Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to construct a system of indicators for measuring the internationalization of universities allowing comparative self-assessment by universities in Asia.
Design/methodology/approach
To achieve the aforementioned research purpose, the authors conducted three surveys and held an expert roundtable discussion. Two surveys were conducted, one in Japan and the other in Asia, to identify important indicators for measuring the internationalization of universities. Additionally, a survey of experts was conducted to identify effective indicators for benchmarking internationalization among universities in Asia. An analysis of each survey was examined during the roundtable discussion, and a system of internationalization indicators was constructed.
Findings
The three survey results showed similarities and differences between the relative importance accorded to 53 internationalization indicators by universities in Japan and in other Asian countries, as well as in the experts' perspectives on the effectiveness of each indicator for benchmarking. An analysis of those surveys resulted in 24 core internationalization indicators categorized into six key dimensions of university internationalization.
Originality/value
This study proposed a system of internationalization indicators based on an analysis of empirical research targeting universities in Asia. The resulting system reflects not only the opinions of academic experts but also the perspectives of its potential users, administrators in Asian universities. It consists of six internationalization dimensions with a manageable number of indicators, 24. These include both quantitative indicators and checklists of internationalization activities which can be used as quantitative or qualitative indicators.
Keywords
Citation
Watabe, Y. and Ota, H. (2021), "Developing a manageable system of internationalization indicators for universities in Asia", International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-11-2020-0081
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
It is more than three decades since the internationalization of higher education (HE) began to be discussed at the national level in many countries as an important aspect of the response to challenges and needs brought by globalization (Scott, 1998; Teichler, 2004). In Asian countries, the creation of world-class universities and improvement of their institutions in terms of global/world university rankings are often included in the agenda for university internationalization, and governments have adopted strategic policies to achieve such goals. Project 211, Project 985, and Double First-Class University in China (Li and Chen, 2013; Li, 2020) and Brain Korea 21 and World Class University Project in Korea are typical examples (Shin and Kehm, 2013). Pre-determined numerical key performance indicators (KPIs) linked to governments' internationalization initiatives have also become prevalent as such policy measures have increased (Helms et al., 2015). Taking the case of Japan as an example, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) has been promoting the internationalization of HE through competitive grant projects, including Global 30 (2009–2013), Go Global Japan (2012–2016), and the Top Global University Project (TGU) (2014–2023), since 2009. Influenced by these grant projects, the internationalization strategies and efforts of the selected universities are converging due to the frameworks, goals, and targets stipulated by MEXT even from the application stage (Ota, 2018). In particular, TGU demanded that applicant universities establish 18 main numeric targets, along with subordinate targets, and these numeric targets have become KPIs. MEXT believe that they can thus increase transparency and fulfill the need for accountability for such large grants allocated to a small number of universities (Ota, 2018). However, the problem is that achieving the KPIs has often become the end purpose or goal in and of itself at the selected universities (Ota, 2018). In the above-mentioned Chinese and Korean governments' initiatives, global ranking indicators, e.g. Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and academic journal indexes, e.g. Science Citation Index, are KPIs and entail the same problem (Shin and Kehm, 2013). Numerical targets should rather be considered as a means or a guide to achieving the vision and goals for the university's internationalization. Moreover, the government has determined the KPIs in a top-down way without prior agreement with universities. Thus, in a sense, universities have begun to lose the ownership of their own internationalization strategies and efforts. Furthermore, there does not appear to be much freedom for universities to devise their own, unique ways to promote internationalization. In turn, there is a growing need for a set of internationalization indicators that reflect institutional perspectives about its assessment.
This study therefore attempts to develop a set of indicators to assist universities in Asia in conducting a comparative self-assessment of their internationalization performance. It intends to provide a systemic framework of indicators to allow universities to analyze their current situation relative to their internationalization objectives and targets, identify weaknesses and potential for improvement, and develop or revise their strategies and plans for internationalization.
Measuring internationalization efforts at universities
The perception of internationalization of HE as a means to improve the quality of education and research, as well as that of institutions themselves, became more prominent as higher education institutions (HEIs), national and regional governments, and other organizations began investing large sums in such internationalization (Helms et al., 2015; Shin and Kehm, 2013). The demand or need to monitor and assess the internationalization performance of universities became significant as a result (Helms et al., 2015).
The International Quality Review Program (IQRP) was the first endeavor to provide a self-assessment tool assisting HEIs in measuring their internationalization efforts (Knight and de Wit, 1999). Since then, measurement indicators for university internationalization have been proposed by various scholars. Most of these indicators were developed to serve universities in a particular country or region, such as the UK (Ayoubi and Massoud, 2007), the US (Green, 2005; Horn et al., 2007), Australia (Krause et al., 2005), Germany (Brandenburg and Federkeil, 2007; DAAD, 2010), the Netherlands (van Gaalen, 2009), Japan (Furushiro, 2006; Watabe, 2010; Watabe and Ota, 2016), Taiwan (Chin and Ching, 2009) or China (Chen et al., 2009). Some studies and projects, such as IQRP, the Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation (IMPI), UNESCO Bangkok (2018), and Gao (2019), aimed to serve universities in the regional or international context.
Many of these studies and projects developed assessment measures for university internationalization, aiming to determine its dimensions and identify indicators useful for its evaluation. While numerous dimensions and indicators of internationalization were discussed in the literature, in 2010 IMPI proposed the most comprehensive set of 489 indicators, categorized into nine dimensions, based on extensive desk research. These dimensions are (1) students, (2) staff, (3) administration, (4) funding and finance, (5) curricular and academic services, (6) research, (7) promotion and marketing, (8) non-academic services, and campus and community life, and (9) other. In 2018, UNESCO Bangkok proposed additional dimensions, such as social engagement and institutional networks. As all United Nations Member States adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, the third mission of a university, social engagement and partnership, began to be emphasized in the internationalization of HE.
The number of indicators, meanwhile, continued to grow and reached about 500. Gao (2019) argues that a very complex indicator system might be unusable and proposed a set of 15 indicators to make an assessment feasible in terms of time, cost, and expertise required. Her proposed 15 indicators are all quantitative values examining the achievements of internationalization. She concludes that there is a consensus on the quantitative nature of indicators among the existing studies on university internationalization measurement. However, those studies also include descriptive information as indicators to examine the process of internationalization.
When developing the new instrument, Gao (2019) also contended with a bias towards the dominant Western perception of internationalization in most of the existing assessment tools. She aimed to create an internationally applicable set of indicators, conducting her research in 17 flagship research universities in Australia, China, and Singapore. Her study is the first effort to develop an internationalization assessment tool based on empirical research targeting multiple countries in Asia. Considering the rapid HE development in Asia, which places great importance on internationalization, perspectives from different parts of this region need to be considered further when developing measures for university internationalization.
Methods
This study aimed to construct a system of indicators for measuring the internationalization of universities allowing comparative self-assessment by universities in Asia. Self-evaluation and comparison have an internal function, usually aiming at improvement (Gao, 2019). To achieve this objective, we conducted three surveys and held a roundtable discussion among experts (see Figure 1).
We first surveyed universities selected for TGU in Japan regarding the importance of 53 internationalization indicators, then extended our survey to universities in Asia. These two surveys adopted the 53 indicators that were regarded as effective based on the results of a former study conducted in 2014 (see Watabe and Ota, 2016). In the former study, we surveyed 228 universities in Japan who were visibly working toward internationalization regarding the effectiveness of 152 internationalization indicators selected from among IMPI's 489 indicators. There were 141 responses, yielding a response rate of 62%. The 53 internationalization indicators were selected as effective based on the results of this survey.
In January 2015, we sent an online questionnaire on the importance of the 53 internationalization indicators to 37 universities selected for TGU in Japan. There were 32 responses in April, yielding a response rate of 86%. After completing the research in Japan, we extended our research to universities in Asia and conducted the same survey from March 2017 through May 2018. This survey's target population was academic and administrative staff members working on international affairs at universities viewed as internationally oriented. Specifically, those universities were selected from among institutions listed in the world university rankings and participating in the three major international education conferences, APAIE (Asia Pacific Association for International Education), EAIE (European Association for International Education) and NAFSA: Association of International Educators, where the target population could be reached. This time, we employed both an online and paper-based questionnaire. We received 200 valid responses, of which 12% were from Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji), 42% from South and Southeast Asia (India, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam), and 46% from East Asia (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea). Both the Japan and Asia surveys asked participants to evaluate the importance of the 53 indicators in assessing their university's internationalization. A three-point Likert scale (1 somewhat important, 2 important, 3 extremely important) was used, with the condition that the maximum number of extremely important indicators had to be fewer than 27 (fewer than half). The mean for each indicator was calculated, and the top 30 important indicators were generated from each of the surveys.
After completing these two surveys to determine how universities regarded the importance of the 53 indicators, we conducted a survey of experts in Japan in March 2018. Thirty selected scholars and practitioners with expertise in university internationalization and international education were asked how effective the 53 indicators were for benchmarking institutional internationalization among major universities in Asia. A three-point Likert scale (1 somewhat effective, 2 effective, 3 extremely effective) was used, with the condition that the maximum number of extremely effective indicators had to be fewer than 27. They were also asked if there were any other effective indicators that had not been included in the list of 53 indicators. The mean for each indicator was calculated, and the top 30 effective indicators were selected from this survey.
Finally, seven researchers from our team, consisting of two experts in assessment and quality assurance in HE, four in international education, and one in economics and statistics, and two experts who participated in the survey (both seasoned researchers and experienced senior international administrators) held a roundtable discussion and selected a final set of indicators. Our research team then constructed a system of internationalization indicators appropriate for universities in Asia. The proposed assessment tool consists of 10 quantitative indicators and 14 checklists of internationalization activities (see Table 1).
This study has some limitations. Our research initially surveyed universities in Japan; therefore, the Japanese perception of university internationalization could be reflected more strongly than those of other Asian countries. However, we obtained a sufficient number of responses to the same survey conducted among universities in Asia. Besides, the 35 expert survey respondents in Japan included two foreign nationals and seven scholars whose expertise is comparative and international education in the Asian region, although they work at universities in Japan.
Proposing a system of internationalization indicators
A system of internationalization indicators is hereby proposed based on the results of the above-mentioned three surveys. The proposed system contains 10 quantitative indicators and 14 checklists of internationalization activities, categorized into six internationalization dimensions, as shown in Table 2. The six internationalization dimensions are Strategy and Governance (SG), Student and Staff Characteristics (SSC), Education and Learning (EL), Student Services (SS), Research (R), and Quality Assurance (QA), which were redefined from the original eight indicator categories (see Table 2).
To identify the most appropriate indicators for constructing an internationalization assessment system, first, those indicators which were ranked in the top 30 in at least two of the three surveys were selected. Then our research team and two expert survey participants held a roundtable discussion to carefully examine whether each indicator could contribute to comparative self-assessment of internationalization by universities in Asia. As a result, 10 quantitative indicators and 14 checklists of internationalization activities were created, as shown in Table 1. The following sections discuss the selected indicators for each dimension in detail.
Strategy and governance
Thirteen indicators in Table 3, A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A7, FF1, FF2, FF3, FF4, CAS4, PM1 and NSCC2, were classified under the dimension of Strategy and Governance (SG). Of those 13 indicators, seven indicators, A1, A2, A3, A4, FF4, PM1 and NSCC2, were selected and restructured into three SG indicators: SG1, “items included in the institution-wide strategy for internationalization,” SG2, “items related to internationalization public relations activities for which the university has a defined strategy,” and SG3, “functions and services provided at the institution-wide level” (see Tables 1 and 3).
SG1, which consists of A1, A2, A3 and FF4, refers to the quality of the internationalization strategy and assesses whether the developed strategy clearly addresses goals and objectives through a concrete action plan, ensuring financial and human resources. A6 is a specific target for international student mobility. It is not included in the final set of internationalization indicators since it can be an item of SG1.
SG2 explicitly focuses on the institutional marketing strategy, expanded from PM1. PM1 did not fulfill the selection criteria since it was ranked in the top 30 only by the Asian university survey. We further examined the data from the Japanese TGU survey, comparing the mean of PM1 from TGU's Type A universities (aiming for a place among the top 100 in world university rankings) with the same mean from TGU's Type B universities (required to undertake institution-wide internationalization initiatives). Type A universities regarded PM1 as one of the top 20 indicators with a mean of 2.20, while Type B universities ranked it below the top 30 with a mean of 1.91. We also scrutinized the data from the Asian university survey, comparing the means of PM1 among three Asian regions (Oceania, East Asia, and South and Southeast Asia). PM1 was ranked in the top 30 in all the regions. At the expert roundtable discussion, the emerging importance of the globalizing HE market was pointed out, and PM1 was eventually included in the final set of internationalization indicators regardless of different perceptions about its importance among universities.
SG3 is composed of A4 and NSCC2, with a sub-list of expected internationalization functions and services. It allows universities to examine how many of those standard functions and services are provided at the institutional level.
SG 4, “types of international networks and organizations in which the university participates,” was not one of the 53 internationalization indicators included in the three surveys. However, at the roundtable discussion, Japanese experts pointed out that many universities have become more strategic in selecting and collaborating with international partner institutions in order to improve the capacity and quality of their education and research, and they insisted that SG 4 should be included in order to assess the university's strategy on participation in international networks and organizations (see Table 1).
Student and staff characteristics
As shown in Table 4, seven indicators, S1, S2, S3, S5, ANS1, AN3 and ANS4, were classified under the dimension of Student and Staff Characteristics (SSC). The three indicators S1, S2 and S5 were selected and rephrased as SSC1, “percentage of inbound international graduates last year,” SSC2, “percentage of non-degree seeking international students last year” and SSC3, “percentage of graduates who participated in study abroad programs last year” (see Tables 1 and 4). S2 did not fulfill the selection criteria since it was ranked in the top 30 only by the survey of Japanese experts. However, at the expert roundtable discussion, the increasing number of students participating in short-term study abroad and exchange programs as well as the impact of exchange students on the on-campus learning environment were emphasized as significant trends. Therefore, S2 was included in the final set of internationalization indicators.
Education and learning
Ten indicators, ANS2, CAS1, CAS3, CAS5, CAS6, CAS8, CAS9, CSA10, CAS11 and PM2, were classified under the dimension of Education and Learning (EL), as shown in Table 5. Seven indicators, ANS2, CAS1, CAS 5, CAS 6, CAS 9, CAS 10 and PM 2, were selected and reorganized into five indicators (see Tables 1 and 5).
The rephrased EL1, “percentage of courses taught in a foreign language, excluding courses for the study of a foreign language,” was derived from CAS6. ANS2 was merged into EL1, since ANS2 refers to the proportion of academic staff teaching in a foreign language, while CAS6 addresses the proportion of courses taught in a foreign language.
EL2, “number of international double/multiple/joint degree programs and twinning programs,” was rephrased from CAS5. CAS5 was not ranked in the top 30 in any of the surveys. However, at the expert roundtable discussion, the role of international joint/double/multiple degree programs for internationalizing the curriculum and their potential for diversifying the student population were discussed. As a result, it was decided that EL2 should be a part of the final indicator list.
EL3, “types of academic courses/services that the university offers to study abroad students to support their overseas studies,” was redefined based on CAS1. At the expert roundtable discussion, an opinion that CAS1 is applicable only to universities in Japan was expressed. At the same time, another member was of the opinion that not only courses or workshops on cross-cultural communication and adaptation but also those on the host country's academic language skills should be an essential part of the pre-departure preparation for study abroad. Based on this discussion, we finally included that indicator in the final list, adding a sub-list of specific academic courses/services.
EL4, “items the university offers to study abroad students regarding the transfer/recognition of credits earned at foreign institutions,” was redefined based on CAS9, with a sub-list of specific institutional actions that are necessary for smooth transfer and recognition of the credits earned at foreign institutions to a home institution.
EL5, “items relating to academic information and services that are provided on the university website in one or more foreign languages,” was rephrased based on CAS10. PM2 fulfilled the selection standard, ranking in the top 30 in two out of the three surveys, and was merged into EL5, since it can be the part of the information provision in a foreign language on a university's platform.
Finally, it was decided not to select CAS11, “number of administered study abroad programs for credit,” even though it fulfilled the selection criteria. At the expert roundtable, it was argued that the results of the Japanese surveys about this indicator strongly reflected the TGU initiative, but that it was not prioritized by Asian universities according to the Asian survey results.
Student services
As shown in Table 6, 14 indicators, CAS2, CAS7, PM3, NSCC1, NSCC3, NSCC4, NSCC5, NSCC6, NSCC7, NSCC8, NSCC9, NSCC10, NSCC11 and NSCC12, were classified under the dimension of Student Services (SS). Of these, 11 indicators, CAS2, CAS7, PM3, NSCC1, NSCC3, NSCC4, NSCC5, NSCC6, NSCC7, NSCC8, NSCC10 and NSCC11, were selected and reorganized into six indicators: SS1, “facilities and services that the university provides to serve the needs of a culturally diverse student population,” SS2, “types of information that the university provides to inbound international students prior to their arrival,” SS3, “types of information that the university provides to inbound international students at the orientation session immediately after their arrival,” SS4, “types of information that the university provides to inbound international students while they are enrolled at the university,” SS5 “types of information that are provided to study abroad (outbound) students on the university's website” and SS6 “services that the university provides to facilitate interaction between inbound international students and domestic students” (see Tables 1 and 6). The six new indicators, SS1, SS2, SS3, SS4, SS5 and SS6, can be categorized into three groups based on the target student population for those services.
The first group, including SS1, SS2, SS3 and SS4, concerns services for international students. SS1 is rephrased from NSCC1 with a sub-list of five standard facilities and services. SS2 and SS3 are redeveloped from PM3, NSCC3 and NSCC4, with the addition of a sub-list of eight standard services, information about which is necessary for inbound international students. Both of the indicators are basically the same except for the timing of provision (SS2: prior to their arrival and SS3: immediately after their arrival). SS4 is composed of CAS2, CAS7, NSCC5, NSCC8, NSCC10 and NSCC11, with a sub-list of seven standard services for inbound international students. CAS7 and NSCC5 did not meet the selection requirements; however, they were included in the final indicator list, since these two indicators were considered essential for a university's contribution to the development of multi-cultural society and human resources in many countries. Although NSCC10 did not fulfill the selection criteria either, this indicator was ranked in the top 30 by the Asian survey across all three regions except Japan. At the expert roundtable, it was pointed out that this indicator was becoming more important to universities in countries emerging as study abroad destinations. Thus, it was adopted into the final indicator set.
The second group (SS5) concerns services for study abroad (outbound) students. SS5 is expanded from PM3, with the addition of further sub-items besides scholarships for study abroad, considering the current expansion of short-term study abroad programs.
The third group (SS6) relates to services to facilitate interaction between domestic students and international students. SS6 consists of NSCC6 and NSCC 7, with a sub-list of five concrete services and events.
Research
Six indicators, Rorig.1, Rorig.2, Rorig.3, Rorig.4, Rorig.5, and Rorig.6, were classified under the dimension of Research (R), as shown in Table 7. Of these, five indicators, Rorig.1, Rorig.3, Rorig.4, Rorig.5, and Rorig.6, were selected and rephrased. Rorig.1 was rephrased as R1, “percentage of conference presentations delivered abroad (or in the context of international conferences) relative to the number of researchers in the institution.” Rorig.2 was rephrased as R2, “percentage of research projects involving international partners relative to the total number of research projects with which the institution is formally associated.” Rorig.4 was renamed as R3, “percentage of single- or co-authored pieces published internationally in the last five years as a proportion of the total number of faculty members and researchers at the university.” Rorig.5 was renamed as R4, “percentage of peer-reviewed, scientific publications co-authored with faculty members and/or researchers at foreign institutions in the last five years as a proportion of the total number of publications authored by faculty members and researchers at the university.” Rorig.6 was rephrased as R5, “number of times cited in international journals per publication (the citation performance of international research publications, known as Elsevier Scival) in the last five years” (see Tables 1 and 7). Four out of the five indicators are relevant to research outcomes.
Quality assurance
Three indicators, S4, A5 and A8, were classified under the dimension of Quality Assurance (QA), as shown in Table 8. All three indicators were selected and integrated into one indicator, QA1, “types of quality assurance procedure the university utilizes to monitor the progress of internationalization” with a sub-list of four types of quality assurance procedure (see Tables 1 and 8). QA1 was proposed as the indicator of an overall quality assurance system for the internationalization of universities, covering the original three quality assurance practices for each specific internationalization activity.
Discussion
This study proposes a manageable system of internationalization indicators to assist universities in comparative self-assessment. The proposed instrument contains 10 quantitative indicators and 14 checklists of internationalization activities (see Table 1). The quantitative indicators refer to the outputs of internationalization activities. In contrast, the checklists of internationalization activities indicate standard measures employed to internationalize a specific university dimension. They can be used as either quantitative or qualitative indicators. If universities assess their performance based on the number of internationalization activities they have implemented, the list can be a quantitative measure. If universities examine how the listed internationalization activities are effectively contributing to the achievement of an internationalization objective, the list can be used as a qualitative measure since they will need to collect descriptive information on their activities.
To capture the different dimensions of university internationalization, it is essential to measure internationalization performance using quantitative and qualitative measurements (Green, 2012). Some dimensions can be adequately examined with quantitative tools, while others can be sufficiently analyzed with descriptive information (Gao, 2018). The proposed instrument can respond to this need. The findings of the study also led to recommended measurements for each internationalization dimension.
Of six dimensions, two, Student and Staff Characteristics and Research, include only quantitative indicators. These dimensions look mainly at the outputs of internationalization efforts, for example, SSC1, “percentage of inbound international graduates last year,” or R3, “percentage of single- or co-authored pieces published internationally in the last five years as a proportion of the total number of faculty members and researchers at the university.” In contrast, three dimensions, Strategy and Governance, Student Service, and Quality Assurance, include only checklists of internationalization activities. These dimensions focus on the process of internationalization. In other words, to measure the internationalization of these dimensions, it is necessary to assess what activities have been implemented and how they have been carried out in practice. Finally, the dimension of Education and Learning includes both types of indicators. It is suggested that both the outputs and the process of internationalization efforts should be assessed in this dimension.
The proposed system of internationalization indicators is not a complete list of indicators, but rather a list of carefully selected indicators with the primary objective being its operability. Universities should employ additional measurements, considering their priorities on the goals and the scale of internationalization. Although it has some limitations, the proposed set of indicators reflects the perspectives of academic and administrative staff who are engaged in the internationalization of a respected university in 16 Asian countries and regions. This instrument is more relevant to the practice of internationalization of universities in Asia, compared with the indicator set provided by the government in a top-down way. Policymakers tend to adopt quantitative indicators to confirm the outputs of internationalization activities in the name of accountability; however, the study revealed that individuals serving on the front-line at universities regarded indicators examining the process of internationalization as more critical for four out of six internationalization dimensions.
Finally, the proposed instrument includes neither dimensions nor indicators related to SDGs. In our two surveys, the participants were asked to prioritize their institutional internationalization goals by ranking (1) the quality of education, (2) the quality of research, (3) student preparation for an intercultural and globalizing world, (4) international reputation and visibility and (5) social engagement and contribution. Of these, the social engagement and contribution goal was ranked at the bottom. It revealed a lack of a social responsibility dimension to the current agenda of internationalization in HE.
Knight (2008) has discussed the changing rationales driving internationalization, identifying the emergence of rationales reflecting an institution's own interests and benefits, instead of the three fundamental missions of universities, education, research, and social engagement and services, since the late 1990s. This is because neoliberal reforms have been applied to HE to respond to global challenges. Internationalization has begun to be regarded as a measure for universities to compete and survive in international and national HE markets (Knight, 2008).
Nonetheless, we began observing the emphasis on the third mission of HEIs in the discourse of university internationalization around the time SDGs were adopted in 2015. SDGs introduced HE into the global development agenda. At the same time, HEIs are expected to be key drivers to achieve SDGs. On the EAIE website, Hunter (2015) proposed a revised definition of the internationalization of HE, reminding readers that university internationalization is a means to enhance the quality of education and research within and beyond the institution to make a meaningful contribution to society. As aforementioned, in 2018, UNESCO Bangkok proposed a new set of internationalization indicators composed of five dimensions, including social engagement. Brandenburg et al. (2020) also proposed a new concept of “Internationalization in HE for Society,” aiming to benefit the wider community, at home or abroad, through international or intercultural education, research, service and engagement (the social responsibility component of internationalization).
Concluding Remarks
Universities have their own purposes, objectives, and targets to promote internationalization; however, they are also influenced by society's expectations (Knight, 2008). The emerging trend of HE internationalization for society may drive universities to extend their internationalization activities into the third mission of social engagement, such as community projects involving foreign cultures and qualitative discussion of community engagement activities abroad. Furthermore, reexamining internationalization from the viewpoint of sustainability could broaden its scope. Integrating the elements of global citizenship, global issues such as poverty and climate change, and sustainable development into the existing curriculum can be part of curriculum internationalization. Internationalizing students, academics and non-academic staff is a matter of diversity and inclusiveness. Sustainability issues are compatible with internationalization efforts when universities take the initiative to respond to globalization. Future studies on measuring university internationalization should take sustainability initiatives into account.
Figures
A proposed system of internationalization indicators
| Dimension | Indicator | Number and contents of the listed items / Types / Services / Facilities | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Contents | |||
| Strategy and Governance | SG1 | Items included in the institution-wide strategy for internationalization | 5 |
|
| SG2 | Items related to internationalization public relations activities for which the university has a defined strategy | 3 |
| |
| SG3 | Functions and services provided at the institution-wide level | 8 |
| |
| SG4 | Types of international networks and organizations in which the university participates | 3 |
| |
| Student and Staff Characteristics | SSC1 | Percentage of inbound international graduates last year | – | |
| SSC2 | Percentage of non-degree seeking international students such as exchange students last year | – | ||
| SSC3 | Percentage of graduates who participated in study abroad programs last year | – | ||
| Education and Learning | EL1 | Percentage of courses taught in a foreign language, excluding courses for the study of a foreign language | – | |
| EL2 | Number of international double/multiple/joint degree programs and twinning programs | – | ||
| EL3 | Types of academic courses/services that the university offers to study abroad (outbound) students to support their overseas studies | 5 |
| |
| EL4 | Items the university offers to study abroad (outbound) students regarding the transfer/recognition of credits earned at foreign institutions | 4 |
| |
| EL5 | Items relating to academic information and services that are provided on the university's website in one or more foreign languages | 6 |
| |
| Student Services | SS1 | Facilities and services that the university provides to serve the needs of a culturally diverse student population | 5 |
|
| SS2 | Types of information that the university provides to inbound international students prior to their arrival | 8 |
| |
| SS3 | Types of information that the university provides to inbound international students at the orientation session immediately after their arrival | 8 | ||
| SS4 | Types of service that the university provides to inbound international students while they are enrolled at the university | 7 |
| |
| SS5 | Types of information that are provided to study abroad (outbound) students on the university's website | 6 |
| |
| SS6 | Services that the university provides to facilitate interaction between inbound international students and domestic students | 5 |
| |
| Research | R1 | Percentage of conference presentations delivered abroad (or in the context of international conferences) relative to the number of researchers in the institution | – | |
| R2 | Percentage of research projects involving international partners relative to the total number of research projects with which the institution is formally associated | – | ||
| R3 | Percentage of single- or co-authored pieces published internationally in the last five years as a proportion of the total number of faculty members and researchers at the university | – | ||
| R4 | Percentage of peer-reviewed, scientific publications co-authored with faculty members and / or researchers at foreign institutions in the last five years as a proportion of the total number of publications authored by faculty members and researchers at the university | – | ||
| R5 | Number of times cited in international journals per publication (the citation performance of international research publications, known as Elsevier SciVal) in the last five years | – | ||
| Quality Assurance | QA1 | Types of quality assurance procedure the university utilizes to monitor the progress of internationalization | 4 |
|
Internationalization components and indicators: original versus newly proposed
 |
Indicators of strategy and governance
|
Indicators of student and staff characteristics
|
Indicators of education and learning
|
Indicators of student service
|
Indicators of research
|
Indicators of quality assurance
|
References
Ayoubi, R.M. and Massoud, H.K. (2007), “The strategy of internationalization in universities: a quantitative evaluation of the intent and implementation in UK universities”, International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 329-349.
Brandenburg, U. and Federkeil, G. (2007), How to Measure Internationality and Internationlisation of Higher Education Institutions!: Indicators and Key Figures, Center for Higher Education Development, Gütersloh.
Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask, B. and Drobner, A. (2020), Internationalisation in Higher Education for Society (IHES): Concept, Current Research and Examples of Good Practice (DAAD Studies), DAAD, Bonn.
Chen, C., Mun, C.T., Wen, D., Weng, L. and Yu, Z. (2009), “The survey and evaluation indicators for internationalization of research universities in China”, Peking University Education Review, Vol. 4, pp. 116-135.
Chin, J.M.C. and Ching, G.S. (2009), “Trends and indicators of Taiwan's higher education internationalization”, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
DAAD (2010), Internationality at German Universities: Concepts and Collecting Profile Data, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Bonn.
Furushiro, N. (2006), Developing Evaluation Criteria to Assess the Internationalization of Universities (Final Report Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research), Osaka University, Osaka.
Gao, C.Y. (2018), “A set of indicators for measuring and comparing university internationalization performance across national boundaries”, Higher Education, Vol. 76, pp. 317-336.
Gao, C.Y. (2019), Measuring University Internationalization: Indicators across National Contexts, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland AG.
Green, M.E. (2005), Measuring Internationalization at Research Universities, American Council on Education, WA, DC.
Green, M.E. (2012), “Measuring and assessing internationalization, NAFSA: association of international Educators”, available at: https://www.uky.edu/toolkit/sites/www.uky.edu.toolkit/files/Measuring%20and%20Assessing%20Internationalization.pdf (accessed 30 December 2020).
Helms, R.M., Rumbley, L.E., Brajkovic, L. and Mihut, G. (2015), Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs, American Council of Education, WA, DC.
Horn, A.S., Hendel, D.D. and Fry, G.W. (2007), “Ranking the international dimension of top research universities in the United States”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11 Nos 3-4, pp. 330-358.
Hunter, F. (2015), “What's in a name? Refocusing internationalisation of higher education”, available at: https://www.eaie.org/blog/whats-in-a-name-refocusing-internationalisation-of-higher-education.html (accessed 11 October 2020).
Knight, J. (2008), Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (1999), Quality and Internationalization in Higher Education, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Krause, K.L., Coates, H. and James, R. (2005), “Monitoring the internationalization of higher education: are there useful quantitative performance indicators?”, in Tight, M. (Ed.), International Relations: International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Emerald, Bingley, Vol. 3, pp. 233-253.
Li, H. (2020), “Challenges of implementing internationalization of higher education in China”, Imagining Better Education, available at: https://dro.dur.ac.uk/31549/1/31549.pdf?DDD29+ (accessed 11 January 2021).
Li, M. and Chen, Q. (2013), “Globalization, internationalization and the world-class university movement: the China experience”, King, R., Marginson, S. and Naidoo, R. (Eds), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 241-255.
Ota, H. (2018), “Internationalization of higher education: global trends and Japan’s challenges”, Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, Vol. 12, pp. 91-105.
Scott, P. (1998), “Massification, internationalization and globalization”, in Scott, P. (Ed.), The Globalization of Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 109-129.
Shin, J.C. and Kehm, B.M. (2013), “The world-class university in different systems and contexts”, Shin, J. and Kehm, B. (Eds), Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition, Springer, pp. 1-13.
Teichler, U. (2004), “The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
UNESCO Bangkok (2018), Developing Holistic Indicators to Promote the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific (UNESCO Asia-Pacific Education Policy Brief, November 2018), UNESCO Bangkok, Bangkok.
van Gaalen, A. (2009), “Developing a tool for mapping internationalisation: a case study”, in de Wit, H. (Ed.), Measuring Success in the Internationalisation of Higher Education (EAIE Occasional Paper No. 22), European Association for International Education, Amsterdam, pp. 77-91.
Watabe, Y. (2010), Japanese Approaches to Organizational Internationalization of Universities: A Case Study of Three National University Corporations, Doctoral Thesis, University of Minnesota, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/90846 (accessed 11 October 2020).
Watabe, Y. and Ota, H. (2016), “Toward the development of a set of indicators to measure internationalization of universities in Japan”, Journal of International Education, Vol. 22 No. 55, pp. 55-82.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors at International Journal of Comparative Education and Development for their insightful feedback and useful suggestions.Funding: This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16H03785.