Time: 10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Facilitator: Jane Knight
1) Shaping A Sustainable Future For Internationalization In Higher Education Through Knowledge Diplomacy - Don O’Neill
In response to Knight’s claim that internationalization in higher education is increasingly characterized by values based on ‘competition, commercialization, self-interest and status building rather than the traditional values of cooperation, partnership, exchange, mutual benefits and capacity building’ (2011); this paper sets out to elucidate our understanding of internationalization in the contemporary higher education context, with a view to shaping a new future for internationalization which transcends borders.
Based on the findings of a doctoral research study which examined the values which underpin Higher Education Institutions reasons for engaging in internationalization in an Irish context, this paper draws on Carayannis and Campbell’s ‘quintuple helix model’ (2010), Barnett’s model of ‘feasible utopias’ (2011, 2018) and the International Association of Universities call to affirm ‘academic values in the internationalization of higher education’ (2012) in order to imagine a new and sustainable future for internationalization in higher education built around a spirit of reciprocity and inclusivity.
The proposal would be suited to a paper presentation or can be adapted to suit any format the conference organizers deem suitable. I would be happy to join a panel if that suits.
2) Making Sense Of Educational Diplomacy As A Bridge To Culturally-Sensitive Internationalization - Elizaveta Potapova
The ambition of the workshop is to reflect on the nature of scientific diplomacy and its role in successful internationalization of higher education based on the selected cases. The workshop does not imply a pool of correct answers or established truths. The core of the exercise is identifying personal values and perceptions of the participants that will become the bricks in the process of re-construction of the familiar concepts and actually making sense of them.
The important assumption that I make is that while acting as the conductors of the states’ interests, universities and research centres acquire sufficient power and resources for acting as independent players who are in charge of means and ways of internationalization of higher education. The workshop exercise will be built on the actor based-approach to educational diplomacy, an alternative framework that I introduce at the beginning. The core of the approach is to distinguish diplomatic practices not based on the types or geopolitical goals, but rather based on the functions and roles scientists might play in their implementation. This part is the novelty that I contribute to the workshop, all the rest is a mean of co-production together with the participants.
This workshop’s interactive format which combines critical assessment of new information, structured discussion of the cases proposed, team work and individual reflection, will fit for all types of audience that might be present at the conference, including students and more experienced scholars. Not to overload participants with new knowledge, this workshop would rather provide an opportunity to think over relevant issues in the proposed context and co-create truths instead of passive consumption.
Does Quality Make A Difference To International Students? What Do We Know And What Do We Need To Know?
Time: 13:30 - 15:00
Facilitators: Kate Peters, Dan Lang
Trans-jurisdictional recognition of quality policies and programs are often regarded as necessary foundations for successful internationalisation of higher education. Expansion of an international system places new demands for credential portability, and in turn,quality assurance becomes a condition of reciprocity (Altbach, 2010). Quality in higher education also has relevance for policymakers at national and institutional levels looking to compete in the international higher education market. This white paper session will aim to identify symmetries and asymmetries between different jurisdictional quality assurance protocols, and then produce policy recommendations on changes to the Ontario Quality Assurance Framework and Guidelines which could support internationalisation through increased reciprocity. Presentations on the lexicon of quality assurance, the comparability of policy objectives and the impact of reciprocity on program diversity will support discussions on the impact of quality assurance process on internationalisation. Participants will be asked to contribute by examining a key piece of the issue, differences in how “quality” is measured in different jurisdictions. The output of the session will be recommendations on expectations for external referencing of degrees to ensure quality. Discussions will take into account the need to demonstrate quality using performance indicators and to ensure reciprocity of quality policy.
The Canadian Story Of International Education Policy – When? How? Why?
Time: 15:30 - 17:00
Facilitators: Glen Jones, Merli Tamtik, Patricia Gaviria, Amira El-Masri, Kumari Beck, Michelle Pidgeon
Canada can be described as a latecomer at the global stage when it comes to international education policy. Only in 2014 announced the Canadian federal government its first-ever national strategy for international education. We would like to propose a panel session titled “The Canadian Story of International Education Policy – When? How? Why?” based on the book manuscript submitted to McGill-Queens University Press in October 2018, titled “International Education as Public Policy”. In this panel session, we aim to provide a historical multi-actor perspective across stakeholders and policy sectors that would help to illuminate the particular “local” or “Canadian” version(s) of international education policy. The goal of the panel is to tell the Canadian story in regards to when, how, why and who in Canada have engaged with international education. We apply the multi-level governance theory (Hooge & Marks, 2003) in elaborating on the key policy actors, entrepreneurs and networks (both governmental and non-governmental) that work across the policy sectors and engage with international education stakeholders creating a distinctive story of Canadian international education policy. As our aim is to tell a story through sharing experiences of the authors, we propose a traditional Sharing Circle format for the panel in order to illuminate experiences and recognize the diversity of perspectives among the presenters.
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. The American Political Science Review 97, (2), 233-43.
Internationalization Of Higher Education In Canada From The Perspective Of National Associations
Time: 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Facilitators: Cindy McIntyre, Alain Roy, Karen Dalkie
As the three national associations that support the internationalization of higher education in Canada - Universities Canada, Colleges & Institutes Canada and the Canadian Bureau of International Education have each played a significant role in supporting the internationalization of Canadian universities and colleges. Internationalization is a high priority at our member institutions, the pace of this engagement has accelerated dramatically, and the level of sophistication in the types of partnerships that are being pursued is impressive. In turn, the role of the national associations in supporting internationalization of higher education in Canada has also evolved. Panelists will each give an overview of their respective associations’ past and current role in supporting international higher education and research collaboration, internationalization trends, current international engagement and priorities, and directions and opportunities in Canada’s new International Education Strategy; and how quality, reciprocity, inclusivity, and sustainability have become steadfast themes in this work.
Policy And Practice In Student Mobility
Time: 13:00 - 14:30
Chair: Creso Sá
1) Trends In International Student Enrollment In Canada And The USA - Summer Cowley, You Zhang, Alison Jefferson, Michael O'Shea
In this presentation, we compare changes in international student numbers in the United States and Canada since 2014. This topic connects to the conference theme of inclusivity, as our findings may relate to federal policies connected to inequitable immigration policies. A paper presentation format is appropriate because it allows us to share our findings and receive feedback on our analyses.
Topic and Justification
Although the US remains a top destination for international students (Heick & Mu, 2016), its previously steady growth in attracting foreign students appears to be in decline (National Foundation, 2018). Various possible reasons for this decline have been discussed in the literature (Bartram, 2018; Choudaha, 2017, 2018; Gopal, 2016) and media outlets have commented on possible effects of tightened immigration/travel policies since Trump’s republicans took power in 2017 (McCarthy, 2018; Redden, 2018). However, little work has compared enrollment changes at the various institutional types (e.g. doctoral, baccalaureate, vocational college). Canada has been brought into the conversation as an alternate destination for international students (Dennis, 2017, 2018) but we lack quantitative studies comparing international student enrollment at each of the institutional types in the two countries.
Concepts of competition and neoliberalism (Shields, 2013) theorize that international students study abroad due to economic and non-economic rationales in an era of increasing competition among higher education institutions to attract international students for revenue generation. However, macro policy environments in the US and Canada at the national and institutional level could pull or push international students bound for each country (Altbach, 1998).
In this study, we use information from the Institute of International Education (IIE) and Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRC) as data sources. We will perform descriptive analyses an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of changes in enrollment for various institutional types in the USA and Canada.
2) Negative Externalities Of Canada's International Student Program - Aamir Tayieb
My proposal for the "Shaping Sustainable Futures for Internationalization in Higher Education 2019 Conference” speaks, particularly, to the theme of reciprocity. Within the ambit of my proposal titled “Negative Externalities of Canada's International Student Program”, I seek to question the widely accepted assumption of Canada’s international student program as being of benefit to all partners involved (sending and recipient nations). I argue that, in particular for developing nations, the impact of Canada’s international student program may, in fact, perpetuate existing inequities by being complicit in the broader phenomenon of the ‘brain drain’. I ask, in my paper, if Canada has a moral obligation to developing countries whose human capital ‘wealth’ Canada benefits so richly from. If so, what form of balance, should Canada’s international education seek? This study, while acknowledging much positive benefits overall from Canada’s international student program, suggests that some further reflection is needed pertaining to potential negative externalities associated with Canada’s drive for greater internationalization – primarily through larger international student enrollments.
3) Cheap And Easy But Not Quality: Drivers Of Inbound And Outbound International Education In Azerbaijan - Farid Osmanov
Research on international higher education is primarily focused on the practices and experiences of the world’s leading countries that manage to home millions of international students yearly generating big portions of their income from international education. Quality of international higher education in these countries are often taken for granted and rather their recruitment strategies are discussed frequently. Meanwhile internationalization of higher education has been a growing trend in all parts of the world with a rat race of alluring to and attracting international students as means of cash flow as well as prestige and success indicator for institutions.
The research paper delves into major driving forces behind international education for inbound and outbound international students in South Caucasus/CIC region studying one country’s case. It looks into Azerbaijan’s student flows by detecting countries of origin of international students as well as destination for local students. It compares three factors, admission procedures, tuition fees and country’s transparency indexes, of seven top origin countries (Turkey, Russian Federation, Iran, Georgia, Iraq, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan) of international students and the same number of destination countries (Turkey, the UK, Russian Federation, Germany, Canada, Netherlands, and China) for local students going abroad to study against the same factors in Azerbaijan.
Findings of the research reveal varying priorities amongst international and local student students discussion of which can bring forth a series of new studies.
4) Student Mobility And Inclusive Internationalisation Of Higher Education In India - Malish Chirakkal
Internationalisation of higher education in terms of mobility of students, faculty members, ideas and institutions is often portrayed as means to create a global society. Nature of internationalisation is influenced by political and economic factors. However, internationalisation has differential impact on destination and sending countries. It is particularly true in the case of student and institutional mobility. Unequal opportunities for study abroad programmes lead to global debate on need for policies and strategies for inclusive internationalisation.
The outbound mobility of Indian students shows steady growth. Nearly 0.6 million Indian students are currently studying abroad. Two third of Indian students abroad are studying in USA, Canada and Australia. It is speculated that Indian students abroad belong to elite classes and castes. As per the Ministry of Social Justice, Government of India, unavailability of eligible candidates become a hurdle for sanctioning 100 study abroad scholarship for scheduled castes (SCs) students who are former untouchable castes. Situation of other marginalised groups such as scheduled tribe (ethnic aboriginal), Muslim and students from rural and regional medium schooling backgrounds seems to be similar.
Though massification in India has led to wider participation from under-represented groups, employment outcomes are poor due to their enrollment in less prestigious programmes and institutions. ‘Foreign tag’, in fact, boosts employability capital of foreign graduates. For instance, many of the faculty recruitment advertisements of Indian elite institutions demand PhD from university abroad. Even if it is not specified, foreign graduate gets undue advantage in the recruitment.
Unequal access to internationalisation thus becomes a source for exclusion. It also poses challenges to achieve ‘equitable and quality education for all’ and reproduces intra- and inter-generational equity. By presenting Indian case, this presentation calls for serious debate on inclusive internationalisation of higher education.
Migration And Immigration
Time: 15:00 - 16:30
1) Forced Internationalization Of Higher Education: An Emerging Phenomenon - Hakan Ergin
A growing number of forced migrants are knocking on the doors of universities today. This paper argues that it is time for universities across the world to increase their efforts to provide access for forced migrants to higher education. Welcoming international disadvantaged groups into higher education is not only consistent with the traditional four rationales for internationalization (academic, socio-cultural, political and economic), it is also important for humanitarian reasons. Using the example of ‘forced migrants’ from Syria into Turkey, we can see that this new phenomenon of ‘forced internationalization’ creates uncommon challenges for institutions on a scale never seen before. However, it also creates opportunities for institutions and national systems seeking to internationalize, as well as for the many displaced scholars and students in the world today.
2) Higher Education And Immigration - How Do People Move Through University? - Daichi Ishii
How does higher education make people move globally? Considering the rapid internationalization of universities, it is important to understand how universities is functioned in the entire flow of immigration.
For example, many Chinese Mainlanders desire to enroll in MA courses of Hong Kong university since they can automatically get a working visa for one year after their graduation. On the other hand, Korean postgraduate students in Japanese universities are decreasing since they can get a job in Japan without going to a Japanese university since Japanese companies directly approach Korean universities these days.
It is clear that university policy has caused an increase and a decrease of immigration for long-term. Therefore, higher education has some impact on society outside educational institutions and people’s lives who have nothing to do with universities. We need combinations of higher education research and immigration studies, and encounter of policymakers and researchers.
This session will provide opportunities for various participants from various regions to show presentation about university internationalization and mobility of people in various places. Comparing those various cases, we can know how quality, reciprocity, and inclusivity at universities have made an impact on immigrants who use university to move and society that they accept.
3) Foreign Credential Recognition: Barriers And Best Practices - Kim Browning
Newcomers to Canada face barriers that may impede the recognition of their credentials and work experience, with consequences for their labour market performance and broader integration within society. Failure to recognize the foreign qualifications of newcomers is one of the factors attributed to the disconnect between labour demand and supply. Foreign education credentials and work experience are often devalued denying many immigrants the opportunity to practice their occupation of training. Issues with foreign credential recognition are just one of a number of factors leading to a skilled immigrant’s being unemployed or underemployed.
Gap Training and Bridge Programs offer a qualifications recognition pathway for internationally educated professionals (IEP) to recognize, understand and demonstrate the professional knowledge, skills and values required for effective professional practice in their chosen profession. The pathway ensures that regulators’ requirements are fully met.
Gap training is specialized programming designed to fill gaps in knowledge and skills on a case-by-case basis. Gap training helps to meet the requirements of the regulatory body that enables IEPs to be eligible for professional registration and career entry. Bridge programs offer a bridge between where an IEP is, and where he/she needs to be to participate in a given program of study at a post-secondary institution. The Programs are situated within the priorities and practices of three distinct stakeholders: regulatory bodies, post-secondary institutions, and the provincial government.
Gap Training and Bridge Programs do not offer a full education program. IEPs must arrive with some relevant background and have already earned an academic credential from a jurisdiction outside Canada. IEPs must also be permanent residents. The programs generally run from one to two years, but can range from three months to 2.5 years as training is customized to individual need.
This presentation relates directly to the conference themes of reciprocity and inclusivity for IEPs who are disadvantaged when their prior learning is not validated at an equitable level in their adopted or host country. Documentation and interview data collected from a selection of Gap Training and Bridge Programs for IEPs (Agrology, Education, Engineering, Dentistry and Medicine) will be shared as part of a larger doctoral study on the assessment of formal and informal learning at a comprehensive research-intensive university in western Canada.
4) Attractors Of Youth International Migration: Gravity Model Of Higher Education System - Niyaz Gabdrakhmanov
The internalization of Higher Education haves high impact for regional development. We suggest what the migration of people with a high level of knowledge (called “brain drain”) is detrimental for the region of emigration. High level universities attract the best students and growth the brain drain. There are close relationships between neighboring regions. If we try to compare the interstate and intrastate migration we can find what, interstate migration is only a small part of the total student migration that actually occurs (Sá, 2004).
Distance can be understood as a barrier of human capital growth. Geographical distance between parental home and college poses a potential barrier to higher education entry, and could be a deciding factor when choosing between institutions. Similar issues potentially arise when considering who goes to which universities, because students with different backgrounds and abilities choose different types and qualities of universities, and the spatial distribution of both university types and student characteristics is not uniform. But at the same time there are the researches which don’t find the impact of distance to accessibility of higher education. This conference is a best opportunity to share the gravity model of internalization of HE and find like-minded people among the conference participants.
There are many articles describe the social Neighborhood Effects of universities (Wodtke, 2011). But the question about geography and place is too often overlooked. The paper of Cullinan and Duggan presents a gravity model of student migration flows to HEIs in Ireland (Cullinan, 2016). Their analysis suggests that while geography plays a very important role in explaining student flows. Available studies about student migration cover the territory of England, Ireland, Romania, Poland, US, Canada (Marc Frenette, 2006) etc.