Dennis Murray
Dennis Murray has 30 years experience in the internationalisation of higher education. From 1986 to 2000 he held executive leadership roles in international education in a number of Australian universities. He is currently a Senior Honorary Fellow of the LH Martin Institute for Leadership and Management in Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, a Director of IDĒON International Higher Education and a Director of Murray-Goold International Pty Ltd.
Dennis has extensive consulting experience in Australia and internationally. He has researched and published widely on international education, in particular national policy, institutional strategy; international partnerships; transnational education; international education research; quality improvement in international education; leadership of internationalisation; and development of international education professionals. He is a regular presenter at international conferences and symposia around the world.
In 2004 he established and was the Foundation National Executive Director of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) a position he held until November 2011. On stepping down as CEO he acted as IEAA Director of Research. In April 2014 he stepped down from that role to concentrate on his research, teaching and consulting.
In 2011 and 2012 he was a member of the International Association of Universities (IAU) “ad hoc expert group on internationalisation of higher education” and in 2014 a member of the Advisory Committee for the IAU 4thGlobal Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education.
He is responsible for and teaches the subject “Management of International Tertiary Education” as part of the LH Martin Institute Master of Tertiary Education Management course in The University of Melbourne. He also supervises associated capstone research projects in the area of internationalisation. He delivers bespoke executive leadership and management courses in the internationalisation of higher education for the LH Martin Institute in Malaysia.
He is a peer reviewer for the international journal, Studies in Higher Education.
Dennis has extensive consulting experience in Australia and internationally. He has researched and published widely on international education, in particular national policy, institutional strategy; international partnerships; transnational education; international education research; quality improvement in international education; leadership of internationalisation; and development of international education professionals. He is a regular presenter at international conferences and symposia around the world.
In 2004 he established and was the Foundation National Executive Director of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) a position he held until November 2011. On stepping down as CEO he acted as IEAA Director of Research. In April 2014 he stepped down from that role to concentrate on his research, teaching and consulting.
In 2011 and 2012 he was a member of the International Association of Universities (IAU) “ad hoc expert group on internationalisation of higher education” and in 2014 a member of the Advisory Committee for the IAU 4thGlobal Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education.
He is responsible for and teaches the subject “Management of International Tertiary Education” as part of the LH Martin Institute Master of Tertiary Education Management course in The University of Melbourne. He also supervises associated capstone research projects in the area of internationalisation. He delivers bespoke executive leadership and management courses in the internationalisation of higher education for the LH Martin Institute in Malaysia.
He is a peer reviewer for the international journal, Studies in Higher Education.
less
Uploads
Papers by Dennis Murray
The study involved a literature survey and the completion of six case studies of partnerships involving Australia and the UK with each other, China or Malaysia
Any survey of research in the internationalisation of higher education demonstrates its reliance on conceptual frameworks drawn from a wide cross range of the social sciences – education, political science (including public administration, public policy, international relations and diplomacy), economics (including the labour market), law (including international, migration, consumer protection law, and human rights), sociology, geography (especially human geography/demography), history, commerce and management, foreign languages, and area and cultural studies. Conceptually, the internationalization of higher education is not a disciplinary field in its own right. The basic disciplines speak to it and there is an opportunity for it to speak back to them (Rizvi, 2011).
Research in the internationalisation of higher education also traverses a very broad range of issues and topics (Harman 2005, Murray, et. al. 2011) – the business of international education (business models, demand and supply, national positioning, branding and marketing, pricing, competitors and competitiveness, enrolment trends); education matters (comparative education systems, learning and teaching); impacts and outcomes (educational, institutional, social, diplomatic, economic); student experience; transnational education; student mobility; globalization of research; international partnerships; quality assurance, regulatory and public policy frameworks - to mention just a few.
Despite this conceptual and practical breadth, much thinking and research about internationalisation of higher education both within and beyond the academy frequently reflects parochial national or discipline interests and concerns. While there is strength up to a point in such focus, its narrowness leads us to overlooks the comprehensive picture. Public policy and institutional strategy, policy and practice all suffer. Unimagined opportunities and benefits are missed.
The research sought to identify the generic and specific leadership capabilities required by the future generation of international education leaders in Australia and Europe.
A two-phase Delphi methodology was adopted and a first phase web-based questionnaire developed based on a conceptual framework (Quinn et al, 2007).
Respondents for the study were drawn from the membership of EAIE and IEAA. The intention in Phase 1 was to identify if there are differences in the way international education leaders in Australia and Europe perform their role, and where gaps exist between what leaders perceive as their realities and what they ideally would like their jobs to consist of in terms of a mix of the eight roles. Answers to these questions could then inform the design of appropriate leadership development activities for EAIE and IEAA, separately and jointly.
The symposium sought to discuss and to critically examine efforts to educate for “global citizenship” and “global competence”, concepts that are gaining increasing currency among Australian higher education institutions and governments. The research evidence suggests that the issues around the notions of global citizenship and global competence for higher education students are complex, in conceptualisation and practice, and to a degree contentious.
While recognising that the expectations and aspirations of young people are central to the issue of teaching for global citizenship and global competence, the question of how young people interpret and see their role in relation to the wider world tends to be ignored in the framing of programs for global citizenship within universities.
The interests and objectives of employers and higher education institutions in educating for global citizenship are closely intertwined; the potential for better outcomes is likely to be strengthened by closer collaboration between the two groups.
In addition, clear and supportive public policy is needed if education for global citizenship is to succeed.
Some of the greatest challenges are internal to education institutions. While increasing numbers of Australian universities aspire to the goals of global citizenship and global competence for their students, the organisational frameworks and programs to achieve these goals – and evaluations of success or otherwise – are for the most part lacking.
There are identifiable organisational constraints and enablers requiring closer consideration and, in the case of enablers, their most effective use. Issues of leadership, governance, student and parent expectations of learning, curriculum and pedagogy, diversity of the student body, inequalities of student experience and resource allocation need to be addressed.
Finally, if education for global citizenship and global competence is to proceed effectively, critical future research on which to base sound and effective decision-making is needed. These key symposium outcomes reflect the considered views of the
major stakeholder groups and are a clear pointer to future action. The task is a joint responsibility of governments, education institutions and employers. Clear and consistent messages, as well as practical programs, are needed.
An agreed framework for future action is the top priority and should be the focus of follow-up to the symposium. Such effort should be comprehensive, but should not be too ambitious. The task is to perceptively identify and work on critical, touchstone issues for all stakeholders.
The report was written in conjunction with John Fielden, Erica Gillard, Madeleine Green and Michael Pearson.
This is the final report of a two phase Delphi study carried out jointly by the two Associations over 2013 and 2014.
The research sought to identify the generic and specific leadership capabilities required by the future generation of international education leaders in Australia and Europe. A two-phase Delphi methodology was adopted and a first phase online questionnaire developed. This was based on a conceptual framework (Quinn et al, 2007) which identifies eight “competing” leadership roles: facilitator, mentor, innovator, broker, director, producer, monitor and coordinator. Details of the eight roles are given in the Appendix (see p. 24).
Phase 2 was conducted in light of the findings from Phase 1. Phase 2 involved semi- structured interviews with selected respondents from Phase 1, as well as a number of other senior international education professionals and academic staff in Australia and Europe. A separate report is available on the findings of phase 1.
1) International students and learning and teaching across cultures
2) Improving student retention and attainment
3) Recruiting new kinds of domestic students and the pedagogical developments required.
Talks by Dennis Murray
Drafts by Dennis Murray
Books by Dennis Murray
The Guide will be useful to existing and potential transnational education providers in the planning, delivery, evaluation and management of educational programs offshore.
The Guide builds on and takes to a new level the Australian good practice projects in the higher education (HE), vocational and education and training (VET) and English language teaching (ELT) sectors funded
by the former Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and conducted in 2004 and 2005. The reports of the 36 DEST-funded projects and the three associated good practice projects synthesis reports can be found at: <http://aei.gov.au/AEI/GovernmentActivities/ QAAustralianEducationAnd TrainingSystem/Grants_GdPract.htm>.
The three DEST-funded projects which disseminated the outcomes of the TNE good practice projects in each of the HE, VET and ELT sectors carried out in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated an emerging consensus
on where efforts to assist improvements in Australian practice should be focused. For example, the higher education good practice dissemination project concluded that: ‘There is a need to disseminate practical advice, exemplars, resources and tools to enhance good practice in TNE—involving independent evaluation and integration of the diverse range of existing good practice examples and resources, but tailored to suit a variety of provider circumstances.’
Dennis Murray
Editor
Introduction:
Australians working in international education began early to reflect on professional practice. After 1986, in the context of a new enterprise with mostly novice players, practitioners in all education sectors began to network and to establish structures to support and learn from each other. ‘Professionalism’ was sensed before its importance was properly understood and realised.
The study involved a literature survey and the completion of six case studies of partnerships involving Australia and the UK with each other, China or Malaysia
Any survey of research in the internationalisation of higher education demonstrates its reliance on conceptual frameworks drawn from a wide cross range of the social sciences – education, political science (including public administration, public policy, international relations and diplomacy), economics (including the labour market), law (including international, migration, consumer protection law, and human rights), sociology, geography (especially human geography/demography), history, commerce and management, foreign languages, and area and cultural studies. Conceptually, the internationalization of higher education is not a disciplinary field in its own right. The basic disciplines speak to it and there is an opportunity for it to speak back to them (Rizvi, 2011).
Research in the internationalisation of higher education also traverses a very broad range of issues and topics (Harman 2005, Murray, et. al. 2011) – the business of international education (business models, demand and supply, national positioning, branding and marketing, pricing, competitors and competitiveness, enrolment trends); education matters (comparative education systems, learning and teaching); impacts and outcomes (educational, institutional, social, diplomatic, economic); student experience; transnational education; student mobility; globalization of research; international partnerships; quality assurance, regulatory and public policy frameworks - to mention just a few.
Despite this conceptual and practical breadth, much thinking and research about internationalisation of higher education both within and beyond the academy frequently reflects parochial national or discipline interests and concerns. While there is strength up to a point in such focus, its narrowness leads us to overlooks the comprehensive picture. Public policy and institutional strategy, policy and practice all suffer. Unimagined opportunities and benefits are missed.
The research sought to identify the generic and specific leadership capabilities required by the future generation of international education leaders in Australia and Europe.
A two-phase Delphi methodology was adopted and a first phase web-based questionnaire developed based on a conceptual framework (Quinn et al, 2007).
Respondents for the study were drawn from the membership of EAIE and IEAA. The intention in Phase 1 was to identify if there are differences in the way international education leaders in Australia and Europe perform their role, and where gaps exist between what leaders perceive as their realities and what they ideally would like their jobs to consist of in terms of a mix of the eight roles. Answers to these questions could then inform the design of appropriate leadership development activities for EAIE and IEAA, separately and jointly.
The symposium sought to discuss and to critically examine efforts to educate for “global citizenship” and “global competence”, concepts that are gaining increasing currency among Australian higher education institutions and governments. The research evidence suggests that the issues around the notions of global citizenship and global competence for higher education students are complex, in conceptualisation and practice, and to a degree contentious.
While recognising that the expectations and aspirations of young people are central to the issue of teaching for global citizenship and global competence, the question of how young people interpret and see their role in relation to the wider world tends to be ignored in the framing of programs for global citizenship within universities.
The interests and objectives of employers and higher education institutions in educating for global citizenship are closely intertwined; the potential for better outcomes is likely to be strengthened by closer collaboration between the two groups.
In addition, clear and supportive public policy is needed if education for global citizenship is to succeed.
Some of the greatest challenges are internal to education institutions. While increasing numbers of Australian universities aspire to the goals of global citizenship and global competence for their students, the organisational frameworks and programs to achieve these goals – and evaluations of success or otherwise – are for the most part lacking.
There are identifiable organisational constraints and enablers requiring closer consideration and, in the case of enablers, their most effective use. Issues of leadership, governance, student and parent expectations of learning, curriculum and pedagogy, diversity of the student body, inequalities of student experience and resource allocation need to be addressed.
Finally, if education for global citizenship and global competence is to proceed effectively, critical future research on which to base sound and effective decision-making is needed. These key symposium outcomes reflect the considered views of the
major stakeholder groups and are a clear pointer to future action. The task is a joint responsibility of governments, education institutions and employers. Clear and consistent messages, as well as practical programs, are needed.
An agreed framework for future action is the top priority and should be the focus of follow-up to the symposium. Such effort should be comprehensive, but should not be too ambitious. The task is to perceptively identify and work on critical, touchstone issues for all stakeholders.
The report was written in conjunction with John Fielden, Erica Gillard, Madeleine Green and Michael Pearson.
This is the final report of a two phase Delphi study carried out jointly by the two Associations over 2013 and 2014.
The research sought to identify the generic and specific leadership capabilities required by the future generation of international education leaders in Australia and Europe. A two-phase Delphi methodology was adopted and a first phase online questionnaire developed. This was based on a conceptual framework (Quinn et al, 2007) which identifies eight “competing” leadership roles: facilitator, mentor, innovator, broker, director, producer, monitor and coordinator. Details of the eight roles are given in the Appendix (see p. 24).
Phase 2 was conducted in light of the findings from Phase 1. Phase 2 involved semi- structured interviews with selected respondents from Phase 1, as well as a number of other senior international education professionals and academic staff in Australia and Europe. A separate report is available on the findings of phase 1.
1) International students and learning and teaching across cultures
2) Improving student retention and attainment
3) Recruiting new kinds of domestic students and the pedagogical developments required.
The Guide will be useful to existing and potential transnational education providers in the planning, delivery, evaluation and management of educational programs offshore.
The Guide builds on and takes to a new level the Australian good practice projects in the higher education (HE), vocational and education and training (VET) and English language teaching (ELT) sectors funded
by the former Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and conducted in 2004 and 2005. The reports of the 36 DEST-funded projects and the three associated good practice projects synthesis reports can be found at: <http://aei.gov.au/AEI/GovernmentActivities/ QAAustralianEducationAnd TrainingSystem/Grants_GdPract.htm>.
The three DEST-funded projects which disseminated the outcomes of the TNE good practice projects in each of the HE, VET and ELT sectors carried out in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated an emerging consensus
on where efforts to assist improvements in Australian practice should be focused. For example, the higher education good practice dissemination project concluded that: ‘There is a need to disseminate practical advice, exemplars, resources and tools to enhance good practice in TNE—involving independent evaluation and integration of the diverse range of existing good practice examples and resources, but tailored to suit a variety of provider circumstances.’
Dennis Murray
Editor
Introduction:
Australians working in international education began early to reflect on professional practice. After 1986, in the context of a new enterprise with mostly novice players, practitioners in all education sectors began to network and to establish structures to support and learn from each other. ‘Professionalism’ was sensed before its importance was properly understood and realised.