Approaches to Fostering International Partnerships in Higher Education: Canada and Germany in a Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing significance of strategic international partnerships (SIPs) in higher education at national and institutional levels signals an important shift in the way that global collaboration is prioritized as a core mechanism for advancing strategic internationalization goals. Despite the widespread nature of this shift, university approaches to international partnerships vary across institutional contexts, thereby constituting a notable gap in our understanding of factors influencing strategic international partnership development. This gap is especially significant since international partnerships have become a central element of university internationalization plans to foster research and innovation, to recruit international students and scholars, to engage in multilateral funding opportunities, and to find collaborative solutions to shared global problems. Within this changing global landscape, the partnership development process has become increasingly complex and prone to uneven power dynamics and inequality. Exploring the factors influencing the growth, development, and stability of international partnerships is thus an essential aspect of effectively advancing university strategic goals and addressing shared challenges. The outcomes of this study have wider implications for theory and practice in the field of international higher education, affirming the critical role of international partnerships as a core mechanism for advancing strategic international goals, highlighting key challenges that limit partnership development, and offering recommendations for improving cross-cultural collaboration in higher education and research. Comparatively drawing on the cases of Canada and Germany, this research synthesizes data collected from interviews with international higher education (IHE) professionals to examine the factors and rationales undergirding approaches to international academic partnerships at universities, and explores the roles of history, culture, and identity in shaping approaches to international partnership development in different federal contexts. Framed by major global knowledge economy and knowledge society discourses, findings reveal that universities view international partnerships as being “strategic” or “meaningful” and that universities make deliberate decisions and respond to shared global challenges based on unique institutional contexts, thereby aligning with aspects of both global discourses to tailor unique responses to individual organizational needs. This selective integration of major global knowledge discourses gives valuable insight into the factors and priorities that shape institutional approaches to strategic international partnership development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".