Abstract
This paper provides a comparative analysis of national rationales to higher education internationalization in the global north and south countries using content analysis. The results reveal that the socio-economic rationales are dominant across most of the 27 sampled countries. However, they manifest differently across the global north and global south as countries interpret the benefits and effects of internationalization in line with their national priorities. These variations are being shaped by an increasingly complex, competitive, and multipolar higher education internationalization landscape with new global south actors acquiring agency despite the deepening global inequalities. As a result, political rationales are becoming an important driver to internationalization. The current geopolitical environment associated with global conflicts, health pandemics, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization sentiments is also adding more uncertainty and complexity. Due to increased concerns about this multipolar and self-centred internationalization, a few countries are starting to promote inclusive approaches to internationalization.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
During the past three decades, higher education internationalization (HEI) has emerged as a critical factor shaping higher education. However, the concept is still a westernized, and Anglo-Saxon paradigm (Jones and De Wit 2012; Van der Wende 2001; Valcke 2020). Limited studies have researched and conceptualized internationalization within paradigms shaped by global south experiences (Majee and Ress 2018, 4; Sehoole et al. 2024). Furthermore, recent studies which have explored rationales to internationalization have either only focused on specific regions and countries (e.g. De Wit et al. 2015; Li et al 2023) or higher education institutions (e.g. Mäkinen 2023; Seeber et al 2016). Therefore, there is a research gap on the rationales to HEI across geographical regions. This paper responds to this gap by performing a content analysis of 366 policy documents in 27 global north and global south countries—building on the conceptual work of De Wit, Knight, and others (Crăciun 2018; De Wit and Altbach 2021; Knight 2004a, 2012, 2015; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). In doing so, the paper responds to this overarching question: What are the main rationales for higher education internationalization between the global north and the global south countries?
Rationales, particularly those at the national level must be understood because they shape national policies and institutional approaches relating to a country’s sociopolitical, cultural, and economic context. To build on existing national-level studies on rationales to HEI (Li et al 2023; Teferra 2014; Theiler 2015; Yonezawa 2018), this study provides a comparative lens by focusing on the global north and global south—geographical regions which often have varying socio-cultural and economic contexts. This provides new insights given the current developments in internationalization in which new actors are acquiring agency and competing with the traditionally dominant nation-state actors in the global north (Bamberger and Morris 2023).
The comparison of rationales across different geographical regions is imperative in HEI discourse given the potential implications of ongoing global disruptions. These include Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, realignment of national interest resulting in wars, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, and anti-globalism sentiments (Hawkins 2017; Mäkinen 2023; Mok et al. 2020). These disruptions have amplified complexities linked to the current multipolar world whilst distorting and reframing HEI rationales (Mulvey 2022; Stein, 2021a, b).
The Global North and Global South Divide
The concepts of “Global North” and “Global South” have become popular meta-categories for framing research since they emerged in the 1970s and gained prominence in the “Brandt Report” which sought to capture global inequalities in terms of a North–South divide (Brandt 1980). As a meta-category in the analysis of world politics, the “North” correlates with nation-states in North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and some parts of Asia that have historically been defined as “the West”, “rich”, “developed”, and “first world” due to perceptions of their relative wealth and global dominance (Odeh 2010). On the other hand, the “South” has been used to describe countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts of Asia and Oceania—regions often characterized as “poor”, “developing”, “third world”, and synonymous with “uncertain development, unorthodox economies, failed states, nations fraught with corruption, poverty, and strife” (Comaroff and Cormaroff 2012, p. 113; Haug et al. 2021).
The qualifier “Global” as an add-on to the “North” and “South” has served to underline the increasing interconnectedness of social relations between geographical locations in a globalized context (Comaroff and Cormaroff 2012; Riggs 2007). In this context, the “Global South” has evolved to stand for different sets of cross-regional and multicultural alliances such as BRICS mostly comprising of formerly colonized countries challenging the dominance and structural privilege of “northern” states (Gosovic 2016; Kaul 2013). On the other hand, the “Global North” is usually taken to refer to concrete sets of hegemonic states such as “traditional donors” or “industrialized economies” that “dominate social structures through economic flows, powerful forms of meaning-making and/or explicit coercive measures” (Haug et al. 2021, p. 1929).
Several authors have highlighted the limitations of using this binary North–South dichotomy for the analysis of world politics (for example, Horner 2020; Sabzalieva et al. 2020). The authors argue that these “Global North” and “Global South” meta-categories often contain simplistic classifications that do not account for complexity. For example, Cooper (2021) analysis of Chinese experiences has revealed that binary divisions between “North” and “South” or “developed” and “developing” have less relevance. Braff and Nelson (2022) also argued that the “Global North” is not monolithic as the societies are internally stratified and diverse, so not everyone in the Global North is rich and powerful.
Nevertheless, the potential of the “Global North” and “Global South” meta-categories consist of “a necessary reduction of complexity, as well as point to empirical patterns that require more detailed attention” (Haug et al. 2021, p. 1933). As such, the “Global North” and “Global South” classification is helpful as an imprecise but useful relational category to understand the evolving and overlapping engagements in higher education internationalization.
Rationales for Higher Education Internationalization
Extant research has shown that rationales for higher education internationalization have shifted in recent decades from cooperative efforts anchored by political, cultural, and academic arguments towards economically motivated rationales (De Wit and Altbach 2021; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). The complexities associated with a changing global order confounded with global competition, geopolitical, and socio-ecological crisis is also shaping the rationales to HEI. Below is a discussion on categories linked to these rationales and the associated complexities.
Economic Rationales
De Wit and Altbach (2021) have shown that economic rationales are mostly driven by competition which is often associated with globalization. With English becoming the “lingua franca” in higher education, competition is often connected to Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand which have commodified higher education and are able to attract more fee-paying international students (Tight 2021).
Within the context of policies promoting competitiveness, a distinction can be made between those focused on improving the competitiveness of the national higher education system (e.g. EU countries) and those perceived as major contributors to the successful performance of the national economy as whole (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and Norway) (Crăciun 2018). Several East Asian countries launched “excellence” initiatives, for example, the “Brain Korea 21” in South Korea (Jang et al. 2016), and the “985” project in China (Kim et al. 2018) focused on enhancing the competitiveness the higher education system. On the other hand, countries such as Taiwan focus their internationalization policies to balance global ambition, address local needs, and drive the notion of knowledge-based economies (Lo and Hou 2020).
Socio-cultural Rationales
Whilst economic drivers seem to be the main driver for internationalization policies, there is evidence that cooperation still plays a significant role within this policy arena. According to Reilly and Sweeney (2021), most continental European countries pursue a cooperative approach because of the political and value-based systems which promote free access to higher education as an established right.
In many former colonial states, research by Teferra (2014) also shows that internationalization policies are sometimes shaped by development cooperation with European countries based on historical, cultural, and linguistic links. Similar policies anchored by development cooperation are evident in Central and Eastern European countries considering their relationship with EU countries during their entry into the European Union (Dobbins and Kwiek 2017).
Critiques of the current internationalization steering mechanisms focused on economic and competitive rationales have also highlighted how the process continually rewards institutions in the global north—exacerbating inequality (Leask and de Gayardon 2021). As a result, the emerging literature on concepts such as “Internationalization in Higher Education for Society” (IHES) has analysed policies promoting comprehensive and inclusive visions of internationalization that systematically and strategically extend its benefits into local communities (see, Brandenburg et al 2020). As an example, Tran and Bui (2021) study on Australia’s New Colombo Plan shows how the initiative has been able to catalyse socio-economic impact in host communities through strengthening bilateral ties and fostering multisectoral partnerships.
Academic Rationales
Internationalization policies have also been useful to ensure or improve the quality of higher education. Studies by Alsharari (2018) in the UAE, and Bordean and Borza (2013) in Romania reveal how internationalization policies and mobility programmes have been instrumental in improving the quality of degree programmes. A case study analysis in Vietnam by Hoang et al (2018) revealed that the internationalization policy led to the diversification of the institutions, programmes, activities, and curricula to the benefit of students.
According to Klemenčič (2019), curriculum reform which drove the Bologna process also aimed to reflect and enhance the professional relevance of study programmes in Europe to make higher education more responsive to the needs of industry and society. “Policy travel” of the Bologna process is not only improving the quality of education but also facilitating regional integration (Woldegiorgis 2018). For example, the African Union Higher Education Harmonization Strategy which is aligned to the Bologna process is facilitating an integrated knowledge system that strengthens collaboration between African institutions and informs socio-economic development in the region (Alemu 2018; Woldegiorgis 2018). Critiques of higher education integration have highlighted some challenges related to the impact of the structural changes, and social impact (see Wihlborg 2019; Wihlborg and Teelken 2014).
Political Rationales
The increased desire to utilize internationalization as a tool for the development of human capital required for national development and global competitiveness has also led policymakers in some countries, to “exercise detailed controls over programme contents, personnel management, and research” (Marginson 2011, p. 595). Hammond (2016) found this strong nation-state steering and control of education to be a key commonality of policies in China. In such instances, internationalization is used as a political tool to inculcate national identities aimed at legitimatization and institutionalization of political arrangements of state governance (Tight 2022).
Emerging economies such as India, China, and Russia have also partly shaped their internationalization policies to pursue greater global south cooperation anchored in pre-colonial arrangements. Research by Leal and Moraes (2018) revealed how the Undergraduate Student Agreement Program (PEC-G) in Brazil, institutionalized in the 1960s, and aimed at providing students from developing countries with an opportunity to study at Brazilian universities has evolved to become an important tool to promote south–south cooperation.
The increased policy orientation towards global south cooperation is aligned with literature on decolonization in higher education challenging the north–south unidirectional flow of knowledge and ideas which perpetuates the dominance of Western cultures (Tight 2024). In their analysis of the internationalization agenda in Zimbabwe, Thondhlana et al. (2021) argue that internationalization has a transformational element that seeks to contain decolonizing effects reflected in the curriculum redesign and indigenization. Critiques of this decolonization literature have emerged arguing that this postcolonial framing adopts a bipolar view of geopolitics which does not account for the complex and multipolar geopolitical context (Bamberger and Morris 2023; Stein 2021b; Mulvey 2022).
Complexities Influencing HEI Steering Mechanisms
The realigning of national interests in the global south which are also evident in the global north as evidenced by US-led alliances’ opposition to Chinese and Russian global machinations has reshaped the rationales to HEI in recent years (Mäkinen 2023). This has been compounded by recent developments, such as rising nationalism, the COVID-19 pandemic, technological disruptions, and different conflicts. In Europe the cultural shifts away from liberal and cooperation values have led to limits in academic freedoms associated with HEI, whilst Brexit has weakened collaboration between UK and EU researchers (Highman et al 2023). In the case of Russia, its aggressive and isolationist foreign policy has led to the country increasingly becoming “de-internationalized” (Kuzminov and Yudkeivich 2022).
In the global south, the complexity is linked to the shifting trends in international student mobility where China, Malaysia, and Eastern European countries are increasingly enroling more international students—acquiring more agency in the process (UNESCO Institute of Statistics UIS 2023). The anti-globalism, anti-immigration, and nationalist sentiments in many developed countries are interconnected to this increased agency of global south countries (De Wit and Altbach 2021; Rizvi et al. 2022). The HEI impacts of these contestations are illustrated by Hawkins’ (2017) study which showed that as US students increasingly embrace nationalist and anti-globalism sentiments, they have become less interested in studying abroad, with only 10% of all undergraduate students having an international learning experience.
Methodology
To investigate the varying rationales for higher education internationalization policies, this study utilizes a content analysis method comparing 366 policy documents in 27 global north and the global south countries (Fig. 1). Rationales in this context are defined as “motivations for integrating an international dimension into higher education policy” (De Wit 2022, p. 84). Content analysis was identified as an ideal research technique for this study because it enabled the researchers to objectively quantify the interpretation of the motivations of policymakers (Berg 2001; Kripendorff 2004).
Sampling of Countries for Analysis
The study utilized the UNCTAD country economic and geographical classifications to select the representative global north and global south countries for analysis. Through these classifications, developed countries are categorized as the global north, whilst developing countries are categorized as the global south (Hoffmeister 2020). Developed economies broadly comprise Northern America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. The developing economies broadly comprise Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia without Israel, Japan, and South Korea, and Oceania without Australia, and New Zealand.
The limitation of this classification is that there are countries in certain geographical areas which do not correspond with their designation as developed or developing. For example, Mexico and Cuba are geographically located in North America, but are not considered developed. As a result, for this study, Mexico and Cuba are designated as part of Latin America and the Caribbean which is a “developing”/global south region. Furthermore, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do not fit into the “developing” country classification in Asia and Oceania. Therefore, they are grouped with China which as the second largest economy in the world, is not comparable to the Asian developing economies (Morrison 2019).
The rationale for selecting the 27 countries across the six geographical regions is countries which are considerably active in the HEI policy arena to enable the researchers to analyse the policy documents (De Wit at al 2015). Therefore, the criteria for the selection focused on key quantifiable determinants of active HEI: inbound international student mobility, percentage of international scientific co-publications, international collaboration impact, value of awarded research grants, and number of universities in the top 500 rankings within a country (Demeter 2019; De Wit and Altbach 2021; Lipura and Collins 2020). Using this criterion, countries which had the highest scores in their region in at least 4 of the 5 indicators were selected to represent the 6 geographical regions (see Table 1).
The key limitation to using the above criterion is that certain geographical areas and countries which could have been more representative were excluded. For example, countries from Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa are excluded despite being key players in HEI in recent years. This is primarily because the research reviewed policy documents in Chinese, English, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese and it was not feasible to adequately translate and review documents in other languages due to limited language proficiency. Furthermore, there are instances in which some countries excluded from the list scored higher than some selected countries in some of the indicators in Table 1. This raises the issue of selection bias, firstly on the selection indicators and the assumptions (Collier et al 2004). However, it is assumed that the sample is large and representative enough to capture the variations across and within geographical regions.
Document Sampling Process
In this paper, “policy documents” were defined as “written documents that contain strategies and priorities and define goals and objectives” of a policy issue (Daugbjerg et al. 2009, 806). These include strategic policies and plans, legislative laws and decrees, recommendations and guidelines, and activities and programmes related to HEI (Fig. 1). The policy documents analysis focused on the years 2000–2021 as this period captures recent and comparable policy developments in HEI amongst the selected countries. Given the interconnectedness of policy, there are references to policies prior to 2000 in some instances.
To collect and store the policy documents, the research relied on web scrapping using Python programming, firstly, from the online World Higher Education Database (WHED) and secondly, from national government agency websites (Lawson 2015). The WHED database is useful because it gathers systematic information about higher education systems, national bodies responsible for higher education and international cooperation, and related policies. To search for the HEI related documents, the Python algorithm focused on HEI internationalization activities including scholarships, academic mobility, research, cross-border education, curriculum, quality assurance, and science and technology (Knight 2004b, 2012, 2021).
Since the WHED database does not account for other sectoral government agencies which have related internationalization policies and plans, relevant policy documents were accessed from other government agency websites. With the support of the International Students Office, six research assistants with proficiency in English, Chinese, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese were recruited to identify the web pages of national government agencies in the following six policy domains associated with HEI between January 2021 and April 2021: higher education, research, Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI), youth empowerment, foreign policy, and trade. The team could not find research assistants proficient in other languages in the sample countries, and as such relied on published literature, documents in English or already translated to English. After this two-step process, a total of 366 policy documents were collected for all 27 countries (Fig. 1). The non-English documents were then translated to English by the research assistants.
Content Analysis Process
The content analysis was conducted in three parts. During the first part, subject categories and codes on HEI were decided deductively from the literature (Table 2). The codes are short and descriptive labels that symbolically assigned a summative or salient attribute to units of meaning linked to the categories in the HEI rationales literature (Saldaña 2021). As discussed in the literature review above, traditionally, rationales driving internationalization have been categorized into four groups: socio/cultural, economic, political, and academic (Knight and De Wit 1997; Knight 2004a, b, 2021). Though there have been complexities and global disorders with implications on the rationales, the generic categories have remained in analysing internationalization rationales (De Wit 2002a, b; Knight 2021; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). Maringe et al (2012) expanded the four broad categories to include technological and pedagogical rationales which are mostly linked to university level activities. As a result, these two rationales are combined with the academic rationales in this study. To further account for other unknown codes which might have been missed, 2 researchers examined 50 randomly selected policy documents from the sample using MAXQDA software. This process was valuable in improving the validity of the codes used for the content analysis. These codes were merged with the deductively derived ones to create those used for the content analysis in Table 2.
The second part included developing a schematic scoring system for the content analysis of the policy documents. The scoring schematic was developed to reflect the level of detail in the policy documents towards the codes linked to the internationalization rationales identified (Table 3). Each country was given a score between 0 and 3, depending on how systematically and rigorously the policy documents explained or inferences were made of each code—this third process is discussed in more detail below.
To code and score the policy documents, latent projective analysis was used. This method uses normative inferences to discover implied meaning in the texts (Kleinheksel et al 2020). The method acknowledges that the researcher is intimately involved in the analytical process and their role is to actively use mental schema, theories, and lenses to interpret and understand the texts (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). For this study, the latent projective analysis allowed inferences or interpretations of the implicit or dominant meaning of the texts, or the implicit intentions of the authors of the policy documents. This is particularly the case when investigating the rationales to HEI because the intentions of policymakers are not always obvious. Due to the complexity of this process, it took 2 researchers 7 months from June 2021 to December 2021 to code the 366 policy documents. MAXQDA software was used to code the documents, identifying thematic issues or inferences linked to the codes and then weighing them between 0-3 using the weight function in the software. This meant that several codes with varying weights could be interpreted in one policy document.
A 3 was scored if a clear goal of the policy could be identified or inferred from the text. This could be related to characterization of a policy goal which might not be clearly defined but inferences from the coder’s understanding of the literature could be used to provide guidance to score a 3 for the code. For example, Australia’s geopolitical posture and competition are not explicit in the policy. However, the strong pivot to the Asia–Pacific in their internationalization strategy illustrates a strong focus to strengthen their presence in the region to compete with China. As such, they were scored a 3 for the diplomacy and soft power code. A score of 2 was given if the code was mentioned but no detailed explanation was given or the discussion on an issue linked to the code is not extensive. For example, Japan Council for the Future of Education Creation policy document mentions the country’s intention to diversify their international student body. However, there is no significant discussion on the issue to provide more context. Therefore, a 2 was given for the diversity and inclusion code. A 1 was scored if no clear meaning of the goals of the policy document could be interpreted or the code linked to the rationale is mentioned in passing. This mostly applies to higher education policies by African countries which did not have stand-alone internationalization policies. A 0 was given if no inferences or mention of a code were made in the policy document. At the end of the coding process, mean values of the weights for each code were calculated for each document, tabulated, and presented in graph format per country (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
Evidently the latent projective analysis used is very subjective. Therefore, to ensure the reliability of the scoring process, a consensual coding method was applied to determine whether coders agreed on the coding whilst using the same coding scheme (Kuckartz 2016). This meant 2 researchers coded 66 randomly selected documents together, comparing for similarity in segment selection and coding. Differences between the researchers were discussed, and a common understanding of the coding scheme was developed. Thereafter, each coder analysed 150 documents each. The function “intercoder agreement” of the MAXQDA software was used to determine the distribution of codes at the segment level (Kuckartz and Rädiker 2019). The results showed between 86 and 95% intercoder agreement indicating a sufficient level of reliability.
Findings
Internationalization Policy Rationales
North America
Socio-economic rationales predominantly drive internationalization policy in North America (Fig. 2). For example, in the joint statement of principles in support of international education, the US Department of State and the Department of Education recognizes the importance of international education “to the US economy, job creation, and innovation” (US Department of State & Department of Education 2021, p. 3). There are noticeable variations between the two countries in North America with political issues related to national security and international development seemingly considered slightly more important drivers in the USA than in Canada. To illustrate this, the joint statement of principles by the Department of State and Department of Education emphasizes the value of HEI in supporting “U.S. diplomacy by promoting people-to-people ties that create goodwill and mutual understanding [and] mitigate risks from malign actors” (p. 3). The US Fulbright Program has also played such a role in promoting US science diplomacy (Bettie 2019).
On the other hand, Canada scored better than the USA on inclusion and redress as well as the need to increase capacity (Fig. 2). This is reflected in Canada’s International Education Strategy (IES) 2019–2024 which provides focus on diversifying the international student body “to foster sustainable growth of Canada’s international education sector and distribute the benefits more equitably across the country (Government of Canada 2019).
Western and Northern Europe
Apart from Norway (a non-EU member), which had average scores in some categories, most countries in Western and Northern Europe, including the UK (a former EU member), have relatively high scores on most of the socio-economic drivers to internationalization (Fig. 3). The EU Commission’s higher education policies have shaped the direction of some HEI activities of EU member countries, which include Germany, France, and Netherlands. As an example, the EU’s “Renewed Agenda for Higher Education” and the “European Skills Agenda for Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness and Resilience” puts a lot of emphasis on quality education “to deliver a bold skills agenda for jobs” (European Commission 2020, p. 3). The adoption of these policy agendas by member countries has been critiqued extensively, but what is evident is the socio-economic agenda setting direction provided by the regional bloc to the member countries.
On the other hand, the UK economic priorities are very explicit. The post-Brexit UK International Education Strategy (2021) has a goal to drive UK education export income from approximately $20bn to $35bn by 2030 (United Kingdom Government 2021). France’s “Choose France/Bienvenue en France” plan is also illustrative of this emerging trend with its focus on increasing tuition fees for non-EU students by 16 times higher than their European counterparts since 2019 (Campus France 2018).
There is variation in other motivations related to security and national interests as well as inclusivity (Fig. 3). For example, the UK, France, and the Netherlands consider national interests as an important driver of internationalization compared to Norway (Fig. 3). In the Netherlands, due to concerns of the growing number of international students, the language and accessibility bill was initiated in 2019 to “safeguard the quality of education, promote Dutch language skills and control the influx of international students” (Haverkort 2023). In his speech providing a roadmap to France’s soft power, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drain noted that since 2017 France had “redefined its cultural presence in the USA by creating Villa Albertine, a new concept offering French residency programmes” (Le Drian 2021).
Germany consistently scored very highly on drivers related to redress and inclusion, international development, and addressing global problems. As one of the highest recipients of refugees in the past decade, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) launched the special initiative “Tackling the Root Causes to Displacement—Reintegrating Refugees” to complement ongoing development cooperation and “support the inclusion of refugees in national education and technical vocational education and training systems” (BMZ 2020).
“Global North Countries” in Oceania and East Asia
Most “developed” economies in Oceania and East Asia also consider socio-economic rationales as important drivers of higher education internationalization (Fig. 4). In China, the HEI policies have evolved since the 1980s when it was focused on socio-economic development mostly through study abroad programme (MOE 1978). In recent years, whilst there is a continued prioritization of socio-economic development as China transitioned to a market economy, internationalization policies have evolved to focus on China’s global impact and competitiveness (MOE 1999; State Council, 2015), the “care for humankind” (guan huai ren lei) (Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party 2017), and integration of Chinese historical and cultural traditions (MOE 2007).
In Australia and New Zealand, the socio-economic drivers are influenced by national governments' approach to diversifying their export industries through higher education (Harman 2004). Australia’s “Strategy for International Education 2021–2030” focuses on “diversifying the international student cohorts and countries” to “meet the country’s skills needs” whilst “enhancing economic growth and global competitiveness” (Australia Government 2021, p. 5). Similarly, New Zealand’s “International Education Strategy 2022–2030” has a strong focus on fee-paying international student education experience (MOE New Zealand 2022).
In the case of Japan and South Korea, whilst there is an increased orientation towards attracting international students and enhancing the competitiveness of the higher education system (e.g. through the Top University Project in Japan to promote collaboration globally ranked institutions), there is also a gradual focus on integrating the export-oriented approach with the knowledge-oriented approach (e.g. Specified Skilled
Within the political rationales, China and Australia score significantly higher than other countries on rationales linked to national interests, diplomacy and soft power, and mutual understanding. The establishment of Confucian institutes is illustrative of China’s exertion of its culture in partnerships (MOE 2004). Furthermore, due to concerns of losing its educational sovereignty and the country’s nominal emphasis on the socialist ideology, China places strict controls on international partnerships (Lo and Pan 2021). In the case of Australia, section 4 of the 2022 International Education Strategy together with policy reviews such as the Bradley Review in 2008 and the Chaney Report in 2013 emphasize the positioning of the country regionally and ensuring the internationalization strategy fosters the country’s interests (Australia Government 2021; Bradley et al. 2008; Chaney 2013).
South and Southeast Asia
Malaysia, Thailand, and India have considerably high scores on socio-economic rationales compared to the low-moderate scores for Pakistan and Cambodia (Fig. 5). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 outlined the country’s aspirations to create a higher education system that enables Malaysia to compete in the “global economy”, “establish Malaysia as an international hub of higher education”, and “produce human capital with the first-class mentality” (MMoE 2015, p. 3). This is linked to the country’s long-term goal to attract 250,000 international students annually by 2025. In doing so, the country is acquiring agency and challenging the traditional narratives in higher education internationalization.
In the case of India, the country’s 2020 National Education Policy (NEP) and related regulations have provisions which allow “world class universities” to set up campuses in the country in collaboration with local partners to ensure progressive competition and increase overall quality of the education system (MHRD 2020). In Thailand, the higher education system has continually been based on internal models to assist the country’s development and participation in the global economy (Rhein 2016). On the other hand, Cambodia and Pakistan have relatively limited strategic approaches to higher education internationalization, often prioritizing policy reform and system expansion (Chao 2016).
Malaysia and India also scored very highly on rationales linked to redress and inclusion, national interests, diplomacy, and soft power, whilst Thailand had moderate scores on national interest and diplomacy rationales (Fig. 5). In the case of India, despite the limited resources the country continues to provide educational and cultural support to several African and South Asian countries, (Isar 2017). This is line with efforts to restore the country as a “Vishwa Guru” (global teacher) and build south–south partnerships dating back to the pre-colonial era (MHRD 2020, p. 39).
Thailand’s moderate scores on national interests reflect its gradual pivot on regionalization. Together with other middle-income countries in the region, Thailand has played an important role in promoting regional initiatives such as the SEAMEO RIHED and ASEAN AIMS Programme with a mission to foster efficiency, effectiveness, and harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia (Chao 2016).
Sub-Saharan Africa
Apart from South Africa, all the selected African countries lack explicit internationalization strategies which explains the relatively moderate to low scores on most of the rationales (Fig. 6). In the case of South Africa, the only country in the region with a stand-alone internationalization policy, the socio-economic motivations seem to stand out. The 2021 Policy Framework for Internationalization is explicit on this with a goal “to position the higher education system to be competitive, advance quality of higher education, benefit society, contribute to the public good, and development of scholars and scholarship” (DHET 2021, p. 20).
Internationalization is absent or mentioned in passing in the education policies of the other Sub-Saharan countries. This seems to suggest that HEI, which is often dominated by outbound student mobility, is dictated by domestic factors related to access to quality education and developing a globally competitive workforce (Kritz 2015; Woldegiorgis and Doevenspeck 2015). This is evident in Kenya and Nigeria’s education policies which to utilize internationalization to increase STEM programmes and the quality of higher education programmes (Government of Kenya 2017; FME 2014.
The high scores in diplomacy, soft power, and mutual understanding for South Africa reflect the country’s standing as the most influential regional geopolitical force which is the third largest recipient of outbound international students from Africa (Fig. 6). As such, the internationalization policy framework prioritizes Southern African Development Community (SADC) states, the African continent, BRICS, and the global south in its HEI engagements. In line with the African National Congress (ANC) led government's Pan-African roots, South Africa has been a key driver of BRICS higher education partnerships with Brazil, Russia, India, and China through the launch of the BRICS University League.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Brazil and Cuba scored very highly on all the rationales (Fig. 7). Cuba`s high scores are linked to its strong international academic cooperation despite the unfavourable international environment that limits its strategies (Gacel-Ávila 2020). Many of these international agreements are with developing countries, mostly in Latin America and Africa, combined with growing partnerships with Europe. In relation to Brazil, despite not having a stand-alone internationalization strategy, the country has developed internationalization programmes such as Science Without Borders (SWB) and Capes-Print which promote quality higher education through academic mobility. The Capes-Print programme’s objectives have strong focus on “stimulating the formation of international research networks with a view to improving the quality of academic production” (CAPES 2017, p. 12).
Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia have started prioritizing HEI in recent decades, with more focus on the socio-economic rationales (Perrotta 2016; Gacel-Avila 2020). For example, the Colombia Ministry of National Education internationalization efforts prioritize “greater exchange of knowledge, technology transfer and research, and improvement of accreditation standards” (MNE 2017).
Regional-level efforts promoting regional integration such as the Southern Common Market and Mercosur have been critical in shaping these national efforts (Batista, 2021; Theiler 2015). Brazil and Argentina together with Paraguay and Uruguay have led efforts to establish the Triennial Plan for MERCUSOR Education Area focused on regional economic and academic integration.
Regarding political rationales, Brazil and Cuba have high scores (Fig. 7). This is particularly a result of their regional diplomatic efforts and scholarship programmes in developing countries, which extend their global diplomatic aspirations that focus on building strong alliances and mutual understanding across Latin America and the global south. For example, Brazil’s Programa de Estudantes-Convênio de Graduação (PEC-G) and the Programa de Estudantes-Convênio de PósGraduação (PEC-PG) scholarship programmes targeting international students from Africa. The government considers these programmes as educational cooperation that seeks to increase Brazil’s role on the international stage through assistance to global south countries and fostering cultural cooperation and mutual understanding with global south. (CAPES 2022, p. 11).
Discussion and Conclusions
This paper has revealed the varying and related complexities to rationales HEI policies between the Global North and Global South countries. Within the dominant socio-economic dimension of internationalization, there was considerable variation in the manifestation of these rationales depending on the context and priorities. In the global north, predominantly in the English-speaking countries—UK, Australia, and New Zealand, internationalization has a strong market and commercialized orientation focused on attracting fee-paying international students (Robertson 2010; Shukr 2017). This model of internationalization is gradually spreading to Canada and continental Europe—countries which prioritized the social and academic aspects of internationalization in the past (De Wit and Altbach 2021).
The study also showed that in recent years a few middle-income countries in the global south (e.g. Malaysia) have also adopted this market-centred and commercialized model of higher education internationalization and started to compete for international students with the traditional markets. This trend reflects the shifts in agency in international higher education (Bamberger and Morris 2023; Glass and Cruz 2022). This shows that in the push for and from globalization, traditional models and trends linked to internationalization are being challenged by multipolar models in increasingly competitive environments (Ge 2022).
In the global south, the research findings also suggest that the dominant socio-economic dimensions were mostly shaped by massification and the global knowledge economy (Rumbley et al 2022; Brunner and Labraña 2020). The burgeoning youth population and reforms in education, particularly, in Africa have increased the demand for quality higher education (Marginson 2016). To cope with this increased demand, these countries have facilitated bilateral and multilateral academic and student mobility programmes (Choudaha 2017; Riaño et al. 2018; Teichler 2017).
The research findings also reveal that the global knowledge economy has similarly necessitated an increased focus on higher education internationalization in both the global south and north. In Asia, there is evidence in the reorientation of developmental states moving from export-oriented, investment-led growth to knowledge-intensive, investment-led growth—with increased focus on attracting global talent (Jessop 2016; Altbach and Jalote 2020). At the same time, global north countries which are experiencing shifting demographics and stagnating Gross Enrolment Ratios (GERs) are increasingly promoting policies to attract scholars from the global south (Choudaha 2017; Teichler 2017). This has created tensions in the global north with policymakers balancing the need for imported skilled talent and nationalists’ pressures to reduce the influx of immigrants (Hazelkorn 2020). These tensions have been compounded by the current global disorders such as technological disruptions and geopolitical instabilities.
The manner in which the socio-economic rationales manifest differently across countries shows how the benefits and effects of internationalization as a “global cultural frame” vary in diverse contexts (Buckner 2019; Suarez and Bromley 2016). This suggests that policymakers are “translating” and “editing” the globalized model of internationalization and imbuing it with “new meanings to align to the language, needs, values, or cultural frames of the local context” (Sahlin and Wedlin 2008, 220).
Political rationales linked to national security, international diplomacy, and soft power are the second dominant driver to internationalization, predominantly amongst global and regional powers. This is mostly associated with the competitive nature of global higher education and the disintegration of the global world order (Kuzminov and Yudkevich 2022). Global south regional powers (e.g. BRICS members with alliances dating back to colonial resistance) were designing internationalization policies to challenge the existing dominant Western paradigms (Alessi 2012).
Postcolonial theories have often been used to describe this political shift which acknowledges the need to address global political, economic, epistemic, and ontological power inequalities (Stein 2021a; Suspitsyna 2021; Xu 2023). However, authors such as Bamberger and Morris 2023; Stein 2021b; Mulvey 2022 have critiqued this conceptual framing. These authors argue that this postcolonial framing adopts a bipolar view of geopolitics which does not serve as the organizing frame in an increasingly complex and multipolar geopolitical context. The critiques also argue that global south states such as China and India which have high political rationales scores are capable of perpetuating dominant national identities and visions in their regions which may become imperial or colonial (Bamberger and Morris 2023; Tröhler 2023).
The political rationales in the global south also indicate the increased importance of regionalization as a driver to internationalization as regional blocs conformed to or challenged developments in the EU Higher Education Area and the global north (Knight and Woldegiorgis 2017; Chou and Ravinet 2015; Khalid et al. 2019; Batista 2021; Kim 2016). This was informed by shared values and identity in these regional blocs, particularly, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The research in Europe shows some of the limitations of regional higher education models. For example, Vellamo et al (2022) showed how Finnish institutions have resisted losing their autonomy in relation to the Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Programmes in the EU.
The results also suggest that narrow self-interest priorities shaped by global competition are starting to be challenged as they undermine addressing complex socio-ecological global challenges. Due to these critiques, this paper provides evidence from a few countries mostly in Western Europe and in the global south which suggest a shift linking internationalization to global common goals—giving rise to the notion of “internationalization for society” (Jones et al. 2021). This perspective also aligns with efforts to link internationalization with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (de Wit and Altbach 2021). However, some scholars have argued that this overwhelmingly positive and depoliticized approach does not facilitate transformational change as it continues the “enduring patterns of Eurocentric knowledge production, exploitative relationships, and inequitable access to resources” (Stein 2021a, b, p. 1773, see also Bamberger and Morris 2023; Mulvey 2022; Ziai 2019).
The above analysis points to complexity in eliciting meaning to HEI in different contexts. The evidence from this paper shows that whilst the HEI concept and related rationales have been framed as a contemporary economic and commercialized trend driven by the global north, the phenomenon is increasingly complex and multipolar with new global south actors acquiring agency (Tight 2022; Glass and Cruz 2022). More so, local, national, and regional contexts, and the current geopolitical disorders are steadily shaping the HEI agendas, pointing to diverse ways in which actors are interpreting the benefits of the global phenomenon in consideration of their nation’s particular priorities.
References
Alessi, C. (2012) Does the BRICS Group Matter [Interview with Martin Wolf]. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/interview/does-brics-group-matter.
Alsharari, N.M. (2018) Internationalization of Higher Education Systems: An Interpretative Analysis. International Journal of Educational Management 32(3): 359–381.
Altbach, P. G. and Jalote, P. (2020) When will India Build World-Class Research Universities. World University News. Retrieved from: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200921112203767.
Australia Government. (2021) Australian Strategy for International Education 2021-2030. Available Online: https://www.education.gov.au/australian-strategy-international-education-2021-2030/resources/australian-strategy-international-education-2021-2030.
Bamberger, A. and Morris, P. (2023) ‘Critical Perspectives on Internationalization in Higher Education: Commercialization, Global Citizenship, or Postcolonial Imperialism?’, Critical Studies in Education 1–9.
Batista, M.V. (2021) Higher Education Regionalization in South America. Higher Education Policy 34(1): 474–498.
Berg, B.L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bettie, M. (2019) Exchange Diplomacy: Theory, Policy, and Practice in the Fulbright Program. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16: 212–223.
Bordean, O.N. and Borza, A. (2013) Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions: The Case of Romania. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 92: 98–103.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H. and Scales, B. (2008) A Final Report on the Review of Australian Higher Education: Discussion Paper, Canberra: Commonwealth Australia.
Braff, L. and Nelson, K. (2022) 'The Global North: Introducing the Region', in K. Nelson and T. Fernandez (eds.) Gendered Lives: Global IssuesNew York: Suny Press.
Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask, B. & Drobner, A. (2020) ‘Internationalization in Higher Education for Society (IHES): Concepts, Current Research and Examples of Good Practice’, German Academic Exchange Service.
Brandt, W. (1980) ‘North-South: A Programme for Survival’, Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues.
Brunner, J.J. and Labraña, J. (2020) 'The Transformation of Higher Education in Latin America: From Elite Access to Massification and Universalisation', in S. Scwartman (ed.) Higher Education in Latin America and the Challenges of the 21st CenturyCham: Springer, pp. 31–41.
Buckner, E. (2019) The ‘Internationalization of Higher Education: National Interpretations of a Global Model.’ Comparative Education Review 63(3): 315–337.
Campus France. (2018) Choose France, La stratégie d'attractivité des étudiants. Retrieved from: https://www.campusfrance.org/fr/choose-france-strategie-attractivite-etudiants-internationaux-bienvenue-en-france.
Chaney, M. (2013) Australia: Educating Globally, Canberra: International Education Advisory Council.
Chao, R.Y. (2016) 'Changing Higher Education Discourse in the Making of the ASEAN Region', in S.L. Robertson, K. Olds, R. Dale and Q.A. Dang (eds.) Global Regionalism and Higher Education: Projects, Processes, PoliticsLondon: Edward Elgar, pp. 124–142.
Chou, M. and Ravinet, P. (2015) 'The rise of Higher Education Regionalism: An Agenda for Higher Education Research', in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D.D. Dill and M. Souto-Otero (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and GovernanceLondon: Springer, pp. 361–378.
Choudaha, R. (2017) Three Waves of International Student Mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education 42(5): 825–832.
Collier, D., Mahoney, J. and Seawright, J. (2004) 'Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias', in H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared StandardsRowman and Littlefield, pp. 85–102.
Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J.L. (2012) Theory from the South or How Euro-America is Evolving Towards Africa, London: Routledge.
Cooper, A.F. (2021) China, India and the pattern of G20/BRICS engagement: Differentiated Ambivalence between “Rising” Power Status and Solidarity with the Global South. Third World Quarterly 42(9): 1945–1962.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). (2017a) Programa Institucional de Internacionalização—Capes-PrInt EDITAL nº. 41/2017. Available Online: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/centrais-de.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). (2022) Evolução do SNPG no decênio do PNPG 2011-2020. Brasilia: Ministério da Educação-CAPES.
Crăciun, D. (2018) 'National Policies for Higher Education Internationalisation: A Global Comparative Perspective', in A. Curaj, L. Deca and R. Pricopie (eds.) European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future PoliciesLondon: Springer, pp. 95–106.
Daugbjerg, S.B., Kahlmeier, S., Racioppi, F., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B., Oja, P. and Bull, F. (2009) Promotion of Physical Activity in the European Region: Content Analysis of 27 National Policy Documents. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 6(6): 805–817.
De Wit, H. (2002a) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis, Westport: Greenwood Press.
De Wit, H. (2022) 'Mestenhauser’s Influence on Future International Education Policy', in A.M. D’Angelo, M.K. O’brien and G. Marty (eds.) AM DAngeloLondon: Mestenhauser and the Possibilities of International Education Illuminating Pathways for Inquiry and Future Practice. Routledge, pp. 197–209.
De Wit, H. and Altbach, P.G. (2021) Internationalisation in Higher Education: Global Trends and Recommendations for its Future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5(1): 28–46.
De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L. and Egron-Polak, E. (2015) Internationalisation of Higher Education: Study, Brussels: Report submitted to the European Parliament.
De Wit, H., Rumbley, L., Crăciun, D., Mihut, G. and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019) International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalisation Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs): Analytical Report, Boston, MA: Centre for International Higher Education.
Demeter, M. (2019) The World-Systematic Dynamics of Knowledge Production: The Distribution of Transnational Academic Capital in Social Sciences. Journal of World-Systems Research 25(1): 111–144.
De Wit, H. (2002b) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis, Westport: Greenwood Press.
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (2021) Policy Framework for Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa, Pretoria: DHET, Republic of South Africa.
Dobbins, M. and Kwiek, M. (2017) Europeanisation and Globalisation in Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe: 25 Years of Changes Revisited (1990–2015). European Educational Research Journal 16(5): 519–528.
Commission, European (2020) European Skills Agenda for Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness and Resilience, Brussels: European Commission.
Federal Ministry of Education (FME). (2014) National Policy on Education. FME, Government of Nigera. Available Online: https://education.gov.ng/national-policy-on-education/#66.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2020) Internationalisation of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Need of Robust Policies. International Journal for African Higher Education 7(2): 141–149.
Ge, Y. (2022) Internationalisation of Higher Education: New Players in a Changing Scene. Educational Research and Evaluation 27(3–4): 229–238.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development (BMZ). (2020) Recommendations On working towards the Inclusion of Refugees in National Education And TVET Systems. Retrieved from https://Globalcompactrefugees.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/Inclusion%20of%20Refugees%20in%20National%20Education%20Systems%20%E2%80%93%20Lessons%20Learnt%20from%20Germany%E2%80%99s%20Development%20Cooperation.pdf.
Glass, C.R. and Cruz, N.I. (2022) Moving towards Multipolarity: Shifts in the Core-Periphery Structure of International Student Mobility and World Rankings (2000–2019). Higher Education 85(2): 1–21.
Gosovic, B. (2016) The Resurgence of South-South Cooperation. Third World Quarterly 37(4): 733–743.
Government of Canada. (2019) Building on Success: International Education Strategy 2019–2024. Global Affairs Canada. Available online.
Government of Kenya. (2017) National Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2018-2022. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Republic of Kenya. Available Online: https://www.dlci-hoa.org/assets/upload/education-documents/20200804011612362.pdf.
Hammond, C.D. (2016) Internationalization, Nationalism, and Global Competitiveness: A Comparison of Approaches to Higher Education in China and Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review 17: 555–566.
Haug, S., Bravebov-Wagner, J. and Maihold, G. (2021) The ‘Global South’ in the Study of World Politics: Examining a Meta Category. Third World Quarterly 42(9): 1923–1944.
Haverkort, A. (2023) Website article ‘Minister Published Long-Awaited Letter on International Students in Higher Education’, Available online: https://www.vbk.nl/en/legalupdate/minister-publishes-long-awaited-letter-international-students-higher-education.
Hawkins, J.N. (2017) Mixing Metaphors: Globalisation, Internationalization, Localism—Competing Impulses in Higher Education. Paper presented at the meeting of Contesting Globalisation and Implications for Asian Pacific Higher Education: Resurgent Nationalism in International Higher Education; October, Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
Hazelkorn, E. (2020) Higher Education in the Age of Populism: Public Good and Civic Engagement. International Higher Education 74(100): 507–525.
Highman, L., Marginson, S. and Papatsiba, V. (2023) Higher Education and Research: Multiple Negative Effects, and No New Opportunities after Brexit. Journal of Academy of Social Sciences 18(2): 216–234.
Hoang, L., Tran, L.T. and Pham, H. (2018) 'Vietnamese Government Policies and Practices in Internationalisation of Higher Education', in L. Tran and P. Marginson (eds.) Internationalization in Vietnamese Higher Education: Higher Education Dynamics, vol. 51, Cham: Springer, pp. 19–42.
Hoffmeister, O. (2020) Development Status as a Measure of Development. UNCTAD Research Paper No. 46. UNCTAD/SER.RP/2020/5.
Horner, R. (2020) ‘Towards a New Paradigm of Global Development? Beyond the Limits of International Development. Progress in Human Geography 44(3): 415–436.
Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S.E. (2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.
Jang, D.H., Ryu, K., Yi, P. and Craig, D.A. (2016) The Hurdles to Being World Class: Narrative Analysis of the World Class University Project in Korea. Higher Education Policy 29(2): 234–253.
Jessop, B. (2016) Putting Higher Education in its Place in (Easy Asian) Political Economy. Comparative Education 52(1): 8–25.
Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2012) Globalization of Internationalisation: Thematic and Regional Reflections on a Traditional Concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy 3: 35–54.
Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandeburg, U. and 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.
Kaul, I. (2013) The Rise of the Global South: Implications for the Provisioning of Global Public Goods. Occasional Paper 2013/08: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Khalid, J., Ali, A.J., Nordin, N.M. and Shah, S.H. (2019) Regional Cooperation in Higher Education: Can it Lead ASEAN Towards Harmonization. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8(1): 81–98.
Kim, T. (2016) Internationalisation and Development in the East Asian Higher Education: An Introduction. Comparative Education 52(1): 1–7.
Kim, D., Song, Q., Liu, J., Liu, Q. and Brimm, A. (2018) Building World Class Universities in China: Exploring Faculty’s Perceptions, Interpretations of and Struggles with Global Forces in Higher Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 48(1): 92–109.
Kleinheksel, A.J., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H. and Wyatt, T.R. (2020) Demystifying Content Analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 84(1): 127–137.
Klemenčič, M. (2019) 20 Years of the Bologna Process in Global Setting: The External Dimension of the Bologna Process Revisited. European Journal of Higher Education 9(1): 2–6.
Knight, J. (2004a) New Rationales Driving Internationalisation. International Higher Education 34(Winter): 3–5.
Knight, J. (2004b) Internationalisation Remodelled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.
Knight, J. (2012) 'Concepts, Rationales, and Interpretive Frameworks in the Internationalisation of Higher Education', in D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J.D. Heyl and T. Adams (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of International Higher EducationThousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 27–42.
Knight, J. (2015) 'Meaning, Rationales and Tensions in the Internationalisation of Higher Education', in S. McGrath and Q. Gu (eds.) Routledge Handbook of International Education and DevelopmentLondon: Routeledge, pp. 325–340.
Knight, J. (2021) Higher Education Internationalisation: Concepts, Rationales and Frameworks. Revista Redalint 1(1): 65–88.
Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2017) Regionalization of African Higher Education: Progress and Prospects, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (1997) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the Asia Pacific Countries, Amsterdam: EAIE.
Krippendorf, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kritz, M. (2015) International Student Mobility and Tertiary Education Capacity in Africa. International Migration 53(1): 29–49.
Kuckartz, U. (2016) Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software, London: Sage.
Kuckartz, U. and Rädiker, S. (2019) Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA, London: Springer.
Kuzminov, Y. and Yudkevich, M. (2022) Higher Education in Russia, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
Lawson, R. (2015) Web Scraping with Python, UK: Packt Publishing.
Le Drian, J. (2021) Address by Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs - Cooperation and Cultural Action Counsellor networking days—Paris, 14 December 2021. Available Online: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/the-ministry-and-its-network/the-work-of-the-ministry-for-europe-and-foreign-affairs/roadmap-for-france-s-soft-power/.
Leal, F.G. and Moraes, M.C. (2018) Higher Education, South-South Cooperation and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Analyzing the Programa Estudante Convênio de Graduação (PEC-G). Revista Internacional De Cooperación y Desarrollo 5(1): 12–30.
Leask, B. and Gayardon, A. (2021) Reimagining Internationalization for Society. Journal of Studies in International Education 25(4): 323–329.
Li, X., Dai, K. and Zhang, X. (2023) Transnational Higher Education in China: Policies, Practices, and Development in a (Post-)Pandemic Era. Higher Education Policy 36(4): 815–836.
Lipura, S. and J. and 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.
Lo, T.Y. and Pan, S. (2021) The Internationalisation of China’s Higher Education: Soft Power with Chinese Characteristics. Comparative Education 57(2): 227–246.
Lo, W.Y. and Hou, A.Y. (2020) ‘A Farewell to Internationalisation? Striking a Balance between Global Ambition and Local Needs in Higher Education in Taiwan. Higher Education 80: 497–510.
Majee, U.S. and Ress, S.B. (2018) Colonial Legacies in Internationalisation of Higher Education: Racial Justice and Geopolitical Redress in South Africa and Brazil. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 50(4): 463–481.
Mäkinen, S. (2023) Internationalisation in Challenging Times: Practices and Rationales of Internal and External Stakeholders. European Journal of Higher Education 13(2): 126–141.
Malaysia Ministry of Education (MMoE). (2015) Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education, Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.
Marginson, S. (2011) Higher Education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian Model. Higher Education 61: 587–611.
Marginson, S. (2016) Higher Participation Systems of Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education 87(2): 243–271.
Maringe, F., Foskett, N. and Woodfield, S. (2012) 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.
Ministry of Education (MOE) Government of New Zealand. (2022) Internationa Education Strategy 2022-2030. Wellington: Government of New Zealand.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China (1978) Jiaoyubu Guanyu Zengxuan Chuguo Liuxue-shen gDe Ton gzhi[Notice concerning increasing and selecting oversea students by the Ministry of Education], Beijing: Hainan Press.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China (1999) Action Plan for Revitalisation of Education in the 21st Century, Beijing: Hainan Press.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People's Republic of China. (2004) Implementation Methods for Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in running schools. Beijing. Available Online: https://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/news/index/6.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People's Republic of China. (2007) National Educational Development ‘Eleventh Five-Year Plan' (2006-2010). Beijing: Available Online: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2007-05/23/content_623645.htm.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology, Japan (MEXT). (2014) Top Global University. Tokyo: Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Available Online: https://tgu.mext.go.jp/en/about/index.html.
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2020) National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Available Online: https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf.
Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2017) Internationalization of Higher Education. MNE, Columbia Government. Available Online: https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/Educacion-superior/%20Informacion-Destacada/196472:Internacionalizacion-de-la-educacion-superior.
Mok, K.H., Wang, Z. and Neubauer, D. (2020) Contesting Globalisation and Implications for Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges and Prospects. Higher Education Policy 33: 397–411.
Morrison, W.M. (2019) China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States. Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western Asia 28(2): 189–242.
Mulvey, B. (2022) Participatory Parity as a Way Forward for Critical Internationalisation Studies. Studies in Higher Education 47(12): 1–13.
Odeh, L.M. (2010) A Comparative Analysis of Global North and Global South Economies. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12(3): 338–348.
Perrotta, D.V. (2016) Regionalism and Higher Education in South America: A Comparative Analysis for Understanding Internationalisation. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education 4: 54–81.
Reilly, J. and Sweeney, S. (2021) 'Erasmus and the Bologna Process', in T. Hoerber, G.M. Weber and I. Cabras (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of European IntegrationsLondon: Routledge, pp. 78–91.
Rhein, D. (2016) Westernisation and the Thai Higher Education System: Past and Present. Journal of Educational Administration and History 48(3): 261–274.
Riaño, Y., Van Mol, C. and Raghuram, P. (2018) New Directions in Studying Policies of International Student Mobility and Migration. Globalisation, Societies and Education 16(3): 283–294.
Riggs, J. (2007) An Everyday Geography of the Global South, London: Routledge.
Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. and Rinne, R. (2022) Reimagining Globalization and Education, New York: Routledge.
Robertson, S. (2010) Globalising UK Higher Education. LLAKES Research Paper 16.
Rumbley, L.E., Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Leask, B. (2022) 'Trends in Global Higher Education and the Future of Internationalization—Beyond 2020', in D.K. Deardoff, H. De Wit, B. Leask and H. Charles (eds.) The Handbook of International Higher EducationNew York: Routledge, pp. 34–61.
Sabzalieva, E., Martinez, M. and Sa, C. (2020) Moving Beyond “North” and “South”: Global Perspectives on International Research Collaborations. Journal of Studies in International Education 24(1): 3–8.
Sahlin, K. and Wedlin, L. (2008) 'Circulating Ideas: Imitation, Translation and Editing', in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational InstitutionalismLondon: Sage.
Saldaña, J. (2021) 'Coding Techniques for Quantitative and Mixed Data', in A.J. Onwuegbuzie and R.B. Johnson (eds.) The Routledge Reviewer’s Guide to Mixed Methods AnalysisNew York: Routledge, pp. 56–87.
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J. and Paleari, S. (2016) Why do Higher Education Institutions Internationalize: An Investigation of the Multilevel Determinants of International Rationales. Higher Education 72: 685–702.
Sehoole, C., Strang, K., Jowi, J.O. and McVeely. (2024) Reframing Global North-South Collaborations through the Lens of Aware, Connect, Empower (ACE) Principles. Journal of International Students 14(2): 32–43.
Shukr, M. (2017) Commodification of Education in United Kingdom. Journal of Law and Society Management 4(1): 64–72.
State Council (People's Republic of China) (2015) Coordinate development of world class universities and first class disciplines overall program. ((国发〔2015〕64 号). Beijing. Available Online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-11/05/content_10269.htm.
Stein, S. (2021a) What Can Decolonial and Abolitionist Critiques Teach the Field of Higher Education? The Review of Higher Education 44(3): 387–414.
Stein, S. (2021b) Critical Internationalisation 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.
Suarez, D. and Bromley, P. (2016) 'Institutional Theories and Levels of Analysis: History, Diffusion, and Translation', in J. Schrwiewer (ed.) World Culture RecontextualisedNew York: Routledge, pp. 23–45.
Suspitsyna, T. (2021) Internationalization, Whiteness, and Biopolitics of Higher Education. Journal of International Students 11(1): 50–67.
Teferra, D. (2014) The Shifting Landscape of Development Cooperation: Repercussions for African Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education in Africa 12(2): 1–28.
Teichler, U. (2017) Internationalisation Trends in Higher Education and the Changing Role of International Student Mobility. Journal of International Mobility 1(5): 177–196.
Theiler, J.C. (2015) 'Internationalization of Higher Education in Argentina', in H. De Wit, C. Jaramillo, J. Gacel-Avila and J. Knight (eds.) Higher Education in Latin America: The International DimensionWashington DC: World Bank, pp. 71–100.
Thondhlana, J., Abdulrahman, H., Garwe, E.C. and McGrath, S. (2021) Exploring the Internationalisation of Zimbabwe’s Higher Education Institutions Through a Decolonial Lens: Postcolonial Continuities and Disruptions. Journal of Studies in International Education 25(3): 228–246.
Tight, M. (2021) Globalization and Internationalization as Frameworks for Higher Education Research. Research Papers in Education 36(1): 52–74.
Tight, M. (2022) Internationalisation of higher education beyond the West: Challenges and Opportunities—The Research Evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation 27(3–4): 239–259.
Tight, M. (2024) ‘Decolonization and Higher Education: A Critical Review of a Contemporary Concern. Policy and Theory’, Higher Education Policy 37: 59–72.
Tran, L.T. and Bui, H. (2021) Public Diplomacy and Social Impact of Australian Student Mobility to the Indo-Pacific: Host Countries. Perspectives on Hosting New Colombo Plan Students’, Journal of Studies in International Education 25(4): 425–442.
Tröhler, D. (2023) Comparative Education or Epistemological Power Games for World Domination. Comparative Education 59(3): 458–474.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). (2023) Inbound internationally mobile students. Retrieved from http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3806.
United Kingdom Government. (2021) International Education Strategy: Global Potential, Global Growth. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-education-strategy-Global-potential-Global-growth/international-education-strategy-Global-potential-Global-growth.
US Department of State & Department of Education. (2021) Joint Statement of Principles In Support Of International Education. Retrieved from https://educationusa.state.gov/sites/default/files/intl_ed_joint_statement.pdf.
Valcke, J. (2020) 'Beyond English-Medium Education: From Internationalisation to Sustainable Development', in H. Bowles and A.C. Murphy (eds.) English-Medium Instruction and the Internationalisation of UniversitiesLondon: Springer, pp. 259–279.
Van Der Wende, M. (2001) Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and contrasting Paradigms. Higher Education Policy 14(September): 249–259.
Vellamo, T., Kivisto, J. and Pausits, A. (2022) Steering by stealth? Influence of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s Programmes in European Higher Education Policy. European Journal of Higher Education 13(2): 179–196.
Wihlborg, M. and Robson, S. (2018) Internationalisation of Higher Education: Drivers, Rationales, Priorities, Values and Impacts. European Journal of Higher Education 8(1): 8–18.
Wihlborg, M. (2019) Critical Viewpoints on the Bologna Process in Europe: Ca we do otherwise? European Educational Research Journal 16(2): 135–157.
Wihlborg, M. and Teelken, C. (2014) Striving for Uniformity, Hoping for Innovation and Diversification: A Critical Review Concerning the Bologna Process—Providing an Overview and Reflecting Criticism. Policy Futures in Education 12(8): 1084–1100.
Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2018) 'Policy Travel in Regionalism of Higher Education: The Case of Bologna Process in Africa', in A. Curaj, A. Deca and R. Pricopie (eds.) European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future PoliciesCham: Springer, pp. 43–60.
Woldegiorgis, E.T. and Doevenspeck, M. (2015) Current Trends, Challenges and Prospects of Student Mobility in the African Higher Education Landscape. International Journal of Higher Education 4(2): 105–115.
Xu, Z. (2023) ‘Whiteness as World-class Education? Internationalization as Depicted by Western International Branch Campuses in China. Higher Education 85: 919–936.
Yonezawa, A. (2018) Japan: World Class Universities for Social Innovation. International. Higher Education 96: 21–23.
Ziai, A. (2019) Towards a More Critical Theory of ‘Development’ in the 21st Century. Development and Change 50(2): 458–467.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Pretoria.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kapfudzaruwa, F. Internationalization of Higher Education and Emerging National Rationales: Comparative Analysis of the Global North and South. High Educ Policy (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00358-z
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00358-z