Project Internationalisation

Internationalisation has been steadily moving up the political agenda for higher education. In this article from the Spring 2009 issue of Directions Andrea Nollent and Iain Garner (Sheffield Hallam University) explain how one university faculty is seeking to respond to the challenge.

Andrea was formerly head of law and is now Assistant Dean, Planning and Resources, in the Faculty of Development and Society at Sheffield Hallam. Iain Garner is head of undergaduate programmes in the faculty and teaches psychology.

---

In 2007 the Faculty of Development and Society at Sheffield Hallam University embarked upon its Internationalisation Project 2007-10, with the aim of enhancing both mobility and international experience opportunities for all students.

The faculty is very large, with a portfolio embracing education, law, psychology, social sciences, humanities and the built environment. The student population exceeds 12,000 and the faculty has an income of approximately £65 million per annum, two thirds of which is from undergraduate delivery.

Internationalisation is one of the major forces impacting and shaping higher education as it changes to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Internationalisation means different things to different people, and the overall picture that is emerging is one of complexity, diversity and differentiation. The internationalisation of higher education is a process that is evolving as both actor and reactor to the new realities and rather turbulent times facing higher education.

— Knight (2008)

At the outset of the project mobility opportunities were concentrated in a limited number of disciplines. The law department has a long and firmly established study abroad programme which includes the four year dual qualifying LLB/Maîtrise en Droit Français delivered in partnership with the University of Paris XII. In addition, law has year long exchange programmes with Carleton University in Canada and with a number of European partners under the Erasmus programme. Elsewhere in the faculty mobility opportunities exist on a smaller scale, with some limited study abroad opportunities and a wider range of overseas field trip activities. Numbers of fee paying international students are relatively low, although there are established areas of transnational delivery and direct recruitment onto home summer programmes from partner international institutions.

In response to demographic changes the faculty wished to establish a clear international identity to aid recruitment and sustain financial viability. However, these were not the only drivers. Integral to our profile and reputation is the excellence of the student experience and staff development and investment. Thus the Internationalisation Project has four main objectives to be achieved by July 2010:

1. To increase and diversify business development and income streams into the faculty.
2. To create a key profile for the faculty.
3. To achieve a vibrant and multicultural environment.
4. To enhance the employability of our students through international experience (see CIHE, 2007).

These objectives are to be achieved through three activity strands, embedded in the faculty one year and five year business plans:

1. Mobility – to enable all undergraduate students to undertake study or work placements overseas and to encourage staff to take part in teaching, research or other work in partner overseas institutions. Specific measures include:
• increase the number of outgoing/incoming students to/from partner institutions by 100%
• increase the number of academic staff taking part in exchange programmes (including Erasmus) by at least 100% for both outgoing and incoming staff
• International business development – with a focus on the direct recruitment of international and EU students and the development of partnerships, for example the submission of joint research bids. Specific measures include:
• increase non-collaborative direct recruitment onto both postgraduate taught courses and undergraduate courses by at least 100% (EU students) and 25% (international students)
• Learning, teaching and assessment – to ensure that all students can benefit from an ‘internationalised’ experience even if they are not physically mobile, for example by studing modules with an international focus, by working with students from other countries and cultures, or by using technology to communicate with students of overseas partner institutions. Specific measures include:
• the development of three modules for all home and incoming students covering topics such as the social, economic and cultural dimensions of globalisation and Europe, and the EU as a context for employment and other professional activities.

In order to manage these ambitious targets we employed project methodology and a manager to co-ordinate activities. Progress towards our objectives is on track across all three strands – this may not have been the case without the discipline of project methodology.

Mobility: student perceptions

If we are to meet our objective of offering all undergraduate students the opportunity to participate in work placement or study exchange overseas we need to extend our existing opportunities. To ensure that mobility opportunities would reflect student preferences we commissioned a research project to investigate the perceptions of international mobility among UK students at Sheffield Hallam. The main findings of this extensive research project are:

• 33% of first year respondents would consider studying abroad and 45% would consider work placement abroad; if a scholarship was available 81% would like to study abroad
• the preferred length of exchange programmes varied from 4-8 weeks (25%) to one year (24%)
• 59% of students selected English speaking countries as their first choice
• 12% of students expressed a preference for study/work placement in Europe
• support is the central concern – early information about mobility, access to key mobility staff/office, language support before departing, more flexible schemes for students in different circumstances (such as mature or part time students), financial support

The evidence from this research guided both our partnership development and mobility support strategies.

Open Space event

In order to embed the current ‘organic’ processes into the development of the project an Open Space research and development event was organised. This drew on Herman’s Open Space World methodology and the idea that “participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance”’. The aim was the identification of a strategy that all stakeholders could support.

Finding partners

At the start of the internationalisation process we already had multiple international partners. Commonly the relationship with these partners was specific to courses, with few bringing cross-faculty benefits – they facilitated mobility but not necessarily the richer links which internationalisation aspired to. Richer links were seen as containing:

• broad ranging student exchanges
• staff exchanges – administrative and academic
• collaborative research links
• shared pedagogical developments

It was imperative that partners shared our desire for richer links catalysed via student mobility, and the following heuristics were developed to inform the creation of partnerships:

• the National Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) was used to facilitate a basic understanding of the fit, in terms of mission, of the prospective partner institution
• membership of consortia such as Universitas 21 and the Worldwide Universities Network
• number of existing UK partners
• subject match and choice – while recognising indigenous, cross-cultural or local perspectives
• availability of teaching in English
• location

Aligning the programmes of study

Once the partners were identified work on course programmes was necessary. The programmes of study were to apply to incoming and outgoing students, and, where possible, current systems were to be developed to meet the needs of mobility. Semester long exchanges were requested by partners and students – therefore these formed the basis for the developments. However, this did require some areas with year long delivery to develop semester-based modules. Where possible this was addressed by creating ‘sibling’ modules, utilising elements of current year long modules, and so avoiding too many ‘bespoke’ developments. This ensured that international students were taught alongside UK-based students (not in international student groups) and that UK-based students accessed an equivalent learning experience to their non-internationally mobile peers.

Progress

The project is now in its second year and the strategic framework and project plan are complete. The embedding of internationalisation into the faculty’s culture is now needed if genuine internationalisation is to be achieved. O’Neill (1994) identifies educational organisations as having three key features – structure, process and culture. Within the internationalisation project plan we have so far focused on the structural and process issues. This has allowed us to develop a framework of international partners and offers which can be easily managed, however, we need to develop this further so that internationalisation is better expressed in curricular and research activities, and becomes a key part of the ethos of the faculty.

The aim is to use mobility to actively move the culture forward, hopefully ensuring that the developments are neither the cosmetic alteration articulated by Meringe (2008), nor the weak and marginal integration observed by Ayoubi & Massoud (2007), but robust developments reflecting the quality and spirit of the faculty.

Mobility has emerged as the key feature of Project Internationalisation. This has been recognised and supported by the university, reflecting our commitment to the development of skills and employability in our students. It also clearly reflects the government agenda and is strongly aligned to the Bologna process, which has student mobility at its heart.

References

---

• Ayoubi R & Massoud H (2007) ‘The strategy of internationalization in universities: a quantitative evaluation of the intent and implementation in UK universities’ International Journal of Educational Management 21:4
• Council for Industry and Higher Education (2007) Global horizons for UK students: a guide for universities (PDF file) London: CIHE
• Findlay A, King R, Stam A, Ruiz-Gelices E (2006) ‘Ever reluctant Europeans: the changing geographies of UK students studying and working abroad’ European Urban and Regional Studies 13:291-318
• Knight J (2008) Internationalisation: key concepts and elements (A1.1 in Internationalisation of European higher education: EUA/ACA handbook)
• Maringe F (2008) Meanings, rationales and challenges of the internationalisation of higher education: an exploratory study (slides; paper presented at the Exploring the Hinterlands: Mapping an Agenda for Institutional Research in the UK conference, Southampton Solent University, 25 – 26 June 2008)
• O’Neill J (1994) ‘Tooled up for management: lessons from the mainstream’ International Journal of Educational Management 8:2

Last Modified: 9 July 2010