Does internationalisation at a distance democratise student mobility? Critical insights from the Asia‐Pacific region

Abstract This paper examines the perspectives of educators on whether internationalisation at a distance (IaD) democratises student mobility in higher education. Adopting a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the analysis focuses on the perspectives of educators involved in virtual mobility practices in relation to three prompts: (1) IaD's capacity for democratisation, (2) IaD practices and the achievement of more equitable, accessible and inclusive education and (3) tensions that emerge from implementing IaD practices in institutional contexts. Applying a three‐dimensional theory of justice that supports parity of participation in social life ( Scales of Justice , 2009), this paper explores educators' perceptions of IaD's potential to democratise student mobility. The findings demonstrate beliefs that IaD can only democratise student mobility to a certain extent. As educators embrace IaD as a set of inclusive and equitable practices, they also question the unequal availability of material, social and cultural resources that could realise the potential of IaD for students. Situated within IaD discourses in the Asia‐Pacific region, which have received little attention in the broader research field of virtual mobility, this paper reinforces the emerging recognition of the fundamental yet often overlooked tensions between internationalisation and democratisation. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Internationalisation at a distance (IaD) is a growing practice in higher education internationalisation where students learn in their ‘home country’ aided by digital technologies with curriculum and educators located in a different geographical location. IaD blurs the boundaries of internationalisation and brings into question binaries such as ‘international/domestic’, ‘home/abroad’ and ‘geographic/virtual’, while inviting researchers, educators and institutions to rethink how they can reframe their internationalisation efforts. What this paper adds This paper probes the extent to which IaD can be seen as a more democratic form of student mobility, particularly in relation to addressing unequal participation of students in geographic mobility experiences. It shows that the potential of IaD to be democratising can be conflated into inclusive and equitable discourses without necessarily addressing structural, cultural and social barriers to student mobility. The paper highlights that IaD is best placed to address issues of distribution when it comes to ensuring students full parity of participation in mobility experiences. In this sense, IaD supports more students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with a disability to be able to participate fully in the educational, cultural and social gains afforded by internationalisation. The paper demonstrates IaD is not equipped to address issues of recognition and representation when it comes to ensuring students full parity of participation in mobility experiences. There is very little change to the locus of decision‐making regarding which mobility experiences are available to which students in IaD. Implications for practice and/or policy The paper recognises the potential of IaD as an internationalisation practice that shifts the deficit discourses surrounding virtual mobility and can enable wider access to mobility experiences. Practitioners in internationalisation efforts should consider what other mechanisms and initiatives need to be established institutionally to complement the potential of IaD, particularly mechanisms and initiatives around material, cultural and social resources that are unequally distributed and negatively impact students when it comes to mobility experiences. There is a pressing need to rethink IaD not as a ‘saviour’ or ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ for all the injustices that are part of internationalisation practices in higher education institutions. IaD is a step in the right direction that still requires a significant shift in power dynamics to allow parity in decision‐making for institutions outside privileged Global North contexts.