State-university relations and its implication on internationalization of higher education

Abstract

There has always been a power struggle regarding control over the administration of the university. In the Enlightenment era, the contenders were the State and the Church. However, as the role of the Church in modern educational institutes declined, the state clamoured for greater control (Delanty, 2001b; Rüegg, 1992). In the 1990s, academic autonomy was under the purview of the university. This in turn gave impetus to greater mobility of students across borders and to the larger process of Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE). However, in the post-democratic era, the autonomy of universities was severely restricted and research and curriculum were tainted with a protectionist attitude (Altbach and De Wit, 2018; Jenkins et al., 2018). Emerging conflicts between the state and the university highlight the urgent need to understand and assess state-university relations in the new political climate. Under these circumstances, the process of IHE has borne the brunt and in the last decade, we have seen a decrease in international outbound student mobility, an increase in the cancellation of offshore campuses and other cross-border education activities. While the process of IHE is still maintained, the original aim of this process, to tackle global issues with a local perspective while providing an inter-cultural university education is at risk. This paper examines the changing dynamics of state-university relations and their implications on the process of IHE.

Introduction

‘No political system, no matter how democratic, could really accept the total autonomy of universities’ (Gerbod, 2004: 100).

The relationship between the state and the university is complicated and has been constantly evolving. Over the years, the university has been the site of resistance of intellectuals to political power, the same universities that were initially designed to serve the nation-state with technical knowledge as well as to act as institutions that would protect and reproduce national and cultural values (Delanty, 2001a). However, in the late 1980s and 1990s, as globalization became a key trend across the world, the character and authority of the universities came under greater scrutiny (Enders, 2004). As Internationalization of Higher Education (IHE) took hold primarily in terms of the mobility of students, the role played by students in mass social and political movements in the 1960s and 1970s that fashioned the university as a site of ‘radicalization of democratic citizenship’ (Delanty, 2001a) was also called into question. In the neoliberal world order, the role of these universities became depoliticized, and students simply became passive absorbers of disseminated knowledge.

In this paper, the author identifies the relevance of IHE in today’s world and traces how over the past decade nationalist state policies vis-à-vis immigration, employment of foreign nationals and university governance, have come to threaten the efforts of IHE.

Next, the paper looks at the importance of the relation between the state and the university and traces the significance of university autonomy from its origins in medieval Europe to the university ideal in the neoliberal era. The paper looks at the evolution of the university across borders. Although most of the literature referred to in this paper is based on the European university, the idea of the university has long existed prior to the colonial influence in the East, in China, Japan and India. However, from the 18th century onwards, we see a growing influence of the Western education system in the East.

Next, the paper will discuss the role played by the university in the 20^th century in serving the social and political goals of society. This new dynamic of the university resulted in a shift in the relationship between the state and the university. The latter half of the 20^th century was witness to an increase in student protests against the university, especially against the lack of both financial and academic autonomy perceived by students. The scene for increased student protest against the political realities was set in 1956, in Budapest and Warsaw, followed by the Protest of 1968 held in the wake of the Vietnam War that resonated across the US and Europe and lastly with the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989.

Closing the 20th century, the university became involved in the political dynamic and diplomacy played an essential role to smoothen relations between the state and the university. The new millennium brought political stability after the turbulent World Wars. As states across the world moved towards democracy, nations opened their borders for free movement of trade, people and services, including higher education providers. This in turn had a major impact on the education sector, especially in laying the foundation of IHE.

Lastly, the paper will look at the way forward for IHE. Over the last decade, globalized values have been foregone in favour of a more protectionist stance by nation-states. While some aspects of university autonomy have been compromised, the new decade of the 21st century witnessed greater investment by the state in facilitating universities to pursue IHE. The process of internationalization has been included in almost all the education policies of nation-states across the globe irrespective of their political ideologies. Today, we see that the Internationalization of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (IHERI) facilitated by knowledge diplomacy, has encouraged deeper state-university relations as well as university-university relations across borders.

Relevance of IHE

With the massification of education in the 20th century and the state was no longer the guardian of knowledge production, and to deal with the increasing numbers of students, institutions turned to internationalization beyond their national borders. They set up branch campuses, facilitated franchising arrangements as well as offshore academic programs (Altbach et al., 2009). This process that came to be known as IHE was a gradual process including three key aspects: what moves across borders, why does it move across borders and how does it move across borders (Knight, 2007: 358).

IHE as perceived in the early 1990s was restricted primarily to the mobility of people. This population of internationally mobile students though still limited to a ‘periphery’ to ‘centre’ mobility (Altbach et al., 2009: 8; ICEF Monitor, 2014), saw a drastic increase from 2.1 million in 2000 to 4.5 million in 2011 and 5 million in 2015 (ICEF Monitor, 2015). This increase in mobility is a result of diverse providers of higher education today. Apart from the traditional providers of higher education, that are legitimized by the state, alternate providers of higher education included a multitude of investors and stakeholders. Examples of these alternate providers included companies such as the Apollo Group (USA), Aptech (India) Informatics (Singapore) as well as corporate universities run by Motorola and Toyota. (Knight, 2007). As the stakeholders in higher education increased, the number of international branch campuses also increased from 67 in 2000 to 248 in 2015 (Mackie, 2019).

This increase in providers of higher education that spanned across the globe, unrestricted by national boundaries, created a ‘tipping point’, as students today have greater and more varied choices than ever. Today it is not only the West that is seen as an attractive destination to pursue higher education, but the East is not far behind with China, Japan and Malaysia estimating over 250,000 international students by 2025 (ICEF Monitor, 2017).

IHE is no longer a trend but a necessity, especially in the globalized world. For governments, those are the main funders of universities and research there remains a vested interest in the functioning of HEIs, to further a nation’s scientific and technological prowess in the international arena. From the perspective of universities, IHE is a crucial requirement to improve their ranking on international ranking systems. Thereby, if the goals of the state and university align, internationalization becomes a smooth process.

The interaction between the state and the university can be an aid towards the various processes of IHE with the establishment of branch campuses or knowledge hubs, facilitated by inter-state negotiations and contracts. These initiatives with an emphasis on the ‘co-creation of knowledge through joint and collaborative research inevitably lead to P2P [People to People] connect’. IHE has created an arena for the state and the university to come together, expanding beyond geographical borders supplemented by knowledge diplomacy (Inamdar and Hegde, 2021: 166) that takes a bottom-up approach, with impetus from the state while dealing with issues pertaining to lack of transparency between the state and the university (Knight, 2019).

Challenges posed by nationalist policies to IHE

Although the various processes of IHE have created a space for the state and the university to come together, protectionist policies and restrictions on research can be a hindrance to the strategies of the IHE pursued by universities. Such policies implemented by the state often have ripple effects and affect other factors such as the parameters for the recruitment of international students and members of faculty, fee policies, as well as visa and immigration regulations (See BBC News, 2020b; Foer, 2019; Khan, 2018).

A 2018 report from the British Council estimates a slowing down of student mobility over the next decade. The report indicates that the outbound mobility of international students grew by approximately 6 per cent per annum from 2000–2012 but began to slow to an average of 5 per cent per annum between 2012 and 2015 (ICEF Monitor, 2018). In the last decade, there is a heightened form of regulation on universities witnessed under liberal and illiberal democracies alike. Universities are under scrutiny for administrative and academic decisions, as there is a requirement by the state to emphasize the national policies.

Some key issues faced in the process of IHE

1. Consular issues

Issues pertaining to visa approval have greatly affected the mobility of people and providers of higher education across borders. In recent times, under the veil of the COVID-19 pandemic, students have been put through rigorous screening before arrival to the host country as well students staying at the host country on student visas have faced immigration issues.

In July 2020, the US Department of State announced that it would not issue visas to those students whose programs have moved completely to the online mode for the fall semester. Second, students already in the United States pursuing such courses are required to immediately depart the country. The policy also emphasized that non-compliance with these new regulations would lead to immigration consequences including but not limited to the initiation of removal proceedings (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2020).

In the UK since 2013, there have been severe restrictions on international students. The reduction in visa approvals affected the Indian subcontinent especially, with a decrease of 38 per cent in the number of visas issued to Indian nationals (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2013). These restrictions have been lifted since 2019 with the UK being more welcoming of students from the former British Empire (Home Office UK Government, 2020).

India in 2018, imposed restrictions on students and scholars from its neighbouring country, Pakistan, and to those scholars of Pakistani origin (See Khan, 2018). In January 2021, the Indian Ministries of Education and External Affairs issued guidelines, whereby universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) needed prior approval from the Ministry of External Affairs to organize online conferences on matters pertaining to the security of the Indian state or anything that can be classified as ‘related to India’s internal matters’ (Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, 2021).

2. Employment issues

The movement of outbound students has largely been from the ‘Global South’ to the ‘Global North’. Apart from seeking ‘world class’ education (Pawar, 2012), the aim for pursuing fee-based education abroad is to be able to find employment post-completion of studies. In the past decade, it has been harder for students to seek employment in the host country due to visa constraints. When applying for jobs, the first question often asked to the immigrant student or job seeker is whether or not he/she holds a valid work permit. In the absence of such a permit, the job application is terminated. In such cases, students are more hesitant to apply to universities abroad, bearing the tuition and living costs without a guarantee of employment.

An example of this case is when the UK government did away with the Post-Study Work (PSW) visa to international students outside of the European Union (EU) in 2013. The Liberal Democratic government stated that it aims to prevent the abuse of its immigration system and therefore wishes to retain only the ‘brightest and best students’ in the UK (Pathak and Umarji, 2013).

3. Funding issues

Universities today, no longer have financial autonomy and are increasingly dependent on the state for university administration and research funding. In that case, the state has a vested interest to encourage research that is the interest of the nation. However, in recent years there is an increase in the control of the state in universities and research conducted by academics.

In January of 2019, the Orbán government targeted the Academy of Sciences whereby state control over the Academy was increased. The government devised a plan to separate the institutes from the Academy and create a governing board with a majority of government-appointed delegates. The Academy was also heavily criticized for funding research of an increasing political nature and not sticking to traditional scientific research (Walker, 2019).

Similarly in the US, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act allocated money for higher education. Of this fund, Harvard received nearly $9 million (Gerstmann, 2020). However, then President, Donald Trump claimed to be ‘shocked shocked’ by this and stated that ‘They have to pay it back, I don’t like it. This is meant for workers, this isn’t meant for one of the richest institutions, not only, far beyond schools in the world. They got to pay it back’ (BBC News, 2020).

4. University regulatory restrictions

The relationship between the state and the university is inextricable. However, what once used to be in the purview of university, has now been taken over by the state. In Hungary, gender studies have been banned since 2018, even though the Master’s degree in the said discipline was offered only by two universities - Eotvos Lorand University (ELTE) and Central European University (CEU) – the latter that has now moved to Vienna after being evicted by the Orbán government (Verseck, 2018).

Regulatory restrictions are not only limited to academics but also university administration. In India, the minimum salary limit for international faculty irrespective of their designation is 16.25 lakh Rupees per annum (Sangani, 2017). This pay scale is much greater than 6.9 lakh Rupees, the minimum pay scale for a domestic assistant professor (University Grants European Commission, 2019). In this regard, attracting greater international faculty is a major challenge for Indian universities (See Altbach et al., 2009).

5. Qualifications framework

When the state refuses to recognize the degree awarded by a university, it acts as a major deterrent for students to pursue their higher education at said university. This is what is seen in the case of the eviction of Hungary’s CEU, when the Hungarian Government did not ratify the agreement to let CEU continue to offer US degree programs in line with the law passed in 2017 on foreign branch campuses (Redden, 2018b).

Untill 2019, a one-year Master’s degree from an international university was not recognized in India (Tripathi, 2019). This made seeking jobs and applying for higher education within India difficult for Indian students as well as international students seeking their Doctorate in India. However, since the New Education Policy, 2020 has been implemented, students with a one-year Master’s degree from an international university may apply for a Doctoral Program in India through a process of ‘credit mapping’ (Sharma, 2021). This is one step towards degree recognition on a global level.

The policies issued by the state do not exist in a vacuum and often lead to a spill-over effect. While the immigration offices of respective nations must look out for themselves against threats to national sovereignty, the consequence is borne by universities and this, in turn, affects the mobility of higher education across borders. IHE in the past 3 decades has worked towards erasing borders between knowledge production and dissemination, but, today we see a rise of these borders, physical and metaphorical, again. A recent example is the sanctions put forth by the EU against Russia which include but are not limited to the technology sector, restrictions on exports of dual-use goods and technology in conjunction with products such as semiconductors or cutting-edge technologies (Council of the European Union, 2022). These sanctions are an important first step to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2022; however, the repercussions of these sanctions will be borne by the international academic community and will act as a roadblock towards Internationalization of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (IHERI).

Importance of the Relationship between the State and the University

The function of any university is to contribute further to the existing knowledge basin and to contest and contradict current ideas and values to make room for new ideas to keep up with the times. Still, it is a daunting task for universities to develop strategies towards internationalization, as independent institutions, concerning the various challenges such as quantity over quality (Pawar, 2012: 239), brand establishment, ranking and prestige. The autonomy of the institution is then challenged as it is conflicted between adopting a global approach, competing with internationally reputed universities and catering to the local community.

In this context, university autonomy can be defined as ‘constantly changing relations between the state and Higher Education Institutions and the degree of control exerted by the state, depending on the national context and circumstances’ (Estermann and Nokkala, 2009: 6). When universities do not respond at the same speed as the change in the political climate, governments call for reform in university governance.

More so than ever before universities today, are inextricably linked to national and international organizations that are involved in the radical reform of the higher education sector to meet the social, cultural, economic and political goals of the nation-state. To conceptualize this idea, we must first investigate the evolution of the university and its role vis-à-vis the state through time and across geographical borders.

History of the university ideal

The university in medieval Europe

The beginnings of the university in Europe can be traced back to the medieval era, with the significant rise of independent teachers and scholars who recognized their rights and privileges in the 12^th century. The University of Bologna, established by Emperor Theodosius in 423 AD is known as the ‘mother of European universities’ (Rüegg, 1992: 5). After the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, Emperor Frederick I of Barbarossa issued the Authentica Habita in 1155. The Habita forbade the reprisal against foreign students and granted scholars the freedom of movement in Bologna and to all the seats of learning (Rüegg, 1992). The Habita is one of the earliest official documents that guarantee autonomy to the university and its scholars.

During the medieval era, the popes considered universities to be institutions that are directly under their jurisdiction and sought to control and organize curricula. Thus, the papacy, not only controlled the ability of the university to confer degrees and other awards but also controlled administrative and academic autonomy (Ferruolo, 1985). These detailed regulations were issued by ecclesiastical authorities that formed the backbone of the university regulations in the present day. The formation of the university, as we know it today, was thus a cumulative effort of the masters, the king and the pope, to loosen the hold of the ecclesiastical sectors and bring order to the management of studies through joint responsibility of the above three factions.

Conflicts between divergent doctrines and among scholars in the 12^th century gave rise to the development of academic institutions outside of the university. These institutions allowed for a third power that governed academia along with the Church and the state. This gave rise to princes and dukes establishing their universities to cater to the needs of the nobility primarily (Grendler, 2004). An example is the establishment of the University of Naples in 1224 where ecclesiastical authorities had no role in the recruitment of teachers. They were neither allowed to award licentia docendi nor could they exercise jurisdictional powers (Ferruolo, 1985). Although the ecclesiastical authorities did not inhibit the autonomy of university functioning to the extent that the state does today, like restricting research funding (See Walker, 2019), the secular authorities still wanted to establish universities that would cater to their own needs and teach subjects of relevance to them rather than an exclusive focus on philosophy and theology.

Other kings also sought to establish universities on the model of the University of Naples. These universities aimed to limit the expenses covered by students who would have to go far away from home to study in those select universities. But more importantly, they wanted to associate universities with their territorial policies and create an intellectual elite to sustain the imperial throne (Grendler, 2004). Here, the beginnings of the gradual shift of university regulation are seen from the ecclesiastical authorities to the state authorities. Apart from regulation, the university gradually came under the jurisdiction of the state, whereby they could restrict the mobility of knowledge.

The 13^th century attested that the privileges granted by the papacy to universities and scholars, could not be implemented without the cooperation of secular authorities. However, unlike in the 11^th and 12^th centuries, there was little resistance from the secular authorities as local universities sought to reduce the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon (Nardi, 1992). This new dynamic in the nature of the university was an outcome of the combined efforts of local individuals, institutions, churches, secular princes, municipal authorities, professors and students of various nation-states. It is from now on that we witness the permanency of the university as an institution and the eminent role it plays in society.

During the end of the Middle Ages, the university drew away from the influence of the Church, and university administration was increasingly managed by the secular authorities. The mission of universities was directed towards glorifying the principles of dynastic prestige and universal preservation of sovereignty. The newer universities founded by secular authorities had a distinctly local or regional approach and were no longer compatible with the cosmopolitan or even European image of higher education. Secular administration of universities that catered to local needs, in turn, received greater internal autonomy as they were not subject to the religious stronghold of the state.

The Humboldtian University ideal

It was in the enlightenment era, that universities were increasingly secularized and became subject to state bureaucracy. University affairs began to be managed by national education policies. At the beginning of the 19^th century, two university models emerged to reform the traditional university: the French and German university models. The French model was completed by Napoleon with essential traits such as central state control, the establishment of special colleges and the isolation of faculties (Rüegg, 2004). This model survived through the successive regime and was eroded only towards the end of the 19^th century under the influence of the Humboldtian model.

The credit of the German model goes to the scholar and statesman Wilhelm von Humboldt who persuaded the then King of Prussia to establish the University of Berlin in 1810 on the liberal ideas of the philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher (Kwiek, 2006). The famous Freie Universität Berlin is based on these liberal ideals. Schleiermacher argued that the relationship between the university and the state must be based on ‘freedom’. Humboldt’s university ideal along with academic autonomy, included the provision of land for the new university so that it could be financially independent (Rüegg, 2004). However, this university model was not exempt from state control. In 1817, the Ministry of Education oversaw the entire administration, decided the composition of the higher education system, as well as controlled curricula and examination.

In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, the Humboldtian model was implemented across continental Europe. In Russia, the state adopted a more bureaucratic approach with a key focus on the sciences and little to no practical autonomy. The antagonism between liberalism offered by the German model, and the militarization of the French model resulted in greater restriction on freedom at the university. As a result, the Russian state appointed rectors, and expelled professors. Academic freedom was monitored by the state as they suppressed the ‘dangerous disciplines’ such as constitutional law and philosophy and introduced stringent educational controls characteristic of the Tsarist university model (Rüegg, 2004: 10). This model was adopted yet again and perfected in the 1930s by the Soviet regime.

In contrast to the Russian university, universities in the British Isles boasted of greater freedoms in the 1800s than their European counterparts. However, the focus of British universities was the award of academic degrees, unlike the Humboldtian University which focused on the discovery of knowledge. Still, like the Humboldtian model, the institutions retained their autonomy and flexibility through the decades (Kwiek, 2006). The ideal of the Humboldtian University flourished in Britain primarily as a result of the freedom and autonomy enjoyed through the centuries and the shift from ecclesiastical to secular administration of the university in the British Isles.

This success of the Humboldtian model in the British Isles highlights the importance of academic autonomy. Where, on the one hand, the Humboldtian University ideal seemed to lose its impact across Europe due to increasing state intervention, on the other hand, it flourished in Britain where it was adopted much later compared to its continental counterparts as a result of greater freedom available to universities. By the end of the 19^th century, the Humboldtian University represented the modern university in Europe, the United States and Japan.

One of the most important aspects of the Humboldtian University was the removal of the state as an obstacle towards academic freedom. However, in the early 20^th century, it was no longer able to cope with the social, political and intellectual development of the industrial society (Charle, 2004). The Humboldtian University was seen as an institution that catered to elites, the aristocracy and the educated middle class. As a result, there was a dissonance between the students and professors. This dissonance led to the creation of ‘an academic proletariat’ (Charle, 2004: 58), which in turn created a space for a class struggle and was propelled further under the Nazi regime in the aftermath of the First World War.

This inter-War period was marked by reduced autonomy of the German university due to an increased dependency on the state to finance research and libraries. This was further aggravated by the policy of the Nazi regime whereby professors were expelled and the reduction of student enrolment to reduce graduate unemployment (Charle, 2004). As a result, there was a drastic change in the structural composition of Humboldtian University. Universities became sites of nationalist movements, and they were alienated from the cosmopolitan, and the international Humboldtian University model.

The university in the east

The Humboldtian model has shaped the university across the world today. This universalization of the university can be attributed to three important factors: modernization, colonization and later post the World Wars, globalization. However, there were important university models in the East as well that have been lost as a result of these processes.

Amongst the oldest higher education institutes, traditional Chinese institutions traced back to the 4th century BCE with the first private institute set up by Confucius. During the Tang Dynasty (618–907), the Tai Xue (institute of supreme learning) included the Confucian texts in their curriculum. This practice formed the fundamental political and educational system in the Song Dynasty (960–1279) (Wu and Zha, 2018). The relationship between the state and the university, in the 5th century BCE, was cordial, each having a crucial role to support the other. After the First Opium War in 1840, China was exposed to influence by Japanese and Western powers that triggered the modernization process, and a renewed higher education system was implemented by importing the Japanese, Continental and American models (Wu and Zha, 2018).

Similarly, in India, it was under the colonial influence that the traditional Brahminic and Buddhist traditions of education were eroded (See Sharma and Sharma, 1996a). Under the Buddhist influence, the renowned Indian universities of Nalanda and Takshashila were established in the 5^th century CE. Along with traditional knowledge, there was an emphasis on evidence-based discussion and logic-based education. (Sharma and Sharma, 1996b). Under the British rule, several universities based on the European ideal were established in India and were heavily dependent on the British authorities and the Parliament of Great Britain. Thus, the Buddhist research-centric Indian university was wiped away in favour of the British university model.

The traditional Eastern universities, like their Western counterparts, had a cosmopolitan appeal with scholars from across the world visiting these universities. However, the 19^th century witnessed the end of one of the initial systems of higher education in the world and a shift towards the Western ideal of the university, as the continental and the American model of the university was adopted in these countries. This singular approach to university administration was determined primarily by the West especially post the World Wars when there was a shift in world geopolitics. The university then was understood as a key institution in society that could have a pertinent social and political impact.

The shift in the relationship between the state and the university

The state became more involved in the structuring and functioning of universities, post-World War I, and as a result, there was resistance from university bodies against the threats from outside. Financial independence that was a cornerstone of both the medieval university, organized by the ecclesiastical authorities and the Humboldtian model was lost towards the end of the 19^th century. The freedom of higher education that was an original statute of European universities was threatened and curbed by the central administration of external authorities. The 19^th century also witnessed the persecution of liberal teachers who were involved in political resistance and who propagated ‘revolutionary’ ideas among students (Gerbod, 2004: 98).

Dependence on the state included the administration of universities, study regulations, teacher recruitment and state control over research pursued. Pedagogical and scientific dependence of universities was a source of tension among supervisory authorities. This tension was also an implication of the political and ideological dependence enforced on the university by regulatory authorities. It was not a novel phenomenon to the 19^th-century university, but the impact on the university and academic autonomy were amplified in this period.

Towards the end of the 20^th century, there was a change in the hegemonic take on geopolitics, and soft power was used as a tool to spread its knowledge system in the world. Universities were viewed as public platforms of resistance to anti-democratic values and offered a cultural and political direction. The university was viewed as an incubator of cultural change. This was never more visible than with the student protests of 1956 in Budapest and Warsaw and the Velvet revolution of 1989 in Czechoslovakia. The active role played by universities in politics led to the restructuring of the university. The year 1968 was particularly one of the mass student revolts triggered by the Vietnam War.

May 1968 saw a new wave of liberation and freedom by students who started a revolution to take back their autonomy from the authorities. Consequent to these student protests, several universities across Europe were shut down, and students were arrested for violent demonstrations (See O’Hagan, 2008). However, the youthful idealism ended as quickly as it flared up. Yet, these protests gave impetus to student revolutions across the globe as students began to be more involved in the social and political scene.

This advanced role played by the students in the structuring of university activities and the curriculum was endangered in the 21^st century as populism became the trend of the day. The role played by universities as sites of resistance was thus subdued, as they cloaked themselves in a more politically correct character in the 21^st century.

Universities struggled with the need to act as instruments of the state, while at the same time providing a safe space for their students to resist the hegemonic ideals of the day. Just as politics evolved into a ‘bipartisan alteration of power between the centre-right and the centre-left parties’ (Mouffe, 2018), universities took on a more neutral tonality to deal with issues arising out of the conflict between the students and the state. The kind of knowledge spread in universities was limited, and any new research project was put under extreme scrutiny of the state. This extreme, rigid scrutiny severely damaged the autonomy of the university and the ideals that universities stood for.

State-university relations and internationalization of higher education research and innovation (IHERI)

Lack of academic and administrative autonomy from the state made it increasingly difficult to further international collaborations between universities. Along with state policies on knowledge production, the increasing disparity in national accreditation, and the regulatory systems between regions and states have impaired the primary processes of IHE including the movement of people and providers across borders.

In most cases, it can be resolved through university-to-university understanding, but at times issues cannot be resolved at the university level and require state intervention. It is at this juncture that the goals and ideals of the state and the university if not aligned, create roadblocks to both the inbound and outbound mobility of international students and staff. It also hinders universities from opening branch campuses in different parts of the globe, preventing the spread of lesser-known, non-Western knowledge systems in particular. In most extreme cases, as in the recent past, there is an increase in the cancellation of offshore programs, even between nations and universities that have had historic relations. The three-decade-long association between the University of Groningen and China Agricultural University was terminated in 2019 as the University of Groningen cancelled its ambitious plan of setting up a branch campus in the Chinese city of Yantai due to ‘insufficient support’ from the latter university campus (See Redden, 2018a; OBHE, 2007a; Redden, 2018c; Inside Higher Ed, 2019).

Taking the framework of the conditions for cross-border activity by Knight (2006), the movement of higher education has successfully made the vertical progress from students and staff mobility to capacity building. However, the conditions that allow for this vertical movement of higher education services have not seen much development. We are still in the phase of cross-border activities based on exchanges and have not yet moved to the phase where cross-border activities take on a commercial facet.

Towards alleviating this tension in state-university relations and propelling the cross-border activities, Internationalization of Higher Education Research and Innovation (IHERI) has become an important tool that facilitates the movement of people and providers of higher education, as well as demonstrates the progress, achievements and systems of knowledge of the state. IHE is moving away from an outbound mobility of students especially those from the ‘periphery’ to the ‘centre’, towards an attempt by national and regional policies (European Commission, 2019; Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020) to attract students to learn from a unique and yet globally untapped knowledge system.

It is, therefore, pertinent that internationalization with a focus on research and innovation, and a comprehensive approach, aims towards creating global opportunities for all. The state today cannot act in isolation as it engages with governments of multiple states, academic and non-academic staff and students in the international arena. Towards facilitating this global engagement, IHE plays an important role by bringing together HEIs towards a knowledge economy. This process enables the collaboration of various stakeholders of the university, including the state. Cooperation in scientific knowledge has led to great advancement in the post-communist era. Peace and stability were achieved by cooperation between states of different political ideologies. There is greater scope for such cooperation even today. IHE as a means to an end can be used to not only facilitate university cooperation and knowledge dissemination but by fostering improved state-university relations, it can assist in alleviating tensions amidst states as well.

Conclusion

The foundation of universities is based on a delicate balance between several contending forces that seek to control the functioning of such a vital element of society. In earlier times, the contention was between the state and the Church. Today as the contenders have changed, there has been a contest for greater autonomy required by HEIs, which states are hesitant to provide.

In recent times, states have imposed stringent restrictions on academic freedom. These restrictions are aimed to maintain a state-approved image in the international arena, instead of receiving criticism by research studies constructively, and making the necessary amends to aid universities in their endeavour towards the IHE. Research conducted in the disciplines of social sciences and humanities often draws from individual experiences and brings certain critiques of the nation-state to light. When such research is made public, there is the threat of negative perception of that state internationally, one that is not restricted to academia. The foundational statute of universities, the dissemination and discovery of knowledge is thereby threatened by protectionist policies implemented by states. As a result, there is an increasing need by university professors and students to be politically correct, especially with issues on religion and nationalism.

In embracing these delicate aspects, universities compromise heavily on academic and administrative autonomy. As the university has increasingly become dependent on the state especially financially, it has become important for the university to abide by the state policy even if the result is poor academia. Universities today are judged based on global ranking systems, in which publishing research is an important criterion. However, under policies where the research is severely restricted, the value brought by such papers is bound to be questioned.

Consequent to these policies adopted by states, several universities have cancelled their offshore programs and campuses. Recent examples include those of the University of Groningen withdrawing from China (Redden, 2018a), the termination of more than 200 Sino-foreign cooperative education programs since 2018 (Redden, 2018c), withdrawals of Warwick University (OBHE, 2007b), University of New South Wales (OBHE, 2007a) and Yale from Singapore (Inside Higher Ed, 2019). There are several reasons cited, all concerning university autonomy, be it restrictions on funds, staffing issues or more recently increasing limitations on academic freedom. Thus, the spirit of IHE and universities to build a cosmopolitan, open, international environment to inculcate inter-cultural competency and broaden one’s world view beyond their regional realities is endangered.

There are several avenues provided by the various processes of IHE. Today, IHERI, is one such pathway to align research with state policy. It enables collaborations in research across disciplines including inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research, as well as collaborations between universities can be strengthened in accordance with the policies implemented by the state. Thus, IHERI can be used as a two-way street, whereby relations between the state and university can be smoothened through international university collaboration, as well as inter-state relations can be smoothened by finding common research and innovation goals amongst nation-states.