Will Brehm  1:00
Jenny Lee, welcome back to FreshEd.

Jenny Lee  1:02
So, great to be back here.

Will Brehm  1:03
So, can you tell me how internationalization of higher education is typically or usually defined in the literature?

Jenny Lee  1:12
Well, to start, the answer really depends on who you ask. As you know, there’s so many different ways that internationalization is understood and framed and competing definitions. But among the most commonly cited is Jane Knight’s 2004, classic definition. Many of us have it practically memorized, and I’ll go ahead and quote that, “The process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of post-secondary education”, which as it sounds is pretty much everything. And so, this broad definition evolved from earlier definitions to address an increasingly wider range of levels and providers. And with that, no one can argue what’s being left out. It’s basically anything and everything that has to do with the integration of anything international, anything intercultural or anything global into higher education.

Will Brehm  2:05
It’s like students that are studying abroad, it’s students that are learning about something International, like learning a foreign language in their home school? Would that count too?

Jenny Lee  2:17
Absolutely. So, we often think of student mobility, we think of transnational education, we think of international partnerships, international research collaboration, and it continues to expand as well as the providers as well.

Will Brehm  2:32
That’s how, you know, Jane Knight is known as being a sort of guru in a sense of internationalization of higher education. So many people cite that definition, as you said. What’s missing in it? Or in other words, how would you define internationalization of higher education?

Jenny Lee  2:47
Well, Jane Knight has also updated her definition as the field has evolved. And as the field has evolved, the definition has evolved, and what internationalization means to the field will continue to evolve. So, the definition I read to you now is certainly all encompassing but there are increasing concerns not just for myself, but numerous scholars that internationalization is far from the neutral process assumed in this and other conceptualizations. And so, I felt it was fundamental that there be an acknowledgement that inequalities exist by making explicit the role of power. And that power is embedded in international higher education. So, in the book, I offer a simple revision by adding three words upfront, and it reads “the power and the process of integrating an international intercultural and global dimension into the purpose functions or delivery of post-secondary education”.

Will Brehm  3:41
So, how are you understanding power then? Like, how does power shape internationalization of higher education?

Jenny Lee  3:48
Well, Michel Foucault famously said “Power is everywhere and comes from everywhere”. And in other words, we cannot pretend that power is not present in our field. Theoretically speaking, an examination of power is a fundamental basis of all critical theories. And so, regarding how power shapes international higher education, we have chapters on student mobility, academic research, curriculum partnerships, and just some of the ways that current practices are shaped by power. But I’ll further add that power is not just about who has more resources, who gets more in the end, but also what international education should look like in the very values that internationalization should prioritize. So, for example, we also have chapters that demonstrate how power determines even how quality is measured, such as global rankings and accreditation and even determines what is considered to be so called internationally competent. None of these should be assumed to be universal, especially when we are working across cultures.

Will Brehm  4:48
So, in a way, you know, starting from a Foucauldian perspective, where you look at sort of the discourse and knowledge and see power through how discourses and knowledges are shaped and who gets to do that shaping. So, that’s, sort of, one way to think about it. But then you also said there’s that sort of material power -the distribution of different material goods. But of course, there’s also a geopolitical sort of power between and across countries and the way in which those nation states sort of can further their interests in a way. Do you see that in internationalization of higher education as well? I mean, I think what I’m trying to ask is, you know, power is such a undefinable concept, often, and so, in a way, there’s the discourse as power. There’s the sort of material distribution as power and sort of the economics as power. And then there’s also this sort of geopolitical power. So, basically, do we see geopolitical power in the internationalization of higher education?

Jenny Lee  5:57
So, remember, internationalization is focused on the nation itself -relations between nations- and internationalization is often driven by nationalism. So, there may be intentions to work across borders, but we also know beyond military power, economic power, there’s soft power, which we elaborate further in the book. And it’s that soft power that is especially pervasive in international partnerships, the direction of student flows, where institutions decide to locate their programs or branch campuses, and all of that interplays into the kind of decisions that we make. But also, when there’s tensions between countries as well, as hopefully we’ll get into later between the US and China, that also shapes what internationalization looks like.

Will Brehm  6:44
So, maybe we should jump into this issue of, say, the US -and perhaps the US just because it’s such a dominant player in the space of higher education. Of course, not the only sort of player but currently a pretty dominant player. How do you see power, or where is the power in the US higher education sort of internationalization efforts? What do you point to and look at that becomes interesting to say, look, this is how power is operating?

Jenny Lee  7:11
Well, first off, the US is an easy example of how power is evident but not to say other countries are unaffected. Again, nationalism fuels internationalization, and the US is just one example. So, besides the US, of course, we know in the UK, Australia, Canada, we can easily observe, for example, the dominance of the English language as the clearest example of so-called Western Power. This has major implications, of course, on where and what students study the location of institutional partners, as well as the research enterprise. And we know that universities in Anglophone countries are clearly advantaged not just in the dominance of language but also the dominance of ideas, which is largely shaped by language. Just to offer another example, a key indicator of US power in higher education, of course, is its dominant presence in the major global ranking systems. The rankings correspond, of course, with the US’ ability to track top students and scholars from across the world being the largest host, the US also comprises the majority of top research producing institutions, the US is the world’s leading international collaborator, the world’s top R&D performer and leader in scientific impact.

Will Brehm  8:22
So, how does any of that further the interests of the United States as a government? I can understand how a lot of that might help individual institutions or individual people get great education, and become great researchers, and attract more grants, but how does all of this sort of collectively fit into the interests and further the interests of the USA?

Jenny Lee  8:46
Well, what we’re also seeing is that we are in a knowledge economy where universities are now important parts of national agendas, national development, national competitiveness. And when we see the production of scientific knowledge, that is also certainly benefiting not just developing countries but those that are also in the top and maintaining their global dominance.

Will Brehm  9:09
Right. So, in a sense, the US can further its economic interests by producing research that becomes patentable and can spin off into different companies, can sort of build… I mean, is there anything about building ties with other countries? Like is there a way of accepting students from abroad of particular countries that can sort of further the international relations between those two countries? Is that also part of it?

Jenny Lee  9:37
So, there’s different ways to respond? Well, first of all, it’s the building of human capital. So, we know that international students go with the intention, maybe of returning home but often don’t because there’s better opportunities. So, first of all, it’s building the capacity and the human capital within a country. Of course, we also know that there’s benefits whence global leaders’ study in certain countries, certainly promoting diplomatic ties in the long run. There’s various programs to promote goodwill. We, for example, are seeing more investment in Africa coming from China, from Europe, as well as North America in promoting relations and future exchange not in the education sphere but also in business and the industrial sector. So, we are seeing these global ties as a result, of course, or spurred by globalization. Absolutely. We’re talking about knowledge production, we’re talking about human capital, we’re talking about developmental ties, and clearly with the interconnectedness of our world, it just doesn’t make sense for a country to completely isolate itself.

Will Brehm  10:37
That’s quite interesting and you can see how the US is dominant with the English language, and the hegemony of ideas, and the ranking and the research funding, attracting all these great students from all over the world. Is there a particular reason why the US is so dominant? Like are there sort of geopolitical reasons that are sort of shaping the US’ dominance in the field of internationalization of higher education?

Jenny Lee  11:05
So, we are seeing participation. It’s not necessarily dominance in one direction. So, emerging economies, notably China, India, South Korea, for example, are the biggest buyers when it comes to the selling of US higher education abroad. This is an example using student enrollment. Even when we observe bilateral institutional partnerships, these are generally with lower to middle income countries that are aspiring to rise globally. They’re largely transactional and, you know, there’s long been a critique in the developing world, you know, these particular forms of internationalization that may foster dependency over capacity building. But also, you know, mutual agreement, as I mentioned earlier, is already present. US universities, as well as those in other wealthy countries, strategize to rise in their global rankings, they compete for the best and brightest, they expand their global partnerships, but they’re able to do so because there’s already built-in soft power. This enables them to reach their targets and the current world order is sustained. As far as the individuals involved, we’re only as effective as we’re able to identify willing participants, including institutions from abroad to cooperate with. And there are many that are seeking to partner or go to the United States, not just the United States, but wealthier countries that have this so-called power that we’re talking about.

Will Brehm  12:25
What sort of institutions are enabling that movement of students? Who is enabling this mobility of people in, say, China, or in India to go to countries like the US but also the UK to consume that education? Is a lot of this money coming from governments themselves? Or is it just individual families, and as these countries are getting wealthier, certain groups in that country are getting wealthier, they’re spending money on education abroad? Or are there sort of foundations and institutions, you know, non-state actors that are sort of greasing the wheels, so to speak, to keep this flow of students happening? Give us the layout of some of the big actors here?

Jenny Lee  13:05
Well, what we’re seeing is much of this is individual choices of students that are seeking better opportunities than they would find at home, especially at the graduate school level. Of course, there are sponsorships, there are scholarships that are government-funded ways and even coming from the US such as the Fulbright program that helped to promote these kinds of flows. But by and large, international students, at least in the US, tend to be self-funded. So, this is really coming from their families, from their own interests in seeking better opportunities, maybe with the intention of immigrating, maybe with intention of bringing those skills back home, but we see this largely being driven by individual interests.

Will Brehm  13:47
And then what about inside the US where the universities that are, of course, trying to get more of these students from abroad to come in these, you know, amazing students who are also fee-paying students and typically higher fee-paying students? You know, is this being coordinated at any sort of federal level? Like, is there a push federally to attract more students abroad?

Jenny Lee  14:08
There’s certainly federal interest but federal funding is another thing. So, I mean, international students is an important source of revenue so often times so that we can even fund our domestic students. And this is not necessarily high on the radar of higher education priorities but there’s certainly an attraction. So, to fund that attraction, we don’t see that as often. I think more than anything, we see this at the graduate level with federal grants with money set aside to hire graduate students in research labs or postdocs, for example.

Will Brehm  14:40
One of the things that you point out in your introduction in your book is that, if there is any coordination at the federal level in America, it’s coming not from the Department of Education, but from the Department of State. And that was very surprising to me. Why Is that?

Jenny Lee  15:00
So, for example, the most well-known program is the Fulbright Program. And many people would assume that it’s coming through the Department of Education and it’s not. As you mentioned, it’s coming from the Department of State. And this is to promote goodwill between countries. Now, keep in mind, this is a highly, highly selective program. I mean, we’re talking about very few that can take advantage of this opportunity, so we’re not talking about the masses coming in to promote diplomacy. This is the best and brightest students or the top academics who have the opportunity to come study in the US or study in another country. What is driving this, of course, is to promote goodwill, to well-represent the United States, and also to provide some positive ties, to contribute to countries, for those individuals who interact with these Fulbright scholars or Fulbright students to also be able to carry on this positive relationship in the future.

Will Brehm  15:58
So, when we think about power and geopolitical power, obviously things change and evolve over time. None of these power relations are set in stone. So, in a sense, do you see other countries sort of challenging the power of the United States in higher education right now?

Jenny Lee  16:23
Absolutely. I think any listener will agree that China is indisputably on the rise. It’s on course to replace the US as the largest GDP globally in the next 15 years. But when we look at the United States, it’s of course, the largest host of the world’s top universities, but other countries are moving up the ranks for those who’ve been following global rankings. Even the UK’s high status is also vulnerable. We’re seeing the rise of Chinese institutions, South Korea is also emerging, universities located in the Middle East are also rising. Another area is even when we talked earlier about student mobility. So, we tend to hyper focus on mobility into a country. But what about mobility abroad? And this is really about the internationalization of students within a country. The domestic population seeking an international education, when we look at that, for example, the US lags far behind. The EU is doing a far better job just with the mobility of students within the EU but even outside the region. But both the US and EU pale in comparison to China sending almost a million students abroad to seek an international education. What’s especially interested me these past few years is the rise of China in scientific production, outpacing the US as well as the EU and now the top country in generating scientific knowledge. Even when we look at partnerships between the US and China, the US is trailing China in first authorship and funding. So, that’s been especially interesting to observe, it’s been quite remarkable.

Will Brehm  18:02
Does this cause any tensions between the countries?

Jenny Lee  18:05
Well, so I’m just going to say, I’m not sure if you remember, Will, but when you had interviewed me on the topic of neo-racism two and a half years ago, you asked me about the rise of China and tensions between countries. And admittedly, I hadn’t given as much thought about the direct linkages between the US-China trade war and back then the topic being neo-racism. So, I do need to thank you for steering me in that direction. You know, even since then, or actually before then, we’ve witnessed China as a rising superpower, not just economically, but as I mentioned, in scientific production. And we witnessed at the time in 2019 when we were doing our podcast then, that we were witnessing Trump’s various immigration bans. But even since then, Biden has continued with some of these initiatives such as Proclamation 10043. This bans Chinese international students and researchers that have ties to China’s military infusion strategy. There’s also the one-year limit for international Chinese graduate students studying particular sensitive fields. But among the most controversial is the FBI’s China Initiative, which aims to address security concerns and combat possible intellectual espionage coming from China.

Will Brehm  19:19
So, you’re saying that the US is basically concerned about the mobility of students and researchers coming from China into the US and potentially stealing state secrets or learning knowledge and skills in areas and fields that are deemed sensitive and bringing that knowledge and skill back to China to supposedly somehow compete with the US geopolitically. That’s sort of the concern here?

Jenny Lee  19:49
Right. And China, for a long time, was viewed as an important ally, and now with the rise of China, China’s now being positioned as a so-called threat to US competitiveness. I will add this concern is not isolated to the United States. This is also a concern within the EU, other parts of East Asia. So, while the focus of the work has been on the United States, I think globally, other countries are similarly concerned about the rise of China and how that might threaten their own position globally.

Will Brehm  20:20
Is this position by say, the US but also other countries, is it founded on evidence? Like is it actually happening? Or is it just sort of more fear mongering?

Jenny Lee  20:31
Well, that’s the challenge. Is that in the case of the United States, the FBI has not been transparent. We’ve seen in the news, individuals being sought after, investigated, prosecuted, and exonerated but these are very isolated cases. And so recently, Xiaojie Li and I had conducted a study and we wanted to actually look at this fear-mongering that you had just mentioned just now. And this was a study we did in partnership with the Committee of 100, which is a prominent Chinese American organization. But we had surveyed about 2,000 scientists in the United States and top research institutions. And we found remarkable differences in comparing those of Chinese and non-Chinese descent. And what we found was a consistent pattern of racial profiling. Scientists were reporting greater difficulty in obtaining research funds, professional challenges, fear and anxiety, they’re being surveilled compared to non-Chinese. And in fact, one out of two Chinese faculty reported that they were afraid of being surveilled by the FBI. We’re not just talking about Chinese nationals in the United States, we’re talking about Chinese US citizens. So, clearly, this is not just affecting the individuals who may happen to be sharing data, or stealing data, or spying on behalf of a country. We’re talking about innocent scientists who are afraid that they will be wrongfully investigated and charged.

Will Brehm  22:01
That’s incredible. I mean, it’s like that neo-racism but sort of at a different level or a different angle, in a sense. So, do we know what effect this is having? Like, I mean, it seems as if the work conditions now for some researchers and scientists is one of fear of the US basically surveilling what they’re doing because of potential ties to China. I mean, that must have an effect on one’s ability to do their research and do their work.

Jenny Lee  22:29
So, absolutely. The China Initiative, based on the results of the study, is a neo-racist initiative because it’s targeting individuals that are of Chinese-descent, or appear as Chinese-descent. We also found that Asians also felt targeted -Asian Americans or Asians from other countries. And that there’s a so-called “chilling effect” and there are consequences of this. You know, we’ve talked about before, ways that neo-racism against international students have the potential negative effect of affecting future flows. But in this particular study, we found that scientists are, as a result of the China Initiative. They are abandoning collaboration with China. They’re pursuing non-federal grants, because federal grants require more disclosure and more, you’re in more of a magnifying glass, more potential for violation because there’s a lot more you need to report called conflicts of interest. They’re downsizing their projects, they’re pursuing less sensitive projects. And they’re working in reduced domestic teams. We found that this is not just true for those who are Chinese, but any scientist who is collaborating with China. Basically, in seeking to compete with China, this neo-racist initiative is actually undermining US’ ability to compete with China. But I do feel I need to go back to what we talked about in the beginning, is that, yes, national competitiveness is a concern. But another finding is that, and the greater concern that I have and hopefully your international listeners outside the US will also share is, this also affects the extent to which scientists can work together across borders to solve global challenges. As I mentioned before, the US and China are the world’s leading collaborators. And I do worry in the greater scheme of what this means for scientists’ ability to address shared concerns such as COVID, global warming, wildlife preservation and so on, when science is fundamentally borderless, but is being bordered by national interests that are superseding the need to address global problems. So, what we’re seeing now is how this, as an example of competition for global power, is weakening international research efforts and ultimately the global good.

Will Brehm  24:42
It’s like diminishing of the knowledge economy because of some sort of national pride and nationalism. Do we have a sense of, is a similar pattern happening in China? Like, because there are some foreign researchers living in China, working in China, doing research in China, students studying in China? Do we have a sense of what’s happening from that perspective?

Jenny Lee  25:09
That’s harder to know. I am currently embarking on a study, and we are interviewing Chinese researchers as well. But there are concerns of course, on both sides. I will say that intellectual theft and spying is happening all over the world. And not to say that it’s only in one direction but to say that there are concerns about collaboration globally, greater concerns about knowledge being taken away and used for purposes that will damage our country’s ability to compete. I mean, that still exists. And I think that we still need to learn more about ways that this is taking place elsewhere.

Will Brehm  25:46
And that sort of leads me to my final question, which is about, when we think of studying internationalization of higher education, and coming at it from this lens of power, as you’re really emphasizing here, we’ve talked a lot about China and the USA, and maybe a little bit about India. But how is all of this important for people outside of those countries? Like why would anyone else say, “Yes, power is so important to think about when we think about higher education and internationalization”?

Jenny Lee  26:15
So, Will, I really appreciate that question because this book is certainly not intended just for the US audiences. The US is just an example of how power operates in international higher education, particularly national power. And in talking about power, this is not just an argument. It is an indisputable fact that covers every dimension of international higher education as we argue in the book. But for those leaders and policymakers that are listening, those that are striving to compete globally, you know, I’m just going to pose several questions here, as we close up is to ask ourselves, what is the local cost in trying to compete globally, such as through global rankings or seeking accreditation? For universities in the Global South, how might seeking to imitate the United States or the global north deepen stratification that already exists? Especially when we channel national resources towards a particular end like this? For listeners in the Global North, how can we act more responsibly with the power we possess? For researchers, how do we expand what we determine to be quality? How do we make our work more accessible? What does international collaboration absent of national power look like? For those engaged in institutional partnerships, how can we move away from dependency and more towards sustainability? And when it comes to students, how can we of course look beyond enrollment and revenue and towards a quality experience? And even when we think about quality, how can we use measurements that are not based on Western norms, such as global competency or global citizenship. I can go on and on. But essentially, we’re talking about identifying power and thinking beyond internationalization as a mere end to itself.

Will Brehm  28:01
It sounds like a huge research agenda. Maybe a few PhDs in there as well. And a lot of good questions that I hope listeners, people who are doing research in this field can actually start exploring because it is such an important piece. And it’s almost surprising that it’s taken this long to think about power in relation to higher education and internationalization. So, thank you for doing so, and writing a whole book or editing a collection on it. So, Jenny Lee, thank you so much for joining FreshEd again. It’s always a pleasure to talk.

Jenny Lee  28:31
Thanks for having me.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Related Guest Project/Publications

US power in international high education
Racial profiling among scientists of Chinese descent and consequences for the US scientific community
Winners and losers in US-China scientific research collaborations
Engaging International students
Universities, neo-nationalism and the ‘China threat’
Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: The case of South Africa

Mentioned
Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints –  Jane Knight
FulBright Student Program
Proclamation 10043
China Initiative
China and the West: An overview of growing competition in the Global South and the impact of China’s rise
Committee of 100
Chilling effect

Related Resources
Internationalization of higher education: Past and future
Global ambitions: Internationalization and China’s rise as knowledge hub
Internationalization of higher education: National interpretations of a global model
Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future
Globalization/s: Reproduction and resistance in the internationalization of higher education
Globalization of Internationalization of higher education in the United States
The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the Global South
Internationalization and the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities for the Global South
Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society
Internationalization of higher education: Navigating between contrasting trends
Why do spies love US colleges?

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com