council of the European Union. (2016a). The transition towards an Open Science system. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/ en/pdf Council of the European Union. (2016b, November 14). Council conclusions on implementing the EU Global Strategy in the area of Security and Defence. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/22459/eugs-conclusions-st14149en16.pdf Court of Justice of the European Union. (2020). Judgment in Case C-66/18 Commission v Hungary. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/ pdf/2020-10/cp200125en.pdf

226

Bibliography

Craciun, D. (2022). What is higher education internationalization? In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 56–58). Stylus. Cronin, B., & Atkins, H. B. (Eds.). (2000). The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Information Today. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home. A position paper. European Association for International Education. Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044528 Dalu, M. T. B. (2019). Country report on Zimbabwe university education - 2019. UNISAIDEAS. Accessed on January 23, 2023, from http://ideaspartnership.org/userassets/Country_ Report_Zimbabwe_2019_FINAL.pdf Davies, S. W., & Glaister, K. W. (1996). Spurs to higher things?: Mission statements of UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 50(4), 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273. 1996.tb01706.x DBEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). (2021). Greenhouse gas reporting: Conversion factors 2022. Accessed on May 11, 2022, from https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2021 De Corte, E., Engwall, L., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2016). From books to MOOCs?: Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher education. Portland Press. De Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992). Mobility. In H. De Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe: Vol. 1, Universities in the Middle Age (pp. 416–451). Cambridge University Press. de Wit, H. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and Association of International Education Administrators. de Wit, H. (2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. Internationalization of higher education: An institutional perspective. UNESCO/CEPES. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood. de Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64(Summer), 6–7. (Boston: Boston College Center for International Higher Education). de Wit, H. (2019). Internationalization in higher education: A critical review. SFU Educational Review, 12(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v12i3.1036 de Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization in higher education: A western paradigm or a global, intentional and inclusive concept. International Journal of African Higher Education, 7(2), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.6017/ijahe.v7i2.12891 de Wit, H. (2023). Mestenhauser’s influence on future of international education policy. In A. M. D’Angelo, M. K. O’Brien, & G. Marty (Eds.), Mestenhauser and the possibilities of international education: Illuminating pathways for inquiry and future practice (Internationalization in Higher Education Series) (pp. 197–207). Routledge. de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46. https://doi. org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898 de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2022, December 3). Optimism trumps ethics in student recruitment ‘comeback’. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php#story=20221129103238406&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0719 de Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2022). The history of the internationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 23–52). Sterling, VA.

Bibliography

227

de Wit, H., & Rumbley, L. E. (2017). Professional development in international education: The example of the Boston College MA in international higher education. Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Handbook, 2017(3), 2–14. de Wit, H., Jaramillo, I. C., Gacel Ávila, J., & Knight, J. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension (Directions in Development Series). World Bank. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., & Coelen, R. (2015a). Internationalisation of higher education in Europe: Future directions. In H. de Wit, F. Hunter, L. Howard, & E. Egron-Polak (Eds.), Internationalisation of Higher Education (pp. 273–287). European Parliament, DirectorateGeneral for Internal Policies. de Wit, H., Yemini, M., & Martin, R. (2015b). Internationalization strategies and policies in secondtier higher education institutions. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area (pp. 127–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-20877-0_9 de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (Eds.). (2015c). Internationalisation of higher education. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. de Wit, H., Minaeva, E., & Wang, L. (Eds.). (2022). International student recruitment and mobility in non-Anglophone countries: Theories, themes and patterns (Internationalization in Higher Education series). Routledge. Dempsey, N. (2004). Address by Noel Dempsey, T. D., Minister for Education and Science at the Europe of Knowledge 2004 Conference, April 24, 2004, Liege, Belgium. Earlier available at http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10861&ecategory=40268& sectionpage=12251&language=EN&link=link001&page=10&doc=20781 DEQAR. (2022). DEQAR: Quality at your fingertips. Accessed on March 2, 2023, from https:// www.eqar.eu/qa-results/deqar-project/ DES. (2010). Investing in global relationships: Ireland’s international education strategy 201015. Department of Education and Skills. Accessed January 17, 2023, from https://assets.gov. ie/24400/a46c03d90bf24e54a83776a383baa9d4.pdf Diep, F. (2022, June 16). Where the rankers meet the ranked: An annual conference illustrates college rankings’ enduring dominance. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/where-the-rankers-meet-the-ranked Diep, F., & Gluckman, N. (2021, September 13). Colleges still obsess over national rankings: For proof, look at their strategic plans. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-still-obsess-over-national-rankingsfor-proof-look-at-their-strategic-plans?cid=gen_sign_in DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 42(2), 147–160. Dobson, A. (2006). Thick cosmopolitanism. Political Studies, 54(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00571.x Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2011). Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-971X.2011.01718.x Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.642349 Dolan, K., Hunt, V., Prince, S., & Sancier-Sultan, S. (2020, May 19). Diversity still matters. McKinsey Quarterly. Accessed on August 29, 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/ featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-still-matters Dolev, D. (1998). Architectural orientalism in the Hebrew university: The Patrick Geddes and Frank Mears master-plan. Assaph: Studies in Art History, 3(12), 217–234. Dolton, P. (2020). The economics of the UK university system in the time of COVID-19 (NISER Policy Paper 19). National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

228

Bibliography

Dor, D. (2004). From Englishization to imposed multilingualism: Globalization, the Internet, and the political economy of the linguistic code. Public Culture, 16(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10. 1215/08992363-16-1-97 Douglass, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500496 Dumay, X., Draelants, H., & Dahan, A. (2017). Organizational identity of universities: A review of the literature from 1972 to 2014. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 3, pp. 99–118). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S2056-375220170000003006 Dunning, J. H. (1980). Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), 9–31. Dunning, J. H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13571510110051441 DutchNew.nl. (2023). MPs call for a curb on international students, more focus on Dutch. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2023/02/mps-call-for-acurb-on-international-students-more-focus-on-dutch/ Dzvimbo, K. (2015). The African university in the 21st century: The quest for self-financing in the Zimbabwe Open University. The Zimbabwean Journal of Education Research, 27(2), 187–204. Dzvimbo, K. P., & Moloi, K. C. (2013). Globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education in sub-Saharan Africa. South African Journal of Education, 33(3), 1–16. EAIE. President’s award. Accessed on 22 December 2022, from https://www.eaie.org/community/ awards/president-award.html Earls, C. W. (2016). Evolving agendas in European English-medium higher education: Interculturality, multilingualism and language policy. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer. Eastmond, M. (2007). Stories as lived experience: Narratives in forced migration research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fem007 Economic and Social Council. (2018). List of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the economic and social council as of 1 September 2018. E/2018/INF/5. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1657187 Efe, I., & Ozer, O. (2015). A corpus-based discourse analysis of the vision and mission statements of universities in Turkey. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1110–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1070127 Efrati, N. (2004). The Hebrew University and the Hebrew language. In H. Lavsky (Ed.), History of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: A period of consolidation and growth (Vol. II, pp. 305–336). Magnes Press. EHEA. (1998). Sorbonne declaration. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from http://www.ehea.info/ page-sorbonne-declaration-1998 Ekpo, A. H. (2002). Issues in African higher education in the 1990’s and beyond. University of Uyo. El-Khawas, E. (2001). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, developments and future prospects. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001292/1292 95e.pdf Else, H. (2019). Scandal-weary Swedish government takes over research-fraud investigations. Nature, 571, 158. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05493-3 Engwall, L. (2014). The quality of quality assessments. In W. Blockmans, L. Engwall, & D. Weaire (Eds.), Bibliometrics: Use and abuse in the review of research performance (pp. 95–106). Portland Press. Engwall, L. (2019, April 19). Academic taxi drivers in a global marketplace. University World News. Accessed on February 12, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20191408093615670 Engwall, L. (Ed.). (2020). Missions of universities: Past, present, future (Springer Series Higher Education Dynamics 55). Springer.

Bibliography

229

Engwall, L. (2022). Listen to Eva Forslund and Magnus Henrekson, Please! Econ Journal Watch, 19(September), 283–290. https://econjwatch.org/articles/listen-to-eva-forslund-and-magnushenrekson-please Engwall, L., & Danell, R. (2011). Britannia and her business schools. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 432–442. Engwall, L., & Hedmo, T. (2016). The organizing of scientific fields: The case of corpus linguistics. European Review, 24(4), 568–591. Engwall, L., & Scott, P. (Eds.). (2013). Trust in universities. Portland Press. Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2016). Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. Routledge. Ennew, C. T. (2012). Around the world in 80 ways: Routes to internationalisation in higher education. In C. T. Ennew & D. Greenaway (Eds.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 70–90). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137265050_6 Ennew, C. T. (2014, February 24). It still makes sense to build an overseas campus. The Conversation. Accessed on September 9, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/it-still-makes-senseto-build-an-overseas-campus-23200 Ennew, C. T., & Yang, F. (2009). Foreign universities in China: A case study. European Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policy, 44(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1465-3435.2008.01368.x ENQA. (2022). The European association for quality assurance in higher education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.enqa.eu/ EQAR. (2022). Reliable information on quality of European higher education and its assurance. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.eqar.eu Erasmus by train. (2021). Erasmus + Interrail. Accessed on February 8, 2023, from https:// erasmusbytrain.eu/ Ergin, H., de Wit, H., & Leask, B. (2019). Forced internationalization: An emerging phenomenon. International Higher Education, 97(Spring), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2019.97.10939 Erkkilä, T., & Piironen, O. (2009). The iron cage of governance indicators. In R. W. Cox (Ed.), Ethics and integrity in public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 125–145). M. E. Sharpe. Escrivà-Beltran, M., Muñoz-de-Prat, J., & Villó, C. (2019). Insights into international branch campuses: Mapping trends through a systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 101(August), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.049 Eskelä, E. (2013). Migration decisions of skilled migrants. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 3(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2013-0004 Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2016). Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation. Espmark, K. (2012). I vargtimmen. Norstedts. ETER. (2022). European tertiary education register. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// www.eter-project.com/ Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge. EU. (2021). Regulation (EU) No 2021/821 of 20 May 2021 for control of exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items. Official Journal of the European Union, L2016/1. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0821&from=EN EUA. (2022a). EUA President’s letter. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://cdn.flxml.eu/r143a213cae65ddd4969b431d5f26c801848e815973a9abf6 EUA. (2022b). Statement of Bologna Process parties on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://eua.eu/partners-news/844-statement-of-bologna-processparties-on-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine.html EUA. (2022c). EUA suspends membership of 12 Russian universities following statement by university leaders. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://eua.eu/news/842:euasuspends-membership-of-12-russian-universities-following-statement-by-university-leaders. html

230

Bibliography

EURITO. (2022). Research & Innovation Indicators. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http:// www.eurito.eu EUROGRADUATE. (2022). Survey 2022. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www. eurograduate.eu European Commission. (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://op.europa.eu/en/ publication-detail/-/publication/44dad16a-937d-4cb3-be07-0022197d9459 European Commission. (2007). High level group on multilingualism. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission. (2019). China’s R&D strategy. Accessed on March 19, 2022, from https:// ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/foresight_en European Commission. (2022). Commission communication on a European strategy for universities (No. COM(2022) 16 final). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://education.ec. europa.eu/document/commission-communication-on-a-european-strategy-for-universities European Commission (EC). (2020). EU compliance guidance for research involving dual-use items (Draft version for Targeted Consultation). Accessed on September 1, 2020, from https:// trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/documents/consul_183.pdf European Commission (EC). (2022a). Candidate countries and potential candidates. Accessed on August 5, 2022, from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm#:~:text=Albania %2C%20the%20Republic%20of%20North,possible%20request%20for%20transition%20 periods European Commission (EC). (2022b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: On a European strategy for universities (COM(2022) 16 Final). Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-01/communica tion-european-strategy-for-universities.pdf European Commission (EC). (2022c). Commission publishes a toolkit to help mitigate foreign interference in research and innovation. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://researchand-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/commission-publishestoolkit-help-mitigate-foreign-interference-research-and-innovation-2022-01-18_en European Presidency. (2000). Presidency conclusions: Lisbon European Council. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm European Union (EU). (2022a). Division of competences within the European Union. Accessed on August 21, 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/division-of-compe tences-within-the-european-union.html European Union (EU). (2022b). Foreign and security policy. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/foreign-and-security-pol icy_en#:~:text=The%20EU%27s%20joint%20foreign%20and,in%20the%20EU%27s%20 international%20role Even-Zohar, I. (1981). The emergence of a native Hebrew culture in Palestine: 1882–1948. Studies in Zionism, 2(2), 167–184. Fabricius, A. H., Mortensen, J., & Haberland, H. (2017). The lure of internationalization: Paradoxical discourses of transnational student mobility, linguistic diversity and cross-cultural exchange. Higher Education, 73(4), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9978-3 Facer, K. (2020). Beyond business as usual: Higher education in the era of climate change (Debate Paper No. 24). Higher Education Policy Institute. Federal Ministry of Education. (2016). Nigeria digest of education statistics 2014-2016. Federal Ministry of Education. Ferm, O., & Andrews, R. (Eds.). (2021). Swedish students at the University of Paris in the middle ages II: Johannes Nicolai and his Extractio de Logica Burley. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University.

Bibliography

231

Ferm, O., & Kihlman, E. (2011). Swedish students at the University of Vienna in the middle ages: Careers, books and preaching. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Ferm, O., & Mornet, É. (Eds.). (2021). Swedish students at the University of Paris in the middle ages I: Origin, studies, carriers, achievements. Sällskapet Runica et mediævalia, Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University. Findlay, A. M. (2011). An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of international student mobility. International Migration, 49(2), 162–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2435.2010.00643.x Findlay, A. M., King, R., Smith, F. M., Geddes, A., & Skeldon, R. (2011). World class?: An investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011. 00454.x Findlay, A., Prazeres, L., McCollum, D., & Packwood, H. (2017). It was always the plan’: International study as ‘learning to migrate. Area, 49(2), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/area. 12315 Fong, V. (2011). Paradise redefined: Chinese students, transnational migration, and the quest for citizenship in the developed world. Stanford University Press. Forslund, E., & Henrekson, M. (2022). The virtues of native discourse: Striking a balance between English and the native language. Econ Journal Watch, 19(September), 258–282. https:// econjwatch.org/articles/the-virtues-of-native-discourse-striking-a-balance-between-englishand-the-native-language Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2020). The university and the global knowledge society. Princeton University Press. Fuchs, E. (2004). Educational sciences, morality and politics: International educational congresses in the early twentieth century. Paedagogica Historica, 40(5–6), 757–784. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0030923042000293751 Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Hamish Hamilton. Fukuyama, F. (2022a). Liberalism and its discontents. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fukuyama, F. (2022b, March 17). Academia shares blame for demise of liberalism. Times Higher Education. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/ francis-fukuyama-academia-shares-blame-demise-liberalism Furedi, F. (2016). What’s happened to the university?: A sociological exploration of its infantilisation. Routledge. Gabowski, S., Wearing, S., Lyons, K., Tarrant, M., & Landon, A. (2017). A rite of passage?: Exploring youth transformation and global citizenry in the study abroad experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1292177 Gabriëls, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2021). Introduction: The tension between monolingualism and multilingualism. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam University Press. Garben, S. (2015). Confronting the competence conundrum: Democratising the European Union through an expansion of its legislative lowers. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1), 55–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu021 Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. Garrett, R., Kinser, K., Lane, J. E., & Merola, R. (2017). International branch campuses: Success factors of mature IBCs. OBHE/C-BERT. Garson, K., Bourassa, E., & Odgers, T. (2016). Interculturalising the curriculum: Faculty professional development. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14675986.2016.1240506

232

Bibliography

Garwe, E. C., & Thondhlana, J. (2019). Higher education systems and institutions, Zimbabwe. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1636–1648). Springer. Geddie, K. P. (2010). Transnational landscapes of opportunity?: Post-graduation settlement and employment strategies of international students in Toronto, Canada and London, UK. PhD thesis, University of Toronto. George Mwangi, C. A., Latafat, S., Hammond, S., Kommers, S., Thoma, H. S., Berger, J., & Blanco-Ramirez, G. (2018). Criticality in international higher education research: A critical discourse analysis of higher education journals. Higher Education, 76(6), 1091–1107. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0259-9 Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage. Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, M. (2021). In search of a normal place: The geographical imaginaries of Eastern European students in Denmark. Globalisation, Societies and Education. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14767724.2021.1954495 Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, M. (2022). Student migration from Eastern to Western Europe. Routledge. Girdzijauskaite, E., Radzeviciene, A., Jakubavicius, A., & Banaitis, A. (2019). International branch campuses as an entry mode to the foreign education market. Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9020044 Gladwell, M. (2022, March 15). Did Columbia University cheat its way to the top of the US news rankings? Oh, MG. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://malcolmgladwell.bulletin.com/ columbia-university-web-illusions-us-news-rankings/ Glick Schiller, N., & Salazar, N. B. (2013). Regimes of mobility across the globe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.723253 Global Public Policy Institute. (2021). Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.gppi. net/2021/03/11/free-universities#:~:text=The%20Academic%20Freedom%20Index%20is,fur ther%20contribute%20to%20such%20debates Gmelch, G. (1997). Crossing cultures: Student travel and personal development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97) 00021-7 Gopal, A. (2016). Visa and immigration trends: A comparative examination of international student mobility in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 4(3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20091 Gornitzka, Å., & Stolen, S. (2021, October 16). Can universities have too much internationalisation? University World News. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20211013103911307 Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. British Council. Grady-Benson, J., & Sarathy, B. (2016). Fossil fuel divestment in US higher education: Student-led organising for climate justice. Local Environment, 21(6), 661–681. Groennings, S. (1990). Higher education, international education, and the academic disciplines. In S. Groennings & D. S. Wiley (Eds.), Group portrait: Internationalizing the disciplines (pp. 11–31). American Forum. Grønseth, A. S. (2013). Introduction. Being human, being migrant: Senses of self and well-being. In A. S. Grønseth (Ed.), Being human, being migrant: Senses of self and well-being (pp. 1–26). Berghahn Books. Gukurume, S. (2019). Navigating the crisis: University of Zimbabwe students’ campus experiences during Zimbabwe’s multi-layered crisis’. African Identities, 17(3–4), 277–297. Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2018). International study in the global South: Linking institutional, staff, student and knowledge mobilities. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(2), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1401453

Bibliography

233

Gürüz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy (Revised and updated 2nd ed.). SUNY Press. Hage, G. (2005). A not so multi-sited ethnography of a not so imagined community. Anthropological Theory, 5(4), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499605059232 Hage, G. (2015). Alter-politics: Critical anthropology and the radical imagination. Melbourne University Press. Hage, G., & Papadopoulos, D. (2004). Ghassan Hage in conversation with Dimitris Papadopoulos: Migration, hope and the making of subjectivity in transnational capitalism. International Journal for Critical Psychology, 12, 95–117. Halperin, L. (2013, January 18). Hebrew U. Embraces English: A vote to officially allow English at the Jerusalem institution of a longer history of Zionist concessions. Tablet. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/hebrewuniversity-embraces-english Hangula, L., Kamwi Matengu, M., Likando, G., & Shanyanana, R. N. (2018). Higher education systems and institutions, Namibia. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1325–1330). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_464 Hartocollis, A. (2022, July 8). Columbia loses its No. 2 spot in the U.S. News rankings. The New York Times. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/issue/ todayspaper/2022/07/08/todays-new-york-times Harvey, D. (2009). Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom. Columbia University Press. Haskins, C. H. (1929). The life of mediaeval students as illustrated by their letters. In C. H. Haskins (Ed.), Studies in mediaeval culture (pp. 1–35). Claredon Press. Hawthorne, L. (2018). Attracting and retaining international students as skilled migrants. In M. Czaika (Ed.), High-Skilled migration: Drivers and policies (pp. 195–221). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198815273.003.0010 Hazelkorn, E. (2018). Reshaping the world order of higher education: The role and impact of rankings on national and global systems. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2018.1424562 Hazelkorn, E., & Altbach, P. G. (2023, February 11). University rankings: Assessing the newest kid on the block. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230208140628782&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0726 Hazelkorn, E., & Gibson, A. G. (2023). Governing global higher education and science: IONAs and ever-renewing webs of interconnection. In P. Shroff, J. Sheth, & J. Garrison (Eds.), The global and digital governance handbook. Routledge. Hazelkorn, E., & Klemenčič, M. (2022, January 20). Strategy seeks “inclusive excellence” for European HE. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220120133817396 Hazelkorn, E., & Mihut, G. (2021a). Introduction: Putting rankings in context. Looking back, looking forward. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 1–17). Edward Elgar. Hazelkorn, E., & Mihut, G. (Eds.). (2021b). Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact. Edward Elgar. Hazelkorn, E., & Ryan, M. (2013). The impact of university rankings on higher education policy in Europe: A challenge to perceived wisdom and a stimulus for change. In P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, & J. Brennan (Eds.), The globalization challenge for European higher education: Convergence and diversity, centres and peripheries (pp. 79–99). Peter Lang. Healey, N. (2015). Managing international branch campuses. Higher Education Quarterly, 69(4), 386–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12082 Healey, N. (2018). International branch campuses: Management of. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_253-1

234

Bibliography

Hebrew University. (2014). Brand manual. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://brand.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/brand/files/huji_brand_ book.pdf Hebrew University. (2021). Teaching policy and procedures 2020/21. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://en.studentsadmin.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/studentsadmin.en/files/ takanon_-2021_-english.pdf Hedmo, T. (2004). Rule-making in the transnational space: The development of European accreditation of management education. Doctoral dissertation from Uppsala University. Heeman, W., Dijkstra, K., Hoff, C., Koopal, S., Pierie, J.-P., Bouma, H., & Boerma, C. (2019). Application of laser speckle contrast imaging in laparoscopic surgery. Biomedical Optics Express, 10(4), 2010–2019. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.10.002010 Heinrich, D. H., & Choy, S. (2022, December 10). Why international graduates find it hard to stay and work. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221210070604438&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0720O Held, V. (2018). Taking responsibility for global poverty. Journal of Social Philosophy, 49(3), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12254 Helmers, E., Chang, C. C., & Dauwels, J. (2021). Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I: Objective comparison by standardized metrics. Environmental Sciences Europe, 33(30), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6 Henard, F. (2020). Collaborating to compete: The global landscape of international tertiary education networks. The World Bank. Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace: Issues and strategies. Quorum Books. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Pergamon. Hickey, R., & Davies, D. (2022). The common factors underlying successful international branch campuses: Towards a conceptual decision-making framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2037072 Higher Education and Research Act. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from wetten.nl - Regeling Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek - BWBR0005682 (overheid.nl) (Dutch version only). Hiralal, K. (2015). Migration and education narratives of student mobility in South Africa. Oriental Anthropologists, 15(2), 331–344. Hladchenko, M. (2016). The organizational identity of Ukrainian universities as claimed through their mission statements. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13583883.2016.1236144 Hofhuis, J., Jongerling, J., Van der Zee, K. I., & Jansz, J. (2020). Validation of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire Short Form (MPQ-SF) for use in the context of international education. PLoS One, 15(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244425 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage. Holmes, R. (2022, June 18). Is China really quitting the international rankings?. University Ranking Watch. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/2022/06/ischina-really-quitting-international.html Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. NAFSA. Hunter, F., McAllister-Grande, B., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2022). The evolving definitions of internationalization: A question of values. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 53–74). Stylus. Huntington, S. P. (2000). The clash of civilizations? In L. Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 99–118). Palgrave Macmillan. IEA. (2022). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.iea.nl/

Bibliography

235

Ilonga, A., Ashipala, D. O., & Tomas, N. (2020). Challenges experienced by students studying through open and distance learning at a higher education institution in Namibia: Implications for strategic planning. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 166–127. https://doi.org/ 10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p116 Institutions for Open Societies. (2022). Openness challenged: The university at risk?. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/en/research/institutions-for-open-societies/interdisci plinary-research/academic-foundations/openness-challenged-the-university-at-risk International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. IREG. (2022). IREG inventory on international rankings. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://ireg-observatory.org/en/initiatives/ireg-inventory-of-international-rankings/ Irfan, A., Rasli, A., Sami, A., & Liaquat, H. (2017). Role of social media in promoting education tourism. Advanced Science Letters, 23(9), 8728–8731. Iruonagbe, C. T., Imhonopi, D., & Egharevba, E. M. (2015). Higher education in Nigeria and the emergence of private universities. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(2), 49–65. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75). Wiley. Jamshidi, L., Arasteh, H., NavehEbrahim, A., Zeinabadi, H., & Rasmussen, P. D. (2012). Developmental patterns of privatization in higher education: A comparative study. Higher Education, 64(6), 789–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9529-0 Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (2014). Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding: Toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.9 Jaschik, S. (2022a, March 14). Ex-Dean gets 14-month sentence in rankings scandal. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ quicktakes/2022/03/14/ex-dean-gets-14-month-sentence-rankings-scandal Jaschik, S. (2022b, April 18). Are rankings being rigged (Again)?. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2022/04/18/arerankings-being-rigged-again Jaschik, S. (2022c, May 31). Britain to give visas to graduates of top universities worldwide. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ quicktakes/2022/05/31/britain-give-visas-graduates-top-universities-worldwide Jenkins, J. (2019). The internationalization of higher education: But what about its lingua franca? In K. Murata (Ed.), English-medium instruction from an English as a lingua franca perspective: Exploring the higher education context (pp. 15–31). Routledge. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalisation process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676 Johanson, J., & Wiederheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486. 1975.tb00514.x Jöhncke, S. (2011). Integrating Denmark: The welfare state as national(ist) accomplishment. In K. F. Olwig & K. Paerregaard (Eds.), The question of integration: Immigration, exclusion and the Danish nation state (pp. 30–53). Cambridge Scholars. Johnstone, D. B. (2004). Higher education finance and accessibility: Tuition fees and student loans in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 2(2), 11–36. Jolly, J. (2022, January 23). UK’s biggest private pension fund to shift £5bn away from polluters. The Guardian. Accessed on January 10, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/ business/2022/jan/23/uks-biggest-private-pension-fund-to-shift-5bn-away-from-polluters

236

Bibliography

Jones, E. (2013). Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in the development of transferable skills. Public Money & Management, 33(2), 95–104. https://doi. org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763416 Jones, E. (2019, September 26). Is it time to pursue ‘interculturalisation’?. Times Higher Education (THE). Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ittime-pursue-interculturalisation Jones, E. (2022). Problematizing the idea of curriculum ‘internationalization’. Journal of International Students, 12(1), i–v. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12i1.4592 Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIE Networker, September 2014, 28–29. Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2021). The globalization of internationalization? In D. Cohn & H. E. Khan (Eds.), International education at the crossroad (pp. 35–48). Indiana University Press. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2007). Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 110–111). Routledge. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum: Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312473655 Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2021). Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153211031679 Jowi, J. O., Knight, J., & Sehoole, C. (2013). Internationalisation of African higher education: Status, challenges and issues. In C. Sehoole & J. Knight (Eds.), Internationalisation of African higher education: Towards achieving the MDGs (pp. 11–31). Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/ edcoll/9789462093119/BP000003.xml Jungblut, J., Maassen, P., & Elken, M. (2020). Quo Vadis EHEA: Balancing structural continuation and political variety. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 391–415). Springer. Karakhanyan, S., & Stensaker, B. (2020). External quality assurance: The landscape, the players and developmental trends. In S. Karakhanyan & B. Stensaker (Eds.), Global trends in higher education quality assurance: Challenges and opportunities in internal and external quality assurance (pp. 11–36). Brill/Sense Publishers. Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2013). Distance education in Africa: A longitudinal study of the perceptions of 2,416 students. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 10(3), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.7202/1035580ar Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education. Psychology Press. Kehm, B., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315307303534 Keyman, E. F. (1997). Globalization, state, identity/difference: Towards a critical social theory of international relations. Humanities Press. King, H. (2022, March 20). China is making new billionaires much faster than the U.S. Axios Markets. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.axios.com/china-new-billionairesfaster-us-5ab941fc-e8f8-42af-a249-bb7901d05081.html Kinser, K., & Lane, J. E. (2016). International branch campuses: Evolution of a phenomenon. International Higher Education, 85(Spring), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2016.85.9232 Kleibert, J. M. (2022, February 5). Post-pandemic, international branch campuses are upbeat. University World News. Accessed on April 29, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=20220202133655763 KNAW. (2021). Summary. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-0 5/20210217-summary-webversie-advies-Academische-vrijheid.pdf Knight, J. (1993). Internationalisation: Management strategies and issues. International Higher Education Magazine, 9(1), 6 and 21–22.

Bibliography

237

Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. CBIE Research, 7. Accessed on September 15, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED549823.pdf Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries (pp. 5–20). European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and IDP-Education Australia. Knight, J. (1999). A time of turbulence and transformation for internationalization. CBIE Research, 14. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED549870.pdf Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33(Fall), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391 Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization (Global Perspectives on Higher Education series 13). Brill. Knight, J. (2009). Internationalization: Unintended consequences? International Higher Education, 54(Winter), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2009.54.8412 Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311398046 Knight, J. (2020). Knowledge diplomacy: What are the key characteristics? International Higher Education, 100(Winter), 38–39. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400071 Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and Association of International Education Administrators. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. European Association for International Education in cooperation with IMHE/OECD and IDP-Education Australia. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018a). Internationalization of higher education: Where have we come from and where are we going? In D. Proctor & L. E. Rumbley (Eds.), The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation perspectives into research, policy, and practice (pp. xix–xxiv). Routledge. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018b). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95(Fall), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.95.10715 Kohl, K., Hopkins, C., Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Dlouhá, J., Razak, D. A., Abidin Bin Sanusi, Z., & Toman, I. (2022). A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(2), 218–236. Kölbel, A. (2018). Imaginative geographies of international student mobility. Social and Cultural Geography, 21(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2018.1460861 Kolinsky, M. (1985). The growth of Nigerian universities 1948–1980: The British share. Minerva, 23(1), 29–61. Korol, L., Gonçalves, G., & Cabral, M. (2016). The impact of multicultural personality on tolerance of diversity in a sample of Portuguese university students. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 18(2), 57–74. Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between mission and market position: Empirical findings on mission statements of German higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.617466

238

Bibliography

Kosmützky, A., & Krücken, G. (2015). Sameness and difference: Analyzing institutional and organizational specificities of universities through mission statements. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015. 1006013 Kosmützky, A., & Putty, R. (2016). Transcending borders and traversing boundaries: A systematic review of the literature on transnational, offshore, cross-border, and borderless higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 8–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315315604719 Krücken, G., Engwall, L., & De Corte, E. (2018). University governance and creativity. European Review, 26(Supplement S1). Krull, W., & Brunotte, T. (2021). Turbulent times: Intellectual and institutional challenges for universities in Germany, Hungary and Poland. In J. A. Douglass (Ed.), Neo-nationalism and universities: Populists, autocrats, and the future of higher education (pp. 92–116). Johns Hopkins Press. Kuenssberg, S. (2011). The discourse of self-presentation in Scottish university mission statements. Quality in Higher Education, 17(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.625205 Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kwiek, M. (2015). The internationalization of research in Europe: A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315572898 Kwiek, M. (2020). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749254 Lane, J.-E. (2000). New public management. Routledge. Lane, J. E. (2011). Global expansion of international branch campuses: Managerial and leadership challenges. New Directions for Higher Education, 155(Fall), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ he.440 Lane, J. E., & Kinser, K. (2013). Five models of international branch campus ownership. International Higher Education, 70(Winter), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2013.70.8705 Lane, J. E., & Pohl, H. (2020). Research productivity of international branch campuses. International Higher Education, 101(Spring), 20–21. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/ view/14273 Lane, J. E., Borgos, J., Schueller, J., Dey, S., Kinser, K., & Zipf, S. (2021, March 13). What is the future for international branch campuses? University World News. Accessed on April 29, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2021031012405285 Larsen, S. E. (2020). Educational transitions: A challenge to research, practice and policy. European Review, 27(Symposium S1). Lawton, W., & Katsomitros, A. (2012). International branch campuses: Data and developments. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. Leask, B., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, December 7). Towards inclusive intercultural learning for all. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181205093157690 Ledger, S., & Kawalilak, C. (2020). Conscientious internationalisation in higher education: Contextual complexities and comparative tensions. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09650-0 Lee, J. J., & Sehoole, C. (2015). Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: The case of South Africa. Higher Education, 70(5), 827–843. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10734-015-9869-7 Lee, J. J., & Stensaker, B. (2021). Research on internationalisation and globalisation in higher education: Reflections on historical paths, current perspectives and future possibilities. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12448

Bibliography

239

Lee, J. J., Li, X., & Committee of 100. (2022). Racial profiling among scientists of Chinese descent. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.committee100.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/C100-Lee-Li-White-Paper-FINAL-FINAL-10.28.pdf Leiden University. (2022). CWTS Leiden ranking 2022. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2022/list Lembani, R. (2019). Country report on Nigerian university education – 2019. UNISA. Accessed on January 24, 2023, from http://ideaspartnership.org/userassets/IDEAS_Nigeria_Country_ Report_2019_FINAL.pdf Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489–519. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevorgpsych-031413-091229 Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Zhang, L. (2021). Are university rankings statistically significant?: A comparison among Chinese universities and with the USA. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(2), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0014 Lim, M. A. (2021). The business of university rankings: The case of Times Higher Education. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 444–454). Edward Elgar Publishing. Lin, W., Lindquist, J., Xiang, B., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2017). Migration infrastructures and the production of migrant mobilities. Mobilities, 12(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17450101.2017.1292770 Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (1988). The insider-outsider theory of employment and unemployment. MIT Press. Lingard, B. (2019). The global education industry, data infrastructures, and the restructuring of government school systems. In M. Parrieira do Amaral, G. Steiner-Khamsi, & C. Thompson (Eds.), Researching the global education industry: Commodification, the market and business involvement (pp. 135–136). Palgrave Macmillan. Lipura, S. J., & Collins, F. L. (2020). Towards an integrative understanding of contemporary educational mobilities: A critical agenda for international student mobilities research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020. 1711710 Liu-Farrer, G., Yeoh, B. S., & Baas, M. (2020). Social construction of skill: An analytical approach toward the question of skill in cross-border labour mobilities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(10), 2237–2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1731983 Liversage, A. (2009). Finding a path: Investigating the labour market trajectories of high-skilled immigrants in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(2), 203–226. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691830802586195 Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. McGraw Hill. Lodge, D. (1984). Small world: An academic romance. Secker & Warburg. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society. Volume 1. Stanford University Press. Lushu, C. (2020). Distance students’ perception towards e-learning at Namibia University of Science and Technology’s regional centres. UNISA. Accessed on October 13, 2022, from https://hdl.handle.net/10500/27995 Luthra, R., & Platt, L. (2016). Elite or middling?: International students and migrant diversification. Ethnicities, 16(2), 316–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796815616155 Maassen, P., Stensaker, B., & Rosso, A. (2022). The European university alliances: An examination of organizational potentials and perils. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-02200951-4 Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444817000350 Maex, K., & Bakker, M. (2022). The university in the age of platforms and algorithms. In A. M. Cauce, Y. Flückiger, & B. van der Zwaan (Eds.), Universities as the fifth power?: Opportunities, risks and strategies (pp. 39–51). Glion Book.

240

Bibliography

Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blakledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 439–453). Routledge. Maoz, L. (2016). Internationalism in higher education. International students in Israel: Suggestions for policy. Prepared for the Israel Council for Higher Education, Jerusalem, Israel. Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333. Marginson, S. (2022a). ‘All things are in flux’: China in global science. Higher Education, 83(4), 881–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00712-9 Marginson, S. (2022b). What drives global science?: The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822 Marginson, S. (2022c). Global science and national comparisons: Beyond bibliometrics and scientometrics. Comparative Education, 58(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068. 2021.1981725 Marginson, S. (2022d). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 492–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2061438 Marginson, S. (2022e). Space and scale in higher education: The glonacal agency heuristic revisited. Higher Education, 84(6), 1365–1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00955-0 Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1014699605875 Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2006). University leaders’ strategies in the global environment: A comparative study of Universitas Indonesia and the Australian National University. Higher Education, 52(2), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-5591-6 Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/173831738240 Marginson, S., & Xu, X. (2023). Hegemony and inequality in global science: Problems of the center-periphery model. Comparative Education Review, 67(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 722760 Maringe, F., Foskett, N., & Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalisation models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.746548 Mashininga, K. (2012, February 19). Every lecturer to have a PhD by 2015. University World News. Accessed on October 13, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20120217165816778 Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 44(6), 849–873. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0022022113492891 Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. (2002). ‘Push-pull’ factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09513540210418403 Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., & Sim Yaw Seng, M. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in international education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 90–99. https://doi. org/10.1108/09513540310467778 McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2007). Transnational education: Issues and trends in offshore higher education. Routledge. McCowan, T. (2018). Quality of higher education in Kenya: Addressing the conundrum. International Journal of Educational Development, 60(May), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2017.11.002 McCowan, T. (2023). Internationalisation and climate impacts of higher education: Towards an analytical framework. Journal of Studies in International Education, 27, 567.

Bibliography

241

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x McGrath, S., Thondhlana, J., & Garwe, E. (2021). Internationalisation of higher education and national development: The case of Zimbabwe. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(6), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1684241 Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International education on the verge: In search of a new paradigm. International Educator, 7(2–3), 68–76. Meunier, S., & Nicolaidis, K. (2022). The geopoliticization of European trade and investment policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(S1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms. 12932 Mietke, J. (1985). Die Studenten. In P. Moraw (Ed.), Unterwegssein im Spätmittelalter (pp. 49–70). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung. Beiheft). Mitchell, N. (2022, December 2). Does the UK want more or fewer international students?: University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221202101857697&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0719 Mitchell, N. (2023, February 2). Universities urged to diversify overseas target markets. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=2023020210545874&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=GLNL0725 Mittelmeier, J., & Cockayne, H. (2022). Global representations of international students in a time of crisis: A qualitative analysis of Twitter data during COVID-19. International Studies in Sociology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2022.2042357 Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2020). Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906176 Mittelmeier, J., Gunter, A., Raghuram, P., & Rienties, B. (2022). Migration intentions of international distance education students studying from a South African institution: Unpacking potential brain drain. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14767724.2021.1947202 Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., & Drori, G. S. (2021). World-rank and/or locally relevant?: Organizational identity in the mission statements of higher education organizations in Israel, 2008–2018. Minerva, 59(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09414-5 Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., & Drori, G. S. (2022). Ivory tower or tower of Babel?: The challenge of multilingualism for the globally embedded university. Higher Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10734-022-00894-w Mkwanazi, S., & Mbohwa, C. (2016). A township based business location for migrant’s businesses in South Africa: Cases of xenophobia. In 33rd Pan Pacific Business Conference, Paper no. 14. Miri Sarawak. Moland, N. (2015). Nigeria: An overview. In E. Amoako (Ed.), Education in West Africa (pp. 82–106). Bloomsbury. Moore, D. (2011, May 7). Nebraska sacked!: Was expulsion from the AAU reprisal for leaving. BR. Sports News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/693354nebraska-sacked-was-expulsion-from-the-aau-reprisal-for-leaving-the-big-12 Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00221546.2006.11778934 Mosneaga, A., & Agergaard, J. (2012). Agents of internationalisation?: Danish universities’ practices for attracting international students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.690309 Mosneaga, A., & Winther, L. (2013). Emerging talents? International students before and after their career start in Denmark: International students in Denmark. Population, Space and Place, 19(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1750

242

Bibliography

Mukeredzi, T. (2022, January 20). Women students dominate at tertiary education institutions. World University News. Accessed on January 24, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220116115440156 Mukoro, A. (2013). The phenomenon of gender inequality in access to and equity in university education in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(7), 129–142. https://doi.org/ 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n7p129 Mukwambo, P. (2020). Policy and practice disjunctures: Quality teaching and learning in Zimbabwean higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1246–1260. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075079.2019.1596075 Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press. Multirank. (2022a). Universities compared your way. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https:// www.umultirank.org Multirank. (2022b). New feature: U-Multirank provides open-access to all its data. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.umultirank.org/press-media/umultirank-news/u-multirankprovides-open-access-to-data/ Mulvey, B. (2021). Global inequality, mobility regimes and transnational capital: The postgraduation plans of African student migrants. Sociology, 56(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10. 1177/00380385211037574 Murairwa, S. (2021). A sustainable Zimbabwe University-Industry collaboration framework. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 5(6), 160–168. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new strangers. Routledge. Myklebust, J. P. (2022a, July 4). Research security rules: Is university autonomy at risk?. University World News. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20220531144822860 Myklebust, J. P. (2022b, July 18). Universities say new rules will hurt international research. University World News. Accessed on August 21, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2022071815404711 Myklebust, J. P. (2023, February 8). Rectors back EC launch of European degree pilot projects. University World News. Accessed on February 14, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230208101443382&utm_source=newsletter& utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GLNL0726 Naidoo, R. (2016). The competition fetish in higher education: Varieties, animators and consequences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 1–10. Naidu, S. (2006). E-Learning: A guidebook of principles, procedures and practices. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia. Nakale, A. (2021, August 18). Unam students bemoan slack service. New Era Live. Accessed on October 13, 2022, from https://neweralive.na/posts/unam-students-bemoan-slack-service National Knowledge Security Guidelines. (2022). Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://open. overheid.nl/repository/ronl-5379d1b4f8b9784bf518251032507a965be9c92d/1/pdf/National% 20Knowledge%20Security%20Guidelines.pdf National Research Council. (1995). Education Indicators Project (INES). In International comparative studies in education: Descriptions of selected large-scale assessments and case studies (pp. 29–41). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9174/ international-comparative-studies-in-education-descriptions-of-selected-large-scale Nayyar, D. (2002). Towards global governance. In D. Nayyer (Ed.), Governing globalization: Issues and institutions (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press. Ndofirepi, E., Farinloye, T., & Mogaji, E. (2020). Marketing mix in a heterogenous higher education market: A case of Africa. In E. Mogaji, F. Maringe, & R. E. Hinson (Eds.), Understanding the higher education market in Africa (pp. 241–262). Routledge. Neveu Kringelbach, H. (2015). Gendered educational trajectories and transnational marriage among West African students in France. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939190

Bibliography

243

New to Denmark. (2022). Accessed on August 15, 2022, from https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-GB Newmark, L. (2023, January 21). Universities oppose request to halt foreign recruitment. University World News. Accessed on February 9, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20230121065335461&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_cam paign=GLNL0723 Nicholson, C. (2022, July 26). Commission rejects calls for UK and Swiss access to Horizon. Research Professional News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-horizon-2020-2022-7-commission-rejects-callsfor-uk-and-swiss-access-to-horizon/ Nikula, P.-T., Fusek, A., & van Gaalen, A. (2022). Internationalisation of higher education and climate change: A cognitive dissonance perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10283153221145082 Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 21–28). European Association for International Education. Niraula, A., & Valentin, K. (2019). Mobile brains and the question of ‘deskilling’: Highly educated South Asian migrants in Denmark. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 9(1), 19–35. https:// doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2019-0008 Noorda, S. (2021). A new Magna Charta Universitatum. International Higher Education, 107(Summer), 5–6. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/14551 Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press. NSB (National Science Board). (2022). Science and engineering indicators. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221 Nuffic. (2022). Incoming degree mobility in Dutch higher education 2021-22. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.nuffic.nl/sites/default/files/2022-04/Incoming-degree-mobility-inDutch-higher-education-2021-22.pdf Nussbaum, M. C. (2019). The cosmopolitan tradition. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. Nybom, T. (2007). A rule-governed community of scholars: The Humboldt vision in the history of the European University. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 55–79). Springer. Nyborg, P. (2014). The roots of the European University Association. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://eua.eu/component/attachments/attachments.html?task=attachment&id= 853 O’Malley, B. (2022a, January 21). European degree at heart of EU strategy for universities. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220121143311811 O’Malley, B. (2022b, March 6). Russian Union of rectors backs Putin’s action in Ukraine. University World News. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220306120204111 O’Malley, B. (2022c, March 5). European Union halts scientific cooperation with Russia. University World News. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20220305125136996 O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. Routledge. Obamba, M. O. (2013). Uncommon knowledge: World Bank policy and the unmaking of the knowledge economy in Africa. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10. 1057/hep.2012.20 Oberg, A., Drori, G. S., & Delmestri, G. (2018). Where history, visuality, and identity meet: Institutional paths to visual diversity among organizations. In M. A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos, & D. Jancsary (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Multimodality, meaning and institutions (Vol. 54B, pp. 71–99). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733558X2017000054B003

244

Bibliography

Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum. (2022a). Magna Charta 1988. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://www.magna-charta.org/magna-charta-universitatum/mcu-1988 Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum. (2022b). History. Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://site.unibo.it/magna-charta/en/magna-charta-universitatum/history Odora Hoppers, C. (2009). Education, culture and society in a globalizing world: Implications for comparative and international education. Compare, 39(5), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057920903125628 OECD. (1980). Measuring science, technology, and innovation. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR. 1980.4288982 OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://www. oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD%2896%29102& docLanguage=En OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results, Volume 1: What students know and can do. OECD. https:// www.oecd.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i-5f07c754-en.htm OECD. (2019b). Education at a glance: OECD Indicators. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ education/education-at-a-glance-2019_f8d7880d-en OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021. OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/ education-at-a-glance-2021_b35a14e5-en Oertel, S., & Söll, M. (2017). Universities between traditional forces and modern demands: The role of imprinting on the missions of German universities. HigherEducation, 73(1), 1–18. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-016-0013-0 Okebukola, P. (2002). Globalization and quality assurance in higher education: A view from Nigeria. In International Association of Universities (Ed.), Globalization and the market in higher education: Quality, accreditation and qualification (pp. 113–119). UNESCO Publishing/Editions Economica. Olein, H. (2022, March 17). California NIMBYs learn a lesson: Don’t mess with college admissions. Washington Post. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/2022/03/17/california-nimbys-learn-lesson-dont-mess-with-college-admissions/ Olwig, K. F., & Valentin, K. (2015). Mobility, education and life trajectories: New and old migratory pathways. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 247–257. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939191 Östling, J. (2018). Humboldt and the modern German university: An intellectual history (L. Olsson, Trans.). Lund University Press/Manchester University Press. http://www.oapen.org/search? identifier=646121;keyword=Humboldt Otten, M. (2000). Impacts of cultural diversity at home. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 15–20). European Association for International Education. Page, S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press. Palmer, T. B., & Short, J. C. (2008). Mission statements in US colleges of business: An empirical examination of their content with linkages to configurations and performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 454–470. Pan, D. (2011). Student visas, undocumented labour, and the boundaries of legality: Chinese migration and English as a foreign language education in the Republic of Ireland. Social Anthropology, 19(3), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00159.x Paniagua, J., Villó, C., & Escrivà-Beltran, M. (2022). Cross-border higher education: The expansion of international branch campuses. Research in Higher Education, 63, 1037–1057. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09674-y Pashby, K., & Andreotti, V. de O. (2016). Ethical internationalisation in higher education: Interfaces with international development and sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 771–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1201789 Paul, R., & Tait, A. (2019). International review of research in open and distributed learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(4), s.180–s.194.

Bibliography

245

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)20:3%3C389::AID-JOB917% 3E3.0.CO;2-G Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1987.4275821 Perraton, H. (2014). A history of foreign students in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan. Phillips, N., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Language, cognition and institutions: Studying institutionalization using linguistic methods. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 392–417). SAGE. Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education. Volume 3 (pp. 19–42) De Gruyter Mouton. Piekkari, R., Tietze, S., & Koskinen, K. (2020). Metaphorical and interlingual translation in moving organizational practices across languages. Organization Studies, 41(9), 1311–1332. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840619885415 Pietsch, T. (2013). Empire of scholars: Universities, networks and the British academic world 1850-1939. Manchester University Press. Posada, A., & Chen, G. (2018). Inequality in knowledge production: The integration of academic infrastructure by big publishers. ELPUB 2018. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://hal. archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01816707/document Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press. Prazeres, L. (2019). Unpacking distinction within mobility: Social prestige and international students. Population, Space and Place, 25(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2190 Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. Price, D. J. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306. Pudelko, M., & Tenzer, H. (2019). Boundaryless careers or career boundaries?: The impact of language barriers on academic careers in international business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0236 Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5 Raghuram, P. (2021). Interjecting the geographies of skills into international skilled migration research: Political economy and ethics for a renewed research agenda. Population, Space and Place, 27(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2463 Raghuram, P., Roos Breines, M., & Gunter, A. (2020). Beyond #FeesMustFall: International students, fees and everyday agency in the era of decolonisation. Geoforum, 109(February 2020), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.002 Ram, D. (2015). Challenges for Hebrew in higher education and research environments. In F. X. Vila & V. Bretxa (Eds.), Language policy in higher education: The case of medium-sized languages (pp. 103–131). Multilingual Matters. Ramos, C. (2018). Onward migration from Spain to London in times of crisis: The importance of life-course junctures in secondary migrations. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(11), 1841–1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1368372 Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Random House Books. Reuter, M., Oberg, A., & Wijkström, F. (2018). Governing a transnational field: Civil society organizations as intermediaries in global university governance. Paper Prepared for the 13th ISTR Conference, Amsterdam. Riaño, Y. (2015). Latin American women who migrate for love: Imagining European men as ideal partners. In B. Enguix & J. Roca (Eds.), Rethinking romantic love: Discussions, imaginaries and practices (pp. 45–60). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

246

Bibliography

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage. Robertson, S. (2011). Cash cows, backdoor migrants, or activist citizens?: International students, citizenship, and rights in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(12), 2192–2211. https://doi. org/10.1080/01419870.2011.558590 Robertson, S. (2013). Transnational student-migrants and the state: The education-migration nexus. Palgrave Macmillan. Robertson, S., & Runganaikaloo, A. (2014). Lives in limbo: Migration experiences in Australia’s education–migration nexus. Ethnicities, 14(2), 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468796813504552 Rodrik, D. (2017). Populism and the economics of globalization. Harvard University Press. Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343 Rottenburg, R., Merry, S. E., Park, S.-J., & Mugler, J. (Eds.). (2015). The world of indictors: The making of governmental knowledge through quantification. Cambridge University Press. Rubin, J. (2016). Nautical musings on local and global innovation and change. In E. Jones, R. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and local internationalization (pp. 75–79). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-301-8 Rüegg, W. (1992). Themes. In H. De Ridder-Symoen (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe. Volume 1. Universities in the middle ages (pp. 3–34). Cambridge University Press. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80(Spring), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.80.6146 Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Leask, B. (2022). Trends in global higher education and the future of internationalization, beyond 2020. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Stylus. Rytter, M. (2019). Writing against integration: Danish imaginaries of culture, race and belonging. Ethnos, 84(4), 678–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1458745 Safran, W. (2005). Language and nation-building in Israel: Hebrew and its rivals. Nations and Nationalism, 11(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2005.00191.x Salazar, N. B. (2011). The power of imagination in transnational mobilities. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 18(6), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2011.672859 Salihu, M. J., & Jamil, H. (2015). Achieving equality of educational opportunity on access to university education in Nigeria: A case of policy implementation. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 17(2), 3–22. Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank. Salmi, J. (2021). Do rankings promote academic excellence?: World-class universities in perspective. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 455–472). Edward Elgar. Sancho, D. (2017). Escaping India’s culture of education: Migration desires among aspiring middle-class young men. Ethnography, 18(4), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1466138116687591 Sassen, S. (Ed.). (2002). Global networks, linked cities. Routledge. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82. Schendel, R., & McCowan, T. (2016). Expanding higher education systems in low- and middleincome countries: The challenges of equity and quality. Higher Education, 72(4), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0028-6 Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R., & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782284 Schofer, E., Lerch, J. C., & Meyer, J. W. (2022). Illiberal reactions to higher education. Minerva, 60(December), 509–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09472-x

Bibliography

247

Schwinges, R. C. (1988). Migration und Austausch. Studentenwanderungen im Deutschen Reich des Späten Mittelalters. In G. Jaritz & A. Müller (Eds.), Migration in der Feudalgesellschaft (pp. 141–155). Campus. Scott, P. (1998a). Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 108–129). SRHE and Open University Press. Scott, P. (1998b). The globalization of higher education. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2019). Factors affecting the content of universities’ mission statements: An analysis of the United Kingdom higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1349743 Sehoole, C. (2006). Internationalisation of higher education in South Africa: A historical review. Perspectives in Education, 24(4), 1–13. Sehoole, C., & Jenny, L. E. E. (2020). South Africa as a geopolitical hub for migration and international student mobility. Higher Education Governance and Policy, 1(2), 99–108. Accessed on October 13, 2022, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hegp/issue/59139/785919 Sehoole, C., & Knight, J. (2013). The role of higher education internationalisation in meeting MDGS. In C. Sehoole & J. Knight (Eds.), Internationalisation of African higher education: Towards achieving the MDGs (pp. 177–193). Brill. Shahjahan, R., & Edwards, K. (2022). Whiteness as futurity and globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 83(4), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00702-x Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2012). Managing offshore branch campuses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(2), 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311413470 Sharma, Y. (2021, June 23). Is the world splitting into opposing science “blocs”?. University World News. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20210623120943916 Sharma, Y. (2023, January 31). China bans foreign universities’ online only courses. University World News. Accessed on February 12, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20230131132149728&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=GLNL0725 Shekel, A. (2012). The Hebrew University rebranding case study. Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268 Shields, R. (2013). Globalization and international student mobility: A network analysis. Comparative Education Review, 57(4), 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1086/671752 Shields, R. (2019). The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217(20 April 2019), 594–602. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.291 Shin, J. C., & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition. Springer. Shumate, M., Pilny, A., Cooper, K. R., & Atouba, Y. (Eds.). (2019). Yearbook of international organizations, 2019-2020. Guide to global civil society networks. Volume 5: Statistics, visualizations and patterns. Union of International Associations and Brill. Silova, I. (2021). Facing the Anthropocene: Comparative education as sympoiesis. Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 587–616. Sinuany-Stern, Z. (2019). International students from the diaspora and higher education in Israel. National Resilience, Politics and Society, 1(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.26351/NRPS/1-2/3 Siwinski, W. (2019, June 10). University rankings organisations need to do more. Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://thechronicleofeducation. net/2019/06/10/university-rankings-organisations-need-to-do-more/ Snyder, T. (2018). The road to unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books.

248

Bibliography

Solovova, O., Santos, J., & Veríssimo, J. (2018). Publish in English or perish in Portuguese: Struggles and constraints on the semiperiphery. Publications, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10. 3390/publications6020025 SOU 2018:48 (Official Reports of the Swedish Government 2018:48). Ökad attraktionskraft för kunskapsnationen Sverige. Norstedts. Spitzberg, B. H., & Chagnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 3–52). Sage. Stalenhoef, C., Kanetake, M., & van der Wende, M. (2022). The implications of the EU’s dual-use export control regulation 2021/821 for universities and academics. RENFORCE Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4248860 Stallivieri, L. (2019, August 31). Making the case for responsible internationalisation. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20190829092237117 Stallivieri, L. (2020, May 23). International virtual exchange needs greater support. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20200518150642841 Statista. (2023). Countries with the largest amount of international students as a share of the total higher education population in 2020. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.statista. com/statistics/788155/international-student-share-of-higher-education-worldwide/ Stearns, J. M., & Borna, S. (1998). Mission statements in business higher education: Issues and evidence. Higher Education Management, 10(1), 89–104. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ568857 Stein, S. (2017). The persistent challenges of addressing epistemic dominance in higher education: Considering the case of curriculum internationalization. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S25–S50. https://doi.org/10.1086/690456 Stein, S. (2021). Critical internationalization studies at an impasse: Making space for complexity, uncertainty, and complicity in a time of global challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1771–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1704722 Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. de O. (2016). Decolonization and higher education. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-287-532-7_479-1 Stein, S., Andreotti, V. de O, Suša, R., Ahenakew, C., & de Souza, L. M. (2020). Who decides? In whose name? For whose benefit?: Decoloniality and its discontents. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 3(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17899/ON_ED.2020.7.1 Stensaker, B. (2015). Organizational identity as a concept for understanding university dynamics. Higher Education, 69(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9763-8 Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances: Enhancing control, capacity, and creativity in dynamic environments. Voprosy Obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow, 2018(1), 132–153. https:// doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2018-1-132-153 Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence?: Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 3–15). Ablex. Stevens, M. L., & Giebel, S. (2020). The paradox of the global university. In S. Rider, M. A. Peters, M. Hyvönen, & T. Besley (Eds.), World class universities: A contested concept (pp. 123–136). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7598-3_9 Streitwieser, B. (2019, April 6). Humanism at the heart of internationalization. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20190405132624741 Stroumsa, S. (2013). Hebrew and English in the research universities in Israel. The Hebrew, 61, 1–8. (in Hebrew). Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press. Subotzky, G., & Prinsloo, P. (2011). Turning the tide: A socio-critical model and framework for improving student success in open distance learning at the University of South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.584846

Bibliography

249

Swail, W. S. (2021). College rankings, big business, and fraud. The Swail Letter on Higher Education. Accessed on 5 December 2022, from https://theswailletter.com/2021/11/30/ college-rankings-big-business-and-fraud/ Tan, G., & Hugo, G. (2017). The transnational migration strategies of Chinese and Indian students in Australia. Population, Space and Place, 23(6), e2038. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2038 Taylor, C. (2003). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press. Taylor, B. J., & Morphew, C. C. (2010). An analysis of baccalaureate college mission statements. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9162-7 Teekens, H. (2000). Teaching and learning in the international classroom. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 29–34). European Association for International Education. Teferra, D. (2017). African flagship universities in the era of “massification”. In D. Teferra (Ed.), Flagship universities in Africa (pp. 1–16). Palgrave Macmillan. Teferra, D. (2019, August 23). Defining internationalisation: Intention versus coercion. University World News. Accessed on March 1, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post. php?story=20190821145329703 Teferra, D., & Altbach, P. G. (2004). African higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Higher Education, 47(1), 21–50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:HIGH.000000 9822.49980.30 Teichler, U. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An agenda for the future. In P. Blumenthal, C. Goodwin, A. Smith, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Academic mobility in a changing world (pp. 338–358). Jessica Kingsley. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41 TFEU. (2012). Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (C 326/ 47). Official Journal of the European Union. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF THE. (2022a). Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education college rankings 2022. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022#!/ page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats THE. (2022b). THE data points product portfolio (pp. 1–20). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/standard-page-paragraphs/attach ments/the_datapoints_0.pdf The Economist. (2019, January 19). Globalisation has faltered. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/01/24/globalisation-has-faltered The Economist. (2020, May 16). Goodbye globalisation: The dangerous lure of self-sufficiency. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2020-05-16 The Economist. (2022, June 16). The tricky restructuring of global supply chains. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/06/16/the-trickyrestructuring-of-global-supply-chains THE Reporters (2022, January 10). Times Higher Education acquires Inside Higher Ed. Times Higher Education. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.timeshighereducation. com/news/times-higher-education-acquires-inside-higher-ed. Thondhlana, J., Garwe, E. C., de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Huang, F., & Tamrat, W. (2021). The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global South. Bloomsbury. Tight, M. (2021). Globalization and internationalization as frameworks for higher education research. Research Papers in Education, 36(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522. 2019.1633560 Tinniswood, A. (2019). The Royal Society. Head of Zeus. Trahar, S. (2017). “Learning to see the person, not the culture or the faith”: Critical reflections on internationalizing higher education in Israel. European Education, 49(4), 276–292. https://doi. org/10.1080/10564934.2017.1344863

250

Bibliography

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture. John Murray. UFM. (2018). Offentlige indtægter og udgifter ved internationale studerende. Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet. U-Map. (2022). The European classification of higher education institutions. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from http://www.u-map.eu Umar, M. A., & Abu, B. A. (2016). Defence expenditures and political instability impact on economic growth of Nigeria. Актуальні Проблеми Економіки, 6, 110–118. UNESCO. (2019). Global convention on higher education. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://www.unesco.org/en/education/higher-education/global-convention UNESCO. (2020). Inclusion and education: All means all. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020. Accessed on October 13, 2022, from https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/ inclusion UNISA. (2017). UNISA examination centre codes for 2017. Accessed on January 24, 2023, from https://www.unisa.ac.za/static/corporate_web/Content/Register%20to%20study%20through% 20Unisa/UGH/Docs/Unisa-examination-centre-codes-outside-South-Africa.pdf UNISA. (2021). Unisa’s international students. Accessed on January 24, 2023, from https://www. unisa.ac.za/sites/myunisa/default/News/Articles/Unisas-international-students-profiled United Nations. (2018). The 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals: An opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean. LC/G.2681-P/Rev.3. Santiago. Université Paris-Saclay. (2023). Accessed on January 7, 2023, from https://www.universite-parissaclay.fr/en Universities of the Netherlands. (2022a). Dutch knowledge institutions suspend partnerships with Russia and Belarus. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www. universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/nieuws-detail.html/nieuwsbericht/828-p-strong-hulpaan-oekra-iuml-ense-russische-en-belarussische-studenten-en-medewerkers-aan-nederlandseuniversiteiten-strong-p Universities of the Netherlands. (2022b). Quality of education and research under pressure from drop in funding per student. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://www. universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/drop-in-government-funding Universities UK. (2010). Manifesto for higher education. Author. University of Nottingham. (2022). Accessed on September 16, 2022, from https://www. nottingham.ac.uk/governance/universitycalendar/introduction.aspx University of Oxford. (2020). Oxford announces historic commitment to fossil fuel divestment. Accessed on January 10 2023, from https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-04-27-oxfordannounces-historic-commitment-fossil-fuel-divestment University World News. (2023, January 23). The multiple impacts of elections on higher education worldwide. Accessed on February 15, 2023, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ special-report.php?publication=global&report=ElectionsandHE Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10(S1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12591 Unterhalter, E., & Howell, C. (2021). Unaligned connections or enlarging engagements?: Tertiary education in developing countries and the implementation of the SDGs. Higher Education, 81(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00651-x Unwin, T., Kleessen, B., Hollow, B., Williams, J., Oloo, L., Alwala, J., Mutimucuio, I., Eduardo, F., & Muianga, X. (2010). Digital learning management systems in Africa: Myths and realities. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 5–23. Usher, A. (2017). A short global history of rankings. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society (pp. 23–53). Routledge. Usher, A. (2022a, February 2). Two rankings stories you may have missed. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://myemail.constantcontact. com/One-Thought-to-Start-Your-Day%2D%2DTwo-Rankings-Stories-You-May-HaveMissed.html?soid=1103080520043&aid=rRSz_U8ZNmE

Bibliography

251

Usher, A. (2022b, August 20). The age of volatility. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://higheredstrategy.com/the-age-of-volatility/ Usher, A. (2022c, November 11). The new WSJ/Times higher education rankings. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://higheredstrategy.com/ the-new-wsjtimes-higher-education-rankings/ Utrecht University. (2021). Contributing to the future of open societies IOS plan 2022–2025 (p. 8). Accessed on August 7, 2022, from https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/IOS%20plan% 202022-2025.pdf Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474 Valdera Gil, F., & Crichton, H. (2020). Mother tongue plus two languages: Are Scottish primary teachers confident to deliver? The Language Learning Journal, 48(4), 454–468. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09571736.2018.1448430 Valentin, K. (2012). Caught between internationalization and immigration: The case of Nepalese students in Denmark. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences, 5(3), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2012.050304 Valentin, K. (2015). Transnational education and the remaking of social identity: Nepalese student migration to Denmark. Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 22(3), 318–332. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2014.939186 Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033769.69765.4a van Damme, D. (2018). Dynamics of inequality, convergence and differentiation. In Keynote presentation: Constructing higher education evaluation systems for the global era, Tsinghua University, Beijing. OECD. van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(01) 00018-6 van der Wende, M. (2002). Higher education globally: Towards new frameworks for research and policy. In G. Neave, M. van der Wende, & J. Enders (Eds.), The CHEPS inaugurals 2002 (pp. 29–69). Twente University Press. van der Wende, M. (2020). EU–China Cooperation along the New Silk Road: A balanced approach towards common goals? In M. van der Wende, W. C. Kirby, N. C. Liu, & S. Marginson (Eds.), China and Europe on the New Silk Road: Connecting universities across Eurasia (pp. 33–66). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003.0003 van der Wende, M. (2021). Neo-nationalism and universities in Europe. In J. Douglass (Ed.), Neonationalism and universities: Global perspectives on politics and policy and the future of higher education (pp. 117–140). Johns Hopkins University Press. van der Wende, M. (2022). Open systems in a changing global context. In J. Huisman & M. van der Wende (Eds.), A research agenda for global higher education (pp. 19–41). Edward Elgar. van der Wende, M., Marginson, S., Liu, N. C., & Kirby, W. C. (2020). Introduction: China’s rise and the New Silk Road in global context. In M. van der Wende, W. C. Kirby, N. C. Liu, & S. Marginson (Eds.), China and Europe on the new Silk Road: Connecting universities across Eurasia (pp. 1–17). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003. 0001 Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3C291::AID-PER377% 3E3.0.CO;2-6 Van der Zee, K., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (2013). Multicultural personality questionnaire: Development of a short form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 118–124.

252

Bibliography

Van Hear, N., Bakewell, O., & Long, K. (2018). Push-pull plus: Reconsidering the drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 927–944. https://10.1080/1369183 X.2017.1384135 van Vught, F. A., van der Wende, M. C., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2002). Globalisation and internationalisation: Policy agendas compared. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 103–121). Kluwer. Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., & Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: What can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9-11), 810–819. Veugelers, R. (2017). The challenge of China’s rise as a science and technology powerhouse. Policy Contribution, 2017(19). Accessed on December 5, 2022, from http://bruegel.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/07/PC-19-2017.pdf Vlk, A., Westerheijden, D., & van der Wende, M. (2008). GATS and the steering capacity of a nation state in higher education: Case studies of the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14767720701855584 Vukasovic, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances in the Europe of knowledge: Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724572 Vurayai, S. (2021). Challenges faced by female students in combined science education in Zimbabwe. Gender and Behaviour, 19(2), 18086–18097. Wächter, B. (1999). European associations in higher education. European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 3(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022996713945 Wächter, B. (2000a). Handbook of European associations. A practical guide to academic networks in Europe and beyond. Accessed on December 5, 2022, from https://www.lemmens.de/dateien/ medien/buecher-ebooks/aca/2000_handbook_of_european_associations_in_higher_ education.pdf Wächter, B. (2000b). Internationalisation at home: The context. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A position paper (pp. 5–14). European Association for International Education. Wagner, C. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press. Wagner, C., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2005.08.002 Wagner, C., Park, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS One, 10(7), 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816 Walker, M., & Mathebula, M. (2019). Low-income rural youth migrating to urban universities in South Africa: Opportunities and inequalities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(8), 1193–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1587705 Walker, M., & Mkwananzi, F. (2015). Challenges in accessing higher education: A case study of marginalised young people in one South African informal settlement. International Journal of Educational Development, 40(January 2015), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014. 11.010 Walker, M., & Wilson-Strydom, M. (2017). Thinking about the university context and socially just pedagogies. In M. Walker & M. Wilson-Strydom (Eds.), Socially just pedagogies, capabilities and quality in higher education (pp. 3–19). Palgrave Macmillan. Waterman, S. (2018). Hebrew in the daily life of Israelis. In S. D. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), Handbook of the changing world language map (pp. 1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-73400-2_125-1 Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. Routledge.

Bibliography

253

Waters, J. L. (2018). In anticipation: Educational (im)mobilities, structural disadvantage, and young people’s futures. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 39(6), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07256868.2018.1533541 Weber, M. (1946/1919). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth, & C. Wright Mills (Translated and edited) (Ed.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). Oxford University Press. Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities, and boundaries in international management education. Edward Elgar. Wellcome Trust. (2021). The pathway to net zero for our investment portfolio. Accessed on December 2, 2022, from https://wellcome.org/who-we-are/investments/carbon-emissionsinvestment-portfolio-net-zero Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Clarendon. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3107. Wikipedia. (2022a). 2019 college admissions bribery scandal. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal Wikipedia. (2022b). U.S. News & World Report. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_%26_World_Report Wilkins, S. (2016). Establishing international branch campuses: A framework for assessing opportunities and risks. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 38(2), 167–182. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1150547 Wilkins, S. (2021). Two decades of international branch campus development, 2000–2020: A review. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 311–326. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJEM-08-2020-0409 Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64(5), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-0129516-5 Wilkins, S., & Rumbley, L. (2018). What a branch campus is: A revised definition. International Higher Education, 93(Spring), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10416 Williams, D. G., & Stelma, J. (2022). Epistemic outcomes of English medium instruction in a South Korean higher education institution. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(4), 453–469. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2049227 Wilsdon, J., Bar-Ilan, J., Frodeman, R., Lex, E., Peters, I., & Wouters, P. (2017). Next-generation metrics: Responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Accessed on January 17, 2023, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/report.pdf, https://doi.org/10.2777/337729 Wilson, R., Dissanayake, W., Beller, J., Connery, C., Kelsky, K., Naficy, H., Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1996). Global/local: Cultural production and the transnational imaginary. Duke University Press. Wimmer, A., & Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: State building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1471-0374.00043 Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804 World Bank. (2022). Data and statistics. Accessed on October 23, 2022, from https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalisation of education. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03397011 Yang, R. (2019). Riddled with gaping wounds: A methodological critique of comparative and international studies in education: Views of a professor. In L. Suter, E. Smith, & B. Denman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of comparative studies in education (pp. 63–78). Sage. Yemini, M. (2017). Internationalization under intractable conflict: The influence of national conflict on Israeli higher education institutions’ internationalization efforts. European Education, 49(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2017.1392249

254

Bibliography

Yeoh, B. S. A., & Huang, S. (2011). Introduction: Fluidity and friction in talent migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(5), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011. 559710 Yonezawa, A. (2021). Reimaging university identifies through rankings in Japan: The transformation of national policies and university behaviours in the broader East Asian context. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut (Eds.), Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence and impact (pp. 231–246). Edward Elgar. Young, R. B. (2001). Colleges on the cross roads: A study of the mission statements of Catholic colleges and universities. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 21(2), 65–81. Yudevich, M., Altbach, P. G., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.). (2016). The global academic rankings game: Changing institutional policy, practice and academic life. Routledge. Žic Fuchs, M., et al. (2018). Crossing over to the future: Interdisciplinarity in research and higher education. European Review, 26(Supplement S2), S1–S5. Zubașcu, F. (2021, June 29). EU rewrites rulebook on science and technology cooperation with the rest of the world. Science|Business. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https://sciencebusiness. net/technology-strategy-board/news/eu-rewrites-rulebook-science-and-technology-coopera tion-rest-world Zubașcu, F. (2022, March 10). New EU rules for international research already outpaced by shifting geopolitics, critics say. Science|Business. Accessed on August 28, 2022, from https:// sciencebusiness.net/news/new-eu-rules-international-research-already-outpaced-shifting-geo politics-critics-say#:~:text=The%20European%20Court%20of%20Justice,move%20from%20 Budapest%20to%20Vienna

Name Index

A Abu, B.A., 79, 165 Abu-Orabi, S., 79 Adler, N.J., 151 Adriansen, H.K., 166 Agarwal, S., 172 Agergaard, J., 123 Ahrens, J., 131 Ajadi, T., 169 Alajoutsijärvi, K., 10, 214 Alexandron, G., 164 Altbach, P.G., 17–21, 24, 26, 38, 64, 78, 79, 81, 165, 186, 187, 191, 197, 211, 214, 215 Alvesson, M., 79 Al-Zoubi, A., 79 Amaral, L.P., 142 Amit, V., 119 Anderson, B., 161, 188, 208 Andreotti, V.de O., 23, 24 Andrews, R., 3 Ansell, B.W., 108 Appadurai, A., 34 Arias-Coello, A., 84 Ashour, S., 191 Ashton, M.C., 152 Atkins, H.B., 4

B Baas, M., 119 Bacon, F., 4 Bailey, A., 120 Baker, S., 139 Bakker, M., 102

Baltaru, R.-D., 56 Bamberger, A., 78, 82, 91 Barnett, R., 142 Bastardas-Boada, A., 79 Bastedo, M.N., 64 Baty, P., 61 Bayrak, T., 84 Becher, A., 59 Beck, U., 34 Beech, S.E., 161, 162 Beelen, J., 22, 78, 151 Beerkens, E., 63 Beiter, K.D., 104 Belderbos, T., 187, 192 Bennell, P., 186, 191 Bennett, K., 84 Bhatt, I., 80 Bhuian, S.N., 192 Björk, B.C., 84 Blanco, G.L., 21 Blockmans, W., v Blommaert, J., 85 Boccagni, P., 120, 126, 133 Bonaccorsi, A., 64 Boni, A., 166 Borna, S., 83 Bothwell, E., 60 Bourdieu, P., 34, 163 Bovens, M., 108, 111 Bowman, N.A., 64 Brandenburg, U., 18, 24, 216 Brankovic, J., 62 Breines, M.R., xii, 163 Brighouse, H., 174

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. Engwall (ed.), Internationalization in Higher Education and Research, Higher Education Dynamics 62, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47335-7

255

256 Brock, G., 174 Bromley, P., 81 Brooks, R., 118, 119, 132, 164 Brown, L., 119 Brunotte, T., 99 Buckner, E., 23, 79 Bullen, J., 23 Bygnes, S., 125, 130 Byrne, J.A., 56

C Cadier, D., 57 Calderon, A., 65 Calhoun, C., 34 Campbell, A.C., 143 Cantwell, B., 49, 64 Carling, J., 120 Carrington, D., 140 Castells, M., 34, 41 Cavusgil, S.T., 91 Cenoz, J., 80 Chagnon, G., 151 Chambers, G.S., 184 Chatlani, S., 56 Chen, G., 61 Chen, X., 152 Choi, S., 42 Choudaha, R., 25 Chowers, E., 83 Choy, S., 211 Cin, M., ix, 13, 161–175 Coates, H., 61 Cockayne, H., 163 Coelen, R.J., ix, 13, 25, 149–156, 204, 212, 213, 215 Cohen, L., 78, 80, 83 Cole, J.R., 205 Collin, S., 167 Collins, F.L., 117, 119, 120, 122, 127, 133 Connell, I., 84 Cooley, A., 59 Corbett, A., 63 Costa, P.T., 152 Coughlan, A.T., 188 Craciun, D., 24, 26, 203 Crichton, H., 80 Cronin, B., 4 Crowther, P., 150 Cummings, W.K., 184

Name Index D Dalu, M.T.B., 174 Danell, R., 208 David, F., 83 Davies, D., 191 Davies, S.W., 84, 188, 189, 192 De Corte, E., v, x, 213 de Ridder-Symoens, H., 19 de Wit, H., ix, 11, 17–27, 35, 78, 79, 81, 84, 149, 150, 186, 187, 197, 203–205, 209, 211, 214–216 Dempsey, N., 63 Diep, F., 64 DiMaggio, P.J., 207 Dobson, A., 175 Doiz, A., 80 Dolev, D., 88 Dolton, P., 140 Dor, D., 82 Douglass, J.A., 11, 111, 215 Drori, G.S., x, 12, 77–91, 208, 209 Dumay, X., 83 Dunning, J.H., 188 Dzvimbo, K., 172, 173

E Earls, C.W., 84 Eastmond, M., 122 Edwards, K., 47 Efe, I., 84 Efrati, N., 83 Ekpo, A.H., 169, 170 El-Khawas, E., 59 Else, H., 215 Engwall, L., v, x, 3–13, 203–216 Ennew, C., x, 13, 181–198, 213, 214 Erdal, M.D., 125, 130 Ergin, H., 25 Erkkilä, T., 57, 59 Escrivà-Beltran, M., 184, 186, 191 Eskelä, E., 120 Espeland, W.N., 6, 57 Espmark, K., 10 Etzkowitz, H., 7 Even‐Zohar, I., 83

F Fabricius, A.H., 79, 91 Facer, K., 141

Name Index Ferm, O., 3 Findlay, A.M., 117, 127, 161, 162, 164 Flavell, H., 23 Fong, V., 119 Frank, D.J., 81 Fuchs, E., 62 Fukuyama, F., 34, 105, 111, 205 Furedi, F., 105

G Gabowski, S., 119 Gabrenya, W.K. Jr., 152 Gabriëls, R., 80 Galasiński, D., 84 Galloway, N., 80 Garben, S., 104 Garfield, E., 4, 205 Garrett, R., 182, 184 Garson, K., 25 Garwe, E., 173 Geddie, K.P., 117, 130 George Mwangi, C.A., 79 Gibbons, M., 7 Gibson, A.G., 63 Giebel, S., 77, 91 Ginnerskov-Dahlberg, M., x, 12, 117–133, 211 Girdzijauskaite, E., 187, 189, 191 Gladwell, M., 55 Glaister, K.W., 84 Glick Schiller, N., 118, 128 Gluckman, N., 64 Gmelch, G., 119 Gopal, A., 161 Gornitzka, Å., 110 Graddol, D., 80 Grady-Benson, J., 139 Groennings, S., 23 Grønseth, A.S., 119, 133 Gukurume, 173 Gunter, A., x, 13, 161–175, 213 Gürüz, K., 139, 181

H Hage, G., 120, 124 Halperin, L., 83 Hangula, L., 172 Hartley, M., 84 Hartocollis, A., 55 Harvey, D., 175 Haskins, C.H., 3

257 Hawthorne, L., 117 Hazelkorn, E., xi, 12, 47, 55–67, 204–208, 215 Healey, N., 184, 185, 192, 193 Hedmo, T., 4–6, 212, 214 Heeman, W., 154, 155 Heinrich, D.H., 211 Held, V., 175 Helmers, E., 212 Henard, F., 63 Henderson, G., 151 Henry, M., 58 Hickey, R., 188, 189, 191, 192 Hiralal, K., 167 Hladchenko, M., 84 Hofhuis, J., 152 Hofstede, G., 153 Holmes, R., 64 Howell, C., 166 Huang, S., 118, 133 Hudzik, J., 22, 24 Hugo, G., 117 Huisman, J., 186, 188, 191–193 Humboldt, W. von, 4 Hunter, F., 17, 25, 27, 149, 150 Huntington, S.P., 98 Hwang, H.C., 151

I Ilonga, A., 171 Irfan, A., 163 Iruonagbe, C.T., 170

J Jackson, S.E., 151 Jamil, H., 169 Jamshidi, L., 169 Janssens, M., 78, 80 Jaschik, S., 56 Jenkins, J., 80 Jenny, L.E.E., 51, 172 Johanson, J., 187 John, O.P., 152 Jöhncke, S., 123 Johnstone, D.B., 165 Jolly, J., 140 Jones, E., 17, 22–25, 27, 78, 151, 205 Jowi, J.O., 162 Jungblut, J., 99 Juusola, K., 10

258 K Kanetake, M., 104 Karakhanyan, S., 59 Kärreman, D., 79 Karsenti, T., 167 Kassis-Henderson, J., 78, 80 Katsomitros, A., 184 Kawalilak, C., 24 Keegan, D., 164 Kehm, B.M., 3, 26 Keyman, E.F., 34 Kihlman, E., 3 Killick, D., 24, 151, 205 King, H., 63 Kinser, K., 184, 185, 190, 195 Kipping, M., x, 5, 206 Kleibert, J.M., 185 Klemenčič, M., 66 Knight, J., 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 35, 37, 38, 78, 79, 81, 91, 149, 161, 175, 186, 209 Kohl, K., 142 Kölbel, A., 119 Korol, L., 152 Kosmützky, A., 78, 84 Krücken, G., v Krull, W., 99 Kuenssberg, S., 84 Kuhn, T.S., 4 Kwiek, M., 154

L Lamberg, J.-A., 10 Lane, J.E., 183–185, 187, 190, 192, 195, 206 Larsen, S.E., v Lawton, W., 184 Leask, B., 22, 23, 151 Ledger, S., 24 Lee, J.J., 26, 51, 167 Lembani, R., 170 Leung, K., 151 Leydesdorff, L., 42, 63 Li, X., 51 Lim, M.A., 61 Lin, W., 121 Lindbeck, A., 4 Lingard, B., 60 Lipura, S.J., 122, 127 Liu-Farrer, G., 120 Liversage, A., 120 Loden, M., 151 Lodge, D., 211

Name Index Luhmann, N., 34 Lushu, C., 171 Luthra, R., 119

M Maassen, P., 208, 215 Macaro, E., 80 Maex, K., 102 Maharasoa, M., 161 Makoni, S., 78, 80 Malhotra, N., 79 Maoz, L., 89 Marginson, S., xi, 11, 33–52, 57, 165, 203–206 Maringe, F., 79 Mashininga, K., 173 Mathebula, M., 166 Matsumoto, D., 151 Mauranen, A., 77 Mazzarol, T., 35, 187, 191 Mbohwa, C., 165 McBurnie, G., 190, 191 McCowan, T., 142, 166 McCrae, R.R., 152 McGrath, S., 173 Merkx, G., 19 Mestenhauser, J.A., 23, 27 Meunier, S., 57 Meyer, J.W., 81 Mietke, J., 3 Mihut, G., 47, 59 Mitchell, N., 211, 215 Mittelmeier, J., 163, 164 Mizrahi-Shtelman, R., xi, 12, 77–91, 208, 209 Mkwananzi, F., 165 Mkwanazi, S., 165 Moland, N., 169 Moloi, K.C., 172 Moore, D., 65 Mornet, É., 3 Morphew, C.C., 84 Mosneaga, A., 123, 130 Mukeredzi, T., 172 Mukoro, A., 169 Mukwambo, P., 172, 173 Mulder, C.H., 120 Muller, J.Z., 59 Mulvey, B., 171 Murairwa, S., 173 Murphy-Lejeune, E., 163 Myklebust, J.P., 104, 215

Name Index N Naidoo, R., 140 Naidu, S., 164 Nakale, A., 171 Nayyar, D., 67 Neveu Kringelbach, H., 129 Newmark, L., 211 Nicholson, C., 66 Nicolaidis, K., 57 Nikula, P.-T., 143, 144 Nilsson, B., 150 Niraula, A., 120, 123 Noorda, S., 99 Nowotny, H., 7 Nussbaum, M.C., 111 Nybom, T., 4 Nyborg, P., 62

O Obamba, M.O., 166 Oberg, A., 87, 88 Odora Hoppers, C., 39 Oertel, S., 84 Okebukola, P., 169, 170 Olein, H., 55 Olwig, K.F., 120 O’Malley, B., 66, 105 O’Reilly, K., 121 Östling, J., 4 Otten, M., 150 Ozer, O., 84

P Page, S.E., 154, 155 Palmer, T.B., 84 Pan, D., 119 Paniagua, J., 182, 186 Papadopoulos, D., 124 Pashby, K., 24 Paul, R., 165 Paunonen, S.V., 152 Pearce, J.A., 83 Pennycook, A., 78, 80 Perraton, H., 181 Phillips, N., 79 Phillipson, R., 80 Piekkari, R., 80 Pietsch, T., 62 Piironen, O., 57, 59 Platt, L., 119 Pohl, H., 192

259 Posada, A., 61 Powell, W.W., 207 Power, M., 45, 206 Prazeres, L., 161 Price, D.J., 205 Prinsloo, P., 163 Pudelko, M., 9 Putty, R., 78

Q Qiang, Z., 78, 79

R Raghuram, P., xi, 13, 161–175 Ram, D., 79, 88 Ramos, C., 132 Rawley, W., 4 Raworth, K., 138, 142, 143 Reuter, M., 63 Riaño, Y., 129 Risberg, S., 3 Robertson, R., 34 Robertson, S., 118, 129 Rodrik, D., 108 Roos Breines, M., 13, 161–175 Rose, H., 80 Rottenburg, R., 59 Rubin, J., 23 Rüegg, W., 62 Rumbley, L.E., 17, 22, 24, 183 Runganaikaloo, A., 129 Ryan, M., 63 Rytter, M., 123

S Safran, W., 82 Salazar, N.B., 118, 119, 121, 128 Salihu, M.J., 169 Salmi, J., 3, 65 Sancho, D., 119 Sarathy, B., 139 Sassen, S., 34 Sauder, M., 6, 57 Sawir, E., 34 Schendel, R., 166 Schiller, N., 35, 121 Schoeneborn, D., 79 Schofer, E., 99, 112 Schwinges, R.C., 3 Scott, P., v, 19, 35

260 Seeber, M., 84 Sehoole, C., 162, 167, 172, 175 Shahjahan, R., 47 Shams, F., 188, 192, 193 Sharma, Y., 64, 213 Shekel, A., 87, 88 Sheller, M., 120 Shields, R., xii, 13, 40, 137–145, 161, 211, 212 Shin, J.C., 3 Short, J., 84 Shubin, S., 133 Shumate, M., 62 Silova, I., 142 Sinuany-Stern, Z., 91 Siwinski, W., 61 Snower, D.J., 4 Snyder, T., 98 Söll, M., 84 Solovov, O., 84 Soutar, G., 35 Spitzberg, B.H., 151 Stalenhoef, C., 103, 104 Stallivieri, L., 23, 24 Stearns, J.M., 83 Stein, S., 23 Stelma, J., 80 Stensaker, B., 26, 59, 62, 63, 83 Sternberg, R.J., 151 Stevens, M.L., 77, 91 Steyaert, C., 78, 80 Stolen, S., 110 Streitwieser, B., 25 Stroumsa, S., 83 Suber, P., 7 Subotzky, G., 163 Svrluga, S., 208 Swail, W.S., 56 Synder, J., 59

T Tait, A., 165 Tan, G., 117 Taylor, B.J., 61, 84 Taylor, C., 39 Teekens, H., 150 Teferra, D., 25, 164, 165 Teichler, U., v, x, 26, 35 Tenzer, H., 9 Thomson, R.M., 3 Thondhlana, J., 27, 173 Tight, M., 78 Tinniswood, A., 4

Name Index Trahar, S., 91 Tylor, E.B., 153

U Umar, M.A., 165 Unterhalter, E., 166 Unwin, T., 164 Urry, J., 120 Üsdiken, B., x, 5, 206 Usher, A., 55, 59, 61 Uzzi, B., 154

V Vahlne, J.-E., 187 Valdera Gil, F., 80 Valentin, K., xii, 12, 117–133, 211 van der Wende, M., xii, 12, 21, 35, 97–112, 206, 209, 210 Van der Zee, K.I., 151, 152 Van Hear, N., 119 Van Oudenhoven, J.P., 151, 152 van Vught, F., 107, 149 Velazquez, L., 142 Veugelers, R., 63 Vlk, A., 107 Vukasovic, M., 63 Vurayai, S., 174

W Wächter, B., 62, 150 Wacquant, L., 34 Wagner, C., 42, 63 Walker, M., 165, 166, 174 Waterman, S., 82 Waters, J.L., 34, 118, 119, 132, 163, 164 Weaire, D., v Weber, M., 138, 142 Wedlin, L., 6, 208 Whitley, R., 5 Wiedersheim-Paul, F., 187 Wiedmann, T., 141 Wilkins, S., 183, 184, 186, 187, 191, 192 Wilkinson, R., 80 Williams, D.G., 80 Wilsdon, J., 58 Wilson, R., 174, 175 Wilson-Strydom, M., 174 Wimmer, A., 35 Winther, L., 130 Woldegiyorgis, A.A., 22

Name Index

261

X Xu, X., 47

Young, R.B., xii, 84, 155 Yudevich, M., 64

Y Yang, R., 39, 46, 193 Yemini, M., 82 Yeoh, B.S.A., 118, 133 Yonezawa, A., 64

Z Žic Fuchs, M., v Ziguras, C., 190, 191 Zubașcu, F., 101, 106