globalization higher education - CiteSeerX

March 2005

RIHE International Publication Series No.9

G LOBALIZATION AND H IGHER EDUCATION

Edited by Akira Arimoto, Futao Huang, and Keiko Yokoyama

Research Institute for Higher Education

Hiroshima University ISBN 4-902808-01-3

RIHE Publication: For a complete and up-to-date guide to RIHE journals and books, visit our website: http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/ (English web site address). Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted, or disseminate, in any form, or by any means without prior written permission from Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing.

Globalization and Higher Education Edited by Akira Arimoto, Futao Huang, and Keiko Yokoyama Published by:

Research Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University 1-2-2, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512, Japan TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104 Printed by:

TAKATOO PRINT MEDIA Co., Ltd 3-2-30, Senda-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, 730-0052, Japan March 2005 ISBN 4-902808-01-3

Globalization and Higher Education RIHE International Publication Series, No.9, March 2005

Contents List of Contributors i Editorial Akira Arimoto, Futao Huang, and Keiko Yokoyama Globalization, academic productivity, and higher education reforms Akira Arimoto

iii

1

Privatization and commercialization: Two globalizing practices affecting Australian universities Jan Currie

23

Internationalization mainstreaming in German higher education Karola Hahn and Ulrich Teichler

39

Globalization and changes in Chinese higher education Futao Huang

67

International education and the production of cosmopolitan identities Fazal Rizvi

77

Globalization in the concept of Nordic higher education Jussi Välimaa

93

Globalization, neo-liberalism, and higher education: The case of Japan Keiko Yokoyama

115

INTERNATIONALIZATION MAINSTREAMING IN GERMAN HIGHER EDUCATION

39

Internationalization mainstreaming in German higher education

KAROLA HAHN AND ULRICH TEICHLER* Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work, University of Kassel, WZ 1 – Uni Kassel, Moenchebergstrasse 17, D-34109 Kassel, Germany (*author for correspondence, E-mail; [email protected])

Abstract. “Internationalization” is the current key word for a large range of reform efforts in higher education in Germany, whereby the terms “globalization” and “Europeanization” are used frequently as well to depict similar themes with a somewhat different thrust. First, international mobility and cooperation grew from a marginal and unsystematic area to a mainstream activity in institutions of higher education in Germany, whereby the European temporary student mobility program ERASMUS, established in 1987, had been a driving force. Second, reforms of system steering and institutional management have been advocated since the 1990s as necessary in order to make German higher education fit into the increasing international or global competition between universities. Thirdly, a campaign started in the late 1990s to undertake the active marketing of German institutions of higher education in order to attract students from other parts of the world, and to mobilize German institutions of higher education to get involved in trans-national education. Fourthly, German higher education, along with higher education systems in other European countries in the framework of the so-called “Bologna Process”, is actively involved in transforming the traditional study and degree programs into bachelor and master programs; these structural and curricular reforms are expected both to resolve national problems with regard to reducing study periods and creating a closer match between higher education and employment, as well as being relevant internationally: to facilitate student mobility within Europe and to make higher education in continental European countries more attractive for students from other parts of the world. The aim of the article is to take stock of the major trends and the accompanying debates in Germany: How do the views of Europeanization, internationalization and globalization change? The analysis suggests that debates change their focus quickly while the complexity of internationallyoriented activities grows without priorities as clear as the public debate suggests.

Keywords: internationalization policy, Bologna Process, international marketing of higher education, legal framework for internationalization, support-structures, language of instruction, measuring internationalization, student mobility, mobility of scholars, research cooperation

KAROLA HAHN AND ULRICH TEICHLER

40

Introduction

The topics of globalization, internationalization and Europeanization of Higher Education are high on the political agenda of many European countries. The terms ending with a ‘-zation’ usually signal a process that has gradually become a prominent key issue, but that might be only of temporary relevance in the political debate and for the practice within higher education institutions. In debates on the processes of globalization, internationalization and Europeanization, we refer usually to the changing context of higher education – which of course has also been shaped significantly by the higher education institutions themselves – as well as to the responses and changes within the higher education institutions. To analyze the national and institutional responses towards these processes from a comparative European point of view, a multilateral research project, called the ‘HEIGLO’-project, was undertaken during the years 2003 and 2004 by seven European higher education research centres. HEIGLO is the acronym for Higher Education Institutions’ Responses to Europeanisation, Internationalisation and Globalisation. The research project was funded by the Directorate for Research of the European Commission within the Fifth Framework Programme, and it was coordinated by CHEPS, the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies of Twente University (Netherlands). Partner institutes of the project were the Centre for Higher Education Studies of the Institute of Education, University of London (United Kingdom), the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education which is located in Oslo (Norway), the Centre de Investigaçao de Políticas do Ensino Superior (CIPES) in Porto (Portugal), the Austrian Centre for Research in Higher Education in Vienna (Austria), the Hellenic Coordinating Centre for IEA Research of the University of Athens (Greece) as well as the Centre for the Research on Higher Education and Work of the University of Kassel (Germany). In the first phase of the project, analyses were undertaken of governmental policies for internationalization of the seven participating countries and of the European Commission. Policy papers, various publications by scholars and other experts, overviews on funding schemes and statistics were taken into consideration and supplemented by a few interviews with key actors of internationalization at national level. The second phase addressed the implementation of internationalization strategies at each of five higher education institutions of seven countries. Similar documents were taken into consideration, and a considerable number of interviews were undertaken – in the German case study, 50 interviews – with a broad range of actors within universities (presidents/rectors, vice-presidents for international relations as well as senior managers of the central administration, international offices, faculties and research institutes as well as scholars involved in international cooperation and students). The subsequent analysis of the internationalization policies and developments in higher education in Germany is primarily based on the findings of this project, whereby emphasis is placed on the first part of the study, i.e. the policies by the various political actors (Huisman and Van der Wende 2004;


41

Hahn 2004a). Attention is paid to developments since 1996, when comprehensive national policies of internationalization were formulated in Germany.

Changing policies and measures to internationalize higher education

The German policy context

In recent years, we note a leap forward in many countries towards internationalization of higher education both in terms of (a) growing international cooperation and mobility and (b) the denationalization of the structure and the steering of the higher education systems and their growing interconnectedness. The term “internationalization” is employed in the public debate to depict trends of growing crossnational activities as well as the growing worldwide interconnectedness of higher education. The term “Europeanization”, often employed in public debates in Europe, refers to regional aspects of these trends and policies. Finally, the term “globalization” is used in some cases interchangeably with “internationalization”, while in other cases specific reference is made to a blurring of national borders and powers in higher education as well as to growing economic pressures on higher education. Internationalization in terms of increasing cooperation and mobility across countries seems to have been a continuous process in the past, and it is widely welcomed or at least accepted as an irreversible development. It became the focus of higher education reforms in Germany already in the early 1990s. Since the mid-1990s we note signs of a process which might be called internationalization mainstreaming: changes without respect to international activities forming an integral part of general reforms of the structure and substance of study programs as well of the entire higher education and research system. As will be shown below, internationalization is the key issue of German higher education and research policies, at least rhetorically, since 1996. The steering system of the higher education system in Germany is often characterized as so complex that it forms a barrier to rapid reforms. With regard to internationalization, however, we note such similar voices of the key policy actors, that reforms can be enacted and implemented fairly easily. We note similar voices of: ・ the national Ministry of Education and Research, the ministries in charge of higher education in the 16 German Länder; ・the three key nation-wide consultancy and coordination in higher education, i.e. the Permanent Conference of the Ministers of the Education of the Länder (KMK), the FederalLänder Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion (BLK), and


42

the Science Council (WR); ・the umbrella organisation of higher education institutions, the Higher Education Institution Rectors’ Conference (HRK); and ・ the key support and funding organisations, for example, the key agency for research promotion, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the key agency for support of international activities in higher education, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

All these key actors seem to agree that internationalization of higher education does not merely mean a growth trend in the global search for new knowledge and in international cooperation and mobility. Beyond that, we note a widespread consensus in the three aspects which we might call mainstreaming, de-nationalization, and new internationalization policies: ・ mainstreaming: internationalization activities have to be embedded in general higher education policies; ・ de-nationalization: the higher education system cannot be understood any longer as a national system to the extent to which it was understood in the past; and ・new internationalization policies: national internationalization policies should strengthen the position of their universities in an increasing global competition with regard to attracting foreign students and scholars as well as resources for research.

One has to bear in mind that the 16 German Länder are in charge of funding and supervising higher education. According to the German constitution, education is in the domain of cultural variety, but the Länder have to cooperate in order to safeguard a homogeneity of living conditions. The national government and parliament have a say in international matters of education, and they have joint tasks with the Länder as far as educational planning, construction in higher education and research promotion are concerned. The Federal government and the governments of the Länder have to cooperate in enacting and revising the Framework Act for Higher Education – a law setting common nationwide directives for the higher education legislation of the individual Länder (cf. Teichler 1992). Often, initiatives taken by the national government in the area of higher education are viewed by the governments of the Länder with suspicion as possible steps to increase the power of the national government at the expense of the Länder. The internationalization policies put forward by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in recent years, however, were met mostly with favourable responses on the part of the Länder. The German Academic Exchange Service, one of the largest organisations in the world for the support of international mobility of students and scholars, is officially a membership organisation of


43

the German higher education institutions, and this is reflected in its strategies and award procedures. On the other hand, the funds for various programs are provided by the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AA), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Thus, the DAAD has to reflect and also tries to influence the higher education policies of these ministries. Altogether, the policies of the former two ministries with respect to the internationalization of higher education were quite similar in recent years. In contrast, the BMZ has held higher education in low regard in the overall framework for development policies for many decades, and only recently has it seemed to reverse its policy and strengthen higher education activities more or less in tune with the other ministries. Altogether, higher education policies in Germany have changed in recent years in a similar way to other economically advanced countries. Government reduced the detailed supervision of public higher education institutions and increased the institutional power both for taking strategic options and for undertaking administrative steps without detailed procedural control by government. And the various governmental actors are still in the process of redefining their strategic role; it is still open how detailed and active or general and remote governmental steering of higher education will be. As far as internationalization of higher education is concerned, however, the supra-institutional actors obviously seem to agree that strategic policies are in place which encourages higher education institutions to follow suit.

National internationalization strategies

Germany traditionally is among the countries hosting large numbers of foreign students (see most recent statistics in OECD 2004) and scholars, and German students and scholars are relatively mobile compared to students and scholars from other economically advanced countries. In the mid-1990s, however, concern grew that Germany might lose ground as a key hosting country for internationally mobile students, in particular for the internationally mobile, highly talented students. Moreover, concern grew about a brain drain of talented doctoral students and young researchers in the areas of science and engineering, opting for study and academic work in the United States. This prompted various policy statements and action plans. The Federal Ministry in charge of higher education called for reforms to strengthen the attractiveness and competitiveness of the German site for higher education and research (BMBF 1997). The DAAD launched the first action scheme Strengthening the Attractiveness of the German Space for Higher Education and Science. Its main objectives were: ・the development of attractive study programs for foreign students;


44

・the increase of academic recognition; ・the improvement of procedures concerning admission and regulations for entry, residence and work permits for foreign students and scientists; ・the enhancement of language issues; and ・the development of German international marketing of higher education.

Subsequently, in 1997, the DAAD introduced new funding schemes to support, among others, the development of internationally-oriented study programs, mainly international Master programs. In a second action scheme in 2000, the DAAD emphasized three targets: ・strengthening the international attractiveness of higher education and research; ・creating a hospitable and service-oriented general framework for foreign students, graduates and scholars; and ・developing a professionalized system of international marketing of German higher education and research.

In the third action scheme Towards the Internationalised University, the DAAD suggested in 2004 emphasising “quality through internationality” by concentrating on five major strands of actions, namely: ・providing internationally attractive study programs and research within Germany or abroad (international study programs, structured PhD programs in Germany, provision of study programs in other countries by German higher education institutions); ・international knowledge acquisition by young German researchers (study period abroad as a standard element of regular study programs, internationalization of the curricula, improvement of the grant systems for students and researchers, establishment of reintegration networks against brain-drain); ・creating efficient structures and framework conditions (quality orientation in the admission of foreign students, development of a counselling, tutoring and supervision culture, professionalizing international management, modernising immigration law); ・overcoming language barriers (both improving German as a foreign language provision and extending foreign language teaching for German students); and ・professional marketing to attract the best talents worldwide (DAAD 2004).


45

The third action scheme differs from the second in two respects. First, higher education should also become more strongly international for those not going abroad (‘internationalization at home’). Second, a stronger emphasis is placed on ‘going global’: global competition is emphasized, and steps are suggested towards a global ‘brain gain’-policy. The DAAD action programs, as well as various governmental policy papers and measures, suggest that the German internationalization policy aims on the one hand at strengthening and extending measures already in place before the mid-1990s, namely: ・increasing public expenses for international cooperation and mobility; ・offering national programs to support these activities rather than providing higher education institutions with basic funds to run their own international activities; ・enhancing the study conditions for foreign students, graduates and scholars; and ・improving the legal frameworks affecting international dimensions of higher education and research.

On the other hand, we observe a range of new proposals and measures: ・ introducing a stage system of study programs and degrees, a credit system and an accreditation system in order to foster internationalization of higher education; ・expanding the number of study programs taught in a foreign language (notably English); ・international marketing of German higher education; ・export of German study programs; and ・taking measures for brain gain.

Internationalization policies and the changing Zeitgeist

In some respects, the above named policies can be viewed as efforts to broaden the repertoire of internationalization activities of higher education: well established activities are extended, and new activities are added. In other respects, we note conflicting concepts. On the one hand, the term “internationalization” is often not used as an umbrella term but rather as a term depicting a culture of internationalization characterized by willingness to share knowledge, to cooperate on the basis of mutual trust, and to hold international mobility of students and scholars in high esteem generally. On the other hand, the term “globalization” is often referred to in pointing out that institutions of higher education compete with others for reputation, market shares of incoming students and scholars and embark in commercial knowledge transfer (Teichler 2004).

46


“Europeanization” might have different meanings in this context. On the one hand, efforts are made to increase cooperation and mobility based on mutual trust, and higher education is expected to serve a “European culture” and “European citizenship” as well.

On the other hand, European

cooperation is viewed as a means of strengthening the higher education institutions in European countries so that they become successful actors in the framework of global competition. Many objectives set, for example, the establishment of “convergent” structures of study programs and degrees, or the overall target of establishing a “European higher education area” and a “European research area”, might be interpreted as serving both directions. Undoubtedly, the internationalization policies and activities in German higher education, as well as in other countries, are characterized by conflicting views of the tasks and functions of higher education in general. On the one hand, notably a substantial proportion of scholars are concerned that the new Zeitgeist in higher education, putting emphasis on managerial power, marketization of higher education and instrumentalization of knowledge, might extend its grip on international activities as well, whereby “globalization” is employed as a catch phrase for these policies. On the other hand, a growing number of university managers and political actors increasingly advocate policies of attracting foreign students, international competitiveness between higher education institutions, policies of brain gain, trans-national higher education provisions and similar activities as contributing to efficiency, economic relevance and quality enhancement of higher education and to national advantages in various respects. Thereby, advocates of the former position criticize the latter of ironically undermining the economic and social relevance of higher education through discouraging international cooperation based on mutual trust, by over-instrumentalizing higher education and thus reducing opportunities for unexpected innovation, and by over-emphasising the import of foreign students and scholars and thereby underestimating the values of international experiences on the part of the German students and scholars. Conversely, advocates of the latter position accuse advocates of the former of disregarding the potential of international competition for quality enhancement in higher education, of overestimating the possibilities of governments supporting higher education financially, and harbouring unrealistic, inward-looking views of the tasks and functions of higher education. In some analyses, the former views are viewed as putting emphasis on the academic and cultural objectives of higher education, while the latter are primarily concerned with political and economic objectives. This might be true, but the advocates of the former position often accuse the advocates of the latter of serving economic and political rationales badly, while advocates of the latter criticise advocates of the former of serving academic and cultural rationales badly. It is obvious that the different views play a role as well, when developments of the General Agreements on Trade and Services (GATS) are debated, most notably the inclusion of higher education in the catalogue of trans-nationally tradable services. This debate is often taken up in Germany with respect to the “public good” function of higher education and, in this context, issues of free tuition versus tuition fees. Altogether, issues of GATS were paid less attention in Germany in


47

debates about internationalization of higher education than in many other countries, and hardly played a role at all in debates at faculty level. As we have already pointed out, the internationalization policies of the key political actors aim to extend traditional activities and to supplement them with new ones.

And this policy certainly

contributes towards an increasing role of “economic” rationales in activities within German higher education (Hahn 2003b); policy papers such as one with a headline “knowledge creates markets” might be viewed as typical. These internationalization policies might be interpreted as serving primarily a new renationalisation agenda through emphasis on competition, marketization, entrepreneurship and commercialisation of international relationships in higher education. Or they might be considered as aiming to serve a compromise or even harmony between the conflicting concepts. There are some indications for the latter: that a search for a compromise and a common ground between these different views is an integral part of the dominant internationalization policies in higher education. Three observations might support this view. First, key actors in Germany of internationalization policies in higher education would certainly never agree to the idea presented in some OECD publications that a high ratio of student import to student export could be viewed as an indication of success of internationalization policy in higher education. Rather, both an increasing number of foreign students (efforts are made to increase the number of foreign students from somewhat more than 10% in 2000 to about 20% by the year 2010), as well as increasing study abroad on the part of German students, are viewed as desirable. Second, efforts at broadening international links do not merely concentrate on the newly industrialising countries, for example, China and various South East Asian countries. But emphasis is also placed on aid for countries typically under-represented on the cooperation maps of higher education institutions: countries which suffer from severe deficiencies or instability after civil wars and international interventions, see, for example, the Southeast European Stability Pact and the Stability Pact Afghanistan, and countries in need of developing aid. Third, the events of 11th September 2001 in New York and other places were primarily interpreted as calling for culturally sensitive instruments of internationalization of higher education. Shortly after the terrorist attack, the DAAD and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation launched a program advocating cultural dialogue with the Islamic world, which was broadened in 2003 into a European-Islamic dialogue and crisis prevention. Many German universities, feeling under pressure from budget cuts and aiming to increase international activities which tend to be costly, are strongly driven by national incentive policies to internationalization of higher education. However, as these programs are not altogether driven by a single ideological agenda of internationalization of higher education, the universities might opt for varying internationalization strategies as far as the mix of basic goals is concerned.


48

Finally, one might add that most actors involved in international matters of higher education seem to agree that the German higher education system has not been sufficiently attractive for foreign students. Irrespective of major goals, common ground can be reached with regard to operational objectives. For example, most persons interviewed in the framework of the HEIGLO project argued that four obstacles for foreign students should be counteracted: ・unfriendly frame conditions for foreign students and scholars (restrictive and inflexible legal frameworks); ・ lack of a tutoring, supervising and support-culture at the faculties and the central administration; ・the German language as the exclusive language of instruction; and ・the lack of scholarships for international students and scholars granted by the university.

We might argue that a fourth obstacle reduces the attractiveness of study in German: Many foreign students believe that the mostly loose arrangements for doctoral candidates might imply too high a risk of failure for foreigners not accustomed to the traditional academic culture. As a response to the wide range of barriers perceived, challenges faced and strategic options harboured, a variety of activities are undertaken. For example, German universities cooperate under the umbrella of the DAAD in order to make study and academic work opportunities better known worldwide. Most universities are active in improving their services for foreign students and scholars; in this framework, Deutsches Studentenwerk (DSW), a nationwide organisation in charge of various services, e.g. administering scholarships, student accommodation, student dining halls, counselling services etc., plays a key role. Many universities decide to provide some of their study programs in the English language. In many cases, curricular reforms are under way, reflecting the worldwide changes in knowledge as well as the changing learning needs of home and foreign students.

The worldwide and the European scope of internationalization activities

International activities in higher education tend to have different spatial, political, economic, cultural and academic scopes. In Germany, we could discover for many years at least the following pattern: ・Student and staff mobility is most frequent in German-speaking neighbouring countries, i.e. Austria and the German-speaking regions of Switzerland. Cooperation and mobility is so much a matter of procedure that most of the complications usually associated with international cooperation and mobility do not hold true here at all. ・ Cooperation and mobility on more or less equal terms with other market-oriented


49

economically advanced countries have been well established for several decades. Most staff and student mobility was arranged individually, possibly with some academic and administrative assistance by the university and by scholarships for advanced students and fellowships for scholars available through national agencies. ・In contrast, there was clearly a Cold War barrier to mobility and cooperation up to the late 1980s. ・As far as other countries of the world are concerned, various factors played a role. German higher education became very popular among students of a small number of countries, for example, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia and, for some time, South Korea as well. Developing aid set some priorities. By and large, one could say that cooperation and mobility was more pronounced in countries not having close ties to the United Kingdom and France as colonial carry-overs.

Until the 1980s, German universities did not consider their international activities as strongly intertwined or as a challenge for a general strategy. They were linked, if at all, through a few common services provided by an international office, usually called Akademisches Auslandsamt. Worldwide search for new knowledge, foreign language proficiency, cosmopolitan values, etc. were widely spread at the most academically demanding sectors of the German higher education system without any specific reference to international “policies” or “strategies”. Increasing European cooperation and mobility in the course of the 1980s and 1990s triggered off the notion that international links should be addressed and supported through targeted action. It is widely assumed that the European ERASMUS program, inaugurated in 1987, which provides support for temporary student mobility, was the single most influential measure in spreading the view that higher education institutions should embark on targeted curricular, service and administrative efforts to serve a growing trend of internationalization of higher education. Certainly, many other international activities were under way, but the rapid growth of a single program embedded into heavy political campaigning was more thought-provoking and action-provoking than the widely spread range of other policies and activities. One should bear in mind, though, that the proportion of foreign students in Germany supported by the ERASMUS programs always remained clearly below 20 percent, and that about half of the foreign students originate from countries outside Europe. The internationalization policies emerging in Germany since 1996 and subsequently moving towards a European platform, as visible in the “Sorbonne Declaration” jointly signed in 1998 by the British, French, German and Italian ministers in charge of higher education and the “Bologna Declaration” jointly signed in 1999 by ministers in charge of higher education from 29 European countries, have to be viewed as a second stage of internationalization policies and activities in German higher education. Again, a single measure, i.e. this time the establishment of a bachelor-master


50

structure of the study programs, and substantial political campaigning turned out to be thoughtprovoking and action-provoking, even though an increasing range of supplementary reforms was called for in subsequent years as an integral part of the so-called “Bologna Process”. But the second stage of systematic internationalization policies and related activities differed from the first one in two respects. ・Internationalization policies at the second stage did not exclusively focus on Europe, but on higher education both in Europe and all over the world. ・They put internationalization more strongly into an overall perspective of higher education. On the one hand, internationalization activities were supposed to be embedded in the “mainstream” of higher education activities.

On the other hand, changes in the

“mainstream” of higher education were expected to be triggered off by the needs of internationalization: notably the overall structure of study programs and degrees and thus, the levels of competences on the part of the graduates, but also subsequently the examination system, the overall patterns of the higher education systems, the management of higher education institutions and the evaluation of teaching and study programs.

Interpretations vary about the extent to which internationalization policies of macro-actors in Germany and internationalization strategies of higher education institutions in Germany in recent years address Europe, countries and regions outside Europe or have a worldwide scope. The ‘Bologna Process’ and related activities aiming to establish a “European higher education area” by 2010 are expected both to increase the attractiveness of higher education in continental European countries to students outside Europe and to facilitate student mobility within Europe. Efforts visible since 2000 in favour of a “European research area” emphasize improvement of research within European countries, increase of research cooperation within Europe and the strengthening of the position of higher education and research in Europe on a global scale.

We note concurrently activities primarily

focussing on Europe, primarily addressing the links between individual scholars, institutions and European countries to the wider world, and finally, many activities affecting both the intra-European and the worldwide scene. At the level of the higher education institutions, there seems to be a tension between different rationales driving the institution’s internationalization. While the leadership and senior management is very much driven by the idea of positioning the institution on the local, national and global market of higher education and to push forward also the implementation of the “Bologna-Declaration”, we see more academic rationales driving the activities at the level of the faculties. There is, thus, a tension between different driving rationales within the higher education institutions, namely between the more


51

politically, economically or entrepreneurially-oriented leadership and the individual scholar striving for academic excellence through internationalization.

Actual activities

Problems of measuring internationalization of higher education As long as the international dimension of higher education was mostly measured by the numbers of foreign students, mobile scholars or cooperation agreements with foreign universities, it was possible to provide somewhat reliable quantitative indicators of internationalization. But even with respect to student mobility, i.e. the most frequent measure referred to, we have to bear in mind that the practices of including or excluding certain students from statistics of foreign students vary substantially between the various countries, that many foreign students were not mobile for the purpose of study but had moved earlier to the host country and that other factors challenge the validity of the statistics (Lanzendorf and Teichler 2003b). The more complex internationalization of higher education becomes, and the more a mainstreaming of internationalization becomes true, the less this trend can be demonstrated by quantitative indicators of internationalization.

Thus, the increasing interest in evaluating higher

education policies through clearly measurable indicators and in redirecting reforms on the basis of such evaluation results could even have the distorting effect of paying attention primarily to reforms which are least indicative for the key developments, namely the internationalization of the substance of teaching and research and the overall mainstreaming of the internationalization of higher education. This ambivalence is clearly visible in the German key publication of quantitative indicators of internationalization: its title is Wissenschaft weltoffen and its subtitle Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany (DAAD 2004), but it provides only statistics on foreign and internationally mobile students and graduates in Germany, German students abroad, foreign scholars in Germany and German scholars abroad. The following overview on internationalization trends in Germany will also largely refer to available statistics on foreign students and staff, but it will transcend these limits in some respects.

International students in Germany

According to UNESCO statistics, the number of foreign students worldwide was less than 500,000 around 1970, surpassed one million in the early 1980s, and was about 1.5 million in the mid-1990s (Teichler 1998). In the meantime, this figure has surpassed 2 million. One should bear in mind, though, that the total number of students at higher education institutions increased at similar rates; thus,


52

the ratio of students studying abroad did not increase over time. However, as the absolute student numbers increased to a below-average extent in the economically advanced countries and, as an increasing number from developing countries and newly emerging economies moved to the economically advanced countries, the economically advanced countries experienced a substantial increase of foreign students among their overall enrolment. The Federal Republic of Germany was the host country for about 28,000 foreign students in 1970, 62,000 in 1980 and eventually 150,000 in 1996. In comparison, UNESCO statistics reported 4,000, 7,000 and 51,000 foreign students in Japan. According to the UNESCO figures, Germany hosted 6 percent of all students studying abroad in 1970, almost 8 percent in 1980 and about 10 percent in 1995, thus its role as a host country continuously increased already prior to the internationalization policy observed in this essay. During that period, the proportion of foreign students among all students enrolled at German institutions of higher education increased moderately from 5.6 percent in 1970 to 5.7 percent in 1980 and eventually 8.2 percent in 1996. Within the first seven years of the internationalization policy discussed here, the number of foreign students in Germany increased by more than 50 percent, namely from 150,000 in 1996 to 227,000 in 2003 (during that period, the number of foreign students in Japan more than doubled from somewhat more than 50,000 to somewhat more than 110,000). The ratio of foreign students among all students in Germany grew from 8.2 percent to 11.7 percent (BMBF 1997; DAAD 2004). In absolute terms, Germany used to be in the 4th rank of countries hosting foreign students behind the U.S., France and the United Kingdom. More recent statistics put Germany in 3rd place behind the U.S. and the United Kingdom, or even more or less on the same level as the United Kingdom (OECD 2004). In comparison: Japan was recorded in 21st position in 1970, 22nd in 1980 and in 6th place both in the mid-1990s and in 2003. In terms of the proportion of foreign students among all students, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and the United Kingdom consistently ranked higher than Germany. The same was true for France in the past and for Australia in more recent years. However, the proportion of foreign students in Germany continued to be more than three times as high or even higher than in the U.S. and in Japan. The increase of foreign students by 50 percent from 1996 to 2003 looks like a speedy process at first glance. At second glance, it is not very impressive on a global scale, because the total number of students studying abroad increased at a similar pace. However, the annual increase of the ratio of foreign students among all students at German institutions of higher education by almost half a percent is viewed as a major challenge to teaching and learning, services and administration. And the German institutions of higher education expect a higher rate of increase in the near future. German higher education statistics show as well the country in which the foreign students qualified for entry to higher education. Actually, 64,000 of the foreign students in Germany in 2003 qualified for entry in Germany (so-called Bildungsausländer) and thus cannot be viewed as students internationally mobile for the purpose of study; most of them are children of migrant workers.


53

Accordingly, only 163,000 students in Germany were mobile foreign students (Bildungsausländer), i.e. 8.4 percent of all German higher education students. On the other hand, a recent study showed that about 23,000 of the German students in 1999/2000 (about 1.2%) had acquired their entry qualifications abroad (Lanzendorf and Teichler 2003b); they might be called mobile non-foreign students: they are either Germans nationals having lived abroad while attending secondary education or foreigners who became German nationals during the course of study (often Eastern Europeans of German origin). Among all foreign students enrolled in Germany in 2003, more than 60 percent were citizens of other European countries; less than 10 percent were ERASMUS students.

Among the

Bildungsausländer, the highest proportions came from China (11.9%), Poland (6.3%), Bulgaria (5.8%), Russia (5.0%), Morocco (3.8%), Turkey (3.5%), France (3.4%), Ukraine (3.0%), Cameroon (2.9%) and Austria (2.6%). Less than one percent came from Japan. Altogether, 53 percent came from other European countries, 29 percent from Asia and Oceania, 12 percent from Africa and 6 percent from America. Among the Bildungsinländer, about one quarter were Turkish citizens. Among all foreign students in Germany, the highest numbers come, first, from Turkey, second, from China and, third, from various European countries, notably Poland, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece and Italy. The majority of foreign students in Germany return to their home country during the course of study or after graduation. Available statistics, however, show, that, in 1999, about 5 percent of graduates from tertiary education employed in Germany were foreign citizens (Teichler and Jahr 2001).

German students studying abroad According to UNESCO statistics, about 10,000 German students studied abroad in the late 1960s, about 17,000 in 1980 and 45,000 in the mid-1990s, and finally 52,000 in 2001. In absolute terms, Germany ranked 6th in the late 1960s, 9th in 1980, 4th in the mid-1990s and 6th in 2001 (behind China, South Korea, India, Japan and Greece). These figures of German students studying abroad represent a moderate increase from about 2 percent to about 3 percent of all German students enrolled at institutions of higher education. The total proportion of German students among all students studying abroad remained more or less constant at about two percent. According to the statistics available for 2001, German students studying abroad were most frequently enrolled in the United States and the United Kingdom (almost 20% each), as well as Switzerland, France, Austria, the Netherlands and Spain (8-11% each). Less than one percent went to Japan (DAAD and HIS 2004). The actual proportion of German students studying abroad at least for some period is substantially higher. One has to take into consideration as well that short-time mobile students are not registered in


54

many countries in the statistics of students or of foreign students.

Moreover, the majority of

internationally mobile German students (the same holds true for mobile students of various Western European countries) study abroad temporarily. Therefore, the proportion of students spending at least some period of study abroad is substantially for higher education than the proportion of students studying abroad at any given moment in time. Some data might illustrate the actual frequency of Germans studying abroad: ・About one percent of German students study in another European country for half a year or one year with the support of the ERASMUS programs. As German students are enrolled for more than 5 years on average, this suggests that more than 5 percent of German students spend an ERASMUS-supported period abroad in the course of their study. ・ According to a representative survey, 12 percent of Germans, having graduated from German higher education institutions in 1995, had spent a period of study abroad; among them, one quarter had spent additionally an internship abroad. A further two percent had been abroad solely for an internship (Schomburg et al. 2001). ・A representative survey of German students at German institutions of higher education undertaken in the year 2000 even shows that 29 percent of students in their third year or in subsequent years of study reported some kind of international experience, (as compared to 27 % in a similar survey three years earlier, among them, 13 percent a study period abroad, 13 percent an internship abroad as well, 6 percent a language course and 5 percent other activities [DAAD 2002]). The participation in temporary study abroad varied between the different disciplines: 22 percent in humanities, 17 percent in law and economics, 11 percent in natural sciences and mathematics, 10 percent in medicine, 8 percent in social sciences, psychology and pedagogy as well as 7 percent in engineering.

No complete statistics are available on the international mobility of German university graduates. The available sources allow us to estimate that about two to three percent of higher education-trained Germans employed actually are employed abroad. The representative survey of the 1995 German graduates from German institutions of higher education named above shows that about two percent were employed abroad by a foreign employer about four years after graduation, a further 3 percent had been employed abroad for some period over the first four years after graduation, and a further 7 percent had been sent abroad for some period by employers based in Germany (Teichler and Jahr 2001). In comparison, the number of Japanese students studying abroad around 1970 and 1980 had been substantially lower than the respective number of German students according to UNESCO statistics, but it rose to 62,000 in the mid-1990s and thereafter fell to 55,000 in 2001. The proportion of


55

Japanese students studying abroad remained below two percent. Japanese experts estimated that a larger number of Japanese students go abroad annually for the purpose of attending summer schools and language courses. The proportion of Japanese students spending a temporary study period abroad in the course of their study is marginal. The international comparative study of 1995 university graduates also suggests that very few Japanese graduates from Japanese universities are get employed abroad by foreign employers.

Mobility of scholars and research cooperation

Whereas data collection on study abroad was customary for many decades, systematic data collection on the mobility of scholars and research cooperation has remained sketchy in Germany and many other countries. In Germany, efforts to provide reliable data are aggravated by the fact that public money for the promotion of research is spread over a large number of organisations. What some consider a contribution to desirable diversity, others criticize as a “jungle” for foreigners who might prefer improved transparency. As a consequence, the data on the mobility of scholars and research cooperation most widely published are incomplete, and they are not published as a time-series which would allow us to identify the impact of the recent internationalization policies on the actual frequency of cooperation and mobility. The 2004 issue of the above named statistical report Wissenschaft weltoffen (DAAD and HIS 2004) shows that almost 20,000 foreign scholars were funded in 2002 by 21 German funding organisations for a research stay in Germany, among them about 40 percent by the DAAD and about 20 percent by the Max Planck Society. About half of the fellowships were awarded to postgraduates, and about one quarter each for post-doctorate and senior scholars. 12 percent of the beneficiaries came from Russia, 8 percent from China, more than 5 percent each from the U.S., three percent from Poland, and about two percent each from Indonesia, Japan, Romania, Ukraine, Italy and Brazil. 56 percent of fellowships were awarded in the natural sciences, and about ten percent each in humanities, social sciences and engineering. About 60 percent of the fellowship grantees were hosted by German institutions of higher education and most of the others by public research institutes outside higher education. Similarly, about 5,500 German scholars were awarded German fellowships for research stays abroad. 38 percent were provided in natural sciences, 28 percent in humanities and 15 percent in the social sciences. 23 percent of the recipients went to the U.S., 11 percent to Britain, 6 percent each to France and Russia, 4 percent to Italy, somewhat more than 3 percent to Japan and somewhat less than 3 percent to China, Switzerland and Australia. Obviously, the data published in Wissenschaft weltoffen show only a small sector of scholars’ mobility. Long-term research stays might be funded as well by European sources, host country sources and/or the individual scholars themselves. There is some mobility for the purpose of teaching.


56

Short-term visits, notably, for attending conferences and information gathering, are likely to be undertaken in a range of six-digit figures. Last but not least, no systematic data are available of the proportion of foreigners among academic staff at institutions of higher education in Germany. In the domain of temporary research contracts at German institutions of higher education funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (more than 25,000 FTE annually), about 15 percent are awarded to foreign scholars (DAAD 2004), but the proportion of foreigners among regular academic staff is certainly significantly lower. Without having detailed data to hand, it is appropriate to estimate that most mobility of young and senior scholars from and to Germany is taking place within Western Europe. Second, it is obvious that many Germans are eager to foster academic ties with the U.S. The national and European support schemes in part reinforce these prevailing inclinations, but in part play a compensatory role whereby Germany, more than most other Western European countries, fosters mobility between Eastern and Central Europe and Germany as well as mobility of German academics to Central and Eastern Europe. Altogether, all the sketchy information available suggests that academic mobility to and from Germany is on a steady rise.

Other indicators of internationalization The growing relevance of the international dimension of higher education is statistically most visible in the number of international cooperation agreements between German and foreign institutions of higher education. The number of formal contracts grew substantially. While in 1989, German higher education institutions reported around 1,400 formalized international cooperation agreements (DAAD 2003, p. 11), i.e. on average less than 5 per German institutions of higher education, to 15,368 in 2003 according to the database of the Higher Education Rector’s Conference. Thus, the total number of contracts increased more than 10 times within 14 years. The data shows that 80 percent of cooperation contracts are intra-European. We have to bear in mind, though, that most intra-European cooperation in teaching and research had traditionally taken place without a formal contract basis. However, the European Commission, in revising its ERASMUS support in the late 1990s, requested the universities to establish contractual cooperation with their partner institution in order to remain eligible for ERASMUS support. One can argue that this decision by the European Commission has inflated the number of intra-European contracts and, altogether, has created a distorted picture. The statistics of cooperation contracts suggest that German institutions of higher education put a substantial emphasis on cooperation with directly neighboring countries, i.e. not only the manifold links to Austria and Switzerland, but also frequently to the Netherlands and Poland. Extra-European cooperation partnerships are most frequent with higher education institutions in the United States of America and, in much smaller numbers, with institutions in China. On the other hand,


57

the number of cooperation contracts of German higher education institutions is extraordinarily small with universities in Africa and the Middle East. In the process of internationalization, the use of English as a lingua franca and in some cases, the knowledge of other languages play an increasing role. This hardly caused a problem in research groups in the areas of science and engineering at German universities and research institutes where English is widely used in cooperation with foreign doctoral candidates and advanced scholars. Also in other contexts, the use of English and in some cases other foreign languages increased: ・7 percent of European ERASMUS students going to Germany in 1990/91 took courses exclusively in foreign languages, 32 percent in German and foreign languages, and 61 percent exclusively in German (Teichler and Maiworm 1998). The respective figures for ERASMUS students going to Germany in 1998/99 were 5 percent, 32 percent and 63 percent (Teichler 2002a). These figures suggest that most ERASMUS students going to Germany are expected to be fluent in German. ・In the newly established Bachelor and Master programs in Germany, English plays a substantial role as the language of instruction. According to a survey undertaken in 2003, English was the sole language of instruction in 2 percent, played a substantial role in 14 percent and was occasionally employed in 37 percent of the Bachelor programs. The respective figures for the new Master programs were even 21 percent, 27 percent and 30 percent (Schwarz-Hahn and Rehburg 2004). As study programs putting a strong emphasis on study mobility were more quickly transformed into the new Bachelor-Master than other programs, these data do not allow us to assume that English will spread that much in the next few years when more or less all study programs in Germany are expected to fit into the Bachelor-Master structure.

A quite recent trend is the ‘going global’ of some German universities. Since the year 2000, it was a declared aim of governmental policies to foster the German presence on the global market for higher education. The DAAD, as well as some technical universities and economic associations, were the main drivers behind this initiative. As a result, a new program was launched to foster German higher education export activities. Within the program ‘Study export’ 10 million € were made available for seed funding. The German universities showed a great interest in this new funding initiative and submitted more than 120 proposals for so-called ‘offshore’ activities. This quick and broad response of German universities might reveal a ‘wind of change’ at institutions with regard to market-oriented and entrepreneurial concepts – something that is not rooted in German higher education tradition and academic culture.


58

Until 2004, altogether more than 40 entrepreneurially-oriented export activities were state sponsored (1-4 years), ranging from summer schools to the establishment of new universities, offshore campuses, study centers, modules and entire study programs abroad. The main geographical focus of the projects was on Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, regions that are of economic importance to Germany. The sponsored activities covered a broad range of disciplines, but reveal a focus on economically relevant programs. Some activities seed funded by the DAAD might be mentioned as examples: the German University in Cairo, the German-Jordanian University of Applied Sciences in Amman, the German Institute of Science and Technology in Singapore, the Thai-German Graduate School of Engineering in Bangkok, and the German Study Centres of the Distance University Hagen in the Baltic States. There is also one German–Japanese project funded, namely the Master program in International Material Flow Management of the University of Applied Sciences, Trier, at its Japanese partner institution, the ‘Near Future Environmental Technology Development Center’ (NFETDC), Kochi University of Technology Research Institute. Further study export activities carried out outside this program are those of the Distance University Hagen, mainly through its new virtual campus targeted to eastern and central European ‘markets’ as well as at Austria and Switzerland. Recently it was decided by the Federal government to turn this funding initiative for exporting German higher education into a regular funding scheme of 4 million € annually. The financing of summer schools abroad is another support initiative in the area of study export. Those sponsored are thematic summer schools supposed to have a marketing effect as well. All these export activities are accompanied by a broad international marketing campaign for German higher education. Although one might get the impression that German universities are imitating Australian or British models of study export, the German concept reveals substantial differences. In general, the German projects are market-oriented, but they cannot be classified as commercial. Many projects develop new programs in cooperation with local partners in the target countries and with partners in industry or civil society. Relevance and contextualization of the programs are of major importance in the projects. Most projects are based on a comprehensive concept integrating teaching, research, further education and training. There is a mix of driving rationales behind the institutional initiatives: enhancing the attraction for talented graduate students and doctoral students, attracting young researchers, getting access into interesting research fields, linking with the economy and other external international partners, attracting third party funding, internationalizing the curriculum for the students at home, providing international experience for their own faculty members, and, last but not least, striving for prestige and reputation – internationally as well as nationally. Some people interviewed within the HEIGLO project argued that the ‘going global’ of some German universities and their international experiences also has an innovative impulse at the home institutions. Although there is a competitive environment in Germany with regard to these kinds of international activities and their third party funding, there is


59

a trend amongst the German universities to cooperate with each other. The largest, most costly and most risky projects are joint projects with at least two German universities. Another indicator of the ‘going global’ of German universities is the opening up of representative or contact offices abroad, mainly in the United States, China and Brussels. The more and more professionalized international marketing campaign for German higher education may be interpreted as a lateral initiative of the ‘going global’ trend.

Policies and activities with respect to internationalization of higher education and the wider internationalization argument

The earlier parts of this presentation focused on the changes in internationalization policies and activities in German higher education since the mid-1990s in sense that the term “internationalization” was already employed prior to this period: reference was made to border-crossing interaction of German higher education or international dimensions of the knowledge system.

We noted that

activities did not only expand and widen in scope but also gradually integrated in to the center of higher education activities. We have to emphasize, however, that “internationalization” is not only the key word in debates on the future of German higher education if issues of border-crossing activities or international dimensions of the knowledge system are addressed. Rather, other areas of higher education policy and reforms are referred to with reference to the term “internationalization”: areas which traditionally tended to be viewed as the typical domain of national policies, or in Germany often as regional policies of the Länder, in the past. The broader use of the term in Germany in recent times was directed predominantly at three areas. First, advocates of a strong managerial and entrepreneurial thrust from universities claim that the steering and management system of German higher education should be transformed along the internationally dominant models, in order to strengthen the competitiveness of German higher education amidst a globalization of the knowledge system and a worldwide trend towards commercialization

of

higher

education

(Stifterverband

1997).

In

this

framework,

“internationalization” and “globalization” are referred to as imperatives for action, whereas the actual reforms suggested cannot be viewed as specifically international and global. Rather, the reforms of the steering and management systems already under way were reinterpreted. The prior claims about dysfunctional elements of German higher education are supplemented by arguments that German higher education would suffer even more seriously under the current trends of internationalization and globalization, if the advocated reforms of steering and management were not implemented. Second, the global scene of higher education and a growing global competitiveness fuelled the continuous debates in Germany about the desirable diversity of the German higher education system.

60


Among the large economically advanced countries, German higher education is viewed as being characterized by putting emphasis on a more or less even quality of all universities. Public funding of higher education in Germany provides more or less even chances for all universities to foster quality of teaching and research. Students can move from one university to any other university in Germany during the course of study without substantial restrictions.

German universities do not recruit

professors from their middle-level academic staff but rather from outside, and professors can negotiate for increased salary and research resources primarily if they are offered a position by another university; thus mobility of academics was held traditionally in high esteem, whereby the carrier of reputation is not the university but the professor. All these factors were viewed as beneficial in the past in order to guarantee a high level of quality of all universities, to ensure a common minimum quality of professionals and to provide all regions in Germany with a similar level of highly qualified labor. Single universities tended to be viewed as academically strong in some disciplines and weak in other disciplines, and nobody expected a single university to be strong across all disciplines while another harbored less ambitious academic goals across all disciplines. Over the last few decades, however, voices gained momentum in Germany advocating a higher degree of vertical diversification of the German system of higher education. The view spread that a higher concentration of resources for research, as well as a higher concentration of the most renowned scholars at a few universities, was more beneficial. The debates about the pros and cons of the German tradition of limited diversity were fuelled in recent years by reference to the global scene, because the increasingly popular rankings of individual universities all over the world consistently showed that not a single German university is a top university on the world scale across all disciplines. Observers agree that the proposal made by the German government in 2004 to set up a program for the promotion of elite universities would not have come about if the view had not increasingly spread that globalization forces German higher education to become more stratified in order to be internationally competitive. Third, Germany is now among the European countries which advocated most strongly the establishment of a similar structure of the higher education systems across the European countries. Since the 1970s, German higher education was characterized by a two-tier higher education system. About two-thirds of students chose to study at universities characterized by discipline and theorybased curricula, and one third of each student cohort enrolled at Fachhochschulen characterized by applied programs on a large scale in engineering, business studies, social work and public administration, as well as on a small scale in various other fields of study. Up to the mid-1990s, a widespread consensus seemed to exist in Germany that this system was functioning well and German higher education policies should not yield to global trends as far as the patterns of the higher education are concerned. This position changed drastically within a few years. Germany was already one of the driving forces in signing the “Sorbonne-Declaration” in 1998. This Declaration expressed a political will to “harmonise the architecture of the European higher education systems through the establishment of a stage structure of study programmes and degrees”. A revision of the German


61

Framework Act for Higher Education in 1998 opened up the opportunity to establish study programs similar to the Anglo-Saxon Bachelor-Master-systems. And activities to establish the stage-structure of study programs and degrees were reinforced in 1999, when ministers of the majority of European countries signed the “Bologna Declaration” which calls for the introduction of converging structures of the higher education system in Europe with the stage-structure of study programs and degrees as the core element. Although the old two-tier structure of the German higher education system is not in the process of being discontinued altogether now, the newly emerging stage-system of study programs and degrees is expected to become the prime mode of diversification.

The old inter-institutional

diversification is not abolished, but superseded by the intra-institutional diversification of the “Bologna process”. Again, observers agree that such a substantial change in the structure of the German higher education system never would have had a chance of being implemented if the arguments had not been widely accepted that the new structure was superior in international perspective: as the “Bologna Declaration” has pointed out, the convergent pattern of a stage structure of study programs and degrees is likely to make European higher education more attractive on a worldwide scale and to facilitate intra-European mobility. In summary, three “national” policies in favor of: ・strengthening the managerial thrust of the higher education system; ・increasing the vertical diversification of the higher education system; and ・making a stage structure of study programs and degrees the most important structural dimension of the higher education system,

gained momentum through claiming their superiority in the European or worldwide higher education landscape. In summary, we note, on the one hand, that international policies and activities are mainstreamed and, on the other hand, that general policies and activities are internationalized. The latter holds true at least as far as the arguments employed are concerned. But this change goes beyond rhetoric. We also note a growing readiness of the key policy actors in Germany not to act any more merely on the national scene. The willingness is growing to formulate policy targets at a supra-national level. But this is not done at a worldwide level, but rather in Europe. Thereby, the range of the European partners might vary. Agreement was reached on improved cooperation in matters of recognition of study and degrees in 1997 among members of the Council of Europe. The “Bologna Declaration” was signed in 1999 by 29 countries willing to share this policy, and agreement was reached by the heads of governments of the 15 member states of the European Union at that time to strive for the establishment of a “European Research Area”. The skepticism about supra-national higher education policies, still expressed in the early 1990s in reaction to the ‘Memorandum on Higher Education in the


62

European Community’, seems to have disappeared more or less completely. There is no longer a lively public debate about a potential loss of national sovereignty in higher education and research policy. To be sure: no supervisory powers had been transferred to the supra-national level and matters of higher education, and the formal legal competencies of the European Union continue to be restricted by the principle of subsidiary, according to which the European actors can take the initiative only in domains in which they evidently can be clearly more successful than national actors. But the legitimacy of European policies and common goals is no longer questioned in German higher education policy debates. As a consequence, a positive attitude is not only prevailing with respect to financial support made available through European support schemes in higher education and research, but also within the forces of coordination associated with these support schemes. In summary, we observe in Germany concurrently: ・an expansion and “mainstreaming” of the internationalization policies and activities; ・ a subordination of general higher education policies and activities under presumed international and global trends; and ・a select withdrawal from specific national or regional policies and actions in favour of joint European policies.

The three changes seem to be so closely intertwined in various respects that future generations might not see any more any difference in general policies and internationalization policies, or between national policy rationales and international policy rationales. However, trust on the part of German key actors of higher education to subordinate one’s national or regional policies under a supra-national umbrella does not exist in potential partners all over the world, but rather has only gradually emerged with respect to European neighbor countries. There is no “global village” of higher education policy in sight for the predictable future.

The major findings of the HEIGLO project

The interviews undertaken in the framework of the HEIGLO project confirm that German universities, as a rule, consider themselves as “internationalized”. They are strongly involved in international research cooperation, internationally-oriented study programs and cross-border exchanges. This is also partly true for the more practically or professionally-oriented universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen) most of which entered the international arena only in the 1990s; they focus on student exchange, cooperation in curriculum development and international internships. The strong emphasis on internationalization, Europeanization and global attractiveness by no means remains a lofty debate. The German higher education institutions took up these challenges with


63

a broad range of activities. Though some observers interpret the national agenda setting as a strong top-down approach, the influence of the higher education institutions, individual scholars and higher education leaders and their coordinating bodies on shaping the entire national higher education policy should not be underestimated. The five universities selected as case studies developed pro-active strategies to cope with the external and internal challenges. They developed a broad range of measures, often guided by an explicit or implicit institutional internationalization strategy. In general, the internationalization of the universities was explicitly linked to the building of an institutional profile, to innovation, reform and the enhancement of quality. In quantitative terms, we note increases in: ・the number of international students; they even tripled since 1996 in one case (a university of technology); ・outbound mobility: between 40% and 87% from 1997 and 2002 (one university, however, had an 8% decline of SOCRATES students); ・international cooperative research and internationally funded research (mainly EU-funded); ・international programs offered, new programs suiting the framework of Bologna processes and programs using English as the language of instruction; ・the number of partnerships (in particular within the SOCRATES program); ・the number of persons involved in internationalization activities; and ・financial resources used for international activities.

Qualitative improvements in the wake of internationalization, notably various changes in the administrative and educational environment, seem to be achieved though they are less clearly visible at first glance. Certainly, increasing activities in networks can be viewed as a potential for qualitative improvement.

At various universities analyzed, informal intra-institutional networks evolved

alongside the formal bodies in order to exchange experiences and find solutions to common problems (i.e. German language courses for international graduates, services for foreign students etc.). We noted an increasing number of academics strongly involved in international activities. The number of visible ‘internationals’ or ‘cosmopolitans’ is clearly on the rise: as a rule, involvement in international research cooperation is more likely to guarantee reputation than involvement and study and student centered international activities. A hidden hierarchy seems to have emerged headed by those who are successful in international research networks or prestigious mega-projects.

The

“extensively traveling international academic tourists” (as one president interviewed called them) are expected show a particular involvement in academic self-administration. At most universities surveyed, a trend towards professionalization of international activities is obvious in two respects. First, international cooperation is increasingly administered by permanent


64

staff both at faculty and university level.

This often was reinforced by the discontinuation of

ERASMUS support for networks of departments in the late 1990s and its substitution by contracts between partner universities, which led to a decline in the feeling of ownership among the academics initially coordinating cooperation and mobility and thus to a need for administrators to step in. Second, these permanent staff members in charge of international activities are increasingly characterized by a high professional competence and growing success in seizing stronger powers of coordination. Altogether, the persons and offices in charge of administering international activities are highly appreciated at German universities.

They are increasing viewed as highly competent, efficient,

service-oriented, dynamic and strategic.

In contrast, other administrators generally dealing with

national activities (e.g. those in charge of personnel, finances or organization) are often viewed as obstacles to the internationalization process. As far as the leadership and the general administration are concerned, the interviews show two trends in parallel: on the one hand, the establishment or extensions of specific measures taken to serve international activities in a more targeting manner. This is undertaken, for example, through the creation of the position of a vice-president for international affairs, the provision of incentive funds for international activities and the increase of staff positions in international offices. On the other hand, an increasing number of general administrators, offices and committees have to reflect and to take action with regard to various international matters. Often tasks are newly bundled and offices are merged in order to serve both foreigners and Germans. This also confirms that internationalization is increasingly mainstreamed in German higher education institutions at the central level of the leadership and administration as well as at the faculty level.

References

Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (1997). Die Attraktivität deutscher Hochschulen für ausländische Studenten [The Attractiveness of German Universities for Foreign Students]. Bonn: BMBF. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. (2004). Deutsche Studierende im Ausland: Statistischer Überblick 1991 bis 2002. [Germans Studying Abroad. Statistical Overview 19912002]. Bonn: BMBF. Böhm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D. and Pearce, D. (2002). Global Student Mobility 2025 - Forecasts of the Global Demand for International Higher Education. Sydney: IDP Education Australia. DAAD (2002). Wissenschaft weltoffen: Daten und Fakten zur Internationalität von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland [Wissenschaft weltoffen: Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany]. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.


65

DAAD (2003). Die internationale Hochschule: Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsprogramme [The International University: Partnership and Cooperation Programs]. Bonn: DAAD. DAAD (2004). Auf dem Weg zur internationalen Hochschule. Entwurf eines (Dritten) Aktionsprogramms des DAAD für die Mitgliederversammlung am 09.07.2004 [Towards an internationalized university]. Bonn: DAAD, mimeo. DAAD and HIS (eds.) (2004). Wissenschaft weltoffen [Wissenschaft weltoffen: Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany]. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Hahn, K. (2003a). ‘Die Globalisierung des Hochschulsektors und das ‚General Agreement on Trade in Services’ [Globalisation of the Higher Education Systems and the‚ General Agreement on Trade in Services’],

in

Kehm,

B.

M.

(ed.),

Grenzüberschreitungen:

Internationalisierung

im

Hochschulbereich [Crossing Borders: Internationalisation of Higher Education]. Wittenberg: Institut für Hochschulforschung (die hochschule. journal für wissenschaft und Bildung 1/03), 4873. Hahn, K. (2003b). ‘The changing “Zeitgeist” in German higher education and the role of GATS’, Higher Education in Europe 28, No. 2, 199-215. Hahn, K. (2004a). ‘Germany’, in Van der Wende, M. and Huisman J. (eds.), On Cooperation and Competition: National and European Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education. Bonn: Lemmens, 51-79. Hahn, K. (2004b). Die Internationalisierung der deutschen Hochschulen [The Internationalization of of German Higher Education]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hahn, K. (2005a). German Universities in the Process of Globalisation, Europeanisation and Internationalisation (to be published in the second volume of Van der Wende and Huisman). Hahn, K. (2005b). Hochschulen auf dem globalen Bildungsmarkt und die Positionierung Deutschlands [Higher Education Institutions on the Global Education Market and the Positioning of Germany], in Hahn, K and Lanzendorf, U., Wegweiser Globalisierung: Hochschulsektoren in Bewegung [On the Way to Globalization: Dynamics in Higher Education Systems] (Werkstattbericht 62). Kassel: Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work, University of Kassel, 13-34. Huisman, J. and Van der Wende, M. (eds.) (2004). On Cooperation and Competition. National and European Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education (ACA Paper on International Cooperation in Education). Bonn: Lemmens. Lanzendorf, U. and Teichler, U. (2003a). ‘Globalisierung im Hochschulwesen – ein Abschied von etablierten Werten der Internationalisierung?’ [Globalization in Higher Education. A Farewell to Established Values?]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 6, No. 2, 219-238. Lanzendorf, U. and Teichler, U. (2003b). Statistics on Student Mobility within the European Region. Luxembourg: European Parliament, Directorate for Research (ECUC 112 EN). OECD (2004). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2004. Paris: OECD.


66

Schomburg, H., Teichler, U., Doerry, M. and Mohr J. (eds.) (2001). Erfolgreich von der Uni in den Job [Successful Transition from University into the Profession]. Regensburg: Fit for Business. Schwarz-Hahn, S. and Rehburg, M. (2004). Bachelor and Master in Deutschland [Bachelor and Master Programs in Germany]. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Stifterverband (ed.) (1997). Hochschulstandort Deutschland: Sind die deutschen Hochschulen international wettbewerbsfähig? [The German Site of Higher Education: Are the German Universities Ready to Succeed in International Comptetition?]. Essen: Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft. Teichler, U. (1998). ‘Auslandsstudium: Weltweit mobil’ [Studying abroad, being globally mobile]. Deutsche Universitätszeitung 22/1998, 14-18. Teichler, U. (ed.) (2002a). ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme. Bonn: Lemmens. Teichler, U. (2002b). ‘Internationalisierung der Hochschulen: Vergleichende Perspektiven und deutsche Erfahrungen’ [The Internationalisation of Higher Education. Comparative Perspectives and German Experiences], in: Hochschulentwicklung und -reformen in Japan und Deutschland. [Higher Education Development and Reforms in Japan and Germany]. Berlin: JapanischDeutsches Zentrum Berlin (Veröffentlichungen, Vol. 49), 90-102. Teichler, U. (2004). ‘The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education’, Higher Education 48, No. 1, 5-26. Teichler, U. and Jahr, V. (2001). ‘Mobility during the course of study and after graduation’, European Journal of Education 36, No. 4, 443-458. Teichler, U. and Maiworm, F. (1998). The ERASMUS Experience. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

G LOBALIZATION AND H IGHER EDUCATION RIHE International Publication Series, No.9, March 2005

Table of Contents List of Contributors Editorial Akira Arimoto, Futao Huang, and Keiko Yokoyama Globalization, academic productivity, and higher education reforms Akira Arimoto

i

iii

1

Privatization and commercialization: Two globalizing practices affecting Australian universities Jan Currie

23

Internationalization mainstreaming in German higher education Karola Hahn and Ulrich Teichler

39

Globalization and changes in Chinese higher education Futao Huang

67

International education and the production of cosmopolitan identities Fazal Rizvi

77

Globalization in the concept of Nordic higher education Jussi Välimaa

93

Globalization, neo-liberalism, and higher education: The case of Japan Keiko Yokoyama

RIHE International Publication Series No.9 March 2005

115