Internationalization of Higher Education: Theoretical discussions in International Relations

• In Event: Examining internationalization and regionalization in higher education

Proposal

Internationalization has been a buzzword in higher education in recent years. According to a survey conducted by the International Association of Universities (IAU), among 907 higher education institutions (HEIs) from 126 countries, more than 90% of them have internationalization mentioned in their mission/strategic plan. The term internationalization began to be applied frequently in higher education in the 1980s. Knight (2003) provides a widely accepted definition: “Internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (p. 2) Compared with Knight’s (1994) earlier definition of internationalization as “the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institution” (p. 7), the revised definition covers realities at the national level and thus can be applied to a broader context. On this basis, de Wit and Hunter (2015) modified the definition by adding the clause “in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (p. 3). Notably, de Wit and Hunter (2015) emphasized that the goal of the internationalization of HEIs is to benefit society by establishing a “more inclusive and less elitist” orientation (p. 3).

In light of this, rationales for the motivation of internationalization which are commonly referred to as the political (e.g. national security, foreign policy, etc.), social-cultural (e.g. intercultural understanding, social development, etc.), economic (e.g. economic competitive, financial income, etc.), and academic rationales(e.g. academic capacity building, international dimension of research and teaching ) (Cheng, Cheung & Ng, 2016; de Wit, 1998; Knight, 1997, 2004), are also updated to differentiate national- (e.g. national building, strategic alliance, etc.) and institutional- (e,g. branding and profile, students and staff development, etc.) rationales in the framework (Knight, 2004).

For a long period of time, the internationalization of higher education has been associated with cross-border or transnational activities. Internationalization is a two-way street (Knight, 2014) and it focuses on “exchange and builds on the respective strengths of institutions and countries” (Knight, 2003, p. 3). The two-way flow of educational resources, knowledge, talents, and models brought about a new analytical approach to higher education internationalization through the lens of international relations. In short, it is a cross-disciplinary research approach, which integrates knowledge and research from two different areas: higher education and international relations. This study aims to explore the debated conceptual framework and terms employed in both disciplines or fields of study, that inspire innovative analytical approaches.

Globalization v.s. internationalization
Influenced by the growing trend of globalization, the confusion and differentiation between internationalization and globalization remain a heated debate in the field of comparative and international education. Teichler (2014) identified two major directions to differentiate the two terms. One argument is that internationalization is cross-border activities among national systems of higher education, while globalization means the borders of national systems are blurred or even vanish; the other argument views internationalization as the physical activities like personnel mobility, knowledge transfer, and institutional cooperation, and globalization conveys more neoliberal assumptions that emphasize the competition for global reputation and marketization of knowledge transfer in the supra-national basis. Some scholars regard globalization as factors or forces that shape the world order, while internationalization is about organization and institutions (Hudzik, 2011; Paige, 2005). Likewise, Altbach and Knight (2007) perceived that globalization is the context and internationalization represents the practice of academic institutions to address the impact of the global environment. Hudzik (2011) further stated that “internationalization is a means to ends and not an end itself” (p.16).

Soft Power v.s. Knowledge Diplomacy
Soft power is a prevalent theory in the field of international relations. The term “soft power” was coined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye in 1990 to help the U.S. government enact foreign policy in the post-Cold War world. Soft power can be best explained via a comparison with hard power. Hard power refers to military coercion, while soft power is associated with the intangible power resources of culture, ideology, and institutions. Nye (2004) expanded on this concept as the “attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies” (p. x). This term has been frequently employed in international higher education, presuming that across-boarder educational activity and academic exchanges are a potential vehicle for soft power. However, With the word “power” embedded, the term “soft power” may imply self-interest, dominance, and power imbalance. In light of this, some scholars have extended the concept of soft power to a neutral and broader domain of diplomacy, including cultural diplomacy (Caruso, 2020), public diplomacy (Mulvey, 2020), knowledge diplomacy (Knight, 2015), and citizen diplomacy (Punteney, 2019). Knight (2015, 2021, 2022) in particular developed the term knowledge diplomacy in a broader research scope of international higher education, research, and innovation. Based on Knight (2022), knowledge diplomacy is “the process of building and strengthening relations between and among countries through international higher education, research, and innovation” (p. 103). In this definition, diplomacy is intentionally framed as a process, a means to an end. She further differentiated the soft power approach and diplomacy approach, perceiving the former term as national self-interest, dominance, competitive advantages, and zero-sum game, while the latter as mutual benefits, negotiations, communication, and win-win.

To sum up, the interdisciplinary research of combining international higher education and international relations is an innovative approach to analyzing a number of issues in a globalized world today. Yet more theoretical debates and discussions are pertinent in future theoretical and empirical research.

Author

• Xiaoying Jiang, Shandong University of Finance and Economics