March/April 2026
By Dorothea Antonio, Samia Chasi, Sandra Guarín Tarquino, and Takehito Kamata
To deepen our understanding of how higher education internationalization is unfolding globally today, Trends & Insights invited senior international leaders from Colombia, Japan, and South Africa to share perspectives on their work and regional contexts. We are grateful to Samia Chasi, Sandra Guarín Tarquino, and Takehito Kamata for their thoughtful insights and guidance—which provide a valuable lens on the importance of culture, equity, social justice, and the collective good in fostering research collaboration and meaningful partnerships—on how to shape our global future.
Editor’s note: Responses have been edited for clarity and length.
How is the changing understanding of internationalization reflected in the implementation of strategic internationalization practices in different countries and regions of the world?
Samia Chasi, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa: In South Africa, a postcolonial and postapartheid society in the Global South, internationalization intersects with other pertinent issues affecting higher education, particularly decolonization in the wake of the #RhodesMustFall movement. As this movement illustrated, a key aspect of decolonizing is recognizing, interrogating, and resisting dominant frameworks and understandings that are typically—both knowingly and unknowingly—imposed by the Global North.
Sandra Guarín Tarquino, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is a diverse region in terms of cultures, ethnicities, worldviews, biodiversity, and types of higher education institutions (HEIs). The region's approach to internationalization is influenced by this diversity as well as by historical contexts, socio-economic realities characterized by inequality and traditional colonizing dynamics that are beginning to show signs of change, giving rise to varied strategies and practices among LAC institutions.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020, with the common challenge of maintaining the dynamics of internationalization without the possibility of in-person mobility and the lack of prioritization on collaboration, international education associations and networks from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru came together to launch the Latin American Initiative for Internationalization (INILAT) to coordinate and create synergies with initiatives that promote sociocultural potential and academic and research development as well as to strengthen ties in the region.
Takehito Kamata, Sophia University, Japan: The concept of internationalization has been implemented and perceived differently by individuals, organizations, and nations. The Asia-Pacific region hosts approximately one-third of all international students worldwide, and HEIs across the Asia-Pacific region are currently focused on cross-border challenges stemming from the rapid expansion of cross-border student mobility and the urgent need to expedite, ensure fairness, and enhance the credibility of qualification recognition (UNESCO 2025). These challenges are further compounded by emerging risks associated with digital credentials and artificial intelligence, such as diploma fraud and the proliferation of “deepfake” credentials. Stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific are collaborating through coordinated international efforts to advocate for the wider ratification and implementation of the Tokyo Convention (National Information Center for Academic Recognition Japan 2025).
How is internationalization different in these regional contexts than it has been portrayed in Global North contexts? Any insights on why that is?
Chasi: The term “Global North” generally refers to most European countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States; while the term “Global South” encompasses regions of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. These terms are often framed in binary opposition, juxtaposing the “rich” and “developed” North with the “poor” and “underdeveloped” South. However, such binaries are oversimplifications and fail to adequately reflect the complexities of the environments in which we operate—within institutions, countries, and regions, or in their relations to one another.
In an effort to rethink internationalization beyond the Northern gaze, Heleta and Chasi (2023) argue that dominant Northern framings lack contextual relevance in Southern settings and should therefore not be adopted without critical examination. Instead, they propose that decolonial approaches are more appropriate in such contexts, foregrounding criticality, positionality, and plurality as key concerns. Criticality relates to the willingness to interrogate what we know and do; positionality involves awareness of the diverse ways in which we see and live in the world; and plurality reflects a commitment to epistemic diversity and to moving beyond the dominance of Northern-centric perspectives and practices. From the vantage point of South Africa, Heleta and Chasi offer a decolonial definition of internationalization that is sensitive to the country’s specific higher education environment, as follows:
Internationalization of higher education is a critical and comparative process of the study of the world and its complexities, past and present inequalities and injustices, and possibilities for a more equitable and just future for all. Through teaching, learning, research, and engagement, internationalization fosters epistemic plurality and integrates critical, anti-racist, and anti-hegemonic learning about the world from diverse global perspectives to enhance the quality and relevance of education. (Heleta and Chasi 2023, 269–270)
Guarín Tarquino: In the case of Colombia, in a collaborative effort between the government and the national internationalization associations and networks, the policy guidelines for the internationalization of higher education were recently launched, defining internationalization as a “humanistic, inclusive, cooperative, and intercultural process, based on values of social justice, equity, and respect, which aims, according to the different contexts, to promote a dialogue of knowledge between local and foreign academic communities, through the articulation between internal and external actors to HEIs, thus achieving transformations in higher education and in the territories of the country” (Ministerio de Educación Nacional 2024, 19).
This definition reflects what has been termed “glocal engagement” to refer to internationalization for and with society that considers social justice, equity, indigenous knowledge, community networks, and local expertise for contextually relevant education, research, and action. Glocal engagement requires ethical considerations in the development of partnerships. Initiatives with and for society require valuing the knowledge, expertise, and capacity for action of all stakeholders, acting on the basis that all parties involved can learn and contribute to each collaborative space. While competition and rankings continue to prevail in the global education sector, unequal power dynamics in partnerships, the supremacy of the Global North over the Global South and the commodification of higher education all remain as challenges to be overcome, the focus in the LAC region emphasizes a more inclusive approach that increasingly values collaboration, mutual respect, and the sharing of resources for collective improvement.
Kamata: In Japan, the national government is implementing structural transformation through strategic integration, downsizing, mergers, and closures of universities. In 2023, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida directed the Council for the Creation of Future Education to formulate a comprehensive plan to facilitate the overseas dispatch of 500,000 Japanese study abroad students and the admission of 400,000 incoming international students by the year 2033 (Prime Minister’s Office of Japan 2023). In addition, the government has allocated up to ¥10 trillion (USD $73 billion) for the establishment of the ¥10 trillion Japan University Fund to create world-class universities. The fund’s objective is to enhance research performance, advance internationalization, and foster innovation (Central Council for Education 2025; McNeill 2023).
Based on the ¥10 trillion Japan University Fund, Japan has announced a ¥100 billion (USD $14.5 billion) “J-RISE Initiative” to enhance international “brain circulation” by attracting leading overseas researchers to Japan through world-class remuneration, research funding, and conducive environments. Consequently, HEIs are anticipated to expand their English-language administration and engage in global recruitment outreach efforts (Japan Science and Technology Agency 2025).
What aspects are the most important for senior institutional leaders to be aware of when exploring or engaging in ethical partnerships?
Chasi: Applying a decolonial lens to international partnerships requires recognizing and addressing structural inequalities in knowledge, resources, and power. These inequalities, rooted in colonial legacies, are often deeply entrenched in partnerships between Northern and Southern institutions (Chasi 2019). Tackling such imbalances is a prerequisite if international education professionals seek to effect global relations—in higher education and other spheres—that are more inclusive, equitable, and just.
Inclusion, equity, and justice are central concerns in partnerships, though their meanings vary across contexts. Inclusion, for example, raises questions about who typically participates in international partnerships, including which countries, institutions, and disciplines as well as students and staff are involved. It also prompts reflection on who is excluded and whether partnerships can be extended beyond ‘usual suspects’ to broaden participation and to benefit underrepresented, marginalized, or vulnerable groups.
Guarín Tarquino: LAC universities seek win-win relationships and partnerships to expand capacities and to co-construct and develop joint programs that correspond to local realities and contexts politically, socially, and economically. Our focus is more on equitable partnerships and circular cooperation and less on volatile markets and lopsided benefits (Mitchell 2024).
Ideally, internationalization should transform into an ethically conscious project focused on cooperation, learning, and mutual transformation, rather than competition and mere transactional interactions. In this regard, for example, at the Universidad del Rosario in Colombia, we have incorporated the intersectional dimension—which encompasses interculturality, plurality, and inclusion—in our comprehensive internationalization ecosystem. We are also implementing projects with others in the LAC region who are seeking similar outcomes such as the initiative “Strengthening Indigenous Languages from the Body-Earth-Territory: Crossed Experiences from Colombia, Mexico, and Peru”.
Kamata: Stakeholders in international higher education should be aware of potential challenges to promote internationalization or organize international efforts. Anderson (2011) describes four international variations that would lead to divergent assumptions and expectations regarding the planning, execution, and reporting of international collaborative research: research organizations and funding, legal and normative frameworks, regulatory oversight, and graduate education and postdoctoral training. Recognizing these distinctions at the organizational level would be advantageous in mitigating unintended consequences in international collaborative research; however, many scholars and professionals tend to prioritize comprehending the behaviors and actions of their collaborators only at the individual level. It is prudent to engage in international collaboration through the engaged and collective internationalization framework in higher education.
In the contemporary landscape of international affairs, political realities and national security have emerged as paramount priorities for national leaders, government agencies, and elected officials globally. As a politically neutral and esteemed resource globally, collaboration and knowledge exchange between universities and other key stakeholders will be crucial in sustaining dialogue between nations with a history of conflicts and rivalry (Knight 2022). It is imperative for higher education leaders to engage in dialogue with these stakeholders and redefine the extended mission of higher education based on internationalization objectives.
What are the pain points, and what are the opportunities/benefits?
Chasi: Equity is of particular concern when examining the distribution of benefits associated with internationalization, regardless of the type of partnership. Student exchanges, for example, are often described as one of the most popular models of international partnerships, but this perspective typically reflects the interests and needs of Northern institutions in providing study abroad opportunities for their students. It does not adequately speak to the realities of Southern universities, where physical mobility remains unattainable for most students, largely due to socioeconomic constraints. Equity therefore requires asking whether exchanges are reciprocal or predominantly one-directional, and whether they disproportionately benefit one partner over another.
Similarly, equity in research collaborations involves interrogating the distribution of outputs, including coauthorship and co-publications. It is also crucial to examine whose research agenda, questions, concepts, and methods are prioritized. Without deliberate attention to these issues, collaborative research efforts risk reproducing existing hierarchies and reinforcing Northern dominance in knowledge production. Wherever inequalities and imbalances are identified, it is essential first to recognize and understand them and then to commit deliberately to addressing them in order to bring about positive change. Foregrounding and elevating nondominant ways of knowing and being creates meaningful opportunities to reimagine international partnerships, making them more inclusive, equitable, and just in ways that ultimately benefit everyone involved in such engagements.
Guarín Tarquino: The challenges that LAC institutions face are multifaceted: financial constraints, political instability, persistent misunderstanding of the meaning of comprehensive internationalization, among others. These limitations can also be viewed as opportunities for innovation, in which institutions can leverage technology and creative funding solutions to establish and maintain partnerships, thereby breaking down barriers to collaboration. LAC presents itself as a region that offers opportunities for connecting with highly qualified academic researchers and local communities—generating relevant knowledge, social impact, and volunteer opportunities—as well as opportunities for fostering academic mobility, both virtual and in person.
Traditionally, the LAC region has not prioritized intra-regional collaboration. Over time, this has been gradually reversed. Today, examples of outstanding regional cooperation initiatives include INILAT, Engaging Latino Communities for Education, Latin American COIL Network, DELFÍN Program, and Move La America, among others. Dialogue, exchange, and project development in these collaborative spaces provide opportunities to build closer and deeper relationships in the LAC region. The evolving landscape of internationalization in LAC combines cultural richness with strategic collaboration through ethical partnerships that respect local identities while advancing global educational initiatives that prioritize contextual awareness, mutual benefit, and community involvement.
Kamata: Stakeholders, including individual researchers, professionals, universities and institutions, funders, national governments, and publishers, should be cognizant of the challenges associated with research imbalance, fairness, and equity in international research collaborations. Universities should take responsibility for fostering responsible behavior in international collaborative research endeavors. Leaders of HEIs should proactively initiate international dialogues to foster international collaboration in addressing and mitigating disparities and inequities in research practices.
Researchers should emphasize the needs for ethics of international engagement and enhanced border efforts to delineate, scrutinize, and contextualize diverse potentialities associated with internationalization (Buckner and Stein 2020). I do believe that it will be crucial to not only focus on the structural transformation of universities but also to promote research integrity furthermore and advance engaged international education by deepening involvement among faculty, professional staff, students, and key stakeholders across HEIs in Japan. Individual researchers, professionals, and students are expected to initiate, sustain, and advance international collaborative research and international education across nations. As international researchers and educators, we possess the unique ability to serve as bridges across academic disciplines, cultures, communities, and nations. By fostering research integrity and dispelling mutual misconceptions through international education, I firmly believe that we can contribute to a more engaged, harmonious, and informed world.
References
Anderson, Melissa S. 2010. “What Can Be Gained and What Can Go Wrong in the Context of Different National Research Environments.” In International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble, edited by Melissa S. Anderson and Nicholas H. Steneck. New York, NY: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/International-Research-Collaborations-Much-to-be-Gained-Many-Ways-to-Get-in-Trouble/Anderson-Steneck/p/book/9780415530323.
Buckner, Elizabeth and Sharon Stein. 2020. “What Counts as Internationalization? Deconstructing the Internationalization Imperative.” Journal of Studies in International Education 24 (2): 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829878.
Central Council for Education. 2025. Future Vision for Improving Japan’s ‘Collective Knowledge and Wisdom’: Reconstructing the Higher Education System (Report) Summary. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20250801-mxt_koutou02-000040400_3.pdf.
Chasi, Samia. 2019. “North-South Partnerships in Public Higher Education: A Selected South African Case Study.” Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand. WIReDSpace. http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/28064.
Droegemeier, Kelvin K. 2023. Demystifying the Academic Research Enterprise: Becoming a Successful Scholar in a Complex and Competitive Environment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14740.001.0001.
Heleta, Savo and Samia Chasi. 2023. “Rethinking and Redefining Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa Using a Decolonial Lens.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 45 (3): 261–75.
Heleta, Savo and Samia Chasi. 2024. “Curriculum Decolonization and Internationalization: A Critical Perspective from South Africa.” Journal of International Students 14 (2): 75–90.
Japan Science and Technology Agency. “Government Announces 100-Billion-Yen Policy Package for International Brain Circulation.” Science Japan, July 11, 2025, https://sj.jst.go.jp/news/202507/n0711-02k.html.
Knight, Jane. 2022. Knowledge Diplomacy in International Relations and Higher Education. Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-14977-1.
Labraña, Julio and Paulina Latorre. “Internationalisation is a Form of Learning, Not a Metric.” University World News, November 19, 2025. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20251118090500482.
McCoy, Shelly. S. 2023. “College Students’ Subjective Experiences of Emerging Adulthood: A Mixed-Methods Study.” Routledge Open Research, no. 1, 17. https://routledgeopenresearch.org/articles/1-17/v2/pdf?article_uuid=a29b77d7-3d7e-4ffb-b209-53686d67a202.
McNeill, David. 2023. “Will Japan’s New ¥10-Trillion University Fund Lift Research Performance?” Nature, no. 615, S84–S85. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00665-2.
Ministerio de Educación de Colombia. 2024. Lineamientos de Política para la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Educación de Colombia. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1780/articles-422872_Lineamientos_internacionalizacion_educacion_superior.pdf.
Mitchell, Nic. “Could Latin America Be Next Stop for UK Transnational Education?” University World News, May 27, 2024. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20240527124256377.
National Information Center for Academic Recognition Japan. 2025. “The Sixth Session of the Tokyo Convention Committee Held in Conjunction with the Fifth Plenary of the Asia-Pacific Network of National Information Centres (APNNIC).” National Institution for Academic Degrees and Quality Enhancement of Higher Education (NIAD-QE). https://www.nicjp.niad.ac.jp/en/news/TCmeeting2025.html.
OECD. 2025. “Policies for Transnational Collaboration in Higher Education.” OECD Education Policy Perspectives, no. 121. https://doi.org/10.1787/e07d8c0f-en.
Prime Minister’s Office of Japan. “Council for the Creation of Future Education.” Cabinet Public Affairs Office, Cabinet Secretariat, March 17, 2023. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/101_kishida/actions/202303/_00024.html.
UNESCO. “Asia-Pacific Countries Strengthen Cooperation on Fair and Transparent Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications.” UNESCO, November 28, 2025. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/asia-pacific-countries-strengthen-cooperation-fair-and-transparent-recognition-higher-education.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.” Memorandum to All Federal Agencies, July 29, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1409486/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
Samia Chasi, PhD, is a practitioner, scholar, and facilitator in higher education internationalization with more than 25 years of experience in this field. She serves as the head of the Internationalization and Strategic Partnerships Office at the University of the Witwatersrand-Johannesburg and is a member of the National Academy for International Education, based at the Institute of International Education. Her current research interests lie in critical perspectives on higher education internationalization, with a particular focus on decolonial approaches.
Sandra Guarín Tarquino is a Colombian leader on global education, with more than 20 years of experience in internationalization of higher education. She is cofounder of the Latin American Initiative for Internationalization (INILAT), president of the Advisory Council of the Inter-American Organization for Higher Education, and chair of NAFSA’s Latin America and Caribbean Forum. Currently, she is vice president of international affairs at Universidad del Rosario in Colombia.
Takehito Kamata, PhD, is an assistant professor by special appointment at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan. He was a fellow in the inaugural Japan-U.S. Science Communication & Policy Fellowship Network Program and received the Distinguished International Alumni Award from the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development in 2023. Takehito currently serves as vice chair of the International Exchange Committee (2024–26) at the Association for the Promotion of Research Integrity in Japan. He specializes in research on international research collaborations, research integrity, research security, higher education internationalization, and related subjects in science, technology, and innovation policy in higher education.