This study utilizes a novel analytical framework to examine large-scale development-focused scholarship programs for international higher education. The Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) is systematically analyzed here utilizing its 2013–2022 annual reports. Applying the orders of worth approach, LPDP’s claims and justifications towards the common good are studied, alongside the organization’s changing policies and practices. Investigation focuses on the perceivable but uncertain value of these programs for the modern developmental state and LPDP’s efforts to overcome these ambiguities. Findings highlight challenges related to the dominant share of justifications based in human capital theory (HCT). In parallel, justifications based in nationalist sentiments have grown, as have project-centered assertions of worth. These findings are analyzed; the varied inspirational and nationalist rationale LPDP forwards and undertakings it delineates to support its claims are detailed. Reflecting on LPDP’s shifting justifications, the discussion introduces “valuable coordination,” an emergent conceptualization which nuances and problematizes narrow HCT-based understandings of education for development. The paper concludes by reviewing its findings towards better understanding the societal embeddedness of scholarship programs and how harmonization might be improved. In furthering these aims, it suggests future research into Indonesian actors’ reception of LPDP’s justifications.

This paper analyses and compares the views and experiences of scholarship-sponsored master’s alumni with funding from their home countries – Mexico and Indonesia – who studied in Sweden between 2013–2020. Utilizing approaches from the toolbox of the Economics and Sociology of Conventions (EC/SC), It examines nineteen student’s valuation processes and collective contestation relative to their sponsoring organizations and universities. Interview findings reflect that these sponsored students’ valuation of their education differs markedly from that of sponsoring organizations. The policies and approaches employed by the scholarship programs are highlighted in light of these findings. By examining tensions between awardees and the scholarship organizations and dissonance related to incoherent conventions, uncertainty and contestation around coordination is highlighted. From these findings, the study explores ethical challenges involved in these programs related to return migration and the useful utilization of knowledge. While alumni’s situations vis-à-vis their sponsors diverge by case, two specific challenges are underscored. First, increasing monitoring and tracking in the case of Indonesia’s LPDP. Second, concerns related to the twin concepts of labour market scarring and identity spoiling in the face of “frustrated return” - highlighting potential pitfalls for sponsored alumni obligated to return to locations where opportunities are limited. Overarching tensions between modern network conceptions of knowledge production and human capital theory are argued to be connected to both of these issues.

This article examines the Mexican government’s recently curtailed CONACYT international scholarships and its sponsored masters’ students who studied in Sweden between 2013-20. It contrasts CONACYT’s human capital theory-based justifications with the experiences of ten sponsored alumni and indicators covering eighty-five such alumni from major Swedish universities. Employing a framework from the economics and sociology of conventions, it highlights institutional stability challenges involving scholarships amidst varying conceptions of worth and changing societal conventions. Findings show that participants express the value of their education and view possibilities for “giving back” in ways that clearly differ from CONACYT’s stated aims – and in ways that do not depend upon physical return. Further analysis indicates under 20% of this group of alumni has returned to Mexico.

Non-return had been a widely acknowledged but under-enumerated and nebulous issue which CONACYT previously dismissed. Recent research firmly establishes non-return as a significant fact. This study complements such findings, and using a novel framework, demarcates incoherence, tensions and criticism of CONACYT’s rationales in relation to the institution of “scholarships” in Mexico. It thereby provides insights into CONACYT’s recent radical reform and identifies potential snares for programs using similar rationale.

Denna artikel undersöker den mexikanska regeringens internationella stipendier från CONACYT, som nyligen begränsats, och dess sponsrade masterstudenter som studerade i Sverige mellan 2013-2020. Den jämför CONACYT:s motiveringar baserade på humankapital med erfarenheterna från tio sponsrade alumner och indikatorer som täcker 85 sådana alumner från större svenska universitet. Med hjälp av ett ramverk från “economics and sociology of conventions” (EC/SC) belyser den utmaningar för institutionell stabilitet som involverar stipendier mitt i varierande uppfattningar om värde och förändrade konventioner. Resultaten visar att deltagarna uttrycker värdet av sin utbildning och ser möjligheter att "ge tillbaka" på sätt som tydligt skiljer sig från CONACYT:s uttalade mål – och på sätt som inte är beroende av fysisk återkomst. Ytterligare analys indikerar att under 20 % av denna grupp alumner har återvänt till Mexiko.

Icke-återvändande har varit en allmänt erkänd men underskattad och vag fråga som CONACYT tidigare avfärdat. Ny forskning fastställer bestämt icke-återvändande som ett betydande faktum. Denna studie kompletterar sådana resultat och avgränsar med hjälp av ett nytt ramverk inkonsekvenser, spänningar och kritik av CONACYT:s resonemang i relation till inrättandet av "stipendier" i Mexiko. Den ger därmed insikter i CONACYT:s senaste radikala reform och identifierar potentiella fällor för program som använder liknande resonemang.

The paper examines preconceptions and assumptions behind common understandings of ‘scholarship awards’ in international higher education research, and analyses how these influence the production of knowledge on scholarship programs and their effects. The paper aims to make a major theoretical contribution by proposing an alternative approach to studying these programs. First, drawing on a comprehensive review of the scholarships literature, the paper posits that prevalent theoretical approaches – often drawn from the logic of the scholarship programs themselves – limit our view of what scholarship programs do and can do. Such research constrains understandings of program design and its effects on and implications for sponsored students. Examples of underexplored ethical aspects of sponsorship arrangements are highlighted through examples and vignettes. Then, turning to contemporary discussions related to ethical internationalisation and student mobility, the paper asks which theoretical approaches could aid a focus upon and analysis of these programs in relation to ethics-related themes. Conventions theory (and specifically the orders of worth approach) is proposed as a useful theoretical lens. The paper then synthesises a novel framework using this approach to examine explicit and implicit aspects of sponsorship arrangements, explaining its suitability and potential to produce deeper insights into and more nuanced understanding of the consequences of modern scholarship program design for actors involved in sponsored international student mobility. In conclusion, the promise and significance of this framework utilizing the orders of worth approach for studying questions related to valuation processes and ethical internationalisation is recapitulated and future research is discussed.

Artikeln undersöker förutfattade meningar och antaganden bakom vanliga uppfattningar i internationell forskning om högre utbildning om stipendium, och analyserar hur dessa påverkar kunskapsproduktionen om stipendieprogram och deras effekter. Artikeln syftar till att ge ett teoretiskt bidrag genom att föreslå ett alternativt tillvägagångssätt för att studera dessa program. För det första, med utgångspunkt i en omfattande genomgång av stipendielitteraturen, hävdar artikeln att vanliga teoretiska tillvägagångssätt – ofta hämtade från logiken i själva stipendieprogrammen – begränsar vår syn på vad stipendieprogram gör och kan göra. Sådan forskning begränsar förståelsen av programdesign och dess effekter på och implikationer för sponsrade studenter. Exempel på underutforskade etiska aspekter av sponsringsarrangemang lyfts fram genom exempel och vinjetter. Sedan, med referens till samtida diskussioner relaterade till etisk / ansvarsfull internationalisering och studentmobilitet, frågar artikeln vilka teoretiska tillvägagångssätt som kan hjälpa till att fokusera på och analysera dessa program i relation till etikrelaterade teman. Ekonomisk sociologi (och specifikt tillvägagångssättet "order of worth") föreslås som en användbar teoretisk lens. Artikeln sammanställer sedan ett nytt ramverk som använder detta tillvägagångssätt för att undersöka explicita och implicita aspekter av sponsringsarrangemang, och förklarar dess lämplighet och potential att producera djupare insikter i och mer nyanserad förståelse av konsekvenserna av modern stipendieprogramdesign för aktörer som är involverade i internationell studentmobilitet . Avslutningsvis sammanfattas betydelsen av detta ramverk för att studera frågor relaterade till värderingsprocesser och etisk internationalisering och framtida forskning diskuteras.