




































AGORA International Journal of Economical Sciences, http://univagora.ro/jour/index.php/aijes 

ISSN 2067-3310, E-ISSN 2067-7669 

Vol. 17, No. 2 (2023), pp. 17-26 

 

17 

 

MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION 

INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

K. AŠKERC ZADRAVEC 

 

Katarina Aškerc Zadravec 

Ljubljana School of Business, Slovenia, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4710-2066   

E-mail: katarina.askerc@vspv.si  

 

Abstract: The internationalization of higher education has become a central focus in 

contemporary higher education policies, where various demands, motives, and meanings are 

attributed to higher education institutions and management in the global and international 

environment. The complex relationship between globalization and internationalization is briefly 

explored in the article, as well as motives and drivers for the internationalization of higher education 

at both national and institutional levels, with university management considering it a strategic 

priority. Through semi-structured interviews with representatives of Slovene higher education 

stakeholders, it was found that university management emphasizes the significance of 

internationalization as a strategic priority and as part of the university’s daily activities, highlighting 

its integration into research, education, various networks, projects, etc. The article underscores that 

internationalization serves as a means and driver for changes, raising quality, improvements, 

employability, and innovations in higher education, fostering a knowledge-based society, and 

addressing the challenges of the globalized world, which were highlighted by the respondents. In the 

final part of the article, suggestions for improvements and further research activities are presented. 

Keywords: management of higher education, internationalization of higher education, 

globalization, motives for internationalization, perceived importance of internationalization 

 

INTRODUCTION 

The expectations, needs, interests, and demands of higher education institutions, management, 

students, and higher education staff are changing due to globalization and significant technological 

advancements. Higher education is undergoing radical change and growth (Treleaven et al., 2009). 

The forces of globalization still cause ongoing increased flows of people, money, services, goods, 

and ideas around the world (despite the World Health Organization (2020) declaring an epidemic a 

few years ago). Like nothing else in the modern era, the epidemic’s development had a significant 

negative impact on the social, political, economic, and educational domains (Rumbley, 2020) – 

however, nowadays, all the latter is only a memory. Students and higher education staff consider the 

opportunity to study and work abroad as a right and a means of furthering their personal and 

professional development; higher education institutions and their management see 

internationalization as a means for improving quality and the institutions’ reputation, etc. 

The global and international dimensions of higher education are receiving more attention than 

ever before in international, national, and institutional strategic documents, policies, and mission 

statements. The dynamics of the twenty-first century have increased the significance of the global 

context (Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2009), wherein immediate communication is now easily 

possible, and scientific, project and pedagogical communication is made easier by the advancement 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4710-2066
mailto:katarina.askerc@vspv.si


MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED 

DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

18 

 

of information and communication technology and artificial intelligence. In this context, the 

importance of comprehensive international cooperation of higher education (institutions) and their 

stakeholders must be strategically and purposefully addressed.  

The aim of this article is to present and justify the demands and expectations that the 

contemporary global and international world places on higher education, clarifying a few concepts 

related to the internationalization and globalization of higher education and its managing role. 

Additionally, the article aims to define the motives, dimensions, and importance embedded in 

international and intercultural currents of higher education management. In some parts, the article 

represents an upgraded discussion of previously published findings in the field of the 

internationalization of higher education, but with a different focus and with an emphasis on the 

management role (e.g., Aškerc Zadravec, 2021). 

 

Internationalization in higher education and related concepts 

The international dimension of higher education is increasingly becoming a central topic on 

the agendas of international policies, national governments, transnational organizations, higher 

education institutions, and their representative bodies. Over the last two to three decades, the 

internationalization of higher education has moved from the periphery of institutional interest to the 

very core of the concept (de Wit, 2011a). In this light, the first definition of the internationalization 

of higher education was described as “the process of integrating an international or intercultural 

dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of the institution” (Knight, 1994, p. 7). 

This was followed by a series of definitions of the concept of internationalization of higher education, 

as well as their negative and positive criticisms from different authors. In 2015, de Wit and his 

colleagues, in a study for the European Parliament, updated Knight’s definition of internationalization 

of higher education, defining it as the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural, 

or global dimension into the purpose, functions, and delivery of post-secondary education, with the 

aim to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a 

meaningful contribution to society (de Wit et al., 2015). 

Many authors discuss the complex relationship between the trend of globalization and 

internationalization in higher education, which emerged at the end of the last century (e.g., Teichler 

2004, 2010; Knight, 2008; Maringe & Foskett, 2010; Zgaga, Teichler & Brennan, 2013; Aškerc 

Zadravec, 2021). However, the normatively simplistic distinction between globalization and 

internationalization causes a blurring of the differences between the two concepts and the way in 

which they ‘feed’ each other (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). It appears that the two terms are 

related, and it is impossible to draw a clear line between them (de Wit, 2011b). The concept of 

globalization, along with internationalization, originated in general social science studies in the 

second half of the 1960s (Zgaga, 2009). It was then applied to higher education policies in the second 

half of the 1990s and became increasingly prominent in the field of higher education, particularly 

after 2000 (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). According to Marginson and van der Wende (2007), 

the term “globalization” is not always understood in a neutral sense. For this reason, Beck (2003) 

draws attention to the term's ambiguity, which makes it difficult to define clearly, leading to its 

frequent misuse. The term “globalization” is all too frequently substituted with an analytical term or 



Katarina AŠKERC ZADRAVEC 

19 

 

a process that speaks of reciprocal national and cultural interdependence, along with an ideological 

definition of “globalism” that limits the term's application to just one aspect – the economic one. 

Globalization, according to Knight (2008), is the process of increasing cross-border 

movement or mobility of people, ideas, knowledge, values, cultures, technology, and economics that 

strengthens global interdependence. Globalization can have positive and/or negative consequences, 

affecting each country and nation differently, depending, among other things, on the historical and 

cultural context. An increasingly interconnected global economy, the creation of new information-

communication technology, the influence of artificial intelligence, the rise of international knowledge 

networks, the growing significance of the English language, and other factors outside the purview of 

academic institutions are some of the factors driving globalization. Internationalization, according to 

Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009), is the range of strategies and initiatives that academic 

institutions and governing bodies carry out in reaction to globalization. Therefore, education is among 

those impacted by globalization (Knight, 2008). Since the globalization of education is not the same 

as the internationalization of education, Zgaga (2009) emphasizes how crucial it is to distinguish 

between the two ideas in the context of (higher) education. Furthermore, the rise of the nation-state 

in the 19th century influenced internationalization, which was crucial for the creation of 

contemporary educational theories and the national systems based on them. 

According to Brandenburg and de Wit (2011), globalization is too often characterized as 

“bad,” while internationalization is frequently defined as “good” and as a means of fostering 

understanding between people or raising the standard of higher education or research. The latter 

ignores the fact that activities more directly associated with the idea of globalization (such as higher 

education as commercial goods) are increasingly being conducted under the aegis of 

internationalization, and the topic of real internationalization’s impacts and goals is becoming less 

common. Additionally, Knight (1999) wrote that the internationalization of higher education is one 

of the possible ways in which a country and its education respond to globalization, reinforcing the 

fact that internationalization is a means to an end and not an end in itself. According to the theoretical 

foundation in the literature, internationalization is the way higher education reacts to and functions 

within globalization, which is a social, economic, and political process in which it plays a significant 

role as an actor (Adams & de Wit, 2011). Thus, internationalization is transforming higher education, 

and globalization is transforming the internationalization landscape (Knight, 2008). 

In addition to the terms internationalization and globalization of higher education, other 

related terms, such as international education, international studies, transnational education, cross-

border, and borderless education, etc., can be recognized. There are also more concrete sub-

categories, such as academic mobility, international cooperation, study abroad, international 

exchange, as well as multicultural and intercultural education, global education, transnational studies, 

global studies, joint programs, etc. (de Wit, 2002; Hénard, Diamond & Roseveare, 2012). The 

majority of the concepts and definitions are united in their relationship between (higher) education 

management approaches in their broader meaning and the inclusion of global, international, and/or 

intercultural approaches in different aspects of (higher) education institutions. For the purpose of this 

article, the focus is mainly on Knight’s and de Wit’s et al. definitions of internationalization in higher 

education, which are considered to be broad enough to cover all aspects and activities of modern 

higher education institutions and their management roles. 



MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED 

DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

20 

 

Internationalization in higher education – drivers and motives  

Depending on their goals for internationalization, universities take different routes to it. As 

the purposes of internationalization vary from institution to institution, the choice of 

internationalization strategies is contingent upon the objectives that each institution seeks to achieve 

(Hudzik, 2011). According to de Wit (1998), who defines four categories of motives for 

internationalization in higher education, the latter can be understood as a final goal or as a means to 

achieve other or “higher” goals. However, its deeper and broader aim is to achieve new purposes and 

goals (Hudzik, 2011; Hénard, Diamond & Roseveare, 2012; Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2007) – thus, 

internationalization is a means and a driver for changes, improvements, and innovations. It creates 

jobs, develops the skills needed for the twenty-first century, and shapes a knowledge-based society.  

As a result of the growing significance of internationalization for higher education institutions, 

new conceptions of internationalization are being created as a component of a strategy to accomplish 

core institutional objectives (Green, 2012). There is widespread consensus that, despite notable 

variations across nations and educational establishments, internationalization, when incorporated into 

a more comprehensive approach, can lead to substantial advantages for students, staff, and the 

institution (Hénard, Diamond & Roseveare, 2012). These benefits include the promotion of 

innovative and strategic thinking that leads to innovation, the facilitation of staff and student 

collaboration, the encouragement of novel approaches to learning assessment, and increased 

awareness of global issues and the functioning of educational systems across diverse nations, cultures, 

and languages. 

According to Green (2012), several factors drive internationalization: educating students for 

“global citizenship” and preparing them for the (global) workforce; raising the standard of research 

and teaching; strengthening institutional capacity; bringing in more profits; promoting local/regional 

economic development; resolving global issues, fostering global understanding and peace, etc. 

Additionally, Marmolejo (2010) outlines the following justifications for the institution’s 

internationalization: enhancing student qualifications; expanding the institution's international 

profile; internationalizing curriculum; enhancing research and knowledge acquisition, diversifying 

the higher education staff and institution, etc. Knight (2008) makes a distinction between national 

and institutional justifications for internationalization, mentioning factors such as the development of 

human resources, strategic alliances, earning capacity through commercial trade, nation-building, 

social-cultural advancement, mutual understanding, international brand and profile, quality 

improvement through international standards, staff and student development, knowledge acquisition, 

etc. Globalization and internationalization positively contribute to students’ growth and development 

(Kadlec & Jukić, 2023), wherein successful international cooperation is often associated with online 

forms of cooperation (Aškerc Zadravec, 2023). The motives vary by time, nation, or geographic 

distinction; they do not conflict with one another and result in various strategies and policies. 

Knight and de Wit (1999; de Wit, 2002) distinguish four categories of motives for the 

internationalization of higher education: political, economic, socio-cultural, and academic motives, 

which may vary in importance across countries and regions, and their dominance may also change 

over time. In 2002, de Wit expanded the existing categories with subcategories (de Wit, 2002), and 

his classification is probably the most comprehensive, despite the fact that his methodology did not 

distinguish between justifications and motives at the national, institutional, or sectoral levels. 



Katarina AŠKERC ZADRAVEC 

21 

 

The scope of the study 

According to the previously presented theoretical background with a focus on the conceptual 

background and motives or reasons for internationalization, in the later parts of the article, some basic 

results will be presented with a focus on the following objective: to investigate and understand the 

factors influencing internationalization at Slovene universities, with a specific focus on identifying 

the main drivers and assessing the significance that university management attributes to the 

internationalization of higher education. 

 

METHODOLOGY 

Data collection method 

A semi-structured interview format with open-ended questions on predetermined topics was 

conducted, allowing for the change of the sequence of questions or the addition of new questions 

depending on the structure of each interview. Similar but not completely identical questions were 

used, as questions were slightly adapted to specific institutional contexts. The collected data were 

processed through content analysis (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). In the article, both facts 

obtained through interviews, as well as the opinions and views of the interviewees, are included. 

The interviews took place at the beginning of 2020. Subsequently, in June and July 2020, 

some of the interviews were supplemented to gain insight into the specifics that occurred at higher 

education institutions due to the declaration of the epidemic. The interviews were conducted in 

person, as well as online, using Skype, due to the time constraints of the people involved and later 

due to restrictive measures in connection with the epidemic.  

 

Sample 

The interviewees were purposefully selected based on their involvement in 

internationalization activities at the universities or national institutions where they work and 

according to their roles at the institutions. For this article, the findings of six interviews are presented, 

involving representatives of the three largest Slovene universities: the University of Ljubljana, the 

University of Maribor, and the University of Primorska, as well as representatives of the Slovene 

national institution in the field of higher education. All the interviewees agreed that conversations 

were recorded, enabling later verbatim recording of all conducted interviews. The long-term storage 

of the transcripts in a secure location has been ensured. 

The questions were structured to allow for the greatest possible anonymity and confidentiality 

of the interviewees, which is an important aspect of research ethics (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 

2007). Following this methodological approach, the anonymity of the persons involved in the research 

is maintained. The list of interviewees included in the research, in an anonymous form and with 

numbers assigned to individual interviews, is in the final part of the article. 

 

RESULTS: UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE DRIVERS 

AND SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

In this chapter, key observations are presented regarding the perceptions of the interviewees. 

In the initial part, the results are provided concerning the main drivers and motives for 

internationalization at Slovenian universities. In the second part, key findings are presented regarding 



MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED 

DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

22 

 

the importance that university management attributes to the internationalization of higher education 

in the context of other areas of the university’s activity. 

The results are presented by summarizing key observations and outcomes from the interviews 

in the form of text excerpts. The acquired findings are not analyzed in more detail through the coding 

of qualitative data but are presented as specific excerpts of the text. This approach provides a deeper 

insight into the opinions of the interviewees and offers an understanding of concrete practices at 

universities. 

In the context of motives or drivers for internationalization in higher education, at the national 

level, Interviewee 1 highlights that “internationalization is an important building block of our higher 

education system”. It ensures “a high-quality higher education system in Slovenia […], it is about 

promoting intercultural competences, […] [and] raising the quality of the international recognition of 

our higher education, research, and scientific field,” (Interview 1). 

At the university level, the interviewees highlight the motives for internationalization in the 

context of increasing quality in connection with the pedagogical process (including intercultural 

learning), the improved reputation of the institution, and the general academic level, e.g. “Actually, 

the biggest motive is academic excellence” (Interview 2); the motive is “certainly strengthening the 

quality of teaching and broader social and cultural development” (Interview 3). “These are purely 

academic motives – the quality of the study process” (Interview 4). 

Internationalization makes a significant contribution to employability, e.g.: “Certainly, the 

quality aspect is of primary importance here because we are actually training quality personnel, who 

are then widely employable, not only in a certain local environment” (Interview 5). Additionally, “it 

is a kind of signal for the employer […], if nothing else, already polished English is in a way a ‘brand’ 

that [students] can write down in their CV” (Interview 2).  

On the other hand, the interviewees see economic or financial advantages in 

internationalization only in an indirect sense, e.g. “to say that this makes financially added value 

directly – no. But indirectly, of course” (Interview 5), “because from a financial point of view – it 

would be difficult to say, yes [there is financial advantage. But] later [there is financial advantage] 

indirectly, because you become more successful and better” (Interview 4). Namely, “prestige is most 

important to individuals in the academic profession, money is not important to them […]. If 

something contributes to prestige, then it is very, very desirable” (Interview 2).  

In the context of the assigned significance of internationalization in higher education at the 

national level, an interviewee representing a national organization points out that “[…] different 

managements have different affinities for internationalization” (Interview 6).  

From the point of view of university management, all interviewees emphasize that 

internationalization is extremely important in the strategic operation of universities. “I would say that 

[internationalization carries important meaning at] the highest possible [level] because our university 

realizes that only when a university is integrated into the international environment, it literally is a 

university” (Interview 3). Interviewee 2 highlights that “internationalization [is] one of the 

university’s three key priorities, purely strategic [priority]. […] in the last four-year period, it is, in 

fact, in close connection with other areas, but it is the highest priority.” Likewise, a representative of 

one of the universities states: “Internationalization is very important in our strategy and also in our 

daily activities. […] We certainly put [internationalization] alongside research and education. […] 



Katarina AŠKERC ZADRAVEC 

23 

 

Like most universities, we are also very involved internationally […] at various levels. Of course, the 

management strives to include the university in various networks, various connections, and various 

exchanges […] at the system level” (Interview 5).   

University representatives emphasize the importance of internationalization of higher 

education from the point of view of various levels of higher education management, e.g.: 

“Unfortunately [...] everything depends on how much experience the management has had with the 

international environment. If the management is involved in international experience, [...] then there 

is no fear at the level of [international] cooperation, and [...] they know how to judge what form of 

cooperation makes sense. [We have international] initiatives, which I am sure will have a long-term 

impact on the development of universities […]. Not even that much money was allocated, compared 

to the impacts [achieved]” (Interview 4). 

University management primarily highlights the added value and the upgrading of existing 

activities with an international focus: “[Internationalization has] an added value […] and it makes 

sense to take advantage of [it], so that what [university] fundamentally does, becomes, or at least 

remains, at a much higher level. That is why we increasingly […] carefully choose international 

partners, […] we control in some way or follow guidelines, i.e. excellence, quality. […] we choose 

strategic partners from whom we can get the most and with whom we can significantly upgrade and 

improve our core processes” (Interview 2).  

In this context, Interviewee 4 adds that it is important to plan international activities more 

broadly and holistically because “[…] if you have very little [international] experience, they are like 

some little interesting thing. If they are permanent, they become part of the process and change the 

operation of the university as a whole. Intensity turns the exotic into a principle. [...] It is very 

inappropriate if [university's international activities are not holistically] coordinated.”  

 

DISCUSSION  

The internationalization of higher education has gained increasing significance over the past 

three decades, transitioning from a peripheral concern to the core of the concept. As emphasized by 

Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009), the global and international context has become 

progressively vital in the twenty-first century, further fueled by the development of artificial 

intelligence and advanced utilization of information and communication technology. In this context, 

various drivers, motives, and meanings are ascribed to internationalization in higher education and 

its associated concepts. A comprehensive understanding of the concept of internationalization in 

higher education, as well as related concepts and the motives behind it, is essential for effective 

planning, implementation, and achievement of its objectives. 

Within the theoretical introduction, this article clarifies the conceptual issues related to the 

internationalization of higher education and presents the underlying motives and drivers. These 

should be perceived as instrumental in achieving higher objectives, such as enhancing the quality of 

higher education systems and various services (van der Wende, 1997). These foundations set the basis 

for presenting key findings from interviews involving representatives of the management of three 

Slovenian universities and national institutions at the higher education level in Slovenia. 

The interviewees underscored the significance and driving forces behind internationalization 

(and globalization) in higher education, primarily in terms of improving the quality of research and 

pedagogical processes or the overall performance of higher education organizations. Notable 



MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED 

DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

24 

 

advantages of internationalization in the educational process include the modernization of pedagogy, 

the development of intercultural and various soft competencies (e.g., communication skills, 

collaborative work, and strategic thinking), and increased awareness of global issues among students 

and staff. 

Additionally, participants at the university level expressed the considerable importance of 

internationalization, closely intertwined with all other university activities. However, as emphasized 

by Interviewee 3, the meaning attributed to internationalization at the university level depends on the 

management’s experience with internationalization and, consequently, how much importance the 

university management places on it. 

It is important to note that the findings of the article cannot be generalized, given the limited 

number of representatives from the university management included in the interviews, conducted 

solely among the management of universities in one country – Slovenia. Nonetheless, the article 

presents some general insights into the management perceptions about the motives and importance 

of internationalization in higher education, serving as a foundation for further, more detailed analyses. 

Given the challenges and trends in modern higher education influenced by rapidly changing realities 

and technologies, a thorough understanding and identification of the drivers, motives, and reasons for 

internationalization, and the importance universities attach to it, are crucial. This understanding 

significantly influences the strategic planning of universities and the implementation of international 

activities in university practices. 

 

REFERENCES  

1. Adams, T., & de Wit, H. (2011). Global Competition in Higher Education - A Comparative 

Study of Policies, Rationales and Practices in Australia and Europe. In H. de Wit (Ed.), 

Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education (pp. 29–38). 

Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management. 

2. Altbach, G. P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education, 

Tracking an Academic Revolution. Boston: Center for International Higher Education, Boston 

College. 

3. Aškerc Zadravec, K. (2021). Mednarodna razsežnost kurikuluma v visokošolskih študijskih 

programih. PhD Thesis. Ljubljana: Faculty of Education. 

4. Aškerc Zadravec, K. (2023). Online international learning at Slovene higher education 

institutions. AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, 1(2023), 78–90. 

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v17i1.5749 

5. Beck, U. (2003). Kaj je globalizacija? Zmote globalizma – odgovori na globalizacijo. 

Ljubljana: Krtina. 

6. Brandenburg, U., & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. In H. de Wit (Ed.), 

Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education (pp. 27–29). 

Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management. 

7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London: 

Routledge. 

8. de Wit, H. (1998). Rationales for Internationalisation of Higher Education: Polytechnic 

Institute of Viseu. Retrieved from http://www.ipv.pt/millenium/wit11.html 

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v17i1.5749


Katarina AŠKERC ZADRAVEC 

25 

 

9. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America 

and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT and London: 

Greenwood Press. 

10. de Wit, H. (2011a). Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education [introduction 

to online monograph]. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 8(2), 

241–248. Retrieved from http://rusc.uoc.edu/rusc/ca/index.php/rusc/article/download/v8n2-

globalizacion-e-internacionalizacion-de-la-educacion-superior/1247-2213-1-PB.pdf 

11. de Wit, H. (2011b). Global Citizenship and Study Abroad – A European Comparative 

Perspective. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Trends, issues and challenges in internationalisation of higher 

education (pp. 77–92). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CAREM. 

12. de Wit, F., Hunter, L., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (Eds.). (2015). Internationalisation of 

higher education. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. 

13. Freeman, M., Treleaven, L., Ramburuth, P., Leask, B., Caulfield, N., Simpson, L., Ridings, 

S., & Sykes, C. (2009). Embedding the development of intercultural competence in Business 

education. Canberra: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. 

14. Green, M. F. (2012). Measuring and assessing Internationalization. Washington: NAFSA – 

Association of International Educators. 

15. Hénard, F., Diamond, L., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to Internationalisation and 

Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, A Guide for Higher 

Education Institutions. Paris: OECD. 

16. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. 

Washington, DC: NAFSA - Association of International Educators. 

17. Kadlec, Ž. & Jukić, M. (2023).  Globalization as a support for the growth and development of 

students. AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, 1(2023), 130–142. 

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v17i1.5753 

18. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau 

for International Education. 

19. Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of Higher Education. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), 

Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education (pp. 13–60). Paris: OECD. 

20. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. 

Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 

21. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalisation. 

Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 

22. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. 

Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. 

23. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education – 

Education Working Paper No. 8. Paris: OECD Publishing. 

24. Maringe, F., & Foskett, N. (2010). Globalization and Internationalization in Higher 

Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum 

International Publishing Group. 

25. Marmolejo, F. (2010, September). Internationalization of Higher Education: The Good, the 

Bad, and the Unexpected. Retrieved from 

https://doi.org/10.15837/aijjs.v17i1.5753


MANAGING INTERNATIONALIZATION AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: ASSIGNED 

DRIVERS AND PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE 

 

26 

 

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/internationalization–of–highereducation–the–

good–the–bad–and–the–unexpected/27512 

26. Middlehurst, R., & Woodfield, S. (2007). Research project report 05/06: Responding to the 

Internationalization Agenda – Implications for Institutional Strategy. Higher Education 

Academy Research Report. Retrieved from https://s3.eu–west–

2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe–document–

manager/documents/hea/private/web0582_responding_to_the_internationalisation_agenda_

1568036875.pdf 

27. Rumbley, L. E. (2020). Coping with COVID–19: International higher education in Europe. 

Amsterdam: The European Association for International Education (EAIE). 

28. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher 

Education, 8(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41 

29. Teichler, U. (2010). Internationalising Higher Education: Debates and Changes in Europe. In 

D. Mattheou (Ed.), Changing Educational Landscapes. Dordrecht: Springer. 

30. van der Wende, M. (1997). Internationalising the curriculum in Dutch higher education: An 

international comparative perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(2), 

53–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831539700100204 

31. World Health Organization. (2020, April). WHO Director–General’s opening remarks at the 

media briefing on COVID–19 – 11 March 2020. Retrieved from 

https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who–director–general–s–opening–remarks–at–the–

media–briefing–on–covid–19–––11–march–2020  

32. Zgaga, P. (2009, January). Edukacija za ‘boljši svet’: Od kozmopolitizma preko 

internacionalizma do globalizma. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Retrieved from 

http://www.pei.si/UserFilesUpload/file/zalozba/ZnanstvenaPorocila/20_09_edukacijeZaBolj

siSvet.pdf 

33. Zgaga, P., Teichler, U., & Brennan, J. (2013). Challenges for European Higher Education: 

‘Global’ and ‘National’, ‘Europe’ and ‘sub–Europes’. In P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, & J. Brennan 

(Eds.), The Globalisation Challenge for European Higher Education: Convergence and 

Diversity, Centres and Peripheries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 

 

INTERVIEWS 

1. Interview 1: Representative of the Slovene national institution in the field of higher education 

(March 5, 2020). 

2. Interview 2: Representative of the University 1 (March 12, 2020).  

3. Interview 3: Representative of the Slovene national institution in the field of higher education 

(March 5, 2020, and July 28, 2020).  

4. Interview 4: Representative of the University 2 (March 6, 2020, and July 19, 2020).  

5. Interview 5: Representative of the University 3 (February 6, 2020).  

6. Interview 6: Representative of the Slovene national institution in the field of higher education 

(December 17, 2019, and July 24, 2020).  


