Conclusion – Last in the series

In the 21st century, student mobility, transnational education and research collaboration are the pillars that support institutions’ missions and visions of creating global citizens and providing a global education experience to its constituents. In the process of discovering which indicators of globalization effectively measure engagement and immersion at colleges and universities, a scale of global engagement framework was designed to better understand and compare national and international policies, programs, and institutional profiles. At the center of an institution’s global processes, is student and faculty mobility. This idea of ease of movement and cross-pollination lies also at the center of the internationalization movement. The fervor to internationalize has focused more on development and less on evaluation, which ultimately, circumscribes the enhancement of internationalization and fails to maximize educational outcomes. Moreover, although the need for assessment extends across the higher education sector, a failure to monitor the state of internationalization could be especially pernicious for research universities (Horn, Hendel & Fry, 2007). These ideas illustrate that, in addition to political and economic rationales, several sociocultural and academic motives for internationalization are delineated. Cultural rationales include the export of national values and ideologies. Social rationales echoed the virtues of intergroup contact as a means to reduce prejudice and develop a critical reflection of one’s own culture. Finally, academic rationales are derived from the realization that prosperous participation in the global knowledge network necessitates international collaboration, global competencies among students and faculty, and competitive international recognition (2007).

It became increasingly important to have established a simple and easy to follow, yet detailed framework for measuring globalization in higher education. This newly created framework provides a basis for universities to be able to: provide meaningful, globally conscious student experiences, ensure the curriculum is internationalized and innovative, and allow for faculty experiences that include active, academic, collaborative cross-border engagement. Qiang describes internationalization of higher education as a process of integrating intercultural dimensions into the functions of an institution. He argues that a framework for internationalization is “a dynamic process and not a set of isolated activities” (2003).

Three significant implications emerge. The first is the concept of globalization as an added-value. Second, the finding that global consciousness should be infused throughout the institution and that brand recognition and image are essential to cross-border engagement, provide the backdrop for institutions trying to create an impactful global milieu. Third, by including approaches to internationalization, a new outlook was provided on the ideas brought about through the coupling of the perspectives and rationales for internationalization. In Qiang’s framework (2003), the ways or approaches universities can take to fully internationalize are discussed. These are: the activity approach (what can people do?); the competency approach (what can people learn?); the ethos approach (what can happen in the culture and climate?); and the process approach (what can be integrated are infused into programs?). The inclusion of these approaches illustrate how student experiences, faculty experiences and the development of curriculum offer universities three choices: development of specific programs, like global economies; collaborative work across disciplines, i.e. a literature class connected to classes in international art or world history, which bring greater perspective; and the idea of “localites/cosmopolites” — which represents the infusion of an international curriculum toward a global perspective. Embracing ideas, such as embedding the home countries’ histories and cultures into concurrent world history and culture will open students and faculty to global consciousness and cultural connection to those around the world.

The results from this study led to recommendations for future research that would be worthwhile and beneficial for researchers and practitioners. The scale of global engagement serves as groundwork for future development of a globalization scorecard. Having defined a set of indicators of global engagement, the task now is to operationalize a globalization scorecard for colleges and universities. The scale of global engagement is designed to be used holistically or sorted by individual domains, and any other combination a context necessitates. The use of the scale in this manner will help universities answer the two principal questions in international strategy: 1) where should the value-added chain be broken across borders? and 2) in what functional activities should a firm concentrate its resources? (Kogut, 1985) In sum, comparative advantage, also referred to as location-specific advantage, influences the decision of where to source and market. Competitive advantage, also referred to as institution-specific advantage, influences the decision on what activities and technologies along a value-added chain an institution should concentrate its investment and managerial resources in (1985) relative to other institutions in its peer group.  The scale of global engagement created by this study offers academic managers ways to track both the competitive and comparative advantages to the benefit of their educational programs and visions.

Higher education has entered a third wave of internationalization. In this third wave, globalization processes have altered the educational landscape around the world. It is clear that the internationalization of education has created a new marketplace that is very different to local markets of recent memory. Competition has changed, as have competitors, and education administrators must come to grips with the risks and returns of complex international environments (Mazzarol, Soutar & Seng, 2003). Navigating this third wave requires new tools that assist in monitoring and measuring not only impact, but influence and immersion as well. This wave of educational activity is ushering in new processes and procedures for during research and impacting academia on a world stage. The classifications of this third mission are activities related to research, teaching, and social engagement — a variety of activities that involve many constituent parts of universities and require a suitable culture and mindset; different people with specialized skill sets; and supporting structures and mechanisms, in order to achieve its potential (Sadlak, 2012). These ideals are vital to the proliferation of globalization on campuses. The importance of integrating these dimensions into the structure of an institution will provide many benefits, help to develop research, teaching and learning methods that address the needs of a broader spectrum of learners, and facilitate the development of graduates who are well-suited to participate in professional life and are aware of their social context (2012). Sadlak argues, “good indicators can serve to provide a handle on things that were previously hard to grasp; they render such activities monitorable and to an extent influenceable” (2012).

The process of globalization in higher education forces universities to answer several questions. When considering the impact of large numbers of international students and faculty, extending a brand image, establishing world-class status, developing markets in other countries, and performing well in global university rankings, administrators are tasked with navigating difficult areas of university management. “Higher education has become a form of international trade,” advises Wildavsky (2010). “With fewer restrictions on the circulation of students, professors, and ideas around the globe, this intellectual commerce could be called free trade in minds,” he continues (2010). Internationalized and global universities provide competition and academic rigor that is both positive and beneficial to the global community. These institutions inspire even larger amounts of academic migration through both people and ideas, “but it’s net positive effect seems certain — which is why free trade in minds holds the key to sustaining the world’s knowledge economy and ultimately to restoring global prosperity” (Wildavsky, 2010).

Research Methods

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).

World-Class, Worldwide

Countless higher education institutions’ missions make the claim to be global organizations producing global citizens. Understanding exactly what that means is a worthwhile pursuit. Gathering data that supports the idea that there are indicators of global engagement is fundamental to understanding the impact and effects of globalization on higher education. The purpose: to provide a solid, literature-based foundation through which a list of indicators of globalization provide information for institutions in need of determining levels of global engagement and interaction. A review of the literature depicts a breath of research surrounding the topics of institutional global engagement and tactics, higher education rankings, and indicators of globalized universities; however there is a lack of synthesis of these themes where a scale of global engagement can be created that can inform institutional practice.

Internationalization, in a larger sense, is economic, political and social factors and influences that cause global understanding on a large scale and helps to identify multicultural strength, international knowledge and interconnectivity. Kwiek (2001) describes globalization as “the cessation of national identity as the most important social glue and that the production, cultivation and inculcation of national identity cease to be crucial social tasks.” This is important, because it implies that national borders cease to be important in globalization and that the worldwide distribution of products and services are not bound by national borders and perimeters. Altbach (2002, 2004,2007) defines globalization as a key feature in knowledge industries citing its implications in communication, marketing, strengthening the global labor force, the use of English as a widespread medium for communication, and increasingly advanced training in many fields. Globalization is the integration of economic, social, and political forces in order to advance efficiency, collaboration and multinational cooperation. The forces of globalization are refashioning economic structures and lifestyles, and, in addition, are also challenging the authority of the nation-state, penetrating deeply into the private world of informal associations, communities, and families as well as into personal identities (Scott, 2000). Globalization is shifting business and industry, as well as higher education, into an era of postmodernism that requires a shift in perceptions, practices and policies. With the evolution of technology, coupled with the need to find a provider of products and services around the globe, a new global business model is emerging that is transcending traditional national identity and alliances. In recent years, globalization has been the driving force of the world economy, production processes, information technology and diminishing national borders and boundaries to optimize production and distribution.

Within the last century, developed societies experienced social and economic changes leading to globalization. It is been argued that globalization, the Internet and the scientific community will level the playing field in the new age of knowledge interdependence (Altbach, 2004). Through a shared economy and culture, influences from around the world can converge and diverge in innumerable ways. Altbach argues that all of the contemporary pressures on higher education, from the pressures of massification to the growth of the private sector, are the results of globalization. “Countries that use the English language benefit from the increasingly widespread use of English for science and scholarship; developing countries will be greatly affected by globalization, as they will experience the bulk of higher education expansion in the coming decades,” says Altbach (2004). Because of these changes, the parameters of economic and socioeconomic attainment and opportunities have transformed throughout the world.

The higher education system has long begun to embrace the trend of globalization through sweeping changes to structures and programs within institutions. A new form of university has emerged: the global university. Wildavsky (2010) states “in the world of business, the globalization trend is so well known as to be cliché, but the globalization of universities is equally important and has perhaps even more far-reaching consequences.” This trend has prompted institutions to create global initiatives, partnerships and programs that mirror the efforts of multinational corporations, for a burgeoning number of universities, national boundaries have become largely irrelevant and few parts of the world have been untouched by the new university globalization (2010). In response to societal and social changes throughout the world, the concept of the global university has emerged and is leading changes in educational structures and policies which focus on creating global institutions and developing global citizens. It is taking shape as an electronic exchange of information and courses, with students, lecturers, and researchers in many countries connected via satellite, slow-scan television, computer networking and other advanced communications. The global university started with shared information and has now moved into the sharing of human resources and curricula. A global university is characterized by its replication of enterprise and corporate entities, human resources, consumerism and the use of modern technology. The ease of delivering instruction, of communicating and sharing, as well as traveling to other countries is cultivating a new form of higher education. Each institution influences and is influenced by human interaction and personal development, entrepreneurship and technological advances. Higher education institutions that claim to be global must push to make programmatic and structural changes in how they are managed, organized, governed, administered and generally considered.

Considering global rankings and literature on globalization in higher education, several distinct indicators are prominent. These include: international students and faculty, study abroad programs, international curricula, structures for global engagement, funding, awards, fellowships, international partnerships and international research collaboration. In order to measure globalization in higher education, these indicators represent some of the critical criteria for determining global engagement. The image of the world-class university is spawning more studies and comprehensive research in an attempt to standardize what it means to be a global university. A Although a world-class university does not necessarily have to be a global university, the indicators of world-class connote many of the same ideals and indications as global institutions. Kim and Nam suggest that “in response to the globalizing economy, many developing countries have been paying serious attention to building world-class universities and that a major strategy for world-class research universities is major higher educational reform projects to cultivate the creative and high-quality human resources necessary for a knowledge-based society. They further posit that higher education in today’s society has gone beyond the stages of elite education and mass education and has entered the stage of universal education (2007). This means that there are several important conditions that a world-class university requires that mirror that of global universities, including excellence in research by top-quality scholars, institutional autonomy, academic freedom, adequate facilities for academic work, and long-term public funding. “Global connection and cooperation are also critical elements for creating a world-class university; making a university world-class requires qualitative rather than just quantitative advancement “(Kim & Nam, 2007).

Indicators versus Rankings

Higher education around the world has made a transition due to the current societal trend of globalization. Colleges and universities around the world have entered an era where the movement of minds and cooperation of academia are fashioning out a new brand of institution. Undeniably, globalization and internationalization have had an impact not only on campuses, but also students, faculty, and administrators. Increasingly, institutions are using rankings as a measure of global impact and engagement; however this practice can sometimes prove to be rather useless in the context of the majority of universities dotting the globe. By combing through the methodologies of rankings and other global measurements, which continually increase in scope and breadth as universities struggle to cross international borders and create worldwide connections, there exists a need to further and fully define the current internationalization movement. By developing a list of indicators of global engagement for colleges and universities, the aim is to see how and why “globalization has become one of the most important factors that influence the development of higher education worldwide” (Jiang, 2008).

In fact, this era of globalization is one of the most influential factors in higher education and is pushing universities into a worldwide competition for world-class status. The final result of this inquiry provides a framework for tracking and understanding globalization and its impact on campuses. A new university has emerged. This requires rethinking the modern University, because how we track the global era of higher education is vital to its successful future. This article provides a list of indicators that identifies globalization on campuses as well as provides ideation toward the utilization of global practices and policies.

Defining global engagement through a list of indicators provides a clear and thorough observation on the impact internationalization has on higher education. Historically, there has been extensive criticism of rankings for suggesting false levels of assessment precision. Although criticized in close circles of academia, rankings are taken seriously by administrators, and academic departments are feeling pressure to demonstrate their value. Many of these departments analyze how they can use rankings data to recruit new faculty and top students (Jaschik, 2010). The development of a list of globalization indicators is pertinent to the further development of institutions in that institutions are provided with a practical tool that can assist in the development of academic and professional programs that reflect the globalization of society, the labor market and the global economy. Altbach estimates, “academe itself has become globalized, and institutions seek to benchmark themselves against their peers worldwide — and often to compete for students and staff (2010). A limitation of rankings is that there is only room at the top for as many world-class universities as meet the accepted criteria for such measurement. It is a zero-sum game, where the top 100 is limited to 100. For every space that is taken by a university, there exists one less opportunity for aspiring and emerging world-class universities. Altbach further suggests that perhaps a better idea than rankings is an international categorization system that can delineate institutions according to their missions (2010).

The goal is for a majority of schools to be able to gauge their global engagement, impact and interaction. Many criticize rankings for frequently changing their criteria or rankings’ methodologies making performance difficult to measure longitudinally, and difficult to usefully make comparisons to other institutions. However, 21st century needs to compete, to use other institutions as a point of reference, and to globalize internationally make the creation of some form of indicators warranted. Of the 80% of universities that believe their institutions appear “favorably” in the rankings, 71% promote their rankings results and marketing materials, says Jaschik (2010). This leads to further criticism of using rankings, because as Jashik states, “universities adopt policies that may not be educationally sound for the sole purpose of advancing in the rankings” (2010). For example, schools might decide to focus on faculty research and publication in order to receive citations and major publications, instead of focusing on student learning and intercultural curricular experiences.

Malcolm Gladwell suggests that it is “an act of real audacity when a ranking system tries to be comprehensive and heterogeneous (2011). He also surmises that at no point do the college guides acknowledge the extraordinary difficulty of the task they have set themselves. The first difficulty with rankings is that it can be surprisingly hard to measure the variable one wants to rank — even in cases where that variable seems perfectly objective (2011). For instance, when measuring the number of international students and faculty an institution, the number attained will include several other variables that will have an effect on the total, such as meaningful interaction, school climate and culture. By developing a list of indicators of internationalization and overhauling the idea of rankings and measurements shows promise in the development of globalized institutions on a worldwide basis, and at an innumerable level.

The internationalization of higher education is providing worldwide access and global expansion to institutions on a world stage. As scholars and researchers define and further flesh out the implications of globalization at colleges and universities, the development of indicators of global engagement can help institutions navigate through a society of fading borders. The place-based identity (Armstrong, 2007) of colleges and universities is changing and national boundaries have become largely irrelevant (Wildavsky, 2010).

With this in mind, colleges and universities must find ways to cooperate, collaborate and participate on a global scale in this era of globalization. Universities need to be able to illustrate the presence of these indicators of global engagement within the institution in order to effectively claim to be global institutions producing global scholars. Through a methodical process of definition, characterization and description, globalization at universities is operationally explained for the benefit of developing indicators of successful and progressive global academic image and recognition. Defining globalization and understanding what constitutes a global university is challenging, as institutions use unreliable and invalid rankings to define globalization. The following list of indicators offers opportunities for comprehensive, research-oriented and geographically diverse institutions to gauge global impact and influence through a standardized list. The focus is to create positive outcomes, increase the quality of programs, create innovation in learning and provide global integration.