The world of higher education is changing and the world in which higher education plays a significant role is changing. The international dimension of higher education is becoming increasingly important, complex, and confusing. It is therefore timely to reexamine and update the conceptual frameworks underpinning the notion of inter-nationalization in light of today’s changes and challenges. The purpose of this article is to study internationalization at both the institutional and national/sector level. Both levels are important. The national/sector level has an important influence on the international dimension through policy, funding, programs, and regulatory frameworks. Yet it is usually at the institutional level that the real process of internationalization is taking place. This article analyses the meaning, definition, rationales, and approaches of internationalization using a bottom-up (institutional) approach and a top-down (national/sector) approach and examines the dynamic relationship between these two levels. Key policy issues and questions for the future direction of internationalization are identified.

Globalization and internationalization are related but not the same thing. Globalization is the context of economic and academic trends that are part of the reality of the 21st century. Internationalization includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and even individuals—to cope with the global academic environment. The motivations for internationalization include commercial advantage, knowledge and language acquisition, enhancing the curriculum with international content, and many others. Specific initiatives such as branch campuses, cross-border collaborative arrangements, programs for international students, establishing English-medium programs and degrees, and others have been put into place as part of internationalization. Efforts to monitor international initiatives and ensure quality are integral to the international higher education environment.

F or over 20 years now, the definition of internationalization has been the subject of much discourse. Internationalization is not a new term. The term has been used for centuries in political science and governmental relations, but its popularity in the education sector has really only soared since the early 1980s. Prior to this time, international education was the favored term and still is in some countries. In the 1990s, the discussion on using the term international education centered on differentiating it from comparative education, global education, and multicultural education. Today, in the first decade of the 21st century, another set of related terms is emerging that includes transnational education, borderless education, and cross-border education. The term borderless first appeared in Australian and U.K. reports in 2000. Basically, the term refers to the blurring of conceptual, disciplinary, and geographic borders traditionally inherent to higher education. It is interesting to juxtapose the term borderless education with cross-border education. The former term acknowledges the disappearance of borders while the latter term actually emphasizes their existence. Both approaches reflect the reality of today. In this period of unprecedented growth in distance and e-learning education, geographic borders seem to be of little consequence. Yet, there is growing importance attached to borders when the focus turns to regulatory responsibility, especially related to quality assurance, funding, and accreditation.

No abstract

There is no question that internationalization, and particularly international student mobility, has transformed the higher education landscape in the last decade. It has brought diverse benefits to students, institutions, communities and countries. But there are unanticipated outcomes and risks as well. The purpose of this article is look at the complexities and current trends of student mobility and to invite reflection on some of the new developments and unintended consequences. These include granting and recognition of academic credentials; diploma and accreditation mills; collaborative programs such as joint or double degree programs and twinning and franchise arrangements; the great brain race and its implications for brain gain, brain drain, and brain train; the competitiveness agenda; status building and world rankings; regional identity and global citizenship. These macro issues often become an implicit part of the culture or environment of international education without being questioned. Focusing on some worrisome trends and outcomes of new developments in student mobility and internationalization does not deny the multitude of positive results; it is only an attempt to encourage a 360–degree look at the current state of student mobility and to encourage more research and reflection on some important trends and unexpected results.

No abstract

The last decade has seen significant changes in all aspects of internationalization but most dramatically in the area of education and research moving across national borders. The most recent developments are education hubs. The term education hub is being used by countries who are trying to build a critical mass of local and foreign actors—including students, education institutions, companies, knowledge industries, science and technology centers—who, thorough interaction and in some cases colocation, engage in education, training, knowledge production, and innovation initiatives. It is understood that countries have different objectives, priorities, and take different approaches to developing themselves as a reputed center for higher education excellence, expertise, and economy. However, given higher education’s current preoccupation with competitiveness, global branding, and rankings, one is not sure whether a country’s plan to develop itself as an education hub is a fad, the latest branding strategy, or in fact, an innovation worthy of investment and serious attention. This article reviews and compares the developments in six countries which claim to be an education hub. It explores the meaning of education hub, introduces a working definition, and proposes a typology of three kinds of education hubs as follows: student hub, skilled work force hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. Furthermore, it identifies issues requiring further research and reflection on whether hubs are a fad, a brand or an innovation worthy of serious attention and investment.

Internationalisation has transformed the higher education landscape around the world and has dramatically changed itself. Some question whether the change is for better or worse given some of the unintended consequences of internationalisation such as commercialisation, diploma and accreditation mills, international rankings and the great brain race. The importance of internationalisation is recognised but are the benefits, risks and processes fully understood? This article takes a hard look at new developments and challenges related to the international dimension of higher education. It argues for focusing on the collaborative, mutual benefit, capacity building, and exchange aspects of internationalisation to optimise the benefit for individuals (students and staff), for higher education institutions (learning, research, service) and for the country and region as well.