MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404619203 · doi:10.1111/bjet.13543

International student mobility and the politics of distance education

2024· article· en· W4404619203 on OpenAlex
Lisa Ruth Brunner

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSociologyMathematics educationDistance educationPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Internationalization at a distance (IaD) has been loosely defined as distance education across borders or the international mobility of knowledge without human mobility. It is largely celebrated, for example, for its potential to improve global education access and mitigate environmental harm. However, this depoliticized positioning risks overlooking IaD's relationship to uneven human mobility flows structured by global inequities. In response, this paper calls for a critical IaD research agenda, starting by drawing attention to the mobility politics of IaD at the postsecondary level. First, it proposes a more nuanced conceptualization of IaD rooted in insights from critical border studies, described here as bordered distance education . Second, it suggests the use of two theorizations of capital—citizenship and motility—as avenues to deepen future analysis of not only IaD but also international student mobility more generally. Third, to demonstrate the application of these suggestions, it presents a critical policy discourse analysis of international student mobility policies during the COVID‐19 pandemic era and its aftermath (2000–2024) in Canada. This case study shows how (1) distance education can be used as a bordering tool, and (2) governments can manipulate international student mobility policy to ensure IaD primarily serves immigration, as opposed to educational, needs. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic The growth of internationalization at a distance (IaD) has the potential to shift how international student mobility is structured, experienced and understood. IaD is loosely described as distance education across borders . There are limited critical studies of IaD. What this paper adds IaD is embedded in mobility politics and bordering practices. In addition to its educational purpose, IaD can allow international students to accumulate citizenship capital and motility in new ways. However, IaD can also be used as a governance tool to (1) recruit/distinguish between potential citizens, (2) manage migration flows and (3) ensure the uninterrupted mobility of capital. IaD raises key questions about the meaning of ‘international’ in the study of internationalization. A more nuanced and critical definition of IaD as bordered distance education stresses what is unique about IaD: Distance education characterized by encounters with bordering practices . Implications for practice and/or policy IaD can benefit from a more critical research agenda, as well as returning to distance education's intellectual roots focused on the politics of access. Immigration policies which attempt to govern international students' geographic mobility differently from domestic students' (eg, disincentivizing international student distance education) should ensure such policies do not negatively impact (1) international students' access to education or (2) education institutions' academic programme design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it