Equity in Virtual Exchange: Instructor Perspectives from Japan, the U.S., China, and Mongolia

• In Event: Discourses and Issues in International Education

Proposal

Introduction and Relevance to Conference Theme
Virtual Student Mobility (VSM), often implemented through Virtual Exchange (VE) and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), has grown in visibility and institutional support since physical mobility was disrupted and universities sought alternative forms of international engagement. Although VSM has expanded opportunities for participation, access alone does not ensure equity. Research consistently identifies structural challenges—English-language dominance, digital divides, and Global North leadership in curricular design—that shape who participates and whose knowledge counts (Helm, 2018; Naicker, 2023; O’Dowd, 2023). Without intentional attention to equity, VE risks replicating the exclusions of traditional mobility, offering access as presence without access as equity (Enkhtur & Rakhshandehroo, forthcoming).

This study contributes to the CIES 2026 theme, “Re-examining Education and Peace in a Divided World,” by analyzing how VE can enable dialogue, empathy, and peacebuilding across borders, while also revealing tensions in design and practice that reproduce inequities. By centering the perspectives of instructors and administrators in Japan, the United States, China, and Mongolia, the study examines how policy, pedagogy, and technology intersect to shape participation. It also responds to the SAIS SIG call to rethink international mobility by exploring how virtual modalities both supplement and reimagine traditional study abroad.

Literature review
Scholarship highlights VE’s potential to democratize access to international learning by lowering financial and logistical barriers and by promoting intercultural competence (O’Dowd, 2018; Rubin & Guth, 2015). Yet critical studies caution against overly celebratory narratives. Helm (2018) and Klimanova & Hellmich (2021) show that English-language dominance disadvantages non-native speakers, while Whatley et al. (2022) find that students of color and community college students remain underrepresented. Research also documents that Global North institutions often dominate partnership structures, shaping agendas and resources while limiting reciprocity (Marcillo-Gómez & Desilus, 2016; Figarotti et al., 2022).
Our systematic review of 59 peer-reviewed articles found that most VE research invokes equity superficially: while language barriers and unreliable connectivity are frequently noted, few studies adopt a critical equity lens or engage with deeper structural issues such as race, socioeconomic background, or disability. Instead, equity is often conflated with intercultural skill-building, assuming these programs inherently democratize education. Nevertheless, emerging work points to promising practices: translanguaging and plurilingual approaches (Naicker, 2023), culturally responsive design (Giralt et al., 2022), and reciprocal partnerships (Alami et al., 2022) can foster more inclusive participation. By drawing directly on practitioner voices, this study advances the literature by examining how instructors and administrators themselves navigate these tensions—between equity aspirations and structural limitations—in the everyday realities of VSM.

Theoretical Construct
The study applies a critical equity framework integrating George Mwangi and Yao’s (2021) equity in internationalization lenses and Klimanova and Hellmich’s (2021) virtual exchange equity lens. Together, these highlight sociohistorical inequities, globalization dynamics, equitable access to technology, reciprocity in partnerships, and inclusive pedagogy.
Operationalized into four domains—language, technology, diversity in the classroom, and inclusive pedagogy—this framework enables interrogation of whether VE delivers access as equity, where inclusion is transformative, or merely access as presence, where participation is formal but not meaningful.

Methodology
The study employs a qualitative design, drawing on semi-structured interviews with ten instructors and administrators engaged in VE/COIL across Japan, the United States, China, and Mongolia. Participants were selected for their leadership in program design and delivery, ensuring representation of both institutional and pedagogical perspectives.
Interviews (60–90 minutes) were conducted online, recorded with consent, and anonymized. The interview guide explored program design and institutional support, participation and diversity, pedagogy and facilitation, technology and infrastructure, and equity strategies. Data were coded thematically using the four equity domains, with cross-case comparison to identify both common patterns and context-specific dynamics.

Findings and Conclusions
Preliminary analysis of the interviews highlights both opportunities and tensions. Institutional support emerged as decisive: B1 who has been teaching co-designed online/hybrid courses in Japan and Australia over 20 years described how leadership and resources sustained long-term collaboration. On the other hand, M1 with extensive COIL teaching experience across private and national universities in Japan warned that administrative mandates without sufficient investment added to faculty workload and undermined equity.
Pedagogical design also shaped inclusion. C1 emphasized that globally relevant themes such as disaster management attracted diverse engagement, while D2 noted the challenge of balancing synchronous and asynchronous modalities across time zones.
Persistent inequities remain. Non-native English speakers and less confident students are underrepresented, while technological disparities—from platform restrictions in China to connectivity issues in Mongolia—limit participation. Yet instructors noted VE’s peacebuilding potential: technology can “level the playing field” for quieter students and rural students in Mongolia and provide a “safe testing ground” for intercultural dialogue.
In conclusion, VE can advance inclusion and dialogue across divides, but only when institutional, technological, and pedagogical dimensions are intentionally aligned with equity goals. Without this, VE risks reproducing the same exclusions that characterize traditional study abroad. This project contributes practical recommendations for building equity-centered virtual mobility models, with particular relevance for Japanese higher education navigating shifting global landscapes.

Author

• Ariunaa Enkhtur, The University of Osaka