See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273516023

Student Mobility and Internationalization: Trends and Tribulations

Article in Research in Comparative and International Education · March 2012

DOI: 10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.20

CITATIONS READS

232 3,178

1 author:

Jane Knight
University of Toronto
205 PUBLICATIONS 15,587 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Regionalization Of African Higher Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jane Knight on 06 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research in Comparative and International Education RESEARCH IN
Volume 7 Number 1 2012 Comparative & International
www.wwwords.uk/RCIE Education

Student Mobility and Internationalization:

trends and tribulations

JANE KNIGHT
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada

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.

The Transformation of Internationalization

There is no doubt that internationalization has come of age. No longer is it an ad hoc or
marginalized part of the higher education landscape. University strategic plans, national policy
statements, international declarations, and academic articles all indicate the centrality of
internationalization in the world of higher education. In fact, the changing dynamics of
internationalization are contributing to the current state of turmoil in the higher education sector
(Knight, 2008a). During the last decade, there have been new actors, new rationales, new
programs, new regulations, new risks and new challenges.
While internationalization has become a formidable force for change it has also dramatically
transformed itself. The conceptualization of internationalization as having two interdependent
pillars – ‘at home’ and ‘abroad’ – is evidence of this change. The international dimension of the
curriculum has progressed from an area studies and foreign-language approach to the integration of
international, global, intercultural and comparative perspectives into the teaching and learning
process and program content. A new emphasis on student learning outcomes which includes
international and intercultural knowledge, skills, and values is also prevalent. Academic mobility
has moved from people (students, faculty, scholars) to program (twinning, franchise, virtual) and
provider (branch campus) mobility, and now to education hubs. Crossborder education has
gradually shifted from a development cooperation framework to a partnership model and now to a
commercial and competitiveness model. This includes student mobility as the generous scholarship
schemes for students from developing countries from the 1960s and 1970s have now turned into
the big business of international student recruitment. There is no question that the international

20 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.20
Student Mobility and Internationalization

dimension of higher education is becoming increasingly important, and at the same time more
complex.
Student mobility, in its multiplicity of forms, continues to be a high priority of
internationalization and is the focus of this volume and article. The growth in the number of
mobile students from about 238,000 (Chen & Barnett, 2000) in the 1960s to 3.3 million in 2008
(OECD, 2010) is staggering. If forecasts are correct, this number will double in another ten to
fifteen years. Given this exponential growth, it is no wonder that student mobility is often seen as
the ‘face’ of internationalization and at times is mistakenly used interchangeably with the term.
Internationalization is definitely more than student mobility.
There is no doubt that international student mobility has rendered diverse and plentiful
benefits to the students, home and host institutions, their families, communities and society in
general (Agarwal et al, 2007). But it has not been without its share of challenges and tribulations.
For instance, did any pundits in the 1980s foresee the recruitment of fee-paying international
students becoming a for-profit commercial business venture or part of the ‘great brain race’ of the
twenty-first century, or part of regional and international trade agreements? Did anyone expect that
the quest for an international qualification could be satisfied by purchasing a certificate from a
diploma mill or using prior education and work experience to gain a foreign degree from a rogue
private provider? Who could have anticipated the developments in ICT technology and social
networking and the unimaginable opportunities for virtual mobility? Academics involved in
international higher education in the fifties would probably never have constructed a future
scenario for mobility like the one internationalization is experiencing today. Given new dimensions
of student mobility and the accelerated pace of change of international education, it is prudent to
study the complex phenomenon and identify important issues and trends.

Purpose and Outline of the Article

The purpose of this article is look at the complexities and current trends of student mobility and to
invite reflection particularly within the comparative education scholarship on some of new
developments and unintended consequences. Much of the discussion and research on student
mobility has rightly focused on changes in the demand and distribution of students with respect to
destination and source countries. Other popular topics include maximizing participation and
potential benefits by looking at academic, intercultural, and social integration factors. But there are
unanticipated outcomes that also require attention. Often they are at the macro level and become
an implicit part of the culture or environment of international education without being questioned.
Focusing on the tribulations and some worrisome outcomes 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.
The outline of this article is as follows. The next section presents an analytical framework for
internationalization which positions student mobility in the crossborder education pillar even
though there are significant implications for campus-based internationalization. This is followed by
a discussion of six different categories of student mobility, stressing the fact that it is important to
look beyond the traditional full program or semester-based study-abroad mobility. The next section
of the paper identifies trends and issues related to student mobility and internationalization which
merit further reflection and research. These include granting and recognition of academic
credentials; diploma and accreditation mills; collaborative programs such as joint or double degree
programs and twinning or 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, to name a few. The concluding words stress the
necessity of staying alert to the twists and turns in the evolution of student mobility.

Analytical Framework for Internationalization

Internationalization is a term that means different things to different people. The importance of the
international dimension of higher education in the last two or three decades has led to

21
Jane Knight

‘internationalization’ becoming a catch-all phrase now used to describe anything and everything
remotely linked to worldwide, intercultural, global or international. It is at risk of losing its
meaning and direction.
For some people, it means a series of international activities, such as academic mobility for
students and teachers; international networks, partnerships and projects; new international
academic programs and research initiatives. For others it means delivering education to other
countries through new types of arrangements, such as branch campuses or franchises using a
variety of face-to-face and distance techniques. To many it means including an international,
intercultural or global dimension into the curriculum and teaching-learning process. Still others see
internationalization as a means to improve national or world rankings of their institution or to
recruit the best and brightest international students and scholars. International development
projects have traditionally been perceived as part of internationalization, and more recently the
increasing emphasis on trade in higher education has also been seen as internationalization. A
working definition of internationalization suggest that, ‘internationalization is the process of
integrating international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the goals, primary functions and
delivery of higher education at the institutional and national levels’ (Knight, 2004). This definition
focuses on internationalization as a means to an end not an end in itself. What is unexpected and
somewhat worrisome are the different ends (rankings, profit, soft power) and some of the values
(competitiveness, commercialization) that are now linked to internationalization.

Two Pillars of Internationalization: ‘at-home’ and ‘crossborder’

An interesting development in the conceptualization of internationalization has been the division
of internationalization into ‘internationalization at home’ and ‘crossborder education’. Figure 1
illustrates that these two pillars are separate but closely linked and interdependent. Crossborder
education has significant implications for campus-based internationalization and vice versa. Student
mobility is part of the crossborder education pillar but clearly has close connections with many of
the at-home activities. For example, study abroad, internships, fieldwork and research are key parts
of internationalizing the curriculum and research experiences of students.

CATALYST REACTOR AGENT

ABROAD /
AT HOME CROSSBORDER

• curriculum/ teaching / learning Mobility of

• open access education • people
• domestic students / faculty • programs
• international student / scholars • pro viders
• extracurricular activity • pro jects / services
• research • policy

Figure 1: Two pillars of internationalization: at home and crossborder.

22
Student Mobility and Internationalization

‘At-Home’ Internationalization
The ‘at-home’ concept has been developed to give greater prominence to campus-based strategies,
given the recent heightened emphasis on international academic mobility. These ‘at-home’
strategies can include the intercultural and international dimension in the teaching learning
process, research, extracurricular activities, relationships with local cultural and ethnic community
groups, as well as the integration of foreign students and scholars into campus life and activities.
But reality paints a picture where for the majority of institutions, and in fact countries, the number
of domestic students who have some kind of study-abroad or international research or field
experience is frustratingly low. This requires that more attention be paid to campus- and
curriculum-based efforts to help students live in a more interconnected and culturally diverse
world. Students and faculty need increased understanding of international and global issues and
greater intercultural understanding and skills, even if they never leave their community or country.
Such is the world we live in now and even more so in the future. Universities thus have the
responsibility to integrate international, intercultural and comparative perspectives into the student
experience through campus-based and virtual activities in addition to international academic
mobility experiences.

‘Crossborder’ Education
Crossborder education refers to the movement of people, programs, providers, policies,
knowledge, ideas, projects and services across national boundaries. Student mobility is clearly a
part of people mobility, but as will be discussed later, it is increasingly becoming involved in both
program and provider mobility. Crossborder education can be part of development cooperation
projects, academic partnerships or commercial trade. It includes a wide variety of arrangements,
ranging from study abroad to twinning to franchising to branch campuses. The term ‘crossborder
education’ is often used interchangeably with transnational, offshore and borderless education,
which causes some confusion and misunderstanding (Knight, 2007). For the purposes of this article,
the term ‘crossborder education’ is used because jurisdictional borders present major challenges for
all types of academic mobility and thus the notion of border is critical, even if at a more abstract
level we live in a more borderless world.
The Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry estimates that the higher education sector is a
$2.2 trillion market (Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2003). Furthermore, it is forecast
that by 2025 the demand for international education will grow to 7.2 million students – a quantum
leap from 1.2 million in 2000 (Bohm et al, 2002). These staggering figures illustrate the magnitude
of the interest in international education. It is not known what proportion of the demand will be
met by student mobility, but it is clear that there will be exponential growth in the movement of
programs and institutions and providers across national borders. An interesting development in
program and provider mobility is that, while the original intention was to take the education
program to students in their home country, these programs are now themselves providing short-
term student mobility opportunities.
Table I provides a schema to understand the nature of crossborder education and illustrates
two significant trends. The first is the vertical shift downwards from student mobility to program
and provider mobility. It is important to note that the number of students seeking education in
foreign countries is still increasing; however, there is growing interest in delivering foreign
academic courses and programs to students in their home country. The second shift is from left to
right, signifying a substantial change in orientation from development cooperation to competitive
commerce, or in other words – from aid to trade (Knight, 2008a).
This section has situated student mobility firstly within the large picture of
internationalization and secondly within the crossborder education pillar. The next section looks
more closely at the phenomenon of student mobility and presents six different categories of student
mobility.

23
Jane Knight

Six Categories of Student Mobility Experiences

When the term ‘student mobility’ is used, it usually refers to international students who are taking
a full degree abroad or students who are participating in a short-term, semester or year-abroad
program. More recently, it also involves students who are enrolled in collaborative degree
programs such as double or joint degrees, franchise, twinning or sandwich programs. In a strict
sense, student mobility may not be required in these collaborative programs even though it is
strongly encouraged and usual practice. However, student mobility is more than mobility for
coursework or program work, as it can include research or fieldwork as part of the program,
especially for graduate students, internships or practicums. Given the importance of understanding
foreign cultures and languages, students who cannot afford the time or cost of spending a semester
abroad, are participating in short-term cultural workshops, tours, and activities. Table II
summarizes the six different categories of physical mobility. Distance learning and new forms of
virtual mobility are not included in this table but more attention needs to be given to these exciting
modes of mobility as well.

Category Forms and conditions of mobility

Development educational commercial

Cooperation linkages trade

People Semester/year abroad

Students Full degrees
Professors/scholars Field/research work
Researchers/experts Internships
Experts/consultants Sabbaticals
Consulting

Programs Twinning
Course, program Franchised
sub-degree, degree, Articulated/validated
postgraduate Joint/double degree programs
Online/distance

Providers Branch campus

Institutions Virtual university
Organizations Merger/acquisition
Companies Independent institutions

Projects
Academic projects Research
Services Curriculum
Capacity building
Educational services

Policies
Academic Quality assurance
Management Degree levels
Institutional and national Qualification frameworks
Academic credit

Table I. Framework for crossborder education.

Three key issues related to these categories are 1) the awarding of credits for coursework taken
outside of the home institution, 2) who awards the program qualification, and 3) whether it is
recognized in home, host, and other countries where the student may want to take further

24
Student Mobility and Internationalization

education or seek employment. Table II identifies who awards the degree or credential. The
granting and recognition of degrees is becoming more complex and troublesome. This is especially
true for collaborative programs such as double or multiple degree programs. The next section
addresses some of the new trends and unexpected outcomes related to the new developments and
permutations of internationalization and student mobility.

Type of mobility experience Description Who awards credential or credit

1. Full degree program in Students who move to a foreign country to Degree awarded by host HEI in
foreign country enrol and complete a full degree in host foreign country.
institution. They are commonly referred to
as international, foreign or visa students.

2. Short-term study-abroad
experience as part of degree
program at home institution
Students who as part of their home Degree awarded by home HEI in
institution degree program undertake a home country.
short-term (one semester or one year) (Academic credits from
mobility experience in a foreign country at coursework at foreign HEI
a foreign institution or at a branch campus normally accepted).
of their home institution.

3. Crossborder collaborative Students register in an education program Different models of degree

degree programs between two
or more institutions or providers
involving two or more HE institutions or
providers working collaboratively to offer a
degree program. Types of program include:
Twinning program at home institution
Franchise program at home institution
Joint degree program at home institution
Double or multiple degree program
Sandwich program at foreign institution
awarding exist.
One degree by foreign HEI
One degree by foreign HEI
One degree by both partner HEIs
Two (or more) degrees by all
partner HEIs
One degree by foreign HEI

4. Research and fieldwork Research or fieldwork in fulfillment of To fulfill requirements of awarding

degree program at home institution. institution.

5. Internships and practical Required or optional internship, placement To fulfill requirements of awarding
experiences or community service work in fulfillment institution.
of degree program at home institution.

6. Study tour, workshops
Required or optional study tour, summer Not usually credit based.
program, cultural or language course,
conferences, workshops.
Part of or independent of degree program
at home institution

Table II. Six categories of student mobility experiences.

Trends and Tribulations Meriting Further Reflection and Research

Granting and Recognition of Degrees: accreditation and diploma mills
The growing complexity of the internationalization landscape, especially student mobility, is
raising new questions and issues regarding the granting and recognition of qualifications. For
students taking full degree programs abroad, the challenge of ensuring that the awarded
qualification is recognized by institutions and employers in other countries cannot be ignored. It is
encouraging to see the number of agencies, both governmental and nongovernmental, who have
expanded their mandate and improved their expertise in the assessment of qualifications. But there
are still many countries in the world that do not have this capacity, which puts some students at
risk. The regional UNESCO Conventions on the Recognition of Qualifications are instruments
which encourage countries to ensure that foreign and domestic education credentials are bona fide

25
Jane Knight

and recognized. With the exception of the Lisbon Convention, other regional conventions are still
being updated and the number of countries who ratify the convention is relatively low and of great
concern. This is especially troublesome given the reality that the so-called ‘international education
market’ is plagued by fraudulent providers and practices.
For instance, the growth of foreign degree mills (selling ‘parchment-only’ degrees),
accreditation mills (selling bogus accreditations for programs or institutions) and rogue for-profit
providers (not recognized by national authorities) is a reality that students, parents, employers, and
the academic community now need to contend with (Garrett, 2005). Who would have guessed two
decades ago that international education would be struggling to deal with fake degrees and
accreditations, that academic credentials would sometimes be earned but not recognized, and that
non-regulated ‘fly by night’ institutions would be blights on the international education scene?
These are some of the unintended consequences and troubles that one did not anticipate.

Collaborative Education Programs

Twinning and franchise programs. The last two decades have seen the introduction of twining and
franchise programs into the international higher education landscape. The original rationale was to
offer foreign programs and degrees that could not be offered by a home institution. The
arrangements for these twinning programs usually meant that the first two years of coursework
would be taken at the home institution, and the final two years would be taken abroad at the
partner institution. This was known as a ‘two plus two’ model. For a number of reasons, these
programs have undergone an interesting metamorphosis in form and function. The two years
abroad decreased to one year abroad resulting in a ‘three plus one’ model. And now many
twinning programs are ‘four plus zero’, meaning there is no mobility and the student can take a full
foreign degree at their home institution without ever leaving their country. This is an example
where student mobility opportunities have been eliminated – for better or worse.
The idea of twinning programs soon became commercialized into a ‘franchise’ model where
a home institution would partner with a foreign provider and host the partner’s program and
credential. Once again, the student does not move, and the program is delivered to them in their
own country. Franchised programs are seen as a way to provide programs that are not usually
offered in the country, to make foreign education more affordable and accessible, and to diminish
the chance of brain drain by having the student take a foreign degree at home. It is also touted as a
way to increase local access, but to date there is no convincing enrolment data to substantiate this
claim.
The benefits of these twinning and franchise arrangements to students, host institutions as
well as the foreign providers, are many and varied. However, issues related to quality of teaching,
relevance of course content, admission requirements, testing and evaluation, and qualifications of
teaching staff have emerged as major concerns. National quality assurance and accreditation bodies
of receiving and sending countries recognize the need to maintain the quality and sustainability of
these programs, and the fact that they need to be closely monitored. However, only a handful of
countries have the capacity or political will to oversee and evaluate twinning and franchise
programs, thereby causing ongoing concern about the quality of the programs and the legitimacy
of the qualifications.

Double, joint, combined degree programs. The next generation of collaborative degree programs to
proliferate in number and type are double, joint and combined degree programs. They differ from
twining and franchise programs in that the course curriculum is jointly designed and delivered by
the partner institutions. This means that the foreign curriculum is not imported, instead it is jointly
developed. As an internationalization strategy, these types of programs address the heartland of
academia, namely the teaching and learning process, and the production of new knowledge
between and among countries.
A joint degree program awards one joint qualification upon completion of the collaborative
program requirements established by the partner institutions. The distinguishing feature of this
type of international collaborative program is that only one qualification is awarded by the
cooperating institutions. The duration of the program is normally not extended and thus students

26
Student Mobility and Internationalization

have the advantage of completing a joint program in the same time period as an individual
program from one of the institutions. They normally involve student mobility or professor
mobility. Student mobility is desired but not always a requirement. Strategies to integrate distance
and virtual education into the programs are being explored. One of the issues concerning joint
degree certification is that many countries do not legally allow the stamps of two different
institutions on the actual certificate. This has led to an escalation in the offering of double degree
programs. A double degree program awards two individual qualifications at equivalent levels upon
completion of the collaborative program requirements established by the two partner institutions.
Once again, the program involves less workload or coursework than two separate degree
programs, and students are encouraged to spend time at the partner institution (Knight, 2008b).
The interest in these programs is sky-rocketing in all regions of the world, but so is concern
about the necessary academic requirements and the validity of a double or multiple degree
qualification. For many academics and policymakers, double degree programs are welcomed as a
natural extension of exchange and mobility programs. For others, they are perceived as a
troublesome development, leading to double counting of academic work and potential academic
fraud. Objections to these programs are diverse and include: the diversity of program models, the
involvement of new (bona fide and rogue) and traditional providers, the uncertainty related to
quality assurance and qualifications recognition, and finally, the ethics involved in deciding what
academic workload or new competencies are required for the granting of a joint, double, multiple
or consecutive (i.e. BA and MA, or MA and PhD) degree.
The diversity of models used to determine the completion requirements for double or
multiple degree programs is extremely varied. There is no one explanation or standard framework
used to set program completion requirements. This raises the critical question whether the
framework is based on 1) the number of completed courses or credits, 2) student workload, or 3)
required outcome or competency. These three approaches lead to different explanations and
doubts about the ‘legitimacy’ of the double or multiple degrees. The value of a qualification or
credential is at the root of the murkiness surrounding the ‘acceptability or legitimacy’ of double or
multiple degrees emanating from a collaborative program. Many would argue that attributing the
same courses or workload towards two or more degrees from two or more institutions devalues
the validity of a qualification. Others believe that if students meet the stated learning outcomes or
competencies, regardless of where or how they were acquired, the credential is legitimate. This
logic infers that double and multiple degrees, based on a set of core courses or competencies and
augmented by any additional requirements of the collaborating institutions, are academically
sound and should be deemed to be legitimate. It is argued that the process for recognizing these
qualifications requires more attention, and not the completion requirements per se. Both
arguments have validity, but the variety of models used prevents a clear resolution to the question
of ‘legitimacy’. Doubt remains (Knight, 2011a).
Students are attracted to joint and double programs for a number of reasons. The opportunity
to be part of a program that offers two degrees from two universities located in different countries
is seen to enhance their employability prospects and career path. Some students believe that a
collaborative program is of higher quality given that the expertise of two universities has shaped
the academic program. This is especially true for joint degrees. Other students are not as interested
in enhanced quality but are attracted to the opportunity to obtain two degrees ‘for the price of one’
so to speak. The students argue that the duration is shorter for a double or consecutive degree
program, the workload is definitely less than for two single degrees, and there is less of a financial
burden as well. This argument is not valid for all such programs, but there is an element of truth to
these claims. Double degree programs are being presented by a leading European international
education organization as ‘a lot easier to achieve and not necessarily less valid’ and ‘two degrees for
the price of one.’ Finally, the status factor cannot be ignored. There is a certain sense of elitism
attached to having academic credentials from universities in different countries even if the student
never studied abroad but benefited from distance education and visiting foreign professors.

27
Jane Knight

Certification, Recognition and Legitimacy of Qualifications

The granting of the legal certification for the award and the subsequent recognition of the
qualifications awarded are by far the most vexing issues. There are only a few countries, although
the number is increasing, that legally allow one of its universities to confer a joint qualification in
partnership with an institution in another country (Schule, 2006). This means that the student often
gets a formal diploma from one university and an unofficial certificate from the other/s indicating
that it was a joint collaborative program. For some students, this is not a problem as it is the
international nature of the academic program which is most important, not the qualification. For
others, this is not the case as credentialism is an increasingly important concern to students.
Employers, academic institutions, and credential evaluation agencies all need to be cognizant
of what is entailed in the granting and recognition of double or multiple qualifications. There is a
perception that some double, multiple and consecutive degrees are more ‘legitimate’ than others,
but this is perception and difficult to prove. The ‘recognition’ process raises the ‘legitimacy’ or
‘misrepresentation’ issues that are often associated with double or multiple degree qualifications –
more than with joint or consecutive qualifications. Part of the concern rests with the double
counting of course credits or workload for two or more qualifications. This has led to the ‘two for
the price of one’ label for double degrees. Cost in this case is not only measured in monetary terms,
as student workload is also involved.

Student Mobility: the great brain race of the twenty-first century?

The expansion of academic mobility schemes is a hallmark of internationalization today. Twenty
five years ago, who could have anticipated that international academic mobility for students, as
well as scholars and professors, would have the potential to grow into a highly competitive multi-
million dollar international recruitment business? Today, the most popular destination countries
for international students are investing in major marketing campaigns to attract the best and
brightest talent to study and work in their country in order to meet the heavy demand from
government and private industry for human resources to meet their innovation and research
targets. The original goal of helping students from developing countries move to another country
to complete a degree and return home is fading fast as nations compete to retain brain power.
The terminology around recruitment and retention of students for meeting skilled workforce
needs is changing rapidly in interesting and what some may label troublesome ways. More than a
decade ago, a warning bell about brain drain from smaller developing countries was sounded,
especially from Africa. Students, particularly graduate students, were not returning home unless
they had signed a contract with their sponsor and even then students were responding to their
dream and the lure of working in their host country after graduation. While ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain
gain’ are well known concepts, research is showing a more complex picture emerging.
International students and researchers are increasingly interested in earning multiple degrees or
gaining valuable work experience in several countries, before perhaps returning to their home
countries after eight to twelve years of international study and work; hence the emergence of the
‘brain circulation’ or ‘brain train’ concept. More recently, the concept of ‘brain sharing’ is being
used to describe the student mobility landscape. In many ways these are appropriate terms, but
they also tend to camouflage the fact that ultimately some countries are experiencing a net ‘brain
loss’, resulting in a smaller talent pool and potentially jeopardizing national economic and social
development. All in all, higher education is becoming a more important actor in policymaking, and
is now working in closer collaboration with immigration, industry and the science and technology
sectors to build an integrated strategy for attracting and retaining knowledge workers. Hence, the
role of student mobility in the great brain race for the twenty-first-century knowledge economy.
It is impossible to gaze into a crystal ball to forecast the future, but if the experiences of the
last decade are harbingers of the future, it is likely that the competition for the brightest students
and scholars will only increase, bringing with it benefits for some countries and higher education
institutions and losses for others. Perhaps technology and social networking will bring new
opportunities for brain sharing that will mitigate the overall effect of winners and losers, but the
current obsession with global rankings and the economic competitiveness agenda suggests
otherwise. The great brain race through student mobility is likely to be in active mode for a while.

28
Student Mobility and Internationalization

Commercialization and For-Profit Internationalization

Institutions overwhelmingly agree that internationalization brings benefits to higher education:
96% of responding institutions from 95 countries agreed with this assertion in the 2005
International Association of Universities (IAU) Internationalization survey. Yet, this consensus is
qualified by the fact that 70% also believe there are substantial risks associated with the
international dimension of higher education (Knight, 2006).
Overall, the number one risk identified in the survey was the commodification and
commercialization of education programs. There is no doubt that this involves student mobility.
This consensus was widely shared among respondents from both developing and developed
countries. A regional-level analysis showed that four regions (Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe and
North America) ranked commercialization as the top risk. In contrast, Latin America placed brain
drain as number one and the Middle East ranked loss of cultural identify first.
At the heart of the debate for many educators is the impact of increased commercial
crossborder education on the purpose, role, and values of higher education. The growth in new
commercial and private providers, the commodification of education, and the implications of new
trade policy frameworks have stimulated serious reflection on the role, social commitment, and
funding of public higher education institutions in society. Universities have traditionally combined
teaching, research and service as they seek to evolve and contribute to national development. Is
this combination still valid, or can these roles be disaggregated and rendered by different providers?
Finally, how will commercialization change the incentives for institutions to internationalize
and provide support for domestic students to have international academic experiences? Currently,
one of the leading rationales at the institutional level for internationalization is that it makes
graduates more internationally knowledgeable and interculturally skilled, and prepares them to live
and work in more culturally diverse communities. Institutions must ask how an increased emphasis
on the ‘buying and selling’ of education across borders will affect the nature and priority given to
academic, social and cultural rationales of non-profit international education activities (Altbach &
Knight, 2007). These are all critical questions that can and should be addressed by comparative
education researchers.

Cultural Diversity or Homogenization?

Debates on the impact of new forms of international academic mobility on cultural diversity often
provoke strong positions and sentiments. Some take a positive view of the ways that modern
information and communication technologies and the movement of people, ideas, and culture
across national boundaries promote the fusion and hybridization of culture. Others contend that
these same forces are eroding national cultural identities and leading to cultural homogenization,
most often in the form of westernization.
These arguments have often centred on education and its traditional role as a vehicle of
acculturation, at times focusing on the specifics of curriculum content, language of instruction
(particularly the increase in English) and the teaching-learning process in international education
(Sehoole, 2008). Research has long focused on the impact of historic forms of colonization on
education, but the place of internationalization in contemporary processes of cultural change has
not been sufficiently studied.
Internationalization of higher education was originally conceived in terms of exchange and
sharing of ideas, cultures, knowledge, and values. Formalized academic relations between countries
were normally expressed in bilateral cultural and scientific agreements. Today, the agreements
often must take trade, economic, and political factors into account, representing a significant shift
from the original idea of academic exchange. Thus there are two factors at play here: one is the
potential for cultural homogenization, which may be perceived as threatening, and the second is
the weakening of the cultural exchange component of internationalization in favor of relationships
based more on economic and political concerns.

29
Jane Knight

Status and Profile: world rankings

There is no question that international and regional rankings of universities have become more
popular and problematic in the last five years (Horn et al, 2007; Marginson & van der Wende,
2007). The heated debate about their validity, reliability and value continues. But at the same time,
university presidents appear to use them to structure priorities, declaring in their strategic plans
that a measurable outcome of internationalization will be the achievement of a specific position in
one or more of the global ranking systems. Some institutions narrowly interpret
internationalization as the number of international students and focus their efforts on recruitment
of foreign students as a means to gain worldwide profile and prestige.
The intense competition for world rankings would have been impossible to imagine a mere
twenty years ago, when international collaboration among universities, through academic
exchanges and development cooperation projects, was the norm. Of course, these types of
activities still take place, but the factors influencing international students are becoming
increasingly complex, and the process of recruitment is becoming increasingly competitive. Is
international cooperation and exchange becoming overshadowed by competition for status, bright
students, talented faculty, research grants, and membership in networks? The answer is probably
yes, especially for those universities already placed in the top 25% of their national league tables, or
the two international ranking systems developed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Times
Higher Education. Asia is one region of the world which takes competitiveness and rankings very
seriously. National programs, such the 211 and 985 projects in China, or the Brain Korea 21, aim to
help their best research universities improve their international rankings (Kim & Nam, 2007; Liu,
2007).
The concept of ‘world-class universities’ is a subject of intense scrutiny (Altbach & Balan,
2007) but ‘world-class’ is still subjective, in spite of all the attention given to rankings. National,
regional, international and discipline or profession-specific rankings allow self-appointed ranking
bodies, whether magazines, consumer guides, universities, newspapers or private companies, to
make judgments about the ‘prestige’ of universities of all types. But in spite of rhetoric about the
‘hollowness’ of the ranking game, the competition among institutions hoping to be ranked as
‘world-class’ is increasing, not diminishing, and the academic mobility of students and professors is
directly implicated.

Education Hubs
Education hubs represent the third generation of crossborder activities emerging onto the
landscape of our more globalized world. The term ‘education hub’ is being used by countries,
zones, and cities who are trying to position themselves as centres for student recruitment,
education and training, and in some cases research and innovation. But, 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.
The concept of an education hub rests on the assumption that it is a country’s plan and efforts
to position itself within the region and beyond as a reputed centre for higher education and
research. Therefore an education hub is not an individual branch campus, or a large number of
international students, or a science and technology park. It is more than that. Identifying a country
as a hub involves a national-level effort to build a critical mass of local and foreign actors –
including students, education institutions, training companies, knowledge industries, and science
and technology centres – who through interaction and in some cases co-location, engage in
education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives (Knight, 2011b).
A variety of factors drive a country to prepare and position itself as an education hub. They
include income generation, soft power, modernization of its domestic tertiary education sector,
economic competitiveness, the need for a trained workforce, and a desire to develop knowledge
and a service-based economy. In response, basically three different types of education hubs are
being developed: student hub, skilled workforce hub, and knowledge or innovation hub.
The student hub focuses on the recruitment of foreign-education providers as well as
international students for training and education purposes. The primary objectives are to; 1)

30
Student Mobility and Internationalization

generate revenue from international student fees, 2) provide increased access for local students, 3)
modernize and internationalize domestic higher education institutions, and 4) increase profile and
competitiveness in the international student education market. Malaysia is an example of a student
education hub.
The skilled workforce hub also focuses on education and training, but differs from the student
hub by encouraging foreign students to remain in the host country for employment purposes. The
driving key objectives are, 1) to develop skilled labour and knowledge workers to enhance the
human resources pool, and 2) to increase attractiveness and economic competitiveness within the
region and beyond. The United Arab Emirates is an example of a skilled workforce hub.
The knowledge or innovation hub broadens its mandate beyond education and training to
include the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign actors including
universities, research institutes, and research and development companies are attracted through
favourable business incentives to establish a base in the country and collaborate with local and
foreign partners. The primary objectives are, 1) to help build a knowledge- and service-based
economy, 2) to educate and train skilled labour for knowledge and innovation, 3) to attract foreign
direct investment, and 4) to increase economic competitiveness and soft power. Singapore is an
example of a country trying to establish itself as a knowledge or innovation type of education hub.
Many questions emerge from this typology. For instance, is there a progressive development
from student hub – to skilled workforce training hub – to knowledge or innovation hub? Or is it
possible to make a quantum leap from a student-focused education hub to a knowledge hub? Is the
hub phenomenon particular to smaller countries rather than the giants of crossborder education
like Australia, the United Kingdom or the USA? Is it possible to have an objective set of indicators
to measure the readiness, potential, output, and sustainability of these education hubs?
Education hubs, at the country, zone or city levels, are full of lofty expectations and fraught
with potential challenges. They represent a new generation of crossborder education activities
where critical mass, co-location and collaboration among international and local universities,
students, research institutes and private industry are key. They can be seen as instruments of
modernization, competitiveness, knowledge economy, soft power, and other benefits. But are
education hubs sustainable? Are the required plans, policies and investments in place? Is there a
critical mass of local and international actors working together and committed for the long term?
Or, is the term ‘education hub’ a new label for international student recruitment plans and
campaigns. Is the notion of education hub just a fad, more rhetoric than reality, more of a public
relations campaign to gain profile and status?

Regional Identity and Global Citizenship

An articulated rationale for increased relationships and mobility within a region is to develop and
strengthen a sense of regional identity – shared views and values within a region. The attention
being given to regional identity stems from the belief that a strong regional identity is an important
foundation for political and security cooperation (Johnston, 2010). A fundamental tenet of regional
identity is that it exists in addition to a sense of national identity. It does not replace national
identity. Thus, it is not a case of either a national or regional identity; rather they are seen to be
complementary perspectives. The question of regional identity is pertinent to this discussion
because student and scholar mobility, as well as increased partnerships, and exchange of knowledge
among academics are potential determinants for helping to foster regional identity.
The issue of regional identity raises further questions when it is juxtaposed to the concept of
global citizenship. The concept of global citizenship means different things to different people but
is often linked to the development of certain competencies, such as intercultural awareness and
understanding, increased international knowledge and commitment to global issues, ability to
function in different cultures, and appreciation of the differences between and similarities among
cultures and countries. The concept of regional identity, which does not emphasize competencies
but shared perspectives and values, seems to be understood in a different way than global
citizenship. This is an area which merits further reflection and research. The waters are murky
when one discusses the role of student mobility in helping to develop national identity and regional
identity, national citizenship and global citizenship.

31
Jane Knight

Concluding Words
These new developments illustrate that it is necessary to stay alert to unexpected twists and turns
along the road to internationalization and more specifically student mobility. Nothing unfolds
entirely as expected. As student mobility evolves, it is important to monitor intended and
unintended results so that benefits to individuals, institutions, nations and society outweigh the
risks, both now and in the future.
As we enter the second decade of this century it may behoove us to look back at the last 20 or
30 years of internationalization and ask ourselves some questions. Have international higher
education and student mobility lived up to our expectations and their potential? What have been
the values that have guided them through the decades of the information and communication
revolution, the unprecedented mobility of people, ideas and technology, the clash of cultures, and
the periods of economic boom and bust? What have we learned from the past that will guide us
into the future? What are the core principles and values underpinning academic mobility that in ten
or twenty years from now will make us look back and be proud of the track record and
contribution that international higher education has made to the more interdependent world we
live in, the next generation of citizens, and the bottom billion people living in poverty?

References
Agarwal, P., Said, M., Sehoole, C., Sirozie, M. & de Wit, H. (2007) The Dynamics of International Student
Circulation in a Global Context, in P. Altbach & P. McGill Peterson (Eds) Higher Education in the New
Century: global challenges and innovative ideas, pp. 109-144. Rotterdam: Sense.
Altbach, P. & Balan, J. (Eds) (2007) World Class Worldwide: transforming research universities in Asia and Latin
America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Altbach, P. & Knight, J. (2007) The Internationalization of Higher Education: motivations and realities,
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4) 290-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542
Bohm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D. & Pearce, D. (2002) The Global Student Mobility 2025 Report: forecasts of the
Global Demand for International Education. Canberra: IDP.
Chen, T. & Barnett, G. (2000) Research on International Student Flows from a Macro Perspective: a network
analysis of 1985, 1989 and 1995, Higher Education, 39, 435-453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003961327009
Garrett, R. (2005) Fraudulent, Sub-standard, Ambiguous: the alternative borderless higher education. Briefing note
(July). London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Horn, A., Hendel, D. & Fry, G. (2007) Ranking the International Dimension of Top Research Universities in
the United States, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 330-358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315306294630
Johnston, A. (2010) Obstacles to Governance in East Asia: the case of security communities, in Security
Cooperation and Regional Integration in Asia Conference Proceedings, pp. 78-92. Tokyo: Global Institute for
Asian Regional Integration, Waseda University.
Kim, K.S. & Nam, S. (2007) The Making of a World-Class University at the Periphery: Seoul National
University, in P. Altbach & J. Balan (Eds) (2007) World Class Worldwide: transforming research universities in
Asia and Latin America, pp. 122-142. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Knight, J. (2004) Internationalization Remodeled: rationales, strategies and Approaches, Journal of Studies in
International Education, 8(1), 5-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J. (2006) Internationalization of Higher Education: new directions, new challenges, 2005 IAU Global Survey
Report. Paris: International Association of Universities.
Knight, J. (2007) Cross-Border Tertiary Education: an introduction, in Cross-Border Tertiary Education: a way
towards capacity development, pp. 21-46. Paris: OECD, World Bank & NUFFIC.
Knight, J. (2008a) Higher Education in Turmoil: the changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense.
Knight, J. (2008b) Double and Joint Degrees: vexing questions and issues. London: Observatory on Borderless
Higher Education.
Knight, J. (2011a) Doubts and Dilemmas with Double Degree Programs, Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del
Conocimiento [Globalisation and internationalisation of higher education], 8(2).
Knight, J. (2011b) Education Hubs: a fad, a brand, an innovation?, Journal of Studies in International Education,
15(3), 221-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315311398046

32
 Student Mobility and Internationalization

Liu, N. (2007) Research Universities in China: differentiation, classification and future world-class status, in
P. Altbach & J. Balan (Eds) (2007) World Class Worldwide: transforming research universities in Asia and Latin
America, pp. 54-70. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marginson, S. & van der Wende, M. (2007) To Rank or to be Ranked: the impact of global rankings in higher
education, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 306-329.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303543
OECD (2010) Education at a Glance 2010. Organization for Economic and Community Development.
http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed
November 14 2011).
Schule, U. (2006) Joint and Double Degrees within the European Higher Education Area: towards further
internationalization of business degrees. Papers on International Business Education. Paris: Consortium of
International Double Degrees.
Sehoole, C. (2008) Issues, Policies, and Developments of Internationalization in Africa: comparative analysis,
in D. Teferra & J. Knight (Eds) Higher Education in Africa: the international dimension, pp. 394-407. Accra:
Centre for International Higher Education and African Association of Universities.
Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry (2003) Growing our Economy. Singapore Government.
http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/507/doc/DSE_recommend.pdf

JANE KNIGHT is an adjunct professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto. Her work in over 65 countries with universities, governments, and international
agencies such as UNESCO, World Bank and OECD, helps to bring a comparative, development
and international perspective to her research, teaching and policy work. She is the author of
numerous publications on internationalisation concepts and strategies, quality assurance,
institutional management, academic mobility, cross-border education, trade, education hubs and
regionalization. Correspondence: jane.knight@utoronto.ca

33

View publication stats