Madeleine F. Green
Senior Fellow
International Association of Universities
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
©Madeleine F Green 2013

PART I: The Global Context
PART II: The Institutional Context
• Definitions
• WHAT: Dimensions of internationalization
• WHY: Drivers of Internationalization
• HOW: The process
• Ingredients of Success
©Madeleine F Green 2013

©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Growing importance of internationalization
• Increased but different expectations of internationalization
• Strong focus on students, especially on their mobility
• Marked regional differences among HEIs
- in rationales and perceptions of risks
• High level of policy mimicry posing a threat to diversity and increasing competition
©Madeleine F Green 2013

-
Internationalization of higher education is everybody’s business
National/regional policy interests
HE
Institutional policy interests
Academic,
-
Scientific interests
©IAU 2013

The importance of context
• Approaches for internationalization are shaped by:
– Socio-economic realities, language, h istorical and cultural factors
• These contextual factors in turn determine:
– Rationales, perception of risk, choice of partners
– National and/or institutional capacity to influence internationalization policy directions and outcomes
– the playing field is not level
• Technology adds a new dimension:
– Can reinforce current hegemonies
– Or create new actors
©IAU 2013

Global and regional overview of institutional rationales for internationalization
N=745
©IAU 2011
(IAU 3 rd Global survey, 2010)

Global and regional overview of Internationalization
Activities given highest priority in HEI policies
©Madeleine F Green 2013

Global and regional overview of risks of internationalization as perceived by HEIs
N=745
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Creating coherence
– Aligning expectations and goals among policy-makers in diverse ministries, with institutional leadership, faculty, and students
– Aligning resources and strategies with goals
• Broadening focus and access
– Focusing on more than mobility, building synergies
– Taking a long-term, inclusive attitude to choice of partners, regions, disciplines and approach
• Emphasis on fundamentals
– Focus on learning
– Demonstrating impact with clear indicators
– Answering the ‘why’ questions qualitatively
– Maintaining commitment to values and ethical conduct
©IAU 2013

©Madeleine F Green 2013

“ … a process that [leads] to institutional transformation over time, built on an institutional vision for internationalization, a clearly articulated set of goals, and a strategy to integrate the internationally and globally focused programs and activities on campus.
”
Olson, Green, Hill, 2005.
©Madeleine F Green 2013

“ …a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service mission of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise…
Hudzik, 2011
©Madeleine F Green 2013

“ Internationalization is the process for integrating international/intercultural content into the teaching, learning, research and service functions of postsecondary education.
”
(
Jane Knight
,
2003
)
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• The approach coherent, strategic
• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts
• It ’ s not another thing to put on the list: comprehensive internationalization is another way of doing business
©Madeleine F Green 2013

– pervades the institution
– affects a broad spectrum of people, policies, and programs
– requires a deeper and potentially more challenging change
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Curriculum
• Campus life
• Academic mobility
• International linkages, partnerships, projects
• Research cooperation
• International delivery of education (distance learning, offshore campuses)
©Madeleine F Green 2013

THREE CLUSTERS:
•
Revenue, Prestige, Profile
• Academic Quality
– e.g. research, preparing students, building institutional capacity
• Contribution to the Greater Good
– Creating experts (languages, area studies)
– Building capacity in partner institution, country
– Solving global problems
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• What are the advantages (students, faculty, institution)?
• What are the costs/downsides?
• How might the latter be addressed?
Mitigated?
• What would UB look like if it were “fully internationalized?”
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• More than “internationalization at home”
• What would a globally competent UB graduate look like (skills, competencies, attitudes)?
• What opportunities exist for students to acquire these skills, competencies, attitudes?
• How do you know? What is your evidence?
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Institutions are idiosyncratic, so are their approaches
• Differences shaped by an institution ’ s
– Mission, values, priories
– Starting point
– External environment
– Modes of operation
©Madeleine F Green 2013

Additive approach : Adding a few programs or courses here and there, or increasing the number of students going abroad, or the number of international students on campus
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• CI is a priority that supports major institutional goals
• Clear institutional goals, milestones, outcomes (a plan)
• Goals for student learning
• Efforts to create synergy among disparate activities
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Alters the culture of the institution
• Is deep and pervasive (systemic)
• Is intentional
• Occurs over time
• Requires leadership and collaboration
• Requires ownership
©Madeleine F Green 2013

• Link to institutional priorities
• Committed leadership
• Collaboration
• Design a good process
• Widen the circle of involvement
• Define and reward what counts (hiring, P&T)
• Define and measure success
– Institutional measures
– Student learning
©Madeleine F Green 2013