Internationalisation within the HE Sector Vicky Lewis Head

Internationalisation within the HE Sector Vicky Lewis Head of International & Corporate Relations Bournemouth University

Structure of session • Why this is of interest • Definitions and rationales for internationalisation • International and national context • BUILA survey responses – a snapshot of the state of play in UK HE in summer 2005 • Tentative conclusions – and further research • Discussion

How I got into this (1) • Huge variations in interpretation of, motivation for and approaches to international education activities around the world • Influence of external factors (e. g. September 11, 2001), government priorities (e. g. PMI) etc. on national and institutional agendas

How I got into this (2) • Variations even within one country, depending on institutional mission and vision • Thesis on UK HEI rationales for and approaches to internationalisation • Exploring good practice and developing a model which takes into account institutional mission and vision

Definitions (1) (Internationalisation of post-secondary education – at national or institutional level) “The process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, J. , 2003)

Definitions (2) (Integrated internationalism – working definition for purposes of BUILA survey) “The presence of an international or intercultural dimension in all core functions of the institution (students and learning, research, business and community relations), deliberately coordinated as part of a vision which clearly (and publicly) articulates the nature and focus of the institution’s international effort” (Lewis, V. , 2005)

Universities as inherently international? • Nature of academic endeavour and values to “escape inward-looking parochialism” and seek “relevance and confirmation not only on local or national but also on global levels”. (Sadlak, J. , 1998) • Academic motivation often combined with (obscured by? ) economic motivations

Rationales • Political / diplomatic (linked also to prestige / profile) • Economic / commercial • Social / cultural • Academic / educational

Global variations • USA: national security (Cold War – 9/11) • Australia: aid, then trade – now looking at it from a broader educational perspective? • UK: income generation (PMI) • Continental Europe: cooperation and cultural exchange (EU) • Many other non Anglo-Saxon nations: quality enhancement

UK national context • Commercially driven • PMI (Phase 1) success measured in numerical and cash terms • Lack of joining up (fragmentation) at national level • Df. ES International Strategy: “putting the world into world-class education” • Whose world? Continuing Anglo-centrism?

UK institutional context • Self-centred vs. outward-looking • Focus on partial or whole community • Gilligan’s argument for a change in managerial mindsets • Changes from bottom up – institutions further down the line than government?

My research • Two stages • BUILA Survey (done) – Snapshot of current state of play across sector • Institutional case studies (not yet done) – Opportunity to explore in greater depth the practice at those institutions perceived to be at the forefront of “integrated internationalism” – taking into account differences in mission and vision

Survey – respondent profile (1) • 54 individuals from 46 BUILA member institutions • 38% institutional response rate (42% if non. Uni HEIs excluded) • Profile of responding institutions by country – England – Scotland – Wales 72% 17% 11% • Pretty even spread in terms of size

Survey - respondent profile (2) • Profile of responding institutions by “type” – – – Russell Group 1994 Group Other pre-92 Post-92 Non-Uni HEI 13% 15% 28% 36% 7% • Respondents’ roles – Head / Director of IO – Int’l Recruitment / Marketing – Other 50% 44. 4% 5. 6%

Institutional rationales – practitioner perceptions (1) • 4 statements used as proxies for the 4 different rationales • Respondents asked to allocate 20 points across the 4 statements, so as to reflect the priority attached by their institution to each

Institutional rationales – practitioner perceptions (2) My institution is concerned with…. . • A – enhancing its international profile as a world class institution (Prestige / Political) • B – enhancing academic quality by ensuring that non Anglo-centric perspectives permeate the curriculum (Academic) • C – generating significant income from international sources (Economic) • D – equipping all its students (and staff) to operate effectively in a world where borderless careers and cross-cultural interaction are the norm (Social)

Institutional rationales – practitioner perceptions (3) Balance of rationales for UK HE sector Column 1 based on average points allocated to each rationale Column 2 based on proportion of respondents placing this rationale outright top in their ranking • • Economic Prestige Social Academic 38. 5% 30% 19. 5% 12% 62. 2% 33. 3% 4. 4% 0%

Institutional rationales – variations by type

Prominence of international dimension in missions and strategies (1) • Does your institutional mission statement use the word “international”, “internationalisation”, “global” or similar? – Yes 74% – No 18. 5% – Don’t know 7. 5% • Does your institution have a written internationalisation strategy? – Yes 33% – No 30% – Currently working on one 30% – Don’t know 7%

Prominence of international dimension in missions and strategies (2) • Relationship between internationalisation strategy and international student recruitment strategy – 58% - International recruitment strategy sub-strategy of internationalisation strategy – 25% - Internationalisation strategy just new name for international recruitment strategy – 8% - Internationalisation strategy sub-strategy of international recruitment strategy – 8% - Internationalisation strategy completely separate document from international recruitment strategy – 0% - Don’t have an international recruitment strategy • 50% of Russell Group and 31% of Post-92 sector respondents felt that their internationalisation strategy was just a new name for the international recruitment strategy

Institutional position of IO • Question: “What is the job title of the person to whom your Head/Director of International Office reports? ” – 26% - Director/Head of Marketing, External Relations, Corporate Relations or similar – 19% - Deputy VC, Pro VC, Deputy Principal, Vice Principal (no mention of “international” in designation) – 18% - Secretary/Registrar or equivalent – 9% - Dean with international responsibilities – 7% - Vice-Chancellor or Principal – 7% - Director/Head of Student Recruitment & Admissions or similar – 4% - Deputy VC, Pro VC, Deputy Principal, Vice Principal (“international” explicitly mentioned in designation) – 6% - Other (Deputy Registrar; Director of Strategic Development; Head of Schools Liaison & Careers) • Direct reporting to top management most prevalent in non-Uni HEIs (75%), then 1994 Group (43%), Post-92 (33%), other Pre 92 (27%), and least prevalent in Russell Group (0%)

Key benefits of internationalisation (1) • Respondents were asked what their top management team would consider top 3 benefits, then asked what they themselves consider top 3 benefits • Responses fell into four main categories (which can be linked to the rationales outlined earlier): – Diversification of student profile (Social / cultural rationale) – Enrichment of academic life (Academic rationale) – Generation of income (Economic rationale) – Improved positioning and profile (Prestige / political rationale) • Respondents felt top management teams would prioritise the economic benefits, though it was felt they also appreciated the social benefits (ahead of the prestige and academic ones) • Respondents themselves prioritised the social benefits, followed by economic and academic benefits, with prestige benefits least significant

Key benefits of internationalisation (2) • Representative range of comments: – “Enriched campus culture and enhanced employability of UK students by equipping them with intercultural skills” – “Diversifying income streams” – “Perspective on global issues – combatting prejudice, promoting peace and human rights” – “Contributes to achieving our aim to become a world class institution” • Additional comment: – “An increased focus on internationalisation has led to the International Office having a greater steer in the strategic planning process and in leading the internationalisation strategy. It has also led to the position of a Pro VC with internationalisation as one of his areas of responsibility”

Perceived best practice • Respondents were asked which one institution (excluding their own, but preferably of the same type as their own) they believe demonstrates the best practice in “integrated internationalism” – – 46% - named one institution 35% - don’t know 15% - none 4% - named more than one institution • The only institutions to receive a mention by multiple respondents were (in rank order): – University of Nottingham – University of Warwick – University of Westminster Various other institutions (mostly Post-92) received a single mention each

Additional comments (1) Key themes… • UK HEIs still have a long way to go: – “Probably none have achieved this [integrated internationalism] yet” • Achieving institutional coordination and oversight would be a start: – “There are many different international strands happening across the institution, but apart from the International Office whose main focus is increasing overseas student numbers, then there is no coordination of the internationalisation of all activity across the institution”

Additional comments (2) • There’s a need to shift from international recruitment to true internationalisation: – “I think as a sector there is a fundamental cultural shift that needs to be made from traditional approaches to international recruitment to internationalisation in its true sense. However, it’s critical if we are to keep pace with changes in overseas education markets” • It would be helpful to share good practice: – “I would be very interested in how institutions view integrated internationalisation and a ‘directory’ of best practice would be extremely useful”

UKCOSA session - triangulation • Opportunity to cross-check some aspects of survey via session delivered at UKCOSA conference • Different respondent profile • Same ranking of institutional rationales (Economic, Prestige, Social, Academic) • Greater focus on social (and academic) benefits, less on economic (and prestige) • Perceived benefits not explicitly mentioned by BUILA respondents: – Enhanced understanding between academic departments and support services within the institution – Improvement of student support services across the board – thanks to a more holistic view

Headline results and tentative conclusions • Ranking of institutional rationales for internationalisation (taking the UK HE sector as a whole) - as perceived by those involved in international education – appears to be: Economic, Prestige, Social, Academic • 74% of respondents’ institutional mission statements mention “international” (or similar) • 33% of respondents’ institutions currently have a written internationalisation strategy • 30% of Heads / Directors of IO report directly to a member of the top management team • Top management teams are perceived by practitioners to focus on the economic benefits of internationalisation • It is suggested that national priorities / funding arrangements drive this prioritisation of the economic rationale and benefits, but those on the ground appreciate the social and academic benefits – and see these as increasingly important concerns to ensure long-term sustainability

What next? • • Case studies of 3 or 4 institutions Interviews with key individuals Analysis of key documents Desired outcome: model for integrated internationalism which takes into account institutional mission and vision (and rationales) Questions / Discussion?