Effect of
internationalization on
future faculty
Jason E. Lane
Cross-Border Education
Research Team
State University of New York
Outline
• Overview of cross border higher education
• The internationalization of research efforts
• Development of international branch campuses
Cross-border higher education
• Internationalisation / Globalisation
• Cross-border mobility:
–
–
–
–
–
Students
Academics
Programmes
Institutions
Projects (research, etc.)
Student mobility
International Students Worldwide, Selected Years
International enrollment as a percentage of total higher education
enrollment for top countries, 2011/2012
Top 8 host countries of globally mobile students
A view from the US: international students
• In 2012-2013, the number of
international students in the US
increased 7.2% to a record high of
819,644
• The top senders of international students
are China, India, and South Korea.
• International students comprise about
3% of undergrads and 15% of grads
• CA, NY, and TX are the top hosting states
A view from the US: study abroad
• In 2012-2013, the number of
students studying abroad reached
283,332 and increase of 3.4%
• The top destinations are UK, Italy,
Spain, France, and China.
• Top fields are social sciences,
business, and humanities
• 58% go for eight weeks or less
Programme and
institution mobility
International mobility of
programs and institutions
• Educational programme and institution mobility is still limited in scale
but grows rapidly, especially in the Asia-Pacific region
– About 300,000 students enrolled in UK and Australian foreign
programmes
– 30% of all international students enrolled in Australian institutions
studied from their country in 2007 (against 24% in 1996 and 37% in
2001); all Australian universities engaged in cross-border operations
– Singapore: more undergraduate students accessed a foreign programme
from Singapore than studied abroad in 2000
– China: 9-fold increase in foreign programmes between 1995 and 2004:
831 joint schools (126) and programmes (705)
Examples of exporters
• Australia
– Monash, RMIT
• UK
– Liverpool (China), Nottingham
(Malaysia, China), New Castle
(Malaysia)
• US
– Apollo, Laureate
– NYU, Carnegie Mellon, MIT,
etc.
• Germany
– German University in Egypt
• France
– Sorbonne (Abu Dhabi), Egypt
• Sweden
– Karolinska Institute (China)
Examples of importers
• United Arab Emirates
– Knowledge village, DIAC
• Qatar
– Education city
• Korea
– IFEZ: global academic cluster
(2005-2010)
• Malaysia
– Kuala Lumpur Education City
– Iskandar
Example: Singapore
Branch campuses
Partnerships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
INSEAD
University of Chicago Graduate
School of Business
Duke
ESSEC
SP Jain Centre of Management
Digipen Institute of Technology
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
(UNLV)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Georgia Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT)
The Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania
Design Technology Institute
German Institute of Science &
Technology
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Stanford University
Waseda University
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
New York University School of Law
Cornell University
A variety of models
A variety of arrangements and
objectives
• Multiplication of commercial arrangements in Asia – but noncommercial academic partnerships remain the norm in Europe
• Public (or private not-for-profit) institutions have been the main drivers
of commercial programme and institution mobility
• A multiplicity of business models
–
–
–
–
Partnerships: franchise, twinning arrangement
Branch campuses, multi-campus institutions
Buying foreign institutions
Invited or not by country
Drivers, rationales,
strategies
Rationales and drivers of crossborder higher education
• Decrease in travel and communication costs
• Globalisation, migration and labour market opportunities
• More demand from students and their families (and unmet demand
in some emerging countries)
• Policies at country and/or regional level
• Source of funding for educational institutions and economic strategy
for some countries
• Institutional strategies for prestige
Some challenges
•
Quality and recognition, hence the Guidelines
But also:
•
Equity of access and financing
•
Brain drain
•
Decrease of aid to developing countries
•
Culture and language
•
Reaping the benefits
Research
Collaborations
Vital Statistics – Unstoppable Trends
Spent on Research and Development
US $
Numbers of
researchers
Number of
publications
% GDP
2007
1145 B
1.7
7.1 M
1.6 M
2002
790 B
1.7
4.7 M
1.1 M
 Since the beginning of the 21st Century, global spend has almost doubled
 US, Japan, Europe, Australasia all increased spending by roughly one-third
 China, India and Brazil more than doubled expenditure
 Architecture of world science undergoing transformation, with global
networks, mostly self-organized (exceptions, human genome, CERN, etc.)
 US still leads the world, with 20% of world authorship
 US, Japan, UK Germany, and France together command 59%
 China now second highest producer
 India has displaced Russia in top ten
Some Major Global Societal Issues
(A. Leshner: Building a Global Science Community, Nov 2011)
• Sustainability
• Renewable energy
• Information and
communications technology
• Universal access to education
• Poverty and economic
opportunity
• Technology-based
manufacturing and jobs
•
•
•
•
Intellectual property rights
Terrorism and security
Disasters
Science and Technology
Capacity-Building
• Vaccines and medical
therapies
• Quality and accessibility of
Health Care
Proportion of Global Publications,
by Country
Source: Elsevier Scopus, Royal Society
umber of Collaborative Papers
Internationally Collaborative Papers (2008)
Source: Royal Society
United States (2008)
80,000
60,000
United States (1996)
40,000
China
20,000
0.15
UK
Germany
France
Switzerland
Japan
China
1996
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
Collaborative Papers as a proportion of national output
0.6
Other Forcing Functions
• Qatar Foundation has $1.2B available annually to aid the
transition from a carbon to a knowledge economy
• Turkey’s investments have grown rapidly
• Chile has opened its doors to international expertise through
its Millennium Institutes
• Singapore seeks to become a regional hub
• India’s 5-year plan includes the establishment of 30 new
central universities
• Sao Paulo funds approximately 30% of Brazil’s R&D
Country Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
China – seeks to increase R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2020
Brazil: 2.5% by 2022
South Korea: 5% by 2022
EU: Lisbon goal of 3%
USA: goal of 3%
Japan: well above 3%
“The days of overwhelming U.S. science dominance are
over, but the country can actually benefit by learning to
tap and build on the expanding wellspring of
knowledge being generated in many countries.”
The Shifting Landscape of Science, Caroline S. Wagner,
Issues Online in S&T, NRC, 2011
Who is Collaborating with Whom?
What about the developing world?
Most of Africa’s collaboration is with the
G20 countries, but South-South
collaboration is a growing trend, the the
US could amplify.
Egypt and Sudan – important bridges
Kenya and South Africa- important hubs
Foreign Higher
Education Outposts
Cross-Border Education Research Team
online resources
www.globalhighered.org
• Up-to-date list of IBCs and Ed. Hubs
• Annotated bibliography on IBCs
• Updates on our activities/publications
http://www.bc.edu/research/cihe/cbhe/
• Partnership with CIHE at Boston College
• Hub for research/writings on CBHE
• Blogs on Chronicle of HE & Inside HE
Parsons goes to Paris (1920s)
Johns Hopkins opens in Italy
Florida State heads to Panama
Today
Not just a US phenomenon
Founding Date of IBC
International Branch Campuses
• Blue: Home Campus
Red: Branch Campus
Webster University
New York University
The myths
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IBCs focus only on teaching
They are “hollow shells”
All IBCS are subsidized by governments
IBCs are revenue producing entities
IBCS move North to South
Extreme form of privatization
IBCs are part of a bubble
7 Myths “Truths”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Many IBCs have multifaceted missions
Many now offer co-curricular experiences
They rarely prove to be profitable in the short term
Not all are gov’t subsidized
IBCs move in all directions
Some IBCs fulfill public goals
IBC population is stabilizing
Curriculum Offerings
Public-Private (home campus)
What is the motivation?
Home country
• None
• Diplomacy
• Economic
Host country
•
•
•
•
Leap Frogging
Capacity Bldg.
Diplomacy
Economic
Institution
•
•
•
•
Prestige
Economic
Market Share
Educational
Issues to Consider
• Institutionally Driven (vs. faculty driven)
• Quality Assurance (internal and external)
• Role in the foreign country?
– Access, Research, Community Engagement?
• Balancing Standardization vs. Diversification
• A shift in the definition of students (what does
“international” mean?)
• Culture clashes (e.g. academic freedom, religion, etc.)