Beyond “Everything That Quacks”: A Forum on Internationalisation Orientations, Global Diversity, and Social Responsibility

Hans de Wit, Yuzhuo Cai, Yabing Liu, Yusuf Oldac*, Anatoly Oleksiyenko, Ruoyi Qiu, Hayes Tang, Jiaxin Wang

Published: 12 Feb 2026

Internationalisation has become one of the most frequently invoked priorities in higher education, yet its meaning is increasingly uncertain. Hans de Wit argues that the term has expanded so widely in policy and practice that it risks becoming a “catch‑all” label, used to describe almost any cross‑border or global-facing activity, regardless of its purpose or educational value. This conceptual looseness is not a minor semantic problem: when “internationalisation” can mean everything, it becomes difficult to set priorities, evaluate outcomes, or distinguish educational aims from market-driven ambitions. The central question, then, is whether the field can regain clarity and direction without reducing internationalisation to a slogan.

This forum paper builds on a Centre for Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies (CHELPS) discussion of de Wit’s recent 2024 article. CHELPS hosted Professor Hans de Wit on December 5, 2025 and engaged its fellows to reflect on how the concept evolved from earlier, fragmented activity-based approaches toward broader process-oriented understandings—and why that evolution has also produced new tensions. In particular, our conversation highlighted de Wit’s call to move beyond the search for a single “perfect” definition and instead become more explicit about intentions and desired outcomes, including questions of inclusion, public value, and the balance between educational purposes and competitive pressures. Rather than treating internationalisation as an umbrella for all global activity, the discussion pointed toward the need for more careful language and more deliberate choices about which forms of international engagement universities should pursue, for whom, and to what ends.

***

Direction over Definition: de Wit’s Compass and an Outside-In Route Map

Yuzhuo Cai

Hans de Wit’s (2024) most significant contribution is his diagnosis of conceptual inflation. By tracing how definitions evolved—particularly Knight’s process-based framing—he shows how the field gained coherence but also ambiguity. The process definition allowed institutions to integrate international dimensions across teaching, research and service, yet its flexibility enabled contradictory rationales to coexist: educational improvement, revenue generation, reputation building, or geopolitical ambition. The ‘everything that quacks’ metaphor captures this blurring of purpose, where internationalisation can legitimise activities that are only superficially global.

A second major contribution lies in de Wit’s repositioning of responsibility. Western-centrism, he argues, is not embedded solely in definitions but reproduced through institutional strategies and practices. This insight shifts the challenge from rhetorical critique to practical reform—what is funded, whose knowledge counts, and which partnerships are prioritised. By emphasising intentionality and accountability, de Wit reframes internationalisation as a governance issue, not merely a discourse.

Most importantly, de Wit calls for a shift ‘from definition to direction’. He urges scholars and policymakers to stop searching for a perfect definition and instead clarify the purposes and outcomes of IoHE. His call is both normative and practical: to move away from short-term neoliberalism and elite mobility towards long-term societal interests, ‘global learning for all’, and more equitable global relationships. The question becomes not what internationalisation is, but what it is for.

Responding to this challenge, Betty Leask and I reconceptualise ‘internationalisation of higher education for society’ (IHES) through an outside-in perspective that begins with societal transitions—especially the shift from innovation systems to innovation ecosystems—and asks how internationalisation can contribute to sustainable transformation (Cai & Leask, 2024). Rather than projecting institutional ambitions outward, we start from societal challenges and explore how internationalisation can serve them.

Our response is articulated through three paradigms of IoHE. In IoHE 1.0, universities act as mirrors of society: internationalisation reflects existing social, economic and political dynamics. In IoHE 2.0, universities become servants of society, aligning internationalisation with societal engagement, global talent attraction, soft power and institutional reputation. This model acknowledges external needs but still risks instrumentalism. IoHE 3.0 advances universities as shapers of society. Underpinned by a sustainability rationale encompassing economic, social and environmental pillars, this paradigm redefines internationalisation as a driver of global common good and transformative learning rather than competition. These paradigms coexist in practice, marking a gradual transition from reflection to service and ultimately to co-creation.

Finally, consistent with de Wit’s call for clearer direction, we propose a research agenda to test and refine these paradigms: how rationales shift across contexts, how institutions balance competitiveness and public purpose, and how internationalisation supports innovation ecosystems and sustainability. In this sense, de Wit provides the compass—direction over definition—while we offer a route-map for research and action that makes that direction tangible.

Revisiting the Notion of Internationalisation in an Age of Competing Global-National-Local Imaginaries

Yabing Liu

Hans De Wit’s (2024) paper provides a timely and reflexive account of the evolving meanings and tensions surrounding internationalisation in higher education. By revisiting Mestenhauser’s (1998, p. 70) metaphor that “everything that quacks is internationalisation,” De Wit (2024) persuasively argues that, despite decades of conceptual development, internationalisation continues to function as a broad and often imprecise umbrella term. I find this observation highly resonant with contemporary higher education practice, where activities ranging from international student recruitment and global branding and rankings to curriculum reform are frequently labelled as internationalisation, often without sufficient clarity regarding their underlying purposes. This concern echoes Whitsed and Green’s (2013) critique of the semantic proliferation of internationalisation and its susceptibility to strategic institutional appropriation.

One aspect of De Wit’s (2024) paper that I find particularly valuable is his contextualised defence of Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalisation as a process. De Wit reminds the reader that Knight’s formulation emerged as a corrective to the fragmented and activity-driven approaches to “international education” prevalent in the late twentieth century. At the same time, I am persuaded by more recent critiques—most notably Marginson’s (2023)—which argue that dominant definitions of internationalisation have contributed, albeit indirectly, to sustaining Western-centric knowledge asymmetries. These critiques align with a broader body of critical internationalisation scholarship that highlights how internationalisation—what some scholars describe as “Englishisation” (Guo et al., 2022)—may reproduce colonial legacies, unequal power relations, and extractive global flows (Liu et al., 2025; Stein & McCartney, 2021).

These tensions become particularly salient in De Wit et al.’s (2015, p. 29) revised definition of internationalisation, which extends Knight’s earlier work by emphasising intentionality, quality enhancement for all students and staff, and the aim “to make a meaningful contribution to society.” I interpret this expansion as a clear normative reorientation—from neoliberal market logics toward the societal and collective good, from elite mobility toward global learning for all, and from a Western paradigm toward a more globally equitable process. However, this formulation also raises a question that I find difficult to resolve: what exactly constitutes a “meaningful contribution,” and who has the authority to define it? As De Wit (2024) acknowledges, meaningful contributions vary significantly across contexts, institutions, and stakeholders.

This leads me to question whether internationalisation should aspire to a universal contribution—such as advancing global sustainability, environmental responsibility, or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While these global horizons are increasingly visible in higher education discourse, I am also mindful of critiques that frame the SDGs as technocratic, top-down, and unevenly embedded across diverse contexts. From this perspective, even well-intentioned universal frameworks risk becoming symbolic or normative if they fail to engage local epistemologies and lived realities.

Rather than resolving this tension through either rigid universalism or excessive conceptual looseness, I read De Wit’s (2024) argument as implicitly advancing a third position. In this view, “meaningful contribution” is best understood as an ethically oriented yet reflexively negotiated process. This position neither demands an ever more concrete or prescriptive definition of internationalisation nor justifies the continued slippage in how the term is used. Instead, it calls for definitions that remain open in form but demanding in justification, requiring institutions to articulate how—and for whom—their internationalisation practices contribute meaningfully within specific contexts.

Standing in an age marked by increasing complexity and competing global-national-local imaginaries (Marginson, 2011), De Wit’s (2024) paper leaves us less inclined to search for a definitive future model of internationalisation than to reflect on the kinds of questions the field now needs to ask—and continue to ask. How, for instance, can institutions meaningfully articulate their societal contributions without defaulting to universalistic moral claims or empty symbolic commitments? To what extent should internationalisation remain intentionally open, and when does such openness risk enabling conceptual slippage and strategic misuse? Finally, who should be involved in negotiating what counts as “meaningful contribution,” and through what forms of dialogue and accountability? These questions suggest that the future of internationalisation may lie not in greater definitional precision or the articulation of a singular global agenda, but in the willingness of scholars and practitioners to remain critically engaged with uncertainty, difference, and ethical complexity as integral features of the internationalisation process itself.

From definition to direction? Or directions?

Yusuf Oldac

Internationalisation of higher education has gained critical importance in today’s higher education landscape, shaped by centralised governance structures, institutional-level policies, as well as global trends and geopolitical realities. As a result, a significant body of academic discussion revolves around the concept of internationalisation, published by researchers and practitioners alike, as evidenced by the meteoric increase in publications on internationalisation (Caliskan & Oldac, 2025). In this context, how the concept has evolved over the last decades is a crucial matter for many researchers and practitioners worldwide.

De Wit’s recent paper (2024) traces the development of the concept of internationalisation in recent decades. He summarises the historical and contemporary developments in the field and provides a critical perspective on why discussions of internationalisation need to move from defining what internationalisation is to what it should be for. The paper advances a call to scholars, practitioners and others involved in internationalisation to move beyond trying to define the term. Definitions vary across time and context, and they could be used for different purposes by those who use them. For example, the process-based definition by Knight (2004) is flexible enough, so it was widely accepted; however, it also led to serving diverging (sometimes contradictory) purposes by those who use and adapt it. The latter led to Marginson’s critique (2023), as also included in de Wit’s paper (2024), claiming that the popular definition of Knight serves a Global West/North-centric approach to internationalisation more so than the other parts of the world. Without clear purposes, generic definitions could risk referring to ‘everything that quacks’ as rightfully acknowledged by de Wit (2024).

Within this context, de Wit calls for specifying directions for internationalisation rather than providing yet another definition. De Wit calls for a normative perspective and holds a practical approach for suggesting this, self-identifying as a practitioner scholar. It is argued that there is a need for an end to the current form of internationalisation and a shift to a new beginning, in which directions and key themes need to be preset.

My attention was specifically drawn to the repeated arguments for “the importance and urgency of reaching agreement on and being clear about its [internationalisation] real intentions and expected outcomes in the context of the time whilst also recognizing the importance of understanding and using its potential to direct the future” (De Wit, 2024, p. 10). While it really is important to be clear about the goals of internationalisation, do we really need to reach an agreement on the directions of internationalisation? Is this even possible in a diverse world, where different locations have varying higher education systems that serve different purposes? To illustrate, while some locations have more pronounced economic goals (e.g. Anglo-American systems charge large sums to international students and constantly highlight the economic value), some others have more pronounced top-down, soft-power related goals (e.g., Turkey, China) so a big chunk of their internationalisation efforts are funded and steered by governmental organisations, and in some other locations internationalisation is not even a correct term most of the time (e.g., Hong Kong has more non-local Mainland Chinese students than international students in its current higher education so some scholars tend to use regionalisation or globalisation more).

In this context, the path towards more globally equal processes of internationalisation and moving away from a Global North-dominated paradigm goes through accepting the diversity of directions and purposes for internationalisation. Being clear about its purposes is vital, but seeking an agreement globally for directions and purposes that would work for all runs the risk of being too generic. Such an endeavour could also risk facilitating the hegemonic position of the Global West/North, even if it is not the goal of the call for finding an agreement for direction setting (cf. Marginson, 2023). The latter is not the goal of de Wit’s (2024) well-written and successful article, but the danger is still there, especially by means of “the way [other] scholars and practitioners … construct internationalization, through interpretation, strategy and activity…” (de Wit, 2024, p.10) that could result in the dominance of hegemonic paradigms. The diverse peoples of the World would benefit from diverse directions for internationalisation based on their contextual needs.

Higher Education Internationalization in the Context of Integrity Concerns

Anatoly Oleksiyenko

Internationalization has become an increasingly important area of strategic study and practice in global higher education amid rising competitive anxieties and geopolitical crises (Oleksiyenko, Zha, Chirikov, & Li, 2024). Global turbulences are certainly not new and universities have demonstrated remarkable resilience in weathering transcontinental tsunamis (De Wit 2009). In his recent paper, Hans de Wit (2024) revisits the theoretical efforts to pin down the most accurate representation of the historical changes and challenges of defining the processes of internationalization as well as the field at large. He also reminds us that the past should not distract us, as new claims and reframes emerge in the multipolar world of global higher education. In attempting, and often failing, to see the whole elephant of internationalization, researchers in the field may overlook the diversity of agential preferences and responsibilities. This may be because institutional perspectives often dominate internationalization discourses, both in university-led narratives and scholarly definitions from the past, while disparate individual stories and experiences are easily overlooked (Marginson, 2023).

Making a universal definition of internationalisation is indeed difficult, given the multitude of actors with conflicting agendas in global higher education. The internationalization is a multistakeholder enterprise, where supra-national, national, sub-national, institutional, and sub-institutional interests are often out of sync (Jones and Oleksiyenko, 2011). At the institutional level, there are numerous daunting questions that many stakeholders try to avoid, rather than address. For example: Should internationalization policy prioritize research or teaching during times of declining institutional resources and rising demands for localization of knowledge outcomes? Should students or faculty members be the primary focus of exchange initiatives when universities seek to build capacities for international research and teaching? Should priority be given to disadvantaged or meritorious recipients of institutional support? Who should bear the costs of the increasingly expensive travel budgets, and how should these expenses be shared between the hosting and sending university versus private funding? Furthermore, does online internationalization serve as a good substitute for travels and face-to-face interactions? What kinds of experiences and messages are conveyed to unequally positioned and equipped participants?

Institutional practitioners often try to simplify these questions. Many, trusting in the power of strategic intentions, as acknowledged by many scholarly papers, structure processes and drive their agendas to achieve measurable outcomes aligned with specific plans consolidated through various important administrative meetings and corporate-style yardsticks. For administrative offices, internationalization often becomes a job – serving the interests of administrative offices and their managers, rather than advancing genuine research and teaching agendas (Oleksiyenko, 2019).

Alas, when institutions pursue narrow interests while neglecting universal agendas and geopolitical challenges, serious concerns emerge about the future of internationalization in higher education. Whose benefit does internationalization serve in the absence of critical thinking, social responsibility, and transnational solidarity? As crises proliferate amid the growing influence of technologies and self-serving elites, who will shape the capacities of new generations to navigate cross-continental conversations for advancing common good and solving the world’s grand challenges? Moreover, if such initiatives uncover inconvenient truths and reputational liabilities, will universities be willing to support them, or will they still insist on following prestige-oriented narratives and performance indicators? These questions highlight some of the concerns facing university intellectuals when they consider the dilemmas of internationalization.

The dilemmas certainly underscore the increasing importance of research and discussions in this area. Previous generations of students and scholars built their academic and professional profiles through open and secure international travel, collaborations, and even benevolent global competition (Oleksiyenko, 2018). These aspirations will not fade despite the worsening geopolitical environment. Universities have always nurtured peregrinating spirits. However, for newer generations, moral challenges are increasing, as common futures disappear, consolidated efforts diminish, and the ideals of peace, justice, openness and democracy are decimated. This urges future definitions of internationalization to focus more on the value-oriented aspects of academic endeavours.

The Pressures and Paradoxes of Internationalisation in Chinese Higher Education

QIU Ruoyi

The rapid ascent of China’s higher education sector on the global stage is undeniable, marked by a phenomenal growth in research output and an ever-increasing number of publications in top-tier international journals. This transformation is not accidental; it is the result of a concerted national strategy in which internationalisation plays a central, albeit complex, role (Zheng & Kapoor, 2021). Tellingly, this evolution is being closely documented and analyzed from within. The growing body of research and publications on the internationalisation of higher education, produced by Chinese scholars, underscores a deep and expanding scholarly effort to make sense of this process (Zha et al., 2019).

However, beneath the impressive statistics lies a landscape fraught with tension, where the goals of global engagement clash with immense internal pressures. At the heart of this tension is the paradox between the drive for excellence and the wellbeing of the academic community. The environment within Chinese higher education is one of intense competition—not just between individuals, but among institutions, regions, and on a national scale. For both staff and students, this translates into relentless pressure to perform, publish, and secure funding. This high-stakes atmosphere, widely recognized as a source of significant stress and burnout in academia (Urbina-Garcia, 2020), raises critical questions about the sustainability of such a model. When the primary focus is on quantifiable outputs, a phenomenon extensively studied in the context of audit-based evaluations (You et al., 2025), how can universities cultivate the creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual risk-taking that are the hallmarks of true innovation? The issue of wellbeing is paramount, particularly in a cultural context where expressing dissent or openly questioning established norms can be challenging. If academics and students feel they “cannot speak out loud,” the system risks stifling the very originality it seeks to foster through its internationalisation efforts.

This internal pressure is compounded by a broader strategic dilemma: the tension between global integration and national identity. There is a clear emphasis on creating a unique “China model” of higher education, one that is not merely a derivative of Western systems but is rooted in its own geopolitical context and national priorities (Hsieh, 2020). This strategic positioning is a common feature in non-Western higher education systems, where internationalization is often shaped by geopolitical agendas and the discursive dilemmas of navigating the global “prestige economy” (Oleksiyenko, 2023). This approach to “responsible internationalisation” is strategic, aiming to absorb global knowledge and standards primarily to strengthen the nation’s own capacity and keep knowledge within its borders. However, this path is not without risk. An excessive focus on unique “Chinese characteristics” or a move towards closing doors could lead to isolation, undermining the very benefits that international collaboration offers. It raises a fundamental question about what higher education means in the Chinese context: how to build a world-class system that is distinctly Chinese without isolating itself from the global academic community it seeks to lead.

Ultimately, the pressure to internationalise has become a double-edged sword. The mandate to publish in international journals, for instance, is a key driver of academic pressure, turning the “academic world” into a source of anxiety rather than a community of inquiry. While these journals are seen as a benchmark for quality and a vehicle for global recognition, the relentless pursuit of publication can lead to a focus on metrics over meaning, a challenge that recent reforms like “Breaking the Five Onlys” [1] aim to address, albeit with mixed results (Zhao et al., 2025). For China, the challenge is to balance its ambition for global leadership in higher education with the need to create a sustainable, healthy, and genuinely innovative academic ecosystem that empowers its scholars and students, rather than just pressuring them.

Internationalisation Studies Beyond Academic Entrepreneurialism: Future Imaginaries Towards Epistemic Plurality and Ecological Civilisation

Hayes Tang

In an era where higher education (HE) internationalisation is increasingly scrutinised for its Eurocentric biases and environmental unsustainability, the field stands at a critical juncture. In reading the paper and engaging in the discussion group with Hans de Wit, I endeavoured to be convinced by the critique that the existing definition of higher education internationalisation cannot be universal, while also seeking to understand the assumptions and implications underlying the rationales for this position.

The well-cited definition by Knight (2004) stating HE internationalisation as "a process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education" implies nothing about western hegemony but should be able to be developed further as a universal definition for global equity. However, the dual nature of internationalisation – as both a field of inquiry and practice – often overlooks how social forces and rationales like competitiveness reinforce inequalities by privileging resource-rich institutions, especially in the Global North. As a practice, HE internationalisation is laden with academic entrepreneurialism and interest-dominated initiatives (Tang & Zhang, 2023; Welsh, 2012)—strategies driven by university status hierarchies, national agendas, and global market forces. The definition assumes a neutral and global applicability but embeds implicit biases toward Western models of education, mobility, and partnerships. This reflects positionalities where power imbalances dictate discourses which favour elite mobility over equitable access.

Critically, it was practitioners and scholar-practitioners, but not academic researchers, who first bridged theory and practice of internationalisation, positioning it as an engine of modernisation and economic growth in the context of globalisation since the 1990s. A pivotal example is the rapid worldwide proliferation of global university rankings, which simplify diverse institutional characteristics into homogenised metrics, which are critiqued as vested interests that impose ‘legibility’ on universities. The global arrangement echoes sociologist James C. Scott's concept of high modernism—where states overconfidently redesign society according to purported scientific laws, homogenising natural diversity (Scott, 1998). Rankings foster simplification of global templates and blind the institutional governance to the meanings, relationships and dynamics which happen within university life, society, and nature. By means of international standardisation, and through institutional policies and practices known as benchmarking, the processes of internationalisation obscure university development within complex intercultural, intercivilisational, and ecological interactions. They perpetuate inequalities between institutions and nations and homogenise future imaginaries of universities.

Internationalisation is portrayed as a benign process of integration, yet it frequently imposes top-down standards that erode local contexts. To universalise internationalisation studies, it should evolve into an independent academic discipline, envisaging epistemic plurality and disinterested scholarship. This means disentangling scholarship from current and contingent demands, allowing for disinterested inquiry that embraces long-term visions, diverse knowledge systems and methodologies as well as future imaginaries. Global capitalist societies are tragically selling and sacrificing their long-term future through the perpetuation of short-term gains fixated on next quarterly ‘key performance indicators’ over climate justice. Current practices, tied to economies of scale and state control, exploit resources and wellbeing, and prioritise transactional relationships over sustainable relationships. Yet, diversity, inter-civilisational dialogues, and polyculture—rather than a global monoculture—offer greater resilience against ecological crises.

Transforming internationalisation studies requires agendas beyond economic and political concerns, focusing on the future-ecological orientation. In post-modernisation, internationalisation can drive ecological futuring and degrowth—scaling down unsustainable growth for sustainability, global equity and ecological justice. The groundbreaking literature on degrowth reorients internationalisation from nationalism to celebrating civilisations through ecological dialogues. The emerging discipline of internationalisation studies should promote learning from developing countries and reverse the flow of knowledge creation, dissemination and engagement. The discipline should promote awareness of local differences, fostering global citizenship that respects academic knowledge and experiential knowledge, and honours both universal knowledge and practical wisdom. Finally, universality demands alternative international languages beyond English whereas HE policies and practices should promote linguistic diversity in internationalisation.

China’s Influences on the Theoretical Evolution of Internationalisation in Higher Education

Jiaxin Wang

Higher education internationalisation has become a cornerstone of scholarly exploration, reflecting how institutions adapt to global change. As Knight and de Wit (2018) note, it is a layered, multifaceted process shaped by diverse contexts and priorities. In this paper, I critically engage with Hans de Wit’s 2024 paper, connecting his insights to ongoing debates in higher education over the last few decades. De Wit’s 2024 work emphasizes the need to move beyond a universal definition of internationalisation. He advocates for focusing on core objectives aligned with today's global realities and promoting inclusive global learning that engages all learners, not just those in elite mobility. This involves shifting away from Western-centric frameworks towards a model that amplifies diverse voices while addressing traditional power dynamics dominated by Global North actors (Altbach, 2006). By incorporating ethical considerations like accountability to marginalized communities, de Wit prompts us to view internationalisation as a practice rooted in diverse directions rather than just an institutional strategy.

The evolution of higher education internationalisation since Knight's foundational 1993 definition showcases ongoing contradictions. Knight (1997) identified four key drivers—political, economic, academic, and cultural-societal—that still shape the process today. Economic globalization has transformed internationalisation from a “static network” to a “dynamic ecology” of interconnected systems, demanding more evidence-based, context-responsive theories (Qiang, 2003). However, core dilemmas remain unresolved. As Knight (2007) noted, successful internationalisation relies on collaboration among university administrators, educators, students, and policymakers. Often, this collaboration falters when Western-centric standards overshadow local contexts or when instrumental goals take precedence over genuine knowledge co-creation. The challenge is to cultivate collaboration that respects each context while fostering equitable dialogue and shared power.

Strengthening internationalisation efforts requires a shift in evaluation practices, moving away from uncritical Western metrics toward “equal cooperation,” as advocated by Heleta and Chasi (2023). This principle acknowledges diverse educational traditions, which is crucial in addressing value conflicts in transnational contexts. Ng (2012) points out that cultural collisions can either erase local knowledge or foster parochialism. To address these tensions, I propose three strategies: integrating intercultural competence into curricula; facilitating cross-border dialogues that prioritize marginalized voices; and nurturing context-specific internationalisation practices that resist global market pressures (Keim & Khan, 2022). This approach promotes pluralistic coexistence and highlights that the strength of internationalisation lies in its diversity (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

China's experience with higher education internationalisation illustrates how non-Western contexts are influencing theoretical and practical developments. Over recent decades, state-led initiatives have shifted China’s strategy towards collective connectivity, resource sharing, and proactive state engagement, contrasting sharply with the individualistic models prevalent in Anglo-American institutions (Marginson & Yang, 2020). Confucius Institutes have become essential in promoting language and cultural exchange, challenging the dominance of English-centric cultural diplomacy in higher education (Yang, 2010). Initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) empower non-elite institutions in Southwest China to build partnerships with ASEAN member states, leading to a “quiet achievers” model that redistributes educational resources and challenges global university hierarchies (Yang, 2012). However, China faces significant challenges, including intergenerational educational inequalities and inconsistent quality standards across institutions, necessitating urgent reforms to balance national priorities with global equity (Mok, Ke, & Tian, 2023). China is transitioning from a one-way model focused on importing Western knowledge to a paradigm of “two-way mutual learning,” reflecting a global trend toward reciprocal knowledge exchange (Dai, Mok, & Li, 2023). This development reinforces the idea that local roots can thrive on the global stage, creating new frameworks for collaboration.

In conclusion, integrating these insights into higher education internationalisation is vital, especially amid nationalism and global inequalities. A vision grounded in equality and sustainability, rejecting Western-centric hegemony, is essential. The challenge for scholars and practitioners lies in moving from theoretical debates to actionable steps, such as designing equity-focused evaluation systems and fostering partnerships based on mutual benefit. China's emphasis on collective action and regional collaboration provides a valuable perspective for rethinking the future of higher education internationalisation as a pluralistic endeavor shaped by diverse voices. As de Wit (2024) notes, the focus should be on forging ethically sound and contextually responsive paths for a more equitable global higher education landscape.

Synthesis and Concluding Reflections

Hans de Wit

As a scholar and author, it is important and a great pleasure and honor to receive constructive critical feedback on your work. Without discourse and interaction, there is no academic development and progress. It is for that reason that this Forum, organised by CHELPS, first in person when we discussed it in Hong Kong, and now in this written form, is viewed by me as a great experience. The forum model of CHELPS is, in my view, a great example of interaction with emerging and experienced scholars, exchanging their views on my work. When I wrote my paper “Everything That Quacks is Internationalization - Critical Reflections on the Evolution of Higher Education Internationalization”, published in volume 28 (I) 3-14, of the Journal of Studies in International Education, it was a reflection on four decades of policy, practice and research on internationalisation of higher education. In those four decades, the study of this field developed from almost non-existing towards one that is intensively studied, published and experimented. In my article, I reflected on and analysed this evolution, suggesting a change in the focus of the scholarly debate on internationalisation as well as in the actions of those engaged in the policy and practice of internationalisation of and in higher education. It is encouraging to see how the contributions in this Forum do so in a varied, critical and constructive way.

As Yuzhuo Cai well states, my intention was to give a diagnosis of the conceptual inflation of internationalisation, a repositioning of responsibility for, and a shift from definition to direction. He builds further on my intentions, together with Betty Leask - my successor as editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education-, by an agenda focusing on “how rationales shift across contexts, how institutions balance competitiveness and public purpose, and how internationalisation supports innovation ecosystems and sustainability.” A crucial agenda, certainly in the current complex geopolitical environment.

Yabing Liu takes away from my article that “despite decades of conceptual development, internationalisation continues to function as a broad and often imprecise umbrella term.” Indeed, internationalisation, as I emphasise, is a multifaceted and constantly evolving process, with a great diversity in rationales and regional, national and institutional contexts. This indeed, as Yabing Liu states, requires the willingness of scholars and practitioners to remain critically engaged with uncertainty, difference, and ethical complexity as integral features of the internationalisation process itself.

Yusuf Oldac adheres to that call, and emphasizes that “the path towards more globally equal processes of internationalisation and moving away from a Global North-dominated paradigm goes through accepting the diversity of directions and purposes for internationalisation.” He points correctly to the risk of the dominance of hegemonic paradigms, by stating that “[T]he diverse peoples of the World would benefit from diverse directions for internationalisation based on their contextual needs.”

Anatoly Oleksiyenko stresses that “moral challenges are increasing, as common futures disappear, consolidated efforts diminish, and the ideals of peace, justice, openness and democracy are decimated,” and for that reason urges “future definitions of internationalization to focus more on the value-oriented aspects of academic endeavours.”

Hayes Tang, in that respect, makes an appeal that “internationalisation studies should promote learning from developing countries and reverse the flow of knowledge creation, dissemination and engagement. The discipline should promote awareness of local differences, fostering global citizenship that respects academic knowledge and experiential knowledge, and honours both universal knowledge and practical wisdom.” He also calls for internationalisation as an own discipline of study, something that I have encountered by scholars elsewhere also. My own view is that internationalisation by nature is multi- and interdisciplinary and to call it a discipline has the risk of taking those important dimensions away. But this call for awareness of local differences, and respect for academic and experiential knowledge is well taken.

Qiu Ruoyi and Jiaxin Wang apply in their contributions these calls for contexts, critical engagement and a value-based approach to the Chinese context. By stating that “[F]or China, the challenge is to balance its ambition for global leadership in higher education with the need to create a sustainable, healthy, and genuinely innovative academic ecosystem that empowers its scholars and students, rather than just pressuring them”, Qiu Ruyoi points to the need to bridge local and global, and taking values as a key direction in bridging them. At the same time Jiaxin Wang points out that “China's emphasis on collective action and regional collaboration provides a valuable perspective for rethinking the future of higher education internationalisation as a pluralistic endeavor shaped by diverse voices.” Given China’s increasing importance, both in economic and political sense as in science and higher education, understanding its internationalisation policy and practice is of crucial importance.

In conclusion, the contributions to this Forum, reflecting on what are the key points of my paper and what this implies for the future of internationalisation, are not only valuable in that they summarize those key points very well, but also emphasize what they see as essential for that future: context, values, directions, academic but also applied in policy and practice. They are important directions for a “journey that has no set route and at this stage, no clearly defined destination”, as I closed my paper with. But it is a route that builds on the valuable contributions of the CHELPS community - contributions that certainly would not deserve the negative label of quacking, on the contrary - towards a better future for society and for higher education’s internationalisation.

***

In closing, our discussion with Hans de Wit underlines a central paradox: internationalisation is everywhere in higher education strategy, yet its educational meaning is too often opaque; it is so expansive that it can legitimise almost any cross-border activity while leaving intentions, beneficiaries, and outcomes underspecified. Read across the reflections, a shared message emerges that the next phase of internationalisation cannot be secured by refining definitions alone, but by strengthening directions: clarifying purposes (public value, inclusion, learning, integrity, sustainability), making trade-offs explicit, and building accountabilities that resist prestige-driven and market-only rationales. At the same time, the forum cautions against assuming that a global consensus on “the right” directions is either feasible or desirable; contexts differ sharply in governance, geopolitics, mobility patterns, and capacity, and universal templates can inadvertently reinscribe the very hierarchies they aim to unsettle. The challenge, then, is to move from “everything that quacks” to practices that can justify, ethically and empirically, for whom internationalisation works, how it contributes, and what it costs, while remaining open to plural pathways that advance more equitable, responsible, and future-oriented higher education internationalisation.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Globalization and the University: Realities in an Unequal World. In P. G. Altbach & J. J. F. Forest (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 121–139). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_8

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542

Cai, Y., & Leask, B. (2024). Rethinking internationalization of higher education for society from an outside-in perspective. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2024.2406093

Caliskan, O., & Oldac, Y. I. (2025). Internationalization of Higher Education: Science Mapping the Knowledge Base (1929–2022). Journal of Studies in International Education, 10283153241307969. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153241307969

Dai, K., Mok, K. H., & Li, X. (2023). Mapping the historical development and landscape of research about transnational higher education: a scientometric analysis from comparative and international perspectives. Compare, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2023.2292517

De Wit, H. (2009). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe. Information Age Pub Incorporated.

De Wit, H. (2024). ‘Everything That Quacks is Internationalization’ - Critical Reflections on the Evolution of Higher Education Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 28(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153231221655

De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (Eds.) (2015). Internationalisation of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament

Guo, Y., Guo, S., Yochim, L., & Liu, X. (2022). Internationalization of Chinese higher education: Is it westernization?. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(4), 436-453.

Heleta, S., & Chasi, S. (2023). Rethinking and redefining internationalisation of higher education in South Africa using a decolonial lens. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2146566

Hsieh, C.-C. (2020). Internationalization of higher education in the crucible: Linking national identity and policy in the age of globalization. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102245

Jones, G. A., & Oleksiyenko, A. (2011). The internationalization of Canadian university research: A global higher education matrix analysis of multi-level governance. Higher Education, 61(1), 41-57.

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 260-273.

Knight, J. (1993). Internationalization: Management strategies and issues. International Education Magazine, 9(6), 21–22.

Knight, J. (1997). A Shared Vision? Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Internationalization of Higher Education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831539700100105

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31

Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, Complexities and Challenges. In P. G. Altbach & J. J. F. Forest (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (pp. 207–227). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_11

Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Where have we come from and where are we going? In D. Proctor & L. E. Rumbley (Eds.), The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation perspectives into research, policy, and practice (pp. xix–xxiv). Routledge.

Liu, Y., Zhang, X., & Dai, K. (2025). Mapping the terrain of global research trajectory of international doctoral students: a bibliometric review. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 480–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2396356

Lucrecia, K., & Sarah, K. (2022). Internationalization and Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Quality and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.36006/09501-1

Marginson, S. (2011). Imagining the global. In King, R., Marginson, S. & Naidoo, R. (eds.). Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Marginson, S. (2023). Limitations of the leading definition of ‘internationalisation’ of higher education: is the idea wrong or is the fault in reality?. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1-20.

Marginson, S., & Yang, L. (2020). China meets Anglo-America on the new Silk Road. In der Wende et al. (eds.). China and Europe on the New Silk Road: Connecting Universities Across Eurasia. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003.0014

Mestenhauser, J. A. (1998). International education on the verge: In search of a new paradigm. International Educator, 7(2–3), 68–76

Mok, K. H., Ke, G. G., & Tian, Z. (2024). China’s responses to globalization and higher education reforms: Challenges and policy implications. In X. Dumay, J. Behrend, E. Mangez, & P. Mattei (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Education and Globalization. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197570685.013.48

Ng, S. W. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare, 42(3), 439–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.652815

Oleksiyenko, A. V. (2018). Global Mobility and Higher Learning. London and New York: Routledge.

Oleksiyenko, A. V. (2019). Academic Collaborations in the Global Marketplace (Vol. 6). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Oleksiyenko, A. V. (2023). Geopolitical agendas and internationalization of post-soviet higher education: Discursive dilemmas in the realm of the prestige economy. International Journal of Educational Development, 102, 102857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102857

Oleksiyenko, A. V., Zha, Q., Chirikov, I., & Li, J. (Eds.). (2024). International Status Anxiety and Higher Education: The Soviet Legacy in China and Russia (Vol. 35). Springer Nature.

Yang, R. (2010). Soft power and higher education: an examination of China’s Confucius Institutes. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(2), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767721003779746

Yang, R. (2012). Internationalization, regionalization, and soft power: China’s relations with ASEAN member countries in higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 7(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.3868/s110-001-012-0025-3

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.

Tang, H. H. H., & Zhang, E. Y. (2023). Is academic entrepreneurialism a universal concept? New ideas and insights from contextualisation beyond East and west. International Journal of Chinese Education, 12(2), 2212585X231188794.

Urbina-Garcia, A. (2020). What do we know about university academics’ mental health? A systematic literature review. Stress and Health, 36(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2956

Welch, A. (2012). Opportunistic entrepreneurialism and internationalisation of higher education: lessons from the antipodes?. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(3), 295-315.

Whitsed, C., & Green, W. (2014). What’s in a name? A theoretical exploration of the proliferation of labels for international education across the higher education sector. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(2), 105-119.

You, D., Wen, K., Liu, Y., & Tang, L. (2025). Does audit-based evaluation reduce academics’ creative behavior? The moderating effect of guanxi practice and population characteristics. Research Policy, 54(6), 105213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105213

Zha, Q. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5

Zha, Q., Wu, H., & Hayhoe, R. (2019). Why Chinese universities embrace internationalisation: An exploration with two case studies. Higher Education, 78(4), 669-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00364-w

Zhao, K., Li, J., & Liang, H. (2025). Reconfiguring power: a field analysis of China’s research evaluation reform. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01480-6

Zheng, J., & Kapoor, D. (2021). State formation and higher education (HE) policy: An analytical review of policy shifts and the internationalization of higher education (IHE) in China between 1949 and 2019. Higher Education, 81(1), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00517-2

See all papers