Is internationalisation of HE at the mercy of politics?

When internationalisation in higher education came to the forefront in the late 1980s at the end of the Cold War, it was hoped that it would not be just a simple competition for students and an ongoing race for more resources and recognition in the international arena. It was seen as a driving force for stability and productive collaboration that went beyond politics.

The 1980s and 1990s saw an optimistic atmosphere of collaboration and an exchange of students and scholars between the two sides of the former Iron Curtain and there was hope for more intensive and comprehensive cooperation.

But what can we see now, only 25 years later? Politics continues to penetrate all spheres of our life, ruining the positive intentions and foundations that have been built for decades.

The desire for quick wins was ambitious but flawed. Political considerations have slowed down the speed of internationalisation, made the recruitment of international students for revenue the main goal and put at risk the idea of raising students as global citizens prepared for the international workplace and life in multicultural societies.

Traditionally, international students have served not only as a source of income but of science diplomacy in many countries, as well as providing a global outlook and a global talent pool.

The 21st century has shown, however, that we live in a world of political instability, where some processes (for instance, Brexit, Donald Trump’s election as United States president and immigration issues) may hinder the potential growth of the international education market, limit the focus on collaboration, exchange and the development of intercultural and international competencies and lead to shifts in approaches by the major powers.

Brexit and Trump

Since the 1980s, the United States and the United Kingdom have been the leaders of the internationalisation race, recruiting the highest numbers of international students from wealthy countries, generating the biggest revenue growth and building an international reputation.

However, starting in the 2016-17 academic year, the number of foreign students at US and UK universities has been dropping. That drop was influenced mainly by political changes: Trump’s election in the US and Brexit in the UK. These events have led to a tightening of visa requirements in a supposed bid to boost national safety.

In January 2017, the Trump administration proposed a travel ban, restricting visitors from seven Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Students from these countries have never constituted the majority of the US international market, but such actions can be viewed by other countries as a sign of hostility towards all Muslims.

As a result of Brexit, European Union students are likely to no longer be considered as domestic students in Britain and may have to pay the additional fees applicable to international students. This will lead many to switch their focus to other study abroad destinations.

These political tensions have not been limited to the US and the UK. In the summer of 2018, due to a diplomatic dispute between the Canadian and Saudi Arabian governments, all Saudi Arabian students in Canada were ordered to return to their home country. Riyadh was not happy with “Canada’s interference in its domestic affairs” and decided to “put on hold all relations with Canada”.

Despite all the political tensions, many US universities have preferred not to keep a low profile. They have put their efforts into protecting their incoming students and researchers by filing appeals against Trump’s travel ban and launching a campaign, ‘You are welcome here’, on campus. Many universities ran surveys and talked to students affected by recent structural regulations in a bid to stabilise the situation on campus.

New destinations for international students

While the actions of some countries have set off alarm bells across the higher education sector, others are emerging as possible new destinations for international students (for instance, China, Japan and Russia) or have seen their numbers increasing (Australia, Canada and the Netherlands).

These countries and their institutions are revising their institutional strategies and aligning national policies so that they become more attractive places for international students.

As an example, Australian undergraduate degrees are more affordable than those in the US and the UK (between AU$15,000 or US$10,800 and AU$33,000 or US$23,800 per year). In addition, the Australian government provides a number of funding opportunities. The price:quality ratio together with location and work-life balance make Australia a tempting place for international students and researchers.

As data published by the Japan Student Services Organization show, the number of international students in Japan has risen every year since 2013. According to the results of a survey conducted by the Research Institute for Higher Education, unlike the US and the UK, Japanese higher education institutions currently concentrate more on increasing students’ and staff’s international awareness and place a low priority on revenue generation.

In an attempt to gain quick recognition in the higher education market, the Russian government has started to offer free academic programmes for international students and to provide accommodation in a dormitory as a bonus for those who decide to dive into a Russian academic experience.

In 2018, the Russian government granted 15,000 ‘state-funded places’ for international students to study at leading Russian universities. The current image of Russia portrayed in the world’s media, however, might prevent prospective students and researchers from choosing it as their destination for study and work.

The above examples show how political situations and national policies can influence the concept of internationalisation and how the future of international education is affected by the way the major powers juggle the opportunities that those situations present.

Educational institutions may not be able to influence political rhetoric directly, but they can channel more energy into building their capacity to support international students’ success and ensure internationalisation ‘products’ meet their full potential.

In this way, current students, tomorrow’s leaders, will get a chance to give back to their societies and fulfil the elusive mission of international education: peace and mutual understanding among all nations.

Irina Shcheglova is a research fellow at the Centre of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia. Email: irina.shcheglova@hse.ru. This post represents the views of the author and not of the Higher School of Economics.

Hans de Wit has issued a call to readers and contributors to University World News to send him their essays of between 800 and 1,200 words on what went well and what went wrong in internationalisation of higher education over the past 25 years. This is one of the essays he has received. He will select one essay to be published by University World News and at the end of 2019, will bring all these essays together in a book.