What global outliers can teach us about internationalisation

While universities throughout the world are advancing internationalisation efforts, these efforts vary in importance, scope and activity. Recently, the International Association of Universities’ (IAU) 6th Global Survey Report on Internationalization of Higher Education: Current trends and future scenarios reported some broad global trends, while also noting some regional variations.

Most notably, the United States is an outlier for reasons that have to do with the country’s global positioning and market-based financial model, with limited governmental appropriations for universities.

As explained in the book, US Power in International Higher Education, internationalisation does not operate on a level playing field and soft power shapes the direction and magnitude of university internationalisation activities.

The IAU report confirms the dominance of the US’s role while also shedding further light on the ways that US internationalisation operates in contrast to the rest of the world.

US global advantage

As some US institutions tend to feature in top positions in major global university rankings, these institutions correspondingly attract top students, scholars and research and educational programmes. According to the IAU survey, while about four out of 10 of universities across the world are concerned that brain drain is a major internationalisation risk, an insignificant proportion (4%) of US universities share this worry.

The massive size of the US scientific enterprise is reflected in its research funding, including the country’s ability to support international research. Governmental agencies are the most common source of funding for the US compared with the rest of the world (79% versus 59%) and national foundations and NGOs similarly supported more US universities compared with globally (54% versus 18%).

Global positioning also attracts self-funded educational programmes, and a higher majority of US higher education institutions have collaborative international degrees compared with the rest of the world (86% versus 63%).

A country’s relative position also reflects its reasons for internationalisation. International cooperation and capacity building were most frequently identified at the global level, while less frequently prioritised by US higher education institutions (62% versus 43%).

The findings reflect the US’s leading position as well as some insularity on the part of the US, which is also confirmed by another finding that international research collaborations have not increased in the US at the same rate as the rest of the world.

When international cooperation for capacity building seems less necessary, university internationalisation may also be less prioritised. The level of importance of internationalisation for US university academic leadership is notably lower than at global level (54% in the US versus 77% globally) and the rate of increasing importance is also notably lower (57% in the US versus 82% globally).

Rather, US institutions reported competing institutional priorities as the most important internal obstacle to advancing internationalisation (57% of US higher education institutions, compared with only 24% at global level).

US financial drivers

Nevertheless, internationalisation remains generally important to US higher education institutions, but for a different set of reasons than for other countries, including those linked to its economic model.

In contrast to most of the world, US higher education is not highly subsidised by public funds. The report indicated the importance of generating revenue as among the leading drivers of internationalisation (85% in the US versus 58% at the global level).

In contrast, other countries reported a higher priority placed on rankings (74% at global level versus 50% in the US) and global policy agendas (77% at global level versus 53% in the US). International student tuition fees are therefore a potentially key source of revenue.

The recruitment of international students is clearly the priority activity among most higher education institutions in the US. This percentage is more than double than at global level, where there is no single priority chosen by the majority of higher education institutions (64% versus 30%).

Considering that the second most identified future priority is diversifying international student recruitment to include students from more or different countries (at 46% of US higher education institutions), these results show US institutions have a focused interest in increasing the representation of diverse international students on their campuses.

Political contexts and global issues

Varying political contexts across the world also explain different responses to internationalisation. When asked to identify the most significant risks to current trends in internationalisation, half of higher education institutions in the US identified increased anti-globalisation sentiments.

This rate was a much higher percentage than at global level, where it is only 7%. Political rises in populism, for example, may inevitably deprioritise internationalisation efforts, thereby making it more challenging for universities to sustain or grow their international agendas and activities.

Political resistance to immigration and national security concerns in the US could also impede the country’s ability to enrol students from abroad. US universities also reported visa restrictions as the biggest external obstacle to internationalisation. This was chosen by the majority of higher education institutions, but was far less important at world level (61% versus 20%).

The world’s universities, including those in the US, are concerned with issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Almost all higher education institutions (87% in the world; 93% in the US) take into account diversity, equity and inclusion in their internationalisation policy or strategy and related activities.

When it comes to the main target groups, however, there are notable differences between the US and the rest of the world. The two most important target groups in the US, first generation into higher education students (at 85% of higher education institutions) and ethnic or cultural minorities (at 69% of higher education institutions), are not priority target groups at global level (where 24% and 34% respectively chose these options).

In contrast, people with disabilities were more commonly identified at the global level (55%) compared with the US (15%).

Furthermore, the link between internationalisation and sustainable development is much less developed in the US than at the global level. Almost half of higher education institutions in the US reported that there is no explicit link between internationalisation and sustainability initiatives or strategies (46% versus 23%) and almost none reported that their institution has any international policy or strategy to support sustainable development (4% versus 28% at global level).

Diversity of approaches

Overall, internationalisation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Its drivers and prioritised activities can vary between international partners. While we have focused on the US in contrast to the rest of the world, there is a need to further differentiate between countries and regions. There is also considerable diversity within countries, including within the US.

Nonetheless, the point of this article is to highlight some differences as scholars, policy-makers and university staff seek to advance internationalisation, while also considering the diversity of internationalisation approaches.

As shown in the case of the US, perspectives and processes can vary based on global positioning, resources and political agendas. Successful and sustainable international partnerships, therefore, require recognising and addressing such possible differences.

Jenny J Lee is vice president and dean of Arizona International at the University of Arizona, USA. Giorgio Marinoni is the manager of higher education and internationalisation at the International Association of Universities.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.