The international education (IE) market has 5.3 million students studying outside their home country (OECD 2019). The US, UK, Canada and Australia are top destination choices, contributing to student diversity. International students (IS) have benefitted provider country’s economically, socially and politically and through soft power (Byrne and Hall 2013). IE as Australia’s largest services export created 250,000 jobs for Australians in services (tourism, accommodation, transport, hospitality, entertainment and retail). Australian universities have become financially dependent on IS to fund research and domestic student expansion (30.7% of students are international and one third from China) (Marshman & Larkins 2020, Aust Gov 2020) and therefore impacted by border closures (Ziguras and Tran 2020).

Student mobility has increasingly become subject to turbulence in politics, culture, economics, natural disasters, and public health (Tran 2020, Sharma and Leung 2017). Australian universities vulnerability resulted from convergence of Covid travel restrictions, regional and global shifts in international relations, and increasing inward-looking nationalism (Blackmore 2020, Tran 2020b). IS mobility depends on multiple intersecting and unexpected factors:- rapid changes geopolitically (eg. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), China’s increased aggression in Indo-Pacific and exertion of soft power internationally (Ren 2020, He 2019) and significant global  and regional reconfigurations of political alliances (e.g AUKUS) (He 2020), and post Covid recovery of nation states (Ross 2020, Mittelmeyer 2020).  

The overarching three-year Australian Research Council project from which this paper is drawn investigates both inward and outward flows of IS within this complex geopolitical context (Marginson et al. 2010, Potts 2015; Tran  2020). It considers the geopolitics and perceptions of risk (political, economic and health security) of the various stakeholders (students, universities, governments). The project examines (i) Australian and foreign universities’ policy responses related to transnational student mobilities, international partnerships and global engagement, and (ii) how student perceptions of risk (health security, safety of host and home countries and geopolitical context) will inform study destination choices in the future.

This paper focuses on (i). It charts the wider geopolitical contexts over time which have shaped transnational education and focuses on current trends in student mobility with a particular focus on China, India and Vietnam as key providers of students to Australia. It considers how each of these countries have viewed internationalisation of education (He and Wilkins 2018), how international education has been weaponised and how policy responses to rising security concerns impact on universities and academic collaboration (Li 2009, Hunter 2019, Luqui and McCarthy 2019, Osborne and Gredley 2020, Bagshaw 2020). 

 The paper is framed by Beck’s conceptualisation of a ‘world risk society’.  This allows us to examine the different scales of geo-politics of IS and the multilayered personal, familial, institutional, national and international perspectives that inform IE choices. Beck’s frame enables a nuanced understanding across all these scales from the individual risk to a particular student to the national risks of geopolitics and to institutional risk. The choice for individual students, universities and governments is between different risky alternatives (Beck 2013:7). Contrary to the technical science of risk (‘statistical mathematical identification, causal hypothesis, prognostic models, group variations in perception) which assumes an expert/ lay separation, Beck’s frame comprises ‘subjective risk’ (individual reaction, response or judgement where prejudices and fears intervene) and ‘cultural perception of risk’ informed by national politics and contexts(Beck 2013:10). The lay/expert separation is disintegrating because the less calculable the risk is, the more subjective/cultural perceptions dominate, albeit with national differences. Cultural perceptions of risk clash with technical risk in social media, although ‘cultures’ are forcibly united into shared risk (eg public health) with social media and science making the perception of risk more acute and ‘collectively visible’ (Beck, 2013:8).

The overarching project’s multi-method design from which this paper is drawn provides insights into how student mobility in the future is viewed (socially, educationally, economically and diplomatically) from multiple stakeholder perspectives: students, parents, universities, government representatives and peak professional agencies from home and host countries. It is a comprehensive study of the effects of geopolitical tensions on inbound and outbound student mobilities. Sample of countries: China, India and Vietnam are the 1st, 2nd and 5th sending countries of IS respectively for Australia (Aus. Gov. 2020). Reciprocally, China, India and Vietnam are the 1st, 4th and 5th host destinations in the Indo-Pacific respectively for Australian outbound students (AUIDF 2019). Approach: Following on an initial background historical analysis of the geopolitics of international education the project will combine this with the analysis of policy, IS visa statistics and media, surveys, interviews, and co-design namely: (i) 176 interviews with international and domestic students, parents, selected university and government representatives; (ii) two surveys with international and domestic students learning abroad (N= 2,000 and 1,000 respectively); and (iii) analysis of policy, media data and visa data, in order(Rong and Vu 2012, Overbey et al 2017)to (iv) co-design critical response resources. The multimethod design enriches explanations by using combined numeric and fieldwork data, addresses issues of scale and depth, and recognises the significance of policy contexts across nations. Four analyses will be conducted to generate multi-dimensional insights (i) Conceptual clustering to generate a comparative matrix to identify individual and group patterns in the responses of peak professional bodies, government representatives, universities, staff and students; (ii) Thematic analysis to identify substantive, conceptual and temporal patterns in staff and IS narratives using Helsloot and Jong’s (2006) three Domains; (iii) Critical incident analysis to identify patterns in the categories of critical incidents across the sample and the relationships between the micro (individual) and macro (groups, institutions and countries and contexts); and (iv) Critical policy analysis to interrogate any shifts in how changing geopolitics informs Australian, Chinese, Indian and Vietnamese source country policies on student mobility. This paper focuses on (iv). This paper draws from the literature in transnational education, international relations, policy and media studies and undertakes an historically informed critical policy analysis and approaches to international education ins India, China, Vietnam and Australian in the context of the shifting geopolitics of old/new alliances and global repositioning of each country.

This critical historical analysis of the geopolitics focuses on the policy responses in Australia, India, China and Vietnam and. the implications for IE. • IE is re-positioned, both in terms of opportunities and costs, taking into consideration the potential return to great power politics with the potential US repositioning in the Indo-Pacific region and recent intensified regional tensions between China and Australia, India and Vietnam. • Covid intensified Sino-Australian tensions, disputes over China/India borders, and between China and Vietnam over the South China Sea. • India’s focus has moved from massification of higher education to developing quality but still lacks capacity to meet demand, • Vietnam is seeking to improve the quality of teaching and research, all policy foci therefore encouraging student mobility • UK, US and Australian universities active in IE are seeking to diversify student flows by re-focusing on India and Vietnam but each source and provider country has their own political, HE and regional agendas. • China’s policies aim for a reverse diaspora to recall skilled international graduates • strengthening of Australian university partnerships with Vietnam and among strategic allies in the Indo Pacific • US weaponization of research in medical and AI, discouraging research collaboration with China • While aware of the dangers, international student flows inward to UK, Canada, Australia have returned to 2019 numbers, with visa rules, graduate employability and migration key factors in student choice of destination. (IDP Connect 2019)

Australian Government (2020) International Students. Bagshaw, E. et al. (2020). 'Chinese students will not go there': Beijing education agents warn Australia. Sydney Morning Herald, June 10 Beck, U. (2013). World risk society. USA: Polity Byrne, C., & Hall, R. (2013). Realising Australia’s IE as public diplomacy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 419–38; Blackmore, J. (2020). The carelessness of entrepreneurial universities in a world risk society: The impact of Covid 19 in Australia, HE Research & Development, 39(7), 1332-6; He, B. (2020). Regionalism as an instrument for global power contestation: The case of China. Asian Studies Review, 44(1), 79-96; Helsloot, I., & Jong, W. (2006). Risk management in HE and research in the Netherlands, J. of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(3), 142-159; Hunter, F. (2019). Foreign influence showdown as universities decline to register China-funded Confucius Institutes. Sydney Morning Herald, March 21 IDP Connect (2019). International student and parent buyer behavior research; Lehmann, A. (2020, Aug 10). What we have lost: IE and public diplomacy. The Interpreter; Li, M. (2009). Soft power: China's emerging strategy in international politics, UK: Lexington; Luqui, L., & McCarthy (2019). Confucius institutes: The successful stealth “soft power” penetration of American universities. J. of HE, 90(4), 620-643; Marginson, S., & Yang, L. (2020). HE and public good in East and West. UK: University of Oxford; Marshman, I., & Larkins, F. (2020). Modelling individual Australian universities resilience in managing overseas student revenue losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. Centre for HE; Mittelmeyer, J. et al. (2020). Why IS are choosing the UK - despite coronavirus, The Conversation, Oct 6 Osborne, P., & Gredley, R. (2020,). Universities baulk at foreign deal laws. Campus Review, Oct 14 Sharma, Y., & Leung, M. (2017). Geopolitics are hitting Chinese student flows in Asia. University World News, Aug 31. Tran, L. (2020b, Jun 20). How to secure recovery of IS mobility. University World News; Overbey, L. et al. (2017). Linking Twitter sentiment and event data to monitor public opinion of geopolitical developments and trends. In D. Lee et al. (Ed.), Social, cultural & behavioral modelling, vol 10354, 223–229 Ziguras, C. & Tran, L. (2020). Coronavirus outbreak is the biggest crisis ever to hit IE, The Conversation. Feb 6