Soft Power and Cultural Exchange: Assessing the Global Influence of U.S.-hosted Higher Educational Exchange Programs

Dr. Chris J. Dolan

Courtney L. Escudero

Lebanon Valley College 101. N. College Avenue

Annville, PA 17003 717-867-6740

dolan@lvc.edu cle003@lvc.edu

Abstract: American policy makers have long promoted U.S.-hosted educational exchange programs in supporting the development of liberal values and norms throughout the world. This study argues that student exchange programs can be seen as expressions of American soft power and global integration. It reviews the global studies literature regarding students who study in the U.S. and American students who study abroad as well the research on international connectivity and global cultural influence through student exchange. The examination then constructs a theoretical framework using a human-centric approach to argue that student exchange programs have long-term consequences for peace building and cooperation, as well as for mutual learning, conflict resolution, development, and the enhancement of human security. It relies on empirical data generated from the Open Doors 2012 Report on International Educational Exchange and reports from the U.S. State Department’s 100,000 Strong initiative to assess the extent of “internationalization” or the number of inbound students and outgoing students studying abroad. The study concludes that exchange students who are well educated typically have high exposure and connectivity to the global community, which enhances the extent of American soft power and global influence. Keywords: U.S. foreign policy; educational exchange; soft power; integration; peace building; cooperation

1

"we're also expanding cultural and educational exchanges among young people... On every issue, the world turns to us, not simply because of the size of our economy or our military might – but because of

the ideals we stand for, and the burdens we bear to advance them." - President Barrack Obama, 2014 State of the Union

Internationalization & Global Education

The topic of internationalization, which involves “integrating an international, intercultural, or global

dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight 2003: 2), has been

an issue of concern for many years within the U.S. educational system. The world is changing rapidly,

and in doing so has become more interdependent. Once isolated communities are now able to

communicate and have economic exchange with areas around the globe. This interdependence has made

it necessary for individuals in the United States, as well as all countries of the world, to have a more

comprehensive understanding of inclusion.

Research in the area of internationalization of higher education has grown not only in the quantitative

sense, but also thematically against other focal points in the studies of higher education. According to

Kehm and Teichler (2007), research on the internationalization of higher education has grown over recent

years. Bonfiglio (1999) discusses the realities and, consequently, difficulties faced by college students

today in an ever more globalized and interconnected world. The article then goes on to outline and discuss

in depth the five challenges that have inhibited colleges and universities from realizing an

internationalized curriculum. These five challenging factors include shifting societal purposes and

directions, governmental constraints, institutional structures that block change, theoretical assumptions

about failures, and ultimately lack of data to support necessary change. Bonfiglio (1999) concludes that

despite such challenges institutions must work to provide an internationalized curriculum that is more

than just a collection of courses, but rather a preparatory measure for students as they enter into life and

work in a global society in which they are acting participants.

American colleges and universities have been the preferred destination for students from around

the world (Hayward 2000). However, more recently, opportunities have become available for students to

obtain quality higher education in their own countries or by studying in nation-states other than the U.S.

2

Black and Duhon (2006) contend that study abroad programs have the potential to enhance cross-cultural

tolerance and empathy.

The rising trend of fact-based learning in American high schools has contributed to a lack of

global awareness in college and university education. Memorizing facts about other cultures will likely

not lead to an actual understanding of those cultures, especially for first year students (Mahoney and

Schamber 2004). The ideal model for an intercultural curriculum incorporates role-playing exercises and

independent research. It was found that this type of curriculum changes the perspective of students

towards difference from one that trivializes it to one that acknowledges difference as important and

desirable. The study discussed in this article found that: “a general education curriculum employing

analysis and evaluation of cultural difference is more effective in improving students’ levels of

intercultural sensitivity than a curriculum employing comprehension of cultural difference” (Mahoney

and Schamber 2004: 332). It is clear that classroom lectures alone will not teach the tolerance and

empathy necessary to be successful in an increasingly global society.

To alleviate declining educational status in the U.S. as well to address a lack of understanding of

non-U.S. culture and political and economic systems, higher education needs to provide an environment

that will allow students to appreciate and comprehend global cultures and institutions. Thus, campus

cultures institutions around the globe are striving to develop this atmosphere by incorporating

international education into not only the curriculum but also within the culture of the institution.

Therefore, internationalization within higher education institutions is a growing trend, not only in the U.S.

but around the world (Altbach 2002).

Internationalization of education, in particular higher education, has received broad support from

both government officials and the general public. Students attending higher education institutions also

express interest in coursework and travel opportunities related to increasing global perspectives (Hayward

2000; Siaya & Hayward 2003). Around the globe, educating individuals about the complex issues of the

world around them has become a priority. However, there are a number of concerns among countries and

regions when looking at the process that leads to globalization, or “the flow of technology, economy,

3

knowledge, people, values, and ideas . . . across borders” (Knight 2003: 10). One challenge is contending

with brain drain, which occurs when skilled professionals leaves home countries in search of employment

and opportunities in another country. Many times this search for opportunities occurs in the country

where an individual attains higher education, denying the home country the value of the student s learning

(Kwok & Leland, 1982). Another area of concern for countries is the loss of cultural identity due to

globalization. As globalization occurs, the world becomes more alike. Still, globalization continues as an

unimpeded trend in higher education throughout the world (Altbach 2002)

For Altbact and Knight (2007), the scholarly community should clear up confusion between the

internationalization and globalization with the former concerned with institutional processes in higher

education and the latter with outcomes. He then examines the internationalization of education throughout

various areas of the world and the successes and challenges found in each. He concludes that

internationalism in higher education will remain a central force despite uncertainties that he outlines that

may affect the pace with which growth in the area is realized. Some of these uncertainties include the role

of e-learning, cost of study, and the role of English as a medium of research throughout the world.

Stohl (2007) makes the argument that one of the largest factors in the internationalization of

higher education is the role that faculty plays in its development and implementation. According to his

research institutions have provided opportunities for student mobility, but faculty commitment has been a

sticking point on many occasions. To promote the interest on the part of the faculty towards a more

internationalized curriculum the activities surrounding it must focus on the ideas of learning and

discovery. This will only happen by clearly communicating the intent, the outcomes, the risks, and the

rewards of such curricular change.

Perhaps such change would lead to more globally savvy graduates to help Americans compete in

the globalized economy. Unfortunately, no standard structure has been developed to address international

learning needs. Therefore, it has become difficult to measure internationalization in the context of

education. One of the reasons for such difficulty is that no standard definition exists for the term

internationalization. Across the spectrum of postsecondary institutions, various practices exist that

4

provide what is referred to as “internationalization” within these colleges and universities, but the

practices differ in both form and intent (Abdullahi, Kajberg, & Virkus, 2007).

As Qiang (2003) has made clear, higher education can no longer be looked as something of

national interest but one with international characteristics. Students must be prepared to enter the work

field in what is more now than ever a global society. The research is outlined around four approaches that

have been taken in the internationalization of higher education and the rationale behind pursuing such

approaches be it political, economic, or academic. He concludes that the most successful way by which to

implement a more internationalized curriculum is to make adjustments to existing programs whilst also

implementing new ones all of which are subject to a consistent process of review.

Research also demonstrates the benefits of creating and implementing international studies

programs in promoting the value of intercultural and international education for students (e.g., Johnston

and Edelstein, 1993; Kohls and Knight, 1994; Lambert, 1994; Latham and Dalton, 1999). According to

Blanton (2009), the amount of international studies programs has increased with the number of

international studies majors having doubled over the last several years (see: Manzo 2005). It is

increasingly recognized that global learning should be a fundamental component of the undergraduate

core curriculum to “successfully prepare students to live … in a dramatically changing world” (Hovland

2005: 1).

Several studies examine the academic underpinnings and significance of international studies

programs at the undergraduate level. Blanton (2009) surveys directors of IS programs to assess such

factors as levels of popularity among students, academic structure, and administrative and institutional

components. He concludes that while IS programs remain popular among undergraduates and colleges

and universities are generally sympathetic to internationalization, there is a “definite gap between the

level of support and the increased administrative demands that accompany growing programs” (2009:

225; see? Hey 2004 and Lambert 2001). Ishiyama and Breuning (2004) identify broader variables that

determine degrees of support for IS programs, especially the size of the college or university, if there is a

religious affiliation with the institution, and whether the institution is located near a major city. One study

5

links the visibility of IS programs to the extent to which IS directors actually market themselves to

possible majors (Breuning and Ishiyama (2007) while others have examined the effectiveness of program

websites (Ishiyama and Breuning 2004; Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006).

Studies (AACU 1991; Breuning and Ishiyama 2004; Ishiyama and Breuning 2004; Wahlke 1991)

have shown there is little consensus regarding the fundamental components of an international studies

undergraduate curriculum. McCaughey (1983) maintains the goal is to make sure that international

studies programs take full advantage of the breadth and interdisciplinary value of general education. In

other words, international studies programs should consist of courses geared toward reflecting general

interests, cross-national comparisons and multi-disciplinary interests, foreign languages and world

cultures, and theoretical interests. The intention is to offer opportunities to globally-oriented students by

linking courses across a curriculum, building on emerging college-wide strengths, and allowing students

flexibility in selecting short-term or full semester Study Abroad programs.

Given the monumental changes in the global system following the end of the Cold War, empirical

research recommends that students must be exposed to the distinctive mix of global integration and

disintegration in the 21st Century (Mittleman 2002). The interdisciplinary nature of global programs

means that the distinction between states and non-states, domestic and international realms, and the

principles of social, political, and economic organization have become difficult to enforce (Rosenau 1997;

Shaw 1999). Moreover, technological advances have dramatically shrunk the effects of distance and

increased the dynamism and interconnectedness of the international system. Survival and success in these

emergent conditions require greater global awareness and more refined analytic and communications

skills than in the past.

A number of scholars have identified constraints faced by those who participate in global

programs. While global studies is a theoretically and methodologically diverse program (Hermann 1998;

Brecher 1999), Blanton (2009) contends that the interdisciplinary nature of the field “has exhibited

somewhat of an ‘identity crisis’ over the years.” In particular, Hey (2004) argues that global programs

have become largely influenced by political science. The problem may be that most global programs are

6

not organized with a specific academic department and include courses from programs across the

humanities and social sciences (Brown, Pegg, and Shively 2006).

Galvan (2006) proposes that an international perspective be added to existing courses, rather than

attempting to build a completely new curriculum. It is crucial that perspectives of countries other than the

U.S. are discussed when analyzing an issue, whether historical or current. An emphasis should be placed

on the extent to which people and political systems are interconnected, the impact of history on current

events, and how values vary among cultures.

However, for Sperandio and Grudzinski-Hall (2010) a strong “Undergraduate Global Citizen

Program” should place an emphasis on: experiential and co-curricular learning, focused travel abroad, and

faculty involvement in course development. As other research has found, students can only truly

understand other cultures by engaging in learning about them, not just memorizing facts. The article

offers a definition of global competence: a focus on “gaining knowledge, perspectives, and skills that a

student would bring to bear on situational decision making rather than decision making based on previous

thought or conjecture” (19). The importance of a cross-cultural or globalized education is that students

will be able to think from perspectives outside of their own personal experiences.

Student Exchange Programs as Transnational Channels of Norms and Ideas

These broader global trends and shifts will define the parameters that shape the development of

knowledge economies through international education initiatives. Research demonstrates that students in

higher education exchange programs are likely to return home with a more positive view of the nation-

state in which they studied, the people with whom they interacted, and the ideas they absorbed. There is

an even stronger likelihood that they will use newly found knowledge and experiences to improve the

political, economic, and social conditions in their home nation-state country (Wilson and Bonilla 1955;

Watson and Lippitt 1958; Selltiz, Christ, Havel, and Cook 1963; Wang 1991; Richmond 2003; Miller

2006). Qian Ning, who hails from China and studied at the University of Michigan, stated, “our

experiences made us see that there are alternative ways for China to develop and for us to lead our

7

personal lives. Being in the United States made us realize that things in China can be different” (Qian

1997:38).

Even more, U.S. academic programs create a more positive global image for the U.S. and

increase the level of “international communication which may indirectly reinforce the democratic values

and orientations of program participants” (Miller 2006:26). Indeed, according to one observer, “One of

the most effective mechanisms for the dissemination of democratic ideals is international educational

exchange” (Williams 2004:36). The long-term goal of education exchange programs is to socialize

potential elite policymakers. According to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (2006), “every

foreign student attending one of our universities represents an opportunity to enhance democracy in

America and to strengthen the cause of freedom abroad.”

Cultural exchange programs influence the extent of students’ attitudes and toward the host

country (Miller 2006; Sunal and Sunal 1991; Ye 2001). The extent of foreign students’ social and

academic experiences as well as personal connections and interactions while studying and living in the

U.S. contributed to more favorable perspectives and attitudes toward the U.S. and U.S. American culture

(Selltiz et al. 1963). Sunal and Sunal (1991) observe similar results for U.S. students participating in

college and university level study abroad programs as well as U.S. Americans in the Fulbright program

who made contacts with students, scholars, and practitioners they met while abroad. In particular, Sunal

and Sunal (1991:118) contend that U.S. Americans experienced a deep personal impact while, for

instance, studying in Africa, which contributed to a “lasting interest in Africa, scholarly activity relating

to African topics, and long-term professional contact with African academics.” A challenge for many

developed nation-states will be to provide additional outreach to developing regions where most future

economic growth will likely take place.

Researchers have also maintained that the value of students being actively involved in college

communities and developed a shared identity and affiliation with citizens in the host country (Selltiz et al.

1963; Ye 2001). U.S. sponsored higher education exchanges provide both non-U.S. and U.S. American

8

students with a framework for developing and maintaining deep and lasting relationships that have the

potential of building positive attitudes toward both home and host country (Akerlof and Kranton 2005).

However, to exercise influence in one’s home country, the student studying and living in the U.S.

must return home in order to address and/or transform social, economic, and political events and

institutions. Indeed, the conditions of these events and institutions will determine whether or not

university and college-level students actually do return home (Sunal and Sunal 1991; Ye 2001). For

example, while many students from China study abroad to the U.S. or matriculate as international

students in a U.S. university or college, many do not return home and are therefore unable to exercise any

measure of direct influence in Chinese politics (Wang 1991; Ye 2001). According to Wang (1991:300–

301), over the last thirty years, “Of about 80,000 students and scholars who came to the United States

between 1979 and 1989, only 26,000 have returned, most of them before 1986.” Those students who

remain in the U.S. are cite non-academic reasons for staying in the U.S., making it less likely to advance

and promote U.S. ideas in their home country.

Regardless, there remains and will continue to be a tremendous need in the U.S. for

understanding other cultures, economic systems, and policies, since the world community is sustained by

students seeking to learn, study, and possibly return as global ambassadors to their home country

(Johnson, 2002). This speaks to the cosmopolitan nature of global politics and society, which rest on

assumptions that people possess equal rights and freedoms to access knowledge and pursue educational

opportunities regardless of social and economic condition. Since cosmopolitanism perceives the world in

terms of people and not states, there is an inherent notion of a common global society comprised of

communities that transcend national borders. Conceptions of a common humanity and world community

connected through universal norms should diminish the argument that educational exchange programs are

drawbacks to a nation’s cultural appeal, attractiveness, and soft power.

9

Soft Power and Appeal: Conceptualizing and Measuring the Extent of the Influence and Attractiveness of U.S. Education

Hosting strong educational exchange programs is an effective way for the U.S. to exercise soft power

with others as it has the demonstrated potential to exercise influence over others as well as socialize

students with its core cultural values and economic institutions and practices. Soft power is the ability of

global actors to attain goals and interests by increasing the level of admiration and emulation others have

toward them (Nye 2004). According to Nye, “In international politics, the resources that produce soft

power arise in large part from the values an organization or country expresses in its culture, in the

examples it sets by its internal practices and policies, and in the way it handles relations with others” (Nye

2004:8). In order to build its level of soft power, global actors, mainly nation-states, seek to share their

intangible resources, such as ideologies, values, and cultural norms, as well as tangible goods and

resources, with others in order to build influences relative to others and power within the world system.

The degree of soft power wielded by any nation-state can help build levels of trust and goodwill

as it involves the ability of both political elites and the public to sway others with the nation’s ideological

appeal and cultural attractiveness. Ideology and culture are used as a framework to influence and shape

the preferences of other actors, states and publics alike, and set the policy agenda. The potential to

influence governments and shape global perceptions with its cultural appeal and ideas can be powerful

tools in the foreign policy powers of any nation-state, not just the U.S. (1990c: 166-7).

In a report entitled, The New Persuaders II, McClory (2012) provides a ranking of the various

types of soft power resources within leading nations. The soft power index, along with five specific sub-

indices, might provide us with a more comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages

within a nation’s soft power arsenal, thereby determining the extent to which nations exercise influence

relative to other global actors (states and non-states). These five sub-indices are listed in the table below

and include: government, diplomacy, culture, education, and business/innovation. Government captures

political values such as democracy, pluralism, and human rights, as well as specific policy outcomes and

the institutional effectiveness of government structures. Culture is the most direct sub-index within soft

10

power, since it is the actual manifestation and expression of social norms and core values shaped by both

people and institutions. Diplomacy involves the networks and institutions states build and maintain over

time to exercise outreach and project influence within the political systems of other states. Education is

driven mainly by the various aspects of higher education, namely a nation’s ability to attract foreign

students with academic resources and produce high quality scholarly research. Rounding out the soft

power index is Business/Innovation, which involves the level of global appeal of a nation’s economic

system and its capacity for innovation. Not exclusively focused on economic production and outputs, this

sub-index is concerned mainly with the economic legal structures, competitiveness, economic institutions

and policies, regulations, and innovation.

The Education sub-index aims to capture these factors and includes measures on the number of

foreign students in a country and the relative quality of its universities. The extent to which the U.S. can

attract international students and facilitate educational exchanges is a reflection of its ability to conduct

public diplomacy around the world (Miller 2006). Atkinson (2010) argues that reputational gains can be

produced for host countries when non-U.S. students return to their home country, given that exchange

programs have beneficial “ripple effects” on students (Olberding and Olderding 2010).

Top Ten Nations by Soft Power Sub Index Rank Government Culture Diplomacy Education Business/Innovation 1 Sweden U.S. France U.S. Singapore 2 Norway U.K. U.K. U.K. Sweden 3 Denmark France Germany Germany Finland 4 Switzerland Australia U.S. France Switzerland 5 Finland Spain Sweden Canada Denmark 6 New Zealand Germany Norway Australia Netherlands 7 Netherlands China Netherlands China Germany 8 Australia Italy Canada Japan Belgium 9 Canada Canada Italy Netherlands South Korea

10 Austria Russia Switzerland South Korea Japan

Source: 2011 IfG-Monocle Soft Power Index

New Persuaders II also developed an education sub-index in soft power that focuses specifically

on aspects of higher education, namely the ability of nations to appeal to international students based on

the relative quality of its colleges and universities and the significance of academic research.

11

Education Sub Index

Source: McClory (2011)

Education is a reflection of a nation’s culture. Nye defines culture as the “set of practices that create

meaning for a society” (Nye 2004). According to McClory (2011: 10), education along with literature, art,

film, music, and television, is considered a driver of culture and, consequently, one of the most important

factors in exercising soft power and the accumulation of influence in the much broader soft power

context.

We should note that measuring the extent of soft power within the foreign policy powers of a

nation-state is certainly not an exact science. The New Persuaders II study (McClory 2011) reports

various soft power drivers for the top nations (U.S. U.K., and France) with the U.S. leading in the

comprehensive category of culture and far ahead of all other countries in education. The U.S. is also the

world’s leading exporter of films, music, and television. The huge global demand for U.S. cultural

products and outputs helps guarantee that the so-called U.S. “American brand” is powerful and attractive

around the world (Joffe 2001; Nye 2004). Not only are U.S.-based academics on the cutting edge of

research and scholarship, colleges and universities in the U.S. are perceived as high quality institutions of

higher education that attract non-U.S. students. U.S. higher education institutions dominate the Times

Higher Education Top 200 rankings and, because of this, the U.S. attracts more international students than

any other nations. In fact, U.S. colleges and universities lure twice as many international students than the

next nation on the list, the U.K. (McClory 2011: 116). In fact, there are seventy-three former and current

Metric Definition Source Quality of Primary and Secondary Education

PISA Scores Education at a Glance 2011, OECD

Quality of Universities The number of universities in the Times Higher Education Global Universities Top 200

“World University Rankings 2011-2012” Times Higher Education, Thomson Reuters

Foreign Students Number of Foreign Students studying in a given country

“Global Education Digest 2011”, UNESCO Institute for Statistics; “Education at a Glance 2011”, OECD

Academic Publishing Number of articles published in academic journals by country of lead author (averaged across five major subjects)

Thomson Reuters Research Evaluation

12

chief executives of sovereign, independent nation-states who lived in the U.S. and studied at U.S.

American colleges and universities.

Overall Soft Power Scores Country Soft Power Score Nation Soft Power Score U.S. 7.41 Italy 4.28 U.K. 6.78 New Zealand 4.17 France 6.21 Austria 4.10 Germany 6.15 Belgium 3.80 Australia 5.64 China 3.74 Sweeden 5.35 Brazil 3.55 Japan 5.08 Singapore 3.49 Switzerland 5.07 Turkey 3.33 Canada 4.91 Chile 2.94 Netherlands 4.90 Portugal 2.81 Norway 4.82 Israel 2.67

Denmark 4.78 India 2.64 Spain 4.68 Russia 2.43 South Korea 4.52 Czech Republic 2.36 Finland 4.45 Greece 2.35

Source: IfG-Monocle Soft Power Index (2011) The soft power index reports that the U.S. leads all other nations on the list. Although plagued by divided

government and paralysis and persistent public distrust of government remain unaddressed, the

preponderance of U.S. American culture and cultural resources and products, the dominance of its higher

educational institutions, and relatively significant powers of diplomatic influence render the U.S. as the

nation with the most far-reaching soft power followed by the U.K., France, Germany, and Australia.

Important distinctions should be made between soft and hard power. Hard power tends to rest on

policy inducements exercised by policy elites seeking to determine the actions of others by coercing other

global actors with concrete and palpable resources of power, such as with military means (movement of

weapons, adjustment of air and naval power, transfer of troops) and economic resources (sanctions, trade

restrictions, currency manipulations). Soft power is the ability of a nation-state to alter the behavior of

others and manipulate by attracting them to its one’s culture, symbols, and ideology (1990a: 267).

Writing within the neoliberal theoretical tradition, Nye (2002) contends that the sources of power

have changed and evolved in direct response to advances in global information technology and

communications. Complex global interdependence among states has deepened and individual citizens

13

and groups have become more empowered. Contemporary globalization has and will continue to facilitate

the diffusion of power given increased access to information and advanced mobile communications,

rising levels of education throughout the world and gender parity in most regions, an expanding global

middle class and declining levels of poverty, and a widespread belief in democratic norms and values

(Nye 2004, 2002). These patterns and trends will likely have considerable consequences for world politics

and the state actors, which have long shaped the world system. Evolving social and economic conditions

could lead people to become more consequential to the shaping of global events, institutions, and values.

Soft power is a concept in the comprehensive liberal theory that political, economic, and social

institutions are shaped by both elites and citizens driven by technological progress that will lead to “a

shift in the locus of collective activities away from central governments” (Nye 2002: 50).

Traditional boundaries that once safeguarded nation-states and separated people by territory and

geography appear to be weakening. Current patterns may suggest even broader shifts in global power with

the world becoming increasingly more multipolar and asymmetric. Moreover, these patterns are being

shaped and influenced with rising levels of education, a declining poverty rate, and an emerging and

powerful global middle class with increased access to advanced technologies and social media (Global

Trends 2030 2012; World Bank 2013; Economist 2013a & 2013b; ESPAS 2012). The consequences are

significant for traditional major powers in exerting strong leadership of global governance structures and

supranational institutions, which for years have persisted and remained relatively unchanged (Global

Trends 2030 2012; World Bank 2013). Contemporary globalization dilutes, to some extent, traditional

state power as a result of cross-border exchanges among non-governmental organizations, corporations,

and global citizens, which exist beyond the control of governments and global governance structures.

The degree of soft power influence exercised by any nation-state is a reflection of the global

reputation of its universities and colleges as well as its higher education system in general. We argue that

reputation can be linked, to a limited extent, with global integration, which gauges the interconnectedness

of nations with the rest of the world. The number of students who study and people who visit or live in a

country and the ability of a country to communicate effectively with the world are some of the most

14

consequential factors in a nation’s degree of connectivity with the world and its ability to exercise global

power and influence.

In order to isolate the reputation of U.S. colleges and universities, our examination will

emphasize global university rankings, which are calculated from the total accumulated score of all

national institutions ranked on the Thomson Reuters Times Higher Education World University Rankings

index. The 2013-2014 rankings measure both the quality and quantity of universities and report data on

the following indicators: teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook.

Teaching involves the learning environment of each institution from the vantage points of both

faculty and students and comprises the first 30% of an institution’s reputation. Using results from the

world’s, an academic reputation survey administered by the Times Higher Education World University

Rankings, the teaching category includes an institution’s faculty-to-student ratio as a representation of

teaching quality. Colleges and universities with a significant amount of research students are deemed

more knowledge-intensive and the presence of a thriving postgraduate community is an indicator of a

research-led teaching environment as seen by students and faculty alike. The category also includes the

number of doctorates awarded by an institution relative to its overall size. A higher proportion of

postgraduate research students suggest that the provision of high quality teaching is both attractive to

students and effective at developing their academic skills.

Research, which comprises 30% of reputation and is the flagship indicator in the rankings, deals

mainly with volume, income, and scholarly reputation. The research category includes the role of

institutions in spreading knowledge and ideas. The research component incorporates a university's

reputation for excellence in scholarship within academic disciplines and among peers. Research also

includes income generated from colleges or universities, which could be problematic because it might be

influenced by government policies and economic circumstances. Income determines the quality of

scholarly research judged by peer review relative to the institution’s academic profile. Research grants in

the physical sciences are often larger than those in the social sciences, arts and humanities research.

15

The number of citations involves the particular institution’s scholarly influence and comprises the

third 30%. Times measures research by counting the number of times a published work is cited by

scholars around the world. In the 2012 survey, Thomas Reuters looked at roughly 50 million citations to 6

million articles published in approximately 12,000 academic journals over five years.

Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2007 to 2012 are also collected. The number of

citations revealed the extent to which a university of college is contributing to the cumulative amount of

knowledge contributed by scholars to the global scholarly community.

Industry income speaks to levels of innovation and knowledge transfers from higher education

institutions to particular industries, comprising 2.5% of reputation. An institution’s ability to help industry

with intellectual property rights, innovations, patents, copyrights, and other inventions and consultancy

has come to define the contemporary global academy. Such “knowledge transfers” involves looking at

how much research income an institution earns from industry, scaled against the number of academic staff

it employs as well as the institution’s ability to attract funding in competitive marketplaces.

The final indicator, international outlook, is shaped by staff, students and research and comprises

the 7.5% of the ranking score. An important qualitative factor here involves the degree of

“internationalization,” or the number of inbound foreign students and the number of outgoing host

country students studying abroad. International outlook encompasses campus diversity and the extent to

which academics collaborate with international colleagues on research projects. A college or university’s

ability to attract undergraduates and postgraduates around the world is consequential to its global success

and influence. Institutions with the strongest reputations are seen as magnets for students from all over the

world. More than likely, well-educated students have high exposure and connectivity to the global

community, which elevates the host country’s soft power and global attractiveness.

Reputation scores were calculated using results of an academic reputation survey, which allowed

for comparisons among the various forms of institutional data reported by colleges and universities. Of

the top 50 leading global universities, 30 are located in the U.S. followed by the U.K. (7), Canada (3),

Australia (2), Japan (1), China (2), Switzerland (2), South Korea (1), Singapore (1), and Hong Kong (1).

16

Top 50 Institutions 2013-2014 Rank Institution Location Score Rank Institution Location Score 1 California Institute of

Technology U.S. 94.9 26 National University of

Singapore Singapore 72.4

2 University of Oxford U.K. 93.9 27 University of Texas, Austin

U.S. 72.2

2 Harvard University U.S. 93.9 27 Georgia Institute of Technology

U.S. 71.6

4 Stanford University U.S. 93.8 29 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

U.S. 71.4

5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

U.S. 93.0 30 University of Wisconsin-Madison

U.S. 71.1

6 Princeton University U.S. 92.7 31 University of British Columbia

Canada 70.8

7 University of Cambridge

U.K. 92.3 32 London School of Economics and Political Science

U.K. 69.8

8 University of California, Berkeley

U.S. 89.8 33 University of California, Santa Barbara

U.S. 68.4

9 University of Chicago U.S. 87.8 34 University of Melbourne Australia 68.2 10 Imperial College,

London U.K. 87.5 35 McGill University Canada 68.1

11 Yale University U.S. 87.4 36 Karolinska Institute Sweden 67.8 12 University of

California, Los Angeles U.S. 86.3 37 École Polytechnique

Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland 67.7

13 Columbia University U.S. 85.2 38 Kings College U.K. 67.6 14 ETH Zürich – Swiss

Federal Institute of Technology Zürich

Switzerland 84.5 39 University of Edinburgh U.K. 67.5

14 Johns Hopkins University

U.S. 83.7 40 University of California, San Diego

U.S. 67.4

16 University of Pennsylvania

U.S. 81.0 40 New York University U.S. 67.4

17 Duke University U.S. 79.3 42 Washington University, St. Louis

U.S. 67.2

18 University of Michigan U.S. 79.2 43 University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 65.3 19 Cornell University U.S. 79.1 44 Seoul National University South Korea 65.2 20 University of Toronto Canada 78.3 45 Peking University China 65.0 21 University College,

London U.K. 77.6 46 University of Minnesota U.S. 64.9

22 Northwestern University

U.S. 77.1 47 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

U.S. 64.5

23 University of Tokyo Japan 76.4 48 Australian National University

Australia 64.4

24 Carnegie Mellon University

U.S. 76.0 49 Pennsylvania State University

U.S. 64.2

25 University of Washington

U.S. 73.4 50 Tsinghua University China 63.5

50 University of California, Davis

U.S. 63.5

Source: Times Higher Education (2013-2014): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

17

The U.S. extends its dominance in the top 100 with 46 institutions, followed by the U.K. (11),

Netherlands (8), Germany (6), Australia (5), Canada (4), Switzerland (3), South Korea (3), France (3),

Japan (2), Hong Kong (2), Belgium (2), Singapore (2), China (2), Sweden (1), and Finland (1).

Top 100 Institutions by Reputation and Nation, 2013 Nation Number of Institutions in the

Top 100 Top Institution Top Institution

Rank United States 46 California Institute of Technology 1 United Kingdom 11 University of Oxford 3 Netherlands 8 Leiden University 67 Germany 6 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München 55 Australia 5 University of Melbourne 34 Canada 4 University of Toronto 20 Switzerland 3 ETH Zürich – Swiss Federal Institute of

Technology Zürich 14

South Korea 3 Seoul National University 44 France 3 École Normale Supérieure 65 Japan 2 University of Tokyo 23 Hong Kong 2 University of Hong Kong 43 Belgium 2 KU Leuven 61 Singapore 2 National University of Singapore 26 China 2 Peking University 45 Sweden 1 Karolinska Institutet 36 Finland 1 University of Helsinki 100

Source: Times Higher Education (2013): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

The point is that reputation matters within the shark-infested and highly competitive global higher

education market. A university's reputation defines its existence and is the number one consideration for

globally-minded and globally-mobile students who are likely to gravitate toward institutions, mainly in

the U.S. and U.K., based almost exclusively on reputation and regardless of tuition fees. Reputation is

consequential for establishing collaborative research partnerships and attracting funding. Even though

reputation leaves a lasting imprint on any institution, contemporary globalization suggests that new

information and communications technologies and social networking in the hands of an emerging global

middle class can transform the global higher education marketplace. Students everywhere will be

attracted to institutions with strong academic prestige that offer them high quality learning experiences.

Institutions held in the highest regard maintain their strong reputations over time by leveraging stellar

academics to attract lucrative donations, reputable partners, and students from around the world.

18

A total of 26 nations comprise the world’s leading 200 universities with an additional 14 included

in the second tier of 200 universities (200-400). However, the two tables listed above are dominated by

wealthy, developed nations. Times Higher Education provides an analysis of the potential of higher

education institutions in select developing nations, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China which are

committed to investing in first-rate research institutions as the drivers of their economic growth. These

nations are seeking to make lucrative investments in improving the ratio of doctoral candidates to the

overall number of students, subsidizing tuition payments to full-time students, funding research projects

across disciplines, and increasing the number of research publications in leading journals (Times Higher

Education 2013-2014).

While there are no universities from India ranked in the top 200, five (Panjab University, IIT

Delhi, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur, and IIT Roorkee) are included in the 200-400 tables, an increase of

three institutions from 2012 to 2013. Although Lomonosov Moscow State University is currently ranked

in the top 100, Russian President Vladimir Putin has set a goal for at least five Russian higher education

institutions to make the Times Higher Education top 100 list by the end of this decade. The Russian

government is investing Rb9 billion ($285 million/£175 million) over the next six years to accomplish

this lofty goal. Surprisingly, Brazil has no institution listed in the top 200. In fact, the University of São

Paulo and the State University of Campinas lost significant ground in the rankings (Times Higher

Education 2013-2014).

While China does have two institutions currently listed in the top 50 (Tsinghua University and

Peking University) and only two institutions in the world top 200 list, it does have eight institutions in the

200-400 group. These eight include Fudan University, the University of Science and Technology of

China, Renmin University, Wuhan University of Technology, Nanjing University, Zhejiang Univeristy,

Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Sun Yat-sen University. While considerable improvements have has

been achieved backed by considerable financial investments, academic progress in Chinese universities is

constrained by the bureaucratic and top-down approach to administrative governance, lack full

meritocracy and independence, and academic inbreeding (universities hiring own graduates as faculty).

19

Given the challenges posed by contemporary globalization, the Obama Administration has sought

to more prominently feature higher educational exchange programs within its foreign policy goals. It has

paid particular attention to the relative movement of power from West to East with the rise of China.

Obama has responded to the challenge in 2012 with the establishment of the 100,000 Strong Foundation,

which is design to deepen U.S. American understanding of China through U.S. high school, college, and

university students studying abroad at Chinese higher education institutions. The substantive goal of the

program is to expand and diversify the number of U.S. Americans studying Mandarin Chinese and

studying abroad in China. In other words, the Obama Administration is seeking to narrow the gulf

between the cultures of the two nations, strengthen ties between the world’s two largest nations, and to

promote global stability (U.S. Department of State 2010).

In the last several years, roughly twelve times more Chinese students study in the U.S. than U.S.

students who study, intern, and volunteer in China and approximately 33% of Chinese students study

English while only 60,000 U.S. study Mandarin Chinese. Moreover, there has been a 23% increase in the

number of Chinese students studying in the U.S. from 2012 to 2013 compared with just a 5% increase in

U.S. students studying the full range of academic subjects and engaging in different learning experiences

in China. According to the Institute of International Education’s most recent Open Doors report, the

number of U.S. students studying in China increased by 18% each year from 2000 (3,291 students) to

2010/2011 (15,647 students). Outside Western Europe, China is now the most popular destination for

U.S. students studying abroad. Findings from the report reveal that there were over 11,000 additional

students engaged in education-related activities in China, beyond those normally counted in the Open

Doors study abroad survey. For-credit academic study represents roughly 59% of all U.S. students with

41% U.S. students participating in over 26,000 educational activities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and

Macau. Given these findings, the 100,000 Strong Initiative is likely to meet the goal of sending 100,000

American students to China over a four year period, assuming a sustained or increased interest in studying

in China (U.S. Department of State 2010).

20

Following the initiation of the “100,000 Strong” initiative between China and the United States,

President Obama launched the “100,000 Strong in the Americas.” The program was set forth in March of

2011 in order to increase the amount of international studying being done by American students in Latin

America and the Caribbean. The “100,000 Strong in the Americas” focused on the critical importance of

quality education to shared regional prosperity (U.S. Department of State 2011).

The middle class in Latin America has grown exponentially due to the region’s vast

manufacturing, agricultural and mineral resources becoming available. In addition, the Latino/Latina

population in the U.S. has risen to more than 50 million. The “100,000 Strong in the Americas” is only a

small factor into gaining a better relationship with countries in the Western Hemisphere. With 40 percent

of the United States exports going to Latin American and Caribbean countries, a deeper and more secure

relationship with these countries is crucial (U.S. Department of State 2011).

Through greater international exchange of future leaders and innovators, increasing the amount of

cultural understanding among the Western Hemisphere, and building closer people-to-people ties, a

positive effect on the region will occur. By developing stronger ties with countries close to the United

States, the State Department believes these relationships will help address challenges such as citizen

security, economic opportunity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. With close to 40,000

U.S. students studying in Latin America and the Caribbean, the program itself looks to double this

number in less than ten years (U.S. Department of State 2011). The results were confirmed by a 2011

survey conducted by the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE). The results

revealed an increase in all levels;; 93 percent increase of doctoral institutions, 84 percent of master’s

institutions, 78 percent of baccalaureate institutions, and around 50 percent of associate institutions (2012

Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses).

How CIGE measured the increase in internationalization was by focusing on internationalizing

the curriculum at the home campus, strategic partnerships with overseas institutions, governments, or

corporation, and expanding international student recruitment and staff (2012 Mapping Internationalization

on U.S. Campuses). Many high education institutions have seen higher and more moderate levels of

21

globalization throughout their college or university. This inevitably means the importance of

internationalization has built a genuine understanding about cultural involvement and global education.

More recently, the U.S. Department of Education established a first-ever strategy the department

has created for with an international design. There are two strategic goals behind this articulated

document;; strengthening U.S. education and advancing our nation’s international priorities (U.S.

Department of Education International Strategy). The Department of Education wants to also add

attention to the necessities of a world-class education for all students, global competencies for all

students, international benchmarking and applying lessons learned from other countries and education

diplomacy and engagement with other countries. (U.S. Department of Education International Strategy)

The strategy is a commitment to prepare the youth and the country as a whole, for the globalized world

that has been created and to engage with the international community to boost education. Secretary Arne

Duncan explained, “Ultimately, the economic future of the United States rests not only on its ability to

strengthen our education system but also on citizens in other nations raising their living standards...

Expanding educational attainment everywhere is the best way to grow the pie for all” (U.S. Department of

Education International Strategy).

There are many reasons behind the development of a new strategy, especially one with a focus on

an international level. The economic competitiveness and jobs is a large reason citizens should become

more cultural competent and open-minded. Many students today compete for jobs with peers from

around the world and with varying skills and abilities. Being able to communicate inter culturally is

beginning to become a part of the daily work day. Having global skills such as cultural awareness and

linguistic proficiency are becoming requisite for incoming employees. Learning and obtaining these

skills is another reason the strategy was set forth because of the challenges that may face the world today.

It is important to have substantive knowledge and understanding to address issues and catastrophes that

may happen between borders for example, the spread of disease, climate change, natural disasters and

economic situations (U.S. Department of Education International Strategy).

22

Shifting Global Dynamics

In 2012/2013, 819,644 international Students studied in the U.S., a 7.2% annual increase, and the number

of international students enrolling for the first time in a U.S. college or university increased by almost

10% from the previous year. Moreover, trends in academic level show that undergraduate international

students increased by 10% and graduate international students increased by 4% from 2012 to 2013. The

top five nations, China (28.7%), India (11.8%), South Korea (8.6%), Saudi Arabia (5.4%), and Canada

(3.3%), represented 58% of all international students at U.S. colleges and universities.

Open Doors also reports data on the top U.S. institutions and states for international students as

well as the top academic fields of study in which they enroll. International students tend to be

concentrated in certain U.S. colleges and universities and the plurality of these students is likely to

gravitate toward specific U.S. states. The three host states leading the way, California, New York, and

Texas, hosted 32% of all international students with just 5% of U.S. colleges and universities hosting 69%

of all international students studying in the U.S. The top host U.S. institutions in 2012/2013 are listed in

the table below, organized by total number of international students (Open Doors “Fast Facts” 2013).

The top academic fields of study for international students are the STEM fields (Physical and Life

Sciences, Engineering, Math and Computer Science, Health, Agriculture), followed by Business and

Management, undeclared, the Social Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, and intensive English.

Top U.S. Institutions Hosting International Students Rank Institution City State Total

International Students

1 University of Southern California Los Angeles California 9,840 2 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Illinois 9,804 3 Purdue University, Main Campus West Lafayette Indiana 9,509 4 New York University New York New York 9,362 5 Columbia University New York New York 8,797 6 University of California Los Angeles California 8,424 7 Northeastern University Boston Massachusetts 7,705 8 University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan 6,827 9 Michigan State University East Lansing Michigan 6,759 10 Penn State University University Park Pennsylvania 6,693

Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors

23

Academic Fields of Study, International Students Nation Business/

Management Engineering Fine Arts Health Intensive

English Math/ Computer Science

Social Sciences

Canada 15.8 7.5 8.8 15.0 0.1 2.6 13.0 China 29.0 19.2 4.9 1.3 3.2 11.2 8.2 Germany 26.0 7.9 4.2 2.3 0.9 3.1 14.1 India 13.7 35.6 1.7 4.7 0.1 23.1 3.5 Iran 4.7 55.2 5.4 2.3 1.6 9.6 3.6 Japan 17.4 3.7 8.1 2.8 14.6 2.2 11.5 Saudi Arabia

17.1 21.1 2.1 5.6 27.2 7.4 2.7

South Korea 16.4 10.8 13.4 5.0 4.5 4.9 12.4 United Kingdom

17.7 4.5 8.6 4.0 0.1 2.9 18.1

Vietnam 38.1 9.9 3.5 4.3 4.6 7.5 5.1 Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Regional trends suggest that Asia is leading the way as the top region of origin for new and

continuing international students attending U.S. institutions, followed by Europe, the Middle East and

North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, North America, and Oceania. Given

these regional trends, U.S. colleges and universities have therefore concentrated their international student

recruitment efforts first in South and East Asia and then Latin America, Southeast Asia, Middle East,

Europe, and Africa. The incredible growth in enrollment of international students at U.S. institutions are

driven by increased institutional recruitment efforts, growing institutional reputation abroad, growth in the

global middle class overseas, increased linkages, competition for top institutions at home, and lowered

concerns about visa ability (Open Doors “Fast Facts” 2013).

Top Ten Nations of Origin Rank Nation of Origin 2011/2012 2012/2013 % of total % change World Total of International Students

764,495 819,644 100% 7.2

1 China 194,029 235,597 28.7 21.4 2 India 100,270 96,754 11.8 -3.5 3 South Korea 72,295 70,627 8.6 -2.3 4 Saudi Arabia 34,139 44,566 5.4 30.5 5 Canada 26,821 27,357 3.3 2.0 6 Taiwan 23,250 21,867 2.7 -5.9 7 Japan 19,966 19,568 2.4 -2.0 8 Vietnam 15,572 16,098 2.0 3.4 9 Mexico 13,893 14,199 1.7 2.2 10 Turkey 11,973 11,278 1.4 -5.4

Open Doors (2013) “Fast Facts”: http://www.iie.org/opendoors

24

The economic impact of international students in the U.S. and their families has been significant

and far-reaching. According to NAFSA, international students attending U.S. colleges and universities

supported 313,000 jobs and spent $24 billion in the 2012-2013 academic year through their expenditures

on tuition and living expenses, books and supplies, transportation, health insurance, support for family

members, and personal expenses. For every seven international students who enroll in a U.S. college or

university, three U.S. jobs are created or supported in higher education, hotel and accommodation, dining,

retail, transportation, telecommunications, and health insurance. According to Open Doors, 64% of

international students receive the majority of their funds from personal and family sources. When

assistance from home governments or universities included, more than 70% of funding for international

students comes from sources outside the U.S with roughly 80% of undergraduate international students

receiving the majority of funds from personal and family sources.

Discussion

The ability to attract international students will be determined by the scope and degree of scholarship

programs offered by nations, such as with the 100,000 Strong Initiative and the U.S.-U.K. Global

Innovation Initiative. According to Open Doors, global trends in international education point toward

universities and colleges offering more massive open online courses (MOOCs), joint and dual degree

programs, and online degree programs that are likely to appeal to all students. Furthermore, political and

economic factors will of course determine and influence the mobility of students, which will likely

increase domestic and international pressure on institutions and the global higher educational

marketplace. Given the growth of the global middle class, declining global poverty rate, expanding access

to technology and education in emerging economies and around the world, there will be increases in the

global demand for higher education in a more knowledge-intensive global economy.

It can be argued that globalizing education will continue to be an issue until the world is no

longer interconnected or when the U.S. population becomes more culturally involved and aware.

Providing curriculums with cultural content and relative, universal information, has an endless amount of

25

benefits. Enabling students opportunities to participate in study programs and cultural organizations are

positive, life-changing experiences. Technology has opened borders for business and the economy but,

education exchanges and programs will open minds. Globalizing education creates benefits for the entire

nation by building deeper relationships, better collaborative efforts in dealing with international situations

and an overall better understanding of the cultures living within the United States.

Through the ideas and concepts divulged from cultural diplomacy, constructivism and liberalism,

a global community will develop through the progression of ideas and norms and by compromising and

aligning with one another to accomplish a common goal. In efforts to become more globalized the United

States have installed a few initiatives and strategies and have increased its levels of internationalization on

college campuses. The U.S. has been initiating ways of incorporating culture into curriculums and

increasing the promotion of study abroad programs. There is much more to be done to accomplish the

goal of cultural competency and becoming an interconnected, understanding, global community.

26

Bibliography Abdullahi, I., Kajberg, L., Virkus, S. (2007). Internationalization of LIS Education in Europe and North

America. New Library World, 108 (1/2), 7-24. Altbach, P. G. (2002). Knowledge and education as international commodities. International Higher

Education, (28), 2-5. Altbach, P. & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-305. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1991). Political Science. Reports from the Fields: Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major, 2, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. ______________________________________ (2010, February). The Global Smart Grid Global

Institutional Inventory. http://www.aacu.org/SharedFutures/documents/GlobalLearningInventoryTemplate.pdf

Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980-2006. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6, 1-22. Barber, B. (2007). Internationalizing the undergraduate curriculum: opening commentary. PS: Political

Science and Politics, 40 (1), 105. Black, H.T. and Duhon, David L. (2006). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on

cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 140- 144.

Blanton, R.G. (2009, May). Surveying international studies programs: where do we stand? International Studies Perspectives, (10), 224-240. Bonfiglio, O. (1999). The difficulties of the American undergraduate curriculum. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 3(2), 3. Brecher, M. (1999). International studies in the twentieth century and beyond: flawed dichotomies,

Synthesis, Culmination. ISA Presidential Address. International Studies Quarterly, 43 (2), 213- 264.

Breuning, M. and Ishiyama, J.T. (2004). International studies programs: for what purpose and for whom? International Studies Perspectives, 5(4), 400-402.

Brown, J. Pegg, S. and Shively. (2006). Consensus and divergence in international studies: survey evidence from 140 international studies curriculum programs, 7 (3), 267-286.

Committee for Economic Development Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security (Washington, D.C.: CED, 2006). See also, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), No Longer at Risk: A Nation in Peril Boulder, CO: WICHE 2008):

http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/summit/proceedings.pdf Cushner, K. (1998). Intercultural education from an international perspective: An introduction. In K.

Cushner (Ed.), International perspective on intercultural education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Economist. (2013a, March 3). A fall to cheer: http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 Economist. (2013b, June 2). How did the global poverty rate halve in 20 years?:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0#_methods=onPlusOne percent2C_ready percent2C_close percent2C_open percent2C_resizeMe percent2C_renderstart percent2Concircled percent2Cdrefresh percent2Cerefresh percent2Conauth percent2Conload&id=I1_1378752877480&parent=http percent3A percent2F percent2Fwww.economist.com&pfname=&rpctoken=64503649

Economist. (2009, February 12). What do you think?: a special poll on middle-class attitudes: http://www.economist.com/node/13063322?story_id=13063322

27

European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS). (2012, March). Global trends 2030 –citizens in an interconnected and polycentric world. Institute for Security Studies, European Union: http://europa.eu/espas/pdf/espas_report_ii_01_en.pdf

Galvan, J.A. (2006). Practical suggestions to internationalize the general education curriculum. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5 (1), 85-90.

Global Trends 2030. (2012, December) Alternative worlds: http://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf

Goldman Sachs. (2010, May). BRICs Monthly: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our- thinking/archive/archive-pdfs/brics-decade-pdf.pdf

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, (72), 330-366.

Hansen, H. M. (2002). Defining international education. New Directions for Higher Education, (117), 5- 12.

Hayward, F. M. (2000). Internationalization of higher education, preliminary status report 2000: Final Draft. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Hermann, Margaret. (1998). One field, many perspectives: building the foundation for dialogue. International Studies Quarterly, 42 (4), 605-624.

Hey, J. (2004). Can international studies research be the basis for an undergraduate international studies curriculum? A response to Ishiyama and Breuning. International Studies Perspectives, 5 (4), 395-400.

Hovland, K. (2005). Shared futures: global learning and social responsibility. Diversity Digest, 8 (3), 1-17.

Ishiyama, J.T. and Breuning, M. (2004). A survey of international studies programs at liberal arts colleges and universities in the Midwest: characteristics and correlates. International Studies Perspectives, (5), 134-146.

_________________________________ (2007). Marketing the international studies major: claims and content of programs at primarily undergraduate institutions in the Midwest. International Studies Perspectives, 8 (1), 121-133.

Galván, J.A. (2006). Practical Suggestions to Internationalize the General Education Curriculum. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5 (1), 85-90. Joffe, J. (2001, Summer). Who’s Afraid of Mr Big? The National Interest. Johnston, J. S., & Edelstein, R. J. (1993). Beyond borders: Profiles in international education. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Kehm, B. & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalization in higher education. Journal

of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260-273. Knight, J. (2003, fall). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education.

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 33, https://htmldbprod.bc.edu/pls/htmldb/CIHE.cihe_public_rpt2.download_issue?p_issue_id=2032 Kohls, L. R., & Knight, J. M. (3rd ed). (1994). Developing intercultural awareness: A cross-cultural training handbook. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kwok, V. and Leland, H. (1982). An Economic Model of the Brain Drain. American Economic Review,

72(1), 91-100. Lambert, Richard. D. (2001). Domains and issues in international studies. In P. O’Meara, H.

Mehlinger, and R. Newman (Ed.), Changing Perspectives in International Studies (pp. 30- 48). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

______________________(Ed.). (1994). Educational exchange and global competence. New York: Council on International Educational Exchange.

Latham, S. & Dalton, J. C. (1999). International skills and experiences for a global future. New Directions for Student Services, 86, 89-92.

Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (2), 205-221.

28

McCaughey, R. (1983). International studies and academic enterprise: A chapter in the enclosure of American Learning. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mahoney, S.L. and Schamber, J.F. (2004). Exploring the application of a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity to a general education curriculum on diversity. JGE: The Journal of General Education, 53 (3/4), 311-334.

Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses. (2012). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses. Center of Internationalization and Global Engagement.

Manzo, K. (2005). International Studies a Hard Sell in U.S Education. Education Week, 24 (12), 1-5. Mestenhauser, J. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon Multidimensional

Perspective. In J.A. Mestenhauser & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Miller, A. (2006). Promoting Democratic Values in Transitional Societies through Foreign Aid presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2006.

Mittleman, J.H. (2002, February). Globalization: An ascendant paradigm? International Studies Perspectives, 1-14.

Musil, C.M. (2006). Assessing global learning: Matching good intentions with good Practice. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics New York: Public Affairs ________(2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it

Alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palis, J. (2007, October). “Bringing Our Students to the World: Integrating Study Abroad Programs

into the Curriculum and the Emerging Field of International Education.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association-South, Savannah, GA.

Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248.

Olberding, J. and Olberding, D. (2010). Ripple effects in youth peacebuilding and exchange programs: Measuring impacts beyond direct participants. International Studies Perspectives, 11, 75-91.

Rosenau, J.N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zuniga, X., & Lewis, E. A. (1995). Multicultural teaching in the University. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Shaw, M. 1999. Politics and Globalisation: Knowledge, Ethics, and Agency. London: Routledge. Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: Final Report 2003.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Sperandio, J., Grudzinski-Hall, M. and Stewart-Gambino, H. (2010). Developing an Undergraduate

Global Citizenship Program: Challenges of Definition and Assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22 (1), 12-22.

Stohl, M. (2007). We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the Internationalization of higher education in the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 359-372.

U.S. Department of Education. (2013). International Strategy | International Affairs Office. U.S. Department of Education's International Strategy | International Affairs Office.

U.S. Department of State (2011). 100,000 Strong in the Americas: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/100k/index.htm

_____________________(2010). 100,000 Strong: http://www.state.gov/100k West, C. (2011). Internationalization: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? NAFSA:

Association of International Educators: http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Networks/SIO/Int ernationalizationPaper.pdf

29

World Bank. (2003). The State of Education: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/education/wStateEdu/StateEducation.aspx; http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATASTATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,menuPK:3232818~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3232764,00.html

World Bank. (2013, April 17). Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major Challenges Remain: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/remarkable-declines-in-global- poverty-but-major-challenges-remain

Zimitat, C. (2008). Student perceptions of the internationalisation of the curriculum. In L. Dunn and M. Wallace (Eds) (pp. 135-147) Teaching in Transnational Higher Education. London: Routledge.