Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide - Where ... · Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide - Where are we? Where might we go in ... Evolution over 15 years (1999

Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide -

Where are we? Where might we go in the future?

“10 Years of Erasmus Mundus Partnerships (2007-2017): Worldwide Bridges Towards The Future”

Brussels, 8 February, 2017

Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General, International Association of Universities (IAU)

© IAU February 2017 1

Presentation outline

1. Overview of academic mobility

2. Mobility in the broader context of internationalization of HE

3. Mobility as a tool for socio-economic development

4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes

5. IAU contribution to internationalization of HE

6. Conclusions

2 © IAU February 2017

• The nomadic scholar has a long history (e.g. Erasmus of Rotterdam, 15th century)

• “Nationalization” of HE in the 18th and 19th centuries

• International collaboration – a panacea after WWII and increasing steadily

• Expansion with globalization for last decades of 20th century

• Mobility is nowadays a global phenomenon


1. Overview of academic mobility

1. Analysis of current trends – availability of mobility data

1. Frequently, only QUANTITATIVE data exists

2. Global data focuses on degree-seeking or long- term student mobility

3. More global data on inbound than outbound student mobility

4. Global data is lacking on staff mobility

5. Insufficient data on mobility outcomes/impacts on individuals and/or institutions and countries (other than as a revenue for importing countries)


1. A few mobility trends: Inbound international students by region


0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mill

ion

s

Growth of (inbound) mobile students by region

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

North America

South America

Oceania

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics


• There is steady growth in mobility of degree-seeking students: – In 15 years (1999 – 2014) the number of mobile

students more than doubled from 2 to 4.3 Millions

However: • In the same 15 years total student numbers grew

approximately equally: – From 94 to 207 Millions

• Growth in absolute number of mobile students, no growth in proportion to all students – stable at 2%

1. A few mobility trends: What do we learn?

1. A few mobility trends: Where are international students going ?


5%

19%

43%

24%

1%

7%

Mobile (inbound) students by region in 2014

Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

2% 3% 5%

5%

5%

6% 10%

19%

Mobile (inbound) students by country in 2014

China Japan Germany

Russian Federation France Australia

United Kingdom United States of America

1. A few mobility trends: In-and out-bound students flows


-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1999 2007 2014

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics – Selection of few countries in graph

Net flow (difference between inbound and outbound mobile students per country). Evolution over 15 years (1999 – 2014)

• Mobility remains stable and highly unbalanced

– Few sending and receiving countries account for the biggest flow

– Imbalances in most sending and receiving countries is increasing over time

– Too few countries have balanced mobility

– OECD countries as main destination countries


1. A few mobility trends: What do we learn?

1. A few mobility trends: A zoom on OECD nations (2014)

• Even in OECD (most important destination countries), international students represent 6% of all students (3 times the world average)

• USA hosts the largest number of international students at MA and PhD level (26% of the total), UK hosts 15%, France 10%, Germany 10%.

• In OECD, the higher the level of studies, the greater the proportion of international students

• Intra-European mobility represents 25% of all mobile students in Europe – 75% come from elsewhere

© IAU February 2017 10 Source: OECD


• Most generally accepted definition of internationalization is as a multidimensional, intentional process, bringing international/intercultural perspectives to learning/teaching, research, outreach and management of an institution.

• A top priority for HEI leadership, increasingly viewed as an integral/inescapable aspect of overall HEI development strategy

• Seen as a process contributing to improved quality


• Mobility seen as part of a broader internationalization process – relatively recent (last 2-3 decades), likely due to EU programmes

• Often academic mobility is seen as the only or the most important dimension of internationalization

• EU’s mobility schemes remain unique in design and levels of funding & essential

• Yet, despite the EU support, mobility remains available to a small minority of students and staff



• If internationalization is as high a priority as policy makers and HEI leaders affirm, mobility must either be greatly expanded or must not be viewed as the main or only instrument

• Must go beyond mobility to make internationalization of HE benefit a wider audience

• Going beyond mobility in internationalization includes: – Internationalization of curriculum – More international focus in degree programs – Identification of ‘international’ competencies for all – Internationalization “at home” via extracurricular activities – On-line and distance learning – Trans-national education (branch campuses, programmes

abroad, etc.) – Internationalization of research and outreach locally



• Academic mobility can have profound impact on regions, countries, communities and institutions

• Purpose for participating countries and/or institutions may not be the same

• Always a mix of goals; context determines where emphasis is placed: – Academic / scientific (including for capacity building

and demographic reasons) – Economic (including human resource development,

seeking future economic partners, etc.) – Diplomatic or soft power (seeking geopolitical allies,

spreading influence etc.)


3. Mobility as a tool for socio-economic development

3. Diversity of purposes and benefits for nations

• An economic rationale for promoting mobility has become preponderant in some countries around the world

• There is a shift from collaboration to more competition to gain market share of the mobile student

• Countries are developing national strategies to secure national interests, using academic mobility as a central instrument

• Rationales and benefits are different for host and sending nations: – Host nation: potential revenue, qualified human resources, future

‘ambassadors’, research

– Sending nation: human resource development, capacity building, improved future cooperation etc.


3. Diversity of purposes and benefits for individuals and institutions

For individuals: access to programs unavailable at home, prestigious qualifications, international awareness, cultural sensitivity, language, skills for globalized labor market, opportunities for research…

For host HEI: more and more quality students, potential revenue, improved research capacity, diversified learning space…

For sending HEI: increased attractive offer to students, staff and capacity development, access to programs, institutional partnership and collaboration…


3. Persistent obstacles and risks linked to academic mobility

• Participation – despite stated importance – numbers remain small

• Funding – too often opportunities are only available to those who can pay (at all levels – individual, institutional and national)

• Gaps – restrictions on collaboration only with known/ranked universities – both as sending and as hosting institutions

• Visa - difficulties for entry into and from many countries

• Recognition of credits and prior qualifications • Brain drain • Cultural homogenization and linguistic impoverishment


4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes: advantages

1. Shared vision – Mobility is an integral part of a negotiated project

with clear wider goals for partners

2. Comprehensive – Includes staff mobility, essential for lasting

institutional change

3. Funding – EU offers stable funding for several years to build

mutual understanding and trust

4. Recognition – Facilitates recognition of credits and qualifications


4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes: challenges

1. Sustainability of partnerships – Without on-going funding, will collaborations

continue? Can mobility remain central?

2. Distinguishing among a multiplicity of goals – Mobility is not a all-in-one instrument for capacity

building, staff development, modernization, socio-economic impact etc., need more fine-tuned instruments for each goal

3. Complexity of structures – The partnership requirements to strengthen EU

collaboration may detract energy from the capacity building goals


5. IAU contribution to internationalization of HE

One of 4 IAU priorities in strategic plan 2016 – 2020 Main actions in internationalization: • Global Surveys: the largest and most geographically

comprehensive data collection on internationalization of higher education. Preparing the 5th edition: http://iau-aiu.net/content/iau-global-surveys

• Advocacy – elaboration and dissemination of policy statements

• Publications – for EU Parliament (2016), Editor of Internationalization Handbook, published 3 per year

• ISAS (2.0): IAU programme of advisory services for advancing internationalization for HEIs, individuals at HEIs, national governments and organizations: http://iau-aiu.net/content/isas-2


http://iau-aiu.net/content/iau-global-surveys







http://iau-aiu.net/content/isas-2





5. IAU advocates for ‘fair, mutually beneficial, sustainable’ internationalization of HE

• Several Policy Statements elaborated by working groups (http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/policy-statements-0)

• Placing academic (rather than economic or geopolitical) concerns first

• Seeing internationalization as an integral part of HEI development, contributing to quality

• Ensuring internationalization is inclusive (in terms of learners, institutions, nations)

• Calling for recognition and respect of diverse goals on the part of partners – avoid domination by those who control the funds

• Promoting mobility as one dimension of internationalization but urging for other aspects too


http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/policy-statements-0







• Mobility may continue to rise but it is unlikely that it will outpace overall growth of enrolment unless major investments are made

• Geographical imbalance will remain in the short term but the mobility landscape is becoming more multilateral and flows could possibly reverse

• Intra-regional and short term mobility is likely to grow (in EU and other regions); emphasis and competition will grow for 2nd and 3rd cycle mobility and internships


6. Where might we go in the future? A few concluding thoughts


• Mobility will remain a cornerstone of internationalization, and models will evolve

• EU policy and funding support remains essential; need developments in other regions too

• Mobility as part of an inter-institutional partnership will have greatest institutional impact; need strategic approach

• Short-term but more frequent mobility is most effective for countering brain drain

• Mobility alone is insufficient to make internationalization opportunities available to a wider audience

• For capacity building staff mobility must fit into institutional strategy



• Political changes will have profound impacts on mobility and internationalization

• Need continuous qualitative research on impacts (mid-to long-term) of mobility and other internationalization actions

• IAU will continue to monitor and promote both mobility actions and other dimensions of higher education internationalization


Change and Volatility: today’s Hindustan Times, Delhi


Thank you

Learn more about the IAU and join the Association:

www.iau-aiu.net

Contact:

[email protected]


http://www.iau-aiu.net/



mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide - Where ... · Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide - Where are we? Where might we go in ... Evolution over 15 years (1999