Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the internationalization trajectories of universities in China and Spain from institutional, policy, and multilevel governance perspectives. Drawing on the Triple Helix model as a theoretical framework, it examines structural differences among universities, governments, and enterprises, explores the construction of scientific cooperation networks, and analyzes the divergent and convergent logics of knowledge production. The findings show that China’s internationalization model is characterized by centralized planning, vertical governance, and concentrated resource allocation. In contrast, Spain’s model, shaped by European governance structures, is based on horizontal and multilateral cooperation. In areas such as educational quality, value-based education, and transnational cooperation mechanisms, the two systems demonstrate notable complementarity. To support the transformation of Chinese universities from “international participants” to “global co-creators of knowledge,” the study proposes several policy recommendations. These include strengthening quality assurance systems, establishing multilateral Sino-European cooperation platforms, enhancing faculty international competence, and developing mechanisms to support cultural adaptation. The study aims to provide both practical guidance and theoretical foundations to promote high-quality internationalization in Chinese higher education.
Keywords
- comparative analysis
- internationalization trajectories
- triple helix model
- governance
- knowledge co-creation
1. Introduction
In the context of globalization, higher education has emerged as a vital instrument in the competition for soft power and the international projection of states. University internationalization is no longer a secondary concern; rather, it has become a core element of institutional strategy. Spanish universities have increasingly integrated “social responsibility” and the “sustainable development goals” into their institutional missions. This reflects the multifaceted role of higher education institutions in a globalized world. A growing number of universities in Spain have incorporated sustainability, inclusion, and global cooperation into their strategic frameworks. This suggests that internationalization now encompasses more than student exchange or academic collaboration and represents a commitment to fulfilling both a social contract and a global responsibility on the part of universities [1].
China and Spain represent two paradigmatic trajectories of higher education development in Asia and Europe, respectively. Their routes and strategies for internationalization display marked differences. In recent years, China’s higher education system has experienced rapid expansion, driven by ambitious national policies. Chinese universities have adopted mechanisms such as degree evaluations, curriculum quality audits, and faculty certification schemes to improve academic standards. These efforts have contributed to attracting an increasing number of international students [2, 3]. At present, China is shifting from a phase of quantitative expansion to one of qualitative consolidation. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the World-Class University Development Plan reflect this transition [4, 5].
In contrast, Spain’s internationalization process is largely shaped by the Bologna Process and active participation in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and Erasmus Programme. These mechanisms have reinforced international cooperation on a solid institutional foundation. As a result, Spain has made significant progress in degree recognition and student mobility [6]. Additionally, Spain leverages its linguistic and cultural assets—particularly the global presence of the Spanish language and its cultural proximity to Latin America—by engaging in European scientific consortia and enhancing its influence in the global higher education system [7].
This study aims to compare the internationalization trajectories and policy responses of the Chinese and Spanish university systems in the face of globalization. It analyzes how higher education institutions respond to global challenges through their structural and institutional logics.
To guide the research, the following three core questions are proposed:
What are the similarities and differences in the institutional designs and internationalization policy trajectories of Chinese and Spanish universities?
How do international student policies and faculty international competence influence the global competitiveness of universities?
Are there points of convergence in international cooperation mechanisms that may serve as reference models for Chinese universities?
The study employs the Comparative Case Study (CCS) method, incorporating three analytical dimensions: horizontal comparison (cross-site), vertical comparison (policy–practice), and trans-scalar analysis (scale-shifting). Particular attention is given to the flows and interactions of institutional policies across multilevel governance structures [8].
Units of analysis: The selected cases in China include Peking University, Zhejiang Normal University, and Huazhong Normal University. In Spain, the study examines the University of Barcelona and the Autonomous University of Barcelona. These institutions represent both nationally recognized universities of excellence and regionally significant universities.
Horizontal comparison analyzes the similarities and differences in internationalization strategies, cooperation mechanisms, curriculum reforms, and governance structures.
Vertical comparison explores how national policies are implemented through local governments and institutional levels. Notable examples include China’s “Double First-Class” initiative and Spain’s Organic Law of the University System [9, 10].
Trans-scalar analysis investigates how internationalization policies are embedded and adapted across national, regional, and institutional levels. It also considers the tensions that arise during implementation. Relevant examples include the territorial rollout of the Erasmus Programme in Spain and the integration of the Belt and Road Initiative within Chinese universities [6, 11].
The study draws on three theoretical frameworks to deepen the analysis:
The Triple Helix Model emphasizes the collaborative relationships among universities, governments, and industries as the basis for regional innovation systems [12]. In the international context, this model helps explain how Spanish universities develop cooperation networks through public policy frameworks and partnerships with external actors.
Social Capital Theory, as developed by Bourdieu [13], underscores the significance of resources, networks, and trust in enabling collective action. This framework is especially useful for understanding how faculty members and institutions mobilize within international contexts [14].
The Mode 2 Knowledge Production model, formulated by Nowotny et al. [15], highlights the contextualized, interdisciplinary, and socially embedded nature of knowledge. It is employed in this study to examine how universities generate problem-solving knowledge and contribute to global responsibilities through international cooperation.
The data sources include official policy and regulatory documents from China and Spain [9, 16, 17, 18, 19]; institutional strategic documents, such as internationalization plans and language policies [14, 20, 21]; as well as international databases, government statistics, empirical studies, and relevant case analyses [1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].
2. Comparison of institutional foundations and the internationalization of universities in China and Spain
Given the fundamental differences in the institutional logics of the two countries, and based on the applicability of the Comparative Case Study (CCS) approach [8], this study adopts a dual analytical perspective. In the case of China, the vertical and trans-scalar dimensions are prioritized, reflecting a state-led strategic orientation and a hierarchical governance structure within its higher education system. In the case of Spain, emphasis is placed on the horizontal and trans-scalar dimensions, reflecting its deep integration into the European construction process and a longstanding institutional tradition rooted in university autonomy and networked cooperation. This dual approach enables the identification of both differences and convergences in the institutional mechanisms that shape university internationalization.
2.1 General characteristics of the Chinese and Spanish university systems
Within the CCS methodological framework, this section analyzes the structural differences between the two higher education systems and their internationalization trajectories. The analysis draws on the vertical (policy practice) and horizontal (cross-site) dimensions, incorporating insights from the Triple Helix model [12] and social capital theory [13].
From a vertical perspective, the Chinese system has developed through three major stages: the elite stage, which began in 1977 with the restoration of the national college entrance examination; the massification stage, initiated in 1999 with a rapid increase in university enrollment; and the diversification stage, which started in 2012 with the implementation of the “Double First-Class” initiative. These stages reflect a hierarchical governance structure extending from the central government to local authorities and then to individual universities [22]. The “Double First-Class” policy has strengthened state control over resource distribution and academic direction, thereby enhancing the international competitiveness of Chinese universities [2].
Legally, the
From a trans-scalar perspective, China’s internationalization policies are largely state-directed, cascading from national strategies to institutional practices. Key strategies include the Study in China Plan and the development of world-class universities. These initiatives are closely aligned with China’s broader diplomatic agenda, such as the Belt and Road Initiative [22]. The overarching goal is to internationalize Chinese educational models and resources through both “outbound” and “inbound” strategies, while also attracting global talent and educational assets [2, 5].
Social capital theory offers insight into the challenges faced by faculty and students in adapting to international environments. As Hu [4] notes, many Chinese universities have introduced English-taught courses at all academic levels. However, disparities in faculty language proficiency and limited international experience continue to hinder the quality of instruction and restrict students’ intercultural learning outcomes [5].
In contrast, the Spanish university system is characterized by horizontal collaboration and multi-level governance. According to the
On the horizontal axis, Spain is fully integrated into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and has played a key role in the Bologna Process. Its higher education system is highly standardized, featuring mutual degree recognition and the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). These mechanisms support the coherence of joint programs and collaborative research platforms. ANECA plays a pivotal role in maintaining quality standards, thereby reinforcing the international reputation of Spanish universities [7, 10].
In terms of social capital, the international experience of Spanish faculty members constitutes a major asset for institutional internationalization. Their language skills and professional networks are closely associated with active research collaboration and cross-border engagement [6]. Nevertheless, internal recruitment practices and the persistence of endogamous academic networks limit the expansion of institutional social capital, resulting in disparities in internationalization capacity across universities [23]. This indicates that even in a system based on horizontal cooperation, structural constraints can still affect the effectiveness of internationalization efforts.
From a trans-scalar perspective, programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon Europe have evolved from simple academic mobility schemes into comprehensive multilateral cooperation platforms. These programmes integrate teaching, research, and societal engagement, forming what can be described as an “ecosystem of applied internationalization.” This system aligns closely with the logic of Mode 2 knowledge production [6, 15].
3. Comparison of international student policies and university internationalization trajectories
3.1 Policy objectives and institutional mechanisms
In the context of the increasing global internationalization of higher education, both China and Spain have placed international student mobility policies at the center of their university internationalization strategies. However, significant differences remain in governance logic, institutional support mechanisms, and implementation pathways.
In China, according to the Notice on the Regulation of Work Related to the Admission of International Students issued by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [19], relevant policies reflect a highly centralized state governance model. Since the beginning of the opening-up process in 1978, and particularly since the twenty-first century, China has developed an international student recruitment system focused on developing countries and on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) member states. This system employs instruments such as the “Chinese Government Scholarship,” the “Quality Standards for International Student Education,” and the “Ten-Year Plan for International Education” [18, 22]. In 2020, the Ministry of Education, in coordination with seven other state agencies, issued the document Opinions on Accelerating and Expanding Educational Opening in the New Era, which emphasizes the strategic importance of both sending Chinese students abroad and attracting international students [11]. New regulations introduced in 2023 further strengthen the state’s leading role in cultivating international talent and promoting cultural diffusion [27].
Spain, by contrast, follows a governance model based on “university autonomy under state guidance,” with its internationalization strategy embedded within the broader framework of European multilateral governance. The Organic Law of the University System provides the legal foundation for universities’ international cooperation and promotes the mutual recognition of degrees and student mobility [9]. Through its participation in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Erasmus Programme, Spain has institutionalized international cooperation and significantly enhanced both the quality and scope of internationalization in its higher education system [6].
In terms of funding, China primarily relies on state resources and offers a wide range of scholarships, including the Chinese Government Scholarship, Confucius Institute Scholarships, and the Silk Road Programme [22]. Spain, on the other hand, benefits from European Union resources, particularly through Erasmus and Horizon Europe, which promote academic mobility and transnational cooperation [20].
Spanish universities also demonstrate systemic advantages in institutional development and adaptation mechanisms. The presence of international students is understood as an integral part of universities’ social responsibility, which underscores the importance of inclusive education and intercultural coexistence [1]. Initiatives such as bilingual programmes, integration plans, and simplified administrative procedures have improved the overall experience of international students [7].
In summary, China’s model is grounded in centralized policymaking and financial support but continues to face challenges related to language environments, curriculum structures, and student services. In contrast, Spain capitalizes on its linguistic and cultural advantages, diversified governance model, and internal internationalization strategies to foster a more consolidated and responsive international ecosystem.
3.2 Student mobility and educational impacts
In the area of student mobility, China and Spain display structural differences in both geographic distribution and academic levels. China has long been one of the world’s leading senders of international students. In 2021, over 1,021,000 Chinese students were studying abroad, although this number dropped to 661,000 in 2022 due to the pandemic [11]. At the same time, China has intensified its efforts to attract international students, particularly through the establishment of master’s and doctoral scholarships targeted at developing countries within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative [18]. Although these scholarships are highly appealing, systematic mechanisms for quality assurance and cultural integration remain underdeveloped [4].
The presence of international students in Chinese universities has also generated positive impacts. In certain classrooms, their participation has enhanced pedagogical interaction and helped broaden the international scope of academic content [2]. However, limited resources and inadequate language support continue to hinder their adaptation. Rigid curricular structures and a lack of international experience among faculty members remain significant obstacles [5, 18, 27].
In Spain, the majority of international students come from Latin America and the European Union. During the 2021–2022 academic year, the total number of international students reached 172,455, representing 10.2% of total enrollment, with 28.1% enrolled in doctoral programmes [20]. This trend is particularly evident in regions, such as Catalonia and Madrid, shaped by language policies, academic infrastructure, and regional governance arrangements [20].
The impact of international students on education systems manifests in various dimensions. On the one hand, they contribute to improving local students’ intercultural competence and global readiness [24, 25]. The Erasmus Programme in Spain has significantly enhanced students’ international exposure and intercultural communication abilities [6]. On the other hand, the presence of diverse student populations has served as a catalyst for pedagogical reform. In response to these needs, universities have expanded English-taught course offerings and improved teaching resources and methodologies [7].
3.3 Challenges and practical differences
In terms of policy execution, China advances its internationalization strategy through a top-down governance model that prioritizes regulatory coherence and centralized leadership. Despite these strengths, the model continues to face limitations related to insufficient curricular internationalization, language barriers, and restricted cultural integration. In some instances, the adoption of foreign educational models without adequate contextual adaptation has negatively affected the substantive quality of international education [2, 3, 4].
By contrast, Spanish universities benefit from a higher degree of horizontal autonomy. This allows them to independently establish international cooperation networks and respond more flexibly to evolving global dynamics [6, 28]. Spain has also expanded the use of English as a medium of instruction through its engagement in European projects, while simultaneously reinforcing educational ties with Latin America by leveraging the geolinguistic influence of the Spanish language [20].
Regarding student support mechanisms, Spain has built a more structured system that includes language assistance, intercultural training, and simplified administrative processes, thereby facilitating the integration of international students [7]. In China, although initiatives such as the Study in China Plan and international accreditation efforts have been adopted in several universities, their implementation outcomes remain uneven due to regional disparities and varying institutional capacities [18, 27].
Both China and Spain recognize the value of “soft internationalization” instruments, such as the Erasmus Programme, degree recognition agreements, and platforms for scientific cooperation. These tools promote global talent networks by enabling two-way academic mobility and the development of collaborative projects [6, 11]. Nevertheless, structural tensions persist in policy implementation, as shown by comparative studies that examine how formal policies are translated into concrete practices within specific institutional and power structures [8].
4. Cooperation mechanisms and analysis of regulatory convergences
4.1 Models of cooperation and governance trajectories
From a multi-scalar comparative analysis perspective, Spanish universities have progressively adopted the characteristics of the “Mode 2 knowledge production” model, which emphasizes interdisciplinarity, applicability, and the social embeddedness of knowledge [15]. Through participation in European programmes such as Horizon Europe, Spanish institutions have established innovation ecosystems based on cooperation among government, universities, and industry. This reflects a networked governance logic consistent with the Triple Helix model [1].
From a regulatory standpoint, the Organic Law of the University System (LOSU) grants universities the autonomy to define their own international strategies, while the EHEA and the Erasmus Programme provide an institutional framework for horizontal coordination. Forms of cooperation have become increasingly diverse, including joint degree creation, double-degree programmes, research platforms, and faculty mobility schemes. These arrangements have reinforced the integration of teaching, research, and service functions [6].
Social capital theory offers an explanatory lens to understand faculty members’ “capacity for integration” in international contexts. Faculty with strong language proficiency, prior experience in international projects, and established collaborative networks are more likely to lead cooperation initiatives, manage resources effectively, and achieve impactful outcomes [13, 23]. To address disparities in the distribution of such capital, Spain, through SEPIE (Spanish Service for the Internationalization of Education), has supported national platforms, such as Online Linguistic Support (OLS). These platforms promote ethical standards, multilingual assistance, and guidance services designed to enhance the international student experience [14].
In contrast, Chinese universities operate under vertically oriented cooperation mechanisms. International strategies are formulated by the central government through policies, such as the “Double First-Class” initiative and the document
In sum, the cooperation mechanisms present a clear contrast. China follows a vertical model oriented toward political coherence and resource centralization. Spain, in comparison, promotes a horizontal governance approach based on organizational flexibility and institutional integration. Stated differently, Spain has built a cooperatively regulated ecosystem grounded in the European framework, while China utilizes its strategic state advantage to construct a highly efficient international system. These approaches stem from distinct institutional logics but produce functionally effective outcomes within their respective contexts.
4.2 Complementary strengths and potential areas for cooperation
Despite structural differences, Chinese and Spanish universities demonstrate significant complementarities in terms of resources and institutional expertise when viewed through a horizontal governance and multi-scalar perspective. Chinese universities possess strong implementation capacity, substantial financial backing from the state, and strategic alignment. These features make them well-positioned to lead major research projects and initiatives in educational diplomacy. Spanish institutions, by contrast, offer consolidated experience in regional governance, intercultural education, and faculty social capital development [21].
Within the Mode 2 framework, notable potential exists for cooperation in areas, such as educational ethics, curriculum reform, and social responsibility. Chinese universities prioritize moral education (Lide Shuren) and ideological integration within the curriculum, placing national values at the center of educational objectives [27]. Spanish universities, meanwhile, promote an ethical approach grounded in civic education, critical thinking, and social engagement. This approach is shaped by the historical tension between Catholic heritage and secular democratic values [28]. The combination of these perspectives creates a strong foundation for designing joint programmes with shared axiological objectives.
In the area of research, thematic compatibility is evident. Spanish universities face challenges related to transdisciplinarity and the sustainability agenda [26], which align with China’s strategic focus on green development, advanced manufacturing, and global governance [28]. China has developed a strong international profile in STEM fields, while Spain is recognized for its expertise in the humanities, migration studies, and educational sciences. These complementary strengths present opportunities for developing interdisciplinary research platforms [23].
In terms of educational equity, both countries have institutionalized mechanisms to support vulnerable populations. China has introduced reforms in university admissions, targeted recruitment policies, and special programmes for rural areas [2]. Spain, for its part, has developed inclusive education policies, intercultural initiatives, and support programmes for disadvantaged groups [20]. This institutional alignment enables the co-creation of dual training programmes and professional internships designed to assist students from underrepresented backgrounds.
Regarding pedagogical strategies, both sides can expand joint projects guided by the applied principles of Mode 2. China emphasizes innovation and entrepreneurship training (shuangchuang), while Spain focuses on practice-oriented curricular models. These approaches can converge in initiatives such as international entrepreneurship campuses and transnational internship courses that promote contextualized knowledge creation and local applicability [15, 24].
Overall, Chinese and Spanish universities share fundamental values, including academic autonomy, faculty development, and student-centered learning. This convergence provides a robust foundation for building a long-term international cooperation framework rooted in mutual trust and sustained multilateral engagement.
5. Conclusions and policy recommendations
5.1 Summary of the comparative study
This study adopts the methodological framework of comparative case study research, applying a three-dimensional perspective that encompasses horizontal, vertical, and multi-scalar analysis to systematically compare the institutional logic, governance models, and international cooperation mechanisms of universities in China and Spain. By integrating the Triple Helix model, social capital theory, and the Mode 2 knowledge production paradigm, the study highlights the structural differences and potential convergences in knowledge governance, social engagement, and organizational coordination across the two systems.
From a vertical perspective, China’s higher education follows a state-led, top-down governance model, where internationalization is regarded as a national strategic priority. Spain, in contrast, exhibits a horizontal governance structure characterized by multilateral collaboration among universities, governments, and enterprises, supported by the European Higher Education Area and EU regulatory frameworks.
Regarding international student policies, China remains one of the world’s leading sending countries, but as a host destination it continues to face challenges such as language barriers, limited mechanisms for cultural integration, and a low degree of curricular internationalization. Spain, by comparison, has leveraged its linguistic and cultural advantages, the institutional support of the European Higher Education Area, and active participation in the Erasmus Programme to attract large numbers of Latin American and European master’s and doctoral students, thereby deepening academic exchange and enhancing student diversity.
In terms of international cooperation, Spanish universities exemplify the Triple Helix approach through platforms such as Erasmus Mundus and Horizon Europe, which foster deep collaboration between government, academia, and industry. Chinese universities, meanwhile, have developed a structured cooperation system under the framework of the “Double First-Class” strategy, operating through coordinated mechanisms at the national, regional, and institutional levels.
5.2 Policy recommendations
Based on the comparative analysis and theoretical frameworks employed, the following recommendations are proposed to support the international development of Chinese universities and foster deeper global engagement:
Establishing a Recognizable International Education Governance System
It is advisable to incorporate elements from the EHEA, including the development of platforms for credit recognition and quality assurance, the promotion of multilingual instruction, joint accreditation mechanisms, and the harmonization of academic standards. These measures aim to improve the transparency and international recognition of educational outcomes. This recommendation is supported by the findings of Arias-Valle et al. [1] and Zhang [18], who observe that adopting unified policies akin to those of the EHEA contributes significantly to enhancing higher education quality.
Localized Implementation of the Triple Helix Model
It is essential to promote the establishment of alliances among universities, local governments, and enterprises under national strategic guidelines, with an emphasis on key domains, such as sustainable development, educational artificial intelligence, and the energy transition. In this regard, several scholars [1, 12] emphasize that coordinated policies and alliances within this triad generate comprehensive societal benefits.
Strengthening Faculty Social Capital and International Integration Capacity
Encouraging faculty participation in short-term academic exchanges, research stays, and international collaborative projects, along with the development of multilingual training platforms, is vital for enhancing their structural positioning and collaborative agency within global knowledge networks. This approach aligns with the perspective of de Wit [14], who argues that strengthening social capital through international education and research networks enhances the overall academic quality of universities.
Expanding Multilateral Cooperation Routes and Regional Alliances
It is recommended to foster “China-Spain-Third Country” educational partnerships in regions, such as Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. This may be achieved through the development of regional doctoral programmes, academic forums, and knowledge transfer platforms that engage institutions across geographical boundaries.
Institutionalizing Joint Mechanisms and Building Shared Platforms
The establishment of a bilateral cooperation fund for higher education between China and Spain is proposed, with the purpose of financing dual-degree programmes, supporting the mobility of early-career researchers and enabling joint doctoral supervision. This initiative would mark a shift from project-based cooperation toward institutionalized collaboration, as advocated by the Fundación Conocimiento y Desarrollo [28]. Within the Mode 2 knowledge production paradigm, the creation of joint laboratories and social innovation platforms oriented toward real-world problem solving is encouraged. This approach reflects the views of Blai Guarné [26], who underscores the importance of organizational forms that connect universities with societal needs.
5.3 Future perspectives
Looking ahead, within a global context of regulatory convergence and the coexistence of local cultural diversity, international cooperation between Chinese and Spanish universities is expected to enter a new phase characterized by axiological convergence and institutional complementarity.
From an axiological perspective, both systems share fundamental values in relation to value-based education, educational equity, innovation-driven pedagogy, and civic training. These commonalities provide a robust foundation for the joint development of curricular programmes, intercultural faculty training initiatives, and the integration of shared-value content into educational practice.
In response to global trends in educational digitalization and multilateral governance, the following scenarios for innovative cooperation are envisaged:
Promoting hybrid international education through the establishment of shared global courses and interactive digital platforms;
Developing open research platforms involving multilateral participation from institutions in China, Spain, and third countries;
Building a student-centered support ecosystem, encompassing pre-admission counseling, academic guidance during studies, and effective links to labor markets.
In sum, Chinese universities have the opportunity to transition from their current role as international participants to that of global co-creators of knowledge. Realizing this transformation requires the development of an intercultural cooperation framework that combines institutional complementarity with shared values. Such a framework would foster collaborative innovation and mutual learning between China and Spain within the global architecture of higher education governance.
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the broader research framework of the first author’s doctoral dissertation.
References
- 1.
Arias-Valle MB, Berbegal-Mirabent J, Marimon F. How do socially responsible universities perform? The case of Spanish universities. TEC Empresarial. 2021; 15 (3):64-82. DOI: 10.18845/te.v15i3.5816 - 2.
Wu D. Broadening horizons: Promoting the internationalization of higher education in China. China Higher Education Research. 2023; 8 :5-12. DOI: 10.16298/j.cnki.1004-3667.2023.08.02 - 3.
Zhu K. A study on the development of higher education internationalization in China in the context of the new era. Cai Zhi. 2024; 3 :157-160. DOI: 10.13397/j.cnki.caiz.2024.03.040 - 4.
Hu W. New opportunities for development in the field of higher education internationalization and overseas education. China Foreign Trade. 2022; 11 :77-79 - 5.
Zhang Y. A study on the quality of university teachers in the context of higher education internationalization. Industry and Technology Forum. 2023; 22 (11):261-262 - 6.
Garrocho Salcedo DS. The university as purpose: A mission for our institution. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria. 2022; 34 (2):43-61. DOI: 10.14201/teri.28333 - 7.
Cerdá-Mansilla E, Álvarez I. The internationalization of Spanish universities: Patterns of collaboration, outcomes, and challenges. ICE: Economic Review. 2020; 913 :51-70. DOI: 10.32796/ice.2020.913.6984 - 8.
Bartlett L, Vavrus F. Rethinking Case Study Research: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge; 2017. DOI: 10.4324/9781315674889 - 9.
Government of Spain. Organic law of the university system (LOSU). Boletín Oficial del Estado. 2023; 64 :115278-115349 - 10.
Head of State. Organic law 2/2023 of march 22 on the university system. Boletín Oficial del Estado. 2023; 70 :1-78 - 11.
Center for China and Globalization. The Development of Chinese Students Studying Abroad (2023-2024). 2024. Available from: http://www.ccg.org.cn/archives/84288 [Accessed: April 30, 2025] - 12.
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy. 2000; 29 (2):109-123. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4 - 13.
Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, editor. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press; 1986. pp. 241-258. DOI: 10.1002/9780470755679.ch15 - 14.
de Wit H. Global: Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions. In: Understanding Higher Education Internationalization. Rotterdam, Netherlands; 2017. pp. 9-12. DOI: 10.6017/ihe.2011.64.8556 - 15.
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva. 2003; 41 (3):179-194. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025505528250 - 16.
Ministry of Education of China. National Plan for Educational Modernization. Beijing: Government of the People’s Republic of China; 2024. Available from: https://www.moe.gov.cn/ [Accessed: June 30, 2025] - 17.
Ministry of Education of Spain. Report on the Implementation of the Bologna Process: Progress in the EHEA. Madrid: Government of Spain; 2023. Available from: https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/ [Accessed: June 30, 2025] - 18.
Zhang Y. A Study on Quality Assurance Policies for International Students in China Based on Policy Text Analysis [Master’s thesis]. Dalian: Northeastern University of Finance and Economics; 2021 - 19.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Notice on Regulating Work Related to the Admission of International Students. Beijing: Ministry of Education; 2020. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-06/10/content_5518369.htm [Accessed: July 30, 2025] - 20.
Ministry of Universities. Data and Figures of the Spanish University System: 2022-2023 Publication. Madrid: Government of Spain; 2023. Available from: https://www.universidades.gob.es/ [Accessed: April 30, 2025] - 21.
Medina-García M, Higueras-Rodríguez L, García-Vita MM. Inclusive higher education and pedagogical autonomy: Analysis in two Ibero-American contexts. REICE: Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education. 2021; 19 (2):55-72. DOI: 10.15366/reice2021.19.2.004 - 22.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China; Ministry of Finance; National Development and Reform Commission. Opinions on Promoting the Construction of World-Class Universities and Disciplines. Beijing: MOE; 2017. Available from: https://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201801/t20180115_324647.html [Accessed: June 30, 2025] - 23.
De la Torre EM, Perez-Esparrells C, Romero-Madrid T. Academic inbreeding in the Spanish public university system: A review of its institutional and contextual determinants. Culture and Education. 2021; 33 (2):229-258. DOI: 10.1080/11356405.2021.1904658 - 24.
Shen W, Xu X, Wang X. Reconceptualising international academic mobility in the global knowledge system: Towards a new research agenda. Higher Education. 2022; 84 :1317-1342. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-022-00931-8 - 25.
Granja CD, Visentin F. Student international mobility and academic performance: Does timing matter? Higher Education. 2024; 65 :322-353. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-023-09755-6 - 26.
Guarné B. The future is already here: New trends in Japanese studies research in Spain. Mirai: Journal of Japanese Studies. 2022; 6 :3-10. DOI: 10.5209/mira.83062 - 27.
Liu Y, Ji G. The internationalization of higher education in China from the perspective of global governance: New interpretations and practical approaches. Fudan Education Forum. 2022; 2 :66-73. DOI: 10.13397/j.cnki.fef.2022.02.006 - 28.
Fundación Conocimiento y Desarrollo. The Challenge of Internationalizing the Spanish University. Barcelona: Fundación CYD; 2023. Available from: https://www.fundacioncyd.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/EL-RETO-DE-LA-INTERNACIONALIZACION-DE-LA-UNIVERSIDAD-ESPANOLA.pdf [Accessed: May 20, 2025]