Tertiary Education and Management Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 263–279 International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? Insights from an Institutional Pilot Study in the UK Robin Middlehurst* and Steve Woodfield Kingston University, UK 30RobinMiddlehurst 13 r.middlehurst@surrey.ac.uk 000002007 2007 Taylor Tertiary 10.1080/13583880701502190 RTEM_A_250089.sgm 1358-3883 Original & and Education Article Francis (print)/1573-1936 Francis Management Ltd (online) Set in a context of increasing competition and changing dimensions of internationalisation, the paper offers an analysis of one institution’s approach to changing its strategy and practice in the light of both the external context and the internal drivers to internationalise. The research methodology was based on OECD/IMHE’s Internationalisation Quality Review tool (1999). The findings provide insights into strategy development and internationalisation and how both are experienced by students and staff. While the detail is drawn from one UK institution, comparisons at a more general level are made with institutional approaches to internationalisation in other UK institutions. Introduction For at least a decade until 2004–05, the UK experienced steady growth in the numbers of international students coming to study in the UK as well as expansion in its delivery of cross-border education (OECD, 2004). However, in 2004–05, many institutions in the UK (although not all) experienced a sharp decline in the numbers of international students coming to Britain, particularly from China and other East Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. The timing of this downturn in numbers coincided with a national review of the ‘Prime Minister’s Initiative’ which aimed to attract more international students to the UK. The first initiative (which ran from 1999/2000 to 2004/2005) had been successful in its objectives, despite some criticism (OBHE, 2006a) that its focus on recruitment and *Corresponding author: Vice Chancellor’s Office, Kingston University, River House, 53–57 High Street, Kingston upon Thames KT1 1LQ, UK. Email: r.middlehurst@kingston.ac.uk ISSN 1358-3883 (print)/ISSN 1573-1936 (online)/07/030263–17 © 2007 European Higher Education Society DOI 10.1080/13583880701502190 264 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield marketing was too narrow and out of touch with international developments both in continental Europe and other regions. The second Prime Ministers’ Initiative was launched in April 2006. It marks an important shift at national level in the UK since it recognises that ‘the global education environment is changing dramatically, becoming increasingly complex and challenging [and this] requires us to adapt our thinking and the way we operate’ (British Council, 2006, p. 1). The launch of this second Initiative (PMI2) is one among several national-level indicators that demonstrate how the international dimension of higher education is becoming yet more significant, sophisticated and challenging for the UK. Other such indicators include: the launch of a new international strategy by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in 2004 (in parallel with international strategies developed in other UK jurisdictions); a call for research on ‘internationalisation and the student experience’ by the national Higher Education Academy (HEA) in 2005; and the mounting of ‘an international leadership summit’ by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (LFHE) in 2006. The authors responded to the call for research from the HEA and proposed a pilot study to design and test an institution-wide audit tool that would examine how international strategy and practice were developed in one institution and how these might have an impact on the experiences of international students. The study also aimed to examine the wider national and international policy context relating to the ‘internationalisation’ agenda, at institution and national levels. The study was commissioned in August 2005 and completed in September 2006 (the full report is available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/). While the pilot study and wider institutional experiences discussed are set within a UK context, the full project also takes account of changes and developments in other parts of the world (OBHE, 2006b). A Pilot Study The research team focused on one institution as the means of testing an existing selfassessment tool (the International Quality Review Process, OECD, 1999) that had not been used in the UK. The aim was to adapt this tool (as necessary) and other relevant tools so that the product could be used for quality enhancement purposes within other institutions, either as part of an institutional research or an external peer-review process, or in combination. The institution identified for the pilot study was chosen for its history of attracting international students to its campus and its long-standing engagement in international research. The institution’s vision already aspired to be international in scope and reach across all its core activities; in 2004–05 26% of the institution’s students were classified as international, originating from over 100 countries. The university also had a large number of international staff and participated in a range of international collaborative teaching and research activities. By focusing on an institution that was already positioned and publicly committed to being ‘international’, the International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? 265 researchers aimed to explore institutional debates and identify institutional efforts to move in new directions or strengthen existing activities in the light of a more competitive context. This paper focuses on selected insights relating to institutional strategy and practice as these emerged through testing the audit tool. Terminology The terminology used by researchers, policy agencies and institutional actors is not always the same or precise in what it describes or delineates. For example, ‘international’ as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2005) includes activity and relationships between nations, while the same source describes ‘internationalism’ (a term often used by policy agencies) as concerned with ‘international character or spirit’ and ‘the principle of community of interests or action between different nations’. Researchers Jane Knight and Hans de Wit offer useful academic definitions of internationalisation in higher education for both national and institutional levels: Internationalization at the national and sector levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education (Knight, 2003). Internationalization of higher education is the process of integrating an international or intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution (Knight & de Wit, 1997). In addition, Jane Knight (2003) argues that ‘internationalisation’ in higher education is a response to broader trends towards globalisation which she (and others) define as ‘the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values and ideas … across borders’. The Knight and de Wit terminology was adopted for this study because their definitions are becoming increasingly accepted by institutions in the UK as can be seen in documents that introduce institutional strategies for internationalisation. Adapting the IQRP The original International Quality Review Process (IQRP) developed by Knight and colleagues (OECD, 1999) aims to assess the extent of ‘internationalisation’ within an institution and involves three main stages: ● ● An institutional self-assessment process undertaken against a standard set of questions and dimensions covering all aspects of institutional activity relevant to internationalisation. Typically, staff from different parts of the institution, including academic and professional service units, collect information to answer these questions. Co-ordination and analysis of the ‘answers’ and supporting documentation by a central team, and the production of a report. 266 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield ● External peer review of the report and a visit to the institution to talk to relevant staff and students. Following feedback to the institution, a consolidated report is produced (which may or may not be made public outside the institution). The IQRP had already been tested in nine institutions in different countries, from Africa to Australia, but not in the UK (OECD, 1999). It had also been tested and adapted for a US context (Green & Olson, 2003). Separately, the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) had developed an institutional benchmarking tool on internationalisation. The research team used the IQRP and ACU tools to develop the institutional research approach for their study. Adaptations to the IQRP were made in relation to content, structure and process. Additional content was added to reflect particular departments and units and their internationally related roles in the pilot institution. The emphasis of the original tool was also shifted to ensure a link between intended or actual strategy, reported practice and the experience of staff and students; and the self-assessment questionnaire was changed into a semi-structured interview schedule. These adaptations ensured that the research satisfied two sponsors: the external sponsor (HEA) seeking a piloted institutional tool that could be made available to other institutions and the internal sponsors who sought a process and outcomes that could be used to enhance institutional strategy and practice. The Institutional Research Process The researchers sought and gained high-level institutional sponsorship for their work. Such internal sponsorship was vital for gaining access to relevant institutional data (strategy documents, committee papers, internal statistics, etc.) and to smooth the way for internal interviews at all levels of the institution. Sensitivity to internal politics was also a necessary pre-requisite for the study. To refine the internal research tool and approach, key institutional documentation and data were collected to generate an institutional map of international activity across the university. Internal research relating to international students was also examined. Having identified relevant service and academic departments and units, 34 semi-structured interviews of 1.5 hours were organised (see Table 1) either with individuals or pairs. Two researchers undertook the interviews together, ensuring substantial coverage of issues that arose in situ. The interviews were originally targeted at student-facing services (academic and support domains) but were subsequently widened to include any departments that might be affected, involved or have an impact on international activity and international strategy. Interviews were taperecorded then transcribed, coded and analysed individually by members of the research team before being jointly reviewed. The interview structure included general themes such as range of international activity, organisational structures and linking mechanisms across units and departments (see Table 2) and questions focused on the specific experiences and expertise of departments and units. The questions were designed to capture descriptive and factual information as well as perceptions and opinions. International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? Table 1. 267 Planned interview coverage of departments and units Senior Management Team Teaching and Learning International Partnerships International Office Student Care Services Internal charged services for students (e.g. catering, accommodation) Human Resources Registry and Quality Assurance Finance and Planning Research and Knowledge Transfer Library and Information Services Marketing Academic Schools Alumni and Development Students’ Union (including international societies) Language Centre Careers’ Service Chaplaincy Selected Insights The majority of data arising from the institutional research are specific and confidential to the pilot institution. The following section combines insights from the pilot study that are potentially of general interest combined with references to the wider literature. The insights are grouped under four headings: ● ● ● ● Institutional positioning and context; Strategy: concepts and process of development; International activity versus internationalisation; and Student and staff experience. Institutional Positioning and Context As discussed above, the pilot institution in 2005 was already ‘internationally oriented’ and positioned. However, the University did not have a formal ‘internaTable 2. Interview themes and topics relevant to ‘international activity or ‘internationalisation’ in specific areas of the institution Description of ‘the function/service’ and key activities Profiles of staff or students Strategy (institutional and local) Organisational structures Reporting lines Communication channels (formal and informal) Formal and informal relationships Internal linkages across departments and units External links Resources and support Knowledge Management approaches and mechanisms International curricula and pedagogical issues Academic integration (learning styles, support for students) Cultural integration (staff and students) Conceptions of ‘internationalisation’ Assessment of existing strategies, structures and approaches Quality enhancement 268 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield tional strategy’. Instead, international activities and priorities were dispersed across other strategies such as student recruitment, external alliances and research. The International Office offered a small central resource to support international activity, but there was no senior management focus for ‘international strategy’ and considerable devolution of responsibility to academic units. The two most obvious features of international activity were research and international student recruitment (with concentration of students within a minority of academic units). The term ‘internationalisation’ did not feature in institutional language. There was also a small number of institutionally initiated international partnerships and a much larger range of school and department-level collaborative agreements and individual academic links. The international profile of the pilot institution was not atypical of many other UK institutions at the time. Between 2003 and 2005, developments occurred (and arguably converged) in the pilot institution to change this picture. Two factors, one external and one internal provided momentum for change. First, there was a major downturn in the numbers of international students recruited in 2004–05; second, a new Vice Chancellor arrived with wide international experience. A member of the senior management team was given a portfolio of responsibilities that included ‘international’ activity; and existing work including an internal report on ‘trans-national education and internationalisation’ and a draft strategy for the development of new international partnerships provided a rationale and supporting evidence for change. Other UK institutions also suffered financially from the downturn in international student recruitment (HEPI, 2006) and this has clearly acted as a spur to institutional reviews of international activity and internationalisation. The importance of external and internal catalysts for institutional change is widely acknowledged in the literature, both in relation to organisational change in general (Kotter, 1990) and internationalisation specifically (Taylor, 2004). Strategy: Concepts and Process of Development Prior to 2004–05, strategy development in the institution can be described as ‘fragmented’ and ‘iterative’, with a number of actors drafting strategy papers that reflected particular perspectives or initiatives (such as the European dimension, international student recruitment or development of institutional partnerships overseas). Organisational structures were also fragmented with a number of units and departments having some responsibility for international activity (including the Registry, International Office, Educational Liaison, Alumni and Development, Student Care Services and academic units). The main institutional functions of research, knowledge transfer and teaching and learning all had international dimensions, but these were not co-ordinated horizontally. Similarly, cross-institutional services like marketing, recruitment or student support had international dimensions that were not necessarily integrated formally through reporting lines or committee structures. Communication, reporting of activity and liaison did, of course, occur but it was widely spread through different units, committees and International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? 269 informal relationships. As revealed in interviews, individuals and units were often dedicated and committed to their work and notably, to students; they had also developed a range of ideas to improve their services to students and other stakeholders. However, both the documentary and the interview data revealed a lack of co-ordination and integration between academic units and central levels, and across central levels. Clearly at this stage, there was ‘international activity’, but no overarching international strategy or indeed, internationalisation agenda. The work undertaken prior to 2004–05 on different international dimensions bore fruit in new appointments, but the development of a more comprehensive strategy came through focused work by members of the Senior Management team and related professional services. This work involved four parallel strands of activity: ● ● ● ● a short survey and wider analysis of internal position and external context; development of draft strategies with subsequent formalisation into one document; action in terms of market diversification for recruitment, development of transnational opportunities and international academic partnerships; and structural change to establish a recruitment unit co-located with functions such as guidance and support for international students. Interview data highlighted several features of this phase of development. First, the process of strategy design, approval and implementation was not linear or sequential. The strong financial and leadership drivers produced initial fast and pragmatic responses at central level, notably in terms of changed structures, focus of responsibilities and reporting lines. These actions ran ahead of the outcomes of analysis and consultation. Second, strategy development was clearly initiated by the centre. In routine circumstances (or with different leadership) the process may be more devolved. For example, strategy development may begin in academic units (typically within an outline framework provided by the centre) and subsequently be ‘aggregated up’ at University level through iterative stages until a formal university strategic and operational plan is ‘signed off’ by the most senior university committees. The data also revealed differences in interpretations of ‘strategy’ and perceptions of how strategy development and implementation should—or did—operate in practice. Table 3 gives some examples. These different interpretations of what strategy means—or what matters to different institutional actors—have practical implications both in terms of how strategies are framed and how institutions assign responsibilities and accountabilities for development, communication, implementation, reporting and review of strategies. All aspects are clearly important and necessary, but individuals tended to place greater emphasis on some rather than other aspects as they discussed their experience of the strategy development process in relation to ‘internationalisation’. International Activity versus Internationalisation Institutional documentation and the interviews illustrated the journey from engagement in varied international ‘activities’, through the development of disparate 270 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield Table 3. Different conceptions of strategy and issues arising Concepts of strategy Examples Issues arising Aspirational (focus on ideas, images, identity) To be an international university To be sustainable To offer excellent experiences to students Teaching and learning Research Enterprise Important element in establishing vision and engagement with goals Core activity (focus on functions, practice, outcomes) Supporting (focus on services and operating conditions) Targeted (focus on priorities) Enabling (focus on processes of engagement, relationships) HR Finance IT Marketing Student recruitment International partnerships (countries, institutions) Staff development Communication Liaison Key to developing understanding and expertise within academic and wider institutional community and to embedding and delivery of strategic goals Essential for establishing parameters of strategy and for implementation Key to delineation of boundaries and for identifying objectives, resources, timescales to corral attention and guide implementation Mechanisms and processes used for gaining commitment and development, testing and implementation of strategy ‘international-activity’ strategies, towards a focused single international strategy for the institution. However, questions about whether the University or academic units were engaged in developing an ‘internationalisation’ strategy provoked mixed responses. These ranged from negative (the term is ‘meaningless’, ‘lacks focus’, ‘cannot be operationalised’) to positive responses (‘this has important implications for structure, culture and behaviour across the institution’). Examples of what ‘internationalisation’ included for respondents in academic units are given below. Only the first (recruitment of international students) was mentioned across all categories of respondent; the remaining interpretations are not ranked and reflect perceptions from different schools. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Recruitment of international students. Undertaking research that is internationally recognised. Engaging in international research collaborations. Developing international partnerships and consortia for exchanges of students and staff and for collaborative initiatives. Developing ‘international’ education for a global market-place. Recruiting international staff through global recruitment processes. Developing tailored services and support for international students (academic, social and cultural). Providing international experiences for home students including language, exchange and work opportunities. International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? ● ● ● ● ● ● 271 Local and regional (non-UK) accreditation. Institutional positioning and branding. Use of alternative delivery mechanisms to reach out internationally. Links to international businesses. Tapping into international funding sources. Responding to specific requirements of international (student) markets. Other structural and cultural aspects of internationalisation were noted in interviews with senior managers and service departments (in no rank order) for example: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● alternative university time-tables and delivery arrangements; inter-cultural training, development and awareness; specialist knowledge and information resources; pedagogical and assessment review; different social structures; labelling and sign-posting of functions, services, products and activities; and new incentives and reward mechanisms. At the stage of data collection, it was clear that the concept and practice of ‘internationalisation’ was not yet part of either institutional strategy or cross-institutional debate. However, the research process itself has served as a catalyst for raising awareness of the concept (locally and in other institutions); it is too early to judge the impact on practice and the experiences of staff and students. Recent research undertaken by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (Koutsantoni, 2006) enabled wider comparisons to be made with other UK institutions. This desk research examined the websites of 133 universities and colleges in the UK in order to locate either international strategy documents or corporate strategy documents that contained references to internationalisation. Some follow-up contact to institutions was also undertaken. Within the publicly available documents, 39 mentioned internationalisation in corporate plans, and 30 reported having an international strategy (even if this was not publicly available). Twenty-one institutions appeared to have no international or internationalisation strategy, nor was ‘international activity’ mentioned as part of their corporate plan. No information was accessible for the remaining institutions. Koutsantoni (2006) reports two broad distinctions in her analysis of strategy documents. Following Knight (2003), she identifies activities that aim to internationalise the home campus, the curriculum and the teaching and learning process (‘internationalisation at home’, see Table 4) and activities that reflect ‘internationalisation abroad’ (see Table 5) (such as international projects, cross-border mobility of people, programmes and providers). Internationalisation abroad is predominant, and within this category, recruitment of international students is the top priority, followed by the export of provision to other countries. Koutsantoni’s findings are corroborated by the OBHE research commissioned for this study (2006b) which indicates that out of four possible institutional rationales for internationalisation as delineated by de Wit 272 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield Table 4. Activities associated with ‘Internationalisation at Home’ in 69 UK institutions Internationalisation at home—activities Curriculum, programmes and research ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Teaching and learning process ● ● ● Services and extra-curricular activities ● ● ● ● ● Internationalisation of the curriculum (integration of international perspectives; international relevance) Study abroad opportunities and study visits Implementation of the Bologna process Development of courses attractive to international students Internationalisation of research Encouragement of language skills Provision of tailored support for international students (induction, support, advice) EFL teaching Study skills for international students International foundation programmes International recruitment of staff Embracing different pedagogical cultures Staff development on intercultural understanding Improvement of current provision of international student facilities Encouragement for international students to fully participate in the social and cultural life of the campus Compliance with the Race Relations Amendment Act Commitment to equality and diversity Implementation of the Lisbon Convention (on the recognition of foreign qualifications) (1999), the economic rationale still dominates within UK institutions (and is also strong in other countries such as Australia) but less so in continental Europe, although this is beginning to change. Our own study of the UK (beyond the pilot institution) revealed that several institutions were in the process of undertaking strategic reviews of their international strategies and approaches, involving a re-conceptualisation of international strategy, focus and structures accompanied by either new or re-configured investment. Some institutions were also aiming for significant organisational and cultural change including a re-balancing of economic and other rationales for international engagement. While each institution’s approach, rationale and starting point is unique, there are some features worth noting. ● ● Senior leaders are reviewing international activity and international strategy and its implementation in a number of institutions. Mechanisms for continuing dialogue between senior management and academic units and between academic and professional service units are being created or redesigned (e.g. international strategy groups, committees, fora). International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? Table 5. 273 Activities associated with ‘Internationalisation Abroad’ in 69 UK institutions Internationalisation abroad—activities Movement of people ● ● ● ● ● ● International Projects ● ● ● ● ● Mobility of Programmes ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Mobility of providers ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Recruitment of international students Strategic alliances and partnerships Staff and student exchanges Development of alumni networks Joint appointments Opportunities for work or study placement and volunteering Academic and research co-operations and partnerships Participation in EU research projects Publications with international partners Partnerships with business Developments of international campuses Joint programmes Overseas consultancy and development Franchises Exchange of curriculum and learning materials Distance and e-learning programmes QA and validation Twinning Establishment of branch centres in other countries Establishment of branch campuses Establishment of new institutions with local providers Development of regional offices Some institutions were reportedly engaging in a re-conceptualisation of ‘the international agenda’ in relation to their mission and vision. Institutions were seeking greater alignment and integration for the ‘international’ dimension with other strategies (also as a cross-cutting theme for all strategies) and with systems (e.g. finance and reward systems). Internal re-organisation of roles and responsibilities (e.g. line management) related to the international dimension was underway as well as investment in relevant staff development. Reviews and development of international partnerships and collaborative approaches were in train (including seeking ‘wide and deep’ relationships that could link a range of academic and business activities)—both within the EU and beyond. Senior leaders were engaging in relevant networks, focused intelligence gathering, communication and relationship-building with professional, representative and policy agencies, governments and institutions nationally and internationally. One institution reported outsourcing a large part of the application process for overseas’ students to an external organisation. The development of metrics to measure progress towards internationalisation at home and abroad was being pioneered in at least one institution. 274 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield Student and Staff Experiences Strategies for ‘internationalisation’ in the UK also suggest a greater emphasis than in the past on the experience of international students in UK institutions as well as the international experience of home students (Leonard et al., 2003). Two recent national developments have given ‘the student experience’ a particular status and focus. The first, in 2004, was the establishment of a newly configured quality enhancement agency, the Higher Education Academy, which concentrates its activities and services on ‘the student experience’. The second development was the launch in 2005 of a National Student Survey. Several recent surveys focusing on the experiences of international students have also added to a growing emphasis on ‘international strategies and internationalisation’. These surveys were designed to help institutions improve their services and support for their international student body (e.g. national surveys by UKCOSA (2004 and 2006) and the ongoing International Student Barometer benchmarking research by I-Graduate (2005 to present). The survey findings are remarkably consistent. They suggest that although most international students are happy with their overall experience and the quality of the teaching and course content, they are less satisfied with some social and administrative dimensions, the levels of personal and academic support received and the value for money of their study experience. However, the research does not provide enough evidence to identify which are the most important factors, or those that drive student choice or satisfaction. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these are largely related to the academic quality of the course (e.g. teaching and course content), however more detailed analysis is required. Analysis of the findings from these surveys highlights a number of dimensions (summarised below) that appear particularly to influence the study experience of international students. Environmental Factors ● ● ● ● ● Cost of living. Campus atmosphere—friendliness of students and staff, security, pleasant environment. Adequate and culturally appropriate campus facilities (e.g. coffee shops rather than bars). Local town—friendliness, appearance, facilities, distance. Suitable and comfortable accommodation. Academic Factors ● ● ● Pedagogy—e.g. teaching styles, assessment methods, modes of delivery, plagiarism regulations. Employability—reputation and relevance of courses/programmes. Recognition of, and support/training for, language difficulties and problems with approaches to study. International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? ● ● 275 Academic resources—e.g. library, laboratories. Academic support from tutors—tutoring styles, feedback. Administrative Factors ● ● ● Support with immigration issues (e.g. visa extensions). Employment opportunities and careers support. Experiences of contacts with key university offices (e.g. Registry, Accommodation, International Office, Health Centre). Social Factors ● ● ● ● Personal support. Opportunities for social and cultural integration. Appropriate social activities and events. Cultural awareness of both staff and other students. The pilot study offered an opportunity to test the wider survey data against a specific institutional context so as to identify both issues of concern to international students as well as valued aspects of their experience. Data from staff working within student-facing services were also collected (and included in Table 6). The categories identified in earlier research (namely academic, social, environmental, cultural and administrative) were adopted as a framework for data collection. In the pilot institution, ‘international strategy’ and strategy development for ‘the student experience’ were brought together within the responsibilities of a member of the senior team. This factor enabled synergies to be achieved by bringing together individuals with common areas of interest and expertise (e.g. Students’ Union officers, Student Advice Services) in new arenas. In addition to better co-ordination, the focus at senior management level also provided a means of focusing on priorities. As can be seen from Table 6, the findings were broadly comparable to the earlier surveys. Within the interviews there was evidence of polarisation between those who argued that all students should receive the same services—and same levels of service—and those who pointed to a need for specialist or differentiated services. The data from students suggest a need for both generic and specialist services and support. It is also worth noting that in some social and cultural aspects of experience, international staff reported parallel experiences and needs to those of international students. This has implications for Human Resource practices in institutions. In summary, the pilot study highlighted a need for cultural sensitivity in the orientation and support of students; continued monitoring of students’ needs and expectations throughout their relationship with the institution; and the need to consider issues of integration among students. Understanding the personal profiles of international students is of central importance, including the identity and needs of EU students and the different or similar needs of undergraduate and postgraduate students. As Frølich and Veiga highlight in their paper (2005), international 276 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield Table 6. Categories of student experience and related issues for international students Category of student ‘experience’ Issues for international students Academic ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Social ● ● ● Cultural ● ● Administrative ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Environmental ● ● ● ● Difficulties with the English language have an impact on the academic experience of both home and international students Pedagogical differences and expectations require exploration and orientation (for international staff and international students) Proactive support for students is valued Academic representation at programme level for students is important Education, social and welfare issues are closely linked for international students More flexibility in academic delivery is needed The currency of qualifications (for further study and for the labour market) is of key importance Evidence from the National Student Survey is useful in focusing attention and actions International students have different interests and requirements from many home students – this has implications for optional and alternative services Student societies were reported as very important for welfare and support There needs to be a ‘social strategy’ for international students International students have different priorities and needs from many home students (e.g. the importance of communal activity and community events in many countries) Students and staff with international experience are valuable for demonstrating inter-cultural understanding; this may have wider potential benefit for all students UK methods of categorising students (home, EU, international) are unhelpful (and not related to students’ experiences) Procedures and committees are not necessarily integrated according to student needs; There are potentially useful synergies between the international and cultural diversity agendas The timing of the University calendar creates difficulties for some international students and their experience of the UK Visa difficulties prior to entry and policy checks in the UK cause difficulties for international students Involvement by students in institution-level forums leading to action is valued University and Students’ Union data can be complementary, but is also sometimes contradictory Students are keen to be involved in relevant University projects There is need for support to assist students to study abroad Distance from home is a problem for many students Cost of study is felt to be high Barriers to working exist (both during and subsequent to study in the UK) Accommodation needs and catering requirements for international students differ from home students International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? 277 students are varied in their needs and perspectives, so that ‘internationalisation’ must be about ‘managing cultural diversity’. Good relationships with student representatives and representative bodies are valuable in this respect. The quality of care and feedback at academic and administrative levels is noted as another core factor that has impact on the experiences of students; there is also the increasingly significant issue of the value for money of the international student experience. All these factors point to the importance of ‘reputation’ as reflected in students’ experiences; this reputation is spread through word of mouth within international communities. At a collective level, the reputation of all UK institutions in relation to ‘the student experience’ rests on institutional behaviour and practice as perceived and experienced by international students. Conclusion The UK is not the only country where ‘internationalisation’ has become a more significant policy agenda. Kehm and de Wit (2005) introduce a series of analytical papers from continental Europe and OECD countries by commenting that ‘with greater global orientation and increased competition, internationalisation has become a strategic issue for individual higher education institutions’ (p. 3). From the findings of our study, it is also clear that these drivers are having an impact at national level. There are other parallels between some of the findings in our study and those in the Kehm and de Wit publication, for example, the growing significance of an economic rationale for internationalisation strategies; the importance of cultural sensitivity for successful internationalisation (Hermans, 2005); and the difficult balance to be achieved between co-operation and competition between institutions. These issues require attention both horizontally and vertically across institutions. This is likely to lead—as in our pilot study—to new leadership and structural arrangements for dealing with the challenge and complexity of the international dimension of university activities and the careful crafting of new international or internationalisation strategies. Altbach’s recent publication (2007) also signals the ‘international imperative’ for institutions and countries, highlighting both the scope of internationalisation agendas across countries and regions and the impact on aspects of higher education practice. In an article on the landscape of internationalisation in this publication, he and Jane Knight outline recent developments in programme and provider mobility from all regions of the world (Altbach & Knight, 2007). They also identify the most important stimuli for internationalisation, several of which are visible in the evolving strategies of UK institutions. These include commercial gain, providing access to higher education where domestic capacity is insufficient, traditional internationalisation and European internationalisation involving different kinds of student mobility and cultural exchange, developing-country internationalisation in which new host countries for international students are emerging, and individual internationalisation. The last of these is an important one with close connections to our study. The authors remind us that most of the world’s two million international students are 278 R. Middlehurst and S. Woodfield self-funded and that these students are the largest source of funds for international education. Identifying and addressing the individual needs of international students is just as important for universities’ international strategies as offering international experiences to domestic students. In the end, the perceived responsiveness of institutions and their record and reputation in ‘managing cultural diversity’ will doubtless prove to be a critical factor in moving from engagement in international activities to successful implementation of an internationalisation strategy. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the funding from the Higher Education Academy to undertake this research and the support of the pilot-study institution in testing the audit tool. References Altbach, P. (2007). Tradition and transition: The international imperative in higher education. Boston: Centre for International Higher Education and Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. & Knight, J. (2007). Higher education’s landscape of internationalization: motivations and realities. In P. Altbach (Ed.), Tradition and transition: The international imperative in higher education (pp. 113–133). Boston: Centre for International Higher Education and Sense Publishers. British Council. (2006). The Prime Minister’s initiative for international education. London: British Council. De Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 15(1). Spring 1999. Available online from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/ cihe/newsletter/News15/text1.html Frølich, N., & Veiga, A. (2005). Competition, co-operation, consequences and choices in selected European countries. In B. Kehm, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 154–170). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) & European Association for Institutional Research (EAIR). Green, M. & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington D.C.: Centre for Institutional and International Initiatives, American Council on Education. Hermans, J. W. M. (2005). The X factor, internationalisation with a small ‘c’. In B. Kehm, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 96–115). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) & European Association for Institutional Research (EAIR). Higher Education Policy Institute. (2006). How exposed are English universities to reductions in demand from international students? London: HEPI. Kehm, B. & de Wit, H. (2005). Internationalisation in higher education: an introduction. In B. Kehm, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to the global perspective (pp. 2–8). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) & European Association for Institutional Research (EAIR). Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33. Available online from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News33/text001.html Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: IMHE/OECD. Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. London: Collier Macmillan. International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? 279 Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Internationalisation in the UK. In Leadership Foundation leadership summit 2006: briefing papers. London: Leadership Foundation. Leonard, D., Pelletier, C., & Morley, L. (2003). The experiences of international students in UK higher education: A review of unpublished research. London: UKCOSA, August 2003. OBHE (2006a). Bigger, broader, better? UK launches the second phase of the Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education. OBHE Breaking News, 21 April 2006. OBHE (2006b). Internationalisation of higher education. Unpublished paper commissioned for HEA study (incorporated in final report). OECD (1999). Internationalisation, international strategy, higher education management. Paris: OECD. OECD (2004). Internationalisation and trade in higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 149–171. UKCOSA (2004). Broadening our horizons: International students in UK universities and colleges. Report of the UKCOSA survey. London: UKCOSA.