Report
International Association of Universities
(IAU) June 2013
1
Contents
I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................3
Overall purpose of the project............................................................................................................................................................3
II. Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Expert Panel members ..................................................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Expert Panel site visit ....................................................................................................................................................................4
IV. General overview ...............................................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Findings and Observations ............................................................................................................................................................5
3.2 Motivational factor for internationalization .................................................................................................................................5
3.3. University goals for internationalization ......................................................................................................................................6
3.4 Institutional communication and promotion ................................................................................................................................6
3.5 Students and teachers mobility ....................................................................................................................................................6
3.6 Partnerships and cooperation ......................................................................................................................................................7
3.7 Internationalization of the curriculum ..........................................................................................................................................7
3.8 Internationalization of research ...................................................................................................................................................8
3.9 Challenges and obstacles ..............................................................................................................................................................8
3.10 Strengths and Unique Selling Points ...........................................................................................................................................9
IV. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Institutional processes and communication in relation to internationalization ...........................................................................9
4.2. Promotion ..................................................................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Students and teachers mobility (incoming and outgoing) ..........................................................................................................10
4.4 Foreign language learning...........................................................................................................................................................10
4.5 Partnerships and cooperation ....................................................................................................................................................10
4.6 Internationalization of the curriculum/ campus .........................................................................................................................11
4.7 Internationalization of Research .................................................................................................................................................11
4.8 Budget.........................................................................................................................................................................................11
V. National policy – initial recommendations ........................................................................................................................................12
VI. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................................................12
VII. Appendices: .....................................................................................................................................................................................12
1. UAB Self-Assessment Report ........................................................................................................................................................12
2. Site visit program ..........................................................................................................................................................................12
2
I. Introduction
Overall purpose of the project
Following the recent higher education reforms in Romania, which involved the development of a
classification of higher education institutions and a ranking of study programs, UEFISCDI (the Executive
Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding) was awarded structural
funds for a project designed to increase the capacity of public administration for evidence-based policy
making, entitled: “Higher Education Evidence Based Policy Making: a necessary premise for progress in
Romania”.
The fourth work package of the project has the objective to carry out a set of studies and analyses of higher
education policies in specific fields. The current project forms part of this initiative and aims to contribute
to an analysis of the Romanian higher education institutions on two dimensions - internationalization and
equity and social cohesion.
In order to develop a multi-dimensional analysis of Romanian higher education institutions, the UEFISCDI
issued an open call for universities to be part of the exercise and to contribute to the overall objectives
based on their institutional experience. Due to past successful cooperation and relevant expertise in this
area, UEFISCDI selected several experts involved in the International Association of Universities (IAU)
internationalization activities, as well as Romanian experts on internationalization to work on this study
which examines the national policy context as well as analysing a number of institutional case studies.
Following a call for expressions of interest, West University of Timisoara was selected as one of the five
case study institutions that are taking part in the study.
The full list of institutions taking part in the internationalization dimension is provided below:
 West University Timisoara
 Titu Maiorescu University of Bucharest
 Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
 “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba – Iulia
 Constanta Maritime University
II. Methodology
2.1 Approach
In parallel to the collection of data and information on the policies and measures in place at the national
level to promote internationalization, the approach taken for the case studies involved the preparation of
institutional reports by each university. In early 2013, a self-assessment guide was provided for this
purpose to all institutions taking part in the study. This guide was based on an instrument developed by the
IAU for the Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service (ISAS). The instrument was adjusted following
additional feedback from the members of the IAU Expert Panel and UEFISCDI.
The guide was meant to act as a prompt for the institutions as they gathered information and analysed the
strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in their internationalization policies, programs and activities. It was
suggested in advance that this self-assessment exercise be undertaken by an institution-wide committee,
3
and have the ownership of the entire academic community (i.e. students, teaching and research staff,
administrative staff should be part of the self-assessment efforts) within the university.
This report builds in part on the findings of the Self-Assessment Report that was produced by UABUAB in
April 2013 (see Appendix 1), and provided to IAU Expert Panel members in advance of their site visit. It is
also based on the findings of a site visit to UAB on 4 July 2013 by the IAU Expert Panel members (see
below).
2.2 Expert Panel members
The Expert Panel represents a broad range of regional expertise, experience, and cultural backgrounds, and
includes a number of international experts, as well as experts from Romania. Though not all panel members
can take part in all site visits, all are involved in the policy discussions and the preparation of
recommendations. The panel members are:
 Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General and Executive Director, International Association of
Universities (IAU), France;
 Hans de Wit*, Professor of Internationalization of Higher Education, Amsterdam University of
Applied Sciences, Netherlands; Director, Centre for Higher Education Internationalization (CHEI)
of the Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Italy;
 Patricia Pol, Policy advisor for European and international affairs, AERES, France;
 Laura Engel*, Assistant Professor of International Education and International Affairs, George
Washington University, USA;
 Dan Lazea*, ViceRector for International Relations and Institutional Communication at West
University of Timisoara, Romania;
 Mihai Korka*, Former Romanian BFUG Representative/ Prof.univ. – The Bucharest University of
Economic Studies, Romania;
 Luminita Nicolescu , Chair of the 2010 – 2012 BFUG Working Group on International Openness/
Prof. univ. at The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania.
IAU staff member coordinating the project:
 Ross Hudson, Program Officer (r.hudson@iau-aiu.net)
UEFISCDI staff members coordinating the project activity:
 Cezar Mihai Hâj, Project Deputy Manager (cezar.haj@uefiscdi.ro)
 Cristina Fiț*: Policy officer responsible for the activity (cristina.fit@uefiscdi.ro)
 Irina Geantă*: Policy officer (irina.geanta@uefiscdi.ro).
*Panel members and staff who took part in the site visit to UAB.
2.3 Expert Panel site visit
The program for the site visit to UAB consisted of a number of half-hour to one-hour meetings with a broad
range of individuals from across UAB’s campus community. Appendix 2 includes the site visit program, the
names and job titles of all UAB faculty and staff who met with the panel.
Each session included an open discussion and a Q&A session between the UAB representatives and the
Expert Panel members. The UAB representatives and students were highly motivated, well-informed, open
4
and engaged during discussions with the panel members, offering a comprehensive picture of current
developments and challenges at university level.
IV. General overview
3.1 Findings and Observations
"1 DECEMBRIE 1918" UNIVERSITY OF ALBA IULIA was set up as a public higher education and research
institution founded pursuant to the Romanian Government Decision no. 474/09.07.1991. Its name is
related to the historical moment (1918) when the union of the three Romanian provinces was
accomplished in Alba Iulia. In 2009, following the institutional assessment carried out by the Romanian
Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education - ARACIS, "1 Decembrie 1918" University of Alba Iulia was
awarded a HIGH CONFIDENCE RATING, the highest qualification for Romanian universities.
Being a relatively young university (of 22 years), UAB is fully aware of its place and role within the higher
education system in Romania, and constantly relates to the tradition of the Transylvanian educational
system. The core mission of the University is precisely that of contributing to preserving and underpinning
the national identity of Romania, to unity in diversity of Romanian culture, and to its active integration
within the European and universal flow of values, through specific means of education, research and value
creation. Currently UAB has 7,375 students, including those enrolled in distance learning. The number of
full-time faculty members is 160. The structure of the University consists of four faculties (Faculty of
Sciences, Faculty of History and Philology, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Faculty of Orthodox Theology)
and seven academic Departments.
Concerning the university facilities, UAB has four modern student residence buildings, with a total capacity
of 948 places. The standard facilities and appliances in each dormitory include triple bedrooms with
modern furniture, bathroom, refrigerator, TV, Internet connection, a launderette, a multifunctional hall,
study rooms and kitchens with gas stoves and electric hoods. The cost of accommodation is 130 lei (approx.
30 Euro)/person/month.
As of 2013, three study programs will be delivered in English (Informatics, Business Administration and
Archeology), with the aim of attracting international students.
3.2 Motivational factor for internationalization
It was noted that internationalization is important for the university for a number of reasons, such as:
 it brings a new vision of a new management team;
 it aims to accommodate national realities, as well as international challenges;
 it focuses on four main directions: research, teaching and learning, multiculturalismmultilingualism, increasing the international visibility in the professional community (the last two
are seen as the main strengths);
 it develops the rationales for multiculturalism-multilingualism such as the exchange of experiences
on the Romanian history and promoting language, literature and history abroad and vice-versa;
 the need for international visibility within the professional community (e.g. Faculty of Sciences
implemented good partnership with Bosch and Microsoft encouraging student practice. There is
collaboration with firms for internships in Italy, Torino, where currently 30 students are present);
5

the need for promotion of Romanian language and culture abroad.
3.3. University goals for internationalization
 Developing the intercultural and multilingual dimension of "1 Decembrie 1918" University of Alba
Iulia bypromoting the Romanian language, values and culture abroad;
 Developing the international dimension of "1 Decembrie 1918" University of Alba Iulia’s
involvement in the socio-professional community;
 Developing Bachelor and Master programs delivered fully in a foreign language (English, French);
 Achieving a target of 10% international students from the total student body by April 2016 and 3%
international students by 2014;
 Achieving a target of 3% of the total student body to be involved in an outgoing study or training
mobility period at partner institutions for the period 2013-2014;
 Developing joint conferences along with the Polish partners of the university;
 Establishing the focus for students mobility on Europe (primary) and Asia (secondary).
3.4 Institutional communication and promotion
Regarding institutional communication the following were noted:
 each faculty has a representative working with the Department of International Relations on
aspects concerning internationalization and there is direct consultation whenever measures are
being implemented at faculty level;
 data collection is performed at the request of central management – faculties – departments (a
centralized approach, specific for small universities). The types of data linked to internationalization
being collected at central level are the number of conferences, international publications, joint
doctoral programs, etc.;
 monthly meetings with students and peers are held aiming to improve the activity linked to
internationalization and evaluate the indicators mentioned in the strategy. Regarding the
elaboration of the strategy, each faculty has a representative working with the Department of
International Relations, and there is a direct consultation whenever measures are being
implemented at faculty level;
 the International Relations Department collaborates with the administrative and research
components of the university;
 the International Relations Department is led by the Vice-Rector responsible for research, since the
Vice-Rector for Education is in charge of QA and institutional strategy (division of labor, as there are
only 2 vice-rectors);
 apart from the internationalization strategy, with institutional objectives, international
collaboration is also based on good human relations so that other internationalization
opportunities may arise.
No data related to promotion methods used by university is available.
3.5 Students and teachers mobility
In regard to international students / student exchanges, the following ideas were underlined:
 there is a balance between incoming (116 foreign students, which include Romanian ethnics) and
outgoing student mobility (136 students);
 the university has a clear regional (European) focus for internationalization. However, Asia was
selected as a potential market for incoming international students given the existing global trend;
 a recruiting agency is used to attract incoming students, focusing mainly on Asia;
6







incoming student mobility is developed based on personal relations and social environment, having
a small number of partner universities that provide most students. The cost of living in Alba-Iulia is
affordable and the number of students mentioned in the report also includes placement mobility;
students are sometimes difficult to convince to apply for outgoing mobility opportunities, generally
due to the reluctance of their parents, or because they believe they will have difficulties in
adjusting to new cultural environments, or interacting with others;
perceived opportunities for incoming students: accommodation is provided for all students
requesting it;
for incoming students, feedback was collected by means of a questionnaire (developed by a
student enrolled in the Marketing program as part of his thesis), which is no longer used;
foreign students were better integrated with the support of Romanian students (although Erasmus
Student Network is still lacking a branch in Alba Iulia) and the university, by organizing different
events: Erasmus days, Erasmus parties etc.
study credits obtained abroad are recognized by the university upon return, though not by
automatic recognition;
internationalization activities are not incentivized, apart from all staff being able to access mobility
(based on a competition), however, the university does not co-finance staff mobility.
3.6 Partnerships and cooperation
In regard with partnerships and cooperation, the university underlined that:
 there is a special budget for internationalization at university level, but no funding is allocated for
international individual networking (due to diminishing of the overall funding);
 there are 32 MOU (memoranda of understanding), all of them active in terms of publication
exchanges, conferences, but not active in terms of actual exchanges (mainly Europe, with an
emphasis on the Balkan region), 89 Erasmus Agreements with universities for student and staff
exchanges, 25 Erasmus Agreements with companies and universities for student placement, 45 for
General Academic Collaboration Agreements (education, student and staff exchanges, research
activities included);
 UAB strategic partners are University of Madeira, Erasmus Mundus partners (Poland: University of
Posnan, University of Szejno, University Turin, Italy – on joint degree programs and the National
University of Malaysia);
 there are good collaborations with universities from abroad (on Romanian language and literature)
where Romanian courses are taught (e.g. Poland, Macedonia). Joint workshops are being organized
in both Romania and Poland;
 UAB has good collaborations with important companies for internships (e.g. Bosch, Microsoft).
3.7 Internationalization of the curriculum
Regarding the internationalization of the curriculum we can conclude the following:
 UAB provides free English classes for teachers, in order to improve their level of preparation;
 there are no visiting professors in the university at present;
 the Council of Administration agreed that one third of bibliography should be in English (also
existing in the library) – where applicable;
 only one foreign language can be studied, in either English, French or German, without having the
possibility to opt for a second one;
 the Archeology program is no longer taught in Romanian, only in English and the UAB hopes to
attract more international students due with this change;
7




Humanities are mainly taught in Romanian, but there are also specialized courses in English and
French literature;
the demand for Humanities studies has decreased (similarly to other such trends in Europe), so the
faculty provides a preparatory year in Romanian, from which only Indian students have benefited
so far. PhD students in Romanian language are provided with these courses for free, as part of their
training in the doctoral program;
in various subjects, courses also focus on international developments;
the university is interested in English, French and German language and culture and has very good
connections with the French Cultural center, while students from History have good collaborations
with Germany and Austria.
3.8 Internationalization of research
In regard to the internationalization of research, the following were noted:
 research is one of the four directions emphasized by the new internationalization strategy;
 the Department of Research is mainly responsible for internationalization of research;
 there is a budget for internationalization of research, but it is only dedicated to publishing;
 internationalization of research started within UAB with organizing national conferences, which
then turned into international ones;
 specific funds from research projects are used for participation in international conferences;
 UAB has 21 research contracts.
3.9 Challenges and obstacles
Institutional
The main obstacles for incoming and outgoing mobility mentioned were as presented:
 for incoming students: meeting expectations; language barrier (not all staff speaks English, but the
university tries to ease the transition with the help of student body and intensive Romanian
courses which are made available); the issue of obtaining the visa (especially for Asian students);
 for outgoing students: level and style of teaching; financial issues (high cost of living); admission
conditions and equivalence of subjects;
 regarding teachers, the main motivations for them to have classes in English are personal
fulfillment or attracting foreign students. Also, there are no additional incentives for professors
teaching in English;
 the university has few human resources working specifically on internationalizing the university;
 recognition of studies following their return is a challenge for students, since teachers perceive
ECTS recognition as a favor to the students. There is no internal regulation promoted in order to
implement the national legislation regarding the automatic recognition of credits from abroad.
National
The main obstacles or challenges mentioned were the following:
 universities cannot recruit students from all over the world (visa issues, especially for Pakistan and
Cameroon, even if there is a Ministerial Order saying that citizens from these two countries can
receive a Romanian visa if they receive a scholarship from the university);
 there are some financial difficulties (as the available state financing is not very high and does not
include earmarked funding for internationalization) therefore participation in international
conferences is difficult and paid for by the university;
 few strategic projects (funded through EU structural funds) are being financed and implemented.
8
Other challenges mentioned by the UAB are the instability of legislation and the current market conditions.
3.10 Strengths and Unique Selling Points
As for the UAB’s strengths and accomplishments to date include the following:
 unique focus on multiculturalism and multilingualism to promote the Romanian language abroad;
 the city of Alba-Iulia is a centre of tourism, as it is a city full of history and cultural patrimony along
with a welcoming community, with an increased standard of living and an increasing number of
investors. The cost of living is low and the atmosphere very good for students;
 good and cheap accommodation which covers all student demands. Facilities for all international
students and counselling sessions regarding culture, community with students before going abroad
are strengths along with student activity;
 clear internationalization targets and a data driven monitoring approach, which includes clear
indicators;
 the internationalization strategy links to the local industry strategically;
 there is a good balance between incoming and outgoing student mobility;
 the Archeology program along with a city full of buildings to be discovered.
IV. Recommendations
Following the site visit to UAB, and having analysed the UAB’s Self-Assessment Report, the Expert Panel
makes the following recommendations:
4.1 Institutional processes and communication in relation to internationalization
In order to make students become more open concerning international mobility, UAB should try to develop
targeted approaches for its future internationalization strategy. For example, UAB could apply a
questionnaire to find out information such as: reasons why students/teachers want or do not want to be
mobile, what would the their preferred destinations be, what type of mobility would they like to be
involved in, obstacles or concerns regarding mobility, what type of help would they want from the UAB,
parents, companies etc. UAB could also continue to run the questionnaire on students’ experiences abroad
and compare the results for incoming vs. outgoing mobility. The university will need a team to monitor and
evaluate data and results which can be presented regularly to the Deans or others concerned.
The panel team recommends to the UAB to try linking the internationalization strategy to the regional
mission assumed and take into account the sense of local and national character of the university. The UAB
should not revise its mission but rather consider strategies that allow for greater international visibility tied
to the present mission. In addition, the university could try finding the right balance between objectives
and flexibility. Even though the strategy reflects the diversity of faculties, it still leaves room for individual
development according to each faculty specifics.
9
4.2. Promotion
UAB is advised to involve more academic staff in recruiting students for the Erasmus program. Teachers’
contributions to the motivation of students for going abroad can be significant. Perhaps the International
Relations Department and the Rector could have sessions with professors and students on
Erasmus/mobility, explaining why mobility is significant for students and teachers personal development.
As UAB develops an internationalization strategy, this strategy should also include a communication
component in order to promote mobility programs, UAB programs, facilities, opportunities and
internationalization. There should be a long-term communication strategy with clear targets and objectives
linked to the overarching strategy of internationalization and using a series of methods of promotion and
advertising such as: social media (Facebook and Twitter), e-mail groups, LinkedIn, promotion materials
(which university has), flyers, banners, one-by-one approach, discussion in classes, collaboration with
students organizations, newsletter, special events (workshops, conferences, promoting events) in order to
promote and explain the importance of being mobile and all the possibilities (universities, programs,
courses) students can choose and benefit from. The communication strategy should also address other
internationalizing aspects such as conferences, internationalization of research, etc.
4.3 Students and teachers mobility (incoming and outgoing)
 Course equivalence needs full “buy in” from all levels, especially Deans and professors. Initiatives
should also be put in place to ensure fair and transparent recognition of credits for programs and
courses undertaken by incoming and outgoing students, according to the learning agreements,
including those taking part in the Erasmus program;
 The target of 3% international students – proposed through the internationalization strategy – may
be too ambitious and the panel team recommends to discuss the target and the specific ways in
which it will be achieved;
 Some other aspects could be improved, such as adequate student support facilities (e.g. prolonged
program for the canteen).
4.4 Foreign language learning
 The panel would recommend that the university continue to implement and expand upon its
foreign language course offerings for faculty and staff members, especially regarding the use of
English as a teaching language, and offer increased incentives to those who take part in foreign
language learning.
4.5 Partnerships and cooperation
 The panel team highlights that it might be interesting to get a better understanding of how the
present partnerships fit into the university mission. UAB should first try to tap into the full potential
of the existing partnerships and subsequently try to establish new ones;
 A more strategic use of a small number of partnerships for both teaching and research, including
joint degrees, is more effective than having a long list of partnerships with little or no activity.
10
4.6 Internationalization of the curriculum/ campus
Regarding the internationalization of curriculum, UAB should broaden the definition of internationalization
of curricula, which currently is understood only as teaching courses in English. The panel believes that there
is a broader definition of internationalized curricula, which may assist in furthering internationalization of
the institution.
Moreover, not all courses taught in English are automatically of high quality. Having B2 level of English for
teaching staff based on the institution’s own testing instead of an (inter)national certificate like Cambridge,
where in general the higher C1 level for students is a minimum requirement, is a serious concern with
regard to the quality of the teaching in English by the academic staff. Training options on English are
voluntary and not mandatory.
Since teachers are reluctant to teach in English for international students or confused by what
internationalizing the curriculum/pedagogy entails, a comprehensive training on internationalizing
curriculum might be useful. For example, such a course might be entitled, “Why and how to teach for global
citizenship and international audience?” Also, organizing a workshop on multiculturalism and
multilingualism could help, particularly as they are linked to the institution’s mission.
Furthermore, in order to solve the existing differences of perceptions regarding the culture and
environment, teachers should consider teaching in another international university for a few weeks or
months. Amongst other aspects UAB should include structured efforts to enhance the internationalization
of the curriculum in a number of programs, which is still relatively underdeveloped at the university level,
and to use current international institutional partnerships to develop dual/double or joint degree
programs.
In its international campaigns, the university may need to focus primarily on certain strengths. For instance,
UAB could build on the cultural/historical dimension of the city, which could be developed into a niche area
of teaching and research. The 3 % international students goal should be approached in a way that uses and
builds on the university’s academic, geographic and socio-cultural strengths. For example, by giving priority
in recruitment strategies to countries geographically close to Romania, as well as to students, for whom the
Romanian language would be easier to understand.
4.7 Internationalization of Research
 UAB could try developing more joint research collaborations (on all educational fields), as part of
strategic partnerships and with a focus on its strengths and niches.
4.8 Budget
It was noted that although the International Department has a specific budget, it would be highly beneficial
if an institutional fund was available to stimulate internationalization initiatives for curriculum
development, research activities, services and promotion. These could include projects developed by
faculty members, but also by other central Departments (Personnel, HR, and Finance), which currently lack
available funds to develop international activities or build skills. Such funds, even if modest, could act as a
catalyst to develop new and innovative projects in line with the institution-wide goals.
11
V. National policy – initial recommendations
There are a number of national policy related issues that are affecting universities in achieving their
internationalization goals.
Several recommendations for the national level are the following:
 the ARACIS could be straightforward concerning the accreditation of study programs in English;
 the process of visa issuing could be better regulated (especially for Asian students);
 hasten legislation regarding the operation/function of the Pedagogical/Teaching Master;
 the Ministry of National Education should launch more strategic projects in the field of
internationalization for the national level, which could be underpinned by institutional initiatives.
The Expert Panel will elaborate a set of recommendations concerning the national policy framework once
all the site visits and the analysis of the current policy environment are completed.
VI. Conclusions
The Expert Panel would like to express how impressed it was with the professional manner in which UAB
took part in this exercise, the Self-Assessment Report which was filled in a structured and detailed manner
and the institution-wide commitment to internationalization.
The enthusiasm and experience of the director of the International Relations Department is a strong asset
to the university in developing its internationalization strategy as part of the overall strategy of the
university. The panel has some concern about the gap between her drive and expertise and the reality and
involvement of the rest of the university. There is a danger that the objectives and targets set will not be in
line with the possibilities and interests of the faculties and academics of UAB. Certain initiatives, such as the
reaching out to Asia for recruitment and the use of agents in them have to be assessed about their
prospects. A focussed institutional strategy, making use of the history, location and niches of the university
(such as Archaeology and Theology, to mention only two) is more effective than to try to do more and
develop new uncertain areas and regions (e.g. why focussing on Pakistani archaeology students while
European and American study abroad programs have more opportunities?). A broad institution wide
debate about the direction, objectives, strategic relations and targets is strongly recommended.
Even though UAB is a small and young university, it has big potential in combining traditions and
community values with its goals in order to enhance its internationalization process together with the
entire academic community and partners. UAB should try focusing on developing a niche in research and in
few successful programs in terms of internationalization in order to rather have quality than quantity. The
panel offers its recommendations to assist the UAB in this transition process.
VII. Appendices:
1. UAB Self-Assessment Report
2. Site visit program
12