International student mobility has long been positioned as a strategic tool for strengthening European integration, enhancing employability, and fostering intercultural understanding (Carrozza et al., 2017; European Commission, 2021). Within the framework of the European Higher Education Area, student mobility is promoted not only as an individual learning opportunity but also as a mechanism for economic competitiveness and social cohesion (Carrozza et al., 2017; Kmiotek-Meier et al., 2019; Launikari et al., 2020). Nevertheless, extensive empirical research demonstrates that access to international mobility remains highly unequal, reflecting persistent socio-economic, institutional, and structural disparities across Europe (Netz, 2015; Netz, 2021; Roy et al, 2022).

The research objective is to examine how higher education institutions in Europe shape participation in international student mobility and contribute to the reproduction or mitigation of the mobility gap. While previous studies have predominantly focused on individual-level determinants, such as students’ socio-economic background or motivation, this study focuses on the institutional dimension, conceptualising universities as active agents in mobility governance rather than passive policy implementers.

The research is guided by two questions:

(1) What macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors contribute to unequal participation in international student mobility in Europe?

(2) Which institutional practices and organisational features support or hinder inclusive access to mobility opportunities?

The conceptual framework adopts a multi-level perspective integrating macro-level policy environments, meso-level institutional dynamics, and micro-level student-related factors (Renn & Smith, 2023). At the macro level, the study draws on scholarship on European integration and the internationalisation of higher education, highlighting how supranational policy objectives influence national and institutional agendas (Knight, 2008; Launikari et al., 2020). At the meso level, institutional theory and higher education research inform the analysis of organisational practices, including internationalisation strategies, administrative procedures, selection criteria, funding mechanisms, curricular integration, and support services (Van Mol, 2017; Schnepf et al., 2020; Schnepf et al., 2022). Prior studies demonstrate that merit-based selection systems, limited funding, and weak curricular integration may inadvertently reinforce socio-economic inequalities.

At the micro level, the study acknowledges well-documented individual barriers such as financial constraints, social ties, and psychological factors (Cairns et al., 2018; Morley & Cunningham, 2021), while emphasising that institutional environments can significantly amplify or counterbalance these disadvantages.

This study employs a mixed-methods design combining a systematic scoping review and a cross-national survey to explore institutional and student-level factors influencing participation in international student mobility. The scoping review followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and synthesised European and international literature published between 2015 and 2024. The objective of a scoping review is to extract as much relevant data as possible from the existing literature. This implies that the information collated encompasses not only the results of the studies reviewed, but also the methodology and variables employed (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). A further objective of a scoping review is to provide an overview of the subject area and a comprehensive account of the research and analysis that have been conducted on the issue. The empirical phase consisted of an online survey conducted in 2024 among higher education staff involved in mobility programmes and internationalisation strategies. Purposive sampling was applied to capture expert perspectives from practitioners with operational and strategic responsibilities (Kasza et al., 2024). The questionnaire addressed institutional characteristics, organisational practices, perceived barriers to mobility, and data management approaches. After data cleaning, 103 valid responses from 16 European countries were analysed using descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis, enabling the identification of key institutional dimensions influencing inclusive mobility participation (Schnepf et al., 2022). By integrating systematic literature review findings (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) with empirical evidence from a cross-national survey of university staff (Kasza et al., 2024), the study aims to contribute to scholarly debates on equity and internationalisation while offering practical insights for institutional leaders and policymakers. The third phase of the research involves conducting semi-structured interviews with university staff members responsible for international student mobility at five European universities. The objective of this phase is to gain a deeper understanding of institutional practices and organisational characteristics that shape participation in international mobility.

The findings confirm that unequal participation in international student mobility cannot be attributed solely to individual student characteristics but is deeply embedded in institutional structures and practices (Schnepf & Colagrossi, 2020; Schnepf et al., 2022). Transparent administrative procedures, early and continuous promotion of mobility, comprehensive preparation, and diversified mobility portfolios emerge as critical enablers of inclusive participation (Souto-Otero et al., 2023). According this study, university staff consistently identified insufficient funding, cost-related concerns, and risks related to employment or income loss as key obstacles, strengthening prior research based on student perspectives (Kasza et al., 2024). The analysis also reveals substantial differences between universities in how they address the mobility gap, largely driven by the presence or absence of a clear strategic approach. Institutions with explicit goals are more likely to recognise student diversity, ensure inclusive access across socio-economic backgrounds, and adapt their strategies in response to external challenges. Overall, the findings underscore that strategic commitment, effective data management, and inclusive institutional practices are key determinants of how successfully universities can address inequalities in international student mobility. The study contributes to European-level debates on inclusion and internationalisation by demonstrating that embedding inclusivity into institutional strategies is essential for ensuring that international student mobility functions as a tool for social cohesion and educational equity rather than elite reproduction.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. Cairns, D., Krzaklewska, E., Cuzzocrea, V., & Allaste, A.-A. (2018). Mobility, Education and Employability in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan. Carrozza, C., Minerva, G. A., & Santangelo, G. D. (2017). Globalisation, higher education and student mobility. Higher Education, 73(1), 1–17. European Commission. (2021). Erasmus+ Annual Report 2021. Publications Office of the European Union. Kasza, G., Erdei, L. A., Szulovszky, M., Laczik, D., & Dorner, H. (2024). Understanding and Addressing the Mobility Gap in Higher Education: Insights from the EGAP Survey 2024. Eötvös Loránd University. Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Sense Publishers. Kmiotek-Meier, E., Karl, U., & Powell, J. J. W. (2019). The role of higher education institutions in student mobility. European Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 215–235. Launikari, M., Knight, J., & Kälvemark, T. (2020). Internationalisation of higher education: Global trends and European responses. Higher Education Policy, 33(1), 1–15. Morley, L., & Cunningham, R. (2021). International Student Mobility, Equity and Inclusion. University of Sussex. Netz, N. (2015). What deters students from studying abroad? Evidence from Germany. Higher Education, 69(1), 97–115. Schnepf, S. V., & Colagrossi, M. (2020). Is unequal uptake of Erasmus mobility really only due to students’ background? European Educational Research Journal, 19(6), 1–21. Schnepf, S. V., Di Pietro, G., & Colagrossi, M. (2022). University characteristics and social inequalities in international mobility. Higher Education, 84(1), 1–23. Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., & Vujic, S. (2023). Barriers to international mobility in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 48(3), 1–16. Van Mol, C. (2017). Do Erasmus students constitute a European elite? European Journal of Education, 52(4), 1–14.