From the beginning of the 21^st century, especially after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the digitalization process of higher education has been accelerated worldwide, and the inclusion of virtual dimension in internationalisation actions has also gained momentum in academic practices and discussions (Woicolesco et al., 2022) thereby emerging different definitions and exerting a multifaceted impact on internationalisation practices. While the academia kept monitoring the approaches, rationales, activities or stakeholders of internationalisation of higher education, the most accepted definition of internationalisation of higher education was put forward by J. Knight (2004) as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural and global dimension in the purpose, functions, delivery of postsecondary education.’ This definition was later revised and enriched by de Wit et al. (2015), with emphasis on the ‘intentional’ process as well as its benefit for ‘all students and staff’ instead of the mobile few. Based on the Knight’s definition, Bruhn et al., (2020) has proposed to view virtual internationalisation as ‘the process of introducing an international, intercultural, or global dimensions into the delivery, purpose or functions of higher education with the help of ICT’. Recently, Liu (2020) also scrutinized Knight's (2004) definition under Chinese context, and highlighted the Chinese national goal as the purpose and functions of Chinese higher education universities for internationalisation.

In addition to varying definitions of virtual internationalization, the digital age has also embraced changes and brought new possibilities for future internationalisation efforts in many areas (Rajagopal et al., 2020). In terms of virtual course delivery, researchers highlighted the enriched access to unprecedented wealth of online information, tools and services and global knowledge in the digital age, which brought benefits both for education and research (Bruhn et al., 2020; Kobzhev et al., 2020; Moore & Kearsley, 2012; Saykili, 2019). Meanwhile, researchers stressed the addition of an international dimension to educational experiences and more possibilities and forms for internationalisation at home or internationalisation of curriculum in the virtual environment (Bruhn, 2017; de Wit & Hunter, 2015; Kobzhev et al., 2020; Woicolesco et al., 2022). However, as Saykili (2019) quoted, knowledge access and dissemination roles are shifting away from higher education at social level. Amirault & Visser (2010) observed the lack of recognition of virtual internationalisation, which made the virtual mobility programs difficult to benefit from the same advantages as in the offline environment, such as recognition of credits, credits transfer, accreditation, etc.

While previous studies have abundant discussion on the possibilities provided by the digital age for internationalisation, new initiatives continue to emerge and thrive globally, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relevant studies in the post-pandemic period are still in scarcity. Meanwhile, De Wit & Jones (2022) called for a global cooperative strategy to better understand the multifaceted aspects of internationalisation by involving higher education stakeholders in various contexts. Academic members, as major components of the higher education system, have crucial role for the successful initiation and implementation of virtual internationalisation. This indicates a need to understand the various perceptions of virtual internationalization theoretically and practically from academic members in higher education from various contexts. To provide more up-to-date data for future studies as well as a response to this call, this study aims to explore the perceptions of academic members from a diverse context about virtual internationalization   

The research objectives that guided this study are: 

(1) What is virtual internationalisation as perceived by academic staff members in higher education?

(2) What are the new possibilities for internationalisation in this digital age as perceived by academic staff members in higher education?

The present study applied a qualitative research approach to examine virtual internationalisation from the perspectives of academic staff members in higher education institutions. In this study, focus group was adopted as the research method and eight focus groups (five virtual, three face-to-face) were conducted with 46 participants from five countries. The participants are not randomly sampled as this research was conducted under the framework of an EU Erasmus project. The participants were coming from the project partner institutions and related HEIs. The 8 focus groups consisted of participants from five countries (namely Belgium, Portugal, Austria, Turkey and China). All participants were academic members from higher education institutions, including academic leaders (such as head of research groups, director of research centers, rector/dean/vice dean), teaching staff (professor/associate professor/lecturer), or researchers. Among the focus groups, three were conducted face-to-face; and five were conducted online. Each focus group interview lasted about 50-60 minutes. All the sessions were audio-recorded with the permission of the participants and later transcribed verbatim. The authors created a coding frame to transform the data into meaningful, manageable, and smaller units as known as codes (Schreier, 2014). This is followed by the processes of structuring main categories and generating the subcategories for each main category (Mayring, 2014). Linked to that, the authors had frequent meetings to discuss the coding frame to analyse the data correctly and comprehensively (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 1994). They also reached a consensus on themes, sub-themes and codes and resolved any disagreements (Wigginton, Meurk, Ford, & Gartner, 2017). To ensure the inter-rater reliability, the first two authors read all the transcripts on multiple occasions with a view of performing a content analysis on the data. They also coded the data individually and then checked the extent to which they agree (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017). This assisted with assessing any potential discrepancies in the coding (of which none were identified) and to develop further codes (Campbell et al., 2013). Additionally, all the authors were involved in this study to reach multiple observations and conclusions so that investigator triangulation could be achieved. This kind of triangulation provided not only confirmation of the findings from different perspectives, but also an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of interest (Denzin, 1978).

As a response to the call of the previous studies (Bruhn, 2017; Kobzhev, et al., 2020; Villar-Onrubia & Rajpal, 2015), this study makes several contributions to understand Virtual Internationalisation in a comprehensive framework. Thus, it conceptualises a framework that includes the various ways in which ICTs can be used for internationalisation of HE. Among those are the conceptualisation of VI and the changes in the digital age. The findings provided empirical evidence on the definition of virtual internationalisation by moving beyond that of Bruhn (2017); Knight (2013) and Kobzhev et al., (2020). In addition to the international, intercultural, and global dimensions in those studies, the results of this study present the importance of the sustainable development as perceived by academic leaders and staff. This comprehensive definition could be used in future research to better assess the possibilities of intersecting internationalisation and ICT. With a deeper investigation of the recent studies (Reimers, 2021), this study presents that higher education institutions in the digital era are playing some crucial roles for the success of international competitiveness and technological development of societies. As digitalisation, and an expansion of flexible distance provision continue to be popular trends, it would be worthwhile further investigating the changes in internationalisation. With its diverse context including countries such as Belgium, Portugal, Austria, Turkey and China, this paper serves as a steppingstone for social inclusion, which the combined forms of course delivery, accessibility to different resources and new cultural environment expand the possibilities for virtual internationalisation.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Amirault, R., & Visser, Y. (2010). The impact of E-learning Programs on the Internationalization of the University. In The Impact of E-Learning Programs on the Internationalization of the University (pp. 1–58). Bruhn, E. (2017). Towards a Framework for Virtual Internationalization. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 32(1). Bruhn, E., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kalz, M. (2020). Virtual internationalization in higher education. wbv Media. de Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83, Article 83. Erlingsson, C. & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3): 93–99. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Kobzhev, A., Bilotserkovets, M., Fomenko, T., Gubina, O., Berestok, O., & Shcherbyna, Y. (2020). Measurement and Assessment of Virtual Internationalization Outcomes in Higher Agrarian Education. Postmodern Openings, 11(1Sup1), 78–92. Liu, W. (2020). The Chinese definition of internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1777500 Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldana, J. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd Edition). New York: SAGE Publications. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (Vol. 72). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Rajagopal, K., Firssova, O., Op de Beeck, I., Van der Stappen, E., Stoyanov, S., Henderikx, P., & Buchem, I. (2020). Learner skills in open virtual mobility. Research in Learning Technology, 28(0). Saykili, A. (2019). Higher Education in The Digital Age: The Impact of Digital Connective Technologies. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 1–15. Woicolesco, V. G., Cassol-Silva, C. C., & Morosini, M. (2022). Internationalization at Home and Virtual: A Sustainable Model for Brazilian Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 222–239.