Renewed perspective on social space, and the distinctions of space as abstract and place as embedded concept, allow a fruitful analysis of university internationalization (Larsen and Beech, 2013). In this paper, I analyze how space and place are redefined from the institutional and individual perspectives, including global, European and local references.
Universities’ institutional development could be traced through geographical references, both space and place are redefined from the Middle Ages, to the period of growing national alignment, and towards current engagement with the state along with growing outward activities.
Higher education institutions renegotiate their spatial belonging. Two important aspects of space relevant to the modern university and its functions involve the ideas of global and local. On the one hand, the university aims to position itself internationally and participates in the global competition. On the other hand, the university typically aims to perform important local functions. Hence, there is a dichotomy of alignments either with locally established or international practices. Then, I consider educational developments around internationalization. There is a unifying tendency of making higher education systems similar and educational experiences comparable; this coincides with internationalization efforts. Alternatively, there is an idea of educational benefits derived from navigating through diverse educational environments and obtaining different degrees in different countries. The lenses of space and place being redefined enhance the analysis of this internationalization reasoning.
The complex relationship with the nation-state is another aspect where spatial ideas are fruitful for analysis. This uncovers the ideas of power; for instance, the language debate reveals national vs. international controversy. On the one hand, studies in foreign language are suggested as future of educational development. On the other hand, the instruction in the national language carries an important cultural function (Wang, Ho, 2012). Teichler makes an overall claim that that some internationalization practices can bring in the devaluing of national culture, weakened academic and cultural diversity, and even neo-imperialism (Teichler 2004). Lastly, Altbach points out the inequalities in globalization, which represent a serious challenge to internationalization development. Therefore, internationalization arguments are constructed with the multidimensional geographic references. For instance, an understanding of internationalization as a response to globalization involves at least two spatial references. First, there an idea of the world as small place with limited resources; this makes competition a necessity. Yet, opportunities and strategies in participating vary. Second, there is a notion of the interconnected world; this highlights the need for the international education with a cosmopolitan claim; this discourse could also involve critical perspective on curriculum and organization of studies.
Cosmopolitan theory contains spatial references, the idea of internationalization as a common space. Sobré-Denton defines it as “a state of ‘identity without borders’ that is accessible to those able to engage in voluntary migration across multiple cultures and the subsequent intellectualization of such an experience” (Sobré-Denton, 2010, p.81). Therefore, it implies travel or organized experiences of diversity. In relation to education, this either could be a change of space (mobility), or organized space (international degree studies). This alleviates diverse ideas of knowledge production within internationalization, that are not theorized enough.