Post on 26-Feb-2023
Soft Power and Cultural Exchange: Assessing the Global Influence of U.S.-hosted Higher Educational Exchange Programs
Dr. Chris J. Dolan
Courtney L. Escudero
Lebanon Valley College 101. N. College Avenue
Annville, PA 17003 717-867-6740
dolan@lvc.edu cle003@lvc.edu
Abstract: American policy makers have long promoted U.S.-hosted educational exchange programs in supporting the development of liberal values and norms throughout the world. This study argues that student exchange programs can be seen as expressions of American soft power and global integration. It reviews the global studies literature regarding students who study in the U.S. and American students who study abroad as well the research on international connectivity and global cultural influence through student exchange. The examination then constructs a theoretical framework using a human-centric approach to argue that student exchange programs have long-term consequences for peace building and cooperation, as well as for mutual learning, conflict resolution, development, and the enhancement of human security. It relies on empirical data generated from the Open Doors 2012 Report on International Educational Exchange and reports from the U.S. State Department’s 100,000 Strong initiative to assess the extent of “internationalization” or the number of inbound students and outgoing students studying abroad. The study concludes that exchange students who are well educated typically have high exposure and connectivity to the global community, which enhances the extent of American soft power and global influence. Keywords: U.S. foreign policy; educational exchange; soft power; integration; peace building; cooperation
1
"we're also expanding cultural and educational exchanges among young people... On every issue, the world turns to us, not simply because of the size of our economy or our military might – but because of
the ideals we stand for, and the burdens we bear to advance them." - President Barrack Obama, 2014 State of the Union
Internationalization & Global Education
The topic of internationalization, which involves “integrating an international, intercultural, or global
dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight 2003: 2), has been
an issue of concern for many years within the U.S. educational system. The world is changing rapidly,
and in doing so has become more interdependent. Once isolated communities are now able to
communicate and have economic exchange with areas around the globe. This interdependence has made
it necessary for individuals in the United States, as well as all countries of the world, to have a more
comprehensive understanding of inclusion.
Research in the area of internationalization of higher education has grown not only in the quantitative
sense, but also thematically against other focal points in the studies of higher education. According to
Kehm and Teichler (2007), research on the internationalization of higher education has grown over recent
years. Bonfiglio (1999) discusses the realities and, consequently, difficulties faced by college students
today in an ever more globalized and interconnected world. The article then goes on to outline and discuss
in depth the five challenges that have inhibited colleges and universities from realizing an
internationalized curriculum. These five challenging factors include shifting societal purposes and
directions, governmental constraints, institutional structures that block change, theoretical assumptions
about failures, and ultimately lack of data to support necessary change. Bonfiglio (1999) concludes that
despite such challenges institutions must work to provide an internationalized curriculum that is more
than just a collection of courses, but rather a preparatory measure for students as they enter into life and
work in a global society in which they are acting participants.
American colleges and universities have been the preferred destination for students from around
the world (Hayward 2000). However, more recently, opportunities have become available for students to
obtain quality higher education in their own countries or by studying in nation-states other than the U.S.
2
Black and Duhon (2006) contend that study abroad programs have the potential to enhance cross-cultural
tolerance and empathy.
The rising trend of fact-based learning in American high schools has contributed to a lack of
global awareness in college and university education. Memorizing facts about other cultures will likely
not lead to an actual understanding of those cultures, especially for first year students (Mahoney and
Schamber 2004). The ideal model for an intercultural curriculum incorporates role-playing exercises and
independent research. It was found that this type of curriculum changes the perspective of students
towards difference from one that trivializes it to one that acknowledges difference as important and
desirable. The study discussed in this article found that: “a general education curriculum employing
analysis and evaluation of cultural difference is more effective in improving students’ levels of
intercultural sensitivity than a curriculum employing comprehension of cultural difference” (Mahoney
and Schamber 2004: 332). It is clear that classroom lectures alone will not teach the tolerance and
empathy necessary to be successful in an increasingly global society.
To alleviate declining educational status in the U.S. as well to address a lack of understanding of
non-U.S. culture and political and economic systems, higher education needs to provide an environment
that will allow students to appreciate and comprehend global cultures and institutions. Thus, campus
cultures institutions around the globe are striving to develop this atmosphere by incorporating
international education into not only the curriculum but also within the culture of the institution.
Therefore, internationalization within higher education institutions is a growing trend, not only in the U.S.
but around the world (Altbach 2002).
Internationalization of education, in particular higher education, has received broad support from
both government officials and the general public. Students attending higher education institutions also
express interest in coursework and travel opportunities related to increasing global perspectives (Hayward
2000; Siaya & Hayward 2003). Around the globe, educating individuals about the complex issues of the
world around them has become a priority. However, there are a number of concerns among countries and
regions when looking at the process that leads to globalization, or “the flow of technology, economy,
3
knowledge, people, values, and ideas . . . across borders” (Knight 2003: 10). One challenge is contending
with brain drain, which occurs when skilled professionals leaves home countries in search of employment
and opportunities in another country. Many times this search for opportunities occurs in the country
where an individual attains higher education, denying the home country the value of the student s learning
(Kwok & Leland, 1982). Another area of concern for countries is the loss of cultural identity due to
globalization. As globalization occurs, the world becomes more alike. Still, globalization continues as an
unimpeded trend in higher education throughout the world (Altbach 2002)
For Altbact and Knight (2007), the scholarly community should clear up confusion between the
internationalization and globalization with the former concerned with institutional processes in higher
education and the latter with outcomes. He then examines the internationalization of education throughout
various areas of the world and the successes and challenges found in each. He concludes that
internationalism in higher education will remain a central force despite uncertainties that he outlines that
may affect the pace with which growth in the area is realized. Some of these uncertainties include the role
of e-learning, cost of study, and the role of English as a medium of research throughout the world.
Stohl (2007) makes the argument that one of the largest factors in the internationalization of
higher education is the role that faculty plays in its development and implementation. According to his
research institutions have provided opportunities for student mobility, but faculty commitment has been a
sticking point on many occasions. To promote the interest on the part of the faculty towards a more
internationalized curriculum the activities surrounding it must focus on the ideas of learning and
discovery. This will only happen by clearly communicating the intent, the outcomes, the risks, and the
rewards of such curricular change.
Perhaps such change would lead to more globally savvy graduates to help Americans compete in
the globalized economy. Unfortunately, no standard structure has been developed to address international
learning needs. Therefore, it has become difficult to measure internationalization in the context of
education. One of the reasons for such difficulty is that no standard definition exists for the term
internationalization. Across the spectrum of postsecondary institutions, various practices exist that
4
provide what is referred to as “internationalization” within these colleges and universities, but the
practices differ in both form and intent (Abdullahi, Kajberg, & Virkus, 2007).
As Qiang (2003) has made clear, higher education can no longer be looked as something of
national interest but one with international characteristics. Students must be prepared to enter the work
field in what is more now than ever a global society. The research is outlined around four approaches that
have been taken in the internationalization of higher education and the rationale behind pursuing such
approaches be it political, economic, or academic. He concludes that the most successful way by which to
implement a more internationalized curriculum is to make adjustments to existing programs whilst also
implementing new ones all of which are subject to a consistent process of review.
Research also demonstrates the benefits of creating and implementing international studies
programs in promoting the value of intercultural and international education for students (e.g., Johnston
and Edelstein, 1993; Kohls and Knight, 1994; Lambert, 1994; Latham and Dalton, 1999). According to
Blanton (2009), the amount of international studies programs has increased with the number of
international studies majors having doubled over the last several years (see: Manzo 2005). It is
increasingly recognized that global learning should be a fundamental component of the undergraduate
core curriculum to “successfully prepare students to live … in a dramatically changing world” (Hovland
2005: 1).
Several studies examine the academic underpinnings and significance of international studies
programs at the undergraduate level. Blanton (2009) surveys directors of IS programs to assess such
factors as levels of popularity among students, academic structure, and administrative and institutional
components. He concludes that while IS programs remain popular among undergraduates and colleges
and universities are generally sympathetic to internationalization, there is a “definite gap between the
level of support and the increased administrative demands that accompany growing programs” (2009:
225; see? Hey 2004 and Lambert 2001). Ishiyama and Breuning (2004) identify broader variables that
determine degrees of support for IS programs, especially the size of the college or university, if there is a
religious affiliation with the institution, and whether the institution is located near a major city. One study
5
links the visibility of IS programs to the extent to which IS directors actually market themselves to
possible majors (Breuning and Ishiyama (2007) while others have examined the effectiveness of program
websites (Ishiyama and Breuning 2004; Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006).
Studies (AACU 1991; Breuning and Ishiyama 2004; Ishiyama and Breuning 2004; Wahlke 1991)
have shown there is little consensus regarding the fundamental components of an international studies
undergraduate curriculum. McCaughey (1983) maintains the goal is to make sure that international
studies programs take full advantage of the breadth and interdisciplinary value of general education. In
other words, international studies programs should consist of courses geared toward reflecting general
interests, cross-national comparisons and multi-disciplinary interests, foreign languages and world
cultures, and theoretical interests. The intention is to offer opportunities to globally-oriented students by
linking courses across a curriculum, building on emerging college-wide strengths, and allowing students
flexibility in selecting short-term or full semester Study Abroad programs.
Given the monumental changes in the global system following the end of the Cold War, empirical
research recommends that students must be exposed to the distinctive mix of global integration and
disintegration in the 21st Century (Mittleman 2002). The interdisciplinary nature of global programs
means that the distinction between states and non-states, domestic and international realms, and the
principles of social, political, and economic organization have become difficult to enforce (Rosenau 1997;
Shaw 1999). Moreover, technological advances have dramatically shrunk the effects of distance and
increased the dynamism and interconnectedness of the international system. Survival and success in these
emergent conditions require greater global awareness and more refined analytic and communications
skills than in the past.
A number of scholars have identified constraints faced by those who participate in global
programs. While global studies is a theoretically and methodologically diverse program (Hermann 1998;
Brecher 1999), Blanton (2009) contends that the interdisciplinary nature of the field “has exhibited
somewhat of an ‘identity crisis’ over the years.” In particular, Hey (2004) argues that global programs
have become largely influenced by political science. The problem may be that most global programs are
6
not organized with a specific academic department and include courses from programs across the
humanities and social sciences (Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006).
Galvan (2006) proposes that an international perspective be added to existing courses, rather than
attempting to build a completely new curriculum. It is crucial that perspectives of countries other than the
U.S. are discussed when analyzing an issue, whether historical or current. An emphasis should be placed
on the extent to which people and political systems are interconnected, the impact of history on current
events, and how values vary among cultures.
However, for Sperandio and Grudzinski-Hall (2010) a strong “Undergraduate Global Citizen
Program” should place an emphasis on: experiential and co-curricular learning, focused travel abroad, and
faculty involvement in course development. As other research has found, students can only truly
understand other cultures by engaging in learning about them, not just memorizing facts. The article
offers a definition of global competence: a focus on “gaining knowledge, perspectives, and skills that a
student would bring to bear on situational decision making rather than decision making based on previous
thought or conjecture” (19). The importance of a cross-cultural or globalized education is that students
will be able to think from perspectives outside of their own personal experiences.
Student Exchange Programs as Transnational Channels of Norms and Ideas
These broader global trends and shifts will define the parameters that shape the development of
knowledge economies through international education initiatives. Research demonstrates that students in
higher education exchange programs are likely to return home with a more positive view of the nation-
state in which they studied, the people with whom they interacted, and the ideas they absorbed. There is
an even stronger likelihood that they will use newly found knowledge and experiences to improve the
political, economic, and social conditions in their home nation-state country (Wilson and Bonilla 1955;
Watson and Lippitt 1958; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, and Cook 1963; Wang 1991; Richmond 2003; Miller
2006). Qian Ning, who hails from China and studied at the University of Michigan, stated, “our
experiences made us see that there are alternative ways for China to develop and for us to lead our
7
personal lives. Being in the United States made us realize that things in China can be different” (Qian
1997:38).
Even more, U.S. academic programs create a more positive global image for the U.S. and
increase the level of “international communication which may indirectly reinforce the democratic values
and orientations of program participants” (Miller 2006:26). Indeed, according to one observer, “One of
the most effective mechanisms for the dissemination of democratic ideals is international educational
exchange” (Williams 2004:36). The long-term goal of education exchange programs is to socialize
potential elite policymakers. According to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (2006), “every
foreign student attending one of our universities represents an opportunity to enhance democracy in
America and to strengthen the cause of freedom abroad.”
Cultural exchange programs influence the extent of students’ attitudes and toward the host
country (Miller 2006; Sunal and Sunal 1991; Ye 2001). The extent of foreign students’ social and
academic experiences as well as personal connections and interactions while studying and living in the
U.S. contributed to more favorable perspectives and attitudes toward the U.S. and U.S. American culture
(Selltiz et al. 1963). Sunal and Sunal (1991) observe similar results for U.S. students participating in
college and university level study abroad programs as well as U.S. Americans in the Fulbright program
who made contacts with students, scholars, and practitioners they met while abroad. In particular, Sunal
and Sunal (1991:118) contend that U.S. Americans experienced a deep personal impact while, for
instance, studying in Africa, which contributed to a “lasting interest in Africa, scholarly activity relating
to African topics, and long-term professional contact with African academics.” A challenge for many
developed nation-states will be to provide additional outreach to developing regions where most future
economic growth will likely take place.
Researchers have also maintained that the value of students being actively involved in college
communities and developed a shared identity and affiliation with citizens in the host country (Selltiz et al.
1963; Ye 2001). U.S. sponsored higher education exchanges provide both non-U.S. and U.S. American
8
students with a framework for developing and maintaining deep and lasting relationships that have the
potential of building positive attitudes toward both home and host country (Akerlof and Kranton 2005).
However, to exercise influence in one’s home country, the student studying and living in the U.S.
must return home in order to address and/or transform social, economic, and political events and
institutions. Indeed, the conditions of these events and institutions will determine whether or not
university and college-level students actually do return home (Sunal and Sunal 1991; Ye 2001). For
example, while many students from China study abroad to the U.S. or matriculate as international
students in a U.S. university or college, many do not return home and are therefore unable to exercise any
measure of direct influence in Chinese politics (Wang 1991; Ye 2001). According to Wang (1991:300–
301), over the last thirty years, “Of about 80,000 students and scholars who came to the United States
between 1979 and 1989, only 26,000 have returned, most of them before 1986.” Those students who
remain in the U.S. are cite non-academic reasons for staying in the U.S., making it less likely to advance
and promote U.S. ideas in their home country.
Regardless, there remains and will continue to be a tremendous need in the U.S. for
understanding other cultures, economic systems, and policies, since the world community is sustained by
students seeking to learn, study, and possibly return as global ambassadors to their home country
(Johnson, 2002). This speaks to the cosmopolitan nature of global politics and society, which rest on
assumptions that people possess equal rights and freedoms to access knowledge and pursue educational
opportunities regardless of social and economic condition. Since cosmopolitanism perceives the world in
terms of people and not states, there is an inherent notion of a common global society comprised of
communities that transcend national borders. Conceptions of a common humanity and world community
connected through universal norms should diminish the argument that educational exchange programs are
drawbacks to a nation’s cultural appeal, attractiveness, and soft power.
9
Soft Power and Appeal: Conceptualizing and Measuring the Extent of the Influence and Attractiveness of U.S. Education
Hosting strong educational exchange programs is an effective way for the U.S. to exercise soft power
with others as it has the demonstrated potential to exercise influence over others as well as socialize
students with its core cultural values and economic institutions and practices. Soft power is the ability of
global actors to attain goals and interests by increasing the level of admiration and emulation others have
toward them (Nye 2004). According to Nye, “In international politics, the resources that produce soft
power arise in large part from the values an organization or country expresses in its culture, in the
examples it sets by its internal practices and policies, and in the way it handles relations with others” (Nye
2004:8). In order to build its level of soft power, global actors, mainly nation-states, seek to share their
intangible resources, such as ideologies, values, and cultural norms, as well as tangible goods and
resources, with others in order to build influences relative to others and power within the world system.
The degree of soft power wielded by any nation-state can help build levels of trust and goodwill
as it involves the ability of both political elites and the public to sway others with the nation’s ideological
appeal and cultural attractiveness. Ideology and culture are used as a framework to influence and shape
the preferences of other actors, states and publics alike, and set the policy agenda. The potential to
influence governments and shape global perceptions with its cultural appeal and ideas can be powerful
tools in the foreign policy powers of any nation-state, not just the U.S. (1990c: 166-7).
In a report entitled, The New Persuaders II, McClory (2012) provides a ranking of the various
types of soft power resources within leading nations. The soft power index, along with five specific sub-
indices, might provide us with a more comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages
within a nation’s soft power arsenal, thereby determining the extent to which nations exercise influence
relative to other global actors (states and non-states). These five sub-indices are listed in the table below
and include: government, diplomacy, culture, education, and business/innovation. Government captures
political values such as democracy, pluralism, and human rights, as well as specific policy outcomes and
the institutional effectiveness of government structures. Culture is the most direct sub-index within soft
10
power, since it is the actual manifestation and expression of social norms and core values shaped by both
people and institutions. Diplomacy involves the networks and institutions states build and maintain over
time to exercise outreach and project influence within the political systems of other states. Education is
driven mainly by the various aspects of higher education, namely a nation’s ability to attract foreign
students with academic resources and produce high quality scholarly research. Rounding out the soft
power index is Business/Innovation, which involves the level of global appeal of a nation’s economic
system and its capacity for innovation. Not exclusively focused on economic production and outputs, this
sub-index is concerned mainly with the economic legal structures, competitiveness, economic institutions
and policies, regulations, and innovation.
The Education sub-index aims to capture these factors and includes measures on the number of
foreign students in a country and the relative quality of its universities. The extent to which the U.S. can
attract international students and facilitate educational exchanges is a reflection of its ability to conduct
public diplomacy around the world (Miller 2006). Atkinson (2010) argues that reputational gains can be
produced for host countries when non-U.S. students return to their home country, given that exchange
programs have beneficial “ripple effects” on students (Olberding and Olderding 2010).
Top Ten Nations by Soft Power Sub Index Rank Government Culture Diplomacy Education Business/Innovation 1 Sweden U.S. France U.S. Singapore 2 Norway U.K. U.K. U.K. Sweden 3 Denmark France Germany Germany Finland 4 Switzerland Australia U.S. France Switzerland 5 Finland Spain Sweden Canada Denmark 6 New Zealand Germany Norway Australia Netherlands 7 Netherlands China Netherlands China Germany 8 Australia Italy Canada Japan Belgium 9 Canada Canada Italy Netherlands South Korea
10 Austria Russia Switzerland South Korea Japan
Source: 2011 IfG-Monocle Soft Power Index
New Persuaders II also developed an education sub-index in soft power that focuses specifically
on aspects of higher education, namely the ability of nations to appeal to international students based on
the relative quality of its colleges and universities and the significance of academic research.
11
Education Sub Index
Source: McClory (2011)
Education is a reflection of a nation’s culture. Nye defines culture as the “set of practices that create
meaning for a society” (Nye 2004). According to McClory (2011: 10), education along with literature, art,
film, music, and television, is considered a driver of culture and, consequently, one of the most important
factors in exercising soft power and the accumulation of influence in the much broader soft power
context.
We should note that measuring the extent of soft power within the foreign policy powers of a
nation-state is certainly not an exact science. The New Persuaders II study (McClory 2011) reports
various soft power drivers for the top nations (U.S. U.K., and France) with the U.S. leading in the
comprehensive category of culture and far ahead of all other countries in education. The U.S. is also the
world’s leading exporter of films, music, and television. The huge global demand for U.S. cultural
products and outputs helps guarantee that the so-called U.S. “American brand” is powerful and attractive
around the world (Joffe 2001; Nye 2004). Not only are U.S.-based academics on the cutting edge of
research and scholarship, colleges and universities in the U.S. are perceived as high quality institutions of
higher education that attract non-U.S. students. U.S. higher education institutions dominate the Times
Higher Education Top 200 rankings and, because of this, the U.S. attracts more international students than
any other nations. In fact, U.S. colleges and universities lure twice as many international students than the
next nation on the list, the U.K. (McClory 2011: 116). In fact, there are seventy-three former and current
Metric Definition Source Quality of Primary and Secondary Education
PISA Scores Education at a Glance 2011, OECD
Quality of Universities The number of universities in the Times Higher Education Global Universities Top 200
“World University Rankings 2011-2012” Times Higher Education, Thomson Reuters
Foreign Students Number of Foreign Students studying in a given country
“Global Education Digest 2011”, UNESCO Institute for Statistics; “Education at a Glance 2011”, OECD
Academic Publishing Number of articles published in academic journals by country of lead author (averaged across five major subjects)
Thomson Reuters Research Evaluation
12
chief executives of sovereign, independent nation-states who lived in the U.S. and studied at U.S.
American colleges and universities.
Overall Soft Power Scores Country Soft Power Score Nation Soft Power Score U.S. 7.41 Italy 4.28 U.K. 6.78 New Zealand 4.17 France 6.21 Austria 4.10 Germany 6.15 Belgium 3.80 Australia 5.64 China 3.74 Sweeden 5.35 Brazil 3.55 Japan 5.08 Singapore 3.49 Switzerland 5.07 Turkey 3.33 Canada 4.91 Chile 2.94 Netherlands 4.90 Portugal 2.81 Norway 4.82 Israel 2.67
Denmark 4.78 India 2.64 Spain 4.68 Russia 2.43 South Korea 4.52 Czech Republic 2.36 Finland 4.45 Greece 2.35
Source: IfG-Monocle Soft Power Index (2011) The soft power index reports that the U.S. leads all other nations on the list. Although plagued by divided
government and paralysis and persistent public distrust of government remain unaddressed, the
preponderance of U.S. American culture and cultural resources and products, the dominance of its higher
educational institutions, and relatively significant powers of diplomatic influence render the U.S. as the
nation with the most far-reaching soft power followed by the U.K., France, Germany, and Australia.
Important distinctions should be made between soft and hard power. Hard power tends to rest on
policy inducements exercised by policy elites seeking to determine the actions of others by coercing other
global actors with concrete and palpable resources of power, such as with military means (movement of
weapons, adjustment of air and naval power, transfer of troops) and economic resources (sanctions, trade
restrictions, currency manipulations). Soft power is the ability of a nation-state to alter the behavior of
others and manipulate by attracting them to its one’s culture, symbols, and ideology (1990a: 267).
Writing within the neoliberal theoretical tradition, Nye (2002) contends that the sources of power
have changed and evolved in direct response to advances in global information technology and
communications. Complex global interdependence among states has deepened and individual citizens
13
and groups have become more empowered. Contemporary globalization has and will continue to facilitate
the diffusion of power given increased access to information and advanced mobile communications,
rising levels of education throughout the world and gender parity in most regions, an expanding global
middle class and declining levels of poverty, and a widespread belief in democratic norms and values
(Nye 2004, 2002). These patterns and trends will likely have considerable consequences for world politics
and the state actors, which have long shaped the world system. Evolving social and economic conditions
could lead people to become more consequential to the shaping of global events, institutions, and values.
Soft power is a concept in the comprehensive liberal theory that political, economic, and social
institutions are shaped by both elites and citizens driven by technological progress that will lead to “a
shift in the locus of collective activities away from central governments” (Nye 2002: 50).
Traditional boundaries that once safeguarded nation-states and separated people by territory and
geography appear to be weakening. Current patterns may suggest even broader shifts in global power with
the world becoming increasingly more multipolar and asymmetric. Moreover, these patterns are being
shaped and influenced with rising levels of education, a declining poverty rate, and an emerging and
powerful global middle class with increased access to advanced technologies and social media (Global
Trends 2030 2012; World Bank 2013; Economist 2013a & 2013b; ESPAS 2012). The consequences are
significant for traditional major powers in exerting strong leadership of global governance structures and
supranational institutions, which for years have persisted and remained relatively unchanged (Global
Trends 2030 2012; World Bank 2013). Contemporary globalization dilutes, to some extent, traditional
state power as a result of cross-border exchanges among non-governmental organizations, corporations,
and global citizens, which exist beyond the control of governments and global governance structures.
The degree of soft power influence exercised by any nation-state is a reflection of the global
reputation of its universities and colleges as well as its higher education system in general. We argue that
reputation can be linked, to a limited extent, with global integration, which gauges the interconnectedness
of nations with the rest of the world. The number of students who study and people who visit or live in a
country and the ability of a country to communicate effectively with the world are some of the most
14
consequential factors in a nation’s degree of connectivity with the world and its ability to exercise global
power and influence.
In order to isolate the reputation of U.S. colleges and universities, our examination will
emphasize global university rankings, which are calculated from the total accumulated score of all
national institutions ranked on the Thomson Reuters Times Higher Education World University Rankings
index. The 2013-2014 rankings measure both the quality and quantity of universities and report data on
the following indicators: teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook.
Teaching involves the learning environment of each institution from the vantage points of both
faculty and students and comprises the first 30% of an institution’s reputation. Using results from the
world’s, an academic reputation survey administered by the Times Higher Education World University
Rankings, the teaching category includes an institution’s faculty-to-student ratio as a representation of
teaching quality. Colleges and universities with a significant amount of research students are deemed
more knowledge-intensive and the presence of a thriving postgraduate community is an indicator of a
research-led teaching environment as seen by students and faculty alike. The category also includes the
number of doctorates awarded by an institution relative to its overall size. A higher proportion of
postgraduate research students suggest that the provision of high quality teaching is both attractive to
students and effective at developing their academic skills.
Research, which comprises 30% of reputation and is the flagship indicator in the rankings, deals
mainly with volume, income, and scholarly reputation. The research category includes the role of
institutions in spreading knowledge and ideas. The research component incorporates a university's
reputation for excellence in scholarship within academic disciplines and among peers. Research also
includes income generated from colleges or universities, which could be problematic because it might be
influenced by government policies and economic circumstances. Income determines the quality of
scholarly research judged by peer review relative to the institution’s academic profile. Research grants in
the physical sciences are often larger than those in the social sciences, arts and humanities research.
15
The number of citations involves the particular institution’s scholarly influence and comprises the
third 30%. Times measures research by counting the number of times a published work is cited by
scholars around the world. In the 2012 survey, Thomas Reuters looked at roughly 50 million citations to 6
million articles published in approximately 12,000 academic journals over five years.
Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2007 to 2012 are also collected. The number of
citations revealed the extent to which a university of college is contributing to the cumulative amount of
knowledge contributed by scholars to the global scholarly community.
Industry income speaks to levels of innovation and knowledge transfers from higher education
institutions to particular industries, comprising 2.5% of reputation. An institution’s ability to help industry
with intellectual property rights, innovations, patents, copyrights, and other inventions and consultancy
has come to define the contemporary global academy. Such “knowledge transfers” involves looking at
how much research income an institution earns from industry, scaled against the number of academic staff
it employs as well as the institution’s ability to attract funding in competitive marketplaces.
The final indicator, international outlook, is shaped by staff, students and research and comprises
the 7.5% of the ranking score. An important qualitative factor here involves the degree of
“internationalization,” or the number of inbound foreign students and the number of outgoing host
country students studying abroad. International outlook encompasses campus diversity and the extent to
which academics collaborate with international colleagues on research projects. A college or university’s
ability to attract undergraduates and postgraduates around the world is consequential to its global success
and influence. Institutions with the strongest reputations are seen as magnets for students from all over the
world. More than likely, well-educated students have high exposure and connectivity to the global
community, which elevates the host country’s soft power and global attractiveness.
Reputation scores were calculated using results of an academic reputation survey, which allowed
for comparisons among the various forms of institutional data reported by colleges and universities. Of
the top 50 leading global universities, 30 are located in the U.S. followed by the U.K. (7), Canada (3),
Australia (2), Japan (1), China (2), Switzerland (2), South Korea (1), Singapore (1), and Hong Kong (1).
16
Top 50 Institutions 2013-2014 Rank Institution Location Score Rank Institution Location Score 1 California Institute of
Technology U.S. 94.9 26 National University of
Singapore Singapore 72.4
2 University of Oxford U.K. 93.9 27 University of Texas, Austin
U.S. 72.2
2 Harvard University U.S. 93.9 27 Georgia Institute of Technology
U.S. 71.6
4 Stanford University U.S. 93.8 29 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
U.S. 71.4
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
U.S. 93.0 30 University of Wisconsin-Madison
U.S. 71.1
6 Princeton University U.S. 92.7 31 University of British Columbia
Canada 70.8
7 University of Cambridge
U.K. 92.3 32 London School of Economics and Political Science
U.K. 69.8
8 University of California, Berkeley
U.S. 89.8 33 University of California, Santa Barbara
U.S. 68.4
9 University of Chicago U.S. 87.8 34 University of Melbourne Australia 68.2 10 Imperial College,
London U.K. 87.5 35 McGill University Canada 68.1
11 Yale University U.S. 87.4 36 Karolinska Institute Sweden 67.8 12 University of
California, Los Angeles U.S. 86.3 37 École Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 67.7
13 Columbia University U.S. 85.2 38 Kings College U.K. 67.6 14 ETH Zürich – Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zürich
Switzerland 84.5 39 University of Edinburgh U.K. 67.5
14 Johns Hopkins University
U.S. 83.7 40 University of California, San Diego
U.S. 67.4
16 University of Pennsylvania
U.S. 81.0 40 New York University U.S. 67.4
17 Duke University U.S. 79.3 42 Washington University, St. Louis
U.S. 67.2
18 University of Michigan U.S. 79.2 43 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 65.3 19 Cornell University U.S. 79.1 44 Seoul National University South Korea 65.2 20 University of Toronto Canada 78.3 45 Peking University China 65.0 21 University College,
London U.K. 77.6 46 University of Minnesota U.S. 64.9
22 Northwestern University
U.S. 77.1 47 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
U.S. 64.5
23 University of Tokyo Japan 76.4 48 Australian National University
Australia 64.4
24 Carnegie Mellon University
U.S. 76.0 49 Pennsylvania State University
U.S. 64.2
25 University of Washington
U.S. 73.4 50 Tsinghua University China 63.5
50 University of California, Davis
U.S. 63.5
Source: Times Higher Education (2013-2014): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
17
The U.S. extends its dominance in the top 100 with 46 institutions, followed by the U.K. (11),
Netherlands (8), Germany (6), Australia (5), Canada (4), Switzerland (3), South Korea (3), France (3),
Japan (2), Hong Kong (2), Belgium (2), Singapore (2), China (2), Sweden (1), and Finland (1).
Top 100 Institutions by Reputation and Nation, 2013 Nation Number of Institutions in the
Top 100 Top Institution Top Institution
Rank United States 46 California Institute of Technology 1 United Kingdom 11 University of Oxford 3 Netherlands 8 Leiden University 67 Germany 6 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 55 Australia 5 University of Melbourne 34 Canada 4 University of Toronto 20 Switzerland 3 ETH Zürich – Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zürich 14
South Korea 3 Seoul National University 44 France 3 École Normale Supérieure 65 Japan 2 University of Tokyo 23 Hong Kong 2 University of Hong Kong 43 Belgium 2 KU Leuven 61 Singapore 2 National University of Singapore 26 China 2 Peking University 45 Sweden 1 Karolinska Institutet 36 Finland 1 University of Helsinki 100
Source: Times Higher Education (2013): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
The point is that reputation matters within the shark-infested and highly competitive global higher
education market. A university's reputation defines its existence and is the number one consideration for
globally-minded and globally-mobile students who are likely to gravitate toward institutions, mainly in
the U.S. and U.K., based almost exclusively on reputation and regardless of tuition fees. Reputation is
consequential for establishing collaborative research partnerships and attracting funding. Even though
reputation leaves a lasting imprint on any institution, contemporary globalization suggests that new
information and communications technologies and social networking in the hands of an emerging global
middle class can transform the global higher education marketplace. Students everywhere will be
attracted to institutions with strong academic prestige that offer them high quality learning experiences.
Institutions held in the highest regard maintain their strong reputations over time by leveraging stellar
academics to attract lucrative donations, reputable partners, and students from around the world.
18
A total of 26 nations comprise the world’s leading 200 universities with an additional 14 included
in the second tier of 200 universities (200-400). However, the two tables listed above are dominated by
wealthy, developed nations. Times Higher Education provides an analysis of the potential of higher
education institutions in select developing nations, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China which are
committed to investing in first-rate research institutions as the drivers of their economic growth. These
nations are seeking to make lucrative investments in improving the ratio of doctoral candidates to the
overall number of students, subsidizing tuition payments to full-time students, funding research projects
across disciplines, and increasing the number of research publications in leading journals (Times Higher
Education 2013-2014).
While there are no universities from India ranked in the top 200, five (Panjab University, IIT
Delhi, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur, and IIT Roorkee) are included in the 200-400 tables, an increase of
three institutions from 2012 to 2013. Although Lomonosov Moscow State University is currently ranked
in the top 100, Russian President Vladimir Putin has set a goal for at least five Russian higher education
institutions to make the Times Higher Education top 100 list by the end of this decade. The Russian
government is investing Rb9 billion ($285 million/£175 million) over the next six years to accomplish
this lofty goal. Surprisingly, Brazil has no institution listed in the top 200. In fact, the University of São
Paulo and the State University of Campinas lost significant ground in the rankings (Times Higher
Education 2013-2014).
While China does have two institutions currently listed in the top 50 (Tsinghua University and
Peking University) and only two institutions in the world top 200 list, it does have eight institutions in the
200-400 group. These eight include Fudan University, the University of Science and Technology of
China, Renmin University, Wuhan University of Technology, Nanjing University, Zhejiang Univeristy,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Sun Yat-sen University. While considerable improvements have has
been achieved backed by considerable financial investments, academic progress in Chinese universities is
constrained by the bureaucratic and top-down approach to administrative governance, lack full
meritocracy and independence, and academic inbreeding (universities hiring own graduates as faculty).
19
Given the challenges posed by contemporary globalization, the Obama Administration has sought
to more prominently feature higher educational exchange programs within its foreign policy goals. It has
paid particular attention to the relative movement of power from West to East with the rise of China.
Obama has responded to the challenge in 2012 with the establishment of the 100,000 Strong Foundation,
which is design to deepen U.S. American understanding of China through U.S. high school, college, and
university students studying abroad at Chinese higher education institutions. The substantive goal of the
program is to expand and diversify the number of U.S. Americans studying Mandarin Chinese and
studying abroad in China. In other words, the Obama Administration is seeking to narrow the gulf
between the cultures of the two nations, strengthen ties between the world’s two largest nations, and to
promote global stability (U.S. Department of State 2010).
In the last several years, roughly twelve times more Chinese students study in the U.S. than U.S.
students who study, intern, and volunteer in China and approximately 33% of Chinese students study
English while only 60,000 U.S. study Mandarin Chinese. Moreover, there has been a 23% increase in the
number of Chinese students studying in the U.S. from 2012 to 2013 compared with just a 5% increase in
U.S. students studying the full range of academic subjects and engaging in different learning experiences
in China. According to the Institute of International Education’s most recent Open Doors report, the
number of U.S. students studying in China increased by 18% each year from 2000 (3,291 students) to
2010/2011 (15,647 students). Outside Western Europe, China is now the most popular destination for
U.S. students studying abroad. Findings from the report reveal that there were over 11,000 additional
students engaged in education-related activities in China, beyond those normally counted in the Open
Doors study abroad survey. For-credit academic study represents roughly 59% of all U.S. students with
41% U.S. students participating in over 26,000 educational activities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and
Macau. Given these findings, the 100,000 Strong Initiative is likely to meet the goal of sending 100,000
American students to China over a four year period, assuming a sustained or increased interest in studying
in China (U.S. Department of State 2010).
20
Following the initiation of the “100,000 Strong” initiative between China and the United States,
President Obama launched the “100,000 Strong in the Americas.” The program was set forth in March of
2011 in order to increase the amount of international studying being done by American students in Latin
America and the Caribbean. The “100,000 Strong in the Americas” focused on the critical importance of
quality education to shared regional prosperity (U.S. Department of State 2011).
The middle class in Latin America has grown exponentially due to the region’s vast
manufacturing, agricultural and mineral resources becoming available. In addition, the Latino/Latina
population in the U.S. has risen to more than 50 million. The “100,000 Strong in the Americas” is only a
small factor into gaining a better relationship with countries in the Western Hemisphere. With 40 percent
of the United States exports going to Latin American and Caribbean countries, a deeper and more secure
relationship with these countries is crucial (U.S. Department of State 2011).
Through greater international exchange of future leaders and innovators, increasing the amount of
cultural understanding among the Western Hemisphere, and building closer people-to-people ties, a
positive effect on the region will occur. By developing stronger ties with countries close to the United
States, the State Department believes these relationships will help address challenges such as citizen
security, economic opportunity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. With close to 40,000
U.S. students studying in Latin America and the Caribbean, the program itself looks to double this
number in less than ten years (U.S. Department of State 2011). The results were confirmed by a 2011
survey conducted by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE). The results
revealed an increase in all levels;; 93 percent increase of doctoral institutions, 84 percent of master’s
institutions, 78 percent of baccalaureate institutions, and around 50 percent of associate institutions (2012
Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses).
How CIGE measured the increase in internationalization was by focusing on internationalizing
the curriculum at the home campus, strategic partnerships with overseas institutions, governments, or
corporation, and expanding international student recruitment and staff (2012 Mapping Internationalization
on U.S. Campuses). Many high education institutions have seen higher and more moderate levels of
21
globalization throughout their college or university. This inevitably means the importance of
internationalization has built a genuine understanding about cultural involvement and global education.
More recently, the U.S. Department of Education established a first-ever strategy the department
has created for with an international design. There are two strategic goals behind this articulated
document;; strengthening U.S. education and advancing our nation’s international priorities (U.S.
Department of Education International Strategy). The Department of Education wants to also add
attention to the necessities of a world-class education for all students, global competencies for all
students, international benchmarking and applying lessons learned from other countries and education
diplomacy and engagement with other countries. (U.S. Department of Education International Strategy)
The strategy is a commitment to prepare the youth and the country as a whole, for the globalized world
that has been created and to engage with the international community to boost education. Secretary Arne
Duncan explained, “Ultimately, the economic future of the United States rests not only on its ability to
strengthen our education system but also on citizens in other nations raising their living standards...
Expanding educational attainment everywhere is the best way to grow the pie for all” (U.S. Department of
Education International Strategy).
There are many reasons behind the development of a new strategy, especially one with a focus on
an international level. The economic competitiveness and jobs is a large reason citizens should become
more cultural competent and open-minded. Many students today compete for jobs with peers from
around the world and with varying skills and abilities. Being able to communicate inter culturally is
beginning to become a part of the daily work day. Having global skills such as cultural awareness and
linguistic proficiency are becoming requisite for incoming employees. Learning and obtaining these
skills is another reason the strategy was set forth because of the challenges that may face the world today.
It is important to have substantive knowledge and understanding to address issues and catastrophes that
may happen between borders for example, the spread of disease, climate change, natural disasters and
economic situations (U.S. Department of Education International Strategy).
22
Shifting Global Dynamics
In 2012/2013, 819,644 international Students studied in the U.S., a 7.2% annual increase, and the number
of international students enrolling for the first time in a U.S. college or university increased by almost
10% from the previous year. Moreover, trends in academic level show that undergraduate international
students increased by 10% and graduate international students increased by 4% from 2012 to 2013. The
top five nations, China (28.7%), India (11.8%), South Korea (8.6%), Saudi Arabia (5.4%), and Canada
(3.3%), represented 58% of all international students at U.S. colleges and universities.
Open Doors also reports data on the top U.S. institutions and states for international students as
well as the top academic fields of study in which they enroll. International students tend to be
concentrated in certain U.S. colleges and universities and the plurality of these students is likely to
gravitate toward specific U.S. states. The three host states leading the way, California, New York, and
Texas, hosted 32% of all international students with just 5% of U.S. colleges and universities hosting 69%
of all international students studying in the U.S. The top host U.S. institutions in 2012/2013 are listed in
the table below, organized by total number of international students (Open Doors “Fast Facts” 2013).
The top academic fields of study for international students are the STEM fields (Physical and Life
Sciences, Engineering, Math and Computer Science, Health, Agriculture), followed by Business and
Management, undeclared, the Social Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, and intensive English.
Top U.S. Institutions Hosting International Students Rank Institution City State Total
International Students
1 University of Southern California Los Angeles California 9,840 2 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Illinois 9,804 3 Purdue University, Main Campus West Lafayette Indiana 9,509 4 New York University New York New York 9,362 5 Columbia University New York New York 8,797 6 University of California Los Angeles California 8,424 7 Northeastern University Boston Massachusetts 7,705 8 University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan 6,827 9 Michigan State University East Lansing Michigan 6,759 10 Penn State University University Park Pennsylvania 6,693
Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors
23
Academic Fields of Study, International Students Nation Business/
Management Engineering Fine Arts Health Intensive
English Math/ Computer Science
Social Sciences
Canada 15.8 7.5 8.8 15.0 0.1 2.6 13.0 China 29.0 19.2 4.9 1.3 3.2 11.2 8.2 Germany 26.0 7.9 4.2 2.3 0.9 3.1 14.1 India 13.7 35.6 1.7 4.7 0.1 23.1 3.5 Iran 4.7 55.2 5.4 2.3 1.6 9.6 3.6 Japan 17.4 3.7 8.1 2.8 14.6 2.2 11.5 Saudi Arabia
17.1 21.1 2.1 5.6 27.2 7.4 2.7
South Korea 16.4 10.8 13.4 5.0 4.5 4.9 12.4 United Kingdom
17.7 4.5 8.6 4.0 0.1 2.9 18.1
Vietnam 38.1 9.9 3.5 4.3 4.6 7.5 5.1 Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors
Regional trends suggest that Asia is leading the way as the top region of origin for new and
continuing international students attending U.S. institutions, followed by Europe, the Middle East and
North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, North America, and Oceania. Given
these regional trends, U.S. colleges and universities have therefore concentrated their international student
recruitment efforts first in South and East Asia and then Latin America, Southeast Asia, Middle East,
Europe, and Africa. The incredible growth in enrollment of international students at U.S. institutions are
driven by increased institutional recruitment efforts, growing institutional reputation abroad, growth in the
global middle class overseas, increased linkages, competition for top institutions at home, and lowered
concerns about visa ability (Open Doors “Fast Facts” 2013).
Top Ten Nations of Origin Rank Nation of Origin 2011/2012 2012/2013 % of total % change World Total of International Students
764,495 819,644 100% 7.2
1 China 194,029 235,597 28.7 21.4 2 India 100,270 96,754 11.8 -3.5 3 South Korea 72,295 70,627 8.6 -2.3 4 Saudi Arabia 34,139 44,566 5.4 30.5 5 Canada 26,821 27,357 3.3 2.0 6 Taiwan 23,250 21,867 2.7 -5.9 7 Japan 19,966 19,568 2.4 -2.0 8 Vietnam 15,572 16,098 2.0 3.4 9 Mexico 13,893 14,199 1.7 2.2 10 Turkey 11,973 11,278 1.4 -5.4
Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors
24
The economic impact of international students in the U.S. and their families has been significant
and far-reaching. According to NAFSA, international students attending U.S. colleges and universities
supported 313,000 jobs and spent $24 billion in the 2012-2013 academic year through their expenditures
on tuition and living expenses, books and supplies, transportation, health insurance, support for family
members, and personal expenses. For every seven international students who enroll in a U.S. college or
university, three U.S. jobs are created or supported in higher education, hotel and accommodation, dining,
retail, transportation, telecommunications, and health insurance. According to Open Doors, 64% of
international students receive the majority of their funds from personal and family sources. When
assistance from home governments or universities included, more than 70% of funding for international
students comes from sources outside the U.S with roughly 80% of undergraduate international students
receiving the majority of funds from personal and family sources.
Discussion
The ability to attract international students will be determined by the scope and degree of scholarship
programs offered by nations, such as with the 100,000 Strong Initiative and the U.S.-U.K. Global
Innovation Initiative. According to Open Doors, global trends in international education point toward
universities and colleges offering more massive open online courses (MOOCs), joint and dual degree
programs, and online degree programs that are likely to appeal to all students. Furthermore, political and
economic factors will of course determine and influence the mobility of students, which will likely
increase domestic and international pressure on institutions and the global higher educational
marketplace. Given the growth of the global middle class, declining global poverty rate, expanding access
to technology and education in emerging economies and around the world, there will be increases in the
global demand for higher education in a more knowledge-intensive global economy.
It can be argued that globalizing education will continue to be an issue until the world is no
longer interconnected or when the U.S. population becomes more culturally involved and aware.
Providing curriculums with cultural content and relative, universal information, has an endless amount of
25
benefits. Enabling students opportunities to participate in study programs and cultural organizations are
positive, life-changing experiences. Technology has opened borders for business and the economy but,
education exchanges and programs will open minds. Globalizing education creates benefits for the entire
nation by building deeper relationships, better collaborative efforts in dealing with international situations
and an overall better understanding of the cultures living within the United States.
Through the ideas and concepts divulged from cultural diplomacy, constructivism and liberalism,
a global community will develop through the progression of ideas and norms and by compromising and
aligning with one another to accomplish a common goal. In efforts to become more globalized the United
States have installed a few initiatives and strategies and have increased its levels of internationalization on
college campuses. The U.S. has been initiating ways of incorporating culture into curriculums and
increasing the promotion of study abroad programs. There is much more to be done to accomplish the
goal of cultural competency and becoming an interconnected, understanding, global community.
26
Bibliography Abdullahi, I., Kajberg, L., Virkus, S. (2007). Internationalization of LIS Education in Europe and North
America. New Library World, 108 (1/2), 7-24. Altbach, P. G. (2002). Knowledge and education as international commodities. International Higher
Education, (28), 2-5. Altbach, P. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-305. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1991). Political Science. Reports from the Fields: Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major, 2, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. ______________________________________ (2010, February). The Global Smart Grid Global
Institutional Inventory. http://www.aacu.org/SharedFutures/documents/GlobalLearningInventoryTemplate.pdf
Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980-2006. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6, 1-22. Barber, B. (2007). Internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum: opening commentary. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 40 (1), 105. Black, H.T. and Duhon, David L. (2006). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on
cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 140- 144.
Blanton, R.G. (2009, May). Surveying international studies programs: where do we stand? International Studies Perspectives, (10), 224-240. Bonfiglio, O. (1999). The difficulties of the American undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 3(2), 3. Brecher, M. (1999). International studies in the twentieth century and beyond: flawed dichotomies,
Synthesis, Culmination. ISA Presidential Address. International Studies Quarterly, 43 (2), 213- 264.
Breuning, M. and Ishiyama, J.T. (2004). International studies programs: for what purpose and for whom? International Studies Perspectives, 5(4), 400-402.
Brown, J. Pegg, S. and Shively. (2006). Consensus and divergence in international studies: survey evidence from 140 international studies curriculum programs, 7 (3), 267-286.
Committee for Economic Development Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security (Washington, D.C.: CED, 2006). See also, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), No Longer at Risk: A Nation in Peril Boulder, CO: WICHE 2008):
http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/summit/proceedings.pdf Cushner, K. (1998). Intercultural education from an international perspective: An introduction. In K.
Cushner (Ed.), International perspective on intercultural education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Economist. (2013a, March 3). A fall to cheer: http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 Economist. (2013b, June 2). How did the global poverty rate halve in 20 years?:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0#_methods=onPlusOne percent2C_ready percent2C_close percent2C_open percent2C_resizeMe percent2C_renderstart percent2Concircled percent2Cdrefresh percent2Cerefresh percent2Conauth percent2Conload&id=I1_1378752877480&parent=http percent3A percent2F percent2Fwww.economist.com&pfname=&rpctoken=64503649
Economist. (2009, February 12). What do you think?: a special poll on middle-class attitudes: http://www.economist.com/node/13063322?story_id=13063322
27
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS). (2012, March). Global trends 2030 –citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Institute for Security Studies, European Union: http://europa.eu/espas/pdf/espas_report_ii_01_en.pdf
Galvan, J.A. (2006). Practical suggestions to internationalize the general education curriculum. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5 (1), 85-90.
Global Trends 2030. (2012, December) Alternative worlds: http://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf
Goldman Sachs. (2010, May). BRICs Monthly: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our- thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/brics-decade-pdf.pdf
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, (72), 330-366.
Hansen, H. M. (2002). Defining international education. New Directions for Higher Education, (117), 5- 12.
Hayward, F. M. (2000). Internationalization of higher education, preliminary status report 2000: Final Draft. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hermann, Margaret. (1998). One field, many perspectives: building the foundation for dialogue. International Studies Quarterly, 42 (4), 605-624.
Hey, J. (2004). Can international studies research be the basis for an undergraduate international studies curriculum? A response to Ishiyama and Breuning. International Studies Perspectives, 5 (4), 395-400.
Hovland, K. (2005). Shared futures: global learning and social responsibility. Diversity Digest, 8 (3), 1-17.
Ishiyama, J.T. and Breuning, M. (2004). A survey of international studies programs at liberal arts colleges and universities in the Midwest: characteristics and correlates. International Studies Perspectives, (5), 134-146.
_________________________________ (2007). Marketing the international studies major: claims and content of programs at primarily undergraduate institutions in the Midwest. International Studies Perspectives, 8 (1), 121-133.
Galván, J.A. (2006). Practical Suggestions to Internationalize the General Education Curriculum. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5 (1), 85-90. Joffe, J. (2001, Summer). Who’s Afraid of Mr Big? The National Interest. Johnston, J. S., & Edelstein, R. J. (1993). Beyond borders: Profiles in international education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Kehm, B. & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalization in higher education. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260-273. Knight, J. (2003, fall). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education.
The Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 33, https://htmldbprod.bc.edu/pls/htmldb/CIHE.cihe_public_rpt2.download_issue?p_issue_id=2032 Kohls, L. R., & Knight, J. M. (3rd ed). (1994). Developing intercultural awareness: A cross-cultural training handbook. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kwok, V. and Leland, H. (1982). An Economic Model of the Brain Drain. American Economic Review,
72(1), 91-100. Lambert, Richard. D. (2001). Domains and issues in international studies. In P. O’Meara, H.
Mehlinger, and R. Newman (Ed.), Changing Perspectives in International Studies (pp. 30- 48). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
______________________(Ed.). (1994). Educational exchange and global competence. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange.
Latham, S. & Dalton, J. C. (1999). International skills and experiences for a global future. New Directions for Student Services, 86, 89-92.
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.
28
McCaughey, R. (1983). International studies and academic enterprise: A chapter in the enclosure of American Learning. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mahoney, S.L. and Schamber, J.F. (2004). Exploring the application of a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity to a general education curriculum on diversity. JGE: The Journal of General Education, 53 (3/4), 311-334.
Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses. (2012). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses. Center of Internationalization and Global Engagement.
Manzo, K. (2005). International Studies a Hard Sell in U.S Education. Education Week, 24 (12), 1-5. Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon Multidimensional
Perspective. In J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Miller, A. (2006). Promoting Democratic Values in Transitional Societies through Foreign Aid presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2006.
Mittleman, J.H. (2002, February). Globalization: An ascendant paradigm? International Studies Perspectives, 1-14.
Musil, C.M. (2006). Assessing global learning: Matching good intentions with good Practice. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics New York: Public Affairs ________(2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it
Alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palis, J. (2007, October). “Bringing Our Students to the World: Integrating Study Abroad Programs
into the Curriculum and the Emerging Field of International Education.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association-South, Savannah, GA.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248.
Olberding, J. and Olberding, D. (2010). Ripple effects in youth peacebuilding and exchange programs: Measuring impacts beyond direct participants. International Studies Perspectives, 11, 75-91.
Rosenau, J.N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zuniga, X., & Lewis, E. A. (1995). Multicultural teaching in the University. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shaw, M. 1999. Politics and Globalisation: Knowledge, Ethics, and Agency. London: Routledge. Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: Final Report 2003.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Sperandio, J., Grudzinski-Hall, M. and Stewart-Gambino, H. (2010). Developing an Undergraduate
Global Citizenship Program: Challenges of Definition and Assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22 (1), 12-22.
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.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). International Strategy | International Affairs Office. U.S. Department of Education's International Strategy | International Affairs Office.
U.S. Department of State (2011). 100,000 Strong in the Americas: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/100k/index.htm
_____________________(2010). 100,000 Strong: http://www.state.gov/100k West, C. (2011). Internationalization: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? NAFSA:
Association of International Educators: http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Networks/SIO/Int ernationalizationPaper.pdf
29
World Bank. (2003). The State of Education: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/education/wStateEdu/StateEducation.aspx; http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATASTATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,menuPK:3232818~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3232764,00.html
World Bank. (2013, April 17). Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges Remain: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global- poverty-but-major-challenges-remain
Zimitat, C. (2008). Student perceptions of the internationalisation of the curriculum. In L. Dunn and M. Wallace (Eds) (pp. 135-147) Teaching in Transnational Higher Education. London: Routledge.