![]()
Part I
The Global Context
![]()
Chapter 1
Higher Education Internationalization
Adjusting to New Landscapes
Eva Egron-Polak & Francisco Marmolejo
Introduction
The title of this volume, The Globalization of Internationalization, marks or at least signals a certain shift in the conceptual discussion about internationalization of higher education (HE) that has been going on for close to 30 years. Various scholars and practitioners alike have elaborated and debated definitions of this process, tracked its evolution over time and studied its various approaches and dimensions. Common themes in many articles and books over the past three decades have explored whether or how internationalization of higher education differs in fundamental ways from globalization. Frequently the two terms have been used as if they were the same phenomenon and thus interchangeable. At the same time, the view that internationalization is the response of the HE sector to globalization is also not uncommon. Each of these contending views has its supporters, and each sheds new light on the analysis of the processes that are changing HE in important ways. For analytical purposes and for greater understanding and thus predictability of developments, knowing how similar or distinct the processes of globalization and internationalization are, and how they impact on HE, is crucial.
This volume’s title invites us to examine the two concepts in a slightly different way. The focus is on globalization OF internationalization. The first section of this chapter will attend to that, while the second takes a closer look at emerging voices in the new HE landscape around the world. Here, too, it is necessary to reflect on who or what ought to be covered by ‘emerging voices’. Are we to concentrate on higher education in emerging nations in the economic sense? This is clearly an option that must be explored. Which nations do we find in this category? What characterizes them as nations and what characterizes their HE systems and institutions more specifically? What are the specificities of their ‘voices’ in terms of the globalization of HE internationalization? Do they have a single voice or are they highly diverse, and if so, what distinguishing features colour their positioning in this process? What are the messages they share with the rest of the world? As well, it is necessary to consider what challenges are faced by HE institutions in emerging nations and the extent to which these may be unique or different from the rest of the world. Similarly, what are, if any, the opportunities that are unique to these (or some) emerging nations and their HE institutions in the context of internationalization?
Finally, in the last section of this chapter, another ‘unifying’ set of forces or context-setting realities that may impact on HE internationalization will be examined and their potential as alternatives to the globalization framework will be considered. Can the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations in September 2015, and which are structuring the new global agenda, offer this alternative? In comparison with the previous global agenda known as Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs include HE. Moreover, and also for the first time, they address all nations, not simply the developing world. By doing so, this ambitious agenda is truly global and sketches a new policy framework and potentially a unified conceptual landscape, including for HE. It also places emphasis on internationalization of HE, since it sees international mobility as an important path to fulfilling the education goal.
Shifting the Focus from Globalization and Internationalization of HE to Globalization of HE Internationalization
Among the numerous articles and analyses of similarities and differences between globalization and internationalization and their respective roles in transforming HE in the modern era (Knight, 2008a; Scott, 1998), a comprehensive study by the OECD focusing on globalization stands out (OECD, 2009). In particular, this in-depth examination of the distinctive features of globalization of HE, as opposed to internationalization of HE, can still serve as the starting point here. In that volume, Marginson and van der Wende (2009) treat globalization first in the generic sense – applicable to and transforming many sectors, not specifically HE. They opt for one of the simplest descriptions of globalization (though globalization has no simple or single definition) as the ‘widening, deepening and speeding up of interconnectedness’ (Held, 1999, cited in OECD, 2009, p. 18). Arguing that this concept can be viewed as a neutral process of convergence, they nevertheless also agree that globalization entails the formation of worldwide markets operating in real time in common financial systems (Marginson & van der Wende, 2009).
Taking a very different view, while recognizing that productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge generation and information processing, Castells has argued that globalization has the capacity to
link up everything that is valuable according to dominant values and interests, while disconnecting everything that is not valuable, or becomes devalued. It is this simultaneous capacity to include and exclude people, territories and activities that characterises the new global economy.
(Castells, 1999, p. 5)
Thus, far from being neutral, when pervasive economic globalization rests on knowledge, the impact of this exclusionary and inclusionary process can be of major proportions on the institutions and systems that generate and disseminate knowledge, namely on higher education.
Internationalization, on the other hand, tends to be defined and used to describe more traditional relations between nations (or institutions within these nations). Crossing borders and moving or linking up with actors outside a national system are thus the defining features in this case. In addition, an important distinction between the two processes is the end-state that emerges. In globalization, there is a progressive integration or convergence, leading to the creation of a new common, global system (Beerkens, 2004, cited in OECD, 2009). This distinction is critical and will be used here to illustrate the extent to which current trends in internationalization of HE reflect how globalization is indeed exerting so strong an influence on the process that we now must speak of globalization OF higher education internationalization. Furthermore, it is clear that this influence brings both positive and negative results depending on the context of the HE institution or even system in question.
A second clear distinction between the two processes has to do with primary drivers. In globalization, the creation (or perception) of a single worldwide market (for students or faculty members in HE, for example) also demonstrates the extent to which the central drivers of globalization are economic, no matter what sector is being transformed. In this sense, the neutrality of the process must be questioned at all times. Globalization in its current form, unlike internationalization, is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. It only dates back to the late 20th century and its global spread to the post-Cold War era and the era of decolonization. Starting at this time, international relations among nations, including collaboration in higher education, stopped serving primarily as an ideological glue helping to build or consolidate links between nations and peoples within the orbit of the Western democratic/capitalist or Eastern communist alliance, respectively, or as a means of structuring and maintaining the power relations within the colonial context. In both of these aspects, the political and diplomatic purposes dictated the relationships and patterns of cooperation between nations. Linkages created among academics and universities clearly served these purposes as well, and mapped the mobility patterns of students and scholars to a large extent. By no means were these relations neutral or value-free either, but their geopolitical purposes were never denied.
As noted by de Wit and Hunter (2015), this shift away from political drivers became especially visible from the second half of the 1990s, since when the principal driving force for internationalization has become economic, with international student recruitment, preparing graduates for the global labour market, attracting global talent for the knowledge economy, etc. becoming primary pillars of the internationalization of higher education (de Wit et al., 2015).
Thus the shift from political to economic rationales and the spread of a single economic model are central to globalization and have had a deep impact on higher education and all policies related to its transformation and development, including the policies for internationalization. This reversal in the primary rationale of the purposes of HE, coupled with the perception that internationalization is a response to this globalizing process, are among the root causes for internationalization being viewed at times critically and not always only in a positive light. There is no doubt that internationalization brings many benefits – it remains critical to the improvement of quality in HE, builds understanding among peoples and nations, offers new opportunities for research collaboration to improve lives etc., but it is also perceived as bringing with it commodification and commercialization and increased competition among institutions (Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2010, 2014a).
A second, important way in which globalization, understood as bringing about a new and integrated global system, has coloured HE internationalization strategies and processes can be seen in the extent of policy mimicry among both national policy-makers and institutional leaders worldwide. Despite the recognition that diversity of contexts, at all levels, dictates the actual capacity to pursue certain policies and strategies, policy imitation worldwide is very high. As leaders of most nations seek to succeed in and adjust to the global Knowledge Economy (whether or not this is a realistic or even real option), they look to the performance of their HE institutions and strive to ascertain and improve their contribution to national (and increasingly regional, as in the case of Europe) competitiveness. Though many countries have different starting points, the same trends are apparent everywhere; there is increasing global convergence in aspirations, if not yet in actions (De Wit et al., 2015). In this sense, the concept of competitiveness being adopted by governments is not always strictly in economic terms, but also in reputation, prestige and pride.
The path chosen to reach this goal is quite similar no matter which national policy or institutional mission is examined. The key milestones include a system, and at least one institution within the system, becoming globally competitive; attractive on the international scene; focused on research excellence as measured by indexed journals; enjoying prestige and reputation, which are measured by world institutional rankings; and having a solid track record of graduate employability in an increasingly globalized local as well as international context. In a nutshell, it could be argued that many policy-makers equate international stature with the capacity to have the equivalent of the so-called ‘world-class university’ and, consequently, many policy actions and resources at national and institutional levels are aimed at achieving such aspirations.
Though not completely absent, other considerations – such as equity in terms of access and success, social cohesion, affordability, sustainable development and related policies – are present in HE policies at national and institutional levels, especially in the rhetorical and aspirational sense. Too often, in reality and out of declared necessity, they remain secondary to the pursuit of economic competitiveness through more internationalized, and globally better integrated, HE institutions or systems.
The rapid and ubiquitous spread worldwide of HE policy or quasi-policy instruments – such as qualifications frameworks; academic credits as valid measures of learning achievement (e.g. ECTS); shared understanding of learning outcomes as critical output descriptors in HE (despite some failed projects with global reach, such as the OECD-sponsored AHELO1); the implementation of regional quality assurance processes; the increased popularity of international rankings and benchmarking; and the establishing of multinational universities – are among the numerous ways in which a new global landscape is being fashioned. The signposts to guide HE development and to help international navigation of the system are similar everywhere. Even more so, the now accepted notion of a global race for talent, global competition for market share of international students and the positive view associated with HE being a top export service in several countries also demonstrate (a) the way in which policy-makers align and copy strategies with and from others, (b) the extent to which the global dimension has become the acceptable unit of analysis in HE development and, perhaps most importantly, (c) how much HE policy is driven by economic considerations.
Hearing New Voices Assess the Impact of Globalization of HE Internationalization
Yet, just as with globalization in general, when globalization fashions internationalization policies, there are strong concerns that this process results in winners and losers. This does not stem from a negative view of the idea of competition; rather it is due to the fact that the starting blocks, and the terrain on which the competition takes place, are vastly different. Indeed, as internationalization has become a central lever in HE policy, and as it is increasingly driven by globalizing forces and drivers, the approaches adopted and impacts they bring locally and globally are increasingly, and rightly, subjected to scrutiny and regularly questioned. This is both a natural and a healthy development in a continuously changing context and offers the only path towards adjustments and improvement, both of which are necessary.
Of course, the discussion on the importance and shifting nature of the globalization of international HE requires consideration of differing perspectives and ‘voices’ from a wide array of stakeholders. Understandably, views on the importance, affordability and impact of HE internationalization vary among contexts, institutions and individuals. Still, the implicit predominant view in more advanced economies is that active participation in the Knowledge Economy is a way for them to preserve and improve the welfare of their citizens (and, for that matter, to retain a more advanced status than others), while emerging and low-income economies predominantly tend to see active involvement in the global economy as a key opportunity to reduce the gap with more advanced economies (as well as translating into significant improvement of life conditions and opportunities for their citizens, and a more advantageous place in the global geo-economic-political landscape). Such discourse is also often reflected in HE policies, including those focusing on internationalization. All of this, as expected, results in tensions and contradictory views about the goals and means of globalized international higher education.
In other words, it should be noted that the rationale used by proponents of greater internationalization of HE is interpreted differently by the institutions and individuals that act as the ‘globalizers’ than it is by those perceiving themselves as the ‘globalized’. Each may see globalization of international HE through different lenses. Failing to understand and acknowledge these distinct perceptions, related motives, reference frameworks and goals can result in significant misunderstandings, and indeed a rejection of the internationalization process by some stakeholders.
A good example of such misperception is the case of migratory policies linked to international education and employment, established and promoted with significant enthusiasm in several high-income countries, to attract well-qualified international students to their HE institutions and retain them after graduation in order to fully take advantage of their potential as key players in the Knowledge Economy. Proponents of such policies usually argue that this is a legitimate and humane pathway to enable highly qualified individuals to achieve their full potential and productivity (a pathway that would not otherwise be possible given very limited opportunities in their countries of origin). Even elaborate theories of ‘brain gain’, ‘brain exchange’, ‘brain circulation’ and even ‘reverse brain drain’ have been developed to explain and somewhat justify actions on this matter. However, governments and HE institutions in the ‘receiving’ countries devote limited attention to analysing the impact, both positive and negative, that the aforementioned policies will have on the ‘sending’ countries.
The development of partnerships between HE institutions in different countries presents another visible case of differing perspectives on the process of globalization in international HE. It is common for institutions in more developed countries to impose their own scope, standards and protocols to formalize partnerships, leaving ‘lower-status’ institutions with limited room for manoeuvring. A ‘take it or leave it’ attitude can be prevalent in these uneven inter-institutional relationships.
On a larger scale, such asymmetries in relationships are reflected in the development of regional frameworks for international education. Two decades ago, the negotiations conducted to facilitate cross-border mobility of professionals between Canada, the United States and Mexico, as part of enacting the North American Free Trade Agreement, failed mostly due to the position of professional bodies and accrediting agencies in the United States, which argued that existing US criteria for quality should take precedence.
Similarly, other manifestations of the glob...
