What Counts as Internationalization? Deconstructing the Internationalization Imperative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how internationalization is defined by three leading higher education professional associations: NAFSA, the International Association of Universities, and the European Association of International Education. We examine key publications to understand which activities, topics, and constituencies are included in conceptualizations of internationalization and, conversely, which are absent. We find that all three rely on similar definitions that emphasize international students, student and scholarly mobility, and curricular change. We argue that current definitions are largely de-politicized and de-historicized, while internationalization is often assumed to mean more and better coverage of the globe. Little attention is given to the ethics of international engagement, particularly across unequal relations of power. We conclude with numerous questions for administrators and faculty engaged in internationalization that seek to deepen conversations about this work. In particular, we emphasize the importance of identifying enduring patterns of global inequality, recognizing ethical responsibilities, and enabling alternative possibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it