Internationalization of Higher EducationM van der Wende, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Shaping and Motivation ofInternationalization in Higher Education

The international dimension of higher education is widelyrecognized. Knowledge transcends borders, research hasan intrinsically international character and wanderingstudents were already a feature in medieval Europe. Argu-ments of this type usually provide the basis for claiming theinternational character of higher education, which is gen-erally acknowledged. This does not, however, substantiatethe often advanced position that higher education hasalways had, and has inherently, an international character.In fact, nation-states have played a crucial role since thenineteenth century in the development of the modernuniversity. Neave (2001) refers to two centuries of nation-alism in higher education. Very few higher education insti-tutions can lay claim to a centuries-old internationaltradition for the simple reason that most of them wereestablished after 1900 or even after World War II. Themodern university is a national institution, a creation ofthe nation-state (Scott, 1998). Furthermore, the extent ofinternational activity and orientation in teaching andresearch varies enormously depending on the disciplineand professional area concerned. Finally, the proportionof students and staff who actively participate in interna-tional activities is usually quite limited and internationali-zation may therefore remain marginal on many campuses.

Nevertheless, in the second-half of the twentiethcentury, a gradual change in the extent to which highereducation was nationally determined and orientated canbe observed. International cooperation between nations inthe field of higher education emerged following majorpolitical and economical developments (Blumenthalet al., 1996; De Wit, 2002). The post-war reconstructionof Europe was supported by promoting peace and mutualunderstanding through the stimulation of scientific coop-eration between the USA and Europe. The Fulbrightprogram is a prime example of this so-called North–North cooperation. During the Cold War, the focus ofinternationalization was on achieving foreign policy goalsthrough aid and technical assistance. The process of de-colonization in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in new formsof mobility and cooperation aimed at the developmentof a new intellectual stratum in the former colonialnations (South–North mobility and North–South cooper-ation). From the 1980s on, processes of regional integra-tion notably in the European Union (EU), the Asia Pacific

540

Region, and Latin America (Mercosur) resulted in newtypes of multilateral exchange and cooperation such asthe European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility ofUniversity Students (ERASMUS) and the UniversityMobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) programs.After the terrorist attacks in 2001, internationalizationbecame in the USA more clearly tied to diplomacy andnational security, with new exchange programs withMuslim countries and heightened awareness of the needfor language and area studies (Green and Knight, 2004).

In the context of these political and economical devel-opments, internationalization of higher education becamea way for governments to support the related processes ofreconstruction, nation building, economic and democraticreform, technological development, regional integration,and international dialog. Public subsidies were made avail-able to achieve these aims. Implementation was shapedthrough student and staff mobility, scientific cooperation,capacity building, knowledge transfer, the training of intel-lectual cohorts to international quality standards, and thepromotion of mutual understanding and knowledge ofdifferent languages and cultures. Rationales for interna-tionalization in higher education may thus include politi-cal, economic, cultural, and academic dimensions (Knightand de Wit, 1995; Blumenthal et al., 1996). While from agovernment perspective, foreign policy and economic dev-elopment have dominated the agendas, higher educationinstitutions traditionally focused on internationalization asa way to improve the quality of teaching and research aswell as to help institutions in other countries build capacity.

At the start of the twenty-first century, with globaliza-tion and the knowledge economy as major contextualfactors, the various categories of activities and rationalescan still be recognized in policy approaches to interna-tionalization (OECD, 2004, 2006). Mutual understandingis an approach especially related to the social, cultural,and linguistic aspects of regional integration, interna-tional diplomacy, and more generally to the creation ofinternational networks of elites and the enhancement ofhuman capital. Student mobility programs are the mainpolicy instrument in this approach and are still by andlarge publicly funded. Capacity building refers to thegrowing demand for higher education in an increasingrange of developing countries and emerging economies,which can be met by study abroad (and return), but isincreasingly paralleled by the establishment of foreignproviders, that is, higher education institutions from

Internationalization of Higher Education 541

abroad that offer programs and services either on theirown or in cooperation with domestic institutions. Sincethe new context is characterized by more and globalcompetition in which knowledge is a prime factor foreconomic growth, access to higher education has becomea key issue of national competitiveness and a moremarket-oriented model in which import and export cate-gories can be distinguished emerged in the 1990s. In thiscontext, internationalization may also be undertaken as arevenue-generating approach considering higher edu-cation as an export industry and using the revenues tofinance the domestic higher education sector. Full-costtuition fees and for-profit branches abroad play an impor-tant role in this approach and private sources of fundingare often substantial. Finally, global competition urgesnational economies not only to educate their own popula-tion to the best, but especially in cases with nationalshortages in certain fields, also to attract highly skilledforeign people for the knowledge economy. Skilled migra-tion is therefore another approach that may characterize theinternationalization of higher education. Foreign graduatestudents and academic staff are attracted to enhance thecompetitiveness of higher education and the research anddevelopment sector in the host country. Internationalizationpolicies of this kind need to be coordinated with immigra-tion regulations, as visa and work permits are conditional.

Obviously, reality will usually reflect a combinedblend of these various approaches, while focus and prio-rities differ across types of institution, countries, andregions, as discussed below. Overall it is clear, however,that economic rationales have become more dominant forinternationalization over the last decade (Van der Wende,2001a, 2001b; Van Vught et al., 2002; Teichler, 2004). Thisis clearly linked to the process of globalization and itsimpact on higher education, notably the global competi-tion for talented students and highly skilled workers askey resources for the knowledge economy and the emer-gence of an international market where demand for accessto higher education is being met across borders. Res-ponses from the higher education sector have in manycountries been conditioned by national reforms that drawon the techniques of new public management (Marginsonand Considine, 2000), including the modeling of nationalsystems as economic markets and government-steeredcompetition between institutions. In this spirit, governmentsapply steering models that grant institutions considerableautonomy and encourage them to become entrepreneurialalso in the international higher education market. This maybe complemented byactive policies to lower barriers to sucheconomically driven internationalization activities (i.e.,international trade in higher education) through tradenegotiations in educational services under the GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the WorldTrade Organization or other trade agreements.

Definitions and Related ConceptualIssues

Internationalization is understood in the literal sense asinter-national and refers to any relationship across bordersbetween nations, or between single institutions situatedwithin different national systems. It assumes that societiesdefined as nation-states continue to function as boundedeconomic, social, and cultural systems even when theybecome more interconnected as activities crossing theirborders increase. In contrast, globalization puts emphasison an increasing convergence and interdependence ofeconomies and societies and a de-nationalization and inte-gration of regulatory systems as a well as a blurring roleof nation-states are taken for granted (Huisman and Vander Wende, 2004). The point that internationalization ispredicated on a world order dominated by nation-stateswhile globalization is more agnostic on this point (Scott,1998) and the issue of whether national systems becomemore integrated as suggested byglobalization, or more inter-connected as with internationalization (Beerkens, 2004) canbe seen as central distinctions between the two concepts.Furthermore, internationalization can involve as few astwo units, whereas globalization takes in many nationsand is a dynamic process drawing the local, national, andglobal dimensions more closely together (Marginson andRhoades, 2002).

Globalization cannot be regarded simply as a higherform of internationalization. The relationship between thetwo concepts is not linear or cumulative but of a differentorder. Scott argues that the relationship is in fact a dialec-tical one in the sense that ‘‘not all universities are (partic-ularly) international, but all universities are subject to thesame process of globalisation – partly as objects, victimseven, of these processes, but partly as subjects, or keyagents of globalisation’’ (1998: 122). Globalization andinternationalization in higher education may thus bepotentially conflicting or rival, while at the same timeinteractive, mutually generative, and continually reinfor-cing each other. Globalization goes directly to the eco-nomic, cultural, and political core of nations, while alsorefashioning the larger higher education environment andthus creating a dynamic impact on higher education. In anetworked environment in which every higher educationinstitution is visible to every other, and the weight of theglobal dimension is increasing, it is no longer possible fornations or for individual institutions to seal themselves offfrom global effects. In this respect, internationalization canbe seen as one possible response to globalization, that is, asa way to make higher education institutions more effectivein response to the globalization of societies, cultures,economies, and labor markets (Van der Wende, 1997); asby definition, internationalization is a process more read-ily steerable by governments than is globalization. By the

542 Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World

same token, single governments have only a partial pur-chase on global developments through the medium ofinternationalization (Marginson and Van der Wende,forthcoming).

Internationalization: Main Elements andStrategies

Conceptually, internationalization was for a long timemainly seen as concentrating on the cross-border mobilityof individual students and scholars and not as a strategythat affected higher education institutions or systems.This, however, changed over the last two decades.A broadening of the range of activities associated withinternationalization has taken place – from an almostexclusive focus on individual mobility to more elaboratestrategies encompassing curriculum development, researchcooperation, staff development, and quality enhancement.Yet, international mobility remains a very important andvisible element.

In 2003, 2.12million students were enrolled in highereducation outside their country of origin, of which 93%studied in the Organization for Economic Co-Operationand Development (OECD) area. Comparison of thesenumbers over the last 5 years reflects an annual increaseof 8.3% on average. Five major countries of destinationenrol the vast majority (70%) of these students: the USA(28%), the UK (12%)Germany (11%), France (10%), andAustralia (9%). Substantial numbers of students are alsoattracted to Japan (4%) and the Russian Federation (3%).Malaysia is playing an increasing role in receiving studentsfrom China and India. On average, foreign students repre-sent 6.4% of the total student population in OECDcountries in 2003, up from 4.5% in 1998, indicating thatin most countries, the foreign student population is grow-ing faster than the overall domestic participation in highereducation. A closer look at the numbers show thatalthough the USA attracts the largest number of foreignstudents (close to 600 000), this represents less than 4% ofits overall student population. A comparison with Europeindicates that the EU attracts a higher number of foreignstudents than the USA, but that more than half of thestudents studying in Europe are from within the region.Finally, comparisons between foreign students and domes-tic students studying abroad point to important differencesbetween countries: these indexes may differ between 23.0(Australia), 15.8 (USA), 8.9 (UK), and �18.3 (Korea)(OECD average ¼ 2.4 students received for one studentgoing abroad; data for 2001), indicating important imbal-ances between incoming and outgoing students in espe-cially the main receiving countries (OECD, 2004, 2006).

A particular category of mobile students study abroadin an exchange program for a relatively short period (upto 1 year). The EU’s ERASMUS program celebrated its

twentieth anniversary in 2007 with a total of around1.5million exchange students. The annual number ofERASMUS students has risen steadily and was over144 000 in the year 2004–05. The largest EUmember statesare obviously the main sending and receiving countriesand reciprocity is an important principle of the program.Nevertheless, also in this context, the UK demonstratesthe greatest imbalance between incoming and outgoingstudents (2.25). ERASMUS students are found mostlyin business studies (21%), languages (15%), engineering(11%), and social sciences (11%) (EC, 2006). Other exam-ples of exchange programs are the Fulbright program,sponsored by the US Department of State. Since its estab-lishment, more than 44 000 students from the US and147 000 students from other countries have benefited fromthis program. The Fulbright US student program is nowthe largest US exchange program offering approximately1200 grants annually in all fields of study (IIE, 2006).

High expectations were placed on the virtual mobilityof students when the use of new information and commu-nication technologies in higher education (notably theInternet and digital learning environments) increased inthe 1990s. Electronic learning (e-learning) was expectedto widen global access to higher education, to lead topedagogic innovation, and decreased costs. Virtual uni-versities were seen to become serious competitors forcampus-based institutions, challenging the centrality ofthe face-to-face classroom setting. Expectations on thecontribution of e-learning to internationalization stillenvisage opportunities for enhanced access, exchange,and collaboration. However, the challenges have alsobecome clear. They are related to learner support andguidance systems that can effectively operate acrossnational, cultural, and linguistic borders, to internationalsystems for accreditation and for the recognition of qua-lifications, and to ensure affordable prices for interna-tional e-learning. (Helios, 2006). Market research showsthat Australia’s higher education export programs solelydelivered through e-learning only represent a small pro-portion of total offerings and that virtual for-profit provi-ders in the Asia-Pacific region reported more often lossesthan brick-and-mortar providers (OBHE, 2005). Furtherreflections on the experiences indicate that distance-education provision will lose ground in favor of prestigiousproviders – perhaps in consortium arrangements – with acommitment to a major brick-and-mortar presence, anda traditional academic focus on research and furnish stu-dents with a real (rather than virtual) campus experience(McBurnie, 2006: 66). In the US, only 3.2% of the studentstook all their courses online (in 2002–03) and they weremostly adult learners in professional areas. Generally, stu-dents prefer blended models of learning (Douglas, 2005).So far, e-learning has generally failed to emerge as asignificant global market. The complex possibilities ofinternational e-learning are typically left to small-scale,

Internationalization of Higher Education 543

department-led experiments (OECD, 2005). They showthat organizational conditions, such as different academiccalendars and time zones, student and staff competencesin areas as intercultural communication and foreign lan-guages, and technological challenges and issues of owner-ship related to the coupling of institutional learningenvironments, cannot be taken for granted.

Data on the mobility of academic staff show that themobility of teachers in the ERASMUS program rose fromless than 8000 in 1997–98 to almost 20 000 in 2004–05(EC, 2006). Yet, there are no clear signs of a process ofEuropeanization in academic recruitment and careers, aseach national academic labor market is still characterizedby salaries, status, recruitment procedures, workloads,career patterns, and promotion rules being very differentfrom one country to another (Musselin, 2004). But whilein Europe, postdoctoral mobility is stable (Enders and deWeert, 2004), in the USA, a high and increasing propor-tion of postdoctoral personnel holding a US doctoraldegree are foreign born: 41% in 2001 compared to 21%in 1985 (NSB, 2006). The USA followed by the UK alsodraws the largest number of visiting faculty, at least 20%coming from Europe. In 2005, US higher education insti-tutions hosted 89 600 foreign scholars to conduct teachingor research activities. Two-thirds were in science andengineering. In most OECD countries, two to four scho-lars and researchers hold positions in the USA for every100 at home. In 2003–04, the ratio of visiting scholars tothose at home was highest for Korea (13 per 100), theRussian Federation (8), and China (6). About half theforeign doctoral graduates stay in the USA after gradua-tion, many in faculty positions, augmenting the capacityof the United States as a global knowledge economy(OECD, 2006). Obviously, these flows create serious con-cerns regarding brain drain in other, especially non-OECD, countries.

In the area of academic research, international collab-oration is clearly on the rise. The growth of internation-ally co-authored scientific articles (with at least oneinternational co-author) went from 8% in 1988 to 18%of all scientific articles in 2001. In the USA, they represent23% and in Europe as much as 33% of all articles,although in Europe the collaboration has a strong intra-regional character. Foreign scientific articles are increas-ingly cited, representing 55% of all citations in 1992compared to 62% in 2001. The average number of colla-borating countries in scientific activities increased from89 in 1994 to 102 in 2001 (Vincent-Lancrin, 2006).

Student mobility and the international collaborationin research have been two important driving forces inthe development of institutional strategies for interna-tionalization. Such strategies typically include provisionsfor mobility and exchange, including the related sup-port structures, for example, international offices andcooperation agreements with foreign partner institutions.

In the area of curriculum development, many institutionsundertake activities to ensure that the nonmobile studentsalso benefit from an international dimension in theirtraining. Internationalized curricula can be described ascurricula with an international orientation in content,aimed at preparing students for performing (profession-ally/socially) in an international and multicultural con-text, and designed for domestic students and/or foreignstudents (Van der Wende, 1996). Initiatives in this areainclude joint degree programs (offered by two or moreinstitutions in different countries), programs that involvesubstantial foreign-language learning and/or are taughtin English as a second language, and that involve aninternational classroom, which is seen as a key to acquir-ing intercultural skills and competences (Hudson andTodd, 2000).

The focus of institutional strategies for internation-alization is linked to the institution’s aims in this area(Huisman and Van der Wende, 2005). Institutions thatseek to become recognized global players understandinternationalization as being related to worldwide compe-tition among elite universities (encouraged by global uni-versity rankings) for the recruitment of bright, talentedstudents, young researchers, and renowned teaching staff.Their student recruitment strategy is very explicit andhighly selective. Other institutions undertake internation-alization in the context of cooperation and networkingfor mutual benefit and want to strengthen their regionalprofile. Their strategies are focused on collaborativeresearch, exchange of students and staff, joint study pro-grams, etc. In other cases, internationalization may benecessary for survival, for instance, related to decreasingdomestic demand, and institutional income generation.Recruitment of (full) fee-paying students and the estab-lishment of overseas programs and branches are used tothis end. Finally, institutions may see internationalizationas a way to enhance their local or national status. Espe-cially certain nonuniversity or teaching-oriented type ofinstitutions employ international activities in order to offer,for instance, degree programs at higher levels, to developresearch activities, or even to achieve university status.Institutional aims and strategies for internationalizationare closely connected to institutional profiles. Research-intensive universities are clearly driven by internationalcollaboration and competition in research, and there-fore focus more on attracting talented graduate students,whereas teaching-oriented institutions usually focus moreon undergraduate students. Specialized institutions, such asbusiness schools or arts schools, are real niche players thatattract very specific international clientele.

Internationalization strategies at institutional levelreflect the wider set of policy approaches as discussedbefore. Clearly, global competition and the knowledgeeconomy have advanced, especially the revenue-generatingand skilled-migration approaches. This coincides with

544 Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World

what is seen by many as a shift from cooperation to com-petition as the main paradigm for internationalization.Especially in continental Europe, perceptions indicatethat cooperation is seen to be the inherent model of inter-nationalization, associated with academic exchange, qualityand excellence, and cultural notions of mutuality andintercultural learning. More generally, the conception ofthe university as a competitive (global) enterprise is coun-tered with the public service model and the notion ofhigher education as a public good (Olson 2005; VanVught et al., 2002). However, both cooperation and compe-tition are important strategic options for internationaliza-tion and in many cases, internationalization strategies areindeed composed by a combination of cooperative andcompetitive options. Examples of cooperation for competi-tion can be found in global university alliances (consortia).The complexity of such strategies, however, is demon-strated by the fact that despite the high expectations ofthe potential role of these consortia in the global highereducation scene, whether they are successful or not seemsto be largely defined by the extent to which the institu-tions concerned are embedded in their national systems(Beerkens, 2004). More generally, it can be said that:‘‘Despite all the research demonstrating the growing impor-tance of internationalisation, and even more the rhetoric inthis respect, higher education institutions’ behavior (includ-ing their internationalisation strategies) are (still) mostlyguided by national regulatory and funding frameworks.For internationalisation in particular, historical, geographic,cultural and linguistic aspects of the national frameworkare of great importance’’ (Luijten-Lub et al., 2005: 238).

System-Level Changes, Concerns, andPerspectives

The international mobility of students and scholarsrequires systems for the recognition of diplomas andqualifications, in terms of academic recognition (a deci-sion that allows a person to pursue or continue studies, orto use an academic title or degree) and professional rec-ognition (a decision to grant professional rights, license topractice, or status to a graduate). Recognition methodol-ogy developed over the second-half of the twentieth cen-tury from an approach aimed to establish equivalence toone based on acceptance (of the nearest comparabledegree) as expressed in the Council of Europe/UNESCORecognition Convention of Lisbon (1997). The latterapproach requires mutual trust in each other’s educationsystem. The related need for more transparency was oneof the main rationales for the Bologna Declaration, whichwas signed by 29 European countries in 1999. With theaim to promote employability within the EU and toenhance the international attractiveness of Europeanhigher education, a process of convergence toward a

two-cycle (undergraduate–graduate) degree system wasundertaken (Reichert and Tauch, 2005; Alesi et al., 2005;Witte, 2006). The process now includes 45 countries and isincreasingly influential on internationalization agendas alsobeyond Europe (Australian Government, 2006). Besides aframework for recognition, the Bologna Process also aimsto set international standards for quality assurance.

In the context of internationalization, quality is anissue of concern as much as this context offers opportu-nities for improvement. On the one hand, learners shouldbe protected from low-quality provision and qualifica-tions. To this end, guidelines on quality assurance ofcross-border education were developed (UNESCO/OECD, 2005). On the other hand, international bench-marking, perhaps ranking (provided that methodologicalprinciples are seriously respected, see IREG, 2006), andespecially the comparison of actual learning outcomes canoffer higher education useful insights into the quality andeffectiveness of systems and institutions. The further pro-cess of internationalization is expected to offer many newand challenging opportunities in this respect and will bebeneficial if governments and institutions manage to com-bine competitiveness with quality improvement andenhancement of opportunity for all.

See also: Associations of Universities; Flexible Learningin Higher Education; Higher Education and the Knowl-edge Society; Higher Education and the Labor Market;Higher Education Crossing Borders; Mobility of PhDStudents and Scientists; National and InternationalRankings of Higher Education; Student and FacultyTransnational Mobility in Higher Education; The BolognaProcess in European Higher Education.

Bibliography

Alesi, B., Burger, S., Kehm, B., and Teichler, U. (2005). Bachelor andMaster Courses in Selected Countries Compared with Germany.Bonn: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Australian Government. (2006). The Bologna Process and Australia:Next Steps. Canberra: Department of Education, Science andTraining.

Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (ed.) (2004). Global Opportunities and InstitutionalEmbeddedness: Higher Education Consortia in Europe andSoutheast Asia. Enschede: Center for Higher Education PolicyStudies, University of Twente.

Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, C. D., Smith, A., and Teichler, U. (eds.)(1996). Academic Mobility in a Changing World. London: JessicaKingsley.

Council of Europe (1997). Convention on the Recognition ofQualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region.

De Wit, J. W. M. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in theUnited States of America and Europe. A Historical, Comparative, andConceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Douglas, J. A. (2005). All Globalization is Local: Countervailing Forcesand the Influence on Higher Education Markets. Berkeley, CA:University of California.

Enders, J. and de Weert, E. (2004). Science, training and career:Changing modes of knowledge production and labour markets.Higher Education Policy 17, 135–152.

Internationalization of Higher Education 545

European Commission (EC) (2006). Erasmus – Statistics. ErasmusStudent and Teacher Mobility 2004–2005. http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html (accessedJun. 2009).

Green, M. and Knight, J. (2004). Cross-border post-secondaryeducation in North America. In OECD (ed.) Internationalization andTrade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges, pp 39–87.Paris: OECD.

Helios (2006). Is E-Learning Contributing to Internationalisation ofEducation and Training? (draft). http://www.education-observatories.net/helios (accessed Jun. 2009).

Hudson, B. and Todd, M. (eds.) (2000). Internationalizing the Curriculumin Higher Education. UK: Sheffield Hallam University Press.

Huisman, J. and van der Wende, M. C. (eds.) (2004). On cooperationand competition. National and European policies forinternationalisation of higher education. ACA Papers on InternationalCooperation. Bonn: Lemmens.

Huisman, J. and van der Wende, M. C. (eds.) (2005). On cooperationand competition II. institutional responses to internationalisation,Europeanisation and globalisation. ACA Papers on InternationalCooperation. Bonn: Lemmens.

Institute of International Education (IIE) (2006). Fulbright Program.http://www.iie.org (accessed Jun. 2009).

IREG International Ranking Expert Group (2006). Berlin Principles onRanking of Higher Education Institutions. Internationalisation ofHigher Education, pp 35–91. Paris: OECD.

Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation ofhigher education: historical and conceptual perspectives.In de Wit, H. (ed.) Strategies for Internationalisation of HigherEducation. A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe andthe United States of America, pp 5–32. Amsterdam: EAIE.

Luijten-Lub, A., Huisman, J., and van der Wende, M. C. (2005).Conclusions, reflections and recommendations. In Huisman, J. andvan der Wende, M. C. (eds.) On cooperation and competition II.Institutional responses to internationalisation, Europeanisation andglobalisation. ACA Papers on International Cooperation. Bonn:Lemmens.

Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University:Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. and Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states,markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agencyheuristic. Higher Education 43, 281–309.

Marginson, S. and van der Wende, M. C. (2009). Globalization andHigher Education. Paris: OECD.

McBurnie, G. (2006). ‘Leveraged footprints’, ‘dark clouds’ and ‘bleedingmillions’: Perspectives on Australian universities’ offshore campuses.Perspectives in Education 24(4), 57–68.

Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labour market?Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility.Higher Education 48, 55–78.

National Science Board (NSB) (2006). Science and EngineeringIndicators 2004. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04 (accessedJun. 2009).

Neave, G. (2001). The European dimension in higher education: Anexcursion into the modern use of historical analogues. In Huisman, J.,Maassen, P., and Neave, G. (eds.) Higher Education and the Nation

State. The International Dimension of Higher Education, pp 13–73.Oxford: Pergamon Press.

OBHE (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education) (2005). MappingBorderless Higher Education: Policy, Markets and Competition.London: OBHE.

OECD (2004). Internationalization and Trade in Higher Education:Opportunities and Challenges. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education. Paris: OECD.OECD (2006). Education Policy Analysis. Focus on Higher Education.

Paris: OECD.Olson, J. P. (2005). The institutional dynamics of the (European)

university. Arena Working Paper. http://www.arena.uio.no (accessedJun. 2009).

Reichert, S. and Tauch, C. (2005). Trends IV: European UniversitiesImplementing Bologna. Brussels: EUA.

Scott, P. (ed.) (1998). The Globalization of Higher Education.Buckingham/Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into HigherEducation/Open University Press.

Scott, P. (1998). The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham:The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open UniversityPress.

Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization ofhigher education. Higher Education 48, 5–26.

UNESCO/OECD (2005). Guidelines on Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. Paris: OECD.

Van der Wende, M. C. (1996). Internationalizing the curriculum in highereducation. Tertiary Education and Management 2(2), 186–195.

Van der Wende, M. C. (1997). Missing links. In Kalvermark, T. and vander Wende, M. C. (eds.) National Policies for Internationalisation ofHigher Education in Europe, pp 10–42. Stockholm: National Agencyfor Higher Education.

Van der Wende, M. C. (2001a). Internationalisation policies: About newtrends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy 14(3),249–259.

Van der Wende, M. C. (2001b). The international dimension in nationalhigher education policies: What has changed in Europe in the last fiveyears? European Journal of Education 36(4), 431–441.

Van Vught, F. A., van der Wende, M. C., and Westerheijden, D. F.(2002). Globalisation and internationalisation. Policy agendascompared. In Enders, J. and Fulton, O. (eds.) Higher Education ina Globalizing World. International Trends and Mutual Observations,pp 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research?Trends and futures scenarios. European Journal of Education41(2), 169–202.

Witte, J. (2006). Change of Degrees and Degrees of Change.Comparing Adaptations of European Higher Education Systems inthe Context of the Bologna Process. Enschede: CHEPS, University ofTwente.

Further Reading

Hudson, B. and Todd, M. (eds.) (2000). Internationalizing the Curriculumin Higher Education. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press.