BLOOD ON THE EASEL: RETICENCE AND RESISTANCE TO
INTERNATIONLISATION AT A UK ART SCHOOL
Gareth Barham
Cardiff School of Art & Design
University Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC), Cardiff, United Kingdom
gbarham@uwic.ac.uk, phone: 029 2041 6902, mobile: 07887 995 424
Biography
Gareth is a graduate of the Design for Industry course at the University of
Northumbria and pursued a successful career as an industrial designer before
embarking on a career in academia at the Cardiff School of Art and Design at UWIC.
He is a Senior Lecturer of Product Design and, in his role as International
Development Manager, also coordinates international recruitment, collaboration and
internationalisation of curriculum. Gareth is a visiting lecturer at several renowned
schools of art and design overseas and is responsible for the creation and development
of successful trans-national educational programmes at international partner
institutions.
Towards an Internationalised Classroom
As Dilys Schororman argues, over the period of the last ten years, the term
‘internationalisation’ has become a buzzword in higher education and an increasingly
important aspect of universities’ mission statements all over the world. Despite the
frequency of the term appearing in higher education rhetoric, Schororman claims that
‘what has been less evident is a clear conceptualization of the desired nature, purpose
and scope of the internationalization process’ (Schororman, 2000).
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that definitions of ‘internationalisation’ vary to such
a significant extent. Mc Taggart, for example, argues that internationalisation
constitutes a ‘change to make the curriculum more engaging and relevant for students
from cultures different from that of the university itself’ and a ‘change to prepare
students from home and other cultures to live and work in settings and organisations
quite different from those of the university’s home culture’ (McTaggart, 2003).
Nilsson, however, focuses to a more significant extent on creating spaces to engage
students in intercultural exchange arguing that an internationalised curriculum
prepares students for performing at all levels in an international and multicultural
context (Nilsson, 2003). Despite the differences in theoretical approaches, most
theorists concur that internationalisation constitutes a radical departure in academic
pedagogy that encourages staff and students to look beyond their own cultures, values
and norms and embrace the perspectives of others. This is emphasised by Schororman
who defines internationalisation as ‘an ongoing, counterhegemonic educational
process that occurs in an international context of knowledge and practice where
societies are viewed as subsystems of a larger, inclusive world’ (Schororman, 2000).
This process of change aims to encourage staff and students to develop a new way of
looking at the world. In line with this, Rizvi argues that internationalisation should
include values such as ‘openness, tolerance and cosmopolitanism’ and that the overall
goal should be the development of what is termed as ‘culturally inclusive behaviour’
(Rizvi, 2000).
As Martin Haigh and Valerie Clifford argue so succinctly, the role of a university
must be to achieve more than the production of a set of graduates who are simply able
to do a job. Rather they should be producing graduates with a wide ranging set of
what they term ‘graduate attributes’ and a wide range of skills which enable them to
function as effective members of society (Haigh and Clifford, 2009). There is no
doubt that an internationalised curriculum is a step in the right direction towards
encouraging the development of the responsible, capable, compassionate, self aware
and cosmopolitan citizens that Haigh and Clifford refer to and that such citizens are
more effective as they are better prepared to function in today’s global society and
employment marketplace. The need for internationalised curricula is particularly acute
given the specific context of the School as a relatively high percentage of its 1,200
students are from the immediate surrounding geographical area and from socioeconomic backgrounds where there have been relatively few opportunities for them to
engage in cross-cultural activities and debate.
The University itself prides itself on being a forward thinking and dynamic
organisation and has had an internationalisation strategy for some time. In reality,
however, it focuses largely on income generating activities (primarily the recruitment
of full fee paying international students and TNE enterprise). Although there are
pockets of good practice dotted here and there around the University in terms of
internationalisation in its wider sense, there is little to suggest that it sets out to engage
with internationalisation in its wider sense and it does little more than pay lip service
to internationalisation of the curriculum and it is doubtful whether the University has
moved beyond seeing the benefits not purely as financial, but also as intellectual and
cultural as described by Sheil and McKenzie (2008).
The Dean of the School, however, is committed to the principals of
internationalisation. She understands the impact that internationalised curricula can
have and the benefits that international students bring to art and design studios. Keen
to see the School develop towards internationalisation, she created the role of
International Development Manager, the only role of its kind in the University. I was
appointed to this roll in 2009. The importance that the Dean attributes to
internationalisation and the role that she sees this playing in the School’s future is
evidenced by the fact that she created a position for the International Development
Manager on the School’s management board. I am somewhat unsure as to why she
exactly selected me for this role. Prior to this particular appointment, I had been
working with the University’s International Office on international development
activities and had been involved in developing collaborative partnerships. I also had a
personal interest in internationalisation. I did not, however, have any direct experience
of managing internationalisation of the curriculum processes. I now have a dual role
within the School. As a Senior Lecturer, I continue to be responsible for
undergraduate and postgraduate industrial design programmes but I have also been
tasked with managing all issues relating to internationalisation across all programmes
within the School. This includes establishing and building relationships with partner
institutions with a view to increasing staff and student mobility, developing
collaborative links in the fields of research and academic delivery and with
championing internationalised curriculum development. The intention behind the
creation of the role of International Development Manager was to excite debate
amongst a cohort of home and international students on international art and design
practice and theory. Convinced that in order to be truly internationalised, the School
needed to attract larger numbers of international students to its courses, an immediate
target of doubling the number of international students over a two year period was
also set. The School has therefore taken a significant step towards internationalisation
and embarked on a process of radical change and development.
When approached from a theoretical perspective, few academics in the School would
argue against the merits of internationalisation. With the creation of the post of
internationalisation champion, however, these theories have threatened to become a
reality. Things have begun to change and tempers flare. Cultural stereotypes often
represent academics, particularly within the field of art and design, as rather
bohemian, liberal and open-minded in their outlook. Present them with the radical
changes that internationalisation necessitates and the cultural stereotypes are very
quickly debunked: blood spatters across easels and a mood of reticence and resistance
prevails amongst many academics. The prospective of having to change and rethink
the way in which things have been done in the past is seen as threatening by many
colleagues. Art Schools are places of passion and vitality. They are spaces where great
ideas are generated and are also hothouses for debate. Do not underestimate the
intensity of debate that the subject of internationalisation can give rise to. In this
paper, I will address some of the challenges that have been faced during the move
towards an internationalised classroom. Attitudes to internationalisation will be
exemplified by referring to the international admissions processes and a specific case
study will be described which encapsulates the reluctance and reticence that is often
apparent.
International Admissions Processes
The School’s view is that the recruitment of good quality international students goes
hand in hand with other elements of internationalisation such as internationalisation of
curricula. This is not to suggest that international recruitment is seen purely in terms
of its economic benefits to the School, but rather that the participation of suitably
qualified international students creates opportunities and benefits for all staff and
students and brings the drive to internationalise curricula to life. The School prides
itself on being one of the UK’s most prestigious and renowned schools of art and
design. There are many reasons why international students would want to study with
us. Rather naively, at first I thought it would be only a matter of time before we would
see increased involvement of international students in our courses. I thought that
participating in education exhibitions around the world, engaging with recruitment
agents to increase awareness of the School and developing partnerships with
international institutions to form progression agreements would result in the desired
outcome. Analysis has shown that these activities have indeed led to increasing
numbers of students applying to the School. However, the numbers of international
students accepted has remained about the same.
Detailed analysis of which courses within the School are enrolling international
students and what types of students they are accepting reveals an alarming picture.
Some courses have truly international cohorts of students. The largest single
nationality of students may be British, but countries in East and South Asia, Oceania,
North America and Europe are also represented in the student body. The make-up of
other courses, however, is rather different. They, in contrast, only seem to have
international students from North America, Australia and from a small number of
European countries. The trend becomes clearer after discussions with course directors
reveal that, for some, the only international partnerships that they will contemplate are
with western, capitalist countries where English is the primary language. With the
exception of international students from the English-speaking countries with an art
and design education not dissimilar to that of the UK, they expressed the view that
international students were usually unable to cope and therefore did not contribute
anything to the class and studio dynamics.
Recruiting international students for all courses is complex and this is perhaps even
more the case in art and design subjects. Not only are candidates required to attain
certain levels of academic achievement, they also have to prepare and present a
portfolio of art and design work in support of their applications. It is also worth
bearing in mind that the vast majority of UK students who apply to the School have a
face-to-face portfolio review and interview, to ensure that they are right for the course
and that the course is right for them. Course directors within the School often regard
themselves as bastions of quality and standards. They are often unwilling to accept
applicants onto courses who cannot attend an interview and who do not demonstrate
in their portfolios what the UK art and design fields deem to be necessary and
appropriate. Despite having appropriate academic qualifications, applicants will often
be rejected on the basis of their portfolios. They do not take into consideration the
fact that the majority of international students do not necessarily understand what is
expected in a portfolio and have not benefitted from the years of coaching on portfolio
presentation that UK students have. Herein lies the problem. The portfolio ought to be
able to enable admissions tutors to better understand the practical achievements and
entry velocity of an applicant so that they can assess their creative potential. More
frequently, however, the portfolio is used as a vehicle to reject a candidate based on a
naive understanding of the work that is presented and the conviction that there is only
one way in which to prepare and present a portfolio. For example, an international
applicant may have achieved excellent grades and presented a portfolio of artwork
that in their home country would be regarded as excellent. However, they may not
have included the development sketches and preparatory work that would be expected
of a UK candidate. This is not taken into consideration and the portfolio is deemed to
be naive and underdeveloped.
A face-to-face interview should present an opportunity to better understand the
portfolio of work. Even where an interview with an international applicant is possible
however, course directors often construct questions based largely on western
approaches to art and design and critical and cultural theory. They draw on examples
and experiences unfamiliar to the applicants, without taking into consideration that
other perceptions, styles and histories are possible. At best, many international
applicants are ill-prepared for such interviews and, at worst they regard the interview
experience as confrontational.
Herein lies another problem. The structure of art and design education in Asia, for
example, is very different to that in the UK. In many cultures, art and design is not
seen to be an academically robust or worthwhile subject. This often results in
international students with far less formal art and design education submitting
portfolios that demonstrate a raw natural talent. Students from other cultures may
have benefitted from a more robust and formal art and design education, but the
didactic education system means that they will not necessarily have been encouraged
to develop their own creative position or voice. Evidence and experience demonstrate
that with good teaching and mentoring and internationalised curricula which value
other approaches and perspectives, both categories of students referred to above can
succeed and, indeed, excel on art and design courses in the UK and, moreover, that
their presence on campus can extend the boundaries and enhance the creativity of the
UK students. Sadly, many course directors refuse to acknowledge this and the
international students are rejected not because of their weaknesses but on account of
the naivety of the admissions tutor.
The apparent unpreparedness of admission tutors cannot, however, be attributed
exclusively to naivety, as this would suggest that the situation is less-complex than it
is. There are other perceived barriers to increasing the international cohort such as
language and cultural differences. Admissions tutors claim that international students
are particularly needy, as they are not used to learning and teaching styles in the UK;
that there are cultural attitudes relating to health and safety of students using
machinery and technologies; that students would not understand subject-specific
vocabulary; and that students’ prior experience is irrelevant in the UK art and design
educational context. In addition to these points, they claim that international students
often require extra tuition to help them through the course and complain that there is
no additional budget to allow for this.
Staff are often unaware that their attitudes towards international students are laden
with value judgements and that they hold points of view that do not support multiple
cultural perspectives. When challenged, staff will claim to be in favour of having
international students on their courses but only if suitable candidates of a suitable
quality can be found. As I have indicated above, by suitable they imply only if
international students who are the same as UK students can be recruited. Admissions
tutors are rejecting good candidates because they have an educational background and
training that is different to that of their UK counterparts. The principles of
internationalisation of the curriculum, however, encourage and indeed celebrate
diversity in the classroom. In line with this, many of the barriers referred to above, if
they do indeed exist, could be eliminated by a truly internationalised curriculum and
thus it would seem that the principles of internationalisation of the curriculum
potentially have the capacity to overturn and de-stabilise the objections raised in a
constructive way and to the benefit of all.
The Exchange Programme
As I have alluded to above, a significant body of research exists putting forward a
compelling series of arguments to reinforce the fact that organisations, at every level,
should adopt the principles of internationalisation of curriculum and multiculturalism
in the classroom. Morey, for example, explains that ‘to bring about a truly
transformed curriculum requires fundamental and systemic change in the organisation
itself’ and she goes on to argue that ‘[t]he framework entails the establishment of an
enabling environment for change, including a shared vision of what is possible and a
strategy for change’ (Morey, 2000, p.27). Similarly, Sanderson lists fourteen
conditions that support the development of an ‘internationalised academic’.
(Sanderson, 2009, pp.69-70). Although the theories of Morey and Sanderson are very
convincing and, indeed, inspiring, particularly for an institution starting out on its
move towards a multicultural classroom, both rely to a significant extent on the good
will of participants and on all parties involved being open to change and supportive of
the process. Few theorists have focused on how reticent academics can be encouraged
to change their attitude towards internationalisation.
Change of any kind can often be seen as threatening as it involves the unknown and
the unfamiliar. Convinced that if certain academic colleagues were able to experience
first-hand the benefits of having an internationalised classroom they would be more
likely to buy in to internationalisation, an exchange programme with a university in
Busan, South Korea, seemed like the perfect catalyst for change. The intention was to
give all courses, students and staff within the School the experience of having
students from a largely unfamiliar country and culture participate in everyday
academic life. Moreover, the South Korean university in question has an excellent
reputation for art and design and education in the subject area is, in general, of a very
high standard. The fact that this was a short exchange programme of just six weeks
was attractive as academic staff had opportunities to interact with the students without
having to formally accept or enrol them on their programmes. Additional
responsibilities and duties were kept to an absolute minimum as the South Korean
students studied and worked alongside the other students and, since the exchange was
intended to be a cultural and creative experience, the modules that they studied with
us were not credit-bearing. All academic staff had to do was agree to have the
students take part in their seminars, studio time and lectures.
The initial plan was to have a small number of South Korean students on as many
different programmes as possible within the School. Very soon, however, it emerged
that although many courses were delighted to welcome our South Korean guests,
other colleagues put forward a series of objections ranging from there being
insufficient time to plan the visit (notification of the exchange programme was
circulated eight weeks before their arrival date), to there being insufficient physical
space to accommodate the students in studios (a maximum of three studentsper course
had been suggested). In addition, concerns about language and the likely quality of
their work were put forward even though, prior to agreeing to the exchange, I had
visited the university, met staff and students from the school and made an assessment
on the overall quality of teaching and work. Intensive debates ensued and despite
repeated requests for cooperation with the exchange programme, some course
directors refused to participate and arrangements had to be made for a few students to
study on alternative courses. On the whole, those academics who already
demonstrated good practice in terms of internationalisation of the curriculum were the
ones who worked hard to ensure that the project was a success despite the additional
burden of having to accommodate more South Korean visitors than originally
planned, whereas those who needed to be convinced of the actual merits of
international engagement often declined to be involved.
Project managing this exchange programme was incredibly stressful but the eventual
outcome was exceedingly positive. A significant degree of home/visitor student
interaction was achieved during the visit and all students maintained that they had
enjoyed and benefitted from the experience. When questioned about the experience,
almost all of the students claimed that they now understood more about each other’s
cultures and art and design methodologies and practices. They also maintained that
they understood a little better how their own work may be perceived elsewhere.
Without a doubt, the project served to make the students question their preconceived
ideas and all academics agreed that the presence of the South Korean students in the
studios had served to enhance the UK-based students’ capacity for creative thought.
Since the exchange, students have maintained contact. Several students from our
University will be taking part in a reciprocal visit to the university in Busan this
summer and, inspired by the experience of the exchange programme, several students
graduating this summer are exploring opportunities to spend a year teaching in South
Korea. A number of students from Busan have also submitted applications to transfer
to our School to continue their studies. Although many of the academic staff involved
with the project were staff who already supported the principals of
internationalisation, there were also some previously sceptical staff members involved
who claimed to be ‘pleasantly surprised’ by the overall outcome. The extent to which
the experience is likely to change their perceptions remains to be seen but as a result
of this brief insight into how multiculturalism can play a part in art education, they do
now at least appear to be engaging in a more constructive debate about
internationalisation.
This case study of the South Korean exchange programme suggests that when
academic staff are actually able to experience the value of intercultural education,
they are far more likely to engage positively with principles and practice of an
internationalised curriculum. Often, however, those who seek to involve themselves
in such projects are those who are already convinced of the intrinsic value of such
activities. The most significant challenge, however, is what can be done to convince
academics who, convinced that their way of doing things is the only way of doing
things, wholly reject any kind of change and point blank refuse to engage in any such
processes at all. Perhaps, however, as time goes on and the principals of
internationalisation of curriculum become more and more embedded in the School’s
overall learning ethos and become the established norm rather than a threatening and
unknown radical change, the reticence and reluctance will begin to fade and staff will
become convinced of the benefits of such processes. Successful projects such as the
South Korean exchange programme will no doubt assist and the role that the
management needs to play in this process should not be underestimated. In order to
encourage buy-in, it needs to be clear that the University at every level supports these
important principals. In the meantime, I am not so naive as to suppose that there will
not be other occasions when the topic of internationalisation will lead to blood on the
easel.
Concluding Thoughts
Perhaps one of the challenges to the rolling out an internationalisation agenda within
the School and a source of concern to academic colleagues who tend to view
internationalisation of the curricula with the reticence and reluctance described above
is their scepticism about the real intentions behind the drive to internationalise. As we
are all aware, these are challenging times for higher education. This is particularly the
case in Wales where home student fees have been capped and quotas imposed by the
Welsh Assembly Government. University management makes it very clear that the
recruitment of full fee paying international students represents a valuable source of
income to the University and one that can continue to grow despite financial
restrictions and cut-backs in other areas. Academic staff find themselves in a
perpetual series of battles to protect the interests of their courses as vital resources
appear to come under threat. In this environment of uncertainty and change, the
integrity of their courses often appears to be under threat and everything seems to be
conspiring against them in their quest to maintain standards. In this challenging
climate of seemingly perpetual flux, the internationalisation agenda cloud seems to
hover above them: University management stresses the need to recruit ever larger
numbers of international students (students who academics do not always feel meet
the academic standards required; students whose English language capabilities
sometimes seem to be below par; and students whose particular needs and concerns
appear to constitute a significant drain on already scare resources) and the School
stresses its commitment to internationalising academic curricula at every opportunity.
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that internationalisation of the curriculum is
sometimes interpreted as a guise to make course directors accept unsuitable students
onto their courses.
Kitano (1997) identifies three specific levels of international and intercultural
engagement. In the first of these, Kitano describes universities termed as ‘exclusive’,
that is to say universities whose curricular embodies traditional, mainstream
experience and perspectives where academic staff act as the fountain of all knowledge
with limited opportunities for alternative world views and perspectives and critical
debate. The next level of engagement is described by Kitano as ‘inclusive’. This level
constitutes a radical departure from the first level in that internationalisation strategies
are perceived as beneficial to all. The curricula at such universities can be seen to be
characterised by their drive towards cultural inclusivity as they strive to incorporate
international perspectives and opportunities for cultural exchange. Within this model,
alternative perspectives are put forward and a variety of teaching methods used to
support active learning. The final level of participation described by Kitano is that of
the ‘transformed’ university. This level of engagement constitutes a dramatic
paradigm shift. In the model of the ‘inclusive’ university, cultural interaction is based
largely on observation. In this final level, however, academics and their perspectives
are characterised by full engagement. In line with this, work is considered from the
perspective of others and entirely new approaches are developed. Within this model,
students and tutors are seen to learn from one another and new learning and
assessment strategies are embraced which include self-assessments, evaluation and
reflection. An environment of diverse perspectives and mutual respect prevails.
(Kitano, 1997, p.24).
In the case of my particular school, academic colleagues can perhaps be divided into
two camps. The first camp, I will refer to as the ‘artists’, which serves as an
interesting metaphor as we are referring here to a school of art and design. The
perspectives of the ‘artists’ can be seen to largely reflect the second level of
engagement as described by Kitano, that is to say ‘inclusive’. The ‘artists’ are able to
see and appreciate the perspectives of others and can see the value of
internationalisation of the curriculum at one level. However, as ‘artists’, their primary
aim is for the observers of their art to seek to understand them and not necessarily
vice-versa. The ‘artists’ consider themselves to be the authority in their discipline and
feel the necessity to defend their own creative voice or perspective. Often the ‘artists’
will perceive alternate perspectives as a direct challenge to their intellectual position
and unique creative stand-point. I will suggest that, for this reason, the third level of
engagement described by Kitano represents a step too far for them. The blurring of the
boundaries associated with the third level of engagement, that of the ‘transformed’
university, implies a threat as the creation of an entirely new way of thinking threatens
the ‘artists’’ quest to convey their specific perspective on the world and to be
understood.
The second camp is one that I shall refer to as the ‘designers’. For these individuals,
the third level of engagement is less threatening than it is for the ‘artists’. Although
the term ‘designer’ is again being used as a metaphor, ‘designers’ by vocation, are
used to taking the perspective of others into consideration and, moreover, developing
products and services aimed to cater not to their own needs but to those of others. In
this process, biased views are challenged and, as Kitano describes, a non-dominant
perspective prevails.
In using the metaphors above to describe the contrasting attitudes of academic staff
within the School, I am by no means suggesting that every actual design academic
falls into the camp of the ‘transformed’ ‘designers’, or that every academic involved
in the delivery of art practice courses wishes to engage themselves no further than the
level of the ‘inclusive’ ‘artists’. Given the specific context of this paper, however, the
metaphor appears to be a useful one as it illuminates the heated debates that occur at a
School level about the appropriate level of engagement and the extent to which
curricula and pedagogical delivery should be transformed to embody the goals of
internationalisation.
One thing that is certain is that fuel is added to the fire when central University
directives and agendas emphasise the importance of internationalisation activities as
income generating activities above everything else. Already feeling challenged and
threatened by those in the School who commit wholeheartedly to the
internationalisation agenda and who emphasise the need to entirely re-think academic
delivery and higher education pedagogy, this central directive often eclipses the
positive benefits that internationalisation in the widest sense of the word brings.
Although on the one hand the current financial climate has muddied the waters of the
internationalisation of the curriculum debate, on the other it has inadvertently created
significant opportunities for reflection and change. The School’s undergraduate
courses are under-going a complete re-structure to make delivery more lean and
efficient with a view to creating additional time for staff to engage in research and
enterprise activities. All courses will be re-validated by September 2011 and
internationalisation of the curriculum is on the agenda for inclusion within the new
structure. There is considerable support from the School management team and a
structure in place to oversee the implementation of internationalisation of the
curriculum theory into programme practice, programme documentation and module
descriptors across the School. It is very much hoped that since the new regime will
develop cross-course collaboration and interaction of staff on a School level, the
current tendency towards ‘silos’ and courses working in isolation will become a thing
of the past and good practice will permeate throughout the School. New Masters
courses involving student mobility are also being developed and students from partner
institutions overseas will study with us for a set period of time before returning to
their own institutions to complete their Masters degrees. Experience has
demonstrated that incorporating internationalisation projects and enabling everyone to
experience the benefits are key to winning over hostile staff. The School has a long
way to go yet, but there does at least appear to be a dim and distant light at the end of
the tunnel as we move forwards towards our goal of School-wide internationalisation.
References
Haigh, M., & Clifford, V. (2009). Widening the graduate attribute debate: A higher
Education for Global Citizenship. Internationalising the Home Student:
Trigger Papers, CICIN Conference 2009, 40-50.
Kitano, M.K. (1997). What a course will look like after Multicultural change. In A.J.
Morey & M. Kitano (Eds.), Multicultural course transformation in higher
education: A broader truth (pp. 18-30). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McTaggart, R. (2003). Internationalisation of the curriculum. Retrieved 20/06/2008,
From http://www.jcu.edu.au/teaching/idc/groups/public/documents/staff_
publications/jcuprd_016751.pdf
Morey, A.I. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and
multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe, Vol. XXV, No. 1, 25-39.
Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedish perspective: The case
of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol 7, No 1, 27-40.
Rizvi, F. (2000). Internationalisation of curriculum. Retrieved 20/02/2008, from
http://www.pvci.rmit.edu.au/internationalisation of the curriculum/back/
icpfr.pdf
Sanderson, G. (2009). The secret lives of internationalised lecturers; a detective’s
story. Internationalising the Home Student: Trigger Papers, CICIN
Conference 2009, 62-80.
Schoorman, D. (2000). What do we really mean by ‘internationalisation’? Retrieved
03/03/2008, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid+4&hid=3&sid=
a5d015de
Sheil, C. & McKenzie, A. (2008). The global university: The role of senior managers.
Retrieved 01/03/2009, from http://www.dea.org.uk
Word Count
5,280