What counts as international research collaboration? The gap between conceptualisation and operationalisation in higher education research evaluation

International research collaboration (IRC) is now a central feature of higher education systems and is increasingly used as evidence of institutional quality, research excellence, and internationalisation. IRC is usually evaluated through co-authorships, especially international co-authored publications identified through author affiliation data. Literature has typically analysed IRC through bibliometric mappings of countries, institutions, disciplines, and researchers, or by examining the determinants and effects of collaboration. Less attention has been given to the concept-operation gap: whether the indicators used to evaluate IRC adequately correspond to the broader meanings attached to collaboration in higher education policy, research evaluation, and institutional strategy. This study examines that gap through a systematic review of 723 studies from Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Social Science. It combines bibliometric mapping of the full corpus with close content analysis of a purposive subset of 94 studies and covers Chinese-language as well as English-language publications. The findings show that IRC is conceptually plural but operationally compressed. It is conceptualised as a process, relationship, orientation, output, and policy instrument, but operationalised predominantly through publication-visible indicators. Across the corpus, 97.2% of studies incorporate at least one bibliometric element, most commonly international co-authorship inferred from affiliation data. This concentration privileges formal, indexable, and publication-visible collaboration, while making capacity building, co-supervision, mentoring, informal intellectual exchange, and long-term partnership development harder to recognise. The study is novel in showing how IRC becomes a metricised governance object and calls for more reflexive approaches to evaluating international collaboration in higher education.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Higher Education
Published
2026-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-026-01788-x
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What counts as international research collaboration? The gap between conceptualisation and operationalisation in higher education research evaluation

Yusuf İkbal Oldac, Xinzi Ow Yong
Higher Education
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
article

What counts as international research collaboration? The gap between conceptualisation and operationalisation in higher education research evaluation

Yusuf İkbal Oldac, Xinzi Ow Yong
article en

Abstract

International research collaboration (IRC) is now a central feature of higher education systems and is increasingly used as evidence of institutional quality, research excellence, and internationalisation. IRC is usually evaluated through co-authorships, especially international co-authored publications identified through author affiliation data. Literature has typically analysed IRC through bibliometric mappings of countries, institutions, disciplines, and researchers, or by examining the determinants and effects of collaboration. Less attention has been given to the concept-operation gap: whether the indicators used to evaluate IRC adequately correspond to the broader meanings attached to collaboration in higher education policy, research evaluation, and institutional strategy. This study examines that gap through a systematic review of 723 studies from Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Social Science. It combines bibliometric mapping of the full corpus with close content analysis of a purposive subset of 94 studies and covers Chinese-language as well as English-language publications. The findings show that IRC is conceptually plural but operationally compressed. It is conceptualised as a process, relationship, orientation, output, and policy instrument, but operationalised predominantly through publication-visible indicators. Across the corpus, 97.2% of studies incorporate at least one bibliometric element, most commonly international co-authorship inferred from affiliation data. This concentration privileges formal, indexable, and publication-visible collaboration, while making capacity building, co-supervision, mentoring, informal intellectual exchange, and long-term partnership development harder to recognise. The study is novel in showing how IRC becomes a metricised governance object and calls for more reflexive approaches to evaluating international collaboration in higher education.

Higher Education
Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
University Grants Committee
Partnerships for the goals, Quality education
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.