Managing Student Mobility during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Immobility Turn in Internationalized Learning?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review

The present paper is a compelling elaboration on the ways in which universities in Portugal responded to the challenges of managing international mobility and the needs of international students in the contexts of Covid-19 public health crisis. The paper offers a valuable contribution to the literature on university internationalization. Nevertheless, the paper could benefit greatly from revisions that would improve its anchoring and appeal in the literature on higher education, as well as the coherence of its argumentation.

First of all, the paper is presented as one aimed at exploring youth transitions and the role of mobility in this context. The reviewer was therefore expecting the empirical data presented to include interviews with international students about their experiences of mobility and transitions to adulthood during the Covid-19 pandemic and not the view of university administrators involved with supporting international students. I suggest framing the paper more clearly and coherently – e.g. by focusing on university’s internationalization processes and practices in the context of an ‘immobility turn’ in the sociology of youth, as opposed to on youth transitions. Youth transitions are not addressed in the data and the analysis presented (almost) at all and only appear in the introduction and conclusions of the paper. In line with this move, I would also suggest anchoring the paper more thoroughly in the literature on higher education internationalization. This would also help clarify the research question that the paper explores – since it remains unstated at the present time - different aims are stating in different sections - e.g. abstract, methodology, introduction etc.

Secondly, the methodology section of the paper could benefit from a series of clarifications: what is the research question explored in this paper (not in the larger research project, see the first point), how many interviews were conducted, with whom (what position in the universities and whether administrators or people involved in university governance) and what duration did they have. From the present form the reviewer infers that the paper is based on 9 interviews with university administrators working in international offices (or with similar attributions), but this may not be the case since ‘representatives’ could also mean university presidents/ provosts or people in similar higher education governing functions. Similarly, data is cited in the introduction pertaining to students – but it is unclear how this data was collected and whether it is part of the study presented here or not. This should be made clear when the data is cited.  

Thirdly, in line with the first point certain sections of the analysis could be made sharper once the main focus of the paper is more clearly stated. The connections between the sections of the analysis and why and how these topics were selected for analysis should be clarified in the methods section. Are these topics based on thematic analysis/ inductive coding of the interview data? Also, what aspects were left out of the analysis and why.

Fourthly, the section dealing with the European Commission’s responses were understood and framed by the interviewees should be rewritten clarifying its main focus. If the European Commission’s response is the object of analysis then the reader would need a timeline addressing this response and a reference to the relevant policy documents. If the focus is on responses by the universities, references to relevant documents could be made in order to clarify what exactly the interviewee is addressing.

Finally, certain formulations could benefit from clarification and elaboration or a more careful wording, example pg. 9, line 406 ‘nonsense’ referring to the EC response, ‘obvious limitations’ pg. 10, l 441 (it is not clear obvious to whom or why obvious), ‘pastoral care’ as a section title – although it remains unexplored and unexplained in terms of connection to the main text which seems to refer to individualized support services for international students facing the crisis, etc.

Congratulations on a very interesting topic and research and looking forward to seeing this in print soon!

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors begin to focus on the experience of students and the impact on their "mobility" by the pandemic.  But then the article changes mid way to discuss how the institutions dealt with the pandemic.  and then a discussion on the european commission response to the pandemic.  The paper has interesting aspects (1: the student experience and 2: the institution responses) but there is little in the article to warrant publication.  I don't know which component to comment on since both are not sufficient to warrant publication.  however, if the focus is on the first, then a pre-post comparison needs to be carried out.  alternatively, a "native vs immigrant" student comparison needs to be undertaken.  The anecdotal interviews add little to the issues under consideration.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a snapshot of how Portugal's universities were responding at a specific moment during the pandemic. It makes a useful contribution to what is sure to become burgeoning literature on the longr-term effects of the pandemic, bit it is surely premature to declare an immobility turn. Whether this happens will also depend on future and current events and trends such as the war in Eastern Europe and spiralling global prices for nearly all commodities

Author Response

Please find attached a new version of my article, which has been subject to some quite extensive changes, which have been tracked in the new draft. In regard to responses to specific requests:

1. We would expect that you add more discussion on the literature of institutional policy in higher education. Of course we cannot expect that you start reading and working on this theme but you make a reference to the internationalisation and commercialization of higher education, so adding more info on this would substantiate your statement. Since the journal has a wide international audience it would be helpful to refer to some EU documents and possibly statistics on the Erasmus program. You mention that in Portugal many students come from other parts of the world (what a contrast to Bulgaria!), so a reference to such programs or research would bring more value to the paper.

In regard to ‘literature of institutional policy in higher education,’ my impression is that there are few, if any works that warrant citation on this topic. I have added a note on page 3, to explain that one problem may be the lack of development of an institutional framework in internationalization of higher education, which can be associated with the unregulated expansion of student mobility to perhaps unsustainable levels, confirmed by the suggestion that funding agencies like the European Commission don't generally intervene beyond providing financial support.

I have included some Erasmus and OECD statistics on page 4, although these figures are notoriously unreliable. For example, the most recent figures published by the EU suggest that participation levels rose during the pandemic, which is obviously not true. Neither is information about destination countries available. But I think this is a bit of an improvement.

2. Your paper still needs methodological clarification which is a very simple task in your case but the readers might find it not clear enough. Is interviewing university staff part of a larger project together with interviewing Erasmus students or is this a separate project after exploring young people's mobility experiences? The reviewers would like to see a clear framing of the paper within your ongoing projects. Then add info on the principles of selection of interviewees, the themes covered by the interview guide, the methods of analysis of the transcripts.

In regard to methodological approach, that the work was conducted for the article, and not as part of project, is also clearly stated on page 5. Other parts of the text introduced as part of the first round of changes, which the reviewer seems to find confusing, have been removed. The work is not part of any greater research plan, or related to ongoing projects. The interview selection principle was very simple: out of the 13 public universities who host international students, 9 provided interviewees, the remining 4 declining to participate. There was no ‘sampling’ as such. Neither was the material subject to any specific analytical process, since it was descriptive.

3. We suggest that you develop the section of findings through the lens of Ken Roberts' theory of opportunity structures. Mobility is an important component of these structures. And make explicit the reference of your findings with wider academic literature. Please try to make your conclusions section less speculative, discuss the implications of your findings for the institutions and develop the ideas of pastoral care, virtual mobility and others here again based on your findings.

I have added some reflections on opportunity structures as part of the concluding discussion, on pages 11 and 12. The closing paragraphs also reflect back on the analytical section, in an attempt to draw together the different strands of the discuss.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, most of the comments made in my previous review were not addressed by the authors in their revisions.

The reframing of the main topic improves the quality of the manuscript and answers some of my concerns. Yet, this reframing is not yet visible in the conclusions to the paper. 

Other questions remain completely unadressed (see my previous review). One such question is the role of the EU Commission in the studied context. A new question arising from the present version is whether it the EC is seen as a funding body or as a policy agent. Another main concern is the lack of reference to literature on internationalization in higher education. Also significant is the lack of attention to the analyitical dimension of the methodology, e.g. categories of analysis etc. in the methodology section of the paper. 

The authors' response to this reviewer's comments shows that the authors have not carefully considered the text of the review and its reading of the paper. As the review process has not substantially improved the manuscript, I can unfortunately not recommend publication in the present form, but would like to urge the authors to again revise the manuscript.   

Author Response

Please find attached a new version of my article, which has been subject to some quite extensive changes, which have been tracked in the new draft. In regard to responses to specific requests:

1. We would expect that you add more discussion on the literature of institutional policy in higher education. Of course we cannot expect that you start reading and working on this theme but you make a reference to the internationalisation and commercialization of higher education, so adding more info on this would substantiate your statement. Since the journal has a wide international audience it would be helpful to refer to some EU documents and possibly statistics on the Erasmus program. You mention that in Portugal many students come from other parts of the world (what a contrast to Bulgaria!), so a reference to such programs or research would bring more value to the paper.

In regard to ‘literature of institutional policy in higher education,’ my impression is that there are few, if any works that warrant citation on this topic. I have added a note on page 3, to explain that one problem may be the lack of development of an institutional framework in internationalization of higher education, which can be associated with the unregulated expansion of student mobility to perhaps unsustainable levels, confirmed by the suggestion that funding agencies like the European Commission don't generally intervene beyond providing financial support.

I have included some Erasmus and OECD statistics on page 4, although these figures are notoriously unreliable. For example, the most recent figures published by the EU suggest that participation levels rose during the pandemic, which is obviously not true. Neither is information about destination countries available. But I think this is a bit of an improvement.

2. Your paper still needs methodological clarification which is a very simple task in your case but the readers might find it not clear enough. Is interviewing university staff part of a larger project together with interviewing Erasmus students or is this a separate project after exploring young people's mobility experiences? The reviewers would like to see a clear framing of the paper within your ongoing projects. Then add info on the principles of selection of interviewees, the themes covered by the interview guide, the methods of analysis of the transcripts.

In regard to methodological approach, that the work was conducted for the article, and not as part of project, is also clearly stated on page 5. Other parts of the text introduced as part of the first round of changes, which the reviewer seems to find confusing, have been removed. The work is not part of any greater research plan, or related to ongoing projects. The interview selection principle was very simple: out of the 13 public universities who host international students, 9 provided interviewees, the remining 4 declining to participate. There was no ‘sampling’ as such. Neither was the material subject to any specific analytical process, since it was descriptive.

3. We suggest that you develop the section of findings through the lens of Ken Roberts' theory of opportunity structures. Mobility is an important component of these structures. And make explicit the reference of your findings with wider academic literature. Please try to make your conclusions section less speculative, discuss the implications of your findings for the institutions and develop the ideas of pastoral care, virtual mobility and others here again based on your findings.

I have added some reflections on opportunity structures as part of the concluding discussion, on pages 11 and 12. The closing paragraphs also reflect back on the analytical section, in an attempt to draw together the different strands of the discuss.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not dealt with the basic problem outline in the first asessment.  The literature and "theory" focus on student transition.  The authors even muddy up the discussion by saying they interviewed 27 students--but then say that the paper does not involve student responses.  Methodologically the paper is weak.  again, no discussion about who the respondents were, what the questions were asked and how many "staff" were interviewed.  On what basis was the "interview" subject to analysis?  How was the anecdotal information presented chosen from all the questions asked (for which we know little about) or the answers given.

   Finally, I would say that the authors are looking at the wrong literature.  They are focusing on the institutional response to the pandemic and its impact on student "mobility".  Thus the literature review should focus on how institutions (and their relevant components) deal with foreign students and how that response has an impact on student mobility.  

Again, I don't think the author(s) have responded to either my comments or the second reviewers comments.

Author Response

As noted previously, the article does not engage with student respondents, explaining why this matter is not treated in the methodology, etc. Any mention of students relates to prior studies, not the current research. This is clear and unambiguous in the text, and does not require any further intervention.

If you are in disagreement, please talk to the editor, not the authors.