Open access peer-reviewed chapter
A priori keywords.
Abstract
This chapter examines institutional way-power in higher education during COVID-19, focusing on adapting and strengthening capabilities for international higher education, creating alternative pathways and addressing global challenges. The theoretical framework utilizes stress strategies, reflexivity, discourse and adaptive structures to build institutional way-power for crisis response, radical change and enhancing service reputation in higher education institutions (HEIs). The research methodology combines documentary qualitative and constructivist grounded theoretical approaches, analyzing scholarly articles and literature reviews. Key themes are identified and data coding is carried out using 39 keywords across established search engines. The study highlights the challenges faced by HEIs in internationalization, emphasizing the importance of teaching, research, industry collaboration and integrating a global perspective. HEIs must adapt to changing circumstances, attract international students and scholars, prioritize excellence and address emerging needs to succeed. A digital approach, global programs and flexible teaching methods are essential. Crisis management requires balancing individual and societal interests, improving digital access and utilizing digital health platforms for student well-being. Symbiotic relationships and strategic partnerships are crucial strategies for overcoming financial deficits. Cultural exchange and language recognition are essential for HEIs to navigate the evolving higher education landscape and effectively tackle challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic. The crisis-ready model prioritizes institutional way-power, promoting clear goals, efficient resource allocation, adaptability and resilience. Future research should validate and refine this model using mixed methods such as surveys, interviews and case studies to enhance generalizability and understanding of the pandemic’s implications across diverse institutions.
Keywords
- higher education internationalization
- institutional reputation
- service delivery
- way-power
- crisis management
- COVID-19
- transformation
- collaborative partnerships
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges to the higher education sector, necessitating a complete transformation in institutions’ functions and interactions [1]. A fundamental re-evaluation and restructuring of institutional capabilities, pathways, activities and engagements is essential to cope with the current situation and foster sustained high levels of participation. Institutions must proactively address the multifaceted challenges arising from the pandemic and embrace innovative approaches to enhance their responsiveness to the evolving needs of students and the community. This transformative process should encompass reimagining teaching methodologies, leveraging digital technologies and adopting flexible learning models that cater to diverse learners.
This chapter contributes to the comparative education discourse by examining how higher education institutions (HEIs) across different regions—particularly in the Global North and Global South—responded to the COVID-19 crisis through internationalization strategies. It also contrasts public and private HEIs in terms of institutional way-power and crisis adaptability.
Restructuring institutional capabilities involves rethinking support systems for faculty and staff, ensuring their well-being and professional development, which is crucial for sustaining a resilient higher education system. Encouraging a supportive environment empowers educators to deliver high-quality education and maintain a sense of belonging within the academic community. Redefining pathways to accommodate various educational trajectories and empowering learners to access education that suits their circumstances is essential.
HEIs have the unique opportunity to engage with broader society in transformative ways, collaborating with industries, governments and communities to shape research and knowledge dissemination that addresses societal needs and challenges. This active involvement in the social fabric fosters a deeper connection between academia and the world, resulting in a more relevant and impactful higher education system.
A more equitable system in higher education can effectively address the challenges of the pandemic [2, 3]. Some argue that returning to pre-pandemic behavior is the best course of action, while others believe it is better to listen to the collective voices of departments before taking action [4]. The pandemic has exposed existing inequalities in higher education, and solving these issues should be the priority rather than institutional restructuring. Zuo [5] highlights new opportunities created by the pandemic, including research collaboration, education, learning and institutional governance. A synthesis of multiple perspectives may be required to develop an effective response to the challenges of the pandemic.
HEIs must adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic’s challenges by focusing on sustainability and meeting the growing demand for knowledge and professional development [6, 7, 8]. This requires tailoring the process to meet the demands of the time and balancing the transnationalization of HEIs with national and local embeddedness [9, 10]. HEIS must have institutional way-power to devise alternative pathways, develop approaches to recovering from the crisis and establish protective measures and contingency plans [6].
This adaptation and even transformation should be intentional and immediate, taking into account current trends to mitigate disruptive effects [2, 4, 11, 12, 13]. It enables institutions to be more agile and responsive in navigating the pandemic’s complexities. Institutional way-power can facilitate the development of innovative solutions and strategies to address existing inequalities in higher education, creating a more equitable, accessible and inclusive learning environment. In a competitive global higher education environment, way-power can also address the critical concern of “access to what?” and contribute to the local and common global good by utilizing knowledge creation to benefit people worldwide [3, 14]. Despite differing opinions on how to deal with the challenges, approaches and alternatives in teaching, research and outreach caused by the pandemic, institutional way-power remains a decisive factor for transformation in HEIs [2].
This chapter highlights the importance of “institutional way-power” in enabling transformation and transition during times of crisis or turbulence, particularly for HEIs to contribute to sustainability goals and new realities. The crisis is testing HEI’s autonomy to transform quickly and effectively [15], and research by Wang and Hutchins [16] reveals that contingency plans developed by organizations, including academia, rarely consider scenarios outside traditional parameters. The study is based on recommendations from Zuo [5], Crawford [7] and Benito et al. [11], urging “the re-emergence of integrated literature that considers how sustainability, learning and ‘newness’ is to be achieved in the new normal”. Although the concept “way-power” is seldom discussed in the literature, institutional way-power refers to the ability to devise alternative pathways and contingency plans to achieve objectives consistent with the nature of the obstacles or crisis experienced, to meet stakeholder expectations and to create the capacity to meet global challenges [2, 13, 17, 18].
Countries at different development levels have faced crises like the COVID-19 pandemic with varying readiness and preparedness. Given the particular challenges of developing countries, in HEIs, the perception of power can be influenced by adapting to different institutional settings and organizational factors [15].
2. Navigating crisis and transformation in higher education: Building institutional resilience
2.1 Conceptualizing crisis and opportunity
McConnell [19], as cited by Ramia [20], defines crises as “extraordinary episodes which disturb and threaten established patterns of working and dominant assumptions about the ways aspects of how society operate”. The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of a crisis transforming societies [6]. These crises require prompt action, crisis management approaches and practical solutions [21]. They offer opportunities for transformation and rejuvenation, re-evaluating the distribution of physical and human resources in countries and HEIs [10]. Nevertheless, a crisis in and of itself does not inherently result in meaningful transformation [16]. However, transformative change in times of crisis depends on how the crisis is framed and understood within the framework of concrete reality [22]. To successfully implement strategies for change and improvement, it is crucial to understand the complex nature and far-reaching consequences associated with the topic.
Walby [1] conceptualizes crises as material manifestations and social constructions, highlighting their potential to incite societal conflicts and lead to emergencies. To harness the transformative potential of crises, society and HEIs must adopt a proactive, collaborative approach. Effective management should align with a comprehensive, forward-thinking perspective, encompassing change acceptance, reform implementation and reaction to future challenges. By adopting innovative practices and cultivating a resilient organizational culture, HEIs can overcome crises and emerge with enhanced capabilities to confront future uncertainty.
2.2 Strategic frameworks for institutional crisis management
Walby [1] suggests various crisis analysis methodologies, including Mitroff’s [23] crisis management framework. This framework emphasizes crisis learning and adaptation, involving six stages: identifying crisis indicators, formulating a comprehensive strategy, reducing harm, facilitating recovery, critical analysis and adapting practices and behaviors. Strategic indicators are crucial in mitigating risks during crises [4]. Mitroff’s [23] framework guides organizations through the stages of crisis response, emphasizing proactive identification of initial indicators and appropriate methods to mitigate the effects of crises. By identifying these indicators, organizations can respond with agility and make educated decisions, reducing the likelihood of the crisis escalating.
In this context, adopting a well-designed crisis management strategy becomes crucial for effectively managing unforeseen circumstances. The proposed approach guarantees a comprehensive examination of all facets of the crises, hence maximizing the efficient allocation of resources for crisis management. This stage’s main goal is to coordinate the organization’s response and actions to minimize any negative effects on stakeholders, therefore protecting their interests. Organizations can enhance their ability to effectively navigate crises and mitigate potential consequences by implementing Mitroff’s [23] crisis management approach.
The third stage focuses on mitigating adverse effects and facilitating recovery. A fast response during a crisis is crucial for reducing adverse outcomes. HEIs can initiate the recovery process and restore normalcy by efficiently addressing issues. The fourth stage focuses on restoring and reconstructing organizational elements, assisting faculty, staff, stakeholders and students affected by the crisis and reinstating operations to a pre-crisis state. The fifth stage of crisis management is crucial for HEIs to accumulate knowledge and gain insights. Reflecting on a crisis experience helps identify areas for reform and enhances HEIs’ capacity to manage crises and develop preparedness for future challenges. The concluding stage involves transforming practices and behavior to enhance HEIs’ readiness for future crises. Mitroff’s [23] framework emphasizes embracing crises as opportunities for progress and improvement, fostering a mindset prioritizing growth in crisis management. This method enhances resilience and adaptability in the face of future crises.
The significance of strategic indicators in HEIs has been underscored by Oleksiyenko [4] and Mitroff [23]. These indicators offer valuable insights into possible hazards, facilitating proactive crisis response and informed decision-making. Organizations have the ability to proactively identify potential challenges and formulate efficient strategies to manage risks through the utilization of strategic indicators.
Mitroff’s [23] systemic crisis management framework provides a comprehensive approach to managing crises, encompassing all process phases. It helps HEIs cultivate resilience, address challenges and integrate strategic indicators. Mitroff’s [23] paradigm fosters learning and adaptation, allowing organizations to avoid risks, minimize harm and aid recovery. Gaining insights from crises is crucial for adapting practices and behaviors, promoting a growth-oriented reaction and aligning with the model’s philosophical assumptions.
Crisis-blaming and crisis-exploitation-new script models provide divergent perspectives on the consequences of crises on HEIs. The crisis-blaming model involves a blaming contest, with stakeholders holding contrasting views on the appropriate response. The outcome depends on who emerges as the “winner,” highlighting potential manipulation and power struggles in the aftermath [22].
2.3 Power, politics and competing crisis narratives
In contrast, the crisis-exploitation-new script model, also proposed by Boin and Hart [22], asserts that the winners of crises, combined with those who leverage their strengths, play a critical role in shaping the future [1]. The emphasis here is on effectively utilizing power and resources, with victorious stakeholders driving the trajectory of change. This model recognizes the potential for manipulation and strategic decision-making in the aftermath of crises.
HEIs, as social institutions, are essential components of the societal fabric, addressing various societal needs and upholding values. They are dynamic entities, varying in multiple aspects such as system type, organizational structures, funding models, governance, access and collaboration. Drawing on comparative education frameworks, this chapter situates institutional way-power within broader systemic and cultural contexts, recognizing that educational responses to crises are shaped by governance models, funding structures and socio-political environments.
2.4 Higher education institutions as adaptive social institutions
Significant institutional changes in higher education can profoundly transform rules and processes, as Sabzalieva [24] observed. To adapt to evolving circumstances, continuous “reflexive practice” is necessary. This involves fostering genuine dialog and developing flexible institutional structures considering human resources and processes’ complexity, as Van den Hende, Whitsed and Coelen [25] advocate.
Institutional frameworks recognize the importance of “rules, routines, norms and identities” as stabilizing determinants of change. While institutions are constantly evolving, external shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to significant changes or, in some cases, a state of “frozen stagnation” within HEIs [24]. The transformation process often involves profound changes with substantial impacts on the institution, as Van den Hende et al. [25] noted.
Crises offer opportunities for change, reform and renewal, but effective response and transformation require more than merely acknowledging the crisis. Formulating tangible realities and underlying philosophical assumptions influences the understanding and handling of a crisis. Various models, such as crisis management frameworks, provide valuable insights into crisis response and management.
For HEIs to effectively navigate crises and adapt to dynamic systems, they must recognize their crucial role as social institutions and embrace a proactive approach to change. Reflexive practice, inclusive dialog and the development of flexible structures are vital for significant institutional changes. External shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can catalyze transformation processes, leading to meaningful development within HEIs. As HEIs evolve, being proactive in response to crises and embracing transformative opportunities will be crucial for sustained growth and success.
3. Crisis-informed constructivist methodology: A meta-analysis of institutional way-power in higher education internationalization
This section presents a systematic, crisis-informed analysis of institutional way-power in higher education internationalization, framed within the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach [26] ensures transparency and methodological rigor in data selection, screening, inclusion and reporting of documentary evidence.
3.1 Methodological orientation and scope
The study employed a comprehensive qualitative documentary methodology, underpinned by crisis theoretical frameworks and grounded theory, to explore the internationalization of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach enabled a nuanced understanding of institutional responses across diverse global contexts, while maintaining methodological rigor and transparency [27].
To ensure the integrity and objectivity of the analysis, the researchers sourced pre-existing peer-reviewed publications [28], focusing on literature published in English and representing HEIs across Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, including both public and private sectors. This comparative lens facilitated the identification of context-specific strategies and challenges, highlighting differentiated institutional responses shaped by regional and systemic factors.
A key strength of the study lies in its use of a PRISMA-based systematic literature review, which guided the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of sources. This process, illustrated in Figure 1, ensured a transparent and bias-free data curation, reinforcing the credibility of the findings. By eliminating potential researcher bias and focusing on scholarly perspectives during the crisis, the study offers a robust and contextually rich analysis of internationalization trends and disruptions in higher education.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram for study selection. Source: Page et al. [26].
3.2 Constructivist grounded theory as an analytical framework
The literature search was conducted using Mendeley, Scopus, Google Scholar and Consensus, employing Boolean logic with the following search terms: (“higher education internationalization”) AND (“Covid-19” OR “crisis”) AND (“way-power” OR “institutional power”). This search strategy was guided by a constructivist grounded theoretical approach, which acknowledges that reality is socially constructed and shaped by contextual, perceptual and interpretive factors. This methodology enabled the researchers to critically engage with a wide range of scholarly perspectives on the internationalization of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, without seeking a singular or cohesive narrative [29]. Instead, it facilitated the analysis of multiple institutional realities, experiences and strategic adaptations as they unfolded across various geopolitical and policy environments.
The review was further shaped by a bounded theoretical crisis lens, framing COVID-19 as a global emergency marked by distinct regional and institutional manifestations. This perspective allowed for the exploration of generic, transferable pathways of institutional way-power, understood here as the intentionality, strategic direction and agency exercised by HEIs in their internationalization efforts, rather than narrowly focusing on country-specific case studies. Within this framework, the pathways identified through the review are viewed as broad themes with applicability across diverse local, regional and international contexts in the evolving landscape of higher education [30].
As Zuo [5] notes, understanding way-power as a critical aspect of internationalization requires close attention to institutional determination, purposeful action and perceived effectiveness. The methodology applied in this study was designed to illuminate multiple aspects of these institutional realities, while remaining sensitive to the provisional nature of generalizations in the dynamic, fast-paced and semi-open global system of higher education.
The inclusion criteria required that all selected sources be peer-reviewed journal articles, published in English between 2020 and 2024, to ensure contextual and temporal relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic. Articles needed to explicitly focus on the internationalization of higher education in relation to the pandemic and include discussion of crisis response, institutional adaptation or systemic transformation. These thematic anchors aligned with the study’s core objective of examining how HEIs recalibrated their internationalization strategies under conditions of disruption and uncertainty.
To maintain a high standard of scholarly rigor, the exclusion criteria eliminated gray literature, dissertations, editorials and conference abstracts. Additionally, articles lacking full-text access were omitted to enable in-depth content analysis. Studies outside the scope of higher education, such as those centered on basic education or those with a pre-pandemic-only focus, were also excluded, as they did not meet the study’s framing of internationalization within the COVID-19 context.
In the identification stage, 156 articles were retrieved using Boolean search strategies across four databases. During the screening phase, 59 articles were removed due to duplication or lack of relevance based on abstract review. The remaining 97 articles proceeded to the eligibility phase, during which full-text reviews were conducted. Finally, 31 studies were included for qualitative synthesis.
These selected studies represent a diverse array of institutional types, regional settings and methodological approaches, making them suitable for inductive synthesis and thematic pattern recognition. Consistent with the constructivist and crisis-informed design of the review, these studies underpin the development of a nuanced, adaptable framework for understanding and strengthening institutional way-power in post-pandemic internationalization. The generic themes that emerged offer transferable insights into how HEIs might reimagine and sustain global engagement under conditions of volatility and transformation.
3.3 Analytical framework and theoretical lens
The study employs a constructivist grounded theory lens, acknowledging the socially constructed nature of reality and the multiplicity of meanings within institutional responses. This approach aligns with the crisis-informed meta-analysis, which frames COVID-19 as a global emergency that manifests in locally bounded institutional and policy responses.
Rather than aiming for generalizability, the constructivist perspective enables inductive analysis and the identification of generic pathways in internationalization—trajectories of adaptation, resistance and innovation within diverse higher education contexts.
3.4 Data extraction and coding procedures
To explore institutional responses to internationalization during the COVID-19 crisis, the research team conducted an extensive documentary analysis of peer-reviewed articles. An ideology-free approach was adopted to enhance the cross-national applicability of findings and to allow for open-ended thematic discovery across diverse geopolitical contexts.
Each of the 31 included articles was independently read, annotated and coded by the research team using a shared thematic codebook to ensure consistency and depth of analysis. The data extraction process was guided by six core dimensions aligned with the study’s crisis-response pathways framework. These dimensions included the institutional type (distinguishing between public and private HEIs), regional location (Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America) and the institution’s level of digital readiness. Additionally, the analysis captured strategic approaches to internationalization, specific institutional responses to the COVID-19 crisis, such as digitalization, collaboration and resource reallocation and the degree to which the concept of way-power was evident, understood as institutional intentionality, direction and agency.
To guide coding, a comprehensive set of 39 a priori keywords (see Table 1) was employed, capturing key phenomena such as acceleration, action, change, disruption, adaptation, decision-making, mobility and resilience. These keywords reflected both anticipated and emergent themes related to institutional transformation during crisis and were grounded in the broader concepts of higher education internationalization, way-power and COVID-19-related disruption.
| Acceleration | Action | Adaptation | Agency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Change | Collaboration | Contingency |
| COVID-19 | Crisis | Curriculum | Decision-making |
| Digitalization | Disruption | Equity | Engagement |
| Flexibility | Governance | Innovation | Institutional resilience |
| Internationalization | Leadership | Learning | Mobility |
| Modernization | Online learning | Opportunity | Partnership |
| Pedagogy | Policy | Preparedness | Reflexivity |
| Reform | Resilience | Resource allocation | Service delivery |
| Strategic planning | Sustainability | Way-power |
Table 1.
The coding process involved iterative categorization and comparison, with codes grouped into broader analytical constructs aligned with the study’s crisis-informed framework. The team worked collaboratively to resolve discrepancies in coding and interpretation, drawing on their combined expertise in higher education and internationalization. This collaborative thematic synthesis allowed the researchers to capture the complexity of institutional responses while identifying generic yet transferable pathways for future resilience-building in internationalization strategy.
By combining rigorous coding techniques with an inductive, constructivist orientation, this methodological approach facilitated a nuanced understanding of how institutions exercised way-power under crisis conditions and how these responses may inform future practices across diverse higher education systems.
3.5 Synthesis and development of a crisis-ready framework
The synthesis process adhered to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline, in recognition of the qualitative and context-rich nature of the included studies. Extracted data were systematically analyzed to construct a conceptual model of crisis-ready institutional way-power, offering an evidence-based framework for understanding how HEIs reconceptualized internationalization during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
This model highlights four interrelated components essential to resilient and future-oriented internationalization: institutional adaptability and leadership, the integration of internationalization into core institutional systems, digital transformation and equity in global engagement and the strategic coordination of human and financial resources. These components emerged through rigorous thematic analysis, enabling the identification of patterns and relationships between institutional actions and systemic transformation across varied contexts.
The research underscores the importance of applying a systematic and rigorous approach in order to uncover durable, systemic shifts. By establishing thematic linkages and synthesizing critical insights, the study contributes a crisis-informed and constructivist model for institutional way-power. This model emphasizes the need for HEIs to embed internationalization into their foundational practices, beyond peripheral or reactive strategies, in order to foster resilience, responsiveness and relevance in an increasingly uncertain global higher education landscape. Through the deliberate implementation of high-quality institutional systems and cross-contextual engagement, HEIs can better adjust and thrive in times of disruption, laying the groundwork for sustainable and impactful transformation. The following section expands on these emergent dimensions by outlining transformative pathways that higher education institutions can adopt to embed internationalization within their core structures and processes, particularly in response to global disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. Transformative pathways for higher education internationalization
Building on the crisis-ready model developed in the previous section, this chapter identifies and elaborates on the key transformative pathways that support durable and future-oriented internationalization in higher education institutions. These pathways, governance and leadership reform, digital pedagogical innovation and strengthened collaboration and well-being infrastructures, are instrumental in institutionalizing way-power and driving sustained change in the post-pandemic landscape.
The internationalization of higher education plays a crucial role in enhancing the overall reputation of HEIs, serving as a way-power and engagement instrument. Consultancy [31] emphasizes several important factors contributing to the overall success of HEIs, including teaching, research, industry engagement, impact and international orientation. By adopting internationalization, HEIs can adequately adapt to the changing global landscape and meet emerging demands in higher education. Public HEIs in developing regions often faced infrastructural limitations, while private institutions in developed countries leveraged existing digital ecosystems to accelerate internationalization. These contrasts reveal how institutional type and regional context shape crisis responses.
One of the primary advantages of internationalization is its capacity to attract and maintain international students and scholars, thereby facilitating cross-border cooperation and developing a worldwide recognition for academic and service quality. According to the research conducted by Jones et al. [14], the internationalization process allows HEIs to broaden their influence and increase their effectiveness worldwide.
In order to attain successful internationalization, HEIs must demonstrate a willingness to transcend mere experimentation and abandon antiquated practices. The practical implementation of internationalization initiatives necessitates carefully balancing competing demands and incorporating lessons learned from past experiences. According to Bin, Joseph and Oguche [12], it is imperative to prioritize the requirements of both students and scholars to facilitate a comprehensive and all-encompassing internationalization process.
Aligned with the dynamic nature of the current environment, there is a growing emphasis on comprehensive internationalization. This method aims to include internationalization into the organization’s fundamental principles, viewpoints and missions at a profound level. By prioritizing internationalism as a core value inside HEIs, the overall quality of teaching and learning experiences can be improved for all individuals involved. Chyrva et al. [9] and Van den Hende et al. [25] highlight the significance of integrating internationalization initiatives with the fundamental structure of the institution in order to establish a holistic and enduring influence.
In the contemporary landscape of higher education, internationalization assumes a crucial role, serving as a means for institutions to flourish within the framework of a globalized society. By adopting the principles of comprehensive internationalization, HEIs can successfully adjust, expand and improve their standing while cultivating a vibrant and diverse academic milieu for students and academics alike. The ongoing development and incorporation of internationalization within the institutional framework will facilitate future achievements and advancements in education, research and cross-national partnerships.
4.1 Rethinking governance and institutional leadership
HEIs are complex organizations that require effective governance, leadership, administration, policies and regulations to operate efficiently in specific contexts [21, 24]. In the COVID-19 pandemic, HEIs need transformation, adaptation and potential resistance [24]. This crisis management involves a complex phenomenon influenced by different agencies with contrasting perspectives on higher education and differing ideas on how to deal with it [4]. As HEIs struggle with different social conditions and technological advances [1], it becomes critical for them to shift their governance structures to online formats to ensure effective governance and develop forward-thinking adaptability skills. This is necessary to protect institutions from panic, withdrawal of scholars or a decline in applications [10, 15, 16].
There is no general approach to managing the transformation process from an institutional perspective. However, Cahapay [6] and Van den Hende et al. [25] provide several indications, such as focusing on institutional strategies and disciplinary content design, assessing institutional qualities and strengths, the relationships between institutional variables and stages of internationalization, considering contextual factors and assessing potential tensions between local and global contexts. These considerations can lead to conflicting views, so institutional management’s challenge will be finding approaches to bring together or steer the institution from different perspectives.
Effective leadership is crucial for institutional internationalization [16, 25] and balancing individual interests with local and global society’s interests [1, 14, 16]. In times of crisis, leadership must rely on competitive skills and training [32] to resolve crises while optimizing the institution’s operational capabilities [16]. Higher education leadership should foster broader and inclusive digital access and technical capabilities to enhance international student mobility, connect disrupted educational ties and recognize that digitalization is becoming the cornerstone for higher education development and expansion [15, 33, 34]. By embracing change and using technology, HEIs can improve international student mobility, promote diversity, respect cultural diversity [32] and global perspectives [11]. While it is questionable whether higher education leadership can initiate transformative or quantum change, Sabzalieva [24] found that leaders are responsible for adaptive change by adopting a bottom-up approach. Policy statements lay the foundation for building more stable structures in times of crisis [4].
The international, transnational and cross-border education field is expanding with the development of internationalized online education. This approach offers flexible delivery options, enables the exchange of diverse perspectives and requires close collaboration between content experts and instructional designers [21, 25]. Cross-border collaborative efforts, combining international partnerships, local curricula internationalization and virtual global engagement experiences, can expand access to international higher education, support the recruitment of talented scholars and provide access to new research grants [34]. Talented individuals possess above-average skills, motives, creativity, abilities and commitment [18:90], making the developmental role of HEIs necessary [18, 25]. To ensure successful collaboration and high-quality internationalization in higher education, flexible policies, procedures and governance structures must adapt to international students’ changing needs and expectations, considering local contexts.
Chyrva et al. [9] and Jones et al. [14] suggest that HEIs should focus on internationalization, promoting intercultural knowledge, broadening academic horizons, establishing global citizenship, poli-cultural competencies, enhancing competitiveness, maintaining peace and modernizing under internationalization conditions.
Effective governance, leadership, administration and policies are crucial for HEIs during crises. The agency’s role is crucial and delegating responsibilities to front-line units can be beneficial [4]. By embracing change, using technology and promoting diversity, HEIs can strengthen their global reputation for excellence and contribute to a more sustainable world [7, 25].
4.2 Advancing digital learning and program innovation
HEIs have been confronted with substantial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating the implementation of inventive strategies and adjustments in pedagogy. Shijian and Agyemang [8] and Al-Mahdawi [32] propose the establishment of “global campuses” or internationally-oriented programs by leveraging advanced online learning methods and adaptable strategies that accommodate a wide range of perspectives, time zones and geographical limitations. By applying these strategies, HEIs have the potential to enhance their ability to attract a more significant number of international scholars and enhance their preparedness for potential future crises.
Skulmowski and Rey [13] suggest that to enhance multi-modal learning experiences, utilizing a range of sensory modalities, including videos, streaming, virtual reality technology and artificial intelligence applications, is advantageous. The utilization of advanced learning approaches can enhance the recognition of learning progress and foster increased engagement. Promoting digital communication is advocated, wherein numerous people engage in teaching and learning [11]. This practice facilitates collaboration and engagement inside virtual environments.
Nevertheless, integrating technology into education poses several obstacles that HEIs must address effectively. Oleksiyenko et al. [4] and Benito et al. [11] emphasize the significance of comprehending learning content, fostering student engagement and motivation, guaranteeing consistent internet connectivity and cultivating technological proficiency among faculty, staff and students. In order to mitigate these concerns, HEIs should allocate resources toward the enhancement of techno-pedagogical skills development [21] while also ensuring a harmonious equilibrium to avoid the decline of crucial social skills that are fostered through in-person interactions [13].
According to Watterston and Zhao [35], there is a projected transition from traditional physical infrastructure to interactive technology in educational services. According to Bin, Joseph and Oguche [12], it is anticipated that a blend of traditional classroom instruction and online learning will become the prevailing standard, catering to students attending classes on campus and those participating remotely. The rise of security concerns may increase the prominence of contactless or hybrid service offerings [11].
In order to facilitate a seamless transition, HEIs must expedite the adoption of novel and developing technologies while enhancing their technological infrastructure to accommodate digital pedagogical practices. Maintaining a steadfast commitment to delivering high-quality service and refraining from replicating traditional practices in a novel framework are imperative considerations [11, 13, 36]. The primary focus should be enhancing the educational encounter and cultivating personalized strengths, considering cognitive, personality and individual traits. In the context of the emerging trend of internationalization in higher education, it is plausible that certain established practices, such as mandatory class participation, may experience diminished significance.
HEIs can enhance the standard of education and adjust to the evolving educational environment by using technology and implementing novel teaching methods. This will result in a more enhanced and individualized learning experience for students in the digital age. Addressing the problems and ethical considerations related to the integration of technology is of utmost importance in order to provide a learning environment that is both sustainable and inclusive, hence yielding advantages for all parties involved.
4.3 Strengthening health, well-being and collaboration
The establishment of a complete digital health platform holds significant importance for HEIs as it enables them to respond effectively to emergencies and place emphasis on the welfare of their students, staff and faculty members. According to the findings of Benito et al. [11] and Mygovych [33], it is recommended that information technology (IT) departments in HEIs engage in proactive research and promotion of online market platforms in anticipation of potential crises. This preparatory measure allows institutions to acquire the essential infrastructure and instruments for efficient emergency management and response. The integration of digital health platforms not only supports crisis management but also reflects broader global trends in education technology and equity—key themes in comparative education. These platforms vary significantly across regions, with disparities in access and implementation between Global North and South institutions.
In order to enhance the efficacy of prevention and crisis management strategies, it is recommended that HEIs engage in mutual learning and the exchange of best practices [4, 8]. Establishing collaborative partnerships among institutions facilitates the cultivation of a collective approach toward crisis management, enhancing their preparedness to address and overcome emerging crises effectively.
The utilization of extended reality platforms, specifically augmented reality, can be crucial in times of disaster [37]. These systems provide a range of options, including self-developed software, proprietary software and off-the-shelf procurement marketplace platforms. The selection of augmented reality platforms is contingent upon various factors, including an institution’s level of technical expertise, available technology resources, financial constraints, accessibility, support services and security concerns.
The prioritization of the health, well-being and safety of international students, staff and faculty is imperative for HEIs. Watterston and Zhao [35] and Zhu et al. [36] emphasize the significance of including health and safety awareness measures, psychological evaluation techniques and strategic policies to safeguard the university community. The imperative nature of addressing mental health issues cannot be overstated, as it is crucial to ensure easily accessible information, counseling and treatment options [38]. Social media platforms have the potential to be utilized for advertising purposes, as well as for conducting risk assessments and promoting health and safety measures, especially in developing countries where access to information may be constrained [33].
HEIs can effectively respond to crises, prioritize the well-being of their community members and promote collaboration and knowledge-sharing by implementing complete digital health platforms. Institutions must allocate resources and acquire appropriate instruments to establish a secure and nurturing atmosphere for everyone involved, regardless of the circumstances.
Symbiotic relationships are of utmost importance in facilitating the exchange of knowledge, transfer of technology and sharing of resources between academic institutions and global and local communities. According to Jones et al. [14], these collaborative partnerships play a crucial role in addressing sustainability concerns and fostering the development of sustainable communities, especially during periods of crisis. Establishing collaborative frameworks is crucial in maintaining relationships during crises, as they facilitate the development of strong bonds of friendship and solidarity across diverse domains [39].
Establishing collaborative relationships between HEIs and external companies enhances capacity-building efforts, particularly in areas such as credit transfer [32]. According to Oleksiyenko et al. [4], enhanced interconnections among HEIs lead to more cohesive solutions and effective communication methods. This is particularly relevant in light of the transformative effects of the pandemic on global interactions. HEIs are urged to critically examine the tension between individual well-being and collective welfare to effectively address the issues arising from the crisis [2].
The allocation, development and alignment of financial and human resources have been found to have a substantial influence on employee engagement and can lead to significant results inside HEIs [25]. Cultivating skilled personnel and allocating resources toward their welfare and technological advancements might facilitate the generation of superior and efficient results [18]. According to Bin et al. [12], establishing strategic community collaborations and symbiotic ties can serve as a means for HEIs to effectively address financial shortfalls while simultaneously prioritizing fundamental business continuity and social welfare.
The imperative to facilitate the effective transmission of information necessitates modernizing the entirety of the higher education framework [5]. HEIs encounter competition from emerging forms of new qualifications, such as micro-credentials, work-informed learning and work-based learning, which present alternative frameworks to conventional methodologies [40].
The significance of cultural exchange in HEIs for resource sharing has been underscored by Zuo [5]. Providing suitable facilities for socio-cultural adaptation possibilities is crucial for successfully integrating international scholars within the host setting. The acknowledgment of language as a valuable asset assumes a crucial position, given its utilization by individuals who speak diverse languages and its influence on the utilization of social media, localization in everyday activities and the construction of reality [2].
Cultivating symbiotic relationships and strategic collaborations is imperative for HEIs to effectively manage obstacles, adopt innovative practices and contribute substantially to global sustainability and community development. By emphasizing the prioritization of collaboration, resource-sharing and modernization, HEIs have the potential to flourish and generate a beneficial influence within the dynamic landscape of higher education.
5. Insights and impact
The rigorous methodology employed in analyzing articles, connecting key themes and developing a crisis-ready model for institutional way-power in higher education internationalization post-COVID-19 underscores the significance of this research. By prioritizing institutional quality systems and embracing internationalization as an integral part of operations, HEIs can adapt and thrive in crises, creating sustainable and transformative change in higher education.
The research highlights the significance of internationalization in bolstering the overall standing of HEIs and emphasizes the importance of efficient governance, leadership, administration, policies and regulations within HEIs, particularly during periods of crisis. Implementing sophisticated online learning methodologies and technologies can augment learning experiences and foster increased engagement. Digitalization can enhance international student mobility, foster diversity and broaden educational opportunities.
Collaborative partnerships and symbiotic relationships are crucial in tackling sustainability issues and promoting the growth of sustainable communities, particularly in times of crisis. Implementing strategic collaborations and resource-sharing initiatives can help HEIs mitigate financial deficits and maintain uninterrupted commercial operations. Institutions can enhance their worldwide standing and make a meaningful contribution to global sustainability by actively endorsing principles such as embracing change, leveraging technology and embracing diversity.
This study provides practical insights for HEIs to address the difficulties presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and improve their efforts for internationalization. Institutions can cultivate enduring and influential transformations within the higher education sector by understanding the general routes and using transformative methodologies.
6. Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for HEIs to use institutional way-power as a strategic approach to address internationalization challenges and improve service delivery. Crisis management frameworks emphasize strategies, reflexivity, discourse and adaptive institutional structures, enabling HEIs to take proactive measures, adjust to evolving conditions and enhance their reputation in service delivery.
HEIs must incorporate internationalization as an integral component of their basic operations, promoting cooperation, alliances and a worldwide perspective. The crisis-ready model emphasizes the significance of institutional power and efficacy within higher education, allowing HEIs to establish well-defined objectives, allocate adequate resources and foster a culture of adaptability and resilience. This cooperative strategy proactively identifies potential hazards, formulates plans, establishes effective communication channels, fosters stakeholder collaboration, prioritizes ongoing learning, cultivates partnerships and allocates resources toward training and development initiatives.
Future research should validate and enhance the crisis-ready model, considering practical application and contextual intricacies. Comparative research conducted across several countries and institutional contexts can offer valuable insights into the efficacy and adaptability of strategies. Investigating the enduring impacts of the pandemic on the internationalization of higher education and examining the influence of institutional capacity in fostering lasting and fair transformations will enhance our comprehension of this topic. Future research should explore comparative case studies of HEIs across continents, examining how institutional way-power manifests in different governance systems and cultural contexts. This will deepen our understanding of internationalization as a transformative force in global education.
Future research should adopt a mixed-methods methodology, including surveys, interviews and case studies, to enhance understanding of institutional power dynamics and their ramifications for global decision-making processes. This study offers significant contributions to understanding the development and influence of institutional way-power dynamics and the implicit narratives and discourses that shape the exercise of power within institutions. Examining historical data and undertaking comparative research across several geographies might yield significant insights. Using qualitative methodologies, such as content analysis and discourse analysis, can facilitate identifying and exploring underlying narratives and discourses that influence the exercise of power within institutional contexts.
Exploring concepts and models in diverse institutional contexts improves generalizability and understanding of pandemic impact. Integrating research methods and primary data collection enhances robust analysis and strengthens the validity of conclusions drawn from the study.
Further research and understanding of institutional way-power can improve post-COVID-19 HEI transformation by enhancing service delivery, crisis management effectiveness and long-term sustainability of internationalization initiatives. This knowledge will inform strategies, policies and practices for institutional resilience and long-term success.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.
Walby S. The COVID pandemic and social theory: Social democracy and public health in the crisis. European Journal of Social Theory. 2021; 24 (1):22-43. DOI: 10.1177/1368431020970127 - 2.
Finardi KR, Guimarães FF. Internationalization and the Covid-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities for the global south. Journal of Education, Teaching and Social Studies. 2020; 2 :4. DOI: 10.22158/jetss.v2n4p1 - 3.
Marginson S. High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 2016; 87 (2):243-271. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2016.11777401 - 4.
Oleksiyenko A, Mendoza P, Riaño F, Dwivedi O, Kabir A, Kuzhabekova A, et al. Global crisis management and higher education: Agency and coupling in the context of wicked COVID-19 problems. Higher Education Quarterly. 2022; 77 (2):356-374. DOI: 10.1111/hequ.12406 - 5.
Zuo K. Understanding motivation, career planning, and socio-cultural adaptation difficulties as determinants of higher education institution choice decision by international students in the post-pandemic era. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13 :955234. DOI: fpsyg.2022.055234 - 6.
Cahapay MB. Navigating the post-COVID-19 era of ‘next normal’ in the context of Philippine higher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Management Research. 2021; 5 (3):57-64. DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3791769 - 7.
Crawford J. Sustainability in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :1879. DOI: 10.3390/su14031879 - 8.
Shijian Z, Agyemang A. Empirical study on the impact of COVID-19 on international student enrollment for higher education in China. Sustainability. 2022; 14 :4185. DOI: 10.3390/su14074185 - 9.
Chyrva А, Krekoten O, Bilokopytov V. Higher education internationalization. Development of the concept responding to requirements of the time. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. 2023; 15 (1):176-190. DOI: 10.18662/rrem/15.1/692 - 10.
Musial K. Internationalization as myth, ceremony and doxa in higher education. The case of the Nordic countries between Centre and periphery. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. 2023; 9 (1):20-36. DOI: 10.1080/20020317.2023.2166344 - 11.
Benito Á, Yenisey K, Khanna K, Masis M, Monge R, Tuğtan M, et al. Changes that should remain in higher education post COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of the experiences at three universities. Higher Learning Research Communications. 2021; 11 :51-75. DOI: 10.18870/hlrc.v11i0.1195 - 12.
Bin Y, Joseph E, Oguche I. New features and trends of higher education during the epidemic period. Journal of Educational Theory and Management. 2021; 5 (2):41-45. DOI: 10.26549/jetm.v5i2.7523 - 13.
Skulmowski A, Rey GD. COVID-19 as an accelerator for digitalization at a German university: Establishing hybrid campuses in times of crisis. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2020; 2 (3):212-216. DOI: 10.1002/hbe2.201 - 14.
Jones E, Leask B, Brandenburg U, Wit H. Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2021; 25 (4):330-347. DOI: 10.1177/10283153211031679 - 15.
Mospan N, Ogneviuk V, Sysoieva S. Emergency higher education digital transformation: Ukraine’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Information Technologies and Learning Tools. 2022; 89 (3):90-104. DOI: 10.33407/itlt.v89i3.4827 - 16.
Wang J, Hutchins HM. Crisis management in higher education: What have we learned from Virginia Tech? Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2010; 12 (5):552-572. DOI: 10.1177/1523422310394433 - 17.
Grundling JP. Implicit relational leadership determinants of late adolescent subjective well-being in Gauteng [thesis]. Pretoria: Tshwane University of Technology; 2017 - 18.
Yousof SM, Almohamadi MM, Alsouri MT, Salem IM. Highlights about talents development: The future of improving higher education quality. The Arab Journal for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. 2022; 15 (52):87-100. DOI: 10.20428/ajqahe.v15i52.2065 - 19.
McConnell A. Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy. 2010; 30 (3):345-362 - 20.
Ramia G. Crises in international education, and government responses: A comparative analysis of racial discrimination and violence towards international students. Higher Education. 2021; 82 :599-613. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-021-00684-w - 21.
Haider A, Al-Salman S. COVID-19’s impact on the higher education system in Jordan: Advantages, challenges and suggestions. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews. 2020; 4 (8):1418-1428. DOI: 10.18510/HSSR.2020.84131 - 22.
Boin A, Hart P. From crisis to reform? Exploring three post-COVID pathways. Policy and Society. 2022; 41 (1):13-24. DOI: 10.1093/polsoc/puab007 - 23.
Mitroff II. Why some Companies Emerge Stronger and Better from a Crisis: 7 Essential Lessons for Surviving Disaster. New York: Amacom; 2005 - 24.
Sabzalieva E. Surviving a crisis: Transformation, adaptation, and resistance in higher education. Higher Education Governance and Policy. 2022; 1 (1):1-15. DOI: 10.55993/hegp.1054946 - 25.
Van den Hende F, Whitsed C, Coelen R. An organizational change perspective for the curriculum internationalization process: Bridging the gap between strategy and implementation. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2022; 27 (3):520-538. DOI: 10.1177/10283153221105321oi.org/ - 26.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372 :n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. Available from:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782057/ - 27.
Morgan H. Conducting a qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Report. 2022; 27 (1):64-77. DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044 - 28.
Mouton J. How to Succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral Studies: A South African Guide and Resource Book. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers; 2011 - 29.
Rieger KL. Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry. 2019; 26 (1):e12261. DOI: 10.1111/nin.12261 - 30.
Redman-MacLaren M, Mills J. Transformational grounded theory: Theory, vice and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2015; 14 (3):1-12 - 31.
Consultancy. Institutional performance [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/hub/consultancy/p/institutional-performance [Accessed: July 01, 2025] - 32.
Al-Mahdawi E. An overview on internationalisation within the United Kingdom higher education. International Journal of Management and Humanities. 2022; 8 (6):7-11. DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.F1423.018622 - 33.
Mygovych IV. Digitalization in Higher Education as a Means of Ensuring Access and Integration of Students into the Global Educational Space in the Context of the Global Crisis of COVID-19. Vol. 2. No. 340 (Part 2). Luhansk, Ukraine: Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko Luhansk National University, Pedagogical Sciences; 2021. pp. 260-271. DOI: 10.12958/2227-2844-2021-2(340)-2-260-271 - 34.
Tran LT, Nguyen DTB, Blackmore J, He B, Vu HQ. COVID-19, geopolitics and risk management towards framing a reciprocal, coordinated, responsive and empathetic international education sector. Policy Futures in Education. 2023; 21 (4):423-444. DOI: 10.1177/14782103231163480 - 35.
Watterston J, Zhao Y. Global distribution of students in higher education. In: Coleman K, Uzhegova D, Blaher B, Arkoulis S, editors. The Educational Turn: Rethinking the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Cham: Springer; 2023. pp. 129-145 - 36.
Zhu J, Zhao H, Wang X, Yang L, Qin Z, Geng J. Effects of online learning on college students in eastern China: A structural equation model. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022; 17 (10):853928. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.853928 - 37.
Meccawy M. Creating an immersive XR learning experience: A roadmap for educators. Electronics. 2022; 11 (21):3547. DOI: 10.3390/electronics11213547 - 38.
Moscaritolo LB, Perozzi B, Schreiber B, Luescher T. The impact of COVID-19 on international student support: A global perspective. Journal of International Students. 2022; 12 (2):324-344. DOI: 10.32674/jis.v12i2.3625 - 39.
Ndaipa C, Edström K, Geschwind L. National policy for internationalisation in higher education. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2022; 6 (1):1-17. DOI: 10.7577/njcie.4763 - 40.
Hazelkorn E. Complex relationship between quality assurance, accountability, and ranking: What next? In: Okebukola PA, Uvalić-Trumbić S, editors. Quality Assurance in Higher Education across the World. Washington: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA); 2023. pp. 377-392