Inclusive internationalization: Insights from International Office Professionals on implementing Internationalization at Home

Abstract

International mobility has globally accelerated, yet, only a small proportion of students can access study abroad opportunities. Consequently, internationalization at Home (IaH) practices have gained prominence as a means to expand internationalization for all students. Despite this growing interest, IaH has been predominantly studied from the perspective of academics, while the experiences of international office professionals (IPs) remain largely underexplored. This paper thus investigates IaH experiences in two specific contexts, Turkey and Poland. Following a qualitative methodology, data collected through semi-structured interviews with 36 IPs. The findings indicate that IaH is widely recognized by IPs in both countries as an equitable response to the persistent barriers to physical mobility. However, despite its perceived value, the implementation of IaH remains fragmented due to a lack of institutional ownership, ambiguous job definitions, and limited cross-departmental coordination. This study highlights the importance of repositioning IaH not merely as a set of isolated activities, but as an institutional philosophy—one that requires coherent policy frameworks, and active involvement of faculty and leaders to foster meaningful intercultural engagement. By addressing these institutional imperatives, universities can more effectively ensure that all students, regardless of their mobility status, have access to internationalized experiences.

Keywords

International student mobility Internationalization at Home Poland Turkey international office professionals

Introduction

Over the past few decades, international student mobility (ISM) has become a central component of higher education (HE) programs, experiencing unprecedented growth in the number of students pursuing short-term academic studies abroad (Ogden et al., 2020). Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, studying abroad was a high priority for governments and HE institutions (Campbell, 2017; Knight, 2012). According to O’Dowd (2013), expanding ISM has been a key goal of university internationalization policies worldwide. However, O’Dowd also acknowledges the challenges universities face in achieving this objective, citing factors such as students’ reluctance to participate in mobility programs, financial barriers, and insufficient foreign language proficiency.

Addressing the concerns that traditional internationalization efforts insufficiently engage diverse stakeholders, the concept of inclusive internationalization emerged (Janebová and Johnstone, 2020). The notion was first articulated by the International Association of Universities, highlighting the need to ensure that the benefits of internationalization are shared more equitably while mitigating risks such as inequality and commercialization (Egron-Polak and Green, 2014). Inclusive internationalization (De Wit and Jones, 2018; Janebová and Johnstone, 2020; Van Mol and Perez-Encinas, 2022) seeks to democratize the process by emphasizing access and equity within HE. As Brito et al. (2025) points out inclusion means not only admitting international students but also ensuring their academic, social, and cultural success through comprehensive support and collaboration from all local stakeholders. A core component of this approach is Internationalization at Home (IaH), which ensures that global perspectives are embedded into the educational experience for all students, irrespective of their participation in mobility programs. Beelen and Jones (2015), through their comprehensive analysis of various IaH approaches, define it as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (p. 69). This approach closely aligns with the concept of Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC), which has been defined as “[. . .] the incorporation of international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods and support services of a program of study” (Leask, 2015: 9). The report (Universities UK International, 2021) also suggests that home student engagement is disregarded in current research, and therefore, it is crucial to design and measure home students’ engagement in IaH activities.

Inclusive internationalization calls for a holistic institutional commitment, requiring collaboration across all departments and functions to promote inclusivity in the internationalization process. This model leverages classroom diversity by integrating contributions from international students, mobility returnees, and students from diverse local contexts. However, Ramburuth and Welch (2005) warn that poorly managed cultural diversity can create tension and reinforce existing prejudices. Cooper (2009) similarly highlights the importance of inclusivity and diversity in teaching practices, noting that minority students often face barriers to full participation due to the attitudes and behaviors of dominant groups. This underscores the need for inclusive internationalization approaches that actively engage with and adapt to diversity within the classroom. Leask (2015) advocates for the internationalization of the curriculum to critique and disrupt the dominant Western educational paradigms, promoting a university environment that values and embraces cultural diversity. In line with this, Jones (2017) suggests that effective internationalization, reinforced by leadership initiatives and diverse campus activities, can enhance cross-cultural learning and foster genuine intercultural competence. Therefore, inclusive internationalization practices should be a comprehensive process that includes all stakeholders—namely leaders, academics, students, and IPs—to respond to all these multifaceted components.

ISM is limited for different geographical regions. Several studies (De Wit et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2021; Vavrus and Pekol, 2015) mentioned the disadvantaged position of Global South countries in terms of ISM. Other studies (Baláž et al., 2018; Hou and Du, 2022; Kondakci et al., 2018) found out that there are sending and receiving hubs in geographical mobility. Moreover, another study (Bulut-Sahin and Brooks, 2023) also argues that even among European countries there are inequalities in student mobility, where some countries are more attractive to international students. A recent network analysis (Şahin et al., 2024) also showed that there are established sending and receiving countries in Europe for degree and credit mobility, and some European countries are less attractive regarding incoming credit mobility, for example, Turkey. Moreover, in terms of outgoing short-term credit mobility, the majority of students are nonmobile (Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014), and the ratio of mobile students is lower in countries like Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, and Turkey (Vögtle, 2021). Therefore, we need a paradigm change where we see mobility as the main component of internationalization to a new one. Jones (2020) explains that “mobility needs to be seen as adding value to an internationalized curriculum, not as the focal point of internationalization efforts.” (p. 181), especially since it has long been recognized that mobility serves only a small minority of students and is often tied to competitive and economic rationales rather than inclusive global learning (De Wit, 2024).

Hence, this study acknowledges the barriers to short-term outgoing mobility and examines the concept of IaH as an alternative to these physical mobility options. IaH in this study is defined as:

A multifaceted institutional change process involving administrative implementation, curriculum reform, and fostering intercultural engagement across campus; not a collection of practices.

Our focus is on how this process is understood, mediated, and operationalized by IPs, who play a key—but often overlooked—role in translating policy into practice. In what follows, we present the relevant theoretical notions and the current literature on limited geographical mobility and IaH.

Internationalization at Home (IaH)

The concept of IaH emerged in 1998 as a means of ensuring that all university students experience an international dimension during their studies (Nilsson, 2003). By 2013, IaH had been integrated into the European Commission’s “European Higher Education in the World” policy, and was progressively being incorporated into the educational frameworks of EU member states (European Commission, 2013). Numerous efforts have been made to delineate the meaning and components of IaH (Beelen and Jones, 2015; Li and Xue, 2023), though these efforts do not always result in institutional recognition of its significance. IaH, when viewed through a systems approach framework, examines international education in its entirety. For instance, Robson et al. (2018) reported that, despite growing importance in Europe, awareness, definition, and implementation of IaH vary widely across institutions. Their study of two universities in the UK and Portugal revealed key differences. Institutions are at different stages in integrating international, intercultural, or global dimensions into their missions. Progress, as measured by indicators of internationalization, remains uneven. Internationalized curricula and intercultural pedagogies are inconsistently prioritized. Opportunities for staff development also vary, and successful integration of domestic and international students is critical for a positive campus experience. These findings emphasize the need for a more coordinated and strategic approach. These also echo Sierra-Huedo et al.’s (2024) work, which highlights the challenges and complexities of treating IaH as an integrated process of institutional change.

Few studies have investigated the perceptions of Internationalization and IaH among international office professionals, with a notable exception being Aslam et al.’s (2023) research conducted in Russia. Their findings indicate significant differences between professors and administrative staff regarding their views on internationalization practices, such as faculty and student exchanges, internships, mentoring, and guest lectures. A key outcome of the study is that administrative employees are often not directly involved in research publications or conferences. While they provide vital organizational support for these activities, they do not see their roles as essential to enhancing the university’s international visibility. As a result, administrative staff often perceive themselves as secondary players in the bibliometric ranking process, feeling disconnected from the core activities that enhance the university’s international reputation.

In a similar vein, Bulut-Sahin (2023) emphasizes the often-neglected contribution of IPs in the execution of university internationalization and mobility programs. Despite research since the 1990s primarily focusing on academics and students (Mittelmeier et al., 2024; Ogden et al., 2020; Sierra-Huedo et al., 2024; Soulé et al., 2024; Soulé, 2025), IPs who are central to managing these programs and serving as the main point of contact for international students have been largely overlooked in academic studies.

Neo-nationalism and international student mobility

In recent years, the discourse around internationalization in HE has shifted, as formerly dominant narratives of openness and mobility are increasingly challenged by the rise of neo-nationalism and protectionist policies (Brøgger, 2021, 2023; Lee, 2017). The foundational values of the global academic community (e.g., freedom, democracy, and tolerance) have been challenged, raising concerns about whether academic mobility may increasingly be shaped by geopolitical divides (Jokila et al., 2022). Brøgger (2021) discussed the effects of neo-nationalism in Europe, stating that since the 1990s, the Bologna Process has aimed to unify European HE, but rising nationalism now undermines its integration efforts. In essence, neo-nationalism in European HE is leading to reduced internationalization, marked by policies that cut international student enrollment, limit universities’ ability to engage globally, and prioritize national economic and social interests over cross-border academic collaboration (Brøgger, 2023). In a similar vein, Lee (2017) explains that neo-nationalism can negatively affect international students by fostering exclusion and xenophobia based on nationality, even when students come from culturally or racially similar regions to the host country. Brøgger (2021) explains that due to nationalist policies in the Danish HE context, internationalization policies in HE sector have decelerated while giving primacy to national interests. Neo-nationalism also affects universities by reducing English-taught programs, as language is framed as a marker of national identity (Meadows, 2020). Examples include Denmark’s shift to nationally focused curricula (Brøgger, 2021), China’s reduced emphasis on English in entrance exams (McPherron and McIntosh, 2020), and Finland’s defense of Finnish and Swedish as national languages (Saarinen, 2020).

These trends have contributed to growing skepticism toward physical mobility programs and a retreat from international commitments in some national and institutional contexts. Within this climate, inclusive internationalization has emerged as a corrective measure, emphasizing the need to make international and intercultural experiences accessible to all students, regardless of their ability or willingness to study abroad (De Wit and Jones, 2018). A key strategy within this broader agenda is IaH (Beelen and Jones, 2015), which involves the intentional incorporation of global and cross-cultural dimensions into the learning experiences of students within their home institutions. In this study, we position IaH as a practical response to the persistent personal and structural barriers that limit participation in physical mobility, particularly in “periphery countries” such as Poland and Turkey (Bulut-Sahin and Brooks, 2023), by drawing on the perspectives of IPs.

ISM in Europe: Barriers and unequal access

Despite being a long-standing objective of European HE policy, access to ISM remains uneven. Numerous studies have shown that individual-level barriers, such as financial hardship, insufficient language proficiency, personal responsibilities, and lack of motivation, significantly restrict students’ ability to study abroad (Di Pietro, 2023; Köylü and Bulut-Sahin, 2025; López-Duarte et al., 2021; Souto-Otero et al., 2013). Financial constraints are consistently identified as the most significant obstacle, particularly for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds who not only struggle to fund the additional costs of living abroad but also tend to lack access to information about mobility programs and available grants (López-Duarte et al., 2021). Additionally, sociodemographic factors such as place of residence, age, gender, and family responsibilities influence mobility decisions (Di Pietro, 2023; Souto-Otero et al., 2013). Students from rural areas often show lower levels of interest and preparedness for international experiences due to limited global awareness and weaker language skills (Di Pietro, 2023). While female students are generally more motivated than males to seek international opportunities, students with families or caregiving responsibilities are less likely to participate (Souto-Otero et al., 2013).

These patterns are reflected in European-level reports, pointing to persistent inequalities in ISM participation. The Eurydice (2020) report revealed that although student mobility has increased over the last two decades, the European Higher Education Area still fell short of its 2020 target, with only 9.4% of graduates experiencing mobility. Financial limitations remain a dominant constraint, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, the European Commission (2019) noted that institutions serving higher proportions of students from advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds report greater participation in mobility programs, pointing to deep-rooted inequalities in access and uptake.

Recent EUROSTUDENT surveys further confirm these trends. According to Muja et al. (2024), 57% of students across Europe cite financial barriers as the main obstacle to studying abroad. Underrepresented groups are disproportionately affected, with practical challenges (e.g., lack of information or institutional support) more prevalent among them. The EUROSTUDENT 2021–2024 report (Schirmer, 2024) reinforces the finding that parental income and perceived affordability are critical factors in early mobility decision-making. It also highlights the importance of institutional action, urging universities to proactively promote funding opportunities and ensure that international offices are visible and accessible to all students.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that ISM in Europe, while promoted as a core objective, remains deeply stratified. Addressing these disparities requires not only expanded financial support but also inclusive strategies like IaH to ensure that students who cannot participate in physical mobility still benefit from internationalized learning experiences.

Therefore, the present study aims to explore practitioners’ insights into inclusive internationalization as a remedy against uneven access to ISM. To analyze how IaH is implemented and understood at the institutional level, we draw on Lipsky’s notion of street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980, 2010) to explain IPs’ roles (Bulut-Sahin, 2023) as functioning in a third space environment (Whitchurch, 2024). This environment entails hybrid spaces where traditional boundaries between roles, identities, and domains are blurred. Here, IPs, as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980, 2010), (e.g. frontline public service workers) interact directly with students and staff, exercising significant discretion in implementing internationalization policies within HE institutions. In other words, IPs as street-level bureaucrats (Bulut-Sahin, 2023) exercise discretion in interpreting rules, allocating resources, and making everyday decisions about ISM practice. While the theory has mostly been used to study social welfare and education policy—especially teachers—(Chang and Brewer, 2023), this study extends it to the context of HE international offices. This merged perspective allows us to view IPs not merely as administrative actors but as boundary-crossers who operate within a “third space”—negotiating between institutional policy, academic culture, and student engagement. Their interpretations and practices of IaH reflect this hybrid positioning, as they mediate between top-down internationalization goals and the localized realities of implementation. The current study also aims to shed more light on this underexplored phenomenon in ISM through IPs’ insights in two different contexts in Europe: Poland and Turkey.

The following research questions (RQ) guide the study:

How do IPs perceive and experience the institutional implementation of IaH in HEIs as a response to limited student mobility?

Methodology

Design

As part of a larger study (Bulut-Sahin, 2023; Bulut-Sahin and Brooks, 2023), this study follows a qualitative methodology to analyze the lived experiences of a group of IPs, following the key tenets of a phenomenological approach (Cilesiz, 2011). Phenomenology offers both a theoretical framework and a methodological approach to qualitative analysis considering the “lived experiences of phenomena from the perspective of those who experience them” (Cilesiz, 2011: 493; also see Moustakas, 1994). It supports researchers to come up with a more profound understanding of individuals’ shared experiences related to a given phenomenon (e.g. IaH), which would potentially lead to or aid the development of certain practices and policies (Creswell, 2007).

In this study, we employed phenomenology to capture the subjective experiences of IPs through in-depth interviews. While our focus was on individual meaning-making, the findings revealed certain behavioral patterns that point to a shared professional identity. As noted in earlier work that conceptualized IPs as street-level bureaucrats (Bulut-Sahin, 2023; Lipsky, 1980), these actors, despite being situated in different national contexts, demonstrate many common practices. Particularly with respect to “internationalization at Home,” our analysis shows that this area remains largely unattended within universities.

Phenomenology provides a robust research framework for studying experiences with IaH due to its focus on the lived experiences of individuals and the meanings they ascribe to these experiences. Firstly, phenomenology prioritizes the subjective perspectives of participants, which is crucial for capturing the diverse ways in which internationalization initiatives are perceived and experienced by different stakeholders, such as IPs. This approach enables researchers to delve into the personal and often nuanced responses to internationalization efforts, providing a richer, more detailed account of these experiences. Secondly, phenomenology’s focus on the essence of phenomena allows for an exploration of how IaH shapes and is shaped by participants’ perceptions and interactions, revealing underlying patterns and themes that might be overlooked by other methodologies. Lastly, phenomenological methods, such as in-depth interviews and thematic analysis, facilitate a comprehensive understanding of how internationalization initiatives influence academic and social dimensions of participants’ lives, offering insights that are grounded in their real-world experiences. Thus, phenomenology is well-suited to capture the complexities and subjective realities associated with IaH.

Context

This study reports on data from two groups of IPs from Poland and Turkey, two peripheral countries in Europe (Bulut-Sahin and Brooks, 2023). The reason behind selecting these two countries was that they represent non-English speaking contexts for international student mobility with developing practices for internationalization. While Poland is a member of the EU, Turkey is still a candidate country. This does not limit, though, the grants received from the EU to conduct the ERASMUS mobility scheme, within which both have more incoming students than outgoing ones (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2024). The incoming student profile is rather limited to those from the neighboring countries (e.g., Ukraine and Belarus for Poland; Azerbaijan and Syria for Turkey).

Participants

A total of 36 participants from Poland and Turkey took part in the study. The demographic details of the two groups are given below. The participants are all IPs. We opted for a sample to understand the lived experiences of a key group of stakeholders who implement decisions concerning IaH made by those of higher leadership positions who actively shape institutional policies (e.g., rectorship).

The Polish group

The Polish IPs were from 18 different universities located in nine different cities, including Warsaw, Wroclaw, and Gdansk. The 18 participants mostly serve in managing positions (e.g., coordinating the international office; n = 12), while some (n = 6) work as admins with 9 average years of experience ranging from 1 to 24 years, with at least a BA degree in social sciences, but the majority has an MA degree (n = 14). It should be noted that even those with the managing positions do not take part in the decision-making processes. They rather coordinate and implement the decisions taken by those of higher leadership positions at the university (e.g., Vice Rector).

The Turkish group

The Turkish IPs were from 18 different universities located in 14 different cities, including the capital city Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir. Like the Polish group, Turkish IPs also serve in both managing (n = 8; e.g. coordinators or directors) and admin positions in international offices, with an average working experience of 8 years ranging from 2 to 17. The Turkish IPs also have at least a BA degree in social sciences, but the majority have an MA degree (n = 15). Similar to the Polish group, those in managing positions are not entitled to make decisions on processes, but rather put those taken by higher rank leaders into practice.

Data collection procedures

Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured online interviews (between 40 and 60 minutes each; a total of 20 hours and 01 minutes; see Supplemental Appendix for the interview questions) to better grasp the IaH phenomenon perceived and experienced by two different groups of IPs representing two different contexts. The questions were determined drawing on the research questions and the extant literature on IaH. A total of 223 emails to recruit the potential participants were sent out. Those volunteering were included in the study. There were more than 18 Turkish IPs who responded positively to the invitation, but the researchers only included the first 18 to have an equal number in both groups. The first author conducted all these interviews in English (with the polish group) and Turkish. Those in Turkish were translated into English and then partially back translated into Turkish for a meaning check.

Data analysis procedures

The data from the interviews were transcribed verbatim. We followed a phenomenologically informed thematic analysis (Cilesiz, 2009; Moustakas, 1994) approach to capture the lived experiences and perceptions of IPs in relation to IaH. Accordingly, the first researcher started the analysis by horizonalizing the dataset, during which each statement was treated with equal value before identifying significant meaning units that reflected key aspects of our participants’ experiences. Secondly, the data were transformed into statements that represent meaning units through a process until when a change of meaning was observed. These meaning units were then grouped into subcategories based on conceptual similarity and later synthesized into broader themes that captured recurring patterns across participants. The two themes presented are inductively derived through the analysis process rather than pre-determined. To enhance transparency and rigor, one-third of the dataset was double-coded by the second author, and any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Occasional references to frequency (e.g., “many participants”) are used descriptively to indicate salience, not as an attempt to quantify qualitative data. Our analytical approach reflects a constructivist epistemology, with a focus on meaning-making rather than measurement.

Findings

The analysis of interview data regarding IPs’ experiences revealed two key themes

(1) Implementing IaH in response to mobility barriers

(2) Lack of ownership of IaH and institutional challenges

Implementing IaH in response to mobility barriers

Acknowledging the persistent barriers to student mobility, IPs in both Poland and Turkey consistently described IaH as a practical and necessary alternative to physical mobility. This theme captures how IaH is positioned as a substitute or compensatory strategy to extend the benefits of internationalization to those unable or unwilling to study abroad.

Accordingly, all participants emphasized that short-term study abroad programs are technically open to all university students who meet the required language proficiency and cumulative GPA criteria. However, the proportion of students who actually participate in these programs remains remarkably low. Almost all IPs interviewed reported that only 1%–2% of the total student population in both countries engage in mobility opportunities. This indicates that the vast majority of local students do not pursue study abroad experiences during their academic studies. Financial constraints, language barriers, and personal factors, including a lack of motivation, collectively inhibit students from pursuing study abroad. Mainly, three major categories of barriers were identified: financial, linguistic, and personal. These barriers show how IaH can provide an alternative, offering students international experiences without requiring physical mobility.

Financial Barriers

IPs in both Turkey and Poland stressed that insufficient Erasmus+ grants make it difficult for students to afford living costs abroad, especially amid rising exchange rates (TR 7, 3, 6; PL 15, 3, 8). Students are often forced to cover a substantial portion of costs themselves, undermining Erasmus’ inclusivity goals (TR-11, PL 12, 14). Polish IPs highlighted that many bachelor’s students work while studying, and fear of losing their jobs prevents them from pursuing mobility (PL 1, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16). In contrast, this issue was not noted by Turkish IPs.

Language barriers

Limited English proficiency emerged as a commonly cited barrier, mentioned by the great majority of the participants across both country contexts. In Turkey, especially at Turkish-medium universities, students lack adequate English education, which discourages applications (TR-2). Polish IPs reported that English teaching quality varies significantly by region, with smaller cities offering insufficient instruction (PL-9). As a result, foreign students with higher language proficiency often dominate Erasmus applications at Turkish institutions (TR 4, 5).

Personal barriers

A lack of self-confidence and fear of traveling alone are cited in both contexts (TR 7, 10; PL-16). Many students are hesitant to apply unless accompanied by friends (PL-16). Emotional and social ties also play a role; students sometimes reject mobility offers to stay with partners or due to peer influence (PL 14, 16). Moreover, Polish IPs observed a general lack of motivation to study abroad, despite ample opportunities through Erasmus+ and bilateral agreements (PL 2, 3, 7). As EU citizens with easy access to other countries, Polish students often travel freely and do not see structured mobility as necessary (PL 1, 3) as explained by an IP in Poland below:

There is a difference between Poland and Turkey. Here is a Schengen country, you can go to Berlin from here, it is as easy as going from İstanbul to İzmir. You can go to the UK with a 10 Euro ticket without any visa or residence permit. The main difference between these students and Turkish ones is that Polish students are already international. They go abroad for their vacation. They have the opportunity to study abroad, but they do not choose to do so. (PL-1)

Curricular and non-curricular practices

This theme also highlights how IaH is currently implemented through both curricular and non-curricular practices at Turkish and Polish universities. The diverse efforts of IPs—both supporting curricular and organizing the extracurricular ones—show the potential of IaH to foster intercultural engagement, particularly for non-mobile students.

Curricular practices are primarily associated with faculty members and include a variety of initiatives. These initiatives comprise courses taught in English (PL 1, 8, 9, 11,; TR 5, 7, 8), the inclusion of international faculty members, particularly during the pandemic through online courses (PL 3, 5, 9; TR 1, 3, 8), and incoming teaching staff facilitated by the Erasmus program (PL 11, 15; TR 1, 7, 9, 10). Other notable practices include participation in international joint research projects involving both international and local students (PL-14), the European University Initiative—which features webinars, conferences, and cultural activities for students from six different countries (PL 8, 18), as well as winter and summer schools (PL-11; TR-1).

In addition, non-curricular practices tend to focus on fostering integration between international and local students. When discussing IaH, many IPs emphasized their commitment to creating opportunities for these two groups to interact. These activities include cultural days featuring music, films, and ceremonies from different countries (PL IPs 6, 7, 9, 16; TR 5, 8, 9, 11), morning coffee sessions with international students (PL-6), and holiday parties such as Christmas and Halloween (PL 3, 5, 9, 14, 16). Additionally, initiatives such as an international student orchestra (PL-3), student clubs fostering collaboration (PL 1, 13), and community engagement events like local area photo contests (PL-16) further exemplify these efforts. Other notable activities include city games (PL-15), end-of-exams parties (PL-9), participation in local festivals (TR-13), and volunteer services to support disadvantaged populations (TR-15). The IPs also highlighted the importance of integrating incoming students into the local community (TR 13, 16), organizing career fairs (PL-16), and offering foreign language courses for local students and staff (TR 2, 6, 10). Furthermore, international students take on roles such as mentors for their peers and interns in administrative offices (TR 11, 15), enhancing their engagement with the university environment and promoting a sense of belonging.

Moreover, the IPs identified mentoring or buddy programs that connect local and international students as another vital practice of IaH in their universities. In this context, IPs highlighted the importance of student organizations, such as the Erasmus Student Network (ESN), in facilitating these interactions. They believe that mentoring programs present a valuable opportunity for local non-mobile students to engage with international students. For instance, Polish IP-3 noted: “The Erasmus program allows studying abroad, but for the ones who do not go, they could join our international organizations to be mentors or buddies for international students.”

Another IaH policy discussed by the IPs is the provision of intercultural training for staff members. They recognized that a lack of intercultural skills within the university could hinder the integration of international students. As a strategy to address this challenge, several IPs indicated that they organized training sessions aimed at enhancing staff competencies. Polish-IP 6 explained: “In the last two years, we have decided to get funds and to start such a project that focused on IaH for the staff. For the staff, we’ve made many workshops, including language ones, multicultural ones, and the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) tests.”

Additionally, the IPs mentioned dissemination activities where mobile students and staff share their experiences with non-mobile students. They believe that such activities can provide non-mobile students with insights into the benefits of studying abroad, thereby inspiring them. For example, Turkish IP-14 described a “sharing day” event, stating:

For example, we organize a sharing day here for people who come and go, including academics. Let’s say twenty academics went to different countries at that time. Here are their 15-minute presentations in one day. I want them to prepare a presentation by specifically mentioning what they did there, the food they ate there if there is a different vehicle they get on, whatever the difference is, the country they go to, including photos and videos. And all the university students, other academics; everyone is watching and talking about it. (TR-14)

Lack of ownership of IaH and institutional challenges

The second theme reveals institutional gaps, misconceptions, and suggestions for improving the implementation of IaH. This theme highlights the institutional and conceptual ambiguity surrounding IaH, which hinders its systematic implementation despite growing interest and isolated practices. Although IPs mentioned several curricular and non-curricular activities conducted in their universities, they also complain about their over-duty in implementing IaH practices and lack of comprehensive coordination in their universities.

Lack of institutional connection

A The first challenge on IaH revealed by the interviews is the lack of institutional connection. A significant concern raised by several IPs is the lack of a clear and systematic policy toward IaH at their institutions. The first sub-theme is the lack of IaH strategies in the universities. Polish IPs (2, 7, 13) and Turkish IP-13 pointed out that some universities do not have a defined internationalization policy. Turkish IP-13 even noted, “In a place where there is no internationalization policy, IaH can be a little luxury,” indicating that without a foundational policy, implementing IaH becomes a challenge. Moreover, some IPs mentioned that although IaH is listed as a strategic priority in their universities’ written documents, these policies often fail to materialize in practice. For instance, Polish IP-3 remarked, “There is a written strategy, but I don’t remember what it says,” highlighting a disconnect between the existence of policies and their actual implementation. This lack of awareness suggests that even the IPs themselves do not fully embrace the strategies, which are not integrated into their daily responsibilities. Turkish IP-6 elaborated on this issue by stating: “It exists on paper, but I don’t think it is in practice because there is no staff to deal with it.” This reflects a broader sentiment among IPs that while strategies may be developed, the absence of designated personnel and units to execute these plans undermines their effectiveness.

Lack of job division in universities

The second sub-theme is the lack of job division in universities for implementing IaH policies. In other words, at the institutional level, the disorganization of IaH practices is evident. IPs perceive that while the international office makes efforts to foster an international campus environment, there is a lack of comprehensive approaches adopted by all stakeholders within the university. This perspective underscores the need for a more cohesive and practical approach to IaH that involves all university stakeholders in both the formulation and execution of internationalization policies. One IP articulated this concern, emphasizing that the fault lies not with the students but with the systemic issues within the institution:

How much do you care about this IaH strategy and how much do you prioritize it? How many opportunities do you offer, how many resources do you allocate here? Because I know that in higher education, in such bureaucratic work, many of the opportunities that exist are missed. What does this mean? It causes loss of time, effort, money, and lots of opportunities for students. . .I think IaH should be taken seriously so that both students and staff can benefit more from it. (TR-13)

Pathways to progress and suggestions

Along with all these institutional misconceptions and disconnects, IPs also mentioned some pathways to progress and suggestions. When asked for their recommendations, the first suggestion was to enhance communication between mobile and non-mobile students. IPs believe that students who participate in the Erasmus Program return with rich socio-cultural experiences, which could be valuable if shared with non-mobile students. They highlighted the importance of dissemination activities after the study abroad period, noting,

More than the number of outgoing students, what effect does it have on the dissemination activities here? How do we bring together the outgoing students and the students who have never been, and how do we share information? We can do this both to encourage them and at least help students who do not experience the multicultural environment to share their experiences. In other words, I would really like to be able to create a synergy where many units and many academic and administrative units in the university come together. Frankly, I would like to tell those managers about them too. (TR-7)

When asked for their recommendations, the second suggestion focused on the academic aspect of IaH. IPs argued that without a strong academic foundation, universities would struggle to establish a meaningful IaH policy. Several IPs emphasized the critical importance of internationalizing the curriculum and called for faculty members to take a more proactive role in this process. One IP stated:

I think the internationalization of the curriculum is very important. The results of the efforts and the achievements of student competencies should be measured more consciously. At what stage are we at the end of the program we offer? What are we doing, and what competencies do our students have around the world? After all, you take international students, but then those students are in their own countries. What jobs can they work, and what can they do? (TR-3)

The third suggestion involved increasing the use of digital solutions through Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) and virtual exchange programs. Being aware of the barriers to geographical student mobility mentioned above, IPs have the perception that increasing digital programs will make internationalization more inclusive in their universities. Turkish IP-9 mentioned that universities should cooperate more to open online international classes, online training programs, and even online joint degree programs. However, all these efforts need the cooperation of faculty members. Similarly, a Polish IP emphasizes virtual opportunities in the following way:

Further enhancement of digitalization, but not relying solely on it; working on ecological aspects regarding mobility; more short programs and blended/virtual mobility initiatives adjusted to the student’s needs and expectations; practical programs, including internships, workshops, visits at external institutions, and connections with companies (impact on career opportunities). (PL-18).

Comprehensive approach to internationalization

The fourth suggestion is a comprehensive approach to internationalization, which includes all stakeholders of the university. In discussing the implementation of IaH practices, IPs primarily criticized faculty members and university management for not adequately supporting these initiatives. Polish IP-3 mentioned, “We don’t see the students every day; we only see this little group that comes to our office. However, the academics see all the students. They should be maybe more involved—not just have lectures and disappear, but it is also a role for them.” Many IPs expressed concern that faculty members do not actively encourage non-mobile students to study abroad. Polish IPs particularly noted that their students seem hesitant to participate in study abroad programs, and the academics—who go abroad frequently—should encourage these students (PL-6). Additionally, one Turkish IP noted:

Unfortunately, the perception of academic staff about this internationalization in education and training is very, very weak. In other words, what they understand by internationalization is, you know, going somewhere on Erasmus or among better academics, maybe because there is a publication condition, for example, to go to a congress abroad for their professional progress. On the other hand, making students gain these global competencies in terms of education or getting to know the international literature in their field of education and reflecting this on students—I didn’t see consciousness on these. (TR-1)

Finally, IPs called for increased support from university authorities, emphasizing the need for leaders to develop a clear vision for IaH implementation and to oversee the policy execution process. They believe such leadership could foster a comprehensive IaH policy that includes all stakeholders—faculty members, administrative personnel, IPs, and students. One IP metaphorically described the university as a body, stating:

Universities are like a big body, right? It’s like a body with bones. To me, the bone structures are the professors and the students because they are here and they are like the core of the university. However, the administration is often omitted from this picture, and there is not enough respect for the work of the administration. The administration is like the cells that provide movement and fluidity to the structure that professors, lecturers, and students create. Without that fluid, the whole structure will fall. In my view, we need to stress the administration’s role as well. (PL-14)

Discussion and conclusion

IPs perceive that, based on their daily experience, students face multiple barriers to participating in short-term study abroad programs, including national economic challenges, insufficient language education, and personal factors such as low motivation or self-confidence. They observe that due to these barriers, only about 1%–2% of all university students can access study abroad opportunities, which makes them aware of the growing importance of Internationalization at Home (IaH) as an inclusive alternative.

However, the findings revealed a complex landscape regarding IaH practices within HE institutions in Poland and Turkey. Despite the challenges, IPs recognize the importance of both curricular and non-curricular initiatives in promoting an inclusive international campus environment. The reported practices demonstrate a commitment to integrating local and international students through a variety of activities, ranging from cultural events to mentoring programs (Mittelmeier et al., 2024; Soulé et al., 2024). These efforts underscore the potential for IaH to foster intercultural exchange and enhance student experiences despite existing institutional shortcomings.

The misconceptions and misuses identified in the interviews showed a lack of systematic institutional policies supporting IaH, another finding in line with the current literature (Robson et al., 2018; Sierra-Huedo et al., 2024), which hinders its potential as a meaningful approach to internationalization (Beelen and Jones, 2015). The absence of clear and actionable internationalization strategies often leads to a disconnect between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation (Aslam et al., 2023), as many institutions fail to allocate the necessary resources and staff to effectively execute these policies. Furthermore, the IPs’ insights emphasize that successful IaH implementation requires the involvement of all university stakeholders, advocating for a more organized and collaborative approach. To truly benefit from the opportunities that IaH presents, institutions must not only articulate their internationalization priorities but also ensure that these strategies are actively supported and integrated into the university culture (European Commission, 2013). By addressing the systemic barriers and embracing a holistic approach to IaH, universities can better equip students for a globalized world and maximize the benefits of internationalization for all members of the academic community.

These findings point to a clear need for universities to adopt a more strategic and coordinated approach to IaH. Despite the growing awareness of IaH’s role in fostering inclusive internationalization (De Wit and Jones, 2018), practical implementation remains fragmented and underprioritized. Aligning institutional efforts with European-wide initiatives such as the European University Alliance (European Commission, n.d.) could offer a valuable framework. These initiatives not only promote inclusive practices and enable mobility but also emphasize structural collaboration across borders. For European universities, engaging more actively with such initiatives may help overcome existing barriers for mobility while also fostering a stronger culture of international engagement among staff and students. Ultimately, embedding IaH into broader European agendas (including European Universities Initiative) can serve as a catalyst for more sustainable and accessible internationalization models. The future internationalization models should include more inclusive approaches including digital tools and should not only focus on physical mobility between the nations.

The findings highlight important challenges and offer suggestions for improving the implementation of IaH in Turkish and Polish higher education institutions. A consensus among IPs reveals that the current state of IaH is limited, necessitating a strategic overhaul to enhance its effectiveness and reach. First and foremost, IPs underscored the importance of fostering communication and synergy between mobile and non-mobile students. By facilitating the sharing of experiences from those who have participated in programs like Erasmus, institutions can create an enriching environment that encourages all students to engage with internationalization efforts (Cooper, 2009; Ramburuth and Welch, 2005). Dissemination activities post-study abroad are seen as crucial to bridging the gap between these two student groups. Moreover, IPs emphasized the necessity of a robust academic foundation for IaH initiatives. Internationalizing the curriculum (Jones, 2017; Leask, 2015) is vital, and faculty members must play a more active role in this process. By measuring the impact of these initiatives on student competencies, universities can ensure that they are preparing their graduates for a globalized job market. Additionally, the integration of digital solutions, such as Collaborative Online International Learning and virtual exchange programs (Mittelmeier et al., 2021), emerged as a key recommendation. These tools can complement traditional mobility options, allowing institutions to adapt to students’ needs while enhancing their international exposure. Critically, IPs pointed out the need for stronger support and involvement from faculty and university leadership. Faculty members are pivotal in encouraging students to participate in international opportunities, yet many lack awareness and enthusiasm for promoting IaH. The importance of a unified vision for IaH (Almeida et al., 2019; Beelen and Jones, 2015; Li and Xue, 2023), supported by both faculty and administration, was emphasized as essential for creating a comprehensive policy that engages all stakeholders in the internationalization process. Ultimately, addressing these recommendations can strengthen the inclusive and dynamic implementation of IaH, which has also been shown to increase students’ mobility capital (Köylü et al., 2025). By recognizing the interconnected roles of faculty, administration, and students, institutions can create a more holistic approach to internationalization, ultimately preparing their graduates for the complexities of an increasingly globalized world.

Our findings show that IaH is often implemented in a fragmented way within universities, lacking an overarching strategy and clear ownership. In this context, the strategic role of IPs becomes particularly important. As highlighted in previous work (Bulut-Sahin, 2023), these professionals can be seen as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980), exercising discretion in the interpretation and implementation of internationalization policies, such as making efforts to engage local students with internationals. This study suggests that if IPs recognize IaH as part of their remit, they are likely to apply similar discretion even in the absence of explicit policies, thereby shaping practices on the ground in significant ways.

Conclusion

The study highlights how IPs interpret the factors contributing to student immobility and how they view IaH as a means of providing inclusive internationalized experiences, rather than as a second-best substitute for mobility. Yet, this study is not without limitations. First, we only qualitatively investigated these phenomena through the eyes of IPs. A study triangulating the findings with the inclusion of different stakeholders’ perspectives (students, faculty members, administrative staff etc.) within mixed designs would highlight additional factors that need to be addressed. Additionally, our participants could only relate to their experiences in reference to Poland and Turkey and incoming and outgoing students to these countries. Different stakeholders from a variety of receiving and sending countries could provide a more nuanced picture of ISM and how IaH is conceptualized and practiced.

This study contributes to the field in an attempt to investigate the perceptions of IPs and provide effective solutions. The most important takeaways from our findings would be the importance of fostering communication between mobile and non-mobile students, dissemination of study abroad experiences among new cohorts, supporting IaH initiatives with the help of faculty members, and integration of digital tools to allow for alternative contexts for study abroad. Moreover, we understand IaH not merely as a set of activities, but as a comprehensive institutional transformation that encompasses policy implementation, curricular innovation, and inclusive intercultural engagement across campus. One of the key findings of this article is the importance of recognizing IaH as a university-wide philosophy—one that is embraced through a collective understanding and strategically supported by all academic and administrative units, from leadership to students. These would immensely contribute to diminishing immobility and supporting IaH practices for those who cannot get a mobility opportunity.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-eer-10.1177_14749041251405541 – Supplemental material for Inclusive internationalization: Insights from International Office Professionals on implementing Internationalization at Home

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eer-10.1177_14749041251405541 for Inclusive internationalization: Insights from International Office Professionals on implementing Internationalization at Home by Betül Bulut Şahin, Zeynep Köylü and María Victoria Soulé in European Educational Research Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This publication is based upon work from COST Action “European Network on International Student Mobility: Connecting Research and Practice (ENIS), CA20115” supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical statement

The ethical approval of this research was taken from the Ethical Review Committee of Middle East Technical University on 26 July 2021.

ORCID iDs

Betül Bulut Şahin

Zeynep Köylü

María Victoria Soulé

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree to their data being shared publicly; accordingly, supporting data are not available.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Betül Bulut Şahin is an Associate Professor at TED University, specialising in higher education studies and the internationalisation of higher education. As a scholar-practitioner, she combines practice in international offices with an active academic career. Her research focuses on inclusive and strategic internationalisation, international student mobility and the changing roles of international office professionals, and she has published widely in international peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes. She is also a working group co-leader in the European Network on International Student Mobility (ENIS), contributing to comparative, multi-stakeholder research on student experiences and mobility governance.

Zeynep Köylü is a postdoctoral teaching and research fellow in the Department of English at the University of Basel. Her research foci include second language acquisition in different learning contexts, particularly study abroad, in which she investigates the role of English as a lingua franca, intercultural communication, and the dynamic interaction between learner-internal and learner-external variables. Her work has appeared in leading journals, such as Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and Journal of Second Language Writing. She is also a working group leader in the European Network on International Student Mobility (ENIS).

María Victoria Soulé is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor track) in Spanish Language and Culture in the Department of French and European Studies at the University of Cyprus. Her primary research areas are: (a) international student mobility (study abroad and Internationalization at Home), (b) the intersection of language learning and plurilingual identities, and (c) TELL. She has published extensively in internationally recognized journals and has participated in numerous academic conferences. In recent years, Dr. Soulé has contributed as a researcher, principal investigator, and proposal writer to various EU-funded projects. She served on the Management Committee (MC) of COST Actions SAREP (2016–2020) and ENIS (2021-2025) and currently represents Cyprus in the PLURILINGMEDIA COST Action.

References

Almeida

Robson

Morosini

, et al. (2019) Understanding Internationalization at home: Perspectives from the Global North and South. European Educational Research Journal 18(2): 200–217.

Aslam

Naumcheva

Zhdanov

, et al. (2023) Perception of the internationalization process by the university employees: The case study of Innopolis University. In: Auer

Pachatz

Rüütmann

(eds) Learning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition. ICL 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 634. Cham: Springer, pp. 873–883.

Baláž

Williams

Chrančoková

(2018) Connectivity as the facilitator of intra-European student migration. Population Space and Place 24: e2101. DOI: 10.1002/psp.2101

Beelen

Jones

(2015) Redefining internationalization at home. In: Curai

Matei

Pricopie

, et al. (eds) The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies. Cham: Springer, pp.59–72.

Brito

Neves

Gomes

, et al. (2025) Inclusion and internationalization: Perception of higher education students. Interchange 56: 259–283.

Brøgger

(2021) A specter is haunting European higher education–the specter of neo-nationalism. In: Bozalek

Zembylas

Motala

, et al. (eds) Higher Education Hauntologies. London: Routledge, pp.63–75.

Brøgger

(2023) Post-cold war governance arrangements in Europe: The University between European integration and rising nationalisms. Globalisation Societies and Education 21(2): 278–292.

Bulut-Sahin

(2023) International Office Professionals: An example of street-level bureaucrats in higher education. Education Sciences 13(9): 890.

Bulut-Sahin

Brooks

(2023) Nation-bounded internationalization of higher education: A comparative analysis of two periphery countries. Higher Education Research & Development 42(5): 1071–1085.

10.

Campbell

(2017) Short-term study abroad programmes: Objectives and accomplishments. Journal of International Mobility 4: 189–204.

11.

Chang

Brewer

(2023) Street-level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review 25: 2191–2211.

12.

Cilesiz

(2009) Educational computer use in leisure contexts: A phenomenological study of adolescents’ experiences at Internet cafés. American Educational Research Journal 46(1): 232–274.

13.

Cilesiz

(2011) A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development 59: 487–510.

14.

Cooper

(2009) Inter-cultural student interaction in post-graduate business and information technology programs: The potentialities of global study tours. Higher Education Research & Development 28(6): 557–570.

15.

Creswell

(ed.) (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

16.

De Wit

(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.

17.

De Wit

Jones

(2018) Inclusive internationalization: Improving access and equity. International Higher Education 94: 16–18.

18.

De Wit

Rumbley

Craciun

, et al. (2019) International mApping Of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives, no:12. Boston, MA: Center for International Higher Education.

19.

Di Pietro

(2023) Student characteristics and barriers to international mobility: Evidence from the European Union. European Education 55(2): 123–136.

20.

Egron-Polak

Green

(2014) Inclusive Internationalization: An Initiative of the International Association of Universities. International Association of Universities. Available at: https://hedbib.iau-aiu.net/pdf/EEP_and_MG_Going_Global_chapter_Final_October_2014.pd

21.

European Commission (2013) European Higher Education in the World. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0499:FIN:en:PDF (accessed 25 December 2024).

22.

European Commission (2019) Studying Abroad – Benefits and Unequal Uptake. Science for Policy Briefs, Joint Research Centre. Available at https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fairness_pb2019_studying_abroad.pdf (accessed 22 April 2025).

23.

European Commission (n.d.) European Universities Initiative. Available at: https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative (accessed 22 April 2025)

24.

Eurydice (2020) The European Higher Education Area in 2020. Bologna Process Implementation Report. Available at: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-06/ehea_bologna_2020_chapter05_0.pdf (accessed 22 April 2025).

25.

Hou

(2022) The changing patterns of international student mobility: A network perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(1): 248–272.

26.

Janebová

Johnstone

(2020) Mapping inclusive internationalization. In: Kommers

Bista

(eds) Inequalities in Study Abroad and Student Mobility. New York: Routledge, pp.115–128.

27.

Jokila

Jauhiainen

Peura

(2022) Rethinking academic mobility through emerging global challenges. In: Rizvi

Lingard

Rinne

(eds) Reimagining Globalization and Education. New York: Routledge, pp.133–147.

28.

Jones

(2017) Internationalisation of the curriculum: Challenges, misconceptions and the role of disciplines. In: Casper-Hehne

Reiffenrath

(eds) Internationalisierung der Curricula an Hochschulen: Konzepte, Initiativen, Maßnahmen. Bielefeld: WBV (W. Bertelsmann Verlag), pp.21–38.

29.

Jones

(2020) From mobility to internationalization of the curriculum at home: Where are the students in the intelligent internationalization conversation? In: Godwin

de Wit

(eds) Intelligent internationalization. Brill Sense, pp.179–183.

30.

Jones

Leask

Brandenburg

, et al. (2021) Global social responsibility and the Internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education 25: 330–347.

31.

Knight

(2012) Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education 7(1): 20–33.

32.

Kondakci

Bedenlier

Zawachki-Richter

(2018) Social network analysis of international student mobility: Uncovering the rise of regional hubs. Higher Education 75: 517–535.

33.

Köylü

Bulut-Sahin

(2025) Individual differences and sociocultural gains in study abroad: A mixed-methods investigation of the ERASMUS context. Research in Comparative and International Education 20(3): 317–338.

34.

Köylü

Bulut-Sahin

Erdogan

, et al. (2025) Social ties as facilitators of adaptation: The case of Turkish Erasmus sojourners. Compare. 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2025.2571461

35.

Leask

(2015) Internationalizing the Curriculum. New York: Routledge.

36.

Lee

(2017) Neo-nationalism in higher education: Case of South Africa. Studies in Higher Education 42(5): 869–886.

37.

Xue

(2023) Exploring the epistemology of internationalization at home: A scoping review approach. Educational Philosophy and Theory 55(3): 356–365.

38.

Lipsky

(1980) Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

39.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Anniversary Edition: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service: Vol. Updated Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

40.

López-Duarte

Maley

Vidal-Suárez

(2021) Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena. Scientometrics 126(11): 8957–8980.

41.

McPherron

McIntosh

(2020) From “sick man” to strong man: The changing role of English language teaching in China in an era of rising nationalism and global ambitions. In: McIntosh

(ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching in the Neo-nationalist Era. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.217–240.

42.

Meadows

(2020) Neo-nationalism and language policy in the United States: A critical discourse analysis of public discourse advocating monolingual English use. In: McIntosh

(ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching in the Neo-nationalist Era. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.17–49.

43.

Mittelmeier

Lomer

Al-Furqani

, et al. (2024) Developing meaningful internationalisation that impacts students’ outcomes in higher education: A scoping review of the literature 2011–2022. Journal of Studies in International Education 28: 503–525.

44.

Mittelmeier

Rienties

Gunter

, et al. (2021) Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 25(3): 266–282.

45.

Moustakas

(1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage.

46.

Muja

Mensvoort Cuppen

(2024) Studying Abroad for Everyone? Obstacles for International Mobility Among Students in EHEA-Countries. EUROSTUDENT 8 Intelligence Brief.

47.

Nilsson

(2003) Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education 7(1): 27–40.

48.

Ogden

Streitwieser

Mol

(eds) (2020) Education Abroad: Bridging Scholarship and Practice, 1st edn. New York: Routledge.

49.

O’Dowd

(2013) Telecollaborative networks in university higher education: Overcoming barriers to integration. Internet and Higher Education 18: 47–53.

50.

Ramburuth

Welch

(2005) Educating the global manager. Journal of Teaching in International Business 16(3): 5–27.

51.

Robson

Almeida

Schartner

(2018) Internationalization at home: Time for review and development? European Journal of Higher Education 8(1): 19–35.

52.

Saarinen

(2020) Higher Education, Language and New Nationalism in Finland: Recycled Histories. London: Palgrave.

53.

Şahin

Bulut-Sahin

Söylemez

(2024) An evaluation of the spatial repercussions of student mobility policy in European higher education area using network analysis. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership 9(1): 74–121.

54.

Schirmer

(2024) International student mobility. In: Middendorff

Poskowsky

(eds) Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe: Eurostudent VII Synopsis of Indicators 2018–2021. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag, pp. 264–287.

55.

Sierra-Huedo

Bruton

Fernández

(2024) Becoming global at home: An analysis of existing cases and a proposal for the future of Internationalization at Home. Journal of Education 204(1): 241–254.

56.

Soulé

(2025) Contextualizing internationalization at home: Academic perspectives from Cypriot higher education in a changing global landscape. Frontiers in Education 10: 10.

57.

Soulé

Parmaxi

Nicolaou

(2024) Internationalization at home in higher education: A systematic review of teaching and learning practices. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 17(7): 29–60.

58.

Souto-Otero

Huisman

Beerkens

, et al. (2013) Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher 42(2): 70–77.

59.

UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2024) Global flow of tertiary level students. Available at: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow (accessed 27 November 2024).

60.

Universities UK International (2021) Internationalisation at Home: Developing Global Citizens Without Travel. Universities UK International. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/universities-uk-international/insights-and-publications/uuki-publications/internationalisation-home-developing

61.

Van Mol

Perez-Encinas

(2022) Inclusive internationalisation: do different (social) groups of students need different internationalisation activities? Studies in Higher Education 47(12): 2523–2538.

62.

Van Mol

Timmerman

(2014) Should I stay or should I go? An analysis of the determinants of intra-European student mobility. Population Space and Place 20(5): 465–479.

63.

Vavrus

Pekol

(2015) Critical internationalization: moving from theory to practice. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education 2(2): 5–21. DOI: 10.18275/fire201502021036

64.

Vögtle

(2021) Mobile and immobile students’ characteristics and programme choices. In: Cairns

(ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Mobility and Educational Migration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.247–259.

65.

Whitchurch

(2024) From ‘service’ to ‘partnership’: Harnessing social capital in support of activity in third space environments. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 46(3): 243–256.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB