Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation · 2012-03-23 · Brussels ~ 23 March...

Internationalisation audits.Assessing and improving institutional strategies

ACA European Policy Seminar SeriesBrussels ~ 23 March 2012



Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation

Laura E. RumbleyDeputy Director



Agenda1. Inspiration

Extensive and on-going reflection, consultation and evolution

2. Exploration

3. Implementation

4. Re-consideration

5. Operationalisation

6. Evaluation



InspirationMyriad new opportunities and imperatives:

6 partners:

1 goal:

• Expansion à Complexity

• Competition

• Quality• Accountability

Funding support:

October 2009 – September 2012

• Cooperation

A practical tool for higher education institutions to measure internationalisation



InspirationKey project elements:

Relevance to the European higher education community:

• A set of indicators

• An online toolbox

• Dissemination instruments and activities

• Two rounds of practical testing

• Associate partners: 18 HEIs, 2 university networks, 1 national agency (DAAD)

• Participating institutions: 20 HEIs



Exploration

• Scanning the environment

Indicator Projects on Internationalisation – Approaches, Methods and Findings

• Compiling and then filtering a preliminary list of indicators

Workshop: Berlin, April 2010



Implementation – 1st testing round• A set of indicators (approx. 300)

• An online toolbox

• Testing by/with Associate Partners

Division into 5 benchmarking groups of various sizes and “profiles”Each group facilitated by a team of 2 core partner representatives

Workshop 1: Nantes, September 2010• select goals and indicators• define key terms and “framework conditions”



Implementation – 1st testing roundTesting by/with Associate Partners

Group Group Size Indicators Chosen per Group

1. Group A

2. Group B

3. Group C

4. Single HEI 1

5. Single HEI 2

8

7

13*

1

1

28

18

32

28

56

Homework: September 2010 to January 2011 – collect data, analyse data

Workshop 2: Den Haag, February 2011 – discuss findings

* 7 of these 13 were indirectly involved through a university network.



Re-considerationKey outcomes and findings of the 1st testing round

• All institutions could deliver some data

• Variable data quality and comprehensiveness

• Many different perspectives on definitions for/meanings of indicators

• The indicators still needed work: refining, streamlining, systematising

• Self-assessment proved more satisfying than group benchmarking

• Data collection was often more challenging and time-consuming than expected

• Data could not stand alone; contextual information proved crucial

• Time series were more revealing than single-year snapshot data



Operationalisation – 2nd testing roundBuilding on the 1st testing round experience for the 2nd testing round

• Introduction of a more effective IMPI “process”: self-assessment as prerequisite before group benchmarking

• Much clearer and more standardised indicator language

• Better organisation and presentation of the toolbox via topical categories and sub-categories

“In a given year… the unit…”

• More time devoted to developing clear definitions for key terms

• More energy devoted to clarifying key contextual issues

• More limitations on indicators selected per institution or group: 5-7 for self-assessment, 13-15 for group benchmarking(1st round testing involved 18-56 indicators per institution or group! )



Operationalisation – 2nd testing roundTesting by/with participating institutions

Workshop 1: Vienna, May 2011• describe contextual overview by each institution• select self-assessment goals and indicators• define key terms and “framework conditions”

Homework: June to August 2011: collect data, analyse data

Workshop 2: Copenhagen, September 2011• discuss self-assessment findings• move from self-assessment to group benchmarking mode

Homework: September 2011 to January 2012: collect data, analyse data

Workshop 3: Paris, February 2012 – discuss group benchmarking findings



Operationalisation – 2nd testing roundKey outcomes and findings of the 2nd testing round

• Indicator selection should be preceded by deep reflection about the institution’s goals for internationalisation

• Less is more: working with a smaller number of carefully selected indicators seems to enhance data quality

• Clarity and agreement on key terminology and definitions is crucial

• A mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators is advisable

• Self-assessment before group benchmarking provides important benefits• Homogeneity or heterogeneity across group members can have positive

and negative effects• Data are rarely precisely comparable, but benchmarking built on serious

efforts to work from common definitions can still yield very useful results



Operationalisation – 2nd testing roundKey outcomes and findings of the 2nd testing round (continued…)

• Benchmarking is quite difficult

• Peer learning is quite valuable

• Moderators can play a very useful role in group benchmarking



EvaluationWhat has the IMPI project delivered?

• A very comprehensive website that tells the IMPI “story” and provides access to all project resources: http://www.impi-project.eu

• A tested set of indicators for internationalisation

• A guiding project rationale emphasising internationalisation as a means to important ends for higher education (relating to teaching, learning, research, social responsibility, etc.)

• A basic methodology for guiding institutions through a process of self-assessment and group benchmarking for internationalisation

• A functional and still-evolving online toolbox, freely accessible to the public, and currently being tested out around the world

http://www.impi-project.eu



EvaluationWhat has the IMPI project delivered? (continued…)

• A tangibly helpful experience for participating institutions

• Evidence

• External perspective

• Tool for “talking” to other institutions



EvaluationWhat has the IMPI project NOT delivered?

• A more technologically dynamic online toolbox

• The final word on how to make sense of the outcomes of internationalisation



Evaluation

Final symposium for the IMPI Project:

The IMPI initiative and beyond.Mapping and profiling internationalisation

Brussels, 10 May 2012http://www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=583

http://www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=583



Thank you!

[email protected]://www.aca-secretariat.be

http://impi-project.eu

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.aca-secretariat.be

http://impi-project.eu

Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation · 2012-03-23 · Brussels ~ 23 March...

Documents

Transcript of Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation · 2012-03-23 · Brussels ~ 23 March...