Populism and the Internationalization of Higher Education: Comparing India and the USA

• In Event: Rethinking Internationalization: Lessons from Practice

Proposal

Both India and the United States (US) are increasingly experiencing the rise of populism in political regimes. In addition, universities in both countries continue to expand their engagement in the internationalization of higher education (IHE). The ideologies driving IHE and populism conflict and inspire examination of how they can coexist. IHE today is supported by ongoing globalization and is traditionally defined as a method of incorporating international and intercultural aspects into institution’s teaching, research, and service activities to improve the quality of education and research while making a significant impact on society. Interestingly, universities play a dual role by being integral to national development and engaging in globalization activities. Populism in politics collides with globalization and IHE by promoting a worldview of us-versus-them in an all-or-nothing contest. The ‘us’ refers to the virtuous people (those supporting the populist regime) defined often in ethnic, racial, or religious terms and the ‘them’ are defined often as dangerous elites (such as academics), the establishment (such as universities), and minorities and/or immigrants. Scholars point out that populism increases the importance of a set of unique cultural and historical values that progress political reform towards authoritarianism. While there is significant research on populism in Western and Latin American countries, there is a lack of scholarly research exploring populism in India as well as populisms impacts on IHE in the USA and India.
When IHE and populism encounter each other there are impacts in both policy and practice. For example, India’s universities are experiencing the deepening of self-censorship and the growth of student populist organizations affiliated with Hindu nationalist parties. The government as well as the student organizations use coercion on campuses to censor students and faculty from critiquing Modi’s government or to attack the minority and international student groups. In the US, the Trump administration’s rising hostility towards academics and institutions is diminishing the value of IHE activities. New Trump policies are drastically disrupting IHE practices, such as international student admissions and international research collaborations. This paper/presentation endeavors to explore the following questions. What impacts does populism have on IHE at universities in India and the US? Do institutions employ tactics to resist disruptions to IHE caused by rising populism trends? And finally, how do these impacts and resistance tactics compare between India and the US?
To address the questions, this paper is based on an exploratory qualitative study utilizing case studies of a university in India and the US that are actively engaging in IHE. In addition, this study is framed by an interdisciplinary conceptual framework utilizing both political science theory and a concept of international higher education. This study applies resource mobilization theory as part of the conceptual framework. Resource mobilization theory is the process by which social movements (populist regimes) acquire and utilize resources such as the higher education system and universities to support collective action, achieve their objectives and ensure political success (McAdam, 1982, Flynn, 2023). I applied resource mobilization theory to explore and identify populist government policies and higher education system changes that relate to IHE. Additionally, the conceptual framework applies the predominantly accepted definition of IHE by scholars from around the world (Hunter et al., 2022; Marginson, 2023). IHE is an “intentional process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society (de Wit et al., 2015, p. 281). I utilize this definition to frame a university internationalization mapping tool I created to systematically explore IHE within different national contexts. The tool identifies the variety of IHE strategies and activities in which universities engage in the India and US case studies, how these activities have changed or not changed within the predetermined timeframe, and motives for making changes, resisting change, and/or not making changes. This interdisciplinary conceptual framework permitted me to identify and describe the relationship between populist regimes and IHE strategies and activities and to compare the relationships cross-nationally.
The findings indicate in India and the US populist regimes are impacting IHE at these institutions by disrupting traditional IHE strategies and activities. In the cross-national comparison there were similarities and differences in populist government impacts on IHE. However, the populist regimes’ motives for these disruptions were similar in that IHE is acquired as a resource to achieve political objectives. And finally, resistance tactics against populist regime changes to IHE varied between the institutions. Despite these varied findings, this study concludes the dual roles universities play in the populist regimes in India and the US are complex and require further university level research to build knowledge and scholarship on the impacts of populism directly on IHE strategies and activities at universities. This study

Author

• Melissa Brun, The Pennsylvania State University