Data examined from “The EAIE Barometer: Signposts of Success” (2018)—specifically from among respondents who reported high levels of progress with respect to their international activities, confidence in their institution’s performance, and optimism about the future—exhibits some commonalities with respect to matters of motivation, organization, and execution. Aligning internationalization strategy with institutional mission, positioning the internationalization strategy and its supporting actors purposefully within the institution, and implementing agendas that are both expansive and meaningfully resourced seems to add up to a recipe for (self-reported) success

Hudson, Ross

Rumbley, Laura E.

Sandstrom, Anna-Malin

Boston College: Open Journal Systems

I N T E R N A T I O N A L  H I G H E R  E D U C A T I O N10five	years	typically	take	between	10	and	30	percent	longer	time	to	complete	their	studies	than	expected,	while	students	in	associate’s	degree	programs	overextend	their	studies	by	50	percent.	As	a	result,	every	year	tens	of	thousands	of	stu-dents	lose	their	benefits	in	the	final	leg	of	their	studies.Lastly,	 lest	 the	 expansion	 of	 first-year	 student	 enroll-ment	 across	 institutions	 with	 free	 tuition	 threaten	 fiscal	stability,	no	institution	is	allowed	to	increase	enrollment	be-yond	2.7	percent	per	year.	This	has	had	a	paradoxical	effect	on	access.	For	two	decades,	 the	main	driver	of	greater	ac-cess	to	higher	education	for	less	privileged	students	was	the	expansion	of	the	system,	often	at	rates	between	5	to	7	per-cent	per	year.	These	students	would	typically	not	wrest	away	the	most	coveted	places	in	the	most	prestigious	universities	from	upper	middle-class	students	with	better	school	grades	and	test	scores,	so	their	only	option	was	to	get	a	spot	in	the	technical	and	vocational	system,	or	in	nonselective	univer-sities.	They	can	still	do	this,	but	at	a	much	slower	rate	than	in	the	past.Unknown Outcomes All	 things	 considered,	 the	 ultimate	 judgment	 about	 the	merits	and	drawbacks	of	free	tuition	will	rest	on	the	evalu-ation	 of	 its	 effects	 on	 the	 distribution	 of	 educational	 op-portunity,	on	 institutional	finances	and	development,	and	on	who	wins	and	who	loses.	Administrative	data	generated	every	year	on	students’	applications,	admissions,	progres-sion,	and	graduation	will	soon	shed	light	on	the	educational	side	of	outcomes.	An	improved	methodology	for	defining	tuition	caps	will	be	implemented	in	2020,	through	a	panel	of	 experts	 who	 will	 attempt	 to	 define	 costs	 of	 instruction	per	“family”	of	programs.	This	adjustment,	 together	with	a	healthier	pattern	of	growth	of	the	Chilean	economy	and	tax	 revenues,	 may	 assuage	 the	 various	 rectors’	 anxieties	about	 finances.	 But	 for	 now,	 the	 seemingly	 popular	 free	tuition	policy	stands	alone,	supported	only	by	its	powerful	entrenchment	and	the	difficulty	of	change.	“Successful”	International-ization:	European	InsightsLaura E. Rumbley, Ross Hudson, and Anna-Malin SandströmLaura E. Rumbley is associate director, Knowledge Development & Research, Ross Hudson is senior knowledge officer, and Anna-Malin Sandström is policy officer at the European Association for Internation-al Education, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mails: rumbley@eaie.org, hudson@eaie.org, and sandstrom@eaie.org. This article is based on a report by the authors, The	EAIE	Ba-rometer:	Signposts	of	Success, published by the European As-sociation for International Education in April 2019 and avail-able at www.eaie.org/barometer.Discussions	around	internationalization	in	higher	edu-cation	 in	 Europe	 and	 elsewhere	 are	 increasingly	 fo-cused	 on	 understanding	 the	 impact	 that	 internationaliza-tion	 has,	 as	 well	 as	 the	 processes	 that	 higher	 education	institutions	 (HEIs)	 should	 follow	 in	 order	 to	 reach	 their	internationalization	(and	related)	goals.	The	 growing	 importance	 of	 the	 international	 dimen-sion	has	led	HEIs	to	take	more	strategic	approaches	to	the	development	and	delivery	of	internationalization.	In	order	to	 equip	 the	 professionals	 charged	 with	 developing	 and	implementing	 institutional	 internationalization	 strategies	in	the	European	Higher	Education	Area	(EHEA)	with	the	most	 appropriate	 evidence	 to	 inform	 their	 decision-mak-ing,	the	European	Association	for	International	Education	(EAIE)	produced	the	EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (second edition) report	in	2018.	The	survey	on	which	the	 report	 is	 based	 collected	 responses	 from	 2317	 profes-sionals	working	directly	on	internationalization	at	1292	in-dividual	HEIs	in	45	EHEA	countries.More	recently,	data	collected	for	the	Barometer	exercise	provided	the	foundation	for	a	follow-up	consideration:	how	is	 internationalization	 designed,	 delivered,	 and	 sustained	by	those	institutions	where	respondents	reported	high	lev-els	of	progress	with	respect	to	their	international	activities,	confidence	 in	 their	 institution’s	 performance,	 and	 opti-mism	about	the	future?	Do	the	ways	in	which	these	insti-tutions	approach	internationalization	provide	“signposts	of	success”	for	others?	Although	defining	success	objectively	may	be	an	elusive	and	highly	contextual	exercise,	our	con-sideration	of	 the	Barometer	data	 found	that	 those	 institu-tions	 that	 perceive	 that	 they	 are	 on	 firm	 footing	 with	 re-spect	to	internationalization	exhibit	some	commonalities	in	Number 98:  Summer 2019International Higher Education	would	like	to	thank	the	Carnegie	Cor-poration	of	New	York	(CCNY)	for	its	support	of	coverage	of	higher	education	in	Africa	and	for	its	general	support	of	our	publication.	CCNY	has	long	recognized	the	importance	of	higher	education	in	Africa	 and	 beyond,	 and	 this	 generosity	 significantly	 enables	 both	our	work	 as	well	 as	 that	 of	 our	partner	 at	 the	University	 of	Kwa-Zulu-Natal	in	South	Africa,	home	to	the	International	Network	for	Higher	Education	in	Africa	(INHEA).I N T E R N A T I O N A L  H I G H E R  E D U C A T I O N 11several	areas,	notably	with	respect	to	matters	of	motivation,	organization,	and	execution.Success as a Matter of MotivationWhen	it	comes	to	perceptions	of	success	among	HEIs,	the	rationale	 for	 internationalization	 seems	 to	 make	 a	 differ-ence.	More	specifically,	our	analysis	of	the	Barometer	data	found	that,	where	an	institution’s	primary	focus	is	under-stood	 to	 be	 on	 increasing	 the	 quality	 of	 research	 or	 im-proving	 the	 quality	 of	 education,	 respondents	 were	 more	optimistic	about	the	future	of	internationalization	at	their	HEI	than	their	colleagues	at	institutions	reporting	financial	gains	as	the	primary	goal	for	internationalization.	Those	at	institutions	where	the	academic	mission	was	the	focal	point	for	internationalization	were	also	inclined,	at	higher	rates,	to	think	that	their	institution	was	above	average	in	relation	to	others	in	their	same	country.The	 lack	 of	 optimism	 and	 lower	 sense	 of	 superlative	performance	among	respondents	at	 institutions	reporting	a	central	focus	on	financial	benefits	could	stem	from	a	va-riety	of	sources.	The	need	to	prioritize	monetary	gain	could	reflect	a	precarious	financial	outlook	for	a	given	institution,	which	in	turn	could	impact	detrimentally	on	respondents’	confidence	in	the	future	of	internationalization	in	that	con-text.	 The	 emphasis	 on	 the	 financial	 dimensions	 of	 inter-nationalization	 by	 some	 institutions	 may	 also	 be	 seen	 as	standing	at	odds	with	the	traditional	emphasis	of	higher	ed-ucation	on	educational	endeavors.	This,	too,	could	lead	re-spondents	to	conclude	that	their	institution’s	performance	with	 respect	 to	 internationalization	 is	 less	 robust	 than	 at	institutions	 where	 the	 academic	 mission	 is	 more	 closely	connected	to	the	internationalization	agenda.Success as a Matter of OrganizationThe	 ways	 in	 which	 institutions	 choose	 to	 organize	 their	strategic	 approaches	 to	 internationalization	 also	 seem	 to	have	an	impact	on	the	perception	of	success.	For	example,	47	percent	of	respondents	at	institutions	with	a	standalone	internationalization	strategy	and	43	percent	of	those	at	in-stitutions	 with	 an	 internationalization	 strategy	 embedded	in	an	overall	institutional	strategy	considered	that	the	level	of	 internationalization	at	 their	 institution	was	above	aver-age,	compared	to	other	institutions	in	their	same	country.	In	contrast,	 just	26	percent	of	respondents	at	 institutions	with	strategies	situated	exclusively	at	the	faculty	level	(i.e.,	the	school	or	college	 level	within	a	university)	considered	their	institution	to	be	above	average	in	their	national	con-text.Similarly,	 those	 whose	 institutions	 carry	 out	 their	 in-ternationalization	agendas	using	multiple	offices	working	in	coordination—as	opposed	to	a	single	centralized	office,	multiple	 offices	 working	 independently,	 or	 individuals	working	in	a	noncoordinated	fashion—were	most	likely	to	feel	that	their	HEI	was	performing	above	average	in	inter-nationalization.	They	were	also	more	prone	to	report	 that	progress	was	being	made	on	their	institution’s	priority	ac-tivities	for	internationalization.	However,	the	latter	does	not	hold	for	all	internationalization	activities,	which	is	perhaps	understandable,	as	different	activities	benefit	to	varying	de-grees	from	different	structures	and	resources.The	specifics	of	where	an	internationalization	strategy	“lives”	within	 the	 institution	and	where	 responsibility	 for	the	international	agenda	resides	both	seem	to	have	an	im-pact	on	the	way	individuals	at	European	HEIs	perceive	suc-cessful	performance	with	respect	to	internationalization.Success as a Matter of ExecutionBeyond	 matters	 of	 why	 and	 how	 the	 most	 confident	 and	optimistic	 European	 HEIs	 choose	 to	 internationalize,	 the	question	of	what	they	do	to	support	their	internationaliza-tion	efforts	is	also	salient.	Our	consideration	of	the	Barom-eter	 data	 points	 to	 several	 key	 areas	 in	 which	 a	 focus	 on	specific	action	lines	seems	to	influence	a	sense	of	success.	Specifically,	committing	to	a	broad	portfolio	of	priority	ac-tivities;	 establishing	 targets,	 providing	 funding,	 and	 sup-porting	training	for	staff	in	relation	those	priority	activities;	and	 undertaking	 both	 strategy	 evaluation	 and	 systematic	quality	assurance	activities,	are	all	salient	to	this	discussion.	To	a	greater	or	lesser	extent,	at	institutions	where	respon-dents	 report	 commitments	 to	 these	 areas,	 there	 is	 a	 ten-dency	for	them	to	indicate	that	they	see	progress	in	relation	to	the	identified	priority	activities.	There	are	generally	also	higher	levels	of	confidence	in	the	future	of	internationaliza-tion	among	respondents	at	these	institutions	and	a	sense	of	outperforming	peer	institutions	in	the	same	country.	Overall,	where	European	institutions	think	broadly	and	specifically	 about	 their	 internationalization	 agendas,	 nur-ture	 these	 aspirations	 with	 resources,	 and	 evaluate	 their	Number 98:  Summer 2019The growing importance of the interna-tional dimension has led HEIs to take more strategic approaches to the devel-opment and delivery of internationaliza-tion.I N T E R N A T I O N A L  H I G H E R  E D U C A T I O N12 Number 98:  Summer 2019quality	and	progress,	the	sense	of	successful	engagement	in	the	internationalization	process	among	their	staff	is	more	palpable.Have We Found the Magic Formula? No, but…It	is	a	commonly	accepted	truism	that	there	is	no	“one	size	fits	all”	model	for	internationalization	of	HEIs.	Our	analysis	does	not	intend	to	contradict	that	notion,	but	it	does	point	to	some	possible	commonalities	when	it	comes	to	approaches	taken	by	European	HEIs	that	consider	themselves	to	be	in	relatively	strong	positions	with	respect	to	internationaliza-tion.	Of	 course,	 “signposts	of	 success”	may	point	us	 in	a	general	 direction,	 but	 the	 specifics	 of	 why	 an	 institution	thrives—or	 not—with	 respect	 to	 its	 internationalization	performance	remains	a	complex	question.	Still,	operating	from	a	starting	point	that	aligns	squarely	with	institutional	mission,	positioning	strategy	and	its	supporting	actors	pur-posefully	within	the	institution,	and	implementing	agendas	that	are	both	expansive	and	meaningfully	resourced	seems	to	add	up	to	a	recipe	for	(self-reported)	success.	Is	Strategic	Internationaliza-tion	a	Reality?Giorgio Marinoni and Hans de WitGiorgio Marinoni is manager, Higher Education and Internationaliza-tion policy and projects, International Association of Universities (IAU), Paris, France. E-mail: g.marinoni@iau-aiu.net. Hans de Wit is director of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) at Boston Col-lege, US, and member of the IAU Advisory Committee for the 5th IAU Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education. E-mail: dewitj@bc.edu. The full report of the 5th IAU Global Survey will be published by DUZ Academic Publishers in the coming months.The	 internationalization	 of	 higher	 education	 is	 a	 phe-nomenon	that	has	implications	far	beyond	the	domain	of	higher	education;	it	 impacts	society	at	large.	According	to	the	definition	of	Jane	Knight,	updated	in	2015	by	de	Wit	and	others,	 internationalization	 is	“an	 intentional	process	undertaken	by	higher	education	institutions	in	order	to	en-hance	the	quality	of	education	and	research	for	all	students	and	staff,	and	to	make	a	meaningful	contribution	to	soci-ety.”	 Assuming	 that	 internationalization	 is	 an	 intentional	process,	 the	question	arising	 is:	how	strategic	 is	 this	pro-cess?	 In	other	words,	 is	 internationalization	at	HEIs	sup-ported	by	a	defined	strategy,	with	clear	objectives,	actions,	and	point	persons,	framed	within	a	realistic	timeline,	and	supported	by	the	necessary	(human	and	financial)	resourc-es?	Is	this	strategy	monitored	and	are	outcomes	evaluated?	And	 in	 the	 current	 political	 climate	 of	 antiglobalization,	anti-immigration,	and	increasing	nationalism,	to	what	ex-tent	is	this	strategy	still	relevant	and	up	to	date?	The	results	of	the	5th	Global	Survey	on	Internationalization	of	Higher	Education,	an	online	survey	conducted	by	the	International	Association	of	Universities	(IAU)	in	2018,	help	us	address	these	questions.	The	 survey	 was	 based	 upon	 replies	 from	 907	 HEIs	across	126	countries	worldwide.	For	that	survey,	HEIs	were	asked	to	state	whether	internationalization	was	mentioned	in	 their	 mission/strategic	 plan.	 A	 clear	 majority	 replied	that	 it	was.	This	 is	a	sign	of	how	internationalization	has	become	widespread	among	HEIs	around	the	globe,	but	 it	does	not	reveal	how	strategic	their	approach	is.Having a Strategy Does Not Mean Having a Strategic ApproachThe	presence	of	a	strategy	does	not	necessarily	align	with	a	strategic	approach	to	internationalization	if	there	are	no	activities	to	implement	it	and	support	structures	in	place,	if	the	strategy	is	not	monitored,	and	if	progress	is	not	evalu-ated.	The	IAU	survey	indicates	that	the	internationalization	policy/strategy	 is	 institution-wide	 in	 almost	 all	 HEIs	 that	indicated	having	elaborated	one.	The	presence	of	an	office	or	a	team	in	charge	of	overseeing	the	implementation	of	the	policy/strategy	is	widespread,	as	is	the	inclusion	of	an	in-ternational	dimension	in	other	institutional	policies/strate-gies/plans.	The	presence	of	a	monitoring	 framework	and	of	explicit	targets	and	benchmarks	is	slightly	lower,	but	still	present	at	almost	three-quarters	of	the	responding	institu-tions,	and	a	budgetary	provision	is	present	at	two-thirds	of	them.These	results	seem	to	indicate	that	a	strategic	approach	to	internationalization	is	indeed	common	at	the	majority	of	HEIs	in	the	world.	However,	previous	IAU	Global	Surveys	included	 the	 very	 same	 questions,	 and	 an	 analysis	 of	 the	evaluation	of	results	over	time	unveils	additional	informa-tion.	A	clear	growth	of	the	presence	of	a	policy/strategy	at	HEIs	can	be	 identified.	The	same	 is	 true	 for	 the	percent-age	of	HEIs	having	a	dedicated	office	or	team	to	implement	the	 policy/strategy.	 In	 the	 present	 survey,	 this	 percentage	reaches	89	percent,	an	increase	of	25	percentage	points	in	15	years.

“Successful” Internationalization: European Insights

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Boston College: Open Journal Systems