Systematic Review of Virtual Exchange in Higher Education: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Perspectives

• In Event: International Student Experience

Proposal

This paper presents preliminary findings of a systematic review on peer-reviewed journal articles concerning Virtual International Exchange (VIE) or similar programs, such as Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), implemented across higher education institutions worldwide. With the growing reliance on digital platforms in higher education, especially in the post-pandemic era, this review aims to explore how equity and access are conceptualized, discussed, and addressed in VIE literature. The review critically examines how the literature discusses power imbalance, equity, and access in virtual exchange and online learning spaces and whether virtual exchange programs disrupt or reinforce existing global power imbalances.

This review adheres to the methodology of systematic literature review, as outlined by Gough et al. (2017), Petticrew & Roberts (2008), and Popay et al. (2006) to systematically map and summarize existing knowledge based on predefined criteria, providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Using this approach, we sought to evaluate how virtual exchange programs have been studied in terms of equity and access, and how these programs are positioned within the broader context of international higher education.
We conducted a search on Scopus and Web of Science using the following keywords:
( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "virtual" OR "online" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "student mobility" OR "student exchange" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ("university" OR "college" OR "higher education" OR "hei" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "coil" OR "telecollaboration" OR "tandem" OR "online intercultural exchange" ) ).

We identified 282 articles after removing duplicates and supplemented by 86 additional studies identified from bibliographies. Using Covidence article screening software, 366 articles were initially screened by title and abstract, resulting in 207 articles selected for full-text review. Ultimately, 120 articles were included in the final review. To ensure the validity of the study, both authors independently reviewed all articles. When conflicts in decision-making arose, they were resolved through collaborative discussions to arrive at the final inclusion decisions.

The data extraction process involved creating an extraction template in Covidence, addressing the article’s methodology, conceptual framework, main findings, and its treatment of DEI. Data were then analyzed through an equity-driven theoretical framework that draws on the work of George Mwangi & Yao (2020) and Klimanova & Hellmich (2020). This framework centers on dismantling structural inequalities, redistributing resources, and ensuring inclusion for disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in traditional international study abroad programs. It also examines how virtual learning environments, the technology used, and the institutional and personal contexts of participants influence their access, learning experiences, and outcomes.

We employed both qualitative content analysis and descriptive quantitative analysis to synthesize and categorize the findings. Qualitative content analysis allowed us to critically examine how equity and access were discussed across studies, particularly in relation to structural barriers and power imbalances. Meanwhile, descriptive quantitative analysis (Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test) helped us summarize key trends in geographic distribution, language use, and the representation of DEI issues in the reviewed studies.

Findings:
The review reveals a superficial approach to equity and access in most virtual exchange literature. Of the 120 studies reviewed, many mentioned language barriers and lack of reliable internet connectivity as significant challenges to equitable participation. However, only a small portion of these studies examined these barriers from a critical equity perspective (Naicker, 2023). Instead, a majority of studies equated the development of intercultural skills with equitable access to international exchange, assuming that these programs inherently democratize education by facilitating cross-cultural interactions.
The findings show that 87% of the reviewed articles involved universities in Europe and North America. Specifically, 50.8% of the exchanges reported took place among the countries in the Global North, reflecting a skewed focus toward Global North institutions. This geographical bias perpetuates an unequal power dynamic where institutions from the Global North dominate discourse, resources, and collaborations. By contrast, only 4.2% of the articles discussed exchanges between Global South countries, highlighting a significant gap in the literature. Meanwhile, 43.3% of the reviewed studies discussed exchanges between Global North and South countries. These North-South exchanges were more likely to report issues such as power imbalances, technology gaps, and digital divides—highlighting the challenges of creating truly inclusive virtual exchanges when global inequalities persist (x2 = 3.879, p = 0.049). Of the studies that included exchanges between both Global North and South, 60.8% explicitly addressed DEI considerations, compared to 42.4% for exchanges limited to the Global North.

Furthermore, 112 studies (93%) used English as the primary language of exchange. This choice frequently reinforced linguistic dominance, marginalizing non-native English speakers and potentially limiting their full participation. This was particularly evident in exchanges where native English speakers took on leadership roles and when students could not use multiple languages during the interaction. Training for teachers and facilitators was often mentioned as key to ensure equal participation by students, as well as pre-training and resource allocation before the exchange.
In conclusion, this review highlights significant gaps in how equity and access are conceptualized in virtual exchange literature. While many programs claim to democratize access, they frequently fail to address the underlying power dynamics that shape participation and learning outcomes. As virtual exchange continues to grow in prominence, it is essential that these programs move beyond a narrow focus on intercultural competence and instead center equity in their design and implementation. This requires addressing the socio-technical realities of all participants, including ensuring access to reliable technology, accommodating linguistic diversity, and recognizing the historical and geopolitical inequalities that shape global educational systems.

A limitation of this review is that it only included articles published in English, which may have excluded relevant studies written in other languages. However, the majority of the articles retrieved were published in English, reflecting the dominance of English-language scholarship in the field of virtual exchange.

Authors

• Ariunaa Enkhtur, Osaka University

• Mahboubeh Rakhshandehroo, Osaka University