e Internationalization of Higher Education
in the Wake of COVID-19:
A Rigorous Review of the Literature on Short-
Term Impacts
CIHE
Perspectives
No. 20
Elizabeth Buckner, Jessica Denenberg,
Maia Gelashvili, Marianthi Kontelli,
Adriana Marroquin Rodriguez, Lizhou Wang, and
You Zhang
e Internationalization of Higher Education
in the Wake of COVID-19:
A Rigorous Review of the Literature
on Short-Term Impacts
Elizabeth Buckner, Jessica Denenberg,
Maia Gelashvili, Marianthi Kontelli,
Adriana Marroquin Rodriguez, Lizhou Wang, and
You Zhang
CIHE Perspectives No. 20
CIHE Perspectives
is series of studies focuses on aspects of research
and analysis undertaken at the Boston College Center
for International Higher Education.
e Center brings an international consciousness to
the analysis of higher education. We believe that an
international perspective will contribute to enlightened
policy and practice. To serve this
goal, the Center produces International Higher
Education (a quarterly publication), books, and other
publications; sponsors conferences; and welcomes
visiting scholars. We have a special concern for
academic institutions in the Jesuit tradition worldwide
and, more broadly, with Catholic universities.
e Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among
academic institutions throughout the world. We
believe that the future depends on eective
collaboration and the creation of an international
community focused on the improvement of higher
education in the public interest.
Center for International Higher Education
Campion Hall
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA
www.bc.edu/cihe
©2022 Boston College Center for International Higher
Education. All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Assessing the Impacts of COVID-19 .................................................................................................. 5
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................................... 6
Data and Methods ............................................................................................................................... 11
Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Part I: Scale and Scope of Literature ......................................................................................... 14
Part II: Impact of COVID -19 on each Domain of Internationalization ............................. 22
Part III: e Roles of Policies and Supports in Moderating the Impact of COVID-19 ...... 30
Part IV: Cross-Cutting emes ................................................................................................. 33
Discussion and Concluding Observations .............................................................................. 36
Avenues for Future Research .................................................................................................... 39
References ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Appendices
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 50
1
-
FOEWOD
I
t is with great pleasure that we present this 20th issue
of CIHE Perspectives, entitled “e Internationaliza-
tion of Higher Education in the wake of COVID-19: A
Rigorous Review of the Literature on Short-Term Im-
pacts.” While some parts of the world are steadily mov-
ing to a post-pandemic reality, it is very important for
the eld to preserve the lessons learned during this pe-
riod, including reecting critically about our scholarly
responses to the pandemic, and the assumptions that lie
behind such responses. e coming pages provide a
valuable foundation for such critical reection, by pre-
senting a comprehensive view of the short-term impacts
of the pandemic on internationalization, as reected by
the literature developed in its immediate aermath.
is review is the culmination of the rst year of a
project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC) in Canada, led by our es-
teemed colleague Dr. Elizabeth Buckner. We are very
proud to partner with the talented team at the Univer-
sity of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa-
tion (OISE), and to deepen our longstanding
partnership with our colleagues from the International
Association of Universities (IAU) in the development
and dissemination of this project. In many respects,
both the entire project and this particular output are
illustrative of the way forward for CIHE. In line with
our mission, we are committed to advancing critical
analysis, presented in accessible ways to the most di-
verse audiences possible. CIHE is, above all, a global
network of scholars and, therefore, collaboration is
paramount. We plan to continue partnering with re-
search centers and global higher education associations
to advance our shared agendas.
We have many people to thank for their contribu-
tions to this publication. We wish to thank the amazing
team of doctoral researchers involved with this project,
who spent countless hours coding the literature and
draing sections of this report: Jessica Denenberg,
Marianthi Kontelli, Adriana Marroquín Rodríguez,
and You Zhang at OISE, along with Maia Gelashvili
and Lizhou Wang at CIHE. We are very thankful to Dr.
Elizabeth Buckner for her leadership and for selecting
CIHE as a partner in this project. We are very grateful
to Giorgio Marinoni for leading IAU’s participation in
this project and for his valuable insights, as well as to
our very own Hans de Wit for his consulting role. Last
but not least, we sincerely thank Taryn Aldrich for her
outstanding copyediting and Salina Kopellas for her
hard work on the layout and design.
e work for year two of the project is very much
in progress, as the team is working on replicating and
expanding this review, while also partnering with the
IAU internationalization survey, coordinated by Gior-
gio Marinoni. We are looking forward to future outputs
from this ongoing collaborative project.
Rebecca Schendel and Gerardo Blanco
Directors
Center for International Higher Education
Boston College
September 2022
2
| .
T
his report summarizes the academic and profes-
sional literature on how COVID-19 has aected
the internationalization of higher education in the
short term, specically between March 2020 and Au-
gust 2021. We rst assemble a conceptual framework
of major domains and activities involved in the inter-
nationalization of higher education. is framework
reects how COVID-19 may have inuenced aspects
of internationalization. To discern the impacts of
COVID-19 on internationalization across countries
and institutions, we next identify national characteris-
tics as well as institutional and national supports (i.e.,
policies and practices) likely to moderate COVID-19’s
direct eects on related activities.
We then present a rigorous review
1
of the literature
while using this framework to theorize impacts. Our
aims in analyzing the literature were twofold: 1) to con-
sider how COVID-19 has aected the internationaliza-
tion of higher education worldwide based on available
research; and 2) to identify gaps in the literature. In
examining the short-term impacts of COVID-19 on
internationalization, we identied 158 publications
(e.g., magazine and newspaper articles, book chapters,
and peer-reviewed academic articles) that met our in-
clusion criteria. We then coded each source based on
publication type, country or region of interest, interna-
tionalization domain or activity, and emergent key
themes.
Key ndings are as follows:
1. e literature published on COVID-19 and inter-
nationalization was skewed: most coverage ap-
peared in non-academic outlets and pertained to
the United States and the United Kingdom. is
pattern is not surprising; scholarly articles feature
longer peer-review and publishing timelines than
other types of publications. As such, more time is
needed to assess COVID-19 impacts. Because our
chosen time frame (March 2020–August 2021) co-
incided with the early stages of the pandemic, our
sample was understandably dominated by news
items and reports rather than academic pieces.
2. Studies overwhelmingly focused on aspects of in-
ternationalization related to mobility, both in-
bound and outbound. Publications from core
Anglophone countries that are major recruiters of
international students discussed people mobility
more than publications from other countries.
ese publications from Anglophone countries
expressed substantial concerns about whether in-
stitutions in recruiting countries such as the Unit-
ed States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and
Canada would maintain international student en-
rollments throughout the pandemic and how cir-
cumstances may aect revenues. Other aspects of
internationalization, such as its role in research
collaboration or provider mobility, received scant
attention.
3. e suspension of in-person events due to
COVID-19 led numerous internationalization ac-
tivities to shi to online and digital formats. Many
studies documented advantages and disadvantages
of this digital transition. Sources also outlined best
practices.
4. We identied common themes across studies in
various domains, including students’ experiences
with discrimination and isolation that aected
mental health and well-being. A large body of
work described how international students’ and
faculty members’ status as non-nationals created
distinct pressures given their visa status, employ-
ment limitations, and inability to travel home.
Much of the literature centered on undergraduate
international students studying in North America.
EXECUTIVE SUMMAY
Similar to other types of knowledge syntheses such as systematic reviews, this rigorous review seeks to integrate what is known
about a topic through comprehensive, transparent, and replicable methods. e task diers from a systematic review. We followed
Oketch et al.’s (2014) approach to rigorous review by including studies that may not meet the more stringent standards of system-
atic review. For example, we did not evaluate the quality of research evidence or exclude publications based on data or methods.
3
-
is concentration may limit our understanding
of the scope of international students’
experiences.
5. e pandemic’s impacts have been uneven across
countries and institutions. Numerous sources in-
dicated that long-standing global inequalities have
changed. Specically, digital tools have rendered
certain types of collaboration possible in ways that
were previously infeasible due to visa requirements
and cost barriers.
6. Finally, several studies pointed out that COVID-19
has catalyzed persistent geopolitical concerns, par-
ticularly between the West and China. New in-
equalities are believed to have emerged, mapped
onto access to fast and aordable Internet that is
free from censorship.
4
standings” (p. 70). Knight (2004) described interna-
tionalization as the “process of integrating international
and intercultural dimensions of knowledge into all as-
pects of higher education, including core teaching, re-
search, and service functions” (p. 11). is
conceptualization is one of many to stress internation-
alization as a set of interrelated organizational activi-
ties. In a study for the European Parliament, de Wit et
al. (2015) oered an updated denition that adds inten-
tionality and normative elements, which we have ad-
opted in this report:
“[Internationalization in higher education is the]
intentional process of integrating an international,
intercultural or global dimension into the pur-
pose, functions and delivery of post-secondary ed-
ucation, in order to enhance the quality of
education and research for all students and sta
and to make a meaningful contribution to society”
(p. 29).
e strategic benets of internationalization in-
clude increased revenue, enhanced prestige, and im-
proved student learning (Altbach & Knight, 2007;
Knight, 2004). According to the 5th Global Survey of
Internationalization of Higher Education by the Inter-
national Association of Universities (IAU), conducted
in 2018, more than 90% of institutions mentioned in-
ternationalization in their mission or strategic plan
(Marinoni, 2019). e most frequently cited benets of
internationalization were “enhanced international co-
operation and capacity building” and “improved quali-
ty of teaching and learning.”
Yet internationalization also raises numerous con-
cerns. Related topics have become points of debate in
political spheres, the media, and the higher education
community. Common foci include the use of interna-
tionalization for revenue generation; competition for
international students; the dominance of the English
language in international activities at the expense of lo-
cal languages; and international student recruitment at
the expense of access, quality education, and services
(e.g., housing) for local students.
I
n today’s increasingly interconnected world, higher
education institutions (HEIs) play a critical part in
educating students for global understanding and
awareness. ese institutions are also crucial in ad-
dressing worldwide development challenges such as
poverty and climate change. Although international
academic mobility and collaboration are established
traditions in higher education, starting in the 1990s,
universities became involved in more extensive forms
of international engagement. With the end of the Cold
War, the presence of Europeanization and other forms
of regionalization, and a global shi towards a knowl-
edge economy, universities began to respond and be-
came international actors. National and regional
programs—Fulbright and Title VI programs in the
United States, and Europe-based research grant pro-
grams such as Horizon 2020 and the European Com-
mission’s ERASMUS+ mobility scheme—inspired and
supported HEIs as they sought to implement more
strategic internationalization (de Wit, 2002). At the
same time, the 1990s saw a shi towards emphasizing
economic competitiveness as a basis for international-
ization. Van der Wende (2001) characterized this move
as a paradigmatic change from cooperation to compe-
tition, although not completely at the expense of the
conventional approach to international collaboration
in higher education.
Given its rising importance, internationalization
in higher education has transformed from a marginal
and ad hoc range of activities to a more comprehensive
and centralized process. It is now a major strategic pri-
ority for universities worldwide; it features an array of
motivations, diverse organizational and program-based
strategies, and broad stakeholder involvement (de Wit
et al., 2015; Hudzik, 2011).
Internationalization is a multifaceted phenome-
non that has been dened in numerous ways (Rumbley
et al., 2022). In a critical overview and analysis of inter-
nationalization in higher education, Hunter et al.
(2022) noted that “the concept of internationalization
continues to be rened and revised, and theories and
denitions adjusted to match new and evolving under-
| .
INTRODUCTION
5
such as internationalization at home (IaH) (Beelen &
Jones, 2015), internationalization of the curriculum
(Leask, 2015), and comprehensive internationalization
(Hudzik, 2011) emerged around the turn of the centu-
ry. ese initiatives were meant to shed light on inter-
nationalization for all students rather than the slight
percentage of mobile ones. Also, the rather narrow fo-
cus on one of three missions of universities—teach-
ing—has been countered with an appeal to attend to
the internationalization of research (Woldegiyorgis et
al., 2018). Criticism of internationalization as a West-
ern paradigm has also come to the fore (de Wit, 2020;
Jones & de Wit, 2014) along with a call to decolonize
the curriculum (Stein & de Andreotti, 2016). Jones et
al. (2021) appealed for “internationalization for soci-
ety,” urging reection on how internationalization ben-
ets society overall instead of particular students or
faculty. In short, the internationalization of higher edu-
cation occupied a complicated and contested space
even before the COVID-19 pandemic.
ese critiques are not unfounded: the interna-
tionalization process typically spotlights the mobility
of a small minority of students, sta, programs, and in-
stitutions. Many associated activities tend to be exclu-
sive and only benet a subset of actors, particularly in
the Global North (Marinoni & de Wit, 2019). de Wit et
al. (2022) argued that “international student mobility
might well contribute to increased global inequality be-
tween sending and receiving countries and institutions,
as well as between students who have access to these
opportunities and students who don’t” (p. 299). ese
ndings echo the 5th Global Survey on International-
ization, which cited the most common risk to interna-
tionalization as “international opportunities accessible
only to students with nancial resources” followed by
“diculty to assess/recognize the quality of courses/
programs oered by foreign institutions” and “exces-
sive competition with other higher education institu-
tions” (Marinoni, 2019).
In response to this focus on mobility, movements
-
ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF COVID19
stated. Nonetheless, institutions’ and individuals’ expe-
riences have varied tremendously based on national
and local contexts as well as institutional decisions,
policies, and supports. Indeed, we expect the pandemic
to have resulted in divergent higher education impacts,
responses, and practices.
e IAU’s second edition of the global survey on
the impact of COVID-19 on higher education indicat-
ed HEIs’ resilience during the pandemic. Institutions
craed innovative solutions and invested additional
time and energy into minimizing disruption amid par-
tial or complete campus closures in most countries.
e picture of higher education emerging from
COVID-19 is nevertheless concerning: declining -
nancial means, students unable to benet from remote
teaching and learning, delayed research activities, in-
creased sta workloads, and slower recruitment. Most
importantly, these challenges aect regions, countries,
and HEIs dierently and with a tendency to exacerbate
pre-existing inequalities. International activities werea-
mong those most compromised by the pandemic.
Internationalization projects were severely disrupted in
the wake of COVID-19. Immediately following, profes-
sional associations and the media reported decreased
international student mobility together with restric-
tions on international eldwork and short-term mobil-
ity for faculty and scholars (Rumbley, 2020). ese
issues sparked anxiety about upsetting students’ lives
and faculty members’ research. Longer-term worries
centered on institutional budgets and scal security.
Scholars have since called on institutions to rethink
fundamental approaches and assumptions related to
pre-COVID-19 norms. In the early days of the pan-
demic, many news articles and think pieces tended to-
wards hyperbole, framing COVID-19 as having
possibly catastrophic impacts on internationalization.
In fact, over the past two years, the pandemic has exert-
ed nuanced eects on HEIs and their internationaliza-
tion activities. Many universities have come to
recognize the great potential of virtual collaboration
and mobility. Some of the more dire conjectures about
international student mobility are proving to be over-
center for international higher education | perspectives no. 4
6
the academic and grey literature on how COVID-19
has aected internationalization in higher education.
Doing so enables reections on what we know and
have yet to discover. A broader aim of this research is to
identify core assumptions about internationalization
and its future in order to contemplate new directions in
research, policy, and practice.
Accordingly, our review was guided by the follow-
ing questions:
1) What are the foci of initial research and reporting
on COVID-19’s impacts on internationalization,
and what knowledge gaps appear?
2) What do we know about how the pandemic has
aected internationalization activities in dierent
contexts?
3) What does the state of the initial literature suggest
about how internationalization is currently under-
stood, practiced, and studied?
However, COVID-19 has not yet altered international-
ization approaches at the majority of HEIs. At institu-
tions where the pandemic has inspired strategic
changes, several activities have been given high priori-
ty—virtual exchanges, collaborative online learning,
and internationalization of the curriculum/IaH. ese
eorts could help alleviate inequality in international-
ization by reaching a greater number of students. More
uneven impacts have been observed for student and
sta mobility, with the importance of certain activities
rising at some institutions but remaining the same or
decreasing at others. Inequality could therefore also in-
crease if student and sta mobility remains important
at some HEIs and accessible to a select few across the
sector (Jensen et al., 2022).
Two years into the pandemic, it is time to take
stock of what we have learned about how COVID-19
has aected internationalization. Empirically ground-
ed research is time-intensive. is review is hence lim-
ited to short-term impacts (March 2020–August 2021)
and is primarily based on non-academic sources. Our
rigorous review is intended to systematically consider
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In response to the rapid spread of COVID-19, HEIs and
governments quickly took steps to control the virus. e
two primary policies, border closures and the suspen-
sion of in-person activities, were accompanied by a shi
to virtual interaction. Both of these large-scale changes
had direct and far-reaching eects on internationaliza-
tion but potentially dierential impacts on specic ac-
tivities. To document these nuanced consequences and
in turn describe how the pandemic has aected interna-
tionalization in higher education, we rst needed to de-
ne “internationalization” and conceptualize how
COVID-19 might have aected each domain. We con-
sulted an extensive body of academic literature, as well
as reports and guidance documents published by uni-
versity-based professional associations worldwide, to
determine which activities were included in their deni-
tions of the term.
7
-
Organizational Activities
Although many activities associated with internation-
alization do not take place on physical campuses, they
are nonetheless considered part of HEIs’ international-
ization eorts when individuals aliated with the insti-
tution—including students, faculty, and sta—are
involved. Our major foci included HEIs, key stakehold-
ers, and activities undertaken on their behalf. We relied
on the comprehensive internationalization model to
conceptualize which activities fall under institutional
internationalization. Scholars and professional associa-
tions put forward this model to dene a broad scope of
internationalization that encompasses all aspects of or-
ganizational operations including leadership and gov-
ernance; institutional policy; funding; student
recruitment and support services; and the more tradi-
tional domains of teaching and learning, research, and
community engagement. We drew on these studies in
accentuating ve domains of internationalization: peo-
ple mobility; international program and provider mo-
bility (IPPM); international research; international
partnerships and networks; and campus-based curric-
ular and extracurricular activities, typically labeled
“IaH.” We then identied and classied activities asso-
ciated with internationalization as they occurred with-
in each domain.
ConsultedInternationalizationResourcesandFrameworks(Selected)
• International Association of Universities (IAU)—Strategic Internationalization Framework
• American Council for Education (ACE)—Model for Comprehensive Internationalization
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—Approaches to Interna-
tionalisation and their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice
• European Commission (EC)—Indicator Projects on Internationalisation
• German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)—Internationalisation in Higher Education for
Society Matrix
• e African Network for Internationalization of Education (ANIE)—Activities
• Unión de Universidades de América Latina y el Caribe (UDUAL)—Activities
• Asian University Alliance (AUA)—Framework
8
| .
Primary Domain Denition
People Mobility
e outward and inward physical movement of people (students, faculty, and sta)
with the purpose of engaging in learning, research, and/or collaboration (American
Council on Education, 2022).
International Program and
Provider Mobility
e delivery of programs (e.g., twinning, joint/double degree, franchise, distance ed-
ucation) and providers (e.g., branch campuses, joint universities) across international
borders (Knight & Liu, 2019; Knight & McNamara, 2017; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012).
International Research
Research that involves international locations or collaborators. is is a broad deni-
tion that encompasses individual institution-aliated researchers traveling across
borders for university-aliated research, participation in global education hubs or
networks, and bilateral or multilateral research partnership agreements that include
provisions for mobility or cross-border collaboration.
International Partnerships
and Networks
A formal arrangement—usually in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding or
similar document—between institutions, professional associations, or research insti-
tutes through which parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests that
span international contexts and borders. In most cases, partnership agreements out-
line specic areas or projects of collaboration as well as relevant actors, departments,
or units and timelines for completion, renewal, or exit.
Internationalization at Home
“e purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the
formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environ-
ments” (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p. 69).
Table 1: Internationalization Domains
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 on Internationalization
9
People Mobility
e rst core domain of internationalization we ex-
amine is people mobility. For our conceptual frame-
work, we referred to the American Council of
Education (ACE) in dening “people mobility” as the
physical movement of people (students, faculty, and
sta) with the purpose of engaging in learning, re-
search, and/or collaboration. We classied people mo-
bility into two types in our analysis: inbound mobility
(both degree- and credit-seeking) and outbound mo-
bility (both degree- and credit-seeking). Inbound and
outbound mobility are each relative to an HEI’s per-
spective: inbound mobility refers to students, faculty,
and sta coming from abroad to the country and in-
stitution to engage in learning, research, and/or col-
laboration; outbound mobility refers to students,
faculty, and sta traveling abroad to engage in learn-
ing, research, and/or collaboration. e same student
may be considered inbound and outbound depending
on the view of the institution or country; therefore, in
our model, each type is a sub-domain under the
broader category of “people mobility” (Choudaha &
de Wit, 2014; de Wit et al., 2013).
International Program and Provider
Mobility
e second domain we consider is IPPM. Many terms
have been used to capture the phenomenon of HEIs
oering academic programs to students in other
countries, either independently or through coopera-
tion with host-country providers. ese terms include
transnational, oshore, cross-border, or borderless
higher education (Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) and
IPPM (Knight & Liu, 2016). In our conceptual frame-
work, transnational higher education refers to the de-
livery of programs (e.g., twinning, joint/double
degree, franchise, distance education) and of provid-
ers (e.g., branch campuses, joint universities) across
international borders (Knight & Liu, 2019; Knight &
McNamara, 2017; Wilkins & Huisman, 2012).
International Research
Research has consistently been framed as inherently
international, dating back to early medieval universi-
ties and the concept of the “wandering scholar” (de
Wit, 1999; Hayhoe & Mundy, 2017). Today, universi-
ties seek to conduct research that is globally relevant
and impactful. As a domain of internationalization,
we dene research (or “international research”) as the
incorporation of an international element into the
pursuit of institutional research. is integration may
include initiatives that are part of a global education
hub or network. Bilateral or multilateral research
partnership agreements that contain provisions for
mobility or cross-border collaboration may be includ-
ed as well.
International Partnerships and Networks
e fourth domain we assess is partnerships, which
have long been viewed as a way for HEIs to facilitate
student and faculty mobility or to deliver coordinated
technical programming. Scholars such as Olson
(2013) have traced how international partnerships are
becoming increasingly complex, oen involving more
institutions and activities. Formal partnerships are a
prime mechanism by which other internationaliza-
tion activities (e.g., joint research projects or joint de-
gree programs) operate. Such partnerships can also be
part of a broader internationalization strategy, with
many HEIs identifying strategic partnerships as a pri-
ority for internationalization.
Institutions embrace partnerships as a main com-
ponent of their internationalization strategies (Buck-
ner et al., 2020), premised in commitments to “mutual
benet.” Yet scholars have identied enduring colo-
niality and inequalities in academic partnerships be-
tween institutions in the Global North and South
(Canto & Hannah, 2001). In light of our aim to under-
stand whether and how COVID-19 has inuenced
partnership development or strategies, including pos-
sible partner selection, we have categorized it as a
standalone domain. We dene a partnership as a for-
mal arrangement—usually in the form of a Memoran-
dum of Understanding or similar document—between
institutions, professional associations, or research in-
stitutes through which parties agree to cooperate to
advance their mutual interests that span international
contexts and borders. In our study, partnerships con-
sist of bilateral or multilateral agreements as well as
participation in an international consortium or net-
work. We include international development projects
-
10
or capacity-building projects within this domain. Ca-
pacity building is a common practice in international
development policy; it refers to cross-border initiatives
to strengthen the capacity for development and growth
of various sectors through supports to areas such as sci-
ence, technology, research, and innovation. Building
capacity for development may also entail indirect or
direct intervention in domains related to public policy
and institutional governance and is usually marked by
inequality and an imbalanced power dynamic between
countries in the North and those in the South (Altbach,
2004).
International at Home
Finally, the h domain of internationalization we
evaluate pertains to activities occurring within the
campus and curriculum, oen called IaH. We refer to
Beelen and Jones’s (2015) denition, specically “the
purposeful integration of international and intercul-
tural dimensions into the formal and informal curricu-
lum for all students within domestic learning
environments” (p. 69). ese authors emphasized the
importance of internationalized learning outcomes, as-
sessing such outcomes, internationalizing all programs
rather than several elective courses, and providing in-
ternationalized learning experiences to all students in-
stead of only those who can benet from mobility
opportunities. Activities within this domain include
changes to the curriculum and co-curriculum and the
provision of support services.
Curricular and co-curricular programs and activi-
ties provide students with chances to develop global
and intercultural competence at home (ACE, 2022).
Leask (2015) dened internationalization of curricu-
lum as “the incorporation of international, intercultur-
al, and/or global dimensions into the content of the
curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assess-
ment tasks, teaching methods, and support services of
a program of study” (p. 9). She further argued that uni-
versities should internationalize all types of curricula,
including formal, informal, and hidden.
Additionally, ACE (2022) named faculty and sta
support as a target area in the comprehensive interna-
tionalization framework. is framework holds the
professional development of faculty and sta as imper-
ative to eective internationalization. Faculty should
develop intercultural competence to be able to incor-
porate diverse and global perspectives into their teach-
ing, research, service, administrative responsibilities,
and local–global community connections. Institutional
policies (e.g., tenure and promotion guidelines) reward
faculty and sta who foster internationalization and
recognize faculty and sta mobility as an asset (ACE,
2022). Finally, we included student support services as
a component of IaH in our model; doing so allowed us
to capture university policies that enable students’ in-
bound and outbound mobility, counseling for interna-
tional students, and an internationalized campus
environment. Student, faculty, and sta support is vital
for IaH.
Moderating Factors: Supports for
Internationalization
Internationalization activities do not occur in isolation
but are embedded within institutional and national
contexts. Research has highlighted how HEIs’ interna-
tionalization practices are tailored to long-standing
mandates, rankings, and internal organizational pro-
cesses (Buckner, 2019; Chan & Dimmock, 2008; Fried-
man, 2018; Seeber et al., 2016; Seeber et al., 2020). We
expect institutions’ norms, values, and identities shape
their organizational dynamics and their responses to
environmental changes. Studies also indicate that insti-
tutional and national policies and practices support
internationalization in various ways. Scholars have re-
cently paid closer attention to internationalization in
higher education in relation to government; for exam-
ple, national governments may endeavor to facilitate
the internationalization of their higher education sys-
tems. erefore, in mapping the impacts of COVID-19
on internationalization, we theorized that the pandem-
ic’s role would depend on policies and supports enact-
ed at the institutional and national levels.
Structural Factors: National and Supra-
National Factors
In addition to policy, we know that national contexts
are heterogeneous and that structural factors (e.g., na-
tional economic resources, geopolitical power, and the
primary language of instruction) inuence what is pos-
| .
11
sible and desirable with respect to internationalization.
erefore, in our conceptual model, we considered in-
stitutional activities on both a national level and a su-
pra-national level, each of which reveals factors that
could shape how COVID-19 has aected institutions’
internationalization activities cross-nationally. For in-
stance, we underlined geopolitics as one area that could
impinge on internationalization projects in numerous
ways.
Impacts of COVID-19
To conceptualize how COVID-19 has inuenced inter-
nationalization activities, we added a COVID-19 di-
mension to existing internationalization frameworks.
While the pandemic may have inuenced individuals’
health and well-being, the most direct eect on inter-
nationalization activities manifested in measures and
policies enacted to mitigate the virus’s spread—namely
border closures that hampered international travel and
the suspension of in-person activities. e latter strate-
gy limited in-person interaction, including teaching,
learning, and meetings. Some universities closed their
campuses entirely, a decision which created a series of
logistical issues for students in residence. In our con-
ceptual framework, we hypothesized that both mea-
sures would inuence internationalization activities,
albeit possibly dierently. We specically expected in-
ternationalization domains related to physical mobili-
ty—or domains involving physical mobility of any
type—to be most aected by border closures, which
prevented travel. By contrast, we postulated that the
suspension of in-person activities and the ensuing
abrupt shi to virtual meetings and spaces would have
the strongest impact on teaching and learning activi-
ties, including internationalization of the curriculum.
-
DATA AND METHODS
To conduct this study, we adapted the methods of other
rigorous reviews in higher education (Oketch et al.,
2014) to suit our purposes. Our research proceeded
through ve phases:
1. Planning: We elaborated the conceptual frame-
work, search strategy, inclusion criteria, and initial
coding protocol (i.e., country, publication type) as
discussed above.
2. Searching: We identied relevant literature by iter-
ating key search terms.
3. Screening of titles and abstracts: We determined
whether each study met our inclusion criteria and
excluded those that did not, which reduced the
number of publications. By reading each study’s
abstract, we inductively, iteratively developed a list
of topics and themes that the publications ad-
dressed. We used this list to create an extended set
of “key themes” in our coding protocol.
4. Screening of full text and coding: We read each ar-
ticle and coded it for country of focus, publication
type, relevance to internationalization domains,
and key themes.
5. Analysis and synthesis: e key ndings of all se-
lected studies were analyzed, with studies related
to each domain and key theme synthesized
separately.
Phase 2: Literature Search
Using the key domains and sub-domains of interna-
tionalization outlined in the conceptual framework,
our team carried out extensive searches of education
resource databases to determine what had been pub-
lished on this topic through August 2021.
In the Search phase, we rst performed prelimi-
nary searches with various search terms and synonyms
of “internationalization,” “COVID-19,” and “higher ed-
ucation” to determine combinations that yielded re-
sults best suited to our project’s scope (see Appendix C
for complete Boolean search terms). Following these
initial probes, the team nalized a list of key criteria for
inclusion in subsequent searches (see Appendix B).
Major dierences existed in publications regarding do-
mains of internationalization; therefore, we rened
keyword searches separately for each internationaliza-
12
abstract to determine the publication’s relevance to our
research. Specic inclusion criteria were as follows:
1) Published in English: We decided to limit the
scope of our initial search to English-language ar-
ticles. English was the only common language
among all team members, and we believe that
much of the academic literature on higher educa-
tion internationalization has been published in
this language. is parameter nonetheless rep-
resents a study limitation. We hope to expand our
review to publications in other languages in the
future.
2) PublishedAer2020:We limited the publication
timeframe to resources published aer 2020 in or-
der to exclude references to previous coronavirus
outbreaks. We chose to add the term “pandemic”
to our COVID-19-related search terminology to
better capture pandemic references that did not
specically name COVID-19 within the abstract.
3) AFocusonInternationalizationofHigh erEdu-
cation: Next, to best adhere to our research scope,
all included studies addressed the international-
ization of higher education. ese areas are central
to our project. Articles discussing the COVID-19
pandemic within other elds or only loosely with-
in a higher education context were not relevant.
4) AFocusonthe Impactof COVID-19: In addi-
tion to a focus on internationalization, we only in-
cluded studies regarding the impact of COVID-19
on internationalization. For example, we excluded
studies that mentioned COVID-19 as the research
context but did not assess the pandemic’s role in
internationalization.
5) Empirical or Analytical: Eligible studies either
included or were based on analyses and/or empir-
ical data, thus yielding new knowledge, data, or
conceptualizations. We considered all empirical
data and methods and did not screen studies based
on method. However, articles were screened out if
they only included opinions or predictions that
were not supported by empirical evidence or new
analysis.
To keep track of and code selected articles, we used
EPPI-Reviewer Web, an online soware tool created
and maintained by the Social Science Research Unit at
the UCL Institute of Education, University of London.
EPPI-Reviewer is designed for rigorous scoping and
tion domain (see Appendix B.)
e searches were conducted in two databases, Ed-
ucation Source and Education Resource Information
Center (ERIC). Targeted word searches were per-
formed in University World News and the Chronicle of
Higher Education, which are not indexed in the other
two databases. All keywords were searched in abstracts,
and all document types were considered. Sources in-
cluded academic and non-academic pieces from publi-
cation venues such as academic journals, books,
conference proceedings, magazines, and newspapers.
Education Source is a comprehensive database ap-
propriate for this study’s literature search. According to
its coverage list, the database includes 4706 sources of
various types, including academic journals, books/
monographs, collections of conference papers or pro-
ceedings, education reports, and magazines. Table 2
lists the number of sources in our sample by type.
In addition to covering multiple publication types,
Education Source contains publications from 80 coun-
tries spanning all world regions (see Appendix A). Sev-
eral countries had a large number of pieces in Education
Source, namely the United States (N = 2252), the Unit-
ed Kingdom (N = 963), Switzerland (N = 285), Germa-
ny (N = 147), Canada (N = 124), Australia (N = 168),
and Turkey (N = 67). e number of sources based in
non-Western countries was low in Education Source,
representing a methodological limitation.
We also referred to ERIC, a comprehensive bib-
liographic and full-text database of education research
and information. ERIC indexes sources across the
spectrum of research in education. It contains 1306
journal sources featuring academic articles and 714
non-journal sources, which are mainly non-academic.
Our search on ERIC thus included academic and
non-academic publications.
Education Source and ERIC possess a substantial
number of academic and non-academic sources. Many
publications on the impact of COVID-19 on higher ed-
ucation internationalization were not published in aca-
demic outlets. Our combined use of Education Source
and ERIC enabled us to gather non-academic articles
on the topic of interest.
Phase 3: Screening of Titles and Abstracts
During screening, we reviewed each study’s title and
| .
13
systematic reviews, and its functionality allows for col-
laborative projects. In each phase of screening, once we
determined that an article did not meet our inclusion
criteria, we excluded it and moved on. Many articles
would or could have been excluded for multiple rea-
sons; Table 2 reects our prioritization of criteria.
Following our bibliometric search, all references
and abstracts were loaded into EPPI. A team of re-
search assistants read each publication’s title and ab-
stract to determine if it met inclusion criteria. Our
initial review returned 781 articles based on search
terms, 108 of which were duplicates (i.e., appearing in
more than one database). e resultant sample con-
tained 673 publications; 377 were then screened out
based on their titles and abstracts. Sources could be ex-
cluded for several reasons, such as focusing on domes-
tic issues (not internationalization) in higher education
or on other levels of education.
Phase 4: Screening and Coding of Full Texts
We next read the full text of the remaining sources (N
= 296). An additional 138 articles were excluded due to
not meeting our inclusion criteria upon reviewing their
full text. Some articles made only marginal references
to COVID-19 as the research background and did not
address how the pandemic aected internationaliza-
tion. Others were based on contributors’ opinions or
personal experiences; most publications excluded for
this reason were newspaper articles featuring specula-
tion rather than analysis.
Ultimately, 158 articles met all inclusion criteria.
We then coded relevant information for these publica-
tions. We gathered information on each source to iden-
tify the types of literature being produced: the country
or region of interest, publication type, key domain, and
internationalization activity. We also coded the general
themes discussed in each article, which we developed
and expanded through emergent coding and later re-
ned through iterative coding during the initial search
and screening phases.
Phase 5: Analysis and Synthesis
In a second round of analysis, our research assistants
read the articles coded under specic domains and key
themes to summarize major ndings from the litera-
ture. Within each domain and overarching theme, we
identied emergent sub-themes. We also recorded de-
tailed results from studies related to each sub-theme.
e team wrote a series of memos on each domain and
sub-theme as well; this process revealed several
cross-cutting themes.
-
Table 2: Articles Included in the Study
Phase Step N
Literature Search Initial Search 781
Duplicates Identied and Removed 108
Screening of Title and Abstract 673
EXCLUDE on date - focus is before 2020 4
EXCLUDE on article focus - not IHE 261
EXCLUDE on article focus - not COVID 76
EXCLUDE on methods/analysis 36
Screening of Full Text 296
EXCLUDE on article focus - not IHE 52
EXCLUDE on article focus - not COVID 33
EXCLUDE on methods/analysis 53
INCLUDED in study 158
14
sional reports. Figure2 displays the total number of
publications in our review by type. Of the 158 articles,
more than half were non-academic (N = 107, primarily
from magazines and periodicals). Only 30% (N = 45)
were peer-reviewed academic articles. is pattern
contrasts the higher education community’s desire to
reect on a quickly changing dynamic with the pro-
tracted nature of academic publishing.
Part I: Scale and Scope of Literature
In this section, we examine the scope of the literature
on COVID-19’s impacts on internationalization activi-
ties. We specically comment on publication types and
their geographic focus, internationalization domain,
and key themes.
PublicationType
We cast a wide net to incorporate academic and
non-academic publications into our sample, including
magazines, academic journals, newspapers, and profes-
| .
FINDINGS
Figure 2: Number of Articles by Publication Type
described international students’ experiences; in these
cases, we did not code students’ national origin (if men-
tioned) but rather the host institution’s country if that
was the research focus.
PublicationTrendsbyGeographi cFocus
Figure3presents the total number of publications in
our review by country of focus (if applicable). Studies
that examined trends in many countries were coded as
“global.” We coded a publication’s country of focus as
the host country or location of the institution(s) under
discussion (vs. the authors’ geographic aliations or
students’ places of origin). For example, many articles
15
-
As depicted in Figure 3, the initial literature over-
whelmingly focused on a small set of countries, specif-
ically the United States and the United Kingdom.
Articles about these two countries collectively repre-
sented almost 55% of sources in our sample. ese
countries are major destinations for international stu-
dents. e literature thus seemed to reect current
trends in international student mobility. Both coun-
tries are majority English-speaking. erefore, the em-
phasis in our sample may be partly attributable to our
inclusion criteria regarding English-language articles.
Figure 3: Top Mentioned Geographic Foci
•
79
26
19
11 11
7
5
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
USA UK G loba l Ch ina Austr alia Canada Europe
(multiple
co un trie s)
Germa ny
Number of Publications
Figure 4:Top Mentioned Geographic Foci by Publication Type
16
7
4 4
2
3
60
23
11
7 7
5
2
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
USA UK G loba l Australia Ch ina Canada Europe Germa ny
Number of Publications
Academic Journal Ar ticl es Non-Academic (Magazine or Newspaper)
16
| .
focus was coded from publications and corresponded
to the domains and sub-domains in our conceptual
framework. Figure 5 shows the number of publica-
tions by domain. People mobility attracted the most
attention (N = 139), with 99 articles on inbound mo-
bility and 40 on outbound mobility.
As discussed in our conceptual framework, we
mostly dierentiated between inbound and outbound
people mobility. is decision was partly practical; we
could oen readily discern which type of people mo-
bility authors were addressing. Our choice contrasts
the more typical emphases on degree mobility and
credit mobility. Denitions of internationalization
usually distinguish degree-seeking and credit-seeking
students when discussing international mobility. is
distinction is important because degree- and cred-
it-seeking students typically have unique goals, and
their durations at host institutions vary substantially.
However, we found that academic studies on interna-
tional students were much less likely to clarify the
population of focus. For example, many articles refer-
enced “international students” or “international mo-
bility” in general. Articles on inbound international
student mobility most commonly proled de-
gree-seeking students, whereas those on outbound
mobility examined credit-seeking students (i.e., those
studying abroad). As Table 3 shows, these generaliza-
tions are quite broad, and many articles concentrating
on inbound international students did not state
whether students were degree-seeking or credit-seek-
ing. Articles on outbound mobility tended to be much
clearer regarding their population of interest. In our
review, 13% of studies examining outbound mobility
were addressing degree-seeking preferences. Most of
these studies concerned Chinese students’ preferences
for international degree mobility in the wake of
COVID-19.
Aer mobility, the most mentioned international-
ization domain was IaH (N = 29), which focused on
collaborative online international learning (COIL)/
virtual education (N = 22). Other internationalization
domains received less interest, in line with a tradition-
al view of internationalization as centering on student
mobility. However, a disproportionate number of
studies in our sample were from the United States,
where research was heavily trained on international
We disaggregated the total number of publica-
tions by type, specically academic (i.e., journal arti-
cles) and non-academic (i.e., magazine articles,
newspaper articles, and reports). Figure 4 illustrates
sources’ geographic (country) focus by publication
type. Much of the initial information on COVID-19’s
impact on internationalization appeared in non-aca-
demic pieces focusing on the United States and the
United Kingdom (N = 84 collectively). Figure 4 also
indicates the absence of academic articles from the
United Kingdom; publications in this category mostly
revolved around the pandemic’s impact on the U.S.
higher education system.
Non-academic sources, which are generally
shorter, atheoretical, and published without peer re-
view, set the tone of the conversation about COVID-
19’s immediate impact on internationalization. Stark
dierences in the publishing timelines and processes
between academic and non-academic sources likely
aected knowledge dissemination overall. At rst
glance, the lack of academic journal articles discussing
international partnerships during the pandemic im-
plies an overall drop-o in collaborative engagement;
however, a closer assessment of available resources
suggests that the lengthy peer-review process in aca-
demic publishing may pose a challenge in time-sensi-
tive situations such as the pandemic. Whereas
magazines have ecient publication processes, aca-
demic journal articles progress on a considerably
slower timeline due to peer review. We do not intend
to assess or discuss at length the rigor of peer-reviewed
research in academic journals. However, these cir-
cumstances insinuate that academic journals may not
be the best tool for knowledge sharing and mobiliza-
tion in a rapidly evolving space. At the same time,
many techniques that periodical editors use to attract
readers may exaggerate negative consequences or em-
phasize a crisis rhetoric. Early storylines could then
persist even if subsequent peer-reviewed research be-
lies these claims.
PublicationTrendsby
InternationalizationDomain
We also examined publication trends across interna-
tionalization domains. e domains or sub-domain of
17
students. Despite pandemic-induced changes, work on
domains associated with IaH (e.g., curriculum, co-cur-
ricular/extracurricular activities) remained negligible.
is area thus calls for additional research.
DistributionofKeyTheme s
We identied a number of key themes and emphases
for each publication, developed through iterative
rounds of emergent coding. is set of key themes in-
cluded topics such as documenting students’ experi-
ences, calling to rethink internationalization, discussing
the shi to online internationalization, and others.
Figure 6 displays these themes’ frequencies over all
publications. Our coding results pointed to a strong fo-
cus on international students, roughly evenly split be-
tween experiences during COVID-19 (N = 53) and
enrollment trends at the institutional or national level
(N = 46). Fewer articles, but still a sizeable set (N = 27),
addressed the transition to online learning and the in-
stitutional support services available for international
students. Issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion and
especially anti-Asian discrimination also appeared of-
ten (N = 23). Physical health, mental health, and
well-being (N = 12) did not represent a major theme,
nor did other content-oriented themes (e.g., intercul-
tural education, language education).
-
Table 3: Articles by Mobility Type
Inbound(N) %Inbound Outbound(N) %Outbound
Degree-seeking 43 43% 13 33%
Credit-seeking 1 1% 21 53%
Both 12 12% 1 3%
Not mentioned or unclear 44 44% 5 13%
Figure 5: Number of Publications by Internationalization Activity
•
1
3
5
5
5
7
7
9
22
40
99
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Joint Programs & Degrees
Co-Curriculum / Extracurricular
Branch Campuses
Research Collaboration
International Development / Capacity Bui lding
Faculty & Staff Mobility
Partnerships
Curriculum
COIL / Vi rtual
Outbound Students
Inbound Students
Number of Publications
18
trary, academic journals principally revolved around
topics related to the “new normal” in internationaliza-
tion. Calls to rethink internationalization were more
common in the academic literature (totaling 69% of all
sources on this theme) along with intercultural under-
standing (83%) and language education (75%). Lastly,
academic and non-academic publications both covered
students’ experiences/attitudes and the shi to online
and virtual communications.
Figure7 also indicates that most studies pertained
to student-related topics (i.e., students’ experiences and
enrollment). is trend coincides with our do-
main-specic ndings, where inbound and outbound
e distribution of publication types based on focal
themes presents a distinction between the most com-
mon topics in academic journals versus in non-aca-
demic publications. e latter outlets seemed more
interested in easily quantiable and timely themes,
such as funding and/or revenue (95% of pieces on these
topics were published in non-academic sources) and
student enrollment/recruitment (91% in non-academ-
ic sources). Program suspension/cancellation also at-
tracted disproportionate scrutiny in non-academic
outlets (89% of all pieces regarding this theme were
published in magazines and newspapers), as did stu-
dent support services (81% of all pieces). On the con-
| .
Figure 6: Number of Publications by Key Theme
8
8
9
12
14
16
19
21
23
25
27
46
53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Intercultural Education or Understanding
Language Education
Digital Technology Infrastructures (not COIL)
Physical Health, Mental Health and Well-Being
Faculty and Staff Experiences
Call to Rethink Internationalization
Program Suspension or Cancellation
Funding and/or Revenue
Equity, Diver sity, Inclusion, or Racism and
Discriminati on
Student Support Services
Shift to Online Learning
Student Enrollment/ Recruitment
Student Exper iences / Attitudes
Number of Publications
19
-
Figure 7: : Number of Publications by Key Theme and Publication Type
student mobility were the most popular codes. Students
remained at the heart of the concept of internationaliza-
tion in HEIs while other actors, such as faculty and
researchers, garnered far less interest.
1
2
7
8
8
5
16
18
17
14
15
41
27
5
6
2
5
4
11
2
1
4
9
12
4
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Intercultural Understanding
Language Education
Digital Technology Infrastructures (not COIL)
Faculty and Staff Exper iences
Physical Health, Mental Heal th and Well-Being
Call to Rethink Internationalization
Program Suspension or Cancellation
Funding and Revenue
Student Supports / Services
Equity, Diversity, Inclusion or Racism and Discrimination
Shift to Online Learning
Student Enrollment/Recruitment
Student Exper iences/Attitudes
Number of Publications
Academic Journals Non-Academic Outlets (Magazines & Newspapers)
most immediate consequences of the pandemic during
the period under review, which mirrored the initial
stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.
As anticipated based on the high number of articles,
the most cross-cutting priorities corresponded to the
three most studied domains: inbound degree- and
credit-seeking students, outbound degree- and cred-
it-seeking students (including study abroad), and
COIL/virtual education. Inbound mobility was exten-
sively investigated from the perspectives of student en-
rollment (N = 38), inbound students’ experiences
during the pandemic (N = 34), and funding and/or rev-
enue (N = 17). Outbound mobility and COIL/virtual
education also presented a fairly robust distribution of
cross-cutting themes among the most popular codes.
Articles tended to investigate priorities linked to the
20
this country group. In comparison, only around 15% of
publications on this theme featured non-Anglophone
countries. Approximately 28% of publications about
these countries focused on students’ experiences and
attitudes, whereas about 22% of the articles from core
Anglophone countries did so. ese statistics corrobo-
rate trends in student mobility in that core Anglophone
countries receive the most international students
worldwide and have therefore been substantially aect-
ed by the pandemic and are concerned about student
enrollment and recruitment.
Core Anglophone countries usually stress funding
and revenue compared with non-Anglophone coun-
tries: 12% of publications from core Anglophone coun-
tries addressed this theme versus a mere 6% in
Dierent Emphases Around the World
To better understand how key themes varied across
countries, we categorized publications by their focal
country. We then analyzed dierences between publi-
cations from core Anglophone countries that are major
recruiters of international students (i.e., the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand) versus all other countries. To compare
core Anglophone countries and non-Anglophone
countries, we calculated the percentage of publications
on major themes to determine how countries’ foci
diered.
Figure 9 shows that core Anglophone countries
have placed considerable emphasis on student enroll-
ment and recruitment, totaling 25% of publications in
| .
Figure 8: Theme Frequency by Internationalization Domain
1
3
11
13
17
34
38
2
1
5
3
13
13
1
5
4
3
10
2
4
1
4
3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Intercultural Understanding
Faculty and Staff Experienc es
Physical Health, Mental Health and Wel lbeing
EDI or Racism and Discrimination
Funding and/or Revenue
Studen t Ex periences/Atti tudes
Student Enrollment/Recruitment
Inboun d Outb oun d COIL Cu rriculum
21
Non-Anglophone countries underlined this theme
more (12%) than core Anglophone countries (5%).
Current research on internationalization is largely
Western-centric. Researchers and practitioners from
non-Anglophone countries may deem it more urgent
to rethink internationalization, while core Anglophone
countries might still prioritize dwindling student en-
rollment and revenue. is is another theme that re-
quires monitoring.
Intercultural understanding has elicited far less
curiosity in both core Anglophone countries (3%) and
non-Anglophone countries (4%). is seeming lack of
interest has created a marked void in the literature. A
critical goal of internationalization is to increase inter-
cultural understanding, making the dearth of research
on this theme alarming. Interestingly, the pandem-
ic-related halt in travel sparked more worries about
student enrollment and recruitment and students’ atti-
tudes than about students’ intercultural understanding.
e aim of intercultural understanding in relation to
internationalization thus seems to have been
overlooked.
non-Anglophone countries. is nding reects the
reality that international students are important reve-
nue sources for HEIs in core Anglophone countries. It
also coincides with the research focus on student en-
rollment and recruitment for this country group.
Compared with student enrollment, students’ ex-
periences, and funding and revenue, a much smaller
set of literature concentrated on physical health, men-
tal health, and well-being. is theme was more preva-
lent in work from Anglophone countries (7%) than
from non-Anglophone countries (3%). is dierence
may have emerged because most international students
travel to core Anglophone countries, with many hailing
from Asian countries. ese students’ families are ac-
cordingly far away, with immediate social support be-
ing scarce during the pandemic.
Non-Anglophone countries produced slightly
more literature on diversity, racism, and discrimination
(13%) compared with core Anglophone countries
(10%). is nding is intriguing: numerous reports
and other types of literature have explored students’ ex-
periences with racism and discrimination during the
pandemic in core Anglophone countries—particularly
in terms of anti-Asian racism. e COVID-19 virus
was rst identied in China, the country which many
international students call home. It is important to note
that we only conducted an initial literature search;
more research on this theme may be released about
core Anglophone countries over time. It is therefore
necessary to continue tracking this area.
Faculty and sta experiences constituted another
theme that received less literature coverage. Only 4% of
research from core Anglophone countries concerned
this theme, compared with 10% from non-Anglophone
countries. Core Anglophone countries’ emphasis on
student enrollment and recruitment may have contrib-
uted to this gap. Faculty and sta experiences generally
gain less attention in the internationalization eld,
which focuses more on student mobility and the stu-
dent experience. Yet more internationalization research
should involve faculty and sta; both are important
stakeholders.
Another major distinction between core Anglo-
phone countries and non-Anglophone countries ac-
companied calls to rethink internationalization.
-
22
Part II: Impact of COVID-19 on Each
Domain of Internationalization
In this section, we summarize ndings on the impact of
COVID-19 on each internationalization domain. We
also ponder the roles of national policies and institu-
tional supports as moderators of identied impacts.
InternationalStudentMo bility
e early literature overwhelmingly discussed people
mobility, particularly inbound degree-seeking stu-
dents. Among the 158 publications included in our re-
view, 99 pertained to inbound student mobility: 26 in
academic journals, 53 in magazines and periodicals, 16
in newspapers, and 4 published as reports and confer-
ence proceedings or meeting documents. In terms of
geographic distribution, 90 publications involved ma-
jor destinations for international students, namely the
United States (N = 59), the United Kingdom (N = 16),
Australia (N = 9), Canada (N = 5), and Germany (N =
4).
Student enrollment/recruitment was the most
popular theme in this domain across publication types,
appearing in 38 sources. e second most common
theme encompassed students’ experiences and atti-
tudes (N = 34). Two other frequent themes were stu-
dent support services and funding/revenue, mentioned
in 18 and 17 sources, respectively.
Nearly immediately following border closures in
March 2020, newspapers, magazines, and periodicals
began investigating the pandemic’s impact on interna-
| .
Figure 9: Comparison of Major Themes between Core Anglophone Countries and All Others
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Student
Enrollment/Recruitment
Student
Experiences/Attitudes
Funding and Reven ue
Physical Health, Mental
Healt h and Well-Being
Diversity or Racism and
Disc rimination
Faculty and Staff
Experiences
Call to Rethink
Internationalization
Intercultural
Understanding
Core Anglo phone Countries All Other Coun tries
23
tional student enrollment/recruitment. At rst, in the
absence of ocial enrollment data, information was
mainly derived from the number of issued student vi-
sas and via interviews with leaders and administrators.
Insight was later obtained from surveys conducted by
professional associations, institutional enrollment and
recruitment gures, and national statistical data.
Publications highlighted declining enrollment and
presented a somber outlook at the start of the pandem-
ic. Early reports of low enrollment numbers spawned
anxiety about the duration and long-term eects of this
crisis. However, aer the initial panic and amid residu-
al uncertainty, condence steadily grew that the pan-
demic’s impact would likely be temporary and that the
global number of international student enrollments
would eventually improve (Gardner, 2021; Kercher,
2021; O’Malley, 2021a). For instance, in an article pub-
lished in October 2020, Baker (2020b) mentioned that
in the United Kingdom—despite a 100% drop in the
number of student visas issued from March to the end
of June—universities were optimistic about the sector’s
recovery. In the United States, a report shared ndings
from the Institute of International Education’s fourth
COVID-19 Snapshot Survey: international student ap-
plications for the 2021–22 academic year were nearly
twice the jump documented by HEIs for the previous
year (O’Malley, 2021b).
at said, this hopefulness was not uniform
cross-nationally. e expectation that some countries
would recuperate more easily than others has been at-
tributed to a constellation of factors—including but not
limited to governments’ and institutions’ responses to
the pandemic, imposed travel restrictions (Kercher,
2021), immigration environments (Baker, 2020b;
O’Malley, 2021a), and politics and geopolitics (Dennis,
2020; Fischer, 2020a).
e literature has also underscored revenue loss as
an area of concern tied to reduced international stu-
dent enrollment, especially in countries where interna-
tional student fees serve as an essential income stream
(Bothwell, 2021; Basken et al., 2020). Magazines and
periodicals addressed the need for government-pro-
vided nancial assistance from the start of the pandem-
ic. Such was the case in the United States where, for
instance, the Association of International Educators
projected that the drop in international student enroll-
ment in fall 2020 could cost universities US$4.5 billion
(Marklein, 2020). International students and their fam-
ilies contributed nearly $41 billion to the U.S. economy
in the 2018–19 academic year, creating or supporting
more than 458,000 jobs and making international edu-
cation the h largest services export in the country
(Banks & Stewart, 2020). In light of these dependen-
cies, the Association of International Educators advo-
cated for federal nancial aid for HEIs to help oset the
impacts of low enrollments on institutional budgets
and on the national economy. Another example is the
United Kingdom: a British Council report predicted
14,000 fewer new enrollments from East Asia alone in
the 2020–21 academic year compared with 2019–20.
e nancial implications of lower enrollments, as dis-
cussed in the report, prompted the University and Col-
lege Union to criticize their government’s “wait and
see” approach and to call for immediate nancial help
(British Council, 2020).
Moreover, the loss of revenue caused by the pan-
demic drew renewed attention to HEIs’ overreliance on
international student fees as a revenue source. Some
publications (Bebbington, 2021; Ross, 2021) addressed
the decrease in international student enrollment in
Australian universities due to COVID-19 and the ad-
verse impacts on HEIs’ research and overall budgets. In
these studies, multiple stakeholders criticized institu-
tions’ dependence on revenue generated from interna-
tional student fees and a lack of accompanying nancial
risk management plans. On the positive side, responses
to these issues included recommendations for inven-
tive practices such as new funding strategies and the
development of a revamped systemwide research “vi-
sion” within the Australian higher education system.
We also found that the pandemic catalyzed change
and innovation around international student recruit-
ment practices. Multiple studies emphasized either the
shi to or growth of online and digital learning. For
instance, a literature review exploring international
student enrollment in Ghana suggested ways to en-
hance online engagement with potential students
(Nyame & Abedi-Boafo, 2020). Wood (2020b) explored
changes that U.S. HEIs had made to their international
graduate student recruitment processes to surmount
pandemic-related obstacles; the article presented valu-
able strategies, such as creating country-specic virtual
-
24
events and webinars and implementing technology-as-
sisted fast-tracking of admissions (Wood, 2020b). Else-
where, the German Academic Exchange Service
[DAAD] reported that, among other important digiti-
zation eorts, HEIs had developed myriad digital re-
cruitment approaches to attract and better serve
international students throughout the recruitment pro-
cess (Gardner, 2021).
Studies addressed other topics tied to student en-
rollment and recruitment to a lesser extent. For in-
stance, Kercher (2021) identied a global trend showing
that the pandemic-related decline in international stu-
dents aected bachelor’s programs more than graduate
programs. Some articles also identied dierences
across institution types (Bothwell, 2021). In the United
States, a 2021 survey released by the Institute of Inter-
national Education showed 60% of doctoral institu-
tions in the country reported an increase in applications
whereas 60% of community colleges anticipated fewer
applicants (Fischer, 2021a). Another under-investigat-
ed area is COVID-19’s impact on international student
enrollment/recruitment in dierent higher education
systems; some authors argued that countries with
strong public education sectors might be less aected
than others (e.g., Baker, 2020a).
In addition to the large volume of research on in-
ternational student enrollment, studies on internation-
al student mobility examined students’ experiences and
attitudes. irty-four articles in our sample were coded
as referring to both inbound mobility and students’ ex-
periences/attitudes. Seventeen were in academic jour-
nals, 10 in magazines, and seven in newspapers. e
publications primarily addressed four sub-themes: visa
issues, online learning during the pandemic, mental
health, and discrimination. All sub-themes were
cross-cutting and are detailed in other sections of this
report. Online learning is discussed later in this section
under “Internationalization at Home.” In Part III: The
Roles of Policies and Supports, we describe visa issues
under the “National Policies” section; in Part VI:
Cross-Cutting Themes, we report on students’ experi-
ences related to mental health and discrimination.
Along with the above-mentioned themes, another
important nding reected the pandemic’s conse-
quences for degree completion. Two articles identied
border closures and poor institutional exibility
around degree requirements in China as the cause of
this problem. ese sources reported on students from
Asia and Africa at Chinese HEIs who feared they would
not obtain their degrees due to missing opportunities
to complete laboratory work, publication delays, and
failure to meet other academic deadlines (Lau, 2021a,
2021b). Weissman (2020) indicated that graduate in-
ternational students in the United States were facing
similar challenges. Specically, doctoral students were
reported to have been unable to complete their doctor-
al work because of restricted access to libraries, labora-
tories, and eldwork sites (Weissman, 2020). Both
articles remarked on the lack of student support and
advocated for the creation of targeted supports for stu-
dents facing academic diculties from the pandemic.
Although we did not specically identify the student
populations under study in this round of coding, we
believe that most research focused on undergraduates’
experiences. Weissman (2020) highlighted particulari-
ties of graduate students’ experiences and unveiled the
need for additional research on the diversity of interna-
tional students’ experiences.
In short, the literature indicates that COVID-19
caused international students to experience varying
degrees of distress that negatively aected their physi-
cal, psychological, social, and/or economic well-being
(Bista, 2020; Blake et al., 2021; Gao, 2021; Ge, 2021;
Matthews, 2020a; Mok et al., 2021; Novikov, 2020;
Sumbogo et al., 2021). Such research showcases the
need for more adequate national and institutional sup-
ports for these students.
OutboundMobility
Within the domain of people mobility, our sample con-
tained 40 publications on outbound mobility: 21 were
specic to credit-seeking students studying abroad,
and 13 reported on students’ preferences for future de-
gree-seeking mobility.
In terms of geographic distribution, among publi-
cations with a clear focal country, the United States was
the focus of approximately half (N = 22), followed by
China (N = 4) and the United Kingdom (N = 4). Over-
all interest in outbound mobility lagged behind that in
inbound international students. Even so, the country
distributions were relatively similar, with most work
related to the United States and the United Kingdom.
| .
25
States—bearing in mind the distance from their home
countries given the unpredictability of the pandemic.
In deciding whether to stay in an international destina-
tion or to return home (for students already abroad
during the pandemic), individuals compared the epi-
demiologic scenarios in both countries, the mental and
physical health of themselves and their families, poten-
tial consequences for academic progress, and social re-
sponsibility (Cao & Chieu, 2021).
A related set of studies examined future trends in
mobility ows to paint a more vivid picture of present
circumstances. These publications oen used large-
scale surveys to monitor existing needs and predict
future demands. Yet the impressions gained from these
surveys diered considerably depending on the coun-
tries involved, the research focus, and the stakeholders
contributing to the article. For instance, a global sur-
vey conrmed that 79% of international students pre-
ferred on-campus study abroad programs with Canada
as the top destination (Nuthall, 2021). A similarly op-
timistic picture emerged for African students who con-
sidered the United Kingdom a safe and welcoming
destination for their outward mobility plans (Kigotho,
2021b). For African students during the pandemic in
particular, numbers had demonstrably declined; Kig-
otho (2021a) indicated that these students’ future mo-
bility would be shaped by travel restrictions, leading to
a redistribution of student ows internationally. A sur-
vey conducted in India and Nepal presented slightly
dierent ndings, with school graduates remaining
positive about their future study abroad plans—al-
though many respondents expressed uncertainty
about the pandemic and mentioned that their study
plans had been disrupted, compelling them to either
search for online alternatives or to abandon their ini-
tial aspirations (Sharma, 2020c). Certain articles
linked future plans for mobility to geopolitics: Lau
(2020b) discussed the possibility of China inuencing
outbound Chinese international student ows accord-
ing to its diplomatic relations worldwide.
Credit-Seeking Outbound Mobility
We identied two major sub-themes within the subset
of studies addressing credit-seeking outbound mobili-
ty: 1) immediate impacts of the pandemic and 2) stu-
dents’ experiences while moving to virtual exchange.
Most of the publications were featured in maga-
zines and periodicals (N = 20) or newspapers (N = 12).
ese appearances reect a concentration on swily
communicating information and discussing institu-
tional responses to crises. Articles in magazines and
periodicals primarily traced changes in national regu-
lations regarding border closures, abrupt cancellations
of study abroad programs, urgent repatriation of stu-
dents who were abroad during the rst wave of the
pandemic, and advice for navigating this ever-chang-
ing terrain. e professional direction of publications
on these shared practices was evident. Newspaper arti-
cles originated from University World News and de-
scribed emerging trends in international outbound
mobility during and aer the pandemic. Finally, arti-
cles in academic journals (N = 8) presented qualitative
and quantitative analyses of the rationale underlying
international students’ choices in the COVID-19 era.
e majority of reviewed items referred to surveys
and online questionnaires as data sources. Experts’
opinions about and experiences in higher education
appeared widespread, as did testimonials capturing
students’ perspectives. Several information sources
were therefore used. Complicated methodological ap-
proaches were largely absent, likely due to the need for
timely guidance under highly uid conditions.
Degree-Mobility Preferences
Here, we rst discuss how COVID-19 aected students’
choices about study abroad destinations, particularly in
terms of future degree-seeking mobility. A number of
studies examined decision-making processes and per-
sonal factors to shed light on the choices of current and
future international students who were contemplating
studying abroad (or who had decided not to do so due
to the pandemic). Commonly mentioned characteris-
tics included updated study plans, newly chosen desti-
nations, and consideration of a range of factors.
Prospective international students reported generally
preferring face-to-face interaction over online learning
(Bothwell, 2020). Nevertheless, study counselors in
China reported no or minimal decline in the number
of Chinese outbound students (Chow-Liu, 2021). In
terms of study destinations, however, Chow-Liu (2021)
indicated that students had started to consider other
English-speaking countries apart from the United
-
26
virtual reality cannot replace full cultural immersion.
e authors further suggested that, aer the pandemic,
hybrid study abroad programs can be created that har-
ness the advantages of both teaching modes (i.e.,
in-person and virtual).
Researchers also pointed out the need for eective
emergency responses and outlined issues that arose
during or because of the transition to online services
(e.g., lower quality of online experiences, negative ef-
fects on recruitment due to limited interaction during
online visits, inclusiveness). Alternatives included con-
tinuing study abroad programs via online tools, allow-
ing deferrals, and designing fully remote outbound
mobility programs. ese options enabled HEIs to ac-
commodate senior students’ needs while oering new-
ly admitted student exible choices (Chow-Liu, 2021;
Gallagher, 2020; Schuller & Colus, 2020; Wood, 2020a).
e sub-theme of students’ experiences extended be-
yond the shi to online learning. Discrimination, espe-
cially anti-Asian sentiments, led to critical lived
experiences for some outbound students (Lau, 2020a).
We address this point in greater depth as a cross-cut-
ting theme.
In short, the literature on outbound mobility chief-
ly focused on current students and their perspectives
during the pandemic. More than half of publications
(N = 25) examined the challenges that institutions and
students faced because of COVID-19 during study
abroad or when students were planning to leave their
country of origin. Eleven items revolved around stu-
dents’ future choices, program design in the coming
years, and upcoming trends in the eld. e remaining
articles (N = 4) referred to both present and future con-
ditions. A few publications (N = 3) considered circum-
stances during and aer the pandemic as strong
motivations for rethinking international outbound
mobility and creating opportunities for change. Sug-
gestions in this regard were fairly vague but tended to
view post-pandemic reality through a dierent lens—
as a chance to recast educational practices, particularly
in relation to the curriculum (e.g., Dietrich, 2020; Ohi-
to et al., 2021).
Regarding immediate impacts, articles in maga-
zines and periodicals delineated how pandemic-related
restrictions had aected study abroad programs and
students. is category covers a variety of topics, from
descriptive approaches related to government mea-
sures and health concerns to sharing advice about insti-
tutional responses, risk management, and repatriation
plans (e.g., Bothwell, 2021b; Hayes & Al’Abri, 2020;
Marklein, 2021; Sutton, 2020; West, 2020c, 2020d;
Zalaznick, 2020). Publications on emergency respons-
es, which mainly addressed the rst (and most unex-
pected) wave of the pandemic, oen included references
to disastrous economic eects for outbound mobility
in the longer run (Banks & Stewart, 2020; Marklein,
2020). e pandemic also cast light on many institu-
tions’ lack of proper risk management strategies for
mobility programs (Schuller & Colus, 2020).
Most articles stressed the need for exibility in
navigating this sensitive and complicated territory. In
terms of our overall sample, the pandemic and its new
reality were usually framed as disruptive, economically
devastating, dangerous, and restricting. e narrative
was less intense in publications whose statistical data
were presented more descriptively than interpretative-
ly. e outlook seemed mostly neutral; in these cases,
the pandemic was depicted as an event that cannot be
undone and that will surely alter the outbound mobili-
ty landscape. Irrespective of the tone of publications,
the immediate response was repatriation or cancella-
tion of study abroad programs followed by occasional
substitution through online oerings.
e pandemic brought ubiquitous border closures
and travel constraints. e transition to virtual ex-
change and attendant changes in the student experi-
ence thus emerged as another sub-theme. Numerous
publications examined how institutions had moved
from on-site to online study abroad programs and the
responses of upper-year and newly admitted students
(Chow-Liu, 2021; Schuller & Colus, 2020; Wood,
2020a). For example, a study abroad course was rede-
signed using virtual reality to immerse students in a
foreign environment; participating HEIs organized vir-
tual tours in Google Tour Creator, which students ap-
preciated. Liu and Shirley (2021) concluded that
“traditional study abroad courses can be redesigned
into fully online COIL courses” (p. 192) but noted that
| .
27
International Program and Provider Mo-
bility
In contrast to people mobility, only six articles in our
review were about IPPM (ve on branch campuses
and one on joint programs). The literature on the pan-
demic’s impact was therefore thin in this respect. Of
the six sources, two were published in academic jour-
nals and each pertained to branch campuses; four ap-
peared in magazines and periodicals or newspapers
such as Times Higher Education or University World
News.
In terms of studies on branch campuses, topics in-
cluded the move to online or virtual communications,
faculty members’ perspectives, and international stu-
dent mobility. One aspect of this limited literature in-
volved the merits of branch campuses. Publications
examined how branch campuses could help students
aected by border closures, thereby limiting disruption
to students’ study plans. For instance, Bothwell (2021)
found that Malaysian branch campuses of UK and Aus-
tralian HEIs enrolled students who could not travel due
to travel restrictions. is course of action prevented
interruptions in students’ education. New York Univer-
sity is one such example: students were allowed to study
at either of its branch campuses if they could not come
to the United States (Moja, 2021). Branch campuses’
operations seemed to have helped these HEIs partly al-
leviate pandemic-induced disruptions for students.
Faculty members’ experiences on branch campus-
es were not always positive. In China, for example, a
faculty member of a Sino-joint university reported
tight restrictions on movement, family separation, and
more stringent constraints on academic freedom
(Times Higher Education Sta, 2021). Another report-
ed that their contract had been terminated aer an en-
counter with an unmasked student in class. is faculty
member also cited a lack of support to help them re-
turn to the United Kingdom. is article from Times
Higher Education argued that in times of crisis such as
COVID-19, strong national policies in host countries
may lead to tension around internationalization—par-
ticularly for foreign faculty who, like their students,
may nd themselves stuck between two regulatory re-
gimes (Times Higher Education Sta, 2021).
Only one publication reected on joint programs
(Schuller & Colus, 2020). is article discussed how
the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s Degrees, which
have an important mobility portion, adapted to the
pandemic. e authors described concerns about how
intercultural aspects of this program could be delivered
without physical mobility.
In all, few publications examined the impact of
COVID-19 on IPPM. e literature was fragmented in
its consideration of students’ attitudes about moving
online, anecdotes on faculty members’ experiences on
branch campuses, and how universities with either
branch campuses or joint programs have dealt with
pandemic-induced disruptions. A positive note is that
universities have striven to adapt to the pandemic to
minimize interruptions for students. For instance, stu-
dents who cannot travel may enroll at branch campuses
(if available) to continue their studies.
InternationalResearch
As with IPPM, our review uncovered little research on
how COVID-19 has inuenced international research
collaboration: only two articles broached this topic.
One addressed the pandemic’s impact on a research–
practice partnership. e partnership had existed for 3
years prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and was not dis-
rupted; the team of researchers and practitioners could
accommodate each other’s needs and sustain the proj-
ect during the pandemic (Altavilla, 2021). Sharma
(2020b) reviewed how tensions in U.S.–China rela-
tions, partly triggered by COVID-19, had aected in-
ternational scientic collaboration. Research
collaborations between the United States and China
were found to have increased (as had collaborations
among countries such as the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, China, and Italy), particularly in
terms of research related to COVID-19. Collaboration
is necessary when conducting COVID-19 research
(e.g., to analyze viral specimens). Sharma (2020b) ulti-
mately concluded that scientic nationalism and glo-
balism can co-exist.
Another three articles mentioned the pandemic’s
eects on research while discussing other topics. For
example, one study mapped cuts to research funding in
the United Kingdom, which were framed as an unex-
pected and indirect consequence of the government’s
need to slash spending in some domains due to high
-
28
ternationalization domains. Although this initial anal-
ysis appeared to reect a lack of focus on this topic, a
closer review of the literature suggested that published
research has likely been too narrow to capture key areas
of knowledge dissemination.
Our review of the grey literature from professional
associations revealed several insights. First, despite dis-
ruptions, the perceived importance of partnerships and
research collaboration did not decrease due to the pan-
demic. By contrast, partnerships were considered high-
ly important (CBIE, 2022; CIHE, 2021; IAU, 2020).
Collaboration became critical not only when searching
for solutions but also in strategizing a way forward for
the internationalization of higher education. Publica-
tions highlighted how people working in international-
ization oces swily moved usual practices into virtual
spaces and ultimately “adapted to stay the same.” Al-
though few published articles addressed these areas,
our supplementary review of online material (i.e., we-
binars and publications from professional associations)
reected international partners’ transition from physi-
cal to virtual activities, ranging from visiting delega-
tions to research colloquia to partnership agreements
(Jacobs et al, 2021, p. 362).
Second, even though standard mobility programs
and in-person delegations ground to a halt due to in-
ternational travel restrictions, virtual collaboration ex-
panded into a digital space in unprecedented ways.
is form of cooperation served as a tool for promot-
ing diplomacy and sustaining crucial academic rela-
tionships (CBIE, 2021). e literature accentuated how
key relationship-building teams and units—oen with-
in international oces—were vital in fostering, main-
taining, and evaluating partnerships and research
collaboration with external partners and stakeholders,
even amid the ever-changing pandemic.
InternationalizationatHome
Of the 158 articles in our analysis, 29 were coded as
pertaining to IaH. We dened this topic area as con-
centrating on internationalization of the curriculum (N
= 10), co-curricular or student services (N = 4), and
COIL (N = 26). Some sources referred to multiple sub-
themes. More widely, IaH research concerned two pri-
mary topics: 1) curricular and co-curricular
internationalization; and 2) virtual learning, including
spending on health care in the wake of COVID-19.
ese funding cuts could inuence UK universities’
partnerships with low- and middle-income countries,
as the cuts mainly aected foreign aid projects through
which UK universities collaborate with these nations
(Grove, 2021). Another mentioned how reduced re-
search funding, coupled with Brexit’s impact on UK
universities’ access to research funding in the European
Union, have prompted UK universities to seek research
collaboration with countries such as China and the
United States (Morgan, 2020). An article on IaH in the
United States mentioned that research collaboration at
the institutional level and the faculty level has managed
to move online without major disruptions (Rogers,
2020).
Overall, COVID-19 did not appear to have major
negative eects on research collaboration, although
this domain was relatively underexplored in our sam-
ple. Even in the United Kingdom, which saw cuts in
government funding for research, HEIs apparently
sought to establish research partnerships with institu-
tions in other countries. e global challenge of the
pandemic seems to have brought scientists together de-
spite sometimes tense international relations, such as
between China and the United States. Research collab-
oration represents an area in which COVID-19 has
yielded opportunities, opening fertile grounds for ad-
ditional research.
InternationalPartnershipsandNetworks
Of the activities identied in our conceptual frame-
work, those on partnerships and collaboration consti-
tuted another domain with little acknowledgement.
Publications along this line were limited: joint pro-
grams and degrees (N = 1), partnerships (N = 7), joint
research projects/research collaboration (N = 5), inter-
national development/capacity development projects
(N = 5), and co-curricular/extracurricular activities (N
= 3).
Only 11 articles concerned partnerships and col-
laboration in international higher education: six from
magazines, two from newspapers, two from academic
journals, and one report. Several other pieces in the
sample mentioned partnerships and collaboration as
tools for transitioning to digital spaces at the start of
the pandemic but did not address these activities as in-
| .
29
COIL. ese articles covered three core issues, namely
students’ attitudes towards and experiences with virtu-
al collaboration and courses (N = 8); the impact and
issues of moving to virtual collaboration and courses
(N = 7); and university support for the shi to online
venues and strategies to ensure eective virtual courses
or programs (N = 5).
e most prominent themes focused on interna-
tional students’ attitudes and experiences with online
learning. Students reported mixed perceptions of on-
line learning (Pricope, 2021; Kolesova et al., 2021).
Some viewed their online learning experiences posi-
tively, mentioning greater digital literacy, increased in-
dependent learning ability, and time exibility. Students
also adopted time management strategies during on-
line learning, such as by combining online studies and
online social life to cope with pandemic circumstances
(Pricope, 2021; Kolesova et al., 2021). Online exchange
programs could enhance students’ intercultural com-
petence despite being virtual. For example, Liu and
Shirley (2021) analyzed a business study abroad course
that used COIL and virtual reality. COIL was imple-
mented with students from four countries: the United
States, Germany, Brazil, and India. e authors discov-
ered that students were satised with the COIL course
and improved their intercultural competence through
this learning mode. Students also reported being moti-
vated by their instructor’s feedback. is research con-
rmed that a personalized connection with students is
paramount in online learning. One major hindrance
was the time zone dierences between participating
countries.
Some international students struggled with the
shi to online learning platforms for various reasons,
including new expectations for participation or a lack
of digital competency (Lin & Nguyen, 2021). Students
also faced family pressure about the devaluing of West-
ern education as courses moved online (Lin & Nguyen,
2021). In addition, although international students
could adapt to online learning, some still preferred
in-person classes. ey also appreciated being able to
experience the culture and opportunities to work on
campus (Nuthall, 2021).
Several articles on this topic were dedicated to
teaching language to foreign students in virtual spaces.
Pricope (2021) found that according to students, the
advantages of virtual instruction include investing the
same amount of time in online learning as in face-to-
face learning, discovering personal traits, having op-
portunities to communicate directly with teachers,
saving time, and using novel technologies. Regarding
disadvantages, students mentioned needing clarica-
tion of new material; written explanations were not al-
ways sucient (e.g., in asynchronous learning).
Students also underlined the diculty of mastering the
pronunciation of new words and a lack of synchronous
communication with their teachers. Interestingly,
teachers identied similar drawbacks: limited interac-
tion with students, the amount of time needed to pro-
vide students feedback, diculty helping students with
pronunciation, and having few opportunities to work
with students individually. Pricope (2021) concluded
that teacher–student interaction is integral to students’
success. Kolesova et al. (2021) reiterated the impor-
tance of communication during virtual teaching, add-
ing that the hierarchy changes in this environment:
students take more initiative in online learning. Anoth-
er article on this topic documented the merits of using
technology in foreign language teaching to enhance the
quality of the educational process. Technological ad-
vancements facilitate language and speech exercises,
speech actions, and the use of informational technolo-
gy tools, all of which render foreign language teaching
more eective (Venzhynovych et al., 2021).
e second most common theme in the IaH liter-
ature was the impact of moving to virtual collabora-
tion/courses and resultant issues. ese studies mainly
described immediate eects such as campus closures
and disruption to international students’ studies. Re-
search has outlined numerous advantages and disad-
vantages of moving to online learning. One
improvement is that the cost of online programs tends
to be lower (for transnational education) than in-per-
son options, providing access for a larger number of
students and to dierent student groups (Li & Haupt,
2021). Additionally, for certain courses or programs,
online oerings have attracted more students due to
the convenience of virtual communication (Fang,
2021). Students can also develop digital competency
through this mode of learning and can cultivate traits
such as self-reliance (Pricope, 2021). However, studies
also identied issues have emerged from the shi to
-
30
line due to the pandemic. e authors advised that
when creating virtual exchange programs, universities
should nd appropriate partners in their institutions,
create programs that accommodate dierent academic
calendars, limit student groups to seven students or
fewer, train facilitators, and use alumni as facilitators
(Seran & Reinhard, 2021).
Part III: e Roles of Policies and Supports in
Moderating the Impact of COVID-19
We theorized that policies and supports at numerous
levels (e.g., national policies and institutional practices)
would have dierential pandemic-related eects on in-
ternationalization activities at the institutional level.
is section highlights three moderating factors: 1) na-
tional policies, which can support or hinder interna-
tionalization activities; 2) institutional practices; and 3)
professional associations.
NationalPolicies
Government policies could alleviate or aggravate the
pandemic’s eects on internationalization. Of the 158
articles in our review, 36 were coded as mentioning
“government policy and responses.” ese sources of-
ten appeared in magazines and periodicals, newspa-
pers, reports, and conference documents. e majority
focused on international student enrollment and inter-
national student tuition and fees, particularly in En-
glish-speaking countries. Some articles mentioned
foreign faculty members’ circumstances in non-En-
glish-speaking countries, especially for faculty who
could not travel.
National governments adopted distinct policies
related to COVID-19 control, domestic lockdowns,
and international travel. ese policies resulted in dif-
ferential outcomes for internationalization and inter-
national student enrollment. Related expectations also
transformed with time. Early in 2020, many news re-
ports projected that countries that handled COVID-19
would see a rise in international student enrollment.
Locations presumed to benet included Australia, New
Zealand, Germany, and countries in East Asia (i.e., Ja-
pan, South Korea, and China). Countries that did not
handle the outbreak well were anticipated to lose inter-
national student applicants, including to the United
online learning as well, including unreliable internet or
lack of quiet space to study. Teachers also have reported
heavier workloads, instances of student cheating, and
inadequate communication during class due to inter-
net delays, or may need additional training in deliver-
ing online instruction (Novikov, 2020).
In terms of university responses, articles in this
area described how HEIs navigated the rapid shi to
online learning. Strategies included providing training
to faculty and graduate teaching assistants, providing
students nancial aid, implementing a hybrid model of
student advising, and empathizing with students’ chal-
lenges and oering accommodating programs (Bisoux,
2020). Studies reported that hybrid or online programs
were more accessible to students but expressed con-
cerns about how the intercultural component could
best be delivered virtually (Gallagher, 2020; Schuller &
Colus, 2020). Bisoux (2020) oered advice for running
eective virtual exchange programs: 1) nding the
right partner; 2) paying attention to student group size;
3) building exibility into the program for students; 4)
nding competent facilitators to manage group dy-
namics; and 5) using alumni as facilitators.
Two studies examined successful examples of
COIL and virtual learning during the pandemic. First,
the State University of New York’s COIL convened a
group of faculty and administrators from 18 universi-
ties in March 2020 to develop virtual experiences relat-
ed to the world’s pressing issues. ese experiences
aimed to help students engage internationally at a time
when international travel and study abroad programs
were canceled. A six-week pilot program enrolled 58
students from these 18 universities to work with non-
governmental organizations in Africa and the Middle
East. e faculty and administrators assessed the pro-
gram upon completion and received remarkably posi-
tive evaluations from students (Forward, 2021).
A second example was the Network for Intercul-
tural Competence to Facilitate Entrepreneurship—es-
tablished by the University of Edinburgh in
collaboration with seven European universities—is in-
tended to foster students’ global citizenship along with
intercultural and entrepreneurial skills via a virtual ex-
change program (Seran & Reinhard, 2021). e pro-
gram combines live online sessions and in-person
summer school. e rst summer session was fully on-
| .
31
enter the country in other ways, such as by obtaining a
visa to Singapore or another third country and staying
for 14 days before entering the United States, these
workarounds were costly and inconvenient.
Some governments provided international stu-
dents nancial assistance. Germany adopted a no-fee
policy and allocated aid grants ($125–$600) to interna-
tional students facing a nancial emergency due to the
pandemic (Language Magazine Sta, 2020a). e UK
House of Commons (2020) stated that higher educa-
tion providers could draw from existing student premi-
um funding—worth around £23 million per
month—for student hardship funds, including mental
health support. e Education Ministry of Great Brit-
ain appointed Sir Steve Smith as International Educa-
tion Champion to support international students and
the higher education sector during the pandemic (Ed-
ucation Journal Sta, 2020). Although other countries
such as Japan have provided aid to international stu-
dents as well, these cases did not appear in our sample,
reecting another limitation of our review. is prac-
tice was also uncommon; for instance, guidance from
the U.S. Department of Education excluded interna-
tional students from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (Majorana, 2021).
e roles of national policies were also addressed
in articles on online learning, specically in terms of
the links between online education and visa eligibility.
Publications from the United States commented on the
Trump administration’s policy preventing internation-
al students from maintaining their student visa status
when taking online courses (Castiello-Gutiérrez & Li,
2020; Specia & Abi-Habib, 2020). is mandate was re-
versed aer several HEIs led lawsuits: the policy was
critiqued for being discriminatory and for dehumaniz-
ing international students. By contrast, an article on
Indian policy described how Kerala State Higher Edu-
cation Council launched a series of initiatives to sup-
port international students’ online learning.
InstitutionalPractices
e literature highlighted how institutional policies
and practices could support internationalization in the
midst of disruption. irty-ve articles discussed insti-
tutional support or policies, which were oen coded
under more than one related sub-code. Sub-codes in-
Kingdom, Canada, and the United States (Baker & Lau,
2020). Data released by 2021 pointed to a recovery in
international student numbers in countries that had
loosened entrance restrictions (Gardner, 2021). Inter-
national student applications and enrollment thus re-
turned to previous levels in the United Kingdom,
Canada, and the United States. However, the borders of
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and China were closed
to international students for longer and studies high-
lighted worries regarding future international student
enrollment in these areas (Ross, 2021; Lau, 2021).
Shiing policies le international students trapped
between regulatory regimes while remaining unpro-
tected by their host and home countries (Yojana, 2020).
As ights were canceled and borders erected, students
oen found themselves stranded—separated from
their families and other forms of support (Matthews,
2020). When a ight became available, students needed
to decide whether to stay in the host country or return
home and forgo other opportunities oered through
their mobility experience (Fischer, 2021b).
As outlined in our conceptual framework, several
types of policy aect internationalization and interna-
tional education. First, the legal requirements for inter-
national student immigrant status were a major
concern during the initial stage of COVID-19. In the
summer of 2020, the United States agreed to eliminate
the mandate that international students be sent home if
studying at colleges that would move fully online in the
fall. Second, international travel restrictions were of
great consequence. For example, students from coun-
tries on the United Kingdom’s “red travel list” were in-
structed to self-quarantine at a hotel and thus canceled
their plans to enter the United Kingdom (O’Malley,
2021a). e UK government later made a series of an-
nouncements relaxing visa requirements for interna-
tional students, including temporarily allowing
students to renew or change the category of their visas
without having to return home. At the national level,
the U.S. government instituted travel bans to China
and other countries, screenings at major international
airports, and a national lockdown for visitors from cer-
tain countries. No ights were available from China to
the United States. Such policies prevented international
students from China from entering the United States
directly for an academic year. Although students could
-
32
in this category were cross-coded with the domain of
inbound degree- and credit-seeking students, implying
institutional decision making and policy planning were
highly associated with incoming international students
and their experiences. Other domains such as virtual
education, internationalization of the curriculum, and
outbound mobility were much less likely to be linked to
leadership and institutional internationalization policy
perspectives about COVID-19.
In terms of methodology, the largest set of sources
relied on self-reports of institutional approaches as well
as institutional experts’ and leaders’ opinions. A few
publications documented ndings from surveys and
interviews with leadership representatives. Institution-
al responses were oen discussed as being directly re-
lated to government policies, which constituted the
major factor aecting HEIs’ courses of action. e
overrepresentation of the United States in our sample
precluded a thorough investigation of the breadth of
institutional responses to national pandemic policies
worldwide. In general, though, HEIs seemed to try to
use the free space le by government policies to navi-
gate the eld most eectively for their communities.
Interestingly, the composition of HEIs’ international
student bodies, their recruitment prospects, local idio-
syncrasies, and networks inspired somewhat similar
approaches (bearing in mind the U.S. context empha-
sized in our sample). HEIs also prioritized specic ac-
tions corresponding to their own conditions. Especially
during the initial phase of the pandemic, institutional
leaders and experts had to rely on creativity when
weighing their options and choosing the best approach.
ese professionals turned to magazines and periodi-
cals soon aer to share best practices for the benet of
all (Gallagher, 2020; West, 2020a).
HEIs’ top concerns amid the pandemic were as fol-
lows: early emergency responses, discrimination, mov-
ing online, reinforcing international partnerships,
adjusting recruitment practices, and collecting reliable
evidence. Institutional leadership was highly interested
in international students’ experiences and less so in in-
ternationalization domains beyond inbound mobility.
Marketing and branding did not appear to be institu-
tional priorities. Although some sources mentioned
recruitment (Burt, 2021; Wood, 2020b), this issue was
not directly tied to commercialization. Another strik-
cluded institutional leadership commitment and gov-
ernance (N = 22), institutional internationalization
policy and/or evaluation (N = 10), branding and mar-
keting (N = 2), and alumni networking (N = 1).
Most articles in this area were in magazines and
periodicals, with fewer in academic journals and news-
papers. is distribution is consistent with the content
of these sources, which largely detailed HEIs’ responses
to the COVID-19 outbreak. Pertinent sub-themes re-
volved around successful institutional emergency re-
sponses and recommendations for other institutions to
follow during global emergencies. e overall aim was
to share best practices among institutional leaders and
internationalization experts. Some articles described
how HEIs had navigated government policies, interna-
tional students’ needs, and local nuances while adher-
ing to their values (De Boer, 2021; Fan, 2021; Gallagher,
2020; Gutkin et al., 2021; McKie, 2020; Moja, 2021;
West, 2020b). Other publications contained sugges-
tions drawn from either institutional experiences or
best practices cited in ocial reports (Bothwell, 2021a;
Burt, 2021; Jansa & Anderson, 2021; Rogers, 2020; Ser-
an & Reinhard, 2021; Sutton, 2020; Toner, 2020; West,
2020a; Wood, 2020b). Topics of interest spanned sever-
al domains: safety protocols, taking into account inter-
national students’ individual particularities; student
recruitment; nancial support; eective communica-
tion (including avoiding contradictory guidelines); the
development and strengthening of international part-
nerships; virtual collaboration; local community en-
gagement; internationalization of the curriculum; and
leadership distribution.
Less common sub-themes included institutional
reactions to discrimination and anti-Asian incidents
(Dill, 2020; Lee, 2020; Mittelmeier & Cockayne, 2020),
project leadership during the pandemic (Jacobs et al.,
2021), and institutional responses regarding the move
to online education (Laufer et al., 2021). A set of arti-
cles outlined issues to which leaders could refer in or-
der to make informed choices (Castiello-Gutiérrez &
Li, 2020; Fischer, 2021a; Huang, 2021; O’Malley, 2021),
and two publications analyzed the collective reaction of
U.S. HEIs which opposed the U.S. government’s action
of banning international students from staying in the
country while studying fully online (Fischer, 2020b;
Language Magazine Sta, 2020b). Many publications
| .
33
cal realities that are altering the internationalization
landscape; and 5) calls to rethink the status quo.
UnevenImpactsandShiingInequalities
e suspension of in-person classes and activities led to
virtual and online international learning and collabo-
ration throughout HEIs. e advantages and disadvan-
tages of this shi represented a recurring theme across
many domains of internationalization (e.g., interna-
tional student mobility, course delivery, and partner-
ships and collaboration). Concerns were repeatedly
raised about the nature of the pandemic’s uneven im-
pacts on HEIs and students. While the strengths of
many hierarchies seemed to wane due to new forms of
virtual participation, others were assembled in relation
to borders and the internet.
Research has generally noted clear advantages to
online learning. More precisely, the move to virtual
forms of internationalization has aorded students
greater access to international education. However, un-
certainty persists about how best to deliver the inter-
cultural component and to ensure that all students can
adequately use these online platforms to improve their
learning. Many students would prefer to return to cam-
pus for their studies. Looking towards the future,
blended learning may provide an opportunity to lever-
age the benets of both online and in-person
education.
Much of the literature on internationalization has
not yet addressed how internationalization domains—
not only course delivery—have fared during this online
transition. Some suggested that, despite increasingly
complex processes arising from pandemic shutdowns
and work-from-home directives, partnerships have be-
come more accessible and chances for engagement
have become more frequent (Forward, 2021). Growing
resource digitalization and the shi to online platforms
are partly responsible for these benets, as are in-
creased digital literacy and a yearning for human con-
nection. Pre-existing issues of unequal access to
technology will remain prevalent in the post-
COVID-19 era of internationalization; however, tech-
nology will likely become a standard means through
which academic institutions foster relationships.
Other types of inequalities have emerged based on
ing omission was quality assurance when institutions
transitioned to online teaching and learning.
ProfessionalAssociations
Professional associations played a prime role in sup-
porting internationalization. We found that higher ed-
ucation associations and targeted professional
associations published a wide range of surveys, reports,
and other resources that provided information for uni-
versities grappling with COVID-19’s impact on inter-
nationalization. For example, in August 2020, the IAU
published its Regional/National Perspectives on the
Impact of COVID 19 on Higher Education report,
which reected the pulse of higher education to oer
just-in-time lessons from the early stage of the pan-
demic. Released mere months aer the outbreak, the
report stressed the value of research collaboration as a
tool for coordinating a strategic response to the pan-
demic and as a mechanism for sustaining and advanc-
ing the goals of international cooperation in higher
education (IAU, 2020). In this way, professional associ-
ations reached diverse audiences and delivered timely
resources in a rapidly evolving space. eir work con-
tributed to knowledge mobilization that helped univer-
sities navigate new terrain. A major limitation of our
review is that only print publications were formally in-
cluded in our review; while we know that webinars and
other digital formats were important sources of knowl-
edge sharing, we had no way to formally include them
in our review.
Part IV: Cross-Cutting emes
In this section, we identify cross-cutting themes that
emerged from the literature. We dened a cross-cutting
theme as an idea appearing in at least two internation-
alization domains and seeming to reect broader con-
versations. Rather than being specic to a domain of
internationalization or to internationalization itself,
these themes permeated general discussions of higher
education policy and practice in the wake of COVID-19:
1) uneven impacts and shiing inequalities; 2) COVID-
19’s eects on xenophobia, racism, and discrimination,
especially among Asian students; 3) COVID-19’s ef-
fects on students’ physical health, mental health, and
overall well-being; 4) the emergence of new geopoliti-
-
34
students, and Chinese international students were
mentioned most oen (Anandavalli et al., 2020; Blake
et al., 2021; Gao, 2021; Ge, 2021; McKie, 2020). Most
pieces pertained to North America regardless of publi-
cation type.
ese articles collectively indicated that interna-
tional students have met unique obstacles aecting
their physical health, mental health, and well-being.
International and domestic travel restrictions, nancial
consequences (in terms of scholarships, tuition fees,
and income), socio-political events, and communal
hate crimes have put these students in vulnerable posi-
tions, especially in the top international student recipi-
ent countries. Such circumstances have inuenced
students’ general well-being. Associated problems have
been magnied in the North American context be-
cause former President Trump rst referred to
COVID-19 as the “China virus,” which aggravated
COVID-19-related racial discrimination in addition to
deep-rooted systemic racism (Anandavalli et al., 2020;
Blake et al., 2021). One article indicated that “xenopho-
bic actions [threaten] international students’ safety and
presence … and these rates were higher among stu-
dents from East Asian and Southeast Asian countries
such as Japan, China, and Vietnam (22%–30%), given
increasing Sinophobia (anti-Chinese sentiment) in the
country” (Anandavalli et al., 2020, p. 366). Racism,
“double unbelonging,” and social disapproval of politi-
cal criticism were common struggles for Chinese stu-
dents (McKie, 2020).
For the above reasons, concerns about safety,
physical and mental health, and racial biases have ad-
versely aected international students—most notably
students of color, Chinese students, and other Asian
students in the United States and Canada. Internation-
al students from China have experienced high degrees
of anxiety, discrimination, insecurity, outrage, shame,
and identity loss throughout the pandemic (Gao,
2021). Many international students have even returned
home. Blake et al. (2021) discussed problems facing
international students along with students who are
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; institutional
racial biases led doctoral students in these groups to
report feelings of stress, anxiety, a lack of social sup-
port, and isolation.
e few studies on institutional supports for inter-
vaccination status, rewalls, and internet connectivity.
Some articles raised concerns that the shi to online
learning could exacerbate unequal access to quality ed-
ucation (Lau, 2020). is problem pertains to all stu-
dents but has been highlighted in relation to
international students from countries whose internet
connectivity varies substantially (Lin & Nguyen, 2021).
Bias,Racism,andDiscrimination
A second theme in our sample concerned students’ ex-
periences with racism and discrimination and how
such incidents aected internationalization. Of the 23
related publications, research showed that these issues
(e.g., xenophobia) predominantly aected East Asian
students. Racism and discrimination dovetailed with
two other themes: international student mobility and
students’ well-being and mental health. Hate crimes,
discrimination, and unfair treatment of Asians have
compelled these students to decide not to travel abroad
or simply to stay closer to home (Chow-Liu, 2021; Mok
et al., 2021). Mok et al. (2021) examined how students
in Mainland China and Hong Kong planned overseas
studies in light of the COVID-19 crisis. Among 2739
respondents, 84% expressed no interest in studying
abroad aer the pandemic. When asked about develop-
ing their plans for overseas learning, most Chinese re-
spondents overwhelmingly cited “personal safety”
(87%) and “health and well-being” (79%) as major
worries (Mok et al., 2021). e next section presents
relevant overlaps with physical and mental health.
PhysicalHealth,MentalHealth,
andWell-Be ing
A third cross-cutting theme involved health and
well-being. Twelve items (four academic journal arti-
cles, ve magazine articles, and three newspaper arti-
cles) were coded as focusing on physical health, mental
health, or well-being. We purposefully selected publi-
cations about international students and excluded
work solely discussing domestic students. e chosen
pieces covered several populations, such as interna-
tional exchange students in Europe (Matthews, 2020);
international degree-seeking students in Canada, the
United States, and the United Kingdom (Bothwell,
2020); and international students at a global level
(Bothwell, 2021). Asian students, Asian international
| .
35
national students conveyed that such supports were
inadequate in meeting students’ needs. COVID-19 has
impeded students’ access to and sense of connection
with the university community and resources; overall
campus and departmental support has declined as well
(Blake et al., 2021). In a survey of 600 Omani students
studying abroad, fewer than 50% of respondents stated
they had received adequate psychosocial support from
the universities (Hayes & Al’Abri, 2020). A few articles
written by university counselors and psychologists of-
fered concrete recommendations in this regard but ac-
knowledged that limited research has addressed
international students’ mental health needs (Ananda-
valli et al., 2020). Suggestions for supporting these stu-
dents include using culturally sensitive tools to address
xenophobic experiences of COVID-19-related racial
discrimination. Counselors could also “empower inter-
national students by framing their concerns as part of a
larger systemic issue to minimize self-blame” (Ananda-
valli et al., 2020, p. 369). Other suitable strategies in-
clude therapy, wellness activities, and peer counseling
(Gallagher, 2021). Blake et al. (2021) advocated for pro-
moting international students’ development in the fol-
lowing ways: by assigning graduate students to
academic mentors who share and are familiar with di-
verse cultures; by implementing a diverse course cur-
riculum; by instituting university childcare and virtual
education assistance strategies; and by supporting ef-
forts towards a collective university policy that protects
these students.
Voids nevertheless exist in this stream of literature.
No articles mentioned the physical and mental health
issues facing faculty and sta in higher education.
None of the sources were authored by institutional ad-
ministrators who oered strategies to support mem-
bers of the higher education community. One article
that broached related topics underscored worries about
visa issues for international students and administra-
tors’ concerns about student compliance with social
distancing guidelines on and o campus (“An About
Face on Visas,” 2020).
NavigatingNewGeopoliticalIssues
Another theme spanning multiple domains was how
COVID-19 measures interacted with, or created, geo-
political issues for universities and students. e 15 ar-
ticles that mentioned geopolitics covered inbound
mobility, equity, discrimination, and racism. e re-
cruitment of international students and students’ expe-
riences/attitudes were also closely associated with the
geopolitical sphere. Most publications referred to geo-
political tensions between the United States and China
in the higher education eld (Lau, 2020b; Times High-
er Education Sta, 2021; Tu, 2021). All authors pon-
dered how COVID-19 might aect the emerging
relationship between the Western world and China or
other source countries of international students. Many
sources questioned the supremacy of the U.S. higher
education system (Dennis, 2020; Lee, 2020; Specia &
Abi-Habib, 2020).
A few articles mentioned how geopolitical factors
intersected with the shi to online learning and created
diculties for international students studying from
their home countries. Publications reported that stu-
dents needed to be especially careful in that conversa-
tions of history, gender, LGBTQ rights, international
relations, and economic theory could trigger political
sensitivities. Students from China, among many other
countries, live with stringent censorship laws and inter-
net monitoring (Lau, 2020c). To mitigate these im-
pacts, some institutions have allowed students to opt
out of controversial discussions without grade penal-
ties or to take part in classes anonymously. Yet these
accommodations can limit the diversity of views and
access to knowledge.
Articles also unpacked U.S. policies from the
Trump and Biden administrations, including those de-
tailing harms to students from the United States’ repu-
tation and long-term attractiveness as a study
destination (Dennis, 2020; Gray, 2021; Specia & Abi-
Habib, 2020). Racism has played a decisive role in in-
ternational students feeling unwelcome in this country
(Lee, 2020; Tu, 2021). e state of research collabora-
tion between China and the United States is drastically
dierent: COVID-19 boosted research projects be-
tween the two (Sharma, 2020b). Publications on China
investigated the country’s power in directing its consid-
erable international student population to specic
places based on geopolitical criteria (Lau, 2020b). Re-
searchers also addressed academic freedom (Sharma,
2020a). Geopolitical consequences in the experiences
of international students and academics generated no-
-
36
nals. A sizeable set of papers documented the pandem-
ic’s eects on HEIs’ internationalization eorts. is
initial review of the literature provides a rm founda-
tion for future and comparative studies of the impacts
of COVID-19 on dierent internationalization activi-
ties and in dierent national contexts.
Our review revealed overrepresentation. e vast
majority of studies referenced the United States, with a
smaller number about the United Kingdom and Aus-
tralia. is discrepancy may be due to our choosing
English-language publications. is imbalance may
also be related to dominant research themes during the
study horizon: International student enrollment/re-
cruitment and international students’ experiences were
two of the most thoroughly studied topics. It is unsur-
prising that some of the higher education systems that
attract large numbers of international students also
captured the most attention in these publications. is
disparity may be partly attributed to the robust “safety
net” in these countries as well—national economic res-
cue and stimulus initiatives likely enabled scholars to
continue their research activities during the
pandemic.
We further discovered that the literature over-
whelmingly investigated international students and in-
dividual-level mobility. is nding is particularly
intriguing; it suggests enduring assumptions about in-
ternationalization in relation to individual-level move-
ment across national borders. Even when physical
mobility was impossible (or at least severely restricted),
internationalization continued to be conceptualized
based on student mobility and study abroad. is real-
ization is even more striking when considering that the
internationalization of higher education has long been
dened in terms of curriculum rather than mobility, on
all students rather than the few who go abroad, and on
the impact of internationalization (de Wit & Leask,
2015).
Our review shows that people mobility reects a
prevalent understanding of internationalization as
analogous to students’ physical mobility. Several other
domains (e.g., research, joint programming, and cur-
ricular and extracurricular internationalization) re-
main largely ignored in the literature. is relative lack
of focus could have arisen for multiple reasons. For in-
stance, scholars’ reports on international student re-
tice as well; both groups oen found themselves caught
in the middle. Students confronted distress and forced
career choices in particular. Authors have therefore en-
couraged international students to speak up and not
passively accept their conceptualization as cash cows
for HEIs (Anandavalli et al., 2020; Castiello-Gutiérrez
& Li, 2020).
RethinkingtheStatusQuo
A h cross-cutting theme amplied calls to rethink
how internationalization is practiced. For example,
with respect to curricular and co-curricular interna-
tionalization, one avenue for change involves improv-
ing intercultural education. Dervin et al. (2020) pointed
out that the behavior of politicians, journalists, deci-
sion makers, and the general public during the pan-
demic demonstrated their distorted views of
interculturality. Some politicians and journalists made
unnecessary comparisons between nations and jumped
to conclusions without carefully considering the con-
text. Dervin et al. (2020) therefore suggested that edu-
cators teaching about interculturality should attend to
its roots—the interdependency between politics, (so-
cial) media, education, and research, governed by the
economy and globalization—rather than concentrating
on visible aspects (e.g., culture, dierences, democracy,
and human rights). ree principles can guide this
task: “beyond comparison, the mirror: turning inward,
and questioning the unquestionables” (Dervin et al.,
2020, p. 99). Deardor (2020) similarly underlined the
importance of a paradigm shi for international educa-
tors in moving from “me” to “we” and thinking beyond
“us” versus “them” to acknowledge a shared humanity.
In a more discipline-specic study, Morley and Cun-
ningham (2021) wrote about the importance of inter-
national placement in undergraduate nursing curricula
to develop nurses’ intercultural skills.
Discussion and Concluding Observations
is report has summarized the literature on how the
COVID-19 pandemic, and policies and practices in-
tended to limit its spread, aected internationalization
in higher education. We undertook a rigorous review
of academic and non-academic sources published
through August 2021. Our nal sample consisted of
158 articles, 45 of which were in peer-reviewed jour-
| .
37
and visas were recurrent concerns.
e second mechanism of impact we identied
was the suspension of in-person activities and the si-
multaneous shi to online and virtual teaching and
collaboration. e suspension of in-person activities
was tied to general isolation. Mental isolation was also
a theme in many studies: being physically far from
home without access to in-person activities le many
students lonely. A large body of work has unearthed the
adverse mental health eects of social distancing and
isolation. Articles in our sample detailed how the
broader impact of social isolation layered onto interna-
tional students’ individual circumstances such as time
zone dierences and the inability to obtain ights or
secure housing.
e move to online learning and internationaliza-
tion activities brought fresh opportunities along with
disadvantages. is shi facilitated more accessible
forms of engagement. It also enabled various types of
international connections and activities that were pre-
viously contingent on physical mobility. Transitioning
to online learning was a potential equalizer in some
ways. Even so, new inequities emerged: many interna-
tional students attended classes in inconvenient time
zones, and some students were subjected to stringent
internet control.
Finally, we determined that international partner-
ships and research have seen benets and drawbacks
from COVID-19. Despite bans on international travel
and border closures, partnership-building processes
were quickly adapted. ese adjustments helped to sus-
tain collaborative activities. e logistics of in-person
international collaboration have certainly become
more complicated since the pandemic; however, op-
portunities for connection are more frequent, thereby
fostering innovative ideas around partnership. Heavier
reliance on technology has led digital literacy to play a
pivotal part in the delivery of academic courses and re-
sources, in how research collaboration transpires, and
in how partnerships are forged.
Key ndings from the literature are summarized in
Table4.
cruitment may naturally highlight competition within
a cutthroat global landscape over the more collabora-
tive aspects of internationalization (e.g., partnership
development). e focal points of international stu-
dents and students’ experiences imply more intense
interest in how internationalization maps onto curricu-
la and student learning than research. is trend rein-
forces the notion that students, rather than faculty and
sta, are the primary actors in internationalization.
is conception is evident in, for example, the
study abroad domain. Articles in this area generally re-
volved around students and described how institutions
sought to support student mobility during the pan-
demic. is perspective aligns with attempts to unravel
students’ mobility decisions during the rst COVID-19
wave and to predict their future choices. e associated
literature—predominantly non-academic sources on
outbound mobility—therefore tended to interpret in-
ternationalization as directly connected to individu-
al-level mobility. Researchers further examined this
topic through several lenses outside education (e.g.,
economic, political, geographic) that aect national
higher education systems.
In terms of how the COVID-19 pandemic inu-
enced internationalization, as discussed in the concep-
tual framework, we postulated that two major policy
responses were at play: 1) border closures that halted
travel and 2) the suspension of in-person activities,
which limited physical presence on campuses and
in-person teaching and learning. As anticipated, both
elements directly aected internationalization activi-
ties, albeit in dierent ways. We observed that border
closures had impacts on internationalization activities
involving physical mobility (i.e., inbound and out-
bound). e same trend applied in other domains fea-
turing people mobility, such as students’ and faculty
members’ physical movement for research purposes.
Studies unveiled how sudden border closures
brought on by COVID-19 le many students and facul-
ty physically unable to travel, oen stranding them far
from home or their destination countries. Students
faced urgent practical needs (e.g., arranging ights to
their home countries or institutions). Over the longer
term, many students reported being and feeling far
from home due to being prohibited from crossing na-
tional borders. e logistics of ights, quarantine rules,
-
38
| .
Table 4: Impact of COVID-19 on Internationalization of Higher Education
Domain Category Mechanisms COVID-19-Related Impacts
People Mobility Inbound International
Student Mobility
National borders closed
abruptly
· Many international students were physically stuck, either in their
home countries or their destination countries
· Isolation and lockdowns aected students’ physical and mental
health due to being unable to travel
· Student support sta faced new and increased demands
National borders re-
mained closed
· Many new international students studied online from their home
countries, underlining the importance of reliable, secure, open
internet for learning and equal opportunities to succeed
Long-term border closures
created ambiguity
· In-person applications, attendance, and enrollment declined in
some universities and countries; long-term trends are unknown
· Some institutions faced lower institutional revenue, especially for
top student-receiving countries
Uneven access to vacci-
nation
· Opportunities for international mobility within and across
countries were further stratied
Politicization of COVID-
19’s origins in China
· Geopolitical tensions rose
· Anti-Asian racism rose, specically towards Chinese
international students in North America
Outbound Degree-Seek-
ing Students
National borders closed · Ambiguity over future travel opportunities led some students to
change study destinations or look to branch campuses
Outbound Credit-Seeking
Students
National borders closed · Study abroad experiences were disrupted and shortened
· Students were stuck abroad
· Universities realized the need for rapid risk mitigation
Suspension of in-person
activities
· e shi to online learning led to a rise in virtual exchange
programs, which presented novel challenges and experiences
International Program and Provider Mobility
Long-term border closures · Interest and enrollment in some branch campusesin home
countries or in countries open to international travel increased
International Research
Pandemic-related spend-
ing reduced government
spending in other areas
· Funding declined for international research and partnerships;
some research projects were canceled or eliminated
· Low-and middle-income countries may be more aected than
high-income countries (i.e., further stratication of higher
education systems)
COVID-19 as new topic · New international research collaboration
Border and campus
closures
· Some students’ graduation or professors’ research were delayed
· Faculty and students Campus closures could not access labs or
conduct eldwork
International Partnerships and Networks Suspension of in-person
activities and shi to
online activities
· International delegations and meetings were canceled
· Professional associations quickly transitioned to an online format
(e.g., webinars and virtual knowledge sharing)
· e shi to virtual modalities expanded who could be included
in partnerships and knowledge sharing
Internationalization at Home and Collaborative Online
International Learning (COIL)
Suspension of in-person
activities and shi to
online learning
· More students and faculty experienced COIL and international
virtual exchange
· Pedagogical approaches were adjusted based on the advantages
and disadvantages of online and in-person learning
· Blended learning could continue long term
39
-
many countries. Researchers should continue to moni-
tor long-term impacts on student enrollment, study
destinations, and potentially distinct eects across
countries and institution types. Our review also frames
the pandemic as more than a crisis: in some cases, it has
ushered in fresh opportunities for internationalization
(e.g., in the use of technology and a greater desire for
research collaboration). Scholars should examine new
strategies as well as the extent to which these tactics
reect tangible changes in internationalization. Re-
search in this vein could focus more explicitly on equi-
ty, social justice, and collaboration instead of
competition and revenue. Core Anglophone countries
seem less inclined than non-Anglophone countries to
rethink internationalization based on our review. Yet if
HEIs’ interest in tracking enrollment and revenue is
any indication, maintaining the status quo is a priority.
If COVID-19 is to be taken as an opportunity for trans-
formation (vs. simply a disruption to the status quo),
then Anglophone countries should contribute along
this line as well.
Fih, we noticed that although professional orga-
nizations (e.g., IAU and others) have performed rap-
id-response research on the pandemic’s impact on
internationalization, their part in supporting interna-
tionalization under these circumstances is largely ab-
sent from the literature. ese organizations’ roles in
translating and disseminating discourses deserve clos-
er scrutiny. e development and implementation of
sound internationalization practices, along with their
outcomes, could carry meaningful practical
implications.
Lastly, internationalization activities and interna-
tional mobility have been largely aected by govern-
ment policies, especially on visas, international travel
restrictions, and student subsidies. e future of inter-
nationalization warrants careful deliberation. Scholars
have made various predictions about international stu-
dent and researcher mobility aer the pandemic. Even
so, current publications are not comprehensive enough
to cover all major receiving and sending countries. A
systematic examination of how governments have sup-
ported or prohibited international mobility, and how
available mobility data reect such policies, would be
useful. Topics that were primarily analyzed in non-aca-
demic sources (e.g., magazines and periodicals) merit
Avenues for Future Research
Our review of the literature suggests that many areas
deserve further research. First, some domains such as
IPPM, research, and partnership development have
been largely ignored. e pandemic’s eects on these
domains of internationalization are hence unclear. e
long-term impacts of COVID-19 on research, academ-
ic conferences, and collaboration especially require ad-
ditional investigation. Second, the articles in our
sample focused on students and disruptions to their
mobility. Other populations and stakeholders were
rarely featured (e.g., the role of border closures and the
move to online learning vis-à-vis faculty experiences or
preparation; the experiences of researchers and HEI
leadership/administration). Subsequent work could
delineate internationalization leaders’ and administra-
tors’ decisions on how to respond to COVID-19 and
what to prioritize. For example, the literature suggests
that the choice to either close a campus or remain par-
tially open was important for many leaders. Follow-up
research could explore the implications of this decision
on dierent aspects of internationalization.
ird, the literature has mostly considered stu-
dents’ physical and mental health, especially among
students of Asian descent and from international back-
grounds. Much less is known about eective solutions
or institutional support strategies. Insight into these
topics is urgently needed. Similarly, little has been writ-
ten about pandemic-induced challenges (and solu-
tions) facing faculty, leadership, and administration.
is discrepancy points to two research directions re-
garding in-person and virtual support: 1) more in-
depth investigations of student support, namely how to
optimally assist students in studying online or from a
long distance; and 2) the diculties that international
faculty, sta, collaborators, and mental health/health
services providers encounter. Understanding these is-
sues from various angles could generate robust insight
conducive to a more holistic, supportive, diverse, and
international campus environment.
Fourth, the long-term impact of COVID-19 on in-
ternational student enrollment should be tracked over
time. Our review pinpointed short-term impacts while
medium- and long-term eects remain to be seen. De-
spite much initial concern, our review suggests that in-
ternational student enrollment has bounced back in
40
| .
consideration as well. It would be interesting to moni-
tor academic approaches as they become available to
verify whether conclusions hold when data are evaluat-
ed via more rigorous methods.
ment
Bista, K. (2020). Let us stand with Julia! International students or
immigrant workers in the United States. Journal of Interna-
tional Students, 10(3), v–viii.
Blake, H., Brown, N., Follette, C., Morgan, J., & Yu, H. (2021).
Black, indigenous, people of color, and international stu-
dents: Experiences and resolutions beyond COVID-19.
American Journal of Public Health, 111(3), 384–386. https://
doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306118
Bisoux, T. (2020). Rapid response: B-schools adapt their opera-
tions to the ongoing impact of COVID-19. BizEd, 19(3),
58–59.
Bothwell, E. (2020, October 26). Remote attractions: Would-be
international students ‘prefer to study in-person at home.’
Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereduca-
tion.com/news/
would-be-international-students-prefer-study-person-home
Bothwell, E. (2021a, March 4). Will international recruitment
survive Covid-19? Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/features/
will-international-recruitment-survive-covid-19
Bothwell, E. (2021b, January 15). Year abroad students from UK
‘struggling to return to EU.’ Times Higher Education. https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/
year-abroad-students-uk-struggling-return-toeu
British Council. (2020, June 7). Huge nancial shortfall for uni-
versities as foreign students shun UK. FE News. https://www.
fenews.co.uk/fe-voices/
huge-nancial-shortfall-for-universities-as-british-council-
report-warns-foreign-students-shun-uk/
Buckner, E. (2019). e internationalization of higher education:
National interpretations of a global model. Comparative Ed-
ucation Review, 63(3), 315–336.
Buckner, E., Clerk, S., Marroquin, A., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Strate-
gic benets, symbolic commitments: How Canadian colleges
and universities frame internationalization. Canadian Jour-
nal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d’enseignement
supérieur, 50(4), 20–36.
Burt, C. (2021). Wooing international students. University Busi-
ness, 25(3), 10–12.
Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2021). CBIE we-
binar: Advancing international relations through partner-
ships. https://cbie.ca/event/
advancing-international-relations-through-partnerships/
Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2022). CBIE past
events & webinar recordings. https://cbie.ca/learning/
References
Altavilla, J. (2021). Backtalk: e right time for research-practice
partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(8), 69.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the University: Myths
and Realities in an Unequal World. Tertiary Education and
Management, 10(1), 3–25. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:TEAM.0000012239.55136.4b
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). e internationalization of
higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315307303542
American Council on Education. (2022). Comprehensive inter-
nationalization framework. https://www.acenet.edu/Re-
search-Insights/Pages/Internationalization/
CIGE-Model-for-Comprehensive-Internationalization.aspx
Anandavalli, S., Harrichand, J. J. S., & Litam, S. D. A. (2020).
Counseling international students in times of uncertainty: A
critical feminist and bioecological approach. Professional
Counselor, 10(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.15241/
sa.10.3.365
Baker, S. (2020a). Fee fall: UK unis vulnerable to student mobility
drop. Times Higher Education, 2464, 7.
Baker, S. (2020b). Doubts remain on UK overseas recruitment
despite “positive” signs. Times Higher Education, 2467,
10–11.
Banks, R., & Stewart, E. (2020). Dispatch from Washington, D.C.:
e public policy landscape aecting international educa-
tion. International Educator (1059-4221), 1. https://www.
nafsa.org/ie-magazine/2020/5/6/
dispatch-washington-dc-public-policy-landscape-aect-
ing-international
Bebbington, W. (2021). Leadership strategies for a higher educa-
tion sector in ux. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 158–
165. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859686
Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redening internationalization at
home. In A. Curaj., L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott
(Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical
reections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer Nature.
Basken, P., Bothwell, E., McKie, A., Matthews, D., & Ross, J.
(2020, June 18). Which nations will weather the storm on
recruitment? Five leading countries’ crisis measures and
prospects for international student recruitment compared.
Times Higher Education, 2459, 22–23. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
which-nations-will-weather-storm-international-recruit-
41
-
Dennis, M. J. (2020). COVID19 will accelerate the decline in
international student enrollment. Recruiting & Retaining
Adult Learners, 22(12), 1-7.
Dervin, F., Chen, N., Yuan, M., & Jacobsson, A. (2020).
COVID-19 and interculturality: First lessons for teacher ed-
ucators. Education and Society, 38(1), 89-106.
Dietrich, A. J. (2020). Charting a path forward for education
abroad research. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of
Study Abroad, 32(2), 1–11.
Dill, E. (2020, February 5). Coronavirus is prompting alarm on
American campuses. Anti-Asian discrimination could do
more harm. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.
chronicle.com/article/
coronavirus-is-prompting-alarm-on-american-campus-
es-anti-asian-discrimination-could-do-more-harm/
Diverse Sta. “An About Face on Visas.” (2020, August 6). Di-
verse: Issues in Higher Education, 37(12), 6.
Education Journal Sta. Conferences-International Education
Champion appointed. (2020, June 9). Education Journal, 415,
14.
Fan, F. (2021). Flexibility, eectiveness, and collaboration: En-
glish writing center in Zhejiang University during the pan-
demic. In International forum of teaching and studies (Vol.
17, No. 2, pp. 63–67). American Scholars Press, Inc.
Fischer, K. (2020a). Enrollment headaches from coronavirus are
many. ey won’t be relieved soon. Chronicle of Higher Edu-
cation, 66(25).
Fischer, K. (2020b). Visa-policy reversal. Chronicle of Higher Ed-
ucation, 66(34), 6.
Fischer, K. (2021a). Aer deep drops, international applications
rebound, survey nds. Chronicle of Higher Education,
67(21), 1–4.
Fischer, K. (2021b). e stranded. Chronicle of Higher Educa-
tion, 67(14), 1.
Forward, M. L. (2021). Virtual engagement--real-world impact:
How students are working with communities across the
globe despite the pandemic. Liberal Education, 107(3),
45–51.
Friedman, Jonathan. 2018. e global citizenship agenda and the
generation of cosmopolitan capital in British higher educa-
tion. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(4):
436-450.
Gallagher, J. (2020, September 8). One pandemic, many perspec-
tives. International Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-mag-
azine/2020/9/8/one-pandemic-many-perspectives
Gallagher, J. (2021). Compounding stress: e pandemic’s eects
on mental health. International Educator (1059-4221), 1.
Gao, Z. (2021). Unsettled belongings: Chinese immigrants’ men-
tal health vulnerability as a symptom of international politics
in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
ogy, 61(2), 198–218.
Gardner, M. (2021). International student numbers increase de-
spite pandemic. University World News. https://www.uni-
versityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20211014135517221
webinars/
Canto, I., & Hannah, J. (2001). A partnership of equals? Academ-
ic collaboration between the United Kingdom and Brazil.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 26–41.
Cao, T. Q., & Chieu, Q. K. (2021). To return or not to return: A
dilemma of two overseas Vietnamese students in the Nether-
lands amidst the coronavirus outbreak. Journal of Interna-
tional Students, 11(2), 527–535.
Castiello-Gutiérrez, S., & Li, X. (2020). We are more than your
paycheck: e dehumanization of international students in
the United States. Journal of International Students, 10(3),
i–iv.
Chan, W. W., & Dimmock, C. (2008). e internationalization of
universities: Globalist, internationalist and translocalist
models. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2),
184-204.
Center for International Higher Education, Boston College.
(2021). CIHE webinar: Partnering for purpose & justice, No-
vember 10, 2021.
Choudaha, R., & de Wit, H. (2014). Challenges and opportuni-
ties for global student mobility in the future: A comparative
and critical analysis. In B. Streitwieser (Ed.), Internationali-
sation of higher education and global mobility (pp. 19–33).
Symposium Books.
Chow-Liu, M. (2021). Push and pull: e history of Chinese stu-
dent mobility and today’s trends. Journal of College Admis-
sion, 250, 50–51.
Deardor, D. K. (2020). (Re) learning to live together in 2020.
Journal of International Students, 10(4), xv-xviii.
De Boer, H. (2021). COVID-19 in Dutch higher education. Stud-
ies in Higher Education, 46(1), 96–106.
de Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationaliza-
tion of higher education. International Higher Education, 15,
2–3.
de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalisation of higher education in the
United States of America and Europe – A historical, compar-
ative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood Studies in Higher
Education.
de Wit, H. (2020). Internationalization in higher education: A
western paradigm or a global, intentional and inclusive con-
cept. International Journal of African Higher Education,
7(2), 31–37.
de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher
education: Global trends & recommendations for its future.
Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5(1), 28–46.
de Wit, H., Ferencz, I., & Rumbley, L. E. (2013). International
student mobility: European and US perspectives. Perspec-
tives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(1), 17–23.
de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (Eds).
(2015) Internationalisation of higher education. European
Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies.
de Wit, H., & Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization, the curricu-
lum and the disciplines. International Higher Education, 83,
10–12.
42
| .
Ge, L. (2021). A hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry at a Ca-
nadian university: Protective and risk factors for Chinese
international students in COVID times with gender compar-
ison. Journal of International Students, 11(3), 586–607.
Gray, K. (2021). Bouncing back? Diverse: Issues in Higher Educa-
tion, 38(1), 25–27.
Grove, J. (2021, April 28). Overseas research cuts threaten UK’s
“levelling-up” agenda. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
overseas-research-cuts-threaten-uks-levelling-agenda
Gutkin, S. L., Nguyen, U. S., Abrahams, J., Bucceri, B., Bartolotta,
K., Wu, Y., & Peters, T. R. (2021). When COVID-19 hit New
York City: Experiences of rst-year graduate students and
recommendations for faculty. Communiqué (0164775X),
49(6), 37.
Hayes, A., & Al’Abri, K. (2020). Focus on current international
students in pandemic crisis. University World News. https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20200503130152722
Hayhoe, R., & Mundy, K. (2017). Introduction to comparative
and international education: Why study comparative educa-
tion? In K. Bickmore, R. Hayhoe, C. Manion, K. Mundy, & R.
Read (Eds.), Comparative education: Issues for teachers (pp.
1–26). Teachers Canadian Scholars Press.
House of Commons. (2020). Parliament-questions, Department
for Education. Education Journal, 419, 68–82.
Huang, F. (2021). More understanding needed for international
faculty. University World News. https://www.university-
worldnews.com/post.php?story=20211012101103981
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From
concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of
International Educators.
Hunter, F., McAllister-Grande, B., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H.
(2022). e evolving denitions of internationalization: A
question of values. In D. Deardor, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H.
Charles (Eds). Handbook on international higher education
(2nd ed.) (pp. 53–74). Stylus.
International Association of Universities. (2020). IAU webinar
series on the future of higher education. https://iau-aiu.net/
IAU-Webinar-Series-on-the-Future-of-Higher-Education
Jacobs, L., Wimpenny, K., Mitchell, L., Hagenmeier, C., Beelen, J.,
Hodges, M., George, V., DeWinter, A., Slambee, C., Obadire,
S., Viviani, A., Samuels, L., Jackson, L. M., Klamer, R., &
Adam, N. (2021). Adapting a capacity-development-in-high-
er-education project: Doing, being and becoming virtual col-
laboration. Perspectives in Education, 39(1), 353–371. http://
dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i1.22
Jansa, T., & Anderson, D. L. (2021). Socially responsive leadership
for post-pandemic international higher education: Theoreti-
cal considerations and practical implications. Institute of In-
ternational Education. https://www.iie.org/
Research-and-Insights/Publications/
Member-Voices---Socially-Responsive-Leadership
Jensen, T., Marinoni, G., & van’t Land, H. (2022) Higher educa-
tion one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.iau-
aiu.net/IMG/pdf/2022_iau_global_survey_report.pdf.pdf
Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization:
Implications for policy and practice. IIE Networker, Spring,
28–29.
Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2021). Uni-
versity social responsibility and the internationalisation of
higher education for society. Journal of Studies in Interna-
tional Education, 25(4), 323–329. https://doi.
org/10.1177/10283153211031679
Kercher, J. (2021). International student mobility in the wake of
COVID-19. University World News. https://www.university-
worldnews.com/post.php?story=20211122121828241
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Denition, ap-
proaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 8(1), 5–31. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J., & Liu, Q. (2019). International program and provider
mobility in higher education: Research trends, challenges
and issues. Comparative and International Education, 48(1).
Knight, J., & McNamara, J. (2017). Transnational education: A
classication framework and data collection guidelines for
international programme and provider mobility (IPPM).
British Council and German Academic Exchange Service.
Available at https://www. britishcouncil. org/sites/default/
les/tne_classication_framework-nal. pdf (accessed 21
November 2020).
Kigotho, W. (2021a). Demand for international study still re-
mains strong. University World News. https://www.univer-
sityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210908074611798
Kigotho, W. (2021b). Pandemic adds to UK’s study appeal for Af-
rican students. University World News. https://www.univer-
sityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210505071642339
Kolesova, D. V., Moskovkin, L. V., & Popova, T. I. (2021). Urgent
transition to group online foreign language instruction:
Problems and solutions. Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
19(1), 21–41.
Language Magazine Sta. (2020a) “Germany gives money to in-
ternational students.” (2020). Language Magazine, 19(12),
16.
Language Magazine Sta. (2020b) “Reprieve for International
Students and Some Assistants.” Language Magazine, 19(12).
Lau, J. (2020a). Chinese considering West worry over health, red
tape and xenophobia. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
coronavirus-concerns-chinese-students-considering-west
Lau, J. (2020b). Will dominant China use students as bargaining
chips? China’s threats to use student ows in geopolitical tus-
sles a “lose-lose-lose” scenario. Times Higher Education.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/comment/55195
Lau, J. (2020c). Foreign rewalls present challenge to global on-
line learning. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
foreign-rewalls-present-challenge-toglobal-online-learn-
ing
43
-
McKie, A. (2020). “Go home” advice generates panic: Universi-
ties urged to improve support for foreign students during
virus crisis. Times Higher Education, 2452, 8. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
go-home-advice-causing-confusion-among-stranded-stu-
dents
Mittelmeier, J., & Cockayne, H. (2020, October 10). Combating
discrimination against international students. University
World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20201009142439903
Moja, T. (2021). National and institutional responses–reimag-
ined operations–pandemic disruptions and academic conti-
nuity for a global university. Studies in Higher Education,
46(1), 19–29.
Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., Ke, G., & Cheung, J. O. W. (2021). Impact
of COVID-19 pandemic on international higher education
and student mobility: Student perspectives from mainland
China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational
Research, 105, 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2020.101718
Morgan, J. (2020, Sept 24). New chair of Russell Group ags fears
for research base. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
russell-group-chair-wants-sustainable-agile-research-fund-
ing
Morley, D. A., & Cunningham, S. (2021). e international fo-
cus—A neglected curriculum in global undergraduate nurs-
ing. Nurse Education in Practice, 54, 103101.
Novikov, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 emergency transition
to on-line learning onto the international students’ percep-
tions of educational process at Russian university. Journal of
Social Studies Education Research, 11(3), 270–302.
Nuthall, K. (2021). Global survey—79% of students want
on-campus study abroad. University World News. https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20211007100858333
Nyame, F., & Abedi-Boafo, E. (2020). Can Ghanaian universities
still attract international students in spite of COVID-19? In-
ternational Studies in Educational Administration [Com-
monwealth Council for Educational Administration &
Management (CCEAM)], 48(1), 86–92.
Ohito, E. O., Lyiscott, J., Green, K. L., & Wilcox, S. E. (2021). is
moment is the curriculum: Equity, inclusion, and collectivist
critical curriculum mapping for study abroad programs in
the COVID-19 era. Journal of Experiential Education, 44(1),
10–30.
Oketch, M., McCowan, T., & Schendel, R. (2014). The impact of
tertiary education on development: A rigorous literature re-
view. Department for International Development. https://
discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10068500/1/Tertiary%20edu-
cation%202014%20Oketch%20et%20al%20report.pdf
Olson, C. L. (2013). A Canadian Lens on Facilitating Factors for
North American Partnerships. Journal of Studies in Interna-
tional Education, 17(3), 228–243. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315312453741
O’Malley, B. (2021a, September 10). COVID quarantine rules to
Lau, J. (2021a). Overseas students fear losing degrees as China
borders stay shut. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
overseas-students-fear-losing-degrees-china-borders-stay-
shut
Lau, J. (2021b). China and Japan to keep borders shut for another
term. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshigheredu-
cation.com/news/
china-and-japan-keep-borders-shut-new-term-starts
Laufer, M., Leiser, A., Deacon, B., Perrin de Brichambaut, P.,
Fecher, B., Kobsda, C., & Hesse, F. (2021). Digital higher ed-
ucation: A divider or bridge builder? Leadership perspectives
on edtech in a COVID-19 reality. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–17.
Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge.
Lee, J. J. (2020). Neo-racism and the criminalization of China.
Journal of International Students, 10(4), 780–783.
Li, X., & Haupt, J. (2021). Could ‘distance TNE’ become a growth
area aer COVID-19? University World News. https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20210210074621731
Lin, Y., & Nguyen, H. (2021). International students’ perspectives
on e-learning during Covid-19 in higher education in Aus-
tralia: A study of an Asian student. Electronic Journal of
E-Learning, 19(4), 241–251.
Liu, Y., & Shirley, T. (2021). Without crossing a border: Exploring
the impact of shiing study abroad online on students’ learn-
ing and intercultural competence development during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 25(1), 182–194.
Majorana, J. C. (2021). e white swan and beyond: International
education in the pandemic and postpandemic world.
Change, 53(3), 14–21.
Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU the 5th global survey, internationaliza-
tion of higher education: An evolving landscape, globally and
locally. International Association of Universities/DUZ
Medienhaus.
Marklein, M. B. (2020). International enrolment drop to cost uni-
versities US$4.5bn. University World News. https://www.uni-
versityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200530072612612
Marklein, M. B. (2021). International student enrolment fell by
15% last year. University World News. https://www.univer-
sityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2021111807390613
Marinoni, G., & de Wit, H. (2019, January 11). Is international-
ization creating inequality in higher education? University
World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20190109100925536
Matthews, D. (2020a). German students protest as pandemic
squeezes nances. Times Higher Education. https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/
german-students-protest-pandemic-squeezes-nances
Matthews, D. (2020b). International students across Europe face
‘chaos’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshigher-
education.com/news/
international-students-across-europe-face-chaos
44
| .
delay or deter foreign students. University World News.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20210910141029864
O’Malley, B. (2021b, June 12). Survey nds optimism on return of
international students. University World News. https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20210611154024626
Pricope, M. (2021). Virtual experiences in teaching/learning Ro-
manian as a foreign language Euromentor Journal, 12(2),
33–43.
Rogers, A. (2020). Internationalizing the campus at home: Cam-
pus globalization in the context of Covid-19. New York, NY:
Institute of International Education, IIE Network Brieng.
https://iie.widen.net/s/dgz5cmjb6z/
internationalizing-the-campus-at-home-1
Ross, J. (2021, March 31). Did Australia ride the international
gravy train too far? With overseas enrolments hitting the
buers during the pandemic, debate rages over whether
higher education’s excessive reliance on this income stream is
self-inicted—And how universities can keep themselves on
the nancial rails in future. Times Higher Education. https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/features/
did-australian-universities-ride-international-gra-
vy-train-too-far
Rumbley, L. E. (2020). Coping with COVID-19: International
higher education in Europe. The European Association for
International Education (EAIE), 1, 1-26.
Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Leask, B. (2022).
Trends in global higher education and the future of interna-
tionalization, beyond 2020. In D. Deardor, H. de Wit, B.
Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on international high-
er education (2nd ed.). Stylus.
Schuller, J., & Colus, F. (2020, December 12). How high-mobility
Erasmus Mundus adapted to COVID-19. University World
News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20201209140657563
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why
do higher education institutions internationalize? An inves-
tigation of the multilevel determinants of internationaliza-
tion rationales. Higher Education, 72(5), 685–702.
Seeber, M., Meoli, M., & Cattaneo, M. (2020). How do European
higher education institutions internationalize? Studies in
Higher Education, 45(1), 145–162.
Seran, J., & Reinhard, R. (2021, September 8). Top tips for devel-
oping an eective virtual exchange programme. THE Cam-
pus. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/
top-tips-developing-eective-virtual-exchange-programme
Sharma, Y. (2020c, 18 September). Students still want to study
abroad, but for new reasons. University World News. https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20200918093850206
Sharma, Y. (2020b, October 30). Cross-border research collabo-
ration rose during pandemic. University World News. https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20201030070947777
Sharma, Y. (2020a, November 20). China’s threats to academic
freedom rise at home, abroad. University World News.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20201120133357669
Specia, M., & Abi-Habib, M. (2020, July 9). U.S. visa changes
stoke outrage from students who are now in limbo. New York
Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/world/inter-
national-students-visa-reaction.html
Stein, S., & de Andreotti, V. O. (2016). Decolonization and higher
education. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
philosophy and theory. Springer, Singapore.
Sumbogo, T. A., Yunus, U., Pravita Wahyuningtyas, B., Willyarto,
M. N., Rusgowanto, F. H., & Cahyanto, I. (2021). Time man-
agement in digital activity of international students during
COVID-19. Ilkogretim Online, 20(4), 53–59.
Sutton, H. (2020). Keep your community safe while COVID19
spreads globally. Dean and Provost, 21(9), 1–5.
Times Higher Education Sta. (2021, August 19). Academics
speak out on rising tensions at UK-China branch campuses.
Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereduca-
tion.com/news/
academics-speak-out-rising-tensions-uk-chi-
na-branch-campuses
Toner, M. (2020, July 1). Rethinking the partnership paradigm.
International Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-maga-
zine/2020/7/1/rethinking-partnership-paradigm
Tu, S. (2021). Understanding Chinese students on US campuses.
Academe, 107(2). https://www.aaup.org/article/understand-
ing-chinese-students-us-campuses#.YtRZwi-B2Lc
Van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalisation policies: About
new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education
Policy, 14, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0952-8733(01)00018-6
Weissman, S. (2020). Going the distance. Diverse: Issues in High-
er Education, 37(17), 16–17.
West, C. (2020a, September 9). Gregory Crawford: Establishing a
new normal. International Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/
ie-magazine/2020/9/9/
gregory-crawford-establishing-new-normal
West, C. (2020b, April 1). Leading in a time of uncertainty. Inter-
national Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-maga-
zine/2020/4/1/leading-time-uncertainty
West, C. (2020c, July 7). Supporting study abroad students’ early
reentry. NAFSA. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-maga-
zine/2020/7/7/
supporting-study-abroad-students-early-reentry
West, C. (2020d, May 6). e path from response to recovery:
Lessons learned in emergency management. International
Educator. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-magazine/2020/5/6/
path-response-recovery-lessons-learned-emergency-man-
agement
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2012). e international branch cam-
pus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Ed-
ucation, 64(5), 627-645.
45
-
Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2018). Interna-
tionalization of research: Key considerations and concerns.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–
176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804
Wood, S. (2020a). Colleges cancel fall study abroad programs,
look at new ways of global engagement. Diverse: Issues in
Higher Education, 37(11), 7.
Wood, S. (2020b). Shiing strategies. Diverse: Issues in Higher
Education, 37(17), 18–19.
Venzhynovych, N., Poluzhyn, M., Banyoi, V., & Kharkivska, O.
(2021). Means of foreign language teaching during Covid-19
pandemic in Ukraine. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ)
Special Issue on Covid, 19, 95–106.
Yojana, S. (2020, November 20). China’s threats to academic free-
dom rise at home, abroad. University World News. https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20201120133357669
Zalaznick, M. (2020, February 28). Coronavirus concerns cancel
study abroad programs. University Business. https://universi-
tybusiness.com/
coronavirus-cancels-college-study-abroad-italy-china-ja-
pan/
46
| .
Appendix A
Table A1. Number of Sources by Publication Type and Country (Education Source)
Country Academic
Journal
Book/Mono-
graph
Conference
Proceedings
Collection
Educa-
tional
Report*
Maga-
zine
Report* Total
United States of
America
1110 196 21 273 543 109 2252
United Kingdom 831 63 3 63 3 963
Switzerland 3 282 285
Australia 78 17 48 24 1 168
Germany 138 9 147
Canada 79 7 1 24 13 124
Turkey 64 1 2 67
Netherlands 20 19 39
Spain 29 2 3 34
New Zealand 16 5 21
Colombia 20 20
Romania 15 3 18
Brazil 16 16
India 14 2 16
South Africa 9 3 12
Czech Republic 11 11
Lithuania 11 11
Taiwan 10 10
Mexico 9 9
Russian Federation 9 9
Italy 8 1 9
France 6 3 9
Malaysia 7 1 8
Slovenia 7 7
China 6 1 7
Ireland 6 6
Sweden 6 6
Greece 5 5
Hong Kong 5 5
Pakistan 5 5
Bulgaria 4 1 5
Norway 4 1 5
Poland 4 1 5
Portugal 4 1 5
Chile 4 4
Croatia 4 4
47
-
Iceland 4 4
Denmark 1 3 4
Japan 3 3
Serbia 3 3
Slovakia 3 3
Malta 1 2 3
Singapore 1 1 1 3
Austria 2 2
Belgium 2 2
Cuba 2 2
Egypt 2 2
Finland 2 2
Iran (Islamic Re-
public of)
2 2
Korea, Republic of
(South)
2 2
Kuwait 2 2
Luxembourg 2 2
Nigeria 2 2
North Macedonia 2 2
Philippines 2 2
Ukraine 2 2
Trinidad & Tobago 1 1 2
Argentina 1 1
Barbados 1 1
Bermuda 1 1
Georgia 1 1
Ghana 1 1
Hungary 1 1
Indonesia 1 1
Israel 1 1
Jordan 1 1
Kenya 1 1
Latvia 1 1
Oman 1 1
Peru 1 1
Puerto Rico 1 1
Qatar 1 1
ailand 1 1
United Arab Emir-
ates
1 1
Uruguay 1 1
48
| .
Venezuela (Boli-
varian Republic of)
1 1
Yemen 1 1
Costa Rica 1 1
Tanzania, United
Republic of
1 1
* According to Education Sources categories, Education Reports are mainly published by governments, such as
the U.S. Department of Education. Reports are mainly published by non-prot organizations in education.
49
-
AppendixB
KeywordSearchTerms—byDomain
Domain Keywords
People Mobility “international student*” or “international facult*” or “international scholar*” or
“student* mobilit*” or “mobile student*” or “academic* mobilit*” or “people mobilit*”
or “mobile scholar*” or “mobile sta” or “mobile academic*” or “sta mobilit*” “faculty
mobilit*” or “mobilit* of student*” or “mobilit* of scholar*” or “mobilit* of sta” or
“mobilit* of faculty” or “mobilit* of academic*” or “talent mobility” or “study abroad”
or “student* exchange*” or “exchange student*” or “foreign student*” or “foreign
academic*” or “foreign scholar*” or “foreign sta” or “faculty exchange*” or “sta
exchange*” or “exchange facult*” or “exchange sta ” or “inbound” or “outbound” or
“inward” or “outward” or “student* migration*” or “scholar* migration*” or “faculty
migration*” or “sta migration*” or “ow* of student*” or “student* ow*” or “faculty
ow*” or “academic* ow*” or “ow* of faculty” or “international mobilit*” or
“overseas”
International Program
and Provider Mobility
“Transnational higher education” OR “cross-border higher education” OR “borderless
higher education” OR “international program and provider mobility” OR “branch
campus” OR “oshore campus” OR “satellite campus” OR “oshore campus” OR
“portal campus” OR “joint program” OR “franchise program” OR “international private
program” OR “joint degree” OR “double degree” OR “multiple degree” OR “twinning
program” OR “twinning programme” OR “joint programme” OR “partnership
programme” OR “distance education” OR “MOOC” OR “open university” OR “online
education” OR “joint university” OR “international university” OR “joint venture
university”
International Research “international research” OR “international research collaboration” OR “international
research network” OR “international research hub” OR “global research” OR “research
partnership” OR “research collaboration” OR “joint research collaboration
”
International
Partnerships and
Networks
SU “higher education” AND AB (and/or) SU “partnership” OR “collaboration” OR
“international partnership” OR “international collaboration” OR “global partnership”
OR “global collaboration” OR “international network” OR “international hub”
Internationalization at
Home
“Internationalization at Home” or “Internationalization of the Curriculum” or “virtual
mobility” or “virtual learning” or “Collaborative Online International Learning”
or “COIL” or “faculty support” or “student support” or “international student
services” or “sta support” or “comprehensive internationalization” or “campus
internationalization” or “intercultural competence” or “intelligent internationalization”
or “internationalization of the curriculum in the disciplines” or “professional
development”
COVID-19 “pandemic” OR “covid” OR “covid-19” OR “coronavirus” OR “2019-ncov” OR “sars-
cov-2” OR “cov-19” OR “2019 novel coronavirus” OR “coronavirus disease”
Higher Education “higher education” OR college OR university OR post-secondary OR postsecondary OR
“tertiary education
”
50
| .
AppendixC
is is the complete Boolean string we used in our nal literature search for this study. e string includes all
keywords used for each internationalization domain (see Table 1).
Summary: (((Mobility Key Terms) OR (IPPM Key Terms) OR (Research Key Terms) OR (Partnerships Key
Terms) OR (Internationalization at Home Key Terms)) AND (Higher Education Key Terms) AND (COVID-19
Key Terms))
Complete Boolean String: (((“international student*” or “international facult*” or “international scholar*” or
“student* mobilit*” or “mobile student*” or “academic* mobilit*” or “people mobilit*” or “mobile scholar*” or
“mobile sta” or “mobile academic*” or “sta mobilit*” “faculty mobilit*” or “mobilit* of student*” or “mobilit*
of scholar*” or “mobilit* of sta” or “mobilit* of faculty” or “mobilit* of academic*” or “talent mobility” or
“study abroad” or “student* exchange*” or “exchange student*” or “foreign student*” or “foreign academic*”
or “foreign scholar*” or “foreign sta” or “faculty exchange*” or “sta exchange*” or “exchange facult*” or
“exchange sta” or “inbound” or “outbound” or “inward” or “outward” or “student* migration*” or “scholar*
migration*” or “faculty migration*” or “sta migration*” or “ow* of student*” or “student* ow*” or “faculty
ow*”or “academic* ow*” or “ow* of faculty” or “international mobilit*” or “overseas”) OR (“Transnational
higher education” OR “cross-border higher education” OR “borderless higher education” OR “international
program and provider mobility” OR “branch campus” OR “oshore campus” OR “satellite campus” OR
“oshore campus” OR “portal campus” OR “joint program” OR “franchise program” OR “international private
program” OR “joint degree” OR “double degree” OR “multiple degree” OR “twinning program” OR “twinning
programme” OR “joint programme” OR “partnership programme” OR “distance education” OR “MOOC”
OR “open university” OR “online education” OR “joint university” OR “international university” OR “joint
venture university” ) OR (“international research” OR “international research collaboration” OR “international
research network” OR “international research hub” OR “global research” OR “research partnership” OR
“research collaboration” OR “joint research collaboration” ) OR (SU “higher education” AND AB (and/
or) SU “partnership” OR “collaboration” OR “international partnership” OR “international collaboration”
OR “global partnership” OR “global collaboration” OR “international network” OR “international hub”) OR
(“Internationalization at Home” or “Internationalization of the Curriculum” or “virtual mobility” or “virtual
learning” or “Collaborative Online International Learning” or “COIL” or “faculty support” or “student support”
or “international student services” or “sta support” or “comprehensive internationalization” or “campus
internationalization” or “intercultural competence” or “intelligent internationalization” or “internationalization
of the curriculum in the disciplines” or “professional development” )) AND (“higher education” OR college OR
university OR post-secondary OR postsecondary OR “tertiary education” ) AND (“pandemic” OR “covid” OR
“covid-19” OR “coronavirus” OR “2019-ncov” OR “sars-cov-2” OR “cov-19” OR “2019 novel coronavirus” OR
“coronavirus disease” ))
51
-
CIHE Perspectives
Center for International ISSN: 2475-2657 (Print)
Higher Education ISSN: 2475-2655
Campion Hall, Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 USA
Fax: +1 (617) 552-8422
E-mail: int[email protected]
web: www.bc.edu/cihe
Tel: +1 (617) 552-4236
