Measuring success in European internationalisation

An impressive 81% of 2,300 Europeans working in higher education internationalisation are positive about the future of the field, including 22% who are ‘very positive’, a survey by the European Association for International Education or EAIE reveals. The vast majority also report achieving at least some progress in all of 16 internationalisation priority activities.

The 2018 EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (second edition) provided data that informs a just-published report titled Signposts of Success, written by EAIE Policy Officer Anna-Malin Sandström and Ross Hudson, the association’s senior knowledge officer.

The EAIE Barometer survey gleaned 2,317 responses from people in 1,292 institutions across 45 countries in the European Higher Education Area in late 2017. The EAIE worked with a partner, IFF Research. The highest numbers of respondents came from the Netherlands (9%), Germany (7%), Finland (6%) and the United Kingdom (5%).

Four in five of the respondents are at public institutions. Just over half (54%) work for research universities, 22% for universities of applied science, and 17% for specialised institutions. Regarding designation, 70% work full-time on internationalisation, including 27% who are head of office. Nearly one-fifth are academics, around one in seven work in administrative departments and 5% are either heads or deputy heads of their university.

The report considered several contextual factors – region and country, institution type, institutional funding type and size of institution – but “found few patterns to indicate that ‘success’ is more or less common in particular national or institutional settings”.

The analysis was a response to the need to find out what successful internationalisation looks like, and to uncover what approaches are generating desirable results.

This need is urgent, the report argues, because rapid expansion of international higher education calls for greater accountability and quality assurance, and because of growing demands placed on internationalisation to “generate all manner of positive outcomes – for individuals, institutions and systems, and even national economies and society at large”.

The survey and its findings

The survey asked three questions related to internationalisation ‘success’: 1) the progress people believe their institution had made in pursuing strategic priority activities over the past three years, 2) the perceived level of internationalisation at their institution compared to others in their country, and 3) how optimistic they were about the future of internationalisation at their institution.

It transpired that 41% of respondents viewed their university as having an above average level of internationalisation compared to others in the country, 42% viewed their institution as average, 14% as below average and 3% did not know. The vast majority of respondents (81%) were positive about the future of internationalisation at their institution.

In 16 priority activities identified, the vast majority of respondents – ranging from 83% down to 67% – reported at least ‘some progress’ over the past three years. This was especially so in distance-online-blended learning (83%), and international mobility of home students (82%), while 79% reported some progress in capacity building in developing countries, international strategic partnerships and international student recruitment.

‘Significant progress’ was perceived by 44% of respondents in the international mobility of home students, by 43% in international student recruitment and by 42% in programmes in non-local language. Least progress was reported in international staff recruitment, staff training in internationalisation, and branch campuses.

Nine key directions

The EAIE Barometer data suggests looking in nine key directions that correlated most clearly with the survey’s ‘success proxy’ questions.

1. Alignment of internationalisation with academic mission

“Analysis of the data suggests that pursuing internationalisation for reasons closely aligned with the traditional missions of the university – teaching and research – coincides with staff confidence in the future of internationalisation, and their perception of a comparatively high level of internationalisation,” says the report.

Where internationalisation was seen to be focused on achieving financial benefits, staff were more likely to see their university as below average (19%) compared to 14% in the total sample. They were also 10 percentage points less positive about internationalisation’s future.

“Analysis of the data shows that the progress perceived in priority activities varied considerably from activity to activity, with no goal for internationalisation clearly standing out as enhancing or slowing progress.”

2. Commitment to a broad internationalisation portfolio

The range of internationalisation activities undertaken by a university clearly correlates with perceived levels of internationalisation, according to Signposts of Success.

For example, where more than 10 internationalisation activities were undertaken, 57% of respondents saw their universities as having an above-average level of internationalisation, against only 25% of respondents at institutions that undertook fewer than five activities.

Further, at universities where there were more than 10 activities, 87% of respondents were positive about the future of internationalisation, against 81% of all respondents. Interestingly, these institutions also reportedly achieved more progress in priority activities than their peers.

3. Existence of an institution-wide strategy

The EAIE Barometer survey results support previous arguments that a deliberately strategic approach to internationalisation and policy support – a strategic plan, performance targets and evaluation mechanisms – are important for its success.

Respondents were asked whether they had: a standalone institution-wide internationalisation strategy; included internationalisation in the overall institutional strategy; covered internationalisation only in faculty-level strategies; were in the process of developing a strategy; or did not have any form of strategy.

Those working with a standalone institution-wide internationalisation strategy were the most likely to say their institution was above average. They were also most optimistic about the future – 88% of respondents compared to 46% at universities with no strategy, 77% at institutions with a strategy in development, and 59% at institutions where internationalisation is in faculty-level strategies. A sense of being below average was also much more apparent where there was no strategy, a strategy in development, or faculty-level strategies.

The success of internationalisation,” says the study, “is further strengthened by institution-wide strategic commitment”.

4. Established targets for priority activities

Universities can enhance the usefulness of strategies by assigning performance targets to strategic priority activities. This allows stakeholders “to have a common understanding of the level of ambition while also facilitating the measuring of progress”, the report reckons.

Respondents were asked whether their institution outlined specific targets for activities prioritised in their strategy. In 11 out of the 16 internationalisation activities, having set targets coincided with respondents being more likely to see their university as having an above-average level of internationalisation.

“Equally, in 12 of the activities studied, having activity-specific targets correlated with staff expressing more optimism about the future.” Respondents were also more likely to report seeing progress in relation to priority activities when targets were attached to them.

5. Regular strategy evaluation

The EAIE Barometer shows that the more frequently strategy evaluation is undertaken, the more likely staff are to consider that their institution has an above average level of internationalisation and the more optimistic they are about internationalisation’s future.

Further: “Having any form of evaluation procedures in place made it more likely to see at least some progress reported in 10 out of the 16 priority activities included in the study.”

6. Funding for priority activities

Lack of funding was noted by respondents in the EAIE Barometer as being “the biggest challenge to enhancing internationalisation at their institution”.

Most respondents (57%) at universities with resources allocated to all priority activities saw their institutions as above average, and 88% were positive about internationalisation’s future, along with 86% of those who reported having resources for some priority activities. “This trend is further underlined by the fact that respondents were more prone to report ‘significant progress’ in 10 of the priority activities analysed when their higher education institution allocated resources for all priority activities.”

7. Coordinated organisation

How universities organise and manage internationalisation is important. Respondents were asked whether, regarding internationalisation, they had a single centralised office, multiple offices working independently, multiple offices working in coordination, or if internationalisation was the non-coordinated initiative of individual employees.

Respondents at institutions with multiple offices working in coordination were most likely to see their institutions as having an above average level of internationalisation – 47% of these respondents – and 86% were positive about the future of internationalisation, and they were most likely to report good progress on priority activities – in eight of the 16 activities included.

On the other hand, only 19% of respondents at institutions where internationalisation was the non-coordinated initiative of individual employees saw their university as above average, while 54% were positive about the future. “Staff at institutions with a single international office, or multiple offices working independently, occupy the middle ground.”

Overall, says the EAIE, “reports of successful delivery of internationalisation activities appear to be connected to coordinated and mainstreamed efforts across the institution, indicating that successful internationalisation is enabled by internal collaboration.”

8. Training to support priorities

Success in achieving internationalisation goals also depends on the skills and knowledge base of staff. Lack of staff commitment to internationalisation is the second most pressing internal challenge to internationalisation, and lack of staff expertise is the sixth most commonly reported challenge. This aspect of Signposts of Success was fully elaborated in an article in University World News last week.

9. Systematic quality assurance

The EAIE Barometer data, says the report, “show that systematically assessing the quality of internationalisation activities through a formalised internal quality assessment system correlates directly with respondents’ perceptions of success”.

Half of people at institutions that systematically assessed quality rated the university as above average, against 41% in the total sample. Further, “89% of respondents were positive about the future at institutions that had a regular internal quality assurance system,” says the report.

In half of the 16 activities considered, the presence of systematic internal quality assurance correlates with people being more likely to indicate that their institution had made ‘significant progress’ in internationalisation activities.

“Quality assurance hence correlates with an overall perception of success, while also appearing to enhance progress in specific activities.”

Signposts for success

Several issues stand out as factors that enhance the success of internationalisation and may be borne in mind when thinking about approaches to internationalisation, the study concludes:

• • Aligning the internationalisation goals with the institution’s core mission.
  
  
• • Thinking expansively about the scope and range of internationalisation activities to which the institution is committed.
  
  
• • Enacting a standalone, institution-wide strategy for internationalisation.
  
  
• • Committing to clear targets for priority activities.
  
  
• • Allocating resources for priority activities.
  
  
• • Regularly evaluating the institution’s internationalisation strategy.
  
  
• • Embedding the management and administration of internationalisation in the institutional structure in ways that foster coordination among stakeholders.
  
  
• • Making internationalisation training available for staff – particularly training related to the activities prioritised within the strategy.
  
  
• • Assessing the quality of priority activities on a regular basis.

While the study focused on a limited number of indicators, the large size of the dataset and the fact that those surveyed work directly on internationalisation in institutions “provides a wealth of high quality data through which to consider key signposts for enhancing the success of internationalisation”, says the report.

It is also encouraging that factors most strongly correlated with the three success indicators are mostly aspects of internationalisation that institutions can directly influence. The analysis provides a useful framework for professionals as they strive to develop the quality and success of internationalisation activities.