Responsible internationalisation has emerged as one of the key discussions within Nordic higher education. As geopolitical uncertainty, research security, and questions surrounding academic freedom increasingly shape international cooperation, higher education institutions are being forced to reconsider what responsible global engagement truly means.
Kuva: Magnific
Introduction
The aim of this article is to examine responsible internationalisation, while reflecting on discussions emerging from the Nordic Training and Cooperation Activity (TCA) on Responsible Internationalisation held in Spring 2026. The Erasmus+ Programme offers a range of European seminars and training events for professionals working in the education sector. These initiatives, known as Training and Cooperation Activities (TCAs), provide opportunities for networking, knowledge exchange, and the development of international cooperation (Finnish National Agency of Education). The topic of responsible internationalisation has gained increasing attention across the Nordic higher education sector as educational institutions attempt to respond to geopolitical uncertainty, changing global partnerships, and growing concerns surrounding academic freedom, research security, and ethical cooperation.
Yet despite the growing visibility of the term, responsible internationalisation remains difficult to define. What does it actually mean for higher education institutions? How should it influence mobility, research cooperation, and international partnerships? And perhaps most importantly, how does it translate into the everyday experiences of students and staff participating in international activities?
This article reflects on these questions from a Finnish higher education context while considering whether institutions such as Laurea University of Applied Sciences should position themselves as active contributors in shaping the national discussion on responsible internationalisation rather than waiting for externally imposed definitions or frameworks.
Defining responsible internationalisation
Discussions surrounding research security, geopolitical tensions, academic freedom, and ethical cooperation have expanded rapidly in recent years, particularly following growing global instability and democratic decline. These discussions have in some contexts taken over the former view of internationalisation as a tool to promote societal impact and inclusion. (De Wit & Glass, 2024.) Yet despite the increasing use of the term, responsible internationalisation remains difficult to define in practice.
The Nordic TCA on Responsible Internationalisation highlighted that responsible internationalisation is no longer understood solely through research security or risk management. Instead, it increasingly encompasses broader questions related to ethics, inclusion, democratic resilience, institutional autonomy, and equitable international cooperation. Several speakers emphasised that higher education institutions can no longer assume that challenges to democratic values or academic freedom exist only outside Europe or the “West.” Institutions are therefore being forced to rethink long-standing assumptions surrounding international cooperation and internationalisation itself.
From a Finnish higher education perspective, responsible internationalisation is still developing as a concept. While Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway have already begun integrating responsible internationalisation into institutional processes through partnership assessments, staff training, and mobility guidance, Finnish practices remain relatively fragmented. In Sweden, STINT (the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education) has carried out extensive research on how Swedish higher education institutions understand, position, and implement responsible internationalisation in practice. In addition, STINT has published recommendations and guidance aimed at supporting higher education institutions in developing responsible approaches to international cooperation and partnerships. (Shih & Garvi, 2022.) The Nordic discussions highlighted a shared need for stronger cooperation, harmonised approaches, and common terminology between institutions facing increasingly similar geopolitical and societal pressures.
At the same time, responsible internationalisation should not become synonymous with overprotection or excessive securitisation. We need to be careful in terms of treading the line between political and social responsibility. (De Wit & Glass, 2024.) Several discussions during the seminar stressed the importance of balancing openness with responsibility and avoiding simplified assumptions or stereotyping when evaluating international cooperation. The challenge lies in remaining “as open as possible, but as closed as necessary.”
How does responsible internationalisation affect students and partnerships?
Much of the current discussion focuses on institutions, research cooperation, and security policies, while the student perspective often receives less attention. Responsible internationalisation should also address how students experience mobility, cultural adaptation, safety, ethics, and wellbeing in international environments.
This raises difficult but necessary questions for institutions participating in student exchanges. Should we become more critical in evaluating future international partnerships and mobility destinations? How should institutions assess political contexts, academic freedoms, or governance structures connected to partner universities? At the same time, international mobility fundamentally exists to expose students and staff to different ways of learning and living. Responsible internationalisation should therefore not prevent meaningful global engagement and it should not give way to our own stereotypes.
The Nordic institutions participating in the TCA seminar discussed practical approaches such as integrating risk awareness into existing mobility processes, providing country-specific guidance for students, strengthening support systems, and developing ethical partnership evaluation models. Responsible internationalisation can also include everyday practices: respecting local cultures, understanding social norms, and preparing students to act responsibly within unfamiliar environments. At Laurea, we are constantly developing our existing structures for student and staff mobility and in the future we need to be more aligned with the solutions presented in the conference.
Conclusion
Responsible internationalisation is ultimately not a single policy or checklist, but an ongoing institutional process of reflection, adaptation, and value-based decision-making. It requires higher education institutions to critically examine how international cooperation is conducted, what kinds of partnerships are prioritised, and how students and staff are supported in increasingly complex global environments.
Within Laurea’s mobility processes, many principles connected to responsible internationalisation, such as equity, accessibility, and reciprocal cooperation, already emerge through the Erasmus+ framework. Yet the broader conceptual discussion remains open. The Nordic TCA seminar demonstrated that many institutions across the Nordic region already recognise a shared urgency surrounding these issues. Should Laurea position itself as a proactive actor helping define responsible internationalisation within the Finnish higher education sector? Or should it wait for national-level frameworks and guidance to emerge elsewhere first?
Artificial intelligence has been used to edit and harmonize existing text
Sources
