L'idea sarà sviluppata da un gruppo di lavoro coordinato da Barbara De Rossi e Francesco Russo

Oggi come non mai è necessario impegnarsi per avvicinare la pubblica amministrazione alla cittadinanza e sostenere l’associazionismo nella realizzazione dei bisogni essenziali della stessa tramite la promozione di enti privati ed esponenziali attivi nella cura degli interessi attivi.

Per raggiungere queste finalità, si può pensare di porre in essere una Anagrafe Pubblica degli Eletti (APE), come ha fatto il Comune di Napoli - prima grande città italiana a dotarsi di un tale strumento - e di utilizzare maggiormente le nuove tecnologie per garantire una maggiore trasparenza delle Pubbliche Amministrazioni. Inoltre si dovrebbe prevedere la consultazione delle comunità locali ogniqualvolta le decisioni impattano esclusivamente sul loro territorio, magari ampliando l’istituto del referendum che, si sa, in Italia è soltanto abrogativo, con altre tipologie quali il referendum propositivo (che vincola il legislatore ad emanare una legge coerente con l'espressione popolare) o quello consultivo (che permette alla popolazione di esprimere il proprio parere in merito ad una determinata questione).

Si potrebbe cominciare individuando le Amministratori locali ed i rappresentanti dei partiti pronti a supportare e sviluppare i progetti relativi all’APE, nonché a sperimentare nuove forme di democrazia partecipativa, in modo da far partire una serie di progetti pilota che dimostrino la fattibilità dell’iniziativa. Sicuramente non mancherebbero cittadini interessati a fare pressione sui propri amministratori perché importino queste buone pratiche anche nel loro territorio.

HRK - Head of Nexus Project

The Bologna process has led to major transformations in European universities in the past decade, including higher rates of participation, internationalising institutes’ profiles, the growing significance of knowledge-based economies and increased global competition on mobile students and staff. Thus, by creating the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) the 47 Bologna member states and their stakeholders accepted certain unifying elements and tools such as a new common degree structure (Bachelor/Master), an intra-institutional quality development in teaching and learning (European Standards and Guidelines) and qualifications frameworks to facilitate mobility and lifelong learning.

Because of the diverse cultural, national and institutional contexts implementing core Bologna reforms has led to considerable variations affecting principally external quality assurance, institutions’ autonomy, funding and research but also the size and shape of many higher education systems. Since 1999, a number of reforms have been implemented or at least initiated in different Bologna member countries. In many respects, mixed results have been achieved, such as in the areas of study structure reform by introducing Bachelor and Master Programmes and quality assurance.

However, some fundamental goals of the Bologna Process – for example, with respect to cross-border academic mobility or the mutual recognition of study degrees and achievements – have not yet been reached. This stems to a great extent from existing legal, organisational and financial barriers as well as from a plethora of opinion-making and from mutual opposition the reforms have met in the different nation states. And now in turn, this hinders the further implementation and acceptance of the reform.

In spite of these existing shortcomings, the Bologna reforms have already had a positive impact in making higher education in Europe more accessible, in rationalizing and making consistent the evaluation of credits (ECTS) and learning outcomes for all disciplines. As a result, European universities have strengthened their competitiveness by increasing graduation rates, retaining more of their students and attracting more international students also with closer cooperation and networking efforts between institutions. These achievements have also helped shape a common European higher education identity within Europe and beyond. 

What measures stand out that individual institutions have taken in different countries, in particular Germany as a forerunner of reforming higher education? For Germany, the Bologna Process had been traumatic in the first few years of merely formal implementation. This mainly due to the fact, that there was simply no experience with and understanding for the need of a tiered degree system. While preferring traditionally for over a century or so the one-phase Diploma or State exam with a course duration of five to six years at the average among university professors and staff there were some followers strictly idealising the elitist track of the imagined Humboldtian traditions to educating exclusively for research careers.

Bologna challenged German universities and Universities of Applied Sciences at a time where the percentage of the population seeking higher education degrees is increasing continuously, the higher education institutions are taking on ever more diverse and demanding tasks, while simultaneously, however, the budget and especially state financing cannot keep up pace with the growing demands. But we should not forget, that the traditional German Higher Education system showed many deficiencies, like
o long study times and high dropout rates
o lack of resources and funding
o insufficient international compatibility of the study degrees
o no accepted system of quality assurance
o problems with curricula structuring and orientation
o increasing students’ numbers (mass education)
o growing social and cultural diversity of students (with deficits in mathematics, languages etc.)

However, Bologna reforms were needed to address especially high drop-out and failure rates, for instance, in engineering or the natural sciences on the country’s now-defunct longer courses, which internationally suffered a loss of attraction.

After this (initial) phase of mostly structural reforms, the institutions in the meantime accepted to re-adjust their study programs in a manner that is more consistently oriented toward individual competence acquisition and the opportunities posed by a changing labor market. This also meant further developing study offerings with respect to the growing number and increasing diversity of students in an international perspective. Access to Higher Education has to become more transparent and open, suitable for a student body composed of national and international students, individuals who have taken “traditional” educational paths and individuals who have a less “conventional” educational biography. All of these tasks need to be encompassed in the internal and external quality assurance of an institution. Ultimately, the new possibilities offered to students by these reforms in higher education need to be communicated in a right way for them to truly take effect. This in turn will support the implementation of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning in Higher Education, which seeks to promote transparency, mobility and permeability.

Although all fundamental elements of the reform are in the process of being implemented, no European member country has yet managed to implement all goals of the Bologna Process completely. This is especially true for Germany as well. The German Rectors’ Conference (HRK) began at an early stage to discuss and follow critically the state of implementation of the reform at German higher education institutions and tried to identify the problems. The most important ones were:

• Complaints by students regarding study overload and a lack of individual responsibility in academic studies were brought to the fore during the recent student protests in summer and autumn 2009 and 2010. Although studies show that the workload for students has only increased minimally, if at all in the new degree programs, there does seem to be examples of overload. Some curricula have an overly dense and rigid structure reminding to a condensed version of the old-fashioned long diploma programs.
• In some cases, students’ complaints demonstrated that there are too many exams in the modules or they consist of multiple, partial exams. Or the exams have to be done within a relatively short time. 
• The dropout rate remains too high in certain disciplines. 
• In order to help students be able to successfully complete their degree programs, instructors need better coordination of different forms of teaching, learning and testing. At German universities underestimation of academic teaching in comparison to research is still visible. 
• The teacher – student – ratio is still inadequate.
• The curricula must provide for sufficient flexibility so as to foster independent study and learning for example via eLearning.

All together, the tiered study structure of the Bachelor/Master-system can only gain in appeal, if the student workload, labour market acceptance and flexible models for full- and part-time students are taken more into closer consideration and made suitable for ever more diverse student bodies. The institutions of higher educations have recognized these deficits and they are in the process of adjusting their degree programs and seeking to use the full potential of flexibility that Bologna offers. However, a problem remains, in that these reforms cannot be implemented at zero cost. At the very least, a 15 percent increase in teaching capacity is necessary, as the HRK has estimated recently.

If the European Higher Education Area is to be realized, then there is no alternative to the Bologna reform. The institutions have set their priorities for the further development of the reform process and have discussed appropriate strategies for implementation in the HRK. From the HRK’s perspective, the social dimension of the Bologna Process must become more salient, calling for more flexibility and appropriately financed offerings. Access to higher education also needs to be more transparent and open, both for domestic and international students as well as for students coming from the “classic” education backgrounds and those who have taken a more unconventional path. Accordingly, more options are needed for part-time studies, degree programs for lifelong education or ones designed for individuals to study while working, as well as transparent, quality assured recognition of extra-curricular, study-relevant achievements. And it is in the interest of the students to offer more advisory services, optional preparatory courses and family friendly infrastructure. But without additional financial resources all these goals hardly can be achieved.

Consequently, the year 2010 – instead of being a target as originally envisioned – will only be a stepping stone on the way to a common European Higher Education Area (EHEA) until 2020. The questions of how to keep the reform process going after 2010 on a European-wide basis and what the substance of the process should be will not only remain strongly relevant. They will be decisive in determining how efficiently and comprehensively the EHEA can be accomplished. The subsequent political course was set at the Ministerial Conferences taking place in April 2009 in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve and was confirmed politically in March 2010 in Budapest and Vienna. During the conference, the ministers responsible for higher education from the Bologna signatory states decided together on a European agenda for the further development of the Bologna Process in the coming decade (“Bologna 2020” Programme). The further pathway of German implementation is heavily influenced by this blueprint in the years beyond 2010.

Writer, Journalist, former Editor of The Economist

One important thing you are taught when studying economics at university is that it is a mistake to use one policy instrument to try to achieve several different objectives. Yet for the past half century, governments in Europe have done exactly that with universities. They have tried to use universities simultaneously as an instrument to boost social mobility and equality, to generate advanced basic scientific research, to boost productivity, to increase entrepreneurialism, to preserve cultural heritages, and even to provide political patronage. And for as long as universities were dependent on rising flows of public money, they accepted these mixed objectives.

That era is now surely coming to an end, as the public money runs out. It is dying only slowly, as governments still find it tempting to use universities as multiple-objective policy instruments in the old way, but dying it is. Austerity is shining a harsh light on inefficiency, demanding greater scrutiny of performance and the more effective use of funds. The fact that most European universities have ended up as mediocre institutions, unable to fulfill any of their objectives very well, is increasingly clear. The question is what will come next.

Under pressure on their public finances, governments would be well advised in any case to change the way in which they think about universities. Treating them as part of the public sector, to be controlled and even run by central or local government, is unnecessary and inefficient. It would be better if governments were to repeat the lesson they learned in the 1970s and 1980s when they used to subsidise companies in order to preserve employment, and realised gradually that it would be better to target the money at the workers themselves, rather than their employers.

So, with universities, if governments want to carry on financing students, they would be better advised to give the money to the students themselves, leaving them to choose at which universities to spend it. Governments that already channel their research funding to projects and teams rather than just to institutions are following a similar path.

Increasingly, as this approach is adopted, universities will increasingly become privately-run institutions, competing for funds from the various sources available: students, whether publicly financed or not, public research grants, corporate sponsorship and so on. Public universities may survive as specialist providers of certain sorts of education, but their prominence within European university systems will gradually decline.

It is in this context of financially driven change that internationalisation needs to be seen. An argument can be made for it on its own merits: that international exposure, contacts, exchanges have an intellectual value in themselves, and an educational value for students due to work in the modern world. But as with most such arguments, it is possible to disagree with this, as many rectors do. This disagreement reflects the multiple nature of the objectives that universities have been set.

In future, I would suggest, universities will—and should—become more and more differentiated from one another, choosing greater specialisation and greater focus on particular objectives. The distinction between universities and other types of intellectual institution—including think-tanks, corporate training bodies, even media organisations—may well become less than before. The definition both of knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination is changing.

Within that new diversity, internationalisation will be an option that some universities will follow profitably, serving both their financing needs and their desire to attract top-class faculty and students. But, widespread though it may prove to be, it will not be the only option.

As a result of this new diversity, it will make little sense for countries to market their university systems as a whole: that task will best be done institution by institution, emphasising their special characters and models. What governments do need to do is to set their visa requirements and procedures in such a way as not to impede the proper international development of those universities that want to internationalise—a mistake currently being made by the British government, in its zeal to cut back net immigration into the UK.

CHE Consult - Partner

 The last two decades have seen the concept of internationalisation move from the fringes to the heart of the institutional agenda. Nowadays, we encounter the hype words “internationalisation”, “international recruitment”, “global player”, etc. in nearly every strategy plan, mission statement or target agreement in higher education institutions. Virtually no university feels it could do without. As a result one could argue that the advocats of internationalisation of the earlier days have finally succeeded in their mission, and the author feels to be one of them. Well: Did we?

With its transition from the fringes to the core, internationalisation has experienced the same metamorphosis experienced by other concepts and ideas. By becoming mainstream, a concept becomes accepted as standard and develops into a tradition¹. With this move (from innovation to tradition)  comes a substantial change in attitude. Traditions are to be accepted, to be defended, not to be argued with. And suddenly, what began as a new, exciting approach, full of challenges and risks to overcome, becomes a common concept whose pros and cons are better not discussed. Or as it was put by a conference speaker at the beginning of his speech: “We of course all agree that mobility is good”.But is it? By nature? Necessarily? I do not think so. We know of many cases of mobility which are neither for the benefit of the traveler, nor for the host or the country of origin (Aneas is one them), not every student becomes a better person and less stereotype-driven just by travelling. Furthermore, the PRIME report of the ESN² tells us that many students still do not get recognition for their credits earned abroad. In addition, German officials like to boast about recruiting thousands of international students but in fact in some subject areas about 65% of them do not finish their degree and instead drop out.  Mobility... a good thing in itself? No, I think that it can be good and that every student should have an option to study abroad but this has to be combined with much more responsibility and accountability. Do we know enough about learning outcomes of international mobility? Do we all have useful indicator-based monitoring systems in place to see whether mobility has achieved what we wanted it to achieve (and do we even know what we want)?

And yet, internationalisation today is the white knight, the positive concept as such. Whereas globalisation is the black knight, the evil concept, the neo-liberalism in flesh. Why is that? Who decided that the term is defined by one and not the other? If we look at the word itself, globalisation seems to be much more applicable and modern (embracing the world as such) than internationalisation (talking about relations between states: inter nationes). Thus one might argue, as internationalisation moved from innovation to tradition, the metalevel paradigm has to move from internationalisation to globalisation. Reality seems to indicate that this indeed is taking place: English has become the new lingua franca of the world, we see a global strive for harmonisation of quality levels and structures (Bologna and beyond), European as well as global accreditation increases, mobility numbers rise (with all the problems attached as mentioned above), HE is seeing a tendency towards commercialisation and even commoditisation. Last but not least, we see a shift from cooperation to competition or at least cooptition.

This bears consequences for international work. We need less belief and more knowledge, as well as less input focus and more outcome orientation. If internationalisation as a term has a future, then perhaps based on Hudzik’s concept of “comprehensive internationalisation^”3. 

All this takes place beyong the boundaries of the old nation state. Of course, the state still often represents quality and provides – to a substantial if though decreasing degree – the core funding of HE. But essentially, we see a withdrawal of the nation state on many fronts: some examples are the reduction of state budgets (where still applicable) e.g. in Germany, UK (Brown report), the diversification of portfolios of HEIs, their recruitment activities, franchising or offshore campuses.

On a theoretical level, what we can observe might be nothing other than Sassen’s concept of de-nationalisation⁴ , which is usually not applied to universities but cities, companies and alike. A strong indicator for this trend could be the development of international networks or clubs of HEIs whose numbers have been growing exponentially in the last three decades.

HEIs obviously start to act more and more on a global scale – without ignoring the local settings of course – and in order to survive on that level they form clubs (in complete accordance with the Theory of Voluntary Clubs⁵) . It is not effective to boast about being the “best German” university but rather “a global player”. Even if methodologies are weak, a rank within the top100 of any of the rankings of the day is increasingly more relevant than the position in any given country. The nation state is therefore increasingly more of a nuisance and hinderance rather than a focus point for identity and branding: legislation makes joint degrees difficult and offshore earnings hard to transfer, can create conflicts between national regulations (no fees) and activities on global markest (fees a must). To put it provocatively: one could argue that the nation state insures that inter-nationality is still needed nowadays and that globalisation is restricted and the individual HEIs – each to a different level – look for ways out by de-nationalising themselves (through networks, fund diversification, etc.).

The Böll Foundation Delphi on Higher Education 2030⁶ came to similar conclusions: by 2030 the state will still have its functions but the major music will be played on a global level and HEIs will de-nationalise themselves more and more (although this word was not used).

So what then is the vision for 2050: Maybe the (virtual) network university? The role of HEI clubs today and the recent development of a sort of meta-level clubs (clubs of clubs, although so far only in the form of cooperation agreements),  distributed learning and distributed campuses and the digital global citizen as both the main actor in an HEI as well as the increasingly typical recipient of its activities, products and services all seem to suggest that.

And yet the nation state is still there and we hear on conferences the caveats of the danger of globalization, although in each and every case we can also argue for the positive: Brain drain or brain gain can be – and is – contrasted by the idea of brain train. To loose the brightest can also mean to create new productive links and gain new export connections, to find ways to overcome the demopgraphic challenges etc. In the end, it comes back to the problem of innovation and tradition. Looking at these aspects from a traditionist’s perspective means they become threats and you have to defend yourself against them probably by covering up your weaknesses and boast about your perceived strengths. Looking at them from an innovator’s position means they become opportunities but only if you improve your weaknesses and use your real strengths.

In such a situation we may rightfully ask: If HEIs are de-nationalising themselves, is inter-nationalisation still the concept with which to grasp this development? Or do we not need to regain ownership of definition for the term globalisation, free it from neo-liberal biases and use it in its pure meaning: the concept of inter-dependence of everything and everyone in the bio-system Earth regardless of place, time, age or nation?

Does moving from inter-nationalisation to globalisation in terms of HEIs mean that Fukuyama is right, at least in the case of HE, in that the end of history has come with the end of the nation state?⁷  I would argue that as much as he withdrew from this revolutionary idea at the end of his famous contribution this is also doubtful in the case of HE which has to do with some misconceptions (the role of the state reduced to that of a financial contributor, limitations on national responsibilities, less focus on national interests on a global scale, etc.) and one might argue that the role of the nation state will not so much disappear as change. I envision the nation state of the year 2050 much more in the role of one important but not by far the only stakeholder of an HEIs, a partial financial contributor and demander challenging the HEIs much stronger than today to deliver in return for the finances received solutions for issues such as demographic change, diversity, or energy sustainability. In short, to me the nation state 2050 will be this: the network state.

The de-nationalisation of higher education itself and universities as its main actors will lead to a change of the rules of the game and this calls for the terms of trade being redefined between HEIs and the nation state. With both actors turning into network actors, there will be a need for a new concept of state-HEI interaction.

1 see (Brandenburg and de Wit 2011)
2 see (Apsalone, et al. 2009)
3 see (Hudzik 2011)
4 see (Sassen 2008)
5 see (Potoski and Prakash 2009)
6 a project in 2006 for which the author was acting as one of the experts: results see http://www.institutfutur.de/docs/Hochschuldelphi2030_Leipzig_Handout.pdf
7 see (Fukuyama 1992)

Literature

• Apsalone, M., T. Bort, St. Friedrich, T. Filoni, J. Panny, and D. Scherer. PRIME 2009. Problems of Recognition in Making ERASMUS. Brussels: ERASMUS Student Network, 2009.
• Brandenburg, U., and H. de Wit. "End of Internationalization." International Higher Education, no.62 Winter 2011: 15-17.
• Denman, B. The Emergence of international consortia in higher education. Camperdown NSW: University of Sydney, PhD thesis, 2001.
• Fukuyama, F. The end of history and the last man. London: Penguin Books, 1992.
• Hudzik, J. Comprehensive Internationalisation. From Concept to Action. Washington D.C.: NAFSA, 2011.
• Potoski, M., and A. Prakash. Voluntary Programs. A Club Theory Perspective. Cambridge, Masschusetts; London, England: MIT Press, 2009.
• Sassen, S. Territory Authority Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press: updated edition, fourth printing, 2008.

Assistant Dean (Research Projects and Centres) at Hong Kong University

To the Chinese higher education system, internationalization means to return into the international community. This has significant implications for both sides. China’s recent strides in higher education have shocked the world and thus have invited much discussion. While some have reached a conclusion of a swift rise of Chinese universities on a global stage, even trying to characterize it as a Chinese model; others have stressed the marketization and corporatization of the system, claiming that China is moving in line with the ‘global tides’; while still others have expressed their great concern about the sustainability of China’s higher education development. Indeed, China’s achievements are truly remarkable. The number of peer�]reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64�]fold over the past 30 years. Becoming the world’s second largest producer of research papers, China is remaking the knowledge-economy landscape.

In order to better understand the future development of China’s higher education, it is highly necessary to look back at its cultural and historical roots. China has rich traditional culture. Unlike the outward-looking Western thinking, the central attention of the Chinese way of thinking has been inward-looking, confined almost exclusively to human behaviors. Such different orientations of cultural thinking have led to different historical trajectories of higher education. Throughout the modern era, Western and Chinese learning have contended for hegemony. Education has always been a key aspect of reform efforts. The transfer of Western practice conflicts with the Chinese traditions. Modern universities are a foreign transplant to China. Indigenous Chinese highest learning institutions only shared superficial resemblance with the medieval university in Europe. The central purpose of China’s modern higher education has been to combine Chinese and Western elements at all levels including institutional arrangements, research methodologies, educational ideals, and cultural spirit, a combination that brings together aspects of the Chinese and Western philosophical heritages. This, however, has not been achieved.

The emphasis has always been on use, with corresponding ignorance of body. The development of Chinese modern universities has always been confronted with the absence of both classical and modern ideas of a university. While Chinese longstanding traditions never attempted to seek the ontological significance of knowledge, practical demands, consciously and unconsciously, have always been the highest priority. As part of national reform agenda, China’s contemporary policies are in continuity with reforms since the 19th century. Throughout this period, Chinese universities have experienced ups and downs in putting into practice the then already popular vision of retaining “Chinese learning as the essence” while systematically incorporating the new knowledge essential to build the nation. This explains why the best experiment was achieved by the National Southwestern Associated University in the 1930s during the Sino-Japanese war, and justified the argument that the lack of central government during 1911-1927 provided Chinese higher education with the possibility of vigorous experimentation.

Today, China’s strategy remains the same. At certain stage, such a strategy could be effective. China’s universities beat India’s in almost every international ranking. According to the latest Academic Ranking of World Universities conducted by the Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2010, China has Peking University and Tsinghua University in the top 200; Fudan University, Nanjing University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, University of Science and Technology of China, and Zhejiang University in the top 300, Shandong University, Sichuan University and Sun Yat-sen University in the top 400, and 12 others in the top 500. China features 22 times in the top 500, and India only twice.

Nevertheless, the promise is doomed to be limited. China has a considerable distance to go before its aspirations to create truly world-class universities are fulfilled. In the present great leap forward in Chinese higher education, what has often been missing is attention to cultural and institutional establishments. An internationally recognized scholarly ethos may take longer to develop than many academic and/or political leaders in China are willing to admit. Simply buying state-of-the-art laboratory equipment or pushing for more journal articles will not guarantee the kind of intellectual atmosphere that has developed over centuries on European and American campuses. Although China’s recent developments deserve to be noted, they could soon hit a glass ceiling.

China’s universities have been able to improve their hardware considerably, while, as is always the case in China, the software building takes much longer. In order to be truly “world-class,” Chinese universities cannot afford to continue to avoid the important and dwell on the trivial. Universities as cultural institutions have three layers with materials on the surface, social institutions in the middle, and values at the core. China’s import of the Western university model has been centered mostly on the material level, with some touches on social institutions, while the core of the Western model, such as academic freedom and institutional autonomy, has rarely been understood, let alone implemented. The idea that the Western university model could work well on Chinese soil has been mistakenly taken for granted. For long, Deng Xiaoping’s aphorism “Black cat, white cat, who cares as long as it can catch mice” has been burnt into Chinese souls. It is now high time to notice the nature of the cat because the mice to be caught would definitely be different.

International Relations Lecturer at the US International University (Kenya)

In most, if not in all, parts of the African continent the presence of, as well as access to, training opportunities in universities is often linked to economic development and prosperity.  Indeed, universities are no longer perceived as ‘ivory towers,’ that are privy to a few, but rather as institutions that contribute towards the public good by promoting equity through the intellectual and economic empowerment of local communities. As a result, the demand for university education has been growing rapidly over the past few years among both traditional and non-traditional students. For instance, the number of students’ eligible for university education at the beginning of the millennium, in Kenya, was approximately 40,497 and it is estimated that approximately 150,000 will seek university admission by 2015. Whereas, this impending avalanche of potential students has been depicted as a crisis in waiting for the higher education sector on the continent, it also provides a huge opportunity for the increased integration of the continent with other parts of the world through the internationalization of higher education. Within this context, internationalization necessitates the adoption of variegated non-traditional teaching and research methods that will cater for both conventional and unconventional students as well as respond to demands for human capital – which is the major contributor to development.

Consequently, governments and key stakeholders in the higher education sector should not respond to the student avalanche by developing policies that will shut-out a majority of qualified students in a bid to control and standardize admission numbers but rather, continuously expand, diversify and refine the higher education infrastructure by embracing the liberalization of the sector. A recent development in education liberalization has been the adoption of e-learning as a method that enables institutions to provide educational services not only to a wider market place but also to students located in different geographical regions. Through e-learning, established universities in developed parts of the world can offer internationally recognized degree courses to a wide typology of students in Africa and other parts of the world. Some of the advantages of e-learning include flexibility in terms of content delivery and cost-effectiveness because of the affordability of digital material. It has also been noted that “well designed e-learning course content can improve understanding and encourage deeper learning which is essential to the success of most student.” (Isa and Hashim 2010).

In spite of the attractiveness of e-learning as an option that is likely to meet the growing demand for non-traditional access to university education, it is important for stakeholders to ensure that the increasing demand does not overshadow quality assurance and student-focused learning in virtual classrooms. The challenge for future universities and other key stakeholders therefore, is to develop mechanisms that will test quality assurance across borders. 

Analyst, OECD - IMHE

The number of students enrolled in higher education outside their country of citizenship practically doubled from 2000 to 2008 (OECD, EAG 2010¹) and this trend is likely to continue. Student mobility is however the most visible part of a greater topic, namely internationalisation, which is more complex and multifaceted. One aspect, sometimes referred to as internationalisation at home, consists of incorporating intercultural and international dimensions into the curriculum, teaching, research and extracurricular activities and hence helps students develop international and intercultural skills without ever leaving their country (OECD, 2004² , Wächter, 2003³ ). Throughout the world, other fast-growing forms of internationalisation are emerging (eg transnational education sometimes delivered through off-shore campuses, joint programmes, distance learning, etc) and suggest a more far-reaching approach, especially where higher education is now seen as an integral part of the global knowledge economy.

Today, internationalisation provides new opportunities for all higher education institutions and functions as a two way street. It can help students achieve their goals to obtain a quality education and pursue research. Institutions, on the other hand, may gain a worldwide reputation as well as a foothold in the higher education community and meet the uncertain challenges associated with globalisation.
As part of a broader strategy, internationalisation can offer students, faculty and institutions valuable insights. It can spur on strategic thinking leading to innovation, offer tremendous advantages regarding pedagogy as well as student and faculty collaboration and learning assessments. With the infusion of internationalisation into the culture of higher education, students and educators can gain a greater awareness of the global issues and how educational systems operate across countries, cultures and languages.

The many aspects and complexity of internationalisation raise various challenges for policy makers (eg with regards to optimising mobility flows, equal access to international education, protecting students and quality assurance (OECD, 2008⁴). Likewise, institutions must be more responsive and orchestrate all of these various aspects consistently in order to reap the benefits of internationalisation as well as face the potential risks that it presents.

In a new study, the OECD’s Institutional Management in Higher Education programme (IMHE) is aiming to shed light on the impacts of internationalisation on teaching-learning, research and extra-curriculum activities, on the evolving perception of internationalisation within the institutions and on the impacts on governance of the higher education systems and institutions.

This article is extracted from a paper authored by Richard Yelland, to be published shortly.

1. OECD (2010), Education at a Glance 2010, OECD, pp. 325-327
2. OECD (2004), Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges, OECD, Paris.
3.  Wächter, B. (2003), “An Introduction: Internationalisation at Home in Context”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5-11
4. OECD (2008) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, Volume 1, Special features: Governance, Funding, Quality; By Paulo Santiago, Karine Tremblay, Ester Basri and Elena Arnal, pp 235-307.

 Senior Consultant - Global eLearning Enterprises Ltd, UK

New media will fundamentally change the quality, cost effectiveness and reach of universities of the future, enabling them to compete in the markets for student, staff and funding, and deliver higher socio-economic impact.    The change will happen at different rates in different countries and institutions because different drivers and barriers will apply. However universities, governments and private sector content and technology providers, now need interlinked new media strategies to achieve the benefits.

New media will enable university teaching quality to rise as lecturers increasingly replace blackboards and slides with powerful interactive e-resources to plan and animate their lectures, including simulations and video clips. The quality and immediacy of feedback to students will improve with formative e-assessments in lectures based on electronic “voting” systems.  Feedback on student assignment will also improve as lecturers adopt electronic rubrics and marking tools, allowing them to give much more detailed feedback without increasing marking time.

Meanwhile students will increasingly supplement lectures and tutorials with self-directed online learning based on e-lectures (recorded by their own or other lecturers), interactive e-learning systems, e-books and online collaboration with other students.

 Repositories of free and commercial electronic content for both lecturers and students will grow steadily and be accessed mainly via the Internet. However today’s e-content is of highly variable quality, with relatively few “gold nuggets” amongst vast quantities of poor and indifferent content. This will change only slowly, except where governments co-invest with the private sector to orchestrate national and international content development initiatives of high quality and flexibility for multiple universities. Such orchestrated initiatives will be essential to justify the high development costs necessary to build high quality content. Countries that do this will be much more competitive in the international university sector and, more importantly, will achieve higher education standards leading to faster economic growth over time. 

New media will also fundamentally change the economics and reach of universities.  The few universities that today rely mainly on distance education have shown the way – they will increasingly use online interactive e-learning systems to improve their quality. The massive growth of institutions like the University of Phoenix in the USA and the Open University in the UK suggests this model will increasingly take market share from traditional campus-based universities. Meanwhile traditional universities will respond by increasing the proportion of distance education and e-learning in their blend, both to improve the quality of student learning and to increase the leverage of their fixed and semi-fixed assets (especially property and staff).

Some universities will also use new media to increase their market reach, enabling them to recruit students nationally and internationally and serve them with online e-learning systems, lectures and tutorials, with a limited local physical staff presence. Others will teleconference distant lecturers and tutors into their campuses, because they are better (e.g. world renowned experts) or cost less (e.g. based in low cost regions or countries).  This will unleash a global lecturing market where those with superior communications skills, pedagogic techniques and electronic media will attract large national or international online audiences, threatening to undermine mediocre local lecturers. Equally online distance tutoring services, some based in low cost countries, will grow and move into the mainstream.

Universities will also use new media to strengthen links with business partners, for example by teleconferencing remote business speakers into lectures and tutorials. They will also respond more quickly to employers’ changing needs by rapidly adapting their courses year by year based on e-curricula and e-books.

Barriers to the adoption of new media content and distance education models include the cost, quality and lack of alignment with local curricula, language and culture of e-content; the resistance of university staff; and the quality of collaboration technology (especially real time audio and video conferencing). These barriers will only be overcome by concerted national or international initiatives to develop content and technology platforms, coupled with local deployment projects using change management methods. Governments will need to take a stronger lead in partnership with the private sector to overcome the barriers and achieve the potentially huge benefits of quality, cost effectiveness and reach of universities.

In the past 10 years, major universities and business schools have become competitors for attracting the larger number of foreign students.
International students have three major appeals for universities:  firstly, it is a non-negligible criterion for international rankings as it shows the degree of desirability of the university.  Secondly, it is an important source of revenue.  Finally, it creates a positive experience for home students to share and adapt to new cultures. 

This competition is today at its paroxysm, to the extent that universities are now opening branch campuses abroad in order to directly enroll foreign students.

This new trend has first emerged with the opening of international branch campuses in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, in countries such as Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Singapore and China. According to the Observatory for Borderless Higher Education, there are more than 100 branch campuses around the world with the U.S. and Australian universities having  the largest number of branch campuses. To name a few of institutions leading the way to internationalization of education, we can mention INSEAD and Stanford in Singapore, Georgetown in Qatar, Harvard medical school in Dubai, Monash University in South Africa and Malaysia, or RMIT in Vietnam.

It has the advantage for these emerging countries to gain access to the expertise and recognition of leading universities in a relatively fast and inexpensive way.  Some of these emerging countries have the aspiration to become leading regional players in higher education. Singapore for example, aims to become a hub for higher education in Southeast Asia and compete to attract the brightest students from the region chiefly coming from China and India.

International branch campuses are at the forefront of the process of globalization in higher education. One of the main consequences of this trend is that it participates to widening the gap between elite universities and smaller and less prestigious ones. In becoming globalized these universities reinforce their leading roles as well as their rankings and international visibilities. They thus create a virtuous circle. Concerning student mobility, it eases the process since students are more incline to study abroad in a familiar environment. Other consequences of international branch campuses are that it encourages internal staff mobility, it diversifies risks, and it creates for the host country a favorable atmosphere to retain young talents. Additionally, it enables universities to specialize their curriculums to the host country needs.

As a conclusion we can say that international branch campuses are a non-negligible leverage for universities to gain in visibility and ranking. It offers them the possibility to get more globally integrated in high potential markets.  In the same time, it diminishes risks as it annihilates the development of young national universities. It results in widening the gap between top ranked elite universities with substantial cash flows and endowments and the less privileged ones.

This of Vision is based upon a perplexing yet common equivocation. It assumes that universities, insofar as they participate in and cooperate with today’s so-called market economies, could or even should be conceived of as market agents. Under this assumption, universities would provide profitable goods and services required by relevant market segments; students would be customers of universities; which in turn would compete with other business actors in attracting investments and somehow lead to wealth creation. Such a characterisation of universities is, to say the least, historically deficient and institutionally ludicrous. Universities do have a budget and train citizen in various useful occupations, but describing them as running a business or being businesses is a cheap metaphor at best, whatever its misleading popularity may be.

First of all, universities are part of those civil commons that societies have evolved through centuries of historical progress: their past can shed light on their future. Indeed, the first university was established about a thousand years ago in the country where I was born, Italy. As tokens of civil commons, the paramount goal of academic institutions has been to increase ranges of life capacity and, specifically, attain knowledge and understanding at the highest level of articulation, i.e. qua academic disciplines. Initially, access was limited to the male members of a tiny elite. Later on, access was widened to the female members of the elite. Eventually, in several countries, access was extended to large sectors of the population upon selection by intellectual merit rather than birth right or pecuniary means. Along this path, the polar star of universities has been truth, not wealth or profit, especially in today’s dominant short-term formulation of it (cf. my 20/9/2010 entry: http://www.visionblog.eu/blogdivision/blog/articolo.asp?articolo=132). Truth and profit may sometimes go hand-in-hand, but they are not necessarily conjoined: a charlatan may be an excellent salesman, but his knowledge is bogus and his understanding shallow, whether he gets away with his fraudulent enterprises or not. Truth and profit may be even fierce enemies: children and their bodily organs can be remarkable sources of profit, but human dignity commands sheltering minors from commodification.

Secondly, by providing knowledge and understanding at the highest level of articulation, universities have educated generations of entrepreneurs, executives, white-collar workers and productive citizens of all sorts and stripes. They have been unquestionable centres of innovative thinking, creative experimentation, thorough revision and groundbreaking vision that translated at times into better business life. At a deeper level, universities have cultivated methods, skills and values facilitating moral socialisation, humane civilisation and intelligent communication, i.e. essential yet regularly neglected preconditions for any economic activity whatsoever. In brief, universities have been instrumental to market efficiency in many ways. Nevertheless, this market-oriented function of universities has been just one of many, often indirect, and possibly adventitious: in the 20th century, cutting-edge research in physics was led in academes of countries that did not have a market economy.

To conclude, I wish to focus upon one function that makes universities unique and may remind the reader of the reason why universities, if they are going to have a future, ought to be protected from too direct a market involvement as well as from the market’s defining aim: profit. As long as they have been allowed to do their job with adequate funding and independence, universities have served as monitoring bodies over the excesses, the threats and the falsities endangering the countries in which they had been established, if not humankind at large. In this capacity, universities have produced research and issued warnings that have prevented terrible catastrophes, e.g. the thinning Ozone layer in the 1980s. Other times, their evidence and warnings have been ignored at great cost for all, e.g. Joseph Stiglitz’s and John McMurtry’s sophisticated critiques of deregulated financial wizardry in the 1990s and 2000s. Still, even when unheard or marginalised, academic disciplines have generated ideas, novel forms of reasoning and alternative approaches that can be used to cope with the disastrous effects of human and/or natural catastrophes. As long as funds and independence are guaranteed, universities can keep serving societies as vital monitoring bodies. Reduced to a mouthpiece of market forces, they will no longer be able to do it.