The Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Year

Tessa DeLaquil and Hans de Wit (Eds.)

The Boston College

Center for International Higher Education,

Year in Review, 2019–2020

CIHE

Perspectives

No.16

The Boston College

Center for International Higher Education

Year in Review, 2019–2020

Tessa DeLaquil

Hans de Wit

CIHE Perspectives No.16

The Boston College

Center for International Higher Education

Year in Review, 2019–2020

Tessa DeLaquil

Hans de Wit

CIHE Perspectives No.16

CIHE Perspectives

This series of studies focuses on aspects of research

and analysis undertaken at the Boston College

Center for International Higher Education.

The Center brings an international consciousness

to the analysis of higher education. We believe that

an international perspective will contribute to

enlightened policy and practice. To serve this

goal, the Center produces International Higher

Education (a quarterly publication), books, and other

publications; sponsors conferences; and welcomes

visiting scholars. We have a special concern for

academic institutions in the Jesuit tradition

worldwide and, more broadly, with Catholic

universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation

among academic institutions throughout the world.

We believe that the future depends on effective

collaboration and the creation of an international

community focused on the improvement of higher

education in the public interest.

Center for International Higher Education

Campion Hall

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA

www.bc.edu/cihe

1 Foreword

Hans de Wit

7 Buying the American Mind

Philip G. Altbach

8 Students are the Vanguard in the Youth Revolution of 2019

Philip G. Altbach and Thierry Luescher

10 From Open Doors to Offering Radical Hospitality

Gerardo Blanco

12 Is International Higher Education Just an Elite Club?

Hakan Ergin

14 The Free-Tuition Movement ?

Ariane de Gayardon and Andres Bernasconit

15 Clarion Call to Higher Education

Ellen Hazelkorn

17 A Looming Disaster for Higher Education and Brazil’s Development

Marcelo Knobel and Fernanda Leal

20 The Subordination of Private to Public Universities in Panama

Iván Pacheco

22 The Growing Complexities of International Collaboration

Liz Reisberg

24 European Internationalization and ‘Money Matters’

Laura E. Rumbley

26 Higher Education Equity Policies across the Globe

Jamil Salmi

28 IHE at 100: 25 years of Evolution in International Higher Education

Rebecca Schdendel, Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis and Araz Khajarian

32 A Proliferation of Summits - What Role for Universities?

Damtew Teferra

34 Human Rights Discourse & Refugee Higher Education

Lisa Unangst

36 Coronavirus: Universities Have Duty of Care to Students

Lizhou Wang

38 A Sustainable Way to Engage Africa’s Knowledge Diaspora

Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis

41 Betty Leask, CIHE Visiting Professor 2018-2020

CIHE

42 Internationalization in Higher Education for Society

Uwe Brandenburg, Hans de Wit, Elspeth Jones, and Betty Leask

45 Deﬁning Internationalisation in Higher education for Society

Uwe Brandenburg, Hans de Wit, Elspeth Jones, and Betty Leask

47 Towards New Ways of Becoming and Being International

Hans de Wit and Betty Leask

50 Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing

Hans de Wit, Philip G. Altbach and Betty Leask

52 Forced Internationalization of Higher Education

Hakan Ergin, Hans de Wit and Betty Leask

55 Towards Inclusive Intercultural Learning for All

Betty Leask, Elspeth Jones and Hans de Wit

CIHE, Year in Review, 2019–2020, FACTS AND FIGURES

58 Graduate Education and Students

60 Visiting Scholars and Research Fellows

61 CIHE Publications Series

63 CIHE Projects, 2019–2020

65 Professional Development Programs and Delegations, 2019–2020

66 CIHE Seminar/Webinar Series

669 Activities of Masters Students 2019-2020

729 Activities of Graduate Assistants, 2019–2020

78 Overview of Faculty Activity, 2019–2020

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

FOREWORD

@BC_CIHE

@BC_HECM

@BC_INHEA

Center for International Higher Education

Keep up with international trends in higher education.

Follow our posts collected from sources worldwide:

am pleased to present the 4th edition of this annu-

al report, The Boston College Center for International

Higher Education, Year in Review, 2019-2020. When

we started the academic year 2019-2020, nobody

could imagine that in the spring semester of 2020

COVID-19 would set the world on ﬁre and impact

higher education in general, as well as Boston Col-

lege speciﬁcally, more than ever before in the past 75

years.

Of course, the pandemic has also had conse-

quences for the Center for International Higher Edu-

cation (CIHE): our ofﬁces have been closed since the

middle of March 2020, our dedicated staff works

from home, and our classes and interactions with

students moved from a hybrid mode to completely

online interaction. I as director of CIHE had to re-

turn to my home country, the Netherlands, and visit-

ing professor Betty Leask to Australia, forcing us to

Zoom staff meetings over three continents. The

lockdown overlapped to a large extent with the ma-

ternity leave of our associate director Rebecca Schen-

del, who gave birth on April 22 to a beautiful

daughter, Isabel. We were able to respond swiftly to

the new situation, and are ready for what the new

academic year might bring to us.

25 Years of the CIHE

In the course of 2020-2021 we will celebrate the

25th anniversary of CIHE and its ﬂagship publica-

tion International Higher Education, as well as a new

direction for the future of the Center. CIHE has tra-

ditionally focused on research, teaching, and service

in the area of international higher education. Re-

cently, much effort has been directed to aspects of

internationalization, as global higher education has

increasingly focused on this key area. Our underly-

ing commitment and mission have been to bring

international knowledge and analysis to higher edu-

cation policy and practice globally. We have in addi-

tion sought to build networks and communities of

researchers and to develop broadly the ﬁeld of inter-

national higher education.

It is worth brieﬂy summarizing the key activi-

ties of the Center over the past 25 years, currently

and in the future, as we approach our quarter-centu-

ry anniversary:

• Participation in master’s and doctoral

teaching in Boston College’s well-regarded

academic programs in higher education, in-

cluding recently the development of mas-

ter’s and certiﬁcate programs speciﬁcally

focusing on international higher education

and internationalization;

• Communication of research and analysis of

global higher education issues through a

variety of media, including our ﬂagship

publication, International Higher Education

(published in Chinese, English, Portu-

guese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese),

our book series with Brill Publishers and

SAGE, CIHE’s “Perspectives” occasional

papers series, regular contributions to Uni-

versity World News, and social media pres-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit will, as

of November 2020, act together as Academ-

ic Directors of CIHE, each on a part-time

basis, the ﬁrst onsite in Boston, the second

at a distance from Amsterdam

• Rebecca Schendel will take the position of

Managing Director of the Center as of June

2020, responsible for its daily administra-

tive and academic operations, with Salina

Kopellas continuing as fulltime administra-

tive assistant. Rebecca Schendel is also As-

sociate Professor of the Practice.

• A new fulltime faculty position in interna-

tional higher education (open track) will be

added as of July 2020 to strengthen the aca-

demic activities of the Center in research,

teaching, dissemination and professional

development. After an intensive search

with a high number of applicants, Gerardo

Blanco has been selected as Associate Pro-

fessor and Associate Academic Director of

CIHE.

• CIHE will continue to have visiting profes-

sors joining the center, similar to Betty

Leask, visiting professor 2018-2020, as well

as graduate assistants, research fellows, and

visiting scholars. Wendy Green has been

appointed as visiting professor for 2021 and

will be with CIHE for the full year, but also

will teach a course on teaching and learning

as adjunct faculty in the fall of 2021.

In the next sections of this foreword I will sum-

marize key accomplishments in 2020-2021 in the

areas of research, teaching and learning, publica-

tions, and research fellows and visiting scholars. As

is our tradition, we will include in this report exam-

ples of articles written by our staff over the year, with

a special tribute to visiting professor Betty Leask,

and a detailed overview of our activities.

Research

International higher education research is the core

activity of CIHE. In 2020-2021 we completed sever-

al research projects, initiated in the previous aca-

demic year:

• A comparative study with the Center for In-

ence on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere.

• Research on key themes on higher educa-

tion. Projects on a range of topics have been

sponsored by the Center, foundations, and

our global partners.

• Professional development including short

courses and seminars on a range of topics

at Boston College and other sites.

• Networking with colleagues and centers

mainly in developing countries.

It was our intention to celebrate this anniversary

with a Conference on International Higher Educa-

tion, October 23-24, 2020, at Boston College, the

ﬁrst of a series to be held every other year. Due to

COVID-19 we have had to postpone the conference

for a year. We intend to organize instead one or more

webinars with paper presentations on the 2020

dates.

A Strategy for the Future

Although we all will remember 2020 in particular

because of the sudden suspension of in-person

classes and the wave of protests in Boston and else-

where drawing attention to persistent racial inequi-

ties, this academic year at CIHE also will be

remembered for several other important actions and

results. The provost of Boston College and the Dean

of the Lynch School of Education and Human Devel-

opment responded positively to our proposal for the

future organization of the Center, building on the

recommendation of an external review of the De-

partment of Educational Leadership and Higher Ed-

ucation, including CIHE, and the accomplishments

of the past 25 years. As CIHE approaches its quar-

ter-century of research and service to the global

higher education community in 2020, it undergoes

signiﬁcant leadership and stafﬁng changes in the

coming period while maintaining its commitment

to its mission. Having been led by Philip G. Altbach

for nearly 20 years (from 1995 to 2013), the Center

has been under my leadership for the past four

years. I will be stepping down as the Center’s full-

time Director as of the ﬁrst of November 2020.

The following strategy for CIHE has been

formulated:

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

this project will be coordinated by Gerardo

Blanco, Rebecca Schendel, and graduate as-

sistant Tessa DeLaquil.

• A report on National Policies for Iinternation-

alization of K-12 and Tertiary Education, in

cooperation with UNESCO for G-20, by

Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit. This report

has been completed and submitted spring

2020.

• A report on Non-State Actors in Higher Edu-

cation, also in cooperation with UNESCO,

by Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit with

support of Ayenachew Woldegyiorgis, grad-

uate from our doctoral program. This re-

port will be completed fall 2020.

• A study on Internationalization of Higher

Education in the Global South, a project of

Hans de Wit in cooperation with Juliet

Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Joce-

lyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wond-

wosen Tamrat.

Teaching and Development

This academic year, three of our doctoral students/

graduate assistants of CIHE graduated (the abstracts

are provided in this report):

• Lisa Unangst, United States: Migrants, Ref-

ugees, and “Diversity” at German Universities:

A Grounded Theory Analysis.

• Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis, Ethiopia: Engag-

ing with Higher Education Back Home: Expe-

riences of Ethiopian Academic Diaspora in the

United States.

• Edward Choi, South Korea: Family-owned or

-managed Higher Education Institutions: A

Special Kind of Governance.

Lisa Unangst received the 2020 Mary Kinnane

Award of the Department of Educational Leadership

and Higher Education for academic excellence and

commitment to service, as well as the Donald J.

White Teaching Excellence Award.

Jean Baptiste Diatta (Senegal) has completed his

second year of doctoral studies, and Tessa DeLaquil

(United States) and Jo Wang (China) their ﬁrst year

of doctoral studies. In the fall of 2020, Maia Gelash-

stitutional Studies at the National Research

University-Higher School of Economics in

Moscow, on Doctoral Education Worldwide,

resulting in a book, summer 2020.

• An analysis of ‘Family-Owned and Managed’

Higher Education Institutions around the

World, in partnerships with the Institute for

Family Entrepreneurship at Babson Col-

lege, resulting in a book, spring 2020.

• A mapping study on National Policies for In-

ternationalization within Higher Education

for the World Bank, resulting in a CIHE

Perspectives, fall 2019.

• A study of Internationalization Efforts within

Technical and Technological Institutions in the

Caribbean Region, with ITLA in the Domin-

ican Republic, resulting in a CIHE Perspec-

tives, fall 2019.

• A comparative global study of Refugees and

Higher Education, in cooperation with facul-

ty and students of BC, resulting in a book,

summer 2020.

• A study of the Internationalization of Medi-

cal Education in the U.S., in partnership

with Columbia University Irving Medical

Center, resulting in a peer reviewed article

submission (in revision), spring 2020.

We also initiated new research projects:

• A joint research project with the Institute of

Education of the National Research Univer-

sity-Higher School of Economics on Inter-

national Student Mobility and Recruitment in

non-English Speaking Countries. This com-

parative study will be coordinated at the

CIHE side by Hans de Wit with graduate

assistant Jo Wang. This study will also look

at the impact of COVID-19 on international

student mobility and recruitment. The proj-

ect will result in a report and book, to be

completed spring 2021.

• A comparative study on Women’s Leadership

in Higher Education, in cooperation with the

American Council on Education, resulting

in a publication of no. 9 of the ACE-CIHE

International Brief for Higher Education

Leaders, spring 2021. On the CIHE side

organized, a repeat by Lisa Unangst and Hans de

Wit of the course on Refugees and Migrants in Higher

Education, one by visiting professor Betty Leask on

Internationalization of the Curriculum, and one by

Adrienne Nussbaum, director of the Ofﬁce of Inter-

national Students and Scholars at BC, on Serving In-

ternational Students.

The summer course Internationalization of the

Curriculum attracted 59 participants from around

the world, in particular from the United States, Can-

ada, China, Israel, and Mexico. It was a ﬁve-day

asynchronous course with a daily thematic discus-

sion platform in which the participants interacted

among themselves and with experts from around

the world. The course readings included articles and

video presentations. This model of collaborative on-

line international learning will be the foundation for

future virtual professional development courses of

CIHE.

CIHE was pleased to organize on the request of

the Council of International Schools (CIS) the 2nd

CIS School-University Summit, 16-17 October, 2019,

at Boston College.

Due to COVID-19, CIHE had to cancel the one

week program for Latin American higher education

leaders titled ‘Innovation and Internationalization

in Higher Education’ in collaboration with the Insti-

tute of University Management and Leadership

(IGLU) of the Inter-American Organization for

Higher Education (OUI-IOHE), and also had to can-

cel the WES-CIHE Summer Institute, both planned

for June 2020. As for the WES-CIHE Summer Insti-

tute, applicants were provided the opportunity to

submit their research papers for publication in a

CIHE Perspectives, which is planned for August

2020. CIHE staff was active during the academic

year in providing workshops, seminars, guest lec-

tures and conference presentations, and during

spring 2020 in offering webinars in acknowledg-

ment of the new mode of work made necessary by

the pandemic. CIHE organized three webinars with

the International Association of Universities (IAU)

in May 2020 on the impact of COVID-19 on interna-

tional higher education and internationalization,

webinars which attracted each over 300 participants

from all over the world.

vili from the Republic of Georgia will join us as ﬁrst

year doctoral student and graduate assistant.

In the fall of 2019 we received the fourth cohort

of students in our M.A. in International Higher Ed-

ucation, comprising 10 new students plus one dual

degree student from the Universidad de Guadalaja-

ra, Mexico. We also admitted two new students in

our Certiﬁcate program, and over the course of the

year noted a rise in students from the general High-

er Education program at BC adding the certiﬁcate to

their course of study.

In 2019-2020, we shifted to a two track pro-

gram, one track for practitioners and one with a re-

search focus. Students in the ﬁrst track combine

courses with a ﬁeld experience and a comprehensive

exam, and those in the second track with a thesis.

This academic year, two students graduated in the

practitioner track, and eight students with a thesis,

and two plan to do so in summer 2020. Also four of

the dual degree students successfully completed

their comprehensive exam at BC and are doing their

combined ﬁeld experience/thesis under joint super-

vision of the two universities this summer or fall.

One dual degree student chose the option of a BC

thesis and completed this successfully, making this

a total of 17 students who will graduate in 2020 from

the program. An overview of the abstracts of the 9

M.A. theses approved this Spring is provided in this

report.

Our dual degree program in the ﬁrst year had

ﬁve students and in its second year only one. We an-

ticipate at least two new students in the next aca-

demic year and some stepping in later. The dual

degree program was externally reviewed mid-term

by NEASC and did receive a positive review. The

Lynch School signed in the fall of 2019 an agree-

ment with Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan, which

would facilitate students of that university in enter-

ing the M.A. program in International Higher

Education.

In the summer of 2019, CIHE organized two

one-credit summer courses, one on Refugees and

Higher Education by Lisa Unangst, visiting scholar

Hakan Ergin, and Hans de Wit; one in connection

with the WES-CIHE Summer Institute. For the

summer of 2020, three one-credit courses will be

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Publications

Our ﬂagship publication, International Higher Edu-

cation (IHE), published ﬁve issues in 2019-2020,

including its festive issue 100 and a special issue

102 on COVID-19 and international higher educa-

tion. Also International Higher Education shifted in

terms of publisher and design. After 25 years of

publishing by Boston College with the appreciated

support of its university library staff, International

Higher Education, as of issue 100, is published by

DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH in Berlin,

Germany, already a partner of CIHE through its in-

clusion of the IHE in its DUZ Magazine. Interna-

tional Higher Education also established an

International Advisory Board of colleagues and spe-

cialists from around the world, who will advise us on

our policies and plans moving forward. They also

contributed to the content of our Issue 100 which

had as theme Unprecedented Challenges, Signiﬁcant

Possibilities? That issue also included the winning

essay from our contest on that theme, penned by

Stephen Thompson. His essay and two additional

submissions were also published in our partner

publication University World News.

International Higher Education continues to be

published in Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, Span-

ish, and Vietnamese thanks to our partners. Further,

the three spin-offs of IHE, Higher Education in Rus-

sia and Beyond (Higher School of Economics), High-

er Education in South-East Asia and Beyond (Head

Foundation), and Educación Superior en América

Latina (UniNorte), continue to be published.

At the end of 2020 our contribution to Inside

Higher Education, The World View, ended. The World

View was a weekly essay on international higher ed-

ucation by authors from all over the world, edited by

Research Fellow Liz Reisberg. We regret the deci-

sion by Inside Higher Education, as in the current

climate information on higher education in the rest

of the world is of utmost importance for American

readership, but we thanks Inside Higher Education

for the collaboration over the past years.

CIHE also published ﬁve new books in its series

Global Perspectives on Higher Education with Brill/

Sense, and one book in the Sage Book Series Studies

in Higher Education. The books included are direct

results of CIHE research with other partners: Intelli-

gent Internationalization edited by Kara A. Goodwin

and Hans de Wit, The Global Phenomenon of Fami-

ly-Owned or Managed Universities edited by Philip G.

Altbach, Edward Choi, Mathew R. Allen, and Hans

de Wit, and Refugees and Higher Education edited by

Lisa Unangst, Hakan Ergin, Araz Khajarian, Tessa

DeLaquil, and Hans de Wit, as well as Trends and Is-

sues in Doctoral Education edited by Maria Yudkev-

ich, Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. The book

Corruption in Higher Education edited by Elena Den-

isova-Schmidt is the result of her research as CIHE

Research Fellow.

CIHE also published two new CIHE Perspec-

tives, no. 14 and 15. The former, Inclusive and Innova-

tive Internationalization of Higher Education,

contained the proceedings of the WES-CIHE Sum-

mer Institute 2019, and the latter, Internationaliza-

tion of Technical and Technological Institutions of

Higher Education in the Caribbean, is the report of a

study with ITLA in the Dominican Republic with the

same title. This Perspective has also been published

in Spanish.

A new International Brief for Higher Education

Leaders with the American Council on Education on

Women’s Representation in Higher Education Leader-

ship around the World is in preparation, coordinated

by Gerardo Blanco, Rebecca Schendel and Tessa

DeLaquil, to be published Spring 2021.

A study on American Universities in the Middle

East by Pratik Chougule and Hans de Wit, funded by

the Schmidt Richardson Foundation, 2019-2021.

A compilation of research by Fulbright New

Century Scholars, The Next Decade: Challenges for

Higher Education, coordinated and edited by Heather

Eggins, Anna Smolentseva, Hans de Wit, to be pub-

lished Spring 2021.

Academic staff including our visiting professor,

graduate assistants, research fellows, and visiting

scholars of CIHE have also been active in publishing

peer reviewed articles, books and book chapters, and

commentaries. Our partnership with University

World News illustrates our active involvement in the

discussion on developments in higher education in

the world.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

their role, composition, and future activities.

Concluding Remarks

The academic year 2019-2020 has been another

productive year for CIHE, even under the challenges

of COVID-19. We are most excited about the new

strategy for CIHE after completing 25 years. We wel-

come Gerardo Blanco as Associate Professor and

Associate Academic Director and look forward to the

return of Rebecca Schendel after her maternity leave

in her new position as Managing Director of CIHE.

Philip Altbach and I will work with Gerardo and Re-

becca in our new function as part-time academic di-

rectors to set the direction for the coming years , of

course along with administrative assistant Salina

Kopellas, our graduate assistants, and the rest of our

global community. It is with sadness but gratitude

that we say goodbye to visiting professor Betty Leask,

our three doctoral students/graduate assistants Lisa

Unangst, Edward Choi, and Ayenachew Woldgiyor-

gis, as well as to our M.A. graduate assistant 2020-

2021, Ilse Bellido-Richards. They have been, and

continue to be in different ways, most valuable con-

tributors to our work and our CIHE community.

Hans de Wit

Director, Boston College Center for

International Higher Education

June 2020

Visiting Professors, Research Fellows and

Visiting Scholars

Boston College has provided CIHE with the opportuni-

ty to receive a visiting professor who is actively engaged

in our teaching and training, research, publications

and other activities. We were pleased with the exten-

sion of our ﬁrst visiting professor, Betty Leask, for a

second year. During her two years at CIHE she has

been a highly appreciated member of our staff and has

been actively engaged in the many activities of CIHE,

the Department of Educational Leadership and Higher

Education, the Lynch School of Education and Human

Development and other entities of Boston College. In

this Year in Review we pay tribute to her contributions.

We are pleased to have in Wendy Green, University of

Tasmania, Australia, a successor of Betty Leask. Her ex-

pertise on internationalization of teaching and learn-

ing, faculty development and student voices, guarantees

a good succession to Betty Leask. Due to COVID-19 her

visiting professorship will start in January 2021.

We also had–again this year–a good number of vis-

iting scholars at CIHE, who made important contribu-

tions to our activities through guest lectures, seminars,

and publications. COVID-19 made it impossible for

some to join us in the spring, while still others had to

return home earlier than anticipated. We will continue

to see some restrictions in the fall of 2020, but never-

theless continue to ﬁeld interest in this program and

welcome participants as a valuable part of our

community.

The same is true for our group of Research Fel-

lows, actively engaged in our activities. In 2020-2021

we will evaluate the Research Fellowships and discuss

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

report argues that a foreign power is seeking to

sway schools and colleges; give money to com-

panies and universities in order to inﬂuence them

and get access to American know-how and research;

send students and researchers to U.S. institutions to

pick up knowledge; and in general to inﬂuence the

American public. Which country is this bad actor?

China? Russia?

No, the subject of this report is Japan. All of this

is argued in Buying the American Mind: Japan’s Quest

for U.S. Ideas in Science, Economic Policy and the

Schools (Washington, D.C.: Center for Public Integri-

ty, 1991). This report is indicative of the drumbeat of

Japan bashing that was taking place during the

1980s and 1990s, when Japan’s economy was boom-

ing and its technology was innovative and world-

class. Remember the Walkman, the ﬁrst miniaturized

tape player now relegated to technology museums?

In its time it was cutting-edge technology. Japanese

cars were ﬂooding the American market because

they were of higher quality than their American

counterparts—and had a price advantage as well.

The Japanese were busy buying ﬁlm studios, sky-

scrapers and other icons on the American landscape.

As it turned out, many of these overpriced purchas-

es proved to be quite bad deals. Japanese car makers

learned that for political and economic reasons pro-

ducing their cars in the U.S. was a good idea—Toyo-

ta is now the largest “American” auto producer.

Eventually, the Japanese miracle ran out of

steam for a variety of complex reasons relating to

world markets and especially to conditions in Japan.

Japan quickly vanished from the American media as

a bad actor and threat to American prosperity.

China as the New “Great Threat”

China is the Japan of the 21st century, and today’s

media and policy environment magniﬁes the “cri

sis.” China is now the world’s No. 2 economy after

surpassing Japan in 2010. Of course, the realities of

the current period are different; the challenges re-

sulting from the “rise of China” for the rest of the

world are arguably more fundamental. Globaliza-

tion in all of its forms has intensiﬁed, and China,

unlike Japan, is a strategic and military rival to the

United States. As Thomas Friedman wrote in his ar-

ticle “World-Shaking News You Are Missing,” en-

gagement with China is much better than

confrontation, although China presents a variety of

challenges to the United States and vice versa. De-

monizing China, as America once did to Japan, is a

mistake.

Higher Education and Research

A signiﬁcant part of anti-China rhetoric, and to

some extent action, has been in the area of higher

education and research. U.S. government investiga-

tions of possible espionage by Chinese researchers

and students in the United States, nonstop media

coverage of purported malfeasance, and reports sim-

ilar to the one concerning Japan mentioned here are

having an effect on U.S.-China educational rela-

tions. Some Confucius Institutes at American uni-

versities have been closed and joint research projects

scrutinized.

In the Japan case decades ago, higher education

relations between the U.S. and Japan were affected

by broader political and economic issues. A number

of U.S. universities established branch campuses in

Japan, usually with the assistance of Japanese local

and regional governments. Eventually, all but one or

two failed, affected by the rigid Japanese regulatory

environment, local market forces and the somewhat

acrimonious relations between the two countries. In

fact, U.S.-Japan higher education relations never re-

ally recovered. Japan was one of the top countries

Buying the American Mind—Who’s Doing It?

Philip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is research professor and founding director of CIHE, [email protected]. Previously published in the

World View blog for Inside Higher Education on December 8, 2019.

sending students to the U.S. Numbers have steadily

declined, and according to Open Doors, Japan is

now the ninth sending country, with about 20,000

students in the U.S. Large numbers of Americans

never chose to study in Japan, and numbers have

remained relatively steady at around 5,000. The Jap-

anese case shows that negativity along with econom-

ic and political realities can impact on higher

education. In the 2000s, relations between the two

countries improved, but it is fair to say that they are

still not especially robust.

Are there lessons to be learned from the U.S.

history with Japan that may be relevant to China? It

is likely that China will be a larger global player in

most every respect than Japan in this century -- but it

is worth remembering that in the 1980s, Japan was

the world’s No. 2 economy and in the 1940s, a mili-

tary power. It is also the case that China is already a

more signiﬁcant scientiﬁc power than Japan was,

even in its heyday. But it is difﬁcult to predict future

trends in China -- U.S.-China higher education and

scientiﬁc relations have already taken a signiﬁcant

hit from growing tensions -- whether they will im-

prove in the future is unclear.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

n the past several months, massive social unrest

has occurred in more than a dozen countries.

Among them are Algeria, Bolivia, Britain, Catalonia,

Chile, Ecuador, France, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras,

Hong Kong, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lebanon and more.

In many cases, these social movements have pro-

foundly shaken the existing system and the end re-

sult remains unclear.

While the causes of each of these movements

differ, as do the key actors, there do seem to be some

common elements. Students have been key in many

and have participated in all of them, even when they

have not been central.

Immediate and Underlying Causes

Neither the immediate nor the proximate causes of

most of the many recent upheavals have been relat-

ed to university-based issues, such as tuition fees or

other campus causes.

The one exception is perhaps Chile, where long-

standing demands for the implementation of free

tuition promises have intermingled with broader so-

cial issues. Indeed, the Chile case is rather typical.

The current protest movement was sparked by an

increase in metro fares and was initially spearhead-

ed by secondary school and university students.

It then spread far beyond its student base and

the fare issue to protests concerning social inequali-

ties (Chile is among the most unequal countries in

Latin America), with more than a million people

demonstrating in Santiago on 25 October 2019.

In most cases, protest movements were sparked

by a speciﬁc issue, but soon grew far beyond that

issue.

The continuing Hong Kong protests, again in-

volving, on several occasions, more than a million

people (one ﬁfth of the total population), started by

opposing a proposed extradition law permitting au-

thorities to send people convicted of a crime to

mainland China. The protests soon expanded to de-

mands for democracy, a separate Hong Kong identi-

ty and, underlying all this, broad discontent with

Students are the Vanguard in the Youth Revolution

of 2019

Philip G. Altbach and Thierry M. Luescher

Philip G. Altbach is research professor and founding director of CIHE, [email protected]. Thierry Luescher is research

director of post-school education and training at the Human Sciences Research Council and afﬁliated associate professor

in higher education at the University of the Free State in South Africa [email protected]. Previously published in

University World News on December 7, 2019.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

housing costs and general inequality.

The Iraqi protests, spearheaded by students but

soon joined by all segments of society and spreading

to major cities in the country, started with issues of

corruption and lack of basic services and soon spread

to discontent with Iranian inﬂuence in the country

and other issues.

A common underlying element to virtually all of

these protest movements is unhappiness with social

inequality, the growing gulf between rich and poor

and a feeling that large segments of the population

have been ‘left out’ by neoliberal policies and the in-

sensitivity of the ‘political class’.

In this sense, the causes for the current wave of

social unrest are not unlike the forces that contribut-

ed to the election of Donald Trump as president in

the United States or to Brexit in the United

Kingdom.

One can look back as well to the movements in

North Africa and the Middle East that generated the

‘Arab Spring’. The Arab Spring was initially consis-

tently driven by young people, unemployed gradu-

ates and students. It reﬂected a similar discontent

with the established and often repressive political

order. Widening social inequality and deep pessi-

mism about future job prospects following gradua-

tion created a powerful force for activism.

Twenty-First Century Variables

Today’s protest movements have several signiﬁcant

characteristics.

They tend to be leaderless – making it difﬁcult

for authorities to negotiate with them or even for the

movements themselves to present a coherent set of

demands or rationales. Their very spontaneity has

given them energy as well as unpredictability.

They have typically started very peacefully – al-

though small factions often engage in violence along

the periphery of mass demonstrations – and at times

they have deteriorated into street battles, with police

brutality becoming a factor in escalating, sustaining

or repressing protests.

And, of course, social media, an especially pow-

erful force among young people and students, has

become the key tool for creating awareness and mo-

bilising and organising movements. Many of the

most well-known student movements in the past

decade have involved massive online campaigns.

The #FeesMustFall hashtag, which started in

South Africa in 2015, is so catchy that it was taken

up by student movements in India and Uganda in

October and November 2019 to make similar de-

mands. For governments, the power of social me-

dia in movements remains a challenge to harness

and, in many places, the response has been to slow

down the internet or create social media

blackouts.

The Role of Students

Students have been key initiators in several of the

recent activist movements – Hong Kong and Iraq

are good examples. In others, such as the ‘gilets

jaunes’ (yellow vests) in France, students played no

role in the origins of the movement and have not

been a key force throughout.

Student involvement has not meant, however,

that education-related issues are an important

theme, even when students are key participants.

And it is fair to say that, unlike in the activist move-

ments of the 1960s, students have not been the

central actors in all of the movements, but they

have been at least supporting players in most, and

have been leaders in some.

The decade since the Great Recession opened

with student protests. Indeed, while 2019 has be-

come the international year of street protests, it is

students who started taking to the streets protest-

ing against austerity policies and increasing social

inequality in the years leading up to the present

time.

The trigger then has been attempts by govern-

ments to increasingly privatise the cost of higher

education as part of their austerity policies. Over

the decade, in Bangladesh, Britain, Chile, Germa-

ny, India, Italy, Malaysia, Quebec, South Africa,

South Korea, Uganda and so forth—on every conti-

nent—there have been massive student protests

about tuition fees.

An added dimension, and perhaps a precursor

of future trends, is the involvement of high school

students in activist movements—in a few cases,

such as Chile and Hong Kong, in political strug-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

gles, but more importantly in growing environmen-

tal activism around the world.

What we are witnessing in 2019 may not quite

be a student revolution as it was in 1968; it may bet-

ter be coined a youth (r)evolution. The important

role of students as a speciﬁc group in the present

social movements is, however, undeniable, not

least in their calls for social justice and sounding

the prelude to the current wave of activism.

From Open Doors to offering Radical Hospitality in HE

Gerardo L. Blanco

Gerardo L Blanco is associate professor of higher education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education

in the United States, and the faculty director of Global House, a learning community that brings together US and inter-

national students. E-mail: [email protected]. As of July 2020, he will be associate professor and associate aca-

demic director at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, United States. Previously published

in University World News on January 22, 2020.

ew enrollments of international students in the

United States decreased in 2018-19. Interna-

tional students already in American colleges and

universities often struggle to become full members

of their host community. Conversations about these

trends often take place around valuable data and sta-

tistics but leave out the concepts of empathy and

hospitality.

As scholars and practitioners of international

higher education we can fret about worrisome

trends, or we can open our doors–with actions–to

create welcoming spaces for international students

and scholars.

New Interntionalization Data

The 2019 Open Doors data released in November by

the Institute of International Education was a mixed

bag. While the total number of international stu-

dents showed a modest increase, reaching an histor-

ical high point, new enrolments of international

students fell for a third consecutive year.

Another report titled Are US HEIs Meeting the

Needs of International Students? by World Education

Services indicates that over half of international stu-

dents do not take part in programs or events at their

university and nearly a third lack a social support

system on campus. Combined, these reports present

a sobering picture of US internationalization at

home.

While trustworthy data are necessary for mak-

ing informed decisions and guide campus-level

strategies to reverse the negative trends reported

above, dataﬁcation of internationalization can be dis-

empowering for students, academics and practi-

tioners. Focusing on statistics alone may blur the

fact that each data point constitutes an individual

with a history.

The Case for Radical Hospitality

In 2016, when the ﬁrst signs of a chilling effect on

internationalization were evident in the United

States, Study Group and Temple University released

separate videos with the hashtag #YouAreWelcome-

Here. These viral videos have inspired other univer-

sities to release their own campaigns welcoming

international students.

These campaigns have become a social media

movement, now coordinated by NAFSA – the larg-

est international education organisation in the US.

While they are often heart-warming, it is important

to recognize that these are marketing campaigns

and, while they promote important values, they are

largely tokenistic.

Practitioners and scholars of international edu-

cation can take these expressions of support and

openness several steps further in what I call radical

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

hospitality. While radicalization often takes on

negative associations, radicality merely refers to

the root– something deep rather than superﬁcial.

Radical hospitality begins with exercising

empathy.

In developing these ideas, I have borrowed

from the philosopher, transnational academic and

prisoner of war Emmanuel Levinas. At a much

more personal level, being on the receiving end of

radical hospitality as an international student in

Maine and as a guest in Bangladesh, China and

Ethiopia–to name a few instances– has taught me

how to practice hospitality and why it is so neces-

sary in US higher education today.

The Iraqi protests, spearheaded by students

but soon joined by all segments of society and

spreading

When Open Doors Are Not Enough

Radical empathy is necessary because keeping the

door open does not constitute an invitation. It is

necessary because once someone is in our home

we need to make them feel they are a guest, rather

than expecting them to integrate into our routine,

as we do with international students.

A conversation about radical empathy is need-

ed because we recognize that the other’s presence

is indeed a disruption to our everyday life, but not

nearly as signiﬁcant as the disruption to theirs.

The practice of radical hospitality requires us

to take a long and hard look at the most vulnerable

aspects of the experience of international students

and to turn that gaze toward the most vulnerable

groups in higher education mobility, which, de-

spite their vast numbers, are often invisible.

There are thousands of displaced, imprisoned

and exiled academics, and there are millions of

school- and university-aged refugees in the world.

It is crucial that, as a higher education system, we

move the conversation beyond the stereotypical

full-tuition-paying international student and em-

brace the complexity of academic and student

mobility.

Letting our Actions Speak

Conversations about the decline of new internation-

al student enrolments often make reference to the

current US federal administration and its turn to-

ward isolationism. As is the case with large datasets,

the focus on big scale policies can also be

disempowering.

While we must remain informed and engaged

citizens, we cannot simply wait for the next election.

We can immediately start ﬁnding students to men-

tor or scholars to connect with. I have found my

work as a mentor in the Scholar Rescue Fund Part-

nerships for Scholar Advancement truly transforma-

tional. After exchanging a few emails, I was paired

with two outstanding scholars—one from Turkey

and one from Yemen.

I have reconstituted one of my courses next se-

mester as a Scholars at Risk student advocacy semi-

nar. Students at my university will research the case

of an imprisoned scholar and develop an advocacy

campaign. I hope this will facilitate learning about

the practice of empathy.

At a time when the big trends and national poli-

cies seem to be against international mobility, it may

be appropriate to focus on small actions and on the

practice of radical hospitality.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Is International Higher Education Just an Elite Club?

Hakan Ergin

Hakan Ergin is a lecturer at Istanbul University, Turkey, and a former postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Interna-

tional Higher Education, Boston College, United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Previously published in

University World News on November 9, 2019.

“Mobility is still ‘king’ in most internationalization dis-

cussions.” – Laura E Rumbley

hen I started as an international graduate stu-

dent at the State University of New York at

Binghamton in 2011, the president of the university

addressed us during the orientation program for

new international students. While expressing his ap-

preciation about our presence there, he told us what

most university leaders still think today: “A good

university is international”. What ‘goodness’ and ‘in-

ternationalization’ meant left a question mark in my

mind at the time.

Four years later in 2015, Hans de Wit and Fiona

Hunter noted that internationalization is expected to

“enhance quality for all” and “make a meaningful

contribution to society” in their updated deﬁnition

of the term.

Such a concept seems hard to disagree with.

Nevertheless, as we draw near the end of the second

decade of the new millennium, it is difﬁcult to see

how international higher education has evolved into

a phenomenon which is ‘good’ and ‘meaningful’ for

everyone.

On the contrary, it has remained a tiny club

based on physical mobility which is accessible only

to the healthy, wealthy and brainy.

Physical Mobility

Although there are a few exceptions, most mobility

programs are designed for people who have the ‘ide-

al’ health conditions required to travel abroad. In

some cases, host universities may even require inter-

national candidates to have a medical report proving

that they are healthy enough for registration.

More often than not, there is no speciﬁc strategy

for attracting disabled people. Even if a disabled in-

ternational candidate is admitted to a university, the

staff at the international ofﬁce may not be prepared,

well-trained or experienced enough to respond to his

or her special needs.

Disabled people are not the only group who are

ignored by internationalization. Those from low-in-

come backgrounds are also unlikely to beneﬁt. As

physical mobility is mostly cast as mobility from a

developing country to a more developed one, it is not

easy for a typical lower middle-class family to afford

it, given also the low value of their local currency.

There are over ﬁve million international stu-

dents worldwide today, the vast majority of whom

are sponsored by their ‘wealthy’ parents.

There are, of course scholarships for healthy but

not wealthy candidates. However, as there is more

demand than supply, it is often extremely competi-

tive to get one.

For example, last year more than 5,000 students

from Istanbul University in Turkey applied for the

Erasmus+ mobility program to study for a term in

another country in the European Higher Education

Area. As available funding was limited, only one

20th of all applicants, who had the highest grade

point average and score in the English language test

taken at the university, were awarded the

scholarship.

This shows that even an established mobility

program, which is well-funded by a supranational

organisation – the European Union – can only en-

able mobility for a small group of individuals who

are labelled ‘brainy’ enough by several quantitative

academic measures.

Digital Mobility

All of this shows that physical mobility cannot and

will not help make an international higher educa-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

ization of higher education to date due credit. It

would not be fair to state that it has been a total dis-

appointment. It has already contributed signiﬁcant-

ly to peace among nations. A good example is the

Erasmus mobility program which has developed

mutual understanding across European countries

since the Second World War.

However, I do not think that it would be correct

to declare internationalization a success story either.

We should admit that, as it currently stands, it is

old-fashioned. Since the early Sophists’ era thou-

sands of years ago, internationalization has been fo-

cused on physical mobility.

Not only has the type of mobility remained un-

changed, but so too has the social class of those who

are mobile. Just as aristocratic families’ children

were able to study abroad in medieval times, elite

families do the same for their children today.

I do recognize that internationalization of high-

er education does not just mean mobility. Interna-

tionalization of immobile individuals through

internationalizing the curriculum is a vital topic. In

their blog post, Leask, Jones and De Wit remind us

of the need to ﬁnd new ways of becoming interna-

tional and suggest that internationalization should

be more inclusive.

For me the advantages of digital mobility in-

clude being able to create more international con-

tent and a more international learning environment.

In this way, international higher education, which is

considered to be a ‘common good’, can become

‘more common’ and will not be restricted to the elite

club described above.

Nevertheless, I would not want to ignore the dif-

ference between learning in a traditional and online

classroom. Yet I believe that any opportunity that

can make international higher education more in-

clusive should be employed for the sake of the ideal

of internationalization for all.

We should not surrender to the dominance of

physical mobility; we must seek to move things for-

ward. Otherwise, the international learning experi-

ence will remain a ‘good’ and ‘meaningful’

opportunity enjoyed by some, but not all.

tion experience accessible to more than a tiny group

of individuals who have health-related, monetary or

academic privileges.

The good news is that “there is growing recogni-

tion that it is both impractical and unwise to focus

on mobility as the primary means of developing in-

tercultural awareness”, according to a recent blog

post by Betty Leask, Elspeth Jones and Hans de Wit.

The bad news is, as they say, “that international-

ization is still predominantly perceived in most

countries as being primarily about mobility”. As it is

quite apparent that the dominance of mobility is to

continue until an unknown date, should we wait for

it to end or strive to make it more accessible? I am in

favor of the latter through the medium of digital

higher education via distance learning.

The distinctive power of distance learning is

that time and place are not important. In my view,

this can make international mobility more conve-

nient for three reasons. As digital mobility does not

necessitate a visa and other travel bureaucracy, it can

make access to an international learning environ-

ment more ‘practical’.

Moreover, it can make it more ‘economically af-

fordable’ as it eliminates the need for travel and ac-

commodation abroad. As a result, having an

international learning experience can become more

‘socially equitable’ as it is more accessible compared

to physical mobility abroad, which is impractical,

costly and academically competitive for the vast ma-

jority of students.

Several universities in the world have already

noticed the ‘bright future’ of digital mobility and

have begun investing in it. For example, earlier this

year Northeastern University in the United States

appointed its ﬁrst ‘vice president for digital learning’

to better manage digital internationalization at the

top level of the university’s administration.

By investing in digital internationalization, uni-

versities can expect to reach potential learners any-

where in the world in ways that they cannot through

traditional routes.

Internationalization So Far: a Success

Story?

Despite my criticisms, I should give international-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

The Free-Tuition Movement

Ariane de Gayardon and Andrés Bernasconi

Ariane de Gayardon is senior research associate at the Centre for Global Higher Education, Institute of Education, Uni-

versity College London, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Andrés Bernasconi is professor of education at the Pontiﬁcia

Universidad Católica de Chile, and director of the Center for Advanced Studies on Educational Justice (CJE). E-mail:

[email protected]. Previously published in International Higher Education, No. 100, Winter 2020.

n recent decades, rising costs and massiﬁcation in

higher education have led to an increase in cost

sharing, shifting the cost from governments to stu-

dents. As a result, debates around the ﬁnancing of

higher education have focused on rising tuition fees,

the use of student loans, and increasing student

debt. In this context, it is surprising that the 2010s

have seen a revival of the opposite policy: tuition-free

higher education, with political decisions the world

over to revert to solely, or dominantly, govern-

ment-funded higher education.

The Free-Tuition Movement

The recent free tuition movement arguably started

in 2011 in Chile, with massive student demonstra-

tions requesting free tuition. This movement was

the result of a high student debt burden and a call for

the end of the marketization of higher education.

The student movement’s agenda permeated the

presidential election of 2013, which Socialist candi-

date Michele Bachelet won, largely on the promise of

making higher education free for all.

Similar events happened in South Africa in

2015–2016, with the #FeesMustFall movement that

led students to the streets. Against the advice of his

own experts, President Zuma announced a plan to

introduce free tuition in 2017. Other countries fol-

lowed suit. In 2017, New Zealand elected a prime

minister whose electoral platform included free tui-

tion. The Philippines signed free higher education

into law in 2017. In 2018, Liberia’s president an-

nounced the start of free public universities, fol-

lowed by Mauritius in 2019.

Discussions around tuition-free higher educa-

tion are also alive in the United States, where it is an

issue in many 2020 Democrat candidates’ pro-

grams, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth War-

ren. The free-tuition movement is therefore an

important trend to understand for the future of

higher education.

The Rebirth of an Ideology

Amid the cost-sharing trend, a few countries around

the world, most with state-welfare ideologies, have

maintained free higher education (in public institu-

tions), including, but not limited to, Germany, Nor-

way, Sweden, and most of Latin America. Only

recently have countries that used cost sharing decid-

ed to reverse and embrace the tenets of free tuition.

In the majority of cases, student discontent

seems to have been the reason for the shift to free

tuition. This discontent was usually fuelled by equity

concerns because of rising tuition fees. In Chile,

high tuition fees and student debt were central to the

students’ claim that higher education was “mar-

ketized.” As a result, one of the demands of the Chil-

ean movement was better access to higher education

for the poorest through free higher education. In

South Africa, the #FeesMustFall movement focused

on rising fees, but concerns about racism, decoloni-

zation, and equity underlied the demands. The Libe-

ria announcement of free tuition also came after

student protests over hikes in tuition fees.

From the various governments’ perspectives,

embracing this bottom-up idea seems to be political-

ly motivated—aimed at gathering votes—rather

than based on rigorous analyses of policy options. In

Chile and New Zealand, free tuition was an argu-

ment on electoral platforms for elections. In Mauri-

tius, the president’s declaration happened at the

beginning of an election year. In South Africa, the

law was announced as President Zuma was mired in

scandals. For many politicians, free tuition seems an

easy to understand and powerful proposal that guar-

antees strong popular support.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

The Reality about Free Tuition

Free tuition may be good politics, but it might be rath-

er poor policy. It has led many of its supporters to

power, while failing to consistently improve equity in

higher education. In Chile, the promise of free tuition

brought Michele Bachelet to power, but it did not im-

prove participation of the most disadvantaged popula-

tions, since enrollment is conditional on prior

academic achievements. Indeed, free tuition often

beneﬁts mostly high-income groups, while students

from poorer backgrounds are kept out of free public

institutions. Similarly, free-tuition policies have been

linked to underfunding of universities and quality

issues.

But the main issue with the current free-tuition

movement is the inability of politicians who champi-

on it to make it a sustainable reality. In Chile, only

students from the 60 percent poorest households cur-

rently receive free-tuition higher education—and only

in eligible institutions. Although the idea is to fund

free tuition for all, difﬁcult economic conditions have

stalled progress. In South Africa, the proposed law

also targets the poorest students. In New Zealand,

university budgets have been frozen soon after the

free-tuition announcement. In an age of massiﬁca-

tion, sustaining free tuition ﬁnancially is difﬁcult and

scarce government resources need to be better

targeted.

This said, blended learning has its challenges.

Among others are setting up the course, getting

ready, ﬁnding the resources, curating the content,

organizing the structures, and uploading the con-

tent. The challenges include balancing giving

feedback, how much to scaffold, holding back and

allowing students to have control, and how much

to do as a professor. As well, learning the

technology,

Targeted Free Tuition

As a result, a new trend has emerged, somewhat

accidentally in Chile, but more purposefully in

other countries: targeted free tuition, where free

higher education is limited to students from poor

socioeconomic backgrounds. This solution has

been implemented recently in the state of New

York, and in Italy, Japan, and South Africa, among

others. Targeted free tuition has the political ap-

peal of a free-tuition policy, but with better eco-

nomic efﬁciency. It provides ﬁnancial resources to

those who need them most, thus answering to

both issues of equity and university funding. The

future will tell if this approach succeeds and could

be more widely adopted.

Clarion Call to Higher Education

Ellen Hazelkorn

Ellen Hazelkorn was a NAFSA Senior Fellow (2018-2019) and contributed an essay to NAFSA’s International Educa-

tion in a Time of Global Disruption report. The following is an updated and expanded rejoinder to John Hudzik’s con-

tribution in the same report on the need to connect the beneﬁts of internationalization to the community while balancing

attention to the local and the global. This is an updated version of an article previously published in University World

News on October 10, 2019.

ince this piece was originally written in autumn

2019, the Covid-19 pandemic has affected and

transformed every aspect of society and the econo-

my around the world. In addition to direct health

and medical impacts, no country, business, commu-

nity, family or individual has been untouched. Mass

higher education itself is undergoing an existential

crisis; international mobility has come to a stand-

still. This makes the call for civic engagement more

important and timely than ever.

Around the world higher education institutions,

academic, researchers and students have been work-

ing collaboratively, and with their communities, to

respond quickly and effectively to the pandemic and

its effects. Global networks of researchers are shar-

ing data and science-based information to identify a

vaccine, create tests for antibodies, and test drugs

that could be useful for treating Covid-19. Students

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Covid-19 isn’t partisan but polls continue to

show countries divided by geography and culture.

Deep inequalities in society have exposed the myth

that “we are all in it together”. Even the debate about

how and when to reopen the economy has become

fraught with growing angry reactions against re-

search and “experts”.

Higher education is the life-blood of any nation

– providing on-going educational and training op-

portunities for personal and societal success. As an

“anchor tenant” it resides at the heart of the re-

search-innovation ecosystem, helping build sustain-

able communities, whether rural or urban. By virtue

of their location, colleges and universities are well-

placed to contribute to cultural activity and social

life, be a source of advice to business and the com-

munity, and a gateway for marketing and attracting

investment and mobile talent.

Rethinking Internationalization as Civic

Engagement

Internationalization which has been a life-enhanc-

ing opportunity for many students and academics is

changing utterly (at least for the short-medium

term). Borders are being reintroduced and travel is

restricted by social distancing measures and com-

pulsory quarantine actions.

While we may consider student and faculty mo-

bility and study abroad programs to be valuable

learning and cultural experiences, their importance

primarily beneﬁts the higher education community.

There are of course spill-over effects in terms of

earnings for businesses and society but it is unclear

the extent to which the wider community under-

stands or beneﬁts from internationalization.

This is a good time to bring the beneﬁts of inter-

nationalization home, and not just to the campus.

How can colleges and universities which beneﬁt

from internationalization rethink their priorities to

deepen civic engagement and embed social innova-

tion? How can working with cities and regions be

come a core component of internationalization – in-

creasing opportunities for students and faculty to

contribute tangibly to society? How can internation-

alization be linked directly with the SDGs, aligning

are joining faculty and technical teams to design and

make personal protective equipment (PPE) for hospi-

tals and care workers, student nurses and doctors are

graduating early to work on the front-line, idle cam-

pus facilities are providing accommodation, addition-

al hospital beds, being converted into track and trace

centres, etc. It is all-hands on deck.

But when the immediacy of the current crisis is

over, then what?

Recent years have seen signiﬁcant and growing

attention being given to the role of higher education

beyond the campus, and in the communities and re-

gions. The call for greater civic engagement has been

asking colleges and universities to rethink their role

and responsibilities to the cities and regions in which

they are located and to underpin democratic values

and active citizenship.

Education Becoming a Dividing Line?

The clarion call to higher education is especially op-

portune as polls in the United States and the United

Kingdom, for example, have shown how support for

higher education has become ideologically and politi-

cally partisan.

Education and geography, as well as race, ethnic-

ity and gender, are key factors contributing to people’s

viewpoints. In the 2016 US election, only nine out of

49 counties with public ﬂagship universities favoured

Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton. These polarities

were ampliﬁed in the 2018 midterm and are evident

also in early polling for 2020, with the greatest ten-

sion between college-educated white women and

non-college-educated white men.

Education level was also decisive in the United

Kingdom’s Brexit vote; 15 of 20 local authority areas

with the lowest level of educational attainment voted

to leave the European Union, while all 20 with the

highest levels voted to remain.

Mobility is another factor inﬂuencing people’s

opinions. People who are less likely to have moved

around or have had international experience are more

likely to be concerned about the ill-effects of global-

ization and immigration. Urban-rural divisions have

been evident in many countries experiencing a popu-

list backlash against elitism, globalization and

internationalization.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

es the main events that have taken place and possible

implications for the future.

Uncertainties, Controversies and

Pushbacks

From January to March 2019, the ministry of educa-

tion under Ricardo Vélez Rodríguez suffered from

an “internal war”, resulting in great instability. Vélez

Rodríguez asserted that “the idea of university for all

people does not exist. Universities should be re-

served for an intellectual elite.”

This was considered particularly offensive as

enrolment in higher education in Brazil is still the

privilege of the elite: according to the OECD’s Edu-

cation at a Glance 2018 report, fewer than 20% of the

segment of the population between the ages of 25

and 34 hold a university degree. His attitude also re-

versed recent attempts to broaden access and de-

mocratise public higher education.

In March 2019, a surprising cut of 42% of the

budget of the ministry of science, technology, inno-

vation and communication was announced – while

the current government reached the presidency

promising increased investments in science, tech-

nology and innovation from the current 1.5% of

gross domestic product to 3%, which would be com-

parable to the European Union.

This decision also provoked concern because of

its harmful consequences for both universities and

n Brazil, decisions made by the federal govern-

ment have historically determined the develop-

ment of higher education, science, technology and

innovation, given its central role in terms of policy,

funding and regulation.

Since the 1930s, when the ﬁrst federal and state

universities were created, there has been a prevail-

ing and general understanding among national au-

thorities that the development of a sovereign nation

depends on progressive investments in the educa-

tion of human resources and the promotion of

science.

Direct efforts to consolidate a national policy for

science date back to the post-war period when the

Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Educa-

tion Personnel (CAPES) and the National Council

for Scientiﬁc and Technological Development

(CNPq) were founded.

Both public universities and funding agencies

became fundamental to the country’s development,

to the extent that today it would be impossible to

imagine that Brazil could meet critical national de-

mands of social and economic growth without the

participation of these institutions.

Given this context, the recent declarations by

President Jair Bolsonaro since assuming ofﬁce in

January 2019 and measures enacted or proposed by

his government have caused great concern and cre-

ated considerable confusion. This article summaris-

teaching and research in concrete ways?

Over the centuries, universities have served so-

ciety well. As we are currently experiencing, societ-

ies’ challenges are so complex they necessitate a

well-informed, engaged and internationalised citi-

zenry. We are now being challenged more than ever

to recommit to the values of public service and social,

cultural and economic engagement.

A Looming Disaster for HE and Brazil’s Development

Marcelo Knobel & Fernanda Leal

Marcelo Knobel is rector of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) and full professor at the Gleb

Wataghin Institute of Physics, UNICAMP, Brazil. E-mail: knobel@iﬁ.unicamp.br. Fernanda Leal is a PhD candidate

at the Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Brazil, and a visiting scholar at the Center for Internation-

al Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Previously published in University

World News on September 28, 2019.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

very disturbing was the effort to minimise public

criticism. In a weird attempt to explain the measure,

the minister stated that the cut represents “only”

3.5% of the federal higher education budget.

As pensions and salaries cannot be cut, the pro-

posed budget reductions will have an even more sig-

niﬁcant impact on the daily operations of universities.

Given what public higher education institutions rep-

resent for Brazil, these cuts effectively “cut the gov-

ernment’s own throat”.

Additional concern arose in May 2019, when

the CAPES agency stopped more than 3,000 schol-

arships for graduate students without prior notice.

The agency stated that these were only cuts to “idle”

scholarships, which did not make sense.

One third of those scholarships were restored

after protests from the universities. However, in

June 2019, CAPES changed the criteria for provid-

ing graduate programs with scholarships, which re-

sulted in an additional cut of 2,500 scholarships;

and in September, the Government froze another

5,000 scholarships for masters, doctoral and post-

doc researchers, as result of a signiﬁcant reduction

in CAPES’ annual budget.

Also, from June 2019, concerns were raised

about political interventions in the administrative

autonomy of public universities. For the ﬁrst time in

two decades, the ministry of education broke with

the tradition of approving the appointment of rec-

tors based on who had won an election held by the

university community. So far, six federal universities

have been affected.

The ‘Future-se’ Program

In July 2019 the Brazilian Ministry of Education pro-

posed a program called Future-se (which can be

loosely translated as “Take care of your own future”),

a government policy focused on public federal uni-

versities and institutes and aimed at “strengthening

their autonomy”. Three themes – management, gov-

ernance and entrepreneurship; research and innova-

tion; and internationalization – deﬁne the program.

Future-se is intended to encourage the ﬁnancial

autonomy of public federal universities and insti-

tutes by means of partnerships with social organiza-

society at large. Universities depend on the resourc-

es of federally funded public agencies to ﬁnance

research.

Disrupting the ﬂow of resources will prevent

the country from addressing many of its social and

economic challenges. In addition, strategic sectors

such as health, energy and agriculture will be severe-

ly affected if such cuts are not reconsidered.

Public Higher Education Institutions

Targeted

In April 2019, the economist Abraham Weintraub

replaced Vélez Rodríguez at the ministry of educa-

tion. Immediately following his appointment, Presi-

dent Bolsonaro announced on Twitter that Minister

Weintraub was considering cuts to investments in

schools of philosophy and sociology, indicating his

preference “to focus on ﬁelds that generate an im-

mediate return to the taxpayer such as veterinary

medicine, engineering and medicine”.

This dismissal of humanities and social scienc-

es reﬂects the president’s ideological position and

his hostility towards public universities and academ-

ics, which is a threat not only to the operation of

these institutions, but also to academic freedom.

A month after taking ofﬁce, he announced that

three federal universities – University of Brasília

(UnB), Fluminense Federal University (UFF) and

the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) – would face

budget cuts for allegedly promoting turmoil and for

poor academic performance. According to Wein-

traub, “homework needs to be done: scientiﬁc pub-

lishing, up-to-date assessments, good positions in

rankings”.

Ironically, these three institutions are among

the best in Brazil, according to national rankings

measuring teaching quality and international rank-

ings measuring research productivity, raising doubts

about the actual motivations behind his decision.

Budget constraints quickly spread to the entire

federal system and all federal universities and insti-

tutes are facing cuts in their 2019 operational bud-

gets, putting into question their viability to get to the

end of the academic year.

In addition to the cuts themselves, what was

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

international mobility for doctoral researchers; the

Programa Institucional de Internacionalização

(CAPES–PrInt), which supports internationaliza-

tion at higher education institutions; and the Pro-

grama Idiomas sem Fronteiras (IsF), which promotes

foreign language capacity among university

communities.

In the Future-se program, the internationaliza-

tion axis proposed has the objective of “promoting

federal higher education institutions abroad and

raising their position in international rankings and

indices such as the Times Higher Education World

University Rankings and Web of Science”.

Up to this point, the proposals related to this

axis have been generic and mean it is difﬁcult to pro-

vide a detailed analysis of its intended goals, but the

inclusion of internationalization with a policy that

aims to encourage universities to raise funds for

their own survival and that emphasises international

reputation as its main objective signals a complete

immersion in an economically oriented paradigm

that is highly competitive and tends to reinforce in-

equalities at all levels.

In a country like Brazil, already marked by his-

torical and profound social inequalities, the risks are

even greater. If Future-se is approved, other forms of

international integration for higher education aimed

at shaping a more inclusive and sustainable future

will probably be even more restricted.

In addition, while national government initia-

tives for internationalization have mostly focused on

study in the United States and Europe, individual

universities have more broad-based initiatives.

Truths that Need to be Told

Government criticism against Brazilian higher edu-

cation is not substantiated. For example, the presi-

dent claims that public higher education institutions

are not productive – yet, while they represent only

12.1% of the national system, they are responsible

for 95% of national research productivity and their

social role goes beyond research to reach Brazilian

society in many important ways.

Another unproven assertion is that public uni-

versities are populated with ‘leftists’ and ‘Marxists’,

while these institutions actually reﬂect broader soci-

tions, private associations or NGOs that receive a

state grant to provide services of relevant public in-

terest, such as health and education.

The rectors of institutions that would be affect-

ed by the new policy are seriously concerned about

its consequences. Overall, they see Future-se as a

means for a massive state divestment from public

universities that would lead to privatization and

threaten the idea of higher education as a public and

social good, with undetermined consequences for

Brazilian society.

Individual institutions, including the Universi-

dade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, the largest in the

country, have joined the broad-based rejection of

this policy.

The Forum of Public Higher Education Institu-

tions of Minas Gerais State (IPES-MG), composed of

19 universities and institutes, argues that rectors

“had no prior knowledge of the program’s content

and were not invited to participate in its construc-

tion […] Besides, it was launched at a time of great

difﬁculty in respect to the 2019 budget […] Thus, it is

hard to talk about the future if the present is still

uncertain”.

The National Association of Higher Education

Institutions’ Leaders (ANDIFES), composed of all

federal universities and institutes in the country,

shared these concerns, emphasizing that, by signing

a contract with a social organization, the autonomy

of administrative, academic and scientiﬁc activities

at federal institutions would be deeply affected and

that the program would conﬂict with the autonomy

guaranteed by the federal constitution. They con-

cluded that “there is much to debate, much to

clarify”.

So far, 54% of the 63 federal universities have

decided not to support the plan, while the others are

still waiting for more information about how it will

work.

Implications for Internationalization

Bolsonaro’s agenda for higher education will proba-

bly affect attempts to internationalize the system

through its impact on at least three important na-

tional programs: the Programa de Doutorado San-

duíche no Exterior (CAPES–PDSE), which funds

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

that these are just initial steps towards a potential

disaster for science and higher education in Brazil.

With speciﬁc regard to Future-se, the chances of

success of a program that was designed without any

discussion with universities or other institutions are

remote.

Furthermore, there is a natural apprehension

concerning a program launched by a government

that has been so critical of public higher education.

The Brazilian higher education community is

mature enough to discuss changes in the system

and the federal government must concede the im-

portance of including the sector as a partner in the

development of national policies, especially consid-

ering their socioeconomic and cultural importance

for Brazilian society.

ety in terms of political positions.

Finally, even though public universities, tradi-

tionally, have been elitist, they have become more

democratic in recent years.

For example, a 2018 survey of the socio-eco-

nomic proﬁle of students at federal higher education

institutions shows that 70% of undergraduate stu-

dents at these institutions come from families with

a monthly income of up to BRL1,500 (about

US$362).

There are also quotas for graduates of public

high schools and minority groups that contribute to

diversity and help curb the country’s great social

inequality.

Although the allegations of the president and

his minister of education and the austerity measures

they propose are met with public disapproval and at-

tract international attention and protest, we believe

The Subordination of Private to Public Universities in

Panama

Iván Pacheco

Iván Pacheco is research fellow of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) of Boston College; co-founder

and President of Synergy E & D. and a lawyer. He also edits ESAL, a biannual journal published in Spanish and Portu-

guese that addresses current issues in higher education in Latin America. Previously published in the World View blog for

Inside Higher Education on September 4, 2019.

and in regulations issued by the same university, in-

cluding one in 1992 and another one in 2001.

In 2006 Panama’s Legislative issued Law 30, by

which the National System for Accreditation and As-

sessment for Improvement of University Education

was created. The Consejo Nacional de Acreditación

Universitaria de Panamá (CONEAUPA) was also

created “as an evaluating and accrediting body, rec-

tor of the National System of Evaluation and Accred-

itation for the Improvement of the Quality of Higher

University Education...” (Art. 13).

The Comisión Técnica de Fiscalización (Techni-

cal Commission of Control) is also part of the Sys-

tem as the “organism through which the University

anama’s private universities are subordinated to

public universities. According to Article 99 of

the Constitution “the Ofﬁcial University of the State

shall supervise the degrees of private universities of-

ﬁcially approved, to guarantee the degrees they use,

and shall revalidate those of foreign universities in

the cases established by law.” This formula was in-

troduced in 1972 and it has already survived four

Constitutional reforms.

Normative View

The Constitution’s article on supervision of public

over private universities has its precedent in Law 11

of 1981 (Organic Law of the University of Panama)

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

continuing improvement.

Two Assumptions that are not

Necessarily True

Panama’s constitution’s article granting public

universities the supervision (ﬁscalización) of pri-

vate universities is based on two implicit assump-

tions: 1) that public universities are intrinsically

better than private universities and 2) that public

universities have the knowledge and capacity to

adequately perform the supervisory function.

These assumptions are not necessarily true.

Many countries in the region have private

universities that are as good or better than public

universities. The Pontiﬁcal Catholic University of

Chile, the University of the Andes (Colombia), the

Technological Institute and of Superior Studies of

Monterrey (Mexico) are examples. Subordinating

the development of their academic programs to

the control of public universities would have been

an error and would have affected their ability to

develop autonomously.

This does not mean that private universities

do not have quality problems that, in some cases,

have been serious. When Panama started the ap-

plication of the rules on quality assurance, many

low-quality private universities were exposed and

several were closed. The same has happened in

other countries, for example, Ecuador and Peru.

However, at present, private universities have

established themselves as an alternative. A study

by the Research Institute of the Association of Pri-

vate Universities of Panama (IDIA) showed that

between 2014 and 2016, these universities invest-

ed $359 million dollars in infrastructure and oper-

ation, and generated 6.7 thousand jobs throughout

the country. The opinion about the quality of ofﬁ-

cial and private universities in Panama seems to

be divided. While some afﬁrm that “Private uni-

versities are a fraud,” others report “mass migra-

tion to private universities” motivated by

“technology and better quality of study in the

ﬁeld” as well as more lax admission criteria.

With respect to the second assumption that

ofﬁcial universities have the knowledge and oper-

of Panama, in coordination with the rest of the ofﬁcial

[public] universities, will carry out the supervision and

monitoring of the academic development of the private

universities, will approve the plans and programs of

study and will supervise the fulﬁllment of the mini-

mum requirements [of quality]... “( Law 52 of 2015, Ar-

ticle 28). The CONEAUPA submits reports to the

Ministry of Education that (subsequently) determines

sanctions applicable to private universities that are not

in compliance the law. The Commission is chaired by

the rector of the University of Panama and integrated

by the rectors of the other four public universities of

Panama.

It is not strange that Latin American constitutions

devote a section to higher education. Exceptionally,

some constitutions assign public universities a role of

supervision over private universities. The Constitution

of Bolivia devotes articles 91 to 98 to higher education

and says that “For the granting of academic diplomas

in all modalities of titles in private universities, exam-

ination tribunals shall be formed which shall be com-

posed of full professors, appointed by the public

universities, under the conditions established by the

law” (Art. 94).

Some Latin American countries have conferred by

law certain inﬂuence to public universities. In Colom-

bia higher education law awards the National Universi-

ty of Colombia a special organic regime and grants the

National Pedagogical University the role of “adviser to

the Ministry of National Education in the deﬁnition of

policies related to the training and improvement of

non-university teachers”. In several countries public

universities have special functions in terms of degree

recognition, something that also happens in Panama.

Likewise, it is not strange that the creation require-

ments of public universities are different from those of

private universities.

Distrust in private universities (and other private

institutions of higher education) is partly explained by

the explosion of the educational offer that the region

has experienced since the last third of the twentieth

century. This explosion was accompanied, in many cas-

es, by low quality supply. In order to address this fact,

educational systems evolved and created quality assur-

ance systems that, although imperfect, have contribut-

ed to the quality of education and to stimulate its

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

creasingly rapid changes in higher education.

Allowing one university or the public sector to su-

pervise the private sector introduces too many obsta-

cles to the natural evolution of quality assurance

schemes.

By retaining the subordination of an entire sec-

tor, Panama limits development and innovation in

private higher education by implicitly setting the

current public model of the university as the model

to emulate.

Of course the private higher education institu-

tions cannot operate without control or regulation

but they must be allowed to participate as peers in

the process of developing quality standards and de-

veloping national strategy for sustainable develop-

ment. It is not easy to change the Constitution of a

country. However, the 1972 Constitution has already

undergone four reforms. Perhaps in the ﬁfth reform

there is an opportunity to correct this situation.

ational capacity to perform the audit function ade-

quately, it is important to emphasize that universities

are not inspection bodies; their mission is to teach,

conduct research and provide service. These public

institutions have neither capacity nor resources to

provide appropriate supervision of other (and differ-

ent types of) institutions.

Conclusion

Many things have changed in Panama since the ap-

proval of the 1972 Constitution. The number of pub-

lic universities has grown from one to ﬁve. The

number of private universities has increased from

one to more than 22. The number of students in

university education in 2015 was 156,635 with just

over a third (53,822) enrolled in private universities.

Although the concern for the quality of educa-

tion in private universities was common to several

countries since the sixties and seventies, the inclu-

sion of a constitutional article subordinating them to

public universities is anchored to the reality of that

time. The current international trend towards ﬂexi-

ble standards allows institutions to adapt to the in-

The Growing Complexities of International

Collaboration

Liz Reisberg

Liz Reisberg is a co-editor of The World View. She is an independent consultant in higher education whose work focuses

primarily on Latin America. She is also a research fellow at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston

College. Previously published in the World View blog for Inside Higher Education on September 19, 2019.

mately improve quality of life everywhere. We

certainly underestimated the enduring legacy of po-

litical, economic, and military competition and mis-

trust among nations. Nor had we calculated the

resurgence and effect of extremist ideology.

Sadly, there are very real issues that have to be

considered with the mobility of students and schol-

id anyone really anticipate just how complicat-

ed internationalization in higher education was

going to be? The idealists among us hoped for that

the ﬂow of talent around the globe would lead to

multinational collaborations to speed up innovation

and the development new knowledge that would ad-

dress the world’s most pressing problems and ulti-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

MIT has instituted a three-phase review of new in-

ternational projects for certain countries, currently

China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

And the Trump government has announced

that representatives of the White House Ofﬁce of

Science and Technology Policy will be meeting with

scholars and visiting US campuses to discuss the is-

sue of “research security.” According to a recent arti-

cle in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “For

scholars, the threat that they could be investigated by

the government for their contacts in other countries

is real. Already this year, scientists at Emory Univer-

sity and the University of Texas MD Anderson Can-

cer Center have lost their jobs after the National

Institutes of Health wrote letters to their universities

highlighting behavior that the agency found suspi-

cious. In May the NIH said it was investigating more

than 50 institutions for a range of behavior it saw as

questionable.”

The threat of being investigated by the White

House is likely to have a chilling effect on research

collaboration.

Paranoia isn’t limited to the US. As indicated

above, Oxford is cutting some international ties. The

Ministry of Education in Russia has increased its

monitoring of interactions between Russian and for-

eign researchers. Among the features of the new

policy is a “recommendation” that Russian scientists

ask permission to meet with foreign colleagues at

least ﬁve days in advance. The Kremlin insists that

protection is needed against scientiﬁc and industrial

espionage.

But there are many reasons for concern. There

have been repeated reports by Human Rights Watch

about how the Chinese government interferes with

academic freedom on campuses outside of China.

Economic espionage and intellectual property

theft are not new. The US has indulged in quite a bit

of it. In 1787, American agent, Andrew Mitchell, was

intercepted by British authorities while trying to

smuggle models and drawing of British industrial

machines out of the country. Few know that the

American Industrial Revolution was in large part

built on the theft of intellectual property. The British

had developed mill machines establishing their

ars. Espionage, security, and theft of intellectual

property are real problems, but growing paranoia

may become an obstacle to scientiﬁc and technical

advancement when collaboration is constrained by

national borders.

Incidents where international students and

scholars are suspected (and accused) of posing a risk

seem to be increasing with varying degrees of valid-

ity. Recent examples include the following.

Perhaps one of the more egregious interven-

tions was the decision of US Immigration to impede

Ismail Ajjawi’s enrollment as an undergraduate at

Harvard and return him to Lebanon after inspecting

his social media postings and ﬁnding criticism of

the US and President Trump—posted not even by

Mr. Ajjawi but by others appearing on his mobile

phone. (If criticizing President Trump poses a risk

to US security, I am expecting a knock on my door

any minute.)

Nine Chinese students bound for Arizona State

University to enroll as undergraduates in engineer-

ing, business and life sciences were turned back at

LAX by Customs and Border Protection with no

clear explanation.

The FBI is questioning US graduates of Peking

University’s Yencheng Academy to determine

whether they have been recruited to Chinese espio-

nage efforts. One has to wonder how many other

scholars returning from abroad will soon be added

to the list of people to be interviewed.

A professor at the University of Kansas was in-

dicted in federal court for allegedly failing to disclose

a contract with a Chinese University. The professor

is accused of receiving federal grant money from the

Department of Energy and the National Science

Foundation at the same time he was paid by a Chi-

nese research university, a fact that he failed to

disclose.

The University of California, Berkeley followed

Oxford University in ending collaboration with Hua-

wei after the US Department of Justice brought

criminal charges against the company for theft of

trade secrets and other violations. The University of

Texas Austin is also reviewing its relationship with

Huawei, a Chinese company that invests millions in

communications technology research worldwide.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

sider the potential of collaborations such as the Eu-

ropean Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

project in Switzerland where 28 countries have

come together to advance scientiﬁc knowledge.

Closing the doors to foreign scholars and for-

eign investment may hurt us all in the end. MIT,

one of the world’s leading centers of innovation in-

dicates that 42% of their graduate enrollment is

international and 30% of overall enrollment. For-

eign-born graduates with doctoral degrees have

made a huge contribution to innovation in the US

by working at startups but it has become much

more difﬁcult for these individuals to remain in the

US.

Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Center’s

Kissinger Institute on China and the United States,

warns, “You don’t want to send the message to

arguably the largest talent pool in the world that

they are a despised class in America.”

Do we share knowledge, encourage collabora-

tion among researchers and pursue shared objec-

tives or do we limit collaboration in the interest of

competitive international positioning and national

security? These are complicated issues for compli-

cated times.

prominence in the international textile market in

the 19th century. In 1810, Francis Cabot Lowell

managed to memorize enough of Britain’s technol-

ogy for weaving cloth to duplicate the machinery

upon his return to the US. The British attempted to

retain industrial design secrets by forbidding the

emigration of skilled textile workers. Nevertheless,

Samuel Slater, a mill supervisor, managed to sneak

out of England and use this “stolen” knowledge to

improve the technology to manufacture cotton and

contribute to an economic boom in New England.

Today, science and technology have replaced

manufacturing in positioning a country in the in-

ternational economy. The US has led the world in

scientiﬁc and technical innovation for decades, but

this prowess is being challenged. The dilemma fac-

ing the US and other developed countries is wheth-

er this technology and knowledge should be shared

openly. Where should the boundary of “propri-

etary” and “collaborative” be established? How do

we all protect our security and our values in the

face of easy mobility and growing reach of national

governments?

Yet there are also important gains that result

from allowing scientists from multiple nations to

share facilities and conduct research together. Con-

European Internationalization and ‘Money Matters’

Laura E. Rumbley

Laura E. Rumbley is associate director, knowledge development and research at the European Association for Internation-

al Education. Previously published in the World View blog for Inside Higher Education on November 3, 2019.

mies. It’s visible in the evolution of international ed-

ucation conferences into major trade fairs or industry

gatherings. It’s apparent in the broad ecosystems of

product and service providers that support many dif-

ferent aspects of internationalization activity. There’s

no question that there is a bustling market for inter-

national education in many corners of the world. Re-

cent analysis from Europe adds some new information

to this discussion, highlighting nuances and raising

new questions.

or some time now, concerns have been raised

about the ways in which money has become a

more central consideration when it comes to inter-

nationalization in higher education. It’s hard to dis-

agree with this assessment, at least to some extent.

It’s evident that some countries -- particularly the

United States and Australia -- frame the beneﬁts of

internationalization in terms of revenue generation

for individual institutions or entire national econo-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

cent of U.K. respondents considered ﬁnancial bene-

ﬁts to be a top-three main goal for internationalization,

while respondents from countries such as Kazakh-

stan and the Netherlands were much less likely to

cite ﬁnancial beneﬁts as a top goal at just 2 percent

and 6 percent, respectively.

Prioritizing Activities for Revenue

Generation? Possibly

One way of ascertaining how or if ﬁnancial interests

might be important to internationalization in Euro-

pean higher education is to consider the activities

institutions identify as priorities in their internation-

alization strategies and the potential of these activi-

ties to generate revenue. Here again, we see

Europe-wide averages telling one story and national

and regional level data telling another.

For example, international student recruitment,

clearly an activity with the potential to contribute

revenue in some contexts, was selected by 53 percent

of all “Barometer” respondents as a top-ﬁve priority.

Only the mobility of home students was selected

more frequently as a top-ﬁve priority (68 percent of

all respondents). However, only 36 percent of Ger-

man respondents considered international student

recruitment a top-priority activity, while a whopping

85 percent of U.K. respondents indicate that their

institutions consider international student recruit-

ment as a top-ﬁve priority. Of course, different poli-

cies in regard to collecting tuition from international

students can explain these disparities, but there is

not always a clear connection between priorities and

potential revenue. Institutions in the Netherlands

can require international students to pay fees, but

only 48 percent of Dutch respondents indicated in-

ternational student recruitment was a top priority.

Additional factors are clearly in play.

Internal and External Limitations? A Mixed

Picture

“Barometer” respondents were asked to identify the

top three internal and external challenges affecting

internationalization at their institutions. In both cas-

es “insufﬁcient budget” was cited most frequently.

So, money in this sense is clearly on the minds of

Seeking a European Perspective

A recent study produced by the European Associa-

tion for International Education aims to advance

this conversation. The “EAIE Barometer (Second

Edition): Money Matters” report draws on data pro-

vided by 2,317 professionals working on internation-

alization at nearly 1,300 different higher education

institutions in 45 countries across Europe; 80 per-

cent work in public HEIs. Many respondents (54

percent) hail from research universities; 60 percent

identify as international ofﬁce staff; 18 percent iden-

tify as faculty; 14 percent as other administrative

staff; 5 percent as deputy heads of HEIs.

While the full “EAIE Barometer” survey gener-

ated a wide range of data on internationalization

practices, priorities, opportunities and challenges,

the “Money Matters” study homed in on a small sub-

set of data that offered the possibility to explore

whether ﬁnancial considerations are perceived as

barriers to or drivers of internationalization in Euro-

pean higher education. The bottom line? It’s compli-

cated. On the one hand, there are a few overarching

European trends that the data point to, but at the

same time, very distinct national and regional reali-

ties across Europe paint a much more nuanced pic-

ture. A few choice ﬁndings illustrate these

complexities.

Financial Beneﬁts as a Goal? For Some

On the face of it, ﬁnancial beneﬁts are not perceived

as a top priority for the vast majority of European

HEIs. Indeed, ﬁnancial beneﬁts were cited as a top-

three goal for internationalization by just 12 percent

of respondents. Four other objectives were named at

signiﬁcantly higher rates -- to prepare students for a

global world (76 percent of respondents mentioned

this as a top-three goal); improve the quality of edu-

cation (a top-three main goal for 65 percent); en-

hance institutional reputation/competitiveness (53

percent); and improve the quality of research (38

percent).

Interestingly, however, when looking at strictly

national-level data, there are some very signiﬁcant

differences in relation to ﬁnancial beneﬁts as a main

goal for internationalization. For example, 42 per-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

issue, certainly a reﬂection of varied costs of housing

and maintenance among European countries.

Money Matters? It Depends …

So, where does all of this leave us? On the one hand,

the “Money Matters” report demonstrates that ﬁnan-

cial considerations are clearly key to international-

ization in Europe, but that there are wide variations

in perceptions and realities across different national

contexts. Europe-level ﬁndings may point to general

tendencies or orientations, yet we’re reminded that

this is a complex region, not easily reduced to a sin-

gle set of ﬁndings. It is also clear there is much more

to learn about the intersection between ﬁnancial

considerations and internationalization in European

higher education. New research involving interna-

tional education professionals and other sources of

information will certainly yield additional insights

that will help further our understanding of the ways

-- and extent to which -- money matters in interna-

tional education in Europe today.

European international education professionals. In-

terestingly, however, budget insufﬁciency was quite

closely followed by a range of some half dozen other

issues that respondents considered to be key chal-

lenges, including such difﬁculties as the lack of

commitment by colleagues to the internationaliza-

tion agenda, lack of recognition to individuals by

their HEIs for their involvement in internationaliza-

tion activities, (inter)national competition, national

legal barriers, etc.

When it comes to challenges, national-level data

are varied, but not as dramatically as was seen in re-

lation to the primacy of ﬁnancial beneﬁts as a main

goal of internationalization. Interestingly, one exter-

nal ﬁnancial challenge that is considered highly

problematic for some countries and signiﬁcantly

less so for others is that of cost of living. While just

24 percent of all “Barometer” respondents saw high

cost of living as a top-three challenge, 60 percent of

Finnish respondents saw this as a top-three external

challenge, against a mere 3 percent of Slovakian and

Spanish respondents registering a concern with this

Higher Education Equity Policies across the Globe

Jamil Salmi

Jamil Salmi is a global tertiary education expert, a research fellow at the Center for International Higher Education,

Boston College, United States, and professor emeritus of higher education policy at Diego Portales University, Chile.

E-mail: [email protected]. This article was ﬁrst published in IHE No. 98, Summer 2019.

recent study sponsored by the Lumina Founda-

tion aims to assess the nature and extent of pol-

icy commitments of national governments on

addressing inequalities in access to and success in

higher education.

Besides reviewing the policies of 71 countries on

all continents, the study also analyses the equity pro-

motion policies of relevant multilateral and regional

agencies involved in providing policy advice, techni-

cal assistance and ﬁnancial support.

With the exception of a few fragile states recov-

ering from a natural catastrophe or a major political crisis,

equity is a priority theme in the higher education agenda

of most governments.

This ofﬁcial commitment eﬂects the fact that young

people all over the world are keenly aware that opportuni-

ties for professional success and social mobility are direct-

ly linked to opportunities in higher education.

Equity, from Principle to Practice

However, beyond ofﬁcial statements about equity, which

tend to reﬂect commonly shared principles of inclusion,

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

ﬁnancial aid as principal instrument and a tendency

to look at access barriers instead of promoting inter-

ventions to boost the chances of success of students

from disadvantaged backgrounds who are enrolled

in higher education institutions.

The survey highlighted much variety in the

choice of instruments used to promote equity be-

yond the traditional ﬁnancial aid mechanisms –

grants and student loans – that are widely available.

Twelve countries use their budget allocation funding

formula or earmarked grants to support equity pro-

motion efforts at the institutional level.

Promising Trends

The survey identiﬁed two promising trends. First, a

growing number of countries have realized the im-

portance of combining both ﬁnancial and non-mon-

etary interventions to remove, in a comprehensive

way, all barriers faced by students from disadvan-

taged groups.

The most frequently supported non-monetary

programs are afﬁrmative action and reformed ad-

mission criteria, outreach and bridge programs and

retention programs.

Second, a few governments have begun to com-

plement the direct support offered to students with

incentives for the universities themselves as a means

of pressuring the latter into taking a more proactive

role in improving access and success opportunities.

This is achieved by incorporating an equity indi-

cator into the funding formula, setting up earmarked

funds for equity interventions that universities can

beneﬁt from, and-or including equity-related criteria

in the quality assurance process.

Comprehensiveness and Consistency

The study attempted to compare national equity pol-

icies internationally from the viewpoint of compre-

hensiveness and consistency.

The 71 countries surveyed were classiﬁed into

four equity policy categories deﬁned in the following

way:

•Emerging: The country has formulated broad

equity policy principles and goals, but has ac-

complished little in terms of concrete policies,

programss and interventions (nine countries);

the survey found a wide range of situations when it

came to translating these principles into actual poli-

cies and interventions.

A number of countries are still only paying lip

service to the equity agenda, in the sense that they

do not spell out clear equity promotion strategies,

deﬁne concrete targets to enroll and support stu-

dents in vulnerable conditions, mobilize sufﬁcient

resources targeted to underrepresented groups or

put in place actions to help students complete their

degrees.

Many countries still adopt a narrow deﬁnition of

equity target groups. As a result, the existence of eq-

uity target groups that suffer from neglect or dis-

crimination does not translate into ofﬁcial

recognition and actual compensatory policies.

Minority ethnic groups are the frequent victims

of these ‘blind spots’, as governments may see the

recognition of their rights as a threat to the power,

prestige or resources of the dominant group.

While most nations focus on the barriers faced

by traditional equity target groups, including stu-

dents from low-income households, women and

girls, members of ethnic minorities and students

with disabilities, several countries have added

non-traditional equity target groups, reﬂecting the

social transformation of these countries:

• Victims of sexual and gender violence;

• Members of the LGBT community;

• Refugees of all kinds (internally and externally

displaced people and those who have been

deported);

• Children of people affected by historical

violence;

• Students with experience of having been in

care, including orphans and young people with-

out parental care.

Overall, 11% of the countries surveyed have for-

mulated a comprehensive equity strategy. Another

11% have elaborated a speciﬁc policy document for

one equity target group: women, people with disabil-

ities or members of indigenous groups.

Many countries’ deﬁnition of equity policies is

still traditional in focus, with a heavy emphasis on

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

The countries that appear as ‘emerging’ from an

equity policy viewpoint are essentially fragile states

that have had neither the resources nor the political

stability necessary to elaborate and sustain robust eq-

uity policies for higher education over the long run.

The few nations labelled as ‘advanced’ show a

high degree of consistency over time in terms of

comprehensive strategy, policies, goals and targets

and alignment between equity goals and the range of

instruments – ﬁnancial and non-monetary – used to

promote equity in higher education. Some of them

even have a dedicated equity promotion agency.

Most of these countries (Australia, England, Ire-

land, New Zealand and Scotland) are relatively rich

Commonwealth countries with mature higher edu-

cation systems, which have paid increasing attention

to the obstacles to success faced by students from

underrepresented groups. The other nation included

in the list is Cuba, which, for ideological reasons, has

consistently put a great emphasis on equity since the

1959 socialist revolution.

•Developing: The country has put in place the

foundations of an equity promotion strategy,

but has not deﬁned many policies and pro-

grams, is not investing much in this area and

has implemented few policies and programs (33

countries);

•Established: The country has formulated an eq-

uity promotion strategy and has put in place

aligned policies, programs and interventions to

implement the strategy (23 countries);

•Advanced: The country has formulated and im-

plemented a comprehensive equity promotion

strategy. Some countries in this category even

have a dedicated equity promotion agency (six

countries).

Most countries fall into the second or third cate-

gory (developing or established). The distinction be-

tween the two is not due principally to the wealth of

the countries concerned. The ‘established’ category

includes several developing countries that may not

be able to devote the same amount of resources as

OECD economies, but have fairly comprehensive

policies to promote equity in higher education.

IHE at 100: 25 Years of Evolution in International

Higher Education

Rebecca Schendel, Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis, and Araz Khajarian

Rebecca Schendel is Assistant Professor of the Practice and Managing Director of the Center for International Higher

Education, Boston College. Email:[email protected]. Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis is a PhD graduate of the Center for

International Higher Education, Boston College. Email: [email protected]. Araz Khajarian is an MA in International

Higher Education graduate of Boston College. Email: [email protected]. Previously published in International Higher

Education, No. 100, Winter 2020.

graphic reach, our thematic coverage, and the proﬁle

of our contributing authors.

Global in Reach and Authorship

The mission of IHE is to provide informed and in-

sightful analysis of topical issues affecting higher

education systems around the world. We have,

therefore, always been very concerned with our glob-

he publication of the 100th issue of Internation-

al Higher Education (IHE) provides a unique

opportunity to reﬂect on the contributions made by

the periodical during its ﬁrst 25 years in operation.

In this article, we summarize key ﬁndings from a

comprehensive analysis of all of the articles included

in the ﬁrst 99 issues of IHE (a grand total of 1,459

individual articles), focusing particularly on our geo-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

al reach, aiming to include contributions from coun-

tries that are less frequently covered in the global

literature, as well as discussion of the major players

on the international stage. Analysis of the ﬁrst 99

issues demonstrates that we have been successful in

achieving this goal, with our 1,459 articles being

well distributed across the various world regions.

East Asia and the Paciﬁc is the region with the great-

est coverage (267 articles), with Europe and Central

Asia following closely be-hind (with 253). We have

also published more than 100 articles focused on

countries in North America (145), sub-Saharan Afri-

ca (132), and Latin America and the Caribbean (125).

A substantial number of our articles (more than

200) are also best classiﬁed as being “global” in their

scope, given that they deal with issues of relevance

to multiple regions of the world. Although East Asia

and the Paciﬁc, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin

American and the Caribbean have all been substan-

tial sources of contributions since our founding,

there have been some changes in our geographic

distribution over the years, with the number of titles

on North America declining and the number of con-

tributions from Africa increasing, particularly in the

last 10 years. This latter trend is in no small part due

to the support for Africa-focused contributions that

we have received from the Carnegie Corporation

over this period. We have also seen an increase, in

recent years, of articles that explicitly compare two

or more regions of the world, in relation to a partic-

ular topic. However, there is still room for improve-

ment, particularly in the Middle East and North

Africa, a region that has only featured in 56 articles,

less than 4 percent of our total output. South Asia is

also less well represented, with 70 articles published

in the ﬁrst 99 issues.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the story is less bal-

anced when it comes to speciﬁc countries within

these broad regions. Certain countries tend to dom-

inate the global literature on higher education, and

the pattern is similar in IHE, with, for example, over

30 percent of articles on East Asia and the Paciﬁc

focusing on China; 75 percent of articles on South

Asia focusing on India; 16 percent of articles on Eu-

rope and Central Asia focusing on the United King-

dom; 13 percent of articles on sub-Saharan

Africa focusing on South Africa; and half of the

articles on Latin America and the Caribbean fo-

cusing on one of four countries (Brazil, Chile,

Argentina, and Mexico). The United States is

also our most frequently discussed country, al-

though this dominance was more pronounced

in the ﬁrst years of publication and has declined

signiﬁcantly in recent issues. However, despite

the dominance of a small number of countries,

it is important to proﬁle one signiﬁcant contri-

bution of IHE over the years, which is the sheer

range of countries represented. Our ﬁrst 99 is-

sues have included at least some coverage of

most countries in the world, with 111 individual

countries being explicitly represented in at least

one article to date. We have also published a

number of articles that are regional in focus

and/or that pro-ﬁle particular groups of coun-

tries (e.g., the “BRICs”—Brazil, Russia, India,

and China).

In addition to prioritizing coverage of a

broad range of contexts, IHE has long been

concerned with the global reach of its author-

ship. Whenever possible, the editorial team

seeks to invite authors to contribute to IHE who

themselves live and work in the countries un-

der discussion, so as to avoid some of the clear

global imbalances that exist in most interna-

tional publishing. We have not always been suc-

cessful in this regard, as evidenced by the fact

that nearly 40 percent of our articles were writ-

ten by an author based in the United States.

However, the fact remains that over 60 percent

of IHE articles were written by non-US-based

authors, with more than 40 contributions com-

ing from each region in the world (and some

regions contributing very frequently, e.g., Eu-

rope and Central Asia with 296 contributions

and East Asia and the Paciﬁc with 176). The

trends over time are also generally encourag-

ing, as we have seen a marked rise in contribu-

tions from authors based in regions such as

South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa in recent

years. It is also important to highlight the fact

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

that our analysis “counted” individuals in terms of

their afﬁliation at the time of writing, so many of

the authors counted as “American” are not Ameri-

can of origin but were, rather, contributing when

working or studying at a US institution. However,

there are also less encouraging trends that must be

acknowledged, particularly a dramatic decline in

the number of contributions from authors based in

the Middle East and North Africa since 2001.

Broad Thematic Coverage, With Some

Important Gaps

We also classiﬁed each article by primary theme, in

order to understand the range of themes discussed

in IHE, as well as any trends over time. The ﬁrst

ﬁnding in this regard is the broad diversity of

themes represented in the ﬁrst 99 issues. We have

published articles on higher education ﬁnance; pri-

vatization; policy and governance; the academic

profession; access and equity; quality and accredita-

tion; rankings and world class universities; research

and publication; students and student services; the

“third mission”; types/models of university; and

North–South relations, as well as a broad range of

articles focused on topics that would broadly be

classiﬁed as “ internationalization” (i.e., mobility of

students and faculty; internationalization strate-

gies; cross-border and transnational education,

etc.).

Many of these themes have been very well rep-

resented over the years. Internationalization has

been our most popular topic, with 317 titles (over

20 percent) falling in that category, and has also in-

creased quite signiﬁcantly over the past 10 years.

Other themes that have featured in a signiﬁcant

number of contributions include privatization

(137), quality and accreditation (120) and ﬁnance

(105).

Over time, we have seen an increase in articles

on access and equity (although this was particularly

pronounced between 2006 and 2010, rather than

in the most recent decade), on research and publi-

cation, and on rankings and world class universi-

ties. Other themes, such as the academic profession

and ﬁnance, have declined in popularity in recent

years. Some of these peaks are likely historical in

nature (e.g., a spike in articles about globalization

in the years directly after the millennium; a rise in

articles focused on the relatively new phenomena

of rankings and “world class universities” in the

past decade; a much more recent spike in the num-

ber of articles focused on the interference of poli-

tics in higher education). Others are likely to be due

to trends in the broader higher education literature

(e.g., the rising focus on access and equity). Others

still are due to the activity of particular groups or

authors, who have contributed signiﬁcant numbers

of articles on their topic of focus. One clear case of

this is the Program for Research on Private Higher

Education (based at the University at Albany – State

University of New York), which has produced a con-

siderable number of articles for IHE on private

higher education over the years. However, not all of

the trends can easily be explained, including trends

of no change. There has not, for example, been any

signiﬁcant increase in the number of articles fo-

cused on higher education ﬁnance, despite signiﬁ-

cant attention devoted to the topics of student

ﬁnancing and the impact of budget austerity in

many countries in recent years.

Our thematic analysis also showed some sig-

niﬁcant gaps. The theme of students and student

services, for example, has hardly received any cov-

erage in the ﬁrst 99 issues (only 12 articles, which

represents less than 1 percent of the total). There

have also been very few looking at the “third mis-

sion” of higher education (35) or at North–South

relations (39). These areas represent important top-

ics for our ﬁeld, so an increased focus in future

years would be a welcome development.

An Increasingly Diverse Authorship

The last area of focus for our analysis was the diver-

sity of our authorship. Aside from geographic di-

versity, which was discussed above, we also

investigated the institutional afﬁliation and gender

of our contributing authors.

Although, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of

authors are based at educational institutions (gen-

erally universities), roughly 25 percent of IHE arti-

cles have been written by authors from other kinds

of institutions (i.e., nonproﬁt organizations, higher

education associations, government agencies, and

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

the globe. The focus on higher education’s contribu-

tion to the Sustainable Development Goals in this

issue is a promising start.

private companies). It is also signiﬁcant to note tha-

tover 20 percent of IHE articles are coauthored. Of

these coauthor pairs or groups, more than half rep-

resent multiple institution types (for example, one

author from a university and one from a govern-

ment agency). A sizable number of these include at

least one author from a nonproﬁt organization. As a

number of single-authored contributions (more

than 75) have also been submitted by authors from

nonproﬁts, it is clear that the nonproﬁt sector has

featured substantially in our authorship over the

years.

Another interesting trend to note is that the

number of female contributors has in-creased over

time. In total, roughly 30 percent of the articles sub-

mitted by authors with a known gender were au-

thored (or coauthored) by women, and this

proportion has grown signiﬁcantly over the years.

There is a regional dimension to this, however, with

women being much more highly represented in cer-

tain regions than others. Nearly 50 percent of contri-

butions from Europe and Central Asia, for example,

come from women, whereas women contributed

less than 15 percent of the articles from sub-Saharan

Africa.

Conclusion

In summary, we can conclude that IHE has done a

remarkable job ensuring that its con-tent has re-

mained both geographically diverse and thematical-

ly rich over its ﬁrst 25 years in operation. It has also

provided an important contribution by giving voice

to a broad range of scholars, policy-makers, and

practitioners working in the ﬁeld of inter-national

higher education, including a sizable number from

outside the United States and Western Europe. In-

deed, this diversity, both in terms of content and

contributing authorship, has increased over time.

However, there is more to be done in the future to

ensure that we continue to diversify our work, repre-

senting countries that are less frequently discussed

in the global literature, featuring topics, such as the

“third mission,” which are crucially important but

have received little coverage to date, and encourag-

ing contributions from authors from all regions of

the conference took place in Brussels last month

and was sponsored by a number of long-established

educational organizations in Europe, including the

British Council, the German Academic Exchange

Service (DAAD), NUFFIC (Dutch organiszation for

internationalization in education), Campus France

and others.

At this event, the commissioner for human re-

sources, science and technology at the African

Union (AU) Commission afﬁrmed the need for eq-

uitable partnerships which build on identiﬁed needs

as stipulated in the Continental Education Strategy

for Africa 2016-2025 and Agenda 2063.

The gathering was particularly signiﬁcant in

terms of thwarting the defunct views on African

higher education that still exist in some quarters

which are incompatible with contemporary dis-

courses. It is important to note that the paradigm

shift towards recognizing the true potential of high-

er education in Africa is yet to be fully embraced by

those who continue to read from the outmoded de-

velopment discourse that undermined African high-

er education’s progress in the recent past.

It is to be recalled that the very architect of the

ﬂawed discourse on the value of higher education in

Africa, the World Bank, has now been pursuing a

fantastically divergent position, declaring African

higher education as having the highest rate of return

in the world. While such an approach is not without

its critiques, its focus on helping to build centers of

excellence on the continent is a ﬁrm testimony to

the key role higher education plays in sustainable

development.

frica has successfully transitioned from the

“Hopeless Continent” in 2000 to “Africa Ris-

ing – The hopeful continent” in 2011 and later grad-

uated to “Aspiring Africa–The world’s

fastest-growing continent” in 2013, according to The

Economist, one of the most inﬂuential magazines in

the world. Since then, the continent has been party

to a multitude of high-level summits hosted by

countries and other regional representative institu-

tions external to the continent.

Some of these gatherings have been organised

around the following partnerships: Africa Forum

Canada; Forum on China-Africa Cooperation; Afri-

ca-France Summit; Germany’s G20 Compact with

Africa; India-Africa Forum Summit; Japan’s Tokyo

International Conference on African Development;

Korea-Africa Forum for Economic Cooperation; the

most recent Russia-Africa Summit; the Turkey-Afri-

ca Summit and the US-Africa Summit. To this, one

may add other sector-related conventions to the

growing enterprise.

The frequency of these meetings underscores

the need for Africa to carve its own path as it engag-

es with a multitude of new as well as historical part-

ners in light of its changing status.

Higher Education

This article was prompted by one gathering in par-

ticular – a major conference organized by the Euro-

pean and African Union Commissions on higher

education.

Under the banner “Investing in People, by In-

vesting in Higher Education and Skills in Africa”,

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

A Proliferation of Summits – What Role for

Universities?

Damtew Teferra

Damtew Teferra is professor of higher education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and founding director

of the International Network for Higher Education in Africa. He is founding editor-in-chief of the International Journal

of African Higher Education. Teferra steers the Higher Education Cluster of the African Union’s Continental Education

Strategy for Africa. He may be reached at [email protected] and [email protected]. Previously published in University

World News on November 28, 2019.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

principles include ownership, alignment, harmoni-

zation, result-focused and mutual accountability.

As Africa’s partnerships with the rest of the

world are steadily growing, it is imperative that they

are guided by these principles. The role of continen-

tal and regional organizations, especially African

universities, in pursuing, advancing and advocating

for these principles cannot be overemphasized.

I have long resisted the notion of donor-recipi-

ent phraseology, on the fervent premise that there is

no one donor who is not receiving as there is no one

recipient who is not giving.

However, the phraseology continues to domi-

nate the development landscape, presumably be-

cause what is considered to be donated or received is

inequitably claimed, inappropriately monetized, and

unfairly expressed.

Even more so now, this discourse should be

completely scrapped given the global reality of mas-

sive interdependence and mutual interest in climate,

peace, security, healthcare and welfare, among other

factors. It is thus paramount that the continent en-

gages with the rest of the world – but on an equal

footing – in a discourse that recognizes existing and

emerging realities.

Many of us have long advocated for the need to

revitalize and establish key institutions in Africa –

major universities, particularly ﬂagship universities,

think tanks and regional and continental organiza-

tions – in the interest of advancing the development

of the continent.

It is vital that leaders, especially leaders of these

institutions, establish and systematically revitalize

departments and centers in the form of Asian stud-

ies, Middle East studies, global studies, and so forth

that proactively track developments and appropriate-

ly articulate relevant interventions and alternative

discourses.

The need for strategic and sustainable support

predominantly, if not exclusively, from national and

continental funding entities, primarily for the com-

plete independence of these entities, cannot be

overemphasized.

An Inclusive Courtship

Africa harbors more than half of the world’s fast-

Likewise, the recent gathering in Brussels,

co-hosted by the AU and EU, holds the potential to

assist in pushing forward policy discourses favor-

able to African higher education in European and

US capitals and beyond.

More so, it is anticipated that the European

Commission may further expand the scope of the

higher education engagement with Africa through

more long-term initiatives as mutually agreed by

both parties. Such initiatives could also help to ad-

vance favorable policies on higher education in Afri-

can countries themselves, more so in some than

others.

It is conceivable that, with an economically

stronger, hugely diverse and massively growing

higher education sector on the continent, the impli-

cations of these interventions may not be as critical

as they used to be in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet still,

the kind of interventions and where these interven-

tions are made remain potent.

The hosting of such summits on the African

continent without the support and tutelage of exter-

nal agencies remains a rare occasion. It is anticipat-

ed that this may change as Africa strives to run its

affairs with declining external inﬂuence, though the

oversized convening power of external agencies may

linger for a long while.

Universities as Strategic Institutions

It is now time for Africa to emerge as a primary host

– as Africa-China complementing China-Africa, Af-

rica-EU complementing EU-Africa engagements

among others – on its turf and its terms, and its

agenda. The collective voice of the continent through

its strategic institutions such as universities remains

paramount.

In Paris in 2005 and in Accra in 2008, two key

conventions culminated respectively in major decla-

rations: the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

and the Accra Agenda for Action. The Paris Declara-

tion and the Accra Agenda are founded on ﬁve core

principles, born out of decades of experience of what

works for development, and what doesn’t. These

principles have gained support across the develop-

ment community, changing development coopera-

tion paradigms presumably for the better. The

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

out deliberative and commensurate acclaim for its

immense potential. It is hoped that the courtship

will be mutually beneﬁcial, meaningfully equitable

and strategically sustainable.

Higher education institutions must be at the

centre of this courtship, both in articulating and de-

veloping as well as assessing and critiquing the dis-

courses, policies, strategies and practices

underpinning the growing engagements. So far,

their role in this exercise has been woefully lacking.

est-growing economies. This is clear, and further

indication of the future of Africa as a formidable

economic, political and strategic force. The system-

atic and strategic deployment of strong institutions

– particularly higher education institutions – in an-

ticipating, supporting, guiding and steering the dia-

logue, engagement and initiatives vis-à-vis the rest

of the world remains key.

To be sure, it is signiﬁcant that the world is

out-competing itself to court the continent typically

condemned for the multitude of its challenges with-

Human Rights Discourse and Refugee Higher

Education

Lisa Unangst

Lisa Unangst is a PhD graduate of the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College and incoming

post-doctoral student at Centre for Higher Education Governance, Ghent University. Email: [email protected].

Previously published in the World View blog for Inside Higher Education on June 23, 2019.

ritings on the manifold contemporary refu-

gee crises and related higher education ac-

cess issues often reference key international

frameworks supporting higher education as a hu-

man right. However, the speciﬁc documents in

question and their guidelines are rarely explored,

though indeed examination of those principles

makes clear the disjunction with educational prac-

tices in every national setting. This piece seeks to

brieﬂy make that comparison.

Human Rights Discourse on Higher

Education

The equal treatment of migrants (an umbrella term

including refugees) in higher education relates to

the human rights discourse in several ways, but

most of the relevant protections pertain to equal ac-

cess to educational institutions rather than experi-

ence in higher education once enrolled. The right to

higher education is enshrined in Article 26 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights which

states that “Higher education shall be equally acces-

sible to all on the basis of merit” (United Nations,

1963). This clear and aspirational statement has yet

to be achieved 45 years on, though certainly progress

has been made through the massiﬁcation of higher

education or rapid expansion of tertiary enrollment

in the traditional age cohort. High tuition costs and

insufﬁcient supply of higher education are some of

the barriers preventing equal access in the contem-

porary tertiary landscape.

Second, Article 13 of the ICESC (International

Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights)

is frequently referenced in a discussion of higher ed-

ucation as a human right and has been ratiﬁed by

169 countries worldwide. Article 13 reads (in part):

Education shall be directed to the full develop-

ment of the human personality and the sense of its

dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human

rights and fundamental freedoms… education shall

enable all persons to participate effectively in a free

society, promote understanding, tolerance and

friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or

religious groups, and further the activities of the

United Nations for the maintenance of peace (Unit-

ed Nations General Assembly, 1966).

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

equal treatment, and how is that similar to and dif-

ferent from scaffolding (a series of stage-appropriate

supports that undergird student development mov-

ing toward independence, for instance a spectrum

of writing support services from intensive individual

tutoring to informal peer writing groups)? Are spe-

ciﬁc “accommodations” needed for refugee students

who may speak multiple languages but are newly

skilled in the language of instruction in a given con-

text? Do the afﬁnity centers (such as women’s cen-

ters, Latinx student centers, etc.) increasingly

familiar on college and university campuses world-

wide need to include “migrant centers”, and similar-

ly, are tailored orientation and mentorship programs

called for?

Existing human rights frameworks are rein-

forced by foundational documents of national law.

However, contradictions in the practice of equal

treatment in higher education are evident in every

national case. While the US, for example, offers

TRIO programs (federally funded student support

and outreach programs targeting marginalized

groups including ﬁrst generation students) there is

no comprehensive support model speciﬁcally aimed

at refugee students at either the secondary school or

post-secondary level. Although refugee numbers

vary widely among nation-states, 1% of students

with a refugee background currently access higher

education worldwide (UNHCR), suggesting action

in this area is urgently called for on a humanitarian

level (as elaborated here). Further, argumentation

around refugee higher education as an economic or

labor market advantage for the host country has

been made by the Brookings Institution and many

other organizations.

While I call for comprehensive action at the na-

tional level to address the gap between human rights

commitments and higher education practice, indi-

vidual colleges and universities have vital roles to

play. Though efforts at online higher education are

expanding, educational attainment through those

initiatives remains marginal and thus brick and

mortar colleges and universities must move towards

more robust engagement.

A commitment to active recruitment of students

This clearly references the quality of education

and thus relates to the issue of concern here: sup-

ports for tertiary-level students that enhance educa-

tional attainment. Article 13 does not prescribe

quality assurance mechanisms, but indeed points

toward the promotion of intercultural dialogue and

participation (presumably at the highest levels) in

free societies and the UN mission, all of which are

facilitated by higher education.

Third, the 1960 UNESCO Convention Against

Discrimination in Education states, among other

things, that the organization “while respecting the

diversity of national educational systems, has the

duty not only to proscribe any form of discrimina-

tion in education but also to promote equality of op-

portunity and treatment for all in

education” (UNESCO General Conference, 1960).

Again, this emphasis on equal treatment may be

seen as necessitating equal supports for enrolled

students.

Finally, the Global Compact on Migration direct-

ly addresses the obligations of host or receiving

countries to provide skills training and education in

their own national settings to all migrants in the

context of short, medium and long-term plans for

migration policy and integration (United Nations

General Assembly, 2018). An emphasis on long

term migrant integration indicates the need to facil-

itate higher education enrollment and attainment of

this same population, which institutionalized sup-

ports make possible.

Not Just Equal Access, but Equal

Treatment

As noted, the existing supranational human rights

framework provides strong support for equal higher

education access and—less frequently discussed—

equal treatment while enrolled in a higher educa-

tion. However, while much of the contemporary

literature on refugees and higher education (admit-

tedly a limited pool) has logically focused on access

as a vital ﬁrst intervention for state and national ac-

tors, equal treatment in support of educational at-

tainment has received much less attention.

Deﬁnitional questions abound: What do we mean by

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

with a refugee background with attendant outreach

and admissions counseling strategies developed

would be a ﬁrst step, with close attention to what

and how equal treatment will be provided in any giv-

en institutional context. For instance, a student-led

initiative at the University of Cincinnati has created

an online tour video of campus in 11 languages. Ad-

ditionally, the University of Buffalo makes available

fact sheets to share with applicant family and friends

in 16 languages including Burmese and Vietnam-

ese. Additionally, Macquarie University (Australia)

operates the LEAP UP Macquarie Mentoring pro-

gram, which seeks to match current university stu-

dents with refugee students at the secondary level

to help them transition to higher education.

A two-pronged approach incorporating both

access and support programs would further the

meaningful implementation of human rights dis-

course; refugee community engagement is within

reach and requires the investment of leaders at the

institutional, state, and national levels. A legacy of

meaningful inclusion and translation of the UN

discourse to practice would be a testament to any

leader in these various spheres.

studying abroad programs to China and announcing

self-quarantine measures.

Nonetheless, increasing anxiety has sparked xe-

nophobia, Sinophobia and anti-China sentiment to-

wards students of Chinese and Asian descent.

With cases of conﬁrmed infections increasing to

over 40,000 at home, Chinese students worldwide

are especially cautious, often wearing face masks for

self-protection. But they have come under verbal in-

sult or even brutal physical attack for wearing masks

in Shefﬁeld, UK, in Berlin, Germany and in New

York City.

Many institutions have sent out health warn-

ings to campus students in neutral tones, hoping to

counter misinformation and bias and instead dis-

seminate the facts. This overly rational response to

the crisis has led to some elite universities facing

criticism for insensitivity towards their students as

they order students to self-isolate after trips to Chi-

na or list xenophobia as a “common reaction”.

For instance, stranded Chinese students are re-

ported to be feeling deeply upset and “like cash

he coronavirus outbreak has hit international

education mobility at the Lunar New Year, a

time of heightened travel within China. Seeking to

prevent the spread of the virus, countries have been

posting travel restrictions and barring entry to most

foreign nationals who have recently visited China,

including students and scholars.

Chinese students are the largest international

student population in many countries – 389,548 are

enrolled in institutions in the United States, 152,591

in Australia and 106,530 in the United Kingdom.

It is still difﬁcult to estimate the global impact of

travel for the Lunar New Year holiday, but in Austra-

lia alone, more than 100,000 Chinese international

students returned home for the celebration and are

now unable to return to campus.

Acting with ‘Sense’

As the death toll in China rises every day, students

on US campuses have been showing signs of fear

and anxiety about the possibility of getting infected.

Administrators have quickly taken action, cancelling

Coronavirus: Universities Have Duty of Care to Students

Lizhou Wang

Lizhou Wang is a research assistant and doctoral student at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston

College, United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Previously published in University World News on February 11,

2010.

cows” after Australia’s coronavirus travel ban.

Acting with ‘Sensitivity’

This is a critical time for faculty, administrators and

student affairs professionals to reach out to both in-

ternational and domestic students who are fearful

on campus.

Many of the 928,090 Chinese international stu-

dents abroad have family, friends and relatives living

and working in Wuhan or other cities in mainland

China. Many Chinese families have made signiﬁ-

cant emotional and ﬁnancial sacriﬁces to send their

children to study overseas.

Each of them may know someone affected by

the new coronavirus. It might be someone who

works on the frontline as a member of the Chinese

medical staff, who is willingly sacriﬁcing his or her

health. It might be someone who has been working

round the clock on the family and community quar-

antine measure. In a less risky scenario, it might be

someone isolated at home for weeks in self-protec-

tion. Cities across the 28 provinces have cut off pub-

lic transportation partially or completely.

With the development of technology and social

media, Chinese international students can diligently

monitor current events and be closely connected

with their loved ones. However, besides sending

masks and supplies to friends and family in China,

these students can do little amidst national sadness,

grief and uncertainty.

International student mobility and numbers are

crucial quantiﬁable indicators of world institutional

reputation, status and revenue. The economic im-

pact of this tragedy cannot be underestimated and

international higher education as an export contrib-

utes signiﬁcantly to many OECD countries’

economies.

In 2018, international students contribut-

ed US$45 billion, US$25.85 billion, US$25.11 bil-

lion to the US, UK and Australian economies

respectively.

However, instead of concentrating on their po-

tential loss of revenue, universities should be sensi-

tive and compassionate toward their student

population at the current time. Christopher Ziguras

and Ly Tran have suggested several helpful campus

responses, for example, “support structures for

starting and continuing Chinese students, includ-

ing extended academic and welfare support, coun-

selling, special helplines and coronavirus-speciﬁc

information guidelines”.

For those students who are unable to make it to

the campus on time for the start of term, speciﬁc

administrative assistance or deferral regarding class

registration, tuition and fee payment, accommoda-

tion, visa issues, etc, would relieve much stress, as

many mainland China businesses and public trans-

port have shortened their operating hours, making

life and travel difﬁcult.

It is essential that campus responses focus on

educating the campus community on the facts sur-

rounding this crisis. More importantly, universities

should be sensitive in such a calamity and seek to

calm fear and anxiety, standing with their students

to ﬁght prejudice and bias and creating intellectual

and educational spaces that are inclusive and

humane.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

A Sustainable Way to Engage Africa’s Knowledge

Diaspora

Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis

Ayenachew A Woldegiyorgis is a PhD graduate of the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United

States. Email: [email protected]. Previously published in University World News on October 26, 2019.

frica has been moving away from the deﬁ-

cit-oriented narrative regarding its diaspora.

The dominant view, which strongly connotes diaspo-

ra and citizens abroad with losses to the continent, is

gradually giving way to one that appreciates the po-

tential human capital in the diaspora.

This is epitomized in the 2012 Declaration of

the Global African Diaspora Summit in Johannes-

burg, South Africa. Stressing the African diaspora as

a potential resource, the declaration envisions it as a

“sixth region of the continent” that will substantially

contribute to the effective implementation of the de-

velopment agendas of the African Union.

The shift in language, both in academic litera-

ture and in policy discourse – from brain drain to

brain circulation, and from return to engagement –

is also testimonial to the evidently changing

outlook.

These developments are reﬂected in the increas-

ing number of countries with national policies and

strategies to improve engagement with their diaspo-

ra. Such initiatives often cascade down to speciﬁc

ministries and institutions identiﬁed as priority ar-

eas, with a particular emphasis on highly trained

and experienced professionals in their respective

ﬁelds.

Non-government actors including international

organizations such as the United Nations and the

World Bank, private foundations like the Carnegie

Corporation of New York and a variety of non-proﬁts

support organized diaspora engagement efforts in

different countries across the continent. However,

most initiatives still occur through the efforts of in-

dividuals and small groups, often relying on infor-

mal connections and networks.

Both of these approaches appear to be prone to

a lack of sustainability. The former takes up a con-

siderable amount of resources due to human, op-

erational and overhead costs, and they are often

unsustainable once the funding ends.

The latter, often run on a part-time basis and

with no clear statutory recognition, struggle to pen-

etrate the bureaucratic and political hurdles and to

establish lasting working relationships. Therefore,

they are sustainable only insofar as their champi-

ons do not reach their frustration threshold.

A recent initiative by Teach and Serve for Afri-

ca (TASFA) is attempting to ﬁnd a way that ad-

dresses both aspects of the sustainability problem.

The United States based non-proﬁt was established

by members of the African diaspora around a year

ago. It seeks to take a fresh approach to engaging

professionals in the African diaspora with various

institutions on the continent.

Understanding Target Groups

A point of departure in TASFA’s approach is that it

started with a systematic analysis of the diaspora

that resulted in a typology with distinct groups.

Each group is identiﬁed by characteristics related

to its conditions in the country of residence, the

nature of relationships it has with the country of

origin and how that relationship is expressed.

For example in its inaugural initiative, the

Ethiopian Diaspora Service Initiative (EDSI), TAS-

FA speciﬁcally focused on one of the six groups it

identiﬁed: the ‘Silent Professionals’.

This group represents mid (sometimes early)

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

career professionals often with advanced degrees,

upper middle to high income, and stable but busy

personal lives. They are dubbed ‘silent’ to reﬂect

their limited public engagement in social and politi-

cal spheres. Unlike some of the other groups, they

are rarely represented in the mainstream media,

while they also have a light presence on social me-

dia. They are understood to be rather inward

looking.

Those who belong to this group are seen to be

very willing to share their knowledge, experience

and professional resources, even at their own cost.

They seek the opportunity to give back to society, if it

were not for their busy lives and their hatred of deal-

ing with slow bureaucracy.

They do not have the time and the political

leverage to navigate the bureaucracy in their country

of origin to establish a functioning professional rela-

tionship with institutions. When someone takes

care of the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles

for them, they do not hesitate to spare their limited

time to engage productively.

ASFA does exactly that. It works with concerned

institutions and government bodies in Africa to

make the necessary arrangements so that profes-

sionals in the diaspora can directly engage with their

counterparts in Africa, without having to deal with

the associated bureaucratic and administrative

challenges.

This approach is underpinned by the assump-

tion that the African diaspora is not a homogenous

group. As such, it departs from the common prac-

tice in diaspora engagement that often fails to pro-

vide tailored opportunities aligned with the

preferences and circumstances of speciﬁc groups.

Institutional Capacity and Human Capital

Another important aspect of TASFA’s approach is its

focus on two major areas that can potentially have

lasting impact: building institutions and human

capital development.

Through EDSI, for instance, TASFA’s volunteer

professionals have been helping ministries and gov-

ernment agencies in their efforts to create and

strengthen institutional systems.

In addition to providing services to the public

and contributing to different projects, diaspora pro-

fessionals work with their Ethiopian counterparts to

create and-or revise guidelines, procedures, stan-

dards, institutional information gathering and pro-

cessing systems, and so on.

In human capital development there have been

three streams of activity. The ﬁrst is the creation of

platforms for local professionals and policy-makers

to engage in dialogue with diaspora professionals

about practical aspects of their work.

Together they try to identify and assess some of

the practical challenges and exchange thoughts and

experiences so that, drawing lessons from practices

in other places, they can chart roadmaps to collabo-

rate in tackling the challenges. To this end, last

month TASFA organized a one-day conference in

Addis Ababa, followed by two days of multiple break-

out sessions in areas of engineering, energy, ICT

and health.

The second stream of activities constitutes pro-

fessional training sessions for technocrats and exec-

utive teams working in the public system.

In less than a year since its establishment, TAS-

FA has reached more than 2,700 government em-

ployees and university staff in Ethiopia to provide

training on project management in different areas.

The training generally kicks off with three days of

face-to-face interaction followed by online engage-

ment on a platform hosted on TASFA’s website,

which ultimately ends in certiﬁcation in project

management.

The third aspect of human capital development

connects diaspora volunteers with local universities.

In the past, the transfer of learning technolo-

gies, training in teaching and research methods and

advisory services have generated signiﬁcant results.

Building on those experiences, TASFA has signed a

memorandum of understanding with different uni-

versities with a speciﬁc focus on supporting research

and graduate education.

Volunteering

TASFA operates entirely on a voluntary basis. Its

EDSI program has mobilized hundreds of profes-

sionals, some of them traveling multiple times to

Ethiopia over the past year to deliver training ses-

sions and participate in other activities – all at their

own cost.

EDSI declared August as “Diaspora Service

Month” which brought together more than 50 pro-

fessionals in various areas to engage with their Ethi-

opian counterparts.

The assumption, consistent with the character-

istics of the speciﬁc group targeted, is that profes-

sionals with a substantial income and stable career

are more motivated by the desire to serve and to give

back than other incentives.

The organization of activities along the lines of

professions allows volunteers to snowball in their

respective areas: not only do they use their profes-

sional connections to develop these networks, but

they can also easily communicate as they speak the

same language.

Overall, the possible implications that other ini-

tiatives can draw from TASFA’s experiment may be

summarized in two points.

One, any diaspora is not a homogenous group.

Speciﬁcity in targeting African diaspora’s profes-

sional and intellectual resources is critical to the suc-

cess of engagement initiatives.

Two, volunteering offers a platform that is ap-

pealing to many highly trained diaspora profession-

als. By cutting operational costs while creating an

organized approach to bridge the gap between dias-

pora and African institutions and professionals,

there is more likelihood that any work will be sus-

tainable for the future.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Students and practitioners enjoy her teaching,

not only because of the subject but also thanks to her

engaging and interactive teaching skills. Her course

evaluations are far above average. She has encour-

aged and supported graduates of the M.A. in Inter-

national Higher Education in their job searches and

Ph.D. program applications, and several of them

have been successful as a result of her

recommendations.

Betty also has been an active participant in and

supporter for the global engagement strategy of Bos-

ton College in the area of IoC. In that capacity, she

gave advice to the Center for Teaching Excellent

(CTE) on the subject, also forging new pathways in

innovative online education, from which Boston

College has beneﬁted during the COVID-19 pan-

demic. She has been a beloved and active member of

the faculty of the Department of Educational Leader-

ship and Higher Education.

During her stay at CIHE, Betty Leask has con-

tributed several articles, book chapters, and reports,

some of which we include in this tribute in recogni-

tion of her work at the Center. She is – and will con-

tinue to serve as – a member of the International

Advisory Board of our quarterly publication Interna-

tional Higher Education.

We thank Betty for her two years of involvement

with CIHE. She will continue to be an appreciated

member of the CIHE global community and will as

of 2020-2021 become a CIHE Research Fellow. We

are honored to have had the opportunity to work

alongside her and learn from her.

The CIHE Staff

BETTY LEASK, CIHE VISITING

PROFESSOR 2018-2020

Over the past two academic years, CIHE has had the

pleasure and honor of the presence of Betty Leask as

visiting professor, with Betty serving as the ﬁrst in

what we hope will be a succession of visiting profes-

sors complementing regular CIHE staff. Betty is a

global expert in Internationalization of the Curricu-

lum (IoC) with vast skill and experience as a teacher,

scholar, and senior leader in the tertiary sector. She

came to us as an international higher education

leader in her homeland of Australia, though she has

consulted, lectured, and advised worldwide. Betty

was previously honored as emeritus professor at La

Trobe University in Melbourne, where she also

served as Pro Vice-Chancellor of Teaching and

Learning. Further, Betty managed the Journal of

Studies in International Education, the leading aca-

demic journal on internationalization of higher edu-

cation, in her capacity as editor-in-chief for many

years.

During the two years Betty Leask has been with

CIHE, she has made a strong impression with her

teaching skills, her research, consultancy and publi-

cations. She taught two courses in the M.A. in Inter-

national Higher Education, Global Perspectives on

Teaching and Learning and Global Perspectives on Stu-

dent Affairs. She also co-taught a Field Experience

Class and Thesis Seminar, thereby supervising a

substantive number of students in formative experi-

ences. Finally, Betty was actively engaged in the pro-

fessional development programs of CIHE, in

particular the WES-CIHE Summer Institute in 2019

and 2020.

In summer term 2020, she is not only teaching

a one credit course on Internationalization of the Cur-

riculum (which has attracted credit seeking and cer-

tiﬁcate students from Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico,

and around the US), but is also offering, upon re-

quest, a tailored edition for a large group of teachers

and students from the Universidad de Guadalajara.

This illustrates her strong international network and

reputation.

Internationalization in Higher Education for Society

Uwe Brandenburg, Hans de Wit, Elspeth Jones and Betty Leask

Uwe Brandenburg is managing director of the Global Impact Institute and associate professor at Universitat Rovira i Vir-

gili in Spain. Email: [email protected]. Hans de Wit is director of the Centre for International

Higher Education at Boston College in the United States. Email: [email protected]. Elspeth Jones is emerita professor of the

internationalization of higher education at Leeds Beckett University in the United Kingdom, and series editor of Inter-

nationalization in Higher Education (Routledge). Email: [email protected]. Betty Leask is emerita professor of

internationalization at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and visiting professor at the Center for International

Higher Education, Boston College, United States. Email: [email protected]. Previously published in University World News

on April 20, 2019.

enophobia, radicalization, anti-intellectualism,

hate speech, populism, globalization of the la-

bour market, environmental change, global warm-

ing. These are only some of the major issues facing

societies today. Related topics are the rise of the ul-

tra-right, the Brexit crisis, the retreat to nationalism

and trade wars, continued inequalities worldwide,

and ﬂoods, droughts and other impacts of climate

change.

This is epitomized in the 2012 Declaration of

the Global African Diaspora Summit in Johannes-

burg, South Africa. Stressing the African diaspora as

a potential resource, the declaration envisions it as a

“sixth region of the continent” that will substantially

contribute to the effective implementation of the de-

velopment agendas of the African Union.

All are of both social and academic concern and

are vigorously debated across digital, social and tra-

ditional print media as well as in academic literature

and in universities around the world. This is not sur-

prising given their real and potential economic and

social impact.

Meanwhile contemporary approaches to inter-

nationalization are focused primarily on debate and

discussion of these topics within the academy. While

community outreach, social responsibility, social en-

gagement and concepts such as service learning

have been present in higher education for decades

and in all regions of the globe, internationalization

activities have been largely concentrated on the

higher education community.

The social responsibility component of inter-

nationalization has, to date, rarely been the focus

of systemic thinking, conceptualization or strategy

in the broad agenda of the internationalization of

higher education. This imbalance needs to be ad-

dressed because universities also have a contract

with and an obligation to wider society.

Limited Social Engagement in

Internationalization

Outreach, social responsibility and engagement

are an increasing focus in Europe, notes a recent

mapping report of the European Union-funded

project TEFCE – Towards a European Framework

for Community Engagement of Higher

Education.

They increasingly involve all activities of a

higher education institution (research, and teach-

ing and learning), and all actors (academics, staff,

leadership, students and alumni), but compete

with internationalization.

The TEFCE report notes: “In the absence of

prioritizing engagement over research excellence

and internationalization [author’s emphasis],

many universities have failed to develop the appro-

priate infrastructures to translate the knowledge

they produce into the range of contexts…”

So instead of considering internationalization

as one tool to support social engagement and re-

sponsibility – locally, nationally and globally – it is

seen as a concept that draws resources, focus and

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

higher education in Africa, Latin America and

Southeast Asia (for example, Malaysia).

The international network of universities the

Talloires Network is active all over the world, work-

ing on strengthening the civic roles and social re-

sponsibilities of higher education. There are other

examples. We conclude that social engagement is

more present in policies, missions and processes of

universities in emerging and developing regions

than in Europe.

Limiting internationalization to the higher edu-

cation community anywhere in the world is to miss

its tremendous opportunities. Our global society

and environment are seriously endangered and in-

ternationalization has immense potential to help

solve major social issues of relevance locally and

globally.

But that needs more than a few individual ap-

proaches scattered across the world. It needs a sys-

tematic understanding of the role of

internationalization beyond the walls of higher edu-

cation. Hence, we suggest it is time to emphasise

the need for a stronger focus on “Internationaliza-

tion in Higher Education for Society”, as stressed in

the 2015 deﬁnition of internationalization.

Firstly, this needs to be seen as the bridge be-

tween the concept of internationalization in higher

education and university social responsibility or uni-

versity social engagement. Internationalization ac-

tivities as well as general social outreach activities

have the goal of augmenting higher education com-

petences and improving society, and international-

ization can be an accelerator for this.

We need a more systematic approach, though,

that leverages existing and new internationalization

activities to tackle local and global social issues – in-

cluding those emphasized in the Sustainable Devel-

opment Goals of the United Nations – through

social engagement.

Underused Potential

The potential is undoubtedly there. Vast numbers of

returning outbound as well as inbound students, ac-

ademic and support staff can not only help to inter-

nationalize and ‘inter-culturalize’ the home campus,

but – more importantly – can also engage with the

infrastructure away from social engagement.

Other European or EU-funded projects such as

ESPRIT are focusing on social engagement, but it is

only in one (EUniverCities) that we have found a

clear indication that internationalization is seen as a

valuable instrument to achieve social goals.

Even the 2017 European Commission commu-

nication “A Renewed Agenda for Higher Education”,

while emphasizing the relevance of social engage-

ment, with a whole section devoted to it, does not

elaborate on the power inherent in its main tool for

internationalization (Erasmus+) to tackle societal is-

sues addressed in the agenda.

The Erasmus project that carved out a special

section on internationalization with regard to social

engagement was the IMPI project which, in its tool-

box, deﬁnes the ﬁfth goal for internationalization as

being to “provide service to society and community

social engagement” and even suggested 109 indica-

tors for this area.

However, a study showed that only 18.5% of

more than 800 users chose any indicators under

this goal and in the newest EAIE Barometer only

11% of higher education institutions consider it a

goal of internationalization and a meagre 5% priori-

tise it.

This is despite the fact that the impact study of

the European Voluntary Service (whose grantees are

students in 61% of cases) showed substantial impact

of volunteering abroad for local communities, in-

cluding student attitudes towards Europe, intercul-

tural learning, awareness of the value of volunteering,

developing capacities in local communities and

helping to develop civil society.

Making a Meaningful Contribution to

Society

This failure to link internationalization to societal

issues is even more surprising given that the updat-

ed deﬁnition of internationalization in the European

Parliament study of 2015 makes explicit reference to

the need for internationalization to “make a mean-

ingful contribution to society”.

Is the situation different in other parts of the

world? There is evidence to suggest that social en-

gagement is a stronger component of the mission of

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

tutions. If we are truly interested in preserving our

society and our planet in the long run, we need to

activate our expertise for the greater good now.

Not only is internationalization not a goal in it-

self, it is also not just for ourselves: its right of exis-

tence is dependent on its ability and willingness to

serve society outside the walls of higher education.

We are currently undertaking a study for the

German Academic Exchange Service, DAAD, which

will conceptualise and visualise the ﬁeld and also

shed light on research conducted so far. We want to

identify associations, organisations and other enti-

ties that are already engaged in ‘Internationalization

in Higher Education for Society’ so that we can pro-

mote and extend this work.

We feel global developments remind us that the

time for internationalization as an ‘in-house’ issue

has to be over. We have to take our responsibility to

society more seriously. The times, they are a-chang-

ing – and so are the foci for internationalization. Ex-

amples are welcome.

wider public in the city, region and country.

Service learning abroad; Europa macht Schule

(Europe Educates) a program funded by Erasmus+;

services for refugees such as at Kiron University in

Germany, and for migrant workers, as well as other

aspects of engagement with businesses and the wid-

er community, exist – but they are neither systemat-

ic nor strategic.

They need to become so in order both to educate

citizens of the future in using their knowledge and

competence for the good of society and also to incor-

porate learning from external perspectives into fu-

ture curricula.

Engagement with wider society should be a

prime focus and resource for initiatives concentrat-

ing on internationalization of the curriculum at

home, and global learning or global citizenship.

While, for instance, EARTH University in Costa

Rica, Symbiosis International Deemed University in

India and other institutions of higher education in

the emerging and developing world seem to be bea-

cons of what this could look like, the majority of ex-

amples reach only a limited number of students,

academics and staff, and do not link the global to the

local.

‘Internationalization in Higher Education for

Society’ needs to be wide-ranging – from mobility to

internationalization of the curriculum at home,

from students to staff, from research to teaching and

learning, from the world to the local community.

It is an all-encompassing concept, one with the

potential to drive “comprehensive internationaliza-

tion” beyond the boundaries of our campuses.

“Global learning for all”, an important emerging

concept in higher education and also emphasized in

the 2015 deﬁnition of internationalization, must not

stay within those boundaries but move beyond

them.

In the recent European Commission call for Eu-

ropean University Networks, at least two of them –

EC2U and U4Society – explicitly stated their focus

on society in the context of international higher

education.

It is simply not enough to be proud of sending

and receiving students and staff and even to look at

the effects of this within our higher education insti-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Deﬁning Internationalization in HE for Society

Uwe Brandenburg, Hans de Wit, Elspeth Jones and Betty Leask

Uwe Brandenburg is managing director of the Global Impact Institute and associate professor at Universitat Rovira i Vir-

gili in Spain. E-mail: [email protected]. Hans de Wit is director of the Centre for International

Higher Education at Boston College in the United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Elspeth Jones is emerita professor of the

internationalisation of higher education at Leeds Beckett University in the United Kingdom, and series editor of Inter-

nationalization in Higher Education (Routledge). E-mail: [email protected]. Betty Leask is emerita professor of

internationalisation at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and visiting professor at the Center for International

Higher Education, Boston College, United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Previously published in University World News

on June 29, 2019.

n our recent article in University World News we

argued that ‘Internationalization of Higher Edu-

cation for Society’ (IHES) should become a central

part of university agendas over the next decade.

We described IHES as the social responsibility

component of internationalization and argued that

it “has, to date, rarely been the focus of systemic

thinking, conceptualization or strategy in the broad

agenda of the internationalization of higher

education”.

Yet we believe it offers wide-ranging possibili-

ties to drive “comprehensive internationalization”

beyond the boundaries of our campuses and has the

potential to mutually beneﬁt all stakeholders.

Engaging with the wider society in support of

the greater good has long been an important focus

for institutions, and can involve students, staff and

faculty in a range of initiatives to fulﬁll the so-called

‘third mission’ of universities, that is, their contribu-

tion to society at large.

However, there is relatively little evidence of this

involving the international aspects of a university’s

work, with institutional internationalization strate-

gies failing to address it in a systematic way.

While clearly there are examples of activities

that ﬁt within the description of the general concept

of IHES we provided in our last article, we believe

that a concise description that encapsulates the dis-

tinct characteristics of IHES will be useful in collect-

ing examples of current practice and guiding

systemic thinking and strategy in universities.

We propose the following description: ‘Inter-

nationalization of Higher Education for Society

(IHES) explicitly aims to beneﬁt the wider commu-

nity, at home or abroad, through international or

intercultural education, research, service and

engagement’.

We arrive at this using the following logic.

The most recent deﬁnition of internationaliza-

tion of higher education emphasizes intentionality

and making a meaningful contribution to society:

“The intentional process of integrating an interna-

tional, intercultural or global dimension into the

purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary

education, in order to enhance the quality of educa-

tion and research for all students and staff, and to

make a meaningful contribution to society [authors’

emphasis].” (De Wit et al, 2015).

Social engagement is also deﬁned as a process

that includes community members in joint activi-

ties for mutual beneﬁt.

“[…]A process whereby universities engage

with community stakeholders to undertake joint

activities that can be mutually beneﬁcial, even if

each side beneﬁts in a different way.” (Benneworth

et al, 2018).

Core Characteristics

On the basis of the above deﬁnitions of interna-

tionalization of higher education and social en-

gagement, the core characteristics of IHES are as

follows.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

IHES activities might include:

• Individual activities of institutes, depart-

ments or individuals within a higher educa-

tion institution, such as the speech pathology

example above; or the physiotherapy pro-

gram at Leeds Beckett University that of-

fered students the opportunity to work in a

spinal rehabilitation clinic in Nepal.

• A suite of activities that are integrated into

an institution’s internationalization strategy,

for example, EARTH University in Costa

Rica.

• Activities supported by national bodies and

policies, such as programs which support

the integration of refugees in, for example,

Germany, the United States and Canada.

Another example is the Europa macht Schule

initiative of the DAAD (German Academic

Exchange Service), which brings interna-

tional European exchange students into lo-

cal classrooms in Germany, introducing

pupils to the home country in a structured

and supervised project.

From the university’s side, IHES might involve aca-

demics, administrators, students or combinations of

all three groups.

IHES might focus on bringing the community

into the higher education institution, for example, in

the case of Kiron University which was established to

educate refugee students, as well as several other ini-

tiatives around the world helping refugees with ac-

cess to higher education; or by bringing the university

into society, such as through lectures by international

scholars in public places.

IHES might be focused on widening the per-

spective of citizens or on supporting the economic

development of the region, such as, for example, the

Welcome Centre for International Workforce in Göt-

tingen, Germany, which helps companies in the re-

gion to attract and retain an international workforce

by providing full integration and support services.

Building on Good Practice

All these and many more facets already exist or are

possible. Our goal is to build on current good practice

by collating examples from around the world of IHES

First, IHES activities will intentionally and pur-

posefully seek to provide beneﬁt to the wider com-

munity. Activities will be carefully planned and

evaluated and their impact on society will be visible

in some way.

An example of this is discussed in the De Wit et

al 2017 book, The Globalization of Internationaliza-

tion. A group of rural women entrepreneurs partici-

pated in internationalization projects led by Viña del

Mar University in the Valparaiso Region of Chile.

The project shows clearly how universities can

use their international resources to strengthen so-

cial inclusion processes locally, offering mutual ben-

eﬁts and learning for all stakeholders.

Second, IHES will involve the wider community

at home or abroad. It may bring the global to the lo-

cal, or the local to the global, both being equally

valuable.

Examples of this include a service learning pro-

gram involving speech pathology students from La

Trobe University in Melbourne, who undertake in-

ternational clinical placements, conducting assess-

ments and therapeutic interventions in regional

Cambodia, and a partnership between the nursing

school of the same university whose staff work with

Lifepartners Healthcare Indonesia offering continu-

ing professional development programs to Indone-

sian nursing staff and participating in collaborative

research.

In these programs beneﬁts accrue to patients

and their families, the wider community in Cambo-

dia and Indonesia, as well as to the university’s staff

and students through their experiences.

Third, IHES might occur in any of the areas in

which a higher education institution is active: educa-

tion, research and third mission.

For example, IHES activities might involve

teaching (for example, lectures to the public); learn-

ing (for example, service learning abroad); research

(for example, the FameLab program of the British

Council); service (for instance, international IT staff

supporting local NGOs); or third mission (for in-

stance, supporting the establishment of a technolo-

gy initiative to improve education for migrants in

local communities).

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

integrating IHES into institutional strategies and

ways of thinking.

This is important to the ultimate goal of IHES

as we describe it: to ensure that internationalization

beneﬁts the wider community, at home and abroad,

through international or intercultural education, re-

search, service and engagement.

Your contribution is vital. We would love to hear

from you.

activities and existing research in the area of IHES.

Do you have something to contribute? Perhaps

you organize an IHES activity yourself or you are

aware of an existing project? Perhaps you are con-

ducting research on IHES or on IHES projects (for

example, a PhD on the effects of an international

community outreach programs). Please let us know;

we’d love to feature you in our research.

Our immediate goals are to identify and dissem-

inate examples of IHES from all parts of the world,

in order to support a more systematic approach to

Towards New Ways of Becoming and Being International

Hans De Wit and Betty Leask

Hans de Wit is director of the Centre for International Higher Education at Boston College in the United States. E-mail:

[email protected]. Betty Leask is emerita professor of internationalisation at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and

visiting professor at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States. E-mail: [email protected].

This essay was inspired by a talk given by the authors on 2 May 2019 at the Mahindra Humanities Center, Harvard Uni-

versity, in the series ‘Universities: Past, Present, and Future’, titled “Internationalisation in Higher Education, Pushing

the Boundaries”. Previously published in University World News on July 27, 2019.

resources, monitoring and evaluation of impact,

there is need for improvement.

Moreover, they see a risk that internationaliza-

tion is increasing inequality within and between na-

tional and global communities. We wonder

therefore, has internationalization lost its way? What

is successful internationalization? And how will we

know if we have achieved it?

To answer these questions we brieﬂy review the

past, consider the present and look to the future.

Deﬁning the Purpose of

Internationalization

Jane Knight’s 2003 working deﬁnition of interna-

tionalization as “the process of integrating an inter-

national, intercultural or global dimension into the

purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary

education” has been widely interpreted.

In her 2014 book International Education Hubs,

Knight acknowledged that a weakness of her 2003

deﬁnition was that “traditional values associated

igher education internationalization has been

on the agendas of national governments and

institutional leaders around the world for decades.

Recent surveys from the International Association

of Universities (IAU) and the European Association

for International Education (EAIE) conﬁrm that in-

ternationalization remains a key deﬁning factor in

national and institutional higher education policies.

At the same time, both surveys make some in-

teresting observations that challenge its direction.

Ross Hudson, Anna-Malin Sandström and Laura E.

Rumbley, the researchers analyzing the EAIE Ba-

rometer, note that, where an institution’s primary

rationale is increasing the quality of research or edu-

cation, there is more optimism about the future of

internationalization among staff than in institutions

reporting ﬁnancial gains as the primary goal.

And Giorgio Marinoni and Hans de Wit con-

clude from the IAU Survey that while international-

ization is now ﬁrmly embedded in strategy

documents in the majority of higher education insti-

tutions across the world, when it comes to ﬁnancial

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

inﬂuenced by and contributes to social solidarity and

equality.

Fazal Rizvi, professor of global studies in educa-

tion at the University of Melbourne, Australia, ar-

gues that universities should create spaces for

students to explore the contours of global intercon-

nectivity and interdependence and link local practic-

es of cultural exchange to the broader processes of

globalization.

US philosopher Martha Nussbaum suggests

that it is irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand,

ignoring the many ways in which we all inﬂuence,

every day, the lives of distant people.

In theory the added value of internationaliza-

tion to higher education as a global common good is

substantial – the creation of a better world for all

through knowledge creation, sharing and the circu-

lation of talent, the promotion of cultural diversity

and fostering intercultural understanding and

respect.

Approaches to internationalization within insti-

tutions are still, however, more focused on internal

policies and processes than on people and these big-

ger issues.

Are Theory and Practice in Step?

Are theory and practice in step? We suggest not. The

continued focus of many governments on the inter-

national ranking of institutions as a measure of their

international success and the emphasis within insti-

tutions on measuring success in internationaliza-

tion by narrow and shallow quantitative measures,

such as the percentage of students who are mobile,

the number of classes taught in English and the per-

centage of revenue earned from international sourc

es, are troubling.

Such measures do not demonstrate a commit-

ment to human values, to decreasing inequality lo-

cally and globally. They are mostly focused on

providing small, and on the whole, elite groups with

exclusive opportunities. And while there are exam-

ples of universities all over the world that run inclu-

sion programs designed, for example, to attract

non-traditional students to study abroad, they rarely

reach more than a small number of students.

with internationalization such as partnerships, col-

laboration, mutual beneﬁt and exchange are not ar-

ticulated – only assumed”.

The 2015 ‘updated’ deﬁnition of international-

ization, which built on Knight’s 2003 deﬁnition, ar-

ticulates these traditional values in two ways. First,

the addition of the word ‘intentional’ highlights that

the process must be carefully planned and strategi-

cally focused. Second, the addition of ‘in order to

enhance the quality of education and research for all

students and staff and to make a meaningful contri-

bution to society’ clariﬁes the underpinning values.

These additions provide a more prescriptive and

normative direction to internationalization than the

2003 deﬁnition, the openness of which resulted in

myths and misconceptions.

And while there have been many calls to return

to the foundational values of internationalization,

little progress seems to have been made. In today’s

increasingly polarised world, a neutral position is no

longer sufﬁcient, and it is more important than ever

to focus on the social values at the centre of interna-

tionalization. This requires greater clarity on what

internationalization stands for – its purpose and rai-

son d’etre – nationally and globally.

Outward-looking

The updated deﬁnition, developed as a result of an

extensive Delphi study across all regions of the

world, signiﬁes a shift from a predominantly institu-

tional focus for internationalization to a more out-

ward-looking purpose.

It answers calls for new approaches to interna-

tional education that support transformative out-

comes of human solidarity across cultures and

inequities, to counteract, or at least push back

against, monocultural hegemonic worldviews.

It is consistent with the views of scholars such

as Christina Escrigas and others, that in the next

stage in the evolution of universities, they will work

together towards the creation of dynamic and sus-

tainable global communities, focused as much on

human values as on the pursuit of material advan-

tage. Internationalization clearly has a crucial part to

play in this transition.

As a common good, higher education is both

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

deserve more recognition.

Aligning the practice of internationalization

with human values and the common global good re-

quires that we ﬁrst challenge some of our long-held

views about what it is to ‘be international’ as a uni-

versity, a teacher, a student, a human being. This re-

quires pushing the boundaries of our own and

others’ thinking, focusing on people and ensuring

that they develop and demonstrate the institution’s

espoused human values.

It also requires new quantitative and qualitative

measures. Such measures will seek answers to new

questions including: “How are scholars at risk and

refugees supported?” and “How many languages are

taught and spoken on campus?”

New qualitative measures will also be needed –

of the contributions that faculty and students make

to the intercultural construction, exchange and ap-

plication of knowledge and of the impact that stu-

dent involvement in intercultural service projects

has on their learning.

In summary, to move forward faster we must

re-conceptualize success, practice our craft differ-

ently and move beyond traditional measures that

create inequity and strengthen elitism.

We will need to ﬁnd new measures, because

what we measure counts. But ﬁrst individually and

collectively we will need to embrace new ways of ‘be-

ing’ international, and focus on supporting all stu-

dents to connect to the world in complicated, rich

and subtle ways, accepting that our success will not

always be measurable in simple terms.

In this time of increasing polarisation and na-

tionalism, it is time to push the personal, practical

and theoretical boundaries of internationalization

and ﬁnd new ways of becoming and being

international.

Collectively, are we not perpetuating and even

creating new forms of inequality between institu-

tions, nations and social groups through a contin-

ued focus on internationalization strategy and

practices focused primarily on a small number of

students, an elite group who are mobile, within an

elite group who have access to higher education?

Promising Signs?

Developments in internationalization of the curricu-

lum at home in the past 15 years, including graduate

attributes focused on developing all students’ inter-

national and intercultural perspectives and global

learning and experience programs that target all stu-

dents, indicate some change in focus. Many such

programs are still, however, more noble ambitions

than great leaps forward.

Innovative programs often wither and die when

their key champions move on. The epistemological,

pedagogical and ontological shifts required for suc-

cess are substantial. They include changes to the

way programs are designed, whose knowledge

counts in the curriculum and critical pedagogy nur-

tured by debate about the values faculty think should

underpin assessment, teaching and learning.

Scholars have argued for more than a decade for

more cognitive justice in the curriculum, yet there is

little evidence that progress is being made. Change

of the order required is difﬁcult to achieve and mea-

sure and is largely unsupported within institutions.

In a recent blog, we argued, together with Uwe

Brandenburg and Elspeth Jones, that higher educa-

tion institutions need to address international social

concerns more directly and systematically within

their internationalization agendas.

We suggested this might be done through sup-

porting students and staff to apply their knowledge

and skills to the beneﬁt of the wider community, at

home and abroad, through partnerships and proj-

ects based on human values.

We are gathering examples of projects from

around the world. However, they are often on the

fringes of institutional agendas, barely visible and

frequently driven by individual faculty interests rath-

er than a carefully constructed and supported insti-

tutional strategy. They should be central; they

Addressing the Crisis in Academic Publishing

Hans De Wit, Phllip G. Altbach and Betty Leask

Hans de Wit is director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. He was the founding Editor

of the Journal of Studies in International Education, and is Consulting Editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education.

Philip Altbach is a research professor and was founding director of the Center for International Higher Education at Bos-

ton College. He served as editor of the Comparative Education Review and later of the Review of Higher Education. Betty

Leask is Emeritus Professor in the Internationalization of Higher Education at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

and a Visiting Professor at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College in 2018-2019. She is also

Chief-Editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education. Previously published in the World View blog for Inside

Higher Education on November 5, 2018.

Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professori-

ate, that the evaluation of academic work should in-

clude all aspects of the responsibilities of the

academic profession, not only, or even primarily re-

search. In the State University of New York system,

he established the position of Distinguished Teaching

Professor, to reward faculty members for educational

distinction. Boyer also argued that equal recognition

be afforded to the research, teaching and service ac-

tivities of academic staff and for stronger connec-

tions between teaching and research. His work

resulted in a strong focus on the scholarship of prac-

tice in teaching and learning.

Largely as a result of his work, the evaluation of

teaching excellence has become much more sophis-

ticated since 1990. Nevertheless, the scholarship of

teaching and learning continues to be undervalued

and overlooked. Most promotion and tenure sys-

tems continue to emphasize research performance

in the sciences, including publication in a relatively

small number of journals. Governments emphasize

research excellence in determining funding alloca-

tions to universities to the detriment of teaching ex-

cellence. This has driven behavior in universities

and academic communities that has contributed to

the crisis in academic publishing we see today. Fac-

ulty recognize that their advancement depends to a

large extent on their success in publishing.

cademic journals play an important role in

knowledge dissemination. No one knows how

many journals there actually are, but several esti-

mates point to around 30,000, with close to 2 mil-

lion articles published each year. A sizable proportion

of these articles will never be read and others will

never be cited. Of course, all of the authors will have

argued that their research makes a unique and orig-

inal contribution and advances knowledge in their

ﬁeld.

Many journals have a rejection rate of between

80-90%. Their peer reviewers spend much valuable

time, providing critical comments and making sug-

gestions for improvement, not only for the articles

that are ﬁnally published, but also for thousands that

never are. Thus, faculty spend precious hours re-

viewing articles that will have little or no impact and

that represent only a narrow range of national and

cultural perspectives.

This situation is not sustainable. The system re-

quires recalibration based on some fundamental,

but hitherto overlooked principles. These principles

capture core ideas, guide practice, and accommo-

date a variety of different contexts. They are valuable

in guiding the response to the current crisis in aca-

demic publishing.

Principle 1: Academic Excellence is not

Solely Dependent on the Publication of

Disciplinary Research

Ernest L. Boyer mounted a case in his 1990 book,

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Principle 3: Academic Publishing Requires

Greater Oversight and Regulation

The academic publishing system has become cor-

rupted. Top journals in all ﬁelds have daunting back-

logs of articles awaiting review. Hence new

commercial publishers have emerged, seeking to

capitalize on the situation with little understanding

of, or concern for, the quality of what they publish.

In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in

predatory journals claiming to be publish peer-re-

viewed content when they do not.

Between this rapidly growing group of predato-

ry journals and the small group of elite quality aca-

demic journals is a new group of serious journals

seeking to establish themselves with blind peer re-

view as their quality control mechanism. However, it

is becoming more difﬁcult to distinguish new, but

good journals, from predatory journals. Editors, edi-

torial board members and their academic afﬁliations

are no longer reliable measures as there have been

reported cases of high-proﬁle academics being

named to boards without their knowledge. Regula-

tion and control mechanisms are required to ensure

peer reviewers and authors are not exploited by a

growing corrupt and commercial system and so that

the academic publishing system supports rather

than undermines academic excellence.

Conclusion

The principles described here provide a way for-

ward. Academic excellence requires excellent re-

search and excellent teaching—research-led as well

as research-informed teaching. We must ﬁnd ways

to ensure that equal respect, recognition and reward

is given to excellence in teaching, research and ser-

vice by institutional leaders, governments, publish-

ers, university ranking and accreditation schemes.

Quality control can be moved away from pub-

lishers and other commercial parties back to the ac-

ademic community. Predatory journals and

publishers will need to be weeded out. The extor-

tionate prices charged by private-sector publishers

respected for quality (that was achieved through the

free labor of academics) need to be reduced to broad-

Principle 2: Academic Excellence Thrives

on Diversity

Academic excellence, diversity and educational qual-

ity are intertwined. Nationally and internationally

we need to ensure that universities and systems take

into account the students and communities they

serve. This requires differentiated academic mis-

sions that demonstrate excellence in different

ways. University missions are too often driven by

external pressures such as rankings. This trend can

only be reversed by government agencies and other

bodies such as research grant councils and accredi-

tation agencies, working together to value and sup-

port diverse academic communities.

Likewise, academic publishing requires diversi-

ﬁcation. The ﬁeld remains dominated by a small

number of publishing companies in the developed

world—mainly in the United States, United King-

dom, The Netherlands, and Germany. Editors and

editorial board members are predominantly from

the US, European countries and Australia. Diversity

is largely ignored.

Open access and open science have not solved

problems of access and affordability. The costs of

publication have too often been transferred from

subscriptions to submissions—from readers to au-

thors. This has led to even greater inequity in pub-

lishing, by largely excluding young academics from

developing countries who lack access to research

grants that might cover submission costs. We need

greater clarity around the funding of many open ac-

cess publications to better understand potential and

unintended perverse effects of their ﬁnancial

model.

Blind peer review is at the heart of excellence

and quality control in academic publishing and it is

important that peers represent diverse scholarly per-

spectives, including those from the global south.

Peer review is too often dominated by scholars in the

global north. Journals must pay more attention to

diversity on their editorial advisory boards and in

their selection of peer reviewers.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

demic publishing. They might encourage the pro-

ducers of rankings and other inﬂuential entities to

recognize new high-quality journals.

Finally, it is important to ﬁnd a mechanism by

which systematic training in peer review can be pro-

vided to young academics from diverse backgrounds

to support a new generation of reviewers.

en access. The peer review system, the life-blood of

the academic quality assurance system, needs to be

strengthened through diversity and inclusion. Jour-

nal editors need to implement diversity measures to

expand participation on boards and peer review

teams. The broader academic community needs to

hold serious journals accountable for that task.

Professional and academic societies also have

an important role to play in ensuring quality in aca-

Forced Internationalization of Higher Education: An

Emerging Phenomenon

Hakan Ergin, Hans de Wit, and Betty Leask

Hakan Ergin is a former postdoctoral scholar at the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College,

US. E-mail: [email protected]. Hans de Wit is director of CIHE. E-mail: [email protected]. Betty Leask is emerita

professor of internationalization at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and a visiting professor at CIHE. E-mail:

[email protected]. Previously published in International Higher Education, No. 97, Spring 2019.

is far lower than the global enrollment rate in higher

education of 36 percent. It is extremely disappoint-

ing that national governments and individual insti-

tutions have not acted more quickly to assist the

large mass of displaced people in accessing educa-

tion—in line with Article 26 of the Universal Decla-

ration of Human Rights—thereby recognizing this

as a human right. There have been some promising

efforts, but these efforts have not been evenly spread

across the developed and the developing world. Ac-

cording to the Annual Global Trends Report of the

UNHCR, 85 percent of the refugees under the UN-

HCR’s mandate, who have been forcibly displaced

as a result of conﬂict, violence, or persecution, are

hosted by countries in the developing world. The

challenges faced by these countries in responding to

a global problem on their doorstep requires further

attention, as the case of Turkey illustrates.

Syrian Refugees in Turkish Universities

Currently, Turkey hosts over 3.6 million Syrian refu-

oday’s world is faced with a severe forced migra-

tion crisis. The recent Annual Global Trends Re-

port by the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (UNHCR) indicates that a person becomes

a forced migrant every two seconds. The current

number of forced migrants worldwide is 68.5 mil-

lion. These forced migrants include established

scholars as well as undergraduate and graduate stu-

dents whose education has been interrupted by forc-

es outside of their control. They are knocking on the

doors of universities in different parts of the world.

Some are being heard, others are being ignored.

Universities and governments should remember

how signiﬁcantly forced immigrant scholars and

students have contributed to national research and

development and institutional quality in the past, in-

cluding, for example, Jewish scholars who ﬂed to the

United States from Nazi Germany.

A recent report by the UNHCR, Left Behind: Ref-

ugee Education in Crisis, reveals that the ratio of refu-

gee youth studying at a university is 1 percent, which

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Forced Internationalization

The above illustrates an emerging phenomenon,

namely forced internationalization. The above-men-

tioned reforms in Turkey have simultaneously pro-

vided forced migrants with access to higher

education and internationalized the policies and

functions of universities. So what are the key charac-

teristics of forced internationalization? And what

does it offer for the future?

Consistent with the existing deﬁnition of inter-

nationalization of higher education, forced interna-

tionalization is intentional, strategic, and it addresses

the three core functions of universities: teaching,

research, and service. However, it is different in sev-

eral ways. It responds to a crisis on the doorstep—in

Turkey’s case, the forced migration of millions of

Syrian people, a signiﬁcant number of whom look to

higher education as a pathway to a better life as stu-

dents, academics, and/or public service recipients.

Whereas in the past, internationalization of higher

education has primarily been voluntary and part of a

deliberate institutional (and in some cases govern-

mental) policy, this emerging form of international-

ization is “forced.”

Academically, the diversity and brain gain that

refugees bring will enhance the quality of learning,

teaching, and research, as do other forms of interna-

tionalization. Economically, while forced interna-

tionalization is unlikely to be a source of income

generation in the short term, history tells us that, in

the longer term, the innovative and entrepreneurial

contributions forced migrants will make to institu-

tions and countries as skilled migrants are substan-

tial. Socially and culturally, forced migrants have the

potential to enrich and strengthen the host society.

Politically, forced internationalization is a soft power

investment, which may lead to improved future dip-

lomatic relations between the host country and the

forced migrants’ home countries.

In addition to the traditional four rationales for

internationalization, forced internationalization

demonstrates a new rationale—a “humanitarian ra-

tionale,” suggested by Streitwieser and his col-

leagues in 2018. This rationale recognizes higher

education as a public good on a personal level (for

gees, the highest number hosted by any country. As

the war in Syria is ongoing, and assuming therefore

that it will host Syrian refugees for a long time, the

Turkish government has repositioned itself by stra-

tegically internationalizing three functions of Turk-

ish universities.

In order to help Syrian refugees access universi-

ties as students, the Turkish government has re-

formed academic and ﬁnancial admission policies.

Universities have been required to admit Syrian ref-

ugees without proof of previous academic qualiﬁca-

tion as “special students,” and those who do have

proof as “regular students.” In addition, Ara-

bic-taught programs have been established at eight

universities in southern Turkey, close to the Syrian

border. Financial policies have been changed to pro-

vide Syrian refugees with government scholarships

and exemption from tuition fees paid by other inter-

national students. The result has been a dramatic

increase in the number of Syrian students enrolled

in Turkish universities, from 608 in 2011 to 20,701

in 2018, as reported by the Council of Higher Educa-

tion (CoHE).

The strategic internationalization efforts of the

Turkish government have also targeted potential ac-

ademics among Syrian refugees. In 2016, an online

platform, the Database for International Academics,

was established to collect curricula vitae. This result-

ed in increased numbers of Syrian academics work-

ing in Turkey. According to the CoHE, the number

of full-time Syrian academics has increased from

292 to 348 in the last three years. In addition, in the

same period, masters and doctoral programs admit-

ted 1,492 and 404 Syrian refugees respectively.

The Turkish government has also strategically

internationalized the public service function of

Turkish universities to ensure that Syrian refugees

who are neither potential students nor academics

are able to access Turkish universities. This has re-

sulted in some Turkish universities offering a range

of free services to Syrian refugees. These services

include free Turkish language courses, healthcare,

psychological support, and information seminars on

crucial topics such as childcare, legal rights of refu-

gees, and employability.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the beneﬁt of individuals in need), at the national

level (for the beneﬁt of societies and communities

within a country) and internationally (for the beneﬁt

of the world).

Beyond any doubt, however, integrating a disad-

vantaged international group into a higher educa-

tion system creates uncommon challenges. The host

society, especially where access to university is high-

ly competitive, may resist this type of international-

ization, regarding the forced migrants as competitors

with an unfair advantage. Formulating and passing

controversial laws is a legal challenge. Forced mi-

grants often need not only exemption from tuition

fees, but also direct ﬁnancial aid, posing an econom-

ic challenge. Administratively, it can also be difﬁcult

to assess forced migrants’ previous qualiﬁcations.

Forced migrants need access to information about

applying to universities, which creates communica-

tion challenges. A language-related obstacle is that

most forced migrants lack proﬁciency in the host

country’s ofﬁcial language. Forced internationaliza-

tion is in many ways a race against time, requiring a

host country to act swiftly in order to ﬁnd and sup-

port the best talents among the refugee population.

Despite these challenges, we suggest that forced

internationalization driven by a humanitarian ratio-

nale offers a positive response to forced migration.

Applied globally, “forced internationalization” would

see governments and universities across the world

internationalizing in new ways, in places far away

from those affected by crises in geographic terms,

but close to them in humanitarian terms.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

tion of curriculum.

Intercultural Learning

In parallel, a discourse focused on internationaliza-

tion as international and intercultural learning for

all students has emerged.

The term internationalization of the curriculum

was coined in the mid-1990s, deﬁned initially by the

OECD as being primarily concerned with content,

but also with preparing domestic and foreign stu-

dents for their social and professional lives in an in-

creasingly multicultural local context.

This led to a rather shallow interpretation of

both curriculum and internationalization as, for ex-

ample, double degrees, the study of foreign languag-

es, teaching in the English language and optional

international and-or comparative education courses

in a program of study.

Towards the end of the 1990s, ‘internationaliza-

tion at home’ emerged as a pragmatic response to a

local problem. As a new university, Malmö Universi-

ty in Sweden had no international partners and so

could not offer mobility programs. Yet, located in a

culturally diverse city, they were able to focus on in-

ternationalization ‘at home’, which included con-

necting students at home with diversity in the local

community.

This idea was picked up with enthusiasm by

those who saw mobility as having equity issues in

that the majority of students would never beneﬁt.

Meanwhile, principally in Australia and the UK,

claims from government and university leaders that

the presence of international students on campus

would internationalize student learning were coun-

terbalanced by evidence showing otherwise.

“Study the past if you would deﬁne the future,” Con-

fucius said.

oday we increasingly hear of the importance of

providing international and intercultural learn-

ing experiences for all students. And there is grow-

ing recognition that it is both impractical and unwise

to focus on mobility as the primary means of devel-

oping intercultural awareness. In this blog we brief-

ly consider the past and the present in an attempt to

inﬂuence, if not ‘deﬁne’, the future.

In the past 25 years the drivers for international-

ization of higher education have varied according to

country and region. For example, recruitment of stu-

dents in countries such as the United Kingdom and

Australia differed from, say, continental Europe,

where the emphasis was on credit mobility as part of

the home degree.

Drivers, in the ﬁrst case, were funding cuts to

universities and in the second, the availability of sig-

niﬁcant funding through the Erasmus program to

support student and staff mobility. Other drivers

have been development cooperation or national pol-

icies about incoming migration.

All of these drivers and others have contributed

to steady increases in mobility numbers over the

past two decades. Today, even countries that in the

past were highly critical of others involved in stu-

dent recruitment for ﬁnancial gain have become

more focused on economic rationales.

At the same time, scholars and students in some

parts of the world have felt excluded and disadvan-

taged by such trends. These voices, more prominent

in recent years, are reﬂected in wider debates on

subjects such as decolonization and de-Westernisa-

Towards Inclusive Intercultural Learning for All

Betty Leask, Elspeth Jones and Hans de Wit

Betty Leask is emerita professor of internationalisation at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and visiting professor

at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States. Email: [email protected]. Elspeth Jones is

emerita professor of the internationalisation of higher education at Leeds Beckett University, United Kingdom, and series

editor of Internationalization in Higher Education (Routledge). Email: [email protected]. Hans de Wit is direc-

tor of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, US. Email: [email protected]. Previously published

in University World News on December 7, 2018.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

However, the reality is that internationalization

is still predominantly perceived in most countries as

being primarily about mobility. The implementation

of ‘internationalization of the curriculum at home’

appears to be struggling to move beyond good inten-

tions and isolated examples of good practice.

We are still far away from any form of interna-

tionalization that is inclusive and accessible rather

than elitist and exclusive.

The extended deﬁnition of internationalization

in the European Parliament study, focusing on all

students and staff and making a meaningful contri-

bution to society, offers a way forward by placing

emphasis on motivation and values-based inten-

tions. However, it still leaves us with the question of

how we make this revised deﬁnition a reality.

Given today’s global political landscape, this

task assumes a new sense of urgency, reminding us

of the need to shift the focus from input and output

towards outcomes.

Inclusion and Intercultural Learning

In our view, urgent attention is needed to the follow-

ing as a minimum:

• We must, as scholars and practitioners, not only

continue but also escalate our efforts at working

together across disciplines, professional areas

and national boundaries as well as within

universities.

• We must engage more with stakeholder groups

beyond the academy, striving towards the com-

mon goal of creating a better, more equal and

fairer world.

• We must integrate internationalization with

other agendas – disciplinary, professional, insti-

tutional, national and regional – which are also

focused on improving the quality of education

and research for all students. Internationaliza-

tion of the curriculum, teaching, learning and

service should not operate in a vacuum.

• We must place emphasis on enhancing the

quality of education and research for all stu-

dents and staff in all parts of the world. This re-

quires integrated policy and strategy as well as

cooperation and partnership within and be-

The concept of ‘internationalization of the cur-

riculum’ was further developed in response, focus-

ing more sharply on internationalizing the learning

outcomes of all students in a program.

The development of international perspectives

and intercultural skills was connected with the grad-

uate attributes agenda in Australia, graduate attri-

butes being the so-called ‘soft skills’ such as

communication, problem-solving and team work.

Concurrently, in the United States, internation-

alization abroad emphasised study abroad as part of

the home degree and internationalization at home

focused on recruiting international students.

The two approaches were isolated from each

other, fragmented and lacking integration and com-

prehensiveness, even though the notion of ‘compre-

hensive internationalization’ emerged in that

country, with lip service being paid to it in institu-

tional policies and plans.

Two Models, Similar Outcomes

In other words, both models (short-term mobility

and international student recruitment) were inade-

quate as the primary means of internationalizing

learning for all students.

Yet in each case relatively similar responses

were stimulated – internationalization at home and

internationalization of the curriculum – the former

focusing initially on engagement with the local com-

munity and the latter on interaction between inter-

national and domestic students.

Unsurprisingly, international collaborations be-

tween those involved in enacting the two concepts

resulted in them developing similar characteristics

to the point where, more than two decades on, they

have converged and are effectively one and the same.

Both are focused on international and intercul-

tural learning for all students within a program or

institution. Both have received some recognition in

institutional, national and supranational policies.

Both acknowledge the added value of mobility

within a broader learning program focused on the

development of international and intercultural

learning within core studies. Both have the potential

to grow in importance in today’s increasingly con-

nected yet divided world.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

tween institutions across the globe.

Over the past 25 years national and economic

policies and realities, as well as ideological positions,

including cosmopolitanism, neo-liberalism and

neo-colonialism, have inﬂuenced the development

of internationalization in different ways across and

within regions.

Internationalization of higher education can

only make a meaningful and lasting contribution to

the world if the discourse reﬂected in the theme of

this article, ‘working towards inclusive international

and intercultural learning for all’, means that we be-

come more respectful of diverse contexts, agendas

and perspectives on a global scale.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

CIHE, YEaR 2019-2020,

FaCts anD FIguREs

GRADUATE EDUCATION AND

STUDENTS

The Center for International Higher Education is

involved in the training of graduate students through

the Department of Educational Leadership and

Higher Education of Boston College’s Lynch School

of Education and Human Development.

PHD IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Boston College offers the doctorate of philosophy

(PhD) degree in Higher Education, designed to pre-

pare experienced practitioners for senior adminis-

trative and policy-making posts, and careers in

teaching/research in the ﬁeld of higher education.

The program has several speciﬁc programmatic foci

that permit students to specialize in an area of inter-

est. CIHE hosts, and offers assistantships to, PhD

students interested in international and compara-

tive higher education.

In 2019–20, the following individuals were

based at the Center as doctoral students, coming

from a number of different countries:

1. Edward W. Choi (fourth year doctoral student,

from USA/South Korea)

2. Lisa Unangst (fourth year doctoral student,

from USA)

3. Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis (fourth year

doctoral student, from Ethiopia)

4. Jean Baptiste Diatta (second year doctoral stu-

dent, from Cote d’Ivoire/Senegal)

5. Lizhou Wang (ﬁrst year doctoral student,

from China)

6. Tessa DeLaquil (ﬁrst year doctoral student,

from USA/India)

In March 2020, three of our doctoral students suc-

cessfully defended their doctoral theses:

Lisa Unangst – CIHE graduate assistant

from 2017-2019 – successfully defended

her doctoral thesis, Migrants, Refugees, and

“Diversity” at German Universities: A Ground-

ed Theory Analysis. In May, Lisa also re-

ceived the Mary T. Kinnane Award for

Excellence in Higher Education, an honor

bestowed annually on a graduating student

by the Department of Educational Leader-

ship & Higher Education at Boston College.

The award recognizes students who

demonstrate both academic excellence and

a commitment to service. She also received

the Donald J. White Teaching Excellence

Award. Lisa has accepted a post-doctoral

position at the Centre for Higher Education

Governance, Ghent University.

Ayenachew A. Woldegiyorgis - CIHE grad-

uate assistant from 2017-2020 - successful-

ly defended his doctoral thesis, Engaging

with higher education back home: Experiences

of Ethiopian academic diaspora in the United

States.

Edward W. Choi-CIHE graduate assistant

from 2017-2019 - successfully defended his

doctoral thesis, Family-Owned or -Managed

Higher Education Institutions: A Special Kind

of Governance.

In September 2020, a new doctoral student will

start as a CIHE graduate assistant, replacing

Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis: Maia Gelashvili (Geor-

gia). Jean Baptiste Diatta , Lizhou Wang and Tessa

DeLaquil will once again be part of the Center team

in the 2020-2021 academic year.

MASTER’S IN INTERNATIONAL

HIGHER EDUCATION

Launched in fall 2016, this 30-credit (typically two-

year) program is designed to provide participants

with a cutting-edge and highly internationalized

perspective on higher education policy and practice

in a globalized context.

The program is ideally suited for students inter-

ested in developing careers in strategic leadership

for internationalization of higher education, in poli-

cymaking for higher education in international or-

ganizations, and related areas. The program is

conducted in a hybrid model (comprising both on-

site and online courses) and has two tracks, a re-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

tive review.

The Lynch School signed in the fall of 2019 an

agreement with Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan,

which would facilitate students of that university in

entering the M.A. program in International Higher

Education.

CERTIFICATE IN INTERNATIONAL HIGH-

ER EDUCATION

This was the third year in which CIHE has also of-

fered a Certiﬁcate in International Higher Educa-

tion. The purpose of the certiﬁcate program is to

provide a more professional program on interna-

tional higher education, based on four 3 credit cours-

es, of which two are core courses and two are

electives, along with a ﬁeld experience. The certiﬁ-

cate program is 15 credits (in contrast to the 30 for

the Master program) and can be taken completely

online. Credits can be transferred to the Master’s

program, if students choose to continue with their

studies.

In 2019–2020, we awarded two Certiﬁcates,

both to students from the MA in Higher Education:

Stephen Perkins and Naomi Eshleman. There are

currently 6 other students in the Certiﬁcate Pro-

gram, of which four are combining it with the MA in

Higher Education, and two are external students.

One external student did withdraw from the pro-

gram in 2020.

SUMMER COURSES

In 2019, CIHE organized two summer courses:

Refugees and Higher Education, Lisa Unangst,.

Hagan Ergin and Hans de wit

WES-CIHE Summer Institute, Hans de Wit.

In 2020, CIHE will organize three summer

courses:

Serving International Students, Adrienne

Nussbaum

Refugees and Higher Education, Lisa Unangst

and Hans de Wit

Internationalization of the Curriculum, Betty

Leask.

These courses can be taken both as one-credit cours-

es or as professional development without credits.

search and a practitioner track. The practitioner

track includes a research-based ﬁeld experience and

a ﬁnal comprehensive exam. The research track in-

cludes a master’s thesis, which is supported through

a thesis seminar.

CIHE hosts and leads the Master’s in Interna-

tional Higher Education program. The program is

directed by Hans de Wit, professor and director of

CIHE, and managed by assistant professor of the

practice and CIHE associate director Rebecca Schen-

del. Masters-level graduate assistant Ilse Belli-

do-Richards (Colombia) also supported the

program’s administration in 2019-20.

As of May 2020, twenty-six students have grad-

uated from the Master’s program. Ten of these grad-

uated in Spring 2020, two others intend to graduate

this summer. Eight of the ten students completed

the research track with a thesis, two completed the

practitioner track with a comps exam. Of these ten,

two are continuing on to a doctoral program in

2020, while others apply the skills and knowledge

gained during the course of the program to new pro-

fessional positions in the ﬁeld. To date, the program

has welcomed students from the USA (14), Arme-

nia/Syria (1), China (6), Japan (2), Mexico (1), Paki-

stan (1) and Brazil (1). The 14 students from the USA

have a diverse cultural and ethnic background.

DUAL DEGREE WITH UNIVERSIDAD DE

GUADALAJARA

As of May 2020, we have completed the second full

year of our dual degree program with the University

of Guadalajara in Mexico. Students on the dual de-

gree program complete 16 credits at Boston College

and 17 credits in Mexico, graduating with degrees

from both institutions. One student in the dual de-

gree program graduated Spring 2020, by Fall 2020

it is expected that the other ﬁve students will gradu-

ate, representing a 100% pass rate. They completed

their comps exam with Boston College in the Fall

2019 (3) and Spring 2020 (2). In 2029-2020 only

one student took part in the dual degree program,

she is among the ﬁve who will graduate by Fall 202.

In 2020-2021 at least two new students will enter

the program.

The dual degree program was externally re-

viewed mid-term by NEASC and did receive a posi-

RESEARCH FELLOWS

Elena Denisova-Schmidt

Lecturer at the University of St. Gallen (HSG),

Switzerland.

Kara A. Godwin

Director of Internationalization at the American

Council on Education where she leads the ACE In-

ternationalization Laboratory and global research

initiatives. She has been a consultant for clients

including Soka University, Duke Kunshan Univer-

sity, Olin College of Engineering, the Norwegian

Agency for Development Cooperation, and The

Economist.

Ellen Hazelkorn

Policy advisor to the Higher Education Authority

(HEA) (2013-) and Emerita Professor and Director,

Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU),

Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland).She is

President of EAIR (European Higher Education

Society), and on the Advisory Board and the Man-

agement Committee, Centre for Global Higher Ed-

ucation (CGHE), UCL Institute for Education, in

addition to being an International Co-Investigator.

Iván Pacheco

International higher education consultant and re-

searcher in higher education, Executive Director of

Synergy E & D, a Startup specializing in connect-

ing colleges and universities with local and nation-

al governments to facilitate a wide range of

development projects in Latin America and devel-

oping countries.

Liz Reisberg

International higher education consultant collab-

orating with governments, universities, and inter-

national donor agencies throughout the world on

initiatives to improve the quality and effectiveness

of higher education.

VISITING SCHOLARS

Craig Whitsed

Senior Lecturer, School of Education at Curtin Uni-

versity (June 2019)

Carmen América Afﬁgne

Department Head and Associate Professor in the

Department of Language and Literature at Universi-

dad Simón Bolívar, Venezuela (2 months, Fall 2019)

Shanton Chang

Research & Teaching Professor at The School of

Computing and Information Systems at the Univer-

sity of Melbourne (1 week, Fall 2019

Hakan Ergin

Lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages,

Istanbul University, Turkey (2018-2019, Summer

2019, Fulbright Scholar)

Fernanda Leal

Ph.D. graduate of the State University of Santa Cata-

rina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil and Executive

Assistant, International Ofﬁce - Universidade Feder-

al de Santa Catarina (Brazil) (2018-2020)

Mary MacKenty

PhD candidate in Education at the Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain. (Spring 2019)

Dan Mao

Assistant professor at School of Education, Shang-

hai Normal University. (2019-2020)

Hanwen Zhang

Doctoral candidate and Program Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of

International Cooperation and Exchange, Northeast

Normal University (China) (1 month, Fall 2019))

VISITING SCHOLARS AND RESEARCH FELLOWS

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

rangement. The 100th issue had as theme

Unprecedented Challenges, Signiﬁcant Possibilities?

The issue included the winning essay from our

contest on that theme by Stephen Thompson. His

essay and two additional submissions were also

published in our partner publication University

World News.

In 2020, Special Issue 102 of IHE was published

on the impact of Covid-19, with contributions from

around the world.

As of 2019, IHE has an Editorial Advisory Board of

distinguished higher education experts to provide

insights, suggest topics, and increase the visibility

of the publication. The Editorial Advisory Board is

comprised of the following members:

Andrés Bernasconi, Pontiﬁcia Catholic University of

Chile, Chile; Eva Egron-Polak, former Secretary

General, International Association of Universities

(IAU), France; Ellen Hazelkorn, BH Consulting As-

sociates, Ireland; Jane Knight, University of Toron-

to, Canada; Marcelo Knobel, University of Campinas,

Brazil; Betty Leask, La Trobe University, Australia;

Nian Cai Liu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Chi-

na; Laura E. Rumbley, European Association for

International Education (EAIE), The Netherlands;

Jamil Salmi, Global Tertiary Expert, Colombia;

Damtew Teferra, University of Kwazulu-Natal,

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

(IHE)

International Higher Education (IHE) is the ﬂagship

quarterly publication of the Center for International

Higher Education. Launched in 1995, IHE features

the contributions of distinguished scholars, poli-

cy-makers, and leaders, who are well positioned to

offer critical perspectives on higher education world-

wide. This publication—which is translated into

Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Viet-

namese—presents insightful, informed, and high-

quality commentary and analysis on trends and

issues of importance to higher education systems,

institutions, and stakeholders around the world.

Each edition also includes short abstracts of new

books and other publications of relevance to the

global higher education community. Philip G. Alt-

bach is editor, and Hans de Wit and Rebecca Schen-

del are associate editors. Hélène Bernot Ullero and

Tessa DeLaquil are publication editors, and Salina

Kopellas is editorial assistant. As of 2020-2021, Ge-

rardo Blanco will join as associate editor.

After 25 years of in-house publication, International

Higher Education has moved to DUZ Academic

Publishers in Berlin, Germany. Our 100th issue was

the ﬁrst issue published by DUZ, and we have very

much appreciated the new design and other en-

hanced features that have come with this new ar-

CIHE PUBLICATIONS SERIES

Damtew Teferra

Professor of higher Education and leader of the

Higher Education Training and Development

(HETD) at the University of Kwazulu-Natal, South

Africa, and founding director of the International

Network for Higher Education in Africa (INHEA).

Qi Wang

Assistant Professor, Center for World-Class Univer-

sities, Graduate School of Education (GSE), Shang-

hai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), Associate Editor,

Journal of International Education.

Laura Rumbley

Associate Director, Knowledge Development & Re-

search, European Association for International Edu-

cation (EAIE).

Jamil Salmi

Global tertiary education expert – in the past 25

years, has provided policy advice to governments

and university leaders in about 100 countries in all

parts of the world. and former World Bank Tertiary

Education Coordinator in the World Bank.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

initiatives, including the publication of the Interna-

tional Journal of African Higher Education (IJAHE).

Launched in 2014, IJAHE is a peer-reviewed open

access journal aiming to advance knowledge, pro-

mote research, and provide a forum for policy analy-

sis on higher education issues relevant to the African

continent. IJAHE, which is published in coopera-

tion with the Association of African Universities,

publishes the works of the most inﬂuential and es-

tablished, as well as emerging, scholars on higher

education in Africa. One new issue Vol 6 No 1 (2019)

was published in the Spring of 2020. Two new is-

sues are scheduled to be published in 2020.

CIHE would like to thank the Carnegie Corporation

of New York (CCNY) for its long-standing support of

both IHE and IJAHE. CCNY has long recognized

the importance of higher education in Africa and be-

yond, and their generosity signiﬁcantly enables both

coverage of work from this region in IHE and the

publication of IJAHE.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER

EDUCATION

Since 2005, the Center for International Higher Ed-

ucation has collaborated with Sense Publishers/Brill

on this book series, which comprises 47 volumes as

of 2019-2020. As higher education worldwide con-

fronts profound transitions—including those en-

gendered by globalization, the advent of mass access,

changing relationships between the university and

the state, and new technologies—this book series

provides cogent analysis and comparative perspec-

tives on these and other central issues affecting post-

secondary education across the globe.

Five volumes were published in 2019-2020:

• Kara A. Godwin and Hans de Wit (Eds.). (2019).

Intelligent internationalization: The shape of

things to come. Brill|Sense.

• Philip G. Altbach, Edward Choi, Mathew Alan ,

and Hans de Wit (Eds.). (2020). Family-owned

and managed universities around the world.

Brill|Sense.

• Kyle Long. (2020). The emergence of the Ameri-

South Africa; Akiyoshi Yonezawa, Tohoku University,

Japan; Maria Yudkevich, National Research Universi-

ty Higher School of Economics, Russia.

IHE is also distributed via our partner institutions.

University World News (UWN) places a link to IHE

on its website and also publishes one IHE article a

week for the month following the publication of

each new issue. IHE is also published in English as

an insert in the Deutsche Universitäts-Zeitung (DUZ).

Three spin-off journals - Higher Education in Russia

and Beyond; Higher Education in South-East Asia and

Beyond; and Educación Superior en America Latina –

are published by our partners in cooperation with

CIHE. In addition to publishing their own articles,

they also occasionally select some IHE content to

re-publish.

CIHE PERSPECTIVES

Launched in 2016, the CIHE Perspectives report se-

ries presents the ﬁndings of research and analysis

undertaken by the Center. Each number in the series

endeavors to provide unique insights and distinctive

viewpoints on a range of current issues and develop-

ments in higher education around the world. The

following titles were published in 2019–2020:

• No. 14., Inclusive and Innovative International-

ization of Higher Education: Proceedings of the

WES-CIHE Summer Institute June 19-21, 2019.

Rebecca Schendel, Hans de Wit, & Tessa

DeLaquil (Eds.) The Boston College Center for

International Higher Education.

• No. 15., Internationalization of Technical and

Technological Institutions of Higher Education in

the Caribbean. Hans de Wit, Miguel J. Escala, &

Gloria Sànchez Valverde. The Boston College

Center for International Higher Education.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION

CIHE cooperates with the International Network for

Higher Education in Africa (INHEA) at the Univer-

sity of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, on a number of

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach and Hans

de Wit (Eds.). Doctoral Education at a Global

Crossroads.

INTERNATIONAL BRIEFS FOR HIGHER

EDUCATION LEADERS

Developed in 2012 by the American Council of Edu-

cation’s Center for Internationalization and Global

Engagement (CIGE), in partnership with the Boston

College Center for International Higher Education,

the International Briefs for Higher Education Lead-

ers series is designed to help inform strategic deci-

sions about international programming and

initiatives. The series is aimed at senior university

executives who need a quick but incisive perspective

on international issues and trends, with each Brief

offering analysis and commentary on key countries

and topics of importance relevant to institutional de-

cision makers.

This academic year no new issue has been pub-

lished, but a new issue for the coming year address-

es Women’s Representation in Higher Education

Leadership around the World. The brief will focus par-

ticularly on ways in which barriers to promotion and

equal treatment are being addressed in different cul-

tural, national and institutional contexts. CIHE staff

and afﬁliates involved with this work include Rebec-

ca Schendel, Gerardo Blanco and Tessa DeLaquil.

can university abroad. Brill|Sense.

• Elena Denisova-Schmidt (Ed.). (2020). Corrup-

tion in higher education: Global challenges and re-

sponses. Brill|Sense.

• Lisa Unangst, Hakan Ergin, Araz Khajarian,

Tessa DeLaquil and Hans de Wit (Eds.). (2020)

Refugees and higher education: Trans-national per-

spectives on access, equity, and internationaliza-

tion. Brill|Sense.

One new book is scheduled in this series for the

coming year, based on contributions from the 2004-

2005 New Century Scholars initiative focused on

‘Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Chal-

lenge and National Response.’ The book will be edit-

ed by Heather Eggins, Anna Smolentseva and Hans

de Wit, with the working title: The Next Decade,

Challenges for Higher Education.

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

In 2017, CIHE and the Center for Global Higher Ed-

ucation (CGHE) in London entered in partnership

with Sage Publishers India to start a new book se-

ries, Studies in Higher Education. The series is edit-

ed by Philip G. Altbach, Claire Callender, Hans de

Wit, Simon Marginson, and Laura E. Rumbley. The

ﬁrst book was published in the fall of 2018. The sec-

ond one is in press and will be published in 2020:

CIHE PROJECTS, 2019–2020

and to reach more IHE readers and contributors

based in Africa. Equally importantly, Carnegie fund-

ing has helped support the work of the International

Network for Higher Education in Africa (INHEA).

INHEA was founded at the Center over a decade

ago, but is now formally based at the University of

Kwazulu-Natal (UKZN) in Durban, South Africa,

under the direction of INHEA’s founder, Damtew

Teferra. INHEA produces a peer-reviewed journal,

The International Journal of Higher Education in Afri-

ca, as well as an “African Higher Education News”

International Network for Higher Educa-

tion in Africa (INHEA) and Africa focus in

International Higher Education (IHE)

Thanks to a multi-year grant from the Carnegie Cor-

poration of New York, CIHE in 2019-2020 was able

to continue its efforts to help promote research and

dialogue about higher education in Africa. We have

taken several steps to ensure regular coverage of Af-

rican higher education issues in International Higher

Education (IHE) (our quarterly ﬂagship publication)

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

resource, the “Chronicle of African Higher Educa-

tion”, and an editorial series. INHEA also spear-

heads the Higher Education Forum on Africa, Asia

and Latin America (HEFAALA), which aims to fos-

ter discussions and rigorous analyses of higher edu-

cation issues of regional, trans-regional and

international signiﬁcance.

The Second International HEFAALA Symposium,

Internationalization of Higher Education in the New

World (Dis)Order, took place July 26-27, 2019 in Ad-

dis Ababa, Ethiopia. CIHE Director Hans de Wit

gave a keynote at this event and also will contribute

to a special HEFAALA issue of the International

Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 2020.

The Carnegie Corporation grant for this project will

end in 2020. Discussion on a new grant proposal for

HEFAALA are in an initial phase.

Family-Owned/Managed Universities: An

Unknown Global Phenomenon

This research project, undertaken by CIHE with the

participation of Babson College (USA), focuses on

the largely unknown, as well as undocumented, phe-

nomenon of family-owned or -managed higher edu-

cation institutions (FOMHEIs). FOMHEIs can be

found in various parts of the world, but are particu-

larly concentrated in certain regional contexts (e.g.

Asia and Latin America). This research, the ﬁrst of

its kind, is coordinated by Philip G. Altbach, Hans

de Wit and graduate assistant Edward W. Choi, with

support from the Center for Family Owned Business

at Babson College, under the direction of Professor

Matthew Allen. The ﬁndings of this project as a

book, comprising institutional and national case

studies, a literature review and a concluding chapter,

was published by the end of 2019.

International Student Mobility and

Recruitment

In partnership with the Institute of Education of the

Higher School of Economics (HES) in Moscow,

CIHE is executing a study on global trends and stra-

tegic choices on international student mobility and

recruitment with speciﬁc focus on implications for

Russian Higher Education. The project will result in

a comparative study and policy paper. From the

CIHE side, the project is led by its director Hans de

Wit, with the support of doctoral student Lizhou

Wang.

Refugees in Higher Education

CIHE is involved in several research projects on ref-

ugees in higher education. Graduate assistant Lisa

Unangst, CIHE Director Hans de Wit and Visiting

Scholar Hakan Ergin have contributed several arti-

cles and book chapters on this theme and collaborat-

ed to deliver a one credit summer course on the

topic in May/June 2019, and the ﬁrst two will do so

again, June 2020. These three CIHE representa-

tives, together with graduate assistants Araz Khajar-

ian and Tessa DeLaquil, have edited a book in the

Brill/Sense Series on Refugees and Higher Education,

with contributions from faculty, students, alumni

and visiting scholars of Boston College.

Internationalization of the Technical

and Technological Institutions of Higher

Education in the Caribbean

This project, organized in partnership with the In-

ter-American Organization for Higher Education

(OUI-IOHE) and ITLA (the Instituto Tecnológico de

Las Américas in the Dominican Republic), involved

a survey and workshop for 35 technological institu-

tions in the region and culminated in the develop-

ment of twelve institutional case studies. Hans de

Wit is the lead researcher on the topic from CIHE.

The project resulted in a report published both in

English and Spanish as a CIHE Perspectives, and

was presented at the CAIE Conference in Bogota in

October 2019.

Internationalization of Medical Education

in the U.S.

A study by Betty Leask, Edward Choi, Lisa Un-

angst,and Hans de Wit, in partnership with Anette

Wu, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, re-

sulting in a peer reviewed article submission (in re-

vision), spring 2020.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

American Universities in the Middle East

A study by Pratik Chougule and Hans de Wit, fund-

ed by the Schmidt Richardson Foundation, 2019-

2021. This study will result in a report and book in

2021.

The Next Decade: Challenges for Higher

Education

This project looks for a compilation of research by

Fulbright New Century Scholars, from the 2004-

2005 New Century Scholars initiative focused on

‘Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Chal-

lenge and National Response,” coordinated and ed-

ited by Heather Eggins, Anna Smolentseva, Hans

de Wit, to be published Spring 2021.

National Policies for Internationalization

of K-12 and Tertiary Education

In cooperation with UNESCO for G-20, Philip Alt-

bach and Hans de Wit. did a study on national pol-

icies for K-12 and Tertiary Education

internationalization. The report has been completed

and submitted spring 2020. The report will be pub-

lished in the Fall of 2020.

Non-State Actors in Higher Education

Also in cooperation with UNESCO, Philip Altbach

and Hans de Wit with support of Ayenachew Wolde-

gyiorgis, graduate from our doctoral program will do

a study on Non-State Actors in Higher Education.

This report will be completed fall 2020.

Internationalization of Higher Education

in the Global South

Hans de Wit in cooperation with Juliet Thondhlana,

Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao

Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat, did a study on in-

ternationalization in the Global South. this will re-

sult in a book to be published at the start of 2021.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND DELEGATIONS,

2019–2020

the Center for Teaching Excellence.

CIS School-University Summit: October

16-17, 2019

CIHE organized on the request of the Council of In-

ternational Schools (CIS) the 2nd CIS School-Uni-

versity Summit, 16-17 October, at Boston College. 20

changemakers from schools and universities did

meet with CIS to focus on the international educa-

tion agenda. From the CIHE side participated visit-

ing professor Betty Leask and CIHE Director Hans

de Wit, while also Lauri Johnson, Educational Lead-

ership, was actively involved.

Cancelled: June 10-12, 2020: World

Education Services (WES)-CIHE Summer

Institute

Due to the COVID-19 situation and given the con-

CIHE continues to offer training sessions and mod-

ules, both on the campus of Boston College and

overseas, for various groups seeking our expertise in

different aspects of higher education leadership,

management, and knowledge-building.

In this academic year, CIHE welcomed delegations

from China and Australia. These visits typically

comprised a day-long or half-day program of lec-

tures and presentations.

In 2019–2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pan-

demic, we conducted only the following two profes-

sional development activities.

Australian Catholic University: October

3-4, 2019

A one day training program for a delegation of the

Australian Catholic University, in cooperation with

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

tinued uncertainty around health risks, World Edu-

cation Services (WES) and the Boston College Center

for International Higher Education (CIHE) decided

to cancel the 2020 WES-CIHE Summer Institute. In

order to keep the spirit of the event alive, the CIHE

is publishing approved ﬁnal papers in a special issue

of CIHE Perspectives.

Postponed: IGLU Workshop

For the third year, CIHE was planning to organize a

ﬁve-day professional development program, in part-

nership with the Instituto de Gestión y Liderazgo

Universitario (IGLU) of the Inter-American Organi-

zation for Higher Education (OUI-IOHE), focused

on “Innovation and Internationalization in Higher

Education”. Due to COVID-19, we had to cancel the

program, but hope to organize it again in 2021.

CIHE SEMINAR/WEBINAR SERIES,

2019-2020

• Pankaj Jalote, Distinguished Professor and

Founding Director of IIIT-Delhi. Indian Re-

search Universities & Global Rankings. (Septem-

ber 15, 2019).

• Shanton Chang, Visiting Scholar, Associate Pro-

fessor, School of Computing and Information

Systems at University of Melbourne. Digital

Journeys and International Students: Understand-

ing the Digital Pathways of International Students.

(October 21, 2019).

• Carmen América Afﬁgne, Visiting Scholar, De-

partment Head and Associate Professor in the

Department of Language and Literature at Uni-

versidad Simón Bolívar. Emergency education in

Venezuela: The role of Catholic education and pub-

lic universities in addressing the contemporary cri-

sis. (November 19, 2020).

• Dan Mao, Visiting Scholar, Assistant professor

at School of Education, Shanghai Normal Uni-

versity. The dynamic of university research evalua-

tion system and its impact on academic profession

in China. (December 10, 2020).

• Hans de Wit, Director of CIHE, & Lisa Unangst,

Ph.D. candidate. CIHE Seminar/Book launch:

“Refugees and Higher Education: Trans-national

perspectives on access, equity and internationaliza-

tion”. (January 21, 2020).

• Betty Leask, CIHE Visiting Professor Ayenachew

Woldegiyorgis, Lisa Unangst, and Jean Baptiste

Diatta (Ph.D. Candidates and Student). (De)con-

structing and Re-imagining Internationalized Cur-

ricula: Case studies from the US and Ethiopia.

(February 11, 2020).

• Jean Baptiste Diatta, Ph.D. Student, Catholic

HEIs in francophone West Africa: Challenges and

opportunities. (April 21, 2020).

• Wen Wen, Associate Professor of Education, Ts-

inghua University. Finding the way: is there a Chi-

nese ‘idea of university’? (May 5, 2020).

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES OF

MASTERS STUDENTS, 2019-

2020

MASTER THESES

This year, eight of the Masters students in Interna-

tional Higher Education completed theses as part of

their program., as well as one student from the dual

degree program with the Universidad de

Guadalajara.

The nine thesis titles and abstracts are listed below.

Marva Antoine. “Comprehensive Internationalization:

A Dynamic Approach to Transformative Practice at the

Centro Universitario de los Valles.”

CUValles has no intentional, integrated institutional

pathway to comprehensive internationalization.

Consequently, the primary purpose of this transfor-

mative inquiry is to analyze how comprehensive in-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

ternationalization might be achieved at CUValles: a

constituent of a decentralized, multi-campus Universi-

ty Network. Interviews with 12 key informants and ofﬁ-

cial document analysis were the means of data

collection. Findings indicate the disarticulated presence

of all comprehensive internationalization as character-

ized by ACE, (2017). Comprehensive internationaliza-

tion might be achieved at CUValles through a context

savvy application of de Wit’s Internationalization Cycle

(2002), integrated from an “Inter-Campus Research In-

stitute for International Higher Education”.

Motunrola Bolumole. “Racism and the Wellbeing of Black

Students Studying Abroad.”

Race plays a signiﬁcant role in shaping the experiences

of Black students who study abroad. Unlike their White

peers, Black students are likely to encounter racism

abroad, which a small body of research has document-

ed. However, these studies say little about the short-

and long- term effects of these experiences. This study

is located in this gap in the research and examines how

racism experienced while studying abroad can affect

the wellbeing of Black students.

In-depth interviews were conducted with 8 participants.

Results revealed that the racism Black students encoun-

ter abroad can cause signiﬁcant stress. When Black stu-

dents lack adequate resources to cope with this stress,

their wellbeing is threatened. Recommendations for

study abroad ofﬁces and administrators for reducing

and limiting the incidences and impact of racism expe-

rienced by Black students studying abroad are made.

Austen Carpenter. “Social Media Habits of Study Abroad

Students.”

When students study abroad, they are undergoing a

number of identity changes from acculturation, to the

expansion of their social network, to a narrative identi-

ty change. With social media, students have more op-

portunity and reach than ever to share these changes.

This research is focused on how study abroad students’

social media habits change during their time abroad as

they are experiencing their own identity changes, and

how these changes impact the stories they are sharing

about their identity online. A mixed methods study was

conducted to examine these two research questions,

changes in posts habits, and changes in storytelling.

This research found that studying abroad does dis-

rupt posting habits once students go abroad as well

as upon a student’s return home, although this dis-

ruption (increase in posting, decreases in posting)

looks different for everyone. Students also use dif-

ferent platforms to connect with different audiences

and social networks, prompting their content to alter

across platforms. Students are more likely to post

highlights of their experiences, rather than daily life,

creating social media narratives that are not repre-

sentative of their time abroad, but this may be inﬂu-

enced by the posting trends found within their

personal social networks. This points to a gap be-

tween what students are experiencing and what they

are sharing and may have implications on impend-

ing study abroad students who consume what stu-

dents currently or formerly abroad are posting.

There may be a way for daily life to be represented

abroad, but this research shows it is not on perma-

nent social media platforms.

Courtney Hartzell. “Using A University Network to Ad-

vance Internationalization of the Curriculum: A Case

Study.”

Universities around the world are increasingly

adopting internationalization strategies, which call

attention to intentionality in using the curriculum

and regional networks as ways to achieve university

agendas. Internationalization of the Curriculum

(IoC) endeavors are typically led by a select group of

individuals within a single university, and often

struggle to gain diverse wide-spread support within

the university community (Leask, 2013). However,

university networks, which demand interconnectivi-

ty, have been argued to “constitute the core of inter-

nationalisation,” and present varied academic

opportunities for engagement that expand channels

of information sharing and knowledge creation (de

Wit & Callan, 1995, p.89). Therefore, university net-

works have unexplored potential in providing unique

learning opportunities for member institutions’ fac-

ulty and staff in internationalizing their curricula,

while also advancing their institution’s internation-

the management literature in the late 1970s (e.g.

Pettigrew, 1979; Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Scholars

have later on extended the discussion to include

higher education institutions (e.g. Tierney, 2008).

However, the majority of the literature on organiza-

tional culture in higher education is based on insti-

tutions that follow and are placed within the Western

model. Despite the lack of direct evidence, it is fair to

suspect that there is a relationship between the cul-

ture of an organization and its national/regional

context. This study investigates the nature of that

relationship and provides real world examples

through an in-depth case study on the American

University of Madaba (AUM).

In evaluating AUM’s organizational culture, this

study explores the institution’s organizational iden-

tity and its organizational design (the sum of the

two, in this study, constitutes the culture of the orga-

nization). The data suggests that AUM’s organiza-

tional identity holographically (Albert & Whetten,

2004) brings together four different identity pieces:

American, Catholic, Jordanian, and not-for-proﬁt.

The study concludes that the institution’s focus on

its American identity and partial neglect in incorpo-

rating its other identity pieces into its organizational

design with equal weight lead to a misalignment be-

tween its espoused, attributed, shared and aspira-

tional organizational values (Broune & Jenkins,

2013), which ultimately leads to a misalignment be-

tween its organizational identity and its organiza-

tional design, resulting in what would be generally

considered an unhealthy organizational culture (Gu-

lua, 2018). In AUM’s case, this misalignment caus-

es an amended combination of what the literature

presents as an expectation gap and a dislocation gap

in organizational values (Broune & Jenkins, 2013).

However, context-relativity (a crucial concept in this

study), with its historical, economic, political, so-

cio-cultural and colonial components, is highly im-

pactful in studying the relationship between AUM’s

organizational culture and its national/regional con-

text and impacts our understanding of the initial

ﬁndings.

This study reveals that there is a strong conception

alization agenda. Through a framework of network

theories, professional learning theory, and an inter-

nationalization of the curriculum conceptual frame-

work, this study investigated faculty and staff

engagement with one network, and how their en-

gagement has inﬂuenced conceptualizations of in-

ternationalization of the curriculum.

Drawing from semi-structured interviews with four-

teen members of faculty and staff from two of ﬁve

universities in a European university network, the

results demonstrate that this network supports fac-

ulty and staff in contextualizing and conceptualizing

internationalization. The analysis points to the dif-

ferences in conceptualizations of IoC, depending on

the level of faculty and staff engagement with the

network. The diverse representation of faculty and

staff at network events created signiﬁcant interac-

tions where individuals were able to validate and

share their experiences and expertise related to in-

ternationalizing curriculum, as well as critically ex-

amine their own approaches and university policies.

Faculty and staff engagement with the network re-

sulted in mature conceptualizations of internation-

alizing curriculum, and contributed to a greater

adaptability to working in changing, intercultural

environments.

The study suggests that engagement in this network

is conducive to the internationalization of one’s aca-

demic Self, and to fostering a greater sense of re-

gional camaraderie (Sanderson, 2008). Finally, the

results of this study demonstrate one university net-

work’s ability to engage an increasing mass of reﬂec-

tive faculty and staff that are aware of

internationalization and its implications for their

learning environments. The contributions of this

study are signiﬁcant for university leaders, scholars,

and practitioners, and especially those working in

the nuanced intersection of internationalizing cur-

ricula and university networks.

Araz Khajarian. “Context-Relativity in Organizational

Culture: The Case of the American University of

Madaba.”

Organizational culture was originally addressed in

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

in the Middle East that American higher education =

good quality (but good quality does not necessarily

equal American). Therefore, in the light of con-

text-relativity, AUM’s organizational gaps and the

misalignment between its identity and design is not

a matter of unauthenticity, but rather lack of options.

Being an American institution in the Middle East

comes with a market advantage; therefore, such an

approach is a way for AUM to survive in a world

where global power dynamics carry strong precon-

ceptions about the quality of American higher edu-

cation. By being American “enough” to maintain its

market advantage and being Jordanian “enough” to

keep the peace with their students and staff and the

surrounding community, AUM, as a young higher

education institution, is ﬁnding a way to survive and

advance its quality in the process.

Samantha Lee. “LGBTQ+ Identity Shifts Abroad and

the Need for Re-entry Support.”

When students return from studying abroad, they

go through the process of reentry, where unexpected

stressors can create challenges for students. This

process might be even more difﬁcult for students

who identify as LGBTQ+, who may take the opportu-

nity to explore their LGBTQ+ identity in a new space

and may have to go through a process of ‘coming

out’ or choosing to ‘go back into the closet’ upon re-

turning home. Because of these unique experiences,

students who identify as LBGTQ+ may require addi-

tional support upon return to their home communi-

ties and campus. This thesis research focused on

pinpointing LGBTQ+ student identity shifts abroad

and how that affected students’ return to campus. A

mixed methods study was conducted in order to fur-

ther look into this issue. This research has found

that LGBTQ+ students identiﬁed different needs

from their peers throughout the study abroad pro-

cess, and some needs were unmet upon returning to

campus. Additionally, advisors saw a need for some

additional support for LGBTQ+ students upon

re-entry but there may be complications in provid-

ing resources. One student who did report having an

identity shift in her sexual orientation because she

was in a different cultural setting and discussed hav-

ing issues with her mental health upon her return to

her home campus. There are many factors that in-

ﬂuenced her experience, but it is important for advi-

sors to understand the experiences of their LGBTQ+

students when studying abroad in order to offer the

appropriate support through all stages.

Elizabeth J. Orr. “Mission Agreement and Mission Con-

sistency at the University of Central Asia: A Develop-

mental Mission in a Global Marketplace.”

The University of Central Asia (UCA) has three cam-

puses in remote, mountainous communities in Ta-

jikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. This reﬂects

the regional, developmental mission of the institu-

tion. The ways in which UCA’s mission are under-

stood, interpreted, and operationalized by internal

stakeholders underscore the impact of a develop-

mental mission on the university. An assessment of

mission agreement at UCA reveals the extent to

which its developmental mission is embraced. The

activities that enhance or inhibit the operationaliza-

tion of UCA’s mission, or mission consistency, re-

ﬂect institutional priorities, some of which compete

with UCA’s developmental mission and are driven

by pressures from the global higher education

marketplace.

Octavio Seijas. “Mental Health Support Services for In-

ternational Students in Japanese Universities: A Multi-

ple-case Study of Five Universities in Japan.”

This study looks at how services for mental health, a

growing crisis on college campuses worldwide, are

being provided and promoted to international stu-

dents, a portion of the student body that faces addi-

tional mental health challenges, in Japan, a country

where the culture historically stigmatizes mental

health. Using the theories of comprehensive inter-

nationalization and cross-cultural adjustment to

guide a series of semi-structured interviews, data

was collected from international ofﬁce members,

counseling ofﬁce members, and professors of high-

er education from ﬁve Japanese universities and

compiled into ﬁve case studies which were then cat-

egorically and comparatively analyzed. The study

found international ofﬁces provided a variety of ser-

vices and activities aimed at easing cross-cultural

adjustment but could improve collaboration with

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

way that the OISS or BC can address their concerns

or improve their situations.

Naomi Eshleman. “Slater International Center at

Wellesley College.”

The purpose of this project was to help the Slater

International Center by learning more about what

international students need and want Slater to do for

them. A spring 2019 poll sent out by Slater found

that “International students at Wellesley would like

better intercultural understanding between them-

selves and domestic students.” This project also

serves to provide Slater with further understanding

of what international and domestic understanding

looks like and potential ways to improve. Wellesley

international students face different challenges than

the average international student, because Wellesley

is not the average higher education institution. Un-

like other institutions, students do not have any ob-

vious challenge with the facilitation of the English

language and how that impacts schoolwork or rela-

tionships, and in general, they do not have an issue

forming friendships with domestic students and in-

ternational students outside of their own country or

region. The greatest challenge for Wellesley’s inter-

national students is the high amount of pressure to

ﬁt within the conﬁnes of an aggressively liberal

college.

Naomi Eshleman. “Slater International Center at

Wellesley College.”

The purpose of this project was to help the Slater

International Center by learning more about what

international students need and want Slater to do for

them. A spring 2019 poll sent out by Slater found

that “International students at Wellesley would like

better intercultural understanding between them-

selves and domestic students.” This project also

serves to provide Slater with further understanding

of what international and domestic understanding

looks like and potential ways to improve. Wellesley

international students face different challenges than

the average international student, because Wellesley

is not the average higher education institution. Un-

like other institutions, students do not have any ob-

vious challenge with the facilitation of the English

counseling ofﬁces. Counseling ofﬁces were found to

be lacking specialized services and promotion to in-

ternational students. Furthermore, although percep-

tions of mental health are improving, advocacy was

found to be near non-existent.

FIELD ExPERIENCES

Four of our Masters students also completed applied

research projects for placement organizations in the

Boston area and beyond. The report titles and ab-

stracts follow:

Adam Agostinelli. “Part 1: The Selection Process for In-

ternational Assistants; Part 2: International Students

who Remained in the U.S. Post-COVID19.”

Part 1: The OISS will be drastically reformatting

their 40-year long process for selecting mentors, or

IAs, during the following semester because of a re-

cent trend of poorly performing IAs. IAs are under-

graduate students who voluntarily make a one-year

commitment to serve as mentors to incoming inter-

national freshmen at BC, and this program has con-

sistently been a central feature of the OISS.

Speciﬁcally, this research involves collecting data

from two different sources: (1) Outside the institu-

tion- Research outside the institution entailed evalu-

ating support systems that other universities utilize

by researching their websites and contacting their

administrators. (2) Within the institution - This en-

tails following the newly implemented selection pro-

cess at BC throughout the spring semester. Overall,

this report will serve as a future reference for inno-

vating the IA program.

Part 2: When BC cancelled all on-campus academics

and activities on March 11th the OISS selection pro-

cess for IAs was put on hold. As the ﬁrst part of the

project was cut-short due to the pandemic, the new

plan was to interview some ISs who were still living

alone, on or off campus, in order to get a feel for how

they were doing and how the OISS could potentially

help them during this difﬁcult time. This project

highlights ﬁndings from three interviews with ISs

still living on or off campus during the Coronavirus

pandemic. The goal of the interviews was to get a

feel for how they are doing and to see if there is any

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

to many positive outcomes for students and it is im-

portant that Boston College do everything in its pow-

er to create an environment where international

(and all) students feel comfortable participating in

campus programs.

Recommendations include to implement elements

of cultural competence training into meetings, inter-

actions, and/or trainings with students involved in

OSI programs; provide more information about in-

volvement at International Student Orientation;

continue efforts to make OSI Staff more visible and

approachable; don’t overlook Spring outreach and

sophomore year outreach efforts; continue to look

for opportunities to provide meaningful cross-cul-

tural interaction; make international student issues

more of a priority; make students more aware of the

international student experience; and for staff and

faculty to show interest in other cultures and em-

power international students whenever possible.

María Guadalupe Vázquez Niño. “Faculty Perspectives

on Global Citizenship Development through Interna-

tionalization at Home Strategy ‘Be Global’, at Universi-

ty of Guadalajara High Schools.”

A project at University of Guadalajara (UdeG) (a

public university located in the state of Jalisco, Mex-

ico) that could be seen as one of the different efforts

that this institution has made to educate ‘global citi-

zens’ is ‘Be Global’ (Ser Global). Be Global is part of

one of the most ambitious internationalization proj-

ects of the Foreign Languages Institutional Program

ofﬁce (FLIP) at University of Guadalajara. Its pur-

pose is to help the transition of UdeG high schools

to bilingual education. Professors of different sub-

jects and students work together on projects focused

on intercultural awareness. The methodology em-

ployed in Be Global is known as pheno-CLIL. This

means that students develop multidisciplinary proj-

ects using the English language. Be Global currently

takes the form of an elective course that students

from 3rd to 6th semester can choose to take. The

purpose of this study is to present the faculty per-

spectives teaching at Be Global about to what extent

they think students can gain global citizenship com-

petencies through this course.

language and how that impacts schoolwork or rela-

tionships, and in general, they do not have an issue

forming friendships with domestic students and in-

ternational students outside of their own country or

region. The greatest challenge for Wellesley’s inter-

national students is the high amount of pressure to

ﬁt within the conﬁnes of an aggressively liberal

college.

Increasing meaningful exposure and understanding

of international students’ identities will likely lead to

less intolerance of differing viewpoints. Likewise,

providing educational opportunities for ﬁrst year

students to learn about issues in the LGBTQ+ com-

munity in a safe and empathetic setting could lessen

incidences of microaggressions and the public criti-

cism that may follow. Additionally, increasing col-

laborations with as many domestic student groups

as possible could provide more opportunities for in-

creased understanding between domestic and inter-

national students. Nevertheless, worrying about

taking up space, while trying to ﬁnd belonging can

be a challenge even among the Slater community. It

is also recommended to increase cross-cultural or

regional interaction as much as possible within Slat-

er, while maintaining safe regional communities as

well.

Stephen Perkins. “Becoming an Eagle: International

Student Involvement in Student Organizations at Bos-

ton College.”

Research has shown that an effective way to foster a

sense of belonging on campus amongst college stu-

dents is through involvement in campus programs

and co-curricular activities. In this study, we aim to

examine the campus involvement of international

students at Boston College. This study looked at all

four areas of OSI, this report will mostly take a

broader view on international student involvement

in all OSI (and campus) programming. Based on

the information collected in this study and outlined

in the previous section, Boston College should con-

sider implementing measures to address the exist-

ing barriers discouraging international students

from getting involved on campus. It is clear that stu-

dent involvement in co-curricular programs can lead

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

apart in traditional university settings, where

self-serving behaviors may lead to (pronounced)

agency conﬂict. Universities have been long under-

stood for their politicized governance environs in

which multiple stakeholder groups have representa-

tion in decision-making. Within this reality, families

involved in higher education management may be

challenged to act self-servingly and protect or en-

hance certain socioemotional wealth. They may

need to act in altruistic ways to avoid agency conﬂict.

I investigate whether this is the case through a sin-

gle, critical case study approach conducted at one

family-owned or -managed university in India. I rely

on what Yin (2003) refers to as “rival explanation as

patterns” to test socioemotional theory relative to a

rival theoretical framework. I ask the important

question of whether this rival theory can address the

limitations of socioemotional wealth theory when

applied to the higher education context. As expected,

ﬁndings generally suggest that where socioemotion-

al wealth theory fails to capture family decision-mak-

ing behaviors, the rival theory is relevant. This

ﬁnding is important to consider and has several im-

plications to theory, practice, and future research.

Importantly, the ﬁndings support that current fami-

ly-owned business theorizing is not enough to cap-

ture family decision-making behaviors in the context

of traditional university settings.

Edited Volumes

Altbach, P. G., Choi, E., Allen, M., & de Wit, H.,

(Eds.). (2020). The global phenomenon of fami-

ly-owned or managed universities. Brill | Sense.

Cristiano, C., Choi, E., & Woldegiyorgis, A., (Eds.).

(Forthcoming). ‘Early modern’ education: Global

perspectives beyond Europe. Brill | Sense.

Nuno Teixeira, P., Shin, J. C., (Eds. in Chief), Ama-

ral, A., Bernasconi, A., Magalhaes, A.M., Kehm,

B.M., Stensaker, B., Choi, E., Balbachevsky, E.,

Hunter, F., Goastellec, G., Mohamedbhai, G., de

Wit, H., Välimaa, J., Rumbley, L., Unangst, L.,

Klemencic, M., Langa, P., Yang, R., Nokkala, T.

(Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of International High-

er Education Systems and Institutions. Springer.

According to both instruments’ results the survey

and the interview, teachers of Be Global consider

that this course has a strong link with the develop-

ment of global citizenship competencies, and al-

though no consensus was found in their deﬁnitions

of GC, it is important to highlight that their ap-

proaches are very close to the OECD’s (2018) Global

Competence Framework, in a sense that all teachers

have talked about values, skills, attitudes, and knowl-

edge that students have gotten through Be Global,

and that are related with exploring global issues, ap-

preciating cultural diversity, taking action for collec-

tive well-being, and interacting effectively with

people from different parts of the world. It will be

necessary to develop an evaluation instrument to get

to know if students also agree with these teachers’

perspectives. Moreover, some recommendations

that could be made according to this study are based

on 4 aspects: (1) deﬁning a concept for global citizen-

ship, (2) evaluating, (3) expanding, and (4) keep

improving.

ACTIVITIES OF GRADUATE AS-

SISTANTS, 2019-2020

Staff and graduate assistants/doctoral and Masters

students have been engaged in numerous activities

in line with the work of the Center and their own

career paths. Activities in the 2019–20 period are

summarized below:

EDWARD W. CHOI

Doctoral Dissertation Title & Abstract

Family-Owned or -Managed Higher Education Institu-

tions: A Special Kind of Governance

Publications

The family ownership context has been investigated

across many business settings, within the manufac-

turing, trade, and services industries. The consen-

sus among scholars has been that families that own

and operate ﬁrms act in self-serving ways and frame

organizational problems and make decisions with

the primary goal of satisfying the family’s affective

needs, i.e., preserve or augment what is referred to

as socioemotional wealth. However, the theoretical

reasoning of socioemotional wealth theory may fall

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

text has focused scholarly attention on refugee stu-

dent access to higher education. However, much

less research has attended to supports at higher edu-

cation institutions (HEIs) for enrolled migrant and

refugee students. In fact, education research in the

German setting rarely focuses on students from any

migrant background, though these students com-

prise between 20-25% of all German tertiary enroll-

ment. This study uses Constructivist Grounded

Theory and a postcolonial lens to analyze “equal op-

portunity” plans and programs at 32 German HEIs

across all 16 federal states (Charmaz, 2014). Data

sources include the “equal opportunity plan” unique

to each HEI (Gleichstellungsplan) and interviews

with “equal opportunity ofﬁce” (Gleichstellungs-

büro) faculty and staff. Key ﬁndings include a bu-

reaucratization and numeriﬁcation of diversity in

the German case, as well as an almost exclusive fo-

cus on diversity as gender. This dissertation offers a

potentially transferable theoretical model, which

may be relevant in national settings with increasing-

ly diverse student populations, histories of colonial

possession or fantasy, or primarily public higher ed-

ucation systems (Bhabha, 1994; El-Tayeb, 2016; Ki-

lomba, 2008; Said, 1978).

Refereed Journal Articles

Leal, F., Unangst, L. & de Wit, H. (Under Review).

Internationalization aimed at global social jus-

tice: Brazilian university initiatives to integrate

refugees and displaced populations. ETD - Edu-

cação Temática Digital.

Wu, A., Leask, B., Choi, E., Unangst, L. & de Wit, H.

(Under Review). Internationalization of medical

education in U.S. medical schools – a literature

review of recently published articles. Medical Sci-

ence Educator.

Unangst, L., Casellas Connors, I., Borg, N., & Bar-

one, N. (Under Review). Diversities at U.S. col-

leges and universities: Online diversity

statements at institutions employing Chief Di-

versity Ofﬁcers. American Journal of Education.

Unangst, L. & Crea, T. (2020). Higher education for

refugees: A need for intersectional research.

Articles and Book Chapters

Allen, M., & Choi, E. (2020). Family involvement in

university management. In Altbach, P. G., Choi,

E., Allen, M., & de Wit, H., (Eds.), The global phe-

nomenon of family-owned or managed universities

(pp. 29-41). Brill | Sense.

Choi, E. (2020). Family-owned universities and col-

leges: A dark future of speculation. In Altbach,

P.G. , Choi, E., Allen M., & de Wit, H., (Eds.),

The global phenomenon of family-owned or

managed universities (pp.182-197). Brill | Sense.

Choi, E., Allen, M., de Wit, H., & Altbach, P.G.

(2020). A model of family-based higher educa-

tion management: Challenges and opportunities.

In Altbach, P.G. , Choi, E., Allen M., & de Wit,

H., (Eds.), The global phenomenon of family-owned

or managed universities (pp. 257-280). Brill | Sense

Choi. E., & Hwang, S. (Forthcoming). Education in

Premodern Korea: Commitment, Resiliency, and

Change. In Cristiano, C., Choi, E., & Woldegiyor-

gis, A., (Eds.), ‘Early modern’ education: Global per-

spectives beyond Europe. Brill | Sense.

Choi. E. (2019). The eroding relevance of private

universities in South Korea. CIHE Perspectives,

no. 13.

Choi, E., Khajarian, A., Unangst, L., & Woldegiyor-

gis, A. (2019). Intelligent internationalization,

online learning, and interculturality. In Godwin,

K. & de Wit, H., (Eds.) Intelligent internationaliza-

tion: The shape of things to come. (pp. 144-151). Brill

| Sense.

Wu, A., Leask, B., Choi, E., Unangst, L, & de Wit, H.

(Under review). Internationalization of medical

education in U.S. medical schools: Current ap-

proaches and future possibilities. Medical Science

Educator.

LISA UNANGST

Doctoral Dissertation Title & Abstract

Migrants, Refugees, and “Diversity” at German Univer-

sities: A Grounded Theory Analysis

The current displacement crisis in the German con-

Comparative Education Review. doi:

10.1086/708190

Unangst, L. & de Wit, H. (2020). Non-proﬁt organi-

zations, collaborations, and displaced student

support in Canada and the USA: A comparative

case study. Higher Education Policy. doi:10.1057/

s41307-020-00182-1

Unangst, L. & Barone, N. (2019). Operationalizing

“internationalization” in the community college

sector: Textual analysis of institutional interna-

tionalization plans. Journal for the Study of Postsec-

ondary and Tertiary Education, 4, 177-196. doi:

10.28945/4435

Unangst, L. (2019). Refugees in the German tertiary

system: Implications and recommendations for

policy change. Policy Reviews in Higher Education,

3(2), 144-166. doi:10.1080/23322969.2019.1643

254

Book chapters

Unangst, L. (In Press). Human rights discourse and

the U.S. education landscape: Refugee-speciﬁc

activity at colleges and universities in Idaho and

Maine. In Unangst, L., Ergin, H., Khajarian, A.,

DeLaquil, T. & de Wit, H. (Eds.), Refugees and

higher education: Transnational perspectives on ac-

cess, equity and internationalization. Leiden: Brill

Sense.

Evans, K. & Unangst, L. (In Press). The K-12 to uni-

versity pipeline: Refugee student access to higher

education. In Unangst, L., Ergin, H., Khajarian,

A. and de Wit, H. (Eds.), Refugees and higher edu-

cation: Transnational perspectives on access, equity

and internationalization. Leiden: Brill Sense.

Unangst, L. (In Press). The German case: An analy-

sis of refugee student supports in higher educa-

tion using quantitative textual analysis. In

Bhabha, Jacqueline, Giles, Wenona & Mahomed,

Faraaz (Eds.), A better future: The role of higher ed-

ucation for displaced and marginalized people.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unangst, L. (In Press). Immigration and higher ed-

ucation. In David, Miriam and Amey, Marilyn et

al. (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of higher educa-

tion. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Unangst, L. (In Press). German higher education for

refugees. In Ludeman, Roger et al. (Eds.), Student

Affairs and Services in Higher Education: Global

Foundations, Issues and Best Practice (3rd ed.). Par-

is: UNESCO.

Unangst, L. & Rumbley, L. (2019). U.S. international

alumni affairs: Pressing questions for an emerg-

ing ﬁeld. In Godwin, Kara A. & de Wit, Hans

(Eds.), Intelligent internationalization: The shape of

things to come. Leiden: Brill Sense. doi:

10.1163/9789004418912

Choi, E., Khajarian, A., Unangst, L. & Woldegiyorgis,

A. (2019). Intelligent internationalization, online

learning, and interculturality. In Godwin, Kara A.

& de Wit, Hans (Eds.), Intelligent internationaliza-

tion: The shape of things to come. Leiden: Brill

Sense. doi: 10.1163/9789004418912

Unangst, L. & de Wit, H. (2019). Refugees in the

German tertiary sector: Mapping service gaps at

research universities. In Arar, Khalid et al. (Eds.),

Higher education challenges for migrant and refugee

students in a global world (pp. 183-202). Bern: Pe-

ter Lang. doi: 10.3726/b14486

Edited Volumes

Unangst, L., Ergin, H., Khajarian, A. & de Wit, H.

(Eds.). (In Press). Refugees and higher education:

Transnational perspectives on access, equity and in-

ternationalization. Leiden: Brill Sense.

Other Publications

Unangst, L. (2019, June 23). Human rights discourse

and refugee higher education [Inside Higher Ed

blog post]. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.

com/blogs/world-view/

human-rights-discourse-and-refugee-higher-edu-

cation

Unangst, L. (2019). International alumni affairs and

student mentorship: Surveying the U.S. public

research university landscape. NAFSA Research

Symposium Series, Vol. III. Washington, D.C.:

NAFSA.

Orr, E., Unangst, L. & de Wit, H. (2019). The long

and problematic road towards a European Uni-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

sector: Quantitative textual analysis of institu-

tional internationalization plans. Paper presenta-

tion at the Center for International Higher

Education-World Education Services summer

institute, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Unangst, L. (2019). What “diversity” says and does

in institutional mission statements: Applying

Sara Ahmed in trans-national context. Paper pre-

sentation at the Comparative and International

Society annual conference, San Francisco, CA.

Taylor, S. & Unangst, L. (2019). International service

learning: A thematic analysis of student out-

comes. Paper presentation at the Comparative

and International Society annual conference, San

Francisco, CA.

Tozini, K. & Unangst, L. (2019). Refugee access to

higher education in Brazil and Germany: Are

universities welcoming them? Roundtable pre-

sentation at the Comparative and International

Society annual conference, San Francisco, CA.

Unangst, L. & Rumbley, L. (2019). The emerging in-

ternational alumni affairs landscape: A survey of

American doctoral-granting institutions. Paper

presentation at the American Educational Re-

search Association annual conference, Toronto,

Canada.

Honors

Mary T. Kinnane Award for Excellence in Higher

Education 2020

Donald J. White Teaching Excellence Award

2020

Ruth Landes Memorial Research Fund Dissertation

Completion Grant 2019-20

Smith College Madeleine L’Engle Travel Research

Fellowship 2019

AYENACHEW A. WOLDEGIYORGIS

Doctoral Dissertation Title & Abstract

Engaging with Higher Education Back Home: Experi-

ences of Ethiopian Academic Diaspora in the United

States

versity. University World News. Retrieved from

www.universityworldnews.com/post.

php?story=20190404102239861

Invited Presentations

Unangst, L. (2019). Prospective and enrolled refu-

gee student support: American universities and

institutional leadership in comparative context.

Hufﬁngton Ecumenical Institute, Loyola Mary-

mount University, Los Angeles, CA.

Sparks, E., Unangst, L. & Boatman, A. (2019). Aca-

demic conference proposals: A Lynch School of

Education panel discussion.

Rutledge, M., Michalcyk, S., Olins, H., Hateshorne,

J., Harper, M. & Unangst, L. (2019). McNair

Scholars Program: Research & Graduate School

workshop.

Conference Presentations.

Unangst, L. & Borg, N. (Forthcoming: 2020). Lever-

aging natural language processing techniques to

interrogate discourses of diversity & racism: In-

stitutional diversity statements. Paper presenta-

tion at the American Educational Research

Association annual conference, San Francisco,

CA.

Unangst, L. (Forthcoming: 2020). Historical modes

of refugee student support: A case study of Smith

College. Roundtable presentation at the Ameri-

can Educational Research Association annual

conference, San Francisco, CA.

Leask, B., Unangst, L. & Diatta, J.B. (2019). (De)con-

structing internationalized curricula: Medical ed-

ucation and diasporic networks as case studies.

Interactive symposium at the Council on Inter-

national Higher Education pre-conference at the

Association for the Study of Higher Education

annual conference, Portland, OR.

Unangst, L. & Evans, K. (2019). Refugee students:

K-12 to college pipeline and implications for

practice. Interactive session at the NAFSA Re-

gion XI annual conference, Worcester, MA.

Unangst, L. & Barone, N. (2019). Operationalizing

“internationalization” in the community college

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Melnyk, D. (In press). Doctoral Education Across

the World: A Literature Review. In M. Yudkevich,

P. Altbach and H. DeWit (Eds.), Trends and Issues

in Doctoral Education Worldwide: An International

Research Inquiry.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (forthcoming). Governance

structures of the Ethiopian higher education.

Policy Reviews in Higher Education. Under

revision.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & De Wit, H.

(forthcoming). Internationalization of Research.

In D. Deardorff, et al (Eds.), Sage Handbook of In-

ternational Higher Education (2nd ed). Publica-

tion work.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2020). Higher Education for

Refugees in Ethiopia. In L. Unangst, H. De Wit,

H. Ergin, T. DeLaquil and A. Khajarian (Eds.) Ref-

ugees and Higher Education: Transnational Perspec-

tives on Access, Equity, and Internationalization.

Brill|Sense.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2020). Engaging with higher

education back home: Experiences of African ac-

ademic diaspora in the US. Journal of Compara-

tive & International Higher Education, 11(Winter),

206-208. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.

v11iWinter.1545

Schendel, R., Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Khajarian, A.

(2020). IHE at 100: 25 years of evolution in Inter-

national Higher Education. International Higher

Education, 100 (winter), 39-42.

Choi, E., Kahajarian, A., Unangst, L., & Woldegiyor-

gis, A. A. (2019). Intelligent Internationalization,

Online Learning, and Interculturality. In K. God-

win & H. De Wit (Eds.), Intelligent International-

ization: The Shape of Things to Come (pp. 144-151).

Leiden/Boston: Brill|Sense.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). Engaging the Ethiopian

knowledge diaspora. International Higher Edu-

cation, 99(Fall), 23-25. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.6017/ihe.2019.99.11665

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). Making the Case for an

Ethiopian National Research Council. In R.

Schendel, et al (Eds.), The Boston College Center

Ethiopia has long been affected by the out ﬂow of its

educated citizens. In major host countries, like the

United States, the Ethiopian diaspora constitutes a

considerable number of highly educated profession-

als, including those who work in academic and re-

search institutions. Meanwhile, the fast-growing

Ethiopian higher education severely suffers from

lack of highly qualiﬁed faculty.

In recent years members of the Ethiopian academic

diaspora have been engaged in various initiatives to-

wards supporting the emerging Ethiopian higher

education. Yet, these initiatives have been fragment-

ed, individually carried out, and challenged by the

lack of a systemic approach, among other things.

Further, there are only few studies examining dias-

pora engagement in the Ethiopian context, much

less speciﬁc to higher education. The purpose of this

research is, therefore, to offer deeper insight into the

formation and implementation of transnational en-

gagement initiatives by the Ethiopian academic dias-

pora. The research explores the motivation for and

the modalities of engagement, as well as the en-

abling and challenging factors.

This study employs phenomenological approach

and Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice as a lens to ana-

lyze data from in-depth interviews with 16 Ethiopian

diaspora academics in the US. The research departs

from previous works by examining the issues from

the perspectives of those who have ﬁrst-hand experi-

ence of the phenomenon. Its ﬁndings reveal that

transnational engagement among academic diaspo-

ra is shaped by complex and multi-layer personal,

institutional and broader environmental factors,

which transcend common considerations in ad-

dressing brain drain.

Publications and Commentaries

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (In press). Doctoral education

in Sub Saharan Africa: A survey. In M. Yudkev-

ich, P. Altbach and H. DeWit (Eds.), Trends and

Issues in Doctoral Education Worldwide: An Inter-

national Research Inquiry.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Rudakov, V., Rozhkova, K., &

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

for International Higher Education, Year in Review,

2018-2019 (pp. 51-53). CIHE Perspective No.13.

Boston: CIHE.

De Wit, H., Rumbley, L., Craciun, D., Mihut, G., &

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). International Map-

ping of National Tertiary Education International-

ization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs). CIHE

Perspective No. 12. Boston: CIHE

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019, October 26). A sustain-

able way to engage Africa’s knowledge diaspora.

University World News. Available on: https://

www.universityworldnews.com/post.

php?story=20191021084530634

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019, July 9). Improving re-

search productivity in Ethiopia – carrot or stick?

The World View, Inside Higher Education. Avail-

able on: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/

world-view/

improving-research-productivity-ethio-

pia-%E2%80%94-carrot-or-stick

Presentations and Invited Talks

Leask, B., Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Unangst,L., & Diat-

ta, J.B. (2019). (De)constructing internationalized

curricula: Medical education and diasporic networks

as case studies. A panel on the 44th Annual ASHE

Conference (Council for International Higher

Education [CIHE] pre-conference forum). No-

vember 13-14, 2019. Portland, Oregon, USA.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). Complementing Human

Capital through Diaspora Engagement: Alternatives

for Ethiopia. Presented at “Bring Minds Together

Bridge the Gap” a global conference by Interna-

tional Conference of Interdisciplinary Research

Studies (ICIRS) and Teach and Serve for Africa

(TASFA), August 1-3, African Union Hall, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). Diaspora engagement for

internationalization of African higher education:

Are challenges of public institutions opportunities for

the private sector? Presented at the 17th Internation-

al Conference on Private Higher Education in Afri-

ca, July 25-27, Organized by St. Mary’s University,

Ethiopian Aviation Academy, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Schendel, R., & Diatta, J.B.

(2019). How Can We Make Higher Education in

Africa More Innovative and Inclusive? A panel dis-

cussion on the 2019 WES-CIHE Summer Insti-

tute: Inclusive and Innovative Internationalization

of Higher Education. June 19 – 21, 2019. Chest-

nut Hill, USA.

Woldegiyorgis, A. A. (2019). Higher education in

Ethiopia: an introductory overview and current de-

velopments. Center for International Higher Edu-

cation. April 17, Boston College, Chestnut Hill,

MA, USA.

JEAN BAPTISTE DIATTA

Publications

Diatta, J. B. (2019). How can we make higher educa-

tion in Africa more innovative and inclusive? In

R., Schendel, H., de Wit, & T., DeLaquil (Eds.),

Inclusive and innovative internationalization of

higher education: Proceedings of the WES-CIHE

Summer Institute June 19-21, 2019 (pp. 5-7).

CIHE Perspective No.14. Boston: CIHE.

Diatta, J. B. (2019). The place of learning outcomes

in accreditation within the EHEA. In R. Schen-

del, et al (Eds.), The Boston College Center for Inter-

national Higher Education, Year in Review,

2018-2019 (pp. 19-21). CIHE Perspective No.13.

Boston: CIHE.

LIZHOU WANG

Publications

Wang, L. (February 11, 2020). Coronavirus: Univer-

sities have duty of care to students. University

World News. https://www.universityworldnews.

com/post.php?story=20200211074804247

TESSA DELAQUIL

Books/Book chapters

DeLaquil, T. (2020). Towards human rights and hu-

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

OVERVIEW OF FACULTY

ACTIVITY, 2019-2020

HANS DE WIT

Director of the Center for International Higher Edu-

cation (CIHE) at Boston College. Professor of the

Practice in International Higher Education at the

Department of Educational Leadership and Higher

Education of the Lynch School of Education and Hu-

man Development, Boston College. Program direc-

tor, Master of Arts in International Higher

Education.

Awards

• IAU Senior Fellow, International Association of

Universities, 2019.

Editorial Positions

• Founding Editor Journal of Studies in Interna-

tional Education, Sage Publications, Association

for Studies in International Education, Los An-

geles, USA. Editor 1997-2013.

• Consulting Editor of the journal Policy Reviews

in Higher Education (SRHE).

• Member of the Editorial Board of ‘Educación Su-

perior en América Latina’ (UniNorte/CEPPE

PUC de Chile/SEMESP Brazil).

• Associate Editor of International Higher

Education.

• Co-editor book series Global Perspectives in

Higher Education (Sense Publishers).

• Co-editor SAGE Studies in Higher Education

(SAGE).

• Member of the Editorial Board of International

Journal of African Higher Education, INHEA/

AAU.

• Editorial Advisory Board Higher Education Gov-

ernance and Policy (HEGP).

man dignity for the stateless in higher education:

Denied access to higher education for Rohingya

refugees in Bangladesh. In L., Unangst, H.,

Ergin, A., Khajarian, T., DeLaquil, & H., de Wit

(Eds.), Refugees and higher education: Transnation-

al perspectives on access, equity and international-

ization. Brill Sense.

Unangst, L., Ergin, H., Khajarian, A. DeLaquil, T. &

de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2020). Refugees and higher edu-

cation: Transnational perspectives on access, equity

and internationalization. Brill Sense.

Reports/Articles in Reports

DeLaquil, T. (2019). Inclusive internationalization is

innovative internationalization: Purpose-driven

higher education against inequity in society. In

R., Schendel, H., de Wit, & T., DeLaquil (Eds.),

Inclusive and innovative internationalization of

higher education: Proceedings of the WES-CIHE

Summer Institute June 19-21, 2019 (pp. 5-7). CIHE

Perspectives No. 14. Boston College Center for

International Higher Education.

Schendel, R., de Wit, H., & DeLaquil, T. (Eds.)

(2019). Inclusive and innovative internationaliza-

tion of higher education: Proceedings of the WES-CI-

HE Summer Institute June 19-21, 2019. CIHE

Perspectives No. 14. Boston College Center for

International Higher Education.

Schendel, R., Unangst, L., Diatta, J., DeLaquil, T. &

de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2019). The Boston College Cen-

ter for International Higher Education, Year in Re-

view: 2018-2019. CIHE Perspectives No. 13. Boston

College Center for International Higher

Education.

Campus Presentations

DeLaquil, T. (2020, January 21). Towards human

rights for the stateless in higher education. CIHE

Book Launch for Refugees and Higher Education.

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Member doctoral advisory committee Melissa

Laufer, Dep. Sociology, Ghent University. De-

fense, June 8, 2020.

PhD Supervision (in process)

Reader doctoral thesis, Emma Melchor Rodriguez,

Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monter-

rey, Mexico

Co-Supervisor Cornelius Hagenmeier, University of

Capetown, South Africa, start 2015.

Co-Supervisor doctoral thesis Liudmila Pliner, Rus-

sia, at CHEI, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore,

Milan, started in 2017.

Co-Supervisor doctoral thesis Dan Wood, USA, at

CHEI, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Milan,

started in 2019.

Co-supervisor Aparajita Dutta, Leiden University,

The Netherlands, started in 2018.

Advisory Boards

• Member of the Editorial Board and Scientiﬁc

Committee of the Fourth Edition of the Bologna

Process Researchers’ Conference, Bucharest,

January, 2020.

• Member of the Student Advisory Board of the

Universidad de Monterrey, Mexico, 2018-

• Member of the UNESP CapesprInt committee,

UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil, 2018-

• Member of the International Expert Board of

RUDN, People’s Friendship University, Mos-

cow, 2016-

• Member of the Scientiﬁc Committee of the

‘Centre for Higher Education Internationalisa-

tion’ (CHEI) at the Università Cattolica Sacro

Cuore, Milan, Italy, 2016-

• Member of the Advisory Board of Universidad

Cooperativa de Colombia, Medellin, 2015-2019

• Member of the International Advisory Board of

Stenden University, Leeuwarden, 2013-

• Member of the Editorial Board and Scientiﬁc

Committee of the Fourth Edition of the Bologna

Process Researchers’ Conference, Bucharest,

January, 2020.

• Co-Editor Handbook on international Higher

Education AIEA/Stylus.

Teaching

• Fall 2019, ELHE 7603 Internationalization of

Higher Education

• Spring Spring 2020, ELHE 7603, International-

ization of Higher Education

• Spring 2020, ELHE 7778, Thesis project.

• Summer 2019 and 2020, Refugees and Mi-

grants, with Lisa Unangst

PhD Supervision (completed)

Chair Defense Committee, Lisa Unangst, LSOE,

Boston College: Migrants, refugees, and “diversity”

at German universities: a grounded theory analysis.

Chair Defense Committee, Ayenachew Woldegiyor-

gis, LSOE, Boston College: Engaging with Higher

Education Back Home: Experiences of Ethiopian

Academic Diaspora in the United States.

Chair Defense Committee, Edward Choi, LSOE,

Boston College: Family-owned or -managed Higher

Education Institutions: A Special Kind of

Governance.

Outside Boston College

Co-Supervisor Marcel H. Van der Poel, Developing

Intercultural Competence of Faculty and Staff Mem-

bers, University of Groningen, The Netherlands,

Defense, July 9, 2020.

External Reader Thesis Ann Hubard, Education

Abroad & Employability, at CHEI, Università Cat-

tolica Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy, Defense, Decem-

ber 13, 2019.

External Committee Member doctoral thesis, Dan

Ferguson, Oregon State University: The Impact of

Geo-political Trends on US Higher Education

Cross-border Partnerships with Non-US Education-

al Institutions. Defense, May 1, 2020.

student mobility: a comparative European study.

Studies in Higher Education.

• Lisa Unangst and Hans de Wit. (2020).

Non-proﬁt organizations, collaborations, and

refugee student support in Canada and the

United States: a comparative case study. Higher

Education Policy,

• Giorgio Marinoni, Madeleine Green, Eva

Egon-Polak and Hans de Wit. (2020). Global

Trends in Internationalisation: The 5th Global

Survey of the International Association of Uni-

versities. In Internationalisation of Higher Educa-

tion. DUZ/IAU

• Hans de Wit and Philip G. Altbach. (Forthcom-

ing) The Impact of Covid-19 on the Internation-

alization of Higher Education, Revolutionary or

not? In Internationalisation of Higher Education.

DUZ/IAU

Hans de Wit. (2020). Internationalization of Higher

Education. Journal of International Students,

10(1), i-iv. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.

v10i1.1893

Hans de Wit. (2020). Editorial. Policy Reviews in

Higher Education. Issue 1, Volume 4.

Books and Book Chapters

• Philip G. Altbach, Edward Choi, Matthew Al-

len, and Hans de Wit (Eds.). (2019). The Global

Phenomenon of Family-Owned or Managed Uni-

versities. Rotterdam, Brill Sense Publishers.

• Edward Choi, Matthew Allen, Hans de Wit and

Philip G. Altbach. (2019). Family Owned or

Managed Universities—Challenges and

Opportunities.

• Hans de Wit. (2019). Internacionalização na

Educação Superior: Complexidade e Posibili-

dades na Universidade Ibero-Americana. Chap-

ter 4, page 87-110, in Marília Morosini e Luisa

Cerdeira (Eds.), Educação Superior em Contex-

• Member of the International Advisory Board of

Gottingen University, Germany, 2013-

Research, Consultancy and Training

• Together with Philip Altbach, UNESCO G-20

reports on Internationalization of education,

K-12 and Tertiary Education.

• Together with Philip Altbach and Ayenachew

Woldeyiorgis, UNESCO report on Non-State Ac-

tors in Higher Education.

• Chair of the UNA Europa Review Panel for EU-

niQ, a quality assurance review project coordi-

nated by the Flemish Ministry of Education and

Training and NVAO in the context of the Euro-

pean Universities Initiative (EUI), 2020.

• Expert member workshop ‘Zwischenevaluation

der HRK-EXPERTISE Internationalisierungsin-

strumente’, German Rectors Conference, Feb-

ruary 2020.

• Project leader study ‘International Student Re-

cruitment’, cooperation between Institute of Ed-

ucation Higher School of Economics and CIHE,

2019-2020.

• Member of the IAU Advisory committee for the

5th IAU Global Survey on Internationalization

of Higher Education (2017-2019).

• Project leader together with Miguel Escala, In-

ternationalization of Technical and Technologi-

cal Institutes in the Caribbean. ITLA, Santo

Domingo, 2019.

Publications 2019-2020

Peer Reviewed Articles

• de Wit, H. (2019). Internationalization in High-

er Education: A critical review. Pp. 9-17. Special

Issue: Internationalization of higher Education.

SFU Educational Review, 12 (3).

• Adriana Pérez Encinas, Jesús Rodríguez Pome-

da and Hans de Wit. (2020). Factors inﬂuencing

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

tos Emergentes: Complexidade e Posibilidades

na Universidade Ibero-Americana. EDUCA,

Lisbon.

• Hans de Wit, Miguel J. Escala, and Gloria Sán-

chez Valverde. (2019). Internationalization of

Technical and Technological Institutions of

higher Education in the Caribbean. CIHE Per-

spectives No. 15. Internacionalización de Insti-

tutos Tecnicos y Tecnologicos de Educación

Superior en el Caribbe. CIHE Perspectives 15A.

Boston College Center for International Higher

Education.

• Rebecca Schendel, Hans de Wit, and Tessa

DeLaquil. (2019). Inclusive and Innovative Inter-

nationalization of Higher Education: Proceedings

of the WES-CIHE Summer Institute June 19-21,

2019, Boston College. CIHE Perspectives No. 14.

Boston College Center for International Higher

Education, and World Education Services.

• Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Daniela Craci-

un, Georgiana Mihut, and Ayenachew Woldegi-

yorgis. (2019). International Mapping of National

Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies

and Plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives no.

12. Boston College Center for International

Higher Education, and World Bank.

• Rebecca Schendel, Lisa Unangst, Jean Baptiste

Diatta, Tessa DeLaquil, and Hans de Wit (Eds.):

2019. The Boston College Center for International

Higher Education, Year in Review, 2018-2019.

CIHE Perspectives no. 13. Boston College Cen-

ter for International Higher Education.

• Fiona Hunter, Elspeth Jones y Hans de Wit.

(2019). Buenas Prácticas en la formación de re-

cursos humanos para la internacionalización.

En Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila (Coordinadora), Buenas

practices de internacionalización universitaria en

América Latina y el Caribe. Pp. 197-218. Univer-

sidad de Guadalajara/RIESAL, Guadalajara

• Thondhlana Juliet, Garwe Evelyn C., Hans de

Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Avila, Futao Huang and

Wondwosen Tamarat. (Eds.).(2021, Forthcom-

ing). The Bloomsbury Handbook of the interna-

tionalization of higher education in the Global

South. Bloomsbury.

• Thondhlana Juliet, Garwe Evelyn C., & Hans de

Wit. Introduction. Includes the following three

chapters:

• Thondhlana Juliet, Garwe Evelyn C., & Hans de

Wit. Salient issues of internationalization in the

global south, concluding observations.

• Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Daniela Craci-

un, Georgiana Mihut and Ayenachew Woldegi-

yorgis. International Mapping of National

Tertiary Education Internationalization Strate-

gies and Plans (NTEISPs).

• Lisa Unangst, Hakan Ergin, Tessa DeLaquil,

Araz Khajarian and Hans de Wit. (2020). Refu-

gees and Higher Education: Transnational Per-

spectives on Access, Equity, and Higher Education.

Rotterdam, Brill/Sense Publishers.

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans

de Wit (Eds.). (2020). Trends and Issues in

Doctoral Education: A Global Perspective. Stud-

ies in International Higher Education. New

Delhi, Sage Publishers.

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans

de Wit. Preface. Includes the following two

chapters:

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, Hans de

Wit, and Victor Rudakov. Conclusion, Doctoral

Education Worldwide: Key Trends and

Realities.

• Betty Leask, Craig Whitsed, Hans de Wit and

Jos Beelen. (2020). Faculty Engagement: Mov-

ing Beyond a Discourse of Disengagement. In

Ogden, A.C., Streitwieser, B. & Van Mol, C.

(eds, 2020). Education Abroad. Bridging Scholar-

ship and Practice. New York: Routledge.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

tion, no. 100, Winter 2020, pp. 28-30.

• Hans de Wit and Miguel J. Escala. (2020). Inter-

nacionalización de Instituciones Técnicas y Tec-

nológicas de Educación Superior en el Caribe. Pp.

29-33. ESAL -Revista de Educación Superior en

América Latina, ESAL7, Enero-Junio 2020.

• Hans de Wit and Philip G Altbach. (2020).Time

to cut international education’s carbon footprint.

University World News, 11 January 2020, issue

580.

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2020).

Branch campuses do not blossom. Times Higher

Education, Opinion, 20 February 2020, p. 29.

• Hans de Wit. (2020). La internacionalización de

las Instituciones de Educación Superior. In La in-

ternacionalización de la Universidad pública;

retos y tendencias. Universidad Nacional

Autónoma de México (UNAM).

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2020).

COVID-19: The internationalization revolution

that isn’t. University World News, 15 March

2020, issue 589. Also published in Internation-

al Higher Education, Special Issue 102, 2020, p.

16-18. Also published as El impacto del coronavi-

rus en la educación superior, Nexos, 26 de Marzo,

2020, Mexico, https://educacion.nexos.com.

mx/

• Philip G Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2020) Post

pandemic outlook for HE is bleakest for the poorest.

University World News, 04 April 2020, issue

592. Also published in International Higher Ed-

ucation, Special Issue 102, 2020, p. 3-5.

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. Rethinking

the Relevance of International Branch Campuses.

International Higher Education, no. 101, Spring

2020, pp. 14-16.

• Gerardo Blanco and Hans de Wit. (2020). The

Response of International Higher Education Asso-

ciations to Covid-19. International Higher Educa-

tion, Special Issue 102, 2020, p. 11-12.

• Elena Denisova-Schmidt, Hans de Wit and

Xiaofeng Wan. (2020). Ethical Concerns on

the Use of Agents in International Student Re-

cruitment. In Elena Denisova (Editor), Corrup-

tion in Higher Education, Global Challenges and

Responses. Global Perspectives on Higher Edu-

cation, Volume: 46, Brill/Sense, Rotterdam.

Essays, Comments/Blogs

• Hans de Wit. (2019). Dutch cuts to International-

ization send the wrong message. The World View,

Inside Higher Education, July 22, 2019.

• Hans de Wit and Betty Leask. (2019). Towards

new ways of becoming and being international.

University World News, 27 July, 2019, issue 562

• Hans de Wit. (2019). We must end coercion in in-

ternationalisation in Africa. University World

News, 07 September 2019, issue 565.

• Hakan Ergin and Hans de Wit. (2019). Religion

as a Driver for forced Internationalization. Inter-

national Higher Education, Number 99, Fall

2019, pp. 9-10.

• Hans de Wit. (2019). Is U.S. International Edu-

cation Building a Wall? The World View, Inside

Higher Education, 30 October, 2019.

• Hans de Wit. (2019). Internationalisation – No

such thing as a neutral deﬁnition. University

World News, 06 October 2019, issue 569.

• Hans de Wit and Miguel J Escala. (2019). Inter-

nationalisation of TTIs in the Caribbean. Univer-

sity World News, 16 November 2019, issue 575.

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2019). The

dilemma of English-Medium Instruction in Inter-

national Higher Education. World Education

News & Review. November 29, 2019.

• Hans de Wit. (2019). The Long Road Ahead. The

Internationalisation Research Agenda. Pp. 38-40.

FORUM Winter 2019. EAIE.

• Philip G. Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2020). The

Dilemma of English. International Higher Educa-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Other Addresses (selected

• Internationalization in Higher Education: nation-

al and institutional policies and approaches. Work-

shop Segundo Seminario Académico de

Educación Superior Internacional, CUCEA,

Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico, 14 August,

2019.

• Conversations About Internationalization, Dia-

logue and Concluding remarks Leadership Re-

treat, University of Maryland Baltimore

Campus, UMBC, August 21, 2019

• Internationalization of Higher Education, global

context and challenges in a time of social, economic

and political constraints. Presentation to the rep-

resentatives of the Graduate Programs involved

with the UNESP Capes-PrInt program and the

rest of the academic community of UNESP, Sao

Paulo, August 22, 2019.

• Joint presentation with Francisco Marmolejo

(World Bank), International Mapping of National

Tertiary Education Strategies and Plans (NTEIPs).

Center for Higher Education Internationaliza-

tion (CHEI), UCSC, Milan, September 20,

2019.

• Internationalization in Higher Education, global

context and challenges in a time of social, economic

and political constraints. Presentation at Work-

shop Global, European and German Trends in

Internationalisation of Higher Education, Uni-

versität Göttingen, 24 September 2019.

• Workshop Export Strategies for Higher Education,

Institute of Education, National Research Uni-

versity Higher School of Economics, Moscow,

September 25, 2019.

• International Higher Education in a challenging

global environment: threats, needs and opportuni-

ties. Lecture at RUDN, People’s Friendship Uni-

versity, Moscow, September 27, 2019.

• Globalización, nuevas tecnologias y educación su-

perior. Keynote at Foro Humanismo en lka Era

Digital, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andi-

na, Bogota, Octubre 22, 2019.

• International Partnerships: Strengthening Hubs.

Expert Panel Presentation, Conference of the

• Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit. (2020). Are we

at a transformative moment for online learning?

University World News, 02 May 2020, issue

596.

• Hans de Wit. (2020). The end or revival of inter-

nationalization post Covid-19? University World

News, 23 May 2020, issue 599.

Reports

• Uwe Brandenburg, Hans de Wit, Elspeth Jones,

Betty Leask and Antje Drobner. (2020). Interna-

tionalization in Higher Education for Society

(IHES), concept, current research and examples

of good practice (DAAD Studies). Bonn: DAAD.

Presentations

Keynotes

• Internationalization of Higher Education in the

World Today – Critical Perspectives. 17th Interna-

tional Conference on Private Higher Education

in Africa, July 25-27. Addis Ababa, July 25, 2019.

• Internationalization of Higher Education: Global

Realities and Perspectives. Higher Education Fo-

rum for Africa, Asia and Latin America, Second

International Symposium, Internationalization

of Higher Education in the New world (Dis)Or-

der, July 26-27, Addis Ababa, July 26, 2019.

• Principales Tendencias en Educación Superior alre-

dedor del Mundo. Opening Academic Year Post-

graduate Programs, Centro Universitario de

Ciencias Económico Administrativas (CUCEA),

Universidad de Gudalajara, Mexico, 13 August,

2019

• Internationalization of Higher Education: Global

and at Home. Keynote at the Conference ‘Living

Values of the University in Globalizing World’

on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of

RUDN, People’s Friendship University, Mos-

cow, February 6, 2020

• Keynote virtual conference International Educa-

tion Climate Action Summit for the Americas. May

20, 2020.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

(May 17), IAU in cooperation with CIHE, May

2020.

• Panel, presenter in a webinar Online Speaker

Series: The End or Revival of International

Higher Education? Center for Studies in Higher

Education, University of Berkley, May 7, 2020.

• Panelist, Webinar AMPEI, Retos y oportuni-

dades para la Internacionalización de la Edu-

cación Superior. Análisis de contexto global

hacia la nueva realidad de Internacionalización

de la Educación Superior Latinoamericana.

Mayo 19, 2020.

• Panelist, Webinar Symbiosis International

(Deemed) University. The Way Forward: What

the new world will need for successful Interna-

tionalisation? June 11, 2020.

• Panelist, Webinar International Association of

Universities (IAU. 1st IAU Global Survey on the

Impact of COVID-19. June 9, 2020.

REBECCA SCHENDEL

Associate Director of the Center for International

Higher Education and Assistant Professor of the

Practice (as of March, 2019)

Publications 2019-2020

Book Chapters

• de Wit, H. Altbach, P. G. & Schendel, R. (2020).

Series Preface. In L., Unangst, H., Ergin, A.,

Khajarian, T., DeLaquil, & H., de Wit (Eds.),

Refugees and higher education: Transnational

perspectives on access, equity and internation-

alization. Brill Sense.

Editorials & Commentary

• Schendel, R., Woldegiyorgis, A. and Khajarian,

A. ‘IHE at 100: 25 Years of Evolution in Interna-

tional Higher Education.’ International Higher

Education, 100: 39-42.

Reports

• Schendel, R., de Wit, H., & DeLaquil, T. (Eds.)

(2019). Inclusive and innovative internationaliza-

tion of higher education: Proceedings of the

Americas on International Education (CAEI),

Bogota, October 23, 2019.

• Internationalization of Higher Education for Soci-

ety, Moving back from Competition to Co-opera-

tion. Commitment to Internationalization

Lecture, The University of Iowa, November 7,

2019.

• La Dimension Internacional de la Investigación y

la Innovación. Conferencia Doctorado en inves-

tigación e innovación educactiva de la Facultad

de Filosofía y Letras, BUAP, Puebla, Mexico,

November 13, 2019.

• Global Engagement (internationalization) and the

local mission of universities. Moderator/Chair

IAU 2019 conference session, Transforming

Higher Education for the Future, Puebla, Mexi-

co, November 14, 2019.

• Internationalization of higher education for the

next decade, challenges and opportunities. Intro-

duction and co-chair section 1, Bologna Process

Researchers Conference ‘Agenda for the Fu-

ture’, Bucharest, January 29-31, 2020.

• The Internationalization of Higher Education.

Presentation at the Institute of Education, Uni-

versity of Lisbon, February 14, 2020.

• Rethinking comprehensive internationalization for

the next generation. AIEA Conference, Washing-

ton DC, February 17, 2020.

Webinars

• Proyecciones y Perspectivas de la Internacional-

ización de la Educación Superior en la nueva

realidad ‘Post-crisis’. Webinar panelist, Inter-

american Organization for Higher Education

(OUI/IOHE), April 15, 2020.

• Ranepa Online Expert Talk, Implications of

Covid-19 on International Higher Education,

with Vladimir Mau, Rector, RANEPA; Sergey

Myasoyedov, Vice-Rector, Director of IBS,

RANEPA; Philip Altbach, Founder-directorCI-

HE. May 1, 2020, online.

• Moderator of three webinars on the impact of

Covid-19 on Global Higher Education (May 5),

Higher Education in the Global South (May 12)

and Internationalization of Higher Education

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

for Social Change in East Africa project, admin-

istered by INASP (UK) (Since 2018)

Service to Profession

• External examiner of doctoral theses, Universi-

ty of Otago (New Zealand) (Since 2019)

Awards

• Nominated for ‘Excellence in Personal Tutor-

ing’ category. UCL Student Choice Awards

(2019)

BETTY LEASK

Visiting Professor in International Higher Educa-

tion, Centre for Higher Education Internationalisa-

tion (CIHE, 2018-2020) and Professor Emerita,

Internationalization of Higher Education, Ofﬁce of

the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, La Trobe University,

Australia

Professional Service

• Honorary Visiting Fellow, Centre for Higher

Education Internationalisation (CHEI) 15 Feb-

ruary 2013-present Università Cattolica del Sacre

Cuore Milan

• Member: Advisory Committee for the 4th and

5th IAU (International Association of Universi-

ties) Global Survey https://www.iau-aiu.net/

Global-survey-on-Internationalization

• Member: External Advisory Board on Interna-

tionalisation, Georg-August-Universität Göttin-

gen, Germany

Editorial Positions

• Editor-in Chief: Journal of Studies in Internation-

al Education Thousand Oaks: SAGE, January

2014 – present http://jsi.sagepub.com/ and

Co-editor of Journal of Studies in International

Education Thousand Oaks: SAGE (with Profes-

sor Hans de Wit, University of Applied Scienc-

es, Amsterdam) 2011 – 2013

WES-CIHE Summer Institute June 19-21, 2019.

CIHE Perspectives No. 14. Boston College Cen-

ter for International Higher Education.

• Schendel, R., Unangst, L., Diatta, J., DeLaquil,

T. & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (2019). The Boston College

Center for International Higher Education, Year

in Review: 2018-2019. CIHE Perspectives No. 13.

Boston College Center for International Higher

Education.

Presentations, Guest Lectures, and Conference Sessions

• Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Schendel, R., & Diatta,

J.B. (2019). How Can We Make Higher Educa-

tion in Africa More Innovative and Inclusive? A

panel discussion on the 2019 WES-CIHE Sum-

mer Institute: Inclusive and Innovative Inter-

nationalization of Higher Education. June 19

– 21, 2019. Chestnut Hill, USA.

Funded Research & Consultancy

• “Building capacity for critical thinking en-

hancement in African Higher Education.” Mc-

Cowan, Rolleston, Adu-Yeboah & Omingo;

Funding: ESRC-DFID: £492,362. Consultant.

Graduate Courses

• Field Experience for MA in International High-

er Education Students (Instructor of record:

Spring 2020)

• Global & Comparative Systems of Higher Edu-

cation (Instructor of record: Fall 2019; Guest

lecturer: Fall 2017)

• Thesis Seminar for MA in International Higher

Education Students (Instructor of record: Fall

2019)

Professional Memberships & Afﬁliations

• Advisor to the Transforming Universities for a

Changing Climate project, administered by

University College London (Since 2020)

• Consultant to the Transforming Employability

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

Funded Research and Consultancy Reports

• Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask,

B. & Drobner, A. (2020). Internationalisation

in Higher Education for Society (IHES). Con-

cept, current research and examples of good

practice (DAAD Studies). Bonn: DAAD.

Short Articles, Commentary, and Critique

• Leask, B & Green, W. (2020) Is the pandemic a

watershed for internationalisation? University

World News, 2 May, 2020. https://www.univer-

sityworldnews.com/post.

php?story=20200501141641136

• Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H.; Jones, E., Leask, B.

(2019). Deﬁning internationalisation in HE for

society. In University World News, 29 June,

2019.

Keynote Addresses

• 2 May, 2019, Leask, B & de Wit, H. Internation-

alisation in Higher Education – Universities

Past, Present and Future: Pushing the Boundar-

ies Barker Centre, Harvard University,

PHILIP ALTBACH

Research professor and founding director of the

Center for International Higher Education, Boston

College.

Editorial Positions

• Editor, International Higher Education,

1995-current.

• Series Editor, Global Perspectives on Higher

Education, Sense/Brill Publishers,

2000-current.

Professional membership

• International member of the Committee on the

Competitiveness of Russian Universities, ap-

pointed by the Russian Prime Minister,

2014-current.

• Member of the international advisory council of

the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Rus-

sia (2014-present) and the Lahore University of

Management Science, Pakistan (2017-current)

PhD Supervision (in process)

Marantz Gal, A. PhD ‘Universita Cattolica del Sacro

Cuore, Milano. ‘Internationalisation of the cur-

riculum in an Israeli Teachers’ College’ Princi-

pal Supervisor. Completed 2019.

Huisman, Jerome. PhD ‘Universita Cattolica del

Sacro Cuore, Milano. Co-supervisor with Pro-

fessor Christopher Ziguras, RMIT University

Melbourne. Commenced September 2017.

Borkovic, S. PhD La Trobe University. ‘Global Citi-

zenship in the Allied Health Education: ‘Prepar-

ing occupational therapy professionals for

current and future practice with diverse people

in diverse communities’. Co-supervisor with

Professor Tracy Fortune, La Trobe University.

Commenced March 2018.

Publications 2019-2020

Book Chapters

• Leask, B. & Green, W. (2020 forthcoming)

‘Curriculum Integration: Maximizing the Im-

pact of Education Abroad for All Students’

Chapter 11 in Ogden, A.C., Streitwieser, B., &

Van Mol, C. Education Abroad: Bridging Schol-

arship and Practice, pp131-140. Routledge.

• Leask, B. Whitsed, C., de Wit, H. and Beelen, J.

(2020 forthcoming) ‘Faculty Engagement:

Moving Beyond a Discourse of Disengagement’

Chapter 12 in Ogden, A.C., Streitwieser, B., &

Van Mol, C. Education Abroad: Bridging Schol-

arship and Practice, pp141-152. Routledge.

• Leask, B. (2020) ‘Global Learning for All: What

Does it Take to Shift a Paradigm?’ Chapter 12 in

Godwin, K. and de Wit, H. (eds) Intelligent In-

ternationalization: The Shape of Things to

Come. Stylus, Virginia.

Refereed Journal Articles

• Leask, B. (2020) How can we extend the bound-

aries of our knowing? International Higher Ed-

ucation #100, Winter 2020, pp 30-32.

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

er of the University. Pp. 202-211 in The Calling of

Social Thought: Rediscovering the Work of Edward

Shils. Edited by Christopher Adair-Toteff and

Stephen Turner. Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press.

• Philip G. Altbach. “World-Class Universities

and Higher Education Differentiation: The Ne-

cessity of Systems,” in Y. Wu, Q. Wang, and N.

C. Liu, eds. World Class Universities. Rotter-

dam: Brill/Sense, 2019. Pp 56-69.

• Altbach G. P. (2019). Kitlesel Yükseköğretimin

Mantığı in Kurtoğlu, M. eds. Neoliberalizm, Bilgi

ve Üniversiteler: Eleştirel Yükseköğretim Araştır-

malarına Giriş. Notabene Yayınları. İstanbul. p.

171-190

Reportage

• (with Hans deWit) “Covid-19: The Internation-

alization Revolution that Isn’t,” University

World News (14 March 2020)

• (with Hans de Wit) “Branch Campuses do Not

Blossom,” Times Higher Education (Feb, 20,

2020), p. 29

• (with Hans de Wit) “Time to Cut International

Education’s Carbon Footprint,” University World

News, (January 11, 2020)

• “Academic Shake-up” South China Morning Post.

(March 21, 2019), p. A11.

• (With Hans deWit) “Too Much Academic Re-

search is Being Published,” International Higher

Education, No 96 (Winter, 2019)

• (With Nanette Swenson). “Panama: The Future

Depends on Higher Education.” International

Higher Education, No 97 (Spring 2019)

• Philip Altbach and Eldho Mathews, “It’s Time

to Act: Not Do More Research” The Hindu

(Chennai, India), July 1, 2019.

• (with Liz Reisberg) “The Trend of Academic

Isolationism in the United States,” Inside Higher

Education (November 14, 2019).

• (with Hans deWit) “The Dilemma of En-

glish-Medium Instruction in International

Higher Education WENR World Education News

and Reviews (November 19, 2019)

• Philip Altbach and Eldho Mathews. “Competing

for the Best” The Hindu, (April 27, 2019)

Publications

Books

• Altbach, Philip G., Edward Choi, Mathew Allen,

and Hans deWit, eds. The Global Phenomenon

of Family-Owned or Managed Universities,

Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2020

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans

de Wit (Eds.). (2020). Trends and Issues in Doc-

toral Education: A Global Perspective. Studies

in International Higher Education. New Delhi,

Sage Publishers.

Articles and chapters

• Hans de Wit and Philip G. Altbach. (Forthcom-

ing) The Impact of Covid-19 on the Internation-

alization of Higher Education, Revolutionary or

not? In Internationalisation of Higher Education.

DUZ/IAU

• (with E. Choi, M. Allen, and H. deWit) A Model

of Family-Based Higher Education Manage-

ment—Challenges and Opportunities in P. Alt-

bach, et al. (Eds.) The Global Phenomenon of

Family-Owned or Managed Universities, Leiden:

Brill, 2020, 257-279

• “Universities: Family Style” in P. Altbach, et al

(Eds.) The Global Phenomenon of Fami-

ly-Owned or Managed Universities, Leiden:

Brill, 2020, 3-8.

• Philip G. Altbach, Hans de Wit and Rebecca

Schendel. Series Preface. In Hans de Wit, Tessa

DeLaquil, Hakan Ergin, Araz Khajarian and

Lisa Unangst. Refugees and Higher Education:

Trans-national Perspectives on Access, Equity,

and Internationalization.

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Hans

de Wit. Preface. Trends and Issues in Doctoral

Education: A Global Perspective. Studies in In-

ternational Higher Education. New Delhi, Sage

Publishers.

• Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, Hans de

Wit, and Victor Rudakov. Conclusion, Doctoral

Education Worldwide: Key Trends and Realities.

Trends and Issues in Doctoral Education: A

Global Perspective. Studies in International

Higher Education. New Delhi, Sage Publishers.

• Philip G. Altbach. 2019. Edward Shils: Defend-

center for international higher education | perspec tives no. 16

• “Passing the Baton,” Nature 574 (24 October

2019), S60.

• (with Pankaj Jalote) “Forget the Top 100 List,”

The Print (New Delhi). (Nov, 19, 2019).

• (with T. Luescher “Students Are in the Vanguard

in the Youth Revolution of 2019,” University

World News (December 7, 2019).

Other

• Regular contributor of articles to the Times

Higher Education (UK). Japan Times, Christian

Science Monitor, Times of India, Melinio (Mexico

City), The Hindu (India), South China Morning

Post (Hong Kong) and other newspapers. Book

reviews have appeared in such publications as

Harvard Educational Review, Higher Education

Policy, American Political Science Review, Compar-

ative Education Review, Journal of Higher Educa-

tion, Higher Education, Review of Higher

Education and other publications.

The Boston College Center for

International Higher Education (CIHE)

At the forefront of international higher education.

International Higher Education

https://www.internationalhighereducation.net/

Explore

Master of Arts in International Higher Education

https://www.bc.edu/content/bc-web/schools/lynch-

school/sites/cihe/teaching-training/teaching-training1.

html

Evolve

Graduate Certiﬁcate in International

Higher Education

https://www.bc.edu/content/bc-web/schools/lynch-

school/sites/cihe/teaching-training/teaching-training1.

html

Participate

Consider writing for one of our publications:

International Higher Education

https://www.internationalhighereducation.net/

Educación Superior en América Latina

http://rcientiﬁcas.uninorte.edu.co/index.php/esal/

the boston college center for international higher education, year in review, 2019-2020

Center for International

Higher Education

Campion Hall, Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA

Fax: +1 (617) 552-8422

E-mail: internationalhigh-

[email protected]

web: www.bc.edu/cihe

Tel: +1 (617) 552-4236

ISSN: 2475-2657 (Print)

ISSN: 2475-2657

CIHE Perspectives