Southeast Asian higher education has been massifying and diversifying at an unprecedented pace and scale in recent years, resulting in new opportunities for the region to re-structure and raise the quality of its higher education sector. One such opportunity pertains to internationalisation, defined by renowned higher education academic Jane Knight as the “process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institutions.”

Globalisation and marketisation have resulted in new forms of internationalisation of higher education — from exchange programmes to international campuses of higher education institutions (HEIs) — and these have been increasingly adopted by HEIs in the region to attract both students and faculty, as well as improve institutional ranking.

Although ASEAN countries and their HEIs have their respective internationalisation strategies, the ASEAN vision to create a stronger regional identity has presented an added layer of a common regional approach towards the internationalisation of higher education. Under the larger goal of regional integration — with the formalisation of the ASEAN Economic Community, and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint 2025 — collective action has been proposed to promote “greater people mobility, exchange of ideas and expertise within and outside ASEAN”, so as to enhance regional dynamism. Specific initiatives within the education sector to enhance student and people mobility include: student-exchange programmes (for instance, the ASEAN International Mobility for Students Programme); scholarship provisions; and capacity-building platforms for HEIs — all of which are often promoted by intra-ASEAN organisations like the Southeast Asian Minister of Education Organisation (SEAMEO) and the ASEAN University Networks (AUN). Other broad regional initiatives include the creation of common university credit transfer systems; partnership agreements amongst member states and HEIs (for instance, the Mutual Recognition Frameworks); and the push for synchronised academic calendars.

A common ASEAN approach to higher education and internationalisation initiatives is possible due to the member states’ strong commitment to regional integration. Nevertheless, member states and HEIs should remain cognisant of the issues they would have to resolve before being able to capitalise on internationalisation opportunities.

These include problems like pedagogy or working language conflicts and the issues relating to brain drain. Thus, the adoption of a regional perspective on internationalisation agendas could introduce additional challenges.

In particular, as the region is diverse in socio-political, cultural and economic aspects, ASEAN states would naturally have different motivations for committing to common internationalisation efforts . Therefore, attempts to build consensus within the regional community on internationalisation agendas have to be tactfully structured. Member states should strive to achieve a balance between the promotion of internationalisation agendas and the respect for local culture, governance and practices. In other words, higher education internationalisation policies cannot be considered in isolation; member states must also keep in mind the delicate power relations and avoid perceptions of contradictions to national sovereignty — a value already enshrined in the ASEAN Charter.

Second, the range in quality of higher education systems also means that some member states — often the ones that are behind in terms of development — would be lacking the capacity to formulate or execute internationalisation strategies independently and effectively. As such, there is a need to prevent a situation where the economically or politically strong countries exercise unfair advantage in shaping any regional discourse and negotiations.

In addition, the ASEAN community must work to ensure that “weaker” member states have the space to develop their own internationalisation rationale and strategies within their respective higher education systems. Their agency should be properly acknowledged and brought to the table when it comes to building consensus on the adoption of common internationalisation platforms.

This cannot be overstated when external expertise is brought into the picture, such as organisations and HEIs beyond ASEAN that come in to influence and shape the region’s higher education sector. After all, existing models and accounts of internationalisation can often be western-centric, potentially limiting their generalisability to the ASEAN context. To that end, member states’ engagement with non-ASEAN stakeholders in regional internationalisation efforts should be careful and strategic. This prevents supply driven, overly commercialised initiatives by parties who are only interested in gaining a foothold in some of the relatively untapped higher education markets.

Again, this can be avoided as long as countries have clear internationalisation agendas. One solution is to pursue internationalisation efforts that would grow their HEIs into active members of the global knowledge network, instead of passively accepting international perspectives into their current institutions or mindlessly copying other member states’ strategies.

For member states that lack the capacity to independently formulate their own internationalisation strategies, it is still possible to maintain their autonomy while consulting external expertise. One way is for countries to actively engage experts who are familiar with the local context. For example, HEIs and governments can consider tapping on the academic diaspora and their respective networks, holding consultations with them to discuss how best to approach regional engagement efforts, as well as determine the suitability of engaging specific foreign HEIs or governments in internationalisation initiatives.

Another way is to organise or participate in collaborative platforms where local stakeholders play a more significant role in leading discussions on internationalisation agendas. Here, foreign experts would be invited to play a more facilitative role. One such example would be the recent SHARE policy dialogue session: SHARE, a joint programme by the EU and ASEAN, organised a dialogue session in 2017 on how CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam) universities can best approach the internationalisation process. The session brought together both foreign experts and local stakeholders like governmental officers, university administrators, and students.

From the presentations, it was evident that much of the discussion was still driven and anchored by the latter group, and the organisers also made it a point to recognise how internationalisation was, at its heart, a local issue.

At the end of the day, the above-mentioned issues should not discourage common regional efforts in internationalisation of higher education. Internationalisation is still a project worth pursuing under the ASEAN vision of regional integration, allowing scholars and governments the platforms to understand new cultures and even reflect on their own. Adopting a regional approach in formulating higher education internationalisation strategies can still be beneficial to all member states regardless of their level of development, as long as the above nuances are kept in mind. As such, member states should continue investing in regional efforts. Perhaps there might be avenues in the future to also consider new initiatives, such as the standardisation of internationalisation indicators, and the creation of platforms and incentives for scholars and students alike to embark on academic research in the region.