Document(s) 11 of 16

Introduction

Purpose

The previous chapters in this book addressed the changes, challenges, and activities of international cooperation during the past four decades in Canada. The first objective of this chapter is to build on this analysis and identify current trends related to Canadian universities’ international work. The second objective is to place the international dimension of Canada’s higher education sector in a context that includes other countries and regions of the world. These two aspects are discussed simultaneously throughout. The third objective is to stimulate reflection on several major questions and challenges facing the higher education sector regarding the international aspects of teaching, research, training, and service.

These three objectives are rather ambitious, and it is therefore prudent to identify the scope of the chapter. First, the emphasis is clearly on Canada. Reference to other countries and regions is primarily oriented to Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, the United

States, and Western Europe. This chapter is based on information and insights obtained from recent comparative studies completed as part of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) project on internationalization (de Wit 1995; Knight and de Wit 1997) and various seminars and workshops. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to learn more about trends and challenges facing internationalization in Canada by highlighting and understanding the situation in other countries. More attention has been given to a qualitative than a quantitative approach in discussing the trends and issues.

The issues and trends identified in this chapter are primarily at the macrolevel, that is, at the system or sector level. There is no intention to minimize the importance of issues facing individual institutions at the operational level. It has also not been possible to discuss all the key issues specific to individual disciplines, stakeholder groups, or special-purpose institutes. Although these issues are of no less importance to the discussion, the focus of this chapter is on issues at the macrolevel, as they are more likely to be relevant to the Canadian higher education sector as a whole.

Assumptions

Being clear about the assumptions underlying the discussion in this chapter is important. As the previous chapters have demonstrated, there has been an interesting evolution in the nature and purpose of the international dimension and work of Canadian universities. The meaning, rationale, strategies, and outcomes of international work have changed and matured over the past several decades. Because this chapter is looking at current issues and trends and future challenges, it is necessary to articulate the fundamental understandings assumed in this discussion.

The major assumption relates to the definition of internationalization, as this concept means different things to different people, institutions, and countries. (In fact, one of the issues discussed below is the interpretation and use of the term internationalization.) The concept of the internationalization of higher education can be described and used in a variety of ways. First of all, it can be applied at the national, regional, provincial, or institutional level. It can also be described in terms of policy or program considerations. For the purposes of this chapter, the concept of internationalization is oriented to the institutional level. This is consistent with the organizing framework of the book. Internationalization is defined at the

institutional level as “the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the university or institution of higher education” (Knight 1994, p. 3). There are several key concepts included in this definition, which merit further elaboration.

The first is that internationalization is a process, a cycle of planned and spontaneous initiatives at both the program and policy levels. A process approach responds to the evolving needs, resources, and priorities of the institution. Fundamental to the process approach is that both organizational structures and systems of the institution, as well as academic activities, are involved. This differs from other approaches, which place more emphasis on internationalization of specific activities or outcomes (Arum and Van de Water 1992). It is important to note that a process approach should be based on explicit goals for internationalization and their relationship to outcomes.

Another important element in this definition is the notion of integration. Integration ensures that the international dimension is central to the mission of the university and can be sustainably integrated into the policies, practices, and systems of the institution. Careful attention is also given to including both the international and intercultural dimensions. This rests on the belief that the diversity of cultures inherent to a country, especially Canada, is as important as the diversity and similarities between nations. Internationalization of higher education is not limited to a geographical interpretation of the concept. Finally, it is acknowledged that internationalization is part of the university’s efforts to fulfill its primary functions, namely, the teaching and learning process, research and scholarly activities, and service to society.

Macrolevel issues and trends

Meaning and use of the term internationalization

In the previous section, diversity in the meaning and application of the concept of internationalization of higher education was noted. This illustrates the richness and complexity of the concept, but it can lead to confusion about how to use the term, as well as to dilution of the importance attached to it by governments, institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Internationalization emerged in common usage in higher education during the mid-1980s. As often happens, the term has been borrowed or adapted from other sectors. Internationalization and globalization are now part of everyday

language, whether one is talking about the environment, trade, communication, or even fashion. Even though internationalization and globalization are often used interchangeably, it is necessary to distinguish the meaning of these terms in discussions of the higher education sector.

There have been many terms used over the years to describe the international dimension of education. These terms reflect the priorities and perspectives of that particular time in history and, of course, the orientation of the user. Some of the related terms often used as synonyms include international academic relations and cooperation, international education, multicultural education, and globalization of education. There is a tendency today to use internationalization in a retroactive way and have it apply to concepts and activities popular in the 1960s and 1970s. This approach is neither useful nor wise. Recognizing the development of the vocabulary of the international dimension of higher education is important. By doing so, we respect the evolution of these terms and the differences in their meaning and use. Furthermore, we acknowledge the emergence of the concept of internationalization and how it is interpreted and used in the study and practice of higher education today.

Although it is not the purpose of this chapter to study in detail the differences and similarities between these terms, it is important to explore further the relationship between globalization and internationalization. One can describe globalization in a number of ways. The description that is most relevant and appropriate to the discussion of the international dimension of the higher education sector is as follows:

Globalization is the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, ideas . . . across borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s individual history, traditions, culture and priorities. Internationalization of higher education is one of the ways a country responds to the impact of globalization yet, at the same time respects the individuality of the nation.

Knight (1997, p. 6)

Thus, internationalization and globalization are seen as different but linked concepts. One can think of globalization as the catalyst, but of internationalization as the response, albeit a proactive response. The key element in the term internationalization is the notion of the relationship between or among nations and cultural identities, thereby implying that nation-state and culture are preserved. A country’s unique history, indigenous culture or cultures,

resources, and priorities shape its response to, and relationships with, other countries. Thus, national identity and culture are key to internationalization. The homogenization of culture is often cited as a critical concern or effect of globalization; internationalization, by respecting and helping to preserve nation-states, is therefore seen as a very different concept.

It would be remiss to leave the discussion of the relationship between globalization and internationalization without introducing the concept of civilization. A controversial hypothesis (Huntington 1996) suggests that peoples and countries with similar cultures are coming together and that this is emerging as the predominant force in international relations, not the globalization of the economy. Furthermore, devotion to one’s own cultural identity is gaining increasing importance, which counters the argument that culture is being homogenized because of the impact of globalization. A key premise of the hypothesis is that groups of countries with similar cultures, classified as civilizations, will have strong alliances and a metaimpact on the world stage. This leads to an exploration of the relationship between diverse cultures–civilizations, as opposed to that between nations. Internationalization, which is often seen to be based on the concept of people–culture and state at the national level, is therefore being challenged or at least interpreted in a rather interesting and different way. How multicultural countries, such as Canada, fit into this hypothesis warrants further exploration.

Rationales

Why a country or a higher education institution believes internationalization is fundamental determines the nature and extent of its support and action in favour of internationalization. Although this is rather self-evident, the importance of having an explicit statement of the rationale for internationalization and a set of clear objectives cannot be overstated. The rationales for internationalizing higher education in general and institutions in particular are many and diverse. Rationales are changing and closely linked to each other; they can be complementary or contradictory, especially as they can differ according to the interests of diverse stakeholder groups. Furthermore, rationales can differ between and within countries. An examination of the motivation for internationalizing the higher education sector is a fascinating and complex task, but for brevity’s sake the rationales for internationalization can be categorized into four groups: political, economic, academic, and social–cultural (Knight and de Wit 1995).

The political rationale is often considered more important at the national than at the institutional level. This is because international education has historically been seen as a tool for foreign policy, especially with respect to national security and peace among nations. Although this is still a consideration today, it does not have the importance it once had. At one time, bilateral cultural, scientific, and educational exchanges were seen as ways to keep communication and diplomatic relations active. However, in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and the United Kingdom, and to some extent in the four Asian economic “tigers,” there is a growing trend to see education as an export product, rather than as a cultural agreement. With the massification of higher education increasing at an exponential rate, large and small countries are showing a strong interest in making the export of educational products and services and the import of foreign students a major part of their foreign policy. In fact, we can see major shifts in foreign policies, from seeing education as primarily a development assistance activity or cultural program to seeing it as an export commodity. This shift to a market orientation introduces the economic rationale for the internationalization of higher education.

The economic rationale has increasing importance and relevance in Canada and in other developed countries around the world. As a result of the globalization of the economy, a growing interdependence among nations, and the information revolution, countries are focusing on their economic, scientific, and technological competitiveness. An effective way to improve and maintain a competitive edge is to develop a highly skilled and knowledgeable work force and to invest in applied research. Both strategies involve the higher education sector. Thus, at the national level, there is a closer and closer link between internationalization of the higher education sector and the economic and technological development of the country. At the institutional level, the economic rationale is receiving more emphasis as universities are pressured to diversify their funding sources and decrease their dependence on government support. It is still unclear whether exporting educational products and services to international markets is indeed directly enhancing the international dimension of teaching, research, and service. This question is discussed several times in this chapter, as it is fundamental to what we mean by the internationalization of higher education and why we think it is important.

The academic rationale is directly linked to enhancing the teaching and learning process and achieving excellence in research and

scholarly activities. The results of the 1994 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) survey (Knight 1995, p. 4) indicated that the number-one reason for internationalizing higher education is “to prepare students and scholars who are internationally knowledgeable and interculturally competent.” The second most important reason is “to address through scholarship, the increasingly interdependent nature of the work (environmentally, culturally, economically, socially).” Clearly, the academic motivation for internationalization was uppermost in the minds of university presidents at that time. Given the policy and economic changes in the past 3 years, it is interesting to ponder what the results of a survey would reveal in the next decade.

The social–cultural rationale for internationalization is changing in light of the potential impact of globalization. As discussed above, higher education has traditionally been a part of cultural agreements and exchanges. Today’s globalized economy and globalized information and communication system suggest another aspect of the social–cultural rationale. In many non-English-speaking countries, such as Indonesia and Sweden, the preservation and promotion of national culture and language constitute a strong motivation for internationalizing higher education. Countries consider internationalization a way to respect cultural diversity and counterbalance the perceived homogenizing effect of globalization. The acknowledgment of cultural and ethnic diversity within and between countries is considered a key aspect of, and a strong rationale for, the internationalization of a nation’s educational system. In Canada, respect for our multicultural diversity has not been seen as an important rationale for internationalization, as is evident from the 1994 AUCC survey (Knight 1995). However, it is acknowledged that the importance of learning about other cultures stems from an appreciation and knowledge of one’s own culture.

As a rationale for internationalization, the preservation and promotion of national identity and cultural values is a sensitive issue. Although some countries see internationalization (as opposed to globalization) as a way to preserve culture, other countries see it as a way to promote their cultural values abroad. Canada falls into this latter category. Since 1996 the promotion of Canadian values and culture abroad has been the “third pillar” of our foreign policy (CIDA 1995), and the role of exporting educational products and services has been clearly defined. The juxtaposition of preservation and promotion of cultural identities and values is an issue taken up elsewhere in this chapter.

Related to the social–cultural rationale is the need to improve intercultural understanding and communication. Tied to this is the overall development of the individual as a local, national, and international citizen. Citizenship involves more than being a productive member of the wealth-generating sector, which the economic rationale clearly emphasizes.

In summary, it is important to repeat that these four types of rationales are not entirely distinct or exclusive. An individual’s, an institution’s, or a country’s motivation is a complex and multileveled set of reasons evolving over time and in response to changing needs and priorities. It would be an oversimplification and probably unfair to try to label different countries according to their rationales for internationalization. What is more important and interesting is to note the changes in the rationales in different countries. The motivation driving the internationalization movement is discussed in the following sections.

National-level coordination, planning, and policy

In Canada, we are fortunate that many diverse groups, organizations, departments, and networks in the education, government, and private sectors have focused on the importance of internationalization. However, a shared commitment to internationalization does not necessarily mean a shared vision, rationale, or set of priorities, let alone a coordinated planning and policy framework. In fact, it must be asked whether the increased level of interest and attention at the national level has unintentionally led to a fragmented and perhaps less effective use of the efforts and resources directed to the internationalization of higher education in Canada.

Three recent reports (DFAIT 1994; Knight 1996; Tillman 1997) have identified the need to improve communication and coordination among key national players with vested interests in the internationalization of higher education in Canada. In addition to the coordination issue, several other national trends and issues identified in these reports are discussed in this section. A policy paper (DFAIT 1994), “The International Dimension of Higher Education in Canada: Collaborative Policy Framework,” noted that, overall, a major weakness in efforts to bring about internationalization stems principally from a lack of coordination among governments, institutions, and organizations. The more specific areas of weakness mentioned include the following:

• Poor integration, coordination, and coherence in government policies and programs, both among federal bodies and
  
  between federal and provincial governments, and no sense of urgency to act on this;
• No investment in international activity and no coherent strategy for building on existing strengths and achievements; and
• Ad hoc treatment of networking and partnerships.

Other issues identified include low enrollments in foreign-language classes, low levels of Canadian student and faculty mobility, diminished funding for higher education, no integrated marketing strategy for educational products and services, and limited appreciation of the influence of cultural factors on teaching, learning, and research.

A national survey (Knight 1996) conducted by the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), AUCC, and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC) — major stakeholder groups in the government, education, and private sectors — identified a number of pressing internationalization issues. One of the few points on which all three sectors agreed was that there is a need for “more cooperation, new types of partnerships and better coordination among and within the sectors” (Knight 1996, p. v). In addition to calling for more coordination, they identified specific instances in which cooperation is needed. These include

• A more systematic approach to the marketing and exporting of educational products and services;
• Improved cooperation between the private and education sectors in arranging work placements, internships, and scholarships for study abroad;
• Strategic partnerships between universities–colleges and the private sector for joint research projects; and
• Stronger cooperation among federal government departments to resolve the issues related to foreign-student fees and visas.

Implicit in the call for cooperation is a need to recognize the differences and similarities among the sectors’ interests. The purpose may be explicit — to enhance and sustain the internationalization of the higher education system in Canada — but the answer to the question “In whose interests?” may not be as clear.

Other issues identified in the stakeholder survey include

• The need to achieve international standards in education;

Box 1

International cooperation and internationalization at AUCC: some key dates

---

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) is recognized as the focal point in Canada for promoting and exploring the implications of international relations among universities. It is interesting to note how AUCC has gradually taken on a management role — one that has not been without its controversies — and how issues relating to internationalization have been addressed in AUCC’s biennial conferences. From these viewpoints, AUCC can be seen as a good mirror of Canadian universities’ interests and concerns.

Some key dates in AUCC’s history are the following:

1911	AUCC is founded.
1968	AUCC scholarship office takes over management of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan and begins, for the first time, to administer international scholarships.
1978	The International Development Secretariat is created in AUCC, pursuant to an agreement between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the International Development Research Centre, and AUCC. The universities are asked to identify a person in their establishment to be responsible for international development. This gives rise to a network of international liaison officers.
1983	The International Development Secretariat publishes its Directory of Canadian University Resources for International Development, the first in a series of AUCC publications dealing with the international development activities of Canadian universities and their institutional links to partners in the South.
1985	Two databases are created: International Development Projects of Canadian Universities, based on information compiled from the publication mentioned above, and International Exchange Agreements of Canadian Universities. These tools contain information on projects and agreements dating back to the 1970s and are regularly updated.
1987	The International Development Secretariat and the section responsible for academic relations with industrialized countries merge under one administrative unit.
1988	The Canada–China University Linkage program is created, financed by CIDA. This is the first institutional program administered by AUCC; other programs focus on scholarships and grants for students and professors. The theme of the biennial conference is the Expanding Role of Universities in International Cooperation.
1990	The theme of the biennial conference is University Partnerships in a Changing World.
1992	The theme of the biennial conference is Seeking Innovation: Conference on International Cooperation among Universities.
1994	AUCC and the universities play a central role in creating the University Partnerships in Cooperation and Development program, financed by CIDA’s Canadian Partnership Branch. AUCC is assigned the management of one of the program’s two aspects. The theme of the biennial conference is From Competition to Cooperation: The Evolving International Strategy of Universities.

1995	AUCC formulates a declaration on internationalization and Canadian universities. It testifies to the changes already helping to internationalize universities and proposes a framework for further pursuing this process. AUCC publishes Jane Knight’s Internationalization at Canadian Universities: The Changing Landscape, the first in a series of studies dealing with various aspects of the internationalization process in Canadian universities.
1996	The Scotiabank–AUCC Awards for Excellence in Internationalization is created to recognize university achievements in internationalization and publicize their initiatives throughout the university community. The theme of the biennial conference is Internationalization: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality.
1998	The AUCC Board of Directors approves an initiative with international financial institutions (IFIs) within the International and Canadian Programs branch. This initiative is aimed at positioning Canadian universities and AUCC to win IFI contracts. The theme of the biennial conference is Internationalization: Building on Our Experience.

• The impact of free trade on the globalization of the professions;
• The identification of competencies needed in new graduates working in a local and global environment;
• Fees, visas, and marketing for international students;
• Mixed messages on the importance of foreign-language teaching;
• Study abroad and work placements for Canadian students;
• The need for curricular reform to internationalize teaching and learning;
• Marketing and export of educational products and services;
• Needs and vested interests in research; and
• The impact of new information and communication technologies.

This represents an overview of the key and emerging issues identified by the stakeholders’ groups in the education, government, and private sectors. Clearly, there is divergence among the sectors on the nature of the challenges and solutions to these issues. But it is important to recognize that there is agreement on the principal issues and, more importantly, on the need to improve collaboration and cooperation.

Following these two reports ACCC, AUCC, and CBIE undertook another joint project that resulted in a paper, “Internationalization of Advanced Learning: Toward a Planning Framework” (Tillman 1997). This paper moves the call for improved coordination forward by proposing a planning framework. The framework is action oriented and practical. It attempts to translate advocacy into action. It identifies the issue, describes the nature of the issue and the challenges related to it, details the desired outcome, allocates the primary responsibilities, and lists the important players. The major players and partners are federal government departments and the national NGOs with vested interests in the international dimension of higher education in Canada. It also refers to provincial governments and individual educational institutions.

The framework identifies three fundamental points and a number of specific challenges. The points are

• Improving communication, coherence, and collaboration within and among key players;
• Articulating a clear, global vision of international education as a public policy; and
• Securing adequate funding (especially for support services).

The specific challenges cited in the paper are wide ranging and in most cases duplicate and reinforce the issues identified in the two previous reports. However, the strength of the planning framework is that it identifies explicit action and desired outcomes.

The challenges include conducting research and gathering data on student and faculty mobility, overseas alumni, and the economic impact of international education; enhancing the Canadian Education Centres (CECs) network; streamlining immigration and admission procedures for international students; increasing market intelligence for export of education products and services; improving quality assurance and assessment measures; improving recognition of credits; promoting greater private-sector involvement; and developing administrative flexibility.

It is evident that internationalization of higher education is “coming of age” or at least “coming on stage” at the national level. The call for public policy, greater coherence among key players, and adequate funding is stronger than ever and is being translated, albeit cautiously, into a more coordinated approach to defining the issues and to taking action. Canada appears in a rather unique situation when our national policies are compared with those of other

countries around the world. Education is a provincial responsibility, so national-level policy on the international dimension of higher education is not articulated by a federal ministry responsible for education, as in other countries. However, this does not diminish the need for public-policy statements on this issue in Canada and information on other countries’ approaches to internationalization.

The movement in Europe to develop a more articulate and comprehensive national policy on the international dimension of higher education is very interesting. It is recognized that in Europe the most influential and important actor in international education has been the European Commission. Institutional strategies have been initiated mainly as a result of support provided by the European Commission and, in a more limited way, by national governments (de Wit and Callan 1995). The European Commission programs, such as the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), TEMPUS, and SOCRATES, have helped institutions to increase the mobility of students, faculty, researchers, and administrators, mainly in Europe but more recently from Europe to Asia, Latin America, and North America. Many would argue that the orientation of the European Commission programs has been more to Europeanize than internationalize education, but that is not the topic to be explored here. In any event, the European Commission has had a profound influence and a strong catalytic effect on the international dimension of higher education in Europe.

In 1996, for the first time, European universities and other institutions of higher education were asked by the European Commission to develop their own international policies and to demonstrate how European Commission-funded projects fit into institutional-level policy and planning (Kalvemark and van der Wende 1997). Clearly, this is a very different approach from that in Canada, where since the early 1990s most universities and colleges have had the international dimension articulated in institutional mission statements and there has been significant work done on the development of international policies and institution-wide strategies. However, the influence of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) should not be ignored, as Canadian universities were required to demonstrate how CIDA- and IDRC-funded projects would fit into the overall international work and policies of the universities.

The 1996 initiative of the European Commission resulted in the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) study, “National Policies for the Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe” (Kalvemark

and van der Wende 1997). The study found that in many countries national policies for internationalization of higher education do exist, but they are not always part of the wider higher education policy. This is a fascinating situation and may be more like the one that Canada is in. For instance, Austria has a variety of agreements, memoranda of understanding, and treaties to promote internationalization of research and higher education on a bilateral basis. New legislation in 1993 and 1997 on the structure and curriculum of universities in Austria has resulted in individual institutions’ having more autonomy, which is expected to facilitate internationalization. Except for specific pieces of legislation, Austria is best described as not having a national policy on internationalization of higher education (Leidenfrost et al. 1997).

In contrast, Germany does have explicit national- and state-level policies on international and European cooperation that highlight the importance of student and staff exchanges (Kehm and Last 1997). Since 1974 Sweden has been the leader in acknowledging and clearly articulating the importance of internationalization in national education policies and budget bills. For example, the 1995 budget bill passed by the Swedish parliament was particularly interesting with regard to balancing cooperation with European and other international interests and commitments, as is evident from the following statement from the bill:

Cooperation in Europe must not be developed at the cost of other forms of international commitment and cooperation education has a great responsibility with regard to the broadening of knowledge and understanding of societies and cultures in other regions. This is particularly true with respect to developing countries, where more than 80 percent of the world population is to be found. Universities and colleges must actively promote knowledge about the developing countries. They must also forcefully combat every form of xenophobia and racism.

Quoted in Kalvemark (1997, p 177)

Consortia and partnerships

The proliferation of consortia and networks dedicated to international cooperation and work is one of the more striking trends. What is so interesting about these consortia is the diversity of their sizes, types, and rationales. Once again, competitiveness and, to some extent, the globalization of the market can be identified as key factors in the growth in these networks.

During the last decade, when “partnership” was the trademark of international development, there arose the need to establish consortia to bid on, and implement, major projects. Canadian universities have developed consortia among themselves, colleges and technical institutes, private-sector companies and industry, government agencies, and NGOs. The large scale and complexity of many development projects or contracts have dictated that partners with different niches of expertise collaborate to obtain and complete a major project. The universities in the United States were probably the pioneers in setting up these kinds of consortia, but now Australia, Canada, and Europe are fully engaged in this process. The success of these consortia is uneven. Partners experience a learning curve, as the collaboration and cooperation needed to bid on projects has not always been as strong during the implementation phase. In this era of larger and more multisector interdisciplinary projects, both the need for consortia and their numbers will most likely continue to grow.

International development work is not the only reason to establish these consortia. Since the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) began to identify educational products and services as important trade commodities increased attention has been focused on the commercial activities of both public and private education providers. Manufacturing and service companies want to explore partnerships with public and private education providers to deliver the education and training needed to win international contracts.

Even in the area of international-student recruitment, in which competition among higher education institutions is increasing, the development of consortia is under way. Canadian institutions are just beginning to realize that the major source of competition is from other countries and not from other institutions within Canadian borders. Recruitment consortia are extremely well developed in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and now Canada is following their lead. The networks are of different kinds and sizes. For instance, there are large fee-based networks, such as the CEC network or smaller local and regional groups of high schools, colleges, and universities cooperating to attract students to a specific city or province.

Bilateral cooperation agreements with universities in other countries have been a part of international cooperation for several decades. More recently, we are seeing the development of international or global consortia of universities. One example is Universitas 21, which is a formal network of about 25 comprehensive universities from

around the world. Regional networks, especially in the Asia–Pacific region, are also increasing. The Capital Cities Network is an example of a European regional network. The aims of these kinds of consortia are usually well articulated and include objectives such as international benchmarks, joint research and scholarly activities, increased numbers of mobility programs for students and faculty, collaborative bids on large-scale development projects, and development of web-based courses and curriculum materials. Consortia and networks are seen as different from membership-based organizations. However, it should be noted that the number of international and regional organizations oriented to higher education and, in many cases, specifically international education is also mushrooming.

In Canada, it is too early to have solid information on the benefits, impacts, sustainability, and implications of these newly formed national, regional, and international networks. However, it is not too early to make a plea for some kind of monitoring and analysis of the lessons learned from these new consortia and partnerships.

Quality assessment and assurance of the international dimension

There are two important aspects of the discussion of quality and internationalization. The first relates to how the international dimension contributes to the improved quality of higher education. The second is how one assesses and enhances or maintains the quality of internationalization initiatives. The purpose of this section is to discuss concerns and issues related to both these aspects, but more importantly to the second.

Any discussion of quality is always challenging and, at times, contentious, as quality depends on the “eye of the beholder,” or the stakeholder. Measuring, or even defining, the concept of the quality of education, let alone the effect on it of the international dimension of higher education, is challenging. That said, it is still important to try to address some of the issues related to quality and internationalization.

The question of whether internationalization is an end in itself or a means to an end, with the end being the improvement of the quality of education, is often the subject of vigorous debate. An assumption implicit in this debate is that enhancing the international dimension of teaching, research, and service adds value to the quality of our higher education, given that we are living in a more globalized environment in which understanding and knowledge of the impact of globalization is critical. However, this is predicated on the rationale and goals of internationalization — a recurring theme in this

chapter, which especially relates to the balance of academic and economic motives.

A full discussion of if and how the quality of higher education is improved or lowered by the international dimension is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, a short discussion of two examples of the concerns illustrates the complexity of the debate.

In many countries, especially some of the Asia–Pacific countries, internationalization is seen as almost synonymous with westernization (Knight and de Wit 1997). Based on that perspective, internationalization therefore contributes to the homogenization of world culture. This leads to a legitimate concern that Western concepts are replacing indigenous knowledge and belief systems. This question is closely linked to the issue of standards and standardization. The relevance of this concern to Canada rests on the nature of our cooperation with international partners, especially as the orientation of our foreign policy emphasizes the promotion of Canadian cultural values and the export of educational products and services.

Second, those who believe that economics is driving the current interest in internationalization propose that the quality of education may be in jeopardy. This relates especially to the issue of international students. Concern has been expressed (ACA 1997) that in some countries the desire to recruit more international students to a university or college lowers the entrance requirements and the prerequisite level of English. This casts aspersions on the quality of the students and the institutions’ entrance standards, which in turn affects their retention rate, the level and quality of the teaching and learning process, and the curriculum. It should be noted that this concern is not limited to English-speaking countries but is also found in many non-English-speaking countries, where there is a growing interest in offering courses in English in an attempt to capture a “market share” of international students. Some countries in Europe and Southeast Asia would fall into this category.

These two examples illustrate the concerns raised about the contribution that internationalization makes to the quality of higher education in general. Identifying them as concerns is more appropriate than calling them trends; however, attention needs to be given to these concerns before they become critical issues and trends.

Another aspect of the quality issue is the assessment and enhancement of internationalization activities. In Canada, little discussion appears to take place, even less action, on the question of assessing and assuring the quality of internationalization strategies. Canada stands out as one of the few Western countries not formally

addressing the quality issue. In Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, there are considerable debate and action on assessing, monitoring, and improving the quality of internationalization. The reasons for this interest range from accountability purposes, to benchmarking and competitiveness, to a desire to improve and expand the international dimension (Wodehouse 1996).

It is interesting to analyze the different approaches and instruments used to address the issue of quality assessment and enhancement. In continental European countries, it is usually an institution’s decision whether to engage in a review of the international dimension and which approach or instrument to use. No organizations require it, but national agencies are making it an issue and developing the resources to help institutions undertake self-assessments of the international dimension. For instance, the Netherlands Universities Foundation for International Cooperation in Higher Education developed a set of guidelines, “Quality in Internationalization: Guidelines for the Assessment of the Quality of Internationalization in Higher Professional Education” (NUFFIC 1995). It is an assessment tool that institutions use to rate themselves on a five-point scale regarding various academic-program and organizational aspects. It is more qualitative then quantitative and is basically a guide to help institutions identify areas in which they need improvement. The strength of this tool is its comprehensiveness, the fact that it does not limit itself to just one or two major areas of internationalization, such as exchange programs or the curriculum. The Finnish Centre for International Mobility has also developed a self-assessment checklist, which institutions are using to evaluate and improve their international work (Snellman 1995).

Since 1996, the IMHE of the OECD, in collaboration with ACA, has had a special project on quality assessment and assurance of internationalization (IMHE 1997). It emerged out of a project on internationalization strategies, in which the issue of quality was identified as very important. An approach called the Internationalization Quality Review Process (IQRP) was developed and has been piloted it in eight countries, including Australia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Western and Eastern European countries, and the United States, but not in Canada (Knight and de Wit 1999). Basically it is a process to enable individual academic institutions to assess and enhance the quality of their internationalization efforts according to their own stated aims and objectives. The process includes procedures, guidelines, and tools to be adapted and used in both a self-assessment exercise and an external peer review. The emphasis is on the analysis of

the strengths and weaknesses of the institution’s international dimension and on identifying steps to take to improve it. IQRP covers a very broad range of areas, from governance and organizational systems, to academic programs, to research and scholarly collaboration, to students, to staff, to external relations and services. It does not take a checklist approach, as institutions undertake the evaluation according to their stated aims and objectives for internationalization. Although data gathering is an important step, the focus is on analysis, not on description of activities or quantitative measures.

The short-term goal of the IMHE–OECD project is to develop an instrument for quality review of internationalization efforts for institutional use. The long-term objective is to ensure that the international dimension is included in all quality audits, whether they are evaluating specific subjects or disciplines, the teaching and learning process, or institutional management systems and practices. This is consistent with the philosophy advocating the integration of the international dimension into the core functions of the university, not marginalizing it in a group of special activities.

Australia is an interesting case from the point of view of quality assessment and assurance. For various reasons, its quality audit systems are directly linked to government support and funding. Accountability and merit are key factors. Australia is putting new systems and procedures in place at the institutional level. Senior management positions, such as deputy vice chancellor for quality, are not uncommon. Because international-student recruitment, offshore programs, customized training, and research contracts are major revenue sources for institutions, interest has also been increasing in quality review and enhancement of international activities. At the institutional level, there has been some interesting work done to develop and combine a number of quality-assessment tools for international activities. Performance indicators with benchmarks are being developed. In other instances, international offices have worked toward ISO 9000 accreditation, the IQRP model is being used and adapted, and certification for offshore programs is being obtained. The diversity of these approaches and instruments illustrates the importance Australia attaches to the quality of internationalization and the work it is doing to develop the right approaches.

The quality of educational programs offered offshore, either through distance education, twinning programs, or satellite campuses, is also seen as important. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has developed a certification process and system for all public and private education providers offering education programs

offshore. Hong Kong has recently developed legislation requiring all foreign distance-education providers to be registered. These two examples illustrate that both providers and recipients of offshore or distance education are taking steps to monitor the quality of education. The Global Alliance for Transnational Education (Wodehouse 1997) is developing a certification program for transnational education, which is further evidence of the concern for quality assessment.

To date, quality assessment and enhancement have not been key issues in Canada, but as internationalization comes of age it will be critically important for Canada to address questions of accountability, merit, and improvement.

Sustainability and funding

In Canada, without question, the last decade has seen an increased interest in, and commitment to, the international dimension of higher education. The AUCC survey (Knight 1995) of university presidents clearly indicated that they are paying greater attention to internationalization. This is evident from the fact that by 1994 more than 80% of university mission statements referred to the international dimension. But is this rhetoric or reality? Is there any concrete evidence of this increased interest or is it primarily a moral commitment?

Box 2

Internationalization and quality standards

---

The issue of quality control of international activities is problematic. Why evaluate international activities at all? For what purpose and for what audience? Quality control of academic programs is a provincial responsibility. It is generally recognized that the objectivity of a peer-review process ensures high standards in a field of expertise. This same process generally works well for international research but is less applicable, however, to nonacademic activities. How then should the matter of quality control be handled for the less academic aspects of international activities? How can a quality-assessment strategy take account of the impact of international work on, for example, students? Because a successful international-education experience achieves both an academic and a nonacademic result, is a new mechanism needed to assess the academic results of formal courses and the new forms of socialization that are shaping students on and off the campus? To assess the quality of internationalization requires a clear understanding of what internationalization means, with agreement on all facets of the concept. Clearly, the debate is complex. The variations from discipline to discipline and the tendency of international activities to be more geared to praxis than to academic considerations goes some way to explaining why the issue of quality standards and control of internationalization remains largely in limbo.

One indicator of commitment is whether funding and resource allocation for international activities have increased or decreased. It is difficult to get an accurate picture of the financial investments made by the institutions themselves in internationalization activities. However, emerging economic trends suggest that funding increases when a financial return on the investment is possible. For instance, it is interesting to ask whether more funding is available to market and recruit international students or contract education offshore than to revise the curriculum or establish student- or staff-mobility programs. A review of job postings for international work in the universities is likely to show that more international-student-recruitment positions are being created than positions for managers of study–work-abroad centres. One can cite no hard data on this, but it appears to be an emerging trend.

Another trend related to the funding and feasibility of internationalization activities is the recognition of the need to diversify sources of funding. Universities and colleges acknowledge that they have to depend less on government funding sources and are now seeking private-sector support, funding from foundations, and entrepreneurial income-generating activities. At the national and provincial levels, funding for international scholarships and research grants for Canadian students and researchers is decreasing. Since the early 1990s the level of funding for university partnership programs from CIDA has also been decreasing. The recent creation and funding of the new national program on international internships for young Canadians needs to be applauded; yet, it must be recognized that this program has as much or more to do with youth unemployment as with the internationalization of higher education. Nevertheless, the opportunity for young Canadians to become more knowledgeable and skilled in working in international and intercultural settings is extremely beneficial.

DFAIT’s new emphasis on the export of educational products and services means that international-education activities are now being seen as a source of income, and institutions are more inclined to invest in those international activities when they anticipate a clear return on their investment. The income is often seen as a replacement for the loss of other government funding. The question of whether income generation from international activities is used for general education purposes or is directed to supporting and sustaining various internationalization priorities and activities needs closer examination.

A related issue, which also merits further analysis, is whether income-generation activities in international markets — for example, foreign consulting contracts, selling education products and courseware, franchising courses for delivery by foreign institutions — are in fact internationalization activities that directly contribute to the international dimension of a university’s major functions. This is a controversial issue and gets us back to the question of what the major rationales and priorities are for international education and work in the university.

A number of factors affect the long-term feasibility of the academic aspects of internationalization. Funding is just one. The expertise and support of faculty are others. The engine of internationalization at the institutional level is clearly the faculty and staff. Opportunities for professional development and for recognition and reward for international work are two areas in need of attention if internationalization is to be sustainable at the institutional level.

Another important consideration is the “institutionalization” of the international elements. In the first part of the chapter the process approach to internationalization was described. It focuses on both international activities (exchanges, curriculum, international students, development projects) and organizational factors (policies and systems) needed to integrate the international dimension into all aspects of the university. The process approach is fundamental to trying to institutionalize the international dimension into the priorities, planning, policies, and procedures for the higher education institution. The process, or integrative, approach is better understood and recognized in Canada than in many other countries of the world. This is partly because we take a comprehensive approach to internationalization and have recognized the importance of the dynamic relationship between curriculum, development projects, research, etc. In other words, the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

In Australia, greater emphasis has been placed on the recruitment of international students and twinning programs; only recently has it looked at the internationalization of domestic students by addressing the curriculum and trying to expand student-exchange programs, etc. (Back et al. 1996). In Europe, the European Commission programs, such as SOCRATES, ERASMUS, and COMETT, have fundamentally shaped the internationalization activities of many universities and other tertiary institutions (de Wit and Callan 1995). The European Commission programs have been successful in creating institutional partnerships and exchange programs. In the evaluation of many European Commission programs, this issue, plus that of the

sustainability of these initiatives, is being carefully analyzed. Can individual institutions continue these new programs without the support of the European Commission?

In Canada, we have not had these kinds of national or provincial programs to support our internationalization work, and much of the responsibility has remained with the individual institution. Not having such external support may have hindered the extent of our internationalization efforts, but in the end it may have helped the individual institutions to be more independent and entrepreneurial in finding ways to support this dimension of activities. The major risk is that institutions may place more emphasis on the economic and commercial aspects of international work, rather than the internationalization of the academic experience for Canadian students. An appropriate balance is needed.

In Australia, it is a completely different story. A significant reduction has occurred in national funding, and the institutions have had to proactively diversify the sources of their funding. Since the advent of full cost recovery on international student fees and a systematic marketing effort “the single most important and the single largest revenue stream is international students” (ACA 1997, p. 49).

(continues below...)

Document(s) 11 of 16