Academic mobility in Higher Education worldwide - Where are we? Where might we go in the future? 10 Years of Erasmus Mundus Partnerships (2007-2017): Worldwide Bridges Towards The Future Brussels, 8 February, 2017 Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General, International Association of Universities (IAU) IAU February 2017 1
Presentation outline 1. Overview of academic mobility 2. Mobility in the broader context of internationalization of HE 3. Mobility as a tool for socio-economic development 4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes 5. IAU contribution to internationalization of HE 6. Conclusions IAU February 2017 2
1. Overview of academic mobility The nomadic scholar has a long history (e.g. Erasmus of Rotterdam, 15 th century) Nationalization of HE in the 18 th and 19 th centuries International collaboration a panacea after WWII and increasing steadily Expansion with globalization for last decades of 20 th century Mobility is nowadays a global phenomenon IAU February 2017 3
1. Analysis of current trends availability of mobility data 1. Frequently, only QUANTITATIVE data exists 2. Global data focuses on degree-seeking or longterm student mobility 3. More global data on inbound than outbound student mobility 4. Global data is lacking on staff mobility 5. Insufficient data on mobility outcomes/impacts on individuals and/or institutions and countries (other than as a revenue for importing countries) IAU February 2017 4
Millions 1. A few mobility trends: Inbound international students by region Growth of (inbound) mobile students by region 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 World Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania 1 0,5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics IAU February 2017 5
1. A few mobility trends: What do we learn? There is steady growth in mobility of degreeseeking students: In 15 years (1999 2014) the number of mobile students more than doubled from 2 to 4.3 Millions However: In the same 15 years total student numbers grew approximately equally: From 94 to 207 Millions Growth in absolute number of mobile students, no growth in proportion to all students stable at 2% IAU February 2017 6
1. A few mobility trends: Where are international students going? Mobile (inbound) students by region in 2014 1% 7% 5% Mobile (inbound) students by country in 2014 24% 19% 19% 2% 3% 5% 5% 5% 43% 10% 6% China Japan Germany Russian Federation France Australia United Kingdom United States of America Africa Asia Europe North America South America Oceania Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics IAU February 2017 7
1. A few mobility trends: In-and out-bound students flows 1000000 800000 Net flow (difference between inbound and outbound mobile students per country). Evolution over 15 years (1999 2014) 600000 400000 200000 0-200000 -400000-600000 -800000 1999 2007 2014 Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics Selection of few countries in graph IAU February 2017 8
1. A few mobility trends: What do we learn? Mobility remains stable and highly unbalanced Few sending and receiving countries account for the biggest flow Imbalances in most sending and receiving countries is increasing over time Too few countries have balanced mobility OECD countries as main destination countries IAU February 2017 9
1. A few mobility trends: A zoom on OECD nations (2014) Even in OECD (most important destination countries), international students represent 6% of all students (3 times the world average) USA hosts the largest number of international students at MA and PhD level (26% of the total), UK hosts 15%, France 10%, Germany 10%. In OECD, the higher the level of studies, the greater the proportion of international students Intra-European mobility represents 25% of all mobile students in Europe 75% come from elsewhere Source: OECD IAU February 2017 10
2. Mobility in the broader context of internationalization of HE Most generally accepted definition of internationalization is as a multidimensional, intentional process, bringing international/intercultural perspectives to learning/teaching, research, outreach and management of an institution. A top priority for HEI leadership, increasingly viewed as an integral/inescapable aspect of overall HEI development strategy Seen as a process contributing to improved quality IAU February 2017 11
2. Mobility in the broader context of internationalization of HE Mobility seen as part of a broader internationalization process relatively recent (last 2-3 decades), likely due to EU programmes Often academic mobility is seen as the only or the most important dimension of internationalization EU s mobility schemes remain unique in design and levels of funding & essential Yet, despite the EU support, mobility remains available to a small minority of students and staff IAU February 2017 12
2. Mobility in the broader context of internationalization of HE If internationalization is as high a priority as policy makers and HEI leaders affirm, mobility must either be greatly expanded or must not be viewed as the main or only instrument Must go beyond mobility to make internationalization of HE benefit a wider audience Going beyond mobility in internationalization includes: Internationalization of curriculum More international focus in degree programs Identification of international competencies for all Internationalization at home via extracurricular activities On-line and distance learning Trans-national education (branch campuses, programmes abroad, etc.) Internationalization of research and outreach locally IAU February 2017 13
3. Mobility as a tool for socio-economic development Academic mobility can have profound impact on regions, countries, communities and institutions Purpose for participating countries and/or institutions may not be the same Always a mix of goals; context determines where emphasis is placed: Academic / scientific (including for capacity building and demographic reasons) Economic (including human resource development, seeking future economic partners, etc.) Diplomatic or soft power (seeking geopolitical allies, spreading influence etc.) IAU February 2017 14
3. Diversity of purposes and benefits for nations An economic rationale for promoting mobility has become preponderant in some countries around the world There is a shift from collaboration to more competition to gain market share of the mobile student Countries are developing national strategies to secure national interests, using academic mobility as a central instrument Rationales and benefits are different for host and sending nations: Host nation: potential revenue, qualified human resources, future ambassadors, research Sending nation: human resource development, capacity building, improved future cooperation etc. IAU February 2017 15
3. Diversity of purposes and benefits for individuals and institutions For individuals: access to programs unavailable at home, prestigious qualifications, international awareness, cultural sensitivity, language, skills for globalized labor market, opportunities for research For host HEI: more and more quality students, potential revenue, improved research capacity, diversified learning space For sending HEI: increased attractive offer to students, staff and capacity development, access to programs, institutional partnership and collaboration IAU February 2017 16
3. Persistent obstacles and risks linked to academic mobility Participation despite stated importance numbers remain small Funding too often opportunities are only available to those who can pay (at all levels individual, institutional and national) Gaps restrictions on collaboration only with known/ranked universities both as sending and as hosting institutions Visa - difficulties for entry into and from many countries Recognition of credits and prior qualifications Brain drain Cultural homogenization and linguistic impoverishment IAU February 2017 17
4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes: advantages 1. Shared vision Mobility is an integral part of a negotiated project with clear wider goals for partners 2. Comprehensive Includes staff mobility, essential for lasting institutional change 3. Funding EU offers stable funding for several years to build mutual understanding and trust 4. Recognition Facilitates recognition of credits and qualifications IAU February 2017 18
4. The approach to mobility in the EU programmes: challenges 1. Sustainability of partnerships Without on-going funding, will collaborations continue? Can mobility remain central? 2. Distinguishing among a multiplicity of goals Mobility is not a all-in-one instrument for capacity building, staff development, modernization, socioeconomic impact etc., need more fine-tuned instruments for each goal 3. Complexity of structures The partnership requirements to strengthen EU collaboration may detract energy from the capacity building goals IAU February 2017 19
5. IAU contribution to internationalization of HE One of 4 IAU priorities in strategic plan 2016 2020 Main actions in internationalization: Global Surveys: the largest and most geographically comprehensive data collection on internationalization of higher education. Preparing the 5 th edition: http://iauaiu.net/content/iau-global-surveys Advocacy elaboration and dissemination of policy statements Publications for EU Parliament (2016), Editor of Internationalization Handbook, published 3 per year ISAS (2.0): IAU programme of advisory services for advancing internationalization for HEIs, individuals at HEIs, national governments and organizations: http://iauaiu.net/content/isas-2 IAU February 2017 20
5. IAU advocates for fair, mutually beneficial, sustainable internationalization of HE Several Policy Statements elaborated by working groups (http://www.iau-aiu.net/content/policy-statements-0) Placing academic (rather than economic or geopolitical) concerns first Seeing internationalization as an integral part of HEI development, contributing to quality Ensuring internationalization is inclusive (in terms of learners, institutions, nations) Calling for recognition and respect of diverse goals on the part of partners avoid domination by those who control the funds Promoting mobility as one dimension of internationalization but urging for other aspects too IAU February 2017 21
6. Where might we go in the future? A few concluding thoughts Mobility may continue to rise but it is unlikely that it will outpace overall growth of enrolment unless major investments are made Geographical imbalance will remain in the short term but the mobility landscape is becoming more multilateral and flows could possibly reverse Intra-regional and short term mobility is likely to grow (in EU and other regions); emphasis and competition will grow for 2 nd and 3 rd cycle mobility and internships IAU February 2017 22
6. Where might we go in the future? A few concluding thoughts Mobility will remain a cornerstone of internationalization, and models will evolve EU policy and funding support remains essential; need developments in other regions too Mobility as part of an inter-institutional partnership will have greatest institutional impact; need strategic approach Short-term but more frequent mobility is most effective for countering brain drain Mobility alone is insufficient to make internationalization opportunities available to a wider audience For capacity building staff mobility must fit into institutional strategy IAU February 2017 23
6. Where might we go in the future? A few concluding thoughts Political changes will have profound impacts on mobility and internationalization Need continuous qualitative research on impacts (mid-to long-term) of mobility and other internationalization actions IAU will continue to monitor and promote both mobility actions and other dimensions of higher education internationalization IAU February 2017 24
Change and Volatility: today s Hindustan Times, Delhi IAU February 2017 25
Thank you Learn more about the IAU and join the Association: www.iau-aiu.net Contact: e.egronpolak@iau-aiu.net IAU February 2017 26