International Cooperation in Higher Education: Perspectives of Heads of International Cooperation from Cases of European Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fostering international cooperation is essential for addressing global challenges. However, increasing uncertainties and polarisation necessitate a re-evaluation of the rationale and management of international cooperation among higher education institutions (HEIs). Recent research calls for greater attention to international cooperation beyond like-minded countries and emphasises the importance of understanding the perspectives of heads of international cooperation. This study addresses this theoretical gap by examining cooperation with Chinese universities from the perspectives of nine heads of international cooperation at six European universities.Utilising semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis, this study elucidates how these European universities establish and maintain cooperation with their Chinese counterparts. It clarifies the interactions among universities, governmental bodies, and policies, and identifies challenges encountered during cooperation. The findings contribute to the literature by offering practical insights and providing contextualised empirical data on future directions for international cooperation between European and Chinese HEIs. This study underscores the active and autonomous roles that universities should play in fostering international cooperation amid global uncertainties.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".