INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

International Higher Education is the quarterly publication of the Center for International Higher Education.

The journal is a reflection of the Center’s mission to encourage an international perspective that will contribute to enlightened policy and practice. Through Interna-tional Higher Education, a net-work of distinguished internation-al scholars offers commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher educa-tion worldwide. IHE is published in English, Chinese, French, Por-tuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Links to all editions can be found at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe.

Number 89: SpriNg 2017

Global Issues

2 TransatlanticLessons:AccessandCompletionPolicy Kevin J. Dougherty and Claire Callender4 AnarchyandExploitationinScientificCommunication

Philip G. Altbach

6 GlobalizingtheAcademicPresidency:CompetingforTalentedLeadership Richard A. Skinner 8 InternationalBranchCampuses:CanTheyBeResearchUniversities?

Agustian Sutrisno

Aspects of Internationalization

9 Internationalization:TheGermanWay Marijke Wahlers

11 MappingInternationalizationonUSCampuses Lucia Brajkovic and Robin Matross Helms

13 IncreasingInternationalStudents’TuitionFees:TheTwoSidesoftheCoin Daniel Sanchez-Serra and Gabriele Marconi14 “OneBeltOneRoad”andCentralAsia:NewInternationalizationTrend?

Aisi Li

16 TrainingAdministrativeStaffforInternationalization Fiona Hunter

17 DisparitiesandParallelsinEthiopianInternationalization Wondwosen Tamrat and Damtew Teferra

19 ImbalancedStudentMobilityinIndia:ASeriousConcern Rashim Wadhwa

UK Issues

21 BetterInformingtheMarket?TheTeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF) Michael Shattock

22 ReenvisioningWelshPostcompulsoryEducation Ellen Hazelkorn

Focus on Japan

24 English-mediumInstructionandtheITParallelinJapan Annette Bradford and Howard Brown

25 AdmissionsinJapaneseNationalUniversities:TheNeedforChange Yukiko Ishikura and Tatsuo Kawashima

Countries and Regions

27 MoreSélectivité,LessÉgalité:CreatingNationalChampionsinFrance Ludovic Highman

29 “AcademicCapture”:ConflictofInterestinEasternEurope Mihaylo Milovanovitch, Elena Denisova-Schmidt, and Arevik Anapiosyan

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION T H E B O S T O N C O L L E G E C E N T E R F O R 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

Number 92: wiNter 2018

Partnership with University World News (UWN): IHE articles appear regularly on UWN’s website and monthly newsletter. UWN is a widely rec-ognized online resource for inter-national higher education news.

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 N2

TransatlanticLessonsonHigherEducationAccessandCompletionPolicyKevin J. Dougherty and Claire Callender

Kevin J. Dougherty is professor of higher education at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, US. E-mail: [email protected]. Claire Callender is professor at Birkbeck College and at the Institute of Education, University College of London, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

Thearticlebuildsonthereport:English and American High-er Education Access and Completion Policy Regimes: Similari-ties, Differences, and Possible Lessons(CentreforGlobalHigh-erEducation,UCLInstituteofEducation,2017),availablefrom http://www.researchcghe.org/publications/english-and-american-higher-education-access-and-completion-policy-regimes-similarities-differences-and-possible-les-sons.

England and the United States offer many similarities,butalsoinstructivedissimilarities,withrespecttotheir

policiesforhighereducationaccessandcompletion.Thisarticledescribesthesesimilaritiesanddissimilaritieswithaneyetowhateachcountrycanlearnfromtheotherwithregardtoreducingsocialclassandracial/ethnicdifferenc-es in higher education access and completion. We focuson England since higher educational policy varies greatlyacrosstheUnitedKingdomandEnglandisthemostpopu-lousconstituentnationintheUnitedKingdom.

The English and US higher education systems arequitedifferent inanynumberofregards.Mostobviously,theUSsystemisfarlargerinnumberofinstitutionsandenrollment, and the Unites States spends considerablymoreontertiaryeducation:2.8percentoftheGDPversus1.8percentfortheUnitedKingdom.Moreover,virtuallyallEnglishinstitutionsare“public,”whereasthree-fifthsofUSinstitutionsareprivate.

Despitethesedifferences,bothEnglandandtheUnit-edStateshavesetsimilargoalsforhighereducation.Bothcountrieshavecommittedtoasharpriseinthehigheredu-cationallevelsoftheirpopulationsandawideningofpar-ticipationbyworkingclassandminorityyouth.Underlyingthiscommoncommitmenttoexpandingandwideningpar-ticipationinhighereducationisasharedbeliefthatitiskeytofosteringeconomicgrowthandreducingsocioeconomicinequality.Thisnormative fusionofeconomicfunctional-ityandsocialequalizationischaracteristicofcentristneo-

liberaleducationalpolicymakinginbothEnglandandtheUnitedStates.

Current Policies in Seven Areas Wefocusonsevenpolicystrandsaffectinghighereducationaccessandcompletion:studentinformationprovision;out-reachfromhighereducationinstitutions;studentfinancialaid;affirmativeactionorcontextualizationinhighereduca-tionadmissions;highereducationeffortstoimprovereten-tionandcompletion;performancefunding;anddegreeofrelianceonsubbaccalaureateinstitutions.

Information,advice,andguidance(IAG)provision:• England: Poor government support for IAG in

primaryandearlysecondaryschooling.Extensivegovernment support for IAG in late secondaryschool,particularlywhenapplyingforuniversity.

• UnitedStates:Poorgovernmentsupport for IAGin primary and early secondary school. More ex-tensive but still inadequate government supportfor IAG in late secondary schooling, particularlyregardinghighereducationoptions.

Outreacheffortsbyhighereducationinstitutions:• England: “Access Agreements” between higher

educationinstitutionsandgovernmentspecifyingwhattuitionwillbecharged,institutionalfinancialaid provided, and outreach to secondary-schoolstudentsmade.

• UnitedStates:Noaccessagreements.Outreachisatinstitutionaldiscretion.

Studentfinance:• England:Tuitioniscappedbygovernment.Heavy

reliance on government funded income-contin-gent loans. Much smaller reliance on grant aid(fromgovernmentorinstitutions).

• United States: Public tuition (but not private tu-ition) is typically capped by state governments.Continued major role of grant aid (federal, state,and institutional). There are fewer income-con-tingent loans,andtherepaymentsystemismoreonerous.

Affirmativeaction/contextualizedadmissions:• England:Contextualizedadmissionswithfocuson

socialclassandonbenefitstosocietyofgreaterso-cial mobility for disadvantaged students. Unevenuseacrossinstitutions.

• United States: Affirmative action with focus on

Number 92: winter 2018

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 3Number 92: winter 2018

race/ethnicity (rather than social class) and onbenefitsbothofsocialmobility fordisadvantagedstudentsandofreshaping theattitudesofadvan-taged students through interaction with diversepopulations.

Highereducationeffortstoimproveretentionandcomple-tion:

• England:Risinggovernmentalandinstitutionalin-terestinthelast10–20years.

• UnitedStates:Risinggovernmentalinterestinthelast 10–20 years. However, longstanding interestamonglessselectiveinstitutions.

Performancefunding:• England: Shifting toward extensive use of finan-

cialrewardstoinstitutionsforstudentcompletion,employment,earningsofgraduates,andteachingperformance.

• UnitedStates:Extensiverewardsystem,particular-lyatstatelevel,offeringbenefitstoinstitutionsforstudentretention,progression,andcompletion.

Degreeofrelianceonsubbaccalaureateinstitutions:• England:Focusonuniversitiesandmuchlessin-

terestinfurthereducationcolleges.Risinginterestinfor-profitcolleges.

• United States: Focus on universities, but big in-creaseinattentiontocommunitycolleges.Declin-inginterest(untilrecently)infor-profitcolleges.

Lessons for the United States DrawingontheEnglishexperience,theUnitedStatesmightwish to seriously consider adopting Access Agreements,makingmoreuseofincome-contingentloans,andexpand-ingtherangeofinformationprovidedtocollegeprospects.

The requirement to have Access Agreements offersthe promise of institutions becoming more transparent,thoughtful,anddeterminedintheirpursuitofwideraccessatatimeofrisingconcernaboutthehighdegreeofracial/ethnic and class inequality in access to higher educationgenerally and to selective institutions particularly. More-over,incommittingtocertainpracticesandoutcomes,in-stitutionscouldbemoreeasilyevaluatedontheirsuccessandtheiruseofpracticesthatarerootedinsoundevidence.Inprinciple,theUSgovernmenthasthepowertorequireAccessAgreementsduetotheheavydependenceofvirtu-allyallUShighereducation institutionson federal, state,and localgovernment fundingof institutionaloperations,researchanddevelopment,and(throughstudentaid)stu-denttuition.

USgraduatesoweUS$1.3trillioninstudentloans,andsevenmillionborrowersareindefault,withevenmoreinarrears.Englandshowshowgovernmentcanaddresstheseproblems,byprovidingmoreextensiveincome-contingentloans.Bybasingrepaymentonloanholders’income,awell-designedincome-contingentloanprogramwouldprovideasolutiontothegreatconcernintheUnitedStatesaboutthemanystudentswhoaresaddledwithloandebt.Whilethefederalgovernmentdoesofferincome-contingentloans,itcandomuchmoreandlearnmuchfromwhatEnglandhasdone.

TheUnitedStatescouldusefullyemulateEngland inprovidingprospectivestudentswithnationallycomparableinformationaboutthestudentexperience,studentsatisfac-tion,andeconomicreturnsatthelevelofindividualdegreeprograms or majors. Program-specific information aboutincome returns is particularly important because there ismorevariationinincomereturnsbymajorthanbyinstitu-tion.Besidesincomereturns,theUnitedStatescouldalsofollow the lead of the United Kingdom in providing pro-gram-specificdataoninstructionalconditionsandstudentsatisfaction.

Lessons for EnglandEnglandcouldbenefitfromemulatingtheseaspectsofUSpolicy: greater focus on the role of further education col-legesandverycautiousconsiderationofgreateruseoffor-profithighereducation;greateruseofgrants infinancialaidpackagestostudents;morepolicyattentiontoinform-ingstudentdecisionsinprimaryandearlysecondaryschoolthataffectpreparationforhighereducation;greateruseofcontextualizedadmissions;andverycarefulconsiderationofthepossibledownsidesofperformancefunding.Forrea-sonsofspace,weonlyfocusonsomeofthesepoints.

Furthereducation(FE)collegesdonotplayasbigaroleinEngland’shighereducationpolicymakingascommunitycollegesdoinUShighereducation.However,furtheredu-cationcollegesaccountforone-twelfthofallhighereduca-tionstudents.Hence,astrongargumentcanbemadeformoregovernmentpolicyattentionto,andfinancialsupportof,furthereducationcolleges,asisthecasewithcommu-nitycollegesintheUnitedStates.TheUSexperiencealsosuggests careful attention to possible negative repercus-

Drawing on the English experience, the

United States might wish to seriously

consider adopting Access Agreements.

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 N4 Number 92: winter 2018

sionsfromlarge-scaleexpansionoffor-profithighereduca-tion.TheUnitedStateshashad todevelop regulations toreconcilegovernmentprovisionoffinancialaidtostudentsattendingfor-profitcollegesandthedangersofpoorqualityprovisionbythoseinstitutions.

EnglandshouldconsideramoreextensiveprogramofgovernmentsupportforIAGinprimaryandearlysecond-aryschool.Fatefulstudentchoicesabouthighereducationbegin early as students, their parents, and their teachersmakedecisionsaboutwhatfields theyshouldprepare forinhighersecondaryschoolinordertobeeligibleforadmis-sion intoselectiveuniversities.Also,studentsneed togethighgradesinthenationalexaminations,usuallytakenattheageof16andagainat18,inordertoqualifyforentryintothesemostselectiveuniversities.

English universities do engage in contextualized ad-missionsbuttheycoulddomore.Thelimitedsuccessofthemost selective UK universities in diversifying themselvesbyclassandrace/ethnicityisrootedinpartintheirempha-sisononlyacceptinghighlypreparedstudentsdefined intermsofthedominantculturalcategories.Englishuniver-sitiesthereforemaybenefitfromareconsiderationofwhatconstitutesmerit inuniversityadmission.Arethereotherwaysofmeasuringabilitytobenefitfromhighereducationthat would open up new opportunities for students com-ingfromunderrepresentedbackgrounds?ThesequestionshavebeensubjecttoextensivedebateintheUnitedStatesinthecontextofaffirmativeaction,andselectiveuniversi-tieshavedevelopedavarietyofalternativemeasuresofaca-demicmerit.

Finally, as England continues its use of the TeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF)torewardinstitutionsforin-structionalquality,itwillbeimportanttocarefullytracktheintendedandunintendedimpactsof theTEF.Thismoni-toringeffort couldbenefit fromresearchon theobstaclesencounteredandnegativesideeffectsproducedbyperfor-mancefundingintheUnitedStates.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2018.92.10210

AnarchyandExploitationinScientificCommunicationPhilip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is research professor and founding director of the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, US. E-mail: [email protected].(Note: This article also appears in Higher Education in Russia and Beyond.)

Technology,greed,a lackofclearrulesandnorms,hy-percompetitiveness, and a certain amount of corrup-

tionhave resulted inconfusionandanarchy in theworldof scientific communication. Not too long ago, scientificpublicationwaslargelyinthehandsofuniversitypublish-ersandnonprofitscientificsocieties,mostofwhichwerecontrolledby theacademiccommunity.Academicconfer-encesweresponsoredbyuniversitiesordisciplinaryorgani-zationsofacademicsandscientists.Mostofthiswasdoneonanonprofitbasisandlargelycontrolledbysmallgroupsof respected professors at the main research universities,largely in North America and Western Europe. It was allquite “gentlemanly” and controlled by a male-dominatedscientificelite.

Then multiple tsunamis hit the groves of academe.Perhapsthemostimportantwasthemassificationofpost-secondaryeducation—thetremendousexpansionofenroll-mentsandnumbersofuniversitiesworldwide.Now,withcloseto200millionstudentsinmorethan22,000univer-sitiesglobally,thehighereducationenterpriseishuge.Andwhileonlyasmallproportionoftheseuniversitiesproducemuch research or aspire to the status of research univer-sities,theirnumbersaregrowingasmoreinstitutionsareluredbytherankings,whichmainlymeasureresearchpro-ductivity,andbythenaturaldesiretojointheacademicelite.Governments,accreditors,andqualityassuranceagenciesarealsostressingresearchandpublications,inpartbecausetheseareamongthefewmetricsthatcanbeaccuratelymea-sured. At the same time, the global knowledge economypushedtopuniversitiesto linktoacademeinternationallyandtocompetewithinstitutionsworldwide.

Asaresultofthisincreasedcompetitionandpressureonuniversitiesandindividualacademicsto“publishorper-ish,”tremendouspressurewasplacedontheexistingscien-tificcommunicationsystem,whichwaseventuallyunabletocopewithincreasingdemands.Atthesametime,theIn-ternetcreatedadditionalchallengestothesystem,asjour-nalshadtoadapttonewwaysofpublishingarticles,evalu-atingsubmissions,andotheraspectsof theirwork.Whathadbeenacottageindustrymanagedbyscholarswithlittle

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

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 5

trainingincommunicationsuddenlybecamealargeindus-try.Therearenowmorethan150,000scientificjournals,ofwhich64,000claimtobepeerreviewed.

ImplicationsFirst,majorpublishersandmediacompanies,seeingthatthey could make a large profit from scientific journals,movedintothemarketplace.MultinationalssuchasSpring-erandElsevierare thegiants,eachnowpublishingmorethanathousandjournalsinallfields.Journalsubscriptionprices were increased to astronomical levels, with somejournalscosting$20,000ormore.Forexample,Brain Re-search,publishedbyElsevier,costs$24,000foranannualsubscription.Thesepublishersmainlypurchasedexistingjournalsfromotherpublishersorscientificsocieties.Theyalsostartednewjournals inmanyinterdisciplinaryfields.The multinationals ended up with hundreds of journals,which they “packaged” for sale to libraries—which paidhuge fees for access to all of the journals, as they wereforcedtopurchasetheentirelist.Insomescientificfields,submissionfeesforauthorswereimposedorraised.Jour-nal publication became highly profitable. This system, ofcourse,limitedaccesstothelatestscientificinformationtothosewhocouldpayforit.

Eventually,areactionagainjournalpricesbylibrariesandmanyacademics led to the“openaccess”movement:somenewjournalswereestablishedwith thegoalofpro-vidinglessexpensiveaccesstoknowledge.Theestablishedmultinationalpublishersrespondedbyprovidingakindofopenaccess,mainlybychargingauthorsforpermissiontoprovidetheirpublishedarticleslessexpensivelytoreaders.By 2017, continuing conflicts between academic librariesandthemultinationalpublishersconcerningthehighcostofaccesstojournalshavenotresultedinanyconsensusonhowtosolvethesecomplexproblems.

Universitiesarethemselvespublishersofmanyscien-tificjournals.Anumberofprestigiousuniversitiespresses,suchasChicago,JohnsHopkins,Oxford,andothershavetraditionally published high quality academic journals—and continue to do so. They have in general maintainedreasonable prices and have successfully adapted to newtechnologies. It isalso thecase thatmany individualuni-versities worldwide publish local journals that have littlecirculationorprestige.Forexample,mostChineseresearchuniversitiespublishjournalsinseveralfieldsthathavelittleimpactanddonotattractauthorsoutsideoftheinstitution.Thereseemstobelittlejustificationforsuchpublications—and they are likely to be damaged by the proliferation oflow-quality“international”journals.

Atthesametime,thedramaticincreaseinthenumberofjournalsandthedramaticexpansioninthenumberofpa-

persbeingsubmittedtojournalshaveplacedunsustainablestrainonthetraditionalpeerreviewsystem.Theincreasein submissions is due to the expansion of the academicprofession,increasedemphasison“publishorperish,”andtherapidadvanceofscientificinnovationandknowledgeingeneral.Butitisincreasinglydifficulttofindqualifiedpeerreviewersortalentedjournaleditors.Thesejobs,whileveryimportant,aregenerallyverytimeconsuming,uncompen-sated,andevenanonymous,apurecontributiontoscienceandscholarship.

Another frightening and widespread development inthescientificcommunicationindustryistheemergenceof“academicfakery.”OnDecember29,2016,The New York Timesdevoteda longarticle to“FakeAcademe,LookingaLotLiketheRealThing.”Thearticlediscussedtheprolif-erationoffakeconferencesandfakejournals.International“academic”conferencesorganizedbyshadycompaniesinIndiaandelsewherechargeparticipantshighfeestoattendmeetings held in hotels around the world, and accept allpaperssubmitted,regardlessofquality.Academicsaresuf-ficientlydesperate tobeable toputon theirCVthat theyhavehadapaperacceptedforaninternationalconference,thattheypayfortheseuselessevents.

There is also aproliferation of fake journals.Nooneknows how many of these exist, but their number is inthehundredsoreven thousands. JeffreyBeall, anAmeri-canuniversity librarian,hasbeentrackingthesefakesforyears,andnowlistsatleast923publishers,manywithmul-tiple“journals,”upfrom18in2011.Inlate2016,Beallan-nouncedthathewasnolongercompilinghisvaluablelistand it was removed from the Internet. Although he gavenoexplanation,thereislittledoubtthathewasthreatenedwithlawsuits.ThefakejournalsareoftenpublishedfromPakistan or Nigeria by invisible publishers and editors.Theyoftenclaimtobepeerreviewedandlist internation-allyprominentacademicsontheireditorialboards—peoplewhoseldomactuallyagreedtoservethereandfinditdiffi-culttohavetheirnamesremovedwhentheyrequestit.Butalmost all papers submitted tend to be published quicklyonceafee,oftensubstantial,ispaidtothepublisher.


Not too long ago, scientific publication

was largely in the hands of university

publishers and nonprofit scientific soci-

eties.


What Is to Be Done?Withoutquestion,thereisanarchyintherealmofknowl-edge communication in the twenty-first century. A com-bination of mass production of scientific papers, most oflittlescholarlyvalue,tremendouspressureonacademicstopublishtheirworkregardlessofethicalconsiderations,thecommunicationsandpublishingrevolutionmadepossiblebytheInternet,thegreedoftheestablishedmultinationalpublishers, and the huge new coterie of fake publishershave all combined to produce confusion. The issues in-volved are complex—how to manage technology, accom-modate theexpansionofscientificproduction,rationalizepeerreview,breakthemonopolyofthemultinationals,and,of great importance, instill a sense of ethics and realisticexpectationsintotheacademiccommunity itself.Theim-plicationsof these changes for journalspublished in lan-guagesotherthanEnglishandincountriesotherthanthemainpublishingcountriesarealsounclear.Itislikelytheywillbeweakenedbytheseglobaltrends.Questionsabound,answersarefew.


GlobalizingtheAcademicPresidency:CompetingforTalentedLeadershipRichard A. Skinner

Richard A. Skinner is senior consultant, Harris Search Associates, and served as president of Royal Roads University in Canada and Clayton State University in the United States. E-mail: [email protected].

Highereducationisnotimmunetoglobalization.Raretoday is the research-intensive university that does

not promote and support students and professors spend-ingtimeabroadand,whilestillmodestinnumber,foreign-bornand/or-educatedpresidentsareincreasinglyselectedtoleaduniversitiesinothercountries.

Two ExamplesAmericanuniversitieswereamongthefirsttobenefitfromattractinganinfluxofforeign-bornscholars,thinkers,andresearchersimmigratingtotheUnitedStates,beginninginthe late 1930sbut especiallyduring andafter theSecondWorld War. When, in 1965, American immigration laws

changed, there was steady growth thereafter in the num-bersofstudents—particularlyfromIndia,SouthKorea,andTaiwan—seekingtoattendAmericanuniversities,earnad-vanceddegrees,andremainintheUnitedStatesonfacul-tiesandasdepartmentchairs,deans,provosts,andpresi-dents.

Today, presidents of the 60 American member in-stitutions of the Association of American Universities(AAU)—the most prestigious of all American research-intensive universities—number 12 foreign-born personsamong them,with representatives fromAustralia,China,India,andVenezuela.Toprovidesomeperspectiveonthatnumber,considerthatagenerationearlier,in1992,sixofthesameAmericanAAUinstitutionshadpresidentswhohailed from Canada, China, Germany, Iran, Norway, andSweden.

AmongtheAAUpresidentsaretwowhosuggestjusthowinternationallymobileexperiencedpresidentsareandhowmuchtheyarevaluedatleastinpart,itseems,fortheirexperience in countries other than their respective nativeone.Jean-LouChameau,aFrenchmanandStanfordalum-nus, resigned thepresidencyofCalTech inorder to leadKingAbdullahUniversityofScience&TechnologyinSaudiArabia.AndwhenSubraSuresh,anativeofIndia,resignedthepresidencyofCarnegieMellonUniversitytoacceptap-pointmentaspresidentofNanyangTechnologicalUniver-sity inSingapore,hewasreplacedonaninterimbasisbyProvostFarnamJahanian,whoimmigratedfromIran.

A second example of the globalization of universityleadershipcanbeobserved in theTimes Higher Education (THE)WorldUniversityRankingsfor2017fornon-Amer-icaninstitutions(25)amongthe50highest-rankedinstitu-tions,andnotingtheinternationaleducationandemploy-mentpathsoftheirrespectiveheads:

• AustralianNationalUniversity:bornintheUnitedStatesandearneddegreesfromtheUniversityofArizonaandHarvardUniversity.

• École Polytechnique de Lausanne: Master’s fromStanfordUniversityandonfacultiesofColumbiaUniversity and theUniversityofCalifornia (UC),Berkeley.

• Hong Kong University of Science: Hong Kong-born, earneddegrees fromCalTechandStanfordUniversity,andonfacultyofCalTech,YaleUniver-sity,andtheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles(UCLA).

• Imperial College London: American-born, leftpresidencyofLehighUniversity

• KarolinskaInstitute:Norwegian-bornandeducat-ed.

• London School of Economics: Egyptian-born,



American undergraduate, Oxford University doc-torate.

• Oxford University: Irish-born with graduate de-greesfromUCLAandHarvardUniversity.

• UniversityofBritishColumbia:onfacultyatHar-vardUniversity,JohnsHopkinsUniversity,EmoryUniversity,UniversityCollegeLondon(UCL),andpresident,UniversityofCincinnati.

• University of Edinburgh: German-born andworkedattheUniversityofTexasandXeroxPARC

• UniversityofHongKong:British-bornandsched-uledtobecomevice-chancelloroftheUniversityofAberdeenin2018.

• UniversityofIllinois:Wales-born,educatedatUCLandonfacultyattheUniversityofColorado,Boul-derandtheUniversityofMichigan.

• UniversityofMelbourne:postgraduateworkatUCBerkeleyandHarvardUniversity.

Of the 25 non-American universities’ presidents,nearlyhalf(12)havespentextendedperiodsoftimebeingeducatedin,oremployedby,institutionsinacountryotherthantheirnativeone.Incomparison,ofthetop25Ameri-canuniversitiesintheTHE Rankings,eightpresidentsorchancellorsareforeign-born(Britain,Canada [two],Cuba,India, Iran, Taiwan, and Venezuela) and four American-bornleadersearneddegreesfromBritishuniversities.

Some ConjecturesSamplesassmallasthetwopresentedherearenotabaseonwhichtobuildanexplanationforwhatappearstobeanemergingtrendinhighereducationleadership,especiallywhenthecountries,cultures,andeducationalsystemsex-aminedareasdiverseasthese.Nevertheless,someconjec-turesseemwarranted.

A good place to start is with the actual selection ofpresidentsandchancellors.Untilrecently,mostcountries’methodsforselectinguniversityleaderswereeitheranelec-tionbyprofessors(andinsomecases,otheremployeesoftheinstitution)orselectionbygovernments.Thatprocessbeganchanginginrecentyearsand,today,manypresidentsareselectedby formalcouncilshavingvaryingdegreesofconnection with governments and consisting of a variety

of university stakeholders. The other method builds offofagoverningboardofpersons,usuallyacombinationofrepresentativesfromwithintheuniversity,andother,non-academicpersonsselectedbygovernment.Theactualau-tonomyofsuchboardsvariesconsiderably.

By and large, when the method affords members oftheuniversityapreponderantvoice,therecordisfortheirchoosinganacademic,andevidencesuggestsapreferencefor a scholar from the country in which the university islocated.Familiarity,itseems,doesnotfostercontempt.

Wherenonacademicsoutnumberacademics iswhereitappearsthereisgreaterlikelihoodofanon-nativecandi-date(butstillmorelikelytobeanacademic)beingchosen.Thisstemsfrommembersofthecouncilorboardwithex-perienceoutsideacademia,especiallybusinessandfinance,whereglobalization longagobecameapracticalreality.Acandidatewhooffersqualifications that include active in-volvement internationally, including study or academicappointment and success in another country’s university,islessofananomalytosomeonewhosedailyactivitiesin-cludeinteractingwithpeoplearoundtheworldandacrosstimezones.

Astheroleofnonacademicsappearstobeincreasingparalleltonationalgovernmentsgrantingmoreautonomyto universities, including their governance by “citizen”boards,wemaypresumethatpresidentsfromothercoun-triesaremorelikelytobestronglyconsideredascandidates.Hence,thenascenttrendobservedheremaywellcontinueandgrow.

Asecondfactorpromotingtheselectionofnon-nativeuniversity presidents is that it is part of the even largergrowthofinternationalhighereducation.Estimatesofstu-dentsstudyingabroadworldwiderangefrom3.7tonearly5millionannually.Year-over-yeargrowthis10–12percent.Data on faculty foreign exchanges from 2014–2015 and2015–2016 reveal an increase worldwide of more than 7percent,acontinuationofseveralyearsduringwhichforallbutoneyearthenumbersofprofessorsoptingtospendasustainedperiodoftimeabroadhaveincreased.Morethan300universitiesoperatecampusesabroadwhereaforeigneducationprovideroffersunderitsownnameanentirede-greeprogramon-site.

Athirdconjectureleansontheanecdoteofthesortofperson who has the courage and initiative to leave one’shomeland,family,andfriendsforanothercountry,culture,andlanguageinordertopursueaneducation.Suchaper-sonis likely topossesstheambitionanddrivetoexcel innew surroundings, including that of the university s/heattends; sometimes joins as professor, department chair,dean,provost;and,yes,isselectedpresident.



A second example of the globalization

of university leadership can be observed

in the Times Higher Education (THE)

World University Rankings for 2017.


InternationalBranchCam-puses:CanTheyBeResearchUniversities?Agustian Sutrisno

Agustian Sutrisno is a lecturer at Atma Jaya Catholic University of In-donesia in Jakarta and a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, US. E-mail: [email protected].

Many international branch campuses (IBCs) are es-tablished by research-intensive universities in their

homecountries,suchasMonashUniversityMalaysiaandNYUAbuDhabi.Therearealsocaseswhenapartnershipneedstobeformedbetweenforeignandlocaluniversities;Xi’anJiaotong–LiverpoolUniversityinSuzhouisanexam-pleofanIBCwhose“parent”universitiesarebothclassifiedasresearchuniversities.However,theseIBCsarenotusu-allyseenasresearch-intensiveuniversities.IBCsareoftenconsideredteachinginstitutionswithoutadequatecapacitytoundertakein-depthresearch.

Factors Inhibiting Research at IBCsManyfactorscontributetoalackofresearchfocusamongIBCs.Theinitialmotivationtoestablishbranchcampusesisoftenprofitgeneration.BritishandAustralianuniversities,twotopIBCexportingcountries,facedcontinuousfundingcutsfromtheirgovernmentsandhadtobeentrepreneurialinlookingforadditionalsourcesoffunding,consequentlyestablishingIBCs inemergingAsianandMiddleEasterncountries. Intensive research,whichdemands substantialfunding,isthusrarelythepriority.

SupportfromlocalhostgovernmentscanbedifficultastheyseeIBCsas“foreign”entities.Thesehostgovernmentsallow the establishment of IBCs mainly to absorb unmetdemand for higher education at the undergraduate level.Postgraduate courses are on offer chiefly to increase pro-fessional skills—thus coursework programs, rather thanresearchprograms,areonofferinmostIBCs.

WithregardtotheacademicsinvolvedintheIBCoper-ations,manyinvolvefly-in,fly-outlecturersfromthehomecountrieswhospendshortperiodsat theIBCsdeliveringintensive courses, without real opportunities to conductresearch.Iftheyareengagedinanyresearchduringtheirstay,itmostlikelytakestheformofshort-termdatacollec-tion.Thebulkof the researchwork is completedback inthe home country universities. Their publications are as-sociatedwiththehomecountryuniversities.

AsthenumberofIBCscontinuestoincrease,somearebecomingmorepermanentfeaturesofthelocalhigheredu-cationscene,notablyinMalaysia.Itisnaturaltothinkthatthesecampuseswillbegintohavethecapacityandaspira-tionstodoresearch.Therecruitmentofacademicstaffwillbeforlongertermsandfewerfly-in,fly-outlecturersfromthe home country universities will be involved. The newfacultywillhavebetteropportunitiestodoresearchlocally.SomeIBCsalsohavesomeaccesstolocalhostgovernmentresearchgrants.Recently,ChineseandMalaysiangovern-ments,mainhostcountriesforIBCs,havevoicedtheiras-pirationstomakethesecampusesmoreresearchfocused.Whilethepossibilitytobemoreresearchfocusedisstartingtoemerge,willtheseIBCsinthelongrunbecomeresearchuniversities?

Etzkowitz’s “Triple-Helix” model seeks to clarify howentrepreneurialresearchuniversitiesfunction.Themodelrequires three key elements working in unison: govern-mentsupport,research-orientedhumanresourcesinuni-versities, and partnering industries. When applying thismodel toanalyzeIBCs, thepartnershipwith industries isperhapsakeyprobleminturningIBCsintoresearchuni-versities.ThisofcourseisnotanexclusiveproblemoftheIBCs. National flagship universities throughout emerg-ingeconomies face thesame issue.Theestablishmentof

IBCs in industrial parks or special economic zones doesnotguaranteecloserelationshipwithindustrydespitethegeographicalproximity.Manyofthesespecialzoneshousemultinationalcompanieswhoseresearchanddevelopmentdepartmentsarelocatedontheoppositesideoftheglobe.Theydonotneedbasicscientificresearchtobecarriedoutlocally.Therefore,althoughlocalgovernmentscancontrib-ute with substantial funding to bring research universi-tiesandIBCstotheirshores,asexhibitedbysomeofthewealthyGulfcountries,fundingalonemaynotbesufficienttoinstigateuniversity–industrypartnerships—akeyfactorthatsupportstheoperationofresearchuniversitiesinmanydevelopedcountries.


These host governments allow the es-

tablishment of IBCs mainly to absorb

unmet demand for higher education at

the undergraduate level.


Possible ScenariosWithsuchapredicament,isitthencorrecttoassumethatitisimpossibletoturnIBCsintoresearchuniversities?ItisperhapstooearlytosaywhetherIBCswillremainintheirpresent state as teaching institutions. Three possible sce-nariosmaychange theiroutlook in the future.First,hostgovernmentpoliciesonIBCshavealwayschangedaccord-ingtonationalinterests.Governmentsarebecomingmoreaware of the fact that allowing IBCs to function as mereteaching institutionsdoesnot serve their interests if theyaspire to be industrialized nations with knowledge-basedeconomies. Host governments may mandate IBCs to un-dertake more research to support their economic and in-dustrialneeds.WhilegivingmandatesdoesnotnecessarilymakeIBCsfunctionasresearchinstitutions,thepersistentoneswilltrytoadheretothesemandatestomaintaintheirpresence. Otherwise, they may have to abandon their in-vestmentsintermsofbuildinginfrastructureinthecoun-try,andalsosufferreputationaldamage.

Second, demands and opportunities from industries(bothlocalandmultinational)toconductappliedresearchmay speed up the transformation of IBCs. For example,somelocalindustriesinChinaareemergingasglobalplay-ers with sufficient funding to set aside for research anddevelopment. The establishment of IBCs that are specifi-cally aimed at conducting research and technology trans-fer—suchasGuangdongTechnionIsraelInstituteofTech-nology and Shenzhen Moscow State University–BeijingInstituteofTechnology(MSU–BIT)University—attests totheattractiveuniversity–industrypartnershipopportunitiesmadeavailablebylocalhigh-techindustriesandentrepre-neurshipecosystems.IBCscandrawontheir“parent”uni-versities’researchstrengthsandonlocalormultinationalindustries’technologytransferneedstodomoreresearchinthehostcountries.

Third, when demand for research qualifications in-creases, IBCs will start offering research programs andbecomeresearchfocused.CountriessuchasMalaysiaandChina,whicharenowundergoingamassificationoftheirhighereducation,maysoonenteraperiodwherethemaindemandfortertiaryeducationsystemsliesinresearchqual-ifications.Duetomassification,localnationaluniversitiesarebecomingveryadeptatproviding teachingprograms,butmaynotbeadequatelypreparedtoofferresearchpro-grams yet. Coupled with their governments’ ambition tobecome knowledge-based economies, students will morelikely access IBCs to obtain research qualifications. Moreempirical research is of course needed to ascertain howthese scenariosare currentlybeingplayedout in the realworld.

ChangesarepossibleforIBCsindevelopingcountries,but transformingthemintoflagshipresearchuniversities

maynothappeninthenearfuture,ifatall.However,therearenicheareasofappliedandtechnologytransferresearchthattheywillbeabletofillinsufficientlytobeperceivedasresearchuniversitiesbytheircommunities.ThiswilloccurinawaythatisparticulartothecontextoftheIBCs,distinctfromtheir“parent”universities.


InternationalizationofUni-versities:TheGermanWayMarijke Wahlers

Marijke Wahlers is head of the International Department, German Rectors’ Conference, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].

The concept of internationalization at German univer-sities,whichhasregainedconsiderablestrengthsince

the late 1980s,hashistoricallybeenbasedon the ideaofcooperation and partnership, thanks to the post-1945 be-lief thatonlyaGermany thatwasfirmlyanchored inEu-ropeand theworld couldbe internationally acceptedandeconomicallysuccessful.Therehasbeen,therefore,atradi-tionofpolitical support for theexchangeof studentsandresearchersembeddedin internationaluniversitypartner-shipsbasedonanequalfootingandontrust.Inthe1990s,numerous binational initiatives, such as the Franco–Ger-manUniversityandtheSino–GermanCollegeforGradu-ate Studies, exemplified this idea of trust-based coopera-tion for the purpose of promoting cultural exchange andunderstandingbetweenpeople.Thiscooperativeapproachtointernationalizationhassincereceivedfurthervitalimpe-tusfromtheeducationprogramsoftheEuropeanUnion,whichrequirethefullintegrationofstudentmobilityintoregularstudyprograms.

More recently, growing competition within the Ger-mansystem,coupledwiththeeffectsofglobalization,haveresultedintheemergenceofamorecompetitiveapproach.Interestingly,itwasagaintheEuropeandimensionwhichprovidedcrucial impetushere,especially thegoaldefinedby European education ministers in 1998 of creating acompetitiveandinternationallyattractiveEuropeanHigherEducationArea aiming to gain a sizeable share in an ex-pandingworldwidemarketofgloballymobilestudentsandresearchers.ItisworthnotingthatGermanuniversitiesap-proachedthestandardrhetoricofthe“horseracefortalent”withadegreeofhesitation.Theideaofself-promotionwasratherforeigntothemforseveralreasons.First,bothrela-



tivelyopenuniversityaccessandthelong-heldassumptionthatthecountry’suniversitieswerehomogenousintermsof quality meant that there was virtually no experience,nationally,ofmarketingtoattractstudents.Second,itwassimplyassumedthatthegoodqualityofresearchandteach-ingatGermaninstitutionswasalreadywellknownandthatthesebrandcredentialswereenoughonthe internationalhighereducationmarket.

Different Rationales for Attracting International Students

Similarly,thecooperativeandcompetitiveapproacheshavecoexistedformanyyearswithregardtoattractinginterna-tionalstudents,althoughtheseapproacheshavebeendis-tinct andunconnected.Themore cooperative rationale iseasilygleanedfromGermany’straditionofofferingtuition-free university education. Within this context, a growingnumber of international students have been studying atGerman universities, either taking courses as part of de-greesawardedbytheirhomeinstitutionsorforafullGer-mandegree.For students fromdevelopingand thresholdcountries,financialassistancehasoftenbeenlinkedtoare-quirementtoreturntotheirhomecountriespromptlyaftercompletingtheirstudiesinordertocounterthebraindraineffect.Providinganeducationtoalargenumberofinterna-tionalstudentsatthecostofGermantaxpayersisregardedas Germany’s contribution to international exchange andglobaldevelopment.Nolessimportantly,theinternationalalumniofGermaninstitutionsarevaluedasimportantam-bassadorsandworldwidepartnersforGermany.

We may observe the more competitive rationale withnationwide initiatives such as GATE–Germany, throughwhichGermanuniversitieshavegraduallycome to termswith, and built competence in, international marketing.Universitieshaveincreasingly takenpart ininternationaleducation fairs and similar initiatives; some institutionshaveevenestablishedrepresentativeofficesabroadforthepurpose of attracting excellent students and early careerresearchers. This approach is supported not only by gov-ernment,butalsoby industry,whichviewsuniversities—sometimes, regrettably, with a rather one-dimensionalperspective—as“magnets”foracademicallyqualifiedindi-vidualsfromabroad.

Theseparallelapproacheshaveresultedinadramaticincrease in the number of international students in Ger-manyoverthepasttwodecades—from158,000in1997toapproximately358,000in2017(about12percentofallstu-dents).Itshouldalsobenotedthattheinternationalstudentbody is extremely heterogeneous. As in most host coun-tries,Chinaisbyfarthelargestcountryoforigin.Neverthe-less,Chinesestudentsonlymakeuparound13percentofthetotalinternationalstudentbodyinGermany—contrast-

ingwith30percentinAustralia,32percentintheUnitedStates,and37percentintheUnitedKingdom.Preparatorylanguageandcontentcoursesandongoingsupportandad-viceforthisheterogeneousinternationalstudentbodyposesignificantchallengestoGermanuniversitiesthataremorethanjustfinancial.Atthesametime,internationalstudentsofferconsiderablepotentialtoGermanyasaplaceofstudyandresearch.Thisvaluablecontribution,forexamplehelp-ingachievea truly “international classroom,” isbeing in-creasinglyrecognizedandutilizedbyuniversities.

Where Do We Go from Here?Withfewexceptions,thesubstantialincreaseinthenum-ber of international students has occurred without uni-versities being able to demand financial contributions orcost-coveringtuitionfeesfromthisgroup.Notsurprisingly,thishascausedsomeastonishmentaroundtheglobe,withinternational partners wondering whether their Germancolleaguesweresimplynaïveandgood-naturedor,infact,remarkablyastute.

The question arises as to whether, and how, the twosometimescontradictoryrationalesdescribedherecan, inthefuture,beharmonized.LikeotherEuropeancountries,Germanycouldfollowtheexampleofleadinghostnationsand demand substantial fees from international studentsto cover the costs of their education. The argument thatGerman taxpayers should not be expected to pay for in-ternationalstudentsisanunderstandableone.Yet,theex-ampleoftheintroductionoffeesforinternationalstudentsfromcountriesoutsidetheEuropeanUnionbythestateofBaden–Württemberg(startingfromthiscurrentwinterse-mester)illustratesthatanalltoosimplecost–benefitanaly-sisisgenerallyinadequateinastate-dominatedsystemlikeinGermany.Inthiscase,itisalreadyclearthattheuniversi-tieswillnotbenefitfromtheadditionalincome:whiletheymust handle the additional administrative workload, uni-versitieswillberequiredtopass80percentoftherevenuetothefederalstate.

So,thereismuchtobesaidinfavorofanalternativeop-


The concept of internationalization at

German universities, which has re-

gained considerable strength since the

late 1980s, has historically been based

on the idea of cooperation and partner-

ship.


tion:intheglobalcompetitivemarket,Germanycanfurtherenhanceitsprofilebyconsistentlypursuingitspartnership-basedapproach.Thiswouldmeanthatthecountrydeliber-atelysetsitselfapartfromthemainstreamofrecruitingin-ternationalstudentstocoverdeficitsinuniversitybudgets.There isplentyofevidence thatnotonlyuniversities,butalsotheeconomyandsociety,reaplong-termbenefits.Ger-manuniversitiesarethereforedoingwelltofurtherinterna-tionalizetheirstructuresandofferattractiveconditionstostudents,researchers,andexpertsfromallovertheworld.Attractivenessnotonlydependsonthelegalframeworkforstudying,research,andemployment,butalsoontheestab-lishmentofacosmopolitanculturewithinuniversitiesandbeyond.Theargumentdoesnotextend,however, topositthat students—including international students—shouldbe exempt from making a financial contribution to thecostsoftheirdegree.Foralongtime,theGermanRectors’Conferencehasexpresseditssupportfortheintroductionofmoderate,sociallysupportedtuitionfeesforallstudents.

It remains to be seen how the situation will evolvefurther. The newly elected state government in NorthRhine–Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, hasannounced its intention to introduce tuition fees for stu-dentsfromcountriesoutsidetheEuropeanUnion.Itisnotyetclearexactlyhowthiswillwork,whetherotherfederalstateswillfollowsuit,orwhatimpactthiswillhaveonthehigher education sector’s internationalization efforts. Butwhatisalreadyclearisthatuniversitieswillonlybeabletopursueaclearinternationalizationstrategyiftheyaregivengreaterscopeforautonomousdecision-makingininterna-tionalmatters—fromadmissionsandstaffrecruitmenttoresourceallocation.


MappingInternationaliza-tiononUSCampusesLucia Brajkovic and Robin Matross Helms

Lucia Brajkovic is senior research specialist, and Robin Matross Helms is director for internationalization and global engagement, American Council on Education. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

AsignatureresearchprojectoftheAmericanCouncilonEducation’s(ACE)CenterforInternationalizationand

GlobalEngagement(CIGE),theMapping Internationaliza-tionon U.S. Campuses study,assesseseveryfiveyears the

current state of internationalization at American collegesand universities, analyzes progress and trends over time,andidentifiesfuturepriorities.The2016Mappingsurvey—like the three previous iterations—addressed the six keyareas that comprise the CIGE Model for ComprehensiveInternationalization:articulatedcommitment;administra-tivestructuresandstaffing;curriculum,cocurriculum,andlearning outcomes; faculty policies and practices; studentmobility;andcollaborationandpartnerships.Thisarticleisbasedonalongerreport,whichisavailableatwww.acenet.edu/mapping.

Key findings from the 2016 Mapping SurveyAs in 2011 and previous iterations of the study, the finalpicturepaintedbythe2016Mapping dataisofacomplexlandscape—promising gains in many areas, slower (ornegligible)progressinothers,andsomenoteworthyshiftsin broader trends and priorities. The past five years havegenerallyseengreaterinstitutionalsupportforinternation-alization, in terms of both administrative structures andstaffing,andfinancialresources.Articulatedcommitmentto internationalization in mission statements and strate-gicplansismoreprevalent,andisincreasinglysupportedby specific policies and programming that operationalizebroadideals.Two-yearinstitutions,inparticular,haveseennotable progress in a number of areas, whereas doctoralinstitutionsseemtohaveplateauedincertainaspectsofin-ternationalization.

While the data in the individual pillars of the CIGEModelforComprehensiveInternationalizationareforthemostpartencouraging,acomparisonofoverallpercentagesacrosscategoriesindicatesthatformanyinstitutions,inter-nationalization efforts are still focused first and foremoston the external; student mobility in both directions andinternational partnerships are identified as top prioritiesfor internationalization. On-campus internationalizationefforts, in contrast, are seen as relatively less important;internationalization of the curriculum/cocurriculum andfaculty professional development rank number four andnumberfive,respectively,intermsofoverallprioritiesforinternationalization. Though 2016 saw progress in termsofstudentlearningoutcomesandacademicrequirements,still only about half of institutions reported active effortstowardcurriculuminternationalization.Whenitcomestofacultypoliciesandsupport,progressover timehasbeenmarkedlyslowerthaninmanyotherareas,andrecognitionoffacultycontributionstointernationalizationisaconcerngoingforward.

This external orientation for internationalization ef-forts isultimatelyproblematic in that itneglects thecoreoftheacademicenterprise.Atitsheart,highereducationisaboutstudentlearning,andforthemajorityofUSstudents



who are not internationally mobile—as well as interna-tionalstudentscomingtoUSinstitutionsfromaroundtheworld—thatmeanstheon-campuscurriculumandcocur-riculum.Astheprimarydriversofteachingandresearch,facultyare the lynchpinsofstudent learning; inorder forstudents toachieveglobal learninggoals, facultymustbegloballycompetentthemselves,abletoconveytheirinterna-tionalexperienceandexpertiseintheclassroom,wellpre-paredtoengageeffectivelywithinternationalstudents,andactivelycommittedtotheinternationalizationendeavor.

It is not an accident that “curriculum, cocurriculum,andstudentlearningoutcomes,”and“facultypoliciesandpractices” are the two center pillars of the CIGE ModelforComprehensive Internationalization.Theirposition isindicative of their importance; attention to these areas iscritical in order for internationalization to fully take holdthroughout collegesanduniversities, rather than remain-ingaperipheralactivity.Ascoreactivities,theyarearguablythehardesttochange;goingforward,however,theyrequireincreased effort and resources as institutions strive fordeeper,morecomprehensivecampusinternationalization.

The Future of Internationalization in the United States

Whenlookingtowardthefutureofinternationalization,itisimpossibletoignoreUSpoliticaldevelopmentsinearly2017.The Mapping survey closed inDecember2016, fol-lowingtheelectionofPresidentDonaldTrump,butpriortohisinauguration.Asofthewritingofthisarticle,theTrumpadministrationhasissuedaseriesofexecutiveordersandpolicystatementsrelatedtoimmigrationandforeignrela-tionsthatwilllikelyimpact,perhapsdramatically,studentmobility—the aspect of internationalization delineatedclearlyby thedataas the toppriority forUScollegesanduniversities.

InalettertothesecretaryoftheDepartmentofHome-landSecuritysentbyACEand46otherUShighereduca-tionassociationsinresponsetotheJanuary2017executiveorder titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terror-ist Entry into the United States,” ACE’s president, MollyCorbettBroad,stated,“Wefearthechillingeffectthiswill

haveontheabilityofinternationalstudentsandscholarstocontinuetoseetheUnitedStatesasawelcomingplaceforstudyandresearch.”This“chillingeffect”wasalsoacentralcomponentof the court arguments thatultimately stayedtheinitialexecutiveorder.

WhileanecdotalreportsfromUScampuses,aswellassourcesabroad,indicatethatthecurrentpoliticalenviron-mentisindeedfactoringintointernationalstudents’deci-sionsaboutwheretostudy,thelong-termeffectonstudentmobility numbers—and broader internationalization ef-forts—is difficult to predict. Responses will undoubtedlyvarybyinstitutionandsector.

AtarecentmeetingofthecurrentcohortofACE’sIn-ternationalization Laboratory, an 18-month program thatguidesinstitutionsthroughastrategicplanningprocessforinternationalization,someparticipantsdescribedtheover-allclimateforinternationalizationas“demoralizing”;oth-ers,however,characterizeditas“energizing”—atimetore-focusandpushforward.Inlightofnewpolicyhurdlesandachargedpoliticalclimate,somecollegesanduniversitiesmayindeedturnawayfrominternationalizationactivities.Forothers,though,momentumwillcontinue,perhapswithdifferentactivitiesandemphasescomingtothefore.

Rather than relying on direct recruitment of interna-tionalstudents,forexample,someinstitutionsmightseekto strengthen relationships with international partners asameanstofacilitatestudentmobility.Othersmaydevelopnewacademicprogrammingforoverseasstudentpopula-tions,orenhancetheircapacityforvirtualteachingandre-searchcollaborations.Andsomeinstitutionsmayturntheirinternationalizationfocusinward,withincreasedattentionandresourcesdevotedtoon-campuscurricular,cocurricu-lar, and faculty development initiatives—exactly what isneeded, as noted previously, to advance progress towardcomprehensiveinternationalizationinwaysthatanexclu-sivelyexternalorientationwillnotallow.

Whateverhappensintermsofpoliticsandpolicy,theoverall lesson fromtheMappingstudywill likelyendure:there are always challenges to internationalization, buttherearealwaysopportunitiesaswell.Onlytime—andthe2021 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses sur-vey—will tell what impact the current political discoursewillhave,andhowtheinternationalizationjourneywillplayout on American college and university campuses in thecomingyears.


The past five years have generally seen

greater institutional support for interna-

tionalization, in terms of both admin-

istrative structures and staffing, and

financial resources.


IncreasingInternationalStu-dents’TuitionFees:TheTwoSidesoftheCoinDaniel Sanchez-Serra and Gabriele Marconi

Daniel Sanchez-Serra and Gabriele Marconi are analysts at the Di-rectorate for Education and Skills, Organisation for Economic Co-op-eration and Development (OECD). The opinions expressed and argu-ments employed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or its member countries. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

The existence and level of tuition fees are among themosthotlydebatedissuesincurrenthighereducation

policydiscussions.At least tenOECDcountrieshave im-plementedreformsinthisareasince2010.However,strik-ingtherightbalanceisnoteasy.Ontheonehand,highertuition fees contribute tobetter funded tertiary educationsystems,especiallyintimesoftightpublicbudgets.Ontheotherhand,higherfeescanputaburdenonfamilieswhosechildrenenroll in tertiaryeducation,especially thosewithlimitedfinancialmeans.

Inmanycountries,however,internationalstudentsareregardedasagroupforwhichhighertuitionfeesarelesspoliticallycontroversial.Indeed,inabouthalfoftheOECDcountries,public educational institutions chargedifferenttuitionfeesfornationalandforeignstudentsenrolledinthesame programs. In Australia, Austria, Canada, New Zea-land,andtheUnitedStates,foreignstudentspayonaver-agetwiceormorethetuitionfeespaidbynationalstudents,while in Denmark and Sweden, tuition fees are chargedexclusivelytoforeignstudentswhocomefromoutsidetheEuropeanEconomicArea(EEA).Inabsolutelevels,thedif-ference in tuition fees between national and foreign stu-dentscanbeverylarge:inalltheaforementionedcountries(exceptAustria),thisdifferenceexceedsUS$8,000peryear.

For somecountries, thedifference in tuition feesde-pends on geopolitical factors that do not coincide exactlywiththedistinctionbetween“national”and“foreign.”Forexample,intheUnitedStates,nationalstudentsusuallypaythe same tuition fees as foreign students if they study inpublicuniversitiesoutsideof their stateof residence.Forprivate universities, there is typically no difference in tu-itionrates.Alternately,studentsfromtheEEAcanstudyinanyothercountrywithinthisarea,payingthesametuitionfeesasnationalstudents.

Recentinternationalexperiencesintuitionfeereformscaninspireothercountrieslookingforevidence.Forexam-ple, in the last 15years,Denmark,NewZealand,Swedenand, very recently, Finland, have introduced or modifiedsubstantiallythetuitionfeeschargedbypublicinstitutionstosomeoftheirforeignstudents.Evidencefromthesere-forms (discussed below) shows that foreign students arelesswillingtoselectahostcountrywithhightuitionfees.However,asubstantialnumberofforeignstudentscontin-uetoenroll,presumablyattractedbytheperceivedqualityofeducation,labourmarketprospects,orlifecircumstanc-esinthehostcountries.Theseforeignstudents,whoenrolldespite thehigher tuition fees, canbringsubstantial eco-nomicgainstothehosthighereducationsystems.

The Financial Contribution of Foreign StudentsThe main considerations behind reforms in foreign stu-dents’tuitionfeesarefinancial.Thecontributionthatfor-eign students make to the funding of national educationsystemscanbeapproximatedbymultiplyingtheirnumbersatthebachelor’sandmaster’s(orequivalent)levelsbytheaveragetuitionfeestheypay.Thisfigureisthendividedbythe totalexpenditureonpublicandprivate institutionsatthebachelor’s,master’s,anddoctoral(orequivalent)levels,excluding research and development. In 2013, this ratio,whichgivesanideaofforeignstudents’roleinfundingahighereducationsystem, ranged frommore than25per-centinAustraliaandNewZealandto1percentinAustriaandSweden.

The large streams of revenue from foreign students’feesthatareobservedinAustraliaandNewZealandaredueboth to the high numbers of fee-paying foreign studentsandtothecomparativelyhightuitionfeestheypay(whichexceedUS$14,000inbothcountries).Incontrast,thetu-itionfeespaidbyforeignstudentsinAustriaarerelativelylow(aboutUS$11,700perstudentperyear,onaverage);inSweden, theshareof foreignstudentspayinghigher feesin2013wasstillrelativelylow(studentsenrolledbeforethereformof2011–2012donotpaytuitionfees).

How Do Foreign Students Respond?In the period from 2004 to 2014, three OECD countries

In many countries, however, interna-

tional students are regarded as a group

for which higher tuition fees are less po-

litically controversial.


haveimplementedreformsaimedatchangingtuitionfeesforinternationalstudents.Evidencefromnationalreformsimplemented in Denmark, New Zealand, and Swedenshowsthattuitionfeesandthenumberofnewinternation-alentrantsarestronglyrelated.

In2006,NewZealandintroducedapolicythataimedtoattract international students to joinPhDprogramsbysubsidizingtheirtuitionfees,similarlytonationalstudents.Attractionandretentionofinternationalstudentswerealsopromotedbygrantingthemandtheirpartnerssomerightstoworkinthecountry.Thispolicyprovedeffectivethesameyearofitsimplementation,asthenumberofnewinterna-tional entrants to PhD programs more than doubled in2006andcontinuedgrowingsteadilyfrom2007onward.

Ontheotherhand,Denmark(in2006)andSweden(in2011)introducedtuitionfeesforforeignstudentsinshort-cycletertiaryprograms(bachelor’s,master’s,orequivalentdegree programs). While national students and studentsfromtheEEAdidnothavetopaytuitionfees,newentrantsfromoutsidetheEEAhadtopayoverUS$11,000inDen-markandoverUS$13,000inSweden.Theyearinwhichthereformbecameeffective saw thenumberofnational andEEAstudents increase inboth countries,while thenum-berofinternationalstudentsfellby20percentinDenmarkand,evenmoredramatically,by80percentinSweden.

Higher Tuition Fees for Foreign Students: All Good?Availabledatashowsthatforeignstudentscanbemadetofundasubstantialamountofatertiaryeducationsystem’sexpenditure.Theyhavebeencalledthe“cashcows”ofter-tiary education, in this publication and in other authori-tative sources. This has motivated many governments tochargeforeignstudentshigherfeesthannationalstudents.

However, international students can afford to be se-lective: they are willing to move and have many options.Availableevidenceshowsthatthenumberofinternationalstudentscomingtoacountrycandeclinedramaticallyfol-lowinganincreaseintuitionfees.

A reduction in the number of international studentscanpotentiallyharmatertiaryeducationsystem,asinter-nationalstudentsdonotonlybringtheirfinancialcontribu-tion,butalsoadiversityofperspectivesandcultures thatimproves the educational experience of all students. Dis-criminationbynationalitycanalsoharmthestudentexpe-riencebycreatingdividesbetweenstudents.

Perhapsbecauseof thesereasons,a fewmonthsago,both national and international students in Belgium en-rolledat theFreeUniversityofBrussels and theCatholicUniversityofLeuvenprotestedstronglytoopposeplanstoincreasetuitionfeesforinternationalstudents—andtheseprotestswere successful.Charging tuition fees to foreignstudentscanbeatooltoboostthefundingoftertiaryeduca-

tion,butgovernmentsmustkeepinmindthatthistoolis,essentially,adouble-edgedsword.


“OneBeltOneRoad”andCentralAsia:ANewTrendinInternationalizationofHigh-erEducation?Aisi Li

Aisi Li is assistant professor at the Graduate School of Education, Naz-arbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected].

InhisspeechatNazarbayevUniversity,Astana, in2013,theChinesepresidentXiJinpingproposedthe“SilkRoad

EconomicBelt.”Theproposal,togetherwiththe“MaritimeSilkRoad” venture,has evolved tobecome the “OneBeltOne Road” (OBOR) strategy. The Belt covers a vast areaalongtheancientSilkRoad,stretchingfromChinatoEu-rope throughCentralAsia.Criticssee thisstrategyas thelatest projection of China’s economic ambitions in theworld and another form of its soft power policy. The fiveCentral Asian Republics, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajiki-stan,Turkmenistan,andUzbekistan,respondedtoOBORdifferently.Kazakhstan’sNurly Zhol(LightedPath)initiativedirectly tiedintoOBOR,reflectingthecountry’sambitiontobemorethanatransitzonebetweenChinaandEurope.TurkmenistanandUzbekistanarecautiousaboutChineselabor force expansion, and have therefore restricted thenumberofChineseemployeesthatcanbehiredforprojectsintheircountries.Inhighereducation,OBORhasmadeareal impact on Central Asia. Four years on, several ques-tionshavearisenregardingthestrategy’s implicationsforhighereducationinChinaandCentralAsia.

China’s Investment in ScholarshipsOBOR’semphasisonfosteringrelationshasinevitablyledtoconnectingtheregionthrougheducation.Inhisspeech,Xiannounceda10-yearplantoprovide30,000scholarshipsto students from the member countries of the ShanghaiCooperationOrganization (SCO) tostudyatChineseuni-versities,andtoinvite10,000teachersandstudentsfromtheregion’sConfuciusInstitutestoparticipateintrainingprogramsinChina.SincefouroutofeightSCOmembersareCentralAsianRepublics,suchagenerousproposalhas


ledtospeculationthatChinaisleveraginghighereducationasameanstoinfluenceCentralAsia.

Infact,Chinahasbeenprovidingscholarshipsforstu-dentsfromCentralAsiasincetherepublicsbecameinde-pendent in theearly 1990s.Thescholarshipsrange fromgovernment scholarships at various levels to institutionalscholarships, the fundingofConfucius Institutes, aswellas fullorpartialscholarshipsprovidedbyprivateentities.ThesescholarshipsoftenreflectChina’snationalpolicyori-entation.Forexample,withOBORbeingacurrent focus,thenumbersofscholarshipsforCentralAsianstudentsareontherise,asreflectedintheincreasednumberallocatedtoSCOmembercountries.

In2013,morethan20,000studentsfromCentralAsiastudied inChina,ofwhomapproximately2,200were re-cipients of Chinese government scholarships. The latestfiguresreleasedbyChina’sministryofeducationrevealthatKazakhstanisamongthetoptencountriesreceivingChi-nesegovernmentscholarships,particularlyunderOBOR’spolicysupport.

China’s initiatives to attract Central Asian studentscome as no surprise. Higher education has been an ap-proach of China’s cultural diplomacy to win hearts andminds around the world. At the practical level, a produc-tiveandsustainablerelationshipbetweenChinaandCen-tralAsianeedstobesupportedbywell-trainedprofession-als. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Russia remainsthe first choice of Central Asian students when it comestostudyabroad.Historically,CentralAsianelitesareedu-catedinRussiaandtheykeepstrongculturalandpoliticaltieswithRussia.Whether the increasingnumberofCen-tral Asian students in China would shift this connectionremainsaquestion.

The Confucius InstituteThe Confucius Institute is another important institutionthatfacilitateshighereducationexchangesbetweenCentralAsiaandChinathroughlanguagetrainingaswellasaward-ing“Confucius InstituteScholarships” tostudents, schol-ars, and Chinese language teachers of other countries tostudyinselecteduniversitiesinChina.

Ithasbeenlongarguedthat,apartfromraisingaware-nessofChineselanguageandChineseculture,theConfu-ciusInstituteisalsoavitalcomponentofChina’ssoftpow-erpolicy.Xi’sspeechonallocatingscholarshipstostudentsand teachers from the Confucius Institute in the regionpreciselycapturesthisrole.

Currently,thereare12ConfuciusInstitutesinCentralAsia, excludingTurkmenistan.Theyareconsideredasanimportant facilitatorofOBOR.ComparedwithConfuciusInstitutes inEuropeandNorthAmerica, those inCentralAsiahaveexperiencedashortageofteachers,andalackof

textbooks in the national languages of Central Asian Re-publics.

Untiltoday,RussianremainsthecommonlanguageinCentralAsia, reflectingRussia’sextensiveanddeep influ-ence.Theriseof theChinese language,supportedby theChinesegovernment,maybeseenasacompetitortoRus-sia’sculturalinfluenceintheregion.

Internationalization at China’s FrontierAlessvisibleconsequenceofthesefrequentexchangesistheirimpactontheinternationalizationofhighereducationin Xinjiang, China’s northwestern frontier. Geographicalproximity has been a reason why Central Asian studentsfavorXinjiangasadestination.Inaddition,well-developedinfrastructure, lowcostsof livingand tuition,and the in-creasingqualityofprogramsaremakingXinjianganidealdestination.Policysupporthasalsocontributed to the in-crease of student enrollments from Central Asia. Since

2008, 100 Chinese government scholarships have beenspecifically allocated to Xinjiang annually to attract inter-nationalstudents,focusingonstudentsfromCentralAsia.This inclination is explicitly stated in theMid- andLong-TermEducationalReformandDevelopmentPlanofXinji-angUygurAutonomousRegion2010–2020.Bytheendof2013,therewerealmost7,000internationalstudentsstudy-inginXinjiang,anincreaseofnearlythreetimescomparedwith2010.In2014,almost80percentofinternationalstu-dentsinXinjiangwerefromCentralAsia.

XinjiangalsoplaysanimportantroleinthegrowthoftheConfuciusInstituteinCentralAsia.Amongthe12Con-fucius Institutes there, sevenarepartneredwithXinjianguniversities. In Kyrgyzstan, all four Confucius InstituteshaveXinjiangpartners.Thepartnershipsecho thepriori-tiesofdevelopingwesternChinathroughhighereducationcooperationwithCentralAsia,andXinjianghasauniquerolewithinthisnationalpolicy.

Xinjiangmaybe inadisadvantageousposition in re-cruiting students domestically. However, it presents a re-gionaladvantage inrecruitingstudentsfromneighboringcountries.Atthenationalpolicylevel,theseadvantagesareexpectedtoassisthighereducationdevelopmentonChina’sfrontier.

OBOR’s emphasis on fostering rela-

tions has inevitably led to connecting

the region through education.


Where Is This Leading?Three issues can be observed from OBOR’s impact onhighereducationrelationsbetweenCentralAsiaandChi-na. First, education sector developments follow China’scultural diplomacy discourse, emphasizing building peo-ple-to-peoplerelationshipsthrougheducation.However,itis still uncertain whether China’s educational investmentwillcontribute to theeconomictransformationofCentralAsia, e.g., help the region move from dependency on ex-tractiveindustrytoadiversifiedeconomy.Second,China’sfrontierregionsappear tobe“quietachievers” in interna-tionalizationofhighereducationunderOBOR,andfurtherdevelopmentcanbeexpectedinXinjiang.Thirdandmostimportantly, China’s growing presence in Central Asia’seducationspheremaychallengeRussia’sdominantroleintheregion.Thereismuchresearchregardingthecompeti-tionbetweenChinaandRussiaforeconomicandpoliticalinfluence,butlittleisknownaboutthecompetitionintheeducationalsphereandits implicationsfor theeconomic,political,andculturaltransformationofCentralAsia.


TrainingAdministrativeStafftoBecomeKeyPlayersintheInternationalizationofHigh-erEducationFiona Hunter

Fiona Hunter is associate director, Centre for Higher Education Inter-nationalization, Università del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. E-mail: [email protected].

Asdefinitionsofinternationalizationhaveevolvedoverthelast25yearsorso,theyhavetypicallyexcluded—or

madeonlyscantreferenceto—theadministrativefunction.However, in the more recent definitions that advocate acomprehensiveapproach,thereisincreasinglyevidentref-erencemadetosupportfunctionsintheuniversitycontext,andyettheroleofadministrativestaffisrarelydiscussed.To a large extent, this trend is reflected also in the prac-ticeofinternationalization,where,althoughadministrativestaffhavealwaysbeeninvolved,thefocushasbeenplacedprincipally on academic activities and hence on studentsandteachers.

Whiletheyhaveoftenbeenleft inthebackground,at

times invisible actors, administrative staff have neverthe-less been expected to adapt to the changing institutionalneeds and provide the requisite levels of service, with orwithouttheappropriatetraining.AcurrentErasmus+proj-ect,SystematicUniversityChangetowardInternationaliza-tion(SUCTI),seekstoplayapartinaddressingthisover-sightbyrecognizingthefundamentalrolethesestaffplay,andbyenablingthemtobecomeactiveparticipantsintheinternationalizationprocessesattheirinstitutionsthroughtheprovisionofdedicatedtraining.

Inordertobetterunderstandtheirneedsandthecon-text in which they operate, the SUCTI team undertook atwo-partsurvey,whichincludedaquestionnairetointerna-tionaldirectorsatuniversitiesintheEuropeanHigherEdu-cationAreaandinterviewswitharangeofadministrativestaff(fromjuniortoseniorlevels)inthesixuniversitiesthatmakeuptheprojectconsortium.Anumberofkeyfindingsemergedthatwill informthedevelopmentofthetrainingprovision tobedeliveredwithin theproject,but theyalsohavebroaderimplicationsforthemanagementofinterna-tionalization.

Building CommitmentAsistobeexpected,universitiessurveyeddeclareinterna-tionalizationtobeincreasinglyimportantorevenessentialto theirdevelopment, and themajoritynote that a strate-gic plan is in place. Naturally, these strategies come in arange of forms and degrees of effectiveness, and havinga strategic plan does not always mean that it is reflectedin institutionalpoliciesandeverydaypractices.Thestudyrevealedthatwherethereisacomprehensiveapproachtointernationalization,itismorelikelythattheinstitutionisalsoseekingtobuildasharedunderstandingof,andsenseofcommitmentto,internationalization.Ontheotherhand,weakerprocessestendtodividetheadministrativecommu-nity into twogroups—thosewhoarecommittedandcon-vincedversusthosewhofeeldistantanddisengagedfrominternationalization, may have limited understanding, orresistinvolvement.

Acommitmenttointernationalizationrequiresacare-fully thought-out strategic process that takes into consid-erationthedevelopmentofthewholeinstitution.Thisin-evitablyimpliesalong-termchangeprocess,andthestudyhighlighted that the more open and future-focused theuniversityis,themorelikelyitwillbewillingtoengageinorganizationalchangeasanessentialcomponentofitsin-ternationalizationstrategy.

Shifting Roles Furthermore,amorecomprehensiveapproachleadsinevi-tably to an increasing volume and scope of internationalactivityandthisrequirestheinvolvementofamoreprofes-


sionalizedadministrativecommunity.Universitiesthatrec-ognizethisneedshifttheirtraditionalunderstandingoftheadministrativeroletoonewherethesestaffplayadecisiverole in internationalization as equal partners. A shorter-term,moreadhocapproachtointernationalization,oftensuccumbing to external pressures rather than planningahead,leadstofrustration,tension,overload,andsenseofinadequacyforthoseatthecoalfaceofdelivery.

The administrative staff interviewed highlighted thatmanyofthechallengestheyfacedindealingwithinterna-tionalactivitieslayininstitutionalstructuresandpracticesthatwerenot supportiveof theneedsof internationaliza-tion.Themost frequentlymentionedwere typicalorgani-zationalchallenges:coordination,communication,andex-cessivebureaucracy.Alackofalignmentofgoalsbetweencentralmanagementandthefaculties/schoolsandtheab-senceofanenablingpolicyframeworkforinternationaliza-tionstrategiesledtotensionsandmiscommunicationsbe-tweenthedifferentadministrativeunits,andalsobetweentheadministrativeandacademiccommunities.Studypar-ticipantsalsostressedtheirownlackofadequateprepara-tiontodealwiththeirnewandoftenrapidlyshiftingroles.

Three Key SkillsWhatever the stage of development in internationaliza-tionor the traditions instrategicmanagement, therewasgeneralconsensusthat thecurrent levelofadministrativecapacityisinsufficienttodeliverhighqualityservices,andthatthereisroomforimprovementeverywhere.Thestudyhighlightedabroadrangeofgeneraltrainingprovisionintheinstitutionsbut,typically,verylittlespecifictrainingoninternationalization for administrative staff. Where train-ingisprovided,itmayormaynotbelinkedtotheinterna-tionalizationstrategy,israrelyofferedinasystematicman-ner, tailored to specific administrative needs, or formallyrecognizedforcareeradvancement.

Indeed,trainingininternationalizationistypicallyun-derstoodasparticipationinEnglishlanguagecourses,andwhile this is indeed one of three key skills that emergedfromthestudyas important foradministrativestaffneedtoacquire,itisinitselfnotenough.Thestudyalsopointedto theneedforstaff tobeable tocommunicate inamul-ticultural environment and to have an understanding ofinternationalization.Surprisingly(ornot),manyexpressed

a lackofknowledgeabout theirowninstitution’s interna-tionalizationstrategy,highlightingtheimportanceofeffec-tiveinternalcommunicationifpeoplearetofeelpartofaninitiative.Indeed,manystaffpointedoutthattrainingisnotonly about gaining appropriate knowledge and skills, butalsobuildingteamspiritandsharedcommitment.

Internationalization as a Lever for ChangeThestudyhasunderlined theSUCTIproject’s convictionthatastrategicapproachtointernationalizationrecognizesthevalueofadministrativestaffasequalpartnersandac-tivelybuildsontheirinvolvement.Whentrainingprovisionisalignedwithstrategy,itgivesadministrativestaffnotonlytheappropriateskillsandcompetencestosupporttheinter-nationalizationplan,but alsobuilds their confidenceandcommitmenttomakinganactivecontributionthroughthedevelopmentanddeliveryofhighqualityservices.

Ithasalsounderlinedthebeliefthatinternationaliza-tionisalsoaboutinstitutionalchangeandthatthereneedstobewillingnesstolearnnewpracticesatbothindividualand institutional levels.Thestudyrevealed that there isagreatersenseofinstitutionalhappinesswheninternation-alization is planned and implemented with care, whendecisionsarecommunicatedeffectively,whenappropriatestructuresandprocessesareput inplace,andwhenstaffare adequately trained to carry out the tasks expected ofthem. Internationalization exposes and magnifies institu-tionalweaknessesandanyuniversity seriousabout inter-nationalizationmustalsobewillingtotakeanhonestandcriticallookatitstraditionalmodesofoperationandunder-takethenecessarychange.


DisparitiesandParallelsinInternationalization:TheEthiopianExperienceWondwosen Tamrat and Damtew Teferra

Wondwosen Tamrat is associate professor and founding president of St. Mary’s University, Ethiopia. E-mails: [email protected] [email protected]. Damtew Teferra is professor of higher education, leader of Higher Education and Training Development, Uni-versity of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and founding director of the In-ternational Network for Higher Education in Africa. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

Interest and involvement in the internationalization ofhighereducationareunavoidablyontheriseacrossboth


Indeed, training in internationalization

is typically understood as participation

in English language courses.


thedevelopedanddevelopingworlds.Inbothcontexts,in-stitutionsareincreasinglyenticedtoconformtothisemerg-ing trend. However, differences abound due to the influ-enceofcontextualfactorssuchasprevailingneeds,capacity,resources,institutionalstatus,andambitions.Weexaminethemannersinwhichinternationalizationisrealizedinde-velopedanddevelopingcountriesbyexploringsuchfactorsasmotives,approaches,policies,strategies,andthenatureof institutionalrelationships in theEthiopiancontext.Webelieve that such an exercise is instrumental to plan anddevelop frameworks that are relevant toEthiopianhighereducation, instead of opting for wholesale adoption fromelsewhere.

Highereducation inEthiopiabegan in1950with theestablishment of the University College of Addis Ababa.Thesectorremainedelitistinitsorientationuntiltheendofthe1990s—withtwouniversities,astudentpopulationofabout38,000,andagrossenrollmentratio(GER)of0.8percent, which was very low even by African standards.Overthelasttwodecades,thesectorhasachievedphenom-enalgrowth.Thenumberofpublicinstitutionshasreached36—with11moreprojectedinthecomingfewyears.Thereare 110 private institutions—four of which hold univer-sity status. The sector accommodates over 700,000 stu-dents—85percentinthepublicsector—andhasaGERof10percent.Thisfastchanginglandscapehasincreasinglybroughtinternationalizationtotheforeasamajormecha-nismtoaddressthenumerouschallengesassociatedwithfast“massifying”systems.

Disparities and ParallelsWithregardtomotives,theengagementofEthiopianhigh-ereducationinstitutions(HEIs)ininternationalizationhasbeen driven mainly by emerging needs. The aggressiveexpansion in the sector has raised formidable challengesintermsofqualifiedstaffavailabilityandresearchoutput.Currently,PhDstaffwithintheHEsectorstillstandsat15percentdespitegovernment’splantoraiseitto30percentby2019–2020.Researchoutputhasalsobeenrather lowdue to, amongother factors,poor research traditions, ex-cessive teachingloads,deficiency inskills—andofcoursefundingconstraints.

Ethiopianuniversitiesareawareof the importanceofinternationalization in terms of perceived benefits in im-provingteachingandlearning,studentandteacherdevel-opment,andstandardsandquality.Theirdominantformsof engagement relate primarily to teaching and researchcollaborationsandinternationalresearchprojects.Thegov-ernment furtherenvisagesenhancingsuchcollaborationsand international exchanges in the interest of advancingtheeffectivenessofteachingandlearningandthequalityofacademicprogramsandresearch.

Wheninternationalizing,universitiesgivethehighestimportancetoPhDandmastersprograms,inthatorder.Intermsofacademicdisciplines,engineeringandhealthsci-encestakethelead.Thisappearslogical,giventheseriousshortagesofhighlyqualifiedpersonnelattheselevelsandinthesedisciplines.Asacorollary,thedominantrationalesidentified for Ethiopian HEIs, as in most other Africancountries,relatemoretoacademicthantoeconomic,politi-cal,and/orculturalrationales.Issuesof internationalstu-dentrecruitmentandusinginternationalizationasasourceofprestige,whichappeartobedominantfeaturesofHEIsintheNorthandareincreasinglyemergingindevelopingeconomies,arenotyetthefocusofEthiopianinstitutions.

Institutionsrecognizetheimportanceofnationalpoli-cies in shaping institutional policies on internationaliza-tion,but,todate,nosuchpoliciesexist.Thelackofacom-prehensivepolicyoninternationalizationisacknowledgedbyarecentgovernmentdocument:The Education Sector De-velopment Program V,whichenvisagesthepreparationandapprovalofanationalpolicyandinstitutionalcollaborationstrategyoninternationalizationintheperiod2016–2020.Establishinganationalunitorbody topromote,monitor,and evaluate the internationalization of Ethiopian highereducation,aswellasdevelopingandimplementingastrat-egytoattractforeignstudents,isalsoincludedintheplan.However,thishasyettomaterialize.

Thelackofstrategicengagementinpromotinginterna-tionalizationiswidelydiscernibleacrossuniversities.Mostof the institutions that have initiated and managed part-nerships with foreign institutions have not handled theirengagementsinanorganizedandsystematicmanner,duetolackofresourcesandcleardirections.Atthelargeruni-versities,initiativesaremanagedatdifferentlevelswithoutbeingcommunicatedtothehigherechelonsoftheinstituteortheparticularofficeincharge.

Equallyseriousisthepaucityofdataonmanyaspectsof internationalization, further compounded by weakknowledge management systems that impinge on infor-mationflowsatvarious levels. Institutionsattribute theseweaknessestotheexcessiveburdenofmundanebutcriti-calissues,suchasstudentaccommodations,catering,andleisure,keepingtheirattentionfrommorestrategictasks.

Most relationships established by Ethiopian universi-


Higher education in Ethiopia began in

1950 with the establishment of the Uni-

versity College of Addis Ababa.


tiesarelargelyNorth–SouthratherthanSouth–South,withEuropeasthepreferredcontinentforcollaborations—dis-tantlyfollowedbyNorthAmerica.Theselopsidedpartner-shipsaremainlyattributedtothedisparityinfinancialre-sourcesandcapacity. Inmost cases, local institutionsaremere “recipients” and theelementsof reciprocity arenotevident.TherehavealsobeeninstancesofNorthernpart-ners seeking to achieve their own objectives without toomuchregardtotheneedsandaspirationsoftheirlocalpart-nersand,attimes,theirownfunders.

Apeculiarand instructive featureof internationaliza-tioninEthiopiaisthepresenceofregulatoryregimesandframeworks that are not always available elsewhere, evenindevelopedcountries.Academicrecognitionandequiva-lencearrangementsforforeignqualificationswasforalongtimeataskoftheministryofeducation(MoE).Anyrecogni-tionofforeigncredentialswithinthecivilservicerequiredpassingthroughtheministry’sscrutiny.Thisrole,andtheadditionalresponsibilityofgrantingaccreditationtocross-border higher education providers, have been transferredto the Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency(HERQA),establishedin2003.Theagencyusesitsdoublemandate to keep dubious credentials and unscrupulousprovidersatbay.

The Way ForwardThe above analysis demonstrates the need to understandglobal trends,national frameworks,and institutionalcon-textswhennavigatingthe internationalizationterrainandsettingone’sownagenda.WhilethetrendinEthiopia, intermsof improvedawarenessandreadinesstowardinter-nationalization, isupbeat, there is still anurgentneed toaddressexistingdeficiencies—withregardtoissuesofpoli-cy,strategicdirection,systems,andframeworks.Yet,giventhe multitude of challenges they are constantly confront-ing,HEIsinEthiopia,andmanyothersinsimilarnascentsystemselsewhere,willprobablycontinuetostrugglewiththecomplexitiesofinternationalization—formanyyearstocome.


ImbalancedStudentMobilityinIndia:ASeriousConcernRashim Wadhwa

Rashim Wadhwa is an assistant professor at the School of Education, Central University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India. E-mail: [email protected].

During the last decade, education worldwide has ex-perienced massive changes, ranging from domestic

marketexpansiontointernationalization.Overtime,therehas been a great urge for restructuring education sys-tems to make them internationally comparable, ensuringaneconomicbenefitacross theglobe, including in India.Internationalizationisrecognizedasapriority, inparticu-lar in recent educationpolicies. Indianpolicymakersareconfrontedwithkeyquestionssuchashowtoincreasethenumberofinternationalstudentsinthecountryandhowtoexporteducationalservices.Withinthiscontext,theimbal-ancebetweeninboundandoutboundstudentmobilityhasbeen highlighted, along with some emerging challenges.Currently,more thanfivemillion studentsworldwidearestudying outside their country of citizenship, with Indiasharing a high proportion of outbound mobile students.ThenumberofIndianstudentsabroadhasincreasedfrom55,444 in1999 toabout255,030 in2016. It is forecastedthat400,000Indianstudentswillleavethecountrytoen-rollinforeignuniversitiesby2024.ThesegrowingfiguresshowthatIndia,thesecondmostimportantsendingcoun-tryafterChina,hasbecomea leadingplayerontheinter-national student market. Although the major destinationcountriesforIndianstudentshaveremainedthesameforseveralyears,complexchangesareunderway,asotherplay-ersareenteringthefield.

In contrast to the consistent increase in outboundstudentmobility, thenumberof internationalstudents inIndia since 1986 has been irregular, and their overall in-creasediscouraging.In1986,thenumberofinternationalstudentsinIndiawas10,877,risingto13,707in1993.Afterthat,numbersstarteddecliningandreachedanalltimelowwith5,323inboundstudentsin1998.Sincethen,numbershave increased again, reaching 30,423 in 2014. Inboundinternational students come from a limited number ofcountries:mostcomefromdevelopingcountries,withonlyaminorfractioncomingfromdevelopedcountries.About60percentoftheformercategorycomefromSouthAsiancountries,withNepaltoppingthelist(6,009),followedbyAfghanistan (3,855), and Bhutan (1,201). Amongst all theuniversities inIndiaenrolling internationalstudents,Ma-nipalUniversityhas the largestnumber (2,742), followedbytheUniversityofPune.


The engagement of Ethiopian higher

education institutions (HEIs) in interna-

tionalization has been driven mainly by

emerging needs.


Inbound vs Outbound MobilityInternational students represent only 0.6 percent of thetotal number of students enrolled in higher education inIndia, while the corresponding figure is 1.0 percent forChina,3.7percent for theUnitedStates, 19.0percent fortheUnitedKingdom,and21.4percentforAustralia.Withinthiscontext,theratioofinboundmobiletooutboundmo-bilityinIndiais1:10andrepresentsamajorchallenge:itisnotonlyhumancapital that isflowingoutofIndia,butasubstantialamountofrevenueaswell.

Loss of Human Capital and RevenueAlthough higher education in India is no less developedthan in many other countries, trade related to educationservicesappearstobelimited.Thetotalimport(payments)under trade in education services increased from US$61millionin1999–2000toUS$2.6billionin2016–2017.Itislikelytoincreasefurther,giventheconsistentriseinthenumberofIndianstudentsgoingabroadforhighereduca-tion.Incontrast,thetotalexport(payments)undertradeineducationservicesisUS$504millionin2016–2017,aclearindication of the imbalance of revenue between inboundandoutboundflows.

Withrespecttotheflowofhumancapital,itisnotablethat graduates with degrees from prestigious institutionsliketheIndianInstitutesofTechnology(IITs)ortheIndianInstitutes of Management (IIMs) who pursued advanceddegrees abroad have low rates of returning to India, par-ticularlywhencomparedtosimilarpopulationsinforeigncountries.Infact,IndiannationalsarethelargestnationalgroupobtainingspecializedUSworkvisas(H-1B),securinganimpressive59percentoftheglobaltotal.Unfortunately,therearefewsuccessstoriesinvolvingyounggraduatesre-turningtopursuetheircareersinIndia.

Serious Concerns, Some SolutionsIf India wants to revive its position in the internationalhighereducationarena,policymakersshouldaddressthefollowingconcerns.Thereisasignificantgapbetweentheexportandtheimportofeducationalservices,asaresultoftheimbalancebetweenoutboundandinboundmobility.Inordertoaccesstheinternationalmarketforhighereduca-

tion, Indiahashad toresort toexportingeducationalser-vices through distance education programs, and buildingeducational infrastructure mainly to target students fromdevelopingcountries.AsthecostofhighereducationinIn-dia is lower than thatofdevelopedcountries, Indiahasastrongcomparativeadvantageinthisrespect.

Inordertoenhanceinboundstudentmobility,specialeducationzonesshouldbeestablished.Indiashouldfocusondevelopingthesezonesindifferentregionswithacur-rentconcentrationofinboundstudents,orwiththepoten-tialtoattractasignificantnumberofinternationalstudents.IthasbeendemonstratedthatinternationalstudentsinIn-diaaredrawntoparticularcitiesandinstitutions:thecitiesofPunewith29.30percentofinternationalstudents,Delhi,with20.48percent, andManipal,with 12.78percent, areleadingtheway.Perhapsitwouldbeagoodstrategytore-inforcetheinfrastructureofcitiesshowingpotentialtode-velopintocentersofexcellenceininternationaleducation.

Indiashouldalsoreduceitsoutboundstudentmobil-ity—whichcorrespondstoanimportofeducationalservic-es.AlthoughIndiahassignificantlystrengtheneditscapac-ityinhighereducationinscienceandtechnology,thereisadearthofhighereducationinstitutionsofgoodqualityinotherfieldsof studies. IITsand IIMsarehighly competi-tive,yetunable tomeet the localdemand.Limitedaccesstoqualityeducation leads toan imbalancedflowbetweenoutboundandinboundstudents.Further,thereisasignifi-cantqualitygapbetweenthesecondandthethirdtiersofeducationalinstitutions.ItistimetorestorethequalityofhighereducationinstitutionsifIndiawantstoattracthigh-ernumbersof internationalstudents.Qualitycanbestbeimprovedthroughaprocessofreplicatingthestructureandstrategies of leading Indian universities in the context ofpoorlyperforminginstitutions.Thisoughttobeginachainofimprovement,withtiertwoinstitutionsthensupportingtierthreeinstitutionsinasimilarmanner.Thus,asustain-able,dynamic,self-sustainingmechanismofqualityoughttotransformthehighereducationsector.



The number of Indian students study-

ing abroad has increased from 55,444 in

1999 to about 255,030 in 2016.

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

21I 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

BetterInformingtheMar-ket?TheTeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF)inBritishHigherEducationMichael Shattock

Michael Shattock is visiting professor at the Centre for Global Higher Education, Institute of Education, University College London, UK. He leads a research team on the governance of higher education. E-mail: [email protected].

Acornerstone of the Tory government’s higher educa-tionpolicyhasbeenthebeliefthattheintroductionof

marketforcesandgreatercompetitionwillraisequality.TheResearchExcellenceFramework(REF)isoftenquotedasagoodexampleofthis,althoughitsintroductioninthemid-1980swasactuallydesignedasaninstrumenttostrength-entheconcentrationofBritishresearchinfeweruniversi-tiesforprimarilyacademicreasons.Aconsequenceofthecontinuation of the exercise over some 30 years, and thereputationalandfinancialbenefitsthataccompanysuccessinit,isthatREFhasmadeanenormousimpactonuniver-sitiesandledtocriticismthattheyhaveprioritizedresearchoverteaching.TheintroductionoftheTeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF)hasbeen,inpart,aresponsetothis,andan attempt to alter the balance toward a greater concernaboutteaching.Butperhapsalargerinfluencehasbeenthemovetofull-costtuitionfeesin2010andtheremovalofthecaponstudentnumbers,whichhasledtomuchincreasedcompetition in student recruitment. This has heightenedasensethatthemarketneedstobebetterinformedaboutthequalityofteachinginindividualinstitutions,especiallywhenuniversities inEnglandarecharging themaximumfeepermitted,£9,000.(Similarargumentswereadducedinthe1990stojustifythecreationoftheQualityAssuranceAgency(QAA)andthebureaucraticoverloadproducedbyitsreviewandreportingprocesses).

The introduction of a TEF first appeared in the ToryPartyManifestoforthe2015generalelectionandwasvigor-ouslypursuedby thenewminister, Jo Johnson,whenhetookoffice.Fromthebeginning,itwasclearthatthiswastobeametrics-basedexerciseratherthantheburdensome(andexpensive)QAAapproach.Apanelofacademics,stu-dents, and employers (the so-called stakeholders) was setup toputfleshon thebones,and theconceptwasfirmlyembeddedinthenewHigherEducationandResearchBillthatreplacedtheFundingCouncilwithanOfficeforStu-dentsandalsorestructuredtheresearchcouncils.TheTEFwasonlymandatoryinEnglandanditwasleftoptionalas

towhetherScotland,Wales,andNorthernIrelandwishedtojoin.Anewincentivewasintroduced,whichonlyappliedinEngland,intheprovisionthatonlyinstitutionsthatper-formedwell in theTEFwouldbepermitted toraise theirtuitionfees.IntheHouseofLordsdebateontheBill,therewasconsiderablecriticismofthemetricstobeemployedintheTEFratings,butnegativevoteswereoverriddenintheCommonsintheeventualpassageoftheBill.

A Metrics-Based Approach Criticism of the metrics has, however, been widespreadsincetheprogram’sinception.TheTEFassessmentswereto grade institutions Gold, Silver, and Bronze—whereBronzerecognizedprovisionasbeingofsatisfactoryqual-ityonly.Thesegradeswerebasedonthreemetricsandsixdata sets: theNationalStudentSurvey (NSS) (run for thegovernmentbyIpsosMori),whichrecordsstudents’viewsseparatelyonteaching,assessment,andfeedbackontheirindividual degree programs and on the overall academicsupportprovided;theHigherEducationStatisticsAgency’sdata on institutional dropout rates; and data on employ-mentaftergraduation.Noneoftheseareflawless.TheNSSdataiscollectedfromreturnsbyfinalyearstudentsandcanbe subject to events on campus unconnected with teach-ing, by the way universities encourage the completion oftheforms,orbytherecognitionthatfavourableresponseswillultimatelybereflectedinauniversity’sleaguetablepo-sition.Therateofreturnisvariablethough50percentisthequalifyingminimum.Dropoutstatisticsareinevitablycor-relatedwithsocialclassandeconomicdisadvantage,whiletheemploymentstatistics,whichdistinguishbetweenem-ployment only and highly skilled employment, are basedon returns by graduates six months after graduation andarenotoriouslyvariableinthereturnratesandthequalityof information. Data for each institution is benchmarkedagainstthedemographiccharacteristicsofitsstudents,add-ingafurthervariable.Bundledtogether,thisisastatistical“mishmash.”

Each institution is invited to submit a 15-page reportcontextualizing the data and describing its teaching aimsandobjectives.Insofarasthesesubmissionsarecriticaltotheassessment,asthechairoftheTEFpanelhasclaimedthemtobe,itcanbearguedthattheTEFismetricledbutnotmetricdetermined.Thisstatementneedstoberecon-ciled,however,withthepublishedstatementthatmarkingwastoassignplusorminusflagstoeachofthesixcoremet-ricratings; institutionsreceiving threeormoreplusflagsandnominusflagsqualifiedforconsiderationforaGoldassessment,andinstitutionsreceivingtwoormoreminusflags qualified for a Bronze. Marks falling between thesetwoqualifiedforaSilver.



The ResultsTheresultsofthefirstTEFassessmentwerepublishedinJune2017.Thisfirstroundwasalwaysrecognizedasatrialyear,afterwhich thepanelwouldreview theexerciseandthecriticisms.ThishasnotstoppedmediaheadlinesaboutsomedistinguishedRussellGroupuniversitiesonlybeingawarded Bronze, and a number of post-1992 universitiestakingoutdouble-pagespreadsinnationalnewspaperstocelebratetheirGolds.(Infact,33percentofuniversitiesre-ceivedGoldand82percentGoldorSilver).Theministerhas even taken the opportunity to couple the award of aBronzemarktoaRussellGroupuniversitywiththe(high)salaryofitsvice-chancelloranduseitasabasisforcriticiz-ingvice-chancellors’salariesingeneral.

The significant questions that the review panel willneedtoaddress,apartfromtheflakynatureofsomeofthedata,includethattheTEFdoesnotactuallyassessteachingbutonlytheimperfectlyrecordedreactionstoit.Fromthepointofviewofinformingthemarket,itconveysonlyanin-stitutionalviewandnotanassessmentoftheactualdegreeprogram (or even the department) in which a candidatewishestostudy.TheselectionofGold,Silver,andBronzeawardscanonlybedescribedascrude,populist,andpan-deringtomediaexploitation,especiallywhensomeofthemostselectiveinstitutionsandsomeofthemostaccess-ori-entatedmaybedisadvantagedbythebenchmarkingmeth-odology.Somepossiblefuturerefinementsareevenmorequestionable:theintroductionofmetricsbasedoncontacthoursortheincorporationofactualgraduatesalariesafterfiveyearstobeacquiredfromthetaxauthorities.

Howeverunsatisfactory,itseemsthattheTEFisheretostay—atleastwhileaTorygovernmentisinpower—andthat itwill continue to remain controversial.Wecanalsoconfidentlyassumethatsomeofthebestmindsininstitu-tions will be devoted to “gaming” the data to ensure thattheirinstitutionsarepositionedtoprotecttheirbrand,andtothriveinthemarketthathasbeencreated,aswellastobeabletoraisetheirtuitionfeelevelswhenthegovernmentgivesthemleave.


ReenvisioningWelshPost-compulsoryEducationEllen Hazelkorn

Ellen Hazelkorn is professor emerita and director of the Higher Educa-tion Policy Research Unit (HEPRU), and education policy consultant, BH Associates, Ireland. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

Likemostcountriesandregionsaroundtheworld,Walesisfacingrapidsocialandeconomicchange.Asanation

withintheUnitedKingdom,itsfutureisbeingshapedasmuchby itsowndecisionsasby theoutcomeof thecur-rentBrexitnegotiations.ThedecisiontoleavetheEuropeanUnion,knownasBrexit,passedbyaslimmajorityinWales(52.5percent to47.4percent).Today, there is little indica-tionthatattitudeshavechangedsincethereferendum,de-spiteongoinguncertaintyaboutwhatBrexitwillmean inpractice.

IftheongoingconfusionsurroundingtheUnitedKing-dom’s future relationship with Europe was not enough,Wales faces its own share of demographic, labor market,andeconomicchallenges.By2039,theWelshpopulationisprojectedtoincreaseby6.1percentto3.38million.Ofpar-ticularsignificance,andconcern, is thedecline inWelsh-domiciled undergraduate entrants studying in Wales,and limited (funded) opportunities to pursue advanced/postgraduate qualifications, in contrast to the number ofWelsh-domiciledyoungpeopleenteringfurthereducationandvocationaltraining.Theseeducationtrendscompounddeeperstructuralproblemsintheeconomy.

Wales isprimarilyamicro, small,andmedium-sizedenterpriseeconomy,comprisedoflow-levelmanufacturingand largedependencyonthepublicsector.Thereare fewlargeemployers.ThecityofCardiff,whichisintegratedintotheUKeconomy, isanexception.Despite someeconom-icrevivalsince theonsetof theGreatRecession in2008,Walescontinuestohavethelowesteconomicgrowth(mea-suredbygrossvalueaddedorGVA)ofanyregionwithintheUnitedKingdom.

The situation presents stark challenges. How bestshould the educational system be organized to maximizestudent learning opportunities and quality, as well as re-search excellence? How best can educational institutionshelpshapethefutureofWelshsocietyandeconomy?Howeffective are the current governance arrangements, andwhatneedstochange?

Postcompulsory Education in WalesOvertheyears,theWelshgovernmenthadidentifiedongo-ingchallengesforitseducationsystemstemmingfromthe


A cornerstone of the Tory government’s

higher education policy has been the

belief that the introduction of market

forces and greater competition will raise

quality.


complexityofthepostsecondarylandscapeandgovernancearrangements,continuouschangestopublicfundingstruc-tures,andrequirementstobroadenitsrangeoftheservicestomeettheneedsofcitizensandsocietyinthetwenty-firstcentury. Different parts of the system had responded indistinctwaystothesechallenges,resultingin“differentar-rangementsfor,differentdegreesofengagementwith,anddifferent levels of effectiveness in the delivery of the keyfunctions.” Responsibilities were shared across a mix ofWelshgovernmentandWelshgovernment-sponsoredbod-ies.

A review was commissioned. It involved interviewswithkeystakeholdersacrosstheeducationalsystem,withemployers,academicstaffandstudents,anddifferentgov-ernment agencies. A study of international practice wasalsoundertaken,withrespectto:regulatoryandgovernancearrangements with reference to the role of intermediaryorganisations; the postsecondary landscape and issues ofmissionandeducationaldiversityanddifferentiation;andmechanismsofcoordination,includingperformanceagree-ments,compacts,andprofiling.

Thereviewfound that tomakeWalesmoreattractivetopostsecondarystudents,graduatesandotherprofession-als,aswellastobusinesses,moreattentionwouldneedtobeplacedondevelopingastrongmiddletierofWelsh-do-miciledcompanies,basedaroundcloserlinkagesbetweeneconomicneedsandeducationalinstitutions.Tounderpintheseobjectives,forwardplanningandsystemcoordinationwas necessary. This meant having a macroview of demo-graphicandgeographicpatternsaswellassocial,economic,andlabormarketchanges,withinthecontextofacompeti-tivenationalandglobalperspective,andwithacentralizedcapacityandcapabilitytonudgeorsteerinstitutionstoactu-allymeetthoseneeds.

RecommendationsTowards 2030: A Framework for Building a World-Class Post-Compulsory Education System for Walessetoutanambitiouspathway.Itproposedanewgovernancemodelforpostcom-pulsory education based on more effective coordinationamongpublicinstitutionsandwithWelshsocietalgoalsin

mind.Sixkeyprinciplesunderpinnedthecaseforreformand

recommendations. These included taking a system view,emphasizing the importance of creating a coherent edu-cational ecosystem comprised of competitive and diverseinstitutions,whichworkedcollaborativelyandresponsiblytobuildexcellenceandcriticalmass.Aspeoplelivelongerandhealthier,democraticsocietydependsuponactive,en-gaged,responsiblecitizenswhoareabletoaccesseducationthroughouttheirlifetime.Thus,astrongmessagewastheroleandcontributionthateducationmakestosocietyandthe economy through its graduates, new knowledge, andinnovation.Theseareconceptsoftenspokenaboutbuttoooftenovershadowedbyinstitutionalself-interestandrepu-tationseeking.Thus,thereportstressedtheimportanceofputtingtheneedsoflearnersofallages,genders,andtal-entsatthecenteroftheeducationalsystem,enablingandfacilitatingchangingopportunitiesand lifecircumstancesovertime.Whileemphasizingtheimportanceof“system”and“society,” institutionalautonomy,strengthenedby in-stitutional governance, responsibility, and accountability,wasalsofundamental.

Themainrecommendationwastheproposaltoestab-lishasingleregulatory,oversight,andcoordinatingauthor-itytobecalledtheTertiary Education Authority.Thisorgani-zationwouldreplacethemyriadorganizationscateringfordifferent components of postcompulsory education. Theaimistoencouragebetterlong-termandjoined-upthink-ing about educational needs and requirements, now andintothefuture.

Response and Subsequent ActionsAfterthereviewwassubmittedinMarch2016,theWelshgovernment moved quickly to accept and implement thekey recommendations. The report was discussed in theWelshAssembly,theparliamentarychamberofWales,andwidelyendorsedbyallpoliticalparties.Awide-rangingcon-sultationprocesswasinitiated.

InJanuary2017,anewsingleregulatory,oversight,andcoordinating authority for postcompulsory education wasannounced. Itwouldhaveresponsibility for theprovisionof funding forall levelsofpostcompulsoryeducation, forresearch,andforensuringquality.TobeknownastheTer-tiaryEducationandResearchCommission,thenewagencyistaskedwithbringingstrongercoherencetotheeducationsystem,withlearnersandsocietyatitsheart.

Towards 2030makesasignificantcontributiontoenvis-agingeducationanditsroleinandforsocietyinthetwenty-firstcentury. Itplacesstrongemphasisonanchoringandunderpinning regional, social, cultural, andeconomicde-velopment, andon institutional collaboration toboost in-stitutional and national capacity, capability, and competi-


Wales is primarily a micro, small, and

medium-sized enterprise economy,

comprised of low-level manufacturing

and large dependency on the public sec-

tor.


tiveness.Aboveall,itstressestheneedforflexiblelearningpathwaysthatenableallstudents,fromallbackgroundsandages,tomovethroughtheeducationalsystemthroughouttheir lifetimes.Acceptingthateducationalproviders,pub-lic and private, are part of a “coordinated system,” ratherthanindividualisticself-servinginstitutions,isinitselfanimportant statement. Finally, by its swift endorsement ofthe report’s principles and recommendations, the Welshgovernment conspicuouslydiverged from themarket–de-manddrivenapproachadoptedbytheUKgovernmentforEngland.


English-mediumInstructionandtheInformationTech-nologyParallelinJapaneseHigherEducationAnnette Bradford and Howard Brown

Annette Bradford is associate professor, School of Business Adminis-tration, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]. Howard Brown is associate professor, Faculty of International Studies and Regional Development, University of Niigata Prefecture, Niigata, Japan. E-mail: [email protected].

In Japan, as in much of the world, English-medium in-struction(EMI)ispartofanefforttointernationalizethe

highereducationsector,attractinternationalstudents,andfosterglobalcompetenciesamongstudents.Itisreceivingsignificantgovernmentinvestmentandattention,andcon-sequentlyassuming,perhapsnotacentral,butameaning-fulrole inhighereducation.However, thegrowthofEMIhasnotbeenwithoutchallengesandthesearenotuniquetocurrentinternationalizationefforts.Itmaybethatweareseeingthemostrecentmanifestationoflongstandingstruc-turalissuesintheJapanesehighereducationsector.Wheninformationtechnology(IT)waspromotedineducationinthe1990s,bureaucraticprocedures,lackoftechnicalsup-port,andresistancetoemergingpedagogieswerefoundtobe impediments to effective implementation. For anyoneinvolved in current EMI implementation, these obstaclesringfamiliar.Theparallelsarestrikingand,by lookingattheexampleofIT,wemaycatchaglimpseofwhereEMIisheadingandlearnwherestructuralchangescouldbemade.

Striking ParallelsThe first parallel is related to the context of implementa-tion. During the IT revolution, innovation was driven byasenseofcrisis,afeelingthatJapanhadfallenbehindintheracetoadoptITandurgentlyneededtocatchup.TherewasademandfrompotentialemployersforgraduateswithITskillswhopossessedoriginality,individuality,creativity,initiative,and leadershipabilities.TodayJapanfaceschal-lengesfromaglobalizingsociety,astagnanteconomy,anddemographicchanges;therhetoricofcrisis isagainclear.Thedemandfrombusinessnowisformoregloballycom-petent human resources: young people who have strongcommunication skills, understand different cultures andvalues, work creatively, take independent action, and canbecomegloballeaders.

Anotheraspect isseen inhowimplementation isap-proached at the national level. When IT was introduced,competitive grants funded initial large-scale implementa-tion,withmost resourcesgoing toeliteuniversities.LessprestigiousuniversitiesadoptedIT laterandonasmallerscale,withoutaclearmandateorcoordinatedstrategy.Thesame is seen today with the national Global 30 and TopGlobal funding schemes supporting EMI initiatives at asmallnumberofprestigiousuniversities,whilemostEMIprogramsdevelopwithoutgovernmentsupportoracentralplan.

Athirdparallelemergesattheinstitutionallevel.EarlyITinitiativeswerelargelyvolunteerbasedandfacultyled.AdministratorsassignedtoITprojectsweremainlygener-alists;therewasaseriouslackofskilledITpersonnel.Withthislimitedsupport,facultyleadershadtotransformthem-selvesintoITspecialists.Thesamedynamicscanbeseentoday.InternationalizationactivitiesandEMIprogramsaresupportedbynonspecialistadministrators,manyassignedtotheEMIprogramforalimitedterm.Mostoftheleader-shipforEMIiscomingfromfacultymemberswho,untiltheybeganworkingonEMIimplementation,hadnoexpe-riencewith,andlimitedknowledgeof,EMI.Overthelast10years,theyhavetrainedthemselvestobecomespecialists.

Afourthelementconcernsafocusonimplementationratherthanintegration.InthecaseofIT,attheinstitutionallevel itwasmuchmoreimportanttoensuretheavailabil-ityofacertainnumberofcomputersthantoconsiderhowthose computers would be used to facilitate learning andteaching. Even now, a full two decades after the rush toimplementIT,theinfrastructureisinplace,butJapanlagsbehindothercountriesintheactualeducationaladoptionofIT.Equipmentandsoftwarearewidelyavailableinuniver-sities,butlittleattentionhasbeengiventotrainingorthedevelopment of pedagogy to support its usage. Similarly,much EMI implementation is characterized by decision-



makingbasedonsimplisticassumptions,afocusonnum-bersofEMIclassesandstudentmobilityrates,andadhocdelivery.Coherentcurriculumdevelopment,thelinguistic,social,andacademicneedsofstudents,andtheprofessional development of faculty members are not receiving theattentiontheydeserve.

A final, and perhaps overarching parallel between ITandEMIcanbeseeninhowbothhavebeengoingagainstaprevailingsocialstructure.ITwasseenasanaddition.Itwas a layer added to existing administrative and curricu-larprecedents,ratherthananimpetusfordeepstructuralchangewithinuniversitiesorthewidersocialenvironment.Theattempttodevelopanewgenerationofcomputer-liter-atespecialiststudentswentagainstthenotionofwhatuni-versities were supposed to do at the undergraduate level:producegeneralists.Thisstruggleisfamiliartothosework-

ingincurrentEMIinitiatives.EMIisbeingimplemented,inmanycases, tocreateaninternationallymindedyounggeneration.However,thisgoalrunscountertotheprevail-ingnotionoftheimportanceofJapanesenationalidentity.Theministryofeducationhasrepeatedlyemphasizedthatmoraleducation,andadeepunderstandingofJapanesetra-ditionsandculture,areprerequisitesforglobaleducation.Thisleadstoattemptstofosterstudentsasoutward-lookingpeople,butnot too outwardlooking.Thedeepandpossiblyidentity-threatening changes in institutional culture, ad-ministrativestructures,andpedagogicalapproachesneces-sarytomakeEMIacentralpartofJapanesehighereduca-tionareslowtobeadopted.

The Way ForwardLooking back at the IT experience, the key roadblocks toimplementation stemmed from decisions that universi-tiesmadewhentheysetouttoestablishnewsystemsandpolicies. Implementing IT and effectively integrating ituniversity-wide would have meant making deep systemicchangesinthecultureandpoliticsofthegiveninstitution,adauntingprospect.Thealternative,focusingonsuperficialtechnicalissuesandnumericaltargetsonadepartment-by-departmentbasis,therebyavoidingthemoretroublingis-sues,wasaneasierpath.Universitieschosetheeasierpath.Implementationwascharacterizedbyshort-termplanning

andreactiveproblemsolving.Consequently, IThasneverreallyliveduptoitspotentialinhighereducation.Commu-nicationstechnology,informationmanagement,andonlinedistanceeducationallremainrelativelyunderdevelopedinJapaneseuniversities.

ButwhatofcurrentEMIinitiatives?Allsignsindicatethatweareheadingdownthesameeasypathofshort-term,reactivedecision-making.In20years,EMIcouldbewhereIT is now, with a stable position as a commonplace partofhighereducation,butnotplayingacentralroleandnotdeeplyintegratedintotheuniversityculture.Ifthatiswhatwe,asEMIstakeholders,want,thenwemaybeontherightpath.However,EMIinJapanisstillinitsinfancyandthereis time for universities to take a more challenging path.Whenproperly integrated,EMIhasthepotential toeffectthe internationalizationofJapanesehighereducation.WecanlearnfromtheexperienceoftheITprogramsbeforeusandconsiderthestructuralchangesthatneedtotakeplacetoensurenotjustsuccessfulEMIimplementation,butrealEMIintegration.


AdmissionsinJapaneseNationalUniversities:TheNeedforChangeYukiko Ishikura and Tatsuo Kawashima

Yukiko Ishikura is lecturer and Tatsuo Kawashima is professor and director of the Center for the Study of Higher Education and Global Admissions (CHEGA), Osaka University, Japan. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected].

Japanesecollegeadmissionsatnationaluniversitieshavetraditionallypracticedadevolvedselectionprocess.Fac-

ultymembersineachdepartmentdesigntheirownadmis-sions policies and criteria, and make selection decisions.Thereareadmissionsoffices,buttheirresponsibilitiestendtobemostlyadministrativeandmanagerial.

Upuntilthispoint,writtenexaminationshavebeenthemostvaluedselectioncriteriaatnationaluniversities.Themajorityofapplicantstonationaluniversitiesarerequiredtotaketwowrittenexaminations:amultiple-choicenationalexaminationcalled“NationalCenterTestforUniversityAd-missions” (hereafter National Center Test), administeredonceannuallyinearlyJanuary,andasecond-stageexami-nation administered by each university after the National

Another aspect is seen in how imple-

mentation is approached at the national

level.


Center Test. That examination has more emphasis onthinkingandwritingskills.Thetwoexaminationsmainlymeasureapplicants’scholasticabilities(gakuryokuinJapa-nese)gainedathighschool.

This gakuryoku-oriented idea originated in the beliefthatahighscorereflectingexcellentgakuryokuwasastrongindicator of the students’ knowledge, skills, motivations,andevenof their character. Inorder toassessapplicants’gakuryoku, universities have relied on written examina-tions. The national university entrance examinations usethismeasureextensively.

Motivation for ChangeWhileuniversitiesvaluegakuryokufortheircollegeadmis-sions, our knowledge-based society requires students togainamultitudeofskillsusefulinthetwenty-firstcentury,suchascriticalthinking,problemsolving,andinterculturalcommunicationskills.Becauseofthistrend,thedefinitionof gakuryoku has been shifting recently. The ministry ofeducation,culture,sports,scienceandtechnology,hereaf-terMEXT,recentlyredefinedthecomponentsofgakuryoku.Inadditiontothepreviousdefinitionofsimplypossessingknowledge and skills, the new gakuryoku concept valueswhat students are able to do and accomplish by applyingtheirknowledgeandskills.

Additionally,thereisanincreaseinJapaninthenum-bersofnontraditionalstudents,suchasadultlearners,dis-abled learners,repatriatestudents, internationalstudents,and students who have studied through alternative edu-cation systems. In order to admit these diverse students,universitieshavestartedtorethinktheconceptof“fairas-sessment”ofapplicantsforuniversityadmissions.Asinglemeasurement for all applicantsused to imply the ideaoffairness,butthisisnolongerthecase.

Implementation of Holistic AdmissionsAs of 2015, according to statistics released by MEXT, thepercentage of students admitted through “holistic admis-sions” was 15.4 among national universities. Behind thecurrent trends, there is strongpressure from thegovern-ment foruniversities toshift theirwaysof implementinguniversity admissions. In2013, theEducationRebuilding

Implementation Council released a statement on univer-sity admissions. It noted the significance of universitiesintroducingmultifacetedandcomprehensiveassessmentsofstudents’knowledge.Thisencouragesuniversitiestoas-sessnotonlystudents’gakuryokubutalsotheirtwenty-firstcenturylearningskills,motivations,collegereadiness,andstudents’pastactivities,basedontheuniversityadmissionpolicies.

Followingthisstatement,thepowerfulCentralCouncilforEducationand theJapanAssociationofNationalUni-versitiesechoedthatreforminguniversityadmissionsanddevelopinganewnationaluniversityentranceexaminationwerenecessary.EspeciallytheJapanAssociationofNationalUniversities set an ambitiousgoal of raising the percent-ageofholisticadmissionsto30by2018.Theyalsocalledfor a screening thatwouldassess critical thinking, abilitytojudgeproperly,andexpression,aswellasgakuryoku.Toreflectthischange,theuniversityentranceexaminationwillberevisedin2020.

Challenges and Prospectives Takingthegovernmentannouncementsintoaccount,morenationaluniversities,whoseadmissionshavelongreliedontest scores, are currently introducing holistic admissions.However, they are experiencing several challenges whenimplementingthesechanges.

National universities, especially leading nationaluniversities, have not moved completely away from oldgakuryokuconcepts,norhavetheywellunderstoodtheim-plicationofintroducingholisticadmissions.Theconceptoffairness—using thesamemeasurement forall applicantswithout any regard to their backgrounds—is strongly in-grained and prevents universities from doing away withobjectivetest-scorebasedadmissions.

Despitetheintroductionofaholisticreviewapproach,test scores remain an important factor in the applicationreviewprocessandareconsideredanindicatorforhowwellstudents may perform in college. To assess the students’personalities,universities require students to submitper-sonalstatementsandrecommendationsfromhighschools,attendinterviews,orsubmitdocumentsindicatingtheiren-gagementandachievementsinandoutsideofschool,inad-ditiontodemonstratingahighlevelof gakuryoku.Holisticadmissionsatnationaluniversitiesareratherdemanding.Universities are unfortunately not able to attract enoughapplicantsfortheholisticadmissionsprocess,asstudentsprefertogothroughsimplertestscore-basedadmissions.

Moreover,nationaluniversitieshaveinsufficientinfra-structure to implementholisticadmissionsmorebroadly.Practicingeffectiveholisticadmissionsrequiresalotmoretimeandhumanresources,anditisnecessarytoestablisha system far removed from test-score based admissions.


Up until this point, written examina-

tions have been the most valued selec-

tion criteria at national universities.


Holisticadmissionsisanartandascience.Itallowsuniver-sitiestomakedecisionsbasedonstudents’academicandpersonal backgrounds, experience, and potential. Review-ersneedspecialexpertiseandexperience toensurea fairandtransparentadmissionsprocess.

Suchprofessionalismincollegeadmissionshasyettotakeroot.Facultymembersarestillkeydriversforbothpoli-ciesandpractices inholisticadmissions.Currently,holis-ticadmissionsarequitelimited.Facultymembersareabletoremaininvolvedwiththewholeselectionprocess.Thisraisesthequestionofwhetherornottheywillhavetheca-pacitytoremainasinvolvedwhenthepercentageofholisticadmissionsreaches30—asrecommendedbytheJapanAs-sociationofNationalUniversities.

The introduction of holistic admissions is going tobring tremendouschanges touniversities:measuring theimplicationsofintroducingholisticadmissions,reviewingideasongakuryoku andfairness,professionalizingcollegeadmissions, adapting organizational structure, and reex-aminingtheadmissionssystemasawhole.However,thesechallengesmayturnintogreatopportunities.Highschoolsanduniversitiesareshiftingfromteacher-centeredtolearn-er-centeredteachingandlearninginordertopreparehighschoolstudentsforholisticadmissionsandallowamoredi-versestudentbodytobeadmittedtocollege.Thiswillhaveapositiveimpactnotonlyoncollegeadmissions,butalsooneducationinhighschoolsanduniversitiesasawhole.


CreatingNationalChampi-onsinFrance:ALittleLessÉgalité,aLittleMoreSélec-tivité?Ludovic Highman

Ludovic Highman is senior research associate at the Centre for Global Higher Education, Institute of Education, University Col-lege London, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

FewuniversitiescanclaimsuchananimatedhistoryasthenowdefunctUniversityofParis,splitin1970into

13autonomousuniversitiesfollowingtheMay1968events.Twoofits“successor”universities,namelyParis–SorbonneUniversity(ParisIV)andPierreandMarieCurieUniversity(ParisVI),havevowedtospurareturnfromtheashesby

mergingandbecomingasingle,multidisciplinaryinstitu-tion.ThemergershouldbeunderstoodwithintheFrenchcontext, as well as within the broader European trend ofmergers aiming to consolidate higher education systems,provideeconomicgain,andenhancethepositionofhighereducationinstitutions(HEIs)inglobalrankings.

The French context is characterized by an unclassifi-ablehighereducationsystemthatnonethelesspresentsel-ements of a hierarchical binary higher education system,ever since Napoleon established the prestigious grandes écoles,predominantlyselective,hyperspecialized,small,vo-cationallyorientedinstitutesofhighertechnicalorbusinesseducation.Ontheothersideofthebinarydivide,manyuni-versitiespresenttheunusualcharacteristicofbeingspecial-izedinstitutions,havingundergonestructuralreorganiza-tions after 1968 and dismemberment along disciplinarylines.Thereunificationofhistoricuniversitieshasbeenagovernment priority in recent years, following a trend ofmergersobservedinEuropesince2005.

One of these mergers is the rebirth of the “old” Sor-bonneUniversity,expectedtotakeplaceonJanuary1,2018.TheTimes Higher Education (THE)WorldUniversityRank-ings(2018)placedParisIVatrank197overall,whileParisVIwas ranked123rd.Thesespecializeduniversitiesscorehigher intheirdisciplines: inthe2017QSWorldUniver-sityRankingsbySubject,Paris IVreached the26thposi-tionforitsarts&humanitiescourseofferings,whileParisVIclaimedthe55thspotfornaturalsciencesandthe94thplaceforlifesciences&medicine.Whatcanweexpectfromthe merger of these two leading specialized universities,andtheestablishmentofa largemultidisciplinaryinstitu-tion,claimingthehistoryandacademicpedigreeofoneoftheoldestuniversitiesintheworld?

Recent European TrendsMergersareoftenframedbygovernmentsasawaytora-tionalize and consolidate higher education sectors, whilereducing duplication in course offerings and, as a result,costs.Furthermore,theyincreasescale,notablyofresearchoutputs,andcanenableHEIs toperformbetter inglobalrankings. Research by the European University Associa-tion suggests mergers became more prevalent beginningin2005,withDenmarkandEstonia setting the trend. InDenmark,thenumberofinstitutionsdecreasedfrom12toeight.InEstonia,theUniversityofTallinnabsorbedeightsurrounding institutions,and thenumberofHEIs in thecountrydecreasedfrom41to29between2000and2012.

Mergers and the Creation of National ChampionsFrancefollowedsuitin2008,throughthe€5billionOpéra-tion Campus that sought to promote up to 12 centers forresearch and education, then known as pôles de recherche



et d’enseignement supérieur (researchandhighereducationhubs) orPRES.These centerswerediscontinued in2013andreplacedbycommunautés d’universités et établissements(communitiesofuniversities andHEIs)orCOMUE.Theflurryofdifficult-to-translateFrenchacronymsdidnothelpmaketheseassociationsortheirpotentialimplicationsbet-terunderstoodabroad.In2011,thefoundersoftheAcadem-icRankingofWorldUniversitiesinShanghaiinformedtheFrenchgovernmentthattheywouldnotofficiallyrankthePRESasthegovernmenthadbeenhopingfor.OnlyHEIsthathadlegallymergedintosingleinstitutionswereconsid-eredeligiblefortheratingsscale.

Initiatives for Excellence Roughly,fromthatperiodonward,Francehasencouragedconsolidation, promoting mergers between multidisci-plinary universities, specialized universities, and grandes écoles, notably through its ambitious Initiatives for Excel-lence (IDEX) program, launched in 2010. This programispartofanationwideProgramme d’investissement d’avenir (PIA),orInvestmentProgramfortheFuture,whichaims

toincreaseFrenchcompetitivenessandgrowth.Thedeci-siontoallocate€7.7billiontothefirsteightuniversityclus-tersselectedbytheprogramwasequivalenttoaCategory5hurricanewithinthetraditionallyegalitarianFrenchhighereducation system—the French government has tradition-ally avoided any policy of explicit differentiation betweenuniversities.

A second wave of IDEX was launched in 2015. Twomorerecipientswerenominatedin2016,andafinaluni-versity cluster joined the club in 2017. Selected IDEX in-stitutionsareplacedunder intensescrutiny,andprogresstowardfullmergersisreviewedregularlybyaninternation-alpanelthathasthepowertorevoketheprestigiouslabel.Thishappenedtoseveraluniversityclusters,includingtheFederalUniversityofToulouse,in2016,creatingapoliticalcataclysmintheregionandforcingPrimeMinisterManuelVallstointerveneandofferalternative,albeitreduced,fund-ingtosupporttheuniversity.

Expectations for the “New” Sorbonne UniversityThe Parisian merger takes place within the frameworkof the IDEX program. The two universities are foundingmembersof the“SorbonneUniversities”COMUE,whichwasawardedtheIDEXlabelin2012.Thediversityofmod-els among merged institutions—including the reunifica-tion of domestic universities and mergers that occurredabroad,suchasinManchester(2004)orHelsinki(2010)—willbebeneficial.

The“new”SorbonneUniversitywillinitiallycomprisethree core schools, namely humanities & social sciences,sciences,andmedicine.Furthermore,itisexpectedthattheUniversityofTechnologyofCompiègne,northofParis,willjoin,furtherexpandingthedisciplinaryreachoftheuniver-sitytoincludeatoprankedschoolofengineering.Itisalsohoped that Panthéon–Assas University (Paris II), initiallyafoundingmemberoftheconsortium,willagainjointhenewuniversityasitsLawSchool.

Thenewuniversityhasacoherentandcomprehensivestrategy,buildingonahistoryonlyrivalledbyOxbridgeinEurope.Nonetheless,issuesremain.Managingthismega-universityofnearly60,000students,ofwhom18percentareforeign,7,700professor–researchers,45industry-spon-soredresearchchairs,and200laboratorieswillbenomeanfeat.Thepredominantly law-orientedParis II initially leftthe consortium because of tensions regarding autonomyand leadership—it preferred a standalone status, or theoptionofmergingwithanotherlawuniversity(ParisI),toavoidbeingsubsumedintoalargerorganizationdominat-edbyParisVIandthesciences.Butrivalrybetweenthedis-ciplineshasnoplaceintoday’shighereducationlandscape.AsstatedbytheformerFrenchministerforhighereduca-tion, Valérie Pécresse, “now we know that good researchandgoodteachingmeansyouneedamultidisciplinaryuni-versity”(2011).

ConclusionToday’sglobalchallengescannotbesolvedbyonecountry,one university, or one discipline. Interdisciplinarity, in-ter- and intrainstitutional collaboration, and internationalcross-bordercooperationareessentialtotackleglobalsoci-etalchallengesandachievetheUnitedNation’sSustainableDevelopmentGoals.

Franceisnowbreakingwithitsegalitarianlegacy.ThegapbetweenIDEXinstitutionsanduniversities thatwerenot selected for the prestigious program is widening. Inthe2018THEWorldUniversityRankings,theIDEXgener-ally outperform other French institutions, with Paris Sci-encesetLettres,ranked72nd,takingthenationaltopspot,whiletheIDEX-labelleduniversityclustersofAix-Marseille

The two universities are founding mem-

bers of the “Sorbonne Universities”

COMUE, which was awarded the IDEX

label in 2012.


(251–300),Bordeaux(301–350),GrenobleAlpes(301–350),Côte d’Azur (351–400), and Strasbourg (351–400) followsuit.TheirrankingwillnodoubtstilldisappointFrenchciv-il servantsand institutional leaders.Nonetheless, there isevidencethattheIDEXare,slowlybutsurely,onthemove.


ConflictofInterestinEast-ernEurope:“AcademicCap-ture”Mihaylo Milovanovitch*, Elena Denisova-Schmidt, and Arevik Anapiosyan*

Mihaylo Milovanovitch is founding member of the Center for Applied Policy in Sofia, Bulgaria, and staff member at the European Training Foundation in Turin, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]. Elena Denisova-Schmidt is a lecturer at the University of St. Gallen, Switzer-land, and research fellow at the Center for International Higher Edu-cation at Boston College, US. E-mail: [email protected]. Arevik Anapiosyan is a lecturer at Yerevan State University and the American University of Armenia, and project leader at the Center for Applied Policy in Sofia, Bulgaria. E-mail: [email protected].

*The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or posi-tion of their respective organizations.

Lobbying public officials is a common and legitimatepractice.However,itmayalsobecomeanintegritycon-

cern,forinstancewhenofficialshaveafinancialinterestinthesectorthatlobbiesthemandforwhichtheyarerespon-sible.Insuchcases,lobbyingmayamounttoundueinflu-ence,promoteconflictsofinterest,and“capture”thedeci-sion-makingprocess inwaysthatcreateundueadvantageforspecificindividuals,institutions,orthesectoratlarge.

In Eastern Europe, higher education providers, espe-cially in the public sector, depend on the state in pivotalaspectsoftheiroperationssuchasfunding,accreditation,closures and mergers, enrollment quotas, etc. The stakesarehighanduniversitieshavegoodreasonsfortryingtoin-fluencethedecisionsofauthoritiesthroughlobbying.Theyarealsoinagoodpositiontodoso,astheymostlyworkinproximitytonationalgovernments:universitieshaveamis-siontoservethepublicinterestandsupplythepublicsector

withthegraduateworkforcethatitneeds,andmanyhavegovernmentrepresentativesontheirboards.

Theresearchpresentedhererevealsthatinmostcoun-triesofEasternEurope,thecloserelationshipbetweenaca-demia and the state ispermeatedby conflicts of interest,whichmanifestthemselvesinhigh-rankingpublicofficialsresponsible for (higher) education being widely affiliatedwith universities on a for-profit basis. We call such affili-ations “academic capture.”Bothacademiaand thepublicsector are exposed to a riskof corruptionevery timeaca-demic institutions lobby for their legitimate interestsandcorrespondingpolicydecisionsarebeingtaken.

Conflict of Interest through “Academic Capture”OurdatasetsarebasedonpubliclyavailableevidencefromtheWesternBalkans (Bosnia-Hercegovina,Croatia,Mace-donia, Montenegro, and Serbia) and the former SovietUnion (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Rus-sia,andUkraine).Welookedattheaffiliationofpublicof-ficialsresponsibleforhighereducationwithuniversities,whichseemedtobeprofit-seekinginnature;thisincludedministersanddeputyministersof(higher)educationorthe

equivalent;headsandmembersofcabinetsortheequiva-lent;headsofdepartmentsforhighereducation;headsofexternalagenciesoperatingonbehalfof theministriesof(higher)education;andchairsand/orregularmembersofparliamentarycommitteesoneducation.

Anongoinganalysisofevidencefromthesecountriesis gradually revealing a situation in which a remarkablyhigh share of these public officers have a profit-seekingaffiliation with at least one university in their respectivecountries,orareexpectedtoengageinone.Amongofficialscaughtupinaconflictofinterestduringdatacollection(thesecondand thirdquartersof2016)were theministersofeducation of Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,Russia,andUkraine.Thisisalsotrueforsome(Ukraine)orallthedeputyministersofeducation(inArmenia,Azer-baijan,Croatia,Moldova,andSerbia),aswellas forsomemembers of the minister’s cabinets in Armenia and Ka-

The most common form of for-profit

affiliation with universities by target

group members is practiced by salaried

staff in public universities.


zakhstan.Somedeputyministers inRussia andUkraine,andtheministerofeducationinKazakhstan,didnothaveanactivefor-profitaffiliationatthetimeofdatacollection,butbasedonemploymenthistoryandnational expert as-sessments,areexpectedtogothroughthe“revolvingdoor”intoa salariedor shareholderpositionatauniversity im-mediately after completing their mandate in the publicsector. To the extent evidence is available, for-profit affili-ationswithuniversities arealso commonat a lower levelof decision-making: among the heads of departments forhighereducationinArmenia,Azerbaijan,Moldova,Russia,andSerbia,andamonglegislatorsinchargeofeducationinAzerbaijan,BosniaandHerzegovina,Macedonia,Moldova,Serbia,andUkraine.

The most common form of for-profit affiliation withuniversitiesbytargetgroupmembersispracticedbysala-riedstaffinpublicuniversities.IntheregionoftheWest-ernBalkans,thebenefitofbeingonthepayrollofahighereducation institution is usually combined with the provi-sionoffee-basedexpertise.Insomecountries(Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan,Serbia,andUkraine),holdersofpublicofficearealsoownersof(private)highereducationinstitutions,orareexpectedtoresumeownershipuponcompletionoftheirtenure.Inaddition,inAzerbaijan,thefor-profitaffiliationofsomedeputyministersincludestheprovisionofprocure-ment services to universities, and, in Croatia, the benefitofaffiliationofahigh-levelcivilservantintheministryisexpectedtobeanacademiccredential(aPh.Ddegree)fromapublicuniversity.

Why It MattersThe threatof “academiccapture”hasmanifoldanddetri-

mentalimplications.Thanksto“captured”individualswithregulatory responsibilities, the higher education sectormaysecurechannelsofinfluenceonpolicydecisionsandachieve favorable policy outcomes—where many of theseoutcomeswouldhavebeendetrimentaltothesector,and/orcomeattheexpenseofothereducationandpublicpolicypriorities.Consider,forexample,thehypotheticalcaseofasmaller,regionalhighereducationinstitutionthatexpectsa fair approach to the accreditation of its new study pro-grams,onlytodiscoverthattheaccreditationauthorityhasrejectedthem,whileapplyingadoublestandardinfavorofthealmamateroftheministerofeducation.Orimagineadiscussionaboutpublicbudgetallocations,whichyearafteryearconcludeswithadecisionto increaseinvestments inanalreadyoversizeduniversitynetworkinsteadofaddress-ingapersistentandacuteshortageofkindergartenplaces.Finally,considerallthewaysinwhichatertiaryeducationalinstitutionthathasinfluenceoveritsregulatorscanharmitselfbyexercisingitsinfluencetopreventtheverychangesitmightneedinordertoimprove.Asasector-specificriskofregulatory“capture,””academiccapture”deservestobetreatedwith thesameurgencyandattentionasanyotherformofconflictofinterestinthepublicsector.Thealterna-tive—leavingdistortionsinhighereducationpolicy-makingunexplored and their harmful, long-term side effects un-addressed—means accepting that certain groups amongeducationalactorsarewrongfullyandsystematicallyputatadisadvantage,thattrustinpubliceducationpolicyisun-dermined,andresistancetochangeencouraged.


NEW PUBLICATIONS FROM CIHE

Georgiana Mihut, Philip Altbach, and Hans de Wit, eds. Under-standing Higher Education Internationalization: Insights from Key Global Publications, published in 2017. This book uniquely orga-nizes selected articles published in University World News (UWN) and International Higher Education (IHE) to reflect themes rele-vant for higher education internationalization, thus offering an accessible and analytic perspective on pressing contemporary concerns regarding internationalization. https://www.sensepub-lishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/global-perspectives-on-higher-education/understanding-higher-education-internationalization/

Jamil Salmi. The Tertiary Education Imperative Knowledge, Skills and Values for Development, published in 2017. This book explores the crucial role played by tertiary education toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/global-perspectives-on-higher-educa-

tion/the-tertiary-education-imperative/

Damtew Teferra, ed. Flagship Universities in Africa. Basingstoke, published in 2017. This book offers an in-depth, comprehensive analysis of flagship universities in Africa—the largest, most selec-tive, and most prestigious universities on the continent. http://www.springer.com/la/book/9783319494029

Adriana Pérez-Encinas, Laura Howard, Laura Rumbley, and Hans de Wit, eds. The Internationalisation of Higher Education in Spain, Reflections and Perspectives, published in 2017. In this publica-tion, 12 experts offer their vision of the internationalization of the Spanish university system. http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/SEPIE_Online_ENG.pdfAlso in Spanish: Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en España, Reflexiones y Perspectivas. http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/SEPIE_Online_ESP.pdf


NEW PUBLICATIONS

(Editor’s note: IHE no longer publishes short book summa-ries, but rather provides a more comprehensive listing of new books that will be of interest to a higher education audience. We welcome suggestions from readers for books on higher education published especially outside of the United States and United Kingdom. This list was compiled by Edward Choi, grad-uate assistant at the Center.)

Austin, Ian and Glen A. Jones. Governance of Higher Educa-tion: Global Perspectives, The-ories, and Practices. New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. 218 pp. $47.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com Arthur, James. Policy Entrepre-neurship in Education: Engage-ment, Influence and Impact. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 176 pp. $140 (hb). Web-site: www.routledge.com

Bain, Alan and Lucia Zun-dans-Fraser. The Self-organiz-ing University – Designing the Higher Education Organiza-tion for Quality Learning and Teaching. Singapore, Spring-er, 2017. 192 pp. € 93,59 (hb). Website: www.springer.com

Bradford, Annette and Howard Brown, eds. Eng-lish-Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education – Policy, Challenges and Out-comes. Bristol, UK: Multilin-gual Matters, 2017. 320 pp. $159.95 (hb). www.multilin-gual-matters.com

Davis, Niki. Digital Technolo-gies and Change in Education:

The Arena Framework. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 174 pp. $39.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Deem, Rosemary and Heath-er Eggins, eds. The University as a Critical Institution? Rot-terdam, Netherlands: Sense, 2017. 248 pp. $43.20 (pb). Website: www.sensepublish-ers.com

Dent, Samuel, Laura Lane, and Tony Strike, eds. Col-laboration, Communities and Competition – International Perspectives from the Acade-my. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2017. 246 pp. $99 (hb). Website: www.sensepublishers.com

Eggins, Heather, ed. The Changing Role of Women in Higher Education. Singa-pore: Springer, 2017. 310 pp. $69.99 (ebook). Website: www.springer.com

Killick, David. Developing In-tercultural Practice – Academic Development in a Multicultur-al and Globalizing World. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 232 pp. $49.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Kiyama, Judy Marquez and Cecilia Rios-Aguilar, eds. Funds of Knowledge in Higher Education – Honoring Stu-dents’ Cultural Experiences and Resources as Strengths. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2018. 208 pp. $46.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Li, Guofang and Wen Ma, eds. Educating Chinese-Heritage Students in the Global–Local

Nexus Identities, Challenges, and Opportunities. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2018. 272 pp. $49.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Lupton, Deborah, Inger Mew-burn, and Pat Thomson, eds. The Digital Academic – Critical Perspectives on Digital Tech-nologies in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge 2017. 172 pp. $39.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Manning, Kathleen. Orga-nizational Theory in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 222 pp. $49.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Marah, John K. Pan-African Education – A Must for the African Union. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 284 pp. $149.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Merrill, Michelle Y. et al., eds. Education and Sustainability Paradigms, Policies and Prac-tices in Asia. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 302 pp. $160 (hb). Website: www.routledge.com

Salmi, Jamil. The Tertiary Edu-cation Imperative Knowledge, Skills and Values for Devel-opment. Rotterdam, Neth-erlands: Sense Publishers, 2017. 218 pp. $54 (pb). Web-site: www.sensepublishers.com

Samuels, Robert. Educating Inequality: Beyond the Politi-cal Myths of Higher Education and the Job Market. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. 182 pp.

$47.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Schrag, Zachary M. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Re-view Boards in the Social Sci-ences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017. 245 pp. $24.95 (pb). Website: www.press.jhu.edu

Scott, W. Richard and Mi-chael W. Kirst, eds. Higher Education in Silicon Valley: Connected but Conflicted. Bal-timore: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press, 2017. 282 pp. $54.95 (pb). Website: www.press.jhu.edu

Stefani, Lorraine and Pat-rick Blessinger, eds. Inclusive Leadership in Higher Educa-tion International Perspectives and Approaches. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017. 216 pp. $46.95 (pb). Website: www.routledge.com

Tsuneyoshi Ryoko, ed. Glo-balization and Japanese “Ex-ceptionalism” in Education –Insider’s Views into a Changing System. New York, NY: Rout-ledge, 2017. 240 pp. $160 (hb). Website: HYPERLINK “http://www.routledge.com” www.routledge.com

Center for International Higher EducationBoston CollegeCampion HallChestnut Hill, MA 02467-3813USA

PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

N. READING MA

Learn more about CIHE’s new MA in

International Higher Education:

http://www.bc.edu/re-search/cihe/graduate-

studies.html

The Center For International Higher Education (CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education brings an international consciousness to the analysis of higher education. We believe that an international perspective will contribute to enlightened policy and practice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Educa-tion quarterly newsletter, a book series, and other publications; sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We have a special concern for academic institutions in the Jesuit tradition world-wide and, more broadly, with Catholic universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among academic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the future depends on ef-fective collaboration and the creation of an in-ternational community focused on the improve-ment of higher education in the public interest.

CIHE Web Site

The different sections of the CIHE Web site provide detailed information about the work of the Center, along with links to news and relevant resources in the field of interest to scholars, professionals, and students of higher education. All issues of Interna-tional Higher Education are available online, with a searchable archive. In addition, the Web site pro-vides easy access to details about current and past CIHE projects, initiatives, and resources; informa-tion about our key partners; and links to our many publications. Prospective graduate students and visiting scholars can also find extensive information about how to seek connections with us in support of

their studies and research.

The Program in Higher Education at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College

The Center is closely related to the graduate pro-gram in higher education at Boston College. The program offers master’s and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based approach to the study of higher education. Specializations are of-fered in international higher education, adminis-tration, and student affairs. For additional infor-mation, see: http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/academics/departments/eahe/graduate.html/.

Special Section on InternationalizationThe section on internationalization is made possible through a cooperative arrangement between CIHE and the Centre for Higher Education Internationali-sation (CHEI) of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan. Fiona Hunter, Associate Director of CHEI, is editorial advisor for this section.

Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for International Higher Education.

Editor

Philip G. Altbach

AssociAtE Editors

Laura E. Rumbley Hans de Wit

PublicAtions Editors Hélène Bernot Ullerö Lisa Unangst

EditoriAl AssistAnt

Salina KopellasEditoriAl officE

Center for International Higher EducationCampion HallBoston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467- USATel: (617) 552-4236Fax: (617) 552-8422E-mail: [email protected]://www.bc.edu/ciheWe welcome correspondence, ideas for articles, and reports. If you would like to subscribe, please send an e-mail to: [email protected], including your position (graduate student, professor, administrator, policy-maker, etc.), and area of interest or expertise. There is no charge for a digital subscription; a fee of $35/year applies to a subscrip-tion to the print version ISSN: 1084-0613 (print) ©Center for International Higher Education

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION