Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.9 Internationalization of Higher Education: Challenges
51 internationalization follow a common typology (Helms et al., 2016) focusing on each of the following:
• Student mobility
• Research
• Collaborative partnerships
• Internationalization at home.
It is important to understand how these policies, so affected by neoliberalism, may influence the internationalization initiatives. The most pressing issues and challenges in the current higher education landscape are brought upon as a result of ineffective policies. It is, therefore, crucial to explore the challenges underpinning internationalization.
2.9 Internationalization of Higher Education: Challenges and
52 companies, and networks that deliver cross-border courses or programs to have registered and licensed courses recognized by the sending and receiving countries. It is claimed that many countries do not have the political will or capacity to register or evaluate providers abroad (Altbach and Knight, 2007). If institutions have regulatory frameworks for quality assurance, they still do not apply for providers outside the national education system. Due to this gap, both bona fide and rogue foreign providers avoid compliance with the national regulation in many countries, which makes monitoring an arduous task. Further to this issue is another question: How can the regulators ensure the quality of courses offered by private institutions which are not part of the nationally based quality assurance system?
Accreditation is becoming highly internationalized and commercialized, and this poses its own set of challenges. While there are bona fide international accreditation agencies that provide international standards and parameters, self- appointed networks of institutions also have begun to accredit their members. This can lead to potential problems for organizations focusing merely on increasing their accreditation status instead of the actual quality of education. It also raises a concern over ‘phony degree mills’ crafted by fake universities. Moreover, an issue stems with the qualification awarding authority: Who is responsible for the awarding of qualifications in partnerships and other network arrangements?
With reference to accreditation, it is, therefore, essential to have mechanisms which recognize qualifications in all national, regional, and international contexts. In addition, the quality assessment and policy by the regulatory authorities need to be reworked to accommodate different providers using different methods of delivery.
Altbach and Knight (2007) provide some insights into the globalization trends,
53 uncertainties, and challenges that affect the pace at which institutions adopt internationalization. Political and national issues, including the threat of terrorism, visa restrictions in many countries, governmental authorities, and their influences on policies that regulate the cost of tuition fees, may affect internationalization endeavors.
In respect of operating in market systems under the influence of neoliberal reforms, Garson (2016) mentions several concerns regarding the internationalization of HEIs. Trading of education on a global market through the GATS agreement encourages the excessive use of international student recruitment policies as a revenue- generating strategy. The market situation has further fueled challenges related to inequity and access for those least able to pay. The Western domination of internationalized higher education raises more concerns. Academics around the world have limited access to resources or publications, and therefore Western universities dominate research as well.
However, the main challenge, according to Garson (2016), lies in the continued ideologies and imperatives of colonialism. Notably, this occurs in the flows of intellect evident in both educational products and physically in the form of brain drains.
Typically, the flows of students are from South to North and East to West, whereas the flows of educational products are from North to South and West to East.
Moreover, the benefits of internationalization are only received by international students who come from another country. Beck (2013) mentions that while the receiving country reaps economic and academic benefits, developing countries are left to deal with depletion of their talent pools through brain drain. Garson (2016) states that internationalization needs to benefit all students and personnel instead of just focusing on the mobility of international students. One approach listed
54 is through ‘internationalization at home’ (I@H), wherein all students would be exposed to intercultural and global learning without having to go abroad for study.
The challenges in implementing the strategies and policies of internationalization are equally unsettling. These challenges include lack of funding, lack of facility and material resources, poorly motivated and under-qualified faculty and staff, lack of institutional autonomy and academic freedom, complicated bureaucratic procedures, and politicization (Bloom and Rosovsky, 2007; Chapman and Austin, 2002; Lee, 2007; OECD and The World Bank, 2007).
To sum up, the challenges of internationalization include accreditation issues arising from different systems used in different countries, inequity in access due to the increasingly market-oriented system that higher education operates within, the use of excessive recruiting strategies to generate revenues, and one-sided benefits for the host country (leaving the other country to deal with a loss of talent). The challenges in the implementation of any internationalization activity include the lack of strategy, support, and funding.
The challenges associated with the internationalization of higher education are rising at an alarming rate. Adverse impacts may outweigh the benefits, if not viewed through a critical lens. Although limited, the body of literature on critiques of internationalization is growing. The critiques generally examine the impact of globalization on changing priorities in higher education, and the effect of internationalization policy on global social justice-related educational issues.
Beck (2013) remarks on the problem areas in research on internationalization, noting several gaps in conceptualizing the issue, and that existing interpretations of the rationales are simplistic, with little attention paid to curriculum and pedagogy. The
55 absence of faculty and student perspectives in the narrative, as well as the credulous acceptance of the imperative to internationalize, all form part of the internationalization discourse that needs to be critically analyzed. Beck (2013) confronts the existing rhetoric in perceptions, specifically in the academic rationales of internationalization. The results of a 2014 survey on internationalization by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) revealed that 94 percent of respondents were using internationalization as a means to prepare the students for the globalized workforce and that the rationale for internationalizing was purely
‘academic’ (AUCC, 2014). It is apparent that, while a majority of universities wish to be agents of change through internationalization, the desired change cannot be achieved simply by increasing international activity and higher enrolment through foreign students.
Similarly, White (2015) discusses the challenges with diversity. Diversity in student recruitment, international research collaboration, and international projects is brought upon by internationalization. Many universities, as noted in the AUCC survey, claim diversity as the primary rationale for internationalization. The critique lies in claiming diversity as a preferred rationale. Is the rationale a carefully thought-out
‘strategic policy’? Or is it just a method adopted to respond to the increasing pressures of funding cuts and globalization? The survey also mentions that universities did not consider additional revenue from international students as an important factor. White (2015) wonders whether any institution would openly acknowledge their economic rationales.
Analyzing the outcomes of internationalization critically is equally important.
The implications for internationalization are found through an assessment of how
56 international students understand their own cultural and national identities. Beck (2013) examines the experiences of international students studying at a Canadian university. From her analyses, it would appear that the pursuit of higher education is already operating through the economic dimension; students perceive economic benefits as a result of studying abroad, whereas institutions are aware of the economic prospects of bringing in international students. Moreover, students believe that western education is ‘good,’ hence playing a role in maintaining Western dominance. This dominance becomes entrenched within nations and enforces former colonial influences. Mok (2007) discusses how Asian universities have been greatly influenced by Western management practices and neoliberalist ideologies, reviewing the reforms in the field of marketization, privatization, and corporatization, in a bid to improve their own governance and management. He stresses the fact that Western models need to be adapted to the national context, instead of copied directly. The caution here is that, without proper adaptation, Asian universities are likely to be subject to recolonization of some sort.
Beck (2013) aims to elucidate the differences between perceptions and realities regarding intercultural interactions and agendas. While a commitment to creating diversity is observed and reinforced through policies and promotional documents, there is an apparent absence in communications and cross-cultural exchange between the students. This leads to international students forming same-culture groups, thus denying the purpose of having international students for cross-cultural exchange to promote values of diversity. Beck (2013) suggests that the university ‘facilitate’ these interactions to produce the intended outcomes. James et al. (2013) note that many institutions portray, through their mission and vision statements, the importance of
57 gaining an education in a foreign environment to foster intercultural skills and competencies and thereby gain a competitive edge.
However, when speaking of internationalization, it is often assumed that, somehow, by having different people around us, we will be able to function effectively in a globalized workplace. The reality and expected outcome can only be achieved if there is a focus on beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes that support an aspiration to be a responsible, globally competent citizen. Further, Qiang (2003) states that a sustainable model can be achieved if internationalization attracts international students and sends domestic students, and also provides an intellectual space for effective discussion on various viewpoints and, therefore, growth in the learning. James et al. (2013) highlight the importance of faculty, stating that to truly address the challenges of meeting expectations and the needs of the international body of students, educators must work with students and question the underlying issues pertaining to cultural domination and help develop their critical thinking skills.
This process will further facilitate a deeper comprehension of social contexts, root causes, and ideologies of events and discourses. Furthermore, they argue that it is vital for the culture of the institution to acknowledge and foster diverse cultural contexts, histories, and paradigms, and to reflect these in their approaches to knowledge, research, and teaching.
Massification is another challenge. Hornsby and Osman (2014) define massification as an increase in student enrolments, and therefore an increase in access to education. Altbach (2013) contends that massification lowers the quality of education and increases dropout rates among students, especially in developing countries such as China and India. Similarly, Ballatore and Stavrou (2017) state that,
58 while high enrolments have indeed increased access, social inequity is bound to be present due to the various imperatives of HEIs. Altbach (2013) calls for further steps toward expanding accreditation and quality assurance measures to ensure a seamless process. These are important issues that must be addressed by educators and university administrators worldwide through a more engaged, equitable, and responsive internationalization policy at the individual institutional level.
White (2015) argues that, while internationalization may bring numerous benefits, downsides may be intensified if the process of internationalization is unplanned. The candidate believes institutions should openly admit and acknowledge that internationalization generates revenues. Once openly acknowledged, institutions would be in a better position to engage in transparency and thoughtfulness in the process of internationalization. Further to these issues is the fact that, while internationalization has the potential to increase the quality of education, and hence the quality of life, it also brings with it a wave of neocolonialism and Western hegemony. White (2015) suggests opting for a balanced implementation of internationalization that integrates social justice.
While internationalization of higher education is a phenomenon that has been viewed positively, a critique of its shortfalls and unintended consequences are a must, to help policymakers draft more effective policies. Institutions that relentlessly pursue internationalization without fully understanding their motives need to be wary of the critical discourse on internationalization. In reviewing the literature, the common themes surrounding the critique on internationalization of HEIs were mainly focused on the rationales of pursuing internationalization. The key claim is that by simply recruiting more and more international students in a bid to increase international
59 activity, the goals of internationalization are not achievable unless they are pursued in an environment fostering intercultural competence among the recruited students.