The paper critically reviews the widely adopted definition of "internationalization" of higher education shaped by Knight and colleagues since 1993 through successive revisions and intended for universal application. The definition has long led crossborder scholarship, discourse and practice, being promoted in support of a wide range of governmental, commercial and institutional agendas. However, the disjunction between idea and reality has increasingly troubled advocates of the definition, and underlying this tension are more fundamental difficulties. It attempts to unify contradictory crossborder practices under the leadership of the global West/North. The geography of the definition rests on an ideological binary of "globalization" (bad) and "internationalization" (good) that locks practitioners into nationbound approaches. The definition is nonrelational in form yet relational in consequence, focused on characteristics of the selfthe person, the institution, the nationwithout regard for the effect of internationalisation for the other. Hence when applied by Western/Northern agents the definition facilitates continued EuroAmerican domination. The paper suggests a different approach to terminology, geography, relationality and power in crossborder education. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink the definition of "internationalization" in a way that lowers expectations but improves aspirations. The new definition should have intrinsic consistency and a stronger interpretation of reality, promote reciprocity of crossborder higher education more effectively, and integrate discussions on crossborder higher education between countries and at the global level.

 Internationalisation can be seen as an intrinsic attribute of the modern university since its beginnings in the medieval period. The modern university model has spread to latecomer countries and has become intertwined with local cultures through conflicts and interactions. Universities have not only become a bridge for the exchange of human knowledge and civilisations, but also play an important role in the modernisation process of latecomer countries through internationalization process. Reflecting on Huntington′s "clash of civilisations", the uniqueness of universities makes it possible to serve as platforms for dialogue among civilizations so as to avoid a clash of civilisations, and that the Confucian tradition of Chinese universities enables them to contribute to the promotion of international harmony in the process of internationalization. The dual role of universities as centres of knowledge production and dissemination and as hubs for the exchange of ideas among individuals makes their "civilization-related functions" impossible to be replaced by other types of institutions. The most direct and effective way for universities to contribute to the dialogue of civilizations is to create physical and virtual spaces of exchange for young people from different cultures.

Two broad frameworks are used to describe and analyse the mobility of academic staff. The first, and dominant, framework focuses on flows from the "periphery" to the "core". This first approach is labelled "hegemonic internationalization". Traditionally, this "core" has been dominated by North America and Western Europe. With the change in global academic power, especially the rise of academic systems in East Asia (such as China, Japan, South Korea, etc.), the concept of "core" is gradually changing. The second framework focuses instead on issues of development, the emergence of global communities and social movements. This is labelled "fluid globalization". The article argues that the latter may be more useful for understanding trends in academic mobility.

The internationalization of higher education originated from international education based on international activities and related administrative procedures. Under the continuous participation and promotion of scholarpractitioners, it has gradually developed into a widely discussed theme. Jane Knight′s definition of the internationalization of higher education has been extensively used and debated globally, but it has also faced criticisms. In recent years, the definition of the internationalization of higher education continues to evolve. Scholars from the Global South have placed greater emphasis on culturally relevant approaches and proposed new definitions. Terms such as "intelligent internationalization" "responsible internationalization" and "humanistic internationalization" reflect scholars′ reflections on internationalization theory. Amidst ongoing criticism and re-definition, current internationalization of higher education needs a new beginning. Compared to searching for the ideal definition, it is more important to describe new directions of higher education internationalization; it needs to shift from neoliberal approaches to long-term social interests, from a benefit for a small elite towards global learning for all, and from a western paradigm to a global and equal process. To achieve this, it is necessary not only to change the focus of academic discussions but also to reach consensus among important stakeholders such as policymakers, students, and teachers.

 This study analyzes the construction logic of interdisciplinary centers at 32 domestic high-level research universities in China, focusing on four dimensions to analyze characteristics of their construction and the difficulties they face: organizational structure, institutional culture, disciplinary teams, and resource tools. The research shows that the interdisciplinary centers in China′s high-level research universities demonstrate an open logic, including crossdomain coordination in organizational structure, crossboundary integration in institutional culture, collaborative division of labor in disciplinary teams, and complementary functionality of resources and tools. However, they still face issues such as the need to improve the connectivity of physical space of the organizational structure spaces, the flexibility of institutional culture, the coordination of disciplinary team members composition, and the limited support and variety of resource tools. To address these issues, interdisciplinary centers should establish a dual-layer open organizational structure that combines physical and virtual spaces, cultivate an open institutional culture that integrates research and education, build an open disciplinary team network that fosters interaction and communication between teaching and research teams, and develop an open resource toolkit that efficiently identifies and precisely allocates elements to promote the efficient operation of interdisciplinary centers and their better integration into the open innovation environment.

Currently, the development of interdisciplinary collaborative research in China′s universities is facing many challenges, the root of which lies in the fact that it still operates under the dominant logic of the disciplinary field, i.e., it stems from the disciplinary conservatism and status bias, academic capital maintenance and competition, and obstacles to the remodelling of interdisciplinary habitus that exist in interdisciplinary collaborative research under the dominance of the disciplinary field. The original disciplinary field can no longer meet the needs of interdisciplinary collaborative research, and a new interdisciplinary field that supports the logic and rules of interdisciplinary collaborative research must be constructed. Interdisciplinary field is a new social structure space formed by the fusion and convergence of multiple disciplines, and the way of capital functioning in the interdisciplinary field emphasizes more on integration, networking and capital transformation, and the coexistence of pre-disciplinary inertia and post-disciplinary inertia, with obvious tension and dynamic interaction between the two. In order to optimize interdisciplinary collaborative research, universities in China should create an interdisciplinary field environment with positive interaction; Give full play to the safeguarding role of mechanism construction in promoting capital exchange; Enhance the interaction of different disciplines to cultivate new habits.

 Academic entrepreneurship of graduate students in colleges and universities refers to a series of practical activities that help accelerate knowledge transfer and transformation in order to promote the transformation of scientific research results into real productivity. Academic entrepreneurship of graduate students has important values such as improving the ability to cope with unstable employment, promoting scientific research achievements from resources to engines, and practicing humanistic academic innovation concepts. At present, they are faced with obstacles such as weak academic entrepreneurial ability formation system, lack of complementary strategies for academic entrepreneurial ability, and lagging academic entrepreneurial ability evaluation mechanism. In this regard, colleges and universities need to explore new mechanisms to pry the development, including the introduction of paradoxical management thinking to improve the system of cultivating graduate students′ academic entrepreneurial abilities; Breaking the linear innovation model and constructing an open innovation pattern led by the industry; Transcending the academic evaluation system of the Scholasticism to reshape the evaluation order with academic entrepreneurship as the yardstick.

Generative AI is widely used in scientific research, and its impact on the scientific research creativity of postgraduate students has also become a hot topic of concern in the academic circle. Based on self-determination theory and dualprocess theory, this study explores how generative AI usage motivation (intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation) influence research creativity among graduate students. It further examines the mediating role of information processing in the relationship between usage motivation and creativity. Empirical results show that intrinsic motivation significantly enhances research creativity, while extrinsic motivation also demonstrates a certain degree of positive effect. Regarding the mediating effect, neither default acceptance nor deep processing plays a significant mediating role in the relationship between intrinsic motivation and research creativity. However, in the relationship between extrinsic motivation and research creativity, while the mediating role of default acceptance is not significant, deep processing serves as a significant negative mediator. Universities and tutors should focus on cultivating graduate students′ ability to apply generative AI tools; Reasonably guide extrinsic motivation to transform into intrinsic motivation; Promote deep processing mode and improve the use efficiency of generative AI; Avoid default acceptance patterns and over-reliance on generative AI.

 The industry-education integration community is an innovative carrier for building a new ecology of collaborative education between universities and enterprises, and empowering the cultivation of high-quality technical and skilled talents. As a new form of industry-education integration organization, the strategic significance of building an industry-education integration community lies in moving from "local" to "overall", from "dispersed" to "symbiotic", and from "static" to "dynamic". Furthermore, its realistic representation focuses on four aspects: organizational empowerment, collaborative education, technological innovation, and value leadership. The optimization path for promoting the high-level construction of industry-education integration communities in the future is to optimize top-level design and build a governance community; Strengthen multi-party collaboration and build a community of education; Pay attention to improving quality and efficiency, and build a digital intelligence community; Clarify the boundaries of rights and responsibilities, and build a community of shared interests.

Based on the index system of higher vocational education resource carrying capacity, the entropy weight TOPSIS method was used to measure the carrying capacity of higher vocational education resources in 31 provinces of China, and the analysis of matching with carrying capacity showed that the average value of the higher vocational education resource carrying capacity index in China was 0.1697. Among them, the highest was Anhui with 0.6812, and the lowest was Hainan with 0.0959. The overall index of resource carrying capacity is low, which has a large room for improvement. From the spatial distribution perspective, the carrying capacity index showed a hierarchical pattern of "central high, eastern flat, western low". From the perspective of matching, only four provinces had a basic matching, nine provinces had a carrying surplus, 18 provinces had a carrying burden, and the carrying burden of Hebei, Guangxi, and Jiangxi differed by three categories. To improve the carrying capacity of higher vocational education resources as a whole, the government should implement targeted policies and achieve differential supply and demand matching of higher vocational education resources, forming a "higher vocational education—local government" dual spiral promotion mechanism. At the same time, dynamic monitoring should be carried out to further enhance the elasticity of higher vocational education.

 Using provincial panel data from 30 regions in China from 2012 to 2022, this study explores the internal mechanism and action mechanism of higher vocational education to promote the development of new quality productive forces. The findings indicate that higher vocational education significantly promotes the development of new quality productive forces, and has become an important force for promoting highquality economic and social development in China at present. This influence is mediated by three factors: enhancement of human capital, advancement of technological innovation, and optimization and upgrading of industrial structure, showing nonlinear "marginal effects" and complex spatial spillover effects. The competition between regions may lead to the limited development of new quality productive forces in some areas. All regions should, in light of their own actual conditions, improve the level and speed of higher vocational education development, raise the level of provincial human capital, and train more new types of workers who are suitable for the development of new quality productive forces in strategic emerging industries and future industries; Improve the modern vocational education system, build an innovation-driven skill talent training system, and achieve technological innovation breakthroughs in service enterprises; Promote the overall upgrading of the regional industrial structure, and enhance regional industrial structures to support socioeconomic development and high-quality productive forces.