Auditing Internationalisation in UK Higher Education Institutions

1
Auditing Internationalisation in UK Higher
Education Institutions

• Lessons from institutional research projects in
  two UK universities (Surrey Brighton)

Exploring the Hinterlands Mapping an Agenda for
Institutional Research, University of
Southampton, 25th June 2008
Sharon Jones, Registry, University of
Brighton Steve Woodfield, CPC-TE, Kingston
University
2
Presentation outline

• Internationalisation and IR
• Institutional contexts and rationale
• Overview of Audit approach
• Project Findings
• Lessons from the IR approach
• Institutional Impact
• Conclusions Recommendations
• Further Reading

3
What is internationalisation in HE?

• Early definition
• "Internationalisation of higher education is the
  process of integrating an international/intercultu
  ral dimension into the teaching, research and
  service functions of the institution. (Knight
  and de Wit, 1997)
• Later revised to..
• Internationalization at the national, sector,
  and institutional levels is defined as the
  process of integrating an international,
  intercultural, or global dimension into the
  purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary
  education (Knight, 2003)

4
Why is internationalisation important?

• Increasingly dynamic global higher education
  context
• Changing patterns of international student
  recruitment
• Diversification of delivery modes
• Impact of changing global HE context on UK HE
• Threat to national competitiveness
• Governmental pressures for a more strategic
  approach
• Internationalise curricula
• Improve student experience
• Develop partnerships

5
Why is internationalisation appropriate for IR?

• Strategically important - financially
  academically
• Overseas recruitment, student experience,
  research
• Competitive external intelligence internal
  research
• Complex - responsibility dispersed,
  depts./faculties
• Key benefits
• Better informed strategy/policy development
• Academic development curriculum content,
  pedagogy
• Service development Recruitment, HR, IO, RO
• Planning management refining processes
  systems

6
Surrey Institutional Context (2005)

• Overview
• Historical international outlook teaching,
  research, enterprise
• High proportion of international students (26)
  and staff (15)
• 50 of PG students non-UK (34 non-EU)
• Threat to overseas recruitment from key markets
• Historical organisation of international
  activities
• No specific International Strategy
• Dispersed responsibility within SMT
• Focus on recruitment welfare of students
• Small International Office (3 staff)
• Devolution of developmental responsibility to
  Schools
• Concentration of international students in 3 (out
  of 8) Schools

7
Brighton Institutional Context (2007)

• Overview
• Historical international outlook relatively
  low level
• Low proportion of international students (5) and
  staff (8)
• 50/50 PGT/UG, small number of PhD. EU student
  numbers higher than sector average
• Threat to overseas recruitment from key markets
• Historical organisation of international
  activities
• No specific International Strategy
• Dispersed responsibility within SMT
• Focus on recruitment welfare of students
• Small International Office (3 staff)
• Devolution of developmental responsibility to
  Schools/faculties
• Concentration of international students in 3 (out
  of 16) Schools

8
Surrey Project Context

• Part of HEA Project (2005-6) investigating
  institutional responses to changing global HE
  context
• Increased co-ordination of international
  dimension
• Development of international strategies
• Administrative restructuring of international
  activity
• Developing student experience and support
• Environmental, Academic, Administrative,
  Socio-Cultural
• IR element - development and piloting of a tool
  for institutional research
• In-depth investigation into the strategic and
  operational responses to internationalisation and
  how this impacts on educational and
  administrative activities.

9
Brighton Project Context

• Follow up work to deliver Corporate Plan
  aspirations
• Specific question on the univ. profile in CP
  consultation
• Responses focused on international student
  recruitment
• SMT
• Recognition that there was a lack of a coherent
  institutional strategy to co-ordinate
  international activity
• A hindrance
• Staff
• No sense of a clear commitment from the top as to
  whether or not we do international
• Risk averse culture

10
Context - Audit Tools

• Informed by the International Quality Review
  Process (IQRP) developed by Knight and de Wit
  (1999) which
• Assessed extent of internationalisation
• Used a self-assessment and internal peer-review
  process
• Focused on a wide range of functional areas
• Involved staff collecting information to answer
  questions, co-ordinated by a group at the centre
• Used an external peer review team to assess
  findings
• Piloted in 9 institutions world-wide (not in UK)
• Also adapted by ACE in the USA, and by the ACU
  for benchmarking projects in the Commonwealth

11
Adaptation of IQRP

• Adapted by CPC-TE at Surrey amended by UoB
• Relevant to UK and institutional contexts
• Additional elements - whole institution approach
• Research undertaken by in-house research team
• UoS independent researchers funded via HEA
  project
• UoB - Registry-based - led by Steering Group
  under Uni. Management Gp.
• Greater emphasis on combining primary secondary
  data collection
• No external peer review team
• Emphasis on QE vs. QR - findings used to inform
  strategy and practice
• Approach constrained by resources and timescales

12
Surrey - Piloting the Audit Tool

• Collection of key institutional data
• Generation of institutional map of international
  activity
• Identification key service and academic
  departments/units
• Organisation of c.40 f-2-f semi-structured
  interviews
• Development of interview structure
• General themes (e.g. activity, structures,
  linkages)
• Questions related to specific expertise/experience
  s
• 1½ hour interviews with key individuals/teams
• Analysis structured around general themes
• Link findings with international student survey
  (i-Graduate)

13
Brighton Amending the Audit Tool

• Replaced the interview element with
• Five themed workshops
• On-line staff survey directed at all staff
• Six student focus groups
• Piloted a curriculum mapping tool

14
Activities Covered

• Student Recruitment
• Teaching Learning
• International Partnerships
• International Office
• Student Support
• Traded Services (e.g. catering, accommodation)
• Human Resources
• Registry QA
• Finance Planning

• Research/Knowledge Transfer
• Library Information Services
• Alumni Development
• Marketing
• Academic Schools
• SMT
• Students Union Societies
• Language Provision

15
Research Issues/Themes

• Function/activities what?
• Profiles of staff/students
• Organisational structures
• Leadership top/other
• Reporting lines - layers
• Linkages internal and external (e.g. dispersed
  campus)
• Marketing Communication channels
• Formal informal relationships balancing
  strategy with autonomy

• Resources support how?
• Knowledge Management - sharing knowledge and good
  practice
• International curricula priority?
• Academic integration (learning styles, support)
  all students
• Cultural integration (staff and students)
• Conceptions of internationalisation
• Assessment of existing strategy practice
  development, alignment

16
Research Findings (1) Surrey/Brighton

• International Activities
• Responsibilities unclear structures in
  flux/unknown. Ownership?
• Limited co-ordination strands, pockets,
  not joined up
• Balance between Schools Centre shifting/pulling
• Wide differences in knowledge perspective
  Schools at different stages of development
  linked to subject based/research activity
• International Strategy
• A mix of rationales and drivers - with differing
  priorities
• Messiness of strategy-making in reality
• Inputs, ownership, process
• Ambiguity of leadership
• Cross-functional responsibilities implications
  of international agenda

17
Research Findings (2)

• Internationalisation
• Viewed positively
• Differing conceptions of internationalisation
  link with sustainable development and equality
  and diversity agenda?
• Gap between personal perceptions and
  institutional reality
• Internationalisation of the curricula - novel
  - not novel
• International Student Experience
• Mainly a School responsibility (some central
  support services)
• Same services for international home students -
  differentiation debated
• Integration is key for students but internal
  structures and geography fragmented
• Labels language and messages EU falling down
  the cracks

18
Lessons Process (1) S/B

• Support
• Top level support from senior managers (SMT)
• Surrey - Institutional champion(s)
• Brighton institutional Steering Group
• Access
• Privileged access to key informants and data
• Surrey - Researchers had formal role with the
  Planning Committee legitimacy from earlier
  research on international higher education
• Brighton - Registry viewed as neutral, no
  particular agenda, building on review process
  already led by the department to improve student
  administration reasonable level of trust
• Few obstacles to obtaining available information
• Awareness of organisational politics
• Followed internal procedures

19
Lessons Process (2)

• Accessibility of data information
• Knowledge of organisational structure is crucial
• Some data is not collected systematically
• Knowledge Management/sharing inconsistent
• Primary Data Collection
• Surrey
• Interviews illuminating and candid - but
  time-intensive and thus costly
• Only one (or 2) representative(s) from each
  unit/dept
• Brighton
• Workshops high profile open to all,
  legitimises findings
• Student focus groups positive - but students hard
  to persuade, even with money!
• Staff survey good response, but mainly
  academic/managers
• Curriculum map poor result

20
Lessons Process (3)

• Institutional Benefits/Costs
• Recognition of the value of a systematic,
  research-based approach
• Cost-benefit will need to be considered (direct
  costs staff time)
• Identifying and evaluating impact takes time
• Brighton - staff survey could form basis of
  future evaluation of impact once recommendations
  implemented
• IR deepens institutional self-understanding
• Surrey leadership and structural challenges for
  cross-cutting activities
• Brighton is nice but chaotic too much time
  wasted re-inventing things
• IR as institutional therapy
• Surrey - interviews were useful, cathartic,
  thought-provoking
• Brighton - workshops a release, but now need
  to respond
• Associated benefits
• Brighton - Curriculum mapping failed but has
  brought together staff who have submitted a
  proposal to fund leading edge e-curriculum
  design project

21
Surrey Dissemination ( Impact)

• Consultants reports to SMG to inform
  international strategy development and
  implementation, including
• Analysis of current international strategy
• Audit of international activity
• Analysis of institutional understanding of
  internationalisation
• Assessment of impact of internationalisation
• Review of external policy environment national
  international
• Recommendations for enhancements to strategy and
  processes
• Meetings/seminars with key institutional
  stakeholders
• Ongoing support and guidance for further
  activities
• Student experience, strategy development

22
Brighton Dissemination ( Impact)

• Findings discussed at Management Group Away Day
  for input to final report (to SMT) to inform
  international strategy development and
  implementation, including
• Audit of international activity
• Analysis of institutional understanding of
  internationalisation
• Review of external policy environment national
  international and likely impact at UoB
• Recommendations for quick wins and
  consideration of single theme combined theme, or
  whole institution approach?
• Board of Governors seminar to enable BoG sign up
• Key academic committees to consider
  implications/actions within their remit
• Role of Faculties and Central Departments
  integration through co-ordination
• Further activities under consideration
  including the role of UBSU

23
Impact on Strategy/Management S/B

• New International Strategy (2007)
• Market diversification - H
• Development of international strategic
  partnerships - H
• Investigation of trans-national opportunities H
• Mobility
• New senior staff re-organisation of central
  structures
• PVC International ? Dean of International
  Development - L
• International Office ? Student Recruitment - H
• International Affairs and International
  Development Offices - L
• RD activity related to internationalisation
• LF project and external benchmarking research on
  the international student experience (ISB) - H
• Academic development work on cultural diversity
  and the curriculum - H

24
Conclusions/Key Messages

• Identified need for an international/international
  isation strategy
• Clear, wide-ranging inclusive
• Comprehensive implementation plan
• Institutional value from using the adapted
  methodology
• Deeper self-understanding
• Detailed replicable collection of
  information/data
• Potential pitfalls with the methodology
• Organisational politics
• Exposing structural problems and relationship
  issues
• Comparative analysis could assist other
  institutions to benchmark their own approaches to
  their international activity

25
Some Questions for Discussion

• Is internationalisation an appropriate topic for
  IR?
• Does the topic require a particular research
  approach?
• How do our findings compare with your own
  experiences?
• Similarities
• Points of difference
• Would such projects be feasible in your
  institution?

26
Some Useful References

• Bartell, M (2003). Internationalization of
  universities A university culture-based
  framework Higher Education, 45 (1), pp. 43-70.
• Higher Education Academy Exchange , Issue 3
  (Winter 2006). York Higher Education Academy.
• Knight J (1999). Internationalisation of Higher
  Education in Programme on Institutional
  Management in Higher Education (1999). Quality
  and Internationalisation in Higher Education.
  Paris OECD, 1999.
• Knight J (2001). Monitoring the Quality and
  Progress of Internationalization. Journal of
  Studies in International Education. 5(3)
  228-243.
• Knight J (2004). Internationalization Remodeled
  Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal
  of Studies in International Education, 2004 8(1)
  5-31.
• Olson CL Green MA Hill BA (2003) Building a
  Strategic Framework for Comprehensive
  Internationalization. Washington DC American
  Council on Education.
• Middlehurst R and Woodfield S (2007). Responding
  to the internationalisation agenda implications
  for institutional strategy. York Higher
  Education Academy.
• Shiel C McKenzie A (ed.) (2008). The Global
  University The Role of Senior Managers. London
  DEA.
• Taylor J (2004). Toward a Strategy for
  Internationalisation Lessons and Practice from
  Four Universities Journal of Studies in
  International Education 8(2) pp. 149-171.