Intelligent Internationalization : The Shape of Things to Come [1 ed.] 9789004418912, 9789004418905

Citation preview

Intelligent Internationalization

Global Perspectives on Higher Education Series Editors Philip G. Altbach (Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, USA) Hans de Wit (Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, USA) Rebecca Schendel (Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, USA) This series is co-published with the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.

Volume 43

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/gphe

Intelligent Internationalization The Shape of Things to Come

Edited by

Kara A. Godwin and Hans de Wit

leiden | boston

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2214-0859 isbn 978-90-04-41889-9 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-41890-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-41891-2 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands, except where stated otherwise. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. For parts of this publication that are designated Open Access, additional rights are granted in the accompanying CC license. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Foreword: Beethoven Comes to Boston ix Urbain (Ben) DeWinter Preface xii List of Figures and Tables xiv Notes on Contributors xv

Setting the Scene 1 Intelligent Internationalization: The Shape of Things to Come 3 Laura E. Rumbley

part 1 Global Trends & Broad Perspectives 2 Clear Trends and Murky Future: Prospects for Internationalization 15 Philip G. Altbach 3 Evolving Architecture of/for International Education and Global Science 19 Ellen Hazelkorn 4 Not Your Parents’ Internationalization: Next Generation Perspectives 23 Laura E. Rumbley and Douglas Proctor 5 Citius, Altius, Fortius: Global University Rankings as the “Olympic Games” of Higher Education? 27 Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach and Laura E. Rumbley

PART 2 Students & Faculty 6 International Faculty Mobility: Crucial and Understudied 33 Laura E. Rumbley and Hans de Wit 7 Internationalization 2.0: Not without the Faculty 37 Liz Reisberg

vi

Contents

8 Centering Internationalization Outcomes: Four Reasons to Focus on Faculty 41 Kara A. Godwin 9 Internationalization and Faculty: How to Have an Intelligent Conversation 47 Douglas Proctor 10 The Intelligently Internationalized Researcher 51 Ariane de Gayardon 11 Cross-Cultural Differences among Students: Challenges and Opportunities for Intelligent Internationalization 56 Elena Denisova-Schmidt 12 Intelligent Internationalization at Work in The Hague, the City of Peace and Justice 61 Jos Beelen 13 US International Alumni Affairs: Pressing Questions for an Emerging Field 66 Lisa Unangst and Laura E. Rumbley

part 3 Regional & National Policy, Challenges & Opportunities 14 From “Dumb” Decolonization to “Smart” Internationalization: A Requisite Transition 73 Damtew Teferra 15 Intelligent Internationalization: Is It Feasible in the Latin American and Caribbean Higher Education Context? 80 Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila 16 Forced Migrants in Higher Education: Syrian Students at Turkish Universities 85 Hakan Ergin 17 Policy, Strategy, and Practice: Toward I2 in the US 89 Robin Matross Helms 18 Intelligent Internationalization in the Spanish Context 93 Laura Howard

Contents

vii

19 Policy Development, Research and Data Collection to Enhance International Program and Provider Mobility in Africa 97 Jane Knight 20 On Intelligent Internationalization 101 Markus Laitinen 21 Intelligent Internationalization: (Re)connections and Reconciliations 104 Irina Ferencz 22 Intelligent Internationalization in the Context of the U.S.: Realities, Challenges and Opportunities 110 Rajika Bhandari 23 Intelligent Internationalization: Using Research Results to Improve Credit Mobility at Mexican Higher Education Institutions 114 Magdalena L. Bustos-Aguirre 24 The Policy Conundrum 118 Patti McGill Peterson 25 World Class 2.0 and Internationalization in Chinese Higher Education 122 Qi Wang 26 The New Routes for Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil 126 Fernanda Leal 27 National Policies for Internationalization: Do They Work? 130 Robin Matross Helms and Laura E. Rumbley

PART 4 Institutional Strategies, Curriculum & Practice 28 Moving away from What We Know: Informing Education Abroad Practices through Scholarship 137 Nick J. Gozik 29 Learning for All 140 Fiona Hunter

viii

Contents

30 Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning, and Interculturality 144 Edward Choi, Araz Khajarian, Lisa Unangst and Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis 31 Strategic Planning, Identity, and Internationalization: An Introduction 152 Alberto Godenzi 32 Internationalization with Adjectives 156 Daniela Crăciun 33 Outside the Comfort Zone: How Internationalization Can Be Used to Support First Generation Students 160 Georgiana Mihut 34 Higher Education Leadership and Management Training: Global Maps and Gaps 164 Laura E. Rumbley, Hilligje van’t Land and Juliette Becker 35 Internationalizing the Third Mission of Universities 168 Agustian Sutrisno 36 What an International Branch Campus Is, and Is Not: A Revised Definition 172 Stephen Wilkins and Laura E. Rumbley

PART 5 Conclusion 37 From Mobility to Internationalization of the Curriculum at Home: Where Are the Students in the Intelligent Internationalization Conversation? 179 Elspeth Jones 38 Global Learning for All: What Does It Take to Shift a Paradigm? 184 Betty Leask 39 Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education: Evolving Concepts and Trends 189 Hans de Wit

Foreword: Beethoven Comes to Boston I never quite forgot Beethoven’s eyes. They have long followed me in my travels. The first time I saw them was in my grandparent’s house in Berchem, a district of Antwerp, where my family frequently went for Sunday dinner. That was 1945 to 1948, when I was between 5 and 8 years old, and Belgium was still recovering from the German occupation during World War II. Gathered around the dinner table for interminable discussions about business and politics, the men of the family—my grandfather, father and uncle—all agreed on one thing: “De boel is om zeep,” which loosely translated from Flemish, means “the world is going to hell in a hand basket.” Each Sunday I was paralyzed on the spot by a dark etching of Beethoven’s head that hung in my grandparent’s living room. It was no more than 15 inches high by 12 inches wide but it might as well have been four times as large. Despite my efforts to ignore him, I could not escape Beethoven’s eyes staring at me, following me across the room intently, as if to say, “you can’t hide your innermost thoughts from me.” Beethoven’s gaze made me tremble. Why was he looking so sternly at me? Was I doing something I wasn’t supposed to? Why was I feeling so guilty? No angle was safe; his penetrating eyes fixated on me no matter where I stood in the room. When I was nearly 8 years old, my family emigrated from Belgium to Caracas, Venezuela, and then five years later, in 1953, I came to the United States, and lived in Worcester, Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Ithaca, New York, eventually moving permanently to Boston in 1997. Shortly before Christmas in 2011, just past my 71st birthday, I took a trip to Antwerp to visit my 93-year old Tante Louisa, my father’s younger sister, and her family. Tante Louisa lived alone in the same town of Berchem where my grandparents had lived, in an apartment filled with old pictures and paintings. As I entered her apartment, there was Beethoven, still staring at me. I was immediately transfixed by his eyes, paralyzed by the intensity of his gaze, jerked back in time to the very same etching in my grandfather’s living room. For a brief moment I was that panicked child. Tante Louisa laughed when I explained to her that as a young boy I was terrified of Beethoven each time we went to her parent’s home for Sunday dinner, how he followed me to every corner of the room, even onto the margins of my eyes as I sought to escape his invasion of my very being. That said, I added that despite my childhood dread of Beethoven, as an adult I had grown to love his music. There was nothing I enjoyed more, I told her, than listening to some of

x

Foreword: Beethoven Comes to Boston

his piano sonatas and concertos in my living room chair or at a concert performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Later that day, Tante Louisa and I, along with her children, met for Sunday dinner at the nearby Park West Restaurant in Berchem. The discussion again turned, as it often had during my childhood, to business and politics—this time not to the consequences of the German occupation of Belgium but to the competition from China, the influx of migrants from Africa and the Middle East, and the interminable wars in Asia and around the globe. “De boel is om zeep,” everyone agreed, the world is still going to hell in a hand basket. Our conversation flowed in English and Flemish with an occasional dash of Spanish and French; my Flemish was rusty by this time but I relished hearing the sounds of my youth and only wished I could have spoken my first language more fluently. Like so many immigrants who start a new life in a different country, I too had abandoned my native language without thinking much about it until it was too late to recoup the loss. Perhaps, I thought to myself, I should spend some months in Antwerp in order to regain my fluency in Flemish. Deep down, however, I knew that my life was centered in Boston and I would not follow through on that fleeting thought, a mere wish. My Tante Louisa died in the autumn of 2015 at the age of 97. Until then she had remained in good health in the same apartment in Berchem. When I returned for her funeral and a family gathering at the same Park West restaurant, my cousin Christiane suggested I take Beethoven with me to Boston. “You should have him,” she said; “he should go back with you and now be in your home.” I was quite moved. My childhood fear of Beethoven had largely been replaced over the years by my love of his beautiful music. The etching was a tangible remnant of my childhood in Antwerp, one of the discrete layers that accompanied me wherever I went after leaving Belgium and gave shape to my life, like the layers you see in the spirally shell that slowly grows on the back of an ordinary snail as it inches from one place to the next. My cousin’s generous gesture made me feel a little more at peace with Beethoven, myself, and the world. Back in Boston, I began to wonder why my grandfather had had an etching of Beethoven in his house in the first place. I subsequently learned that Beethoven’s family roots were in the town of Mechelin (Malines) in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. The composer’s grandfather and father had emigrated from Belgium to Germany to pursue greater opportunities in music, first in Liège, and then in Bonn, where Ludwig was born. He would later immigrate to Vienna, which beckoned him with even more favorable conditions. So he too came from an immigrant family, I thought, not unlike the rest of us. And was it mere coincidence that I should now live on Egmont Street, named after

Foreword: Beethoven Comes to Boston

xi

the 16th century Count of Egmont, a martyr of Flemish freedom whom Beethoven celebrated in his famous Overture? As a fan of Beethoven’s music, and a fellow immigrant, I welcomed his permanent company in my home. Every morning I sit in my favorite living room chair, with Beethoven perched slightly behind and above my right shoulder, to read and ponder the news from this country and abroad. The plight of millions of refugees and immigrants from Syria, North Africa, Venezuela and Central America, Myanmar and other countries; the cruel separation of children from their parents fleeing poverty and violence; the unwillingness of legislators to craft a reasonable path for immigrants seeking a better life in this country; and the pervasive corruption of officials and institutions in increasingly autocratic governments, are deeply disturbing to both Beethoven and me. I imagine Beethoven is pleased with his move to Boston where his music is often played, as when Master Andris Nelsons recently directed a sterling performance of his Piano Concerto Number 3 with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, which I was fortunate to attend. I no longer fear returning Beethoven’s gaze; rather, looking at his eyes, I see a wise companion and an astute witness to world events and the vicissitudes of life. This morning as I was reading the Boston Globe and pondering the cacophony of angry voices all around us, I thought for a moment I heard Beethoven say behind me in a low voice, “De boel is om zeep.” But when I turned around to look at him, peering directly into his eyes, they seemed to be saying: “take heart, my friend, these, too, are difficult times, but better days are coming.” Urbain (Ben) DeWinter

Preface This book is a rich collection of essays on the internationalization of higher education. They are written by over 40 scholars and practitioners in the international higher education field from a broad range of countries on all continents. It was assembled on the occasion of Laura Rumbley’s farewell as Associate Director and Assistant Professor of the Practice at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), and her transition to a newly created position as Associate Director of Knowledge Development and Research at the European Association for International Education (EAIE), in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This publication, following the foreword, preface and Laura Rumbley’s contribution setting the scene, consists of 39 chapters divided into five parts. The first part contains four chapters on global trends in, and broad perspectives of, internationalization. It is described adequately in the title of Philip Altbach’s contribution: clear trends and murky future. In eight chapters, Part 2 addresses internationalization through the eyes of two essential higher education actors: students and faculty. Part 3 has fourteen chapters exploring regional and national internationalization policies, addressing the challenges and opportunities for internationalization in different parts of the world. The fourth part, including nine chapters, focuses on institutional strategies and practices, with a strong emphasis on curriculum. And the three chapters in Part 5 attempt to bring it all together. The chapters are nearly all original contributions, though a few co-authored by Laura Rumbley with colleagues, were originally published in International Higher Education and University World News. Together they give an inspiring view on the future of internationalization from a broad range of perspectives, trends and themes, with gratitude to Laura Rumbley’s inspiration, Intelligent Internationalization: The Shape of Things to Come. Serving the field of international higher education, Laura Rumbley is an astute administrator, an international scholar-practitioner, and a convener of important thinkers. Her work includes extensive contributions to CIHE, Boston College, the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), Boston University, and the numerous organizations with which she has collaborated, as well as editor and/or advisor for the Journal of Studies in International Education, International Higher Education, the Forum, Studies in Higher Education, and former chair of the EAIE publication committee. Time and again, she has proven herself to be an excellent knowledge curator, one with a particular aptitude for highlighting underrepresented voices. Her recent publication with Douglas Proctor (2018), The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education:

Preface

xiii

Next Generation Insights into Research, Policy, and Practice, is particularly indicative of her mission to elevate fresh perspective in our field. In a 2015 International Higher Education article, Laura coined the term intelligent internationalization. Building on that notion, Chapter 1, authored by her, launches a provocative call for the next generation of thinking and practice in the global education sphere. That thinking spawned an international symposium of scholars, policymakers, and education leaders who gathered at Boston College in November 2018 to discuss the future of internationalization and bid formal farewell to Laura before her move to Europe. The symposium discourse was invigorating. Participants debated the challenges of integrating research, practice, and policy while giving nuanced attention to various cultural contexts and issues like refugees and migration, growing nationalism, the technology revolution, equity and inclusivity, global mobility, and an ardent call to decenter traditional players and scholarly resources (especially the U.S.). Indicative of Laura’s own work over the last decade, the discussion culminated by amplifying the student voices in the room, inviting them to critique, contribute, and react to our debate. Much of the writing in this collection was inspired by that day. As several of the contributors to this publication explain, Laura calls for a more synergistic articulation of research, policy, and practice. However, an inspiring foreword starts the discourse somewhat unconventionally—not with scholarly analysis, but with a personal story that embodies the deep, intercultural intellect, feelings, and acumen that fuel our work in international education. Urbain (Ben) DeWinter, former Associate Provost at Boston University, shares a delightful reflection of what lies behind and ahead.

Figures and Tables Figures 1.1 Intelligent internationalization (from Rumbley, 2015, 2016). 4 10.1 Percentage of internationally co-authored manuscripts submitted to JSIE, 2009–2018. (Note: Data include all manuscripts available in the JSIE online system up to November 2018). 53 21.1 Updated I2 model. Categories in blue arrows are suggested additions to Rumbley’s I2 model. 105 30.1 Action research model (from Leask, 2015). 145 30.2 Transformative online co-curricular programming for Boston College. 146 30.3 Evaluation. 149 32.1 Proportion of national higher education internationalization strategies discussing strategic aspects (Crăciun, 2019). 158 37.1 A model of Intelligent Internationalization (I2) (from Rumbley, 2015, 2016). 180 37.2 Ten key elements of integrated internationalization (from Jones, 2013b). 181

Tables 30.1 Environmental scan of good practices of co-curricular programming. 147 33.1 Graduating within 6 years after start from a 4-year institution, for 2010 starting cohort by institutional selectivity. 161

Notes on Contributors Editors Kara A. Godwin is Director of Internationalization and Global Engagement at the American Council on Education. She is also a Research Fellow at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. Focused on internationalization, strategic policy, innovation, and learning/teaching/curriculum, she was formerly a consultant for Soka University, Duke Kunshan University, Olin College of Engineering, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, and The Economist among others. She has several publications on internationalization, liberal arts/general education, and higher education innovation. She received her PhD from Boston College. Hans de Wit is director of the Center for International Higher Education and Professor of the Practice at the Lynch School of Education and Human Development at Boston College. He is founding editor of the Journal of Studies in Higher Education, consulting editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education, and co-editor of the Brill Sense book series “Global Perspectives of Higher Education.”

Authors Philip G. Altbach is Research Professor and Founding Director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, where from 1994 to 2015 he was the Monan University Professor. He was the 2004–2006 Distinguished Scholar Leader for the Fulbright New Century Scholars initiative, received the NAFSA: Association of International Educators Houlihan award, the Association for the Study of Higher Education Bowen distinguished career award, and was a Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Senior Associate. In 2010, he was Erudite Scholar of the Government of Kerala. He has taught at Harvard University, the University of Wisconsin, and the State University of New York at Buffalo. Juliette Becker is Program and Membership Development Officer at the International Association of Universities, where she coordinates the initiatives related to Leadership in Higher Education, including the professional development program

xvi

Notes on Contributors

Leading Globally Engaged Universities. She also leads IAU’s membership development strategy. She holds a double degree in management and international business from Grenoble Ecole de Management and Tecnológico de Monterrey, as well as a Master’s in international relations from the Paris Institute for International and Strategic Affairs. Jos Beelen is Professor of Global Learning at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, where he leads a research group that explores the skills of lecturers to develop and teach internationalized curricula. He is also a Visiting Professor at Coventry University and a senior trainer for the European Association for International Education (EAIE). He received the EAIE’s 2018 President’s Award for his contribution to internationalization at home. Rajika Bhandari is Senior Advisor, Research and Strategy, at the Institute of International Education (IIE) where she guides research, evaluation and thought leadership activities and directs the Center for Academic Mobility Research and Impact and flagship projects such as Open Doors and Project Atlas. She serves as a senior spokesperson for IIE with press and with key stakeholders globally and is a widely published author, including of six books. She holds a BA (Honors) in Psychology from the University of Delhi, India, and a PhD in Psychology from North Carolina State University in the U.S. Magdalena L. Bustos-Aguirre is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Master in International Higher Education at University of Guadalajara, Mexico, a dual degree master program offered in collaboration with Boston College. She has a PhD in higher education management, is a member of CONACYT’s National System of Researchers, and has 20 years of experience in managerial positions dealing with internationalization of higher education. She has served as a member of the Board of the Mexican Association of International Education (AMPEI) on several occasions. Edward Choi is currently a PhD candidate in higher education at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College. He also works as a Research Assistant at the Center for International Higher Education, and as a graduate assistant at the Office of Global Engagement, and the President’s Office, both at Boston College. Before moving to Boston, Edward received a masters degree in International Educational Development from Teachers College, Columbia University. His current academic interests include higher education governance and family-owned universities.

Notes on Contributors

xvii

Daniela Crăciun earned a PhD in Political Science from Central European University, Hungary. Her research interests lie in the areas of methodology and education policy, specifically higher education internationalization and international student mobility. She is currently a visiting lecturer at Bard College Berlin, Germany. Recently, Daniela has been a visiting scholar at the University of Yangon, Myanmar, the Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil, and the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. Ariane de Gayardon is Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Global Higher Education, based at the UCL Institute of Education. Her research focuses on the financing of higher education internationally, including topics such as free higher education and student debt. She is the Assistant Editor for the Journal of Studies in International Education. Ariane holds a PhD in higher education from Boston College, where she worked at the Center for International Higher Education. Elena Denisova-Schmidt is a Research Fellow at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, and a Research Associate at the University of St.Gallen (HSG), Switzerland. Previously, she has held appointments at the Humboldt University of Berlin, the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and the Aleksanteri Institute of the University of Helsinki. Before moving into academia, Denisova-Schmidt worked for the VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation in Russia. Urbain (Ben) DeWinter held a variety of academic and administrative positions, among them, Director of Cornell Abroad at Cornell University and Associate Provost for International Programs at Boston University. He completed a degree in History at Georgetown University (with studies at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland), and a PhD in Romance Languages and Literatures at the University of Pennsylvania, where he served as Managing Editor of the Hispanic Review. He is currently a free-lance writer and educational consultant. Hakan Ergin is a postdoctoral fellow, sponsored by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. He received his PhD in internationalization of higher education from Boğaziçi University, Turkey. During his graduate studies, Ergin, as an international student, studied at the State University of New York

xviii

Notes on Contributors

at Binghamton, US, and Wurzburg University, Germany. He has taught at Istanbul University in Turkey. His research interests include internationalization of higher education, migration, adult education, the right to education, and distance learning. Irina Ferencz is Deputy Director at the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), the primarily European association of national organizations (e.g., DAAD, OeAD, IIE, etc.) supporting the internationalization of their higher education systems. Ferencz has an interest and expertise, inter alia, in international strategy development (institutional and national) and international student mobility (trends, data, and impact). She is also a member of EAIE’s Publications Committee, a PhD candidate at CHEGG, Ghent University, Belgium, researching internationalization in universities of applied sciences, and an occasional reviewer for several higher education journals. Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila is Research Professor at the Universidad de Guadalajara. General Coordinator of UNESCO’s Regional Observatory of Internationalization and Networks in Tertiary Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (OBIRET), and of the Regional Network for the Promotion of the Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America/Erasmus+ (RIESAL). She is a member of the National System of Researchers (SNI) and has received various awards for her contribution to the internationalization of higher education in Mexico and North America. Alberto Godenzi is Vice Provost for Global Engagement and Professor of Global Practice at Boston College. From 2001–2016, he served as Dean of the Boston College School of Social Work. He was secretary general of the International Consortium for Social Development, and served on the Council of Europe’s Group of Specialists for Combating Violence Against Women. He holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of Zurich. Nick J. Gozik is Director of the Office of International Programs and the McGillycuddy-Logue Center for Undergraduate Global Studies at Boston College. Gozik has held positions in education abroad at Duke University, New York University, and the University of Richmond. He has taught courses in research methodology, international education, and communication studies at NYU, BC, and Lesley University. He is an active member in several professional organizations, including The Forum on Education Abroad, for which he has served as Chair of the Forum Council. Gozik holds an MA and PhD from NYU.

Notes on Contributors

xix

Ellen Hazelkorn is partner with BH Associates education consultants and a research fellow of CIHE. She is Professor emerita and Director, Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU), Technological University Dublin (Ireland), and International Co-Investigator, Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE), London. She is Joint Editor, Policy Reviews in Higher Education, and NAFSA Senior Fellow, 2018–2019. She was policy advisor to the Higher Education Authority (Ireland), and President of EAIR (European Society for Higher Education). Robin Matross Helms is Deputy Chief Innovation Officer and Principal Internationalization Strategist at the American Council on Education. Her previous experience includes international program management for the Institute of International Education, EF Education and CET Academic Programs, and faculty development program management at the University of Minnesota. She received her PhD from Boston College in 2005. Laura Howard is former President of the European Association for International Education (EAIE) (2014–2016). She is currently Vice Dean for Internationalisation in the Educational Sciences Faculty at the University of Cadiz in Spain. Laura has over 25 years of experience in international relations management and has published and presented at international conferences extensively. She coauthored the reports Internationalisation of Higher Education prepared for the 2015 European Parliament, and Internationalization of Higher Education in Spain: Reflections and Perspectives published in 2017 by the Spanish Ministry of Education. Fiona Hunter is Associate Director at the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI) at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, Italy. She is coeditor of the Journal of Studies in International Education (JSIE), holds a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) in Higher Education Management from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom and is Past President of the European Association for International Education. Elspeth Jones is Emerita Professor of the Internationalisation of Higher Education, Leeds Beckett University UK, and Honorary Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan. She is founding editor of the Routledge book series, Internationalization in Higher Education and until September 2018 was Chair of the EAIE’s

xx

Notes on Contributors

Expert Community on Internationalisation at Home. Elspeth has published widely and has been involved in international education since 1980. Araz Khajarian is a master’s degree student at Boston College studying international higher education. She was born and raised in Damascus, Syria, and moved to the United States in 2015. She obtained her bachelor’s degree from Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island in Global Studies with a concentration in International Development. Jane Knight is Professor at the University of Toronto and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg. Her research focuses on the international dimension of higher education at the institutional, national, regional, and international levels. Her work in over 70 countries brings a comparative, development, and international perspective to her research, teaching and policy work. She is the author of numerous publications and is the recipient of several international awards and two honorary doctorates for her contribution to higher education internationalization. Markus Laitinen is the Head of International Affairs for the University of Helsinki, Finland, and the Immediate Past President of the European Association for International Education (EAIE). He has over 25 years of experience in international higher education in various roles, ranging from student services and admissions to strategic management of and leadership in international higher education. He is an active presenter at international higher education conferences, and an advocate of comprehensive internationalization. Fernanda Leal is a visiting scholar at the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College. She is also a PhD candidate in administration at the Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), as well as an executive assistant at the International Office of the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. Her research interests include internationalization, regional/South-South relations, and coloniality/decoloniality in higher education. Betty Leask is professor emerita of the internationalization of higher education at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and a visiting professor at the Centre for

Notes on Contributors

xxi

International Higher Education (CIHE) at Boston College. She developed the first research-based framework for internationalization of the curriculum in 2010, now used by universities across the world to inform their approach to internationalization of the curriculum, campus, and community. Leask is also Editor-in Chief of the Journal of Studies in International Education, the leading journal in the field. Her contributions to the field of international higher education have been recognized internationally by EAIE and IEAA. Georgiana Mihut recently received a PhD in Educational Leadership and Higher Education from Boston College for her dissertation The impact of university prestige in the employment process. A field experiment of the labor market in three countries. Her comparative research interests include employability, stratification, equity, and quality. She has held appointments at the American Council on Education, the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, the World Bank, and Harvard University. She holds an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master’s degree in Research and Innovation in Higher Education, a Master of Arts degree in Education and Globalization from University of Oulu, Finland, and a Bachelor of Political Science degree from Babes-Bolyai University, Romania. Patti McGill Peterson is Senior Fellow at the American Council on Education. She led the Council’s global higher education engagement and its internationalization initiatives with U.S. colleges and universities from 2010–2016. Prior to joining ACE, she served as executive director of the Council for International Exchange of Scholars and vice president of the Institute of International Education, leading efforts that revitalized the Fulbright Senior Scholar Program. She is president emerita at Wells College and St. Lawrence University. Douglas Proctor is Director, UCD Global at University College Dublin, where he has management responsibility for the international office and provides leadership to the broader university community on internationalisation, international engagement and international partnerships. Douglas holds a PhD in international higher education from the University of Melbourne, and is co-editor (with Laura Rumbley) of a recent Routledge book offering next generation perspectives on the future of internationalization in higher education. Liz Reisberg is an international consultant working on projects related to the improvement of higher education. She has worked with governments, universities, and

xxii

Notes on Contributors

international donor agencies throughout the world but with a particular focus on Latin America. In an ongoing affiliation with the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College she participates in CIHE seminars, workshops and research projects with international partners. Laura E. Rumbley was associate director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College from 2012 to 2018. She is currently Associate Director for Knowledge Development and Research at the European Association for International Education based in the Netherlands, and co-editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education. Agustian Sutrisno lectures at Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia in Jakarta. Having worked for UNESCO and the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training, he completed his PhD at Queensland University of Technology. His doctoral thesis received the University’s Outstanding Doctoral Thesis Award and the 2015 Outstanding Post-Graduate Thesis Award from the International Education Association of Australia. In 2017, he was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. Damtew Teferra is Professor of higher education and founding director of the International Network for Higher Education in Africa, earlier at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, now at the University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Teferra was the former director for Africa and the Middle East of the Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program in New York. He is the founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of African Higher Education (former) and the International Journal of African Higher Education. He is author and editor of over 100 journal articles, policy pieces, and books including two award-winning edited ones on higher education. Lisa Unangst is a doctoral candidate in higher education at the Boston College Lynch School of Education and instructor of Educational Leadership in Higher Education. Her interests include how refugee and immigrant students access and experience higher education, as well as international alumni affairs. Hilligje van’t Land Secretary-General of the International Association of Universities (IAU) since 2017, serves the global higher education community through trends analysis,

Notes on Contributors

xxiii

advisory services, peer learning and advocacy. Main areas of expertise include internationalization, with focus on intercultural learning and dialogue; innovative approaches to doctoral education in Africa; and sustainable development. She holds a PhD from Groningen University (RUG), completed a post doc at Laval University, and has worked in international higher education over 23 years, including as lecturer and researcher at RUG, LavalU and Université d’Avignon, or as Academic Director at the Institute for American Universities, Avignon. Qi Wang is an adjunct assistant professor at the Graduate School of Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and a Research Fellow at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. Her research interests include building world-class universities, employability management and skill training, and globalization and education development. In particular, her current research focuses on building world-class research universities from a theoretical and comparative perspective. She received her MA and PhD studies at the Department of Education, University of Bath, UK. Stephen Wilkins is Professor of Strategy and Marketing at The British University in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He received his PhD in Management from the International Centre for Higher Education Management (ICHEM) at the University of Bath, United Kingdom. Stephen has authored more than 80 scholarly works, of which more than 60 are international peer reviewed journal articles. Much of his research is concerned with transnational higher education, particularly on international branch campuses. Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis is a doctoral candidate and research assistant at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. Maria Yudkevich is vice rector of the National Research University – Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow, Russian Federation and head of the Center for Institutional Studies at HSE.

Setting the Scene

∵

chapter 1

Intelligent Internationalization The Shape of Things to Come Laura E. Rumbley

In 2015, I was one of a number of colleagues invited to contribute an article to the 20th anniversary issue of International Higher Education (IHE), the flagship publication of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE). At that time, I chose to focus attention on a nascent idea brewing in my mind, which centered on the notion that a movement toward intelligent internationalization was urgently needed. This concern grew out of a sense that enormous disconnects existed between key actors in higher education ecosystems around the world, with implications for the higher education enterprise generally, and the internationalization agenda in higher education more specifically. At its essence, in that first consideration back in 2015, I posited that “Intelligent internationalization” demands the development of a thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner, and policy communities. Those participating in the elaboration of internationalization activities and agendas must have access to the information, ideas, and professional skill-building opportunities that will enhance their ability to navigate the complex and volatile higher education environment of the next 20 years. (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17) The focus of that initial exploration of the idea of intelligent internationalization—limited as it was to a mere 500 words!—was to draw quick, concerted attention to the need to create meaningful synergies among key actors in a complex and fast-moving world (see Figure 1.1). I was particularly concerned that a commitment be made “to the training of thoughtful practitioners [in internationalization] working in tandem with researchers, policymakers, and institutional leaders” (pp. 16–17), and that greater coherence be cultivated between “the needs for information and expertise by policymakers and practitioners, and what researchers and educators/trainers actually produce” at research centers and in graduate and professional training programs focused on higher education (p. 17).

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_001

4

Rumbley

figure 1.1 Intelligent internationalization (from Rumbley, 2015, 2016)

Four years later, the necessity to engage practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in meaningful dialogue and mutual learning remains highly salient. Making a case for “intelligence,” and understanding the fundamental problem that intelligent internationalization seeks to address, is essential. More important, however, is to expand the notion of intelligent internationalization beyond a conversation about improvements in the way key stakeholders engage; specifically, the discussion should move forward to explore how intelligent internationalization might be redefined—expansively and ambitiously—to encompass vitally important aspirations that relate to the common good over the long-term.

1

The Germ of an Idea

My first substantive experience with the question of chronic detachment between and among central stakeholders in higher education came in 2013. In November of that year, CIHE was responsible for convening an “International Higher Education Research and Policy Roundtable” at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. This event was made possible with the support of an initiative known as Innovation, Higher Education, and Research for Development (IHERD), funded by the Swedish government. The working meeting

Intelligent Internationalization

5

in Shanghai brought together some 30 directors of higher education research centers, as well as policymakers with higher education concerns, from around the world. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss key questions related to the intersections (or disconnections) between policymakers’ needs and interests, and the agendas and outputs of research centers devoted to higher education. Many hours were spent puzzling over the reasons why the research and policy communities failed to connect with one another, despite supposedly common interests in developing and sustaining high quality higher education systems around the world. The meeting resulted in “The Shanghai Statement,” published in IHE’s Winter 2014 issue, which articulated a series of concerns for the future of higher education research, policymaking, and development. Specifically, The Shanghai Statement noted “the need for ‘thinking capacity,’ data, policy analysis, and professional training for tertiary education worldwide” (p. 2). The statement authors asserted that “we can no longer rely on amateur management and ad hoc solutions to unprecedented problems” (p. 2); and that “all relevant [higher education] stakeholders should recognize this fundamental dynamic between research, policy, and practice” (p. 3). The concerns expressed by The Shanghai Statement were focused on the higher education enterprise in its broadest terms. But as an internationalization specialist, I saw strong parallels between the wider context of higher education and the specific subfield of internationalization. In my own career, I have had the immense good fortune to work as a university-based administrator, instructor, and researcher, as well as an independent consultant. I have also served as a staffer in a think tank concerned with national and Europeanlevel policies and practices connected to internationalization and currently am responsible for knowledge development and research for a professional network, the European Association for International Education (EAIE). Over the last twenty years, these activities have brought me into close contact with government ministries, international organizations and associations, quasi-governmental national agencies, foundations, national higher education organizations (such as rectors’ councils), individual universities, academics, administrators, and students. Although I lack hard empirical evidence to back this up, my sense is that the vast majority of individuals working in internationalization of higher education around the world have had many fewer opportunities than I to move between these various communities and constituencies in substantive and sustained ways. What does this mean? From my perspective, the lack of communication and engagement across policy, practice, academic, and other stakeholder domains means that internationalization actors are often highly siloed, working across

6

Rumbley

a narrow bandwidth of functional peers or institutional colleagues. Many of us are constantly operating within a small, largely like-minded community, and failing to either listen to, learn from, or share our expertise with other stakeholders. This failure creates gaps in understanding, redundancies in effort, frustration, and distrust. Yet, fast-moving and complex political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental developments require nimble, creative, multi-faceted responses. Such responses are much more likely to emerge when actors engaged in the many aspects of internationalization in higher education are in a position to understand emerging situations in their complexity, and can draw inspiration, information, and tangible support from a wide range of sources. New kinds of synergies are required to make this happen.

2

Why Intelligent Internationalization?

As the scholarship of internationalization in higher education evolves, along with policy and practice in this area, a range of frameworks, models, and approaches have been advanced to account for the phenomenon or guide its development. One of the most commonly referenced frameworks is that of comprehensive internationalization. With origins in work put forward by the American Council on Education (2002, 2005, 2006), later taken up by NAFSA: Association of International Educators (Hudzik, 2011), and closely associated with the recent work of John Hudzik (2015), comprehensive internationalization envisions commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (Hudzik, 2011, p. 10) Comprehensive internationalization is also conceived of—particularly in the US context, as promoted by the American Council on Education (2012, 2017)—as a six-pillar model, through which institutions of higher education can organize and account for their internationalization agendas. These six pillars—consisting of student mobility; collaboration and partnerships; faculty policies and practices; curricular and co-curricular matters, along with student learning outcomes; administrative leadership, structure, and staffing; as well as an articulated institutional commitment—present a comprehensive picture,

Intelligent Internationalization

7

indeed, of how we can think about the full scope of internationalization’s potential and useful reach. However, comprehensive internationalization, defined in these ways, situates the phenomenon exclusively at the institutional level. There are good reasons for this, considering the extent to which higher education institutions sit on the “frontlines” of internationalization in higher education. What’s missing in this discussion, however, is a consideration of the wider ecosystem of higher education, which rightly encompasses not only institutional actors, but also the policy domain. Indeed, in many (most?) contexts around the world, internationalization neither starts nor ends with the institutional experience. So, what kind of framework could help us account for that broader panorama of actors with a stake in internationalization, and how might we imagine not only their individual existence, but their relationships with one another? Intelligent internationalization, given the fundamental interest it expresses in connecting actors beyond the institutional level, could offer some ideas. But why intelligent internationalization? The choice of the modifier intelligent is purposeful. Defined by Webster’s Dictionary (1984), intelligence refers to “the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge” as well as the “faculty of thought and reason” (p. 635). Intelligence, based on such definitions, implies the ability to take in information; to act on or test out that information; to puzzle, discern, connect ideas and experiences; and to critique and analyze. The centrality of mutual learning across relevant stakeholder groups that is implied in the notion of intelligent internationalization makes intelligence vital. An additional definition of intelligence can be drawn from the field of national security (I am, after all, the daughter of a former career naval officer, and was myself briefly a diplomat!). Here the term speaks to the artful gathering and processing of a wide range of information that can be leveraged for planning and, ultimately, for advantage (Bimfort, 2007). “Gathering intelligence” involves turning a sharp ear and eye to all manner of sources of data that can provide insight into a topic, question, or issue at hand. Intelligence in this sense can offer up an enormously rich range of details to frame and contextualize complex situations. To be most meaningful, of course, this process requires access to “good data,” i.e., useful and relevant intelligence, and of course can only be maximally effective if the analysis of that intelligence is itself thorough and competent.

3

Intelligent Internationalization 2.0

The 2015 short-form introduction of the idea of intelligent internationalization gave me an opportunity to point to a fundamental concern: whether

8

Rumbley

internationalization is a comprehensive process or not, whether it is intentional or not (de Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015), it fails to meet its full potential if it is approached unintelligently. So if internationalization can be understood fundamentally as the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society (de Wit et al., 2015, p. 29) intelligent internationalization could be understood as an underlying process designed to ensure that the actors engaged in this work: – are well prepared—practically, professionally, and intellectually—for this multifaceted task; – carry out their work in ways that account meaningfully for a wide range of concerns, including the political, the strategic, the practical, and the ethical; and – are cognizant of the potential, and committed to the responsibility, to contribute to the common good through internationalization in higher education. Essentially, intelligent internationalization advocates for high quality professional and academic preparation among those working in this field. It calls for clear lines of communication and effective synergies among the actors with interests in and responsibility for advancing internationalization agendas. And it urges awareness and commitment to an agenda that ultimately privileges collaboration over competition, given that—over the long-term—”making a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit et al., 2015), in a world facing grave social and environmental challenges, requires the pooling of resources. 3.1 High Quality Preparation As highlighted by The Shanghai Statement (2014) and corroborated by others (Rumbley et al., 2017), higher education leaders and managers around the world are rarely trained specifically for their roles in tertiary education. Education and training designed explicitly to foster knowledge, skills, and awareness around the phenomenon of internationalization is emerging in many contexts, but the availability of such programs and professional development support is extremely limited. In addition, the quality of such programs may vary widely. To ensure intelligent internationalization, high quality, multi-faceted preparation for those tasked with internationalization responsibilities is vital,

Intelligent Internationalization

9

particularly among practitioners operating at the institutional level. Appropriately tailored for distinct national and local contexts, such training should provide participants with a range of insights into the academic, policy-relevant, and practical dimensions of higher education; the role of higher education in society; and how internationalization relates to these various areas of concern. Ideally, it will cultivate well-developed sensitivities to the ways that policy, practice, and political considerations intersect in the design and operationalization of internationalization agendas and activities, and it will foster clear, critical thinking about the opportunities, imperatives, and obstacles that characterize the enterprise. Crucially, high quality education and training should equip participants with a toolkit of resources that will enable ongoing access to current information and emerging intelligence related to the field. Intelligent internationalization cannot be assured by relying on casual, learn-as-you go approaches to professional development and training in this area. 3.2 Regular Communication and Synchronized Action Just as the preparation of professionals should be thoughtful and well-rounded, so too should the work of internationalization that is undertaken at institutional, national, and even regional or international levels, be grounded in active synergy across stakeholder groups. Too frequently, policymaking takes place in the absence of input from academics and practitioners. Likewise, academic research fails to take into account the realities of policy and practice. Similarly, frontline practitioners and institutional leaders are unequipped with knowledge emanating from the scholarly community, and/or feel utterly detached from (or ignored by) those in positions of power within the policymaking community. To ensure intelligent internationalization, these various stakeholder communities must connect frequently and substantively. Clearly, one way to address this relates closely to the previously articulated need to ensure high-quality education and training. More effectively incorporating policy perspectives, leadership concerns, and high quality research on internationalization into the preparation of professionals is imperative. This can take place through the curricula developed for degree and non-degree programs relevant to the field. There should also be a serious and concerted effort made to bring these actors together at conferences, symposia, meetings, and other encounters, face-to-face and online, locally and internationally. However, while bringing together individuals from these very different domains is fundamentally important—and does already happen to a certain extent—it may also be that they require tailored assistance in learning how to communicate with each other. One of the key messages I took away from

10

Rumbley

the conversations at the 2013 “International Higher Education Research and Policy Roundtable” at Shanghai Jiao Tong University was that policymakers and researchers are notoriously poor at understanding one another’s fundamental points of departure, and “speaking one another’s language.” It is not a little ironic that we in internationalization often strive to help others learn to communicate across cultures but that we, ourselves, are hampered by such a key “cultural” and communication divide. Finding innovative and creative solutions to help bridge the gap in understanding between academics, institutional and political leaders, policymakers, and practitioners represents an important aspect of the intelligent internationalization agenda. 3.3 Commitment to the Common Good Well-prepared actors, who are properly engaged with the stakeholders that matter, will do much to advance the agenda of intelligent internationalization. But, ultimately—as so many of our colleagues who have written about the phenomenon of internationalization have correctly reminded us—the motivations for this work remain paramount. Why is intelligent internationalization important? From my perspective, intelligent internationalization matters because we are living in a world in which, as the Europe 2020 strategy puts it, “smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth” (European Commission, n.d.) is vital for the future. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals also make this kind of perspective abundantly clear (United Nations, n.d.). The stakes connected to the choices we are making today, in all aspects of our lives, are exceedingly high. To this point, former United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, noted in 2015. We are the first generation to be able to end poverty, and the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail to uphold our moral and historical responsibilities. (United Nations, 2015, n.p.) To meet our moral and historical responsibilities, we must understand them. Keen insight and accurate, relevant, “full picture” information—in short, intelligence!—is required. Higher education, operating in complex and shifting local and global contexts, is deeply implicated in these dynamics. Internationalization in higher education provides essential channels through which certain kinds of valuable synergies can be created, skills developed, and knowledge generated that can and should be put at the service of humanity. Intelligent internationalization makes this all the more possible because of the

Intelligent Internationalization

11

competence of the actors involved, their understanding of their place in an interconnected ecosystem of stakeholders, and the underlying logic of a commitment to a moral imperative that has value around the world: in short, the sustainability of our planet and our humanity. Intelligent internationalization, in a perfect world, is about being smart, connected, and compassionate in the work that we do. It is my sincerest hope that this is the shape of things to come.

References American Council on Education. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (2005). Building a strategic framework for comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (2006) A handbook for advancing comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: Author. Bimfort, T. (2007). A definition of intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/ kent-csi/vol2no4/html/v02i4a08p_0001.htm de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: A study for the European Parliament. Brussels: European Parliament. European Commission. (n.d.). Europe 2020 strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policycoordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/ european-semester/framework/europe-2020-strategy_en Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hudzik, J. K. (2015). Comprehensive internationalization: Institutional pathways to success. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Rumbley, L. E. (2016, October 20). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. Paper presented at the CHE Consult “Comprehensive Approach to Internationalisation Workshop,” Prague, Czech Republic. Rumbley, L. E., Ullerö, H. B., Choi, E., Unangst, L., Woldegiyorgis, A. A., de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2017). State of play: Higher education management training schemes in the field of development cooperation (CIHE Perspectives No. 7). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.

12

Rumbley

The Shanghai Statement. (2014, Winter). The need for research and training for the higher education enterprise. International Higher Education, 74, 2–3. United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs United Nations. (2015). Secretary-General’s remarks at World Economic Forum plenary session: “Tackling Climate, Development and Climate Change.” Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2015-01-23/secretary-generalsremarks-world-economic-forum-plenary-session Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary. (1984). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

part 1 Global Trends & Broad Perspectives

∵

chapter 2

Clear Trends and Murky Future Prospects for Internationalization Philip G. Altbach

This analysis presents an essential contradiction. The broader trends in global higher education are clear and easy to understand, if not to cope with, but the implications for internationalization are rather murky. In part, this lack of clarity is due the dramatic political changes affecting many countries at present. What seemed to be a fairly predictable future just a few years ago—growing economic and perhaps even political globalization and a concomitant globalization in many areas for postsecondary education—has been upended in some parts of the world by nationalism and populism. At the same time, postsecondary education continues to move toward a more global outlook even in the context of uncertainties.

1

Key Global Trends

As Laura Rumbley, along with Liz Reisberg and I argued in our book, Trends in Global Higher Education (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2010), two key underlying realities of the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, massification and the global knowledge economy, have shaped postsecondary education everywhere, but in different ways. The dramatic and unprecedented expansion of enrollments worldwide—from 100 million in 2000 to more than 225 million in 2017 and an estimated 594 million by 2040, and increases in gross enrollment rates from 19 percent in 2000 to more than 36 percent by 2016— have transformed higher education from an elite enterprise serving under 10 percent of young people globally in 1971 (and well under that in all of the developing world). Massification has led to profound changes everywhere. Opportunities for postsecondary study have been expanded in most countries to populations that were earlier denied access, and have contributed to both increased skills and mobility for these groups. The academic profession has also dramatically expanded, and in some countries the average qualifications for academics have declined. A massive private higher education sector has emerged, now

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_002

16

Altbach

the fastest growing part of postsecondary education, with private enrollments constituting the majority of students in most of Latin America and India. A significant part of the private sector is for-profit—and of low quality. Broad issues of quality, severe pressures on the public universities, and increased commercialization of higher education generally are characteristics of massification. These trends continue and have permanently changed postsecondary education worldwide in a fundamental ways. At the same time, a global knowledge economy has emerged—an aspect of the broader trends of globalization. This has also had a profound impact on the research universities, making this small but key segment of higher education central to the knowledge economy in almost every country. These institutions carry on most research and receive almost all research funding, educate the elites, train the academic profession and many of society’s leaders, and are the links to world science and scholarship. The research universities are the “flagships” of increasingly complex and differentiated academic systems in many countries. Although usually constituting a minor part of the postsecondary sector, they are its most important institutions. They are also the universities that are featured in the rankings and are involved in international exchanges and student mobility, and thus are the most visible internationally. They are impacted by “global English” through the journal system, offering Englishtaught courses, and the like. These two key global trends, massification and the global knowledge economy on the one hand and the strengthening of research universities on the other, are in many ways directly contradictory. One has expanded access, often at the expense of quality, and the other serves a small but central part of the population and is in many ways elitist, yet at the same time central to a nation’s success in a globalized world. The “technological revolution” has been predicted for a quarter-century or more and has had some impact, but clearly it has not revolutionized postsecondary education. Degree programs are delivered by distance methods, especially in developing and emerging economies, but only a small segment of the global student population is educated through distance. MOOCs, highly emphasized in the past decade, have achieved significant success, but again provide only a small proportion of degree delivery worldwide. Yet, the sophistication and effectiveness of instructional and learning technology, the advent of artificial intelligence, and other new developments may well herald the revolution that has been much discussed. The end of the “brick and mortar” universities, repeatedly predicted, will not occur, and elite research universities will remain a central part of higher education worldwide, but other segments of the postsecondary system may be significantly affected.

Clear Trends and Murky Future

2

17

The Current Crisis

This is the era of nationalism and populism, political trends that affect a growing number of countries. This specific development includes Brexit in the United Kingdom, the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President in 2016, the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s president, as well as the rise of populist governments in Hungary, Italy, and Poland. The causes of these developments are varied and complex, but certainly include increased social and economic inequalities and the impact of globalization on work, employment, and the diminished position in society of significant parts of the population. The reaction of segments of society against immigration and the “refugee crisis” has also contributed. These issues, and others, reflect significant structural problems in many countries, and are unlikely to be solved quickly. Higher education has played a part in the crisis. The populations most inclined to support nationalist and populist parties are those with the least education and least access to postsecondary institutions. In contemporary economies, those with advanced degrees do best economically, and the income gulf between those with education and those without has grown dramatically. The causes and consequences of these complex phenomena vary by country and reflect other realities in national contexts as well, including the failure of established political parties to recognize and ameliorate the economic and social changes described here. The concern in this discussion is the impact on higher education generally and on internationalization in particular.

3

The Consequences

In countries with strong populist and nationalist influences, higher education has lost a significant part of its support among the public, and in some cases governmental support as well. This will likely mean reduction in funding for research and for higher education in general. The implications for internationalization and student and faculty are significant and already felt worldwide: – Mobility patterns are shifting. The numbers of international undergraduate students coming to the United States has declined for the past two years (and there are declines in some graduate fields), although overall numbers remain steady. Fewer students from continental Europe are choosing to study in the United Kingdom, in part because of the impending high costs involved. At the same time, Canada has seen significant increases, as has China.

18

Altbach

– Policies relating to post-graduation employment by international students are becoming more restrictive or even largely closing in the United States and the United Kingdom. This will be a major determinant of mobility patterns, as significant numbers of international students choose to work after graduation. – Visa restrictions are increasing, and in some cases students from selected countries are being barred from entry. Although universities try to maintain a “welcoming” environment, some countries are increasingly hostile to international students and to foreigners in general, and this is reflected in both immigration and visa policies and in rhetoric from governments. – It is likely that faculty mobility will change significantly, although the patterns are not yet clear. Countries that are perceived as less welcoming and that increase barriers for mobility will be less attractive. The United States and United Kingdom, traditionally the largest recipients of international post-docs and faculty, are likely be the most affected. Canada, Germany, France, and perhaps China, as well as others, may benefit. – Other aspects of global patterns of internationalization may also be impacted, but trends are not clear at present. For example, branch campuses, franchised, and joint-degree programs, an important element of internationalization, are likely to be affected by the negative trends discussed here—but it is too early to tell.

4

Conclusion

Without question, postsecondary education worldwide faces unprecedented challenges resulting from the central realities of the past three-quarters of a century, the technological changes of the twenty-first century, and, in the past decade, the political upheavals of populism and nationalism. Some aspects of the future are easy to predict, while other elements are murky and unclear. What is entirely clear is that the coming period will be difficult and filled with challenges.

Reference Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

chapter 3

Evolving Architecture of/for International Education and Global Science Ellen Hazelkorn

1

Geopolitics of Higher Education

The escalation and intensification of the movement and integration of trade, capital, and people across borders is usually expressed in economic terms. But, globalization shapes the social, cultural, and political landscapes, as well, affecting the way people think and identify selves, and perceive and pursue their interests. Today’s networked society is not just indifferent to national boundaries but is actively creating new forms of work(ing) and networking, and tools for international policymaking. Education is not immune from these trends. As the distribution of economic activity has gone global, higher education research and development (HERD) is no longer just a part of national systems. Colleges and universities have deep historical roots in their towns and cities, and nation states are likely to remain the largest investors in public research and development, but HERD is an open system. In fact, higher education’s (HE) transformation from being a local institution to one of geopolitical significance has been one of the most noteworthy features of the last decades. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are global actors, supported by an expanding global infrastructure, wherein geo-political factors are prominent. The number of students enrolled in HE is forecast to double globally by 2025 to almost 260 million. Over the next decade, there will be more than 8 million internationally mobile tertiary students compared with 5 million today, and only 0.8 million in 1975. The number of branch campuses has increased from approximately 84 in 2000 to 300+ today; 13 million students study in online cross-border arrangements (according to data presented by Mok et al. in a 2017 Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper, titled on “International and transnational learning in higher education: a study of students’ career development in China”). Internationally coauthored papers, as a percentage of all scientific papers, have more than doubled in number over the past 20 years, accounting for all the output growth by scientifically advanced countries.

© Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 2018  DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_003

20

Hazelkorn

Globalization’s facilitation of the wide diffusion of knowledge corresponds with a decoupling of research from the goals of national science policies, as researchers pursue global challenges, international funding, and international reputation. While HERD is still dominated by research intensive (Western) European and US universities, many nations from around the world are now participating, suggesting a dynamic very different from the traditional coreperiphery model that characterized previous thinking about the global system.

2

Evolving International Regulatory Frameworks

As internationalization has become an embedded and widely accepted part of almost all aspects of society and the economy, the development of strategies, institutions, and regulations to develop, manage, and monitor international engagement has progressed. This ranges from highly institutionalized, rules-based international organizations—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization—to much looser (but nonetheless powerful) networks such as the G7 or commercial/ professional organizations. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in international policymaking has increased from 41 in 1945 to some 4,200 in 2015. Rankings—grading and comparing states as well as universities—have become an effective tool in the process. The interconnectedness of the global economy and labor markets has fostered the rise in rules/guideline-based systems and processes to support mutual recognition of academic qualifications/credentials; internationalization and student, graduate, and professional mobility; transnational education and cross-border provision; quality assurance systems and processes; research integrity, funding, and intellectual property; etc. An unpublished report for the World Bank describes an alphabet soup of 13 international and 41 regional tertiary education networks (TEN), promoting networking, facilitating staff/ student exchanges, and organizing activities of different degrees of formality. The growing role and authority of international organizations (IO) is often critiqued as a process of denationalization whereby global outlooks and norms influence and/or overtake thinking, decisions and processes at the institutional and national level. This is exposing tensions around autonomy and sovereignty, and international and regional alignment and priorities. IOs are often characterized as vehicles for marketization, neoliberalism and imperialism. An alternative perspective—argued here—is that the shift should be seen as a response to increasing interdependence, regulatory deficiency, limitations of

Evolving Architecture of/for International Education

21

bilateral agreements, and overall complexities associated with globalization and the internationalization of knowledge. Global imbalances, driven by geographical discrepancies, create another dynamic. In this context, multilateral and transnational structures and coordinating frameworks serve a growing need.

3

Mapping Global Governance

Adapting a 2003 framework developed by Koenig-Archibugi on “Mapping Global Governance,” we can begin to map the complex infrastructure of global governance in terms of (i) publicness: level and degree of active participation, (ii) delegation: functions/rule-making undertaken, and (iii) inclusiveness: access/equity of influence. Increasingly institutions as well as governments delegate some level of authority, or powers of representation, to other policy actors—in a selective rather than a hegemonic way. Four examples: – High publicness, high delegation, high inclusiveness. EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education) is the European register of quality assurance (QA) agencies, listing those that substantially comply with a common set of principles. To be included, QA agencies must demonstrate they operate in substantial compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG). EQAR’s General Assembly is the superior decisionmaking body; there is a Secretariat and Executive Board. Members are the four founders—the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA), the European Students Union (ESU), the European University Association (EUA), and the Europe.an Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE)—along with social partners and European governments. – High publicness, low delegation, high inclusiveness. The Bologna Process was triggered by the Sorbonne Declaration of 1999, at the instigation of four governments (France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom). The Bologna Process culminated in the establishment of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), of which there are now 48 members. This is a voluntary effort, overseen by the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) and its Secretariat, with decisions made at conferences within other fora, and based on consensus and trust. – Low publicness, low delegation, high inclusiveness. The League of European Universities (LERU), with 23 member universities, is typical of many tertiary education networks. Membership is selective, with global rankings often used as a benchmark for admission. There is a secretariat, but its main function is as a voice for research-intensive universities with respect to the European Commission.

22

Hazelkorn

– Low publicness, low delegation, low inclusiveness. The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAA.HE) is a worldwide association of organizations active in the theory and practice of quality assurance (QA) in higher education. Members agree to abide by the Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP), but no process of periodic external evaluation for membership exists. There is no permanent secretariat; instead, applications to host INQAAHE are made to the Board.

4

Whereto for Multilateralism?

Looking at the rationale for and role played by multilateral organizations and international frameworks as they have evolved over the post-World War II era is especially timely. As one senior European QA leader observed: There’s almost nothing that is purely national and a student needs to be educated for being a participant in a global society …. In many areas of big science, there’s nothing that’s done on a national basis purely in research any more, it’s almost impossible to have scale on a national basis. This has implications for institutional practice as well as for nations and world regions at a time when a backlash movement has taken root in some countries. The future of international higher education, and the role played by such organizations and networks as key enablers of internationalization, requires deeper understanding. One Senior IO leader observed the dilemma this way: while “we have developments in the direction of globalization, you also have developments which are going in the completely opposite direction. For university leaders, it can be very, very tricky to read what’s going on in their environment.”

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in CIHE Perspectives No. 9, Year in Review, 2017–2018, edited by Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, and Dara Melnyk (2018, pp. 14–16). Reprinted here with permission.

chapter 4

Not Your Parents’ Internationalization Next Generation Perspectives Laura E. Rumbley and Douglas Proctor

Internationalization of higher education is generally considered to be a “young” phenomenon—as a field of inquiry, an area of professional practice, and a strategic undertaking for higher education institutions. Even so, there is today a sizable corpus of published material on the subject, and a recognized cadre of experts whose work has shaped the field in profound and long-lasting ways. The contemporary “founders” of the study of internationalization stand out for the contributions they have made in proposing and defining key terms, positing conceptual frameworks, shaping relevant debates, drawing the attention of a multitude of stakeholders, and connecting theory with policy and practice. The intellectual evolution of internationalization has occurred in tandem with the development, around the world, of a community of organizations dedicated to serving international education through programming, knowledge development, and/or professional training for those working in this field. Some of these organizations are decades old, including the Institute of International Education in the United States, which celebrates 100 years in 2019; the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), founded in 1925; NAFSA: Association of International Educators, which was established in the United States in 1948; and The Netherlands-based European Association for International Education, which dates from 1989. These entities—and the plethora of related organizations and associations that operate at national, (sub)regional, and (inter)continental levels around the world—have set the scene for much of the conversation and the action agenda connecting international education globally. Indeed, the founding scholars and organizations in international education have had an immensely influential role in determining how we understand and enact internationalization in higher education worldwide. Acknowledging both the utility and the “baggage” that the past provides, important questions arise as we simultaneously reflect on where we have come from and where we are headed, as we hurtle toward the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century: How and in what ways can “next generation” perspectives on internationalization of higher education lead us meaningfully into the future? Why does innovation—both in terms of sources of © International Higher Education, 2019 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_004 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

24

Rumbley and Proctor

information and content—matter? From our perspective, the increasing complexity of the global higher education landscape, the rapid evolution of internationalization dynamics, and the high stakes connected to quality in higher education and human capital development in a global context, make it crucial to (re)focus the conversation on internationalization across new modes, new contexts, and new topics. Considering these matters through a collection of new voices from around the world is also vital, if we are serious about understanding and responding to the possibilities and challenges that lie ahead.

1

New Modes, New Topics, New Contexts

Previous exploration into various data sources has given us a clear indication that research on higher education is overwhelmingly concentrated in a relatively small number of research centers located in a select number of (wealthy, largely English-speaking) countries. Furthermore, research output specifically on internationalization in higher education is similarly clustered, emanating disproportionately from Australia, Europe, and North America. Certain topics are also overrepresented in the literature at our fingertips, ranging from the American study abroad experience to the international student adaptation process and to the single program or institutional case study analysis. Quite literally, a world of dimensions related to the phenomenon of internationalization remains poorly researched or ignored altogether. To rectify this situation, commitments to explore new modes, new topics, and new contexts for internationalization must be made by key stakeholders. These stakeholders include governments and policy organizations that frame lines of inquiry to explore and fund research; established researchers with the ability to determine their individual agendas for ongoing scholarship, and to influence peers within their networks; as well as graduate students and young academics undertaking preliminary theses, dissertations, and early post-doc projects, and the advisors guiding these early career individuals.

2

New Contexts: The “Where”

Internationalization is clearly a worldwide phenomenon, yet the bulk of research is still produced by—and concerned with—large English-speaking countries in the global North. As such, new contexts for internationalization include countries and regions of the world, categories of institutions, and other settings where there has been limited research to date. Examples we

Not Your Parents’ Internationalization

25

are familiar with of research being undertaken in relation to new contexts include a focus on remote geographic locations and/or highly marginalized communities (e.g., due to the predominance of a non-widely spoken language, or the prevalence of insecurity or cultural isolation), or in contexts of extreme economic crisis or deprivation. What do we really know about internationalization of higher education in contested borderlands, in relation to indigenization movements, in regions with highly inhospitable climates, or in remote rural or wilderness settings? We know of several young researchers who are digging into these topics, and more need to be encouraged.

3

New Topics: The “What”

Given the complex and dynamic world in which we are living, new topics for internationalization should be finding their way into our collective knowledge base every day. We note with excitement a number of early career researchers who are looking at how internationalization of higher education serves the surging numbers of individuals coping with forced migration around the world. Others are helping us learn from internationalization efforts undertaken at primary and secondary education institutions in different contexts and to reflect on how internationalization intersects with the formation of individual identity, national identity, and regional engagement in various regions of the world. Still others are exploring ways in which we may leverage internationalization in the approach to training future academics, or advancing the work of university-based schools and faculties of education, among other themes. The need for attention to new topics in relation to internationalization is acute, and broader exploration of the landscape around us requires sustained attention and support.

4

New Contexts: The “How”

New methods for researching internationalization push us collectively toward important considerations about how our knowledge base is developed in this field. The work of a number of early career researchers we are familiar with is giving us insight into everything from the possibilities of mining existing data sets for deeper understanding about the choices of internationally mobile students and the dynamics of their satisfaction; to the potential for topic modeling to make sense of a wide-ranging pool of government policies and initiatives focused on internationalization in different national contexts; and the

26

Rumbley and Proctor

philosophical and historical considerations of Protestant roots undergirding the Western theory of internationalization. From biological processes to narrative analysis, the methodologies for exploring the phenomenon of internationalization can be taken in a range of compelling directions that should offer consequential insights over time.

5

May the Force Be with the Next Generation

An uncertain future for internationalization offers both opportunities and challenges for the next generation of scholars and scholar-practitioners who are committed to ensuring that international engagement and global learning play their rightful role in advancing both high quality and equitable education, knowledge development, and social relevance in the coming decades. The work of the rising generation of internationalization specialists has significant potential to achieve these ends, building creatively and dynamically on all that has come before.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 96, Winter 2019 (pp. 7–9). Reprinted here with permission.

chapter 5

Citius, Altius, Fortius Global University Rankings as the “Olympic Games” of Higher Education? Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach and Laura E. Rumbley

What’s in a metaphor?1 There are many metaphors that can be, and frequently are, applied to global university rankings. From our perspective, there are many game-like qualities to the global university rankings, and some notable parallels between these major academic contests and another key global competition: the Olympic Games. Rankings, in parallel with the Olympics, are highly competitive, offering participants the potential to earn prestigious prizes or rewards, that can shape their prospects for the future in profound and quite tangible ways. For athletes, this may result in national and international fame and opportunities for lucrative endorsements. Similarly, universities demonstrating outstanding performance in the global rankings gain high international visibility; interest from desirable prospective students and faculty; money from private funding agencies, industry, philanthropists, as well as government.

1

The Global Rankings “Playing Field”

Both the Olympics and the global university rankings pull together actors who share both an appreciation for the highest levels of performance on a worldwide stage, and a drive to compete to win. Not all entrants in these contests are created equal, however. To perform well in these elite international competitions, being smart and rich helps. Deep familiarity and experience with the rules of the game is also a key asset, as success often hinges on leveraging key strengths and minimizing troublesome weaknesses. Furthermore, inherent attributes may also explain the success enjoyed by some countries in the Olympic Games, as well as in the rankings. For example, the list of medalists in specific sports often represents countries where there are good natural training conditions for those sports. The phenomenon of inherent advantage also plays out in the world of rankings. Most obviously, it is generally accepted that the world’s English-speaking countries and institutions are in a much more favorable position (vis a vis the rankings), in comparison to those situated in the non-English-speaking world, because their © International Higher Education, 2016 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_005 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

28

Yudkevich et al.

academic systems already function in the global language of science, and are home to many of the top scientific publications, and the peer reviewers who control access to those publications.

2

The Medal Count: Going for the Gold

Rankings positions—just like Olympic medals—are a zero-sum game. At the Olympics, there is only one gold medalist, one silver medalist, and one bronze medalist. In the global rankings, the same holds true. There is only one #1 university, and only 100 institutions can be named to the top 100—even though, in reality, excellence is not limited to any specific number of academic institutions. Some countries make substantial efforts to be serious contenders—both in terms of rankings and with respect to such major international sporting events as the Olympics—and spend a lot of money to achieve this goal. They name top performance in such arenas as a national priority and consider the achievements in these spheres to be important in terms of political dynamics, as well. Several of the university or higher education excellence initiatives in a range of countries—including China, France, Germany, and Russia—explicitly mention better performance on the rankings as a key goal. Marshalling resources to achieve greatness in a global competition of universities is not dissimilar to what we see as countries mobilize their sports teams to participate in the Olympics.

3

Excellence Begets Excellence: The Need for Feeder Systems

Among the ranks of the world’s most elite athletes, and among the world’s top universities, it is rare for winners to emerge from weak systems. This puts a premium on cultivating entire systems, which ultimately enable elite performance to emerge. To obtain top positions in rankings, it is necessary to invest in top universities, but also in the broader academic system in which these most competitive institutions operate. Why is this the case? The best national universities need to have a renewable supply of new academic talent. Similarly, to be competitive in the Olympics, a well-developed and adequately funded infrastructure supporting child development and youth sports must be in place. Furthermore, for strong universities to meet their full potential, they require a competitive environment in which to operate. Ideally, they need to be placed in a position where they must actively compete with other universities for students, funding, and faculty.

Citius, Altius, Fortius

29

Without the experience of a competitive environment at the local or national level, it becomes extremely difficult for institutions to be competitive at the international level. The same can be argued in the context of sports: the opportunity to practice with, and compete against, the best in one’s field provides aspiring champions with essential opportunities to discover their weaknesses, hone their skills, and stretch to new heights. The ability of systems to draw talent to them is another parallel that can be made between countries that do well in the Olympics and those with strong higher education systems. In the Olympics, national teams representing a specific country may include athletes (or coaches/trainers) who are originally from other countries, but who accept citizenship in the adopted country and join the national team as legitimate national players. Many universities around the world are similarly engaged in attracting top talent to their teams in an effort to improve their competitive standing in the global university rankings.

4

Lost Luster: The Dark Side of the Race for Gold

Sadly, there is a dark side to the competitions we see around us. From corruption in the world of professional soccer to the longstanding culture of doping in competitive cycling, including in the Olympics, there are clear examples that not everyone plays fair. So, while athletes may indulge in doping to enhance their performance, performance enhancing strategies in the world of university rankings could include publishing in fake for-profit journals that are mistakenly indexed in major databases, such as Web of Science and/or Scopus. Equally, it must be conceded that some of the ranking organizations are as focused on commercial gain as they are on objective measurement of the quality of universities. Why does this kind of behavior take place? Achieving greatness in the rankings, as on the Olympic playing field, requires a decisive commitment to win, and the potential cost of failure may be enough to encourage contenders to do whatever it takes to secure a strong finish.

5

Citius, Altius, Fortius—The Right Motto, the Wrong Game?

Faster, higher, stronger—who would not be moved by such an inspiring call to greatness? However, while the awarding of rank-order medals on the basis of performance on a given day during an Olympic competition may satisfy the world’s top athletes, the evaluation of the achievements of the world’s

30

Yudkevich et al.

universities must extend beyond the tiers of a podium or the rank-order positions on a list. A university’s commitment to pursue a path toward greatness— faster, higher, stronger—should rest on a deep understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of the university itself, and on a sophisticated examination of how the institution can best foster both its own health and dynamism and that of the broader public good. These bedrock efforts must be allowed to unfold beyond the fanfare of lights and anthems, in thoughtful, steady, and sustainable ways. At the same time, there needs to be recognition that not all universities should focus on Olympic level competition, but rather should focus on providing access, educating students well, and serving local and regional needs. The rankings, like the Olympics, are the preserve of a small number of highly competitive contenders.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 84, Winter 2016 (pp. 4–6). Reprinted here with permission.

Note 1 Citius, altius, fortius—Latin for “faster, higher, stronger”—is the official motto of the Olympic Games.

PART 2 Students & Faculty

∵

Chapter 6

International Faculty Mobility Crucial and Understudied Laura E. Rumbley and Hans de Wit

The presence of international (i.e., foreign, nonlocal, or nondomestic) faculty within higher education institutions and systems around the world is an important dimension of higher education in the global knowledge society of today. Increased global competition for talent, research, funding, and reputation/profile/branding not only implies that universities must compete for the best and brightest of undergraduate and graduate students, but they must also seek out talented researchers and teachers on a worldwide scale. The international mobility of faculty is also important in relation to the specific phenomenon of internationalization of higher education. Here, we note that such elements as student mobility, curricular innovations, and the cultivation and maintenance of international partnerships are fundamental aspects of many institutional strategies for internationalization—and in all three areas, faculty are crucial actors. Yet, the scope and nature of international mobility of faculty—particularly in relation to permanent or long-term appointments, rather than short-term or occasional visits—is a rather unknown and understudied phenomenon. Compared to the long list of reports and studies on international student mobility, there is a surprising lack of data and studies on the phenomenon of international faculty mobility. As we seek to gain an ever-clearer understanding of the dynamics implicit in the global circulation of academic talent (at all levels), it is vital to gain insight into what motivates academics to pursue permanent or long-term appointments abroad, why institutions and systems of higher education hire these individuals, how the relationships between mobile academics and their host institutions play out in practical terms, and what effects are exerted by national and institutional policies relevant to long-term faculty mobility. Indeed, recent research on this subject in which we have been involved—encompassing perspectives from eleven different countries and specific universities—suggests that international faculty mobility is a growing and complex phenomenon, fraught with possibilities and inequalities, and ripe for extensive further exploration and analysis.

© International Higher Education, 2017 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_006 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

34 1

Rumbley and de Wit

Definitional Difficulties and Contextual Complexities

Just as there are a number of different ways in which internationally mobile students are defined or categorized around the world, there is also a lack of consensus with respect to what defines an “international” academic. Is citizenship the defining factor? Or does status as internation.al faculty member have more to do with having received one’s academic training (for example, completing doctoral studies) abroad, regardless of country of origin? Is an international faculty member someone who is considered an “immigrant” in the local context—and, if so, does it matter if this process of immigration occurred before or after the faculty member entered the ranks of academia? Without definitional clarity or consistency, it is exceedingly difficult to compare and contrast both quantitative and qualitative information related to this population. Meanwhile, there are also very different profiles for the institutions recruiting these individuals. On one end of the spectrum, we may find elite research universities with “superstar” attraction status. These institutions are in a position to recruit the world’s most sought-after academics and, indeed, consider all faculty searches to be essentially global in nature, as they seek out the best talent from anywhere in the world. Among the scant literature on international faculty mobility, a considerable amount of attention has been paid to these kinds of prestigious institutions. At the other end of the spectrum, however, there are institutions or systems facing local shortages of faculty, which recruit regional or international faculty in order to meet basic operational needs. In between these two extremes, a range of middle-and upper-tier universities may actively be seeking out international academics to some degree, or simply responding as needed to nonlocal job seekers. How we define international faculty around the world remains inconsistent, and the landscape of institutional settings in which foreign faculty are employed is tremendously diverse.

2

Concentric Circles of Analysis: National, Institutional, Individual

It is impossible to make generalizations about internation.al faculty mobility without extensive and in-depth analysis over time. However, our research suggests that making sense of the international faculty mobility experience anywhere in the world hinges on an understanding of the distinct, yet interlocking, dynamics of policy and practice at the national and institutional levels, while

International Faculty Mobility

35

taking into account the complex realities of the fundamental human experience at the level of individual academics themselves. At the national level, potential foreign faculty are presented with a set of tangible and intangible factors and options. Whether they will find them attractive or not depends on a multitude of variables. These variables range from the policy framework that actively stimulates (or complicates) their recruitment and legal or professional status in the country, to the aspects of daily life— such as language, cultural norms, and practices—that enable (or inhibit) their integration, to the broader issues of geopolitics and the environment, which can set the overall tone and tenor for their own experience and that of any family members who may accompany them. The national context is therefore a crucial dimension of the international faculty story. Meanwhile, the lives of internationally mobile faculty are also colored heavily by the circumstances they face with.in the specific institutional context where they are hired. Our research indicates that there is a range of rationales for international faculty recruitment and a wide array of ways in which foreign academics are recruited. Terms of employment can also differ—they may be identical to those offered to domestic faculty, or unique for internationals, with either scenario potentially resulting in challenges and opportunities for all involved. Further, the manner and extent to which the presence of foreign faculty exerts an impact on their host institutions seems rarely explored, documented, or leveraged systematically. Finally, the story of international faculty mobility is not complete without a consideration of what this phenomenon means at the most fundamental level—that of the individual academic. Here, our research shows that mobile faculty are often motivated by attractive employment opportunities or a sense of duty or desire to contribute to a “larger agenda” that they believe in. They are sensitive to the personal supports that the host institution or country can provide. The universities examined in our study, however, vary widely in terms of systematic provision of such supports.

3

What We Do Not Know

There is much to explore and yet to understand about the international faculty mobility phenomenon. Some of the key issues we see on the horizon for future research include the way immigration/migration policies affect international faculty mobility; international faculty mobility in developed versus emerging

36

Rumbley and de Wit

societies, in the public higher education sector versus the private and for-profit sectors, and across disciplines, age, and gender; the impact of online education on international faculty mobility; and the differences in the realities of faculty mobility across various institutional types.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 88, Winter 2017 (pp. 6–8). Reprinted here with permission.

Chapter 7

Internationalization 2.0 Not without the Faculty Liz Reisberg

Despite the best efforts of Hans de Wit, Betty Leask, Laura Rumbley, and many other influential voices, the discussion at most institutions around the world continues to emphasize only limited aspects of internationalization. The mobility of students, faculty, and scholars continues to dominate how people understand internationalization. Worse still, mobility is too often seen as a competition between nations, the antithesis of what internationalization should imply. Mobility is often viewed as a “zero-sum game” with winners at the expense of others. Open Doors warns us of the slow decrease in numbers of international students choosing to study in the U.S., taken by many as a source of alarm. The competition for mobile academic talent also tends to be seen as a contest with winners and losers, with wealthy institutions in the developed world benefitting at the expense of universities in the developing world. Articles in Inside Higher Ed and elsewhere suggest that the competition for talent is high stakes, posting dramatic headlines such as “Winning the Global War for Talent and Beyond.” Global war? Rankings contribute to the climate of competition by measuring and comparing numbers of international students and faculty, citations in Scopus, and academic awards. The pursuit of international standing has often been accompanied by generous funding from the governments of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, that has facilitated the construction of state-of-the-art infrastructure and offers of generous faculty salaries accompanied by extravagant research budgets, creating attractive environments for mobile scholars, and helping these nations to participate in the global competition for talent. Government scholarships over past decades have made mobility a possibility for tens of thousands of students from Venezuela, Malaysia, Nigeria, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia and caused many tuition-dependent institutions to focus their international efforts on recruitment. In many countries, universities rely on fees paid by individual students to survive and international students increase the potential revenue pool. Successfully competing with other institutions for international students is too often critical to financial viability. © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_007

38

Reisberg

Similarly, branch campuses have grown as a significant dimension of internationalization, due in large part to the ample funding provided by host governments in places like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. It seems that the “why” of internationalization has been diverted towards prestige, status, and revenue rather than other rationales that many of us hoped for. Why is this? Why has internationalization been highjacked as a vehicle for competitive positioning? If status and viability come from the measures above, then national and institutional strategies are likely to follow. Yet the internationalization of higher education is so much more.

1

Getting to Internationalization 2.0

As long as internationalization continues to be a competitive endeavor— focusing on the recruitment of mobile talent, the push for Scopus citations, or the pursuit of revenue from foreign sources—it will remain a tangential strategy with limited effect on most institutions, students, and faculty. Internationalization continues to exist only in rhetoric at too many institutions. When faculty, staff, and students hold a limited understanding of what internationalization actually implies for higher education, it is easily dismissed as another unfunded institutional priority. Understanding internationalization in broader terms requires leadership, training, and coordination. Faculty are key to reframing the discussion of internationalization, argued eloquently by Michael Stohl (2007) in his article, “We have Met the Enemy and He is Us: The Role of the Faculty in the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Coming Decade.” Faculty may be able to articulate the value of study abroad and the importance of international students in the classroom, but rarely do they leverage either to enhance the international dimension of their teaching. Nor do many faculty members easily recognize the relevance or benefits of internationalization to their work. It is still too easy for faculty to dismiss internationalization as someone else’s responsibility or worse, a passing fad. Orientation and training are essential, but even when faculty recognize the importance of integrating the international dimension into their teaching and scholarship, the effort of doing this can seem overwhelming. As Hunter, Jones, and de Wit (2018) assert in their University World News article, “Academics need time and space outside their teaching and other duties for the[se] issues.” After all, we are asking people to rethink what they may have been doing confidently for many years.

Internationalization 2.0

39

Faculty must be supported through a process of change. Waterloo University provides extensive information on the university’s website and is an example of one way this might be done. They reference a useful framework (Bond, 2003) and specific actions outlined by Leask (2005) offering an accessible strategy for stepping into this dimension. The framework starts with an “add-on,” a stage that is relatively easy to implement. It implies adding a reading, a guest lecture, or assignment with an international focus. The next stage, “curricular infusion,” is a bit more ambitious as it requires a redesign of a course with specific objectives relating to student perspective and behaviors. The most ambitious stage, and perhaps the most intimidating, is “transformation.” This stage of internationalization pursues a shift in the cultural perspective of the student and the development of cultural agility. Waterloo provides training and a wealth of information online including examples from different disciplines sharing different ways that professors have “internationalized” their courses as a way to encourage new thinking about course development. Perhaps most instructive from the Waterloo example is that the strategies for course internationalization are offered by the Centre for Teaching Excellence. In other words, rather than leaving internationalization on the periphery of institutional activity, internationalization has become an important aspect of teaching quality. Waterloo is just one interesting case among many others. What is key here is that if we are going to achieve Internationalization 2.0, where intelligent internationalization is seen and pursued as integral to the academic enterprise, then we will have to be sure that there are infrastructure and resources to support its development, along with incentives and rewards to motivate the broad engagement of the faculty. Without the faculty and a significant institutional commitment, internationalization will continue to be peripheral at most institutions with some comings and goings of students and staff and the pursuit of goals that will have limited impact on the experience of most members of the academic community.

References Bond, S. (2003). Engaging educators: Bringing the world into the classroom. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau of International Education (CBIE). Hunter, F., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, November 2). The staff who are overlooked in internationalization. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20181031081234166

40

Reisberg

Leask, B. (2005). Internationalization of the curriculum: Teaching and learning. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all (pp. 119–129). London: Routledge. Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 359–372.

Chapter 8

Centering Internationalization Outcomes Four Reasons to Focus on Faculty Kara A. Godwin

Intelligent internationalization, a concept first coined by Laura Rumbley in 2015 and primarily focused on the need for synergy between policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, is an ambitious refocusing of our internationalization priorities. Rumbley (2019) calls on us to “explore how intelligent internationalization might be redefined—expansively and ambitiously—to encompass vitally important aspirations that relate to the common good over the long-term” (Chapter 1, this volume). To date, as scholars including Laura Rumbley have attested, internationalization has been largely focused on outputs. This is true at the institutional, national, and regional levels. Resources, research, and the media concentrate on the quantitative fluctuations associated with student mobility, scholarly publications, transnational partnerships, international student enrollment, and to a growing extent, the number of international faculty and staff. These factors frequently serve as a proxy for measuring global competitiveness and prestige. However, if we are truly focused on the “common good,” they provide little insight into what I argue is a larger—more expansive and more ambitious—mission for internationalization: to develop a sustainably just, globally connected, and interculturally competent society. For that to happen intelligently, what is “vitally important” is a re-centering of our work from internationalization outputs to outcomes. I suggest in this discussion that faculty are not only essential actors in internationalization, but a key constituency for bringing outcomes to the fore, as well as an overlooked opportunity for developing synergies between policy, research, and practice.

1

Outputs versus Outcomes

The terms output and outcome are often misunderstood and frequently misused. Outputs are a “tangible product” that can be “directly attributable” to internationalization initiatives (Koehn & Uitto, 2014, p. 624). In the neoliberal market context that currently dominates global higher education, it is not surprising that our attention is drawn to outputs. These results have the most © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_008

42

Godwin

influence on policymakers and education leaders, and are comparatively more malleable than internationalization outcomes. Outcomes relate to the process, implementation, and means of internationalization. They are the “intended or actual change in conditions (institutional and human)” that internationalization strives to support. Outcomes are deeper and longer lasting than outputs; they are about impact and “real-world changes” (Koehn & Uitto, 2014, p. 624). But because outcomes are also more difficult to assess, they require a more nuanced explanation to understand and report—not conducive to our 140-character sound bite culture.

2

Why Focus on Faculty?

One can imagine a range of outcomes related to internationalization (see for example van Gaalen (2010) and Stein, Andreotti, and Suša (2019)). Among them, student learning is paramount. Widely recognized as having the greatest impact on intercultural student development, the academic curriculum and high impact activates (i.e., study abroad, internships, and service learning) are the two places where we know learning occurs (Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), n.d.; Fortune, Borkovic, Bhopti, Somoza, Nhan, & Rangwala, 2019; Kuh, 2008). In all of these opportunities faculty are intimately involved in design, implementation, and assessment/evaluation. Why focus on faculty? 2.1 Faculty Own the Curriculum and Define Academic Outcomes As the heart of knowledge “generation, application, and dissemination” in the postsecondary environment (Proctor, 2015, p. 15), faculty are the primary curators of learning outcomes through the curriculum. By defining course structures and requirements with their departments, they determine what disciplinary content is important, how it is sequenced, and what skills students must demonstrate in order to earn a degree. At a more granular level, faculty are singularly responsible for pedagogy; they discern learning outcomes and design class content, teaching methods, and assessment. Keeping in mind the expanded mission of internationalization suggested above, focusing on faculty can empower them to prioritize outcomes that are essential and difficult to achieve without concentrated academic study and guidance. These include things like critical thinking, understanding of global power dynamics, geopolitical histories, foreign languages, socio-linguistic awareness, epistemic pluralism, democratic deliberation, and amplification of minoritized knowledge and marginalized voices (Stein et al., 2019). Unlike

Centering Internationalization Outcomes

43

any other actors in the internationalization mission, faculty have potential to elevate these outcomes in concert with the cultural self awareness, empathy, open-mindedness, social responsibility, curiosity, patience, and perseverance that are often the focus of co-curricular programming. 2.2 Faculty Are Key to Equity and Inclusion With their ability to foster curriculum-based global competence, faculty are also the only postsecondary touch point for all students. While some intercultural skills—especially those that are social and involve interacting with peers from a variety of backgrounds and view points—can be developed and practiced in co-curricular programs, the consistency and breadth with which students are able to participate in, and institutions are able to offer, co-curricular activities varies widely. More importantly, the highest impact opportunities found in service, internships, and mobility are costly and time consuming; they are only accessible to a minute proportion of students globally. By definition, however, all undergraduate and graduate students will engage in a curriculum, course work, and/or interact with faculty. If we are to intelligently embrace equity through internationalization of the curriculum (Leask, 2015) and internationalization at home (Beelen & Jones, 2015)—indeed, internationalization for all—faculty are the one certain and crucial pathway for doing so. 2.3 Faculty Are International Education and University Leaders Faculty across a variety of disciplines are increasingly creating, promoting and leading international opportunities themselves. Short-term—often faculty-led—mobility is on the rise globally (for example U.S. data see Helms & Brajkovic, 2017; Baer, Bhandari, Andrejko, & Mason, 2018) and faculty play a critical role initiating and often designing opportunities that align with course content. Collaborative online international learning (COIL), has also gained ground (de Wit, 2013) as a viable and accessible option for developing intercultural skills and enriching disciplinary knowledge. Internationalization scholarship uses the term practitioners to commonly describe institutional administrators who are not exclusively engaged in international research. It is, however, easy to overlook that the majority of executive institutional and international leaders who manage resources and strategic internationalization decisions came from tenured faculty positions. Even with the professionalization of international higher education, most presidents, chancellors, provosts, deans, and directors—as well as many senior international officers—matriculate from the faculty. Their academic lineage helps to ensure familiarity with higher education’s unique organizational culture, secure faculty buy-in, and lead with an awareness of faculty needs. But it

44

Godwin

does not guarantee an ability to effectively manage, or a proclivity to support, internationalization. Even faculty who are internationalists by virtue of their discipline or scholarly focus, and who lead global research centers, language and area studies programs, or intercultural collaborations can benefit from having access to scholarship and an understanding of comprehensive internationalization. Supporting faculty in understanding the value, research, and implementation of internationalization is an investment in current and future institutional leadership. 2.4 Faculty Are Scholars Though their responsibilities include research, teaching, and service (to varying degrees depending on institutional mission), faculty are above all groomed through their doctoral education to be scholars. Leveraging faculty in the internationalization process—especially in efforts to synergize policy, research, and practice—can disrupt the “often highly siloed … like-minded community” that Rumbley (Chapter 1, this volume). identifies as problematic for intelligent internationalization. Faculty, trained to do empirical research and careful thinking within a disciplinary construct, using methods adapted for their field, are likely to bring to the internationalization discourse a wide variety of view points, questions, and critiques for the process and its intended outcomes. Engaging with faculty about internationalization research, the interdisciplinary international and comparative education field, and the application of empirical evidence, analysis, and theory has rich potential as a connection point for drawing them into the internationalization discourse—whether related to policy, practice, or research. Faculty might, as a result, internationalize their own courses and research, and see their scholarship and teaching as reciprocal and “mutually sustainable” (Teagle Working Group, 2007, p. 9). Faculty deserve a spot at the table.

3

Yes Faculty, but How?

Hunter, Jones, and de Wit (2018) remind us that faculty/staff are largely “forgotten” in the internationalization enterprise. Focusing on faculty as a means to re-center our work on internationalization outcomes is a necessary component of intelligent internationalization. Doing so, however, comes with a myriad of challenges and barriers not addressed in this discussion. Most important among them is the incongruence of four crucial factors: what faculty actually do, what an institution declares important (Proctor, 2019), how faculty are

Centering Internationalization Outcomes

45

rewarded, and what faculty are taught as part of their doctoral education. These factors are highly disjointed, little discussed, and left unaddressed, an impediment to internationalization. Effective outcome-centered intelligent internationalization requires intimate and persistent reciprocal engagement with faculty. A realistic analysis of faculty roles and responsibilities reveals that faculty are instrumental players in the curriculum, institutional leadership, student development, and in many cases, international program administration.

References Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (n.d.). High-impact practices. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/resources/high-impact-practices Baer, J., Bhandari, R., Andrejko, N., & Mason, L. (2018). Open Doors 2018 report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education (IIE). Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). New York, NY: Springer. de Wit, H. (2013, June 1). COIL – Virtual mobility without commercialization. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20130528175741647 Fortune, T., Borkovic, S., Bhopti, A., Somoza, R., Nhan, H. C., & Rangwala, S. (2019). Transformative learning through international project-based learning in the global south: Applying a students-as-partners lens to a “high-impact” Capstone. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(1), 49–65. Helms, R. M., & Brajkovic, L. (2017). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2017 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hunter, F., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, November 2). The staff who are overlooked in internationalization. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20181031081234166 Koehn, P., & Uitto, J. (2014). Evaluating sustainability education: Lessons from international development experience. Higher Education, 67(5), 621–635. Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge. Proctor, D. (2015). Faculty and international engagement: Has internationalization changed academic work? International Higher Education, 83, 15–17.

46

Godwin

Proctor, D. (2019). Internationalization and faculty: How to have an intelligent conversation. In K. A. Godwin & H. de Wit (Eds.), Intelligent internationalization: The shape of things to come (pp. 47–50). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Intelligent internationalization: The shape of things to come. In K. A. Godwin & H. de Wit (Eds.), Intelligent internationalization: The shape of things to come (pp. 3–12). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Stein, S., Andreotti, V. de O., & Suša, R. (2019). Pluralizing frameworks for global ethics in the internationalization of higher education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(1), 22–46. Teagle Working Group on the Teacher-Scholar. (2007). Student learning and faculty research: Connecting teaching and scholarship (A Teagle Foundation White Paper). New York, NY: American Council of Learned Societies. van Gaalen, A. (Ed.). (2010). Internationalisation and quality assurance. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

Chapter 9

Internationalization and Faculty How to Have an Intelligent Conversation Douglas Proctor

Internationalization has become part of the fabric of higher education institutions around the world, framed variously in institutional strategies and supported by both faculty (that is, academic staff) and professional staff alike. Indeed, some claim that faculty are key to the success of internationalization, given their principal responsibility for the generation, application, and dissemination of new knowledge in the academy. However, despite the crucial role of faculty within higher education and the significance attached to internationalization in formal institutional planning, there is generally limited congruence between the international dimensions of academic work (that is, what faculty actually do) and institutional commitments to greater international engagement (that is, what institutions say is important). In order to have an intelligent conversation with faculty about internationalization, in pursuit of a more intelligent internationalization, it is crucial to understand just how internationally engaged faculty are, and what drives and inhibits their involvement with the international dimensions of their work. It is only through this understanding that faculty can be brought into a more thoughtful alliance between the key stakeholders in internationalization, as envisaged by way of intelligent internationalization (I2).

1

Internationalization and Faculty—What Do We Know?

A range of empirical studies have examined the international activities of faculty or have investigated how faculty have responded to internationalization. Nevertheless, despite the fact that faculty are deemed to be crucial to the success of institutional internationalization strategies in both the scholarly and practitioner literature, relatively few of these studies have investigated the international dimensions of academic work comprehensively, that is, in relation to all aspects of academic work. Instead, many of them focus on particular sites of international activity (such as the institution or the discipline) or on specific dimensions of academic work (such as teaching and learning). © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_009

48

Proctor

It is therefore difficult to discern an overall picture of what the international engagement of faculty looks like, which factors influence it, and whether (if at all) these factors relate directly or indirectly to internationalization. Similarly, due to a prevalence of different definitions of internationalization, both formal and informal, and a likely disjuncture between institutional strategy (what institutions say is important) and academic work (what faculty actually do), it is hard to know exactly how faculty understand internationalization in relation to their work. This fluidity in how individual faculty members understand and make sense of internationalization was found to be an impediment to the international involvement of faculty in Canada: The different definitions of internationalization at the institutional and individual levels appear to be a key point of determining engagement of individual faculty members in the institutional internationalization process. (Friesen, 2013, p. 13) In an attempt to look more holistically at the international engagement of faculty, a recent case study in Australia (Proctor, 2016) sought to identify the extent to which different aspects of international engagement had been integrated into contemporary understandings of academic work in that country, as well as examining the factors that influenced faculty choices in relation to their international engagement. This study also developed a typology of faculty international engagement across the various dimensions of academic work, that is, in research, teaching, and service/outreach. While this study showed that faculty engage in a wide range of different international activities as part of their academic work, engagement with the international dimensions of research was predominant. This appears to be driven by the intersection of a complex set of contextual factors, at the level of the institution, within the disciplines themselves, at the individual level, and in relation to a small number of external factors. As such, in the two case study institutions in this study, institutional context encouraged faculty to focus on their research by reinforcing the relevance of research to career advancement. Disciplinary context also shaped the choices that academic staff made about their international engagement, for example, in the comparative balance between research and teaching in different disciplines. Importantly, the prior international experiences of individual faculty also appeared to shape their approach to their work, leading to an invariably complex intersection of contextual factors influencing how faculty made choices about what they do. While the focus of many earlier studies on the international engagement of faculty has been on teaching and learning, as witnessed by the significant

Internationalization and Faculty

49

literature on the role of faculty in the internationalization of the curriculum, the Australian study showed that faculty engagement with the international dimensions of research was significantly greater than with the international dimensions of teaching and learning.

2

How to a Have More Intelligent Conversation with Faculty

In order to start a more intelligent conversation on campus between faculty and other stakeholders in internationalization, it is important to recognize at the outset that the term internationalization is subject to multiple interpretations: Although the term “internationalization” is commonly used in higher education, it is understood and implemented differently by administrators, faculty, and students within the same university. (Schoorman, 1999, p. 35) As such, as a starting point for a conversation with faculty, the word internationalization itself may not be particularly useful, and a more neutral term, such as global engagement, might serve to kick-start the conversation more effectively. Furthermore, where an institutional statement on internationalization might commonly refer to teaching and learning initiatives, for example, in outbound student mobility or in dealing with international students and diversity in the classroom, individual faculty are more likely to understand and engage with the international dimensions of their work by way of their research as framed by their discipline. As such, a more intelligent conversation will speak to faculty not only in terms which are meaningful to them, but also in relation to topics of key interest. Although Hunter, Jones, and de Wit (2018) point to the crucial role of the academic disciplines in framing faculty perspectives on curriculum internationalization, it is essential to recognise that the disciplines provide a broader scaffolding for faculty in the conceptualization of their work across research, teaching, and service/outreach. Further key recommendations for a more intelligent conversation relate to local disciplinary leadership and the influence of aspirations for career advancement. Acknowledging that institutional strategies do not directly influence the international engagement of faculty, as shown in the Australian case study, institutions will ideally reflect on the role of international leadership at the local level in fostering greater international engagement beyond research.

50

Proctor

According to Proctor (2016), international leadership at the level of the department (or the laboratory) and discussions with local colleagues about international activities were more influential on individual faculty than (more senior) international leadership at the level of the broader school or college. In this light, local disciplinary leaders may play a crucial role in shaping intelligent conversations about the international dimensions of academic work in their local environment. In addition, recognizing the important influence of aspirations for future career advancement on participants in the Australian study, Proctor (2016) suggests that institutions should review their academic promotion frameworks and other incentives to ensure that they align with institutional goals in relation to internationalization. A recent US report looks at the ways in which institutional policies are being used to promote a more globally focused faculty, particularly in the deliberate use of inclusive language in promotion criteria (Helms, 2015). Taken together, these various recommendations are intended to support a more intelligent conversation with faculty in relation to internationalization, recognizing that the international dimensions of academic work—and faculty themselves—are influenced by a complex and interweaving set of factors.

References Friesen, R. (2013). Faculty member engagement in Canadian university internationalization: A consideration of understanding, motivations and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(3), 209–227. Helms, R. M. (2015). Internationalizing the tenure code: Policies to promote a globally focussed faculty (CIGE Insights). Washington, DC: American Council on Education: Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Internationalizing-the-TenureCode-Policies-to-Promote-a-Globally-Focused-Faculty.aspx Hunter, F., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, November 2). The staff who are overlooked in internationalization. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20181031081234166 Proctor, D. (2016). Academic staff and international engagement: Motivations and drivers in Australian higher education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia. Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse conceptualizations of internationalization: A U.S. based case study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 3(2), 19–46.

Chapter 10

The Intelligently Internationalized Researcher Ariane de Gayardon

In a globalized and complex world where internationalization has taken higher education by storm, internationalizing research is often forgotten. The reality is that most research is locally or nationally relevant, and international research is not the norm (Woldegiyorgis, Proctor, & de Wit, 2018). Intelligent internationalization (I2), however, reinforces the researcher’s role and makes the researcher responsible for ensuring sustained and relevant internationalization efforts.

1

Definition

For I2 to work, higher education needs intelligently internationalized research and therefore intelligently internationalized researchers. Not only are researchers essential to this process, as they choose the lens and frame of the research they produce (Kwiek, 2018), but they are also key players in the internationalization of higher education institutions (de Gayardon & de Wit, 2016). An intelligently internationalized researcher should be intentional in their effort to internationalize their research, looking for collaborations and networks beyond their own country. They should also be risk-oriented: investigating countries and settings they are not familiar with, but from where greater lessons can be learnt. These efforts can help disseminate knowledge globally as well as improve scholarship in developing countries and research about places that are not usually on the academic map. Intentionality and risk are therefore key to fostering academic equity around the globe.

2

Intelligently Internationalized Researchers in Higher Education Internationalization Research

This chapter looks at the prevalence of I2 among researchers in the field of higher education internationalization. By nature, this field should be an example of good practices in featuring and publishing internationalized research.

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_010

52

de Gayardon

It should also be led by researchers with an appetite for international research projects and project teams. The Journal of Studies in International Education (JSIE) is the most prominent academic journal focused solely on the internationalization of higher education. As such, it provides the perfect dataset to look at I2 of research in this field. In this article, I examine data on submitted articles from 2009 onwards. I assess both the intentionality and the risk-orientation of authors by looking at the prevalence of cross-country collaborations, as well as the geographical focus of articles compared to the country where the authors work. Although this work only proposes a preliminary insight into the I2 of higher education internationalization research, the hope is that it will motivate researchers to better internationalize their research.

3

Cross-Country Collaborations

Cross-country collaborations, papers with two or more authors located in different countries, have increased throughout the years from 8 articles in 2009 to 64 in 2018, with the exception of 2014 and 2017. However, it only represent a minority fraction with 8.9 percent of submissions in 2009 increasing to 19.7 percent in 2018 (see Figure 10.1). The increase in international co-authorships represents an improvement in the internationalization of researchers. However, the 2018 estimate is in line with recent estimates globally (Gazni, Sugimoto, & Didegah, 2012), and thus could be considered comparatively low in a field that is by nature internationally oriented. The United States is most prevalent in cross-country collaborations, participating in nearly 20 percent of the collaborations in the last 9 years. The podium is completed by the United Kingdom and China, both included in a little less than 10 percent of the overall collaborations. However, a total of 95 countries in total have participated in at least one international co-authorship submitted to JSIE since 2009. A wide range of countries are therefore collaborating in the field, probably benefitting from knowledge and know-how from the most academically developed ones. Finally, it is interesting to take a close look at how international collaborations fare through the publication process. With regards to accepted manuscripts, 18 percent of cross-country collaborations are accepted for publication in comparison to only 10 percent of all other articles. Statistically speaking and accounting for annual trends, the odds of being published in JSIE are 101 percent higher for cross-country collaborations than for other submitted manuscripts. This result can be interpreted in two ways. First, authors who are

The Intelligently Internationalized Researcher

53

figure 10.1 Percentage of internationally co-authored manuscripts submitted to JSIE, 2009–2018. (Note: Data include all manuscripts available in the JSIE online system up to November 2018)

collaborating internationally might be the best researchers in their field, thus writing the most innovative pieces. Second, cross-country collaboration could also be considered in itself a token of research quality because it combines different perspectives.

4

Geographic Focus

The geographical focus of manuscripts submitted to JSIE is defined as the country of focus for the study. It includes an “international” category for manuscripts that do not have one clear country of focus, by discussing a region or more than one country. Theoretical manuscripts have been excluded, as they do not relate to specific countries, rather to concepts and frameworks. Analysis of JSIE articles’ geographic focus concentrated on all manuscripts first submitted in 2017. The vast majority of manuscripts submitted that year focused on the country where at least one of the authors lived. Out of the 213 relevant manuscripts received in 2017, all authors in 141 manuscripts lived in the same country on which the research focused. At least one author lived in the country of focus for 18 cross-country collaboration manuscripts. Furthermore, 26 manuscripts

54

de Gayardon

focused on countries where none of the authors resided, making up slightly more than 10 percent of the submissions. Finally, 28 manuscripts were found to be internationally focused and 12 among them were international co-authorships. Overall, about 1 in 4 articles submitted to JSIE can be considered internationally oriented, because the geographical focus does not match the author’s location or because the manuscript puts emphasis on more than one national context. This can be characterized as both few and many. Few because more international research should be expected in a field that is by definition international. Few also in light of Bedenlier, Kondakci, and Zawacki-Richter’s (2018) analysis that highlighted the 2012–2016 period for JSIE as one focused on transnational internationalization. At the same time, the constraints and limits of research—in terms of funding, timing, and management among others—may make international projects less convenient for researchers. JSIE is also concerned with influencing “higher education leaders, administrators, educators […] and policy-makers,” for whom research at the institutional or national level might be more relevant. In this regard, 25 percent of manuscripts could be considered “many.”

5

Conclusion

I2 needs intelligently internationalized researchers: it needs researchers who take risk in and are intentional in internationalizing their research. This is even more true when it comes to research about internationalization of higher education, as researchers should embody the values they try to instill in others and their institutions. This study looking at researchers’ outputs through submissions to the Journal of Studies in International Education shows that the internationalization of research has developed although there is still room for improvement. Improvement will require researcher’s individual effort to optimally internationalize their own research beyond the mere topic of higher education internationalization.

References Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Two decades of research into the internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the Journal of Studies in International Education (1997–2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 108–135.

The Intelligently Internationalized Researcher

55

de Gayardon, A., & de Wit, H. (2016). Global dimensions of the Boston College Lynch School of Education: Analysis of a faculty survey (CIHE Perspectives No. 2). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 323–335. Kwiek, M. (2018). International research collaboration and international research orientation: Comparative findings about European academics. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 136–160. Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–176.

Chapter 11

Cross-Cultural Differences among Students Challenges and Opportunities for Intelligent Internationalization Elena Denisova-Schmidt

International students are a significant presence at almost all types of universities around the globe. How do they adapt to their new academic realities? How does their new academic environment adjust for them? Using Russian students studying at Swiss universities as an example, I will discuss these questions and put them into a global context. In this chapter, Russian students are understood as Russian-speaking students. They might have been born in Russia or in one of the Commonwealth of Independent States countries, but their socialization might not always take place there; instead, they may have grown up, for example, in Western Europe. Many of the Russian students studying in Switzerland had some experience studying and working in places other than their home countries.1 Nevertheless, there was a small group of students for whom this time in Switzerland was their first trip abroad and their first independent trip ever. Despite such heterogeneity, there are several common challenges that Russian students are faced with while studying in Switzerland.

1

Learning Styles

The Russian educational system is changing rapidly, but still shows some remnants of its past heritage, especially at mass universities. Many Russian school and university teachers still lecture in a mostly frontal, non-interactive way, without any discussion. In most cases, the instructors have the “right” opinion and expect their students to regurgitate it; all other opinions are considered “wrong.” Pedagogical tools such as brainstorming and mind mapping have not yet emerged, while group assignments and projects are so far little used. Many Western faculty and students often judge Russian students’ silence in the classroom as their poor command of the foreign language of the lecture. While this might be true in some cases, it is more likely that Russian students are experiencing challenges integrating into class discussions and need time to develop unfamiliar group work skills.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_011

Cross-Cultural Differences among Students

57

One of the other issues many Russian students encountered at Swiss universities was the opportunity to make an appointment with a lecturer and/or write a note asking a question and usually expect an answer. This type of communication between professors and students is not yet common at Russian universities.

2

Writing Style

Research papers in Russia are structured differently from those in the English-speaking world. There is no clear boundary between introduction, hypothesis, conclusions, abstract, and outlook. Concepts like arguments, “pros and cons,” and reflections are not taught at school or university. Many Russian students, especially those with significant experience in Russian schools and universities, have difficulty preparing research papers. In my research findings, Russian students in Switzerland often made the following “errors”: they wrote “we think,” “we argue,” “we suggest,” instead of using the third person, such as “the author thinks,” or the first person singular, “I think.” This happens because in Russian academic culture, we often signals membership in a particular research school and/or the opinion of not only the writer, but also his or her supervisor. In Swiss academic culture, the author and/or I signifies selfconfidence and a willingness to take responsibility for the described ideas, statements, and written text. Frequently, Russian students compare studies made by domestic (Russian), scholars and foreign (non-Russian) researchers. This is a common writing strategy taught in the Russian (Soviet) academic traditions and influenced by national ideology that distinguish between “us” and “them.” One of the crucial challenges many Russian students face is the Western concept of plagiarism. Many Russian students do not cite properly because they believe many facts, theories, and ideas—like the Bible—are common knowledge. Even some pages from Vladimir Putin’s PhD thesis look very similar to a monograph written by U.S. scholars William King and David Cleland. This is a serious academic violation in the West and might be punished with penalties as severe as expulsion.

3

Thinking Style

Another challenge that some Russian students experience is a difference in attitude toward cheating and forms of academic dishonesty, which is widespread

58

Denisova-Schmidt

in Russia. Some prospective students might submit falsified diplomas and certificates to their Western host universities. These are often identified as such by admissions offices. However, more difficult to discern, is whether academic performance and marks are truthfully obtained through the students’ skills and competencies and not by some other means. In these cases, Russian students’ prospects for being admitted at Western universities of their choosing, is greatly reduced. Prospective doctoral students have to submit a confirmation letter from their home universities stating that they would be accepted into a PhD program without any restrictions2—a document that does not exist in the Russian academic world and even contradicts the Russian Constitution (Art. 43, § 1), which stipulates that “everyone has the right to education.” Nevertheless, the majority of all PhD students send this document; some of them obtain it through personal connections or by bringing presents to the appropriate persons. An additional source of friction between Russian students and their Swiss professors involves presents. Presents have a long tradition in Russian academic culture, and some students feel “obliged” to bring a bottle of wine, chocolates, and/or flowers to thank their professors, for example, for a strong recommendation letter. In those situations, the students are more thankful than pragmatic, and would be offended if the present was rejected.

4

Remedies

Possible ways to avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings and/or minimize the consequences of these differences include, for example, a lecture on intercultural issues added to the orientation activities currently offered at many Swiss universities for incoming international students (induction week). A short introduction and explanation of these differences can be very helpful. Mentoring programs focusing on academic cultural differences are also a good option offering long-term impact. Students with a strong Russian educational background should be advised to take additional training on writing and academic cultures. In the long-term, university administration and faculty should consider how academic systems might be adjusted to accommodate international students’ secondary school gaps in university preparation, including insufficient language skills. This should not come at the price of lower standards and expectations, however, or the quality of higher education in general

Cross-Cultural Differences among Students

59

(Denisova-Schmidt, Huber, & Leontyeva, 2016; Denisova-Schmidt, 2017, 2018; Denisova-Schmidt & de Wit, 2017).

Notes 1 I refer here to a study I conducted in the spring of 2010 at one Swiss university. The data set includes in-depth interviews with Russian students (n=12), faculty and administrative staff (n=5) that were analyzed according the lacuna model (Denisova-Schmidt, 2007, 2015; Denisova-Schmidt & Kryzhko, 2017; Ertelt-Vieth & Denisova-Schmidt, 2011). The project was devoted to the cross-cultural misunderstandings that Russian students are faced with while studying in Switzerland. The findings were integrated into an information event for new international students, offered each academic year at the University of St. Gallen (HSG). Although the research was completed several years ago, the results are still current. 2 All diploma and MA students are eligible for PhD studies in Russia. There are no differences between a university and a university of applied science, as there are in Switzerland in this regard.

References Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2007). Using the lacuna model to detect cultural problems in American-Russian business communication. An example from the civil aircraft industry. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 66, 73–90. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2015). Transcultural studies in a Russian context. In Y. Sánchez & C. F. Brühwiler (Eds.), Transculturalism and Business in the BRIC states: A handbook (pp. 95–102). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2017). The challenges of academic integrity in higher education: current trends and prospects (CIHE Perspectives, No. 5). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Denisova-Schmidt, E. (Ed.). (2018). Cheating and plagiarism in higher education. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond (HERB). Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics. Denisova-Schmidt, E., & de Wit, H. (2017). The global challenge of corruption in higher education. IAU Horizons, 22(1), 28–29. Denisova-Schmidt, E., Huber, M., & Leontyeva, E. (2016). Okazyvayut li antikorruptsionnye prosvetitel’skie kampanii vliyanie na studentov? Po rezul’tatam issledovaniy v Rossii i Ukraine [Do anti-corruption educational campaigns reach students?

60

Denisova-Schmidt

Some evidence from Russia and Ukraine]. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies, 1, 61–83. Denisova-Schmidt, E., & Kryzhko, O. (2017, November 30). New approaches to the study of cross-cultural differences. In G. Atinc (Ed.), Academy of management proceedings, 1. Atlanta: Academy of Management. Ertelt-Vieth, A., & Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2011). Lakunen-Analyse zur empirischen Forschung interkultureller Kommunikation − Methodologie. In O. Rösch (Ed.), Osteuropa – Interkulturelle, interlinguale undkulturvergleichende Studien (pp. 170–187). Berlin: News & Media.

Chapter 12

Intelligent Internationalization at Work in The Hague, the City of Peace and Justice Jos Beelen

1

The City of The Hague as a Backdrop for Intelligent Internationalization

Intelligent internationalization, as outlined by Laura Rumbley in 2015, is a relevant notion to explore in specific institutional settings. The setting in this contribution is that of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) and in order to understand intelligent internationalization in practice, the specific setting of the institution needs to be clarified first. The Hague, with its approximately 530,000 inhabitants, is not the capital of the Netherlands, but is the seat of government and therefore houses the parliament, ministries, embassies, and is also the residence of the royal house. The Hague has a long tradition as the host of international institutions. The 1899 and 1907 peace conferences were held in the city and the Peace Palace, opened in 1913, is home to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Since 2002, The Hague also houses the International Criminal Court (ICC). The city thus provides a learning environment for all students (both domestic and international) at THUAS, not only through the internships that are a key component of all programs, but also through engagement with cultural organizations and local communities. The Hague University of Applied Sciences provides higher professional education to about 28,000 students, in more than 50 bachelor’s programs, as well as in a limited number of applied master’s programs. Nine programs are delivered in English. THUAS is an UNESCO institution and aims to be the most international university of applied sciences in the Netherlands by 2020, focusing on world citizenship skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and intercultural competence for all its students. THUAS’ student body is highly diverse with approximately 40% of its students having a non-Dutch background. The policies at THUAS culminate in three institutional themes: world citizenship, internationalization, and networking. These are captured in THUAS’ Educational Vision and Framework (2017), which combines institutional © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_012

62

Beelen

policies and strategies and was co-written with a range of stakeholders in the organization. For THUAS, the “common ground” that Laura Rumbley (2015) mentions for the interaction of leadership, policy, practice and research, is therefore rooted in the specific context of the Netherlands, the city of The Hague, the nature of a university of applied sciences, and THUAS’ institutional policies and ambitions. A key notion is that THUAS does not aim to offer more programs in English than it does now and that, in line with Dutch national policies, recruitment of international students is considered a quality enhancement tool rather than an instrument for increased revenue generation.

2

Intelligent Internationalization for All Students

At THUAS, intelligent internationalization first of all means including all students. An internationalized home curricula therefore forms the starting point of internationalization. While study abroad at THUAS is available to all students, mobility in most Dutch medium programs is limited to a few percent. Therefore, the home curriculum is the instrument to achieve THUAS’ aim to equip all students with world citizenship skills. For THUAS, providing internationalization to all students at home fulfills the ambition to deliver inclusive and equitable internationalization. Emerging practice at THUAS is to involve students and alumni in curriculum design, which may be considered an added dimension to intelligent internationalization.

3

Reaching All Students through Lecturers

Delivering internationalized curricula implies focusing on lecturers as the key agents. THUAS aims not only to rely on the “champions” among lecturers. In order to engage more lecturers into internationalization, THUAS focuses on professional development for lecturers as well as involving educational advisors and curriculum developers in the internationalization process. THUAS attempts to sustainably change its curriculum design culture to include internationalization. THUAS prioritizes professional development for lecturers, which is unlike most universities. As we know from the EAIE Barometer (Sandström & Hudson, 2018), only 10% of European universities prioritize professional development for internationalization. Rather than delivering traditional training at central

Intelligent Internationalization at Work in the Hague

63

university level, the preference is to focus on individual programmes of study and generate action research in those specific contexts. In these disciplinary spaces, researchers collaborate with lecturers, educational specialists, and internationalization practitioners. Together, they research which local and global developments will have an impact on professional practice and which international and intercultural competences will therefore be required from graduates. These competences are considered an integral component of the transversal skills of graduates. The researchers also facilitate an exploration of the meaning of global citizenship in the specific local and global context of the study program. Finally, researchers and educational specialists, assist the lecturers in internationalizing the learning outcomes and assessment of the program and of its modules.

4

Applied Research as a Key Component of Intelligent Internationalization

Dutch universities of applied sciences introduced professorships in 1999, focusing on applied research for societal impact and the enhancement of the quality of educational practice. The research is carried out by professors, in collaboration with research groups consisting of lecturers and practitioners. Four Dutch universities of applied sciences (in The Hague, Rotterdam, Maastricht, and Leeuwarden) have research groups focused on applied research in internationalization, which is exceptional among European universities of applied sciences. Apart from lecturers, practitioners of internationalization (such as international officers and policy advisors), participate in the research groups. In many cases, researchers combine lecturing with tasks in internationalization. Research policies at THUAS have led to the establishment of four research platforms, each consisting of several research groups. One of these is Good Governance for a Safe World and engages with the city of The Hague and its many international organizations in the field of peace and justice. Another, the research platform Connected Learning, includes three closely linked research groups: World Citizenship, Inclusive Education, and Global Learning. The latter research group focuses on the skills of lecturers to teach internationalized curricula, with a focus on internationalization in Dutch taught programs. Research topics include the skills of lecturers to teach in international classrooms within Dutch medium programs, skills to design and facilitate Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), and teaching visits abroad as an instrument for professional development.

64

Beelen

The outcomes of the research feed into the professional development and training offers of The Hague Centre for Teaching and Learning (HCTL). The research group collaborates with international partners on professional development for internationalized curricula, notably with Coventry University, University College Leuven Limburg, OsloMet, and the University of Göttingen. Research on internationalization at Dutch universities of applied sciences fills a specific niche in the sense that it does not aim to compete with fundamental research at research universities but rather to fulfill its own role in the research landscape. At the same time, applied research into internationalization will look the same at research universities and universities of applied sciences.

5

A Learning Community for Internationalization as a Platform for Intelligent Internationalization

The Learning Community Internationalization, launched in 2018, constitutes a platform where leaders, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers in internationalization meet at regular intervals. The participants discuss trends in internationalization and their impact on the university and its programs. The Learning Community aims to move beyond merely discussing experiences and comparing best practices internally, although that is an integral element. In order to discuss internationalization policies and their effects, the Learning Community organizes meetings with policymakers at the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and The Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences, both conveniently located in The Hague. These meetings provide lecturers and practitioners with opportunities to meet these policymakers, who normally only interact with universities at the level of institutional leadership.

6

Intelligent Internationalization in Summary

The Hague University of Applied Sciences is finding its way in intelligent internationalization. It has made choices that fit the particular context of an ambitious university of applied sciences in a diverse setting that incorporates applied research and focus on professional development of lecturers to facilitate internationalized curricula as the core of internationalization. For THUAS, this is what constitutes intelligent internationalization.

Intelligent Internationalization at Work in the Hague

65

References Sandström, A.-M., & Hudson, R. (2018). The EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/barometer.html The Hague University of Applied Sciences. (2017). Educational vision and framework. The Hague: The Hague University of Applied Sciences.

Chapter 13

US International Alumni Affairs Pressing Questions for an Emerging Field Lisa Unangst and Laura E. Rumbley

International alumni affairs is an emerging subfield of international higher education research that requires focused attention on several key questions. In addition to being a promising topic for both qualitative and quantitative research, the field also offers many possibilities for collaborative engagement between researchers and international alumni affairs practitioners operating in tandem. Together, these stakeholders can work to address questions of immediate practical concern or of longer-term strategic interest to globally engaged institutions and systems of higher education. Alumni affairs are understood here as the range of efforts undertaken by a higher education institution to connect with, support, and/or leverage the resources of former students. There is a long tradition of formalized alumni engagement in the United States. Indeed, the US approach to alumni relations is perhaps unique in the world, in terms of the resources applied and the systematic approaches taken to cultivate alumni engagement. But, in the United States and beyond, there are indications that alumni engagement is undergoing a process of internationalization across two main dimensions. First, institutions around the world are increasingly interested in engaging in alumni relations, even in contexts where there are limited traditions of formalized alumni affairs. In this sense, alumni relations can be seen as “going global,” as the practice of alumni engagement spreads to different national contexts. At the same time, in places where alumni activities have been a part of the landscape for some time, many institutions are shifting from their predominantly domestic focus in this work and expanding their alumni-focused activities in ways that take strategic account of their international alumni bases. Sustained trends in international student mobility make this trend both more important and more viable, particularly in an age in which global engagement is considered a key quality indicator for many universities worldwide. Using the US frame of reference as a starting point, we propose a series of key questions that may guide future inquiry in relation to this emerging subfield of research and practice.

© Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 2018 doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_013

US International Alumni Affairs

1

67

What Types of Alumni Groups Are Represented?

Although more research needs to be undertaken, our sense is that the most common configuration of US universities’ alumni organizations internationally consists of “alumni clubs and networks.” A broader range of group types may be represented in the international alumni affairs sphere. Some clubs— typically those located in an area with high “alumni penetration”—operate as democratic organizations, electing officers, operating a membership list and newsletter, and holding semiregular events in the region. Other groups operate with a flatter organizational structure, and others still are “clubs” in name only, essentially meeting once a year for an annual event. Additionally, shared interest groups or affinity groups—i.e., groups that are formed around a common identity or interest, such as the UCLA Latino Alumni Association, Washington University Sustainability Network, or Smith College Physics Alums—may sponsor international alumni activities. Examples here include the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies international alumni communities and the American University Asian and Pacific Islander Alumni Network.

2

What Are the Key Activities?

While many activities associated with “domestic” alumni affairs in the United States translate directly to the international sphere, there are a plethora of activity types that have not been systematically categorized or analyzed to date. Developing a typology of international alumni affairs activity seems an important next step for researchers. Broadly speaking, we can think of existing activities as falling into several categories: career oriented, socially oriented, campus oriented and service oriented. Career-oriented programs in the international alumni affairs sphere are driven by both international alumni clubs or networks located outside of the “home country” where the brick and mortar alma mater is located, as well as by entities on campus. These programs may include mentorship of current students (often pursuing internships outside of the home country) or recent graduates, site visits to regional employers of interest, and talks by successful local alumni on their field of expertise or particular challenges associated with their career trajectory. Socially oriented programs associated with international alumni clubs and networks are quite diverse, and range from monthly pub (or “happy hour”) nights to family friendly museum tours, and from annual dinners to sporting activities. These gatherings may be relatively easy to organize, and (depending

68

Unangst and Rumbley

on the activity in question) allow for connection amongst alumni of different age ranges, academic backgrounds, and career interests. Campus-oriented programs are directly related to either traditions of the home university (for example, a specific sporting event, a social gathering like a formal dance, etc.) or are related to current events, initiatives, or “outputs” of the institution—such as the public presentation of research results (think book launch or public symposium), events connected to fundraising campaigns, or other university showcase activities. Some institutions operate a faculty speakers bureau, coordinating faculty talks in various international locations. Senior administrators may be seen traveling to discuss institutional priorities in the context of major fundraising campaigns. Additionally, international alumni clubs frequently serve as admissions volunteers, attending local college fairs, speaking at schools, and interviewing candidates. Service oriented programs relate to “public service” or “community service” performed by alumni in their local communities or virtually. These are most visible through large scale, university coordinated efforts such as a “Global Month of Service” or “Global Days of Service” that have included events ranging from (in the case of Yale University) a London-based project with the British Refugee Council, an environmental protection project in Tehuacán, Mexico, and a YWCA fundraiser in Taipei. Some international alumni clubs support local non-profits or other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on a long-term basis, often based on some connection between an alumnus/a and that entity (e.g., a board member of the university alumni club is also a board member of an NGO).

3

Who Are the Alumni Leaders?

Based on initial analysis of the US international alumni affairs ecosystem, it seems that publicly available data on alumni leader profiles are unavailable. We mean here not only demographic information on leadership—age, gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.—but also length of their service. For instance, are most alumni leaders remaining in their positions for five or more years? Ten or more years? Or is there succession planning in place that allows for a diversity of leadership perspectives? These types of data can be especially interesting to consider when compared to the realities of the home institutions’ enrolled student profiles. If, for instance, 50 percent of the alma mater’s student base identify as male, but 90 percent of international alumni affairs leaders do so, what does this tell us about international alumni dynamics? How might alumni affairs offices promote representative leadership throughout their networks? How might the institution reflect that this is a priority?

US International Alumni Affairs

4

69

Where Are Alumni Activities Taking Place?

Similarly, we wonder how university priorities are reflected in the geographic distribution of international alumni clubs and networks. While a perusal of publicly available data demonstrates that some US institutions operate alumni activities in 80+ countries, others focus on a handful of national settings or even world regions. If alumni groups in Paris and Tokyo are operating mentorship programs for undergraduates interning abroad, but none of these opportunities are available in Africa or Oceania, what does this say about prioritizing a diversity of international perspectives writ large? Additionally, we point to the collaboration of international alumni clubs (for instance, joint activities of Big 10 networks in London) as an area that merits additional inquiry.

5

Conclusion

According to the Council for Aid to Education, alumni contributed $11.43 billion to US colleges and universities in 2017. In addition to the powerful financial difference they can make, their engagement may have important implications for the ongoing sustainability of institutions in relation to recruitment of new students, the ongoing development of high quality education and research, and the enhancement of public visibility and reputation, among other fundamental activities. International alumni may have unique and significant roles to play in the lives of US higher education institutions, so understanding much more about how these dynamics are currently playing out, and how they may evolve, is worth exploring much more deeply.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in CIHE Perspectives No. 9, Year in Review, 2017–2018, edited by Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, and Dara Melnyk (2018, pp. 39–41). Reprinted here with permission.

part 3 Regional & National Policy, Challenges & Opportunities

∵

chapter 14

From “Dumb” Decolonization to “Smart” Internationalization A Requisite Transition Damtew Teferra

The international political and economic scene is poised to once again go through another motion, as globalization—its core pillar—has come under scrutiny from multiple corners, including at its home base in the United States. Yet, a good number of leading African authorities and public intellectuals still mourn the past clamoring about—and thriving on—decolonization. Mamdani (2018) in his recent thesis wrote, “It is striking, in the postcolonial era, how little the modern African university has to do with African institutions.” He goes on to state that the university “draws its inspiration from the colonial period ….” Yet, currently, Africa is home to about 2,000 universities that enroll an estimated 15 to 20 million students who access education through numerous forms of instructional deliveries. Some larger countries now have millions of students in their fast growing higher education sector. For instance, Ethiopia, which has recorded a phenomenal growth, has opened 50 public universities in the last decade, where it has seen its enrollments grow from a mere 50,000 students about a decade ago to nearly 800,000 currently (Teferra, 2017a). Similar patterns are observed in Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania. Likewise, private tertiary institutions in Africa, which also have shown massive growth, currently enroll about 20 percent of the higher education students (Teferra, 2017b). Given these massive developments in the sector in the continent, analyzing, articulating, and critiquing the state of contemporary African universities within the context in which they were initially conceived and developed— under the tutelage of colonial entities and paradigms more than half-a-century ago—ignores this transformational growth and diversity that the continent has registered. Furthermore, given the rich variety of institutions in the continent, it remains to be apparent which particular African university (i.e., a good old flagship or a fourth generation university) to which Mamdani is referring.

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_014

74

Teferra

Universities are universal in their nature exhibiting a multitude of common inherent traits. It is thus largely the role of responsible authorities and bodies that should make them locally relevant as desirably international. In the absence of a directly imposing colonizing power, isomorphism remains a dominant force in keeping the basic and generic institutional traits, ultimately keeping academic institutions generally similar, if not the same. It is this universal character which renders a university its international traits dominated by Western discourses. This chapter argues for a need to transition from archaic and “dumb” decolonization monologues to contemporary and smart internationalization dialogues that articulate discourses that strategically situate Africa at the center of the global political and economic scenes.

1

The Meaning of Decolonization

More than half-a-century later and long after imposed colonial isomorphic university traits have been quelled, Africa largely remains the last frontier that continues to bemoan its institutions remaining vestiges of colonialism. It is intriguing that Africa still continues to blame those colonial forces—to be sure still as powerful and self-centered as they are, and as culpable as they are—when it is yet to do its part in terms of ensuring that its key institutions, as universities, are well funded, effectively governed, professionally managed, and strategically deployed. If colonization of an African institution is still happening, it may be taking place owing largely to an absence of a resolute and persistent strategic focus on the part of the “liberated.” Of late, South Africa appears to have woken up to the issue of decolonization hitting a high pitch when the former president, who was later ousted by his party, got embroiled from one political crisis to another. A host of voices and perspectives have been raised under the banner of #FeesMustFall and #RhodesMustFall, among others, which were largely perceived as a drive toward decolonization (Ntuli & Teferra, 2017). In the midst of these developments, a post doctoral scholar and I got curious and undertook a study (Fomunyam & Teferra, 2017) to determine if a common understanding of decolonization actually exists in the South African context. In this study, which involved both students and academics, we found six perspectives related to curriculum, language, pedagogy, teaching and learning, funding, and institutional culture and architecture. While it is true that decolonization could have many meanings, it is clear that a variety of distinct perspectives—specific to a respective country—are evident. At the dawn of African independence in the 1960s, the famous Africanist and founding father of the Republic of Tanzania, the former President Julius

From “Dumb” Decolonization to “Smart” Internationalization

75

Nyerere, succinctly pronounced the danger of lacking a balancing view between what is local and what is international. He observed that There are two possible dangers facing a university in a developing nation: the danger of blindly adoring mythical “international standards” which may cast a shadow on national development objectives, and the danger of forcing our university to look inwards and isolate itself from the world. (Nyerere, 1966) The South African case is one, but vivid, manifestation of what Nyerere anticipated over five decades ago—at the early days of decolonization.

2

The Shifting Centers of Power

New centers of economic, political, and diplomatic power are emerging— confounding the global world order. A lot has been written on the emerging relationship between Africa and the East particularly China; but India is also quietly emerging—as are other new players—that have no historical colonial baggage. The West which has also been heavily reliant on the United States for its strategic alliance, is reconsidering its position. Europe’s union is also being tested as fringe entities, such as extreme far rights, are emerging mainstream. A new world order where unilateralism, nationalism, and racism appear to be taking roots—at the expense of multilateralism and global solidarity. As a consequence, the center-periphery paradigm, and the discourses that underpin it, is increasingly loosing its core virtues and meaning and also “extant explanatory models have become redundant” (Gopinathan & Altbach, 2005, p. 119; Altbach, 2005). Likewise, while the academic, intellectual, and cultural power bases remain very strong in the West, the East is fast catching up as an alternative choice— and an effective competitor. For instance, during the most recent Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, China pledged to provide some 30,000 government scholarship opportunities for African students. This figure dwarfs any other government commitment to Africa across the world either in the past or present (Teferra, 2018). Regardless of the veracity of these figures, the implications of these developments are starkly evident for conversation on smart internationalization. Amidst this tectonic shifts taking place in the world, the narrative of decolonization remains largely the same, still feeding the new generation of Africans with the same, yet relegated, discourse frozen in time. (See more on the decolonization narrative in Flagship Universities in Africa (Teferra, 2017b) and The Development of Higher Education in Africa: A Historical Survey (Lulat, 2003)).

76 3

Teferra

Confucius and Ubuntu

According to Xinhua (2017), a total of 516 Confucius Institutes and 1,076 Confucius Classrooms have been established in 142 countries and regions. While these developments have come under scrutiny—and in some countries shuttered in fierce reaction—they are fast growing in African universities. As a continent massively engaging with China and other players, Africa must ensure that it also establishes its Ubuntu institutions, in a form similar to the Centers of Oriental Studies, in as many countries and institutions as possible. These centers, while they may need to cooperate with similar institutes including the Confucius Institutes, must operate independent of external influential forces. As the African Union is slowly asserting itself on the global political scene, it needs to take this matter seriously. In a piece entitled “Alleged Espionage and Fierce Denial: Breaking the Silence of the Lambs” (Teferra, 2018), I called for the urgent need to build and strengthen Africa’s key intelligentsia—institutes, structures, and bodies—to address the continent’s growing and glaring intellectual deficit in relation to its major partners and enhance mutual benefits and partnerships.

4

Smart Internationalization

As the saying goes, all politics is local. I argue that all internationalization, that is, smart internationalization, ought to be locally grounded and internationally flavored. The choice one makes in terms of language use in academic institutions is as local as it is international. Curricula, designated readings, and projects ought to be as local as they are international. The essence of academic mobility—in terms of study destinations and program choices—needs to be as local as it is international. Research must be relevant to national and regional realities but ought to be advanced in keeping with international standards and perspectives. Furthermore, international partnerships and cooperation need to be significant to local realities and needs. Accordingly, the respective local entities—universities, departments, government offices, and institutes—ought to strategically articulate their needs and frame them within the appropriate international regimes.

5

Decolonization through Internationalization: The Contrasts

The National University of Rwanda, the country’s “super-university” following the merger of multiple universities into one national university, including

From “Dumb” Decolonization to “Smart” Internationalization

77

its former flagship University of Rwanda, is headed by a white American vice chancellor who was recruited from the international market place of expertise. Botswana also had a similar stint many years ago for its flagship university, University of Botswana, headed by a white American woman recruited in the same process. The intention of the countries and the respective institutions are evidently clear: recruit exceptional expertise from the global market place in full recognition of their contributions and impact on national institutions. On the other hand, South Africa for instance, strives to “grow its own timber” (Teferra, 2015, p. 16) as it endeavors to decolonize the higher education sector as well as become more self-reliant. While the country is striving to pursue excellence and enhance global competitiveness, this is increasingly tampered with outspoken voices fiercely advocating for growing its own citizens caliber with a possible concern of inbreeding, necessitating the need to maintain a competing but dynamic agenda.

6

Conclusion

Communism is dead. Capitalism is in tatters. The Cold War was over—but now back again. Multilateral agencies are in turmoil. Society is facing—and confounded by—artificial intelligence. Oh, yes, we have just landed on Mars—and edited genes of babies. Yet, some of Africa’s brilliant minds continue to bemoan its past when they should proactively and aggressively endeavor to shape its future. To be sure, the painful reality, history, and legacy of colonialism may never vanish—and historians, educators and others need to, rightfully, continue to write, teach, and analyze it for generations. However, the realities of the past should not be allowed to thwart the crucial and requisite endeavors of the present and the future. The new world order has become increasingly complex—and chaotic— necessitating the paramount need for the production of a new cadre of citizens who do not only fully recognize—and appreciate—their history and the struggle for decolonization but more so, take full charge in defining their role and actively participating in shaping it. The burden of the sentiments of colonization and the struggle for decolonization should not be a deterrent to the proactive exploration, shaping, and embracing of international engagements and discourses. With due regard to the intellectual prowess and credibility of Mamdani, the modern African university is not a community of unitary enclaves reminiscent of the early years of post-independent Africa to which he still bemoans a striking sentiment: “how little the modern African university has to do with African

78

Teferra

institutions.” To be sure, it is not even clear which universities he is referring to in the vast and “differentiated” community of over 2,000 universities and colleges now operating in the continent that do not—and ought not—draw their “inspiration from the colonial period” (Mamdani, 2018). The contemporary Africa must thus draw inspirations not just from its colonial history but the international dynamics which are unfolding and shifting—quickly. In pursuing such a conversation, one needs to be guided by the wisdom of Nyerere who grappled with the inherent tension between isolationist and inward looking nationalist tendencies that may segregate universities from the world, and the blind adoration of internationalization whose impact have now grown more enormously than during his reign. In conclusion, dumb decolonization—in its formation, expression, and persistence—must give way to smart internationalization that advances African academic, economic, social, and political interests in the present and the future. It is time to re-focus on creating an enlightened cadre of African intellectuals, scholars, and professionals that fully recognize their history but are confident—and competent—in navigating the international landscape in the national and continental as well as global interest. .

References Altbach, P. G. (2005). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. In National Education Association (Ed.), The NEA 2005 almanac of higher education (pp. 63–74). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Fomunyam, K. G., & Teferra, D. (2017). Curriculum responsiveness within the context of decolonisation in South African higher education. Perspectives in Education, 35(2), 196–207. Gopinathan, S., & Altbach, P. G. (2005). Editorial: Rethinking centre–periphery. Asian Pacific Journal of Education, 25(2), 117–123. Lulat, Y. G.-M. (2003). The development of higher education in Africa: A historical survey. In D. Teferra & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), African higher education: An international reference handbook (pp. 15–31). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Mamdani, M. (2018). The African University. London Review of Books, 40(14), 29–32. Retrieved from https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n14/mahmood-mamdani/the-africanuniversity Ntuli, M. E., & Teferra, D. (2017). Implications of social media on student activism: The South African experience in a digital age. Journal of African Higher Education, 15(2), 63–80. Nyerere, J. K. (1966). Freedom and unity: Uhuru na Umoja. A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1952–65. Dar-es-Salaam: Oxford University Press.

From “Dumb” Decolonization to “Smart” Internationalization

79

Teferra, D. (2015). Manufacturing—and exporting—excellence and “mediocrity”: Doctoral education in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(5), 8–19. Teferra, D. (2017a). African flagship universities in the era of “massification.” In D. Teferra (Ed.), Flagship Universities in Africa (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Teferra, D. (Ed.). (2017b). Flagship universities in Africa. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Teferra, D. (2018, February 23). Espionage and denial – Breaking the silence of the lambs. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2018022213044263 Xinhua. (2017, October 7). Over 500 Confucius Institutes founded in 142 countries, regions. China Daily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/201710/07/content_32950016.htm

chapter 15

Intelligent Internationalization Is It Feasible in the Latin American and Caribbean Higher Education Context? Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

The innovative concept of intelligent internationalization (I2) raised by Rumbley (2015) stresses the need for “a thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner, and policy communities,” which means “a commitment to the training of thoughtful practitioners in the field, working in tandem with researchers, policymakers, and institutional leaders who are sensitive to the practicalities that reside within the big issues” (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17). This concept evolved as a result of inadequate articulation between the various stakeholders involved in the complex world of higher education internationalization. Four groups of stakeholders are pointed out: practitioners with a deep knowledge and understanding of the process due to their day-to-day experience, researchers who carry out studies in the field, policymakers, and institutional leaders. On the ground, practitioners often ignore the cutting-edge research produced in their field and have scant meaningful contact with the policymakers and institutional leaders whose decisions frame their work in fundamental ways. In their turn, policymakers and institutional leaders usually lack contact with the multiple complexities of internationalization day-to-day reality. As a result, this situation hinders the evolution of good practice among practitioners, while also limiting the potential effectiveness of research and policy to address the real-world realities of internationalization. According to Rumbley (2015), this conundrum could be addressed through the action of experts or research centers, whose task is precisely to provide internationalization expertise to higher education institutions (HEIs). Unfortunately, however, “the scope of these research and training efforts are very unclear, as is the quality of the products they produce or the training they provide” (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17). Intelligent internationalization is a notion that should go hand in hand with the idea of comprehensive internationalization (CI), as both concepts complement each other. Indeed, like intelligent internationalization, a key aspect of CI, is that it “shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise,” and as such, “it is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units” (Hudzki, 2011, p. 6). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_015

Intelligent Internationalization

81

Intelligent Internationalization seems to take for granted the integration of an international dimension in the mainstream of higher education primary functions and that it is part of the institutional culture. In other words, a certain degree of internationalization is assumed to have taken place, and that some level of interaction is occurring in HEIs between practitioners, researchers, institutional leaders, and policymakers. What I2 is identifying is precisely the inherent obstacles to a deeper involvement and interaction between these four parts. The main focus of this chapter is to assess if intelligent internationalization makes sense or is feasible in different world regions where higher education context, realities, resources, and aspirations significantly differ. It asks: to what extent is I2 viable for HEIs and national systems in Latin America and the Caribbean?

1

Viability of I2 in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

My working hypothesis is that some of the hereafter depicted characteristics of LAC higher education sector and process of internationalization could constitute barriers to a deeper and wider articulation between the different mentioned I2 stakeholders. 1.1 The Present State of the Internationalization Process A first observation is that CI is still not a reality in LAC, in the sense that internationalization is not yet fully (thoroughly) integrated in all higher education main functions. If it is true that internationalization levels have considerably increased in the last decade, these efforts are mainly focused on mobility of both students and faculty. Nevertheless, LAC is still lagging behind in comparison with other emerging economies in regions like Asia. Indeed, LAC has one of the lowest mobility levels of outgoing (5.2%) and incoming (2.2%) students, which represents correspondingly 0.9% of the total enrollment of the region (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2018).1 Scholar mobility mainly occurred in the public sector among small international elite academics. Internationalization of the curriculum is almost non-existent due to a prevailing traditional and rigid curricula. Although international knowledge production is increasing, it barely represents 3.4% of the world investment in research and development, and 4.1% of world researchers (De-Moya-Anegón, Herrán-Páez, Bustos-González, Corena-Álvarez, & Tibaná-Herrera, 2018). At both the national and institutional level, the international dimension of development policies is peripheral; planning and budget are scarce and inconsistent and evaluation is almost nonexistent.

82

Gacel-Ávila

1.2 Higher Education Governance Another barrier to I2 is the mode of governance prevailing in both the public and private sector. Indeed, since the 1918 Córdoba Reform, the relationship between national governments and public universities is ruled through the traditional concept of autonomy. This concept of autonomous governance has led to HEIs’ internal politicization, clientelism, and deficient bureaucratic organization. According to Brunner (2011), “… the design of public policies has been greatly limited due to political and fiscal restrictions as well as the institutional, technical, administrative and political incapacity to approach critical higher education problematics …” (p. 151). Senior officers are characterized by a lack of administrative training and leadership skills, the latter leading to a deficit in legitimacy for decision making. This situation makes integrating key leadership functions impossible, and thus limits institutional dynamics and stability (Brunner, 2011; Schwartzman, 1996). In summary, LAC public HEIs are characterized by an “over-administration” and therein, fragmented and paralyzing bureaucracy, while being “under-managed” according to the entrepreneurial terminology used by Clark and Shattock (Brunner, 2011; Schwartzman, 1996). This situation presents a series of organizational pathologies: an institutional vision without correlation between academic management and financial resource allocation; a parroquial academic management with an inward administrative orientation, disconnected from external demands; and the impossibility of strategic planning. For their part, private HEIs have a governance style that is mostly managerial and oriented toward profits, with limited collegiality and participation of faculty and academic organizations (Brunner, 2011). 1.3 Lack of Professionalization among Practitioners The lack of professionalization among practitioners is constantly pointed out as an important barrier for progress in internationalization efforts. International office leaders are usually nominated on the basis of personal or political affinity with the Rector, and therefore, usually have limited experience and training in the field before assuming the role (Gacel-Ávila & RodríguezRodríguez, 2017). As a result, practitioners generally lack current knowledge of cutting-edge research in the field. This is exacerbated by a dearth of internationalization research in internationalization in the region. 1.4

Lack of National and Regional Policies to Support Internationalization A recent report made by the British Council (Ilieva & Peack, 2016) shows that LAC governments are amongst the least supportive in fostering national and

Intelligent Internationalization

83

regional internationalization policies for student and faculty mobility, collaborative partnerships, and international research, far behind Asian countries like India, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, and more similar to countries like Ethiopia, Botswana, Kenya, and Nigeria. A lack of visible progress in regional integration is also noticeable, although its aspiration is recurrent in political speeches. 1.5 Low Involvement of Faculty in the Internationalization Process LAC higher education massification—with an expansion of 62% in the last 15 years—has had among other things, a negative impact on the quality of education and especially on the professionalization of faculty. As an example, in Mexico, in the public sector, 53% of the faculty are part time, and 29% hold a PhD; in the private sector, those figures are 87% and 19% respectively (Brunner & Miranda, 2016). This situation greatly limits the participation of faculty in internationalization efforts. 1.6

Lack of Cooperation between Higher Education and the Private Sector Higher education and the economic private sector have a historical tradition of noncooperation. A negative consequence is evident in the difficulty of firms to find adequate skilled workers. According to the OECD (2015), LAC as a region encounters the most difficulties in that respect. In conclusion, achieving I2 in order to develop stronger articulation between key internationalization stakeholders seems difficult to achieve in LAC at the present time. More practitioner professionalization, more research in the field, more efficient governance and institutional leadership, enhanced involvement of faculty, and wider cooperation with the economic private sector are needed. LAC is probably not the exception in that respect and this situation is occurring in many parts of the developing world and in the developed world as well, although to a lesser extent. Last but not least, we should recall that rationality does not always prevail in the academic world. As Pierre Bourdieu (1984) emphasized in Homo Academicus, the academic world is a place of constant fight for power, thus greatly diminishing possible synergies among different stakeholders involved in institutional processes.

Note 1 Outbound and inbound mobility data corresponds to 2015. Enrolment percentage refers to 2012 data, the last year reported by UNESCO on these indicators.

84

Gacel-Ávila

References Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Les éditions de Minuit. Brunner, J. (2011). Gobernanza universitaria: Tipología, dinámicas y tendencias. Revista de Educación, 355, 137–159. Brunner, J., & Miranda, D. (Eds.). (2016). Educacion Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. Santiago: CINDA. De-Moya-Anegón, F., Herrán-Páez, E., Bustos-González, A., Corena-Álvarez, E., & Tibaná-Herrera, G. (2018). Ranking Iberoamericano de Instituciones de educacion superior. SIR Iber 2018. Barcelona: Ediciones Profesionales de la Información. Gacel-Ávila, J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2017). I Encuesta Regional sobre Tendencias de Internacionalización en Educación Terciaria OBIRET. Guadalajara: UNESCOIESALC. Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Ilieva, J., & Peack, M. (2016). The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement. London: British Council. OECD. (2015). Latin American Outlook 2015. Education, Skills and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Schwartzman, S. (1996). El papel de la universidad en el desarrollo social. Revista de Educación Superior, XXX(1), 99–104. UNESCO Institute of Statistics. (2018, November 7). Retrieved from hhttp://data.uis.unesco.org

chapter 16

Forced Migrants in Higher Education Syrian Students at Turkish Universities Hakan Ergin

The current statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees indicates that since the opposition to the Bashar Al Assad regime spread across Syria in 2011, over 5.6 million Syrians have been forced to move to another country. Having an “open door policy,” Turkey hosts over 3.6 million Syrian refugees which is equivalent to 64 percent of the total around the world today (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2019). Government officials state that Turkey has so far spent over 30 billion USD to provide the Syrian refugees with humanitarian assistance including food, shelter, medicine, clothing, education, etc. (Özlap, 2018). This study focuses on the academic and economic governmental reforms to help Syrian refugees access higher education in Turkey.

1

Academic Reforms

Turkey has taken several steps to ensure Syrian refugee access to higher education. First of all, on September 3, 2012, the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), the government unit which coordinates the universities in Turkey, announced that it would allow the Syrian refugees to study as special students at seven universities in the southern area of Turkey neighboring Syria. With this, even the Syrian refugees who do not have proof of previous academic qualifications earned in Syria or elsewhere, were given the chance to enroll in higher education (Seydi, 2014). The Council of Higher Education further broadened Syrian refugee access to higher education again on October 9, 2013. Refugees who could submit proof of previously earned academic qualifications, were given the right to apply to any Turkish university. The quota for these applicants were limited to 10 percent of the total capacity in each academic program. Refugees without proof of previous academic qualifications could continue to enroll as special students in the previously mentioned seven universities in the south (Seydi, 2014). Finally, one more institution was added to the list of the southern universities where Syrian refugees were allowed to enroll as special students without © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_016

86

Ergin

proof of academic qualifications. And on January 9, 2015, CoHE allowed these eight universities to open Arabic-taught programs. This helped the Syrian refugees overcome the language barrier and more conveniently access programs in their native language (Haberler.com, 2015).

2

Economic Reforms

Considering that the Syrian refugees would need financial support to pursue higher education, two remarkable government decisions made them exempt from fees and provided them with monetary assistance. On September 27, 2014 the cabinet absolved Syrian refugees of paying international student tuition. Their fees were instead paid by the Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities (YTB), the government unit which sponsors study and/ or research for international students and academics in Turkey (The Official Gazette, 2014). In 2016, the YTB also began to provide Syrian refugee university students with direct financial aid through the Syrian Support Program. With this program, Syrian refugees have been given scholarships during their one-year study of the Turkish language and undergraduate/graduate level academic studies at universities in Turkey (YTB, 2016).

3

Change in the Number

The CoHE estimates that the number of Syrian students in Turkish universities has increased continually. Before 2011, when the war in Syria emerged, there were only 608 Syrian citizens studying at Turkish universities. In the last seven years, that number has increased dramatically to 20,701 today. Of these students, 12,980 are men and 7,721 are women. In addition, 18,805 study at vocational associate and/or undergraduate programs while 1,896 pursue a graduate degree (Council of Higher Education Statistics, 2019).

4

All Is Well?

Recent studies (Erdoğan, Erdoğan, Yavcan, Mohamad, Kavukçuer, & Sancı, 2017; Hohberger, 2018) reveal that the Syrian students currently studying at Turkish universities appreciate Turkey’s efforts helping them access higher education.

Forced Migrants in Higher Education

87

Additionally, they report being pleased with the quality of education at Turkish universities compared to their university experience in pre-war Syria. Despite the extensive governmental efforts providing the Syrian refugees access to higher education in Turkey, it is difficult to conclude that “all is well” and “there is nothing else to do.” Syrian refugee students in Turkish universities are concerned about choosing the right majors, the sustainability of their scholarships, employment after graduation, and their ability to communicate proficiently in Turkish with their peers and local university staff (Erdoğan et al., 2017; Hohberger, 2018). Obviously, the influx of Syrian refugees in Turkish universities is unexpected. As host to the largest number of forced migrants in the world, Turkey has made significant effort to increase higher education access for refugees. Nevertheless, considering that just 20,701 Syrian refugees out of 3.6 million total have so far enrolled in higher education, it is apparent that more should be done to increase access. Increasing the capacity for the Syrian refugees in classrooms and dormitories, providing more intensive Turkish language learning programs, creating more job opportunities on campus, and strengthening the orientation and counseling programs are of vital importance. However, these initiatives all require more physical, academic, and economic resources which are a challenge for Turkey to afford on its own. In 2018, several government units in Turkey started an international campaign entitled the Preservation of the Academic Heritage in the Middle East (Academic Heritage, 2018). Within the scope of this project, international meetings will be organized all over the world to inform people about the ancient academic history of the Middle East, to raise awareness about the need to preserve surviving science centers, and to help Middle Eastern academics and students access universities around the world. It is expected that more and more refugees can achieve their dreams of continuing higher education thanks to similar projects.

References Academic Heritage. (2018). About project. Retrieved from http://www.akademikmiras.org/en/projemiz-hakkinda Council of Higher Education Statistics. (2019). Yuksekogretim bilgi yonetim sistemi. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ Erdoğan, M. M., Erdoğan, A., Yavcan, B., Mohamad, T. H., Kavukçuer, Y., & Sancı, G. (2017). Elite dialogue: Türkiye’deki Suriyeli akademisyen ve üniversite öğrencilerinin durumu, sorunları ve beklentileri araştırması. Ankara: HUGO & IGAM.

88

Ergin

Haberler.com. (2015, January 9). Suriyeli öğrenciler için üniversiteler yerni program açabilecek. Haberler.com. Retrieved from https://www.haberler.com/suriyeliogrenciler-icin-universiteler-yeni-6852758-haberi/ Hohberger, W. (2018). Opportunities in higher education for Syrians in Turkey: The perspective of Syrian university students on the educational conditions, needs and possible solutions for improvement. Istanbul: Istanbul Policy Center. Özlap, G. (2018, April 25). Akdag: Suriyelilere 31 milyar dolar harcadik. Hurriyet. Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/akdag-suriyelilere-31-milyarharcadik-40817022 Seydi, A. R. (2014). Türkiye’nin Suriyeli sığınmacıların eğitim sorununun çözümüne yönelik izlediği politikalar. SDÜ Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 31, 267–305. The Official Gazette. (2014). 2014–15 Eğitim-öğretim yılında yükseköğretim kurumlarında cari hizmet maiyetlerine öğrenci katkısı olarak alınacak katkı payları ve öğrenim ücretlerinin tespitine dair karar. The Official Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/09/20140927-6-1.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2019). Syria regional refugee response. Retrieved from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria YTB. (2016). Suriyeli ogrenciler icin destek burslari. Retrieved from https://www.ytb.gov.tr/duyurular/suriyeli-ogrenciler-icin-destek-burslari-2

chapter 17

Policy, Strategy, and Practice Toward I2 in the US Robin Matross Helms

The American Council on Education’s (ACE) Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE) promotes the advancement of internationalization at colleges and universities through an array of programs, collaborative endeavors, research, and publications. Laura Rumbley’s model for intelligent internationalization (I2) and CIGE’s work over the last few years converge on three key questions that are particularly salient to US higher education internationalization efforts, and how our institutions—and ultimately, the field as a whole—can move toward the I2 ideal.

1

Question #1: Does the US need a National Policy/Strategy for Higher Education Internationalization?

CIGE took up this question in its 2015 report, Internationalizing US Higher Education: Current Policies, Future Directions (Helms, 2015), a companion piece to a joint CIGE/CIHE report (Helms, Rumbley, Brajkovic, & Mihut, 2015) that examined and classified higher education internationalization policies set forth by national and regional governments around the world. While a number of calls for such a policy in the US had been made in the preceding decade—including by ACE—in 2015, based on our analysis of existing government initiatives and efforts, our answer to this question was: no. The report notes: Given the decentralized structure of the U.S. government and the size and diversity of the higher education system, it seems unlikely that a single, overarching national policy would be truly effective in advancing higher education internationalization nationwide. Instead, going forward, the U.S. needs a broad, well-coordinated set of well-funded initiatives that support comprehensive internationalization of U.S. higher education. Toward this end, a focused effort is needed to better leverage existing U.S. federal government policies and programs in advancing higher education internationalization, address aspects of internationalization that are not

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_017

90

Helms

currently well-supported, and ensure that all internationalization-related policies and programs—existing and new—are adequately funded. (p. 1) Three years later, these recommendations are still valid, but in the current political paradigm, the possibility of significant progress toward increased funding or greater coordination—let alone a unified policy—for internationalization seems all the more remote. In the face of this reality, however, there is perhaps a silver lining to the long-standing dearth of political energy around higher education internationalization in the US: our colleges and universities are already well accustomed to pursuing internationalization efforts on their own. While recent Open Doors data indicate a decline in international student numbers in the era of Trump administration rhetoric and policy actions, increasing competition from other countries, and other factors, in ACE’s work with colleges and universities over the past two years, we have found an enduring commitment to all aspects of internationalization—including but not limited to international student recruiting and support. Institutions are increasingly creative in their fundraising strategies for internationalization, and in the ways they work with international partners to promote global learning for their students. They are countering political rhetoric with their own messages; ACE is currently working on developing tools for institutions to work in their local communities to “make the case” for internationalization and the importance of global engagement. Our comparative analysis of policies in other parts of the world indicate that Laura Rumbley’s model is absolutely accurate and that policy can play an important role in furthering I2. Perhaps the US government policy landscape will shift favorably in the future, but for now, our institutions are admirably rising to the internationalization challenge on their own.

2

Question #2: At the Institution Level, What Is the Role of Campus Leaders in Advancing Internationalization?

Given that it is largely up to colleges and universities themselves to advance the internationalization of US higher education, the “leadership” element of Laura Rumbley’s model is critically important to I2 in the US context. Indeed, data from a recent evaluation of ACE’s Internationalization Laboratory program (the “Lab”) (https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-Internationalization-Laboratory.aspx) indicated that for institutions that completed a strategic planning process for internationalization two to three years prior to the study, the single greatest factor impacting successful implementation was the strong and consistent support of institutional leaders.

Policy, Strategy, and Practice

91

Among internationalization “high flyer” institutions, this support was multidimensional. As one Lab institution’s president commented, leaders “have the megaphone.” Incorporating internationalization-related topics into convocation speeches, presidential blog posts and social media contributions, and other public statements draws attention to key initiatives and sends a message about their importance. Including faculty and staff with internationally-focused responsibilities on institution-wide committees and in planning efforts raises their profiles and ensures that international topics are part of critical campus conversations. While messaging is a key function for leaders, it is also crucial that they “walk the talk” by backing stated commitments with resources. Presidents devote significant energy to fundraising; internationalization activities should be part of their conversations with potential donors. ACE’s most recent Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses (Helms & Brajkovic, 2017) data indicate that many institutions are funding internationalization through contributions by alumni and other donors—a welcome positive trend that suggests institutional leaders are indeed having these conversations. At the operational level, provosts and deans are often well positioned to marshal institutional funds— from donations and other sources—to support internationalization activities, and ensure that priority activities are fiscally feasible. Internationalization, however, is one of many competing priorities for college and university leaders. In ACE’s work with institutions, we have found that internationalization rises to the top of the list when it is integrally connected to the specific mission, goals, and strategy of the institution. As Laura Rumbley and others have asserted, internationalization should not be considered an end in itself; rather, institutional actors (faculty, staff, students, and other stakeholders) advocating for internationalization need to articulate the ways in which internationalization activities advance broader institutional priorities, such as preparing workforce-ready graduates, enhancing diversity, strengthening faculty research, and building institutional brand. Understanding the most pressing concerns of institutional leaders and strategically aligning internationalization efforts and activities with institutional needs exemplifies Laura Rumbley’s ideal of thoughtful, intelligent internationalization—and is a key means of obtaining crucial leadership support.

3

Question #3: How Can Research on Internationalization Meaningfully Inform Campus Practice?

The final two elements of Laura Rumbley’s model, contributions by practitioners and researchers, are important in and of themselves; their greatest power, however, lies in the connections between them. Ideally, research should

92

Helms

inform institutional practice, which in turn should inform future research endeavors—a virtuous cycle. When research focuses specifically on activities and implementation, the connection between research and practice is obvious. Given our programmatic work with institutions, ACE is well positioned to discover, compile, and share exemplary models and good practices for various aspects of internationalization, which we do through our Internationalization Toolkit (American Council on Education, n.d.a) and Internationalization and Global Engagement Reports and Publications (American Council on Education, n.d.b) series. However, we have also seen creative uses of our more “academic” research by practitioners, particularly the national trend data from our Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses (Helms & Brajkovic, 2017) study. For example, our Lab institutions have turned to Mapping data to identify gaps in current activity and potential niches, inform program development, lobby for funding and resources, spur campus conversations about priorities (e.g., through focus groups), and serve as a basis for on-campus data collection. As a field, we can provide a variety of venues for research dissemination that advance scholarship but are also accessible to busy practitioners. Encouraging researchers to write short pieces, blog posts, and how-to guides—in addition to publishing their work in academic journals—will help ensure that key findings reach the professionals who need them most. And tapping the expertise of those working on the front lines will undoubtedly enhance the value of our scholarship, reinforcing a virtuous research-practice cycle, and advancing internationalization in a data-informed, intelligent direction.

References American Council on Education. (n.d.a). Internationalization Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/research-insights/Pages/Internationalization/ Internationalization-Toolkit.aspx American Council on Education. (n.d.b). Internationalization and Global Engagement Reports and Publications. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/ResearchInsights/Pages/Internationalization/Comprehensive-Internationalization.aspx Helms, R. M. (2015). Internationalizing US higher education: Current policies, future directions. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Helms, R. M., & Brajkovic, L. (2017). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: 2017 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Helms, R. M., Rumbley, R. E., Brajkovic, L., & Mihut, G. (2015). Internationalizing higher education worldwide: National policies and programs. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.

chapter 18

Intelligent Internationalization in the Spanish Context Laura Howard

When Laura Rumbley first put forward the notion of intelligent internationalization in 2015, I was among the many who applauded this call for “the development of a thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner, and policy communities” (p. 17). Intelligent means well-informed, rational, smart, i.e., the opposite of unintelligent, foolish, ignorant, unaware, or uneducated. In the four years that have passed since then, the need to go about internationalization in an intelligent way is even more pressing. The rise of populism that we are witnessing all over the globe—Brexit and Trump are but two examples—signals in many ways a retreat from globalization and sends a clear message: that there are many who do not consider internationalization to be an inherently positive thing. Yet those of us who have been working to develop the internationalization of higher education for many years have perhaps taken for granted that the beneficial nature of internationalization was a concept that was understood, accepted and shared by all. The tide is still spreading, a fact which was brought home to me very recently by the results of the elections to the Regional Parliament in Andalusia, Spain, where I live and work. After 36 years of socialist government, the newly-created far-right party VOX won 12 of the 109 seats in a result that surprised everyone. This is a further indication of the rise of xenophobic, nationalistic tendencies that clash directly with many of the principles that form the foundation of the internationalization of higher education. Our work is certainly cut out for us, and going about it in an intelligent way is vital. In a recent interview, Francisco Marmolejo, senior education specialist for the World Bank, commented that in a survey of governments to understand their priorities for higher education, he was surprised to discover that internationalization was very low on their list of priorities (Civinini, 2018). He cites employability, adequate diversification and articulation of higher education systems, quality, governance, and funding of higher education institutions (HEIs) as their main concerns and points out that until we succeed in making internationalization more central to these concerns, we are really missing the © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_018

94

Howard

point. Unless we can help policymakers and society understand that internationalization is not a goal in itself but a means to enhance the quality of education, research and service to society, a way to achieve their ambitions regarding employability, quality, funding, etc., then we are not following an agenda of intelligent internationalization.

1

European Policy

One of the key issues is that government officials still tend to relate internationalization to mobility, which limits the reach of internationalization to the mobile minority of students and staff. In 2013, the European Commission published its communication on European Higher Education in the World, stating clearly that internationalization efforts should go beyond outgoing mobility for students, student exchanges, and attracting international students. The Commission encouraged governments to focus their higher education policies to a greater extent … on the integration of a global dimension in the design and content of all curricula and teaching/learning processes (sometimes called “internationalization at home”), to ensure that the large majority of learners, the 80–90% who are not internationally mobile for either degree or credit mobility, are nonetheless able to acquire the international skills required in a globalised world. (p. 6) While it is true that the concept of internationalization at home—or internationalization of the curriculum—is gaining ground and now figures in many national and institutional internationalization strategies, the results of the EAIE Barometer: Internationalization in Europe (Sandström & Hudson, 2018) reminds us that there is still a long way to go in actually putting it into practice as a focal point of our internationalization activities. According to the answers given by over 2,300 professionals working in the field, the top three internationalization activities actually carried out by HEIs are all related to mobility. More and more people are talking the talk, but not so many are actually walking the walk.

2

The Spanish Context

I mentioned earlier the political situation in the south of Spain. Looking at the country as a whole with regard to the internationalization of higher education,

Intelligent Internationalization in the Spanish Context

95

major steps forward have been taken in recent decades. De Wit, Rumbley, and Velez Ramirez (2017) identified some measures that could contribute to deeper and more meaningful internationalization of the Spanish higher education sector. These include investing strategically in the country’s research and education systems, focusing more on relations with countries and regions outside of Europe like the United States and Latin America, and giving more attention to internationalization of the curriculum and internationalization at home in order to prepare Spanish students to be global professionals and citizens. These aims would be more easily and effectively achieved through the practice of intelligent internationalization. A recent development is worth mentioning in this context. In September 2018 during a meeting of the Council of Universities, the Minister of Science, Innovation and Universities announced the creation of three working groups to tackle the most pressing issues faced by the Ministry. The fact that one of these top three issues was the internationalization of Spanish universities and their participation in the European Universities Initiative of the European Commission, is certainly encouraging. The “Internationalization of Universities” working group met for the first time in November 2018 with the mission to agree on the principles and plan of action in the various sectors involved, including any necessary modification of current legislation. The group includes representation from the Ministry, the Regional Ministries (with responsibility for higher education), the Rectors’ Conference, the Service for the Internationalisation of Education in Spain (SEPIE), the National Research Agency AEI, as well as student and trade union representatives. Although the importance given to internationalization and the creation of this working group are certainly encouraging developments, it is hoped that the group will be advised by researchers and experts in the field, and by experienced practitioners whose applied knowledge and understanding of the concept would provide invaluable input and guidance to make a real contribution to internationalization policies and practice. This would bring us closer to an alliance between the researcher, the practitioner, and key decision makers as proposed by Rumbley’s concept of intelligent internationalization. While it is vital to have the support of government and policymakers to provide a suitable framework for internationalization, we should also bear in mind that this top-down approach does have disadvantages. Governments change, and a policy or source of funding that was supported by one government may not find favour with its successor regime—especially if we bear in mind the radicalization of the political spectrum mentioned above. Universities in Spain have for many years chartered their own course as far as internationalization is concerned. The first national strategy for the internationalization of

96

Howard

Spanish universities was released in 2015, by which time many HEIs had been implementing their own strategies for some years. It is important that a loss of support brought about by a change in government policy does not put universities’ internationalization activities and goals on hold and that, within the scope of their autonomy, universities are still able to produce graduates with an international outlook. To achieve this, applying the principles of intelligent internationalization at the institutional level—giving a voice to researchers and practitioners in the decision-making process—would also help to ensure the sustainability and vitality of internationalization efforts.

References Civinini, C. (2018, October 25). Francisco Marmolejo, tertiary education specialist, The World Bank. The PIE News. Retrieved from https://thepienews.com/pie-chat/ francisco-marmolejo-lead-tertiary-education-specialist-the-world-bank/ de Wit, H., Rumbley, L., & Velez Ramirez, J. (2017). The internationalization of Spanish higher education in global perspective. In A. Pérez-Encinas, L. Howard, L., L. E. Rumbley, & H. de Wit (Eds.) The Internationalization of Higher Education in Spain: Reflections and Perspectives (pp. 64–69). Madrid: Spanish Service for the Internationalisation of Education (SEPIE). European Commission. (2013). European Higher Education in the World (COM (2013) 499 Final). Brussels: European Commission. Sandström, A.-M., & Hudson, R. (2018). The EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/barometer.html

Chapter 19

Policy Development, Research and Data Collection to Enhance International Program and Provider Mobility in Africa Jane Knight

International academic mobility is increasing in scale and scope. It is no longer just students who are moving across borders, higher education programs and providers are now mobile too (Knight, 2019). While international student and staff mobility (ISSM) in Africa has been researched (Krietz, 2013), very little attention has been given to studying the mobility of international providers (international branch campuses, foreign private universities, foreign distance education providers, international joint universities) and programs (franchise, double/joint degrees) in African countries. The significant role that IPPM plays in increasing local students’ access to higher education is demonstrated in Mauritius where 42% of all higher education enrollments are with a foreign provider through franchise programs or branch campuses. Students do not have to leave Mauritius to obtain a foreign higher education qualification. In Botswana, there are approximately 30% of local students studying in IPPM programs (McNamara & Knight, 2015).

1

Independent versus Collaborative IPPM

Given the innovation in different modes of IPPM plus the mass confusion which exists about the terminology, a new classification framework has been developed in order bring clarity and logic to the analysis of higher education programs and providers crossing borders (Knight & McNamara, 2017). A fundamental principle is the distinction between independent IPPM and collaborative IPPM. Independent IPPM is essentially an import/export model where the sending country is responsible for the curriculum design, granting of the qualifications and external quality assurance. The three primary modes in the independent category include franchise programs, international branch campuses, and self-study distance education. In contrast collaborative IPPM means that both host country and foreign partners cooperate in the curriculum design, qualifications offered, and quality assurance. The major modes in © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_019

98

Knight

collaborative IPPM include partnership programs such as double/joint degrees, international joint universities, and distance education with a local academic partner. In terms of policies, regulatory frameworks, research, and data collection, it is critical to distinguish between the two fundamental approaches to IPPM and the different modes. Anecdotal evidence and preliminary research on mapping IPPM policies and activities in selected African countries (Knight, 2019) indicates that IPPM is growing and often without the necessary national level policies and regulations in place. This can result in unintended consequences and potential risks. Thus an intelligent internationalization approach to IPPM in Africa needs to be informed by the development of appropriate enabling policies, regulations and guidelines, further monitoring and research, and the establishment of appropriate data gathering and management systems.

2

Potential Benefits and Risks of IPPM

There is some urgency to identify areas of further research, policy development, and capacity building which would contribute to the African higher education sector’s enhanced ability to harness the benefits of IPPM and avoid potential risks. Benefits can include increased access to higher education, diversification of program offerings, internationalization of the curriculum and teaching/learning process, new pedagogical approaches, graduate co-supervision, exchange of students and staff, less brain drain, and perhaps assisting politically unstable and failing states to rebuild higher education programs and institutions. Potential risks should not be ignored. They can include low quality provision, inappropriate curriculum and pedagogy, limited sustainability, competition with local HEIs, duplication of program offers, qualifications not being recognized, and commercialization. As with all new developments there are twists and turns in the road and many pitfalls to avoid. At the same time, there are also new opportunities and potential benefits. One must take a measured, realistic and evidence-based approach to realize the potential of IPPM in Africa consistent using the principles of intelligent internationalization. There are many aspects of IPPM which require further investigation in the African context. Each country, region, and institution will need to determine its own priorities for their level of engagement in IPPM. To underpin this decision, there are common topics, issues, and challenges that must be examined. An important step is a mapping of existing national and institutional policies to enable, guide, and regulate IPPM activity. The mapping of policies

International Program and Provider Mobility in Africa

99

and regulations will help to identify good practices along with existing needs and current gaps. This could lead to awareness raising and capacity building initiatives aimed at strengthening IPPM policies across the continent. Key issues related to policy development include registration and licencing, quality assurance measures and accreditation procedures, availability of domestic scholarships for local students registered in foreign programs, visas for visiting professors and staff, awarding of joint and double degrees, funding mechanisms, governance of joint partnership programs, and institutions among others.

3

Issues Requiring Research and Policy Development

Other issues which merit further investigation include analysis of the rationales and expected outcomes driving host and sending countries/institutions to pursue IPPM opportunities. What are the academic, social, cultural, political and economic impacts of IPPM? Which higher education actors and stakeholders have the most to gain or lose from the growth in IPPM? Are there certain disciplines that are more appropriate for IPPM than others? How does IPPM contribute to shaping students’ identities? Will independent IPPM provision become commercialized and affordable only by the elite? Will quality standards fall? What about the potential of rogue providers? What sort of governance and partnership models are more appropriate for collaborative IPPM provision? Because IPPM focuses primarily on the design and delivery of academic programs across borders there is a pressing need for research focused on curriculum design and the teaching and learning process. Can the academic sector be confident that imported or jointly designed programs are relevant to the needs, context, and labour market of the host country? What are the implications both positive and negative of foreign faculty teaching or co-teaching classes? In partnership programs, how are credits counted, qualifications awarded and foreign, joint, or double degrees recognized? What procedures are in place for co-supervision of students? How do learning outcomes address the issue of students’ local and global competencies? These are but a few questions. Research exists on these issues from a European or Asian perspective, but there is very little done on the African context. The next generation of international education policy analysts, researchers, and scholars, especially from Africa, need to be convinced of the need for closer scrutiny and research on IPPM developments in Africa if an intelligent approach to internationalization is to be used.

100 4

Knight

IPPM Data Collection

Finally, research on IPPM, whether it is theoretical, conceptual, or applied requires reliable and robust data. To date, there are but a handful of countries in Africa which have managed to collect IPPM data on enrollments, program level and discipline, sending/foreign partner country, and qualifications offered for each mode of IPPM. Capacity building is important to help countries (and institutions) develop stand-alone or integrated IPPM data collection systems. African countries are currently facing major challenges and opportunities to update and modernize their higher education management information systems and it is prudent to explore ways that IPPM data can be included. As of 2019, IPPM is increasing at a moderate pace across Africa, but is expected to accelerate. This may be an advantage as the policy and regulations necessary to enable, monitor, and regulate IPPM are not in place. This applies to foreign institutions planning to offer programs in a host African country, as well as African HEIs that want to offer programs and qualifications in other countries. Policy development, data collection and management, and research on IPPM needs to be a higher priority in order to ensure that Africa benefits from the IPPM phenomenon which is growing around the world.

References Knight, J. (2019). International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM) in selected African countries: A mapping study of IPPM policies, regulations and activities. London: British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/ default/files/k003_ippm_africa_report_a4_final_web_1.pdf Knight, J., & McNamara, J. (2017). A TNE classification framework for International Programme and Provider Mobility (IPPM). London: British Council and DAAD Publication. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/ tne_classification_framework-final.pdf Kritz, M. A. (2013) International student mobility and tertiary education capacity in Africa. International Migration, 53(1), 29–49. McNamara, J., & Knight, J. (2015). Transnational education data collection systems: Awareness, action, analysis. London: British Council and DAAD Publication. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/ transnational-education/tne-education-data-collection-systems

Chapter 20

On Intelligent Internationalization Markus Laitinen

When I started my career in international higher education in the early 1990s, internationalization and student mobility were often used interchangeably. In Europe, there was very little else in terms of international education besides sending and receiving students. The landscape has certainly changed a lot since then. Today, internationalization encompasses so many more initiatives and activities than student mobility, even if mobility remains at the forefront. Transnational education, branch campuses, recruitment of non-national academic staff, strategic partnerships and networks, massive open online courses, and teaching in English in non-English-speaking countries are just some examples of what constitutes internationalization today. A few years ago I came to a grim realization. I started searching for scientific evidence of international student exchange being beneficial for students. I am not a researcher myself, so it is possible that my search techniques were far from perfect, but I was very surprised to see the lack of hard data on the (supposed) positive consequences of study abroad. Sure, there were studies among participants and stakeholders, but even some of the more substantial studies, such as the Erasmus Impact Study, were only able to scratch the surface. I came to the stark conclusion that universities, their international officers, and other stakeholders were selecting, sending, and receiving students without research fully informing their actions. By and large, we were, and are, operating based on faith. Or, in other words, practicing ignorant internationalization. So, if we indeed are ignorant of even the basic element of internationalization, student exchange and study abroad, how can we justify our actions regarding the newer initiatives that fall under the umbrella term internationalization? There is even less research-backed information on these compared to mobility. The lack of evidence regarding the sectors of internationalization is quite clear, but when one considers research on the totality of international education and the interplay between the sectors, the situation becomes even more striking. What are the dynamics between competitive and collaborative motivations for internationalization? What is the true impact of joint degrees in a particular setting? How does online learning fit into institutions’ internationalization strategies? Are we selecting and setting up students for success in study abroad in an ideal way? What is the relationship between global social © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_020

102

Laitinen

responsibility and the recruitment of international students and staff? The simple answer is: we do not know! Or maybe we do know. What if all the questions above have already been resolved by the international education research community, but the practitioners are simply not aware of it? It is very conceivable that at least some of the open questions already have an answer, but the news has not reached the practitioners. One thing is for sure, given the current political challenges in Europe and beyond, the international education community can ill afford not to have solid evidence supporting its case. That would not be particularly intelligent.

1

Contributing to the International Education Knowledge-Base: The EAIE Barometer

The European Association for International Education (EAIE) has very clearly realized that even some of the fundamental data on the direction of European international higher education is lacking, and therefore included “Conduct and publish leading research in the field” among its current strategic priorities. In 2015, it published a pilot study of perceptions of international higher education practitioners across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), called the EAIE Barometer (Sandström & Hudson, 2018). This was followed by a second study, published in the second half of 2018. The 2nd EAIE Barometer surveyed more than 2300 respondents from close to 1300 individual institutions in the 48 EHEA member states. The Barometer covers such items as internationalization goals and priorities, strategies, management and quality assurance, EU and national level policies plus future challenges. The survey data also lends itself to comparing countries and regions on these issues. The outcomes of the second EAIE Barometer are quite clear; from the perspective of the practitioners, international higher education still seems to be dominated by student mobility. However, the institutional strategies for internationalization are prevalent and becoming more diverse in the topics that they cover. Additionally, higher education institutions seem to be better organized in supporting their internationalization actions. As important as the Barometer is, the EAIE hopes that it will inspire further research on the state of internationalization in Europe. Beyond the Barometer, the EAIE has also reinforced its capacity for knowledge creation and dissemination. For example, positions of Associate Director Knowledge Development and Research and Senior Knowledge Officer have been created, and more attention will be given to studies and research in

On Intelligent Internationalization

103

international education than ever before. This work is still in an initial phase, but the aim is quite clear. The Association will conduct more research, but also try to facilitate the interplay between practice and research.

2

Some Conclusions

In order for internationalization to be actually considered intelligent, all stakeholders need to make sure that international education practitioners and research in the field inform each other much more than has been the case. The practitioners need to take a good hard look at their activities and question their practices. They then need to form questions that can be answered through research and convey these questions to the research community. This is not a one-way street, however, and researchers need to tell the practitioners of what research can and cannot do, in addition to providing evidence and information on the questions posed by the practitioners. This sounds simple enough, so why is it so difficult? What is lacking are facilitated platforms where practitioners can engage with the research community. Senior international officers, in particular, need to educate themselves on how research can improve their practice. In turn, researchers of internationalization would be well-served to engage much more with those who work in international education at universities, NGOs, ministries of education, and even related businesses. Bridges need to be built between researchers and practitioners so that they can be crossed.

Reference Sandström, A.-M., & Hudson, R. (2018). The EAIE barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/barometer.html

Chapter 21

Intelligent Internationalization (Re)connections and Reconciliations Irina Ferencz

Intelligent internationalization (I2)—defined by Rumbley (2015) as a framework that aims to bring together the thoughtful practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and institutional leaders that too often operate in separate higher education “galaxies”—is certainly, as defined by its author “an imperative,” an urgent imperative. This brief chapter contributes with a reflection on Rumbley’s (2015) initial I2 model by exploring three of the many prerequisites for further enacting the I2 framework in the European context.

1

Reflections on the I2 Framework: Academics, Students, and Scholar-Practitioners

As defined by Rumbley (2015) intelligent internationalization is a necessary approach that aims to bridge the gap between internationalization research, policy, and institutional practice in order to better respond to the growing complexities of the internal and external environments, as well as mounting pressures and expectations in higher education. Intelligent internationalization should thus be a process that purposefully links the primarily internal institutional realities of moving towards “comprehensive internationalization” (Hudzik, 2011) to the external policy and societal environments, as well as the growing field of practice-anchored international higher education research (Bedenlier, Kondakci, & Zawacki-Richter, 2018; Knight & de Wit, 2018). While acknowledging the centrality and necessity of a knowledge and action alliance between the four groups of actors featured in the initial I2 model—practitioners, leaders, policymakers, and researchers—from an institutional perspective, two other categories are just as central, based on their unique roles, expertise and needs. These are the academics—already involved, or to be involved in internationalization matters—and the students (both domestic and international) (Figure 21.1). Both roles are indispensable in internationalization processes abroad and at home (Beelen & Jones, 2015), and for addressing the disconnect that often exists in practice between the central administration and the faculty-level visions and actions in internationalization © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_021

Intelligent Internationalization

105

figure 21.1 Updated I2 model. Categories in blue arrows are suggested additions to Rumbley’s I2 model

(de Haan, 2014). Furthermore, in the European context, it seems worthwhile to specifically identify and enlist in the I2 model, policymakers at the regional, national, and supranational level (European Union and European Higher Education Area, for example), to recognise the complementary roles they play internationalizing European higher education institutions. Last but not least, the category of researchers should explicitly include both scholars who study international higher education per se, as well as those focused on primarily domestic higher education realities, given the closely intertwined agendas of the two fields, as well as the emerging scholars that link internationalization research and practice, that is, the internationalization scholar-practitioners (Rumbley & Proctor, 2018; Streitwieser & Ogden, 2016).

2

Prerequisites: Reconciliation in Some Key Areas

In the process of better connecting the research agendas in international higher education to policy needs, as well as to fast-changing institutional realities, some key internationalization areas need revisiting from a practical and theoretical perspective. Three areas—where matching attention and joint action by the main actors in the I2 model is key—are addressed here: the prerequisite to overcome false opposition and move beyond the dichotomy of internationalization abroad versus internationalization at home (Knight, 2006) by systematically integrating the two; the necessity to re-think some of the “classical” internationalization activities like international student mobility, and thus

106

Ferencz

look at known activities through new glasses; and the need to address inherent paradoxes and “unintended consequences” (Knight, 2009). 2.1 Overcoming False Oppositions One of the cornerstones of international higher education research is the conceptual delineation between internationalization abroad and internationalization at home, which has undoubtedly supported the proliferation of this research field by enabling inner categorizations and the birth of scholarly subthemes. Nevertheless, it has also created a false opposition between the respective activities, internationalization at home having been defined and viewed for a significant period of time as the mere antithesis of international mobility, namely as “any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility” (Crowther, Joris, Otten, Nilsson, Teekens, & Wächter, 2001, p. 8). This view, largely shared within the scholarly community, has led to quasi parallel areas of research and practitioner professionalization, although from an institutional perspective these areas are not only interdependent (Beelen & Jones, 2015), but should be mutually reinforcing. In line with the current definition of internationalization at home as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p. 69), a more systematic integration of abroad (mobility of students and staff, programs and institutions) and at home activities in research, policies, and institutional practice, is hereby proposed. At the institutional level, this would translate into intentionally, strategically, and systematically linking activities pertaining to the two areas. For example, strategically involving the returning mobile students and staff, as well as the international students, in shaping the internationalization at home processes, and thus ensuring that the personal benefits of experiences abroad can and do ultimately transform into wider institutional benefits. Such further integration seems perfectly in line with the definition of internationalization at home quoted above, where domestic learning environments encompass all students (i.e., also incoming and formerly mobile ones). On the other hand, internationalization at home activities could be planned and developed, amongst others and at least for some students, as a stepping stone for international learning experiences that will later be pursued abroad.

3

Examining “the Known” through New Glasses

Over the years a significant body of research—close to 500 articles in the Web of Science alone until 2013 (Abdullah, Abd Aziz, & Ibrahim, 2014)—has

Intelligent Internationalization

107

focused on international students and student mobility. Topics have been as varied as motivations for and barriers to study abroad (Netz, 2015); exploring students’ on campus educational and social experience; the personal effects of mobility (on personality, foreign language proficiency, intercultural competences, and employability); and dedicated policies and support measures, recruitment practices, tuition fees, etc. This makes student mobility likely the most explored area of international higher education. In parallel, in the past two decades, within and between European higher education institutions, the organization of short-term student mobility has become largely professionalized, aided by funding programs like Erasmus, the growing number of mobility partnerships, and the wider use of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). There are, however, rapid changes that point to the fact that neither the research, policy, practitioner, nor institutional communities should take international student mobility, and outgoing mobility in particular, for granted. On the one hand, increasingly more European countries already experience or expect stagnation of their outgoing student mobility numbers. They report decreasing student interest in study abroad due to ease of travelling abroad outside learning environments, pressure to graduate, work during studies, family and social life obligations, etc. This points to the need for enhanced efforts to at least maintain (let alone grow) current outgoing mobility numbers. On the other hand, new research shows that the “digital” student generations have very different learning styles and expectations for higher education, and that the “standard Erasmus mobility” (i.e., three months or 15 ECTS), might be too long and cumbersome. There are growing calls for more flexible forms of mobility, shorter program durations, and for combining physical with virtual elements. This changing mobility context is already challenging all key groups of actors to intelligently imagine and create new forms of international student mobility programs, without compromising the quality of foreign educational experience and its impact on the mobile student and institution.

4

Addressing Inherent Paradoxes and Negative Effects

Over the years many of the negative effects of and inherent paradoxes in internationalization have been exposed by internationalization researchers and scholar-practitioners. They include commercialization, the risk of elitism and lack of equity, potential cultural homogenization and colonization (Knight, 2009), brain drain, the danger of exploitation in transnational education (Wilkins, 2017), the environmental footprint of international student mobility (Ilieva, Beck, & Waterstone, 2014), the challenge of teaching in foreign

108

Ferencz

languages, and the potentially negative impact on education quality (Jensen & Thogersen, 2011). While the need to address these concerns is not new, intelligent internationalization makes them essential. Intelligent internationalization requires internationalization with a greater sense of cleverness, but also with greater responsibility and empathy.

5

Conclusion

This brief contribution suggested an update to the initial framework of intelligent internationalization by specifically naming three additional groups of actors: academics, students, and scholar-practitioners. Second, it commented on three areas that are in dire need of reconciliation and would benefit from joint action of the groups coming together in the I2 model: the false divide between internationalization abroad and internationalization at home, an example of a “traditional” internationalization activity—international student mobility—that should be looked at through new lenses, and the growing undesired consequences and paradoxes in internationalization.

References Abdullah, D., Abd Aziz, M. I., & Ibrahim, A. L. M. (2014). A “research’’ into international student-related research: (Re)visualising our stand? Higher Education, 67(3), 235–253. Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Two decades of research into the internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the Journal of Studies in International Education (1997–2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 108–135. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.) The European Higher Education Area. Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht: Springer. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2001). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education. de Haan, H. H. (2014). Where is the gap between internationalisation strategic planning and its implementation? A study of 16 Dutch universities’ internationalisation plans. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 135–150. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Intelligent Internationalization

109

Ilieva, R., Beck, K., & Waterstone, B. (2014). Towards sustainable internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 68(6), 875–889. Jensen, C., & Thogersen, J. (2011). Danish University lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. IBERICA, 22, 13–33. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges. Paris: International Association of Universities (IAU). Knight, J. (2009). Internationalization: Unintended consequences? International Higher Education, 54, 8–10. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Where have we come from and where are we going? In L. E. Rumbley & D. Proctor (Eds.), The future Agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice (p. 242). New York, NY: Routledge. Netz, N. (2015). What deters students from studying abroad? Evidence from four European countries and its implications for higher education policy. Higher Education Policy, 28(2), 151–174. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Rumbley, L. E., & Proctor, D. (Eds.). (2018). The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Streitwieser, B., & Ogden, A. C. (Eds.). (2016). International higher education’s scholarpractitioners: Bridging research and practice. Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd. Wilkins, S. (2017). Ethical issues in transnational higher education: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1385–1400.

Chapter 22

Intelligent Internationalization in the Context of the U.S. Realities, Challenges and Opportunities Rajika Bhandari

Higher education—and international higher education—is undergoing an upheaval not seen in several decades. The increasing complexity and new modalities of international higher education have created new interdependencies and the critical need for all actors in the sector to work together—to usher in an era of what Laura Rumbley (2015) first referred to as intelligent internationalization. Yet much has changed in the world since the term was introduced four years ago. In the context of the U.S., which remains the leading host destination of globally mobile students and a world leader in international higher education, recent declines in international student enrollment require an intelligent approach to internationalization in the coming decade of the 2020s. This approach needs to build upon and expand the definition of intelligent to apply to internationalization that is deliberate and intentional rather than incidental, taking account of existing challenges but also focusing on specific areas where there might be gaps and that serve as opportunities for growth. In the United States today it is impossible to have a conversation about internationalization without addressing the all-consuming concern about whether international student numbers are up or down. With the heavy reliance on international students and their value-add—the global culture and knowledge they bring to U.S. campuses, the free flow and exchange of ideas, and the massive financial contribution of $42 billion dollars—it is no wonder that the ebb and flow of foreign students is of significant consequence to the United States and retains a central role in debates about the competitiveness of the U.S. in general, and the future of U.S. international higher education in particular (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2018). We know from the most recent Open Doors data for the 2017/18 academic year that the flow of new international students to the U.S. has declined for the second year in a row, and that any “growth” seen in overall numbers was driven not by increases in actively enrolled students, but by those in post-study training or optional practical training (OPT), with those in the STEM fields being

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_022

Intelligent Internationalization in the Context of the U.S.

111

able to remain on OPT and under their institution’s sponsorship for a total of three years (Baer, Bhandari, Andrejko, & Mason, 2018). But the tendency to focus on this headline—whether the numbers are up or down—misses important nuances in the data. These nuances include variations across the 1.09 million students in the U.S. who are from over 200 countries, with different motivations and different choices, and that there are over 4,000 institutions in the United States distributed across a vast country (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). What are some patterns that stand out as we think ahead to how to make sense of a shifting landscape of student flows and a next-generation intelligent internationalization? There are at least four that emerge that deserve our attention. First, a striking finding in the Open Doors data and other relevant surveys (Baer, 2018) is that there is vast variation in what institutions are currently experiencing. Convening any group of institutions together will yield varying narratives: while many will have witnessed declines, others will have either retained or grown their enrollments. Those in the latter category that have emerged relatively unscathed include larger research and doctoral institutions that are prominent global “brands,” many of which are also highly selective institutions. Public institutions have seen a larger drop than private institutions, as have institutions in the central portion of the country. As a sector we must examine the reasons for and implications of these variations: what it means for institutions’ internationalization strategies; for broadening the pool of U.S. institutions that attract international students (currently, international students are concentrated among just over 200 institutions of the over 4,000 institutions eligible to host them); and whether institutions’ marketing strategies should focus not just on the institution, but also on broader local- and state-level initiatives to attract international students (several examples exist of such state-level consortia). Second, U.S. international student enrollment numbers vary according to degree level. Currently, much of the decline is amongst international graduate students, which is further correlated with a decreased number of students in key fields of study such as engineering, and amongst graduate students from certain countries such as India. The U.S. attracts more graduate students than any other country and so the fluctuations in graduate student flows to the U.S. has vast implications for the future of research, science, and innovation. Currently, for example, foreign-born individuals make up over 30 percent of the U.S. STEM workforce (National Science Board, 2018). The demand amongst undergraduate students, on the other hand, seems to be less sensitive to the shifts we are currently witnessing. Undergraduate international student enrollments have remained flat or increased for students from some countries

112

Bhandari

such as Brazil. Funding also plays a key role in the variations seen amongst international graduate and undergraduate students: the former are far more dependent on U.S. sources of funding in the form of teaching and research assistantships, while the latter typically pay their way. A third pattern of interest is that of gender and the difference between the number of self-identified men and women that come to study in the United States. While gender is a key topic of discussion in secondary education and we know that globally there are disparities between the educational attainment of boys and girls, we hardly focus on gender in student flows at the postsecondary level. The fact that the gender gap in international students coming to the U.S. has widened over the past few years has received little attention, if any. Some of this is correlated with the large number of international students pursuing STEM fields, which—as a whole, and in most countries—tend to be male-dominated. But the fact that fewer women than men are coming to the U.S. to study should concern us as it raises fundamental issues of access and equity in international higher education. Fourth, language, and English in particular, is shaping current and future flows into and out of the U.S. For example, fewer international students are now coming to the U.S. to study English because there are more opportunities to learn English at home, and there are English-taught courses and degrees available in non-Anglophone destinations. At the same time, the number of Americans studying foreign languages has been declining, with U.S. students continuing to be drawn to either Anglophone destinations or those offering courses and even entire degrees taught in English, as in the case of Germany. These four areas pose challenges but also opportunities for the U.S. international education sector. Given the rapidly shifting higher education and migration landscape in the U.S. and around the globe, our sector needs to think about internationalizing in a more collaborative, intentional, and intelligent way. Finally, intelligent internationalization in the U.S. calls for developing a core of international education practitioners who have the knowledge and research-driven base to guide their work and practice. Graduate programs in schools of education at U.S. colleges and universities tend not to delineate between international education as applied to secondary versus postsecondary sectors. But international higher education has a completely different context, antecedents, and issues that require specialized training that is distinct from international development or international education concepts applied to primary and secondary education. Programs such as the MA in International Higher Education offered by Boston College and SUNY’s MA in International Education Management and Leadership are playing a critical role by training

Intelligent Internationalization in the Context of the U.S.

113

the next generation of international higher education experts, whether those individuals go on to academia or whether they become practitioners in the field.

References Baer, J. (2018). Fall 2018 international student enrollment hot topics survey. New York, NY: Institute of International Education (IIE). Baer, J., Bhandari, R., Andrejko, N., & Mason, L. (2018). Open Doors 2018 report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education (IIE). National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-2018-1). Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2018). Education and training services guide: A reference for U.S. educational institutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of education statistics, 2016 (NCES 2017-094).

Chapter 23

Intelligent Internationalization Using Research Results to Improve Credit Mobility at Mexican Higher Education Institutions Magdalena L. Bustos-Aguirre

This chapter will present some evidence to support the affirmation that intelligent internationalization, a “thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner and policy communities” (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17), is possible at the institutional level. It analyzes some of the most important results of a study (Bustos-Aguirre, 2018) on the factors that drive credit student mobility among Mexican higher education students and how those factors can be used to support policy making and strategy development aimed at increasing the number of students who study abroad at higher education institutions (HEI). Credit student mobility is one of the most favored internationalization strategies among Mexican higher education institutions (HEI). It is usually defined as temporary study outside the country that lasts at least one academic term at a partner HEI (within the framework of a bilateral agreement) and with credit recognition at home. In spite of the importance that Mexican HEIs and government bodies have given credit mobility in the past two decades, the percentage of Mexican HE students that temporarily go abroad is among the lowest worldwide, ranging between 0.6% and 0.8% (Maldonado-Maldonado, 2017). To increase student mobility in Mexico—desired by HEIs, government bodies, and other stakeholders like the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT), the Inter-Institutional Committees for Higher Education Evaluation (CIEES) and the National Council for the Accreditation of Higher Education (COPAES)—more research on its driving forces should be fostered and conducted, and results should be used in the design and implementation of institutional policies and strategies. The 2018 study (Bustos-Aguirre) gathered 2871 valid responses from undergraduate students belonging to six HEIs in different geographic locations. The participants were segmented in two groups, mobile students (those that spent at least one academic term at a foreign HEI, 534 responses) and non-mobile students (those that had never gone abroad nor intended to, 2337 responses). Both groups were given identical questionnaires which tested 33 variables regarding socio-demographic traits, academics, attitudes and interests related to mobility, cultural capital related to mobility, and the administration of © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_023

Intelligent Internationalization

115

mobility programs inside the respective HEI. The goal of the study was to identify the variables that most influence student mobility by controlling for differences between the two groups. The vast majority of the tested variables, with the exception of living and working status and whether students had relatives with nationalities other than Mexican, were positively correlated to mobility. This means that most of the variables identified in previous international studies apply to the Mexican context and that, as many researchers have said, students who go abroad share similar characteristics: among others, a good command of other languages, an interest for diversity and foreign cultures, and belong to higher income families where traveling and living abroad is common (Beerkens, Souto-Otero, de Wit, & Huisman, 2016; Anh, 2014; Carlson, 2013; Perna, Orosz, Jumakulov, Kishkentayeva, & Ashirbekov, 2014; Pimpa, 2005). Furthermore, it also shows that students who go abroad differ in a broad array of aspects from their non-mobile peers, thus delineating two distinct groups. In general, mobile students have parents with higher academic degree attainment, higher family income, and fewer siblings. Many went to private bilingual schools for basic education, have had more previous traveling experience, and in general show a greater familiarity with all things “foreign.” Nonetheless, the impact of the correlated variables on the mobility status was not equal. The three variables that had the greatest influence on student mobility were: being aware of the options offered at the home HEI, which increases a student’s propensity of going abroad by six times; previous international travel experiences or living abroad, which increases student expectations to study abroad by almost four times; and studying at an HEI with a professionalized internationalization office, which increases the likelihood of student mobility by three times. Other variables worth mentioning, although less significant, were having a family income above USD$12.00 per day, which is almost three times the minimum daily wage in Mexico; previous experience traveling alone or with companions other than family members or friends; a general positive perception of mobility; and the availability of international or intercultural courses in the home HEI. The findings also indicate that the variables related to attitudes and interests towards mobility were the most important for predicting mobility. That is, if students are well informed about their study abroad options, are able to see the importance of going abroad, and consider the process to be easy or relatively easy, they are more prone to go abroad than their peers. The study also confirms that a subset of cultural capital variables are related to mobility, identified by Murphy-Lejeune (2002) as mobility capital. It seems that previous experiences with foreignness and traveling abroad function as rehearsals,

116

Bustos-Aguirre

mitigating the anxiety that stems from facing the unfamiliar for the first time and preparing students for future international academic endeavors. If we accept that mobility is one of the most effective means for developing skills and competencies needed to face 21st century challenges, then higher education institutions, especially those located in middle income economies, are obliged to use research and connect results to the design and implementation of better and more effective internationalization strategies and policies to increase credit student mobility. Among the lessons derived from this research that can be translated into policies and strategies for HEIs, the following should be highlighted. First, it is crucial for HEIs to have a professionalized internationalization office responsible for mobility programs. A highly professionalized international office has a broad range of mobility options and programs, plenty of systematized information, a well-funded budget, sufficient and well trained personnel, good administration standards, systematic evaluation and quality assurance plans, and a formal and strong link with academic bodies. Second, increasing the number and availability of courses with high and/or specific international/ intercultural content not only helps motivate and prepare students for mobility, it also contributes to broadening the international experience at home for mobile and non-mobile students. Third, a more focused strategy, which includes a broad information campaign on options, benefits, and steps to go abroad, can increase student participation in mobility programs by making it attractive, important, and attainable from the student perspective. And fourth, as many public and private HEIs in Mexico also provide high school education, increasing mobility capital and developing students’ international awareness earlier in their academic life through short-term exchanges, school trips and other similar experiences would likely impact the number of those who go abroad during higher education. When connecting research to policy-making and practice, as intelligent internationalization proposes, studies such as the one presented above confirm that research done by the academy can provide practitioners at HEIs with the needed data and evidence to support policies aimed at increasing credit student mobility. Furthermore, as more research is done in the field of international education in contexts other than Western Europe and the Anglophone world, HEIs in periphery countries are presented valuable opportunities to make better and more focused evidence-based policies and strategies that underpin internationalization efforts; generate synergies among communities of practitioners, researchers and institutional leaders; and create a virtuous circle of new knowledge and evidence driven policy making that ultimately addresses practitioner needs in their daily lives.

Intelligent Internationalization

117

References Ahn, S. (2014). A good learning opportunity, but is it for me? A study of Swedish students’ attitudes towards exchange studies in higher education. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(2), 106–118. Beerkens, M., Souto-Otero, M., de Wit, H., & Huisman, J. (2016). Similar students and different countries? An analysis of the barriers an drivers for Erasmus participation in seven countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(2), 184–204. Bustos-Aguirre, M. (2018). Elementos que inciden en la movilidad estudiantil universitaria en México (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México. Carlson, S. (2013). Becoming a mobile student – A processual perspective on German degree student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 19(2), 168–180. Maldonado-Maldonado, A. (2017). Patlani. Encuesta mexicana de movilidad internacional estudiantil 2014/2015 y 2015/2016. Mexico City: ANUIES. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe. The new strangers. London: Routledge. Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., Jumakulov, Z., Kishkentayeva, M., & Ashirbekov, A. (2015). Understanding the programmatic and contextual forces that influence participation in a government-sponsored international student-mobility program. Higher Education, 69(2), 173–188. Pimpa, N. (2005). A family affair: The effect of family on Thai students’ choices of international education. Higher Education, 49(4), 431–448. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17.

Chapter 24

The Policy Conundrum Patti McGill Peterson

In an ideal world intelligent internationalization would be supported by a strong alignment between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Identifying research and practice is not a difficult task. Policymaking, however, is more elusive and wide ranging. We were warned by Otto von Bismarck that policy formation, like sausage making, is an unattractive process and best left unobserved. Yet it warrants a spotlight because policies affecting internationalization are continually being made and often haphazardly. We need to pinpoint their venues to better understand the process and their impact. This essay will briefly address the issue from a U.S. perspective, hopefully with some relevance to other national settings. Let’s begin by asking who are the policymaking actors that potentially have impact on the internationalization of American colleges and universities. In the United States there is no central ministry of education offering a well-coordinated set of policies for internationalization, but the national government is an active policymaker in this domain. There are many agencies that make and execute relevant policies. The Departments of State and Education come immediately to mind but other agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and Commerce and Homeland Security are also contributors. Researchers have not thoroughly analyzed the cumulative impact of government policies and programs on U.S. colleges and universities. For example, how have the Department of Education’s Title VI programs and related policies shaped the direction and priorities of internationalization? What has been the impact of the State Department’s policies of supporting public diplomacy through academic exchange programs and its emphasis on student mobility? Are we able to measure the combined effect of the policies of Homeland Security and the visa related policies of the State Department on internationalization? Some policies are historical legacies (from post WWII, the Cold War, and the Sputnik era) and the programs they have established have not changed substantially in the intervening years. Others are more recent and part of a new nationalism that emphasizes borders with strident anti-immigrant rhetoric, the need to place America first in its relationship with the rest of the world

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_024

The Policy Conundrum

119

and the withdrawal from international bodies and cooperative agreements. We might ask: what policies emanate from the current American President’s declaration at the United Nations that his nation rejects the ideology of globalism and that responsible nations must guard against threats to their sovereignty, including from global governance? Those remarks have enormous implications for the development of foreign policy and the creation of a very negative context for intelligent internationalization. The States are also relevant policymakers. They have developed policies to actively support the recruitment of both international business and workforce talent. As a response to an increasingly isolationist form of nationalism, some states have offered counter measures to challenge federal policies. For example, attorneys general in a number of states have filed suits in favor of sanctuary cities for immigrants and to uphold the status of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). They actively challenged in the courts the President’s executive orders that denied or significantly limited access to the United States of targeted Muslim populations. While state based policymakers may have a narrow view of internationalization, they often see firsthand the economic benefits of international students and the international networks they create. State lawmakers might, with good information and a bit of advocacy from researchers and practitioners, have more interest in international education as part of responding to the globally connected economy and workforce in which their states operate. There are, in addition to government policymakers, a number of actors in the private sector. Foundations have pulled back significantly in recent years from funding international education or have policies of funding very limited aspects of internationalization. While foundations have increasingly targeted their contributions and often communicate with one another about how to leverage their funding power, there is no apparent conversation among them about internationalization. Yet they have the resources to make a major impact. How might researchers and practitioners encourage a dialogue with those responsible for the policies and priorities of foundations? Another group of private sector organizations worthy of our attention are corporations. Some have policies about what kind of research on international issues and what types of student mobility directly serve their interests. Many of these corporate entities have very little, if any, knowledge of internationalization. Yet they are making and executing corporate policy that can reach academic institutions. Major foundations and corporations might be proponents of policies, both their own and the government’s, that could be very beneficial to internationalization but there is no sign of any aligned effort with researchers and practitioners to do so.

120

Peterson

Multiple policymaking venues surround our institutions of higher education but the ultimate policymaking venues for internationalization are the institutions themselves. Their efforts to be more globally engaged are shaped by external as well as internal policymakers. Consider the recruitment and enrollment of international students and the numerous policy venues within a college or university. There are recruitment and admissions policies, financial aid policies, language proficiency policies, credit-transfer policies, and housing policies to name a few. Universities have become much better at coordinating these different venues so that international students are not confronted with a frustrating labyrinth. Coordination of what can be self-defeating and contradictory internal policies is also something that third party providers have touted as something they are adept at addressing through pathway programs. In her discussion of intelligent internationalization, Laura Rumbley noted that mobility is still king. This is supported by the data gathered by the American Council on Education’s (ACE) periodic Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses report. Institutions are challenged to move significantly beyond the recruitment of international students and study abroad for US students in order to embrace what ACE refers to as comprehensive internationalization. This requires the alignment of policy and practice in the following areas: institutional commitment, administrative leadership, curriculum and co-curriculum, faculty policies and practices, partnerships and collaboration, as well as student mobility. Unfortunately, there is a significant imbalance of attention and resources among these elements. If mobility is king, what does that mean to the huge numbers of students who are not mobile, not just in the United States but in many other countries, and the faculty who teach them? What kind of research about current internationalization practices would help us understand who benefits most? There are pressing reasons for these questions. High among them is the rapidly increasing enrollment of nontraditional students, including those who are outside the traditional 18–22 year age range, enrolled part-time and working full-time with dependents as well as first generation students who come from economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. They are often the norm at many institutions, so much so that there are calls from policymakers (from all the venues noted in this essay) for colleges and universities to develop more policies and practices to support this wave of students. How they will be reached by internationalization receives much less attention. Study abroad for larger numbers of a principally traditional student demographic will not be enough to declare victory for internationalization. Colleges and universities need to pay more attention to inclusive internationalization whereby policies, practice, and research support global learning for all through

The Policy Conundrum

121

creative design of educational programs. The heart of this effort will be the curriculum, whether in research universities or community colleges. This is the epicenter for a policy of equity that should be included in both comprehensive and intelligent internationalization. To be successful it will need to draw its energy from all policymaking venues and continuously be aligned with research and practice.

Chapter 25

World Class 2.0 and Internationalization in Chinese Higher Education Qi Wang

Internationalization of higher education is regarded as a significant part of China’s response to globalization and its socioeconomic development, as in many other countries. In relation to the world-class university movement, leaders and academics in China deeply believe that effective implementation of internationalization strategies is the key to enhance academic excellence and to strengthen the country’s competitiveness in the global higher education market. Great effort at both national and institutional levels has been made to internationalize Chinese higher education in the past three decades, including increasing student and faculty mobility, engaging in international collaboration in both teaching and research, conducting benchmarking exercises with international standards, etc. Recently, internationalization has been reemphasized in governmental policies, such as the World Class 2.0 Project and the One Belt One Road initiative. Reflecting a comprehensive approach, this policy trend is simultaneously underpinned by and reflects socioeconomic and academic motivations and demands in China.

1

Finding the “International” in World Class 2.0

The Chinese government announced the Developing World-Class Universities and First-Class Disciplines project in 2015, known as World Class 2.0, to further enhance the capacity, status, and global competitiveness of its higher education system. A total of 42 universities have been selected for support under this project since September 2017. China’s previous experience of building academic excellence and internationalizing higher education shows that it has mainly played a “follower” role and is still moving from the periphery to the center of the global stage. The country imports more education services and programs than are exported; it sends more students abroad than it receives inbound students. Though China © Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 2018 doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_025

World Class 2.0 and Internationalization in Chinese HE

123

has become a popular study abroad destination, the number of international students undertaking short-term study focused on Chinese language and culture is still larger than the total of inbound degree-seeking students. Some argue that the world-class movement in China is largely imitative rather than creative, with a strong focus on criteria and standards proposed in the West. Others assert that Chinese universities should consider how to balance and integrate the complexity and significance of localization, nationalization, and internationalization. World Class 2.0 aims to tackle these concerns and challenges. The World Class 2.0 policy documents and the blueprints issued by the State Council and the ministry of education stress the importance of internationalization strategies in this project. For example, promoting international communication and collaboration is listed as one of the five major tasks to achieve within the project, which focuses on four goals: – to strengthen “substantial collaboration” with world-class universities and academic institutions, fully integrate international resources in teaching and researching, and develop high quality joint programs for education and research; – to enhance collaborative innovation, and actively participate in and lead international and regional scientific research projects; – to develop optimal academic environments for teaching and research, and, increasingly, to attract quality international faculty and students to China; – to actively engage in international education policy and rule-making, and quality assurance and accreditation exercises, and to advance global competitiveness and “discursive power,” in order to develop the brand and visibility Chinese higher education. It can be argued that the World Class 2.0 agenda advances “comprehensive internationalization” policies and strategies, covering a wide range of university activities—internationalizing curriculum and teaching; supporting research and innovation; promoting student and faculty mobility, especially inward mobility; enhancing cross-border presence of foreign universities in China, as well as increasing Chinese higher education’s presence abroad. Here, three trends are in evidence and have been translated into institutional strategic planning by the selected universities: First, this project intends to improve China’s global capacity and emphasize quality over quantity. Instead of simply increasing the number of international students and faculty or the number of international programs, World Class 2.0 emphasizes substantial and holistic advancement of teaching and research. In terms of student mobility, the project stresses equally providing Chinese students with international study experience as well as bringing in more overseas

124

Wang

students, for both short-term and degree studies. In terms of faculty quality, the project continues China’s effort to attract internationally renowned scholars, and furthermore, underlines the importance to enhance domestically trained faculty to be equally competitive as their international peers. Second, World Class 2.0 stresses mutual collaboration and partnership, rather than merely importing education services and programs into China. Thus, its ultimate aim is to increase China’s influence, voice, and even possible leadership in the global higher education market. Higher education institutions in China are encouraged to expand their education provision abroad, particularly in relation to the One Belt and One Road initiative. Indeed, a few top Chinese universities are setting up branch campuses abroad and are developing their programs and resources abroad, including Peking University’s campus in Oxford, Xiamen University in Malaysia, Tongji University in Italy, as well as a number of educational programs in various other countries and regions. Third, in early 2017, the Chinese government announced that international communication and collaboration is proposed as the fifth fundamental mission of universities, after teaching, research, public service, and the transmission of culture. This certainly reinforces the importance of internationalization. While these policies and initiatives provide huge opportunities to promote higher education internationalization in China, challenges also remain.

2

Challenges and Implications

A number of higher education experts note that favorable governance is one of the requisite components of any world-class university and higher education system. Academic culture and lack of academic freedom are major concerns and constraints to Chinese higher education development, particularly internationalization. In China, the national and local governments keep control and exercise strong regulation and authority over university governance, through such mechanisms as allocating financial resources, appointing university leaders, and regulating student enrollment, teaching, and research. These controls inevitably restrain internationalization activities. Also, scholars and researchers raise concerns that the recent political developments in China might close China’s academic market to the world, with implications for both Chinese higher education and its academic relations with the rest of the world. It is true that the possible changes in political direction might impact the dramatic growth achieved so far in terms of developing Chinese academic excellence, particularly in relation to internationalization. However, despite these concerns, the explicit goal to promote international communication and

World Class 2.0 and Internationalization in Chinese HE

125

collaboration, as proposed by the government in relation to World Class 2.0, might still keep China’s door open. In this way, the country may still to expand cooperative links with foreign partners through joint degree programs, branch campuses, and collaborative research; enhance its soft power; and to exercise its influence abroad.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in CIHE Perspectives No. 9, Year in Review, 2017–2018, edited by Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, and Dara Melnyk (2018, pp. 41–43). Reprinted here with permission.

Chapter 26

The New Routes for Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil Fernanda Leal

Internationalization, as a dominant political discourse, has been increasingly referenced as the path for higher education (HE) systems, institutions, and individuals to actively respond to the knowledge-based global economy, that is, a context in which the generation, use, and exploration of knowledge are the prevailing players in the creation of wealth. Brazil aligns with this paradigm and, as such, has developed policies aimed at internationalization of HE at the national level. Despite its gradual HE budget constraints, the country expects to improve its capacity for innovation and competitiveness by integrating the sector into the scientific global environment. Recent directions on Brazilian policy for internationalization suggest a shift on the understanding of this process as a synonym of international mobility, directly focused on individuals—as in the case of Science without Borders (SwB)—to a broader phenomenon that affects the ethos and values of the entire HE system—as in the case of the Program of Institutional Internationalization (Capes-PrInt). Challenges in implementing the new strategy include gradual budget constraints for HE, as well as the political environment in the country and participating institutions, which is emphasized by the lack of concrete knowledge about the President-elect’s agenda for HE, added to concerns about academic freedom. First, I outline the SwB features, focusing on both the criticism and the main legacy of this Program. Second, I present Capes-PrInt comprehensiveness. I conclude by pointing to some perspectives and possible risks that surround the new attempt.

1

Science without Borders (SwB)

Brazilian universities have been historically influenced by national policies of international cooperation. Yet, SwB, active from 2011 to 2015, was the first initiative explicitly aimed at the internationalization of such institutions according to a contemporary notion of this process. Largely focused on the mobility of young Brazilians to foreign universities, the program involved 10.5 billion of © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_026

The New Routes for Internationalization of Higher Education

127

Brazilian Reais and awarded 101,446 grants, 78,980 of which directed to undergraduate students (Prolo, Vieira, Lima, & Leal, 2019). The program was the target of criticism related to issues such as the amount of public resources invested; the priority given to undergraduate students instead of more experienced researchers; the neglect of fields of knowledge; the questionable quality of some institutions of destination; the positioning of Brazil as a “client of educational services;” the difficulties faced by students in achieving the required level of language proficiency; and, above all, the absence of monitoring and evaluation of achieved results. Despite these limits, most experts agree that SwB was successful in exposing Brazilian universities internationally and creating the basis for further initiatives of international relations and internationalization. In fact, at the institutional level the notion of internationalization expanded significantly. It was from that moment that Brazilian universities received most international delegations representing governments, HE institutions and the industry; created strategies to deal with issues such as credit validity and monitoring of students abroad; either institutionalized or expanded departments for the management of different dimensions of internationalization; and included the process as an explicit mission on their institutional strategic plans.

2

Program for Institutional Internationalization (Capes-PrInt)

Some criticism of the SwB came from the government itself, which, based on a 2017 report on the state of art about internationalization at Brazilian universities (Capes, 2017), provided basis for the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) to launch Capes-PrInt. Its objectives comprise the consolidation of strategic plans of internationalization at the institutional level; the creation of international networks of research to improve the academic production; the expansion of actions to support the internationalization of graduate programs, including mobility of faculty members, doctoral and postdoctoral researchers, and reception of international scholars; as well as the promotion of an international environment in participating institutions (Capes-PrInt, 2017). The promise is to invest 300 million of Brazilian Reais in the new attempt, a less ambitious amount when compared to SwB. Other remarkable differences are a shift to a direct focus on institutions rather than individuals; the definition of more experienced researchers as target groups; the centrality of research; as well as the inclusion of complementary dimensions of internationalization beyond student mobility, reflecting contemporary global trends.

128

Leal

Capes-PrInt also implies a more active and autonomous role of the participant institutions, as they are the ones to define projects, international partners, and fields of knowledge to be prioritized. In addition, Capes-PrInt takes places on a more explicit competitive basis, as its requirements put institutions and graduate programs to compete for the available resources and defines criteria that exclude most universities in the country. For example, in order to apply, institutions must own at least four recommended graduate programs, two of them with doctoral courses. Although not explicitly announced, Capes-PrInt design reflects the government’s will of actively inserting the country into the context of knowledge-based global economy. To do so, it promotes a change in the behavior of a specific number of institutions, seeking to transform them into flagship or world-class universities, that is, research institutions that occupy significant positions in the global university rankings. Capes-PrInt is more comprehensive when compared to SwB, but also more elitist in its focus on top research universities and top graduate talent. In that respects it relates more to internationalization strategies in other excellence initiatives in developed and emerging countries around the world.

3

Conclusion

Despite the differences in means and immediate goals between SwB and Capes-PrInt, both reflect a strong influence of the national state in the directions of internationalization and HE more generally. Capes-PrInt design confirms a historical pattern of conceiving HE as an instrument to achieve the country’s economic development goals. Currently, the means to do so is by creating a specific number of flagship or world-class universities, given the dominant belief that such institutions will improve the country’s capacity of innovation and competitiveness. Therefore, according to the final result of the first selection process (Capes, 2018), not surprisingly only 36 of 108 competing institutions were selected and the vast majority of them were public, with solid research traditions and a certain level of international recognition. The new attempt has not been entirely implemented yet, but at this point it is clear that it promotes a differentiation among institutions, university functions, and fields of knowledge. For instance, the exclusive priority given to research leads to a neglect of other university missions, including outreach or service,1 which is part of Latin American university tradition and perhaps its most original feature. In addition, Capes-PrInt’s criteria exclude all other national HE institutions that may not fit into the research profile but carry an

The New Routes for Internationalization of Higher Education

129

important social mission, including the ones focused on integration with the Global-South. Thus, given the global and national trends on public budgetary constraints for HE, we may wonder to what extent the Brazilian government will continue financing other public HE institutions. Finally, the current political environment in the country and the lack of concrete knowledge about the President-elect’s agenda for HE, added to concerns in regard to academic freedom, which may affect the reception of international scholars, and leads to an uncertainty about the capacity of participating institutions to conduct effective internationalization projects.

Note 1 Extensão universitária, in Portuguese, is considered a legacy of the Córdoba Movement of 1918.

References Capes. (2017). A internacionalização na Universidade Brasileira: Resultados do questionário aplicado pela Capes. Retrieved from http://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/ download/diversos/A-internacionalizacao-nas-IES-brasileiras.pdf Capes. (2018). Edital 41/2017: Resultado Final. Retrieved from http://www.capes.gov.br/ images/stories/download/editais/01102018_EDITAL_41_2017_PrInt_resultado_ final.pdf Capes-PrInt. (2017). Edital 41/2017. Retrieved from http://www.capes.gov.br/images/ stories/download/editais/10112017-Edital-41-2017-Internacionalizacao-PrInt-2.pdf Prolo, I., Vieira, R., Lima, M., & Leal, F. (in press). The internationalisation of Brazilian universities: Contributions of the Science without Borders Programme. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa (RAEP), 20(2).

Chapter 27

National Policies for Internationalization Do They Work? Robin Matross Helms and Laura E. Rumbley

In response to the demands and opportunities of an everglobalizing world, governments in a wide range of countries are introducing policies and programs to promote higher education internationalization. These initiatives are underpinned by a variety of academic, economic, political, social, and cultural motivations; sometimes higher education internationalization is an explicit goal, while in other cases, the focus is more specifically on a discrete activity, or on broader national policy goals. A recent study by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) took a close look at the content of such policies—an overview, including a wide assortment of specific examples, is the basis for our recent report, Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs. Our analysis revealed five main categories of policies in place around the world, based on their primary focus: Type 1: Student mobility. Policies designed to encourage and facilitate student mobility stand out as the most common focal point for policymaking related to internationalization of higher education. A broad array of nationally funded student mobility scholarship programs—from Saudi Arabia to Chile, Kazakhstan to Brazil, among many others—are the prime manifestations of this policy focus. Type 2: Scholar mobility and research collaboration. Policy activity in this area is being undertaken by many countries around the world, as well as by key regions—notably Europe, where the European Union is investing heavily in this area under the Horizon 2020 initiative, and specifically through such mechanisms as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions. Common types of initiatives in this category include support for visiting scholars, programs, and grants to send faculty abroad, policies to repatriate faculty living in other countries, and project-based research grants. Type 3: Cross-border education. Whether involving branch campuses and other kinds of physical “outposts,” or virtual (or hybrid) forms—such as MOOCs—national policy and program activity in this realm include initiatives to foster partnerships for capacity building, create educational “hubs,” © International Higher Education, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_027 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

National Policies for Internationalization

131

encourage domestic institutions to establish campuses and programs abroad, and more effectively regulate cross-border activity in practice. Type 4: Internationalization at home (IaH). IaH is a nascent but rapidly emerging critical focal point for internationalization. Few policy documents currently address it overtly. The European Commission’s 2013 strategy for internationalization, “European Higher Education in the World”, is a notable exception. But this is surely an important space to watch for future policy developments. Type 5: “Comprehensive internationalization” policies. We see a small number of initiatives that present a rather sweeping set of rationales, action lines, focus areas, and/or geographic orientations, rather than being singularly focused on specific action lines. Again, the European Commission’s policy vision for internationalization stands out, but so does Canada’s 2014 “International Education Strategy” and Malaysia’s 2011 “Internationalization Policy for Higher Education Malaysia,” among others.

1

Gauging Effectiveness

With national-level internationalization policies and programs proliferating in a variety of contexts and configurations, the question of effectiveness comes front and center. Do these policies positively impact the direction and progress of internationalization in their respective higher education systems? In the longer term, do they succeed in furthering the academic, economic, political, social, and/or cultural goals they set out to achieve? As is often the case when it comes to education-related issues, determining the effectiveness of internationalization policies is challenging. Often, efforts to do so focus on easily measured, clearly quantified outputs. Did country A’s policy achieve its goal of recruiting X number of new international students to the country’s universities in the specified timeline? In addition to participant numbers, financial analyses—another easily quantified measure, and one that often appeals to policy-makers—may come into play as an evaluation tool. When it comes to the more nebulous, longer-term outcomes, and impact of such policies, studies by the British Council/DAAD and the HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England), the European Commission, and the International Association of Universities have made some inroads in delineating impacts of different policies, using various methodologies. Overall, though, specific data and clear answers about issues of impact are fairly scarce. In part, this is due to the newness of many of the internationalization policies now in place around the world—it is simply too soon to tell what their ultimate

132

Helms and Rumbley

impact will be. In many other cases, evaluation of impact simply appears not be built into policy implementation structures. Having examined a large number of such policies and the available data on effectiveness, however, it is clear that there are a number of key factors— both inherent to the policies themselves, as well as external factors impacting implementation—that affect policy effectiveness (positively or negatively). Funding is of primary importance. Not surprisingly, policy effectiveness may be directly affected by issues such as the level at which policies are funded, the ways in which funding is distributed, and the degree to which funding is sustained over time. How policies are implemented, and by whom, is also crucial. It is common knowledge that “one size fits all” is not a useful way to think about internationalization policy or practice. So, national policies may be implemented in a wide variety of ways—for example, involving many actors or just a few. The ways that policies are implemented can have a major effect on issues such as efficiency, and raise important questions about the capacity of policy implementers to advance their agendas and manage their work well. Looking beyond individual policies themselves gives rise to the issue of policy interplay and alignment. For most countries, the national policy environment is complex and interlocking. Initiatives undertaken in one area can have a direct influence on efforts being undertaken in other policy spheres. Classic examples in relation to internationalization include the intersection between national objectives to attract international students and scholars, and visa and immigration policies that control access to the country. If policies are developed and implemented in isolation from one another, or directly at crosspurposes, policy effectiveness will suffer. Finally, the level of convergence between policy objectives and institutional priorities impacts effectiveness of national-level initiatives. Internationalization of higher education is a phenomenon most directly experienced by higher education institutions themselves. For this reason, national policies for internationalization must be grounded in an understanding of institutional realities. National policies that fail to take into account institutional priorities, and vice versa, present major challenges for achieving successful outcomes.

2

Internationalizing Internationalization

Will individual countries’ internationalization policies ultimately achieve their short-and long-term goals? Only time will tell. But, perhaps the more interesting question is what the overall impact of such policies will be on

National Policies for Internationalization

133

higher education worldwide. The growing number of countries that are committing—in very concrete, formal, and resource-intensive ways—to internationalizing their higher education systems suggests that the time is right to collectively take our efforts to the next level, and turn our attention to the “internationalization of internationalization.” The impact of country-level policies will be maximized when we find the synergies among them—i.e., when our policies are mutually supportive and reinforcing. This is not necessarily an easy task—it requires broad awareness of policies in place, and dialogue at the national policymaking and institutional levels. As we note at the end of the ACE-CIHE report, “ensuring that higher education around the world benefits from the best of what comprehensive, sustained, values-driven internationalization has to offer will take a great deal of creativity, substantial resources, and sheer hard work.”

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 85, Spring 2016 (pp. 10–12). Reprinted here with permission.

PART 4 Institutional Strategies, Curriculum & Practice

∵

Chapter 28

Moving away from What We Know Informing Education Abroad Practices through Scholarship Nick J. Gozik

At first glance, those engaged with internationalization efforts may take offense at the notion of intelligent internationalization as it could suggest that previous activities have been “unintelligent” or not so “smart.” In fact, any number of well-trained and competent individuals have been involved in a wide array of international activities, bringing thoughtfulness and intentionality to their roles. This holds true for education abroad, which has been at the heart of many college and university international strategies, and which has developed exponentially as a field over the past several decades. While we may debate the term itself, the intent behind intelligent internationalization very much does ring true in other regards, principally with its call for, “the development of a thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner, and policy communities” (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17). The quantity and quality of research on education abroad—including overseas study, research, practicums, and service—has multiplied over time, conducted by graduate students, research faculty, and scholar-practitioners. There nonetheless remains a surprisingly large gap between research and practice, leaving most in the field totally unaware of literature on the subject. The lack of awareness about what has been published has serious implications for practitioners and scholars alike. One of the key concerns is that those developing new programs continue to maintain certain practices that are deemed as “gold standards,” though they may not necessarily be the most effective in helping students develop personally, academically, and preprofessionally while overseas. If we take housing as an example, homestays have often been heralded as ideal over other forms of accommodations (e.g., apartments and residence halls), by offering an opportunity for deeper immersion in the host language and culture. In fact, there is a body of literature going back to the 1990s that raises doubts about this assumption. In his study set in Russia, Rivers (1998) concluded that homestays may actually be a negative predictor for second language gains in speaking skills and have no effect on listening skills. To explain such findings, researchers have pointed to the fact that interactions with family members are often constrained by “quotidian dialogue and television © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_028

138

Gozik

watching (Frank, 1997)” (as cited in Rivers, 1998, p. 496); students spend significant time alone, such as in completing homework; host family members may talk over students, offering less of a chance to speak (Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight, 2004); and host families may be over-accommodating and overly nice rather than giving students a fully immersive experience (Iino, 2006). None of this is to say that homestays are necessarily an unwise choice. Instead, knowing their relative advantages and disadvantages can guide practitioners in more effective program development. The case of homestays is just one illustration of a wider set of practices that typically go unexamined yet which need to be critically analyzed, including the choice of program models, advising, recruitment and selection, overseas curricular and co-curricular offerings, and reentry activities. The bottom line is that most professionals in the field go along their day following the status quo, even when research or data may suggest more effective approaches. At times there is even a distrust or hesitation in realigning practices despite evidence presented, with a sense that “we know what is best for our students.” In the longer term, there is equally a danger that the field of education abroad may lose out if practitioners do not take advantage of available findings. For quite some time now education abroad has remained one of the primary pillars of internationalization, though there are no guarantees that this will continue to be the case. Here, area studies in the U.S. suggest a telling case. Following World War II, area studies rose as a dominating force in internationalization efforts with a goal of training faculty and students in the languages and cultures of non-Western regions. This was primarily a response to the Cold War, as part of a defense strategy, and was fueled by the U.S. government and large funding agencies. For those engaged in the work, area studies represented much more: they offered a paradigm for viewing a larger world, and one that had a direct impact on the production of knowledge on U.S. campuses (Stevens, Miller-Idriss, & Shami, 2018). Area studies have not disappeared. Advocates remain deeply committed and continue to offer valuable research and instruction, such as through Title VI federally-funded centers. They nonetheless have been sidelined to a large degree within internationalization strategies. It is of course risky to compare area studies and education abroad, which fit within different spaces in higher education. Still, one could argue that area studies provide a lesson in that no one set of international activities will necessarily remain at the forefront of institutional priorities. Any area of activity needs to continue to adapt and, at times, rebrand. Researchers can assist in tracing education abroad within broader trends in higher education to determine how overseas activities can align more closely with institutional agendas and disciplinary frameworks. Additionally, more investigations can determine which models and practices are most effective in

Moving away from What We Know

139

achieving stated learning outcomes. Added to all of this is a need for scholars to put forth creative solutions, which completely reinvent education abroad, with drastically new ways of understanding when and where students go, what is expected of them while abroad, and how these activities fit within curricula. The bigger and bolder the propositions, the better. The suggestions, if taken seriously, might even lead to a new set of terminology. Even with the best research, nothing will change unless scholars are successful in shaping practice. If practitioners need to become better informed, it is also incumbent upon researchers to dedicate more time to sharing their findings outside of regular conference presentations and publications. This can mean presenting more regularly on campuses. The delivery of information will need to be parsed, with concrete action steps that are most relevant to each constituency. Lastly, it can help to collaborate more closely in data collection with faculty and staff engaged in education abroad, so that they are more connected to the process and results. Outlined here is a call not so much for intelligent internationalization, yet perhaps more aptly informed internationalization, as in better or well informed. Admittedly, this new appellation does not quite have the same ring to it though it emphasizes the necessity for practitioners to learn from research. It also stresses the need for scholars to devote more time in offering clear, practical, and creative solutions. The stakes are high for all involved given the critical and timely need for a reevaluation of education abroad in theory and practice.

References Frank, V. (1997, March). Potential negative effects of homestay. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Albany, NY. Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a twoway flow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 151–173). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 492–500. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Schmidt‐Rinehart, B. C., & Knight, S. M. (2004). The homestay component of study abroad: three perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 254–262. Stevens, M., Miller-Idriss, C., & Shami, S. (2018). Seeing the world: How U.S. Universities make knowledge in a global era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chapter 29

Learning for All Fiona Hunter

1

A Place of Learning?

Laura Rumbley (2015) has urged higher education practitioners, leaders, scholars and policymakers to find a common meeting ground, where intelligent internationalization can flourish. She describes it as a process that draws on everyone’s knowledge and professional experience in order to inform decision making in the various domains in a manner that is to the advantage of all. This statement leads me first to a question and then to a consideration around what her idea of intelligent internationalization might look like in practice. “Intelligent” is a word we use with ease all the time without really thinking about its meaning. Most dictionaries give definitions indicating a person’s mental capacity, their ability to understand, make judgements and decisions. An intelligent person can be described as clever, thinking, discerning, insightful, and so on. Ultimately, being intelligent means demonstrating an ability to learn. Today, it is a term that is also used to refer to devices, organizations, or systems suggesting that are also capable of learning, acquiring new knowledge, and altering their behavior in response to changing situations. This makes me think of a concept that seems to have fallen out of use in recent years, but one that has always appealed to me as a desirable institutional model for higher education: the learning organization, one that intentionally promotes and facilitates an interconnected way of thinking and learning in order to adapt and improve. Such an organization operates as a learning community where people develop a strong sense of commitment and belonging. Indeed, it is one where you cannot not learn because learning is so deeply embedded in the fabric of organizational life (Senge, 1990). What organization is better equipped to be a learning organization than a university? Indeed, we would expect a community of learning to be its natural condition. And yet while the core business of universities may be creating and disseminating new knowledge, they are often much less successful in applying that knowledge “at home.” The reality is that many universities today are managed along the principles of a bureaucratic culture based on rules and regulations, on adherence to legislative norms and requirements. Such a culture guarantees organizational stability as a means to ensure proper functioning © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_029

Learning for All

141

but the inherent danger is that we continue with old practices even when they are no longer relevant and that any change introduced is more cosmetic than real. Such a culture cannot produce a healthy climate for learning and change. Indeed, it represents a huge obstacle to becoming a learning organization (Garvin, 1993). That is not to say that universities can survive without a bureaucratic structure. But that structure needs to play a different role than in the past. Today we need an intelligent bureaucracy, one that is agile and flexible, able to respond to, or even better, anticipate changes in the environment. For that to be possible, its structures and processes need to be set up in a way that enable and motivate people to learn, promote continuous improvement, and encourage creativity and innovation. In a university that is dominated by bureaucratic control, it is hard for learning to take place. And if we are not learning, we are not working at our best (Senge, 1990). If internationalization is understood as a cross-functional dimension of higher education, embedded in all areas of institutional life, it offers an opportunity to create the new space for learning that Laura Rumbley (2015) describes. This is a space where the different stakeholders can come together in meaningful encounters, where they can get to know one another, and come together differently and dynamically in order to find new ways for the university to flourish. Learning can happen if we are genuinely working together, and an institutional commitment to learning is a fundamental first step towards improvement.

2

Learning into Action

Of course, learning in itself is not enough. Once we have learned something new, we need to take action or change will not happen (Garvin, 1993)—at least not intentional long-term change. Taking learning-based action means changing the way we work in many higher education institutions. The literature (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 1990) indicates that learning organizations develop specific skills. As is advocated in a more strategic approach to internationalization, they take a systematic rather than ad hoc approach to solving problems. This means seeking to cure the causes rather than the symptoms of problems, challenging current understandings and experimenting with new approaches and solutions. It means being willing to take risks and accept that mistakes will be made as part of the learning process. Learning organizations are able to look honestly at themselves, are open to constructive criticism and to learning from their own experiences. They are

142

Hunter

able to listen to and gather insights from all levels within the organization. It means considering everybody as an equal partner recognizing that each stakeholder has a role to play and a voice to be heard. Good ideas can come from all sources, not only from the top of the university. The information that is gathered, reviewed and assessed is not the privilege of the few but is made accessible to all. A key strength in the learning organization is that it knows how to transfer knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization so that it can be effectively employed towards key institutional goals. If we look at internationalization efforts in higher education, we could argue that all universities are doing this to some extent, but the question is whether they do it systematically with a strategic intent to enhance learning capacity of all members of the community and bring about continuous improvement. A learning organization weaves learning into the fabric of its daily operations through a process that, like internationalization, needs to be actively and purposefully managed if it is to bring about deep, broad or long-term change. So how would intelligent internationalization work in practice? How would higher education practitioners, leaders, scholars, and policymakers come together in a community that follows the principles of a learning organization? This brings us back to the importance of a meaningful mission and vision as a starting point for internationalization. They cannot be just a set of statements on the university website or in institutional documents for branding purposes. Mission and vision should guide everything the university does. What does the university stand for? What are the guiding principles and values that underpin the mission and vision and how do these translate into actions in daily life? As always, it is fundamental that everybody is involved in the development of the mission, vision and values, and can identify with them. A university cannot improve internationalization without the engagement of those who carry out the daily work. An organization cannot learn if those who work in it are not learning. For this to happen, leadership must see learning as a key value, or it will never become a part of daily institutional life. Commitment from leadership, as always, is the first step. Building on Laura Rumbley’s common meeting ground means creating new spaces for these encounters. In order to stimulate flows of information and exchange of ideas across the different levels of the university, it is essential to break down the many academic and administrative silos. Bringing different groups of people together moves them away from their preconceptions, gives them the opportunity to consider different and, at times, competing perspectives, and promotes the fresh flow of ideas. Bringing people together in rooms or in on-line platforms to discuss and develop new ideas is not enough. Whatever the learning infrastructures put in place, they will not be effective if

Learning for All

143

there is no time to reflect. If learning is a value then there needs to be time for reflection and analysis in the different academic and administrative units. This is a huge challenge in the current reality of many institutions where people are working under pressure with heavy workloads, excessive bureaucracy, limited financial resources, and no time to think. This has to change if new ideas are to emerge and if this new knowledge is to inform the decision-making processes (Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990). Whatever the model and process chosen, there need to be clearly defined policies and programs in place to facilitate learning and bring about concrete changes in behavior, to get from where we are now to where we want to be. New ways of knowing need to be translated into new ways of behaving. Like internationalization, we need to manage the process so that change happens by design rather than by happenstance. The concept of the learning organization offers a space where everyone’s knowledge is shared and valued, and where everyone benefits in a dynamic process of personal and institutional growth. Its emphasis on thoughtful decision-making, implementation, and practice can lead to the intelligent internationalization that Laura Rumbley describes. Of course, such change cannot happen overnight but it offers universities a pathway to becoming genuine places of learning for all.

References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Garvin, D. A. (1993, July–August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-organization Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Doubleday.

Chapter 30

Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning, and Interculturality Edward Choi, Araz Khajarian, Lisa Unangst and Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis

Increasingly, higher education students worldwide are being challenged to discard parochial, ethnocentric worldviews and nurture cosmopolitan identities that openly embrace the respectful exchange of culturally different ideas and perspectives (Jones & Brown, 2007; Leask, 2009; Unangst & Choi, 2018). Central to this trend are student affairs professionals who, through innovative and transformative co-curricular programming, prepare future leaders for not only successful, ethically-informed economic and societal participation, but also for their involvement in addressing the most pressing issues in the world, that is, economic injustice and environmental sustainability (Leask, 2015). Not all students, however, benefit from such an approach to student formation and development. For example, nontraditional students who are older, commuting and/or employed (Altbach, 2016; Trow, 2006; Ward, 2016) have non-academic responsibilities that may preclude their participation in co-curricular activities that promote intercultural interaction. Distance education (or “online”) students comprise another such group. According to several scholars (e.g., Conway & Hubbard, 2003; Fontaine & Cook, 2014; Kretovics, 2003; LaPadula, 2010; Phaiah, 2006), co-curricular experiences (including those that raise intercultural competence) are atypical in online programming. Thus, emerging is a real need to build into distance education co-curricular opportunities where online learners move from peripheral to integrated members of the college community. This is especially urgent given the rising popularity of distance education all over the world (Altbach, 2016; Dare, Zapata & Thomas, 2005). In this short essay, we propose a model online program promoting intercultural learning experiences for a 25-member graduate student cohort at Boston College (BC). This program is based on the tenants of action research, and emphasizes problem-solving via the collaborative actions of multiple constituents. Indeed, online learning incorporates stakeholders including faculty, administrators, and students, and therefore these same groups may participate

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_030

Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning

145

as co-constructors of transformative online curricula, as well as co-facilitators of learning. Given the intercultural focus of this intervention, we draw additionally from a concept referred to as intelligent internationalization (Rumbley, 2015), which fosters the development of a thoughtful alliance among the research, practitioner, and policy communities, as each has access to different information, ideas, and professional skill-building opportunities. In sum, there is a common emphasis on involving multiple actors to approach problem-solving in both action research and intelligent internationalization.

1

Internationalizing the Online Learning Environment at Boston College

Leask (2015) breaks action research into five interrelated steps: Imagine, Revise and Plan, Act, Evaluate, and Review and Reflect (see Figure 30.1). These steps are described below and discussed in connection to the proposed intervention.

Review and reflect

Evaluate

The process of Internaonalisaon of the Curriculum (IoC)

Act

Imagine

Revise and plan

figure 30.1 Action research model (from Leask, 2015)

146

Choi et al.

1.1 Imagine, and Revise and Plan The two phases of Imagine and Revise and Plan are generative to forming ideas and raising concerns regarding the initial planning of the action research initiative. As part of this process, student affairs professionals as well as other university constituents, such as faculty and IT professionals, must carefully consider the opportunities and challenges that either facilitate or preclude the intentional and “intelligent” transformation of online programming. One major challenge to providing robust co-curricular activities to online learners is in the limitation of resources in the form of time, staff, and funding (Fontaine & Cook, 2014; Sewart, 1992). This challenge, however, also presents an opportunity for university constituents to work together with the aim of pooling resources and exchanging ideas. The inclusion of several stakeholder groups is prudent in this problem-solving phase. For example, the leadership (administration) may be persuaded to form enabling structures (e.g., policies, funding, and new positions) for transformative online learning. Also vital to the planning process is the IT department, which can best assess BC’s technological capabilities in relation to plan implementation. Still another stakeholder group is in the cohort of second-year online students who may have the appropriate vantage point to uniquely identify contextual challenges hidden from other university constituencies. The above considerations serve as a frame of reference within which an action research plan may be designed. Figure 30.2 illustrates a possible structure and timeline of such a plan. The large linearly sequenced arrows correspond to the three stages of the plan while the circular arrows denote the iterative logic of the stages where evaluation and reflection inform changes to the plan. Programmatic features in all three stages—induction, integration and evaluation—are adapted from the institutional benchmarking references in Table 30.1. Within the induction phase, pre-entry webinars are modelled on those delivered to students at the University of South Wales in the United Kingdom. Three webinars will be delivered to all students over a period of three weeks (one webinar per week) using BC-supported videoconferencing tools (Zoom

figure 30.2 Transformative online co-curricular programming for Boston College

Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning

147

table 30.1  Environmental scan of good practices of co-curricular programming

Institution

Intervention

Newman University, Kansas

E-tivities

Description

Students reflect on group roles and impact of identity on learning; preparatory directed learning tasks; online forum discussions Creighton University, Participation in Students encouraged to join Kansas campus-based campus-based organizations; online organizations; elected student offfijicers work with student student offfijicers afffairs to develop creative/efffective student services Pre-entry webinar; University of South Students are provided information Wales, the United activities and city and support through pre-entry Kingdom tours; online student webinars; students self-report on profijiler several altitudinal indices (e.g., confijidence level) Passport to Davidson County 30 globally-themed activities every Community College, international semester North Carolina education Global conversations Students engage in dialogue on LaGuardia current global events related to Community College, foreign policy, human rights, race New York relations and armed conflict University of South PASS; Business Mates International and domestic students Australia, Australia are integrated through social and learning networks Source: Fontaine and Cook (2014); Leask (2009); Thomas, Hill, O’Mahony, and Yorke (2017) and Ward (2016)

and Google Meet). Each module is designed for five students (5 groups X 5 deliverables per week = 25 students). In this way, webinars are personal, welcoming and more conducive to the formation of early peer relationships. In each module, the exchange of cultural perspectives and ideas will be facilitated through task-oriented participation (e.g., a presentation on each other’s hobbies and academic interests, etc.). In the integration phase, students are to receive two types of ongoing support. The first is in the form of academic and social support from peer advisors.

148

Choi et al.

This feature is adapted from the “Business Mates” model employed at the University of South Australia. According to Leask (2009), the Business Mates program uses a pair of advisors who facilitate the integration and socialization of a culturally-mixed group of 50 students. Similarly, BC peer advisors (selected from the second-year online cohort) will be assigned to a culturally-mixed group of five first-year students on the same premise of increasing cultural literacy. The second form of support is adapted from Creighton University in the U.S. state of Nebraska. Two cohort officers are to be elected one month into the academic year (one each from the first and second year cohorts). These student officers will work as intermediaries with student affairs personnel to help improve and deliver co-curricular services and activities throughout the academic year. Further, the online cohort will be required to participate in a variety of co-curricular programming as part of a foundational course designed by both faculty and the student affairs office. For example, the campus-based “Global Conversation” series, which engages students in discussion on international issues, offered at LaGuardia Community College, New York is reimagined at BC as an online activity. Lessons drawn from the “Passport to International Education” program at Davidson County Community College provide another opportunity for online learners at BC to engage with the broader community. This program incentivizes students to participate in a certain number of globally-themed activities per semester. Since distance learners may be challenged to attend such activities on campus, the BC community will be called on to live-stream select events so that online leaners can also participate. Additionally, the online cohort will be encouraged to design and facilitate its own globally-themed sessions with the opportunity for on-campus students to participate. Such student initiatives will be rewarded with perks such as academic credit (for participating courses). 1.2 Act Promoting ownership of intervention tasks across distinct stakeholder groups is both critical and a key challenge within this phase. One method to sustain engagement is for student affairs professionals to work with leadership to create enabling spaces, structures, and institutional policies under and within which students and faculty are incentivized to act on their tasks without prodding. An effective tool to accomplish this task is the “work allocation model” (Thomas et al., 2017). This model suggests effectively allocating hours and resources for involved parties, which ties back to tangible benefits such as bonuses, awards, and promotions (for faculty) and course credits and stipends (for students).

149

Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning

At BC, such an allocation model will be used with student officers and student advisors receiving a combination of small stipends and course credits. The proposed plan also calls for the creation of two distance education student services positions within the Office for Students and Scholars. This alleviates the increasing workload of current student affairs staff. 1.3 Evaluation, Review and Reflect A mixed methodology approach is adopted to evaluate the intervention. Programmatic impact will be quantitatively assessed using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), a widely adopted cross-cultural assessment tool with high validity (Hammer, 2011), and progress reports on academic performance (GPA) and persistence. The inclusion of this latter group of measures is to avoid the scenario where online learners increase their intercultural literacy at the expense of their academic learning—in which case the design of the plan needs to be revisited. In addition, qualitative data will be collected using focus groups to account for individual student experiences that are masked by aggregate-level quantitative findings. The design of the evaluation process will follow the single-subject A-B model in which the cohort of 25 students is to be evaluated under the two conditions of pre-treatment and the intervention (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 1993). Figure 30.3 provides both the design structure and timeline of the intervention. (Note that data points are fabricated and illustrated here to show what is expected). Intercultural competence is measured on the y-axis and the timeframe is shown on the x-axis. As depicted, data (with the exception of the Intervenon

Intercultural competence

Baseline

August

September Baseline

figure 30.3 Evaluation

November Intervenon

April

150

Choi et al.

qualitative data) are to be collected at three points of time: during the preentry webinar, midway at the end of the first semester, and at the end of the year. Evaluative surveys are to be also administered to faculty, the IT department, and, if possible, leadership to both discern further qualitative inputs and create a feedback loop. Finally, findings will be shared with all vested parties commensurate with action research protocol.

4

Conclusion

Boston College, in concert with other HEIs worldwide, is actively expanding online learning opportunities. The Lynch School of Education and Human Development offers several such programs, including the two-year MA in International Higher Education, most of which is offered in the virtual realm. This paper envisions an action research project focusing on a student cohort of that same MA program, seeking to improve intercultural skills—which we have referred to as interculturality—as well as the internationalization of the program and institution as a whole. We frame this effort with Rumbley’s model for intelligent internationalization, which promotes understanding across domains of knowledge and spans constituent groups. Graduates of the International Higher Education program will indeed serve as practitioners, policymakers, leaders and researchers in the field over the course of their professional lives. In cultivating their intercultural skills and competencies during their tenure as graduate students, the MA program may not only improve dialogue within the confines of the program, but concurrently scaffold these same future contributors to intelligent internationalization—whatever role they may choose to take.

References Altbach, P. G. (2016). Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Conway, J., & Hubbard, B. (2003). From bricks to bytes: Building an online activities environment. Student Affairs Online, 4, 1–4. Dare, L. A., Zapata, L. P., & Thomas, A. G. (2005). Assessing the needs of distance learners: A student affairs perspective. New Directions for Student Services, 112, 39–54. Fontaine, S. J., & Cook, S. M. (2014). Co-curricular engagement for non-traditional online learners. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(3), n3.

Intelligent Internationalization, Online Learning

151

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474–487. Jones, E., & Brown, S. (Eds.). (2007). Internationalising higher education. London: Routledge. Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-Services or virtual communities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VI, 1–17. LaPadula, M. (2010). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 119–128. Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge. Phaiah, P. G. (2006). Student development needs: Are undergraduates in online distance learning degree programs receiving a holistic education? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Sewart, D. (1992). Student support systems in distance education. Paper presented at the World Conference of the International Council for Distance Education, Bangkok, Thailand. Thomas, L., Hill, M., O’Mahony, J., & Yorke, M. (2017). Supporting student success: Strategies for institutional change (What works? Student retention & success programme). Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.phf.org.uk/publications/ works-student-retention-success-full/ Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 243–280). Dordrecht: Springer. Unangst, L., & Choi, E. (2018). Global citizenship and higher education. In P. N. Teixeria & J. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions. Dordrecht: Springer. Ward, H. (2016). Internationalizing the co-curriculum: Internationalization and student affairs (Part 3). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Intlz-In-Action-Intlz-CoCurriculum-Part-3.pdf

Chapter 31

Strategic Planning, Identity, and Internationalization An Introduction Alberto Godenzi

To analyze the impact of a university’s identity on its strategic planning efforts, and in particular on its internationalization strategy, I propose a brief analysis of five interrelated variables: external environment, organizational identity, strategic planning, internationalization, and organizational performance. Internationalization is obviously part of strategic planning but for analytical purposes, I will keep the two concepts apart in this article. Let us first consider an example that sheds light on the relationships between the aforementioned variables. Catholic University of America (CUA)—like many other US universities—recently faced significant enrollment issues which in return led to serious financial pressures (Stripling, 2018). It is not clear (at least not on first sight) which factors led to the enrollment challenge. Was it mostly due to the external environment (e.g., a decreasing number of high school graduates from across the country), or was it CUA’s organizational identity as a conservative Catholic institution of higher education, that kept potential students away? Whatever factor or combination of factors it was, the organizational performance or in this case financial underperformance left the university with no choice than to consider new options in its strategic planning directions. CUA hired a consulting firm and the experts developed a new branding strategy, namely to present CUA as a global Catholic research university. The consultant’s view was that CUA’s Catholic identity alone would not sustain their desired market share. However, a smart internationalization approach may improve the institution’s profile and address enrollment challenges. The future performance of CUA will tell if the consultants were right. Most of us who have the privilege to spend our professional lives in higher education probably agree that the two most powerful variables in my simplified model are external environment and organizational performance. Let me start with external environment. As the term external indicates, the processes and events of the environment are not under institutional control. The well-known acronym STEEPLE points to large-scale social, technological, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_031

Strategic Planning, Identity, and Internationalization

153

economic, environmental, political, legal, and ethical changes. Though in principle, most of these changes are caused or influenced by human actions, to universities they just happen and affect their operations. Take for example the digital revolution. Twenty years ago, the adjustment to new technologies for teaching and research purposes seemed to be optional. Today, its integration into all organizational processes of higher education is a necessity, an imperative for survival. Universities have choices in regard to how they respond to external trends such as migration, demographic changes, geopolitical shifts, or rising inequality. They can be proactive and adjust early, or they can be reactive and adapt late. Given the velocity and force of global warming, to name one monumental trend, the leaders of universities whose campuses are at or even below sea level are particularly challenged to rethink the future of their institutions. The second variable, organizational identity, is often perceived as an inherited, fixed feature, representing the culture and essence of a university. Dumay, Draelants, and Dahan (2017) conceptualize organizational identities as values and beliefs about an institution shared by its stakeholders who solidify and keep these values alive through stories and symbols. Universities ensure that their communities know the history of the institution, the role of their founders, and the importance of their foundation. Organizational identities offer opportunities for stakeholders to practice rituals and routines. Hence, an identity requires maintenance and nurturing, otherwise it will ossify. More than we may imagine, identities are fragile constructs that need upkeep and care. To assume that identities are the main force behind strategies is to ignore the much stronger influence of external forces on identities and institutional priorities. The same holds true for the third variable, strategic planning. The external environment is the key driver of strategic decisions. The popular SWOT analysis, still used in most planning exercises, suggests a balance between internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external forces (opportunities and threats). But in reality, the latter two set the stage and script for any organizational behavior. Within these boundaries, our strengths and weaknesses will allow us to choose paths that may lead to success or failure. The quality of a strategy is measured by its outcome. A strategy can be highly sophisticated and promising. However, if the outcome of the actions taken is negative, the strategy will be deemed a failure. This may not be a correct assessment, as it may underestimate the importance of implementation plans. If we agreed on a compelling strategy, based on our institution’s identity and an analysis of external trends, but we fail to properly execute implementation plans, our analysis or our strategy may not be the cause of the failure.

154

Godenzi

The fourth variable, internationalization, has become a buzzword and sometimes the assumed remedy for many of the challenges faced by today’s higher education institutions. Contrary to rising nationalist trends in a wide range of countries around the world, many university leaders see global engagement almost as a healing charm for ills such as low enrollment, subpar fundraising, or insufficient graduate employability. While internationalization sometimes carries too many expectations, it is a fact that external opportunities and threats are by default global issues and therefore require global responses from globally minded citizens, faculty, and students included. Therefore, it is not just a financial necessity to embrace internationalization. Equally important, it is an educational requirement, ideally aligned with the respective mission of universities. Internationalization is far more than education abroad. In fact, given the negative environmental impact of international travel, we may choose more sustainable strategies such as “immersion by bus” programs that take us into local neighborhoods with a high proportion of immigrants, and the internationalization of our curricula and our campus. Finally, the fifth variable, organizational performance, closes the loop of our model. It has become customary to look at not just the financial performance of institutions but to use approaches such as the “triple bottom line” where we consider social, environmental, and financial results. Though most universities still maintain the status of non-profit institutions (even those with exorbitant endowments), financial performance supersedes any other metric. Senior-level budget committees, as part of board of trustees, and chief financial officers have become powerful actors in universities. It is in such exclusive circles where decisions are made about which strategy, program, or investment is essential or just desirable for the future of the university. Organizational performance, however, not only influences strategy, including internationalization, but also identity. If an organizational identity does not attract tuition-paying students or generous donors, the university has basically two choices: either stick to the identity and watch the organization perish, or adjust the identity and mission to new market realities which hopefully will lead to improved financial outcomes. Compared to governments and businesses, it took universities a long time to seize the educational and financial value of global engagement. Today, external trends and financial needs leave institutions of higher education no choice but to accept and advance internationalization as a core strategy of its operations. As such, global engagement has changed the heart of our universities, in the eyes of the author, for the better.

Strategic Planning, Identity, and Internationalization

155

References Dumay, X., Draelants, H., & Dahan, A. (2017). Organizational identity of universities: a review of the literature from 1972 to 2014. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, 3, 99–118. Stripling, J. (2018). Is Catholic U.’s chaste brand scaring off students? Chronicle of Higher Education, 64(32).

Chapter 32

Internationalization with Adjectives Daniela Crăciun

The rise of internationalization in the last couple of decades as a force of reforming and revamping higher education around the world has presented researchers with the challenge of dealing with a great diversity of approaches to internationalization. Although internationalization practices from diverse localities—think of China, India, Brazil, Estonia, or Kazakhstan—share common priorities and rationales, they differ profoundly from each other and from internationalized higher education systems in the Anglo-Saxon world. In response to this challenge, scholars have tried to underscore the historical development and ever-changing nature of internationalization by increasing the analytic differentiation of the concept. In other words, scholars moved away from understanding the diverse manifestations of internationalization as different in degree (i.e., more or less internationalization), towards understanding them as different in kind (i.e., different types of internationalization). This has resulted in a proliferation of alternative conceptual labels such as internationalization at home, internationalization abroad, re-internationalization, post-internationalization, globalized internationalization, comprehensive internationalization, and intelligent internationalization (Crăciun, 2018b). Borrowing from studies on democratization (Collier & Levitsky, 1997), this chapter refers to this surprising number of labels as internationalization with adjectives. Similar to democratization studies, in order to avoid conceptual confusion, attempts to standardize the usage of the term of internationalization have occurred in parallel to this proliferation of labels. While important procedural aspects of internationalization have been standardized through integrated definitions, the diverse forms of the concept manifested through internationalization with adjectives have maintained their popularity. Their analytical purchase must, however, be increased through assessments of their underlying structures and meanings. Operationalizing the concepts and showing promising avenues of research is part of conceptual development. The aim of the chapter is to show how this can be done by looking at one such subtype: intelligent internationalization. The concept of intelligent internationalization coined by Laura Rumbley (2015)—where the perspectives of higher education practitioners, leader, scholars, and policymakers are leveraged to forward internationalization in © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_032

Internationalization with Adjectives

157

a globalized world—makes an important point about the need for thinking about the process in a way that integrates the voices and insights of experts and elites in a coordinated and sustained manner. This conceptualization of internationalization provides a clear impetus towards evidence-based policy making. What is less clear is what constitutes the common meeting ground that brings together these different perspectives. In other words, how do we know intelligent internationalization when we see it? This is no small question as without operationalizing the concept, researching it is difficult, if not impossible. This chapter argues that a promising avenue for research is strategic documents that promote internationalization at various levels (regional, national, institutional) because they provide a general framework for understanding how higher education systems and institutions engage with internationalization. Without a strategic document to guide decisions, institutions and organizations “run in too many different directions, accomplish little, squander profits, and suffer enormous confusion and discord” (Latham, 2017, p. 2). Internationalization strategy documents answer the questions of who, what, where, when, and how the process is pursued. Providing answers to these questions would be in line with the elements that Laura Rumbley has identified as markers for making progress towards intelligent internationalization, namely: information, communication, facilitation, incentives, results, and time. To be more precise, strategic internationalization documents can be analyzed to see whether different kinds of actors are involved in developing internationalization (who), whether the strategy mentions specific targets to be accomplished and whether it is aligned with other policies and strategies promoted by governments and institutions (what), whether the strategy mentions specific geographical foci (where), whether the strategy mentions a specific timeline to achieve the intended goals (when), and whether funding is allocated for the measures it proposes (how). A content analysis exercise on such strategies can easily reveal whether institutions or governments are indeed practicing intelligent internationalization. For instance, a world-wide census of national internationalization plans revealed that only 22 countries have explicit strategies to forward the process (Crăciun, 2018a). Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 32.1, a text analysis of these existing policy documents reveals that the countries that have an internationalization strategy, exhibit aspects of intelligent internationalization practices. Specifically, all the countries mention actors other than the government involved in the development of internationalization, and most of them make reference to specific targets to be achieved in a designated timespan, how internationalization aligns with other policies (e.g., migration, trade, foreign

158

Crăciun

Proportion of internationalization strategies that mention: 48%

Funding Specific geographical focus

76%

Timeline

76% 86%

Alignment with other policies

90%

Specific targets

100%

Actors other than the issuing authority 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

figure 32.1 Proportion of national higher education internationalization strategies discussing strategic aspects (Crăciun, 2019)

relations, labor market, etc.), and a specific geographical focus. Less defined are the incentive and funding mechanisms of these strategies: only one in two countries discuss these strategic aspects. This brief analysis shows that strategic documents for the internationalization of higher education provide a fertile ground for analyzing the concept of intelligent internationalization. However, a more in-depth analysis teasing out all the above-mentioned aspects (e.g., actors, specific targets, specific geographical focus, etc.) is needed. Coupled with evaluations of policy success and failure, such analyses could give us a better grasp of the viability of intelligent internationalization for understanding and explaining current developments in the field. To conclude, the main contention of this discussion has been that in parallel to internationalization development patterns, we can observe a proliferation of terminology that tries to distinguish between different manifestations of the process. Internationalization with adjectives refers precisely to this mushrooming conceptual field in which attributes have been added to the process in order to better specify it. The concept of intelligent internationalization proposed by Laura Rumbley (2015) is but one example. Giving more attention to concept operationalization and finding fruitful avenues for research would increase the analytical purchase of intelligent internationalization. To this end, higher education internationalization strategies represent a viable starting point for mapping out the constellation of actors involved in promoting the process and thus observing whether there is an actual commitment to an intelligent internationalization agenda.

Internationalization with Adjectives

159

References Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451. Crăciun, D. (2018a). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & M. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 95–106). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. Crăciun, D. (2018b). Topic modeling: A novel method for the systematic study of higher education internationalization policy. In L. E. Rumbley & D. Proctor (Eds.), The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice (pp. 102–112). London: Routledge. Crăciun, D. (2019). Systematizing internationalization policy in higher education: Towards a typology (Doctoral dissertation). Central European University, Budapest. Latham, A. (2017, October 29). What the heck is a strategy anyway? Forbes. Retreived from https://www.forbes.com Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17.

Chapter 33

Outside the Comfort Zone How Internationalization Can Be Used to Support First Generation Students Georgiana Mihut

Intelligent internationalization highlights the benefits of meaningful exchanges between internationalization practitioners, leaders, policymakers, and researchers. These exchanges facilitate the dissemination of good practices, inform better policies, and inspire relevant research. Intelligent internationalization has the potential to transform internationalization into a better version of itself. I argue that in order for internationalization to meet its full potential, internationalization stakeholders need not only engage with each other, but outside the field. As an example, I suggest that resources developed by internationalization practitioners and researchers could be used to better serve first generation students and that diversity and inclusion resources may better inform internationalization efforts. Synergy between internationalization and other campus activities will also serve to consolidate the institutional relevance of internationalization and contribute towards comprehensive internationalization.

1

International Students

Over 1 million international students were enrolled at higher education institutions in the United States in 2017. Roughly one in every 20 students enrolled that year was an international student (Institute of International Education (IIE), 2018). The U.S. higher education system is vast, immensely diverse, complicated to navigate, and degrees are challenging to attain. Multiple resources have been designed to support the integration and success of international students at U.S. universities. The U.S. Department of State has 433 advising centers for prospective and accepted international students in all world regions (Education USA, n.d.). It has also compiled a glossary with terms specific to the U.S. higher education system (Education USA, n.d.). Regional and national associations, such as NAFSA: Association of International Educators, offer extensive resources for international students. Media outlets, blog writers, and private companies offer tailored resources to international students to support integration. Higher education institutions immerse international © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_033

161

Outside the Comfort Zone

table 33.1  Graduating within 6 years after start from a 4-year institution, for 2010 starting cohort by institutional selectivity

Institutional selectivity Open admission 90 percent or more accepted 75.0 to 89.9 percent accepted 50.0 to 74.9 percent accepted 25.0 to 49.9 percent accepted Less than 25.0 percent accepted

All students

International student

32.3 48.4 57.2 61.5 69.6 88.1

44.8 56.4 60.2 69.3 75.3 92.1

Source: NCES (n.d., table 326.10)

students in extensive orientation sessions, compile comprehensive brochures, require international students to complete tailored freshman courses, and offer ongoing spaces for conversations on campus and virtually. Much of this collective effort is geared towards ensuring that international students understand the culture of U.S. higher education and are equipped to navigate it. International students learn not only the immigration and visa requirements they are subject to, how to obtain a social security number, and how to file taxes, but also how to behave in class, what office hours are and how to make best use of them, the norms of academic integrity, and how to interact with domestic colleagues. The support for international students stems from the justified belief that—because international students have little to no first-hand experience with the higher education system in the US—success is contingent upon translating and effectively communicating the norms and intricacies of the system. In part, it works. At all institutional types and across institutions with different levels of selectivity, international students have higher graduation rates than the national average for domestic students.

2

First Generation Students

Domestic students too feel overwhelmed with the higher education system in the United States. Among the 2010 starting cohort at 4-year institutions, only 40.6% of students graduated in four years. The six years graduation rate among the 2009 starting cohort at 4-year institutions stood at 59.4% (NCES, n.d., table 326.10). The graduation rates at 2-year institutions were lower, with 30.3% of 2013 enrollees graduating within three years (NCES, n.d., table 326.10). This

162

Mihut

burden is further felt by students whose parents have not attended college, or “first generation students” in the vernacular of higher education. While nationally representative data on first generation students is scarce, roughly 1 in 5 students at U.S. higher education institution is a first generation student and about a quarter come from households making less than $20,000 (Eagan et al., 2017; Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). First generation students are less likely to submit timely applications through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, and thus receive less financial aid than available to them (Feeney & Heroff, 2013). They are less likely to enroll in post-secondary degree programs and graduate. The college completion rate of first generation students is almost half of students whose parents completed higher education (Redford & Mulvaney Hoyer, 2017). First generation students face multiple barriers, including financial barriers, to access and completion. One of these barriers is navigating the US higher education system and its academic culture. In his widely acclaimed work on poor students at elite universities, Anthony Jack suggests that poor, first generation students are not a homogenous group. Some students from underprivileged backgrounds adjust well and even thrive in college, whereas others struggle to navigate their new environment and integrate with their peers. He traces the difference to programs like Prep for Prep and A Better Change which give early exposure to college norms and the elite cultural milieu, thus mitigating the gaps in cultural capital of low income, often first generation students (Jack, 2014, 2016).

3

Conclusion

Many resources have been developed to support the transition of first generation students to college and their success. Philanthropies, research teams, and higher education institutions offer varied programs and support structures. At the same time, resource constraints limit how much institutions can do to best serve their first generation students. Calls for using technology to better assist first generation students complement and scale existing efforts in a cost-effective manner (Martinez, Rowan-Kenyon, & Savitz-Romer, 2018). Employing resources developed for international students may successfully aid these efforts. On campuses, services for international students and services for first generation students are often separated. The assumption is that these two groups of students have diverging needs. International students need to understand immigration and visa issues. First generation students benefit from more information on financial aid—for which international students are most often ineligible. Beyond this view, the two groups have a shared need to better understand the culture of the academic system. Many resources already developed and used

Outside the Comfort Zone

163

for international students can serve first generation students. If internationalization is to become intelligent, it needs to learn from those outside the international education arena. If internationalization is to become comprehensive, it needs to embed itself into the broader activities of higher education institutions. Helping serve first generation students is one of the many ways through which internationalization can become comprehensive and intelligent.

References Eagan, K., Bara Stolzenberg, E., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Whang Sayson, H., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2017). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Cooperative Institutional Research Program & Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Retrieved from https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/ TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf Education USA. (n.d.). Find an advising center. Retrieved from https://educationusa.state.gov/find-advising-center?field_region_target_ id=&field_country_target_id=&field_center_level_value=comprehensive Education USA. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved from https://educationusa.state.gov/ experience-studying-usa/us-educational-system/glossary Feeney, M., & Heroff, J. (2013). Barriers to need-based financial aid: Predictors of timely FAFSA completion among low-income students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 43(2), 2. Institute of International Education (IIE). (2018). Enrollment trends. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/ International-Students/Enrollment Jack, A. A. (2014, June). Culture shock revisited: The social and cultural contingencies to class marginality. Sociological Forum, 29(2), 453–475. Jack, A. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1–19. Martinez, A. M., Rowan-Kenyon, H., & Savitz-Romer, M. (2018, October 10). Using technology to help first-generation students. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2018/10/10/how-usetechnology-improve-success-first-generation-college NCES. (n.d.). Table 326.1. Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree- seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and acceptance rate: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2011. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_326.10.asp Redford, J., & Mulvaney Hoyer, K. (2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. US Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf

Chapter 34

Higher Education Leadership and Management Training Global Maps and Gaps Laura E. Rumbley, Hilligje van’t Land and Juliette Becker

Successful leadership of higher education institutions in the contemporary context worldwide requires a remarkably sophisticated set of skills, knowledge, and sensibilities. Yet, globally, there is limited information about how higher education’s leaders, managers, and policymakers are provided with the training they need to carry out their work. Furthermore, where information about such training and capacity-building programs is available, the picture remains incomplete and often disheartening. In fact, the structured opportunities on offer to build leadership and management capacity in higher education are limited in number, almost universally small in scale, and largely unable to offer systematic accounts of the long-term impact of their efforts. This is a critical concern in the face of the myriad opportunities and imperatives facing higher education institutions and systems around the world, now and into the foreseeable future. Without question, the vast majority of higher education leaders and managers enter their positions with no training whatsoever—they learn “on the job”—or run the risk of failure.

1

Uncharted Territory

Two recent studies—one by the Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), on behalf of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and German Rectors’ Conference (HRK), and another by the International Association of Universities (IAU) on behalf of the World Bank—have mapped various dimensions of the global landscape of higher education management and leadership training programs. In the case of IAU, the goal was to identify training programs around the world focused specifically on leadership (typically in mid- and senior-level administrative positions) in higher education. CIHE’s purpose was slightly different, given its aim to make sense of major players offering management training schemes specifically in relation

© International Higher Education, 2018 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_034 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

Higher Education Leadership and Management Training

165

to international development cooperation efforts (i.e., for capacity building in lower-income and emerging country contexts). In exploring the existence and profiles of such training schemes worldwide, both IAU and CIHE discovered that very little work has been done to date to take stock of these types of programs at a global level. Extensive networking and dogged online research were required to identify programs, and to piece together fundamental characteristics of training program size, scope, design, delivery, evolution, and aims. Unlike postgraduate degree-granting programs focused on different aspects of higher education, which are typically offered by single universities (or clearly defined university partners), training programs geared toward high.er education professionals may be delivered by a wide range of providers. Some are also characterized by what might be considered a chain of providers, whereby different actors are separately responsible for funding, managing/organizing, and/or delivering specific training programs. To date, there is no clear “typology” for the global field of higher education management, training providers, or approaches.

2

You Name It, They Do It

There is significant diversity in the way that training programs approach their work. This diversity is apparent across such dimensions as the ages of programs, the sizes of their cohorts, the frequency with which program iterations are offered, the target audiences they aim to serve, the “pedagogical approaches” they employ, the length of programs, and the topics on which programs focus, among other key characteristics. This diversity presents an interesting panorama across the global training landscape. Programs range in age from decades old to the very recently launched. In terms of target groups, they may cater to senior leadership or middle- and upper-middle level managers and administrators, or to specially identified populations, such as promising early-career individuals, administrators with specifically defined roles and responsibilities, or members of underrepresented groups, such as women. Program modes of delivery may involve workshops, conferences, seminars, lectures, case studies, site visits, internships, group projects, personal projects, or independent research. Training schemes may even be anchored in longterm institutional partnerships, as seen particularly in some European initiatives focused on international cooperation for development. Trainings may feature face-to-face and/or online delivery.

166

Rumbley et al.

The frequency and duration of trainings may also vary from a matter of days or weeks, or—more unusually—to months, and even a year or longer. Some programs consist of quite standardized “off the shelf” offerings in terms of structure and content, while others may be more specifically tailored to client or participant needs. There is, quite literally, a world of possibility when it comes to training content, approaches, target audiences, and rationale.

3

Emerging Contours in a World of Variety

Although training programs in higher education worldwide display significant variation in their form and function, several key trends are apparent from the data now available about these schemes. First, the training of higher education leaders and managers stands out as a “growth industry” globally. This is indicated by the significant numbers of training programs and schemes that have been initiated in the period since 2000. Notably, however, higher education training and leadership development programs are predominately on offer in the world’s wealthier countries, or are delivered (or otherwise made possible) by providers, funders, and/or partners who largely hail from the Global North. Where data exist, we see that most programs feature small numbers of participants, often under 50 per group. Additionally, cohorts tend to be rather “homogenous,” in the sense that they tend not to include different kinds of participants in the same training groups (for example, at different levels of seniority). Little evidence exists that much special attention is being paid to the training or leadership skill cultivation of women in higher education, despite their significant representation in student enrollment and (at least early stage) faculty ranks globally. Training programs are also relatively short in duration, most often ranging from several days to one or two weeks. They are typically fee based and do not tend to award any kind of credential, beyond merely documenting attendance. Finally, there is very little indication that training programs are undertaking the kinds of assessment activities that yield clear evidence of their mid-term outcomes or longer-term impact. Often, assessment rests on the testimonials of beneficiaries or the organizations offering the training courses, without providing information on the monitoring tools developed to measure the impact of these courses on participants or their respective professional environments. One of the most commonly cited impacts is the importance of the networking opportunities provided, a result that is difficult to translate into any kind of impact assessment.

Higher Education Leadership and Management Training

4

167

Is More Needed? Yes

The majority of higher education leaders and managers around the world receive no formal/specialized training for their work. As higher education systems continue to grow and diversify, increasingly pressured to meet key performance indicators while also achieving excellence in education and innovation production, the need to train effective managers and leaders becomes more widespread and more urgent. Yet, the current picture of training opportunities on offer to meet this massive need falls desperately short. Indeed, the CIHE and IAU inventory exercises, albeit tailored to seek out some kinds of programs and not others, collectively identified fewer than 120 such training schemes worldwide. Relatively short, small-scale programs, clustered in (or provided largely by actors based in) the Global North, operating without clear evidence of midor long-term impact—collectively, these do not provide a viable roadmap for the kind of large-scale support needed by higher education systems, particularly in the world’s low-income and emerging economy countries. There, the needs are urgent to scale up management and leadership capacity through the provision of high-quality, relevant, and equity-enhancing training mechanisms. Significantly more research is needed to make sense of the full census of management and leadership training actors around the world, as well as the scope and real-world impact of their efforts, in order to ensure the deployment of skilled higher education managers and leaders for the twenty-first century.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 93, Spring 2018 (pp. 4–6). Reprinted here with permission.

Chapter 35

Internationalizing the Third Mission of Universities Agustian Sutrisno

In 2003, Jane Knight defined internationalization of higher education as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education.” In a chapter of the 2015 report on Internationalisation of Higher Education for the European Commission, Hans de Wit, Fiona Hunter, and Robert Coelen updated this definition by elaborating the purpose, “… in order to enhance the quality of education and research … and to make a meaningful contribution to society.” Within these all-encompassing definitions, all missions and activities conducted by universities can be internationalized with the purpose of improving the quality of higher education and serving the wider community. Indeed, internationalization research has provided much understanding of how internationalization permeates universities’ education and research missions—two main missions of universities around the world. However, less has been done on the third mission, i.e., engagement with the community.

1

Evolution and Tension in Conceptualizing the Third Mission

Universities have long engaged with their communities through socially and commercially oriented activities. Many universities provide public medical services, legal consultations, and community servic.es. The recent interest in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among some universities has seen emphasis being placed on matters of university social responsibility (USR) to contribute to achieving the SDGs. While most USR activities are entrenched in local community needs and involve domestic students and staff, the SDGs bring a global dimension to USR. The socially-oriented third mission is complemented by the more commercially oriented focus of higher education. Business communities benefit from partnerships with universities through consulting services and research product commercialization. In more recent years, along with the growth of the global knowledge economy, the third mission has increasingly been understood as encompassing universities’ participation in economic development and innovation to solve various global problems. Activities and initiatives such © Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 2018 doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_035

Internationalizing the Third Mission of Universities

169

as business incubation, spin-off companies, science parks, and knowledge/ technology transfer are seen as integral to the contemporary third mission of universities. Various studies, mainly situated in North America and Europe, demonstrate the important role that universities play in the national and regional economic development and innovation systems through the commercially driven third mission activities. This shift towards the more commercial third mission has created some tension, as this focus may come at the expense of socially driven community engagement. While some universities pay attention to the attainment of the SDGs, more and more are moving towards understanding the third mission almost exclusively in terms of universities’ contribution to national and regional economic growth. Such tension will continue to characterize debates on the third mission of universities. Despite the interest in understanding the third mission of universities and the tension therein, the research literature has not directed much attention to the internationalization of the third mission, whether socially or commercially driven. Nevertheless, forms of internationalizing the third mission can be found in numerous universities across the globe.

2

Contemporary Examples of Internationalizing the Third Mission

The interest in achieving the SDGs provides some examples of internationalization in USR. Petra Christian University in Indonesia runs the Community Outreach Program involving students from its international partner universities, which are predominantly other Christian universities in Asia. The students voluntarily work in underdeveloped areas of Indonesia to build water sanitation facilities and teach in schools as a part of the USR. In Australia, the University of New South Wales’ technology transfer office, UNSW Innovations, not only handles technology transfer with established firms but also guides its students and alumni to be entrepreneurs and establish startups. The free-of-charge services are available for their significant number of international alumni, many of whom have returned to their home countries. Through its dedicated Student Entrepreneurship team, UNSW Innovations helps many alumni-initiated startups in Asia and America enter their respective local markets by means of programs such as Silicon Valley Mentors and Global Founders China. This expansion of the technology transfer office’s role is one of the ways to build UNSW’s reputation as an international study destination for aspiring entrepreneurs. The Innovation Depot is a business incubation facility and program supported by the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB), local business

170

Sutrisno

communities, nongovernmental organizations, and governments. It is accessible to international startups and new entrepreneurs. The Depot’s annual accelerator competition for technology startups attracts global participants, as seed funding and expert support are provided for the winners. UAB’s ability to open up international opportunities in university-supported business incubation cannot be done without commitment from the local and state governments, which seek to invigorate the economy through high tech industries and attract highly skilled talent to Birmingham. The three examples above demonstrate the complexity of internationalizing the third mission of universities. The third mission activities that have been internationalized may differ from one university to the other, bound by the respective university’s priorities and available resources. The interaction between universities and non-students—such as international alumni, emerging entrepreneurs, and students of overseas universities—may be fuzzy and involve a higher degree of flexibility compared to the universities’ interaction with their own students or staff members. Additionally, the funding models adopted by universities to provide services for these non-students seem to involve university’s internal funding and contribution from governments, nongovernmental actors, and the business world. These are all managerial concerns and research areas where major higher education internationalization publications provide little analysis for the benefit of university leaders interested in internationalizing the third mission.

3

Research Agenda and Information Sharing Imperative

We also know very little about the impact of the cross-border movement of universities on their third mission implementation. While companies and individuals have a long history of crossing national borders to expand their business opportunities, universities have only relatively recently done so by establishing branch campuses in other countries. These branch campuses are the most prominent form of internationalization for the universities involved. Research literature on how teaching and learning are conducted on these campuses begins to emerge, but implementation of their third mission is largely left untouched. Overall, it is timely to pay closer attention to internationalizing the third mission through analysis among internationalization researchers and information sharing between practitioners. Opportunities to learn about best practices in internationalization of the third mission should be cultivated to keep up with the growth in third mission activities around the world. By expanding

Internationalizing the Third Mission of Universities

171

our knowledge in this area, internationalization research and practices will truly encompass all of the purpose, functions and delivery of postsecondary education as envisaged by Knight and de Wit et al.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in CIHE Perspectives No. 9, Year in Review, 2017–2018, edited by Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, and Dara Melnyk (2018, pp. 35–37). Reprinted here with permission.

Chapter 36

What an International Branch Campus Is, and Is Not A Revised Definition Stephen Wilkins and Laura E. Rumbley

According to the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) and the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT), there were 263 international branch campuses operating worldwide at the end of 2017. Although the international branch campus has become an established part of the cross-border higher education landscape—and definitions of this phenomenon have been elaborated by OBHE, C-BERT, and HESA (the United Kingdom’s Higher Education Statistics Agency), there is still debate about what an international branch campus actually is. In any scholarly field, researchers need to use the same terminology and definitions, otherwise meaning is subject to misunderstandings among readers, and comparisons of findings become, at least to an extent, pointless. Thus, clarifying what an international branch campus is, and is not, requires further attention.

1

Pushing forward the Current Definition

During the last few years, the definition of international branch campuses used most often by researchers is C-BERT’s, which was modified slightly in the November 2016 OBHE/C-BERT report on international branch campuses as follows: An entity that is owned, at least in part, by a foreign education provider; operated in the name of the foreign education provider; and provides an entire academic program, substantially on site, leading to a degree awarded by the foreign education provider. This definition has provided a sound point of departure for researchers. However, it omits certain key features that are vital to the essence of what a branch is, notably how the terms “branch” and “campus” are used in business and © International Higher Education, 2019 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_036 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 License.

What an International Branch Campus Is, and Is Not

173

higher education. While international branch campuses are not generally considered businesses, they are parts of multinational enterprises (MNEs), because the term “MNE” refers to any organization that engages in foreign direct investment (FDI) and operates in multiple countries. Business terms and concepts can help us make sense of what an international branch campus is, so that a clearer and more implementable definition may be developed. The OBHE/C-BERT definition of international branch campus not only omits certain key features, but it also specifies unnecessary criteria. In business, a bank, hotel, or retail company does not always offer exactly the same products and services at every branch; similarly, it seems unnecessary to insist that an overseas campus “provide an entire academic program” or one that “leads to a degree” in order to be categorized as an international branch campus. Indeed, there are a range of possibilities that might be considered. The programming offered to students enrolled in branch campuses should bear the name of the foreign institution, but should not encompass study abroad centers, which are intended mainly to provide a short-term study experience for students from the institution’s home campus.

2

Core Features

A refined understanding of international branch campuses recognizes several core features, as described below. – Ownership, a key criterion: International branch campuses are owned, at least partially, by a specific foreign higher education institution. Foreign-backed institutions like the American University of Beirut or the British University in Dubai are not international branch campuses since these are typically private institutions that have adopted a foreign higher education system, which often involves accreditation by foreign organizations. Confederations or educational systems, like Islamic Azad University, which has four campuses outside Iran, should also not be considered as branch campuses, since there is no clear “parent” campus. – The bottom line matters: MNEs make investments in foreign countries, typically to establish operations in these countries. If the home institution earns only a fixed fee or a commission based on student enrollments, then it is clear that the home institution does not truly “own” the foreign operation, and it is not a branch campus. – Substantive control is crucial: The home institution may not actually own the land or premises from which the branch operates, but it does own the brand name, and it is responsible for curricula and accrediting awards.

174

Wilkins and Rumbley

Although host country governments may provide the financial investment needed to establish branch campuses—as Abu Dhabi did for New York University and Paris-Sorbonne—when a true branch campus is established, the parent institution has control, at least to some extent, over strategic decisions such as scale of operations, curricula, and faculty appointments. It is also responsible for academic standards and quality assurance. – Partnerships: If a foreign campus is really an international branch campus, it will be recognized as such on the websites of the home and branch institutions. For example, Westminster University’s website refers to Westminster International University in Tashkent as a partner institution, not a branch campus. Similarly, Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University in China and Yale– NUS College in Singapore, which both resulted from partnerships, are not described by any of the founding institutions as a branch campus. However, some branch campuses do have a partnership ownership structure. Partners may be private entrepreneurs, for-profit companies, or not-for-profit organizations. For example, Heriot-Watt’s campus in Dubai is jointly owned with a company called Study World. Profits resulting from the campus’s operations are shared between the two organizations. – The need for a campus: Finally, to be recognized as a branch campus, the institution’s infrastructure should fit with the definition of a campus. The word “campus” refers to the grounds and buildings of an educational institution and suggests that students receive a certain study experience. However, many universities run foreign outposts that offer only a single qualification, or a very small number of qualifications, operating from a handful of rooms in an office block, while others employ no full-time faculty in the host country. At a minimum, students at a branch campus should have access to a library, an open access computer lab, and dining facilities.

3

Revised Definition, and Moving Forward

This refined understanding of international branch campuses suggests a new working definition for the field, which speaks to the key elements that should ideally frame the phenomenon: An international branch campus is an entity that is owned, at least in part, by a specific foreign higher education institution, which has some degree of responsibility for the overall strategy and quality assurance of the branch campus. The branch campus operates under the name of the foreign institution and offers programming and/or credentials that bear

What an International Branch Campus Is, and Is Not

175

the name of the foreign institution. The branch has basic infrastructure, such as a library, an open access computer lab, and dining facilities, and, overall, students at the branch have a similar student experience to students at the home campus. Transnational higher education operates in a myriad of forms and modes. Although this article has identified some of the core features of an international branch campus, these campuses are far from homogenous. For example, shared campuses exist in countries such as Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, where multiple institutions share infrastructure such as catering and sports facilities. Thus, while our proposed definition may be an improvement over existing definitions, a degree of personal judgment will still always be needed to classify certain campuses.

Acknowledgement This chapter was previously published in International Higher Education, No. 96, Winter 2019 (pp. 12–14). Reprinted here with permission.

PART 5 Conclusion

∵

Chapter 37

From Mobility to Internationalization of the Curriculum at Home Where Are the Students in the Intelligent Internationalization Conversation? Elspeth Jones

There is much to admire in Laura Rumbley’s (2015) conceptualization of intelligent internationalization further elucidated by her work in this volume. In an earlier article, she argued that intelligent internationalization demands a commitment to the training of thoughtful practitioners in the field, working in tandem with researchers, policymakers, and institutional leaders who are sensitive to the practicalities that reside within the “big issues” dominating so many strategic discussions about internationalization today. (p. 17) These are indeed important groups to engage in the discussion, but where are the students in this model? Their presence is clearly assumed, but not made explicit. As I have argued elsewhere: “If internationalization aims to enhance institutional and academic quality, the ultimate beneficiaries will be students and they should be at the heart of our efforts” (Jones, 2013a). In a 2013 book chapter (Jones, 2013b), I asked whether we would recognize a university that had an integrated approach to internationalization and suggested ten key indicators of integrated internationalization. In that chapter, students were placed at the core, and were thus recognized as the starting point for the whole institution’s internationalization endeavors. Unfortunately, few universities show evidence of this extended commitment. Indeed governments, policymakers, and institutions too often settle on the idea that internationalization, from a student perspective, is synonymous with study abroad or other forms of mobility. In the European context, this is largely to do with the success of the Erasmus Scheme, which has boosted mobility to unprecedented levels. However, mobility is far from a sufficient means of delivering internationalization for all students, and internationalization at home was conceived in response. Internationalization of the curriculum was already being used in Australia and elsewhere, to indicate the need for programs to internationalize more holistically. © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_037

180

Jones

figure 37.1 A model of Intelligent Internationalization (I2) (from Rumbley, 2015, 2016)

In spite of calls for attention to the home curriculum, growing the number of students who take part in some form of mobility during their studies has been the main internationalization target for European universities. Success is measured by the numbers involved, rather than the outcomes attained by students as a result of their participation. Alongside mobility, delivering programs in English (where English is not the dominant language) has been another major emphasis to attract international students. This strategy has been particularly popular in countries with less widely-used languages such as Dutch and Danish, but Englishtaught programmes are now widespread, even in Germany, France and Spain. Mobility and English-medium instruction are approaches which will only go so far. First, it is generally accepted in the literature that simply having international and domestic students in the same classroom will not automatically develop intercultural competences without some form of intervention. The integration of students from different national backgrounds has proved challenging for many years. This means that students are unable to reap the potential benefits of perspectives offered by cultural “others” (see for example Carroll, 2015; Leask, 2010, 2015; Leask & Carroll, 2013; Montgomery, 2010; Volet & Ang, 1998). As these authors, and others, have stressed, intercultural learning will not take place merely by being in the presence of cultural “others” but must be facilitated through intentional engagement. Second, simply translating the curriculum from one language to another will not, in itself, create an internationalized curriculum (Jones, 2017; Leask, 2015). As a minimum, students need opportunities to reflect on content, and

From Mobility to Internationalization of the Curriculum

181

figure 37.2 Ten key elements of integrated internationalization (from Jones, 2013b)

learning outcomes need to be internationalized along with appropriate assessment practices that produce evidence to illustrate achievement (Jones & Killick, 2013; Leask, 2015). Third, focusing on mobility for the few, draws attention away from the need to internationalize the curriculum for the many who do not take part in these experiences. Mobility needs to be seen as adding value to an internationalized curriculum, not as the focal point of internationalization efforts. Perhaps more crucially, using the term internationalization implies to some degree the movement of bodies, when in fact, a change of mindset is more important than a change of country. It is for this reason that definitions of internationalization of the curriculum (Leask, 2015), of internationalization at home (Beelen & Jones, 2015), and indeed of internationalization itself (de Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015), focus on the intercultural just as much as the international. For example, de Wit et al. (2015) define internationalization as: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (p. 29) It is this intercultural element that enables creative and imaginative opportunities to internationalize the curriculum at home. Transformative internationalization can evolve not only through international engagement, but also as a result of encounters with cultural “otherness” of any kind. Interculturalization is perhaps a term more reflective of this idea than internationalization.

182

Jones

In an effort to clarify the importance of intercultural dimensions in internationalization at home (IaH), the IaH Expert Community of the European Association for International Education agreed on ten key points for those seeking better understanding of this rather nebulous term, and emphasizing the parallel with internationalization of the curriculum. A blog post gives further detail (Jones & Reiffenrath, 2018), but the ten points stated that internationalization at home: 1. Offers all students global perspectives within their program of study, whether or not they spend time abroad; 2. Moves beyond electives or specialized programs; 3. Involves developing international and intercultural perspectives through internationalized learning outcomes in the formal curriculum; 4. Is supported by informal (co-)curriculum activities across the institution; 5. Makes purposeful use of cultural diversity in the classroom for inclusive learning, teaching, and assessment practice; 6. Creates opportunities for student engagement with “cultural others” in local society; 7. Involves all staff, not only academics and international officers; 8. May or may not include teaching in English or another lingua franca; 9. Can include virtual mobility through online working with partner universities; and 10. Fosters purposeful engagement with international students. Intelligent Internationalization and its “thoughtful alliance” (Rumbley, 2015, p. 17) between researchers, policymakers, practitioners and leadership is certainly an important agenda for the future. However, we must also keep our minds on students. If we adapt our curricula to offer intercultural as well as international perspectives, mobility can be seen, “as merely one aspect of the internationalized curriculum, which incorporates internationalized learning outcomes into its core” (de Wit & Jones, 2018, p. 17). Two things follow from this. Internationalization of the curriculum at home would be seen as the default mode of institutional internationalization strategy, rather than as second best. Thus mobility would take its rightful place in offering added value to an internationalized curriculum, rather than being the primary focus for internationalization of the student experience. This is surely intelligent internationalization as far as students are concerned.

References Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: Springer International.

From Mobility to Internationalization of the Curriculum

183

Carroll, J. (2015). Tools for teaching in an educationally mobile world. London: Routledge. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: A study for the European Parliament. Brussels: European Parliament. de Wit, H., & Jones, E. (2018). Inclusive internationalization: Improving access and equity. International Higher Education, 94(0), 16–18. Jones, E. (2013a, September 28). Internationalising the curriculum – Future challenges. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20130924135328542 Jones, E. (2013b). The global reach of universities: Leading and engaging academic and support staff in the internationalization of higher education. In R. Sugden, M. Valania, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Leadership and cooperation in Academia: Reflecting on the roles and responsibilities of university faculty and management (pp. 161–183). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jones, E. (2017). Internationalization of the curriculum: Challenges, ismconceptions and the role of disciplines. In H. Casper-Hehne & T. Reiffenrath (Eds.), Internationalisierung der Curricula an Hochschulen: Konzepte, Initiativen, Maßnahmen (pp. 21–38). Bielefeld, Germany: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 165–182. Jones, E., & Reiffenrath, T. (2018). Internationalization at home in practice. Retrieved from https://www.eaie.org/blog/internationalization-at-home-practice.html Leask, B. (2010). “Beside me is an empty chair”: The student experience of internationalization. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 3–17). London: Routledge. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. London: Routledge. Leask, B., & Carroll, J. (2013). Learning and teaching across cultures good practice principles and quick guides. Melbourne: International Education Association of Australia (IEAA). Retrieved from https://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/397 Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the international student experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Rumbley, L. E. (2016, October 20). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. Paper presented at the CHE Consult “Comprehensive Approach to Internationalisation Workshop,” Prague, Czech Republic. Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter‐cultural learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 5–23.

Chapter 38

Global Learning for All What Does It Take to Shift a Paradigm? Betty Leask

In 2001 I published my first peer reviewed article on internationalization in the Journal of Studies in International Education (JSIE). At the time I was working as the Coordinator of International Staff and Student Services at the University of South Australia. The title of the article was “Bridging the Gap: Internationalizing University Curricula” (Leask, 2001). The article was reporting on work that I had led at the University of South Australia from 1998. It was a case study of “how one university is internationalizing all of its courses so that all graduates will demonstrate an international perspective as professionals and citizens” (p. 100). In the 1980s and 1990s the internationalization of higher education globally was almost exclusively focused on student mobility in its various forms and predominantly on the movement of students within the Global North and from the Global South to the Global North. Typically, these short-term mobility programs occupied vast amounts of staff time and involved less than 10% of students. During this period, alongside study abroad and exchange programs, Australian universities fervently engaged in international student recruitment. This was regarded as the dominant paradigm of internationalization in Australian universities. Bold claims were made on university websites where it was assumed that Australian campuses and communities were increasingly internationalized as the number of international students grew. University campuses were idealized as rich sites of international engagement and intercultural learning where domestic students and international students worked side by side in perfect harmony. I had attended many sessions at annual Australian International Education Conferences where this discourse had increasingly irritated me because I knew it was not true. So I wrote the JSIE article and thereafter a number of others, in which I argued that we needed to think differently about internationalization and the curriculum if we were to develop all students’ international perspectives. I gave examples of how we had started to work towards achieving this goal at the University of South Australia, what had worked and what had not. I highlighted the challenges and the need for a more measured discourse in relation to what had been achieved while striving ever harder to © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi: 10.1163/9789004418912_038

Global Learning for All

185

achieve more. I wanted university leaders and senior international staff as well as course designers, teachers and student services staff to think more carefully, and intelligently, about their goals and how they achieved them. This included thinking differently about how they described their course and program learning outcomes, whose knowledge counted in their curriculum (as well as in their minds)—and how they measured their success and their students’ international and global learning. Although I did not call it this at the time, essentially I was advocating to change the paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum—the typical way in which it was understood and enacted in universities—from one focused primarily on a very small percentage of mobile students to one focused on developing international and intercultural learning outcomes in all students at home, through purposeful engagement in transformative learning experiences with those from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in their classrooms and on their campuses. In a book on Intelligent Internationalization, in arguably one of the most intelligent institutions in the world—the university—it is timely to consider the progress that has been made in shifting the paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum from one focused on optional international experiences for a minority of students, to one focused on universal international and intercultural learning outcomes for all students. In order to do this I will focus particularly on three key questions. – What progress has been made? – Who are the “all” we should be focused on? – What does it take to shift a paradigm? – What progress has been made?

1

What Progress Has Been Made?

On the positive side there has been much discussion in the literature on the need to move away from approaches to internationalization that are primarily, if not only, focused on counting the number of disconnected and isolated international activities undertaken towards a much bigger agenda—measuring the impact of those activities on student learning. There is also now a more substantial and growing body of literature from scholars and scholar-practitioners focused on internationalization of the curriculum, teaching, and learning which includes, but is not limited to, how to be inclusive of diverse perspectives in the curriculum and the classroom. This literature considers, for example, how to design, teach and assess learning in professionally and academically engaging programs that develop the professional

186

Leask

and personal skills, knowledge, and attributes required of graduates who will work and live, as professionals and citizens, in a world that is increasingly connected and divided. Further it is more widely recognized that because only a small percentage of students will ever be mobile, it is no longer sufficient to focus primarily on mobility (in all its forms, from study abroad and exchange, to degree seeking, fee-paying international study) as the primary focus of internationalization strategy. Further, academic staff/faculty engaged in this work are aided by practical support, resources, and guides and there are growing international communities of practice within and across disciplines focused on the internationalization of curriculum, teaching, and learning. However, despite these positive changes in the discourse, and growing communities of practice in different parts of the world, the implementation of “global learning for all,” remains patchy and exclusive, rather than inclusive of all.

2

Who Are the “All” We Should Be Focused On?

There are many possibilities. It could be all students in all programs of study in all universities in any given nation—or indeed in all programs in all universities in all nations of the world. So let’s take a quick reality check. In 2016 the world population reached 7.5 billion people. In that year 7% of people in the entire world had a college degree (“100 People: A World Portrait,” 2016). Hence, when we talk about “global education for all” in the context of higher education, we are talking about a very small proportion of the world’s population, around 7% in 2016. In the article I published in 2001, the “all” was even more limited—it was all undergraduate and postgraduate students—around 33,300 of them enrolled at the University of South Australia. I make this point because I think it is important to put this chapter in context. That while it is an important goal to develop the international and intercultural perspectives of all students in a particular university, or to strive to integrate global learning into all students’ programs in universities in a country or region, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is in fact a very small proportion of the world’s population. So while there is evidence that there is a paradigm shift happening, we must keep it in proportion—a very small part of another much more important paradigm shift—one in which the concept of “all” in “global learning for all” is more globally inclusive. This will take a collective effort much bigger than that of the last 20 years.

Global Learning for All

3

187

What Does It Take to Shift a Paradigm?

Joe Mestenhauser was a significant influence on the work of many in international higher education including internationalization of the curriculum. It was his view that it is easier to move a cemetery than to internationalize curricula (1997), but not at any time did he have any doubt that this work was worth doing. So what does it take? I will focus on three essential things we must attend to if we are to shift the paradigm of curriculum internationalization. First, it requires systems thinking—a holistic approach focused on the way that the different constituent parts of international education work in the context of institutions over time, and also how those institutions are influenced by and themselves influence, national and international political, economic, and social systems. Second, it requires leadership—shared, collective and distributed leadership that builds the capacity for change and improvement at the institutional level, the discipline level, the program level, and the course level. Global learning for all cannot be led only or even mainly from the international office, or the President’s, or the Dean of Faculty’s office. Even if these operations work together and synchronise their efforts, it will not be enough. Leadership at the discipline and program level is essential if we are to shift the paradigm of internationalization from one focused on a minority of students, to one focused on all students. Third, shifting a paradigm requires that as scholars we not only acknowledge the “supercomplex” world in which we live—one where the very frameworks by which we orient ourselves to the world are themselves changing and contested (Barnett, 2000, p. 257)—but we also undertake boundary work. Boundary work involves the “crossing, deconstructing, and reconstructing of boundaries” (Klein, 1993, p. 186) between people, nations, regions, disciplines, and fields of study. In its simplest form, in practice, this means engaging respectfully with new colleagues and ideas, with those who challenge existing dominant paradigms of internationalization, and with scholarship and commentary on internationalization published in languages other than English. I suggest that this boundary work is the third essential component of intelligent internationalization.

4

Conclusion

In today’s increasingly divided world, the task of converting the words, “global learning for all” from rhetoric to reality, seems at once more important and

188

Leask

more difficult than ever before. Making further progress requires we incorporate systems thinking, distributed leadership, and boundary work as three core and essential components of intelligent internationalization.

References 100 People: A World Portrait. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.100people.org/ statistics_100stats.php?section=statistics) Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–265. Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalising university curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 100–115. Klein, J. T. (1993). Blurring, cracking, and crossing: Permeation and the fracturing of discipline. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. Sylvan, & D. Shumway (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies of disciplinarity (pp. 185–211). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. Mestenhauser, J. (1997, June). On moving cemeteries and changing curricula: Review article. “A reflection on M. C. van der Wende’s book Internationalising the Curriculum in Dutch Higher Education: An International Comparative Perspective.” EAIE Newsletter.

Chapter 39

Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education Evolving Concepts and Trends Hans de Wit

Internationalization as a concept and strategic agenda is a relatively new but broad and varied phenomenon, driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, socio-cultural, and academic rationales and stakeholders. Its impact on regions, countries, and institutions varies according to their particular contexts. This implies that there is no single model for internationalization that fits all. How do we understand its evolution as a concept? According to Laura Rumbley (2020), “essentially, intelligent internationalization advocates for high quality professional and academic preparation among those working in this field. It calls for clear lines of communication and effective synergies among the actors with interests in and responsibility for advancing internationalization agendas. And it urges awareness and commitment to an agenda that ultimately privileges collaboration over competition … in a world facing grave social and environmental challenges, requires the pooling of resources” (Chapter 1, this volume). This concluding chapter looks into the evolution of the concept of internationalization and its emerging trends, as a basis to understand the notion of intelligent internationalization as defined by Laura Rumbley.

1

Historical Dimensions of Internationalization

One can argue that higher education by its nature has always has been international. Altbach (1998) refers to the university as an institution that is global by nature and history. Kerr (1994) states that universities are essentially international, but at the same time acknowledges that “they have been living, increasingly, in a world of nation-states that have designs on them” (p. 6). While limited and scattered in comparison to the European Higher Education Area we know today, we can even speak of a medieval “European space” defined by a common religion, and a shared language (Latin) and set of academic practices (Neave, 1997, p. 6). The resemblance may only be superficial, but we can still © koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418912_039

190

de Wit

see similarities to the promotion of mobility and the broadening of experience, common qualification structures and the gradual growth of English as the common academic language today (de Wit, 2002, p. 6). As de Wit and Merkx (2012, p. 43; see also de Wit, 2002, pp. 3–18) remark though, references to the global nature of universities ignore the fact that universities mostly originated in the 18th and 19th century and had a clearly national orientation. In many cases, there was a process of de-Europeanization. Mobility was rarely encouraged or even prohibited, and Latin as the universal language of instruction gave way to national languages. Scott (1998) observes that “paradoxically perhaps, before it became an international institution the university had first to become a national institution—just as internationalization presupposes the existence of nation states” (p. 123). In this more national period of higher education, international projects were not completely absent. As de Wit (2002) observes, three international aspects can be identified: export of higher education systems, dissemination of research, and individual mobility of students and scholars (see also de Wit & Merkx, 2012). The international orientation of universities has changed dramatically over the centuries and takes substantially different and more complex forms and approaches today. What now is called internationalization of higher education as a concept and strategy is a recent phenomenon that has emerged over the last 30 years. Its roots reach back over centuries, while it has been interrupted by more national orientations, a trend we see emerging again these days around the world. 1.1 Changing Economic and Political Climate The emphasis in internationalization in the 20th century has traditionally been on exchange and co-operation and there continues to be a rhetoric around the need to understand different cultures and their languages. Nevertheless, a gradual but increasingly visible shift has been apparent since the second half of the 1990s towards a more competitive internationalization. van der Wende (2001) calls this a paradigm shift from cooperation to competition. de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste (2017) speak of the globalization of internationalization, and the choice for higher education in the emerging and developing world between a more competitive direction of internationalization or a more socially responsible approach. But a counter-reaction is emerging. The rise of nationalist-populist movements and governments, immigration bans, attacks on academic freedom, anti-globalism, and in Europe, anti-integration (Brexit), all might have negative implications for internationalization. Manifestations of this trend are

Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education

191

Brexit in the United Kingdom and the Trump Administration in the United States, but also more nationalist inward looking movements in continental Europe, in Russia, China, Turkey, the Philippines, and Israel, to mention some main ones (Altbach & de Wit, 2016, 2017). It is too early to tell what the exact and direct implications of this development will be, but it will most likely have a changing and accelerating effect on mobility patterns in higher education, on autonomy and academic freedom, on the privatization and commercialization in higher education, as well as other key dimensions of global higher education.

2

Internationalization, an Evolving Concept

As described above higher education has always had international dimensions, but internationalization as a concept and strategic factor is a rather young phenomenon, resulting from the fact that higher education at the system and institutional level needed to react to and act in a more global knowledge society and economy. A gradual move of internationalization from margin to core has taken place from the late 1980s onwards as a consequence of developments that include the increasing importance of research and education for economic development (the knowledge economy and society), the rapidly growing demand for higher education in the world, the end of the Cold War, and regional cooperation in higher education, the later particularly in Europe. In the 1980s and 1990s, the main focus was on mobility. This came as a result of the unmet demand for higher education, which resulted in a drastic increase in international degree mobility of students, mainly from the developing world to the developed world; the growth of short-term credit mobility of students, in particular in Europe as a result of Erasmus; an increase in short-term faculty mobility, primarily for research; and a gradual growth in franchise operations, branch campuses, and other forms of transnational education. This focus on what Jane Knight (2012) refers to as internationalization abroad, is still prevalent. But by the turn of the century, there also emerged a need for higher education institutions to respond to a compelling call for globally competent citizens and professionals. This imperative requires paying attention to the far larger group of non-mobile students and faculty, and to internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning. As such, the notions of internationalization at home and internationalization of the curriculum came to the fore. More and more they are considered to be quite similar in content and focus.

192

de Wit

Over the past decade, the relationship between these two components— internationalization at home and abroad—and the need to create a more central, integrated and systemic approach to internationalization, in order to eliminate fragmentation and marginalization, has spurred an interest in comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik, 2015). In general terms one can say that internationalization over the past 30 years has seen the following key characteristics: – More focus on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home; – More ad hoc, fragmented, and marginal than strategic, comprehensive and central in policies; – More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all; – Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations; – Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings; – Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society; – Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments; and – Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies. In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies. Recent publications, have given more attention to these emerging voices and perspectives (de Wit et al., 2017) and next generation insights (Proctor & Rumbley, 2018). In other words, internationalization in higher education has evolved over the past 30 years from a rather ad hoc, marginal, and fragmented phenomenon to a more central and comprehensive component of higher education

Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education

193

policy—although still more in rhetoric than in concrete action (de Wit & Rumbley, 2017). Leask, Jones, and de Wit (2018) for that reason state that the implementation of internationalization of the curriculum at home appears to be struggling to move beyond good intentions and isolated examples of good practice. According to them we are still far away from any form of internationalization that is inclusive and accessible rather than elitist and exclusive. For this reason, they call for urgent attention to the following as a minimum: 1. We must, as scholars and practitioners, not only continue but also escalate our efforts at working together across disciplines, professional areas, and national boundaries as well as within universities. 2. We must engage more with stakeholder groups beyond the academy, striving towards the common goal of creating a better, more equal, and just world. 3. We must integrate internationalization with other agendas— disciplinary, professional, institutional, national, and regional—which are also focused on improving the quality of education and research for all students. Internationalization of the curriculum, teaching, learning, and service should not operate in a vacuum. 4. We must place emphasis on enhancing the quality of education and research for all students and staff in all parts of the world. This requires integrated policy and strategy as well as cooperation and partnership within and between institutions across the globe. Working towards inclusive international and intercultural learning for all means, according to them, that we become more respectful of diverse contexts, agendas, and perspectives on a global scale.

3

Key Trends

The following points emerge from this evolving concept of internationalization of higher education: 1. Increasing importance of internationalization in the higher education agenda; 2. Policy and practice of internationalization is no longer marginal and ad hoc but core to the agenda of higher education leaders; 3. Internationalization has become a broader agenda for all domains of higher education policy: research, teaching and learning, and relation to society;

194 4.

5.

6. 7.

4

de Wit

Internationalization no longer is the exclusive domain of senior internationalization officers (SIOs) and their offices, but more and more the responsibility of leaders in other administrative and academic departments; Internationalization for higher education leaders has become more than oversight of the SIO and his/her office, and signing of memorandums of understanding (MOUs); Budget implications are no longer marginal but substantial in both expenses and income; and For higher education leaders, internationalization is a key agenda issue at the sector and system level, nationally, regionally and globally (de Wit, 2018).

Implications for Institutional Strategies

The main focus in internationalization strategies and plans is still at the institutional level. Indeed, institutions operate in many cases without a national plan in place. Where national plans do exist, institutions may operate in conflict or in alignment with the national agenda. A national policy may serve as catalyst or a drag on internationalization processes, but are mostly seen as a highly positive element for the advancement of internationalization. They incentivize institutions and individuals to assist in meeting national strategic goals through internationalization. But overall, institutions are still the main agents that drive internationalization. According to most recent survey results from the still unpublished 5th Global Survey on Internationalization by the International Association of Universities (IAU), two-thirds of university leaders around the world are considering internationalization as an important agenda issue. Although Marinoni and de Wit (2019) note that there is an increasing divide between institutions that consider internationalization as of high importance and those that do not. They observe that The reasons for such a divide between HEIs that consider internationalization extremely important and those who do not is worth a reflection and deserves to be studied more in depth, especially if one considers internationalization to be an essential part of all HEIs’ mission and a sign of quality. The challenges that institutions encounter in their internationalization strategy are drivers. There is pressure for revenue generation, competition for

Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education

195

talents, and branding and reputation (rankings). There is pressure to focus on international research and publication, on recruitment of international students and scholars, and to use English as the language of research and instruction. These challenges and pressures conflict with a more inclusive and less elitist approach to internationalization, building on the needs and opportunities of an institution’s own students and staff. In other words, there are tensions between a short-term neoliberal approach to internationalization, focusing primarily on mobility and research, and a long-term comprehensive quality approach, global learning for all.

5

Intelligent Internationalization: A Complex but Highly Relevant Phenomenon

As noted by Streitwieser and Ogden (2016), “international higher education is a complex phenomenon that involves many different activities, players, institutions and realities” (p. 13). As internationalization and global engagement become entrenched around the world as mainstream components of quality in higher education, the need to ensure high quality professional preparation of those responsible for the internationalization agenda in their respective institutions or systems of higher education becomes more widespread and sustained. This is reflected well in the notion of intelligent internationalization, as expressed by Rumbley (2015): “Intelligent internationalization” demands the development of a thoughtful alliance between the research, practitioner, and policy communities. Those participating in the elaboration of internationalization activities and agendas [must] have access to the information, ideas, and professional skill-building opportunities that will enhance their ability to navigate the complex and volatile higher education environment of the next 20 years. (p. 17) In tandem, an updated definition of internationalization emerged, reflecting these broader understandings of the nature and purpose of internationalization: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (de Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron Polak, 2015, p. 29)

196

de Wit

In summary, the two quotes above indicate that intelligent internationalization for all needs to be directed towards enhancement of the quality of education and research and civic engagement through an alliance of key stakeholders: the researcher, the practitioner, and policy communities. I must confess that I have problems with labeling internationalization, as I already wrote in 2011 in reaction to the trend to label internationalization with adjectives like comprehensive, mainstream, deep, and others (de Wit, 2011). At the same time, adjectives can be useful to strengthen a direction, rationale, or approach: at home, abroad, and virtually. And that could be said of the adjective intelligent also, although what I wrote in 2011 about comprehensive internationalization can also be said of intelligent internationalization: internationalization that is not intelligent is not internationalization, so there is no need to add the adjective. But that would not do credit to the emphasis that Laura Rumbley places on internationalization through the adjective intelligent: the need for “high quality professional and academic preparation among those working in this field” to make internationalization work (Chapter 1, this volume). The many contributions to this publication illustrate the diverse ways contributors strive to make internationalization work in an intelligent way: from the perspective of scholars, practitioners, policymakers and advisors; from the perspectives of programs, institutions, national organizations, region entities, and international ones; from different regions and contexts around the globe, and with a broad range of perceptions, realities, and ambitions. That is the fascinating and constantly evolving world of internationalization and will continue to be so, even in the current inward looking political environment we are simultaneously facing. Intelligent internationalization also requires we address the tensions between local and global, national and international, looking back and looking ahead.

References Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2016). Internationalization and global tension: Lessons from history. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Global perspectives on higher education (pp. 73–78). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2017). Nationalism: The end of higher education internationalization? Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2017, September 15). The new nationalism and internationalisation of HE. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170914073027157

Intelligent Internationalization in Higher Education

197

de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe, a historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Greenwood Studies in Higher Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. de Wit, H. (2011, October 23). Naming internationalisation will not revive it. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/ post.php?story=20111021215849411 de Wit, H. (2018). Leadership challenges in higher education internationalisation: From ad hoc, marginal and fragmented to comprehensive requirements. In J. Beelen & J. Walenkamp (Eds.), Portraits and papers presented to Susana Menéndez on the occasion of her farewell as a member of the Executive Board of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (pp. 41–54). The Hague: Hague University of Applied Sciences. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: A study for the European Parliament. Brussels: European Parliament. de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E., & Jooste, N. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of internationalization, emerging voices and perspectives. London & New York, NY: Routledge. de Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The Sage handbook on international higher education (pp. 43–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hunter, F., & de Wit, H. (2016). The European landscape: A shifting perspective. Internationalization of Higher Education, A Handbook, 2, 49–68. Berlin: DUZ Academic Publishers. Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIE networker, 28–29. Kerr, C. (1994). Higher education cannot escape history: Issues for the twenty-first century (SUNY Series Frontiers in Education). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The Sage handbook on international higher education (pp. 27–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Leask, B., Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2018, December 7). Towards inclusive intercultural learning for all. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181205093157690 Marinoni, G., & de Wit, H. (2019, January 11). Is internationalization creating inequality in higher education? University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190109100925536

198

de Wit

Neave, G. (1997, April 7–9). The European dimension in higher education: An historical analysis. Relationship between Higher Education and the Nation-State Conference, Enschede, The Netherlands. Proctor, D., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.). (2018). The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice. London & New York, NY: Routledge. Rumbley, L. E. (2015). “Intelligent internationalization”: A 21st century imperative. International Higher Education, 80, 16–17. Rumbley, L. E. (2020). Intelligent internationalization: The shape of things to come. In K. A. Godwin & H. de Wit (Eds.), Intelligent internationalization: The shape of things to come (pp. 3–12). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Scott, P. (1998). Massification, internationalization and globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The globalization of higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Streitwieser, B., & Ogden, A. (Eds.). (2016). International higher education’s scholar-practitioners: Bridging research and practice. Oxford: Symposium Books. van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14, 249–259.