Newsletters and Essays

My presentation was part of a panel discussion on the role of international higher education in reconciliation and peacebuilding. This exploration is particularly timely given rising global tensions and increasing questions about international education’s value in an increasingly polarized world. Despite international education’s enduring commitment to peace and mutual understanding, its roles in reconciliation processes have yet to be adequately explored. The panel illuminated how international education shapes reconciliation in diverse contexts by bringing together studies focusing on different levels of reconciliation from the cultural to the individual to the institutional level.

My presentation explored how international education facilitates reconciliation and peacebuilding through identity transformation at the individual level, focusing on ASEAN students studying in Japan. My central argument positioned identity transformation as the key mechanism linking international education to reconciliation capacity. I focused on identity because contemporary conflicts are increasingly rooted in rigid “us versus them” identity constructions. Sustainable peace, therefore, requires transformation at the identity level—beyond traditional political settlements or economic incentives. International education, I argued, provides a unique environment of “disorienting dilemmas” where students confront new realities and actively reshape their identities.

I chose the Japan-ASEAN context due to its dual reconciliation dynamics. ASEAN students in Japan navigate both the historical legacy of Japanese wartime occupation and intra-ASEAN conflicts. My mixed methods study combined surveys (N=301) and in-depth interviews (N=69) with students and graduates, 70% of whom had studied in Japan for over two years.

Findings suggested that international education does not weaken national identity but transforms it into something more complex, reflexive, and inclusive. Remarkably, 65.5% demonstrated integrated identity, with one Indonesian student capturing this transformation perfectly: “I love Indonesia, but I can also be critical of it now. Before, it was like blind love. Now, it’s love with open eyes.”

The transformation of identity correlated with five mechanisms enabling reconciliation: the primacy of emotional pathways over cognitive ones, the ability to separate people from politics, the (re)humanization of the “others,” critical self-reflection on history and narrative, and bottom-up visions for peace. Key international education experiences contributing to these transformations included deep peer encounters and productive dissonance. Interestingly, STEM and social science students demonstrated starkly different visions of reconciliation—the former emphasizing shared prosperity, the latter focusing on historical justice. Furthermore, strategic avoidance and aspiration-reality gaps remain key challenges for realizing international education’s impact on reconciliation and peacebuilding. Therefore, international education should foster transformation by intentionally cultivating environments that promote depth, open dialogue, and interdependence, while also actively bridging the disciplinary divide.

My presentation provided empirical evidence on how international education’s informal and relational environment contributes to building a human infrastructure for peace. However, I also pointed out that the “elite paradox” remained a key challenge for the field. I concluded my presentation with a question: How can we support this human infrastructure so its potential for social progress can be fully realized?

Discussion

The discussion session generated valuable insights on several fronts. Prof. Korostelina suggested delving deeper into identity change mechanisms from a social identity perspective to illuminate the transformation process more clearly. This suggestion calls for further theorizing the emotional-cognitive sequence that enables identity transformation—a point another colleague also noted needed more detailed description.

A frequently raised concern in international education discourse—the brain-drain issue—also emerged. I addressed this by presenting evidence of “brain circulation”: many students expressed strong commitment to contributing to their home countries after gaining international experience, suggesting that international education can enhance rather than deplete national human capital. This finding challenges simplistic narratives about brain drain and highlights the complex motivations driving internationally mobile students.

Regarding concerns about how scholarship sponsorship might influence students’ perspectives on the host country and reconciliation attitudes, I explained that students’ journeys are influenced by multiple intersecting factors. While sponsorship plays a role, my data showed it was not dominant in shaping identity transformation or reconciliation attitudes. Rather, the quality and depth of interpersonal experiences proved far more influential.

Reflection

My presentation connected well with other papers discussing the role of higher education in reconciliation and peacebuilding, highlighting the crucial role of higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs are not merely passive agents through which states build collective memory and strengthen national identity for social cohesion or political purposes. They are also active agents constructing their own values and fostering transformation. As a result, HEIs are sites of constant negotiation of various tensions, which have direct impact on students. Therefore, understanding higher education’s role in reconciliation and peacebuilding, particularly in the internationalization era, requires comprehensive analysis at multiple levels: global, national, institutional, and individual.