Internationalisation is now a central and largely unquestioned feature of higher education. Once an elite activity, it has become a strategic marker of quality embedded in institutional strategies and performance frameworks. This article examines internationalisation critically, asking what the concept means, whom it serves, and whether it has become so taken for granted that it may require new language, with a focus on European and Finnish higher education.

Internationalisation is not a new concept. It has been used in different contexts since the mid-20th century and has seen a particularly dramatic rise within higher education over the past few decades. What was once an elite possibility has increasingly become a strategic necessity, framed as both a marker of quality and a future-oriented institutional trait. (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011; Adams & de Wit, 2010.) As internationalisation has been embedded into strategies, funding models, and key performance indicators, it is rarely questioned at the level of its underlying assumptions. This article examines internationalisation from a critical perspective, asking what the term actually means, who it applies to, and in which contexts it is used. It also raises the question of whether internationalisation, as a concept and a word, has become so inflated and taken for granted that it may require new language altogether.

Back to Basics

Internationality as a concept has existed long before it became a central policy objective in higher education. However, its prominence in international education discourse has peaked only in recent decades. A frequently cited point of reference is Jane Knight’s definition of internationalisation as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (2003). While widely adopted, this definition is interpreted very differently depending on institutional, national, and political contexts.

Importantly, the contemporary understanding of internationalisation has largely emerged from Western higher education systems and has been applied globally, often without sufficient consideration of differing political, economic, and historical realities. Organisations such as the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) and the European association for International Education (EAIE) have attempted to measure levels of internationalisation, yet the term itself is frequently used interchangeably with concepts such as global, transnational, and intercultural. Research suggests that broader geographical reach is often equated with “better” internationalisation, reinforcing the idea that scale and coverage matter more than depth or reciprocity. (Buckner & Stein, 2020.)

Internationalisation is also commonly contrasted with globalization. From my understanding, while globalization is often associated with inequality, marketisation, and cultural homogenisation, internationalisation is framed as inherently positive, promising cooperation, understanding, and shared progress. As Brandenburg and de Wit (2011) note, this moral distinction is rarely interrogated. Tony Adams and Hans de Wit highlighted how internationalisation in the 1960s–1980s focused primarily on cooperation and mobility, whereas today it is increasingly linked to competition, branding, and revenue generation (Adams & de Wit, 2010). I think this shift raises questions about what internationalisation now means in practice within higher education and how does internationalisation in higher education present itself: is it merely a means of income generation or is academia still celebrating the intrinsic values it brings?

Who Is “International”?

A central yet underexplored question is who gets to be considered international. In higher education, internationalisation is often associated with specific groups such as exchange students, degree-mobile students, or visiting scholars. These groups are frequently framed as desirable and necessary, contributing to institutional diversity, reputation, and financial sustainability. (Brown & Jones, 2007.) In contrast, immigrants and refugees are rarely included in societal discussions of internationalisation, despite often possessing multilingual and intercultural competencies. The latter group is in my opinion often framed as using society’s resources rather than bringing something to the table.

This distinction is not neutral. The language of “international” versus “immigrant” reflects power relations and policy priorities, shaping who is welcomed and under what conditions. In the Finnish context, international students are often positioned as future talent, while immigrants may be framed through integration or deficit-based narratives (Reponen, 2020). By maintaining these linguistic separations, higher education risks reinforcing the idea of a “global other” while presenting internationalisation as apolitical and universally beneficial.

Words Create Reality

Given the assumptions embedded in the term, I think we should consider whether internationalisation still serves its intended purpose. If the concept continues to privilege mobility, scale, and select groups of people, it may fall short of addressing issues of inclusion, equity, and social responsibility. Language matters and the terms used in policy and strategy shape how goals are understood and enacted. Maybe it is time we examine our own relationship with the words being used in these contexts and recognise our responsibility in shaping the reality around it.

Rather than abandoning internationalisation altogether, I think there may be value in re-examining and complementing it with more inclusive frameworks that emphasise intercultural learning at home, mutuality, and local-global connections. At Laurea, good examples of these include, but are not exclusive to, Cooperative Online International Learning (COIL’s) and developing home-internationalisation strategies for students and staff alike. In a context where mobility is not equally accessible to all, especially in times of crisis, higher education may benefit from moving beyond internationalisation as an unquestioned ideal toward more critically grounded and socially just approaches.

Artificial Intelligence has been used to format the text.

References

• Adams, T. & de Wit, H. 2010. Global competition in higher education – a comparative study of policies, rationales and practices in Australia and Europe. In: Portnoi, M., Rust, v., & Bagley S. (eds.) Higher education, policy, and the global competition phenomenon. Los Angeles. Centre for International Studies in Education. Los Angeles. pp. 219-234. Accessed 20.12.2025.
• Brandenburg, U. & de Wit, H. 2011. The End of Internationalization. Accessed 20.12.2025.
• Brown, S. & Jones, E. 2007. Introduction: values, valuing and value in an internationalized Higher Education context. In: Brown, Sally & Jones, Elspeth (eds.) Internationalising Higher Education. Routledge. Oxon. pp. 1-7.
• Buckner, E. & Stein, S. 2020. What Counts as Internationalization? Deconstructing the Internationalization Imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 151-166. Accessed 10.2.2026.
• Knight, J. 2003. Updated Definition of Internationalization. International Higher Education, (33). Accessed 23.2.2026.
• Reponen, Emilia. 2020. Kansainvälinen osaaja vai maahanmuuttajatyönhakija? Tempon blogikirjoitukset. Accessed 26.2.2026. Kansainvälinen osaaja vai maahanmuuttajatyönhakija? – Tempo