Academic Members’ Shared Experiences of Virtual Internationalization in Digital Governance Contexts: A Qualitative Exploration Through Actor-Network Theory

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of virtual internationalization (VI) in higher education institutions (HEIs). Yet, how it becomes normalized and how digital governance factors collectively address the challenges arising from its implementation remain underexplored, particularly in non-Anglophone contexts. This qualitative study draws on eight focus group discussions involving 46 participants from Austria, Belgium, China, Portugal, Poland, and Türkiye. Guided by Actor-Network Theory (ANT), the study reveals that VI has been widely normalized through pandemic-driven adaptations. While its conceptual boundaries remain contested and continually negotiated amid rapid technological advancement, the findings illuminate VI’s expansive international outreach and potential for building institutional global visibility and national soft power. Despite the normalization of VI, its implementation is constrained by pedagogical, technological, and cross-cultural factors, alongside governance and management complexities. An interdependent system of digital governance factors has also been identified across strategic, operational, human, and collaborative dimensions. This study concludes that effective VI implementation does not arise from static policies but from the continuous negotiation and coordinated alignment of these digital governance factors.

1. Introduction

Virtual internationalization (VI) has gained unprecedented prominence since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to this global crisis, scholars had already explored VI through virtual mobility, virtual exchange, and internationalization at home initiatives facilitated by information and communication technologies (ICT) (Leask, 2004; Bedenlier et al., 2018). During the pandemic, the worldwide mobility restrictions compelled universities to urgently adopt VI initiatives to sustain cross-border teaching, learning, and cooperation (Guppy et al., 2022; Qiu et al., 2024). In the post-COVID period, even though mobility restrictions were lifted, VI has remained as a ‘new normal’ in higher education rather than a temporary emergency measure (Chang & Gomes, 2022; Guo, 2023; Leask, 2020). While VI’s potential to enhance accessibility, inclusivity, and scalability in higher education was recognized (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; Guo, 2023; Leask, 2020; Novoselova, 2023), its implementations were largely ad hoc and varied significantly across institutional and national contexts (Liu & Gao, 2022). Researchers argue for reframing VI as a strategic, mid- and long-term institutional priority (Leask, 2020; Guppy et al., 2022; Chang & Gomes, 2022; Woicolesco et al., 2022). Yet, strategies to enhance institutional readiness for VI remain insufficiently explored.

To empower higher education institutions (HEIs) to proactively manage VI and cultivate resilient and equitable VI ecosystems, digital governance offers a critical lens for fostering an enabling institutional environment that supports effective VI strategies (Ganassin et al., 2021; Bruhn-Zass, 2022). Rather than focusing solely on the management of ICT, digital governance is a broader, process-oriented framework through which multiple stakeholders co-create policies and organizational structures that guide the development and integration of digital technologies within institutions (Erkut, 2020; Alenezi, 2023). While existing case studies have examined fragmented VI management initiatives (Chang & Gomes, 2022; Mali & Lim, 2021), a significant gap persists in understanding how different dimensions of digital governance interact and co-shape VI implementation at HEIs. Furthermore, while academic perspectives from non-Anglophone contexts are vital for understanding how to achieve inclusive and equitable adoption of VI, their insights are still underrepresented in the literature (de Wit & Jones, 2022; Tight, 2022).

To fill these gaps, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) provides a well-suited analytical framework. It traces and reveals how human and non-human actors, including perceptions, policies, technologies, and organizational structures, come together, connect, and assemble collectives to shape governance outcomes in complex systems (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011). By following these minute socio-material interactions, ANT provides rich contextual analysis and uncovers how new ideas, practices, and technologies dynamically emerge as new norms within institutional contexts (Fenwick, 2011).

Based on these accounts, this study investigates the following research questions:

• How did human and non-human actors interact to normalize VI across the sampled HEIs, and what are the key processes involved?
• How were challenges arising from VI implementation negotiated and addressed through digital governance mechanisms?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Virtual Internationalization: Evolving Concepts and Practices

Over the past two decades, VI has evolved from early forms of ICT-mediated teaching and distance learning programs to a broader spectrum of ‘virtual mobility’, enabling digitally supported transnational learning experiences and providing alternative pathways for international student recruitment (Middlemas & Peat, 2015; Lima et al., 2020). This evolution has been propelled by substantial scholarly work on Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), Virtual Transnational Education (VTE), and Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) (Novoselova, 2023; O’Dowd, 2022), reflecting the deepening integration of internationalization and ICT (de Wit et al., 2015).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, modalities such as joint online courses and curriculums, virtual faculty exchanges, and cross-border research webinars became common ways to maintain international engagement (Chang & Gomes, 2022; Guppy et al., 2022; Woicolesco et al., 2022; Guo, 2023). These initiatives demonstrated VI’s capacity to operationalize internationalization at home (IaH), embedding global experiences into domestic campuses through digital means (Ganassin et al., 2021; Guo, 2023; Kondakçı & Keleş, 2021).

Despite the evolution of VI practices, VI remains conceptually contested. Building on Knight (2004)’s definition of internationalization of higher education, Bruhn-Zass (2020, p. 49) conceptualized VI as ‘the process of introducing an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the delivery, purpose, or functions of higher education with the help of information and communications technology.’ This framing highlights the relevance of ICT in the ethos, practices, and processes of higher education internationalization, offering a comprehensive outlook of VI that encompasses curriculum design, international partnerships, distance education, and institutional engagements. Yet, as de Wit et al. (2015) cautioned for internationalization more broadly, VI requires strategic and intentional governance to avoid reproducing inequalities. The rapid evolution of digital technologies also calls for systematic scrutiny of their effects. These considerations set the stage for examining the challenges of VI implementation and their interplay with broader governance structures.

2.2. Identified Challenges in the Implementation of Virtual Internationalization

Inspired by Bruhn-Zass’s (2022) Comprehensive Internationalization model, Ferreira Santos (2024) examined internationalization under digital transformation across four domains, including support structures, leadership, cooperation, and teaching and learning. Building on these dimensions, we conducted an integrative reading of recent case studies and reviews and adapted these lenses into a challenge-focused scheme for VI implementation. Accordingly, four categories of challenges were identified:

(1)

Technological and infrastructure barriers: The uneven access to advanced technology exacerbates the digital divide and education inequalities both internationally and nationally (Ferreira Santos, 2024; Liu et al., 2021; Weaver et al., 2024).

(2)

Policy and regulatory hurdles: Variations in national regulations can create practical restrictions, which are time-consuming and may deter faculty from engaging in virtual exchanges (Qiu et al., 2024).

(3)

Amplified cross-cultural and communication misunderstandings: Due to the reduced contextual elements and practical differences, this might lead students and teachers to misinterpretation and a lack of trust (Ferreira Santos, 2024; Hanisch et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2021).

(4)

Pedagogical integration and recognition issues: Virtual exchange is not valued academically or fails to navigate different curricula effectively, preventing students or teachers from concentrated commitments (Ferreira Santos, 2024).

(5)

Collectively, these challenges explain the ongoing contestation surrounding VI’s scope and value, and motivate a coherent governance architecture capable of coordinating actors, aligning incentives, and steering technologies towards equitable outcomes.

2.3. Digital Governance in Virtual Internationalization

In response to the above challenges, the notion of ‘digital governance’ has emerged as a relevant and timely framework for the strategic management of VI. While some studies emphasize digital governance as the technical integration of ICT into institutional workflows (Hanisch et al., 2023; Li, 2024). This study adopts a broader view of digital governance as a dynamic process of negotiations among organizational structures, stakeholders’ engagement, and technological advancement, which in turn guide the ethical, strategic, and operational use of digital technologies in VI across HEIs (Alenezi, 2023; Zhang, 2023). It extends beyond individual actions to systemic interactions (Erkut, 2020). Drawing on convergent strands in the literature and guided by Bruhn-Zass’ (2022) Comprehensive Internationalization model, we adapted and consolidated dispersed elements into four interdependent dimensions:

(1)

Strategic and institutional governance: This dimension includes leadership, vision, strategic planning, and the formulation of policies that align digital initiatives with the institution’s core mission (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; Alenezi, 2023);

(2)

Operational and technical governance: This dimension covers the deployment and management of digital infrastructures, technological tools, cybersecurity measures, and quality assurance systems that support day-to-day digital operations (AlDhaen et al., 2022; Li, 2024);

(3)

Human and cultural governance: This dimension emphasizes stakeholder engagement, professional development, digital literacy, and change management procedures that ensure both staff and students are equipped to adapt to technological disruptions (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; Alenezi, 2023);

(4)

External and collaborative governance: This dimension incorporates partnership development, cross-border collaboration, and the establishment of international networks that extend the institution’s digital capabilities beyond its immediate boundaries (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; Novoselova, 2023).

While this functional categorization is useful for institutional benchmarking and resource allocation, it is important to highlight that all four dimensions are mutually constitutive and must operate in concert to achieve successful VI (Bruhn-Zass, 2022). This interdependence invites analyses that move beyond the question of which dimensions matter to how they co-function to produce enabling or constraining conditions for VI.

2.4. Analytical Framework: Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

To navigate the complex interplay of digital governance factors, this study employs Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as its analytical framework. Originating in science and technology studies, ANT is a theoretical and methodological approach that examines how human and non-human actors form dynamic networks through processes of negotiation, translation, and stabilization (Callon, 1986; Law, 1992; Latour, 2005). Rather than treating social structures as fixed or human-centered, ANT reveals the contingent assemblages of socio-material linkages that evolve, extend, and stabilize over time (Fenwick, 2011).

In ANT, an actor refers to any human or non-human entity that exerts agency by shaping or sustaining a network. ‘Entity’ is used to encompass material objects and immaterial objects and actions that are not pre-given, essentialized, or fixed, such as concepts, morals, and virtues (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011). Agency in ANT is relational. It arises from the heterogeneity of actors in networked relations. When actors exert agency, they act through their associations with others who may exceed or surprise (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011). A network itself can be understood as ‘the summing up of interactions through various kinds of devices, inscriptions, forms and formulae, into a local, practical, tiny locus’ (Latour, 1999, p. 17).

Central to ANT is the concept of translation, the process by which actors enroll and align other actors into a network through four interconnected stages. First, problematization identifies a central problem and posits an ‘obligatory passage point’ through which all actors must eventually pass (Carroll, 2018). During this initial stage, actors should be warned that the current systems are no longer sufficient for them to continue their existing practices, and they need to connect with other actors with the same interests to construct a common solution (Luck, 2008, p. 157). For example, when a policy reform is introduced, a focal actor, also known as a ‘heterogenous engineer’ in ANT terms, typically defines the issue and assigns roles to various traditional and non-traditional participants, establishing a framework for intervention. Following problematization, the process of interessement is deployed to lock other actors into pre-assigned roles. This stage is characterized by negotiations and the use of interest-eliciting devices, such as standardized documents or incentive structures, that act to persuade actors to adopt specific positions (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011). The subsequent stage, enrollment, formalizes the roles negotiated during interessement by aligning actors’ interests with those of the network. Finally, mobilization is the stage at which network stability is maintained and extended to secure further alignment and the participation of additional actors (Fenwick & Edwards, 2011). When a network achieves stability and its components are no longer contested, it finishes inscription and enters the Black Box, where the details of the negotiation and internal complexities become obscured or unquestioned (Czarniawska, 2006). These constructs are inherently well-suited to social inquiry because they trace agency to social-material configurations and practices rather than to abstract and pre-established categories (Fenwick, 2011).

In educational research, ANT has proven valuable for analyzing how innovations, policies, and governance practices participate in the assemblage of power relations across space and time (Fenwick, 2011, p. 119). It has been argued as particularly useful for assessing educational reform and policies, as it offers a way to sensitize how different actors that appear to be completely foreign become mobilized through minute socio-material connections in educational interventions (Fenwick, 2011). For instance, it has traced how policy texts, assessment procedures, and management protocols collectively come to have tangible effects, challenging human-centric views by showing non-human actors’ active roles in distributed leadership and system governance (Mulcahy & Perillo, 2010; Carroll, 2018; Kamp, 2018). ANT’s exploratory ethos, which focuses on enactment rather than causation, avoids imposing a priori concepts or structures, making it ideal for unpacking emergent educational interventions (Fenwick, 2011; Fenwick & Edwards, 2011).

ANT is particularly suited to this study on VI in digital governance contexts, as it treats technologies, digital platforms, institutional policies, and data regulations as active non-human actors that co-shape outcomes alongside human stakeholders, such as students, faculty, and university leaders and policymakers (Ganassin et al., 2021). By tracing translations, ANT reveals how these elements interact with each other and form networks that influence VI implementation in practice. This socio-material lens positions digital governance not as static management but as negotiated processes, enabling a nuanced analysis of VI’s equitable implementation beyond traditional frameworks.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

As digital governance involves complex, multi-stakeholder systems, this study follows a qualitative descriptive design to explore academic members’ perspectives on digital governance in VI, generating insights for policy and practice (Creswell, 2015). Since this study is interested in the collective experiences of digital governance in VI, a focus group was adopted as the data collection method, allowing participants to build on each other’s insights and discuss shared experiences. This approach can provide richer and more detailed data that might not easily emerge in individual interviews (Gundumogula, 2020).

3.2. Participants

In this study, five virtual and three face-to-face focus group discussions were conducted with 46 participants from six non-Anglophone countries, including Austria, Belgium, China, Portugal, Poland, and Türkiye. These participants were selected following a convenience and purposive sampling approach. Firstly, these focus groups were conducted during one face-to-face workshop on VI in 2022 (G6–G8) and one online capacity-building program on academic leadership and internationalization in 2023 (G1–G5). Both activities addressed VI at HEIs and its management, aligning with the scope of the study. Secondly, all participants were academic members from HEIs, including academic leaders (such as head of research groups, director of research centers, rector/dean/vice dean), teaching staff (professor/associate professor/lecturer), or researchers (postdoctoral fellows, PhD students) representing a wide range of institutional stakeholders for VI, empowering a multi-stakeholder perspective for this research. Thirdly, these participants follow a quite average age span and gender equality, ensuring a more balanced perspective for this research. Fourthly, all participants were fluent English speakers, ensuring that they could express and communicate their authentic ideas without language restrictions. The demographic characteristics of the focus group participants are depicted in

Table 1. Information about the focus group participants.

Variables	f (Participants)	% (Percentage)
Region
From European Universities	16	34.7
From Chinese Universities	30	65.2
Age
20–29	15	32.60
30–39	16	34.78
40–49	13	28.26
50–59	2	4.34
Gender
Female	24	52.17
Male	22	47.82
Position
Academic leaders	16	34.78
Teaching staff	16	34.78
Researchers	14	30.43

.

The detailed composition of each focus group is presented in

Table 2. Focus group composition.

Group Number	Discussion Context	f (Participants)	Geographical Distribution
G1	Online discussion	8	China (Beijing, Shanghai)
G2	Online discussion	4	China (Beijing, Shanghai, Guilin)
G3	Online discussion	6	China (Shanghai, Kunming, Guilin, Wuhan)
G4	Online discussion	4	China (Beijing, Shanghai)
G5	Online discussion	8	China (Beijing, Shanghai, Kunming, Guilin)
G6	Face-to-face workshop	5	Belgium, Türkiye, Austria, Portugal
G7	Face-to-face workshop	6	Belgium, Türkiye, Austria, Poland
G8	Face-to-face workshop	5	Belgium, Türkiye, Portugal, Poland

, highlighting the geographical and contextual distribution of participants. Because this program was hosted in Europe under strict COVID-19 cross-border travel restrictions, Chinese participants joined online only, while the face-to-face groups were purposively assembled to reflect the diversity of European participants.

3.3. Data Collection

After consulting expert opinions, focus group questions were formed based on the three main research questions. Prior to the focus group, researchers of this study explained the basic theory of virtual internationalization and digital governance to group members to ensure the coherence of the focus group discussions. After the theoretical explanation, participants were divided into different focus groups with consideration of fair distribution of participants across different positions. In each focus group, there was a moderator and a group reporter. Each focus group lasted about 50–60 min and was carried out in English. After the focus group discussions, the five virtual focus groups and the three face-to-face focus groups both had the opportunity to share their group results in their respective setting for mutual learning. All the sessions in the eight focus groups were audio-recorded with the permission of the participants and later transcribed verbatim.

3.4. Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, with particular attention to participants’ autonomy, confidentiality, and well-being. Informed verbal consent was obtained from all participants prior to each focus group discussion. This approach was chosen given that some sessions were conducted in virtual settings where written consent was impractical and could potentially disrupt the natural flow of conversation. The consent procedure involved reading a standardized script aloud to the group, confirming participants’ understanding, and securing their explicit verbal agreement before commencing the session (see Appendix A).

To ensure ethical integrity and protect participant confidentiality, all personal identifiers were anonymized during the processes of data collection, analysis, and reporting. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw their data at any point before the completion of data analysis. No financial or material incentives were offered in order to minimize potential coercion and maintain the voluntary nature of participation.

3.5. Data Analysis

After data collection, all focus group transcripts were imported into the qualitative software MAXQDA 24 (Release 24.9.0) for data analysis, which facilitated visualization of qualitative data to find relatedness among codes and the overarching themes. To reflect participants’ accounts of experiences and perceptions as authentically as possible, we employed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) guided by ANT, treating meaning and experience with a constructionist approach. The analysis proceeded in four linked phases.

Phase 1: Development of the Analytical Framework. This initial phase of the analysis involved data familiarization, during which both researchers read all the transcripts multiple times to gain a comprehensive understanding of the dataset. To operationalize data analysis, a deductive coding framework was established based on the four moments of translation from ANT (Luck, 2008). Through preliminary analysis of the dataset, the normalization process of VI was found to constitute a primary actor-network. Meanwhile, each of the challenges identified within the implementation of VI served as the problematization moment for a distinct subsidiary actor-network. The digital governance factors enacted to resolve these challenges formed the remaining translation processes of each subsidiary network. This multi-level analytical framework (see

Table 3. Analysis matrix for the first-round deductive ANT reading.

Translation Moments	Problematization	Interessement	Enrollment	Mobilization
Key Focus	How was the obligatory passage point constituted?	How were the actors locked into place?	How did the actors reconcile their roles?	How did the network maintain its stability?
VI normalization-process network (RQ1)	RQ1	RQ1	RQ1	RQ1
Subsidiary actor-network 1 (RQ2.1)	Challenge 2.1	Digital Factors 2.1	Digital Factors 2.1	Digital Factors 2.1
Subsidiary actor-network 2 (RQ2.2)	Challenge 2.2	Digital Factors 2.2	Digital Factors 2.2	Digital Factors 2.2
…	…	…	…	…

) set up the basic analytical framework for assessing the network dynamics that emerged from our group discussions.

Phase 2: Integrated Coding and Actor Identification. Following the establishment of the deductive framework, the authors individually generated inductive sub-themes from the data at both the semantic and latent levels. Regular discussions were held to compare interpretations and reconcile any potential discrepancies in the coding process (Campbell et al., 2013). A crucial component of this phase was the simultaneous identification of actors. As each sub-theme was developed, we systematically identified the human and non-human actors involved, coding their roles and relational effects within the network. For instance, for the data segment discussing the rapid institutional development of educational platforms, we assigned it to the sub-theme ‘pandemic-induced obligation’, and we applied the code ‘educational platforms-NH: sustain education delivery under COVID’, logging its function within the emerging network.

Phase 3: Network Mapping. In this phase, the analysis moved from coding to network construction. We systematically mapped the associations among the identified actors across the four moments of translation to trace how networks were formed, contested, and stabilized. This process was integrative and rigorous. Provisional networks were continuously refined by returning to the raw data to verify associations and resistances. This refinement continued until data and meaning saturation were achieved (Saunders et al., 2018).

Phase 4: Network Consolidation. Network consolidation occurred when it showed internal coherence and stability across the four moments. At this point, it was conceptually ‘black-boxed’, treated as a stable functioning structure, allowing for an analysis of its broader implications (Czarniawska, 2006).

This rigorous multi-level analytical approach ensures that our findings are authentically grounded in the empirical data, providing a transparent and nuanced account of the VI normalization process and the dynamic interplay between its associated challenges and digital governance factors.

4. Findings

4.1. Processes for the Normalization of VI at HEIs

In this study, nine groups of actors, both human and non-human, were identified as major players in shaping and being influenced by the normalization of VI at HEIs. The human actors comprised institutional leadership, academic members, internationalization-relevant staff and students, while the non-human actors consisted of the COVID-19 pandemic, national and institutional regulatory policies, educational platforms, videoconference applications, and institutional digital infrastructures. They were not mutually exclusive, and their interactions collectively contributed to the formation of the VI normalization network at HEIs.

• Problematization

The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a disruptive non-human actor that emerged as a critical catalyst for the shift to VI, driving the need for transformation. Due to the contagious nature of the pandemic, countries worldwide adopted strict mobility restriction policies, placing traditional internationalization methods, such as student and faculty exchange, in crisis. These restrictions compelled academic members and internationalization-relevant staff to maintain international education delivery and exchanges (G5, G7), and execute international cooperation and research exchanges (G1, G2, G3, G5, G7) through digital platforms.

Prior to the pandemic, some HEIs had existing digital transformation policies, but these were not fully implemented due to the conservative attitudes of some academic and administrative staff (G1, G5, G7). The pandemic, however, created an imperative for all university members, including the university leadership and students, to embrace digital transformation (G1, G5, G7), which effectively fostered the common acceptance of a ‘new normal’ (G2) of hybrid working and studying. A Belgian researcher (female, 30–40) encapsulated this shift:

‘Before the COVID-19, universities were aware of using technology in internationalization, but not all of them used it. They were motivated, [but] nothing forced them to do so except some institutions where people saw the potential of it. After the COVID, all universities have no choice but [to] transform the institution toward digital direction. After using technology in internationalization, I think their perceptions have been changing. They realized that they could apply VI or hybrid model.’

Thus, the pandemic framed the problem of inaccessible traditional internationalization, positioning digital mediation as the obligatory passage point for the continuation of international education.

• Interessement

During the interessement phase, key human actors began to engage with digital platforms as a solution to the challenges posed by the pandemic. Empowered by rapidly developed institutional digital infrastructures, human actors were enticed by the perceived ‘flexibility and convenience’ of VI, which alleviated geographical, temporal, and budgetary barriers to cross-border education and collaboration (G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, G8). For instance, the use of online educational programs (G1, G6, G7, G8) and online international conferences (G1, G7) broadened access to international education, allowing for a more diversified delivery format of learning content (G6, G7) and attracting broader international audiences (G6, G8). Videoconference applications like Zoom and Microsoft Teams enabled efficient international research coordination (G4, G5).

For students, VI expanded their access to international experiences (G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, G8), especially for those who would never have the financial resources or the time to engage in such intensive international exchanges. Since the introduction of the VI, they have had the opportunity to join international communication through online seminars and programs (G2, G5, G7, G8).

For academic members and internationalization-relevant staff, they noted less procrastination and increased efficiency in information exchange with the help of videoconference applications (G1-G5, G8). They also noticed a broader access to institutions or academics with VI (G2, G6, G7), which was more conducive to collaborative education and cross-border research interaction.

For university leaders, VI represented a strategic tool to engage international alumni for talent cultivation (G1, G4) and empower institutions in less-developed regions (G2). Additionally, VI enabled ‘global learning on demand’ (G6, G7, G8), and international sharing of educational resources (G1, G2, G4), which participants argued would enhance curriculum development and student preparedness to international education. A Belgian researcher (male, 30–40) explained:

‘In some Asian countries, they have traditional curriculum, and they teach in a passive form. […] With the VI, students can be prepared for internationalization, and they will not be shocked when they go to the West.’

• Enrollment

The process of enrollment in the VI network led to evolving roles for academic members, students, and HEIs (G6, G7, G8). Faculty were redefined not only as instructors but also as ‘technical supporters’ and ‘course designers’ (G7), while students transitioned from passive ‘followers’ to ‘active participants’ in virtual classrooms (G7).

At the institutional level, participants discussed how HEIs might reorient their missions toward ‘pushing the boundaries’ (G6) of internationalization and ‘providing international public products’ (G8). As the adoption of VI progressed, university leadership increasingly recognized the strategic importance of VI, particularly for increasing the global presence of institutions located in less-developed regions (G2).

Despite these opportunities, several participants pointed out the ambiguity in the boundaries of VI. Many questioned whether the ‘use of digital means for online communication’ (G1, G3), such as email exchanges or virtual meetings via ZOOM or Microsoft Teams (G1, G2, G3, G7), should be considered part of VI or if it still fell within the realm of traditional internationalization. Some participants highlighted the lack of clarity in distinguishing between virtual and traditional forms of internationalization, neglecting the increasing potential of ‘the technical aspects of technology’ (G1). A Chinese Assistant Professor (female, 30–40) reflected this confusion:

‘When we talk to our international cooperation partners, email correspondence is the most basic thing. Does this count as virtual internationalization, or is it considered our traditional internationalization? I feel that I may not have understood the boundaries too well.’

Following the discussion, while digital communication technologies were acknowledged as vital to VI, several participants noted the untapped potential of digital twin technologies, which was about ‘the use of analog techniques to simulate realities of internationalization in metaverse’ (G1, G2, G3, G8), such as AI-driven virtual teachers (G3) and VR-enabled international exchanges (G8). In this regard, VI was understood as ‘a non-confrontational experience of the human body that brings the proximity of the psychological space’ (G1, G2, G7).

Considering the growing complexities of new technical applications in VI, participants advocated for limiting the subject of VI to HEIs (G4, G5, G6, G8) and proposed viewing VI as ‘an institutional process to deliver products, courses, and learning content virtually and make them openly available’ (G6).

• Mobilization

The final phase, mobilization, saw the normalization of VI as a key component of the ‘new normal’ in higher education. Many participants anticipated that VI would continue its momentum in the post-pandemic time (G1, G3, G5, G7), because ‘people already recognized the benefits of VI’ (G7) and ‘the improving technology would expand and deepen it in all aspects’ (G5).

A majority of participants viewed VI as a ‘supplement to traditional internationalization’ (G1-G8), retaining ‘traditional purpose and core functions of internationalization in higher education’ (G2, G4), such as resource exchange, personnel mobility, and research collaboration. They stressed the ‘digitality of ICT’ (G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8) as defining feature enabling VI practices.

Despite these positive attitudes toward VI, some participants characterized VI as a ‘double-edged sword’ (G5) and underlined that it could never replace traditional internationalization, especially when it came to ‘human creativity and human relations’ (G8).

Given VI’s expansive international outreach and democratizing potential, participants from China saw VI as a means to promote national soft power by promoting national curricula abroad and providing international access to Chinese educational resources (G1, G4). This idea materialized through the construction and development of international platforms. A Chinese Professor (male, 40–50) contextualized this idea within China’s post-pandemic realities:

‘I think it is very important for us to develop platforms now. […] Its server and its technology should be developed by Chinese universities and scholars, and these platforms should be [promoted] to the world, so that foreigners will be able to access our courses. After the pandemic, the Ministry of Education said that we had built the world’s largest online curriculum system. Why don’t we promote our curriculum abroad, for example, in either English or Chinese? To the third-world or other developing countries? We need to export our curriculum and teaching materials, which is our real internationalization.’

Ultimately, the normalization of VI in HEIs does not establish a single, static ‘new norm’, but rather a dynamic and contested settlement. This ongoing contestation is evident in its purpose, where VI serves simultaneously as a democratizing supplement to traditional internationalization, a ‘double-edged sword’, and a strategic vehicle for national soft power. Its boundaries are continuously negotiated through the interactions between human and non-human actors, including new technologies, pedagogies, and institutional policies. The following section delves into the specific challenges arising from this unsettled landscape and the relevant digital governance efforts introduced to address them.

4.2. Negotiating VI Implementation Challenges Through Digital Governance Mechanisms

The previous section demonstrated how VI became normalized at HEI, revealing both the strategic opportunities it presented and the practical challenges that required careful governance for successful implementation. Through reflexive thematic analysis, four categories of challenges were identified, including pedagogical integration, technological and infrastructural barriers, cross-cultural and communication misunderstandings, and governance and management complexities. These challenges align with the problematization of their corresponding sub-actor-networks in the context of VI’s implementation.

4.2.1. Promoting Pedagogical Integration

Problematization: VI intensified global competition for HEIs, which now contended not only with other universities worldwide but also with online learning platforms and individual content creators (G2, G6, G8). Participants expressed concerns about the homogenization of course content due to lax regulations surrounding online courses, emphasizing the need for innovation in pedagogy and course content design (G6, G8). This shift posed challenges in maintaining unique, high-quality offerings in the face of a more globalized, digital education environment.

Interessement: The diverse needs of international learners prompted responsible faculty staff to design digital curricula that incorporated culturally responsive content and inclusive pedagogical strategies (G6, G7, G8). The global reach and rapid advancement of digital technologies allowed for collaboration with international experts in co-designing curricula, accommodating new learning modalities that could better serve a global student base (G6, G7).

Enrollment: Disciplinary differences significantly influenced VI’s applicability (G1, G4, G7). While VI proved effective in facilitating international professional development, some disciplines requiring hands-on techniques or specialized materials faced challenges in translating their pedagogical methods to virtual platforms (G7). For instance, the current development of VI’s technology and infrastructure was considered ill-suited for replicating on-the-ground medical or biological experiments, which demand precision and experience (G3). Participants suggested that HEIs reimagine assessment frameworks that can both transcend traditional metrics and fit digital transformations, accounting for disciplinary variations and proposing new evaluation criteria such as content design, pedagogical methodology, and learner engagement (G8).

Mobilization: Participants stressed the need to embed cross-cultural learning within online curricula (G5, G6, G8) and to develop dedicated accreditation for virtual programs to enhance their societal impact and recognition (G5, G8). They acknowledged that these strategies were essential to ensure the credibility and inclusiveness of VI initiatives.

4.2.2. Reducing Technological and Infrastructural Barriers

Problematization: Participants noted that the effectiveness of virtual experiences in VI depended on the quality of internet connectivity (G3, G4). Interruptions in connectivity could disrupt communication fluidity, leading to ‘frustration and bad feelings’ (G3), which would deter continued engagement. Also, VI’s high reliance on digital infrastructure and internet connection risked exacerbating the global digital divide, potentially excluding certain under-resourced countries from the benefits of VI (G4, G7, G8).

Interessement: Two critical pillars of digital infrastructure were identified as necessary for effective VI. The first pillar was reliable internet accessibility and connectivity (G4, G7, G8), which was considered the most important physical condition for VI to happen. The second was robust digital hardware and platforms (G1, G2, G4–G8), which could directly influence VI’s functionality (G1, G2, G4–G8). For instance, videoconferencing tools such as ZOOM and Microsoft Teams facilitated the organization of online meetings and transnational research coordination (G4), while dedicated e-learning platforms such as DingTalk Classroom and Xuexitong supported online teaching and learning (G5). The use of advanced technologies, such as virtual reality for immersive online communication, was also seen as a potential for enhancing the VI experience in the future (G8).

Enrollment: Given the empowerment potential of digital technologies and platforms, participants stressed the need for HEIs to invest in the development of these technologies to provide robust technical support (G2, G4, G6–G8). They argued that such investments were critical to the continued success of virtual internationalization and to narrowing the digital divide.

Mobilization: To address the challenges of the digital divide, participants called for more attention to finding solutions to narrow the gap rather than becoming too obsessed with the problem itself (G8). They advocated for increased investment in public infrastructure and expanded public internet access, particularly in under-resourced regions (G8). These efforts were seen as crucial for ensuring that the benefits of VI were accessible to all actors within the network.

4.2.3. Mitigating Cross-Cultural and Communication Misunderstandings

Problematization: While most participants praised VI for its efficiency in facilitating communication and the exchange of ideas, they questioned its effectiveness in fostering deep partnerships or high-quality learning experiences (G1, G2, G5–G8). Three interrelated key factors contributed to these limitations. First, the absence of ‘offline intimacy’ (G1, G2, G5–G8) in online environments hindered the transmission of ‘non-verbal expressions’ (G1, G6, G8) and ‘emotional exchanges’ (G1, G2), which are crucial for meaningful interactions and personal connections (G1, G5–G7). Second, virtual environments struggled to replicate the ‘cultural atmosphere’ (G2, G5, G7, G8), which is essential for intercultural education and international collaboration. Third, fragmented attention in virtual spaces reduced participants’ ‘sense of involvement’ (G1, G5), as they were more prone to distractions or multitasking in an online setting.

Interessement and Enrollment: While changing the virtual setting was challenging, participants highlighted two key skills that could mitigate cross-cultural misinterpretations in the virtual world. First. linguistic proficiency was seen as essential for ensuring communication clarity (G4, G8). Second, logistical coordination skills and intercultural understandings, which were emphasized as crucial for managing temporal and cultural differences in virtual collaborations (G7, G8).

Mobilization: Building on these skills, participants stressed the importance of creative thinking in facilitating collaboration and building interpersonal relations in virtual spaces. A Portuguese researcher illustrated this with an example from a virtual kickoff activity between a Dutch university and a Mexican university during the pandemic era:

‘Since it was impossible to meet face to face, they hosted the kickoff online and tried to incorporate story sharing as an icebreaker. They asked everyone to present an artifact from their own culture and talk about it or present a photo of their family or anything if they wish to. It’s important that they try to introduce people to each other virtually. Obviously, it is easy when you have face-to-face meetings, and it’s hard to have such efforts in distant places, but it’s still possible.’

4.2.4. Addressing Governance and Management Complexities

Problematization: A significant governance challenge identified by participants was resistance from ‘academic conservatives’ who were more hesitant to embrace digital changes (G6). Participants observed that higher education was generally more reserved or conservative than corporate sectors when it came to adopting new digital practices. The increasing number of actors involved in VI led to ‘anxieties over who would ultimately control internationalization’ (G2), and some faculty members felt ‘a little bit panic’ due to the need to adapt to new work patterns (G6).

Additionally, the absence of physical workplace constraints led to diminished awareness of time boundaries. Not only time differences between international collaborators posed logistical challenges (G7, G8), the blurring boundaries between professional and personal lives also led to fatigue and decreased motivation for international engagements (G2).

Ethical concerns, especially risks in data management and security (G1, G3, G7), further compounded these challenges. Due to the highly transmissible nature of digital mediums, participants called for vigilance over the information that would be shared online through VI initiatives (G1, G3).

Interessement: To address these challenges, participants highlighted the importance of ‘having a shared vision at organizational level’ (G1, G2, G6, G8) to align stakeholders with common objectives and foster adaptability and proactive engagement with VI. This shared vision should be translated into actionable policies and regulations to ensure that VI initiatives were responsive to institutional needs and inclusive of the local community (G1, G7). Key policy areas included data security protocols, privacy protection mechanisms, and institutional impact assessment frameworks of VI initiatives (G1, G4, G7).

Enrollment: Role-specific competencies emerged as essential for successful engagement in VI across institutional hierarchies. Institutional leaders needed strategic leadership to articulate clear visions and robust digital transformation strategies (G6), market-oriented capabilities to manage the increasingly competitive landscape of HEIs and align different stakeholders (G4, G6) and ethical literacy to guide decision-making in digitally mediated contexts (G3). Faculty and researchers required technical proficiency in digital tools to effectively organize online collaborations (G2, G6–G8), media literacy to critically evaluate and filter undesirable information (G3), and intercultural sensitivity and communication skills to accommodate diverse customs and needs and integrate cross-cultural experiences into virtual settings (G3, G4, G6, G8). Students needed basic digital literacy and a proactive learning attitude to thrive in virtual environments (G2, G7).

Mobilization: Participants advocated for the institutionalization of continuous professional development programs to equip all stakeholders with the necessary competencies for VI (G6, G7). They also called for the recruitment of specialized digital professionals, such as ‘digital designers’ and ‘structural designers’, to translate VI initiatives into concrete, high-quality outcomes (G6). Moreover, participants emphasized the need for improved time management practices to ensure smooth virtual engagement of relevant stakeholders.

These four sub-actor-networks demonstrate that overcoming the challenges in VI implementation is a multifaceted process of socio-technical negotiation. The digital governance mechanisms are not limited to top-down policies but encompass a range of translations, from infrastructural investment and pedagogical redesign to the cultivation of new intercultural and leadership competencies. Each challenge requires the continuous deliberate alignment of both human and non-human actors to ensure the long-term success and inclusivity of VI.

5. Discussion

This study provides valuable insights into academic members’ experiences of VI within digital governance contexts in non-Anglophone settings. Through the lens of ANT, this study reveals how VI became normalized at HEIs and how its associated challenges could be addressed through digital governance, which was a dynamic, negotiated arrangement rather than a purely technical governance layer (Alenezi, 2023; Zhang, 2023).

5.1. Normalization Process of Virtual Internationalization

The findings of this study corroborates with previous literatures (Leask, 2020; de Wit & Altbach, 2021; Guo, 2023) and positions VI as a ‘new normal’ that can have a long-term impact amidst internationalization practices. The findings showed that the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as a powerful non-human actor that reconfigured internationalization logics (Guo, 2023; Guppy et al., 2022). While actors such as academic and internationalization-relevant staff, students, and university leadership engaged with VI as a necessity, the network was shaped by ongoing negotiations regarding digital tools, technological infrastructure, and cultural adaptations. Worldwide HEIs relied on digital platforms for operational continuity, and digital platforms solidified their position in international education, forcing relevant stakeholders to engage with VI and cultivate their preparedness for this adaptation. Despite some operational challenges, people were accustomed to this hybrid working model with benefits such as flexibility and accessibility.

When talking about VI experiences, participants in this study largely resonate with Bruhn-Zass (2020), emphasizing VI as an ICT-enabled process sustaining traditional internationalization functions (Bruhn-Zass, 2020; Lima et al., 2020; O’Dowd, 2022). However, this perception was challenged by the ambiguity of ‘virtuality’ of ICT (Bruhn-Zass, 2020). Even though the transformative potential of advanced technologies beyond ICT was acknowledged in building ‘psychological proximity’ in the virtual sphere, this scope was not largely explored due to the lack of technological affordance. This divergence in the understanding of VI reflects a critical ANT insight: the meaning of VI is not fixed but continually negotiated through stakeholders’ expectations and technological availabilities. Whether VI is perceived as an extension or transformation depends on how actors, both human (academics, staff, leaders, students) and non-human (platforms, tools, policies), mobilize around specific visions and affordances of ‘virtuality’. This also suggests that the understanding of VI is not yet black-boxed, indicating opportunities for further contestation and applications.

The global accessibility and cost-effectiveness of ICT play an important role to engage relevant stakeholders in the process of VI (Chang & Gomes, 2022; Guo, 2023), offering not only operational efficiency, but also a strategic opportunity for national soft power building and equitable global exchange. This geopolitical dimension has previously been underrepresented and enriches the discourse on VI’s broader international implications (Kondakçı & Keleş, 2021). Nevertheless, VI falls short in fostering intimacy and deep relational exchanges (Mittelmeier et al., 2021), reaffirming the relevance of ‘face-to-face interactions’ in internationalization, which cannot be fully replaced by VI.

5.2. Perceived Challenges in VI Implementation

The findings of this study substantiate prior work showing that VI implementation is constrained by pedagogical, technological and cross-cultural factors (Ferreira Santos, 2024; Liu et al., 2021; Weaver et al., 2024), while extending these domains with context-sensitive insights.

Pedagogical integration remains affected by recognition issue around VI programs (Ferreira Santos, 2024). Additionally, participants highlighted intensifying competition between HEIs and alternative education providers and pointed to a tendency towards homogenization of course content.

In relation to technological and infrastructural barriers, the analysis demonstrates the centrality of stable internet connectivity to ensure consistent VI experiences, and reaffirms concerns about a widening digital divide due to uneven access to advanced technologies (Ferreira Santos, 2024; Liu et al., 2021; Weaver et al., 2024).

For cross-cultural and communication misunderstandings, the study reveals that the absence of offline intimacy and non-verbal expression constrains emotional exchange, while the lack of cultural atmosphere and a diminished sense of involvement further compound stakeholder disengagement from VI implementation. This clarifies how attenuated contextual cues in virtual settings foster misinterpretation and erode trust (Ferreira Santos, 2024; Hanisch et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2021) and underscores the need for creative approaches to reestablish emotional connection and cultural bonding in virtual exchanges.

Although variations in national regulations are less developed in the present dataset (Qiu et al., 2024), the findings surface additional governance and management complexities. These challenges include internal resistance by ‘academic conservatives’, weakened awareness of temporal boundaries in virtual environments, and ethical concerns over data privacy and security. Together, they align with Fenwick’s (2011) argument that educational technologies do not merely assist human actors, but reassemble relational configurations and responsibilities within academic systems. Their governance is thus enacted and must be continuously negotiated among organizational arrangements, stakeholder engagement, and technological change (Alenezi, 2023; Zhang, 2023), which sets up the need to consider digital governance not as a backdrop but as a set of systematically interdependent mechanisms through which VI is steered (Erkut, 2020).

5.3. Critical Digital Governance Factors for Successful VI

Through the lens of ANT, our findings identify a coherent set of digital governance factors across four dimensions adapted from the literature, including strategic and institutional, operational and technical, human and cultural, and external and collaborative governance (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; AlDhaen et al., 2022; Li, 2024; Novoselova, 2023). These dimensions operate not as silos but as interrelated mechanisms that translate problems into stabilized practice.

For strategic and institutional governance, this study corroborates with prior work, highlighting the importance of leadership, shared vision, and policy alignment with institutional mission (Alenezi, 2023; Bruhn-Zass, 2022). The findings show that these factors must be able to be translated into actionable and community-responsive policies, particularly regarding data security and privacy protection. It also calls for establishing institutional impact assessment frameworks for VI, which moves beyond generic strategy to concrete instruments that both legitimize VI and render it accountable. These accounts are consistent with the comprehensive stance urged by Bruhn-Zass (2022).

Operational and technical governance stresses infrastructure, platforms, cybersecurity, and quality assurance (AlDhaen et al., 2022; Li, 2024). The findings confirm these elements, but reframe reliable internet connectivity, robust learning platforms, and hardware as preconditions for smooth VI operation. In this regard, this study calls for sustaining institutional investment, complemented by expanded public infrastructure and internet access, to narrow the digital divide. It also emphasizes the recruitment of specialized digital professionals to build system-level capacity and equity.

Regarding human and cultural governance, the existing literature emphasizes stakeholder engagement, professional development, digital literacy, and change management (Alenezi, 2023; Bruhn-Zass, 2022). The findings deepen these accounts by differentiating role-specific capabilities, including strategic leadership and market orientation for leaders, technical and media literacy and intercultural communication for academic and administrative staff, and digital literacy and proactive learning for students. Meanwhile, this study foregrounds linguistic proficiency, logistical coordination, time-management practices, and creative online engagement as crucial transversal skills to rebuild virtual presence and intimacy. These insights pinpoint the cross-cultural and communicative deficits observed in VI practice across different actor groups, offering practical guidance for future capacity-building initiatives to sustain stakeholders’ engagement in virtual environments.

While scholarship focuses on partnerships and networks that extend institutional capability in the external and collaborative governance (Bruhn-Zass, 2022; Novoselova, 2023), this study concretizes this dimension in the pedagogical setting. This specific mechanism involves co-designed curricula with international experts, structured cross-institutional engagements, attention to diverse learning needs of international students, and embedding of cross-cultural learning. Discipline-sensitive assessment frameworks and accreditation for virtual programs should also be developed jointly, gaining quality and recognition of VI practices internationally.

Crucially, the findings challenge any reading of these dimensions as independent checklists. Consistent with Alenezi’s (2023) view of governance as negotiated processes, and with Erkut’s (2020) system perspective, they show that digital governance dimensions function as operational assemblages whose elements circulate across the moments of translation. Challenges are addressed through iterative, multi-actor interactions in which strategic intent, operational means, human capability, and collaboration co-produce translations. Effectiveness arises not from any single lever but from their coordinated movement across moments, making VI workable, legitimate, and accountable at scale.

6. Significance and Limitations of the Study

This study advances understanding of VI by centering academic experiences from non-Anglophone contexts that are often underrepresented in scholarly debate. Using ANT, it moves beyond thematic inventories to a processual account of how human and non-human entities dynamically negotiate, stabilize, and normalize VI practices at HEIs. Empirically, it specifies actionable digital governance levers across four interdependent dimensions, showing how they operate in assemblages rather than being considered as a static structural entity. Finally, this study provides rich empirical qualitative data that can benefit future studies of VI and offers practical guidance for VI-relevant capacity-building initiatives in HEIs.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. Firstly, the sampling strategy combining convenience and purposive sampling resulted in a relatively larger sample of Chinese participants. While this reflects the geographical distribution of participants in the workshops and programs from which data were collected, it may result in possible regional biases and restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regional or institutional contexts. Secondly, while focus groups enabled rich discussions of shared perceptions, they may prioritize consensus or socially desirable narratives over individual, subjective experiences due to group interactions. Nevertheless, this approach aligns with the goal of this study, which is to describe and interpret collective perceptions of VI rather than building a groundbreaking theory. Thirdly, the cross-sectional design of this study captures a snapshot of participants’ VI experiences in the post-pandemic era. However, it risks overlooking the evolving nature of digital technologies, especially amidst the rapid development of generative AI, which may further disrupt VI practices. Longitudinal research is needed to track emergent challenges and opportunities.

7. Conclusions

This study advances understanding of VI in digital governance contexts, particularly from non-Anglophone perspectives, through the lens of ANT.

The findings indicate that VI has become widely normalized due to pandemic-driven adaptations, yet its conceptual boundaries remain contested and continuously negotiated amid technological advancements. The analysis also illuminates VI’s potential as an instrument to enhance institutional global visibility and national soft power.

While VI has been widely normalized in HEIs, its implementation remains constrained by pedagogical, technological, and cross-cultural factors as well as governance and management complexities, underscoring that technologies reorganize relationships and responsibilities and that governance is enacted and negotiated rather than being a static structural entity.

Addressing these challenges requires considering digital governance as interdependent assemblages rather than discrete checklists. The findings specify concrete levers across four digital governance dimensions: Strategic leadership and institutional measures translate shared visions into actionable, community-responsive policies and impact assessment frameworks; Operational and technical provision of reliable connectivity, robust platforms, hardware, sustained institutional investment and specialized digital professionals ensures the smooth operationalization of VI and narrow potential digital divide; Human and cultural development of role-specific capabilities for leaders, staff and students, supported by transversal skills in language, logistics, time management and creative online engagement rebuild virtual presence and intimacy; External and collaborative considerations include internationally co-designed curricula, structured cross-institutional engagements, diverse needs of international students, and discipline-sensitive assessment and accreditation with embedded cross-cultural learning. This study underscores that elements from each dimension circulate across ANT’s moments of translation. Thus, the effectiveness of VI arises not from any single lever but from its coordinated movement.

Future research should address this study’s limitations through longitudinal investigations into VI’s evolving governance dynamics, particularly regarding the implications of emerging technologies such as generative AI and virtual reality for redefining cross-border engagements in the virtual environment. Comparative studies across regional and institutional contexts could further illuminate the role of VI in navigating national interests. Finally, expanding the application of ANT to a particular case of VI could yield richer insights into the dynamics between human and non-human actors and help clarify the interconnectedness supporting effective engagement of VI.