2.1 Comparative Policy Analysis Framework and Document Corpus
The methodological architecture of this study adopts a comparative documentary analysis framework designed to evaluate how state-imposed capacity limits interface with international student demand in English-taught master's programmes. To operationalise this enquiry, the research corpus compiles legislative statutes, ministerial directives, institutional strategic reports, and national enrolment registers across designated jurisdictions. This documentary approach captures the structural mechanisms through which regulatory caps alter institutional admissions, language medium requirements, and programme portfolio planning. Grounding the methodological framework in comparative cross-border governance accounts for the systemic tensions between national language preservation and internationalisation imperatives (Internationalisation, Globalisation and English-Medium Higher Education, 2016). By juxtaposing regulatory instruments across national jurisdictions, the inquiry identifies institutional adaptation mechanisms that emerge when central authorities restrict English-taught offerings or enforce domestic language quotas. The empirical strategy treats policy documents as discursive and structural interventions that shape institutional behaviour, tracing how university administrations reallocate resources between domestic and cross-border degree pathways. Furthermore, incorporating system-specific policy corpora from European settings, such as the Dutch higher education environment, reveals how regulatory adjustments and capacity constraints manifest across diverse institutional types and disciplinary clusters (Going Dutch: higher education in the Netherlands, 2018). The documentary analysis follows a structured thematic coding protocol that categorises policy texts into regulatory drivers, enrolment mechanisms, institutional adaptations, and labour market considerations. This qualitative document-driven approach ensures construct validity and analytical consistency across comparative national case studies without compromising the contextual depth of national higher education reforms.