Universities have always had international dimensions in their research, teaching, and service to society, but those dimensions were in general more ad hoc, fragmented, and implicit than explicit and comprehensive. In the last decade of the previous century, the increasing globalization and regionalization of economies and societies, combined with the requirements of the knowledge economy and the end of the Cold War, created a context for a more strategic approach to internationalization in higher education. International organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the World Bank, national governments, the European Union, and higher education organizations such as the International Association of Universities placed internationalization at the top of the reform agenda. Internationalization became a key change agent in higher education, in the developed world but also in emerging and developing societies. Mobility of students, scholars, and programs; reputation and branding (manifested by global and regional rankings); and a shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition (van der Wende, 2001) have been the main manifestations of the agenda of internationalization in higher education over the past 30 years. International education has become an industry, a source of revenue and a means for enhanced reputation. Quantitative data about the number of international degree-seeking students, of international talents and scholars, of students going for credits abroad, of agreements and memoranda of understanding, as well as of co-authored international publications in high impact academic journals, have not only been key manifestations of this perception of internationalization, but also have driven its agenda and actions. This perception has resulted in an increasing dominance of English in research but also teaching, has createdthe emergence of a whole new industry around internationalization, has forced national governments to stimulate institutions of higher education going international, and hasgenerated new buzz words such as “cross-border delivery” and “soft power” in the higher education arena. In the period 2010–2020, we have seen not only the number of international students double to 5 million in the past decade, but also we have noticed an increase in franchise operations, articulation programs, branch campuses, and online delivery of higher education. There is fierce competition for talented international students and scholars, and immigration policies have shifted from low-skill to high-skill immigration. National excellence programs have increased differentiation in higher education with more attention for a small number of international world-class universities and national flagship institutions that compete for these talents, for positions in the global rankings, for access to high impact journals, and for funding, at the cost of other institutions. There is also an increasing concern about the neo-colonial dimension. In the current global-knowledge society, the concept of internationalization of higher education has itself become globalized, demanding further consideration of its impact on policy and practice as more countries and types of institution around the world engage in the process. Internationalization should no longer be considered in terms of a westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly English-speaking paradigm. (Jones & de Wit, 2014, p. 28) Internationalization became defined by the generally accepted definition of Knight (2008): “The process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education,” describing clearly the process in a general and value neutral way. Some of the main trends in internationalization in the past 30 years have been: More focused on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home More ad hoc, fragmented, and marginal than strategic, comprehensive, and central in policies More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies (de Wit, 2019). Traditional values that have driven international activities in higher education in the past, such as exchange and cooperation, peace and mutual understanding, human capital development, and solidarity, although still present in the vocabulary of international education, have moved to the sideline in a push for competition, revenue, and reputation/branding. Around the change of the century, we observed a first response to these developments. The movement for Internationalization at Home within the European Union started in 1999 in Malmo, Sweden, drawing more attention to the 95% of nonmobile students not participating in the successful flagship program of the EU, ERASMUS. In the United Kingdom and Australia, a similar movement asked for attention to internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning in response to the increased focus on recruiting income-generating international students. And in the United States, attention emerged around internationalizing campuses and developing more comprehensive approaches to internationalization as an alternative for the marginal and fragmented focus on undergraduate study abroad on the one hand and international student recruitment on the other. These reactions were and are important manifestations of concern about the competitive, elitist, and market direction of internationalization, and are a call for more attention to the qualitative dimensions of internationalization, such as citizenship development, employability, and improvement of the quality of research, education, and service to society. A wide range of academic scholars and international education practitioners have pushed for change with their publications and presentations. A study for the European Parliament on the state of internationalization in higher education gave this push an extra dimension. Not only did the study provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and the practice of internationalization in higher education around the world, but also—based on a global Delphi Exercise—it promoted a new agenda for internationalization for the future, by extending the definition of Knight (2008), defining internationalization as follows: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (de Wit et al., 2015) This definition gave a normative direction to the process by emphasizing that such a process does not proceed by itself but needs clear intentions, that internationalization is not a goal in itself but needs to be directed toward quality improvement, that it should not be of interest to a small elite group of mobile students and scholars but directed to all students and scholars, and that it should make a contribution to society. Over the past 5 years this new approach has received positive attention, and at the start of a new decade it is important to see if this shift back to a more ethical and qualitative approach with respect to internationalization is indeed taking place and what new dimensions one can observe in that shift.

中文翻译：

---

高等教育国际化

大学在其研究、教学和对社会的服务中一直具有国际性的维度，但这些维度通常更具有临时性、碎片化和隐含性，而不是明确和全面的。在上个世纪的最后十年，经济和社会日益全球化和区域化，加上知识经济的要求和冷战的结束，为高等教育国际化采取更具战略性的方法创造了背景。经济合作与发展组织、联合国教育、科学及文化组织、世界银行等国际组织、各国政府、欧盟、国际大学协会等高等教育组织将国际化置于改革议程的首位。国际化成为高等教育、发达国家以及新兴和发展中社会的关键变革推动因素。学生、学者和项目的流动性；声誉和品牌（通过全球和区域排名体现）；过去 30 年来，从合作到竞争的范式转变（van der Wende，2001）一直是高等教育国际化议程的主要表现形式。国际教育已经成为一个产业、一个收入来源和一个提升声誉的手段。国际攻读学位学生、国际人才和学者、出国修读学分的数量数据，协议和谅解备忘录，以及在具有高影响力的学术期刊上合着的国际出版物，不仅是这种国际化观念的关键表现，而且还推动了其议程和行动。这种看法导致英语在研究和教学中的主导地位越来越高，围绕国际化创造了一个全新的行业，迫使各国政府刺激高等教育机构走向国际，并产生了新的流行词，例如“跨界”。高等教育领域的“边境交付”和“软实力”。在 2010-2020 年期间，我们不仅看到过去十年国际学生人数翻了一番，达到 500 万，而且我们注意到特许经营、衔接课程、分校，以及高等教育的在线交付。有才华的国际学生和学者竞争激烈，移民政策已从低技能移民转向高技能移民。国家卓越计划增加了高等教育的差异化，更多地关注少数国际一流大学和国家旗舰机构竞争这些人才、在全球排名中的位置、获得高影响力的期刊和资金，以其他机构为代价。人们也越来越关注新殖民主义维度。在当今全球化知识社会，高等教育国际化的概念本身已经全球化，随着世界上越来越多的国家和类型的机构参与这一进程，要求进一步考虑其对政策和实践的影响。国际化不应再被视为西化的、主要是盎格鲁撒克逊人、主要讲英语的范式。(Jones & de Wit, 2014, p. 28) Knight (2008) 的普遍接受的定义对国际化进行了定义：“将国际、跨文化或全球层面整合到高等教育的目的、功能和交付中的过程，”以一般和价值中立的方式清楚地描述了这个过程。过去 30 年国际化的一些主要趋势是： 更侧重于国外的国际化而不是国内的国际化 比战略性更临时、分散和边缘化，虽然流动性仍然是全球国际化政策中最主要的因素，但国内课程的国际化越来越受到关注。也更强烈地呼吁全面国际化，以综合方式解决教育的各个方面。尽管经济原理和排名仍然推动着国际化的议程，但现在更多地强调了国际化的其他动机。例如，正在关注将国际层面纳入高等教育质量保证机制、与学生学习成果相关的制度政策以及国家和特定学科认证机构的工作（de Wit，2019 年）。过去推动高等教育国际活动的传统价值观，如交流与合作、和平与相互理解、人力资本开发和团结，虽然仍然存在于国际教育的词汇中，但在推动中已被边缘化。竞争、收入和声誉/品牌。围绕世纪的变化，我们观察到了对这些发展的第一反应。欧盟内部国际化运动于 1999 年在瑞典马尔默开始，吸引了更多关注 95% 未参加欧盟成功旗舰计划 ERASMUS 的非流动学生。在英国和澳大利亚，一项类似的运动要求关注课程和教学与学习的国际化，以应对越来越重视招收创收国际学生。在美国，人们开始关注校园国际化，并开发更全面的国际化方法，作为一种替代方案，一方面是对本科留学的边缘和分散关注，另一方面是国际学生的招生。这些反应过去和现在都是对国际化竞争、精英和市场方向的关注的重要体现，并呼吁更多地关注国际化的定性维度，例如公民发展、就业能力和研究质量的提高，教育，服务社会。广泛的学术学者和国际教育从业者通过他们的出版物和演讲推动了变革。欧洲议会关于高等教育国际化状况的一项研究为这一推动提供了额外的维度。该研究不仅全面概述了世界各地高等教育国际化的文献和实践，而且基于全球德尔菲练习，通过扩展国际化的定义，推动了未来国际化的新议程Knight (2008)，将国际化定义如下：将国际、跨文化或全球层面整合到高等教育的目的、功能和交付中的有意过程，为了提高所有学生和教职员工的教育和研究质量，并为社会做出有意义的贡献。(de Wit et al., 2015) 该定义为该过程提供了规范性方向，强调这样的过程不会自行进行但需要明确的意图，国际化本身不是目标，而是需要针对质量改进，它不应该是一小群流动学生和学者的精英群体的兴趣，而是针对所有学生和学者，应该为社会做出贡献。在过去的 5 年中，这种新方法受到了积极的关注，