Opinion
Rethinking Internationalisation in Higher Education
Should universities start thinking about resilience over optimisation?
By Soheil Davari, University of Bath, Martin Meyer, University of Vaasa, Ulrich Hommel, EBS University, and Benjamin Laker, Henley Business School.
"Geopolitical instability has become a defining feature of the international landscape."
“Workload models and professional development pathways need to reflect what institutions actually expect of those delivering global engagement.”
Internationalisation has long been treated as both an aspiration and an inevitability in higher education. That assumption now needs scrutiny.
Global engagement is not in retreat, but the conditions under which it operates have changed profoundly. Rather than assuming steady expansion, universities need to engage internationally with far greater deliberateness than in the past.
Geopolitical instability has become a defining feature of the international landscape. Trade tensions, immigration restrictions and regional conflicts disrupt student mobility, research collaboration and institutional partnerships.
Recent policy shifts in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada show how quickly regulatory environments can change. At the same time, open-border initiatives, regional education hubs and multilateral research schemes continue to create new opportunities. This coexistence of enabling and constraining forces means internationalisation can no longer be planned on the assumption of linear growth.
This uncertainty has direct implications for financial resilience. Many universities have become heavily dependent on international tuition fees, exposing them to sudden shifts in policy or market demand. But financial resilience alone is not enough.
Sustained international engagement also depends on social capital: the human relationships that underpin global networks. Alumni, when meaningfully engaged, can act as powerful ambassadors, yet these relational assets are often undervalued in strategies that focus narrowly on metrics rather than capability.
Digital technologies are also reshaping what internationalisation can mean in practice. Virtual exchange programmes and collaborative online international learning offer alternatives to traditional mobility, enabling students to engage with international peers without the financial barriers, visa complications or carbon costs of physical travel. These are not simply second-best substitutes; they can offer distinctive pedagogical benefits, including sustained engagement over time and wider access. They also raise important questions about what is lost when the embodied dimensions of international experience are reduced.
Internationalisation strategies are often built on assumptions about institutional control that no longer hold. Universities can design partnerships and programmes, but they cannot control the environments in which these operate. Visa regimes change, governments intervene and public sentiment shifts. Yet many strategies still read as if risk can be managed through planning alone.
What is needed is a shift from optimisation to resilience: asking not how international activity can be maximised, but which forms of engagement can be sustained under adverse conditions. This may mean prioritising fewer partnerships but investing more deeply in them, diversifying delivery modes, or embedding international perspectives into curricula so that global learning does not depend entirely on physical mobility.
Student expectations are also changing. Gen Z and Gen Alpha are more attuned to climate and sustainability than previous generations, and long-haul travel and the carbon footprint of global operations face increasing scrutiny. Universities should ask whether their internationalisation approaches align with the values of the students they seek to attract, rethinking programme design and the role of sustainability as a guiding principle rather than an afterthought.
A similar recalibration is needed in how institutions engage with less developed regions. Too often, internationalisation in these contexts has been framed primarily as market expansion. A more credible approach focuses on mutual benefit and long-term capacity building. Universities can contribute through mentoring, faculty development, joint curriculum initiatives and community-based projects that support local educational ecosystems. Such engagement requires patience, respect for local context and partnerships that are genuinely collaborative rather than symbolic.
One dimension too often overlooked is the burden placed on staff. Developing partnerships, managing transnational programmes, supporting international students and sustaining global collaboration require significant time and expertise from both academic and professional staff. Without appropriate recognition, resourcing and career incentives, internationalisation risks becoming fragile and unsustainable. Workload models and professional development pathways need to reflect what institutions actually expect of those delivering global engagement.
Geopolitical instability also exposes universities to complex duty-of-care obligations. Institutions sending students abroad must assess safety risks and coordinate responses across jurisdictions. Equally demanding are responsibilities toward international students whose home countries experience conflict or political upheaval, requiring practical and pastoral support well beyond regulatory compliance.
Internationalisation remains central to the mission of higher education. But its future depends less on scale than on intent. The question is no longer whether universities internationalise, but how deliberately they choose to do so. Leaders and policymakers need to make explicit, value-driven decisions about where and why they engage globally, aligning internationalisation with learning and research priorities, sustainability and equity. In a volatile world, international engagement should be judged not by how much activity institutions generate, but by the quality, resilience and integrity of what they sustain.