Mirko Varano is a distinguished advisor and consultant in the field of internationalization of higher education, with a career spanning over three decades dedicated to the development of strategies and implementation of internationalization. Since August 2024, Mirko has been serving as Vice Rector for Internationalization at TEC Monterrey, Mexico. Previously, he has served as international officer, covering different positions of responsibility, at the Turin Technical University (Italy), at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (Sweden), UNITE! European University Alliance, and at a number of international associations and networks. He currently chairs the EAIE Thematic Committee on Partnerships.
Internationalization of higher education has increasingly become a force that affects institutions, policies, and curricula across the globe. From its initial stage as an aspirational potential to its present institutional imperative, internationalization is no longer simply a question of sending students abroad or attracting international talent. In recent years, it has developed into as a multi- dimensional response to emerging opportunities and to threatening global challenges. According to the refrain, internationalization is not an aim in itself. Therefore, confronted with such challenges and dangers, higher education must reconsider the relevance and future of internationalization so that it does not merely fulfill the interests of individual higher education institutions but those required to promote the common benefit of society at large.
How It Started: Three Phases of Internationalization
We tend to forget that universities have been international since their infancy. Already during the middle ages, the “grand tour”, by which the greatest scholars were studying and teaching at the greatest universities of the time, was an everyday occurrence with Latin as the main lingua franca. The very same Erasmus from Rotterdam, after whom the most successful programme fostering the internationalization was named, studied and worked at colleges, universities and libraries in England, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. Nevertheless, these were individual and unstructured initiatives with no institutional collaborative ambitions.
The internationalization of higher education today can be traced through three main phases. Throughout the early 20th century, internationalization was primarily characterized by student and scholar mobility, which was primarily a cultural and academic exchange. It was viewed as a commendable yet voluntary practice for individuals, mainly in Western countries, as it presented a chance for students to subject themselves to global outlook and perception. By the latter part of the 20th century, however, internationalization had a stronger hold as universities recognized the economic and strategic benefits of international collaboration. Universities began to seek international partners not only to enhance their international image but also to benefit from research funding, talent acquisition, and economic capital (through transnational education initiatives). In the 21st century, the process has been formalized. Internationalization is not a secondary or optional process anymore, but an integral part of a university’s mission. It is now considered to be at the core of its academic, financial, and cultural development.
From Desirable Opportunity to Institutional Imperative
In today’s age, internationalization of higher education is not a distant fantasy for just a few select institutions and cannot be viewed through the lens of economic globalization alone. It is a crucial institutional effort that makes universities able to respond to grand challenges, and equip their students and educators with the tools needed to stay competitive in today’s globalized world, and not merely a set of initiatives driven just by economic considerations. These are political questions such as the rise of populism, nationalism, protectionism, and social questions such as migration crises, fear of the “other,” and growing skepticism towards scientific thinking and expertise.
The dangers are wider and more perilous than globalization itself. The advent of post-truth politics and the resurgence of nationalism, akin to the interwar period before World War II, threaten the very existence of democracy and global cooperation. Besides, the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and the post-COVID era have injected new dimensions of uncertainty.
These trends call for a deeper and more inclusive internationalization, more needs-relevant actions, and to respond to changing global patterns.
Moving Beyond the Traditional Model: A Call for a New Internationalization
It is no longer possible to measure internationalization success solely in terms of mobility alone. The practice of internationalization needs to expand to include a number of different dimensions: internationalization for all, comprehensive internationalization, internationalization for society, responsible internationalization, and internationalization of the curriculum. Internationalization at home has also emerged in the past two decades as an essential factor required to pursue both inclusion and sustainability, where institutions understand that global learning can be pursued within the local context, beyond the need for physical mobility. It’s not a question of leaving behind local identity and community for global prestige; it is one of establishing relationships and awareness while maintaining commitment to local relevance and impact.
The EUI Model: A Collaborative Path Forward
The European University Initiative (EUI) offers an interesting example of a new path. Rather than viewing internationalization through the competitive lens of separate institutions, the EUI encourages systemic, long-term collaboration among universities that share a mission and vision. The EUI model recognizes that, in a more global world, no university can make a difference alone and that collaboration, rather than competition, is the key to the accomplishment of several strategic goals.
This model of economactorsies of scale based on complementarity departs from the monadic idea of universities. It inspires collective action where the principle of subsidiarity, applied successfully in the European Union, can be the driving force. When individual universities are unable to achieve desired results on their own, the higher “entities” are empowered to intervene and chart the way forward. If properly executed, collective action will create value, result in efficiencies, and enable future integration.
If several actors succeed in reproducing this model successfully, the others will follow, not ideologically in and of themselves, but as the only alternative to irrelevance and redundance on the global stage.
The Recipe for Success: Progressive Integration
Successful internationalization is a matter of gradual integration—of balancing the need to preserve institutional identities and local distinction with the imperatives of a cooperative, globalized system. Universities will have to be adaptable and sacrifice some individual interests for the greater good, as must any organism in order to thrive in an evolving environment. The idea of merging to achieve critical mass can be defective if carried out for size’s sake. But when undertaken with a genuine conviction of the value of joining forces—pooling resources, satisfying each other’s needs, and reducing inequality—it can be transformative. While individual institutions may still be better suited to achieve short-term, tangible goals due to historical, cultural, or legal considerations, there is potential for a paradigm shift.
The Future: Unity in Diversity
Basically, internationalizing higher education is ultimately a case of “together we stand” and “unity in diversity”. Internationalization is not a zero-sum game: universities need not lose their institutional, local, or national identity or gain exclusive global involvement and exposure. They can—and should—do both, for their own sake, the one of their communities, and to acquire the status of global players with a driving force towards change. What we should be asking ourselves is not whether we should internationalize, but how we internationalize in a way that we can best serve the welfare of all.
By envisioning internationalization as a collaborative, inclusive, and progressive movement, we can create a system of higher education that not only withstands the test of globalization but thrives by assisting in the resolution of some of the world’s most pressing challenges and risks. Through collaborative models of internationalization, universities can redefine their global role and, in doing so, secure their continued relevance and impact.