Global universities must begin to integrate Intercontinental and intercultural elements and components into the very core of their institutions the approach taken by the institution is threefold: internationalizing the composition of the student body, establishing and enhancing a presence overseas, and internationalizing the learning experience (McBurnie, 2000). Becoming global is used as shorthand both for locating operations in various countries and for increasing the number and the proportion of international students in the population of a college; matters explored in relation to these activities include management approaches, academic issues, and quality assurance and improvement. Universities around the world have embraced globalization and adapted internationalization efforts to institutional programs, policies and profiles. There are many indicators of globalization in higher education, such as student exchange and study abroad programs, number of international students and faculty, branch campuses, collaborative research projects, partnerships and distance education programs and initiatives. These and other elements of globalization in higher education need to be identified, enumerated, and quantified in order to determine the effectiveness of indicators of globalization at universities. By investigating data from globalization experts, gathering input from administrators in higher education, and compiling information from institutions and authors coupled with the literature, which includes rankings, frameworks and critiques, a  list of indicators of globalization was developed that can be used to determine and appraise global impact and engagement. It answers the following question:

What are the indicators that can be used to effectively measure global engagement at comprehensive, research-oriented higher education institutions that are geographically diverse with global academic and research standards, common values and similarities in organization and management?

Administrators at such aforementioned institutions and organizational executives at global academic and collaborative organizations were interviewed regarding the indicators of global engagement. The data collected provided interpretation and description of indicators as well as suggested recommendation for campus administrators tasked with creating global environments. The population included higher education administrators, experts and executives in the field of globalization, and authors. The best data with regards to indicators of globalization in higher education can be acquired from institutional leadership and globally connected organizations that can provide well-rounded views of globalization and its impact on colleges and universities. The data were evaluated, contrasted, and analyzed through the lens of O’Neil, Bensimon, Diamond and Moore’s “Designing and Implementing an Academic Scorecard,”(1999) and Qiang’s “Internationalization of Higher Education: towards a conceptual framework” (2003). Globalization is a multifaceted process, and each facet needs to be scrutinized and monitored in the context of each institution and the perception of engagement between and within institutions and their stakeholders. “Designing and Implementing an Academic Scorecard” (1999) helps establish four perspectives of globalization. The academic scorecard is based on the balanced scorecard of Kaplan and Norton (1992). A scorecard links performance measures with the behavior of managers and employees. It shows how results are achieved using four perspectives: stakeholder perspective, internal business perspective, innovation and learning perspective, and academic management perspective. The scorecard’s perspectives are used to define operational measures, internal processes, and an institution’s innovation and improvement activities (O’Neil et al, 1999). This new globalization trend obliges scholars to create modes of measuring global engagement and reconcile important indicators and global/local influences to achieve more tangible and complex global universities. Iaddition to the utilization of the scorecards four perspectives, Qiang’s “Internationalization of Higher Education” (2003) was used to further define and categorize indicators and goals that can help measure global engagement and impact at colleges and universities. Qiang states that the use of new information and communication technologies in the delivery of education and the involvement of private actors in this mean that national borders and the role of national government in education have become blurred (2003). Qiang’s framework uses approaches to describe the concept of internationalization. These approaches refer to the stances adopted by persons in leadership positions towards the promotion and implementation of programs aimed at internationalization (2003). These approaches are: the activity approach, which promotes curricular activities, student/faculty exchange, technical assistance and international students; the competency approach, which emphasizes skill development, knowledge, attitudes and values in students, faculty and staff; the ethos approach, which emphasizes creating a culture or climate that values and supports intercultural/international perspectives and initiatives; and the process approach, which stresses integration and infusion of an international/intercultural dimension into teaching, research, and service (2003).

About these ads