No.21, August 2014

RIHE International

Seminar Reports
THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHEREDUCATION: REALITIES AND IMPLICATIONS
Report of the International Workshop on
University Reform, 2013
Organized by: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYRIHE International Seminar Reports
No.21, August 2014

Report of the International Workshop on
University Reform, 2013

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHEREDUCATION: REALITIES AND IMPLICATIONS

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYThe Internationalization of Higher Education:
Realities and Implications
Edited and Published by
Research Institute for Higher Education
Hiroshima University
2-2, Kagamiyama 1-chome
Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512 Japan
TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/
Printed by:
Nishiki Print Inc.
7-5-33, Shoko Center, Nishi-ku, Hiroshima City,
733-0833, Japan
TEL: +81-82-277-6954, FAX: +81-82-278-6954
August 2014
ISBN978-4-902808-88-9

i

FOREWORDThe Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University,
hosted an international workshop on December 5, 2013. The theme was “TheInternationalization of Higher Education: Realities and Implications”. To
discuss this theme, we invited three foreign speakers, one Japanese speaker, andone commentator. This volume is a summary report of the excellent
presentations they gave at the workshop.
In Europe, people, money, goods, and information have been moving acrossthe continent. So too are higher education, students, and scholars frequently
crossing nation borders in the European Union area. In this workshop Dr. Eric
Beerkens, Leiden University, the Netherlands, reported the forty year
accomplishments and challenges of internationalization of higher education in
Europe.
The United States has a somewhat different history of internationalization ofhigher education, attracting students and scholars from all over the world. Dr.
Laura E. Rumbley, Boston College, presented the policy perspectives andpractical concerns of the internationalization of American higher education.
Compared to Europe and the United States, Asian countries now face quite
different challenges in the internationalization of higher education. As
globalization of their economies continues, China, Korea, Japan, and other Asian
countries have to train business and industry workers, administrators, andpoliticians who can work in international settings. Dr. Kiyong Byun, Korea
University, reported on English-medium teaching in Korean higher education:
policy debates and reality. And Dr. Yuichi Kondo, Ritumeikan Asia Pacific
University, Japan, discussed the paradigm shift of the internationalization ofJapanese universities. Finally Dr. Futao Huang, RIHE, Hiroshima University,presented the current situation of internationalization of China’s higher
education.
After the aforementioned presentations, Dr. Motohisa Kaneko, Tsukuba
University, Japan, made comments on each. Through the workshop, we wereable to share common problems and also distinguish the different problems andtasks in the internationalization of higher education in each country. Readers
will find both in this volume.
The workshop was quite successful since many discussions, questions, andiicomments were made exchanged by the participants.
contributors.

I am grateful to all

August, 2014
Fumihiro Maruyama
Director and Professor
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

CONTENTS

Foreword

Fumihiro Maruyama ··················································· i

Presentations
Presentation 1

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education:
Achievements and challenges
Eric Beerkens ··························································· 1

Presentation 2

Postcard from the United States: Policy perspectives and practicalconcerns for the internationalization of American higher education
Laura E. Rumbley····················································· 25

Presentation 3

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI: Case studies of two
Korean universities
Kiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho ··················· 45

Presentation 4
Japanese Universities and their Internationalization: Is paradigm shift feasible?
Yuichi Kondo ·························································· 61

Presentation 5
The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education: Foci on its transnational
higher education
Futao Huang ··························································· 75

Appendices1. Seminar Program································································· 89
2. List of Participants ······························································· 91

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor
Charles R. Barton, University of South Carolina Beaufort, USA, who edited all
the manuscripts in this report.

Fumihiro Maruyama
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

Presentations

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.21, 2014 Page1

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher
Education: Achievements and challenges

Eric Beerkens

Introduction: Europe and higher education
When did higher education become ‘European’? The precise starting dateof the process of Europeanization of higher education can be debated. Was it
the establishment of the first universities in Italy, England, Spain, and France?
These were the first universities in the world and became a model for most of thethousands of universities that emerged in the centuries thereafter. Or should we
see the first treaties of the European ‘project’ as the start of a European
dimension in higher education? The 1957 EURATOM Treaty and the 1958
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) alreadycontained passages on cooperation in science and technology. The first treaties,
however, did not transfer any authority in the field of higher education to theEuropean level. Despite this, the European Commission and other European
Union (EU) institutions did find opportunities to actively get involved in higher
education in the early 1970s, especially by linking education to the freemovement of people within the European Community.
Forty years later we can claim that ‘Europe’ has unquestionably left its
mark on higher education in Europe. Through the involvement of EU
institutions, higher education in the EU member states has gained a stronger
European but also a stronger international dimension. Mobility of students
within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world has increased andinstitutions and their academic staff increasingly collaborate with each other toimprove their education and research.


Senior Advisor for International Affairs, Leiden University, The Netherlands,
email: h.j.j.g.beerkens@BB.leidenuniv.nl

2

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher EducationPage

The process of Europeanization of higher education reversed a centuries
long process of nationalization of universities. In the past few centuries
universities became more firmly embedded in the nation state. Their students,
their funding, their regulative framework, etc., all were impacted by the strongrole of the nation state. The past forty years this process has been slightly
reversed and the international dimension in higher education is gaining
importance. The organizational field (in the meaning of DiMaggio andPowell’s (1983) definition as “sets of organizations that constitute a recognizedarea of institutional life”) of the contemporary university has become moreinternational and transnational in nature. Staff and students, regulatory
agencies, funders, and competitors increasingly operate across borders and areless bound by national contexts than half a century ago. In this paper we will
analyze the processes of Europeanization and internationalization of higher
education in Europe and the challenges they bring.

The Europeanization of higher education
The Europeanization of higher education can be conceptualized by threeinterrelated processes:
1. The Europeanization of higher education policies through the emergenceof a supranational polity;
2. The Europeanization of academic activities through increased academic
interaction and exchange within Europe; and3. The Europeanization of higher education systems through harmonization.
The first process is a political process: the establishment of education as adomain of European policy. This began at the signing of the Treaty of Rome in1958 and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 can be seen as a major
milestone in this process. In Maastricht, the European policy makers managed
to pull education into the competence of the EU. Although education was notwithin the formal authority of the European Community – the term was not
mentioned in the first European treaties – education became a division within the
Directorate General for Research Science and Education in the 1970s. It took,
however, until the 1992 Maastricht Treaty to include education in the Treaty.
Articles 126 and 127 stated that:
The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education

Eric Beerkens Page3
by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by
supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the
responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and theorganization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic
diversity.
The latter part of this paragraph clearly shows the sensitivity of European
policy in the field of education. Teaching content and the organization of
education was a national matter, not a European one. In addition, education
was subjected to the subsidiarity principle, meaning that Community action can
only be taken if national actions are not sufficient.
The second development was the increased interaction and mobility inEuropean higher education and research. This started with the first European
education program in 1976. From this point on, the internationalization of
education became part of European academic life. Only in 1987, however, thefirst large scale European education program was established. This was whatbecame the European flagship program named ERASMUS. This program forthe first time brought about substantial flows of students between European
countries. Student mobility was – and still is – the cornerstone of the European
programs and through it, young Europeans gained an understanding of other
European cultures and developed some form of European identity. In this sense,
the program was very much an instrument to support the European integration
project. The program also made international mobility an option for many, notso much through its funding but through the institutionalization of international
mobility within universities. Universities set up infrastructures to deal withnew demands of students and staff, leading also to an increase of mobility
outside of the Erasmus Programs.
What’s more, Erasmus developed into more than a mobility program. After
1995, staff exchange and curriculum development also became part of theactivities.
Erasmus was also a prime networking instrument, bringing
academics and administrators from around Europe together to collaborate andcommunicate. The same was true for the European research policies, and inparticular the Framework Programs. Cooperation in partnerships and consortia
and combining strengths of different universities were a major objective of these
European policies. Several decades of research cooperation has made ‘Europe’a more natural playing field for academics in European research universities.
A final development started at the end of the twentieth century and can also
be seen as a development triggered by the increase in European policies andEuropean interaction. This created an awareness of the diversity of systems in4

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

Europe and an acknowledgement of the fact that this patchwork of national
higher education systems can create obstacles for further cooperation andexchange and creates inefficiencies from a pan-European perspective. Making
a single European Higher Education Area from this patchwork was the main
objective of the initiators of the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations.
The Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations of 1998 and 1999 wereintergovernmental actions, initiated by Germany, France, Italy and the United
Kingdom in the Sorbonne in 1998 but extended to 29 countries in Bologna in
1999 and growing to 47 countries in 2010. In the 1999 Bologna Declaration,national governments agreed to harmonize their education systems. Objectives
were to:••••adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees;
adopt a system with two main cycles (undergraduate/graduate);establish a system of credits (ECTS);
promote mobility by overcoming legal recognition and administrative
obstacles;• promote European co-operation in quality assurance; and• promote a European dimension in higher education.

These were supplemented by new action lines in the course of the process,for instance, to promote the attractiveness of the European Higher Education
Area and the promotion of the social dimension in the Bologna Process.
Although the European Commission was initially not a participant in this process,they – together with the Council of Europe – became facilitators of the Bologna
Process.
European cooperation was not just seen as an instrument for European
integration and mobility and for quality enhancement of European higher
education, but also became an instrument for improving Europe’s economic
competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world. Through a more flexible
and more innovative higher education system, European universities wereincreasingly considered as engines of economic growth and as crucial
determinants of a country’s competitiveness. This narrative was very muchpart of the European ‘Lisbon Agenda’. This agenda developed in parallel with
the Bologna Process. Together with an ongoing discourse about the crisis ofEuropean universities (partially caused by the emergence of international
rankings), this paved the way for a closer alignment of the collaboration based
Bologna Process with the competition based Lisbon Agenda. Ultimately thisEric Beerkens Page5
has de facto led to the convergence of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon
Agenda into one policy framework (Huisman & van der Wende, 2004, pp.
34-35).
Harmonizing education systems thus became an instrument not only forstimulating cooperation and exchange but even more for strengthening theattractiveness and quality of Europe higher education as a whole, with theultimate aim of strengthening Europe’s competitiveness in the global economy.

Achievements
The developments of the past 40 years that we identified above have shaped
the European field of higher education. In March 2010 in the city of Budapest,
the governments of the 47 countries involved in the Bologna Process launched
the European Higher Education Area. Whether the Bologna objectives had
actually been achieved is debatable. What can be concluded is that theEuropean dimension has gained an important position in the life of European
higher education institutions. Universities in Europe can no longer be seen as
purely national institutions, operating in national systems, subjected to national
policies. In this section, evidence is provided of the impact of these three
processes and what has been achieved is analyzed.
Europe as a new polity in higher education
The inclusion of ‘education’ in the Maastricht Treaty was a major milestone
in the Europeanization of higher education policies and politics. If one looks at
the distributive role of European institutions, for instance, a clear rise in thebudget of the Commission’s education and research programs in the past 30 or
40 years can be seen (Figure 1).
The budget on education increased gradually since the start of the Erasmus
Program in 1987. In the Socrates programs (1994-2000 and 2000-2006) thisincrease slowed down. It was especially with the start of the Lifelong Learning
Program (LLP, covering the whole sector of education) that investments in
education really became substantial. The LLP had a budget of almost 7 billion
Euros over 7 years. If one only looks at the budget spent on student and staff
exchanges in higher education, one sees a similar pattern: a gradual increase
from 1987 until 2006, with spending increasing strongly in the LLP, reachingalmost half a billion in 2013 (Figure 2).

6

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

1200
1000
800
600
400

0

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

200

Figure 1. Annual EU budget for education 1987-2013 (in M€)(European Commission, 2006)

600
500
400
300
200
0

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

100

Figure 2. Annual Erasmus budget for student and staff mobility (M€)(European Commission, 2013)

The budget for the new ERASMUS+ program, which will start in 2014 willbe 14.7 billion Euros. The European Commission initially asked for a budgetof 19 billion Euros for a seven year period, a significant increase compared tothe 7 billion of the LLP. The EU budget negotiations (between the Commission
and the member states) have resulted in the budget of 14.7 billion.
Substantially less than the budget the Commission asked for, but still a doublingcompared to the LLP budget.
Of the budget, two thirds will go to mobility programs in all levels of
education. The majority of this will be earmarked for higher education.
About a quarter of the budget will be earmarked for collaborative projects

Eric Beerkens Page
7
between higher education institutions and between higher education institutions
and industry. The remaining part will go to support for policy reform.
A similar trend can be observed if one looks at the EU’s involvement inresearch. The first Framework Program for Research was launched in 1984 andhad a budget of almost 3.3 billion Euros for a four year period. This has
increased tenfold in the last thirty years with the budget for 2013 totaling morethan 10 billion Euros (Figure 3). In 2014, the successor of the Seventh
Framework Program will commence. The European Commission initially
proposed a budget of 80 billion Euros for the seven year period until 2020. The
end result is likely to be closer to 70 billion. Still a substantial increase fromthe almost 56 billion Euro budget of the Seventh Framework Program.
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000

0

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2000

Figure 3: Annual EU budget for research 1984-2013 (M€) (European
Commission, 2012a)

In addition to its distributive role, the EU also plays an important legislativerole. If one considers the legislative actions of the European institutions, one
can observe a rise in secondary legislation related to education and research1.
Many directives were issued in order to implement article 57(1) EEC on therecognition of qualifications in various sectors in order to enable the freemovement of labor. But directives were also issued for matters like the1

Directives and Regulations in force under classifications 16.30 (Education and Training) and16.10 (Science) according to EurLex, see also: Beerkens, 2008)

8

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

education of children of migrant workers, the right of residence for students, andthe admission of third country nationals for the purpose of studies or scientificresearch.
The formal adoption of education as a policy competence of the EU has
also been influenced by policy domains that had no direct but an indirectconnection with education. For instance, the free movement of workers in the
EU also created a push for more transparency and recognition of professional
degrees and it created rights for ‘social advantages’ like student financial support
for workers and their children. In addition, the non-discrimination principle
prohibited different treatment of students on the basis of their nationality. This,for instance, meant that tuition fees charged to other EU nationals could not behigher than those for domestic students. These legal developments enabled theCommission to take a more active role in education policy in the EU. But inthis domain, it was especially the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that caused an
expansion of the authority of European institutions in education and research.
The number of ECJ cases that significantly impacted education and researchincreased to around 600 in 2005, with peaks in the late 1980s and the early
2000s (Figure 4; for a discussion on these cases: see Beerkens, 20082).
70

25

60

20

50

15

40

10

30
20

5
0

10
1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

0

ECJ Cases per five years; left axis
ECJ Cases (cumulative); right axis
Figure 4. ECJ cases related to education and research (Beerkens, 2008)2

All judgments of the ECJ that are related to (higher) education and research or had a major
impact on it. The list was compiled on the basis of various secondary resources (De Witte,
1989; McMahon, 1995; Tudor, 2005) and searches in the EurLex Database.

Eric Beerkens Page
9
The observations above demonstrate that the EU is becoming a significant
player in higher education and research policies. Both in terms of resources
and regulative activity, they have strengthened their position in Europe and thus
established Europe as an arena for higher education and research policy.
Yet, this picture might also require some nuance. After all, the subsidiarity
principle limits the power of the EU institutions to get involved in education
issues. Most of the interference from Europe, therefore, is related to issues
arising from the creation of a European single market. They are related toissues like the rights of immigrants; the recognition of qualifications acrossborders; and the treatment of nationals vis-à-vis other EU citizens. The actionsof the Commission and other EU institutions are not directed towards issues likecurricula, teaching and learning, autonomy of institutions, etc. But what one
can observe is that some core aspects of education and education policies areindirectly affected by European policies through so-called spill-overs. The
central thesis here is that integration within one sector will tend to cause its own
impetus and spread to other sectors. The establishment of supranational
institutions designed to deal with functionally specific tasks will set in motion
economic, social, and political processes which generate pressures towards
further integration. This is the logic subsumed under the headings of‘spill-over’ or ‘the expansive logic of sector integration’. Functional spill-overs
occur when the integration in one policy-area spills over into others because
these issue areas are inter-connected. For instance, measures in social policy(e.g. the right to social support for immigrants) can affect higher education
policies through changes in student financial support.
Europe as a new arena for academic activities
The main instrument through which European institutions have influenced
higher education in Europe was through the promotion of mobility. The growthof international mobility, however, was not just a process guided by European
level programs. It is also a phenomenon that is driven by processes ofglobalization (and a phenomenon that in turn causes further globalization). Yet
the Erasmus Programs can be seen as the dominant driver for credit mobility(mobility to obtain credits in another country, as opposed to degree or diploma
mobility) and has witnessed a vast expansion in the past decades (Figure 5).
From a few thousand a year in the late 1980s, Erasmus mobility has grown toover 200,000 students every year in the current decade. What needs to berealized is that there is also a significant number of students that go abroad for10

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

studies and internships and do not receive an Erasmus grant.
are not included in these statistics.

Page

Therefore, they

250000200000150000100000

0

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

50000

Figure 5. Number of Erasmus students 1987-2010 (European Commission,
2012b)In the 1990s, Erasmus became part of the two consecutive Socrates
programs. This also brought along more instruments for cooperation. Thiswas prolonged in the LLP. The latest step was the adoption of the ERASMUS+
program, planned to start in 2014. Part of the program focuses on widening
participation in the mobility program; another part on strategic partnerships; andother forms of cooperation and a last part on policy support.
The emphasis on cooperation and exchange has also led to the creation ofnumerous partnerships between institutions and the emergence of a wide varietyof associations and networks aimed at bringing European students, teachers andscientists together.
In the Socrates framework alone, more than 860
cooperative actions were coordinated by higher education institutions in Europe
between 1994 and 2004 (ISOC, 2007). These have resulted in joint curricula,joint conferences, research reports, publications and a wide range of otheractions that promote joint knowledge creation and dissemination. In theframework of Erasmus Mundus, the Commission requires the establishment ofhigher education consortia in order to offer a joint Masters program. Since thelaunch of Erasmus Mundus, more than one hundred of such consortia are active.
In the field of research, the prerequisite of cooperation is also apparent. For
most of the Framework Program activities, researchers are required to form
networks with colleagues from other Member States. All these cooperative
activities require communication by phone, email, and internet; face-to-faceEric Beerkens Page
11
meetings of academics and other staff; and the exchange of information andideas.
But it is not just about organized cooperation in the European programs.
Higher education and research have always been characterized by international
cooperation but cooperation has become easier because of open borders and newtechnologies. The result of the intense cooperation and exchange of ideas andinformation can, for instance, also be observed if one looks at scientificpublications.
Here, the growth in international joint publications is aphenomenon that can also be observed in Europe. Jonathan (2013) found that,over more than three decades, domestic output (papers that list only authors fromthe home country) has stabilized in the United States and in Western European
countries. The rise in total annual output for each country is due tointernational collaboration. As a result, the percentage of papers that are
entirely ‘home grown’ is falling. What’s more, he found that impact scores forjointly authored papers tend to be higher than for domestic papers.
This collaborative environment has institutionalized in the past few decades
in the form of a dense network of academic associations. In Europe it has led
to a vast increase in the number of academic organizations. In the past 40 years,
at least 700 of such organizations have been established (Figure 6). Most ofthem are associations organized around disciplines and subdisciplines. Major
growth can be observed in the late eighties and early nineties. Considering that
establishing such an organization can take multiple years, it is plausible toassume that this rise of associations is related to the emergence of European
research and education programs (in 1984 and 1987 respectively).
In these academic communities, the exchange of information and ideas andcollaboration to create new knowledge are the primary goals. Within suchorganizations, conferences and journals function as the vehicles forcommunication and information exchange. Not surprisingly, the development
of disciplinary journals, therefore, shows a similar pattern.
For the everyday life of academics, this means that ‘Europe’ has become
increasingly important. Their research networks and also their classrooms do
not consist only of domestic researchers and students, but of researchers andstudents from all over Europe and beyond Europe. They become more
dependent on European colleagues for obtaining their research funding and theiraudience is targeted through European and international journals much morethan ever before. The academic arena has become European and even global inscope in the past decades.

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

50

800

45

700

40
35

600

30

500

25

400

20

300

15
10

200

5

100

0

0

Figure 6. Growth of European organizations and associations in education andresearch (various sources3)

Europe as a harmonized higher education system
Europe has developed in a mosaic of education systems. With the ongoingmobility of students, academics and other European citizens, this diverse natureof European higher education has become more apparent. At multiple levels of
the European polity, the need for more harmonization and more transparency has
been voiced. A high level of diversity existed in the types of programs andtheir comparability, in systems of and ideas about quality assurance, in theuniversity degrees, etc. The Bologna Process was intended to harmonize thesesystems or at least make the differences more transparent.
After more than ten years since the start of the Bologna Process, can one
really speak of a harmonized system? Probably not, but evaluations and impact
studies of the Bologna Process have shown that major steps were taken (e.g.
Westerheijden et al., 2010). Higher education across the 47 participating
countries looks substantially different from the situation at the start of the3

The list was compiled from various sources, including the Yearbook of International
Organizations (Union of International Associations, 2005), the Directory of European
associations in the field of education (European Commission, 1999) and various Internet
searches. The list is restricted to organizations with a multinational membership covering asubstantial part of Europe.

# of new organisations , cumulative (―)# of new organisations annually (---)

12

Eric Beerkens Page
13
process.
Degree structures and curricula have been reformed, certain
instruments have been much more widely applied (for instance, the Lisbon
Recognition Convention, the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), Diploma
Supplements, quality assurance, qualifications frameworks, etc.) and this in turnhas contributed to making European higher education more attractive in theworld.
One of the most visible instruments for realizing harmonization was theintroduction of a two cycle (three if the Ph.D. is included) degree structure.
This has now been implemented in nearly all countries of the European Higher
Education Area. Yet, the way it was implemented still shows a diverse picture.
Most countries have adopted even differences within the national systems. The
Netherlands, for instance, allows both four year and three Bachelor programs(four for the Universities of Applied Sciences and three for the Research
Universities) and one and two year Master programs (one for regular Masters
and two for research Masters). In this way, we cannot really speak of aharmonized system in Europe. There is still much variety in the length ofprograms in terms of years or ECTS credits. The ECTS system itself has been
implemented in nearly all systems; the few exceptions all use ECTS-compatible
systems. However, determining the weight of ECTS credits is based on
different considerations in different countries. According to the European
Commission, ‘ECTS is a student-centered system based on the student workload
required to achieve the objectives of the program of study. These objectives
should be specified in terms of learning outcomes and competences to beacquired’ (Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2004). However,this is the case only in a minority of the Bologna countries. About half of thecountries use only learning outcomes or only the workload concept, and aquarter of the participating countries use neither (Westerheijden et al., 2010).
The extent to which the key objectives of Bologna will be achieved is still
an open question. Achieving some of the desired outcomes will require many
years of post-implementation experience and even among countries that haveshown early progress, compatibility and comparability have not yet been fully
achieved. Still, one can safely conclude that a process towards more
harmonization has commenced in 1999 and that major steps have already beentaken. Whether this will lead to a harmonized European higher education
system remains to be seen, but at least it has created an awareness of thedifferences and it has made these differences much more transparent.

14

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

Intermezzo: Europeanization and/or internationalization?
For individual nation states, it is clear that internationalization is about
opening up to other countries. In the case of Europe this is less clear. Is
internationalization limited to the relation between Europe and the rest of theworld? Or does it include internal European dynamics (as analyzed in thispaper)? One could best claim it is both. European countries, unlike mostother countries in the world, operate in a real multilevel polity. They are part ofEurope (or even different Europes) while also being part of the wider global
system. In this regard, the European internationalization dynamics are a subsetof the wider, global internationalization dynamics.
Operating in the European system can, on the one hand, be compared tooperating in the global system; on the other hand it can be compared to operatingin federal systems.
Operating in the global system of higher education often means operating
in a policy vacuum and at the same time being hindered by national obstacles.
The ‘global’ is not an entity coordinated by supranational organizations.
Although international organizations (like the World Bank, UNESCO, OECD)might occupy important positions in global higher education they do not function
as a supranational coordinator of international activities. In Europe this isdifferent and in this sense it might resemble a federalist state. The EU
institutions monitor whether countries are really complying with the internalmarket rules that have been laid down in various treaties and they might call for
new legislation when new obstacles arise. In this way it does create asupranational hierarchy operating above the separate nation states.
Yet for many students and academics operating in this European system islike operating in a global system. It brings many of the same challenges eventhough cultural distances might seem relatively small. Although a process ofharmonization might be set in motion, students and academics are still
confronted with many challenges if they decide to study or work in another
European country.
This is also the reason why intra-European
internationalization has contributed so much to the wider internationalization ofEuropean higher education institutions. Universities in Europe in the 1980s
and 1990s have set up infrastructures, and developed skills and expertise to deal
with international exchange, cooperation and recruitment. Although these
activities were initially predominantly European in scope, this infrastructure andexpertise now also serves the cooperation and exchange with other countries andregions in the world.

Eric Beerkens Page
15
It is this position which makes European internationalization an interestingprocess, and also a challenging one. European higher education, and its
institutions, its students, academics, and leadership, navigate between theirnational policy domains and the emerging – inter-national – European polity.
This brings along questions about the balance between national and European
governance; about the extent of solidarity with other member states; and about
the role of national sensitivities in the wider European system. These are issues
that are typical for nations that are moving from purely independent nation-states
to more supranational systems. In this regard, these are also exemplary forwhat is happening in the wider global system (which is also typified byincreasing interconnectedness and integration of activities, albeit on a smallerscale than within Europe). Three challenges arising from these issues will be
discussed in the next section.

Some challenges ahead
The financial implications of European (degree) mobility
The way higher education is funded is fully located within the authority of
the individual European nation states (or the subnational states in case offederations like Germany). If one looks at the amount of money spent onhigher education, one sees rather substantial differences between the countries of
the European Higher Education Area (Figure 7, based on purchasing power
parity).
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
0

SE
NO
NL
DK
AT
UK
FI
DE
BE
FR
IE
ES
CY
MT
IS
IT
PT
HR
CZ
SI
RU
SK
EL
HU
LV
LT
BG
PL
EE

2000

Figure 7. Annual public expenditure on tertiary educational institutions per
full-time equivalent student in Euros PPS, 2008 (Eurydice, 2012)16

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

In some countries, public subsidies in higher education are supplemented bytuition fees. The United Kingdom, with many institutions asking tuition fees ofmore than 10000 Euros, has the highest fees in the EU. In many of thecountries charging tuition fees, the fees are far from cost covering and thegovernment still subsidizes the major part of a student’s education. Finally
there is the group of countries charging no tuition fees. In those countries
where governments still fully or predominantly subsidize a student’s higher
education, major imbalances between inflow and outflow of students from or to
the EER countries can cause financial problems. Usually this is not the casewhen we are talking about large inflows of students from outside the EER
because a country can set higher fees for non-EER students. In several court
rulings the ECJ, however, confirmed that tuition fees or other costs such as
registration fees cannot be higher for foreign EER students than for domestic
students. At the same time, these programs need to be accessible to thoseforeign EER students and certain requirements should not form an indirect formof discrimination based on nationality.
Countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Czech Republic, and theNetherlands, will all face extra costs in subsidizing their higher education
systems due to a net inflow of EER students (Figure 8). In the end, national
governments will need to fund the education of these foreign students.
Comparing this to a federal system like the United States makes an interesting
comparison. In the United States individual states are allowed to charge in stateand out-of-state tuition fees, this is not allowed in EU member states.
10.0%
5.0%

Iceland

Slovakia

Ireland

Estonia

NorwayPortugalSlovenia

PolandFinland

Italy

FranceGermany

Spain

Hungary

SwedenNetherlands

UK

Czech Republic-15.0%

Denmark-10.0%

Austria-5.0%

Belgium

0.0%-20.0%EER Students

Non-EER students

Figure 8. Net flows of foreign students (CPB, 2012; based on OECD data)

Eric Beerkens Page
17
Whether this will actually lead to problems remains to be seen. It has led
to public and political discussions in countries like Belgium, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and Austria. Such discussions were either focused on the fact thatcountries could not limit the influx of foreign students to their regulated
programs (e.g. medicine, veterinary sciences) or on the fact that national
taxpayers’ money was used for the education of foreign students. A study in
the Netherlands – where the latter discussion emerged – however, found thatevery foreign student will contribute much more to the economy than he or she
benefited from a Dutch higher education (CPB, 2012) and that, therefore, theNetherlands should remain open to foreign students (including EER students)
but should also focus on retaining them for the Dutch labor market (SER, 2013).
Wherever the benefits or costs may go, the complexity of national
education funding in a Europeanized higher education area makes clear that it isnecessary to look at such issues from a pan-European perspective. It is simply
not possible anymore to calculate all the national costs and benefits in an area
where more and more people move, be it for work, for education, or both. Sucha pan-European view, however, is not yet reality in the current EU.
Inequalities in mobility and cooperation
Whether one looks at the 48 country European Higher Education Area as awhole, or at the 28 country EU, it is impossible to ignore the fact thatdevelopments have not taken place equally everywhere. Based on rankings andbibliometric data, there is still a considerable quality difference in Europe, inparticular between Northwestern Europe and the rest of Europe. As a result
one sees certain dynamics in European higher education and research.
If one looks at mobility between countries, one sees that the United
Kingdom, Switzerland, and Austria, and to a lesser extent, France, Germany,
Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark are the most attractive destinations for
European students (Figure 9). The countries receiving less than average
foreign students are all Central and Eastern European countries. Similarly, if
one looks at research cooperation, one sees that the central nodes of theEuropean publication networks are formed by these same countries and that thenewer member states are still at the periphery of this landscape (Figure 10).
Like most other countries, it is inevitable that Europe will also have its
stronger and weaker regions. The fact that the redistributive role of the EU isvery small compared to many other federalist states and especially the fact that
this is mainly a division of the EU 15 and the newer member states, makes this a18

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

Figure 9. Incoming and outgoing foreign students from and to other EHEA
countries (based on data from UNESCO Institute of Statistics)

politically undesirable situation. As a result, the European Commission has
applied many instruments to close this gap. On the other hand, especially in the
research domain, the Commission promotes excellence, and research funding ischannelled towards the most excellent researchers and research groups. It is
one major challenge of the new H2020 program to find a balance in thisexcellence versus inequality dilemma.
Homogenizing tendencies and the rise of English
A final challenge addressed here is the tendency towards convergence andhomogenization, in particular in terms of language. Globalization in generaland also processes of regional integration comprise tendencies towards
convergence and homogenization. The Bologna Process was even more
explicit in this through its focus on harmonization. The words convergence andhomogenization, however, were painstakingly avoided. The idea of converging
all education system into one Anglo Saxon model was and remains unpopular.
European institutions, therefore, were careful to include aspects of cultural,
linguistic and system diversity in the narratives surrounding the Bologna

Eric Beerkens Page
19

Figure 10. Network map of research collaboration between European countries,
2007-2011 (Kamalski & Plume, 20134)

Process. In terms of the diversity of systems one can conclude that sufficient
discretion was given to the participating countries to fulfil the Bologna demands
and still keep their own historically and culturally grown versions. The focus
has not been on removing obstacles through diminishing differences but throughmaking differences transparent and comparable.
The linguistic diversity in Europe has always been an attractive aspect of
the European Higher Education Area and the early Erasmus programs were verymuch focused on exploiting this linguistic diversity. However, with the global
rise of English as the lingua franca of academia, the increase in global mobility
and the introduction of the two cycle structure in many European countries, amove towards more English taught courses can be observed. With the two
4

Outputs included are articles, reviews and conference papers indexed in sources covered by
Scopus, primarily journals, conference proceedings, book series, and trade publications.
Collaboration is inferred by the pattern of co-authorship.

20

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher EducationPage

cycle structure, it became easier for countries to provide part of their programs in
English. Leiden University in the Netherlands, for instance, decided to offer
nearly all of its Master programs in English when the two cycle structure was
implemented in the early 2000’s. Similar transitions have been made at otherDutch universities and universities throughout Europe. Especially the smaller
countries – and smaller languages – show a relatively high number of English
taught Master programs (Figure 11). Most Bachelor programs are still taught in
Dutch, but a selection of courses is provided in English in order to enableinternational student exchanges in the Bachelor. The last decade we also
witness a growth in English taught Bachelor programs, especially in those
programs with an international dimension.
1000
900

2007

2011

2013

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Figure 11. English taught Master programs in Europe 2007-2013 (IIE, 2013)This new linguistic situation in continental European universities is notwithout challenges. Teaching staff need to be trained to teach in English,
courses need to be converted into English and an international perspective needs
to be added. But also support staff will need to deal with international students,
communication should be done in English or be bilingual, etc. Since anacademic education does not end when students set foot out of the classroom, theintroduction of English as a language of instruction has wide-ranging effects on
all aspects of academic life.
In the frontrunner countries in terms of the relative number of English

Eric Beerkens Page
21
taught programs – the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland,
and Sweden – there might not be a fear that English will take over the local
language as such. There are, however, fears for losing the local language as a‘language of science’. In addition there are worries about the way learning in asecond language affects the process of learning. On the other side, thesecountries all recognize the value of internationalization, cooperation andintercultural interaction. In this regard, the rise of English taught programs
should be seen as a pragmatic one. International cooperation and exchange
simply needs a common language, and the only real candidate for such a lingua
franca in the current world is the English language.

Conclusions: Europe as an exceptional case study?
This paper analyzed how higher education in Europe has become more
European and international and what challenges arise from this development.
What can be concluded is that Europe has been successful in internationalizing
its higher education, in terms of academic activities, but also in terms of theemergence of a European polity and harmonization in Europe’s diverse systemsof higher education. This concluding section explores to what extent thesedevelopments and challenges are particular for Europe and to what extent theycan extrapolated to the global level.
The internationalization of academic activities is a development that can beobserved in most regions in the world and is also driven by the process ofglobalization. The increasing mobility of student and researchers is aphenomenon that can be observed in other places in the world as well. Europe,
however, has played a pioneering role in this process because – already at an
early stage – internationalization was high on the EU’s agenda.
The harmonization of systems is also a process that extends beyond theEuropean higher education area. The Lisbon Convention on recognition was
signed and ratified by many countries outside Europe. What’s more, a processof convergence can be observed throughout the world. This is not driven byinternational or supranational entities or imposed by certain powerful countries,
but it is more a process of educational borrowing and lending (Steiner-Khamsi,
2004) or policy transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). Through these processes
certain models for higher education spread throughout the world and, eventhough those models are adopted differently on a local level, this contributes to
the global convergence in higher education (Beerkens, 2010). In Europe,
however, the process of harmonization has been facilitated by the fact that an22

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

organizational infrastructure to facilitate this process was already in existence.
In addition, the EU members of the Bologna participants had a legal and politicalinfrastructure to support certain measures.
This infrastructure has led to the Europeanization of the higher education
and research policy domain. In this regard, the developments in Europe are
truly different than those in other parts of the world. There are regional blocs
where also some limited form of authority transfer can be observed (e.g. ASEAN,
MERCOSUR, EAC, SADC) but this is politically far less developed than the EU.
For now it is the only regional block where one can really talk about a form ofsupranational government and where nation-states have truly given up autonomy
voluntarily to this higher level of governance.
If one looks at the challenges that were identified, one can also conclude
that these constitute challenges at the global level, albeit in very different forms.
Considering there is no supranational authority coordinating the distribution ofhigher education as a global public good, the financial arrangements in theinternational student market are based mainly on free market principles
supported by numerous national and international loan or scholarship systems toprovide opportunities for those who do not have sufficient resources. The
challenge observed in Europe are not apparent in the global market because
governments and/or institutions are autonomous in the amount of fees theycharge.
The inequity in international student flows and the uneven distribution in
research networks is clearly something that can also be observed at the global
level. As is the case in Europe, mobility of students is characterized bySouth-North and East-West flows, and the nodes in the networks of researchcollaboration are still concentrated in Europe, North America and Japan.
Nevertheless, at the European as well as the global level there are signs ofemerging knowledge countries. In Europe they are located mainly in the East
(Poland, Czech Republic, Baltics), globally they are located mainly in Asia andLatin America (China, Korea, Singapore, Brazil). Yet there are still many partsof Europe and parts of other continents that see too many of their talented people
leave and are not able to benefit from the current mobility patterns. Despite ofterms like brain exchange and brain circulation, brain drain is still very much apart of the current global knowledge system.
The rise of English as a lingua franca is undoubtedly a global phenomenon.
Although languages like French and Spanish are still very influential indetermining student flows, these large language systems become more isolated.
In order to be truly open to students throughout the world, offering education inEric Beerkens Page
23
English is almost a sine qua non.
Europe has played a pioneering role in the internationalization of higher
education and research. This is thanks to the process of regional integrationthat the EU started at a relatively early stage. This has given Europe anadvantage in adapting its universities to this process. At the same time, it has
also led to a rather inward looking Europe. While European countries andEuropean universities are busy with the expansion of their activities to theEuropean level, the rest of the world also finds itself in a rapid process ofglobalization. Here, European universities face many untapped opportunities
that they can and should pursue.

References
Jonathan, A. (2013). Collaborations: The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–560.
Beerkens, E. (2008). The Emergence and Institutionalisation of the European Higher
Education and Research Area. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 407-425
Beerkens, E. (2010). Global models for the national research university: adoption &adaptation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8(3), 369 391.
CPB (2012). De economische effecten van internationalisering in het hoger onderwijs (Theeconomic effects of the internationalisation of higher education). The Hague: CPB.
De Witte, B. (Ed.) (1989). European Community Law of Education. Baden-Baden: Nomos
Verlag.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48,
147-60.
Directorate-General for Education and Culture. (2004). ECTS Users’ Guide. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/ects-guide_en.pdf
Dolowitz, D.P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer inContemporary Policy-Making. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and
Administration, 13(1), 5–24.
European Commission. (1999). Directory of European Associations in the Field of Education.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2012a). Development of Community research – commitments 1984 –2013. Retrieved November 19, 2013, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp-1984-2013_en.pdf
European Commission. (2012b). Outgoing Erasmus students from 1987/1988 to 2010/2011.

24

40 Years of Internationalization in European Higher Education

Page

Retrieved November 19, 2013, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/table1.pdf.
European Commission. (2013). Erasmus programme in 2011-12: the figures explained.
Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-647_en.htm.
Eurydice (2012). The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process
Implementation Report. Brussels: EACEA.
Huisman, J., & van der Wende, M.C. (2004). The EU and Bologna: are supra- andinternational initiatives threatening domestic agendas?. European Journal of Education,
39, 349-357.
IIE. (2013). English-Taught Master’s Programs in Europe: A 2013 Update. New York: IIE
ISOC. (2007). Socrates projects database. http://www.isoc.siu.no
Kamalski, J., & Plume, A. (2013). Comparative Benchmarking of European and US Research
Collaboration and Researcher Mobility. Elsevier.
McMahon, J.A. (1995). Education and Culture in European Community Law. London: The
Athlone Press.
SER. (2013). Make it in the Netherlands! Advies over binding van buitenlandse studenten aan
Nederland (Make it in the Netherlands! Recommendations about linking foreign
students to the Netherlands). The Hague: SER
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.) (2004). The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Tudor, G.R.J. (2005). Higher Education Law in the European Union. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent
State University.
UNESCO (n.d.). UNESCO Institute of Statistics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.uis.unesco.org/
Union of International Associations. (2005). Yearbook of International Organisations 2005
Edition.
Westerheijden, D.F., Beerkens, E., Cremonini, L., Huisman, J., Kehm, B., Kovac, A., et al.
(2010). The Bologna Process Independent Assessment The first decade of working on
theEuropean Higher Education Area. Volume 1 Detailed Assessment Report.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.21, 2014 Page
25

Postcard from the United States:
Policy perspectives and practical concerns for theinternationalization of American higher education

Laura E. Rumbley*

Introduction
Policymakers and leaders of higher education institutions across the UnitedStates, as in many corners of the globe, are increasingly concerned with the issue
of internationalization1, as a matter of both policy and practice. The reasons forthis growing interest – which turns broadly on questions of quality, relevance,and competitive positioning in the highly globalized environment of the early
21st century – are not unique to the United States, necessarily. What is unique
for the US experience with internationalization, however, is that the discussion
around – and approaches to – internationalization are evolving in several waysthat reflect an interplay with the specifics of the US context. A mixed record ofoutcomes accompanies these processes.
First, there is the notable emergence of what might be considered the
beginnings of a national “agenda” for internationalization. This is apparent in
the language and focus of a series of official government documents issued, andfederal initiatives undertaken, in recent years, along with positions vis-à-vis
internationalization articulated by key national-level organizations. At thesame time, signs indicate that the “conversation” around internationalization is
expanding (beyond the traditional domain of international student advisors and*Associate Director, Center for International Higher Education(CIHE), Boston College, USA,
mail: laura.rumbley@bc.edu
1
The definition of “internationalization” for the purposes of this paper is taken from Knight(2003): “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the
purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education.” Throughout, the term
“international education” is also used somewhat interchangeably with “internationalization”.

26

Postcard from the United States

Page

study abroad coordinators at four-year institutions), and is now being taken up
more widely across the higher education community. Evidence of thiswidening conversation can be seen in the now fairly ubiquitous coverage ofinternationalization issues in the US higher education press, which is also
increasingly visible in the mainstream media. These developments provide asense that internationalization “matters more” – and to more and different kindsof stakeholders connected to the higher education enterprise – than it did in thepast (although by no means has internationalization surpassed other high-level
priorities weighing heavily on the higher education community, including such
issues as access, graduation rates, learning outcomes, employability of graduates,
tuition levels and student debt, and financial sustainability for institutions).
As policies and ideas about internationalization evolve, so, too, do theapproaches US colleges and universities take to formulating and operationalizing
their international agendas. Increasingly, internationalization is understood
more broadly as a strategic and “comprehensive” (Hudzik, 2011) undertaking
that demands a deeper and more meaningful commitment to an expansive
understanding of “global engagement” (Helms & Rumbley, 2012). Some data
provide a picture of enhanced performance and commitment tointernationalization, while other indicators raise questions about the strength ofthat commitment and the quality of the results obtained from the efforts being
undertaken.
US higher education, at the level of both individual institutions and anational community, is paying attention to the notion of internationalization as
never before, and colleges and universities currently demonstrate both optimism
and activism when it comes to advancing their internationalization activities andobjectives (ACE, 2012). However, in practical terms, work remains to be doneto equalize rhetorical enthusiasm for internationalization with its actual
widespread diffusion across the American higher education landscape, into the
lived experiences of students, faculty, and staff, and as an accepted core elementof postsecondary content and delivery.

A national “agenda” for internationalization of US higher
education
Although there are clear interests in higher education at the federal level,
there is no national “ministry” of higher education in the United States. Most
aspects of postsecondary planning and oversight reside at the level of theindividual states. Still, the federal government does exercise influence inLaura E. Rumbley Page
27
several key areas, most notably (although not exclusively) via research funding –through mechanisms administered by cabinet-level departments and agencies
such as the National Science Foundation – and student loans and grants – which,because they can only be issued to students attending accredited higher
education institutions, serve to steer the vast majority of colleges and universities
to comply with the conditions of the relevant accrediting bodies. The federal
government also engages the higher education community directly through the
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), situated in the US Department of
Education. Specifically, OPE advances its work through three units focused,
respectively, on Higher Education Programs (HEP), Policy, Planning andInnovation (IPP), and International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) (USDepartment of Education, 2013b).
In practical terms, while the federal government’s direct reach into thehigher education community is somewhat limited, government at the national
level can and does serve an important role as a stimulator of policy conversations
and agenda-setting. When it comes to internationalization, the federal
government has traditionally been relatively restrained in its vision and input.
The landmark establishment of the Fulbright exchange program in 1946 is anotable exception to this rule in terms of symbolism and prestige. Nonetheless,
it is important to note that Fulbright’s reach in terms of actual number ofparticipants is quite small in scope: “Approximately 325,400 ‘Fulbrighters’,
122,800 from the United States and 202,600 from other countries, haveparticipated in the Program since its inception more than sixty years ago.” (USDepartment of State, n.d.b)
In the late 1990s, a more vocal call for a national policy for international
education began to emerge, led principally by professional organizations
working in this area, such as NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
At the urging of stakeholder groups such as NAFSA, in April 2000, President
Clinton issued a memorandum on international education policy (Clinton, 2000).
This step was certainly encouraging to the international education community,
but did not provide enough of a stimulus for a sustained or widespreadnational-level focus on the issue of international engagement for the higher
education community, nor did it dramatically expand the internationalization
profile of US higher education provision. NAFSA itself followed up in 2007
and 2009, respectively, with two key position papers in an effort to frame thenational conversation on international education and galvanize political support
for this agenda. Among other things, these documents called for a restorationof the United States’ “international legitimacy” by way of thoughtful, informed,

28

Postcard from the United States

Pageand compassionate leadership in the global community, achieved principally
through: an expansion of US study abroad to 1 million students per year; foreign language proficiency and fundamental levels of knowledge about
the rest of the world for all college graduates;
 access to American higher education for foreign students and scholars andenhanced appreciation and support for these individuals in our midst; and expanded international exchange and service opportunities, in the spirit of
the Peace Corps and similar programs (NAFSA, 2009).
NAFSA’s documents synthesize several key themes running through muchof the discourse around a (potential) national agenda for internationalization in
the United States: global competitiveness, global engagement, and outward
mobility of students.
Global competitiveness
It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the United States understands
its role in the world as one of political, economic, and global leadership. That
sense of leadership has been sorely tested in the last decade. Economic crisis,
deep domestic political divides, and extended controversial military
engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the simultaneous expansion of
economic and political influence of other countries and regions of the world,
have challenged the country’s understanding of its historically privileged role asa world leader. A shifting global context and the challenges this has presented
to US leadership in the world are a key issue underpinning conversations about aneed to commit to a national agenda for international education. This isevidenced in the Clinton (2000) memorandum, which begins:
To continue to compete successfully in the global economy and tomaintain our role as a world leader, the United States needs to ensure thatits citizens develop a broad understanding of the world, proficiency inother languages, and knowledge of other cultures. America’s leadershipalso depends on building ties with those who will guide the political,
cultural, and economic development of their countries in the future. A
coherent and coordinated international education strategy will help us
meet the twin challenges of preparing our citizens for a global
environment while continuing to attract and educate future leaders fromabroad. (Clinton, 2000)

Laura E. Rumbley Page
29
Leadership and competitive concerns are also apparent in NAFSA’s primary
documents on this subject, through the very titles of their key position papers on
this issue: “An International Education Policy for US Leadership,Competitiveness, and Security” (NAFSA, 2007) and “Renewing America’s
Global Leadership” (NAFSA, 2009).
More recently, the US Department of Education (2012) has taken up thequestion of internationalization and released its first-ever international strategy
document, “Succeeding Globally Through International Education andEngagement.” This publication takes as its starting point “two strategic goals:
strengthening U.S. education and advancing our nation’s international priorities”(p. 1). Further, the Department highlights “economic competitiveness and jobs”
as well as “national security and diplomacy” among its four key contextual
drivers for this unprecedented international focus in its strategic thinking.
More recently, the US Department of Education’s (2013c) “Draft Strategic Plan
2014-2018” articulates a mission statement including the aim “to promotestudent achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering
educational excellence and ensuring equal access”, with a reminder that
dramatically boosting completion rates for bachelor’s and associatedegrees is essential for Americans to compete in a global economy. The
President thus set a goal in 2009 – that, by 2020, the US will have thehighest proportion of college graduates in the world. (p. 7)
To the extent that one can speak of an emerging notion of a national “agenda” forinternationalization of US higher education, competitiveness (particularly
economic competitiveness) in a global context stands as a key component of thisagenda.
Global engagement
It is clear that the US orientation towards internationalization in terms ofwhat might be considered a national-level agenda is focused on how to leverage
the phenomenon to advance economic and political leadership in the world. At
the same time, it is relevant to note that there is also a concern with the notion ofengagement as a key principle of a national orientation towards
internationalization. Perhaps the most notable example of this sensitivity canbe found in work recently done by the American Council on Education (ACE).
In 2010, ACE convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Global Engagement,
consisting of 19 high-level US higher education leaders, and several

30

Postcard from the United States

Page

international experts. Following a year of meetings and consideration of expert
input, the panel produced a report (ACE, 2011) designed to provide astate-of-the-art overview of the key global issues framing the US higher
education context, and suggestions for ways that ACE itself might serve tosupport its members in negotiating this complex and evolving landscape. A
principal starting point for ACE’s understanding of “the challenge of a new era”
(ACE, 2011, p. 6) is that
The success of American colleges and universities in the coming years
will be based upon their capacity to access and navigate global networks
and to identify and develop modes of being both competitive andcollaborative simultaneously. To be competitive today, virtually all
institutions will have to collaborate to leverage scarce resources, broaden
possibilities, and extend impact. (ACE, 2011, p. 7)
This will require that US higher education recognize the “imperative ofengaging strategically and substantively with a globalized higher education
environment and interconnected world” (ACE, 2011, p. 7).
Engagement in this context means that US higher education institutions
must “adopt new strategies and develop new perspectives” (ACE, 2011, p. 27),and in doing so pay specific attention to six key considerations:
1. Defining core principles and practices in advance of international
engagement
2. Balancing pragmatism with idealism in the process of engaging
internationally
3. Delineating comprehensive institutional strategies
4. Aligning local and global interests
5. Identifying possible models of global engagement
6. Integrating technology in globalization efforts. (ACE, 2011, p. 17)
The global engagement paradigm as outlined by ACE situates US higher
education connections with the rest of the world as a must – the challenges andopportunities of a new era cannot be ignored or avoided if the sector seeks toremain relevant and competitive. Furthermore, thoughtful, innovative, andnuanced approaches are necessary in order to manage the complexities of the
global landscape in which US institutions operate.
Engagement as a guiding principle is also in evidence in the language of the
US Department of Education’s (2012) international strategy. It not only

Laura E. Rumbley Page
31
mentions “engagement” in the title of the document, but also articulates anunderstanding of an achievable “win-win” situation in a world in whichcountries collaborate to improve education for all. As Peterson (2012) notes
Global engagement of institutions across national borders holds thepossibility of improving higher education worldwide. Engagement, if
done well, is a tide that can lift all ships and is important well beyond
individual institutions. The potential outcomes are a compelling global
prospect. (Peterson, 2012, p. 2)
The hint of a US national agenda for internationalization of (higher)
education makes clear space for the elaboration of engagement alongside thecentral concern for global competitiveness. Indeed, the notion of a necessary
dynamic between cooperation and competition is made explicit and is an
important consideration for policymakers and higher education leaders in the US
context.
Mobility
Consistent with national agendas for internationalization in other parts of
the world – notably Europe (Wächter, 2012) – the policy conversation aroundinternational education at the national level in the United States (such as thisexists) places heavy emphasis on student mobility as a key policy mechanism.
Particularly in the last decade, there has been an increasingly sophisticatedawareness of the “high stakes” nature of the global market for international
student recruitment and talent retention. At the same time, there has been
growing consensus that there is a pressing need for US students to acquire
knowledge, skills, and awareness through periods of study outside the UnitedStates in order to enhance graduates’ employability in a globalizing economy
and ability to navigate an increasingly diverse domestic cultural landscape.
Awareness has been evolving into concrete initiatives both to promote theUnited States as a destination of choice for international study, but perhaps morenotably, to encourage US students to study abroad. The US Department ofState’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs supports inbound mobility via
a network of advisers in 170 different countries around the world(EducationUSA, 2013), primed to provide prospective international students
with unbiased information about US higher education institutions and study
opportunities. In 2013, nearly 820,000 international students enrolled in US
higher education institutions, an all-time high, and “there are now 40 percent

32

Postcard from the United States

Page

more international students studying at US colleges and universities than adecade ago” (IIE, 2013b). The national interest in welcoming international
students ranges from the educational…Americans benefit substantially from the presence of international
students who bring their own unique perspectives and knowledge to theclassroom and the wider community (IIE, 2013b)
to the diplomaticInternational education promotes the relationship building andknowledge exchange between people and communities in the UnitedStates and around the world that are necessary to solve global challenges(IIE, 2013b)
to the economic
International students’ spending in all 50 states [in 2012/2013]
contributed approximately $24 billion to the US economy (IIE, 2013b).
On the outbound side, the United States has launched several high-profile
efforts in recent years to encourage US students to include study outside the US
as part of their degree studies. Leading this charge was the groundbreaking
proposal set forth in November 2005 by the Commission on the Abraham
Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program in its report, Global Competence andNational Needs: One Million Americans Studying Abroad, to get one million US
undergraduates studying abroad by 2016/2017 through an innovative fellowshipand scholarship program to be organized and funded by the federal government.
Unfortunately, this proposal has to-date not been approved by the US Congress.
Just under 284,000 US students studied abroad for credit in 2011/2012 (the latest
year for which figures are available). This is an increase of 3.4 percent over theprevious year, and more than three times the number of US students werestudying overseas in 2011/2012 than studied abroad 20 years ago (IIE, 2013a).
Still, these upbeat statistics must be set against the fact that…fewer than 10 percent of all US undergraduate students (including
community college students) will study abroad by the time they graduate.
With more than 2.6 million undergraduate degrees awarded each year, theproportion of students that study abroad is not increasing. (IIE, 2013b)

Laura E. Rumbley Page
33
And, although for the second year in a row China was the fifth most popular
destination for US students, the number of US students in China – 14,887 as of
2011/2012 (IIE, 2013a) – is nowhere near the stated goal of the “100,000 Strong
in China” initiative launched by the Obama administration in 2009 (USDepartment of State, n.d.a). The “100,000 Strong” family of initiatives also
includes efforts to raise interest among American students to study in Latin
America, as well as to foster partnerships between US and Latin Americancolleges and universities (US Department of State, 2012).
A notable feature of these efforts is the drive to craft public-private
partnerships to provide the necessary funding base for these activities. In linewith the growing overall privatization of American higher education’s funding
sources (Lyall & Sell, 2006), this is perhaps a natural development. Anothercharacteristic of the federal efforts to stimulate mobility is the fact that
programming is focused on very specific countries or regions of the world.
Regional emphases are also apparent in other dimensions of federally-guided
engagement in the higher education sphere; for example, in the context of the
US-India Higher Education Dialogues (US Department of State, 2013) and the
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities’ partnership initiative focusedon Africa (APLU, 2008). Regional or country-specific activities point clearly
towards strategic, national-interest rationales for engagement, as well as
responsiveness to external opportunities initiated by partner countries.
Multiple agendas – or none at all?
The preceding discussion highlighting some of the key elements of an
emerging US “policy” for internationalization points to concrete actions taken,
specific interests delineated, and a range of priorities articulated. However, itremains impossible to say that the United States has a clearly defined national
agenda for internationalization (or international education). Given the long
history of institutional autonomy in the United States, and the federal model ofgovernance by which the states exercise considerable authority over the higher
education agendas in their jurisdictions, this is perhaps unsurprising. Indeed, in
keeping with this framework of decision-making and agenda-setting, some US
states have themselves taken steps to craft international education roadmaps andaction plans (NAFSA, n.d.).
For those with an appreciation for the profound potential forinternationalization to empower positive transformation of the higher educationenterprise in the United States in this “global century” – and the sense that our34

Postcard from the United StatesPage

national economic and foreign policy interests are at stake – the overall effect of
this piecemeal approach is less than satisfactory. However, the current
prospects for a fully articulated national agenda for internationalization are
exceedingly slim. This is in no way a politically opportune moment. Indeed,
it is questionable if there will ever be a moment when the advantages of a robust
and comprehensive national agenda for internationalization will outweigh thedecentralized tradition of strategic planning for the US higher education(non)system. Thoughtful guidance from trusted national organizations, such as
the American Council on Education and others, in concert with targeted federal
government activities, may be what ultimately guides the US “agenda” forinternationalization.

The national “conversation” around internationalization of US
higher education
With or without a national agenda to guide efforts, the US higher education
community is actively forging ahead with a dynamic and increasingly
broadly-based conversation about where internationalization is (and should be)taking the country’s colleges and universities. Of particular interest here is thequestion of where that conversation is occurring, among whom, and around what
key topics of concern.
Once mostly the domain of the small number of professional organizations
catering to international education practitioners, and an even smaller number ofscholars and researchers interested in the phenomenon from a more academic
standpoint, internationalization has become a prominent topic in both the higher
education news media and, not infrequently, the mainstream media. The
Chronicle of Higher Education and InsideHigherEd.com feature regularcoverage of stories related to internationalization, as well as pieces on trends inhigher education outside of the United States. They provide space for blogs
dedicated to these topic areas, and send reporters and editors to conferences andmeetings outside of the United States in order to cover these developments fortheir largely US audiences.
News outlets such as University World News and Times Higher Education,
all provide extensive coverage of internationalization and non-US higher
education news, and are read by increasing numbers of US readers.
Blogs and other online news sources, such as The PIE News2, International
2

The PIE News can be found at http://thepienews.com/.

Laura E. Rumbley Page
35
Higher Education Consulting (IHEC)3, and GlobalHigherEd4 are also relevant.
Likewise, International Higher Education – the quarterly newsletter of the
Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) – andInternational Briefs for Higher Education Leaders – an occasional publication
co-produced by ACE and CIHE and targeted at US college and university
presidents – add to the wealth of information, opinion, and ideas circulating
about internationalization.
Americans are also actively subscribing to, as well as contributing materialand citing articles from, the Journal of Studies in International Education,
perhaps the premier peer-reviewed publication focused on this and related topics.
News about internationalization trends, and higher education news stories fromaround the world with implications for the United States, appear with someregularity in such mainstream publications as the New York Times and the WallStreet Journal.
The topics addressed across these multiple sources of information andanalysis span the full spectrum of trends and concerns related tointernationalization. Although based on an unsystematic analysis of this output,
several key topics stand out as particularly salient and indicative ofdevelopments of note in the US “conversation” around internationalization.
Among other issues, stakeholders seem to be particularly interested at the
moment in: the concept and practice of “comprehensive” internationalization,
 making better sense of the outcomes of internationalization, and exploring the ethics of internationalization.
Comprehensive internationalization
In 2011, NAFSA released a publication authored by former NAFSA
president John Hudzik, titled Comprehensive Internationalization: From
Concept to Action. Building on work previously done by the American Council
on Education5, Hudzik’s treatment of the topic aimed to synthesize and amplify

3

International Higher Education Consulting (IHEC) can be found at
http://ihec-djc.blogspot.com/.
4
GlobalHigherEd can be found at http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/about/.

36

Postcard from the United States

Page

many of the key messages that have evolved from the exploration of this notion.
Hudzik (2011) defines comprehensive internationalization as…a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international andcomparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service
missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values
and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it
be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students,
and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional
imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (p. 6)
Although Hudzik neither coined the term “comprehensive
internationalization” nor introduced groundbreaking new perspectives in relation
to this concept, this publication has spurred interest in considering the value ofdeep, broad, strategic, and sustained commitment to internationalization. Taken
in conjunction with the large (and growing body) of literature on what “serious”
internationalization means and requires, agreement seems to be coalescingaround a series of “key ingredients” for its implementation. These coreelements include working authentically and consistently from institutional
mission, thinking “comprehensively” (Hudzik, 2011), acting methodically andstrategically, planning realistically, investing strategically, and evaluating
critically and regularly.
Orchestrating these many aspects of a comprehensive approach tointernationalization is exceedingly difficult, particularly when colleges anduniversities have many competing priorities to manage. But, it is becoming
equally difficult for higher education institutions in the United States to claim
they are unaware of this kind of list of “ideal” factors in relation tointernationalization. Whether it is possible for an individual institution to act
on an ambitious agenda for comprehensive internationalization (Hudzik, 2011) isa key question, but Hudzik argues that not acting in this area inevitably
exacerbates the “consequences of the unlevel playing field” that exists when
there is ineffective participation “within a global reconfiguration of markets,
systems of trade, research and discovery, communications and quality of life”(Hudzik, 2011, p.17).
In short, wide awareness about the notion of comprehensive
5

Examples of these ACE publications include A Handbook for Advancing Comprehensive
Internationalization (2006), Building a Strategic Framework for Comprehensive
Internationalization (2005), and Promising Practices: Spotlighting Excellence inComprehensive Internationalization (2002).

Laura E. Rumbley Page
37
internationalization may not be moving all institutions to take up this mode ofengagement with the phenomenon, but it does seem to have established a pointof reference for many conversations about internationalization in the UnitedStates.
The outcomes of internationalization
A core assumption embedded in the vast majority of literature andpolicymaking around internationalization is that efforts to internationalizeunquestionably yield positive results for those individuals involved and thoseinstitutions implementing these policies and engaging in these practices.
Increasingly, however, pressure to validate these assumptions is being registered– and rightly so. What do we really know about the effects of our institutions’initiatives to internationalize? Do increasing numbers of international students
ensure an effective international/intercultural and overall learning experience for
US domestic students? Do US students who study abroad gain the skills
necessary to live and work effectively in a globalized economic, social, andpolitical environment? To what extent and in what ways are these effects
realized? There are, of course, many other outcomes-related questions to pose.
Educators and policymakers are challenged to make sense of what ishappening and how/why. Examples of US efforts to facilitate greater
understanding of assessment of internationalization include the ACE’s “Global
Learning for All” project, as well as the American Association of Colleges andUniversities’ “Global Learning” initiative.
There are a multitude of
institutional “quality enhancement plans” that can also be referred to (Deardorff& van Gaalen, 2012).
Assessment also implies issues of accountability and transparency.
Regional accrediting bodies as well as discipline-specific accreditors “areincorporating standards on global competence development for students”. The
Lumina Foundation-supported “Tuning USA” project endeavored to provide
several US states with an introduction to the European model of developing ashared understanding of “degree program profiles” within specific disciplines –although “given the great decentralization of higher education in the UnitedStates, Tuning proved a challenge” (Deardorff & van Gaalen, 2012, p. 179).
Particularly if US colleges and universities take up the call of“comprehensive internationalization” – which implies a significant commitmentof time, energy, and resources – the results of these investments will require
tangible evidence of acceptable outcomes. Here, it will be important for the US

38

Postcard from the United StatesPage

higher education community to carefully weigh the difference between “outputs”– often easily quantifiable yet one-dimensional indicators of activity – and“outcomes”, which should tell a much more relevant story about performanceand lasting impact (Deardorff & van Gaalen, 2012). Outcomes assessment is
an issue with rising currency in the United States, but much work lies ahead in
this area.
The ethics of internationalization
The conversation around internationalization, although generally
exceedingly upbeat and apt to highlight exciting and positive new developments,
also brings with it ethical concerns. Three key issues are highlighted here in
relation to this evolution in the way that the some within the higher education
community understand and relate to the phenomenon of internationalization:
concerns with the commercial aspects of internationalization, concerns with the
top-down approach to decision-making around internationalization at someuniversities, and the challenges of carrying out collaborative international
activities in the face of very different cultural values and assumptions.
Commercialization within higher education and within the context ofinternationalization can be understood in a variety of ways. One of the key
concerns, however, can be seen in the heated debate around the use of agents torecruit international students to study in the United States (Altbach, 2011;
Cunnane, 2011). Relying on assistance from third-party recruiters to promote
institutions and programs, identify potential students, and facilitate applications
and administrative assistance, makes it much more manageable (indeed,possible) for some US institutions to purposefully expand the presence ofinternational students on their campuses – hopefully to the satisfaction of allconcerned. However, “with revenue as a primary motivation” for many ofthese kinds of service providers (Reisberg & Rumbley, 2013, p.129), grave
concerns are raised around the question of whose interests are really being
served by agents. Establishing standards of good practice for agents has
emerged as the next step, but many remain skeptical of the ability of US higher
education institutions to regulate these actors, who often work in a highly
independent manner and are often located at great physical distance from the US
institutions they are serving (Reisberg & Rumbley, 2013). US colleges anduniversities have much to consider from an ethical standpoint about theagent/recruiter question – not to mention their own motivations for seeking torecruit international students, which often include revenue generation objectives.

Laura E. Rumbley Page
39
Meanwhile, leadership issues may also raise ethical concerns. The
comprehensive internationalization model, which serves as a benchmark formuch discussion in the United States, implies deep and widespread involvementin the international agenda at any given institution. However, there have beensome high profile cases in which the key decision-making with regard tointernationalization strategies and actions has been taken (or has been perceived
as such) unilaterally by the institution’s top leadership. Here, the case of John
Sexton at New York University, and the NYU faculty’s concerns about the way
Sexton led the institution’s move to establish “NYU Abu Dhabi”, has been
widely cited (Krieger, 2008; Kaminer, 2013). Faculty unhappiness with
university leadership in another venture abroad has also been documented at
Yale (Lewin, 2012). The ethical dimensions of these situations turn on two
axes. The first has to do with issues of institutional governance and internal
decision-making – who should be involved in high-stakes decision-making withregard to internationalization, and in what ways? The second relates tofundamental questions of taking core institutional values overseas – to what
extent, for example, can US notions of academic freedom, or equity and accessin hiring and enrollment, be transferred to international outposts or partnerships
with foreign institutions (Lewin, 2013). As the trend among US institutions to
expand their institutional presence overseas grows, figuring out how to frame
and manage these key types of ethical issues will continue to be a concern.

The “report card” for internationalization of US higher education
There is no question that the US higher education community is interested
in internationalization. There is a national-level conversation occurring across
many dimensions and involving many different kinds of stakeholders. There isa sense that the stakes are high enough to warrant something resembling anational agenda or list of priorities in relation to internationalization – althoughpolitically this is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Does all of this “talk” mean
anything? Are colleges and universities really acting on the ideas andunderstanding circulating around them? And if so, what are they doing, what
are their aspirations, and how well are they achieving objectives for work in thisarea?
Mobility, still a standard benchmark for internationalization, provides one
indication. The statistics presented previously show growth in terms of both
inbound and outbound activity, but also reveal challenges and gaps.
International study is not an experience undertaken by the vast majority of US

40

Postcard from the United States

Page

students, and this holds true for both undergraduate and graduate students.
When US students go abroad, they tend to cluster in Europe (where 54.6 percentof American students opted to study in 2011/2012). They also go abroad forvery short periods of time – 58.9 percent of US students abroad in 2011/2012
were overseas for “short term” stints (for the summer or for just 8 weeks or less).
Meanwhile, nearly 30 percent of the international students in the United States
now hail from just one country (China), and a mere four countries account for
54.5 percent of the international students enrolled here. In 2012/2013, 40.6
percent of all international students in the United States were clustered in justtwo fields: business management and engineering (IIE, 2013b).
On the face of it, numbers are rarely “good” or “bad”, and no one knows forcertain what the “ideal” statistics are or should be for mobility. But imbalancesand lack of representativeness across the figures do raise important questions
about “mobility for whom” and “mobility for what”. Given the enormous
financial and (we are told) political and educational stakes that seem to be
involved with international mobility as a key component of internationalization,is the United States paying close enough attention to the who, how, and why ofthis phenomenon? Is it investing sufficiently in understanding what different
levels of participation could yield in terms of positive outcomes for the
institutions and the country as a whole? Are all students who would like to
study internationally able to access the resources they need in order to do so?
These are just a few questions that would need to be addressed in order to better
assess how the country should “score” on a report card in this area.
The ACE’s 2012 report, Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses,
provides other important insights into understanding institutional performancewith regard to internationalization. Here, ACE works from its own definitionof comprehensive internationalization, which relies on six main criteria:
1. An articulated institutional commitment
2. Administrative structure and funding
3. Curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes
4. Faculty policies and practices
5. Student mobility
6. Collaboration and partnerships.
The data collected by ACE for this analysis “present a mixed picture as towhether institutions’ general optimism about the progress of internationalizationreflects the reality on campuses” (ACE, 2012, p. 23). Positive developments

Laura E. Rumbley Page
41
are seen in such areas as the incorporation of “internationally focused goals” into
mission statements and strategic plans; faculty hiring practices; student mobility
numbers and support; and collaborative engagement and outpost establishment
overseas. Funding has also remained steady (or increased) among a notinsignificant number of institutions surveyed (ACE, 2012).
However, there seems to be less progress visible in terms ofinternationalization of curricula that apply to all (not just a select group of)students; faculty tenure and development processes; and international student
support (particularly in light of their growing numbers). There is also a
concern about the broad divergence in internationalization activity andinvestment discernible between institutions offering associate degrees (typically
two-year community or junior colleges) and colleges and universities offering
bachelor, master’s or doctoral degrees. To this end, the ACE report (2012)
urges that new thinking be applied to how non-traditional students can best be
served by an internationalization agenda designed to meet their needs.

Concluding thoughts
The US higher education system has long been regarded as the “goldstandard” for postsecondary performance, its dominance of global university
rankings often cited as evidence of its quality and dynamism. The highvisibility of a select number of superlative research universities should not cloud
the fact that not all of our colleges and universities excel in all areas – and this ismost certainly true when it comes to internationalization.
A large,decentralized country, with many regional differences, we have evolved in our
own American way, which has arguably been somewhat schizophrenic
historically when it comes to international engagement. We are alternately
grand visionaries, then myopic isolationists. We rally readily around the flag,then forge ahead as staunch individualists. We love to lead, and we don’t
always care to listen.
These are gross stereotypes, of course, but they do say something about the
US approach to things, and can shed some light on the internationalization ofhigher education as it is unfolding in this country. The bottom line is thatawareness of internationalization is expanding, and is finding its way into bothnational “agenda” considerations, as well as all manner of practicalconversations about how higher education operates and what purposes it serves.
Furthermore, a concept of “comprehensive internationalization” seems to be
taking root in the US discourse around this phenomenon, and anchoring42

Postcard from the United States

Page

understanding both of what could be possible and what is likely a desirable
trajectory (even if only in the long-term) for many different kinds of institutions.
The notion of comprehensive internationalization is bounded, however, by
an understanding of the very real challenges facing the US higher education
system today, including access and persistence concerns; runaway tuition costs
and student indebtedness; and a heavy reliance on part-time, contract faculty ininstitutions that once invested more heavily in full-time, tenured academic staff;
among other concerns. Making the case for how internationalization fits into
this complex panorama, and helping institutions find workable ways to build acommitment to internationalization into their modus operandi, is a task not yet
completed in the US higher education context. This effort, however, isthoughtfully underway in many quarters.

References
Altbach, P.G. (2011). Agents and Third-Party Recruiters in International Higher Education.
International Higher Education, 62, 11-14.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2011). Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Global
Engagement. Strength through Global Leadership and Engagement: US Higher
Education in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: ACE.
ACE. (2012). Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses: 2012 Edition. Washington, DC:
ACE.
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). (2008, April 30). Africa-U.S
Higher Education Initiative to Launch Competitive Grants Program. Retrieved
November 25, 2013, from http://www.aplu.org/page.aspx?pid=937
Clinton, W.J. (2000, April 19). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments andAgencies. Subject: International Education Policy. Retrieved November 24, 2013, fromhttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=58389
Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. (2005). Global
competence and national needs: One million Americans studying abroad. Washington,
DC.
Cunnane, S. (2011, January 20). American recruitment body rejects 'naive' calls to 'eliminate'
the agents. Times Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2013, fromhttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/414906.article
Deardorff, D.K., & van Gaalen, A. (2012). Outcomes assessment in the internationalization ofhigher education. In D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, & J. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook ofInternational Higher Education (pp. 167-189). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Laura E. Rumbley Page
43
EducationUSA. (2013). Retrieved November 25, 2013, from https://www.educationusa.info/
Helms, R.M., & Rumbley, L.E. (2012). A “primer” for global engagement. International
Briefs for Higher Education Leaders, 2. 6-7. American Council on Education and Boston
College Center for International Higher Education.
Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington,
DC: NAFSA.
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2013a, November 11). Open Doors 2013: Fast
Facts. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.iie.org
IIE. (2013b, November 11). Press Release. Open Doors 2013: International Students in the
United States and Study Abroad by American Students are at All-Time High. Retrieved
November 23, 2013, from http://www.iie.org
Kaminer, A. (2013, March 9). N.Y.U.’s Global Leader Is Tested by Faculty at Home. New YorkTimes. Retrieved November 25, 2013, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/nyregion/john-sexton-is-tested-by-nyu-faculty.html
Kinser, K., & Lane, J. (2012). Foreign outposts of colleges and universities. International
Higher Education, 66, 2-3.
Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher
Education, 33, 2-3.
Krieger, Z. (2008, April 13). The Emir of NYU. New York. Retrieved November 25, 2013,
from http://nymag.com/news/features/46000/
Lewin, T. (2012, April 4). Faculty Gives Yale a Dose of Dissent Over Singapore. The New
York Times. Retrieved November 25, 2013, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/education/singapore-partnership-creates-dissensionat-yale.html
Lewin, T. (2013, December 11). Colleges Finding Ideals Tested Abroad. The New York Times.
Retrieved March 23, 2014, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/education/american-colleges-finding-ideals-are-test
ed-abroad.html?ref=us&_r=1&
Lyall, K.C., & Sell, K.R. (2006). The De Facto Privatization of American Public Higher
Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,38(1), 6-13.
NAFSA. (n.d.). Advancing International Education at the State Level. Retrieved November 25,
2013, fromhttp://www.nafsa.org/Explore_International_Education/Advocacy_And_Public_Policy/St
ate_Level_Initiatives/Advancing_International_Education_at_the_State_Level/
NAFSA. (2007). An International Education Policy for US Leadership, Competitiveness, andSecurity. Retrieved November 24, 2013, fromhttp://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/neip_rev.pdf
NAFSA. (2009). Renewing America’s Global Leadership. Retrieved November 24, 2013, from

44

Postcard from the United States

Page

http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Public_Po
licy/global_leadership.pdf
Peterson, P.M. (2012). Introduction. International Briefs for Higher Education Leaders, No. 2,
2. American Council on Education and Boston College Center for International Higher
Education.
Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L.E. (2013). Redefining academic mobility: From the pursuit ofscholarship to the pursuit of revenue. In A. Maldonado-Maldonado,& R. M. Bassett(Eds.), The Forefront of International Higher Education (pp.121-132). Dordrecht, theNetherlands: Springer.
US Department of Education (ED). (2012). Succeeding Globally Through International
Education and Engagement. US Department of Education International Strategy 2012-16.
Retrieved December 1, 2012, fromhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/international-strategy-2012-16.pdf
US Department of Education (ED). (2013a). Coordinating Structure. Retrieved November 18,
2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/or/index.html?src=ln
US Department of Education (ED). (2013b). Office of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved
November 18, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/index.html?src=oc
US Department of Education (ED). (2013c). US Department of Education Draft Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018. Retrieved September 23, 2013, fromhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2014-18/draft-strategic-plan.pdf
US Department of State. (n.d.a) 100,000 Strong Initiative. Retrieved November 24, 2013,
from http://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/100000_strong/index.htm
US Department of State.(n.d.b). Fulbright Program History. Retrieved November 24, 2013,
from http://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-fulbright/history
US Department of State. (2012) 100,000 Strong in the Americas. Retrieved November 24,
2013, from http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2012/184264.htm
US Department of State. (2013). U.S.-India Joint Fact Sheet: U.S.-India Cooperation In
Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2013, fromhttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/06/211019.htm
Wächter, B. (2012). European mobility policies. In I. Ferencz,& B. Wächter (Eds.), European
and national policies for academic mobility. Linking rhetoric, practice and mobility
trends (pp.10-31). Bonn: Lemmens.
Zook, G.F. (1950, March). The American Council on Education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 31(7),312-318.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.21, 2014 Page
45

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI:
Case studies of two Korean universities1

Kiyong Byun*, Jae-Eun Jon** and Young Ha Cho***Introduction
Over the last 20 years, Korea’s internationalization of its universities has
been elevated to the utmost level of importance under the banner of enhancing
its international competitiveness as well as upgrading the quality of its higher
education. The most typical strategies employed by many universities forinternationalization have been attracting international students; hiring foreign
faculty; increasing the number of student exchange programs; and increasing thenumber of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) courses.
With strong
government drives and aggressive institutional efforts to attract moreinternational students since the early 2000s, many universities in Korea havebeen able to achieve a substantial increase in the number of foreign students
enrolled as well as the number of EMI courses offered in domestic universities.
For instance, foreign student enrollment at Korean universities and colleges
increased from 4,682 in 2003 to 86,878 in 2012. As a corollary to this trend, insome universities (e.g., Kyunghee Univ., Han-Yang Univ.), the proportion ofEnglish-Medium courses out of the total courses offered has also been drasticallyincreased from around 5% to over 40%, particularly within the past five years.
However, despite the drastic expansion of the number of EMI courses, there*

Associate Professor, College of Education/ Director, Higher Education Policy ResearchInstitute(HEPRI), Korea University, e-mail: byun0905@korea.ac.kr**
Research Professor, Higher Education Policy Research Institute(HEPRI), Korea University,e-mail: jejon@korea.ac.kr***
Associate Professor, The Graduate School of Education, Kyung Hee University,e-mail: youcho@khu.ac.kr
1This manuscript is based on Byun, Jon, & Cho (2012), a Report published by Higher
Education Policy Research Institute (HEPRI), Korea University. [Original in Korean]

46

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

have been resounding voices of criticism and self-reflected concerns about EMI
within the Korean higher education community. The most critical concerns
have, so far, centered around a fundamental issue of the efficacy of EMI, which
has a far-reaching implication on students’ learning outcome. Recently, many
people, both inside and outside the higher education community, frequently
argue that EMI, as a new pedagogical method, would really contribute to thebetterment of student education (e.g., Airey, 2003; Kang & Park, 2004). In linewith these concerns, indeed, previous research (e.g., Beckett & Li, 2012; Tong &Shi, 2012; Webb, 2002; Kang et al., 2007; Kim, 2007; Kim, 2011) also presented
an array of problems, primarily arguing that the linguistic and pedagogicalbenefits of EMI courses come at the expense of students’ academic achievement.
These studies mainly focus on ways to make EMI courses more effective in aclass room setting. However, as Byun et al. (2011) pointed out, many problems
and issues associated with EMI in Korean higher education primarily originate
from the implementation method of EMI (e.g., mandatory and unilateral natureof EMI implementation at most Korean universities) rather than the efficacy of
EMI itself.
Except for a few studies (e.g., Byun et al., 2011), theimplementation problems of EMI policy at individual universities have been
largely overlooked by previous studies, which is an important limitation in andof itself.
The purpose of this study is to closely examine the issues surrounding EMI
within the Korean higher education context, particularly with a special emphasis
upon the effectiveness of its implementation method. Based on the results of
the analysis, the study aims to draw policy recommendations for thegovernment; higher education institutions; and other important stakeholders
associated with EMI.

Methodology
This study utilized in-depth interviews in order to collect data. Theinterviewees consisted of forty-one domestic and foreign professors who hadtaught EMI courses and domestic and foreign students at Korea University andKyunghee University, both located in Seoul.
EMI has been made compulsory at these two universities and has also been
actively implemented. The interview questions, which were developed throughan extensive literature review, include the purpose of the EMI policy; level ofachievement; advantages and difficulty of EMI; and problems of and suggestions
for EMI courses. The interview data were analyzed in terms of several topicalKiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
47
categories which surfaced while coding the interview data of each university.
These categories include the EMI policy and its institutional aspect; efficacy andequity of EMI courses; and aspects of EMI classes which need improvement
along with the interviewees’ experience of EMI courses according to theirmajors and English proficiency. The implications were drawn after compilingand comparing the findings of the two universities. They were also based on
the topics discussed: change of perception; purpose of the EMI policy; negative
views on policy formation and implementation; motive behind participating in
EMI, and equity and efficacy of EMI.

Findings
Paradigm shift in the perception toward EMI
This study focused on the changes in the attitude of university constituents(e.g., professors, students) toward EMI classes. When EMI classes were first
implemented in domestic universities in the beginning and mid-2000s, it was notushered in with fanfare and confetti, thereby not being welcomed into the
Korean higher education. Rather, it was often faced with cynicism, casting
doubts on its necessity. The change in the perception toward EMI classes,
which rose out of the general recognition of the economic and societal needs
requiring English proficiency for students and professors, resulted in turning thedebate over to the necessity of it, forming a discussion on ways to improve EMI.
This paradigm shift is now punctuated with the university constituents, delving
into what they could do to better implement EMI policy. From the point of the
new paradigm, the legitimacy of EMI classes and the need for the EMI policy
are recognized. Further, directions for developing EMI policies along withmore specific strategies to implement them can be extrapolated.
Purpose and impact of the EMI policy
When asked, “What would be the purpose of the EMI policy?”, mostinterviewees from Kyunghee and Korea Universities gave answers somewhere
along the lines of the internationalization of universities; improvement of
university status in evaluation and ranking; and increase of students’ English
proficiency.
First, the participants at both universities answered that theinternationalization of universities was the main purpose of the EMI policy, but

48

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

with a focus on different aspects motivated by the cultural differences ofindividual institutions. For instance, the professors and students of Korea
University assessed EMI classes as part of the university’s effort to revamp theirimage at the global stage through globalization. They also pointed out thatrather than increasing the number of EMI classes, the emphasis should be placedon increasing the quality of them. Second, the interviewees regarded the
purpose of EMI policy as a tool to enhance university evaluation and increase its
ranking, both domestically and internationally. It was a reflection of theuniversities’ intention to boost their ranking by increasing the number of EMI
classes. Third, the view which observes the purpose of the EMI policy vis-a-vis
increasing students’ English proficiency was expressed with a great deal of
criticism. In the case of Kyunghee University, a fixed number of EMI classes isallotted to each major; the interviewees asserted that this was an example of the
problem rooted in the absence of an education philosophy in the university.
They feel that universities are leaning toward producing graduates with highEnglish proficiency rather than developing high caliber graduates with expertisein their majors.
Aside from the three aforementioned answers, in the case of Korea
University, some voiced that EMI classes were necessary in order to attract
foreign students; using EMI classes to attract foreign students resonated in theanswers of foreign students. However, there were a number of opinions against
attracting foreign students through offering EMI classes. One of the reasons forsuch negative opinions was based on the fact that the absolute majority offoreign students in Korean universities come from China who cannot speak
English well.
Lastly, Korea University interviewees stated that the purpose of the EMI
policy is both unrealistic and ambiguous. In particular, student participants are
pessimistic about EMI classes and therefore questioned if they should havepriority over students’ overall learning in a university under the current practiceof EMI classes. The findings suggest that universities need to clearly present
the purpose of offering EMI classes and open a dialogue with different university
constituents in order to find ways to provide high quality EMI classes that meetthe needs of the students.
Process of EMI policy formation and implementation
Many professors and students who participated in the interview tend tocriticize the current EMI policy at Korean universities. First, they referred to itKiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page49
as a cookie cutter policy without taking into account a specific situation indifferent academic disciplines and/or institutions.
It might have been
unavoidable to have a cookie cutter policy at the onset of implementing EMI
classes as most faculty members and students did not want to introduce EMI totheir own universities. To teach and to take EMI courses are after all very
burdensome, which require additional time and effort for both professors andstudents alike. Nevertheless, Korean universities have operated EMI for over
10 years now. With this situation in mind, the study participants argue that thisis a right time for policy makers to seriously consider if they should pursue a
new direction to substantiate EMI classes. The lack of a systematic evaluation
mechanism for EMI policy as well as efforts to improve it engenders the policy
makers to overlook the crucial elements, such as the purpose of education inhigher education. Finally, in the case of Kyunghee University, the inconsistent
EMI policy caused a great deal of confusion to its students, resulting in failing toform positive attitudes toward EMI classes. This observation is particularly
relevant to Kyunghee University’s partial policy, which will be discussed further
in the subsequent section.
Motives for participating in EMI classes
The motive for participating in EMI classes clearly demonstrates thecoercive nature of the policy. For professors, teaching EMI classes is aboutcarrying out either their contractual requirement or obligatory tasks thrust uponthem by the university. In the same vein, for students, their motive for taking
them was to fulfill one of the graduation requirements. This coercive nature of
EMI classes could account for reducing student interests in taking EMI classes.
Other than for the fulfillment of graduation requirement, some students took
EMI classes in order to increase the level of their interest and proficiency inEnglish. Some took them for student-centered class management or for a lessconstrained class atmosphere, which is often the case in classes taught in Korean,
and others who are more comfortable using English than Korean took EMI
classes.
Efficacy of EMI classes
Regarding the efficacy of EMI classes, there were both positive andnegative opinions; yet, the negative opinions were dominant with a cluster ofnegative opinions presented. From the professors’ perspective, the positive

50

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

effects of EMI classes are primarily the improvement of students’communication and learning ability in English, obtaining knowledge relevant totheir major, increasing test scores on English tests, and boosting one’s
confidence in using English. These opinions were attested in the students’opinions.
Particularly in social sciences, such as psychology, which
traditionally follow the footsteps of Western academia, taking EMI classes canhelp students learn the terminology much more easily as well as enhance theirreading skills. Additionally, the students mentioned that they felt moreencouraged and motivated to learn English after taking EMI classes, where they
were exposed to an English-speaking environment. Another positive aspect ofEMI classes is the fact that while many non-EMI classes are held in a
lecture-centered environment, in EMI classes, discussions and participation of
students are promoted.
These positive effects of EMI classes were, however, accompanied by aquite lot of negative opinions. First, as Kyunghee University students pointed
out in the tone of self-deprecation, the ability to memorize English vocabulary
by rote or reading comprehension might have been enhanced, but the knowledge
relevant to the studies of their major did not increase. Second, English ismerely a tool to learn; thus, one can improve English skills only so far by taking
EMI classes. It is more so when either a professor or students or both have alimited English proficiency.
The students, therefore, admitted that
communicative English classes taught by native speakers of English are useful.
Third, taking EMI classes hardly leads to improving one’s English skills but
rather, it puts more stress on the students. The last factor to note is that students,
who benefit from taking EMI classes, are the ones who are already proficient inEnglish. Interestingly, professors mentioned that teaching EMI classes helped
them retain their English skills from being rusty. One professor gave a scathingcriticism to those professors who were using EMI classes as a personal gain.
As expounded, there were positive opinions regarding EMI classes as usefulfor improving both professors and students’ English skills; yet, an overwhelming
number of negative aspects of EMI classes were also presented. The limitationin the delivery of the course content due to professors’ insufficient English
proficiency was pointed out as one of the most negative aspects of EMI classes.
On a more serious note, it was pointed out that some professors intentionallyreduced the amount of lecture and filled most of the class time with student
presentations and course projects. One student’s trenchant criticism wasreserved for the fact that students did not end up receiving the quality educationthat they deserve, and that it is unreasonable to force professors into teachingKiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
51
EMI classes. Along the same line, few of the professors concurred that evenwhen a professor is equipped with sufficient English proficiency to deliver thecourse content effectively, if students’ English proficiency is not up to par, it
restricts students’ comprehension of the lecture. Further, the professors pointed
out that there was insufficient time for students to develop their ability to takeEMI courses along with adapting to the environment that the EMI courses
require. Putting these reasons together, EMI breaks down the two-way
communication that is essential for an effective learning process.
The students interviewees expressed their deep concerns over the
aforementioned situations, which could “infringe on students’ right to learn” andeventually lead to “the collapse of education”. In a similar vein, to theprofessors, it could be considered “a neglect of duty”, and for some, it could turnto something more serious, such as negligence of duty caused by moral
relaxation; a feeling of helplessness and a pang of conscience. Worse yet, inEMI courses, what professors could communicate to their students is nothing
more than what they prepared for the lecture. The essential elements of goodteaching, such as introducing social issues, sharing personal experiences, ormaking spontaneous jokes, are out of the question. The professors confessedthat “under these circumstances, the quality and level of lectures of EMI courses
often turn out to be of a junior high-school level”.
The second problem raised was that EMI courses require more time andeffort from both professors and students, and in turn, this takes away the timereserved for student advising and research from professors. Students utilize allsorts of ways available to catch up with what has been taught in EMI courses.
For instance, one of the problems caused by having to take EMI courses was thatstudents have to retake the same course in Korean. In some classes, theprofessors had to explain in Korean what he had already explained because
many students could not understand much of what the professor said in English;
this exemplified an ineffective class management. On the students’ side,students from Kyunghee University stated that in class, they were under the
impression that most students saw no meaning in taking an EMI course, and theprofessors seemed to have given up on trying to get the students' interest in class.
The third problem that surfaced was the lack of interaction between theprofessor and the students during class time. It is difficult to share impromptu
information in order to elaborate what was explained in class or to tell jokes tobuild rapport that could be formed between the professor and the students during
the course of the semester. The similar difficulty lies with the students as wellin that students feel awkward to interact with the professor in an environment

52

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

where all communication is conducted in English. In relation to this, students’sense of isolation and self-withdrawal in EMI classes were also considered as aserious issue, where most of the students generally tend to be passive
participants. Students’ sense of isolation quickly turns into low-self confidence,and low-self confidence often leads to the feeling that they have been deprivedof what they rightfully deserve. However, when the feeling of being deprived
is accompanied by self-guilt and helpless compliance to the reality that theschool could only help so much, they came to understand that there is nothing
more to be done except for studying as hard as they could. A situation as suchprovides students with a reason to avoid EMI courses, which can be interpreted
as the so-called in-college stratification (Jon & Kim, 2011) or stratification of
EMI courses (Park, 2008).
Finally, the efficacy of EMI courses varies depending upon an academic
discipline. In general, majors such as business or psychology are ideal
candidates for EMI courses; however, even in such majors, certain elements likecase studies and counseling sites are not necessarily a good fit for EMI.
Equity problems in EMI courses
All interview participants unanimously agreed that EMI classes go against
the principle of equity in education. First, EMI classes do not produce the same
effects all across the board, but according to the individuals’ English proficiency.
For both professors and students who have higher English proficiency, EMI
courses can be used to their benefit; professors do not have to put much effort inpreparing for lectures to challenge students, and students can obtain good grades
without working hard. In accordance, some saw it unfair that students’ English
proficiency determined their final grades, although not all professors concurredwith that view.
Similarly, the educational privilege that some students had prior to coming
to college exacerbated inequality problem in EMI courses. Professors
expressed their concerns that EMI could perpetrate and accentuate inequalities
among students. Students, who graduated from a foreign language high schoolor studied abroad, have an inherent advantage in the game of EMI courses,
compared to students without such privilege. Regarding this, one professor
made an interesting comment, that EMI classes were initiated against the
backdrop of elitists’ unbridled desire to maintain their world of privilege.
The last problem that was brought to attention was students’ equal right tolearn. When a course is offered only as an EMI course exclusively, it can

Kiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
53
deprive some students who are not proficient in English with the equal
opportunity to learn. The interviewees were critical in that and this invades
students’ right to choose classes of their choice.
Partial EMI policy
The most noticeable trait of EMI classes at Kyunghee University is that
there are two formats of EMI courses: full-pledged EMI classes vs. partial EMI
classes. Unlike the full-pledged or regular EMI classes, in partial EMI classes,
both English and Korean are used. However, with the absence of systematic
guidelines to implement partial EMI classes in place, it begs the question of how
much each language could be used. The under defined set of guidelines
generated a variety of intentional misinterpretations of what constitutes a partial
EMI class. For instance, some professors would use an English text and calltheir class an EMI class.
Surrounding the partial EMI policy, the agreement is scant. While
conceding to the notion that using Korean in part would help students obtainknowledge required for their majors, opponents of the partial EMI policy argue
that some of the practices engendered the vague nature of the partial EMI policy
would detract from the intended purpose of EMI classes. In such anenvironment, in an extreme case, some professors and students “compromise”
not to use English as a medium of instruction in the classes which are supposed
to be taught in English by an official curriculum.

Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusion
The findings of this study reveal that in Korean universities, EMI classes
have made headway to some degree while at the same time, there are a numberof limitations which need to be addressed. The study confirmed that most of
the limitations were primarily rooted in the forced and inflexible nature of
implementing the EMI policy at individual universities. What should behighlighted is that the EMI policy needs to be applied flexibly and selectively
according to the preparedness of individual universities, characteristics ofacademic disciplines, professors and students’ English proficiency and needs.
It is of vital importance that the EMI policy needs to be implemented in stages
rather than across the board of all disciplines and universities. Thus, for the

54

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

successful implementation of the EMI policy, (1) the individual gap amongst
EMI participants and their requests need to be further taken into consideration;and (2) the focus of the EMI policy needs to shift from quantitative expansion toquality assurance. Ultimately, the core of the policy shift should focus on
students’ academic achievement or learning outcome. More specifically, what
students need to acquire from EMI classes must be the main premise of the EMI
policy. In this sense, current EMI policies at Korean institutions should beplaced under close scrutiny in order to ensure that the main premise is being
upheld. Based on what the scrutiny reveals, a future EMI policy needs to focus
on what more should be done to assure the main premise. Such effort must be
accompanied by a mechanism that can protect students (or professors, for thatmatter), whose right to learn (or teach) have been systemically ignored in the
midst of the uniform application of EMI. More substantiated recommendations
will be discussed subsequently.
Recommendations for universities
First, universities that offer EMI classes need to bring different university
parties (e.g., administrators, professors, students) to an agreement after making
the purpose of EMI clear to them. The interviews brought to light that the
purpose of EMI begs a variety of definitions, such as internationalization of HE
institutions, university rankings, improving students’ English skills, anddeveloping global human resources. However, as a result of the policy thatchased after a quantitative expansion of EMI classes, many criticized that theeducation for students could demand little attention. Thus, it is necessary that
universities carrying out the EMI policy should include a process of establishinga consensus on the purpose as well as a need behind the implementation of the
EMI policy by discussing them openly and assisting the university constituentsin understanding them.
Second, to encourage participants’ active involvement in EMI, the principle
decision-making process of the EMI policy needs to be re-formulated using thebottom-up approach, which by definition is to listen to professors’ and students’voices. To operate EMI classes that recognize the characteristics of eachdiscipline, the authority to diagnose the need of EMI and to what extent EMI isneeded should be delegated to each department or college. For instance, it isnecessary to delegate the authority to decide the number of compulsory EMI
classes to individual departments or colleges, so that professors can consider thecharacteristics of different academic disciplines.
Following theseKiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
55
recommendations could better serve students’ needs as well as enhance thequality of EMI classes.
Third, conferring a right to choose EMI classes on both students andprofessors deserves consideration. Both professors and students have been
vocal about criticizing the forced nature of the EMI policy. Students’ right tochoose classes that they want to take should be guaranteed by making courses
available in both languages, Korean and English. Moreover, it is much more
beneficial for universities to allow professors to choose a medium of instructionin which they feel adequate in giving lectures. This will assure them to teach intheir best way. In addition, it is advised to employ professors or lecturers
whose first language is English when there is need for EMI in certain areas thatdemand EMI. A shift from the EMI policy that applies to the general
population of professors indiscriminately to the one that calls for having a groupof professors specialized in EMI should be put in place. Coupled with this, toencourage professors’ participation, offering them an incentive for teaching EMI
courses and providing them with proper support and assistance in the form of
reducing the number of classes to teach should be seriously considered.
Fourth, some aspects need to be considered with regard to the opening ofEMI courses and how to operate them. Some interview participants suggested
dividing EMI classes according to students’ English proficiency. In otherwords, unlike the current EMI policy that does not acknowledge an individual
gap, offering EMI classes in different levels and stages will provide students
with more options to choose from as well as assist them in learning more
effectively. The student participants in the study also suggested a variety ofopinions with regard to opening EMI courses and how to operate them. For
example, the interviewees expressed their wish of having more classes that could
help students improve their English skills, such as communicative English
courses. Additionally, Pass/Fail classes (1or 2 credit unit courses) weresuggested, which students could take without having advanced English skills,
instead of offering classes that only allow students with high English proficiency.
Some wished that the use of Korean were allowed in EMI classes, and professors
should be more understanding and considerate toward students in EMI classes.
Upon recognizing the lack of communication between professors and students in
English, it is imperative to provide support in various aspects in order to create
an environment where the interactions between professors and students can befacilitated without much difficulty caused by the language. Another important
point for making EMI courses more effective is that individual universities needto provide a set of guidelines for individual professors on how to run EMI

56

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Pageclasses. For example, as was seen in the partial EMI policy of Kyunghee
University, if the use of Korean was to be officially allowed in EMI classes by an
institutional policy, it should concurrently need to be defined by what principle
and manner Korean should be used with English with its educational purpose inmind. Aside from these, there was an opinion that more courses should beoffered in different languages along with EMI courses.
Lastly, it has been pointed out a couple of times that the EMI policy is blindto the characteristics of each academic discipline. Therefore, it is applied to all
across the board indiscriminately. Implementing the EMI policy differently
between the college of science and engineering and the college of liberal arts
could be one way to fix the problem. For instance, in science and engineering,building a strong academic foundation in the first couple of years of college isimportant, which would require EMI courses to be designed for students indifferent collage years. For freshmen and sophomores, there should be
Korean-Medium Instruction courses (KMI) for the core courses of their majors
rather than EMI ones. The core courses should include the required general
education courses which are important in studying the core courses within theirdiscipline. In addition, to help students of science and engineering understandthe course content, not only a general English vocabulary list for any EMI
courses, but also a basic English terminology of science and math can be listed
and distributed to students. For instance, course resources of science and mathclasses written in American junior/high school level English could be helpful forstudents taking EMI classes dealing with more advanced knowledge of theirdiscipline. In liberal arts, it seems necessary to focus on improving English
skills starting in the freshmen and sophomore years. As communicative
English classes at Korea University (e.g., English for academic purpose,practical English, English for discussion) have gained popularity, opening more
English classes to serve the purpose of helping students improve their English
ability calls for immediate attention.
Recommendations for government and media outlets
As the study indicated, the extant problems which transpired in
implementing EMI in the two universities are linked indirectly and directly to
the government policy and evaluation methods of media outlets. This implies
that improving EMI and the implementation of the EMI policy involve changes
in the environment outside the university as well. As an in-depth discussion on
this issue will be out of the scope of this study, we offer some general guidanceKiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
57
for further consideration.
First of all, as previously examined, the number of EMI classes has grown
rapidly over the past few years. This could be explained by the fact that the
number of EMI classes offered became an important evaluation indicator for theinternationalization of universities in the evaluations conducted by Joongang
Daily Newspaper and other media outlets. In tandem with this, the government
still regards EMI classes as a significant element to measure theinternationalization of a university, as manifested by the recently launchedgovernment funding projects, such as the BK 21 Plus project, which began in
2013. In the midst of this, with no mechanism to assure the quality of EMI
classes in place, it was much easier for universities to exhibit the level ofinternationalization by increasing the number of EMI classes.
In order to reduce the harmful consequences generated in the policy, which
promotes near-blinded quantitative expansion of EMI, it is essential to have
either an internal or external monitoring mechanism that can help ensure at least
the minimum quality of EMI courses offered at universities. As emerged in thepresent study, it is not uncommon that some EMI classes did not fulfill the initial
purpose of EMI courses in terms of either academic achievement or improving
English competence. Presently, the Korean Council for University Education(KCUE) and a few government approved accreditation agencies (e.g.,
Accreditation Board for Engineering Education for Korea: ABEEK) run
accreditation programs in two tracks: one on an institutional level and the otheron individual academic discipline level, such as business management,architecture and medicine. Through such accreditation mechanism, it isimperative to disclose the quality of EMI and how fulfilling the bona fidepurpose of EMI is.
The second aspect worth noting is the efficacy of the implementation
method of EMI at Korean universities compared to that of other countries. In
the process of conducting this study, with experts from neighboring countries(China, Japan, and Taiwan), we discussed the effectiveness of EMI policies inthese countries and how they were implemented. The results of these
discussions revealed that in those countries, the target group that the EMI aims at
includes primarily foreign students. As opposed to the Korean situation, where
newly-hired professors in every academic department are forced to teach classes
in English regardless of students’ needs, universities in these countries often set
up a separate program offering new curriculum taught entirely in English forforeign students, but not exclusive to domestic students who wish to take EMI
courses. As Byun et al. (2011) points out, it is ironic that EMI classes are made

58

Exploring Effective Strategies to Implement EMI

Page

available not to meet the demands of students or fulfill the academic purpose,but because there are professors who can teach in English or because they are
new hires.
It has already been 10 years since EMI was first introduced in Korea.
However, as this study reveals, we cannot help but to wonder if a matter of greatsignificance, such as implementing EMI, has been put to practice with nooverarching rationale behind it. It is time that the government and academia
together take the responsibility to come up with answers by launching acomprehensive study that examines the validity of the EMI practice stemmingfrom a different locus of understanding. It calls for a more thoroughinvestigation to find the most adequate way to implement EMI within the
Korean context, where English is not its first language.

References
Airey, J. (2003). Can you teach it in English? The language choice debate in Swedish higher
education. Conference paper at integrating Content and Language: Meeting thechallenge of a multilingual higher education at Maastricht University, Netherland,
October 23-25, 2003.
Beckett, G.H., & Li, F. (2012). Content-based English education in China: Students’experiences and perspectives. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 7, 47-63.
Byun, K., Jon, J.-E., & Cho, Y. (2012). Exploring effective strategies to implement EMI: Casestudies of two Korean universities. Report published by Higher Education Policy
Research Institute (HEPRI), Korea University. [Korean]
Byun, K., et al. (2011). English medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates
and reality, Higher Education, 62(4), 431-449.
Jon, J.-E., & Kim, E.Y. (2011). What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea andJapan: English-mediated courses and international students. In J. D. Palmer, A. C.
Roberts, Y. H. Cho, & G. Ching (Eds.), Globalization’s influence upon theinternationalization of East Asian higher institute. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kang, S.-Y., & Park, H.-S. (2004). Student beliefs and attitudes about English medium
instruction: Report of questionnaire study. Yonsei Review of Educational Research, 17(1),33-53.
Kang, S.-H., Suh, H., Shin, S.-K., Lee, J., Lee, H.-J., & Choi, J. (2007). Pre-service teachers’
evaluation on English-medium lectures. Journal of curriculum in Instruction, 11(2),637-656. [Korean].
Kim, K.R. (2011). Korean Professor and Students perceptions of the efficacy of English

Kiyong Byun, Jae-Eun Jon and Young Ha Cho Page
59
Medium Instruction. Linguistic Research, 28(3), 711-741.
Kim, M.-J. (2007). Employing the HPT process model to solve some problems of an English
medium instruction. Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 31-57. [Korean].
Park, S.-Y. (2008). Exploring on the experience of learners in English MediatedInstruction(EMI). Journal of Higher Education Policy, 1(2), 21-38. [Korean].
Tong, F., & Shi, Q. (2012). Chinese-English bilingual education in China: A case study ofcollege science majors. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
15(2), 165-182.
Webb, V. (2002). English as a second language in South Africa’s tertiary institutions: A casestudy at the University of Pretoria. World Englishes, 21(1), 49-61.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.21, 2014 Page
61

Japanese Universities and their Internationalization:
Is paradigm shift feasible?

Yuichi Kondo

Introduction
As part of his trip to Kyushu to highlight his administration’s key policies
on the economy and education for the revitalization of Japan, Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe on May 13, 2013 visited Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU)
and stated that “We (Japanese government) are moving ahead with university
globalization and aim to make Japan an easier place to live and study for foreign
students. By providing an environment where students from all around theglobe can interact and learn more about the world, I believe that APU is a
successful example of global human resource development.” (Translation by
APU). Even though APU was established only in 2000, it has come to receive
national attention as a new model of higher education. Mr. Abe again
specifically mentioned APU’s name in his 2014 Policy Speech at the Diet andsaid the programs APU offers can prepare Japanese youths for the global age.
By utilizing APU as a benchmark for the discussion of the internationalization
process provide some critical insights into the future course of Japanese
universities.
The purpose of this paper is to review and assess the progress of Japanese
universities in terms of internationalization at the time of this writing. It willconsider the depth and width of fundamental changes required for thisinternationalization process. In short, previous effort of internationalization at
Japanese universities were analogous to “cosmetic surgery”. Now it is quite
apparent that they will have to undergo a rather radical “artificial organ


Dean (Admissions) & Professor, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japane-mail: yuichi58@apu.ac.jp

62Japanese Universities and their InternationalizationPage

transplant operation” much more fundamental and serious surgery that changes
the basic structure of university education and management.
This paper’s scope is limited mostly to undergraduate program. There has
been much confusion in the categorization of universities in Japan since there isno common categorization such as the Carnegie Classifications. Only recently,
the Japanese Central Education Council1 (2008) has proposed the differentiationof universities by their functions. Moreover, most of the previous discussions
on the internationalization of Japanese universities have been mainly centeredaround, consciously or unconsciously, graduate program or large research
universities. This paper re-focuses on the undergraduate program because it
has the absolute mass of students enrolled and it has the critical impact on the
future of Japanese society. Re-examination of undergraduate programs is the
key for change.

I. Mirage of internationalization
In order to examine the internationalization of Japanese universities, it isnecessary to briefly review its history with a few significant milestones. The
first of them is the 100,000 International Student Initiative. Some scholarly
works (e.g. Horie, 2003) have reviewed and evaluated its impact on the Japanese
universities. Prime Minister Nakasone proposed the scheme in 1983 toincrease the number of international students tenfold. It was the first schemewith the specific goal of recruiting 100,000 students from developing countries
to study in Japan so that they would eventually return to their home countries toimprove regional development. The paradigm of this scheme resembled that of
the United States Government’s initiatives after the World War II such as
Government Appropriation for Relief in Occupied Area (GARIOA) andFulbright scholarships.
The 100,000 scheme indeed impacted many universities. For example,
some universities had to support it by increasing the number of international
students. If a university wished to increase a student quota when opening a
new faculty or department, the MEXT (then Monbusho2) required the university
to set the target number of international students and the quota was given forinternational students when seeking an approval from the Monbusho. In some1

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)’s consultativebody.
2
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, merged and reorganized into MEXT in 2001.

Yuichi Kondo Page
63
national universities, new teaching positions, Foreign Student Advisor, werecreated. Moreover, some grants were given to national universities to create a“Foreign Student Center” with Japanese language programs. Monbusho also
encouraged the establishment of undergraduate and graduate programs to train
students to become Japanese as a Second Language teachers. This is the time
when an infrastructure to receive international students was gradually formed.
Monbusho’s international education arm, the Association of International
Education, Japan (AIEJ), slowly expanded its operation within Japan andoverseas. Also, this is the time when a professional organization forinternational educators, Japan Association for Foreign Student Affairs (JAFSA)
added a number of individual members.
In 2006, the number of international students in Japan reached the target of
100,000. MEXT with the leadership of Prime Minister Fukuda then announced
the 300,000 International Student Scheme. In part, it was an extension of the
100,000 scheme but with a few critical and fundamental differences. The
former scheme was based on the development aid paradigm; where as the latter
was to retain as a valuable workforce the highly trained talents in Japan. The
population of Japan is predicted to decrease considerably in a few decades, andthe debates on the possibility of receiving foreign workers or immigrants weretaking place. A controversial 10 million immigration plan proposed by
Sakanaka (2009) was published, and it coincided with the 300 thousand plan.
Sakanaka’s argument was to make up the population loss by the highly talented
foreign workers, meaning those who are receiving a university degree in Japan.
To further reinforce the university infrastructure to receive moreinternational students, MEXT announced the Global 30 initiative (G30) in 2008.
It was to designate 30 universities to increase the number of international
students by establishing overseas offices to recruit students, to offer courses ordegree programs in English, and other measures. For the first round, thirteen
universities were selected. The schools are all comprehensive and large
universities that seem to be able to increase the number of international students
from 16,000 to 50,000 by year 2020. The year 2015 is the last year of thisgrant initiative, and the result of this initiative with its huge budget will then be
seen. The number of international students at those 13 universities as of 2013
was only 22,883. The question is whether those 13 universities can continue
the current scholarship or recruitment without the grant. It was expected thatthe second group of universities will be added to make the total 30; however,64

Japanese Universities and their InternationalizationPage

because of the change in the ruling party, the G30 had never reached to full 30
universities.3
Comparison of the 100,000 and 300,000 schemes reveals a few basic
commonalities. Use of the word internationalization is deliberately avoided in
describing the schemes described above because the “internationalization of
campus” was equal to the increase of international students on campus up to thistime. Furthermore, design of the policy and implementation were to create an“island” on campus that segregates international students or international
education related operations from the rest of campus activities and management.
Because the number of international students, even with the G30 universities,
was still small and those international students were mostly postgraduate
students living in an enclosure of their laboratories or classrooms. It seems thatmost of the G30 programs were carefully crafted not to disturb the regularacademic and business operation. The choice of large institutions was good asthey have more room to grow in number; however, the large and traditional
universities have more operational complexities and are resistant to change.
MEXT and G30 universities seem unaware that real challenge ofinternationalization lies in a completely different area.

II. Hard reality of internationalization
While many Japanese universities focused on the intake of international
students as an internationalization initiative, outside of the ivory tower, Japanesebusiness sector was finding it difficult to find a young Japanese workforce for
their global business activities. Many Japanese companies had accelerated theiroff shore business expansion; however, the lack of Japanese university graduateswith command of a foreign language who could work in an intercultural setting
was significantly limiting their business. The number of Japanese students whochoose to go overseas to study was declining and also the increase of“inward-looking” youngsters had become a social concern. The project for
Promotion of Global Human Resource Development announced andimplemented in 2013 is another cornerstone for the international education in
Japan. For this new initiative, the target is not the international students but theJapanese ones. MEXT now wishes to send a large number of Japanese students
overseas for short- or long-term programs. Another change in focus is a shift
from postgraduate to undergraduate programs because the main new recruits for3

Content of the current programs are found in http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp

Yuichi Kondo Page
65
Japanese companies are undergraduate students. There is a direct link between
study abroad and job placement. This strong demand from the business sector,
and consequently from the government, was indeed a wake-up call for Japanese
universities. The question was whether Japanese universities had awakened
and responded immediately and appropriately to the call.
During the last half of the 2000s and the early 2010s, the government
agencies, think-tanks and universities proposed various ideas.
Akita
International University and Waseda University created English only degree
programs. The University of Tokyo suggested that they would discuss
beginning their academic calendar in September in line with other countries, notmentioning when their academic calendar ends. The chief reason was tointernationalize the academic and research programs. They also suggested agap-term program prior to enrollment so that students will not have any gap or
wasted time between high school graduation and university matriculation times.
Waseda University had proposed to implement a “Quarter System”, where they
split one regular semester into two “quarters” and they start the new system fromtheir language program. APU’s fifteen-year experience now clearly suggeststhat those system changes are not the key to internationalization; they are rather
superficial and peripheral changes which will not change a university forinternationalization. APU has two language track system where students cancomplete their B.A. program only in English or a combination of English andJapanese. APU had also introduced the Quarter System as early by the early
2000s. Fall intake has been introduced by APU, but other international
universities such as International Christian University have had the system since
1950s. It seems to be a mistaken belief that cosmetic surgery of the system will
help university to internationalize. On the contrary, Japanese universities will
have to go through a substantial paradigm shift if they wish to truly
internationalize their system.

III. Contexts of internationalization
Prior to discussing the new paradigm, this paper outlines some of thecontextual changes that require Japanese universities to introduce fundamental
changes. First, but rather a minor issue, is the increasing competition among
Japanese universities. Although the number of high school students isconstantly declining, the number of universities or enrollment quota approved by
the MEXT has not changed or is even increasing. This incompatible situation
will soon lead to the closure of a few if not two to three dozen universities.

66

Japanese Universities and their Internationalization

Page

Japanese universities compete for the right number of fee-paying students tomake their financial balance.
The second change is created partly from the shortage of high school
students but it is a quality issue. After 1945 with the introduction of theAmerican idea of higher education, Japanese higher education shifted fromeducation for the elites to for the masses. With the condition where the qualityof general high school students’ academic achievement held constant,universities had little choice but had to recruit less qualified students. Yet, theblame should not be only on the student side because the universities hadchanged little and did not depart from the elite education model. Changes inJapan for the last 50 years alone show that the country’s industrial structure haddrastically transformed from manufacturing to service/knowledge industry.
The locus and focus of business operations had shifted from primarily domestic
to international. Nevertheless, knowledge and skill training provided by theuniversities seem to have stayed the same while the external factors, both
domestic and international, had changed significantly. Japanese students may
have been ill-equipped with the “old style” of university education and have notbeen ready to function in an ever-changing society.
Dominance of English in the world is the third change. A good example isthe use of English as a medium of instruction. Japanese companies now haveno choice but expand their business activities overseas. This modification
requires them to hire a large number of employees who can handle business inlanguages other than Japanese. Command of English should be a higher
priority than the level of daily conversation. Many business corporations set a
TOEIC score 750 for the standard when they dispatch their staff to overseas.
Students are required to have a good score in TOEIC or any English test.
Universities are primarily responsible for language education; and traditional
English language program are no longer sufficient, and they may have to train
students outside of the language program. One of the alternative or additional
training component is the regular class in English to train students in a morecognitively-complex mode.
Dominance of English does not end only in business. Even within theacademia, specially after the introduction of Erasmus in Europe, English became
the main language of instruction and research. Japanese universities that could
enjoy the relative solitude in terms of language will no longer to do so or they
will be left behind in the global competition, e.g. raking system. It is a logicalconsequence that MEXT and Japanese universities wish to increase the number
of English base program or the number of courses offered in English. The

Yuichi Kondo Page
67
point is that it is not the English that matters most, but the design of the course
and the delivery of education.
Japanese universities are in crisis. No critics will disagree with thisstatement. The question here is why then Japanese universities are notchanging sufficiently rapidly. There are three main reasons why Japanese are
not making sufficient amount of changes with appropriate speed.
First is the lack of vision. Most Japanese universities have vague mottos
or slogans to illustrate their education and research goals. However, those
ambiguous visions are not able to differentiate one university from others.
Without a clear vision that can identify an institution, it will not be able to create
mission statement and strategy. This particular combination of vision, mission,and strategy has not been widely shared by university executives even at the timeof this writing. For Japanese universities, this line of thinking was notnecessary for a long time. They were only categorized as national or private,
old or new, or by competitiveness with the high school students’ test scores
called “Hensachi”. Universities had become cookie-cutter universities in one
large group, called “university”. Lack of vision will obscure the future courseof university administration and education. Additionally, many universities
critically lack leaders who can articulate vision, mission and strategy. The
absence of good leadership could be attributed to little professional training foruniversity executives. In most Japanese universities executives, both faculties
and administrators, are amateurs in running the university in the time of global
competition.
An insufficient sense of crisis among university personnel is the second
factor. Japan now has a little over one hundred million population with over
700 universities. Until now, although the discussion of the appropriate numberof universities in Japan against the declining population has been on the news,
not many university officials paid serious attention. Unlike Korea, Japanese
MEXT may not directly intervene and control the student quota given to each
university. The number of student quotas given to universities is more than thenumber of high school students who wish to study in higher education already.
Some drastic measures must be taken by the MEXT or by universities to avoid
landslide closure of universities and to avoid deteriorating education quality.
Creation of simple international programs will not able to reverse the situation.
Rather, the uncontrolled expansion will further worsen the financial basis of auniversity. In the past the number, quantity, was the key for success.
Streamline the university by closing colleges or department has been taboo; yet
it is time to reorganize the system to provide quality education. Furthermore,68Japanese Universities and their Internationalization

Page

the copycat approach used by many universities will only diminish their
university identity; it consequently minimizes their educational value to highschool students.
Lastly, the majority of Japanese universities have been shielded frominternational competition. Currently, some research oriented institutions areunder great pressure to be listed in the world ranking of universities; however,they are quickly losing ground to other universities in the world. Competitionin terms of research quality is not only the competitive arena for a university.
Competition to recruit the best quality students, faculty members, staff members
is on another layer of university operation; moreover, competition for the qualityof education is another layer. International recruitment is a good example. If
the number of Japanese students is not sufficient to fulfill the student quota,
natural direction of a university is to recruit non-Japanese students from overseas
to make up the number. The fact is that few Japanese universities seriously
have recruited students from overseas while major English speaking countries
are pouring resources into recruitment of foreign students to maintain the qualityof their education and to keep the finances of university sound. Unfortunately,
the brand name of “Japan” will not go beyond anime cosplay and Japan being
the industrial giant in the world is not sufficient to attract international students
as many Japanese university officials wish to believe. As explained in theprevious section, the Japanese government has implemented numerous projects,
yet the money seemed to have been spent ineffectively.
In Japan, we often use the term, “Galapagos-ation”, meaning that theJapanese system has been left out of the evolution. Japanese universities are
not an exception. We now can see only a few changes such as the ideas
mentioned in the previous section, i.e. those superficial changes. When
discussing the internationalization of the university, Mestenhauser (2011) clearlypointed out that the internationalization of a university is a system change. The
whole paradigm of university education and administration needs to be
re-examined and changed to meet the challenge. The main advocates ofinternationalization of higher education, for example, Knight (2008) emphasize
the change in education; however, as an organization education alone will not beable to change. Governance as a whole needs to change. This paradigm shift
is a fundamental change and not all universities will be able to complete or even
begin the shift. Simply put, internationalization is equal to leaving theGalapagos where universities enjoy the status-quo.
This paper’s focus is on the internationalization of universities; yet, if wetake Mestenhauser’s system perspective, internationalization is a system change.

Yuichi Kondo Page69
We will have to rethink the goal of university education, that is what we teachand how we teach. Even the basic term “teaching” will need serious attention.
Is teaching the main educational activity at a university? Transfer ofknowledge has been the main purpose of a university. However, we now haveto answer questions like how we teach social or global communication skill, or
how we teach value formation for the global and multicultural society where ourstudents will live in the future.
At APU, close to half of the student body is Japanese while another half is
non-Japanese students from over 80 countries and regions. The ratio is similar
for faculty members where about a half are internationally educated and taught
in many different education systems. The medium of instruction is both
Japanese and English offering courses on the quarter system. Students canenroll either in Spring or Fall and all the first-year international students will behoused in the on-campus international dormitory with a few hundred Japanese
students. This international dorm is functioning as a basic living, learning
community. APU also offers many overseas learning opportunities from a
pre-enrollment study abroad program, a four-day intensive intercultural programfor freshman, many short to medium term overseas study programs to two-year
double-degree programs. We can safely conclude that APU has most of theabove-mentioned components of a “superficial” system of internationalization.
What APU has been trying to focus upon after completing cosmetic surgery is
the very basic purpose of a university education: what our students will know
upon graduating from APU and how we can guarantee the quality. This isparallel to Knight’s(2008) idea of internationalization of a university claiming auniversity needs to revisit its purpose, function, and delivery.
With a half dozen Good Practice Grants from the MEXT, APU could design
and implement some innovative programs such as the first year student program,faculty and staff development, and other international programs. At the sametime APU has been working on the American Association of Colleges andSchools of Business (AACSB) accreditation for its College of International
Management, both undergraduate and MBA levels. Ideas like “mission-driven”
curriculum and faculty hiring; assessment of learning based on the learning goal;
rubrics; and e-portfolio were quite new to our system while these ideas are the“standard” in the United States’ universities. This paper is not advocating thatthe global standard is found in the United States system; rather, after a thoroughresearch, APU has consciously chosen the United States standard practice forgood reasons. In some parts, it was an “organ transplant”. Introduction of
rubrics to APU’s international programs or business program will redesign the70Japanese Universities and their Internationalization

Page

way we evaluate our students and the way students will learn. APU is testing
VALUE rubrics by the Association of American Colleges and Universities to
examine if they match with a university in a different socio-cultural context.
Some APU faculty members are also testing our own version of rubric use.
Another major “organ transplant” is its faculty development program with theuse of Fink’s Significant Learning scheme (Fink, 2013). For one-year faculty
development program for newly hired teaching staff, APU has worked with The
University of Minnesota to design a course where our new hires will receive
training on the use of language, that is English, intercultural classroom
management, and redesigning their courses with the idea of significant learning.
This is a clear departure from the regular way of course design that a professor
teaches what s/he thinks is important. The new way of course design isintended to give students a significant learning experience for their lives. This
new “transplanted organ” will expand as the year progresses; and APU hopes tohave about 20 to 25 teaching staffs who will be able to design their courses on
the same idea of education in four years. To have more than 20% of faculty
members on a new scheme of university education clearly change the landscapeand the students’ educational experience. This new faculty development
program is just one example to indicate that change at a fundamental level iscritical to staying competitive globally.

IV. Can Japanese universities change?
This subtitle is possibly misleading when compared to the main theme ofthis short paper. Perhaps it should be restated as “Japanese universities have no
choice but change”. Moreover, they have to be further internationalized if theywish to remain in business and to provide quality education for their students.
The change that will transform the education and governance of a given
university will require the combination of wise and strong leadership and theclear vision. In terms of the university governance and leadership, MEXT has
clearly directed universities to give the director of the board or the university
president more power (Central Education Council, 2013). In many universities,
each school or college still has some autonomous and strong power for any
system-wide decisions. A university-wide decision such as “vision statement”
will not easily reach consensus because the negotiation among the schools orcolleges will take an inordinately long time, and power politics among thecolleges may hinder effective decision making. Along with the leadership, thevision and mission of a university must be re-formulated so that one university isYuichi Kondo Page
71
different from others. The mission statement in turn will determine priorities in
the allocation of resources and even curriculum. To be internationallycompetitive, any university will have to clearly identify its strength anduniqueness to be selected by students. Or, it will soon be categorized as “others”
and sink into oblivion.
Many Japanese universities are trying tointernationalize so that they will not be one of the “others”; however, if they all
employ the similar cosmetic surgery, the end result is quite apparent. Those
universities will inevitably look the same to prospective students and thebusiness sector; and below the surface they share the same old university
education legacy. To repeat, this mode of change will not equip a university
with a strong competitive position.
The next point is redesigning the undergraduate program. In the past,
Japanese universities were criticized as an “amusement park”. Japanese
universities are very competitive when selecting students, but once students arein the undergraduate program it is very easy for them to graduate. As pointed
out above, the number of seats prepared for high school students is larger than
the actual enrollees. Many universities are even non-competitive in receiving
students. Students’ academic aptitude is quite diverse. On top of this, theamount of study time by Japanese university students is significantly shorter thanthat of the United States (Suzuki, 2012). Do Japanese universities offer a goodeducation to their students? Similar to the issues raised in the United States
universities (Fink, 2013), Japanese universities mainly use lecture as the primarymeans of education. APU’s new initiative to redesign courses and theirdelivery could be a way to create an educational environment where students
learn something significant rather than simply completing the requirement andobtaining some knowledge on the major field.
In redesigning their undergraduate programs, Japanese universities will
have to choose if they wish to become research-oriented or education-oriented
depending on their vision and mission. Moreover, even within an institution, a
new categorization of faculty members should be introduced. Those who will
mainly place his or her efforts on education should have a different selection
procedure, evaluation for promotion, and faculty development scheme fromthose who are mainly in research. Division of labor by functions among
universities or faculty members should be in place as MEXT has suggested intheir paper (Central Education Council, 2008).
The last requirement for the change is the administrators. While
professors may be in charge of the content and delivery of academic programs,
in many Japanese universities, administrators are simply the clerical supporters.

72Japanese Universities and their Internationalization

Page

Yet, if they do not know the current trend in higher education, they will not beable to allocate funds appropriately nor can they plan a campus facility tomaximize the student’s learning experience. Students not only meet with thefaculty members but they also have some interface with the administrators.
There may be a case where any given communication administrators have withthe students is providing education in a larger sense. The student services
section and job placement offices are critically important as the officer canchange students’ lives. Furthermore, university education will not end in theclassroom or in the laboratory. In most cases, faculty members are notconcerned with non-academic activities while the administrators are. Design of
any on- and off-campus student activities or programs in the dormitory has thesame education quality as the academic programs. In this sense, theadministrators are the educators, too. The university system must be designed
to meet the wholeness of the students’ learning; accordingly, administrators must
be a professional in students’ learning to complete the wholeness of a university
education. Constant training such as student advising, crisis management,
program design and assessment are crucial for the creation of a new educational
environment and continuous improvement.

V. Summary and conclusion
This paper has discussed the paradigm change that Japanese universities
should consider and implement. The main argument is that the current form ofinternationalization is too superficial and will not bring about the very changethat Japanese universities need to make. APU, because of its design, wasdestined to face the forefront of undergraduate education quality and competition
with universities abroad. Its experience clearly illustrates that the “cosmetic
surgery” type internationalization will not equip Japanese university
international competitive edge. Only with the redesigning of the whole
undergraduate program including academic and non-academic along withvarious rather technical changes will transform Japanese universities to become
international. This paradigm shift is a must even though it may be a “mission
impossible”. A University’s mission after all is to meet the students’ needs foreducation for their life and to meet the global society.

Yuichi Kondo Page
73

References
Central Education Council. (2008). Promotion of Functional Differentiation of Universities
and the Development of Inter-University Network. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/gijiroku/08121809/002.pdf
Central Education Council. (2013). Promotion of Reformation of University Governance.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/houkoku/1343468.htm
Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to
Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Horie, M. (2003). International Students and Internationalization of Higher Education in
Japan: Interpretive Study with Policy Makers and International Educators. Ph.D.
Dissertation (University of Minnesota)
Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mestenhauser, J.A. (2011). Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of Internationalizing
Higher Education. Minneapolis: Global Programs and Strategy Alliance at the
University of Minnesota.
Sakanaka, H. (2009). Plan for Japanese Style Migrant Country. Tokyo: Imin Seisaku
Kenkyujo.
Sternberg, R.J. (2010). College Admissions for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Suzuki, N. (2012). Why Japanese Students Do Not Study Compared to the Students in the
West? Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/siryo/attach/1324009.htm

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.21, 2014 Page
75

The Internationalization of China’s Higher
Education: Foci on its transnational higher education

Futao HuangIntroduction
Since the implementation of economic reforms and the open-door policy in
1978, huge changes have happened to the internationalization of China’s higher
education. Prior to the late 1990s, international activities involved withpersonal mobility and the internationalization of university curriculum in China
had constituted major forms in the internationalization of Chinese higher
education.
Namely, over the period, the internationalization of higher
education in China was mainly concerned with sending Chinese faculty
members and students to foreign countries for further study or research; theintroduction of English products into Chinese campuses; and a growing
adaptation of the English language as the medium of instruction.
As an integral part of the internationalization of Chinese higher educationand closely connected with the internationalization of university curriculum,
since 1995, there has been transnational educational institutions and programs inearnest on Chinese campuses. Based on earlier research and national statistics,
this study discusses the emergence of and changes in the transnational higher
education (TNHE) in China since the late 1980s. The study begins with ananalysis of the definition of transnational higher education in the Chinese context,
then it examines distinguished characteristics of the transnational higher
education in different phases since the late 1980s; its role in China’s higher
education system and issues. The study concludes with a discussion of theimplications for policy, institutions, practice and research.


Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

76

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

This study will focus on the following questions:• What changes have happened to China’s transnational higher education?
• What are the most important characteristics of it? and• What issues and effects have resulted from its development?

Key concepts
There are several definitions of transnational higher education. For
example, according to UNESCO, the term “transnational education” is generally
defined as that “in which the learners are located in a country different from theone where the degree-granting institution is based” (UNESCO-CEPES, 2000).
Accordingly, if “transnational higher education” is regarded as a part ofpost-secondary and tertiary education and training, it may take any of the forms
listed below (GATE, 1999).
- Branch Campuses: campuses established by an institution in another country toprovide its educational or training programs to foreign students.
- Franchises: an institution (A) approves provision by an institution (B) in
another country of one or more of A’s programs to students in B’s country.
- Articulation: the systematic recognition by an institution (A) of specified study
at an institution (B) in another country as partial credit towards completion ofa program at institution A.
- Twinning: agreements between institutions in different countries to offer joint
programs.
- Corporate Programs: programs offered by large corporations for academic
credit from institutions, which often involve credit transfer across national
borders.
- Online Learning and Distance Education Programs: those distance education
programs that are delivered through satellites, computers, correspondence, orother technological means across national boundaries.
- Study Abroad: a student from institution (A) travels to take courses atinstitution (B) in a different country and to live there for a fixed period oftime.
Moreover, Knight believes that “transnational” and “borderless” as well as“cross-border” education are terms that are being used to describe real or virtual
movement of students, teachers, knowledge, and educational programs from one

Futao Huang Page
77
country to another. While there may be some conceptual differences between
these terms, they are often used interchangeably (Knight, 2002).
However, special mention should be made that as the definition oftransnational higher education varies widely, it can take different forms
according to individual countries and regions. For example, in Australia theterm “transnational higher education” is defined in a much broader sense. It
denotes any education or training at the higher education level provided beyond
national or regional borders through mobility of people, program or institution.
Accordingly, this definition includes the so-called international education (often
referred as “onshore education” in Australia) provided to international students
coming to Australia and it also covers distance learning or e-learning delivered
to students living outside Australia. Furthermore, a variety of terms similar to“transnational”, such as “offshore”, “cross-border” and “borderless”, aresometimes used interchangeably.
In this study, though there exist slight differences from existing
interpretations, the concept of transnational higher education is defined as having
two dimensions: a real and a virtual. At the real dimension, it basically refers
to three primary transnational or cross-border activities: the movement of foreignteaching staff, academic programs and institutions in the receiving countries.
While at the virtual dimension, it is mainly concerned with distance educationand the investment on the education in the receiving countries from foreign
corporate.
Although in many non-English speaking countries there is no accurately
equivalent term for transnational higher education, some of these countries adopt
other usages to denote the similar meaning. It is true of China, too. The
English term transnational education is literally translated into the Chinese
language as 跨国或跨境教育 (Kuaguo or Kuajing jiaoyu); however, since1995 when the Chinese government issued the first regulation on Zhongwai
hezuo banxue in Chinese, meaning Chinese-foreign cooperation in runningschools, or the joint operation of higher education institutions and collaborative
delivery of educational programs with foreign partners and universities of Hong
Kong and Macao, instead of transnational higher education, Zhongwai hezuo
banxue is officially employed in almost all occasions. Perhaps it is simply
because no matter how many forms transnational education may take, no entirely
independent foreign institutions or degree-awarding programs are permitted in
China, it should be jointly established and provided in collaboration with local
Chinese universities or other higher educational institutions. For example, inthe first document “Contemporary Regulation on Operation of Higher Education

78

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

Institutions in Cooperation with Foreign Partners” which was issued by theformer Ministry of Education on January 26, 1995, the term Zhongwai hezuo
banxue is defined as occurring whenThose foreign corporate, individuals, and related internationalorganizations in cooperation with educational institutions or other socialorganizations with corporate status in China, jointly establish education
institutions in China, recruit Chinese citizen as major educational
objectives, and undertake education and teaching activities. (Chapter 1,
Provision 2)
In this study, the term transnational higher education is employed to denote
the Chinese expression Zhongwai hezuo banxue in the Chinese context.

Changes in China’s TNHE
The growth of and changes in the Chinese TNHE can be practically
identified into three phases since mid-1980s in accordance with its forms andcharacteristics in each phase.
Phase One (late 1980s-1994): Movement of teaching staff and training
programs
Even before the issue of the first promulgation of contemporary regulations
on Zhongwai hezuo banxue in 1995, some Chinese universities had alreadycooperated with foreign partners to invite their teaching staff and to offer joint
programs. These programs were essentially conducted in the form of twinning,based on partnership agreements between the Chinese institutions and theirforeign partners. Most of the joint programs during this phase were concernedwith foreign languages and foreign culture, with the objective of promoting
mutual understanding between China and foreign partners. Although in somecases certificates or diplomas could be awarded to students after they hadfinished these joint programs, none of these institutions or joint programs wasapproved to confer foreign degrees or even Chinese degrees. One example isprovided by the Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for Chinese andAmerican Studies, which was set up in September 1986 and financed by both
Chinese and American governments. Another was the Goethe Institute, Beijing,which was an outcome of cooperation between Beijing University of Foreign
Studies with the Goethe Institute in Germany, conducting German language

Futao Huang Page
79
training for Chinese faculty members and students as well as introducing aspectsof German culture. In 1988, the MBA class in Tianjin College of Finance andEconomics (now the International Center of MBA Education of Tianjin
University of Finance and Economics) became one of the first joint programs in
China. This university received approval to run an MBA program inpartnership with Oklahoma City University, USA and with the right to award aforeign degree. With the approval of the Committee on Academic Degrees
under the State Council and Education Department, China and based onagreement with the American partner, students who passed the examinations canbe awarded an MBA degree of Oklahoma City University, USA. All these
activities were basically conducted at an institutional level without involvementof any national specific regulation or documentation (Huang, 2006).
Phase Two (1995-2003): Emergence and rapid expansion of bothdegree-conferring programs and institutions
The significance of the promulgation of “Contemporary Regulation” in
1995 cannot be overestimated, for it is not only the first national document toregulate the operation and provision of both institutions and programs incollaboration with foreign partners and universities of Hong Kong and Macao,
but also has stimulated the rapid growth of China’s TNHE. For example, in
1995, there were only two joint programs that could lead to a foreign degree; by
2004, the number of joint programs provided in Chinese higher education
institutions in collaboration with foreign partners had reached 745, and joint
programs qualified to award degrees of foreign or Hong Kong universities
amounted to 169 by June 2004 (MOE, 2005). Among the newly-accredited
joint programs from 1995 to 2002 alone, the top two foreign countries which
undertook collaboration with Chinese universities are Australia and the UnitedStates, followed by growing numbers of universities in Hong Kong after the
return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. With regard to discipline, almost all of
the joint programs offered with foreign degrees over the decade are concernedwith international management of trade, finance, and information science; that is,a focus on newly developed and popular subjects similar to that found in someWestern countries. Furthermore, nearly half of the joint programs lead to an
MBA degree. About 90 of the joint programs are delivered at postgraduatelevel and award master’s degrees (Huang, 2003, 2007, 2008).

80

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

Phase Three (2004-present): Establishment of jointly-operated independent
campuses in China
Like many Asian countries, the establishment of independent branch
campuses solely owned by foreign universities or corporations is still not
permitted unless they undertake collaboration with local Chinese universities or
education groups. Essentially differing from the importation of foreign
programs and jointly-offered programs in the previous phases, in 2004 the
University of Nottingham, Ningbo China in partnership with the private
Zhejiang Wanli Education Group, a key player in the education sector in China
was established, with the full approval of the Chinese Ministry of Education. It
was the first Chinese-foreign University to open its doors in China. This caseshows that the Chinese government agreed to allow Chinese universities to
conduct a partnership with a foreign institution to create a higher education
establishment with the status of a corporation in China.
In fact, after the University of Nottingham, Ningbo China, in 2006 a newinternational university jointly founded by Xi’an Jiaotong University China andthe University of Liverpool United Kingdom as a joint venture came into being.
As an independent Chinese-Foreign cooperative university, it captures theessence of both prestigious parent universities and is the first Chinese leading
national university which was approved by the Ministry of Education to operate
an independent university with a foreign university in China. The University
offers undergraduate degree programs in the fields of science, engineering andmanagement, and awards both its own Chinese degree and a degree from the
University of Liverpool (Xjtlu, 2013). Following the university, in 2011 and2012 another two new universities with an independent corporate status were
founded between Chinese leading national universities and foreign universities.
One is Duke Kunshan University which is jointly established and operated byDuke University in the United States, and Kun Shan municipal government in
Jiangsu province and Wuhan University in China. The other is New York
University Shanghai which was collaboratively founded by New York University(NYU), East China Normal University (ECNU), the Shanghai Municipal
Education Commission (SMEC), and the Pudong New Area Government inShanghai. In these newly-established universities, both administrative andacademic arrangements are basically modelled on foreign mother universities,
yet some Chinese characteristics are still emphasized. For example, thepresident of the governing board or the board of trustees in any of these
universities should be a Chinese national; Chinese is also encouraged to be oneFutao Huang Page
81of two instructional languages. To illustrate, in order to graduate from
NYU
Page
Shanghai, students are required to complete 128 points of coursework,of two instructional
languages.
To illustrate,in order tomajor
graduatefrom NYUand
distributed
among core
general education
requirements,
requirements,
Shanghai,students
arerequiredtocomplete128
pointsofcoursework,
electives. Typically, students are advised to complete the core curriculum
distributed
coreyears
generalrequirements,
requirements,
duringtheiramong
first two
andeducation
the bulk of
their majormajor
requirements
their andsecondelectives. Typically, students are advised to complete the core curriculum
two years. While English is the language of instruction at NYU Shanghai,
during their first two years and the bulk of their major requirements their second
proficiency in Chinese is also required of all students by the time they graduate.
two years. While English is the language of instruction at NYU Shanghai,
Additionally, the number of jointly-operated institutions and programs
proficiency in Chinese is also required of all students by the time they graduate.
within local universities expanded significantly. However, differing from what
Additionally, the number of jointly-operated institutions and programs
happenedin the second phase in which a vast majority of joint programs inwithin local universities expanded significantly. However, differing from what
collaboration
withforeign
universities
Konginandhappened in thesecondphasein which aandvastuniversities
majority of of
jointHongprograms
2013,
accordingto theMacaowere provided
at a master’slevel,of October ofcollaboration
with foreign
universities
andasuniversities
Hong
Kong andnational
data,
there
are
702
undergraduate
programs
and
only
169
programs
Macao were provided at a master’s level, as of October 2013, according to theat a
graduatelevel.
the numberprogramsof the andChineseuniversities
national data,
thereSimilarly,
are 702 undergraduate
only 169
programs atwhichaprovidedprograms
was 40ofwhilenumberof the universities
graduate undergraduatelevel. Similarly,
the number
the theChineseuniversities
which
which
deliveredgraduate
programs
partnershipforeignprovided
undergraduate
programs
wasin40
while the withnumberof theuniversities
universitiesand
whichfromdeliveredin partnershiptheseHong graduate
Kong andprograms
Macao wasonly 16. with foreign universities andtheseWith
fromrespect
Hong Kong
Macaopartners
was onlyto theandforeignby16.
country origin, as suggested in Table
Table
With majority
respect toof
thethem
foreignby country origin,as suggested
1, a huge
arepartners
English-speaking
countries,
especiallyin the
share
1,
a
huge
majority
of
them
are
English-speaking
countries,
especially
the
share
by the United Kingdom, the United States and Australian universities isby the United
UnitedStatesand Australian
universities
isconsiderable
andKingdom,
evident in theterms
of bothprograms
and institutions.
However,and evident
in termsof bothofprograms
institutions.which
However,
itconsiderable
is noteworthy
that thenumberRussianand
universities
offeredit is noteworthy that the number of Russian universities which offeredjointly-operated programs with Chinese universities had had a remarkablejointly-operated programs with Chinese universities had had a remarkable
growth by 2013.
growth by 2013.

Table 1. Numbers of foreign universities and universities of Hong Kong in
Table 1. collaboration
Numbers of foreign
universities
and universities
of Hongwith Chinese
universities(as of October2013)Kong in
250

250

collaboration with Chinese universities (as of October 2013)

200

200

150
150
100
100
50
50
00

Germany France
France Canada
CanadaGermany

Hong
Hong
Japan
RussiaKorea
Kong Japan Russia Korea
Kong

US
US

Australia
Australia

UK
UK

Programs
Programs

152
152

134
134

197
197

3939

3333

5757

33 33

12 12

104 104 33 33

Institutions
Institutions

10
10

22

55

66

55

3 3

1 1

1 1

0

Institutions
Institutions

0

Programs
Programs

Source: More
More information
information isisavailable
Source:availableatathttp://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/default/index
http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/default/index
with author’s
author’s modifications
withmodifications

0

0

82

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

Further, it is interesting to note that there exists a clear imbalance in the
distribution of both institutions and programs at undergraduate and graduatelevels. As indicated in Tables 2 and 3, both these jointly-operated institutions
and jointly-delivered programs were densely established and provided in big
cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai and the economically-advanced provinces.
One of the major reasons for this is that in these cities and provinces there are
more higher education institutions and a quickly-growing demand for higher
education. However, there is an exception for Heilongjiang province which islocated in the northeast part of China adjacent the Russian Federations. It isneither a big educational nor a wealthy province like Jiangsu or Guangdong
province, because of the geographic factor, its cooperation with the RussianFederation in operating both jointly-operated institutions and programs has
progressed quickly.
In relation to the disposition of educational programs, no fundamental
changes have been found in all these Chinese-foreign cooperative delivery ofeducational programs by discipline since the mid-1990s. According to the data,
the proportion of programs at both undergraduate and graduate programs ineconomics, management, law, medicine, science, engineering, including
information science, still accounted for a predominant share of the total (MOE,2013). This pattern reflects the great demand in China for training manpower
equipped with advanced knowledge of international economics, management,
information science, and law.

Table 2. Numbers of jointly-operated institutions by region

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

7

3

4

7
4

4

3
11

1

2

3
11

4
2

undergraduate

1

1

2

2

2

graduate

Source: More information is available at http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/default/index
with author’s modifications

Futao Huang Page
83
Table 3. Numbers of jointly-delivered programs by region

BeijingShanghai
Tianjin
Chongqing
Jiangsu
Zhejiang
Guangdong
HainanFujianShandong
Jiangxi
Sichuang
Anhui
Hebei
Henan
Hubei
Hunan
Shangxi
Shanxi
Heilongjiang
Liaoning
Jilin
Guangxi
YunnanGuizhou
Gansu
Neimenggu
Xinjiang

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Undergraduate

Graduate

Source: More information is available at http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/default/index
with author’s modifications

Drivers and issues
As pointed out by some existing research, key drivers for the rapid growthof the TNHE in China can be identified as follows:Firstly, compared with Japan, Korea, and many advanced western countries,
higher education in China is still in the early “mass” phase since its rate ofenrollment in higher education at the aged group is only 25 as of 2012. The
increasing demand for higher education and the inability of the limited numberof higher education institutions to meet this demand has become a more andmore serious issue as China’s economy rapidly expands. Development of the
TNHE which largely based on existing institutions and joint programs is
considered as a response to the growing demand for higher education.
Secondly, the traditional higher education patterns which are modelled on
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics between the mid-1950s and the
mid-1980s merely focus on the production of professional manpower specialized
in engineering and science. This model cannot graduate talents or manpower
who are needed in the labor market since the introduction of market mechanisms
and the delegation of more responsibility and autonomy to institutions after 1992.
Therefore, importing TNHE service in educational ideas, curricula, and deliveryof programs has been viewed as an effective way to improve academic quality

84

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

and standards, as well as to facilitate the general internationalization of Chinese
higher education.
Thirdly, these TNHE programs which cannot be solely provided by local
institutions are not only attractive, but also much cheaper than the expense which
Chinese students have to pay for while studying for the same degree programs or
qualifications abroad.
Finally, it is evident that the TNHE service provided by foreign partners is
profit-based and driven by commercial interests. By charging much higher
tuition and other fees in the transnational branch campuses and joint programs
than they do at home, the foreign partners or providers can increase the income
available to their home campuses. This is one of the most important reasons
why there has been a continuous and fast expansion in the TNHE since themid-1990s.
As every coin has two sides, key issues concerning the TNHE in China
should also be mentioned. Similarly to many other countries in the region, they
include the following aspects:
Firstly, no clear evidence shows that the incoming foreign education
activities have played a substantial part in expanding student enrollments or
accelerated the pace of ongoing massification of higher education. Perhaps oneof the most important reasons for this is that expensive tuition fees make it
extremely difficult for many students to be enrolled either in branch campuses offoreign institutions or in jointly-operated programs. For example, in general,these joint programs, and in particular programs leading to a qualification ofconferring a degree of a foreign or of a Hong Kong university charge tuition fees
close to or even greater than five times those of local institutions. In the case of
New York University Shanghai, tuitions and fees are charged from international
students at the same standard as in the mother university in the US. Even for
local Chinese students, they are required to pay for more tuition and fees thannormal Chinese students are charged in local Chinese universities by nearlytwenty times. This is surely a huge burden for local Chinese students frompoor families if they want to be admitted to study in the New York University
Shanghai.
Secondly, it is still unclear whether or how significantly importation of
TNHE services can eventually enhance the quality of teaching and learning inanother country if it is mainly involved in profit-making activities. For somecountries, it is true that foreign education provision has the potential to offer hostnations cost-effective access to transnational higher education of a high quality,
but except for a growth in numbers of imported programs concerning English

Futao Huang Page85
language training, MBA, information science, and so on, very few examples
exist to suggest that the incoming transnational higher education activity has
resulted in improvement of teaching and learning quality at either institutional or
national level (Huang, 2010).
Thirdly, there seem to be consumer protection problems associated withlack of adequate and transparency information available to potential students,
employers and competent recognition authorities. Much worse is that some
Chinese-foreign cooperation in operating institutions and offering programs areeven not subject to national quality assurance frameworks and stay outsidemonitoring and regulating regimes on either side, consequently, it is extremely
difficult to understand what the quality of these transnational programs are, howgood they are, and how they differentiate from their mother universities in termsof teaching quality.
Fourthly, a special mentions should be made that, among various issues tobe tackled, no much achievement has been accomplished in facilitating thedevelopment of TNHE at a virtual dimension. Namely, in China it is still not
permitted for any large foreign or transnational corporations to offer educational
programs or qualifications which do not belong to any national higher education
systems; neither is distance learning arrangements and virtual universities, which
do not belong to the higher education systems of a particular country, areofficially allowed to cooperate with any Chinese universities to award theirdegrees or diplomas. Seemingly, this two forms not only constitute animportant part of the TNHE as noted previously, but also will inevitably grow ina rapid way worldwide with the further globalization and the advancement of
information technology.
Finally, the imported TNHE activity in China is characterized by
Chinese-foreign partnerships in educational programs as part of national higher
education. Because these joint programs are normally provided in the public
sector, especially those programs awarding foreign degrees, they are primarily
offered in leading institutions and incorporated into the internationalization ofChina’s higher education.

Concluding remarks
While being rigidly regulated and monitored by the central government andlocal authorities, due to the fact that it benefits the development of China’s
higher education, local authorities, students, and foreign partners, China’s TNHE
has achieved a great deal of progress. As discussed earlier, there has not only

86

The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education

Page

been a steady and noticeable expansion of its numbers, but also an increasingly
diversification in its forms. More importantly, it has transformed from theinformal, incidental and laissez-fair stage to the more structured, systematic, andwell-regulated and more transparent stage.
Although not much evidence shows how many students have been recruitedand studied in these institutions and programs since the mid-1990s, neither could
many examples be found to reveal how significantly the quality of either
individual institutions or the entire higher education system in China has been
improved because of the quick development of the TNHE since the mid-1990s,
in practice the TNHE service, especially both jointly-operated institutions which
are affiliated to Chinese universities and several Chinese-foreign campuses in
China, has provided a totally new model of running and managing higher
education institutions for China’s higher education reforms. This study clearlyshows that they have played a more and more important role in stimulating theinternationalization of China’s higher education and gradually become an
indispensable part of the Chinese higher education system.

References
GATE (Global Alliance for Transnational Education). (1999). Trade in Transnational
Education Services. Washington D.C.: Global Alliance for Transnational Education.
Huang, F. (2003). Transnational Higher Education: A Perspective from China, Higher
Education Research and Development, 22(2), 193-203.
Huang, F. (2006). Transnational higher education in Mainland China: A focus on foreign
degree-conferring programs. In F. Huang, (Ed.), Transnational Higher Education in Asiaand the Pacific Region (pp. 21-33). Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University.
Huang, F. (2007). Internationalization of Higher Education in the Developing and Emerging
Countries: A Focus on Transnational Higher Education in Asia. Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 11 (3/4), 421-432.
Huang, F. (2008). Regulation and Practice of Transnational higher Education in China. In L.
Dumn, & M. Wallace (Eds.), Teaching in Transnational Higher Education: Enhancing
Learning for Offshore International Students (pp.23-33). New York and London:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Huang, F. (2010). Transnational Higher Education in Japan and China: A Comparative Study.
In D.W. Chapman, W.K. Cummings, & G.A. Postiglione (Eds.), Crossing Borders in East
Asian Higher Education (pp.265-282). Springer, Comparative Education Research Center,Futao Huang Page
87
The University of Hong Kong,.
Knight, J. (2002). Trade in higher education services: The implications of GATS. The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved 11, October 2011, fromhttp://www.obhe.ac.uk/.
MOE. (2005). List of joint programs awarding degrees of foreign universities and universities
of Hong Kong, Retrieved October 2013, from http://www.chnedu.net [Chinese]
MOE. (2013). Retrieved October 2013, fromhttp://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/default/index [Chinese]
UNESCO-CEPES. (2000). Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational
Education. Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO-CEPES.
Xjtlu (Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University). (2013). Retrieved October 2013, fromhttp://www.xjtlu.edu.cn/en/about-us/ [Chinese]

Appendices89

Appendix 1: Seminar Program*
The Internationalization of Higher Education:
Realities and Implications
Date: December 5-6, 2013
Venue: Hiroshima University

Thursday, December 5
12:30 -

Registration*** Opening Remarks ***13:00 - 13:15

Masashi Fujimura, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University, Japan

Orientation
Futao Huang, Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University*** Presentations ***13:15 - 14:00

14:00 - 14:45

MC: Satoshi P. Watanabe, Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University,Japan
Presentation 1“40 Years of Internationalisation in Europe: Accomplishments andChallenges”
Eric Beerkens, Senior Advisor for International Affairs, Leiden
University, the Netherlands
Presentation 2“Internationalization of American Higher Education: Policy
Perspectives and Practical Concerns ”

Laura E. Rumbley, Associate Director, Center for International
Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, USA

14:45 - 15:30*

Presentation 3“English-Medium Teaching in Korean Higher Education: Policy
Debates and Reality”
Kiyong Byun, Associate Professor, College of Education, Korea
University/ Full-time Policy Advisor, The Ministry of Education,
Republic of Korea

As of December, 201390

15:30 - 15:45

Coffee Break

15:45 - 16:30

Presentation 4“Japanese Universities and their Internationalization: Is Paradigm
Shift Feasible?”
Yuichi Kondo, Dean (Admissions) & Professor, Ritsumeikan Asia
Pacific University, Japan

16:30 - 17:15

Presentation 5“The Internationalization of China’s Higher Education: Focused on
its Transnational Higher Education”
Futao Huang, Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University

17:15 - 18:00

Q&A

Friday, December 6
MC: Fumihiro Maruyama, Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University*** Panel Discussion ***9:30 - 12:00

Panelists:
Eric Beerkens
Laura E. Rumbley
Kiyong Byun
Yuichi Kondo
Futao Huang
Commentator:
Motohisa Kaneko, Professor, Research Center for University
Studies, University of Tsukuba/ Professor Emeritus, The
University of Tokyo, Japan

91

Appendix 2: List of Participants

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
Eric Beerkens

Senior Advisor for International Affairs, Leiden
University, The Netherlands

Laura E. Rumbley

Associate Director, Center for International Higher
Education (CIHE), Boston College, USA

Kiyong Byun

Associate Professor, College of Education, Korea
University / Full-time Policy Advisor, The Ministry of
Education, Republic of Korea
and another 7 overseas participantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Invited Expert
Yuichi Kondo

Motohisa Kaneko

Dean (Admissions) & professor, Ritsumeikan Asia
pacific University
Professor, Research Center for University Studies/
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo

Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE)
Masashi Fujimura

Director and Professor

Futao Huang

Professor

Tsukasa Daizen

Professor

Yumiko Hada

Professor

Fumihiro Maruyama

Professor

Satoshi P. Watanabe

Professor

Jun Oba

Associate Professor
and another 34 Japanese Participants

As of December 5-6,2013

R.I.H.E. PUBLICATION IN ENGLISH
RIHE International Publication SeriesNo. 1: Kaneko, M. (1987). Enrollment Expansion in Postwar Japan.
No. 2: Guocai, Z. (1989). Higher Education Research in China: An Annotated Bibliography.
No. 3: Abe, Y. (1989). Non-University Sector Higher Education in Japan.
No. 4: Kaneko, M. (1989). Financing Higher Education in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 5: Kaneko, M. (1992). Higher Education and Employment in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 6: Morgan, J. Keith (1999). Universities and the Community: Use of Time in Universities
in Japan.
No. 7: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2001). University Reforms and Academic Governance: Reports ofthe 2000 Three-Nation Workshop on Academic Governance.
No. 8: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2002). University Reforms and Academic Governance
Reconsidered: Report of the Six-Nation Higher Education Research Project.
No. 9: Arimoto, A., Huang, F., and Yokoyama, K. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Higher
Education.
No.10: Huang, F. (ed.) (2006). Transnational Higher education in Asia and the PacificRegion.

Higher Education Forum
Higher Education Forum Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 5 (2008).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 6 (2009).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 7 (2010).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 8 (2011).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 9 (2012).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 10 (2013).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 11 (2014).

Higher Education Research in Japan
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 5 (2008).

94
COE Publication Series
No. 6: Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher Education (Reports of the2003 COE International Symposium) (2003).
No. 7: Mergers and Cooperation among Higher Education Institutions: Australia, Japan andEurope (Reports of the 2003 COE International Seminar on Mergers and Cooperation)(2004).
No.11: Organization Reforms and University Governance: Autonomy and Accountability(Reports of COE International Seminar) (2004).
No.12: Enhancing Quality and Building the 21st Century Higher Education System (Reports
of COE International Seminar/Eight-Nation Conference) (2004).
No.20: Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspectives (Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop) (2006).
No.21: A Cross-National Analysis of Undergraduate Curriculum Models: Focusing on
Research-Intensive Universities (2006).
No.22: Gender Inequity in Academic Profession and Higher Education Access: Japan, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States (2006).
No.23: Constructing University Visions and the Mission of Academic Profession in AsianCountries: A Comparative Perspective (Reports of COE International Seminar) (2007).
No.29: Changing Governance in Higher Education: Incorporation, marketisation, and otherreforms  A Comparative study  (2007).

RIHE International Seminar Reports
No. 1: Perspectives for the Future System of Higher Education (Report of the Hiroshima
International Seminar on Higher Education) (1977).
No. 2: Higher Education for the 1980s: Challenges and Responses (Report of the Second
Hiroshima International Seminar on Higher Education) (1980).
No. 3: Innovations in Higher Education: Exchange of Experiences and Ideas in International
Perspective (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meeting of Experts on Higher Educationand the Seminar on Innovations in Higher Education) (1981).
No. 4: Comparative Approach to Higher Education: Curriculum, Teaching and Innovations in
an Age of Financial Difficulties (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meetings ofExperts) (1983).
No. 5: The Changing Functions of Higher Education: Implications for Innovation (Reports
from the 1984 OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education), (1985).
No. 6: Higher Education Expansion in Asia (Reports from the 1985 International Seminar on
Asian Higher Education) (1985).
No. 7: Public and Private in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects (Reports
from the Third International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1987).
No. 8: The Role of Government in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects

95(Report from the Fourth International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1988).
No. 9: Foreign Students and Internationalizaion of Higher Education (Proceedings of
OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students)(1989).
No.10: Academic Reforms in the World: Situation and Perspective in the Massification Stageof Higher Education (Reports of the 1997 Six-Nation Higher Education Project
Seminar) (1997).
No.11: Higher Education Reform for Quality Higher Education Management in the 21stCentury: Economic, Technological, Social and Political Forces Affecting Higher
Education (Proceedings of the 1999 Six-Nation Presidents’ Summit in Hiroshima)(2000).
No.12: The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic
Profession Project, 2008) (2008).
No.13: The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing
Academic Profession Project, 2009) (2009).
No.14: Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the
Knowledge-Based Society: Roles and Issues of Graduate Education (Report of theInternational Workshop on Graduate Education, 2009) (2010).
No.15: The Changing Academic Profession in International and Quantitative Perspectives: A
Focus on Teaching & Research Activities (Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2010) (2010).
No.16: Diversifying Higher Education Systems in the International and Comparative
Perspectives (Report of the International Workshop on University Reform, 2010)(2011).
No.17: The Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Contexts, Realities and Trends (Report of
the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2011)(2011).
No.18: University Management, Present and Future: How and by whom? (Report of theInternational Workshop on University Reform, 2011) (2012).
No.19: Comparison of University Governance: USA, UK, France and Japan (Report of theInternational Seminar on University Governance, 2012) (2013).
No.20: The Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Teaching, Research, Governance andManagement (Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic
Profession Project, 2013) (2013).

郵

は

が

き

７３９ ８ ５ １ ２
東広島市鏡山一丁目二番二号

高等教育研究開発センター 行

広島大学

お手数で
すが切手
をお貼り
下さい。

便

文 献 受 領 書
RIHE International Seminar Reports
(No.21,
August 2014)

一部

寄贈による上記の文献を受領いたしました。
平成

年

月

日

広島大学 高等教育研究開発センター長 殿（住 所）〒（所属部局等）（氏 名）㊞－ アンケート －次号以降の文献配布について継続を希望する。
非継続（＊どちらかを○で囲んでください。）

739-8512, JAPAN

1-2-2, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima,

Hiroshima University,

Research Institute for Higher Education,

Post Card
STAMPResearch Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University,
1-2-2, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima,739-8512, JAPANDear, Reader
We have published RIHE International Seminar Reports (No.21,
August 2014). We should appreciate it very much if you would returnto us the attached card to acknowledge receipt. We also welcome yourcomments on our journal.
Sincerely yours,
The Editor

Receipt／／

I hereby acknowledge receipt of RIHE International Seminar
Reports (No.21, August 2014).

Date (Day / Month / Year) :Signature :Comments :RIHE International
Seminar Reports
No.21, August 2014

ISBN978-4-902808-88-9