Search results

International Education is worth billions of dollars to the world economy, and many countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have government initiatives that look to stimulate and guide international student mobility, research and technology transfer. The involvement of the state into student mobility does not come without risk. Government foreign policy and international relations between sending countries and English-speaking study destinations threatens to upset the historical norms of international mobility. What is more, world events such as the global pandemic of 2020, will have a profound impact on the future of international education, and may change the international landscape altogether. This chapter will frame the challenges facing institutions who benefit from international mobility in the context of geopolitics and world events. It will explore how institutions can leverage strategic enrolment management tactics to help mitigate enrolment risks posed by global disruption.

This chapter explores geopolitics, garbage cans, the need for interdisciplinary insight, and the lures and limitations of one-sided mono-disciplinary conceptual models in understanding strategic decision making. We argue that a combination of the garbage can model and Nathan Leites’ psycho-cultural approach to decision making might be useful in giving insights for events and for organizational behavior. As a decision making case, we consider the 1941 decision of the Empire of Japan to declare war on the Allied Powers. We find that there could be useful lines of integration between the garbage can framework and other perspectives in geopolitical decision making. In using a historical example to illustrate the possible integration, we argue that there are inherent limits to single-model decision making approaches. Developing interdisciplinary frameworks for understanding foreign policy decision making may lead to better insights in real-world processes and seems like a step in a fruitful direction.

International collaboration in higher education and research is considered crucial for economic growth and development. The policy pursued for international research collaboration depends on conditions in other geographical regions and countries, such as trade interests, conflicts, security, and pandemics, hence the term geopolitics. These conditions can be expected to have a major impact on how relationships and cooperation patterns develop. The handling of these issues is discussed in this chapter in the framework of the European policy context as well as through empirical examples regarding the dependence of international recruitment of researchers in two Scandinavian countries, Denmark and Norway. The chapter points to the possible barriers current geopolitical challenges may have for the realization of European as well as national policies for internationalization in higher education. Inequalities depending on gender, career stage, country of birth and other factors have intensified during the pandemic and academic autonomy and freedom of individual researchers and scientific communities are at stake due to a geopolitical situation, which entails increased control with knowledge transfer and research collaboration across national borders. These developments require more complex, targeted safeguarding and policies to protect collaboration in higher education and research.

This chapter is dedicated to understanding the idea of international as a key notion to the development of globalisation and to promoting the rescaling of spaces and subjects in contemporary higher education. The author discusses the concept of scale as a performative device that activates the capacities of bodies. Instead of seeing scale as a naturalised and hierarchical structure of spatial distribution, the author understands it as an ensemble of discourses and practices that produce scalar effects. Globalisation uses scale to promote the idea that subjects would become ‘international’ by being linked to privileged spaces and bodies in the Global North. In this sense, globalisation is not merely about nodes where certain flows converge. Rather, the author understands it as the political conditions that control and constrain the space for certain flows to occur and not others. Using assemblage analysis, the author presents and analyses three scenes taken from his ethnographic records that have as a guiding line the materialisation of the international. These scenes report the experience of being a Latin American doctoral student attending a congress in the United States, a tense situation experienced at a Chilean university academic event, and the unpretentious manifestation of an elaborate idea of internationality from a personal experience of a trip to India. The results point to three elaborations of the international: an optimistic view of a shared world, a geopolitical internationality and the production of a global corporeality.

The current situation is changing rapidly in terms of technology, politics, economy and society. Every child could become a child with special educational needs should they no longer be fit to join a future world. In this sense, to survive in the world of next normality, an era in which the playing field for all children is levelled, it is thought-provoking to consider how the new way of special and inclusive education should be designed to close the inequality gap and create an equilibrium. This chapter focuses on describing how special and inclusive education in the next world with the inevitable high inequality gap should be designed.

The North/South divide is an image frequently used to depict the territorial structure and the economic dynamism of England, and thus to describe the social and economic geography of the country. This image distinguishes a post-industrial North, which still faces economic and social difficulties, from a tertiary, rich and powerful South. It separates a central space (the South) from a periphery (the North). However, the recent economic changes in Britain question the relevance of this image, which is perhaps too simplistic to describe accurately the economic and social geography and the spatial disparities in the country.

Since the Thatcher years, this debate on the North/South divide has been constantly renewed, regardless of the political colour of the majority at Westminster, and the local and regional policy of the government in power has been systematically criticised. On the one hand, this reflects the persistence of territorial and social disparities in the United Kingdom and more specifically in England. On the other hand, this shows that the North/South divide is not just a geoeconomic question, but it also includes identity, societal and geopolitical issues.

Based on a geographical, critical geopolitical and cartographic approach, the aim of this chapter is to question the relevance and the significance of the North/South divide in 2017, after the impact of the 2008 Great Recession, as the United Kingdom is on its way to Brexit and when its unity is being challenged by Scottish nationalism. How can territorial disparities be described, evaluated and measured in England? How are they perceived by citizens and political leaders? This chapter will also study the policies proposed to close this gap and to meet the aspirations of peripheral regions.

Drawing upon the concepts of transmodernity, pluriversality and border thinking the author stands in a more practical fashion for the co-creation of an-other performative CMS which fosters the decolonization of (critical) management studies – as a way to contribute “to concretely changing the world(s) for the better” (as claimed by the organizers of the symposium “should critical management studies get anything done?” held at the Academy of Management Meeting in 2012 in Boston).

From a more practical and less opaque perspective on border thinking it is shown how and why border thinking can both enable and constrain critical scholars and people to move across the borders of the colonial difference and from Eurocentric modernity toward transmodern pluriversality.

The current performative turn of CMS fails to address the agency of critical knowledge as a potential reworking of Occidentalism which can be mobilized to “manage” the rise of alternatives and knowledges from the rest of the world in general and from emerging economies in particular.

Border thinking as a crucial concept from the coloniality/modernity research program from Latin America is taken as an important contribution from the colonial difference to the co-creation of decolonial management studies (DMS), an-other performative CMS which fosters the construction of a world in which many worlds and knowledges can coexist as a way to change it for the better.