# Dimensions of internationalisation – universities at home and abroad

Luke Georghiou, Philippe Larédo

► To cite this version:

Luke Georghiou, Philippe Larédo. Dimensions of internationalisation – universities at home and abroad: A position Paper. 2015. hal-01275905

HAL Id: hal-01275905

https://hal.science/hal-01275905

Preprint submitted on 18 Feb 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Dimensions of internationalisation – universities at home and abroad

## A position Paper

Luke Georghiou* and Philippe Larédo**

* University of Manchester

** Université Paris Est & University of Manchester

July 2015

### 1- Introduction

Educational activities have not been exempt from the trends towards globalisation of economic and cultural activity. The environment in which universities operate is characterised by finance, goods, services, knowledge and cultural activities flowing across borders in the context of worldwide markets, multinational organisations and competition. Most pertinent is the growing movement of people, temporary and permanent. Analysts of the international activities of universities regularly distinguish between internationalisation and the wider context of globalisation. In this chapter we shall define internationalisation as the sum total of the practices universities develop to adapt to this new context. As proposed by Altbach and Knight, internationalisation will be understood as "the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education" (Knight 2003, p.2). Many activities of varied scale and significance result from this process. The objective of the chapter is to set out a framework to distinguish and where possible measure these activities. Using this we may then seek to understand how 'central' or strategic international activities have become for a university, and what pressures or opportunities derive from this. In terms of caveats, our viewpoint is looking out from Europe to the rest of the world and the cases we shall consider are primarily research intensive universities as we seek to explore interactions across the full mission of universities.

To understand why these questions have become more and more prominent, the reader has to also consider a shifting view on universities (at least in Europe). Until recently, the dominant view was that differences between countries prevailed over differences between universities within those countries. (Paradeise, 2009). This implied that within a country one could assume that universities were sufficiently entangled in a set of rules that they would be driven to adopt similar behaviours. This conformity was associated with the dominance of public funding. Several authors have seen the introduction of 'new public management' country after country (with a specific role for the UK as initiator of the movement) as driving a convergence of the discourse on higher education worldwide, "on a model of higher education that looks more like the modular, flexible, incremental form associated primarily with the American system" (Edwards, 2007, p. 374). "This convergence", says Edwards, "was not altogether to be predicted, even 10 years ago, and most frequently results from a pragmatic recognition of market forces beyond the classroom" (374).

This analysis resonates strongly in European countries, with the dominant discourse now being on the 'autonomy' of universities and the necessity for them to become 'strong organisations' (EU vision 2020). The development of rankings and their wide organisational and policy take-up reflects and accentuates this movement. There are of course strong differences between most countries. For the US, Edwards for instance notes that there is "no
consistent coherent analysis of internationalisation comparable to what van der Wende (2007) describes by any government body ... even at the state level" (375). Horta (2009) follows on these lines but shows, in comparing the internationalisation of two European universities in small countries (Switzerland and Portugal), that in countries where universities are publicly funded, the level of government support de facto drives internationalisation possibilities and paths.

This differentiation led to a growing academic interest in the internationalisation of universities at the turn of the century, and its progressive institutionalisation as a theme in international fora such as the OECD (see Marginson & van der Wende 2007, OECD 2009) and at national level. One interesting aspect of it is the effort being applied to professionalising these activities, exemplified by the production of handbooks for universities on how to define a strategy and manage internationalisation. These have been assembled by collective bodies, for example in the US (American Council of Education), Australia (National Association of Rectors) and the EU (see the 2008 handbook by the European University association). The ambition of this chapter is not to propose another version, but to mobilise them to define a framework for assessing the relative importance of international dimensions in university life. We do this through a literature review and through the gathering of existing data. The latter will show how limited is the state of knowledge on this issue beyond basic figures and anecdotal evidence.

The following sections will thus present the three critical dimensions we have identified:

(i) *International opening* corresponds to a long-standing phenomenon of seeking to enhance student experience and/or to access resources that are abroad (e.g. as for archaeology).

(ii) *Internationalisation at home* analyses all the activities that universities undertake to attract students to their own 'place' both physically and, increasingly, virtually. Universities are first and above all defined by their location, and often bear the name of the city in which they are located.

(iii) *Internationalisation abroad* corresponds to activity regularly described for firms: the location of activities in foreign countries. This latter phenomenon seems to be growing but remains limited to certain fields and curricula, and focused on a limited set of emerging countries.

Each of the three sections ends with a discussion of how the current and future state of the dimension could be monitored and assessed. In so doing we seek to address a deficit in assessing the significance of these phenomena. Internationalisation has entered the criteria for ranking of institutions<fnref n="1" /> without any explicit rationale of why an internationalised institution should be regarded as in some way delivering an enhanced offering to its stakeholders nor why an often narrow base of selected indicators capture the phenomenon.

## 2- The generalisation of international opening

<footnote n="1">¹ They represent 1 in 5 categories in Times Higher Education weighing 7.5% of total while the QS World University Rankings assign 10% via 2 out of 5 categories. Both use the share of international students and the share of international staff. Times HE adds the share of papers with an international co-author.</footnote>
The traditional motive for international activities of universities – existing long before any debate on internationalisation – lies in enhancing the quality of the education given and in the experience accumulated by students. This is manifested through two main dimensions: mastering the language of international activities, that is English; and acquiring experiences abroad in different cultures and environments. The main target of such activities was and is the home student population.

Numerous universities in non-English speaking countries have elected to go beyond the classical courses offered for learning foreign languages. Rather they develop modules, courses and even curricula in English, meeting the needs of students who will use English in 'professional' practice. For instance, the strategic plan of one of the most established French universities, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, states that "significantly increasing student mobility (requires) developing joint programmes and systematising the mastering of English (by students)<fnref n="2" />".

What was only provided to a small sub-elite within the elite of higher educated people in the 1950s, has witnessed an exponential growth to become a normal feature of most curricula, in an environment of 'mass higher education' which in most countries extends to half of an age class. Lawrence Summers, the President of Harvard between 2001 and 2006, decided that 'all Harvard undergraduates would be enabled to have an international experience before they graduated' (Edwards, 2007, p. 376). In Europe this move is symbolised by the ERASMUS programme that supports students (mostly at the undergraduate level) to spend one semester in another country (the programme provides yearly figures about exchanges sponsored – over 3 million since 1987, more than 250000 for the academic year 2011-12).

What are the changes introduced in University landscapes and the organisation of individual universities when exchanges move from a marginal to a mass and core level of activity? The generalisation of exchanges requires a specific infrastructure for enabling these exchanges to be productive. This issue began to be addressed bottom up but at least in Europe is now also structured within a comprehensive top-down framework.

The bottom-up element is represented by the growing importance of an inter-university diplomacy that enables universities to fulfil this objective (universities have often more than 100 agreements with different universities – see Box 1 for one example). These reciprocal agreements de facto drive universities to receive as much as they send. However, the transaction costs involved in a web of agreements can be significantly reduced when the rules surrounding exchanges are harmonised: for example that students do study when they go abroad, and that what they study fits into their curricula at home, that rules for measuring achievements abroad are accepted at home. This has led to a growing importance given to institutional harmonisation: the first step was a European system for transferrable credits. The ECTS European credit transfer system was created in 1988 at the same time as the ERASMUS programme.

This led 15 years later to a unique inter-governmental agreement (the so-called Bologna declaration, 1999) and, within less than a decade, to a quasi-harmonisation of the structure of higher education diploma, around the definition of characteristics and qualities associated with each type of diploma (bachelor, master and PhD) and to the emergence of shared processes dealing with the evaluation and accreditation of curricula. It is not the object here to discuss this further but we may note the total absence of a EU-level administration. Instead

<footnote n="2">² UPMC, projet d'établissement 2014-2018, p. 10.</footnote>
the key role in direction and implementation belongs to the European-level professional
organisation of universities, the European Universities Association.

Most of these exchanges take place within one semester with a limited harmonisation of curricula: they are just made compatible. Sometimes the focus is on international work placement or internships. One further step becoming more frequent lies in the development of joint curricula/programmes where students do one part at home and one part abroad getting either a shared diploma or, more commonly, a diploma from each of the universities participating in the joint programme. In Europe, such joint programmes are supported by the Erasmus Mundus Programme, including alliances with non-European universities (some 140 joint masters and 40 PhD programmes were supported between 2009 and 2013 with over 500 universities engaged and grants to nearly 10000 master students and 1000 doctoral candidates).

**Box 1** – University partnerships – the case of Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris
Source: website of Université Pierre et Marie Curie, downloaded November 28 2014.

The university has in 2014 533 formalised co-operations with 435 institutions in 68 countries. The majority of institutions (54%) are in Europe (27 countries, the 4 main ones being Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK), 18% are in North America (71 in the US and 26 in Canada), 12% in Asia (18 countries, Japan and China being the most frequent). South America (with 29 agreements), Africa (with 19) and Oceania (with 5) show how extensive is the world coverage.

In Europe the role of the Erasmus programme is clearly critical in nurturing exchanges: it is present in 36 of the 41 partnerships with German universities, 32 of the 35 partnerships with Italian universities, 28 of the 31 partnerships with Spanish universities and 15 of the 16 partnerships with British Universities.

However, the number of joint programmes remains limited in comparison: 26 joint programmes, mostly at the master level (24), quite dispersed (6 in Spain, 4 in Belgium, 3 in Italy, 2 in Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, 1 in 5 other European countries).

In North America also, most partnerships concern student exchanges only (only 6 joint programmes, 4 in master and 2 at bachelor level, 5 being with French speaking Canadian universities). Instead of Erasmus, we find 3 key consortia that mediate between universities: 2 international ones with MICEFA (a consortium of French universities from the Ile de France region dedicated to cooperation with English speaking North American universities) and Tassey (a consortium of European and North American universities) plus the rectors' conference of universities from Quebec, CREPUQ.

Relations with other continents differ widely. Contrary to Europe and North America, research partnerships build the core of relations as shown in the table below. This is very visible with Asian Universities with the exception of Vietnam where there is a 'French university pole' and the 2 joint programmes (with AIT and NUS). The same happens with African Universities (very few training exchanges mostly focused on medicine, and only one joint programme that covers 3 universities in Senegal and Cameroon).
<table><caption>Table 1: University Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) -Types of partnerships with other universities</caption><thead><tr><th>Partnership</th><th>US</th><th>Canada</th><th>South America</th><th>Asia</th><th>Africa</th><th>Oceania</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Training only</td><td>64</td><td>23</td><td>12</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Research only</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>33</td><td>12</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>both</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>total</td><td>71</td><td>26</td><td>29</td><td>51</td><td>19</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

The generalisation of international opening for educational activities thus requires university-level engagements and is more and more associated with strategic engagements such as that illustrated by the President of Harvard. Such is not the case for research, even though all statistics show an increasing and soon majority role of internationally co-authored papers. A globally accurate but simplistic answer is that it is pushed by two movements below and above universities as organisations. Below because international opening lies mostly in the ways faculty engage with international activities. The most common forms lie in the use by faculty of their sabbatical leave (taking place in a university abroad) and, more and more, through undertaking research activities in an international context<fnref n="3" />. Above because it is linked to national level phenomena associated with 'big science', 'science diplomacy' and, at least in Europe, the rise of multinational programmes.

On the former, Georghiou (1998) reviewed the global growth of cooperation in research, noting the significance both of major facilities such as CERN and of the emergence of global programmes. A menu of modalities included exchange of researchers, including fellowships, holding of joint workshops or other meetings, and within the frame of cooperative projects or networks activities ranging from exchange of results through to fully interactive partnerships. Motivations for these activities included access to complementary expertise, knowledge or skills, with the likelihood of finding an appropriate partner increased through the expanded choice-set; access to unique sites, facilities or population groups, sharing costs and risks and addressing transnational or global problems. This movement is being reinforced in Europe by the systematic coordination and joint planning in all fields of science (including social sciences and humanities) of research infrastructures (the so-called ESFRI roadmap of European infrastructures).

On the latter, there have been multiple studies showing the role of EU-level funding implemented through successive' Framework Programmes' and representing approximately 20% of total project-based funding available in Europe. Since the beginning of the 21st century this is complemented by a rapid rise of 'joint programmes' between national funding agencies (Lepori et al., 2014). These funding arrangements concern collaborative programmes and impact strongly on co-authored publications. They are complemented by faculty exchanges (again strongly supported in Europe by the European ERASMUS programme: around 250000 exchanges of faculty supported between 1987 and 2012 and 33000 for the academic year 2011-12).

<footnote n="3">³ It is also an outcome of 'internationalisation at home' (see later) and is linked to continuous relations between supervisors and their foreign PhDs, and between faculty that go abroad and keep their links with national colleagues. This is well documented in the US, see Science and Engineering indicators 2014, pp 5-40 to 5-50.</footnote>
For a university, accounting for this international opening can thus be characterised by a number of features, which reflect the degree of embedding of international opening within university life. However we completely miss figures to capture such elements, even from individual universities. This is why we suggest an approach that could take hold of the growth of this dimension in the life of universities (see box 2).

**Box 2** – Key indicators of international opening of universities: a proposal.

We suggest two core indicators concerning students and staff. The core indicator for this dimension is the share of total students who will during their diploma spend at least one term abroad (overall and per type of diploma). On the side of faculty, we have two classical indicators of output: share of internationally co-authored articles, share of internationally funded research projects (and for Europe, share of European projects).

For analysing a university's involvement, they need to be complemented by a number of more descriptive elements that enable to characterise the location of international opening in the life of the university: presence in the overall strategy (cf. the statement by Harvard's president), staffing and activities<fnref n="4" /> of an international relations office, number and geography of agreements with foreign universities, and number of joint programmes<fnref n="5" />.

**3- Internationalisation at home**

As we have noted, most universities are named from the city where they are located. Indeed in the UK some have renamed themselves having recognised the extra appeal for recruitment in doing so (for example Thames Valley University becoming the University of West London and Salford University rebranding itself as the University of Salford Manchester). The wider phenomenon of location-based naming symbolises the fact that place plays a major role in the identity of universities, whether they are public or private, national or regional. This perhaps explains why the dominant form of internationalisation that has taken place lies in the attraction of foreign students and resources "on campus", within the place of the university. Scholars and professionals have labelled this 'internationalisation at home'<fnref n="6" />.

This activity includes first and foremost the presence of foreign students and is linked to the development of a set of activities to facilitate their studies, the development of specific recruitment services, the internationalisation of faculty and the standardisation of curricula. A recent and fast rising dimension lies in distance education and the rapid deployment of 'transnational education' (TNE). We classify it as internationalisation at home since it

<footnote n="4">⁴ See Middlehurst 2008 to defining what she labels ‘core’ and ‘core plus’ activities.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Measures of institutional action need to be calibrated with measures of content and activity – for example how many students participate in joint programmes and what budgets exist to support agreements</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ The European association of international education (EAIE) has been instrumental in the adoption of the term with a position paper in 2000 (Crowther et al.) derived from an initial presentation at the 1999 forum (Nilsson). Since then, it has been fostering an 'expert community' on the topic. This is now a quite common label that universities use to present part of their international activities.</footnote>
mobilises the resources of the home institution and constitutes a growing dimension of the activities of academics that reside on site. Research also has a role in internationalisation at home manifested principally in universities' engagement with foreign businesses, and their emergence as major attractants within the offering of regional innovation ecosystems. We have however considered in this chapter that this dimension remains secondary and will not address it more in detail<fnref n="7" />.

This section is thus focused on three aspects: (i) the presence of foreign students; (ii) university evolutions associated to this presence; and (iii) the rise of ‘transnational education”.

**3.1- A central dimension: the presence of foreign students**

The second classical form of university international activities – and a longstanding situation for established universities in OECD countries - has been to enrol foreign students. This was initially considered as a quasi-support to help less developed countries to acquire the capabilities they could not produce at home. The flow was already significant in 1975 (0.8 million persons studying in a foreign country) and has multiplied by 6 in the last 35 years representing 4.3 million persons in 2011 (Figure 1)). Still this remains marginal in total numbers of students (it was calculated at 1.8% worldwide in 2007).

Figure 2 shows that this growing trend over time is not evenly distributed. The mobility of European & North-American students has increased by 50% between 1999 and 2012; still their share in the overall student internationalisation has decreased by 10 points (from 39% to 29%). Interestingly African students have followed the average pattern (representing 12% in 2012). The core changes have been born by Asian students: their number overall has increased by a factor of 2.5, this movement being driven by Chinese students: their number has been multiplied by 5, and their share of total Asian students has doubled (38% in 2012 far above Indian students with 10%).

Similarly this flow is not equally distributed when looking at recipient countries (Figure 3): half of foreign students cluster in universities from 6 countries: the US 17%, UK 13%, Germany, France and Australia (around 6% each), Canada (5%). A recent survey of 175 European universities (EUA, 2013), shows that one third of universities have more than 10% of international students in their student population, one fourth between 5 and 10% and that only 8% of universities have none or fewer than 1%.

<caption>Figure 1- Long-term growth of foreign students</caption>

Source: OECD 2014

<footnote n="7">⁷ For research, the expression of internationalisation at home lies in the competition to attract funding, people and business collaborators to the campus. There is not a great deal of cross-border research funding available but the amount has been growing, especially for biomedical research both through traditional funding agencies like the US National Institutes for Health, and through new approaches exemplified by the role of the Gates Foundation. Universities are also regularly cited as an attractor for internationally mobile business investment in R&D and beyond. There has been some debate on the role of university agreements with international large firms driving to the creation of new research centres or a massive extension of given research orientations (e.g. the strategic alliances between the University of California and Novartis and BP).</footnote>
Box C4.1. Long-term growth in the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship

Growth in internationalisation of tertiary education (1975-2011, in millions)

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Data on foreign enrolment worldwide comes from both the OECD (2011 figures) and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) (2010 figures). UIS provided the data on all countries for 1975-95 and most of the non-OECD countries for 2000, 2005 and 2010. The OECD provided the data on OECD countries and the other non-OECD economies in 2000 and 2011. Both sources use similar definitions, thus making their combination possible. Missing data were imputed with the closest data reports to ensure that breaks in data coverage do not result in breaks in time series.

<caption>Figure 2 – international students: continent of origin (1999-2012)</caption>

Source: UNESCO statistics, own table

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: international mobility of students – share of recipient countries 2012</figcaption></figure>

Source: OECD, 2014, (reproduced from Universities UK, 2014)
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 - Recipient countries of international students - Evolving shares 1999-2012
(reproduced from Charles & Delpech 2015)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Source: Unesco Institute for Statistics

Such figures highlight the fact that the initial goal has been, in English-speaking countries<fnref n="8" />, superseded by a more pragmatic goal, associated with higher fees received than for national

<footnote n="8">⁸ Fees remain marginal in France and Germany the two other large receiving countries, and there is no distinction between national and foreign students. One may wonder why universities in these countries have followed the movement. There are no definite answers but two aspects may be considered: first university government support is by and large linked to overall students numbers and does not depend on student geographic origins; second this has been supported for a long time by national policies as an integral part of their diplomacy (a higher education diplomacy as there is a science diplomacy). A third more recent</footnote>
students⁹: at the university level, acquiring resources in a constrained financial environment; at the national level, becoming an 'export resource'. Both are well exemplified by the UK situation. At the country level, education is considered as a central source for exports and the responsible ministry, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, has generated powerful infographics to show how important it is to the British economy. This has been translated into the international education strategy for England (2013), which aims at making it a lasting and growing export resource. In 2012-13, one student in six (18.2%) was foreign, 30% coming from the EU and 70% from non EU countries (Universities UK, 2014). Key sentences embody this approach to internationalisation: "UK education exports were worth an estimated £17.5 billion in 2013" (BIS, 2013). In 2011-12 non-EU students spent £3.5 billion in tuition fees and "£3.4 billion off-campus in the form of living expenditure, on things like rent, food, entertainment and consumer goods" (Universities UK, 2014). The same report shows that enrolment is biased towards higher degrees (figure 5): 18% of UK students are in postgraduate education but this percentage is 37% for students coming from the EU and 51% for non-EU students. In business, computer science, engineering and maths foreign students represent 60% of taught postgraduate programs and the figures are similar (57%) for 3 out of these 4 disciplines for postgraduate research programmes.

<caption>Figure 5 postgraduate students in the UK per subject area and domicile, 2012-13
Source: HESA, reproduced from Universities UK, 2014</caption>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Postgraduate students by subject area and domicile, 2012–13</figcaption></figure>

Source: HESA

dimension plays within Europe linked to the increasing trans-border movement of students: universities need to be open to 'compensate' for French or German students going to other European countries.

⁹ In the US this movement is complemented in public universities by the rise of non state-resident students. For instance at UC Berkeley, non-residents today represent 20% of total students and pay fees that are 3 times higher than for California residents ($38000 against $14000 for the academic year 2015-16).
There is of course a wide variety of situations between UK universities as is well illustrated by Figure 1 below, published in 2014 by Universities UK, compiling statistics by the "higher education statistics agency (HESA).

**Figure 6-** Share of income sourced from non-EU student fees in 2012-13 in British universities, by institution

Published by Universities UK, 2014.

Note: this figure only deals with non-EU students (300000 out of 2.34 million students enrolled in 2012-13) and that EU students (who pay similar fees as their UK counterparts<fnref n="10" />) represent a further 125000 students).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 33: Percentage of income sourced from non-EU student fees in 2012–13, by institution</figcaption></figure>

Source: HESA

From the perspective of the foreign student there may be concerns about saturation – at a certain point a course could have so many students from a particular country or culture that the experience and benefits of internationalisation begin to dissipate. High absolute numbers have also created in some countries an interaction with wider debates about immigration and security. A common model for foreign students (for example from India) is to work in the destination country at least long enough to pay off the cost of the education received. In the UK the debate has focused on whether foreign students should count in migration statistics. Security issues have been raised at various times, most recently in terms of concerns over radicalisation but in most of the affected countries there are large native-born populations at similar levels of risk and the specific association of the issue with foreign students has tended to subside.

## 3.2- University transformations associated with the inflow of foreign students

As for the generalisation of international opening, the increase of foreign students progressively drives universities to profound changes. Quite often these have been done 'in

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The reader must be reminded that higher education has been devolved and that students in Scotland, Wales and England pay very different fees – from 0 for Scottish students to 9000 £ for English ones.</footnote>
passing', while they have progressively become part of the overall strategy and been translated in the rise of new structures in charge of the new functions developed. These transformations are direct and indirect. Direct ones are the new activities that a university is progressively driven to structure and the recruitment offices that have been developed. These are linked with more indirect transformations, which are probably far more important on the long term: the internationalisation of faculty, and the standardisation of diploma. While the latter seems generic, the latter has become central in Europe. We analyse them in turn.

## New functions to satisfy and the rise of new structures

Middlehurst has catalogued several of the implications of such a massive inflow on curricula themselves, on teaching (to address inter-cultural specificities), on services and extra-curricular activities (see box 3). The actuality of several of these may be different according to the nature of the foreign students, for example the relative quality of their previous education and whether fee structures allow universities to make the additional provision that enables them to maximise their benefit from the experience.

## Box 3- A list of activities accompanying ‘internationalisation at home’

Source Middlehurst 2008

(i) Internationalisation of the curriculum (integration of international perspectives, international relevance)

(ii) Development of courses attractive to international students

(iii) Provision of specialist or tailored support for international students (induction, support, advice)

(iv) English-language teaching

(v) Study skills for international students

(vi) Embracing different pedagogical cultures to ensure that teaching is sensitive to students' educational contexts

(vii) Staff development on intercultural understanding

(viii) Improvement of current provision of international student facilities

(ix) Encouragement of international students to participate fully in the social and cultural life of the university

## Marketing/recruitment activities and structures

When attracting foreign students becomes critical to the financial sustainability of a university, one can expect a pro-active approach to ensuring their presence. Good web presence and web-based applications are critical but not enough. Classical developments based on agents in key targeted countries remain important<fnref n="11" /> and more and more connected to active chapters of alumni associations, and joint initiatives such as recruitment fairs. This is often supported by national policies that have developed specific advisory bodies for addressing all aspects of the issue. For instance, the UK has an active International Education Council (IEC) that produces recommendations on all aspects of internationalisation. There is a inter-university 'council for international students affairs (UKCISA) that has established a "one-stop shop" website that provides potential candidates with information and help (and in

<footnote n="11">¹¹ For instance the British Council has developed specific training for education agents and keeps a database of all trained education agents, it also maintains a specific activity about good practice and guidance for such activities.</footnote>
Europe the EU immigration portal offers similar facilities, also informing about the different member states' immigration procedures<fnref n="12" />).

## Standardisation and the International recognition of diploma

One important aspect in promoting 'internationalisation at home' lies in the international standardisation of curricula. European countries with the Bologna process have played and still play a critical role in the standardisation of curricula. Box 4 highlights for instance the 10 "Salzburg principles" that should structure PhD education. The development of worldwide accreditation mechanisms is another development that however is confined to only a limited number of fields. This latter development is well illustrated by business schools and the 3 dominant professional accreditations - AACSB, AMBA and EQUIS operated by not-for-profit organisations - that most top-ranked business schools share.

### Box 4- the Salzburg principles for doctoral programmes

1. Advancement of knowledge through original research.

2. Accounting for labour markets and professional career development options.

3. Working within rich diversity of doctoral programmes in Europe with quality provision & sound provision.

4. Acknowledging doctoral candidates as early career researchers: professionals with commensurate rights

5. Recognising crucial role of supervision & assessment.

6. Achieving critical mass through innovative design & delivery.

7. Duration: 3-4 years.

8. Innovative design for interdisciplinary training and development of transferable skills.

9. Increasing international, interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral mobility.

10. Recognising need for appropriate and sustainable funding.

## The internationalisation of faculty

Horta (2009) studying top-ranked European universities shows that the share of foreign students is far higher in graduate than in undergraduate curricula (typically around 50% against 15%).

Horta also highlights a second phenomenon: internationalisation at home is correlated in most top universities<fnref n="13" /> with high levels of internationalisation of faculty (between 30% to over 60% in some Swiss top universities).

The internationalisation of faculty is an indicator favoured by international ranking tables. While it potentially shows the openness of an institution's recruitment practices and the availability of wider perspectives for students, this indicator could also be misleading. Some instances are a result of lack of trained teachers and researchers in the indigenous population, while others reflect the migration of excellent young researchers to countries which offer better employment prospects, less hampered by austerity measures or other economic restrictions, or faster track merit-based promotion. The migrant faculty may well have been trained in the host country and hence the potential variety of experience is mitigated.

<footnote n="12">¹² There are multiple other initiatives that support foreign students in their search, for instance www.eurostudent.eu collates comparable data on social dimensions, in particular living conditions.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ With the exception of French universities</footnote>
### 3.3- Transnational education programmes

A fast growing dimension of ‘internationalisation at home’ lies in distance learning. This traditional activity (often provided by dedicated universities – the Open University in the UK, CNED in France, the University of Phoenix in the US or UNISA in South Africa) is now a full activity of many universities. This has been enabled by the rise of the internet. For many universities, this has followed a first wave focused in redefining on-campus teaching with a greater use of distance resources and thus a progressive change of the relationship between face-to-face and distance learning in courses. Nobody discussing the future of higher education can escape today the debates about the roles of Open Courseware (OCW) and even more on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (see Figure 7 for their exponential growth).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** – The growth of MOOCs (reproduced from Charles & Delpech, 2015)</figcaption></figure>

Source: Open Education Europa

The recent communication by the European Commission (2013) speaks of “the increase in the provision of assessment, validation and academic credit” and considers that this “has the potential of transforming higher education radically”. A recent analysis of the British situation<fnref n="14" /> nuances this view. The author, Philippe Roesle, considers that we should not conflate the fast rise of MOOCs that provide mostly uncredited knowledge<fnref n="15" /> with “transnational education programmes, which allow students to study towards a UK qualification without leaving their home country”: “In return for an enrolment fee, TNE offers its students a credited education which is largely undistinguishable from that of a brick-and-mortar institution and therefore widely accepted in the global job market”.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ “Who needs MOOCs in the UK when digital education is already big business”, downloaded from global statement.wordpress.com, October 31st 2014.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The in-depth analysis made of present MOOCs (in particular those of the FutureLearn platform developed by the open university and used by 26 British and 10 non-British universities) drives the author to consider MOOCs mostly as ‘non formal’ learning based on individual initiative and with no objective of external recognition.</footnote>
Data from the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) shows that in 2012-13 nearly 250000 students were registered in UK universities for undertaking a full diploma while not on a British campus. This mixed students in overseas campuses (from UK institutions or at partner institutions, see below internationalisation abroad) and students learning at a distance. The latter were 50%, nearly 125000, nearly split by half between undergraduate studies and taught postgraduate programmes. The infographics by BIS (2013) show that TNE programmes already represent 8% of total education exports, £1.4 billion out of £17.5 billion. This is a widely shared approach since 124 British institutions presently offer accredited digital learning degrees, which "have exactly the same status as equivalent degrees awarded to physically enrolled students" (Roesle 2014). In quite a number of cases they give "digital learners the option to supplement their experience by attending local in-country partner providers or by visiting relevant summer school courses" in the UK. In such an environment MOOCs can serve to attract potential students to formalised TNE programmes, some may even serve to prepare them<fnref n="16" />.

Box 5 - The argumentation developed in favour of digital TNE

Source: "Who needs MOOCs in the UK when digital education is already big business", written by P. Roesle, downloaded from global statement.wordpress.com, October 31st 2014.

In comparison to setting up franchise campuses or strategic partnerships, TNE digital learning platforms benefit from low set-up costs, as the majority of the course is modelled on existing courses; any additional costs are mostly kept to updating the virtual platform, marketing and, where necessary, local providers' support. Crucially, digital learning charges tuition fees between £4000 and £9000 per student, depending on institution, course and degree. Students save on transportation, accommodation or visa costs, and they do not necessarily have to cut down on their current professional obligations. TNE allows students to download course materials, access their assignments and submit coursework via university-specific virtual learning platforms. Furthermore, students do not have to miss out on the benefits of personalised institutional support. Through the virtual environments, but also via telephone and e-mail, distance learners are encouraged to connect personally not only with their tutors or module convenors, but also with their fellow students around the world.

3.4- Key indicators and descriptors of internationalisation at home

We know more about international students at home than about international openings. However there has been very limited reflection on the in depth meaning of the three key indicators that are mostly used at the national level: the share of foreign students in total enrolment (undergraduate and postgraduate, and by origin); the share of international faculty; and the share of registered students in TNE programmes.

In assessing these putative indicators for a university, an important distinction needs to be
made between the proportion of foreign students, a statistic favoured by ranking tables, and
the absolute numbers at a given institution, which reflects concentrations of students that
may have a greater impact on the offering available and better reflect its attractiveness. One
question raised by the analysis of international faculty by Horta is whether there are strong
differences between domains and if there are connections between countries of origin of
foreign students and of international faculty. An analysis by field and/or faculty might

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ E.g. MOOCs on FutureLearn: "A beginner's guide to writing in English for university study" or "Study skills for international students".</footnote>
highlight striking differences within a given university. The growing numbers registered on TNE programmes could in some cases considerably outnumber those on campus but may be heavily concentrated in certain subjects and hence have differential impacts on the institution. Financial contribution across subjects and in total could help to interpret the weight.

These overall indicators help characterising an overall situation. However for a university, internationalisation at home permeates the overall university strategy. It often results in new organisational features, new types of services offered and new infrastructures (see box 6 for potential descriptors). These are hard to translate into simple indicators while they represent central elements for the dynamics of individual universities that both policies and rankings have difficulty to take into account.

**Box 6** - Key descriptors of University internationalisation policy and activities

- The first central descriptor deals with the role of ‘internationalisation’ activities in the overall strategy of the university as a discourse. This is complemented by three operational descriptors:

- Organisational aspects dealing with the recruitment of students abroad (marketing and recruiting structures abroad, interaction with, and support to alumni association);

- Extra-curricular activities for staff (e.g. specific training for faculty about multicultural handling) and students: specific facilities, boarding, social activities, language, tutoring globally or for specific students (e.g. those coming from non-Latin based languages)

- Digital infrastructures dealing with distance learning and MOOCs.

**4- Internationalisation abroad**

Though Universities are mostly linked to their place and/or city, there is now a movement towards a classical approach to internationalisation. This builds one step further from ‘internationalisation at home’, mobilising similar resources (such as standardisation and accreditation of programmes) but bringing into the targeted countries the university programmes. Three main complementary forms have been identified:

* Franchises: the university programmes are deployed in a companion university strictly following the accredited university curriculum. The students thus study at home but get the diploma of the franchising university. In a mixed model part of the course may be under these arrangements followed by later years at the supplying university.

* Centres represent another format where local students study in a place directly organised and controlled by the University. Usually centres are focused on one programme or a few inter-connected programmes, and they seldom operate in isolation from the home base and/or the other centres. A variation lies in the construction of curricula and programmes that are directly international, requiring students to circulate between different locations of the university (e.g. Manchester Business School and its global centres).

* When the coverage becomes wider and the number of students becomes larger, centres turn into classical campuses, often requiring that the University campus becomes part of the local landscape (answering to the national rules, including national authorisation and accreditation). It can take many forms however three seem to prevail depending upon the local situation: the development of a direct subsidiary, the creation of a companion local university or an alliance with an existing university driving the two universities to develop a new faculty or school. This may be distinguished from the franchise model in that it encompasses the entire delivery
model and infrastructure as opposed to being confined only to the curriculum with attendant quality control.

Data about these movements is scarce, and most analyses only rely upon anecdotal evidence. We only have data on the number of campuses. While growing, the number (Table 2) remains marginal (just for a reference, they are more than 3000 universities in Europe registered in the European tertiary register<fnref n="17" />) and further more geographically very concentrated.

<caption>**Table 2- International campuses: exporting and importing countries**</caption>

Source: reproduced from Charles & Delpech 2015

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Pays exportateurs</th><th colspan="2">Pays importateurs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>États-Unis</td><td>77</td><td>Chine*</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Royaume-Uni</td><td>30</td><td>Dubaï</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Australie</td><td>17</td><td>Singapour</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>12</td><td>Qatar</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Russie</td><td>8</td><td>Abu Dhabi</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Pays-Bas</td><td>7</td><td>Malaisie</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Chine*</td><td>6</td><td>France</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>6</td><td>Royaume-Uni</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Inde</td><td>6</td><td>Ouzbékistan</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Malaisie</td><td>5</td><td>Grèce</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

* Dont Hong Kong.

Source: Global Higher Education, 2014

We can however use UK data produced by HESA to try and locate the relative importance of this form of internationalisation. HESA does not identify the second form – students in centres. The reason is that they seldom only study in centres but also spend time at the UK campuses of universities. However, we have two interesting elements to measure the relative importance of internationalisation abroad. Out of the total students registered at UK universities but not residing in the UK, there are only 7% in overseas campuses, that is 7 times fewer than students in TNE programmes and 6 times fewer than students studying in a partner university under a franchise agreement.

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ eter.joanneum.at/imdas-eter</footnote>
<caption>**Table 3-** UK universities, the role of overseas campuses and franchises in internationalisation</caption>

Source: HESA table ‘student 1213 table O.xlsx’, downloaded December 2, 2014. Own treatment * includes franchises and joint programmes.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>total</th><th>total</th><th>Out of which undergrad</th><th>Out of which undergrad</th><th>Out of which PGT</th><th>Out of Which PGT</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>nber</th><th>%</th><th>%</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Overseas campus</td><td>17525</td><td>7</td><td>70%</td><td>8%</td><td>25%</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Distance</td><td>123635</td><td>50</td><td>51%</td><td>39%</td><td>47%</td><td>72%</td></tr><tr><td>Other - collaborative*</td><td>103795</td><td>42</td><td>82%</td><td>53%</td><td>18%</td><td>23%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>244955</td><td>100</td><td>65%</td><td>100%</td><td>33%</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>159665</td><td></td><td>80460</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Foreign campuses thus still represent a rare case, but they still exist and we have screened examples to identify the variety of developments taking place. All examples are European, taken from British and French cases. One of the oldest examples, and very often cited in the academic literature, is the University of Nottingham with its two campuses in Malaysia (1999, recently enlarged and relocated) and China: together they gather nearly 9000 students - more than one quarter of total enrolment of the University. This is a direct extension of the University, meaning that all programmes are accredited by UK authorities (on top of complying with local authorities) and that all students get a University of Nottingham diploma.

However campuses seem to be a rare feature and ‘franchises’ are more common. They are multiple ways through which these can be conducted, mostly based on bilateral or trilateral agreements. But we also witness other types of developments, such as the emergence of companion universities or schools (e.g. the two examples listed below) and through governmental agreements that serve as a framework for local franchised programmes (see the example below of the French-Vietnamese agreement).

- The 3 Parisian universities associated with La Sorbonne (Université Paris Sorbonne, Université Paris Descartes and Université Pierre et Marie Curie) have created a completely new independent university in Abu Dhabi under Emirati law. However the programmes, teaching methods, evaluation system and diploma are exactly similar to those accredited in Paris (and extended by the Emirati government to the university).

- The “Ecoles Centrales” (always in France) offer another model for the construction of companion universities. There are 5 Ecoles Centrales in France (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseille and Nantes) that focus on engineering and operate as a group. They have created a similar school in Peking which has delivered its first masters in 2012 and are developing two other schools, one in Casablanca, Morocco (which opening is planned for 2015) and one in Hyderabad (in collaboration with the Mahindra group and JNTU Hyderabad).

- French programmes in Vietnamese Higher education institutions. This is based on an agreement between the French and Vietnamese governments. The objective is to offer full French programmes in different higher education institutions. 15 French universities participate to this movement offering 6 undergraduate and 16 postgraduate programmes in
some 12 different Vietnamese universities. Students follow the same programmes and receive the same diploma as the corresponding students studying in France. The national university of Ho Chi Minh Ville has a dedicated faculty called ‘pôle universitaire français’ that gathers a number of programmes at all levels (630 students in 2012 in undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral programmes).

## Internationalisation abroad of research activities

Scholars studying international relations often mention the role of science diplomacy. Its dominant form is to create a vehicle (often through funding agencies) that enables researchers from two countries to develop joint projects. These used to be marginal but have vastly increased in Europe, in complement to the EU's Framework programmes (the so called ERA-Nets), further reinforcing the extent of project-based research collaborations between universities in Europe. Most of these still fall into the internationalisation at home category but increasingly there are examples of universities seeking to project a research presence abroad, either to gain access to facilities or data or else with an eye on enhancing their reputations. There are seldom more lasting alliances with the exception of large facilities associated with big science. Public research organisations (like CNRS in France) have had a long standing tradition of establishing joint labs mostly with other public research organisations. This movement has started to extend to universities and some of the research collaborations may entail the construction of "joint labs" that go beyond the time frame of individual projects, drive to long term circulation of staff in both directions and are more and more often associated with international doctoral programmes. The example of UPMC (see Box 1) shows that out of its partnerships with other universities (465), 131 have a research component and, out of them, we count some 18 joint labs. This remains marginal, but should not be forgotten as a form of 'internationalisation' that often leads to investments abroad in both facilities and lasting positioning of personnel.

## 5- Taking stock

By clearly differentiating three complementary activities, the approach we propose enables us to uncover one aspect that is often simply forgotten in analyses of university internationalisations, international opening. While we have very limited data on this topic, it radically changes the experience offered to and gained by students. Furthermore, most analyses treat 'joint programmes' as an aspect of internationalisation abroad while we consider them as being probably the most achieved form of international opening. Similarly it probably is a strategic error to consider 'transnational distance learning' as another form of internationalisation abroad while it is mainly based upon investments made at home.
Transnational education programmes that are fast growing reinforce the now long established trend of attracting foreign students at home, making this dimension clearly the central aspect of university internationalisation, while 'true' internationalisation abroad, based on franchised programmes and/or the establishment of international campuses remain a marginal, though growing phenomenon. These analytical dimensions should also help both universities and 'spaces' (states and countries) to better characterise the forms and degrees of internationalisation, for which indicators remain only partial and mostly anecdotal.

Looking across the dimensions of activity it is clear that the internationalisation agenda, though highly differentiated, adds up to an activity that is of sufficient scale that few institutions can afford to exclude from their central strategic thinking. Despite the taxonomic separation between the three broad categories of internationalisation, they are often complementary and the lines can be blurred by hybrid models with elements of each.
In the introduction to this chapter we indicated a consensus in the literature that new public
management could be seen as a prime causal factor for the penetration of internationalisation
into the strategies of universities. There is an element of tautology in that statement in that a
university could not have been said to have a strategy until its leadership gained the freedom
of action to make choices and entered the mind-set that those choices could involve
departures from traditional activities. On its own this does not explain why the path of
internationalisation has been embraced to the extent described here. Indeed, the strategic
actions of universities to drive towards internationalisation are more likely to have impacted
upon their share of this phenomenon than on its overall extent.

To identify the underlying cause it is necessary to bring the demand-side into the picture. A long-standing driver has come from governments of developing or emerging economies who run scholarship schemes to fund study abroad, normally on condition that the beneficiary returns to work in the country (sometimes described as bonded scholarships). An important sub-category here are doctoral researchers sponsored with a view to improving the quality of domestic universities but the range of such scholarships is much wider. Many come from the civil service of their country and treat study abroad as a mid-career platform for senior promotion. Examples of such schemes include Royal Thai Government Scholarships, provided by the country's Office of the Civil Service Commission, or for undergraduate study the Malaysian Public Service Department (Jabatan) scholarship scheme.

A wider explanation here lies in the growth of aspirational middle class elites in the students'
originating countries who consider that their educational needs cannot be fully met by the
country's domestic system and can now afford an international solution. An OECD paper
(Kharas, 2010) uses a combination of household survey data with growth projections for 145
countries to show that while Asia accounts for less than one-quarter of today's middle class,
by 2020, its share could double. For some, as already noted, study abroad is a platform for
emigration but as domestic opportunities improve there is a stronger incentive to return. In
this case the driver is the premium placed upon foreign degrees in the domestic employment
market. This is well-recognised in academic employment and helps drive the doctoral study
end of the process but for lower level degrees the advantage lies more in providing employees
better equipped to work in global markets, not least through enhanced linguistic skills.

Moving from cause to effect, one clear result of internationalisation has been to increase
competitive pressures upon universities. Domestic systems may be used to little real
competition because of regulated roles and stable divisions of activities with their neighbours.
No such restrictions apply when they are seeking to attract students, staff, researchers or
resources from beyond the national border. At this point they become competitors in a global
market. It is perhaps not surprising that universities from countries with a high degree of
national competition (principally from the Anglo-Saxon world) have been able to respond
quickly to take advantage of this wider environment. However, the French cases we have seen
have shown that internationally competitive attitudes and capabilities can also be developed
from a less differentiated domestic environment. Competition tends to bring in its wake
consolidation, if not through mergers then by the use of alliances under a shared brand. An
alternative scenario is the emergence of 'super-brands' such as that of Harvard which could
be increasingly used as a franchise to compete with and replace local identities.

In terms of resource implications there is a huge gap between the situations of teaching and
research. The international market for students who are willing to pay for the experience is
enormous and apparently still growing. In some cases it is at a level where a university may
consider reducing domestic provision in order to create the capacity to capitalise on the
higher margins offered by students in a relatively free market for fees. In the UK the benefits
have been manifold. Income streams make a greater range of courses viable (for domestic as
well as international students) and surpluses are invested in research. Strenuous efforts have
to be made to project these arguments to politicians who might otherwise raise concerns
about why national participation could be capped in order to accommodate more
international students. In the meantime these students tend to follow the trend of wishing to
be admitted to prestigious research intensive universities and hence there is something of a
virtuous circle. This is reinforced by the opportunity to build global alumni networks, which
in turn support their *alma mater*.

The third category of effect is on the nature of the offering provided by institutions. It is fair to say that there has been more institutional innovation in the domain of internationalisation than in any other aspect of degree provision, as represented by the structures and processes we have described in this chapter. Some of these innovations feed back into the nature of the domestic offering. For example the experiences of distance learning are likely to form the basis for increased levels of blended learning as a standard product. Meeting the needs of international students is also likely to lead to an increasingly globally oriented curriculum.

Nonetheless, internationalisation carries a higher level of risk. Dependency on income
streams creates a vulnerability to interruption which could come from geopolitics or even a
'black swan' event such as a major epidemic causing extended travel restrictions. While some
countries could see retaining highly qualified graduates as a major benefit, there is also as we
have noted an interaction with the wider politics of migration. Western governments may
pause for thought if they consider that their entire domestic provision could be put at risk of
at least major disruption and at worst insolvency if there were a major disruption to the flow
of international students.

Looking forward, there are conflicting trends in the evidence on future directions. On the one hand, leaving aside upheavals likely to be caused by intermittent financial crises, the secular trend is towards larger potential populations with the economic ability to study abroad. Against this is a possible narrowing of the global quality gradient among universities and hence the perceived advantage of a foreign degree. This may be eroded by the phenomenon of internationalisation itself as more and more academics in originating countries have themselves been trained in Western elite universities. Thusfar, such shifts have not taken place to any great extent but the close attention payed to ranking tables by most agencies who fund study abroad suggests that it could easily become an important factor. To counter such a trend Western universities may need to emphasise more the broader social and cultural benefit of an international experience.

References

BIS, 2013, International Education, Global growth and prosperity, HM Government, London,
July, 62 p

Charles N & Delpech Q. (2015), Investir dans l'internationalisation de l'enseignement supérieur, France Stratégie, January, 208 pages.

Crowther P. Joris M., Otten M., Nilsson B., Teekens H. Wächter B., 2000, Internationalisation at Home, A Position Paper, European Association for International Education (EAIE), Brussels.
Edwards J., 2007, Challenges and Opportunities for the Internationalization of Higher
Education in the Coming Decade: Planned and Opportunistic Initiatives in American
Institutions, *Journal of Studies in International Education* 11, 373-381

Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition, *International Higher Education*, 33, 2-3.

European Commission, 2013, *European higher education in the world*, Com (2013) 499 final,
July 11, 15 p

European Commission, *Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth*, Com (2010) 2020,3 march, 32p.

Georghiou L., 1998, Global cooperation in research, *Research Policy*, **27**, 611-626

Horta H., 2009, Global and national prominent universities: internationalisation,
competitiveness and the role of the state, *Higher education* **58**, 387-405

Kharas, H. (2010) The Emerging Middle Class in Developing Countries, OECD Development Centre, Working Paper No. 285 Paris: OECD

Knight J., 2004, Internationalisation remodelled: definition, approaches, and rationales,
*Journal of Studies in International Education* **8**: 5-29

Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.), 2009), *University governance*, Springer
Netherlands

Marginson S and van der Wende M., 2007, *Globalisation and Higher Education*, Education
Working Paper No. 8, OECD, Paris, 85p.

Middlehurst R., 2008, Developing institutional internationalisation; policies and strategies: an
overview of key issues, *European University Association Handbook*, section B1.1. basic edition,
OECD 2009, *Higher Education to 2030*, volume 2, Globalisation, Paris, 360 p.

OECD 2014, *Education at a Glance*, 2013 indicators, Paris, 444 p.

Roesle P., 2014, *Who needs MOOCs in the UK when digital education is already big business*,
downloaded from global statement.wordpress.com, October 31st 2014.

Universities UK, 2014, *International students in higher education, the UK and its competition*, In
focus, September, 44 pages

van der Wende, M., 2007, Internationalisation of higher education in the OECD countries:
Challenges and opportunities, *Journal of Studies in International Education*, *11*(3/4), 247-289.