高等教育国际化主导定义的局限:理念错误或实践偏差?  

Limitations of the leading definition of"internationalization"of higher education:is the idea wrong or is the fault in reality?

作　　者：西蒙·马金森 高媛(译) 王鹏娟(译) SIMON Marginson(Department of Education,University of Oxford,Oxford OX12JD,UK)

机构地区：[1]牛津大学教育系,牛津OX12JD [2]南方科技大学高等教育研究中心,广东深圳518005

出　　处：《高校教育管理》2025年第3期1-14,共14页Journal of Higher Education Management

摘　　要：自20世纪90年代奈特提出“国际化”定义以来,其和同事先后进行了多次的论证和完善。长期以来,该定义引领了跨境研究和实践,并在政府、商业和制度的支持下得以推广。然而,定义与实践脱节的问题困扰着该定义的支持者们。这种脱节本身映射的更深层困境是,该定义试图在西方国家主导下统一相互矛盾的跨国教育实践。这一定义虽具有实践层面的目的性却缺乏解释概念本身的规范性,对空间关系的理解根植于意识形态的二元对立,将“全球化”视为“消极的”,但将“国际化”视为“积极的”。该定义具有普适性,忽略了不同国家的教育体系和文化背景以及利益相关者对国际化持有的不同目的、议程和视角,此划分易使实践者陷入“国家中心主义”思维并受限于国家视角,尤其隐含了欧美中心主义。该定义忽略了教育实践的关联性,仅关注个人、机构、国家等的自我特征,忽视了国际化对其他个人、机构或国家的影响。当西方国家的实践者使用该定义时,会助长欧美的持续主导地位,因此,有必要采取一种降低期望却升华抱负的方法重新反思“国际化”定义。新定义应具有内含上的一致性和对现实更强的解释力,应更有效提升跨境高等教育的互惠性,并能整合国家间与全球范围内关于跨境高等教育的讨论。The paper critically reviews the widely adopted definition of"internationalization"of higher education shaped by Knight and colleagues since 1993 through successive revisions and intended for universal application.The definition has long led cross-border scholarship,discourse and practice,being promoted in support of a wide range of governmental,commercial and institutional agendas.However,the disjunction between idea and reality has increasingly troubled advocates of the definition,and underlying this tension are more fundamental difficulties.It attempts to unify contradictory cross-border practices under the leadership of the global West/North.The geography of the definition rests on an ideological binary of"globalization"(bad)and"internationalization"(good)that locks practitioners into nation-bound approaches.The definition is nonrelational in form yet relational in consequence,focused on characteristics of the self-the person,the institution,the nation-without regard for the effect of internationalisation for the other.Hence when applied by Western/Northern agents the definition facilitates continued Euro-American domination.The paper suggests a different approach to terminology,geography,relationality and power in cross-border education.Therefore,it is necessary to rethink the definition of"internationalization"in a way that lowers expectations but improves aspirations.The new definition should have intrinsic consistency and a stronger interpretation of reality,promote reciprocity of cross-border higher education more effectively,and integrate discussions on cross-border higher education between countries and at the global level.

关 键 词：高等教育 全球化 国际化 跨境高等教育 欧美中心主义 奈特 

分 类 号：G640[文化科学—高等教育学]