Análisis de componentes principales

In this literature review the term ‘international’ refers to being, “between or among nations” (Daly 1999 p. 1). International education had been described, “as being at a crossroads. Today’s emerging programmes and practices must ensure that international higher education benefits the public and not simply be a profit centre” (Altbach and Knight (2007, p. 304). Qiang (2003, p. 249) argued for a broad definition of internationalisation which, “embraces the entire functioning of higher education and not merely a dimension or aspect of it, or the actions of some individuals who are part of it”. The conclusion he reached was that internationalisation included, “student/faculty exchanges, curriculum, recruiting/ hosting international students and planning and review systems” (Qiang, 2003, p. 249). As early as 2003, Qiang (op. cit.) recognised two developments were relevant in discussing internationalisation. The first development was that, “the recruitment of foreign students had become a significant factor for institutional and of national economic interest” (Qiang, 2003, p. 249). The second development was the introduction of new communication technologies enabling global online study and competition from private educational providers.

49 Avoudi and Masood (2007) studied the extent to which the strategic intent of UK universities towards internationalisation matched their international achievements; evidence of UK university internationalisation included two factors. The first factor was based on three variables comprising HESA data detailing the percentage of international students to the total student number, the percentage of overseas student income to total income and the market share of first year students. The second factor related to the strategic intent of a university through an analysis of their mission statement. The results were classified into four clusters defined as (i) international losers (ii) international speakers (iii) international winners and (iv) international actors. The results from this clustering exercise of 117 UK universities included pre- and post-1992 universities. The clustering exercise found that 74% of UK universities’ mission statements included their intentions regarding internationalisation but less than half of the 74% were active internationally (Avoudi and Masood, op. cit.).

In a further exploratory study of internationalisation in six UK universities, selected from the post‐1992 group and former colleges of higher education, Maringe (2009) concluded that there was little empirical evidence of the nature and extent of integration of internationalisation into the strategic mission of individual institutions. Maringe (op. cit.) pointed to, “conceptual and structural deficiencies in the organisation of institutional internationalisation; over emphasis on human exchange initiatives over cultural integration efforts and increasing undercurrents of feelings among staff and students of local neglect at the expense of global attention” (Maringe, op. cit., p. 553). The conclusion reached was that in pre-1992 universities, globalisation was seen as a major driver of internationalisation. However, in post-1992 universities key benefits from internationalisation were, “increasing institutional competitiveness, attracting

50 more international students and attracting more international staff” (Maringe, op. cit., p. 559).

Debate surrounds use of the terms ‘globalisation’ and ‘internationalisation’. Globalisation was defined by Hermans and Dimaggio (2007) as a trend that promotes boundary crossing and leads to international and intercultural connectedness and exchange.

Research by Bennett and Kane (2011) into the internationalisation in university business education assessed the extent, intensity, and nature of internationalisation programmes by exploring underlying motives. Bennett and Kane (op. cit.) developed and tested a ‘suggested model’, with the intention of explaining the speed, extent and intensity of internationalisation. Their results show that the degree and/or speed of internationalisation appear to depend, “significantly on the financial situation of the host university and managerial inclinations favouring internationalisation” (Bennett and Kane, 2011, p. 366).

With this in mind, Sweeney (2012) outlined 27 proposals that UK universities should consider when adopting a strategic approach to internationalisation. Although his work was focused on European higher education, his first recommendation was that UK universities should, “prioritise a strategic transformation of internationalisation away from economic and financial imperatives towards educational values and objectives” (Higher Education Academy, 2012, p. 38). The views of the HEA came against a background emphasising the strategic importance financially of attracting international students. UUK (2014) have also argued that international students are a valuable source of income to universities and to local economies via expenditure on and off campus and

51 contributed more than £7 billion to the UK economy. Knight had previously defined internationalisation of higher education as, “the process of integrating international/intercultural dimensions into teaching, research and the service functions of the institution” (Knight, 1993, p. 21), an approach supported by the NUS. The NUS added that the value of international students to UK universities, “goes well beyond the significant financial return they deliver” (NUS, 2016, p. 1).

The debate over the role internationalisation should play in universities has been ongoing for many years and becomes intertwined with issues around the impact of globalisation on education. Cogburn and Adeya (1999) wrote that globalisation was not just about the deepening of financial markets, but includes a whole range of social, political, economic, and cultural phenomena. In studies exploring the interconnectedness of internationalisation and globalisation with respect to higher education, globalisation was evaluated, “as the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life” (Bray, 2003, p. 220).

Carnoy (1999) detailed the ways in which globalisation was having a major impact on education when referring to the financial pressures of governments to reduce the growth of public spending and release funds for the expected expansion of their own educational systems. There was also the need to attract foreign capital, and this meant providing a ready supply of skilled labour. In their review of globalisation and educational change, Carnoy and Rhoten (2002) also introduced the issue of whether educational change represented regional, national, or local responses to global reconstructing, and to what

52 degree these changes represent international agencies’ intentions regarding these responses.

In continuing the debate as to ‘Why Internationalise Education?’ it was argued that, “despite its long historyit is hard to understand why anyone would still question the need for this response by those directly responsible for delivering education” (Coelen, 2015, p. 4). De Wit and Hunter (2015, p. 2) suggested that, “internationalisation of higher education is a relatively new phenomenon but, as a concept, it is one that is both broad and varied”. In their work for the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI) De Wit and Hunter (op. cit.) analysed results from ten European and seven rest of the world countries and identified ten key developments in internationalisation including its growing importance, an evident shift from cooperation to (more) competition, emerging regionalisation (particularly outside Europe), and “notable emerging areas of focus, in particular internationalisation of the curriculum, transnational education and digital learning” (2015, p. 2). De Wit (2011) listed nine misconceptions about internationalisation referring to his view that, previously, the reasons for internationalisation were mainly political and socio-cultural but now economic reasons were now gaining ground and there is a stronger accent on content-related considerations.

Additionally, Coelen (2015) pointed to several factors how, by 2030, some 66% of the global middle class will live in the Asia-Pacific region which will increase the demand for higher education. This would also facilitate the development of a much-enhanced network of significant global urban centres. Coelen (op. cit.) also cited the results of a survey carried out by the World Innovation Summit for Education (WISE, 2009), that 50% of those polled predicted that by 2030 the most important source of knowledge will

53 be available as online content, necessitating decisions by UK universities as to whether or when they consider involvement in online delivery integral to their activities.

Beelan and Jones (2015) further noted internationalisation is now included in the educational policies of 64% of higher education institutions. However, referring to the speed of internationalisation in higher education, they suggested that, “the focus is, however, shifting slowly and more is imagined than achieved” (Beelan and Jones 2015, p. 12). In the USA, Deardorff (2005, p. 28) noted that there has been a move towards more, “student-negotiated outcomes” by HEIs. She proposed a more effective assessment of specific outcomes for students centred on international competence and global workforce preparedness was required and highlighted the importance of outcomes assessment being incorporated into the fabric of the learning, student development through application of knowledge and skills.