The assigned reading for this week was a thoughtful continuation of “Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs.” The second part of this work discusses additional types of policy types, including: Cross-border Education, IaH (Internationalization at Home) and Comprehensive Internationalization Strategies. Ultimately, the piece closes by revisiting the notion of policy assessment and effectiveness, and then draws final conclusions about the current and future promise of the Internationalization of Higher Education.
The third type of policy, Cross-border education, is introduced as “the movement of people, programs, providers, curricula, projects, research and services across national or regional jurisdictional borders” (p.38). Although cross-border education is sometimes referred to as a offshore, transnational or borderless education, the author stresses that cross-border education is the preferred term because it pays homage to the importance of jurisdictional boundaries regarding policy. The reading also mentions that cross-border education may be motivated by cultivating one’s “soft power”. I wasn’t exactly sure what this meant, but with a little digging, I found out that soft power refers to a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence. Instead of “hard power” which is usually attraction through coercion, soft power refers to the ability to shape others preferences through appeal. Of these efforts, initiatives of cross-border education includes creating educational hubs, fostering cooperation for development, encouraging campuses & programs abroad, and regulating educational activity abroad. I found it very interesting that the U.S has awarded grants to fund institutions with partnering universities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Personally, the Middle East is the last place I would consider to expand U.S education, considering all of the current world tensions!
The fourth type of policy was IaH, or internationalization at home. While we spend a lot of time reading about implementing internationalization abroad, I found it very interesting to turn the tables and consider IaH for once. The reading mentions that this type remains “a much less deeply or systematically developed aspect of internationalization in many higher education contexts around the world” (p.43). As a student of the United States, I can completely understand this. As we discussed in class, the amount of students we send abroad are in the single digit percentiles. Conversely, the U.S is a huge hub for international learners, specifically in New York City.
The last policy type discussed was comprehensive internationalization strategies. The reading explains these strategies try to consider a more holistic orientation toward internationalization, and determine 2 sub-categories: global strategies and specific geographic strategies. These strategies in general seem to overlap several of the themes we previously read about, including student mobility and strategic partnerships. I liked that in the examples, they included the United Kingdom as an example both of a global and a specific strategy. As the reader, this really helped me identify the differences of these policies and how they can affect the same region differently.
In conclusion, the author reaffirms many things that we learned about the internationalization of Higher education. The piece mentions the central role of government, the importance of mobility, the difficulties of assessment, the importance of influencers, and the dynamic nature of globalization efforts. While effectiveness is namely determined by quantitative factors, something I am most interested in hearing about would be reports where internationalization of higher education is viewed through a qualitative scope. I think it would be very interesting to see research about students who are or have studied abroad, and what they feel the experience has given them that cannot be counted on paper.