Abstract
Generalities and particularities, intersections and dichotomies. These pairs of notions are ostensibly contradictory. However, their “yin and yang” logic can provide a compelling framework for considering the way that the articles in this issue of the Journal of Studies in International Education illuminate various divergent, yet interlocking, aspects of internationalization playing out across different dimensions of international activity, and in different national and regional contexts. Despite the rapid emergence of new research in many areas of internationalization, we are struck once again by the realization that there are few straight lines we can draw in our analyses of inputs and outputs, cause and effect. Still, as seen in the pages to follow, the efforts to further refine our understanding of developments in the field are yielding intriguing results, along with fascinating new questions for consideration.
A significant portion of this issue is focused on analysis coming out of China. Developments having to do with the quality and capacity of Chinese higher education institutions, with respect to the flow of Chinese students abroad, and with regard to the country’s evolving capacity to attract talent, are of immense interest the world over. What Chinese students want and need, what policymakers and institutional leaders in China aspire to achieve, and how the rest of the world is engaging (and may engage in the future) with China, beg for deeper analysis. Here, we present perspectives on English-taught master’s programs in China (thanks to Chiharu Kuroda), Chinese students’ feelings about transnational education on offer in China (as analyzed by Wenhong Fang and Shen Wang), and decision making by Chinese students when it comes to selecting overseas study at the master’s level in the United Kingdom (by Qi Wu).
A range of provocative themes emerges from these considerations. For example, despite strong evidence of growth in transnational education in China in the last decade, Wenhong Fang and Shen Wang argue that there are important questions of equity with regard to access to this type of education in China. Furthmore, its long-term sustainability may be in question in light of the fact that Chinese students seem to view transnational education as a less favorable option than (in order of priority) gaining access to high-quality domestic institutions or studying overseas at reputable foreign universities.
When it comes to mainland Chinese students who do opt to study overseas at the master’s level, Qi Wu contends that changing realities mean that we must seek “alternative ways of exploring demand for overseas education.” This analysis argues that a dynamic interplay between students’ personal interests, future employment prospects, and the information provided by universities (and often student recruitment agencies) requires ongoing responsiveness by universities and an appreciation of the distinct profiles presented by Chinese students from the mainland as well as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and elsewhere.
The impressive uptake in English-medium degree programs on offer in China is explored by Chiharu Kuroda. This article gives readers a sense of how this development fits into China’s national higher education aspirations and broader foreign policy stance. We are reminded that—despite the quantitative expansion of this type of program in China—questions of quality and comparability (e.g., with the same degrees on offer at the same institution, but in the local language) remain unresolved on many levels.
Beyond China, authors Jasvir Kaur Nachatar Singh, Jan Schapper, and Gavin Jack focus attention on the aspirations of Malaysia to position itself as a destination of choice for international students from across Asia as well as the Islamic world. The notion of “place” takes primacy in this analysis, as does the challenge of how to convey this message of welcome as widely and efficiently as possible.
Finally, a more global—and quite unique—perspective on transnational education is provided by Stephen Wilkins and Jolanta Urbanovič. Their article digs into the special situation of transnational higher education programs offered in languages other than English. Their examination of this phenomenon finds that notions of altruism (rather than financial motivation) seem to dominate the rationales of actors, although “soft power” considerations are also part of the picture. Readers are invited to consider the possibility of other widely spoken languages—such as Spanish and Chinese—perhaps shifting the balance of [linguistic] power in transnational higher education at some future point.
Although on the face of it, these articles present very different focal points, there are areas of intriguing overlap between them. Clearly, China is on the minds of many. We have much to learn about the current realities of China’s internationalization trends and developments, and many fascinating questions about the future are ripe for exploration. The notion of soft power is a recurrent theme in several of the articles, as is the challenge of filling information gaps in the chain of communication and understanding (largely) between students and universities. A number of these articles also remind us of the complex interplay between the financial/marketplace, educational/academic, and political dimensions of international higher education.
Like many complex phenomena in higher education, internationalization defies easy analysis. This issue of the Journal reminds us of some of the complementary and contradictory complexities students and educators are navigating in the international world of higher education today.