If we are to measure anything, we need to know what we are trying to measure and why. For internationalisation, this makes things particularly challenging because there are so many different perspectives and interpretations of the concept. For example, it can be seen as any (or all) of the following (Knight, 2004):

1. A range of international activities, e.g. academic mobility for students & staff; international projects & partnerships; international research initiatives.
2. Delivery of education to other countries through new types of arrangements (transnational education).
3. Inclusion of an international, intercultural and/or global dimension into the curriculum & learning process.

Numerous definitions of internationalisation have been suggested, as shown below. The most widely quoted is probably that by Jane Knight (2004). At that time, she argued that any inclusion of a rationale for internationalisation (e.g. as in Sõderqvist’s, 2002, definition) was undesirable because it precluded it functioning as a comprehensive definition. Since then, there has been an increasing move to include a rationale for internationalisation, as illustrated in the definitions given by de Wit and colleagues (2015) and Yemini (2015).

Nevertheless, all too often the focus has been merely on the activities associated with internationalisation, and this has led Brandenburg and De Wit (2011) to lament as follows:

the “why and wherefore” have been taken over by the way internationalization has become the main objective: more exchange, more degree mobility, and more recruitment.

They go on to argue that the focus needs to shift to the ‘why’: “Why do we do certain things and what (sic) do they help in achieving the goal of quality of education and research in a globalized knowledge society?”

The Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (Vereniging Hogescholen) and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) (2018) have done some very interesting work in this area. They argue that internationalisation contributes to the three core functions of education: socialisation, personality development and qualification. They then explain how internationalisation can contribute positively to each of these. We provide a very summary below.

This re-orientation is reflected in a more recent comment by Jane Knight:

the intent of internationalization is not to become known as an international institution per se, but to use the “integration of international, intercultural or global dimensions into the goals, functions and delivery of education” as a means to improve or achieve academic objectives of the institution or socio-cultural, economic, or political goals of the country/region. (Knight, 2015, p. 108)

She goes on to point out that there is an increasing interest in measuring internationalisation. We provide an overview of some well-known ones here, presenting them by the level at which they function: national, institutional, programme, and interpersonal/interactional.

Profiling at the National level

British Council: 'The Shape of Global Higher Education' research series

In 2016, the British Council launched ‘The Shape of Global Higher Education’ research series. The main objectives of the series are to evaluate countries’ policies on international higher education and to identify areas which are supported by national governments; in other words, to provide insights on national policy contexts of internationalisation. In their first two reports, they reported on a number of countries in different parts of the world as well as on transnational education. Since then they have issued regional reports on the ASEAN region, Europe, and the Americas.

For each report they use a consistent framework (British Council, 2016, p. 6), as shown below:

Overview: Categories & Indicators	Weight
1. Openness and mobility: International higher education strategy; Student mobility policies; Academic mobility and research policies; Programme and provider mobility.	0.33
2. Quality assurance and degree recognition: International students’ quality assurance and admissions; Quality assurance of academic programmes; Recognition of overseas qualifications.	0.33
3. Access and sustainability: Student mobility funding; Academic mobility and research funding; Sustainable development policies.	0.33

On their website, they explain each of the above main categories as follows:

Openness: government-level commitment to internationalisation; environment enabling international mobility of students, researchers, academic programmes and university research;

Quality assurance and recognition: A regulatory environment to facilitate the international mobility of students, education providers and academic programmes.

Access and sustainability: Promoting student/academic mobility and international research collaboration; consideration of possible unintended consequences of internationalisation.

Profiling at the Institutional level

The most widespread level at which internationalisation is measured is institutional. There are two main approaches: systems for publicly ranking universities by primarily objective criteria, and more in-depth survey and/or qualitative approaches.

Public ranking systems

Four main organisations provide world university rankings: Times Higher Education (THE), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), U-Multirank and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). The latter does not provide any specific measure of internationalisation and so is not included here. Criteria used by the other three are as shown in the table below. Further information on their criteria is available on their websites.

As can be seen, with the exception of ‘international reputation metric’ used by the THE, nearly all of the others are objectively countable criteria. Other frameworks, outlined below, offer a much more in-depth picture.

Other frameworks/indicators

Another institutional level framework is CeQuint. However, since that also has a programme level version, we review it below at that level.

Profiling at the Programme level

CeQuInt, Certificate for Quality in Internationalisation

The stated aim of CeQuInt is to assess the quality of internationalisation at programme and/or institutional level. A successful assessment leads to the award of the ECA Certificate for Quality in Internationalisation. This Certificate confirms that a programme or an institution has successfully incorporated an international and intercultural dimension into the purpose, function and delivery of its education.

The framework for assessing the quality of internationalisation at programme level is shown below. It comprises five standards, each of which is defined by three criteria.

Standard 1	Intended internationalisation: Supported goals, verifiable objectives, impact on education
Standard 2	International & intercultural learning: Intended learning outcomes, student assessment, graduate achievement
Standard 3	Teaching & learning: Curriculum, teaching methods, learning environment
Standard 4	Staff: Composition, experience, services
Standard 5	Students: Compositions,experience, services

Assessment is done through a self-evaluation report and a site visit.

Profiling at the Interpersonal/Interactional level (Students & Staff)

The Global Education Profiler (GEP)

Student surveys, such as the National Student Survey and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey run in the UK, and the Student Barometer/International Student Barometer run in many countries worldwide, are widely used for obtaining feedback from students on their university experiences. These surveys have few if any questions relating to internationalisation per se, and the Global Education Profiler (GEP) was developed at the University of Warwick to address this gap.It is now licensed to i-graduate.

The GEP is a needs analysis/diagnostic tool that helps identify what kind of global learning environment students and staff aspire to and are experiencing. It focuses on the interpersonal/interactional level and uses the GlobalPeople Growth Model as its foundation. There are two complementary versions: one for students and one for staff, both academic and professional services. The tool focuses on elements that help foster and evidence ‘global fitness’ – the personal strengths and competencies needed for today’s globalising world. The constructs measured are as shown below. Items probing each construct are answered in two ways: ‘importance to me’ and ‘my actual experience/ease of handling’, yielding insights into people’s aspirations as well as their experiences. Participants also have the opportunity to make open comments.

GEP constructs in Student version	GEP constructs in Staff version All staff
Social integration Academic integration Global opportunities & support Communication skills Foreign language learning	Workplace life: identification and integration Global fitness: global personal strengths & global communication skills Global development opportunities: global skills support & foreign language skills development International collaborations: knowledge and relations
	Academic/Teaching staff	Professional services staff
	Student engagement in class Teacher engagement with students Global curriculum Class composition	Workplace relations

The GEP has been licensed to i-graduate and in the spring/early summer of 2019 has been used by the COIMBRA group to benchmark internationalisation across their network. Findings from the first major dataset have been published in an academic journal (open access) and in a policy briefing. Additional information, including an interactive dashboard with pilot data, is available via the GEP Profiler page of the GlobalPeople website.

References

Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62(Winter), 15–17.

British Council. (2016). The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement: International Higher Education, British Council. Available at https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/global-landscape/report-shape-global-higher-education.

De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalisation of Higher Education. Brussels: Policy Department, Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Parliament.

Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing expectations, fundamental values. IAU 4th Global Survey: IAU. Summary available at http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/IAU-4th-GLOBAL-SURVEY-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2017].

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.

Knight, J. (2015). International universities: Misunderstandings and emerging models? Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 107–121.

Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences (Vereniging Hogescholen) and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU). (2018). Internationalisation Agenda for Higher Education. http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Internationalisation%20Agenda%20for%20Higher%20Education.pdf.

Sandström, A.-M., & Hudson, R. (2018). The EAIE Barometer: Internationalisation in Europe (2nd edition): The European Association for International Education (EAIE). https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/barometer.html.

Sõderqvist, M. (2002). Internationalisation and its management at higher-education institutions. Applying conceptual, content and discourse analysis. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki School of Economics.

Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation discourse hits the tipping point. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(1), 19–22.

The multiple levels at which internationalisation can be profiled/measured

---

Go to:

Definition of Internationalisation

Why internationalise?

---