Reclaiming Internationalization

Since antiquity, higher education has reached across national boundaries. This is evident in the itinerant scholars of the ancient Middle East, Athens, India, and East Asia; the scholarly networks of medieval Europe; and the vibrant intellectual exchange of the Renaissance. 

But how can we sustain our internationalization efforts today, within a global context increasingly characterized by nationalist retrenchment, restrictive immigration policies, heightened geopolitical instability and economic volatility? This question weighed on the minds of the participants at the recent Universitas 21 Annual Network Meeting and Presidential Symposium, ourselves among them.  

Held under the theme “Imagining the Future of Higher Education,” the symposium was framed to encourage forward-looking optimism. Yet the atmosphere was marked by unease, skepticism and concern. The participants – senior leaders from thirty research-intensive universities across six continents – expressed deep apprehension about recent developments that threaten to undermine decades of progress in building transnational academic communities. 

As the symposium progressed, an important question emerged: Does the apparent retreat from globalization signal a parallel retreat from internationalization in higher education? Or does it instead call for a reframing of internationalization in a way that prioritizes ethical engagement, mutual capacity building, and more inclusive forms of transnational academic solidarity? 

We believe the present moment offers an opportunity to reclaim internationalization from its recent focus on market-driven models, competition, and profit maximization – a focus that has overshadowed the deeper educational, cultural and ethical values that internationalization was originally meant to foster. This period of uncertainty provides a chance to reimagine internationalization in ways that prioritize equity, collaboration and the exchange of knowledge for the collective good, rather than solely for economic or competitive gain. 

Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education 

It’s important, at the outset, to distinguish between globalization and internationalization. Globalization refers to the increasing interdependence of countries through trade, technology, communication, culture and political cooperation. In the 1990s, the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of the Internet, and the liberalization and worldwide integration of economies hastened globalization. By the mid-2000s, globalization was a dominant force shaping the world: Global economic, political and technological forces exerted a structural effect on national education systems, yet those forces remained beyond the control of academic institutions. 

While globalization represents an external condition shaping institutions, internationalization constitutes a strategic and intentional response to that condition.  It involves integrating international and intercultural dimensions into the purpose and delivery of higher education.  International education scholar John Hudzik described it as “a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research and service missions of higher education.”  

In contemporary terms, internationalization has been understood both as a means of promoting mutual understanding, tolerance, and social change (idealism), and as a mechanism for enriching learning, diversifying perspectives, and cultivating global citizenship (educationalism). 

However, the advent of globalization transformed this landscape. As neoliberalism gained prominence, education was framed primarily as an investment in human capital, and internationalization became intertwined with market-driven logics. Knowledge production, talent mobility and academic collaboration were increasingly commodified. 

Sociologist Jonas Stier identifies this trend as instrumentalism, in which internationalization serves to enhance institutional and national competitiveness and revenue generation. Pressures stemming from demographic shifts, declining public investment and rising demand for market-responsive graduates further entrenched this instrumental orientation. 

Internationalization of higher education increasingly became a tool to address declining demographic challenges in some countries by introducing policies to attract and retain young international students; a tool to address labour market needs; and a source of revenue to help institutions address declining government funding. Hence, an instrumentalist approach to internationalization dominated the higher education sector. 

The Post-Globalization Context: Disruptions and Reckonings 

The world is currently witnessing a rise in nationalism and anti-globalization movements, along with a rejection of international trade agreements and institutions. This has been manifested in the introduction of tariffs, travel restrictions, anti-immigration and other protectionist policies.   

In addition to geopolitical tensions, strains on social services, housing, and employment markets have caused governments to limit the mobility of students and scrutinize international research collaborations. Meanwhile, ideological movements that seek to protect cultural and/or national identities are challenging the concept of global citizenship. 

As we move into the post-globalization era, institutions of higher education can choose either to retreat or to embrace this as an opportunity to rethink and recalibrate their approaches.  

What can higher education institutions do to respond and survive in the post-globalization context? 

First and foremost, we must rethink instrumental, neoliberal models of internationalization. We should take this opportunity to de-emphasize market-driven competition by rejecting institutional prestige and rankings as primary drivers of international partnerships. We should focus instead on developing collaborative, long-term relationships with global partners based on shared values and goals. 

 Universities should create more financially sustainable models for international partnerships that do not rely heavily on short-term profits or the influx of international students. We must promote fair partnerships, ensuring that both parties gain from the collaboration and that knowledge flows in both directions — not just from the global North to the global South. 

Rather than just attracting elite international students from wealthier nations, institutions should focus on creating more inclusive and equitable opportunities for students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds and underrepresented regions, through initiatives such as mobility scholarships. Global perspectives should be embedded into curricula, engaging students in issues that affect all regions of the world — such as climate change, migration and social justice. 

Digitalization can allow educators to overcome physical barriers such as travel restrictions. Virtual exchange programs, which flourished during COVID-19 when borders were closed, can be leveraged and expanded. Joint virtual classrooms, remote research collaborations and online courses, seminars, workshops and conferences allow people to continue exchanging ideas and knowledge despite geographic or political barriers. Replacing physical travel with digital interconnections also has the advantage of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — an important consideration in this era of climate change.  

Global networks such as Universitas 21, Scholars at Risk network, the Association of Commonwealth Universities and International Association of Universities should seize this opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to internationalization.  Creative initiatives might include: pooling and/or redirecting research funds to address national funding cuts; hosting students from partner universities who have been affected by geopolitical events at their home institutions; expanding staff and faculty exchange programs; celebrating success stories with the wider community; and sharing resources to help institutions navigate common challenges.  

While internationalization has often emphasized global North-South connections, post-globalization might encourage universities to engage in regional collaborations and in interdisciplinary research that tackles common challenges — whether environmental, social, or economic.  

Higher education institutions must not only adapt internally but also advocate for policies that support international collaboration. Advocacy efforts could highlight the origins of internationalization — which has been embedded in the DNA of higher education since the establishment of the first universities. We need to reclaim an internationalisation narrative that prioritizes knowledge creation and exchange, advancing international research and collaborations, fostering mutual understanding, and enhancing diplomatic relations and world peace.  

As borders close, universities must work harder to keep minds open. As nations turn in on themselves, we must carry on our mission to foster citizens of the world.