1. The higher education field: diversity of scenarios, practices, and academic vocations

In Brazil and all over the world the higher education field is heterogenous, and it is possible to identify various segments, with different and specific characteristics caused by the diversity of HEIs that are part of it. As a result, the process of analyzing it entails an understanding of extremely different realities, since HEIs have specific missions, orientations, spatial distributions, and academic organizations. Nonetheless, there is still an ideological discourse treating it as an “uniform” field, although it is possible to verify institutions with different dynamics and management practices, as well as extremely complex and specific academic vocations (^{Martins, 2021}).

The higher education field has many differences, especially when it comes to the contrast between public and private institutions. With respect to the private ones in Brazil, one institution may differ from another in several formal aspects. Concerning its academic organization, it may be a university, a university center, or a college. In terms of juridical constitution of its maintainer, it may be classified as a foundation, a civil association, or a civil society of private law. Moreover, we may distinguish between for profit entities and not for profit ones as well as between secular establishments and confessional ones. Another distinction relates to the nature of their activities – offered programs, having graduate programs, doing research and extension activities, teaching qualifications, among others. Without any doubt a diverse institutional morphology such as this requires that the analyses of the higher education field in the country consider elements that help understand its evolution and current configuration.

Due to the importance of higher education for a country’s development, it has received significant attention from researchers and governmental institutions, all aiming to understand its constitution and dynamics. Several international, national, regional, and local organizations all over the world have increased their interest in researching this theme, which foments different perceptions regarding its evolution.

Over the last forty years, the Brazilian higher education field has been undergoing many transformations in its configuration, occurring in different aspects and leading to a varied typology of institutions with specific characteristics and academic practices. In this context, its expansion has been of lately a target of strong criticism regarding the quality of its offerings. In analyzing this, ^{Cunha (2007)} argues that one of the main factors that has contributed to this situation lies in the fact that the government has been more preoccupied with growing the system in size rather than in quality.

It is worth registering that, in line with a historical tendency, higher education policies in Brazil have established a process over the last decades oriented towards the restriction of the public sphere and the expansion of the private sector, even if it is supposedly a controlled process. Hence, a critical analysis of this tendency requires consideration of the way new scenarios in the field of higher education have emerged, as well as the heterogeneity of the institutions configurating it.

As a matter of fact, the expansion of private HEIs in the last four decades has been accompanied by processes of institutional differentiation that resulted in a complex and heterogenous field, making it difficult to map and assess its practices and vocations, despite the autonomy granted them by the law to academically organize themselves. On the other hand, the public sector has faced considerable difficulties with funding and management to guarantee in an effective way democratization of access and provide quality education for all (^{Bertolin, Marcon, 2015}).

2. Brazilian high education: movements regarding the number of HEIs and enrollments in on-campus and distance learning undergraduate programs (2016-2022)

Data from Censup’s statistical synopses from 2016 and 2022 (^{Inep, 2017d}; ^2023b) demonstrate that the number of HEIs increased by 7.8% in this period. From 2,407 HEIs, it went up to 2,595 (^{INEP, 2017d}), and the most expressive increase, when it comes to administrative category, relates to the public federal institutions, which increased from 107 to 120, a 12.1% growth (^{Inep, 2023b}). In addition, state institutions have also grown above average, since there were 133 in 2022, an increase on the order of 8.1% over the 123 from 2016.

In terms of academic organization of HEIs, since the census of 2016, the most expressive growth has been the one related to university centers, that grew from 166 to 381, an expressive increase of 129.5% in the period selected for analysis in this study. It is noteworthy that the number of colleges dropped to 1.968 in 2022, from 2.004 in 2016, a decrease of 1.8%.

In 2022, the enrollments in undergraduate programs were concentrated, in decreasing order, at private for-profit universities, with 27.3% of the students (2,580,644). Then, in private for-profit university centers, with 11.7% (1,108,512). Private for-profit colleges had 7.8% of enrollments (725,525) in the same year, and the not-for-profit ones less than half of it, corresponding to 299,891 enrollments. The public colleges, in their turn, in the three federative levels, had just 1.2% (257,516) of enrollments in undergraduate programs in Brazil.

Between 2016 and 2022, enrollments in higher education increased both in on-campus and online programs relatively more than the increase related to HEIs. In 2016, there were 8,041,701 students; in 2022, there were 9,444,116, an increase of 17.3% in this period. Part of it was due to the relevant growth of 21.6% of students in undergraduate programs in the private sector, since the number of students went from 6,58,623 to 7,367,363 in the period (^{Inep, 2017d}, ^2023b).

In the same time interval, the public sector grew less, only 4.4%, from 1,999,078 to 2,076,753 enrollments in on-campus and online undergraduate programs. Considering both academic organization and administrative category, enrollments in federal colleges were those with the most expressive relative increase of 172.2% (1,682 to 4,579 respectively, in 2016 and 2022). In their turn, private university centers had an expansion of enrollments of 109.8%, from 1,392,439 students to 2,921,178 ones in the same period. In the opposite direction, private colleges had a decrease of 49.3% in their student population in undergraduate programs, from 2,023,571, in 2016, to 1,025,416 students, in 2022 (^{Inep, 2017d}, ^2023b).

It is worth noting that, in general, enrollments in distance learning programs significantly increased their weight in relation to the total, going from 1,494,418 to 4,330,934, corresponding to 18.6% of the total in 2016 and 45.9% in 2022 (^{Inep, 2017d}, ^2023b). Among all statistical movements discussed regarding the field of higher education in Brazil, in the period under analysis, this could be considered the most relevant in its reconfiguration. This is because, in a six-year period, almost half of the enrollments in undergraduate programs are now in distance learning programs.

The movements related to the number of HEIs and enrollments in on-campus and distance learning undergraduate programs, in the period under analysis, allows to infer that, despite the tendencies toward a concentration in private institutions and online programs, the higher education field in Brazil has different types of institutions, wi th ions, a reality that enables the understanding of this field as being deeply marked by heterogeneity and institutional diversity. In this context, it is reasonable to consider that internationalization requires considering the way such actions reflect the mission and the interests of each HEI. However, apparently, Sinaes policies are not yet capable of capturing the extension nor the variety of these actions, in view of the indicators used to assess them.

3. Foreign students enrolled in undergraduate courses in Brazil

Censup presents data and relevant information for the understanding of students’ profiles enrolled in on-campus undergraduate courses and online ones., in different types of HEIs, taking into consideration both the administrative nature and the academic organization in several regions of the country. This is one of the most important elements of internationalization of Brazilian higher education measured by the census.

The data released by Censup 2022 show that the number of foreign students increased by 24.9% in the period analyzed (^{Inep, 2017d}, ^2023b). However, when it comes to student mobility, this number does not represent a significant progress in terms of internationalization. This is because, in 2016, there were 15,796 foreign students enrolled in Brazilian HEIs (from a total of 8,048,701); this number changed to 9,735 in 2022, from a total of 9,444,116 students.

Therefore, between 2016 and 2022, the proportion of foreign students remained the same: only 0.2% of the student body in on-campus and online undergraduate programs (^{Inep, 2017d}, ^2023b). Table 1 shows the number and the proportion of foreign students enrolled in the forementioned programs in 2022, according to their distribution by academic organization and administrative category of Brazilian HEIs.

Besides the low participation of foreign students in the Brazilian higher education system, Table 1 shows that, in general, these students are more concentrated in private HEIs, in total of 11,717 (59.4% of all foreign students, in 2022). Despite this, universities are the type of academic organization these students prefer. Public universities concentrate the largest participation with 37.1% (7,313), whereas 28.7% of foreign students undertook an undergraduate program in private universities (5,665). Also, HEISs with an above average participation (more than 0.2%) of foreign students in their student body are, in decreasing order, public federal universities, with 0.55%; private not-for-profit university centers, with 0.35%, and private not-for-profit universities with 0.24% (^{Inep, 2023b}).

Another internationalization element captured by Censup is the nationality of the faculty in service. In 2022, there were 3,939 foreign professors in Brazilian HEIs (^{Inep, 2023b}). In the face of 316,792³ professors at the undergraduate level registered in the census, the proportion of foreign teaching staff, 1.2%, is higher than that of foreign students in on-campus and online programs. Of those professors, 74.2% are in public federal universities (2,146) and state ones (778). Nevertheless, despite the presence of foreign professors in Brazilian HEIs, it does not imply that the classes they conduct are in their mother tongue, or even English, something that would be closer to measures of at home internationalization than the mere presence of a foreign professor in the classroom. Still, one may argue that foreign professors represent an amplification of academic web connections, i.e. new international contacts, which become available for students and broaden their horizons during the program as well for the rest of their lives.

According to ^{Belle and Jones’ (2015)} ideas, Morosini and ^{Dalla Corte (2022, p. 63)} advance toward the understanding of internationalization at home (At home) referring to the

[…] integration of the international and intercultural dimensions in the formal and informal curriculum, intentionally involving students in domestic learning environments. It is one of the models of higher education internationalization, which integrates the model of Internationalization of the Curriculum […].

Censup also presents information on countries of origin of foreign students enrolled in on-campus and distance learning undergraduate programs in Brazil. However, this information is presented in statistical notes of the census, and they are not available in microdata. In this work, we present the list of the 20 largest countries of origin of these students (Table 2), according to Censup 2022.

The total of 15,970 foreign students in Table 2 represents 80.9% of foreigners enrolled in Brazilian HEIs (19,735), in 2022 (Inep, 2023b). Besides, the data demonstrate that the main relations of the country at the undergraduate level occur among Latin-American countries and those of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP).

According to the data released by Censup 2016 on foreign students’ countries of origin (^{Inep, 2017a}), we note that 5,951 students were Latin-American, and, in 2022, this number changed to 8,138 students (an increase of 36.7% in the period). In their turn, there were 4,465 students from CPLP in 2016 (^{Inep, 2017a}), and 3,791 students in 2022, a decrease of 15.1% in the same period (^{Inep, 2023a}).

Some countries that are not part of these groups stand out in both years under analysis. Nonetheless, this behavior is observed in two different ways. The first one reveals an increase of enrolled foreign students, a tendency represented by the Unites States (574 students, in 2016, and 1,776, in 2022), by Japan (respectively, 902 and 1,407) and by the United Kingdom (a change from 129 to 267). The second one demonstrates a stagnation in enrollments of these students: Italy (a change from 323 to 337) and Germany (260 to 254). Considering these data, one may argue that there exist countries that, despite variations, maintain more stable and, in a certain way, more traditional relationships with Brazil at the higher education level.

However, it must be observed that data concerning the presence of foreign students in undergraduate programs in Brazil does not mean successful higher education internationalization. Although it is the main data of Censup regarding internationalization, students’ motivation to have a degree in the country are diverse and may not be related to internationalization actions or academic mobility promoted by HEIs or even a consequence of higher education policies in the period from 2016 to 2021(temporal cut discussed in this article). We also admit that there is a connection, albeit small, with Sinaes assessment policy.

What was mentioned before may be better understood when analyzing the proportion of students coming from other countries, in relation with the total student body of the 20 largest HEIs in absolute terms of those foreigners enrolled in undergraduate programs (Table 3):

The data in Table 3 demonstrate a significant difference in the proportion of foreign students at the University of International Integration of Afro-Brazilian Lusophony (Unilab) and at the Federal University of Latin-American Integration (Unila), regarding the other 18 largest HEIs. We highlight that these two universities were created with a mission to integrate and foster solidarity and understanding among nations of the communities in which they are inserted. Thus, developing internationalization practices according to solidary cooperation. The fact that 29.1% (1,398) of the students of Unilab and 39.13% (1,368) of the students of Unila have foreign nationality attests to the consecution of the missions. This type of comprehensive internationalization is only seen in Brazil in these institutions. “It refers to the ethos and the institutional value […] The comprehensive internationalization reaches not only life on campus, but also the external constituent elements, as well as the partnerships and interinstitutional relations” (^{Morosini; Dalla Corte, 2021}, p. 138).

The data in Table 3 attest that some Brazilian HEIs have a higher participation of foreign students when compared to the national average, which is 2%, as mentioned before (^{Inep, 2017d}; ^2023b). This is the case of UFFS (2.5%), UFSC (1.0%), Unesp (0.8%), USP (0.5%), UnB (0.5%) and UFRGS (0.4%). These percentages indicate there is an effort in these institutions to excel in terms of students’ international mobility, with the attraction of international students. At the same time, we observe that many HEIs, even with higher absolute numbers of foreign students, do not show more participation of these students than the national average. This is the case with the institutions that are part of big educational groups, such as Unip, Estácio e Uninove, which contain the largest number of foreign students in Brazil after Unilab and Unila. Although these institutions have thousands of undergraduate students, they represent 0.2% and 0.3% of students coming from a foreign country.

Considering what has been said up to this point, we may argue that the main data collected by Censup concerning the internationalization of higher education in Brazil do not evidence more information that clearly demonstrates the configuration of internationalization actions. Yet, these are data that indirectly show some level of internationalization by HEIs, especially federal and state public universities, according to data concerning the years we take into consideration for the purpose of this article. Discussing this further, the following section is regarding the data collected by the Student Questionnaire, conducted during Enade/2021.

4. Questions related to internationalization collected by the Questionário do Estudante/Enade 2021.

Enade 2021 reached 489,866 graduates, among bachelor’s degree seniors, teaching degree seniors and technological degree ones, who had to participate in Enade that year (^{Inep, 2022d}). However, according to the mentioned source, only 75.5% (369,962) of these eligible graduates took the exam⁵. The Questionário do Estudante (Student Questionnaire) /Enade is presented to the students when they take the exam and is an important source of information concerning internationalization initiatives by HEIs. Despite that, we note that robust data regarding the theme is not collected by the questionnaire.

The questionnaire is made of 68 questions and students must answer them online and before the exam. The questionnaire serves the purpose of compounding the participants’ profile, by integrating contextual information to personal perceptions and experiences. The answers to the objective questions address the HEIs infrastructure, the academic organization of the program, as well as aspects of professional education, and contribute to the assessment of students, according to their course trajectory and experiences at HEIs.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, in the questionnaires 2021 and 2022, 11 questions were introduced to address “some possible repercussions of the pandemic on the educational process. The answers will help contextualize the results of the Enade exam in the face of this unique educational scenario, but they [were] not used to assess courses and institutions” (Inep, 2022x, p. 233).

There are four questions concerning HEIs internationalization in the questionnaire: questions 14, 17, 24, and 53. However, for the purposes of this article, we considered only 3 of them.

The results presented by the students who took the Enade 2021(^{Inep, 2022d}) regarding the question 14 – “Did you participate in curriculum programs/activities abroad during the program?” – show that, 82.6% (404,525) answered negatively to the question and only 0.9% (4,458) answered positively to it. From the latter, 0.4% (1,832) participated in an exchange program of their own institution; 0.3% (1,586) participated in a non-institutional exchange program; 0.1% (277) in a program financed by the federal government (such as Marca, Bafitec, PLI, and others)⁶; and 0.1% (571) in the program Ciência sem Fronteiras/CsF⁷ (^{Inep, 2022d}).

We must note that the same question, in Enade 2016 (Inepe) had 3% of positive answers, with 1.4% (3,003) of the students participating in the CsF program. Concerning this difference from 2016 to 2021, in relative and absolute numbers, we may argue that the opportunities of international academic mobility decreased in a significant way at the undergraduate level. It is possible to reason that mobility is now more frequent by means of initiatives of the own institution or by the students themselves.

The answers to the question 14 of the mentioned questionnaire also point out that the federal public universities have more opportunities of international student exchange, since 1.5% (1,536) of the candidates reported that they had participated in curriculum activities abroad. In private institutions, only 0.7% (2,303) of the candidates had participated in such activities.

Next question is number 24 – Have you had the opportunity to learn a foreign language in the institution? This question leads us to reason that, considering the different concepts of internationalization, the offering of foreign languages by HEIs is part of the effort toward at home internationalization. Moreover, in parallel with offerings of courses in foreign languages, it is a very appropriate internationalization initiative, especially in a context in which student international mobility has low financial support.

As reported by the candidates in the Questionnaire Enade 2021 (^{Inep, 2022d}), we may assert that the mentioned initiative has been relatively spread in the programs assessed in that year, considering that 22.7% (111,620) of the students stated that they had studied, in some way, a foreign language. This proportion is higher than the national average in regions such as the Northeast (24.0% or 18,784), North (26.6% or 5,201) and the South (29.5% or 27,796). Nonetheless, the most notable data is the difference in the answers among candidates from the public sector and the private one. While 31% (50,167) of the candidates from public HEIs answer positively to this question, only 18.8% (61,453) do so in private ones. Public federal HEIs have the highest rate of positive answers, with 33.4% (32,127), whereas the private not-for-profit institutions have the lowest one, 17.5% (43,531) (^{Inep, 2022d}).

Finally, question number 53: Have you been offered opportunities of exchange or training programs abroad? In this case the answers were different when compared to the ones addressed above. They could be “1 I totally disagree” to “6 I totally agree”, besides the following possibilities: “() I do not know how to answer it” () It does not apply (^{Inep, 2022c}, p. 7). It is possible to conclude that the focus of the question falls on the institutional action to foster the cross-border internationalization. According to ^{Dalla Corte et al. (2022)}, this type of internationalization is characterized by a cross-border nature and may include mobility of students, professors, and technicians.

The cross-border internationalization is the one that occurs by mobility, whether out (people going out) or in (receiving people). It consists of all forms of higher education implemented in person beyond the country’s border. However, it is proven that mobility is an important factor, but insufficient to internationalize a university

(^{Dalla Corte et al., 2022}, p.13).

In the period between 2016 and 2021, regarding the perception by students toward the offer of exchange opportunities by the institutions, we note a drop of the internationalization indicator, and it appears to capture the end of the CsF program in 2017. Thus, while in 2021 positive answers (I partially agree; I totally agree) to the question 53 of the Student Questionnaire represented 24.3% of the candidates, in 2016, the same question resulted in 49.8% (107.473) of candidates agreeing with the assertion (^{Inep, 2017e}, ^2022d). This would suggest that the perception of Brazilian students in those years in which CsF was operating was much more positive regarding the possibility of participating in an exchange program.

Internationalization as an indicator of the Sinaes assessment policy

In the face of the considerations given above, in respect with the measurement of internationalization by the official instruments of data collection for higher education in Brazil, i.e. the Questionário do Estudante/Enade, it is important to relate them to other two components of Sinaes, reflecting over their relevance in inducing internationalization through the external institutional assessment and the program evaluation.

When we consider the data from Censup, it is reasonable to suppose that they are not collected to measure a dimension of internationalization of higher education in Brazil. Maybe it is not part of the conception of the census. As to the questions from the Students Questionnaire/Enade, we perceive the attempt to measure students’ perception toward academic experiences that have, to a greater or lesser extent, relations with internationalization initiatives. Nonetheless, we find in the instrument of external institutional assessment used by Inep’s comissions for reaccreditation of HEIs the concern in measuring (at least at an institutional level) internationalization initiatives on the part of the institutions. Yet, it is possible to classify this initiative as being much more an induction instrument of internationalization measures than the measurement of levels or of the quality of the internationalization initiatives in their different concepts and extension.

When we analyze the instrument used by Inep for the institutional reaccreditation (^{Inep, 2017c}), internationalization appears as an indicator expressed on Axis 3 – Assessment of Academic Policies, but also appears as a quality criterion to obtain the concept 4 in 3 other indicators.

Particularly, the indicator 3.8 – Institutional Policy For Internationalization has a definition of its concept 5 the following:

The institutional policy for internationalization is articulated with the PDI, presents activities focused on cooperation and exchange programs and it is coordinated by a regulated group, responsible for systematizing agreements and international conventions related to teaching and mobility for professors and students

(^{Inep, 2017c}, p.19).

Despite certain clarity in the indicator, this definition comprehends a very restricted part of what we may consider internationalization in higher education. In this indicator, for instance, initiatives related to the concepts of at home internationalization are not contemplated. In the Brazilian context, in which there is great diversity of institutional types and absence of public policy that articulates institutional initiatives for outward academic mobility, ignoring internationalization initiatives that contribute to academic experiences within the institutional context is somewhat problematic on the part of Inep when assigning an academic quality indicator.

The three other indicators of academic policy express the same conception of internationalization and they focus on academic mobility initiatives for students and faculty. They are: 3.1 Teaching policies and academic-administrative actions for undergraduate programs; 3.6 – Institutional policies and fostering and diffusion actions for faculty academic production, and indicator 3.12 – Institutional policies and fostering actions for students’ production and participation in events (undergraduate and postgraduate programs). From the concept 4 description, all these indicators present the understanding that international academic mobility represents the high-quality level of institutional actions.

When we observe the centrality of the concept of academic mobility for the instrument of external institutional assessment, one contradiction arises. Not only because of the comprehension toward the scarce material conditions for the autonomous attainment of this conception of internationalization by HEIs, but also because the instrument itself carries, in its glossary, a wide conception of internationalization, as can be inferred from the following:

39. Internationalization

Programs and actions that insert HEIS in the international context by means of cooperation with other institutions, knowledge transference, academic mobility for faculty and students, foreign students enrolled in HEIs, course offering in foreign language, encouragement for publications and participation in international events, participation in international assessment processes among others

(^{Inep, 2017c}, p. 38).

Finally, it is worth noting that the assessment instrument for programs recognition (^{Inep, 2017b}) ‘internalization’ mentions only once, in its indicator 1.2 – Support For Students, in the didactic-pedagogical dimension of the instrument. In this context, the indicator has, from its conception, the participation in international exchange programs as a quality criterion for an undergraduate program.