Over the past 25 years, the internationalisation of higher education in Europe has become higher on the agenda. Increasing competition in higher education and the commercialisation and cross-border delivery of higher education, have challenged values traditionally attached to cooperation: exchanges and partnerships. At the same time, the internationalisation of the curriculum and the teaching and learning process has become as relevant as traditional focus on mobility. Internationalisation has become an indicator for quality in higher education. And there is more debate about the quality of internationalisation itself.

What is meant by the internationalisation of higher education? Over the years, many definitions and practises have been used (see for instance De Wit, 2002,109-116; Knight, 2008, 19-22), most of them being either curriculum or mobility related. The most commonly used definition is by Jane Knight: "the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education". Knight states that internationalisation (Knight, 2008) revolves around two basic components: internationalisation at home (rather curriculum-oriented) and internationalisation abroad. These components do not exclude one another, but are intertwined in policies and programmes.

Internationalisation is not developing in similar ways in higher education throughout Europe and the world as a whole. There are different accents and approaches. Internationalisation strategies are filtered and contextualised by the specific internal context of the university, by the type of university, and how they are embedded nationally. Internationalisation strategies are shaped at the programme level by the different relationship these programmes have to the market and society. An internationalisation strategy can be substantially different for a teachers training programme than for a school of dentistry or a business school. And as a result of the Bologna Process, more and more internationalisation strategies may be different by level: PhD, master and bachelor.

Calling for assessment        

The growing importance of internationalisation in higher education on the one hand and the diversity in rationales, approaches and strategies of institutions and programmes on the other, call for an assessment of the quality of internationalisation at the programme and the institutional level and a system of certifications as to define the progress and status of the internationalisation at the programme and institutional level. The rationale for a system of certificates for internationalisation was described by a Flemish Working Group as being too much about the "why" and too little about the "how" the quality indicators to be used. According to them important questions about visibility, transparency, focus and demonstrated quality are still unanswered, and that is why they look for instruments to do so. (Joris, 2009) Deardorff, Pysarchik and Yun (2009) state: "with globalisation driving the demand for global-ready graduates, it becomes crucial for administrators to assess these outcomes of internationalisation to determine exactly what our students are learning through these efforts and how effective our programmes are in achieving the stated learning outcomes."

This contribution gives an overview of the debate on quality and benchmarking of internationalisation of higher education, against the background of the initiative taken in 2010 by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) to introduce a pilot scheme among 21 Dutch and Flemish degree programmes to assess their level of internationalisation. This pilot is seen as the foundation for the development of a European label ‘distinguished feature internationalisation’ on the initiative of the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA).

Assessment of internationalisation strategies

In 1999, the OECD published a book edited by Jane Knight and Hans de Wit with the title Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education, which provided an instrument and guidelines for assessing internationalisation strategies based on a number of pilot reviews in institutions in different parts of the world. Two issues were considered relevant at that time: the question of added value of internationalisation to higher education, and the quality of the internationalisation strategies itself. (see also Knight, 2008, 40). 

The Occasional Paper edited by De Wit ten years later focused on the theme Measuring the success of what we do (EAIE, 2009). Its introduction states that measuring success is becoming an increasingly urgent item on the agenda of professionals. The international ranking of higher education institutions is a widely debated example of how measurement has started to influence our profession in a way that differs from the past. The call for accountability by students, faculty, deans, the management of higher education institutions and national governments, as well as the call for quality assurance, is an important issue on the agenda of higher education in general. This includes the internationalisation process, programmes and projects. Accreditation, ranking, certification, auditing, and benchmarking have become key items on the international higher education agenda. 

Several initiatives to develop tools and instruments for measuring internationalisation have been taken in different countries over the past years, following the ‘Internationalisation Quality Review Process’ of 1999. Regretfully, they all measure input and/or output, not outcomes. According to Hudzik and Stohl (2009), outcomes are “usually most closely associated with measuring goal achievement and the missions of institutions (…) and are the really important measures.” Deardorff, Pysarchik and Yun (2009) find that the assessment of outcomes is possible and that workable frameworks are available. Instruments dealing with Intercultural Competences are more oriented to outcomes and several tools exist, primarily in the USA.

Quality assurance in general terms refers to the policies, attitudes, actions, and procedures necessary to ensure that quality is being maintained and enhanced (Woodhouse, 1999). Woodhouse identifies four different approaches: general accreditation, specialised or profession accreditation, audit or review, and quality assessment. Most of the instruments fall in the category of audits and reviews and focus on ‘How good are you at achieving your stated objectives’. Most combine self-assessment with external peer review and some have an award incentive attached to it.  

Benchmarking is another instrument that is used in assessing the quality of internationalisation. Comparison and identification of best practices are two additional elements that form key aspects of benchmarking exercises, and the exercise itself is also focused on improvement. Also for benchmarking one needs a list of measures or indicators.

Crucial elements

• As principle guidelines, the ‘Internationalisation Quality Review Process’ has learned that the following elements are crucial:
• Focused on two aspects: progress (measured by quantitative and qualitative measures) and quality (measured by opinion of those who do the assessment);
• Measured according to the objectives and targets set by the institution
• Focused on both organisational and programme strategies;
• More oriented to evaluating the process than the outcomes or impact;
• Pointed to where improvement is desirable and necessary;
• Accepting that there is no ideal or optimal measurement profile;
• Focused on how the different elements work together in an integrated and strategic manner;
• Need to take place on a regular basis and over a period of time to reinforce the process. (Knight, ibid, 44-45).

Adding: to that list the quality review of internationalisation requires a commitment and involvement at all levels. That is: leadership, faculty, students and administrative staff.

Brandenburg et all (2009) make in the context of assessment an interesting distinction between internationalisation (a process with a focus on improvement) and internationality (a description of the present state of internationalisation).

Diversity

Last but not least, the diversity of the context is most relevant. As mentioned before, there are different types of institutions; different disciplines within one institution; different levels of education; and different institutional, local, national and regional cultures and environments. Instruments for assessment have to recognise these differences and should be able to contextualise the internationalisation process. The key questions of assessment of internationalisation are: Why are you doing it, how do you do it, and what do you want to reach with it. These questions have to be placed in their specific context.   

As said in the introduction, diversity (in terms of  types of institution, discipline, programme, level and approach) has to be taken into account when developing a list of measures or indicators. As Joris (2008) states, on the one hand material must be sufficiently relevant to design an instrument that can be used for all kinds of different purposes. On the other hand it has to serve as a self-assessment instrument to make results visible and measurable, and to serve as benchmarks and allow benchmarking. He observes the importance of context and the need to compare only what is truly comparable. The value of an indicator and its relevance must be defined by the context in which it is used. Hence, most instruments, following the example of the ‘Internationalisation Quality Review Process’, use the term ‘Guidelines’ or ‘Outline’, from where the institution or the programme can select those measures which are relevant in their context. What they also have in common is that they are more directed to the assessment of institutional strategies than to programmes. This is also the case with the recent publication ‘Internationalisation and Quality Assurance’, edited by Adinda van Gaalen which addresses as central question “How can we assure the quality of internationalisation of an institution.”  (2010, iv) As rationale they all have primarily what is cited above for the IMPI project: "The project aims at providing HEIs with insight into their performance and means for improvement."

Forefront issues

Towards a European Certificate for internationalisation? From the present overview, some issues come clearly to the forefront:

• There appears a need for quality assessment of internationalisation strategies in higher education;
• Around the world, in particular in the USA and Europe, several instruments have been developed
  over the past 15 years to assess that quality;
• They use more or less the same programmatic and organizational categories for assessment;
• They are focusing on input and output assessment;
• They are mainly taking place at the institutional level;
• They address the state of the art and/or the process for improvement;
• With preference some form of benchmarking as to create comparison and best practice is appreciated.

At the same time, one can observe that:

• Institutions are reluctant to ongoing assessment of internationalisation strategies, for it is a time consuming process;
• In the present world of branding and ranking, an instrument without some kind of certification, is not considered a high priority;
• Assessment of institutional strategies denies the diversity of strategies for disciplines and programmes and the different levels within them;
• Increasingly, institutions and programmes distinguish between a minimum requirement of internationalisation, applicable to all students and all programmes, and a maximum requirement, applicable to programmes and students with a high international and intercultural focus; 
• Internationalisation is becoming more mainstream in het higher education agenda, in the present global knowledge economy internationalisation is strongly linked to innovation, interdisciplinarity and interculturality, and; 
• Increasingly a link has to be made to learning outcomes for students.

Based on these observations, it appears advisable to develop a system of certification of internationalisation at the programme level. This certification should be able to distinguish the quality of a programme’s  internationalisation. The following characteristics should be taken into consideration:

• The use of different assessment levels in order to indicate the state of internationalisation (what has been achieved so far) and to provide incentives for improvement (where is it heading to or what is attainable); 
• The certification is available at least at the level of the programme or a combination of programmes (bachelor and/or master; schools/faculties); 
• The assessment procedure is not focused on a specific activity but is comprehensive towards internationalisation (the why, how and what of internationalisation); 
• It should focus on how internationalisation contributes to the overall quality by focusing on qualitative indicators (vision, content, provisional elements and outcomes) while using quantitative indicators (e.g. staff mobility figures) as supporting elements; 
• It should be with preference a regional (European) or international certificate, as the purpose is to position it in a comparative international context; 
• The assessment should be done by a team which combines expertise on the subject, on quality assurance and on internationalisation, and should include international expertise and the student perspective; 
• Given the global knowledge economy and the diverse society we live in, both intercultural and international competencies should be addressed; 
• As much as possible, the assessment should be combined with accreditation of the programme, as to avoid extra workload and costs.

Hans de Wit is Professor of Internationalization of Higher Education at the School of Economics
and Management, Hogeschool van Amsterdam and Co-Editor of the Journal of Studies in International Education (Association for Studies in International Education/SAGE publishers).

This text appeard in Q&A Magazine no. 3. See for the unabridged version The Quality of internationalisation of Higher Education in Europe: Towards a European Certificate (De Wit, Amsterdam, 2010) as published by NVAO.