Opinion
At a moment when global instability dominates headlines, from conflict in the Middle East to ongoing geopolitical tensions, universities face a difficult question: should international mobility pause, pivot, or persist? The instinct to retreat is understandable, and even the federal government seems to be de-prioritising short-term mobility under its long-standing New Colombo Plan mobility program. Yet, withdrawing from global engagement risks undermining one of higher education’s most powerful learning mechanisms.
International mobility is not an optional add-on. It is a core educational strategy. Evidence consistently shows that learning abroad builds intercultural competence, global citizenship, and employability, while strengthening international understanding and collaboration. In an era defined by global interdependence, these are not “nice to have” outcomes; they are foundational graduate capabilities.
The real challenge, then, is not whether mobility should continue, but how.
Drawing on a recent book by one of the authors, Integrating Risk Management as a Key Component in Short-term Study Abroad Curriculum: A Teacher’s Perspective (2026), this article also argues that international mobility must be reimagined as a curriculum-integrated, risk-aware practice rather than a standalone experience. This shift is critical in times of disruption. When mobility is embedded into teaching and learning design, and not bolted on, it becomes more resilient, adaptable, and pedagogically defensible. The learning value of mobility is not tied to a specific geography but how the experience is designed.
Why stopping mobility is the wrong move
Short-term mobility programs, study tours, field trips, international placements, are often now one of the most dominant forms of global engagement in higher education. They are particularly important because they widen participation, offering access to students who cannot commit to semester-long exchanges. Research also shows these programs can significantly enhance global citizenship outcomes and professional readiness.
But here is the strategic tension: these programs are not quick to design. Establishing high-quality, ethically sound, and academically rigorous short-term mobility experiences can take 12 to 18 months for a new program and between 6 to 12 months for an established one. If institutions pause or cease them entirely during periods of geopolitical uncertainty, they risk losing years of capacity, partnerships, and curriculum alignment. Restarting is not simply a matter of rebooking flights, it requires rebuilding trust, infrastructure, and pedagogical coherence. This takes time and effort.
This can seem daunting when universities treat risk as an external compliance function alone: travel advisories, insurance, and emergency protocols – while essential, this approach is reactive. It positions risk as something to manage around short-term mobility, rather than through it. A more strategic approach embeds risk into curriculum design. This means, we need to design learning outcomes that explicitly engage with uncertainty, ethics, and global complexity while preparing staff and students before, during and after short-term mobility via structured intercultural and safety training.
When risk is pedagogically integrated, mobility becomes a structured learning process. Students are not simply travelling; they are learning how to navigate complexity in real time, especially when they are involved as partners in the co-design of mobility experiences.
To help sustain international mobility in uncertain times, institutions need to move beyond ad hoc responses and adopt deliberate design strategies, such as symposiums that focus on this type of pedagogy where others can learn from peers and share practice across different short-term mobility modes and models.
Over-reliance on specific regions or partners also creates vulnerability. Institutions/faculties should consider building a portfolio of destinations across geopolitical contexts, including lower-risk regions and domestic alternatives with global learning outcomes. This ensures continuity when specific locations become inaccessible. It is important to be able to pivot quickly, and this might be through joining an established program that has a less-risk destination, for example or considering virtual or online mobility programs.
Mobility should be anchored in sustained partnerships rather than one-off experiences. Long-term collaborations enable flexibility; programs can be adapted, postponed, or reshaped without losing institutional knowledge or trust. Universities that have established international partners also can embed reciprocal mobility programs into their partnerships, often leading to new opportunities in collaborative teaching and research. However, not all programs offer pre-approved alternative destinations (i.e. same learning outcomes, different sites) or dual-mode delivery options (in-country & virtual).
For senior leaders who oversee short-term mobility, this is ultimately a question of educational responsibility. If universities claim to prepare graduates for a complex, uncertain world, then retreating from global engagement sends the wrong signal.
Yes, risk is important, and we should not be sending students and staff to risk-adverse destinations. But we also need to ask: how do we design mobility that is ethical, safe, and pedagogically robust even in times of disruption?
The answer lies in shifting from mobility as travel to mobility as curriculum. The real risk is not that universities will send students into unsafe environments, because that’s relatively easy to prevent with clear policy. The deeper risk is that, at times, institutions try to avoid that scenario and withdraw from international engagement altogether.
In a world marked by conflict and volatility, it is precisely in these moments that international mobility matters most. The mistake equates to “some regions are unsafe” therefore “all mobility is unsafe.” This leap leads to unnecessary program shutdowns and sending study tour leaders back to the drawing board when travel re-opens.
Professor Rachael Hains-Wesson is Associate Dean of Learning & Teaching at RMIT University’s School of Global, Urban and Social Studies and Associate Professor Mark Finn is an Education Specialist in the School of Social Sciences, Media, Film and Education at Swinburne University of Technology.