The new global context is compelling universities to reconsider their missions, goals, and responsibilities, as well as to develop innovative strategies to improve their relevance and competitiveness. For over three decades by now internationalization of higher education has attracted increasing attention in the policy arena, at institutional, national, regional, or international level. It is a global phenomenon affecting almost all countries in the world and has come to be recognized as a key reform strategy by institutions as well as governments. The goals and purposes of the national strategies may vary from country to country and can be different from the institutional goals. But the significance of internationalization to national prosperity, competitiveness, and cultural diversity has been widely acknowledged. Governments and higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world have assumed a wide variety of strategies and activities to achieve internationalization.
In the past three decades, the scope and scale of internationalization have expanded from what, for many countries, was limited essentially to the mobility of students and scholars, to a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy, including the internationalization of curricula , research , university governance , and engagement with local communities and industries (Georghiou & LarĂ©do, 2015; Jenkins-Deas, 2009; Take & Shoraku, 2018; van den Besselaar, Inzelt, Reale, de Turckheim, & Vercesi, 2012). As internationalizing a university requires a substantial and long-term investment of an institutionâs financial and human resources, assessment and quality control are critical to ensure that internationalization contributes to the relevance and quality of higher education and produces desirable outcomes (Coelen, 2009; Hudzik & Stohl, 2009; Knight, 2004; Taylor, 2004).
Demand for Better Measurement of University Internationalization
There are a number of reasons why measuring internationalization should be a priority. First, as Knight (2008) argued, âinstitutions need a way to monitor internationalization and collect information on an ongoing basis. They often spend too much time describing in very vague terms the status of the internationalizationâ (p. 48). In this respect, universities require reliable and concrete information to demonstrate to what extent, and in what aspects, they are internationalized, in order to avoid defining themselves vaguely as an internationalized university or a global university. Effective measurements can help universities to distinguish between strategic aspirations and strategic reality, and to recognize that, for some, there is a âgapâ between the two (Foskett, 2010; Graham, Faiyaz, & John, 2005). Understanding the difference between current and desired levels of performance is a powerful aid to systematic decision-making where investment in people and programs is concerned. There has also been greater acceptance among university leadership that measurement and evaluation are early steps on a route to performance improvement against their own individual missions and goals (Sowter, 2013). Measurements of explicit achievements will help provide the information necessary to analyze an institutionâs strengths and identify the areas in need of improvement (Knight, 2008; Maringe, 2010). The results of assessment can be used as leverage by university policymakers in allocating resources to maintain their strengths, improve areas of weakness, and ensure that institutional goals and objectives are met. This is, in turn, a precursor to analyzing the outcomes of internationalization efforts.
Further, because of the intensified competition and increasing importance of rankings and league tables, there is greater demand than ever for comparative information on universities. This demand comes from the institutions themselves, governments, students, and the wider public (Sowter, 2013). International ranking of universities is a widely debated example of how measurement has influenced institutional management and operation in ways that differ from those in the past (Marginson, 2011; Marginson & van der Wende, 2009). HEIs need information to assess their competitive position in terms of their efforts to achieve internationalization, to show the international effects of their research, as well as their popularity with international students. Using a similar set of performance indicators allows HEIs to observe changes over time and comparison between peers, making it an effective method of controlling (Graham et al., 2005). Moreover, benchmarking oneâs performance with that of peer institutions enables universities to differentiate themselves from the competition and identify their comparative advantage, which helps them establish their brand or profile in the international arena (Beerkens et al., 2010; Green, 2012).
Finally, the emergence in higher education of a culture of accountability that is based on evaluation has also advanced the agenda. Since the 1980s, accountability has been on the higher education policy agenda in many systems (Huisman & Currie, 2004). General change in the direction of âentrepreneurial universityâ increases the focus on the economic aspects of the business activities of universities. Consequently, it is necessary not only to develop sources of income and methods of controlling costs, but also expand financial reporting for universities. The answer to these challenges is to establish the concept of accountability, serving to govern universities (Ćukasz, 2016). Accountability increases transparency of universities and produces an increment of trust in society toward university. There are two main components in accountability: the response of a university to social needs and efficiency in resources management (Michavila & Martinez, 2018). The trend for greater transparency and accountability has been supplemented by an increasing need to demonstrate value for money and (public) investor confidence (Hazelkorn, 2013). As a result, HEIs have been called upon to increasingly account for their expenditures and to demonstrate their effectiveness. As internationalization begins to cost more, both in terms of monetary and human resources, knowing objectively, and in measurable terms, that it produces the value intended becomes critical in garnering support beyond rhetoric (Hudzik & Stohl, 2009; Jenkins-Deas, 2009). Only with empirical data can universities demonstrate their achievements in internationalization to both internal stakeholders and the public. Governments and policymakers ask HEIs to provide evidence that they have a clear strategy, use their resources wisely, and are successful in their efforts to achieve internationalization (Green, 2012). Further, there is increasing pressure for accountability from international and domestic students, as well as faculty and academic leaders, to ensure the provision of appropriate quality internationalization programs (de Wit, 2010; Hudzik & Stohl, 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising that university leaders are expecting that institutions take the lead in demonstrating accountability and providing clear information to the public and policymakers about their institutionâs performance, rather than waiting for rules and procedures to be established by others (Green, 2012).
More than two decades ago, Knight (1994) identified six stages to the process of internationalization: awareness; commitment; planning; operating; review, and reinforcement. As internationalization comes of age, measuring university performance in internationalization has become a priority in both research and practice (Dewey & Duff, 2009; de Wit, 2011; Knight, 2001, 2008; van den Besselaar et al., 2012). More sophisticated information and useful tools would assist with the exercise of mapping and measuring this phenomenon, especially in a comparative manner. In general, assessing university performance in internationalization is critical to its sustainability, credibility, and accountability.
A range of instruments has been developed in the past two decades to measure internationalization performance. The first endeavor was the International Quality Review Program (IQRP) developed by the Institutional Management in Higher Education, OECD, together with the Academic Cooperation Association (Knight & de Wit, 1999). Following this effort, there was a considerable increase in the number of studies and projects that attempted to construct appropriate indicators of internationalization. Not surprisingly, the first tools that were developed came from countries where internationalization had gained more importance because of an increasing flow of foreign students, including the United States (e.g., Green, 2005; Horn, Hendel, & Fry, 2007), UK (e.g., Ayoubi & Massoud, 2007), Australia (e.g., Krause, Coates, & James, 2005), and some European countries (e.g., Brandenburg & Federkeil, 2007; DAAD, 2010; de Wit, 2009). In addition, there has been increasing interest in internationalization indicators in Asia, including the projects conducted by Osaka University (Furushiro, 2006) and by Paige (2005) for Japan, by Chin and Ching (2009) for Taiwan, and by Chen, Zeng, Wen, Weng, and Yu (2009) for universities in mainland China. As an important part of the IRIS project, indicators were developed to measure internationalization level of universities in Israel (âProviding Support Services for International Activity,â 2014).
Most recently, cross-border instruments have been established to serve a variety of HEIs in different regions. For example, the Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalization (IMPI) project (Beerkens et al., 2010), the Erasmus Mobility Quality Tools (EMQT) (Managing Committee of the EMQT project, 2011), the Certificate for Quality in Internationalization (CeQuInt) project (Aerden & Weber, 2013), and the International Medical School 2020 (IMS 2020) project (Gajowniczek & Schlabs, 2013) focused on the European context. In 2016, UNESCO Office in Bangkok in collaboration with the University of Tokyo initiated a project to develop internationalization indicators of higher education in the Association of Southea...