What struck me was how much more variety there is now than a few years ago.

There are some fascinating roles with a strong international dimension that sit outside International Offices, suggesting more effective institution-wide internationalisation.

And the recurring priorities across this little snapshot of job postings provide a useful window on what is currently preoccupying UK higher education institutions.

This blog offers a thematic commentary on what the job ads (and job descriptions) are telling us.

There's a strong emphasis on transnational education (TNE) in the UK government International Education Strategy.

The term transnational education appears 16 times, and the abbreviation TNE 22 times.

So I thought I’d check where and how TNE features in recently published strategic plans of UK universities.

This is by no means a systematic study. I’ve simply picked on three, quite different institutions, whose recent publication of new strategic plans came to my attention:

• University of Manchester
• University of Sussex
• Bournemouth University

So, what do they have to say (directly or indirectly) about TNE?

Mervin Bakker, Executive Director at EAIE, used a LinkedIn post to highlight a lesson he felt other countries might learn from the UK. He praised the ‘integrated approach between different parts of the government and other stakeholders’ which has led to ‘a holistic strategy combining education, trade, development and diplomacy’. However, he agreed with me that extending involvement to the Home Office would have been even better!

Mervin also commented that ‘a better balance could have been struck between the challenges and opportunities for international education from the perspective of students and the local communities around HEIs’. Other commentators from within the UK (e.g. Diana Beech, Anne-Marie Graham, David Pilsbury, Ruth Arnold) have made similar observations about the importance of the international student voice and the need for universities to engage with their local communities as key stakeholders in their international endeavours.

So it seemed apt that the term ‘geopolitical tensions’ features in the very first line of the strategy’s Ministerial Foreword. And it reminded me just how much the world has changed since the UK’s last IES was published in 2019.

It’s a huge relief not to be in limbo any more. The new strategy has finally landed, following a ‘review’ that has lasted since October 2024. And there are some positive ideas and themes. But it also includes its own internal tensions.

So, what does the IES say and how should we interpret it?

In generalised terms, there was a shift from international strategies in the late 1990s (largely synonymous with international student recruitment) to internationalisation strategies in the late 2000s (more comprehensive, but still internally focused on making the institution ‘more international’) to global engagement strategies in the late 2010s (more outward-facing, with an emphasis on building responsible relationships and making a positive global impact).

I read a LinkedIn post recently which got me thinking about whether we (and, by ‘we’, I mean universities in economically advantaged countries where higher education institutions have reasonable levels of autonomy) should be paying far more attention to radical shifts in global demographics when devising our next wave of strategies. And not just our international strategies. Our overarching institutional strategies.

Here’s how it started.

Back in May 2024, I had a lull in consultancy projects. I’d stepped away from work for a month in April to sort out my late mum’s writings, letters and other mementos. And it took a while for new projects to start coming through again.

I decided to take the opportunity to get on with some research I’d been mulling over for a while. What started out as an analysis of the international KPIs in post-pandemic strategic plans turned into an exploration of UK universities’ international strategies and how success is measured at that, more detailed, level.

When I started out, I planned to turn this into a report for the sector (a follow up to my 2021 Global Strategies Report, but this time homing in on the specific topic of KPIs).

I did the analysis, worked out my report structure, and drafted a context-setting introduction (though a general election was called and the context seemed likely to change before I’d finished writing the report).

Then the consultancy work picked up again from June. I had less time and was struggling to focus on writing this new report alongside the consultancy.

This is the twelfth and, you'll be relieved to hear, final blog in my series sharing insights and emerging ideas on ways to measure international success, based on a review of university international strategies. Links to earlier blogs in the series are provided at the end of this one.

In this final blog, I review some of the constructive and insightful comments made when I’ve shared my KPI blogs on LinkedIn. It was truly gratifying that this series stimulated such lively debate and I appreciate that so many of you took the time to share your own observations.

I’m going to go through each of the thematic blogs in turn.

I’d intended this to be a final, wrap-up blog to this series but I’m going to split the wrapping up over two blogs as there’s still a lot I’d like to say. And a 12-part series feels more complete than an 11-parter!

So, in this blog, I’ll flag up some missing metrics, then throw a spanner in the works by exploring the question of whether KPIs are even useful. Do we really need to measure everything?

Blog number 12 will provide an overview of key learning points from the series and some concluding observations.

Despite well-rehearsed reservations about the commercial global rankings, these are often used (by institutions and their stakeholders) as a measure of reputation and a marker of prestige.

I was amused to find out recently that the term ‘prestige’ used to be a synonym for ‘practising juggling or sleight of hand’, and is derived from a Latin adjective meaning ‘full of tricks’ or ‘deceitful’.

It can feel as if institutions are ‘practising sleight of hand’ when they focus on optimising specific metrics simply to climb the rankings; and the rankings agencies open themselves up to accusations of ‘deceit’ when they offer reputation-building consultancy to institutions with one hand, while compiling various rankings with the other.

This insightful piece in International Higher Education by Chris Glass and Gerardo Blanco investigates the worrying dynamics of what they describe as the ‘new analytics-industrial complex’, reflecting a transition on the part of companies like THE and QS from ‘rankings to regulatory power’.  

Some institutions (e.g. Utrecht University) have publicly withdrawn from global rankings. Others are signing up to initiatives such as More Than Our Rank. Meanwhile, the rankings organisations have branched out into new, more specific rankings such as the THE Impact Rankings and QS Sustainability Rankings.

The former allows institutions to differentiate themselves by selecting their ‘priority SDGs’ – but still ends up with a global ranking.

The very notion that you can reliably rank institutions that have widely differing missions and contexts (apples, oranges and - in the illustration for this blog - a pineapple) is, when you think about it, ludicrous.

That doesn’t stop rankings being used by a whole host of stakeholders to inform decisions, including:

• individual students selecting a university
• institutions evaluating a potential partner
• governments determining whether a foreign university is eligible to establish a campus in their country or to host sponsored students.   

So, are rankings still a popular KPI in international strategies? And what other measures of global reputation are used?

This is the ninth in my series of blogs sharing insights and emerging ideas on ways to measure international success, based on a review of university international strategies. Links to earlier blogs in the series are provided at the end of this one.

In the UK, there’s a lot of focus on having a diverse body of students. Increasing weight is also placed on nurturing a global outlook among those students.

Less attention is paid to the diversity of the staff community and the role of the institution in tapping into - and further developing - the international perspectives, expertise and networks of staff. Despite the fact that these characteristics greatly enhance and enrich delivery of the core missions of teaching and research.

There’s a clear intersection with Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) goals and sometimes ‘shared’ KPIs feature in international strategies.

When I’ve been involved in developing institutional strategies for global engagement, the theme of internationalised research and knowledge exchange has often been challenging to integrate.

This is partly because there’s usually a core institutional strategy for research (which may already be in existence or may still be in development) and generally a dedicated PVC / VP (Research) with ownership of this area. And – certainly for research-intensive universities – there’s an assumption that world-leading, internationally oriented and collaborative research is ‘core business’. In some institutional cultures this can lead to a slightly territorial approach, questioning the need to mention this area in an international strategy.

I try to turn this around and show that it’s an opportunity to reinforce certain research (and knowledge exchange) priorities and to shine a spotlight on those actions that make a specific contribution to building global impact.

But when there is a clear research dimension in an international strategy, how does this translate into KPIs?  

As many people observed in the comments on my international student recruitment KPIs blog, you can’t achieve sustainable advances in attracting students to your campus without paying attention to international student experience, success and alumni engagement.

• The experiences (educational, social, cultural, job-related and other) that international students have at a university;
• their academic and employment outcomes;
• and their ongoing involvement with their institution throughout their life and career:

the quality of all of these feeds directly into a university’s reputation and, therefore, its ability to recruit future generations of students.

And that's not to mention the positive societal impact of nurturing a generation of well-educated, well-informed, community-minded and highly employable individuals. 

The question is, how much emphasis is there in UK university international strategies on KPIs relating to these crucial priorities?

Following my blogs on KPIs relating to TNE and international student recruitment, this one explores success measures associated with a theme that appears to be growing in prominence in UK university international strategies: international and intercultural experiences and exposure.

It’s a bit of a mouthful but I wanted to broaden this out from ‘just’ international experiences, which may be interpreted by some as applying only to the minority of students who undertake some form of global mobility. The term ‘exposure’ embraces Internationalisation of the Curriculum and Internationalisation at Home, recognising that these have the potential to reach all students. And the term ‘intercultural’ acknowledges the beneficial impact of drawing on local experiences of cultural diversity. The frame of reference does not always need to be international.   

The timing of this blog in the same week as Universities UK International’s 2025 Global Mobility conference is fortuitous. Among other things, this event explored the impact of global mobility and ways to measure this (for more takeaways, see my post-conference LinkedIn post).

Complementing this event, a highly relevant online conference is coming up in late April. The Global and Lifelong Learning team at the University of Kent is organising Innovations in Internationalisation at Home: Show us your Impact.   

This consistent emphasis on impact begs the question: how do we measure success?

Despite a recent upsurge in the prioritisation of TNE (see blog number 4 in this series), the most common KPIs for UK institutions (at the level of both institutional strategy and supporting international strategy) have long tended to be associated with attracting international students to the UK campus. If pressed to find a single proxy for ‘international success’, many institutions would plump for ‘number of international enrolments’.  

But this is a pretty blunt measure. Can we learn anything about more nuanced approaches by analysing the KPIs in recent international strategies?

In the second blog of this series, I noted (with plenty of caveats) that, across recent UK international strategies, the number of individual KPIs relating to ‘transnational students, programmes and partnerships’ has overtaken the number relating to ‘attracting international students to the UK campus’.

There’s an interesting parallel with current sector debates about when the number of UK transnational education (TNE) students is likely to outstrip the number of international enrolments on UK university home campuses (see UWN’s TNE numbers will overtake foreign students in UK – Experts).

The increasing emphasis on TNE is partly because it’s no longer the preserve of modern, teaching-focused institutions. When I reviewed the KPIs used in institutional strategic plans back in 2020, I noted that: ‘The only KPI category where the younger institutions clearly dominate is the one focusing on TNE, reflecting the fact that this is a strand of international activity embraced earlier as a deliberate strategy by many younger HEIs and only more recently starting to be actively pursued by some of the more traditional universities.’

It now appears to have moved firmly into the mainstream for most UK institutions. But what kinds of KPIs are used to measure success when it comes to TNE?

There have long been concerns that traditional study abroad opportunities (the year or semester abroad) tend to be the preserve of more privileged students. Those who have past experience of travel. Those for whom financial constraints and caring responsibilities and inflexible rental contracts and the need to hold down a job and numerous other factors do not prevent participation. And, of course, individuals who are constrained in these ways are precisely the people for whom an international experience is likely to be most transformative.

When the Turing scheme was established in 2021, it placed an emphasis on social mobility and supporting international opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Funding was provided for shorter mobilities than had been possible under Erasmus+. Keen to secure funding, universities redoubled efforts to widen participation – but Turing’s minimum placement duration of four weeks was still a barrier. Quite apart from the logistical challenges relating to family, jobs and housing, you have to have quite a high level of confidence to head off into the unknown for a month.

So the recent announcement that the minimum duration for Turing-funded mobilities will reduce to two weeks is a welcome one. This is a more realistic length of time for those who can contemplate dipping a toe in the water, but for whom full immersion is a step too far. And often, that first experience offers a gateway to participation in other, more ambitious international opportunities at a future time.

In most UK university international strategies, there is some reference to how success will be measured. However, the level of detail and specificity varies hugely. The term Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is used liberally – and often quite loosely – alongside other terms such as ambitions, measures, metrics and indicators of success.

Before I share (in future blogs) my observations on typical – and more innovative – KPIs linked to different international engagement themes, I’ve decided to use this blog to outline the characteristics of a good KPI and to detail some traps to avoid and tips to bear in mind. 

This is part two in a series of blogs sharing insights and emerging ideas on ways to measure international success, based on a review of university strategies for internationalisation or global engagement (abbreviated here as ‘international strategies’). In case you missed it, here’s a link to the first scene-setting one.

What I write comes with the caveat that, across two review periods (in 2020 and 2024), I found only 14 publicly accessible international strategies which included KPIs, and only six of these were current when I conducted my 2024 review. Recognising the importance of client confidentiality, I do not include in the analysis any strategies to which I had privileged access as a consultant involved in their development. However, when making wider observations, I may draw on some of the approaches explored during my consultancy work.

When I reviewed UK universities’ strategic plans during the pandemic, I found that they tended to use a narrow, fairly inward-looking set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure their international success. This was despite the fact that the rhetoric in the strategy documents often emphasised bold, outward-facing ambitions about making a positive global contribution.

Across the higher education sector, many saw the pandemic as an opportunity to step back and consider what ‘globally engaged’ or ‘internationally active’ might mean for universities when these concepts are not predicated on physical mobility. Commitments were made to maintain a broader perspective on internationalisation and global engagement post-pandemic – and to ‘build back better’.

It struck me that one way of evaluating whether universities were sticking to these commitments would be to examine institutional KPIs in this area. After all, KPIs tend to determine where an institution focuses its resources and efforts. In practice, they count for more than any noble words in the narrative of strategy documents.

However, this time round, amid all the news of deficits and redundancies and a general vibe of doom and gloom across the higher education sector, I felt the need to read some positive stories.

As you’d expect, each newsletter shared details of impressive achievements by members of the institution’s community. What struck me most was the impact many of these are having and / or will have on wider communities around the world.

In this blog, I’m going to pick out three examples to share in an effort to start the new year with something uplifting.

I’ll work up from the university where I studied as an undergraduate to the one where I completed my doctorate (with a little bit of autobiography so you know what my connection with them is).

The theme of Winter Forum 2024, the magazine of the European Association for International Education (EAIE), is ‘Building Back Better?’.

This issue explores the ways in which international education has shifted since the pandemic. As the Editorial puts it:

‘What does ‘building back better’ really mean for international education? The emphasis is on the word ‘better’; it invites higher education institutions to rethink internationalisation through the lenses of ethics, inclusivity and sustainability. It calls for more equitable partnerships and encourages reflection on the environmental impact of mobility programmes… This issue of Forum provides a truly global perspective with thought-provoking and stimulating contributions targeted at educators who want to innovate their thinking and their classrooms and build back better.’

Time for a reflective piece, since this is the 100^th blog I’ve posted on the News and Views section of my website.

My first one was in May 2014, so I’ve been using blogging as an outlet for over a decade now, with an output rate of roughly ten a year.

It was interesting looking back over my blog archive. I stumbled across various things I’d forgotten I’d written about!

So, how has my focus changed? What have I learned? Which were the most popular blogs? And what next?

The University of East London (UEL) is a magnet for Indian students. In 2022/23, nearly 8000 were studying there. That’s 77% of its international student body (and one in every 22 Indian students in the UK).

Most Indian students who study abroad need convincing that there will be an appropriate return on their (significant) investment. One of the things that makes UEL so attractive is its emphasis on empowering students for successful careers.

Its Vision 2028 progress update describes its mission as ‘equipping [students] with skills valued by employers, fostering connections and providing unwavering support in collaboration with industry partners’.

Lots of UK universities say this kind of thing. And many of them do a great job of preparing their domestic students for careers in the UK.

Some of them make the effort to understand – and provide - the additional guidance and support required by international students wishing to take advantage of the UK’s post-study work opportunities, which have opened up since the introduction of the Graduate Route visa in 2021.

Imperial opens science and technology research hub in Ghana

Southampton wants 5,000 students at ‘comprehensive’ India campus

At first sight, these initiatives are very different.

Imperial College London ‘has become the first UK university to open a permanent base for science and technology research in Africa’. The Imperial Global Ghana hub, based in Accra, will focus on ‘medical diagnostics, vaccine research, AI and data science, climate science and sustainable cities’, building on Imperial’s partnerships in West Africa to strengthen collaborative links between that region and the UK.

Meanwhile, the University of Southampton, having been awarded a licence by India’s University Grants Commission (UGC) in August 2024, is set to become the first British university campus in the country when it opens next year. While the initial course portfolio will be a modest six courses, there is an ambitious goal that ‘by the 10^th year of operation, about two-thirds of the courses on offer at Southampton’s home campus will be available in India’, with target enrolments of 5,000 by the end of the first decade.

But what do these two ventures have in common?

Many students come from wealthy countries (particularly the US). The summer school can provide a valuable additional income stream for the university and may even whet the appetite of participants to return for postgraduate study.

Some institutions offer scholarships and/or, collaborating with partner universities, make subsidised places available for students from less wealthy countries or less privileged backgrounds.

However, irrespective of any attempts to diversify the cohort, the conceptual basis of the summer school generally centres on show-casing the university’s academic expertise (and the assets of the local area) via a bite-sized experience for which there is sufficient international demand to make it a viable business proposition.

I’m just about to head off on a family holiday for a couple of weeks. And I know that, once I get back, the EAIE conference in Toulouse (17-20 September) will be just around the corner.

This conference is always a highlight of my year and I’m looking forward to travelling down through France to La Ville Rose by train.

I’m pleased to be chairing and speaking at a session there. It’s called University strategies for global engagement: What’s changed since the pandemic?

(Session 4.05 at 15:30 on 18 September – details in the Leadership, strategy and policy topic list).

It’s been fun preparing for it with co-presenters Ramon Ellenbroek from the Netherlands and Dr Douglas Proctor from Australia.

This is the fourth and final blog in my ‘journey through time’ series. I used the previous three to reflect on my 30 years in the international HE sector, one decade at a time.

Part 1 covered 1994 – 2004

Part 2 covered 2004 – 2014

Part 3 covered 2014 – 2024

In this final blog, I thought it would be interesting to look into the future. What might the next ten years have in store for me, career-wise, and for the international higher education sector more broadly?

Each blog is part reminiscence about how my career developed in the decade concerned and part commentary on what was going on in the sector.

This one brings us up to the current day.

Each blog is part reminiscence about how my career developed in the decade concerned and part commentary on what was going on in the sector.

This one is quite UK-focused. It would be interesting to hear about key developments during these years in other parts of the world.

This is the first in a series of blogs reflecting on my 30 years in the sector one decade at a time.

It’s part reminiscence about how my career developed in the decade concerned and part commentary on what was going on in the sector.

This first blog may resonate with those who have been working in this field as long as I have (you know who you are!).

Or else we focus only on what’s going on in ‘countries like us’.

Of course, it’s extremely valuable to learn from the experiences of other anglophone countries. And there have been some great webinars and podcasts recently, which have provided useful commentaries on recent developments in Australia and Canada.

These include:

• this week’s excellent HEPI / James Martin Institute webinar on the Australian Universities Accord, featuring Accord Panel Chair, Professor Mary O’Kane;
• a Think Education podcast interview with the ever-lucid Dr Douglas Proctor discussing international student recruitment caps in Australia;
• the EAIE podcast interview with Jogvan Klein and Alex Usher, exploring policy whiplash in both Australia and Canada.

However, I’ve also been reminded by articles in publications such as University World News, Times Higher Education, ICEF Monitor and the EAIE’s Forum magazine, as well as by conversations with (and LinkedIn posts by) colleagues in other parts of the world, that it’s helpful to lift up our heads and take note of developments in other higher education systems, beyond the usual suspects.

I spent the last couple of days at UUK International’s International Higher Education Forum (IHEF 2024). It was the first in-person IHEF since before the pandemic and I really enjoyed the combination of thought-provoking sessions and personal connections.

On the train back last night, I was reflecting on my immediate impressions and key themes.

Simplifying things drastically, I came away feeling that Day 1 was an opportunity to share our common woes (within the UK and with colleagues in the US, Canada and Australia), while Day 2 was more about pulling ourselves together, taking stock of the facts, coming up with some positive actions we can take, and considering perspectives from outside our ‘Anglosphere bubble’.

Sharing challenges, sometimes with a kind of gallows humour, was cathartic, but I was taken with what Sir Mark Walport said in the closing panel session. It was something along the lines of:

There’s no point expending energy on moaning about the things we can’t change. It’s much more important to focus on all the crucial work we are in a position to tackle.

I’m coming to the end of a four-week break from consultancy.

I decided earlier this year that I’d try to take April off work to deal with a specific personal project – and I told lots of people about my plan to reduce the chance of me backing out!

The project is sorting the contents of dozens of boxes of letters, travel journals, unpublished (and some published) writings, photos, slides, sketches, significant documents and mementos that I brought back from my mum’s house after she died in 2017.  As an only child of another only child, belonging to a family with hoarding tendencies, this is a mountain of a task.

I had been telling myself for years that I would try to reduce my working week to four days and spend my Fridays on the sorting exercise. This didn't happen. Work always took precedence.

I realised I’d have to treat it like a work project and allocate a decent chunk of time to it. April seemed like a good month to pick. Clients often take time off over Easter and I had a lot of assignments finishing in March.

As the time approached, I also recognised that doing something completely different for a whole month would have some much-needed spin-off benefits.

When I became self-employed eleven years ago, I was determined to keep my evenings and weekends largely work-free: something I had singularly failed to do when employed within universities. For my first decade of consultancy, I pretty much stuck to this. Weekend working was very much the exception.

However, I noticed that my discipline was starting to lapse in late 2023 and early 2024. Work was creeping into weekends. Sometimes I’d skip the 7.45am walk with which I always try to start the day when I’m working from home. I was working longer hours but being less productive.

As well as allowing me to make inroads into the box-sorting, taking April off would help me to reset my work-life balance.

As a freelancer, it really went against the grain to tell prospective clients that I would be unavailable until May, given that I didn’t actually have any work lined up in April. But I made myself do it and I’m very glad I did.

I’ve had cause to reflect this year on what led me to embark on a career in international higher education 30 years ago.

In part, that’s because – much to my surprise – it really has been 30 years, which is enough on its own to make you stop and think! Where did the time go? It’s also because, since the start of the year, I’ve been asked to contribute to two publications which have made me ponder on how it all started.

The first was my ‘5 minutes with’ interview with Sophie Hogan for The PIE News. One of Sophie’s questions was ‘How did you find yourself working in international education?’.

My ‘in a nutshell’ response was:

After a degree in modern languages, two years as a freelance travel writer and another two working for a charitable foundation in Hamburg, Germany, I found myself looking for a job in rural Wales and ended up as International Officer at what was then University of Wales Lampeter. It was a new role and covered everything from managing Erasmus exchanges and devising marketing communications to organising the international student orientation programme.

So, I’m easing myself back in by repurposing a conference presentation on transnational education (TNE) from earlier this month.

TNE certainly seems to be a hot topic. The majority of my recent consultancy work with universities has been TNE-related: whether helping to identify strategic priorities for institutional TNE development; formulating country-specific growth strategies; or advising on repositioning existing TNE provision.

Meanwhile:

• the International Higher Education Commission published its valuable report on The Role of Transnational Education Partnerships in Building Sustainable and Resilient Higher Education
• the British Council published a regional insights report Transnational Education in East Asia: Learnings and Reflections from the Last 25 Years (including a little contribution from me)
• Universities UK International held its annual Transnational Education Conference at London South Bank University.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Today’s blog draws on some thoughts about repositioning UK TNE for success, which I shared at the Westminster Higher Education Forum conference on Next steps for UK transnational education on 7^th March 2024.

This inspired me to put out a call on LinkedIn to any languages graduates and speakers of multiple languages in my network. I asked them the following question:

‘What skills has language learning given you that you apply in your job?’

This blog takes as a starting point the many insightful responses I received.

It then delves into some broader issues relating to learning and using other languages, which I had great fun discussing with Professor Chris Hill and Professor Judith Lamie on their Think Education podcast in October.

This is all quite topical in light of the publication of the latest International Higher Education Commission report, ‘Is the UK developing global mindsets?’.

Now I’m going to share two case studies, drawn from strategy projects I’ve worked on with universities, to illustrate different approaches to engagement. Each institution’s context and ambitions are different, so there is no ‘one right way’ of doing this, but I hope this blog generates some useful ideas.

It’s worth noting that the international strategy development process can be relatively short and sharp (e.g. 2-3 months from start to finish) or considerably longer (e.g. the best part of a full academic year). (If interrupted by a pandemic, change of leadership or other significant event, it can take longer still.) 

In a number of cases, I’ve been involved in the full development process (both long and short). In other instances, I’ve been invited to help at specific points in the process: for example, initial research and horizon scanning at the start of the process; stimulating discussions part-way through the process; or providing a ‘critical friend’ review of a draft strategy towards the end of the process.

In this blog, I’m going to focus on cases where I’ve been involved from start to finish.

The three main reasons I outlined for engaging with stakeholders correspond broadly with three key (but overlapping) stages in the process of strategy creation:

• Building and broadening understanding

(discussing why international engagement is important for the university community and getting challenging issues out on the table).

• Strengthening the strategy

(unlocking input and insights from key stakeholders).

• Securing commitment to delivery

(getting relevant people to take ownership of specific elements of the strategy).

This blog highlights the role of institutional context, some pitfalls to avoid and some guiding principles I’ve found useful.

Organisational priorities, cultures, resources and operating styles have differed greatly. This has an impact on the most effective way to consult with key stakeholders and engage with the wider community in the course of strategy creation.

Dr Nicki Horseman recently wrote an excellent blog for Halpin, entitled Why engaging your community should be the first step in creating a strategy. In this, she highlights the benefits of effective engagement and urges those involved in directing strategy creation to reflect on the process (not just the measures of success) in order to learn lessons for future iterations. She notes that, for each institution, the strategy development process is ‘part of living and demonstrating its culture and values’.   

This struck a chord with me. Today’s blog reflects on why the consultation and initial engagement phase is so important. A future blog in this series will consider the different approaches that can be taken.

I feel the need to mark the ten-year point in some way and have been wondering what to say. Should I pass on top tips, lessons learned, or consider what advice I’d give myself if I was starting out today?

In the end, it struck me on an early morning walk that what I really want to say is a huge thank you!

In a quirk of timing, the UK foreign secretary, James Cleverly, used a major speech (reported on here by the BBC) to call for the UK to have a more constructive but robust relationship with China in the same week that the EAIE featured on its blog an article (by Dr Janet Ilieva and me) on the relationship between the UK and China.

(Our article is one of many interesting articles in the EAIE’s Spring 2023 Forum magazine, whose theme is ‘Risk and Response’.)

Although coming at this from quite different angles, we both propose that taking an isolationist stance towards China would be a huge mistake.

According to the BBC, Cleverly argued that ‘the UK must engage with Beijing to tackle “humanity’s biggest problems”’ and that isolating China ‘would be a betrayal of our national interest and a wilful misunderstanding of the modern world’.

I’ve been aware for some time that my Vicky Lewis Consulting website was in need of a content update and reorganisation.

It had developed somewhat organically over the (nearly) ten years that I’ve been an independent consultant.

I have finally got around to giving it a much-needed content refresh.

While it’s still broadly based on the presentation I gave at Universities UK International’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor Forum in July 2022, I’ve added in a few ideas that have struck me as I’ve been working with UK universities and engaging with discussions on ethical internationalisation over the intervening period.

This much-delayed final blog in the series shares some thoughts on how business models, processes and operations might be reframed in order to support ethical strategies for international engagement. What are the repercussions for institutional operating frameworks of taking an ethical approach?

We had a wide-ranging discussion, including:

• how university international strategies have changed (and are continuing to do so post-pandemic)
• the things that haven’t changed so much, such as the way success is measured
• the challenges experienced by institutions wanting to make a long-term positive global impact while also needing to generate income in the short term
• the importance of joining up international strategy with other supporting strategies and reconciling tensions with – for example – ambitions for environmental sustainability
• underlying motivations for undertaking transnational education and models of TNE coming to the fore since Covid
• the shift in the axis of power from West to East
• increasing regionalisation when it comes to student mobility
• broad international partnerships beyond HEI-to-HEI, involving organisations and stakeholders in the wider local ecosystem
• measures of TNE success including graduate employability (and happiness) and stakeholder perceptions
• the need for a sophisticated institutional appreciation of risk - from University Board level down
• the changing structures of International Offices with a move to more in-country staff and hubs (with benefits in terms of lower carbon emissions and on-the-ground insight but challenges in terms of ensuring activities are joined up across the globe).

Finally, Judith put me on the spot with her ‘where to from here?’ question. I wanted to end on a positive note and what popped into my head was the recent piece of research by The Policy Institute at King’s College London for the World Values Survey which revealed that UK attitudes to immigration are among the most positive internationally (and have become steadily more positive over recent years) – which provides a useful counterpoint to the impression given by some parts of UK government.

It occurred to me that, unless I’ve worked with you directly, it may not be clear what kind of consultancy I get involved in, since my blogs tend to be more about issues I’ve been researching or topics that have piqued my interest.

So, the first part of this blog gives a brief overview of some of the consultancy work I’ve particularly enjoyed over the last year.

I recently published a blog based on the first half of a presentation I gave at Universities UK International’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor Forum in July 2022. In it, I shared some insights and quandaries relating to ethical university internationalisation strategies.

This follow-up piece draws on the second half of my presentation and starts to explore some practical steps which HEIs wishing to adopt more ethical approaches to international engagement could take.

One idea which emerged at the Forum was that there is a ‘squeezed middle’ of UK HEIs whose reliance on international income (particularly tuition fee income) makes it particularly challenging to formulate a strategy with ethical principles at its heart.

Small, new institutions that are just embarking on their internationalisation journey and derive a lower proportion of their income from international sources can start with a relatively blank sheet and build a strategy ‘values-up’. Larger, established, research-intensive universities with global reputations, financial reserves and income streams from a range of sources also enjoy greater latitude. It is the very many institutions that sit between these extremes for whom the challenges are greatest.

So, what can such institutions do?

This blog shares some thoughts on harnessing diverse perspectives and bringing together shared agendas. (My next one will get onto the reframing of processes, structures and financial models.)

This blog is based loosely on the first half of the presentation I gave to kick off our session, during which I shared some insights and quandaries generated by recent research and consultancy work. A future blog will draw on the second half of my presentation, starting to explore some practical steps which HEIs could take.

When it comes to HEIs’ international engagement, an ‘ethical approach’ means different things for different people / institutions, sitting anywhere on the following spectrum:

1. 1.   Don’t do anything dodgy
2. 2.   Make a positive global contribution where we can
3. 3.   Act in ways that challenge the assumptions on which Western approaches to internationalisation are based
4. 4.   Seek to ‘reverse the adverse effects of economic globalisation’ (which Wei Liu argues is an ethical obligation of those who work in international education).

I’d suggest that many UK universities are at point 1 or point 2 on that spectrum. It is not surprising that points 3 and 4 are a step too far for most, given some of the pressures and constraints of our operating context – at global, national and institutional level. However, there are some questions that those institutions seeking to act ethically in their international activities should be asking themselves.

Some of the conversations I had when interviewing sector stakeholders for my Global Strategies Report last year set me thinking about the intersection between HE internationalisation and decolonisation.

My initial – perhaps naïve – assumption was that they are underpinned by similar values and aspirations: inclusivity, the broadening of perspectives and the challenging of assumptions. However, I soon realised that, when it comes to internationalisation, in the UK at least, there are other, more commercial dynamics at play which can perpetuate colonial models and undermine efforts to decolonise.

I found this blog (entitled: Internationalisation and Decolonisation: Can two work together unless they agree) by Dr Davies Banda from the University of Edinburgh’s Moray House School of Education and Sport particularly helpful, as it shows how internal governance structures and relationships can be used to try to align these two agendas.

It explores learning and teaching, curricula and Internationalisation at Home, concluding that ‘our actions going forward will demand authentic processes to help us overcome superficial discussions of decolonisation beyond mere insertions of Global South items within reading lists’.

This triggered thought pieces for University World News, HEPI, Wonkhe, The PIE and others, as well as an article for the EAIE’s Forum magazine on distributed leadership in international education, one for Times Higher Education about placing language learning at the heart of internationalisation, and a recent one, co-authored with Omolabake Fakunle and Chisomo Kalinga, for International Higher Education on decolonial approaches to internationalisation.

I have also really enjoyed debating some of the issues raised in my report via conference sessions, webinars and other opportunities to engage with colleagues across the sector.

One year on, I thought it would be interesting to reflect on a few of the elements highlighted in the report and how UK HEIs are tackling these. In some cases, new themes and approaches have gained prominence; in other cases, we still seem wedded to our old ways and familiar territory.

In the article, I share the reasons why I love the work that I do, how I ended up in international education, and (a regular hobby-horse of mine) some thoughts on the ways that universities can measure their international success, beyond the traditional quantitative metrics.

The interview made me reflect on why international education is important to me and what keeps me working in the sector. This blog contains a few additional observations, beyond what’s in the PIE Review article.

I was delighted to join them, not just because they’re lovely people and great to work with, but because their philosophy (and that of their respective companies) chimes very much with my own. The approach they take in the regions where they are specialists is firmly based on building mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders.

And their regions are ones which hold the key to that holy grail among UK universities: diversification. Simon and Jamie, from EdCoLatAm, are based in Colombia and specialise in Latin America. Cecilia’s company, GB8, focuses on Southeast Asia. And Stuart’s consultancy, SJRennie Consulting, is a market entry specialist for Africa.

What I didn’t expect was what happened in 2021, which turned into a year of two halves. The first half was focused almost exclusively on research and the second half on consultancy.

I contributed the opening article to the magazine, entitled ‘Fresh Perspectives and Inclusive Models’. It’s based on my 2021 research into the international strategies of UK universities and encourages those of us working in international education to challenge our assumptions about leadership and delivery and to look beyond the pandemic to a future model of more distributed and empowering internationalisation.

This blog is a bit longer than usual because it reproduces the Executive Summary of my report –

I have embedded within this Executive Summary blog links to the various other blogs I have published over the last two months, all of which relate to sections and themes within the report.

So, if you can’t face reading the full report, this blog provides not only a summary of key findings, but also a way to take a quick dive into areas that are of particular interest to you via the relevant blog posts to which it links. I hope that’s a helpful approach.

In my consultancy work, I find that putting time and effort into coming up with the right questions to ask during the consultation phase of new strategy development – or when a strategy is being reviewed – pays huge dividends.

They can be used to stimulate valuable discussions with a range of different stakeholders, serving to challenge assumptions, spark ideas derived from divergent thinking and, ultimately, make the strategy itself richer, more sustainable, more distinctive, and more reflective of institutional values, mission and character.

This is why I conclude each chapter in Part 3 (Next generation strategies: Where are we heading?) of my main Global Strategies report with a set of questions (some of which I have shared in earlier blogs).

The ‘right’ questions will vary from institution to institution and my list is by no means comprehensive. However, I hope it will provide a useful prompt for leaders within HEIs as they engage in discussions on the future shape of their global engagement strategy.

The current context for university global engagement is fraught with tensions: from the geopolitical level through to the institutional level. The pace of change is frenetic. In the time it took me to write up my report, new agent aggregators and partnership models came onto the scene and the UK government slashed budgets for ODA-funded projects.  

The maelstrom of challenges and opportunities for universities, discussed at sector conferences and webinars, in academic papers and in the media, is only very partially addressed within UK national policy and strategy, which inevitably lags behind the wider debates and occasionally feels quite disconnected from them.

This time lag and disconnectedness can also occur in institutional strategies. The big ideas can become diluted and bold courses of action reined back. While the most recent strategies tend to be more values-driven than earlier ones, there often remains a disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between what HEIs say is important and the success measures they use. It is easy to get distracted from the big picture by comparing ourselves with others and fixating on the same metrics we have always used (and those everyone else uses). The hunger for genuine self-improvement can be lost, resulting in a vanilla version of what the institution has the potential to become.

I therefore probed this area with my interviewees, generating a variety of responses. This blog seeks to tease out some of their different perspectives and suggests some alternative approaches to measuring success.

It draws on the final chapter (Chapter 12) of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

My last two blogs highlighted priorities that need to be addressed in future global engagement strategies. One focused on inclusive approaches to developing global perspectives and another on rethinking partnership models.

Strategies are all about change. And change needs to be enabled. It will only be achieved if the conditions are right. This is why so many UK university strategic plans include one or more ‘enabling objectives’.

This current blog explores some of the institutional conditions, approaches and operating practices that will best facilitate delivery of a post-pandemic global engagement strategy. Of course, every university is different, so some aspects may be more relevant to you than others.

The blog draws on Chapter 11 of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

Today’s blog explores inclusive approaches to developing global perspectives and enriching the student – and staff – experience, often assisted by digital technologies. It draws on Chapter 10 of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

The pandemic has made it clear that it is possible to have an internationalised experience without necessarily being physically mobile. Interviewees saw opportunities to build on the progress that has been made in experiential and curriculum-based developments that broaden global horizons.

The principle of inclusivity underpins the concept of ‘Internationalisation for All’. Several interviewees observed that the pandemic experience has opened up a space to have conversations about what internationalisation means for the static majority (not just the mobile minority) and suggested that future global engagement strategies would have less focus on physical mobility. One, referring to programme content, suggested that ‘ironically, the content has become more internationalised precisely because we can’t travel’.

Almost all interviewees highlighted the changing nature of partnerships and the need for models to be rethought, based on deep consideration of how international partnerships can help institutions to achieve their – and their partners’ – overarching strategic goals.

Today’s blog provides an overview of the new partnership landscape and the new relationships that may be forged. It draws on Chapter 9 of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

Today’s blog provides an overview of key points that were raised. It draws on Chapter 8 of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

Interviewees recognised that the centre of gravity is moving from West to East. Higher education and research are expanding rapidly in many parts of Asia. A more regional approach to globalisation is emerging, with non-traditional destinations attracting international students from their region and new international education hubs developing.

Today’s blog provides an overview of some of the key points. It draws on Chapter 7 of my report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?. (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

Interviewees highlighted a number of challenges which were present prior to the pandemic and have been heightened as a result of it. On the whole, they viewed them through the lens of sustainability, often referring to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) framework. This was seen as an important hook within global engagement strategies, aligning well with research and practice and offering a good way to encourage diverse, discipline-based engagement.

Those who believed their institutions were fully committed to the SDGs saw significant benefits – in terms of building a positive reputation among partner networks, particularly in emerging economies, and responding to the interests of students and other stakeholders. However, there were concerns that some institutions may just be paying lip service to the Goals.

As we emerge from the pandemic and deliberate over our future strategies for global engagement, it’s clear that these strategies must fulfil multiple purposes. They need to make a positive impact across different aspects of institutional mission; and to define a valued and distinctive position for the university within a changed global higher education landscape. At the same time, they have a role to play in aiding their institution's post-pandemic recovery and building financial sustainability.

So, how can we ensure they are fit for purpose? How can we avoid retreating into strategies that are entirely commercially driven, or embracing lofty ideological aspirations that are undeliverable, or developing Janus-faced strategies that say one thing and measure another?

I have noticed, over the years, that the forward-looking ideas and new opportunities which excite academics and practitioners when discussed in sector conferences, opinion pieces and working papers often get diluted (or dropped altogether) when institutional strategies are developed. Some may be picked up, but this is generally as evolutions or adaptations of existing activities, rather than in their more radical, raw and, perhaps, risky form. While it may be inevitable that written strategies reflect a degree of caution, perhaps now is the time to embrace some of the more far-reaching changes that could take an institution’s global engagement in new and distinctive directions.

The feedback I’ve received so far on my report suggests that quite a lot of UK HEIs are reviewing their internationalisation / global engagement strategies at the current time. It feels as if the country is starting to emerge from the worst of the pandemic and there is a little more bandwidth to focus on longer term plans.

Wherever institutions are in their strategic planning cycle, it is clear that they are having to invest in some serious strategic thinking, taking into consideration the radically altered external context and changing patterns of stakeholder demand and expectations.

My analysis of the HEI strategic plans current in late 2020 reveals certain common weak spots which may reduce effectiveness so, in the rest of this blog, I suggest ways in which these ‘traps’ can be avoided.

This blog builds on two pieces that I posted back in November / December 2020 on The UK Strategic Plan Landscape and on International KPIs, which shared emerging findings from my research into the profile of the global dimension across UK universities’ current strategic plans.

This topic developed into Chapter 3 of my new report (UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink?) which covers the current articulation of global engagement strategy by UK higher education institutions (HEIs). (There’s an overview of all the sections and Chapters in the report here).

As I wrote in my November blog, different UK HEIs place different emphasis on global engagement / internationalisation within their strategic plans. For some it is peripheral, for others fully embedded. But, across the sector as a whole, what it its profile?   

In my last blog, I provided an overview of how my new report – UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink? – came to be; and outlined the sections and chapters included within it.

Part One of the report includes a chapter (Chapter 2) entitled ‘The pandemic as a catalyst for reprioritisation’, which argues that the structural break represented by Covid-19 makes now the right time to reconsider our strategies for internationalisation and global engagement.

This blog dips into some of the points raised in Chapter 2.

It’s a while since I posted a blog. The research project that I mentioned in my November and December blogs grew into something much larger than I anticipated and I have been busy working on that.

Given my long-standing fascination with the evolution of HEI international strategies, particularly within the UK context, I started out thinking it would be interesting to take the temperature of the sector in late 2020 and see which aspects of global engagement were being prioritised in university strategies.

I enjoyed building a picture of the state of internationalisation and global engagement within UK universities. It was noticeable that the older, still current strategies (published back in 2013 and 2014) tend to use the terms ‘international’ and ‘internationalisation’, whereas the more recent ones are more likely to use the term ‘global’. Beyond terminology, there were changes in content which demonstrate how strategies are very much products of the global and national context at the time they are developed.

Having completed this research, it struck me that the really interesting question is what the next, post-pandemic generation of international strategies will look like; and how they may differ from those that came before them.

Today’s blog highlights some issues to be explored in more depth at a session that Janet Ilieva and I will be delivering at the British Council’s International Education Virtual Festival on Thursday 21 January 2021. The theme of the Festival is ‘Sustainable Futures for International Education’ and it runs from Monday to Thursday of that week (I think our session is in the final slot).

Our presentation will first draw on my research to explore the relationship between the rhetoric in strategic plans and the international KPIs used to measure progress. We’ll then use Janet’s Education Insight Global Engagement Index (GEI) to investigate what actual performance against a range of indicators looks like at sector level.

I am currently working on a research project which explores the profile of the international / global dimension in institutional strategic plans right across the UK Higher Education sector. Rather than waiting until I’ve finished analysing everything, I’m going to share emerging observations as I go (with the caveat that my thinking may change as I get further through the project).

Today’s blog provides an overview of the UK HEI strategic plan landscape and makes some observations about institutions’ different approaches to weaving in an international dimension.

I went from being Deputy Director of a (for that time) reasonably sized International Office in Scotland to inaugural Head of an as yet non-existent International Office on the south coast of England.

It was a wonderful opportunity. When I arrived, one member of staff in External Relations was responsible for ‘everything international’ – from student recruitment to Erasmus exchange coordination to international student pastoral support and advice. She valiantly tried to corral the efforts of a handful of academic staff who would travel the world attending recruitment exhibitions and blithely signing MoUs or agent contracts. There was minimal coordination or communication beyond their own School.

International Office staff of that era from other institutions (you know who you are) may recall the frustration of finding that two separate (and often visually quite different) exhibition booths had been set up by different Schools / Faculties at the same recruitment event; or that separate visits to a potential partner institution had taken place in quick succession. 

Before I arrived, a consultant’s report had identified the opportunities and cost savings that would be derived from having greater coordination and a clear strategic focus. I was therefore in the fortunate position of being given carte blanche to define the scope of the new International Office and to devise new policies and approaches as needed.

I was backed up by top management all the way as we developed from a one-person operation to a comprehensive International Office with specialist staff covering international student recruitment, admissions, student experience, exchanges, outbound mobility, partnerships, pathway programmes, logistics and administration. Because I sat on the University Management Team, we were able to engage with other areas of university operations too – from marketing to the curriculum.

Our piece starts by observing that, ‘whether graduates seek work in the host country or the sending country, it’s in the best interest of both national governments and individual institutions to facilitate international students’ transition into the workforce and accurately track employment trends’.

Australian and UK governments have both stressed the importance of graduate outcomes. At the same time, research shows that career impact is a key factor for international students when choosing their future university.

I outlined the progression from economically motivated strategies with an almost exclusive focus on recruiting international students (in the late 1990s, early 2000s) to broader internationalisation strategies (in the late 2000s, early 2010s). The latter were more comprehensive in scope but still relatively inward-looking, focusing on making different functions, policies and processes within the institution ‘more international’. More recently, we have started to see global engagement strategies, which are more outward-facing, with an emphasis on building long-term international relationships and engaging responsibly with communities on a global scale to serve the common good.

There is an opportunity for the next generation of strategies to reflect a subtle shift from an attitude of ‘how can the wider world contribute to our institution’s success?’ towards ‘how can our institution contribute to the success of the wider world?’.

In addition to the ‘after the storm’ type sessions triggered by the Covid-19 crisis, there are some familiar (but nonetheless valuable) themes. Topics include: improving employment outcomes in a changing world; diversity, equity and inclusion in HE; the future of transnational education; and reaching the Sustainable Development Goals.   

This morning, I happened be leafing through my DBA thesis, completed way back in the mists of time (2007), long before Brexit, long before coronavirus. The thesis is on ‘integrated internationalism’ in UK higher education and looks at the drivers for and approaches to internationalisation within the UK HE sector at that time (mid-2000s).

Within the thesis, I stumbled across my summary of the 2006 Going Global conference (this was only the second time the conference had run).

Drawing on the thinking of 17^th century French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, it challenges the belief that ‘we must always go to new places in order to feel and discover new and worthwhile things’ and urges us to make the most of what is close at hand.

Towards the end of the 18^th century another Frenchman, Xavier de Maistre, ‘decided to study the wonders and beauty of what lay closest to him, entitling the account… A Journey Round my Room’.

What really struck me about this was the insight that ‘the pleasure we derive from journeys is perhaps dependent more on the mindset with which we travel than on the destination we travel to. If only we could apply a travelling mindset to our own rooms and immediate neighbourhoods, we might find these places becoming no less interesting than foreign lands.’

He suggests that the chief characteristics of a travelling mindset are receptivity, appreciation and gratitude. And that ‘crucially, this mindset doesn’t need to wait for a faraway journey to be deployed’.

It seems to me that, at a time when we cannot jet round the world and when we have an opportunity to shake off our environmentally damaging addiction to long-haul travel, this is a very pertinent message. And a useful lens through which universities might consider their aspirations for Internationalisation at Home.

• International students vs. domestic students.
• ‘Sending’ countries vs. ‘receiving’ countries.
• TNE students vs. ‘true’ international students.
• Distance learning vs. ‘standard’ programmes.
• Internationalisation ‘at home’ vs. internationalisation ‘abroad’.

This desire to categorise can be unhelpful, highlighting differences at a time when the boundaries between many of these categories are becoming increasingly blurred.

Simon Anholt, founder of The Good Country Index (which measures what each country contributes to the greater good of humanity), has used Twitter to initiate a new hashtag: #staychanged. The idea is to highlight those positive (often kinder, greener) behaviours that the pandemic has triggered, which we would like to hold on to after it is over.

This blog reflects on institutional behaviours (within UK HE) that we’re seeing now, which are essential during the current crisis and will continue to be valuable if they can be maintained afterwards.  

In each case, I look at how the changed behaviour plays out in the context of international student recruitment.

I’ve selected five changes for the better. (There are doubtless many more.)

Of course, one of the first developments that comes to mind when one thinks about international graduate employability is the long-awaited new post-study work route, which will allow international graduates of UK HEIs to seek and undertake employment in the UK for two years after they graduate. While this is extremely welcome, it opens up some questions about whether UK universities are equipped to meet the expectations of their international students – not only the small minority who choose to remain in the UK, but also the 90 per cent who, on graduation, return home to pursue their careers.

This article highlights three themes that came through loud and clear at the conference, before suggesting some practical ways in which HEIs can adapt to support the employability of their international graduates.

For alliterative purposes, the three themes can be summarised as:

• Character
• Collaboration
• Cash

Although many UK HEIs still take a fairly parochial, silo-ed approach to international strategy development, there are indications that some university leaders are starting to expand their vision.

As always, the national strategy lags well behind the thinking of those institutions that are in the vanguard.

One problem at national level (which echoes the challenges at institutional level) is that different departments have different agendas. Efforts are at best fragmented, at worst pulling in different directions.

Earlier this week I read a University World News article by Stephanie Doscher (Florida International University), which asks the question ‘why internationalise?’.

The author draws on Simon Sinek’s concept of ‘why’ as a values proposition: the ‘purpose, cause or belief’ that gives rise to what you do and how you do it. She concludes that ‘under the right conditions, internationalisation significantly increases interactions among diverse people, ideas and perspectives, leading to enhanced knowledge production and the fulfilment of higher education’s fundamental purpose’.

As such, internationalisation is seen as an essential vehicle for HEIs to fulfil their ultimate mission (‘the production and exchange of new knowledge about the world and its inhabitants’), rather than an optional extra.

This set me thinking about the gulf between the dominant drivers for HE internationalisation in the UK (which are still largely instrumentalist) and those which might come to the fore if internationalisation was treated as integral to HE’s core purpose.

A lot has changed since I started out on a nine-month contract as a part-time International Officer at what was then University of Wales Lampeter (now part of University of Wales Trinity St David). The institution had never had an International Officer before and my role was a hotchpotch of Erasmus exchange coordination, international marketing and international student support. Plus a few random other duties on the side.

It stood me in good stead for my next International Office role at Edinburgh Napier University. This was ostensibly an International Recruitment Officer post, but (thanks to a long-term vacancy) started off with a frantic scramble trying to organise an international orientation programme and getting new students settled in. From international recruitment (which seemed to involve marketing and communications as well), my remit broadened to include international partnerships and establishing a study abroad programme, as I worked my way up to Deputy Director.

Then, in 2000, I moved to the other end of the UK to set up Bournemouth University’s first International Office. It was helpful to have had hands-on experience of so many different roles myself. New challenges included taking over from the Business School the management of preparatory English programmes, which introduced me to the worlds of academic administration and, in due course, public-private partnerships. I also experienced my fair share of institutional politics thanks to thirteen years on the University Leadership Team.

Since 2013, I’ve been working for myself as an independent consultant, specialising in international strategy development and planning for higher education providers and related organisations. That’s provided me with some wonderful insights into the cultures and priorities of different types of institution – both in the UK and overseas.

So, what’s changed in the world of international higher education over the last 25 years?

I’m going to highlight three key changes – one at individual / operational unit level, one at organisational level and one at national / international level. They’re drawn mainly from my experience of the UK context, so I’d be interested to hear whether they resonate in other parts of the world.

It expands on some of the top level findings presented at the TNE-Hub Symposium on ‘Transnational Education: Innovations in Practice’ on 11 July 2018. Presentations (in my case a joint one with Dr Janet Ilieva, entitled: Evolving TNE approaches: from short-termism to sustainability?’) are downloadable from here.

The survey investigated:

• how TNE drivers and approaches have changed for UK HEIs over the last few years;
• the priority that UK HEIs give to different modes of delivery and levels of study in their future TNE strategies;

and

• the kind of engagement that governing bodies have with TNE strategy.

My first blog covered the first topic of how institutional TNE strategies and drivers have changed in the UK HE sector over the last few years. You can read it here.

The second blog explored which TNE delivery modes (and levels of study) are most prominent in UK HEI’s future strategies – available here.

This final blog in the series highlights key findings from my survey question about the nature of governing body engagement - and draws together key insights from the survey exercise as a whole.

This blog is the second in a series, outlining the findings of a small survey conducted in June 2018.

It expands on some of the top level findings presented at the TNE-Hub Symposium on ‘Transnational Education: Innovations in Practice’ on 11 July 2018. Presentations (in my case a joint one with Dr Janet Ilieva, entitled: Evolving TNE approaches: from short-termism to sustainability?’) are downloadable from here.

The survey investigated:

• how TNE drivers and approaches have changed for UK HEIs over the last few years;
• the priority that UK HEIs give to different modes of delivery and levels of study in their future TNE strategies;

and

• the kind of engagement that governing bodies have with TNE strategy.

My first blog covered the first topic of how institutional TNE strategies and drivers have changed in the UK HE sector over the last few years. You can read it (and find out about survey methodology and caveats) here.

This second blog explores which TNE delivery modes (and levels of study) are most prominent in UK HEIs' future strategies.

In the area of transnational education (TNE), partnership approaches with host country partners are becoming more equitable, less ‘one-way-traffic’ (see pdf of this UUKi / British Council report from 2016). And fears about the implications of the Brexit referendum are resulting in UK HEIs going out of their way to demonstrate commitment to current and future institutional partners. The sector is keen to show that it is not retreating into nationalism and insularity – quite the opposite.

However, financial imperatives are still strong. Thanks to various recent government policy decisions, institutions feel under pressure to find ‘replacement’ income streams for what is perceived to be ‘at risk’ international student fee income.

Against this background, I thought it would be interesting to run a small survey to investigate:

• how TNE drivers and approaches have changed for UK HEIs over the last few years;
• the priority that UK HEIs give to different modes of delivery and levels of study in their future TNE strategies;

and

• the kind of engagement that governing bodies have with TNE strategy.

The survey took place in June 2018 and I presented some of the top level findings at the TNE-Hub Symposium on ‘Transnational Education: Innovations in Practice’ on 11 July 2018. Presentations (in my case a joint one with Dr Janet Ilieva, entitled: Evolving TNE approaches: from short-termism to sustainability?’) are downloadable from here.

Based on the survey, this blog makes some observations about recent changes to institutional approaches and drivers for TNE.

I’ve had a lot of people ask me what I like best about working for myself. That’s easy to answer: the flexibility; the opportunity to make a difference quickly; the chance to get to the nub of an issue that a client has been grappling with internally (and may have misdiagnosed); the ability to say no to projects that I’m uncomfortable with; the credibility accorded to a neutral, external party; not having to be sucked too far into internal politics. I could go on.

My children were five and three when I started my business and it was a huge bonus to be able to work around their school and nursery day, rather than having to fit their needs in around my work commitments. The immediate impact was reduced stress because I didn’t constantly feel guilty: guilty towards my employer for not working the very long hours I did before having kids; and guilty towards my children for not feeling able to get away from work for class assemblies and sports afternoons.

Yes, there was less money coming in for a while, but it was absolutely worth it.

There have been some significant shifts in the global discourse about higher education internationalisation recently. The Western perspective that has tended to dominate, with its assumptions that internationalisation is ‘a good thing’, is being challenged. Is it positive for everyone? And have we been guilty of taking a narrow (and lopsided) view of what it’s all about?

I attended UUKi’s International Higher Education Forum (IHEF) in Nottingham on 14 March. It was clear from the opening plenary (which involved speakers from universities in Japan, Switzerland, Canada and the USA, as well as a representative for Pacific Rim institutions) that internationalisation means different things in different contexts. However, there was broad recognition of the wider societal role of international education: the need to face outwards and to operate across institutional and national boundaries to tackle shared global challenges; the need to embrace more egalitarian and inclusive approaches to internationalisation; and the need to measure its success in new ways such as public service commitment or advancement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Chris Tremewan, Secretary-General of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities, called for a redefinition of internationalisation in HE, moving from competitive self-interest to global common good.

This echoes recent calls for a re-examination of what universities are for: from, among many others, Shaun Horan (who emphasises their role performing ‘a service to humanity’) and Mike Boxall (who outlines a vision of them being ‘leaders and orchestrators in a variety of multi-partner “learning ecosystems”’, helping to address challenges at local, national and global level).

The feedback from the client was very positive and, as they are happy for us to share it, here it is!

“Following a competitive tender process, Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) commissioned Vicky Lewis Consulting and Vincent Consulting to undertake a significant piece of market research to help inform our strategy for increasing international postgraduate enrolments. We wanted to be confident of basing our decisions on rigorous data analysis coupled with a holistic understanding of the sector environment.

Vicky and Julie worked with us over a number of months. They were a joy to work with, keeping us informed every step of the way, but not overloading us with queries. Their depth of understanding of the HE sector was immediately apparent and they engaged effectively with a wide range of internal and external stakeholders.

The final report was an exceptional piece of work - exactly what we needed to steer our planning. It was clear that they had listened to stakeholders and produced something absolutely tailored to LJMU’s needs and stage of development. This also came through when Julie and Vicky presented their findings to senior staff. We were delighted with the way they collaborated seamlessly, pooling their collective expertise, and would highly recommend them.”

Gemma Smith, Head of International Recruitment, Liverpool John Moores University

The Strategy & Management Expert Community asked participants in their Feature Session on the Wednesday morning to give a one-word response to the question ‘what will be future trends in society and internationalisation in your opinion?’. A word cloud was generated and the term inclusivity (or inclusiveness, inclusion) featured extremely prominently.

It provides a wealth of valuable advice for anyone involved in delivering TNE. While written specifically for the UK context, many of the lessons it shares are transferable.

It covers topics such as:

• the quality assurance and enhancement of TNE
• the logistics of TNE teaching
• teaching, learning and assessment in TNE
• relationship building (with TNE students and with the TNE partner institution and its staff).

Each section draws together advice from a range of credible sources, signposting to these sources as appropriate. There are helpful checklists of questions that staff / institutions should be asking themselves; and mini case studies from those who have direct experience in the area under discussion.

Running these courses reinforced my view that many of us are grappling with similar challenges, whatever our work context.

Things like making sure that international partnerships contribute positively to broader institutional strategies; securing internal buy-in and commitment; working out which partnerships have the potential to be ‘strategic’; being confident that you’ve chosen the ‘right’ partner; getting the right balance between top-down and bottom-up management; communicating effectively (not just with the partner, but also internally); killing off partnerships that aren’t working well; keeping track of partnership-related activity across the institution; determining what success looks like and how to measure it. I could go on.

Of course, there’s no magic answer. And short training courses can only ever point you towards asking the right questions and provide you with resources that you can use in your own institution to help find an appropriate way forward.

While preparing the courses I’ve been involved in, I’ve been struck by some of the useful resources available to those involved in international HE partnerships – and wanted to share some of these.

Beyond collaborative programme delivery, partnerships can be developed to foster research activity, facilitate student exchange, provide staff development opportunities, boost knowledge transfer, build institutional capacity, improve funding prospects, strengthen global positioning and more.

But what makes an international partnership strategic?

The term ‘strategic’ is often used loosely. In 2016, the European Association for International Education published the findings of its EAIE Barometer survey on international strategic partnerships. The survey was completed by representatives of around 1500 European HEIs.

75% of respondents perceived the number of international strategic partnerships at their institution to have increased over the last three years. Many institutions reported astonishingly high numbers of ‘international strategic partnerships’. The record was set by Spain where the average number of partnerships per institution was 184.

Can all of those partnerships really be strategic? Is the quantity of international partnerships being used by some institutions as a badge of honour, an indicator of just how ‘internationalised’ they are?

Of course, international partnerships have a range of drivers and come in various forms – from research-based collaborations to student and staff exchanges or programme delivery partnerships.

Transnational education (TNE) is also a growth area. According to HEGlobal’s 2016 report on The Scale and Scope of UK Higher Education Transnational Education, ‘four in five higher education institutions intend to expand their TNE provision over the next three years’ (HEGlobal p.6).

TNE modes tend to be categorised as either ‘independent’ (e.g. distance / online learning without local support; standalone branch campuses / study centres) or ‘collaborative’ (academic programmes delivered in conjunction with one or more local partners – whether via franchised delivery, joint and dual degrees, twinning arrangements, validation and quality arrangements, distance / online learning with local support, or a joint campus).

TNE partnerships (also referred to as collaborative TNE or local delivery partnerships) sit at the intersection of international partnerships and TNE (see the star in the middle of the Venn Diagram). Of course, these things are never clear-cut. Such TNE partnerships may involve other typical international partnership activities (see examples in left hand bubble); and they may be blended with other, more independent, modes of TNE (see examples in right hand bubble).

What is clear is that there has been a trend amongst UK universities towards more partnership-led models of TNE; that ‘partnership approaches with host country partners are becoming more equitable’ (HEGlobal p.6), and that partnerships are ‘becoming much more strategic, long-term and sustainable’ (Repéres no.15, cited in HEGlobal p.11/12).

I contributed an article to the magazine, entitled ‘A Journey Through Time and Space’, which looks at changes in the international officer role over time in a range of different national settings.

Having taken up my very first international office role (in a small Welsh university) in 1994, I am fascinated by the way expectations have changed within my own national context (the UK) over the course of my career. So I thought it would be interesting to speak to Senior International Officers (Director / Head of International / Pro Vice-Chancellor / VP International level) from a range of different countries about the changing nature of the international officer role - and their predictions for the future.

I engaged with eight Senior International Officers working in varied institutional settings. Between them, they had held international relations roles in ten different countries (France, Morocco, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA). Many common themes emerged (such as a universal sense of professionalisation within the field), as well as some variations linked to national context. These experienced practitioners also offered some helpful advice for ambitious individuals at an earlier stage in their international office career.

Here’s a pdf version of my article (along with the contents page and editorial of the Winter 2016 Forum magazine - see final two pages of pdf for my article). The rest of the magazine can be downloaded by EAIE members from the Association’s website.

This new series of practical guides is designed to be a 'practitioner's toolkit'.

This first guide has two purposes:

• To help practitioners to argue the case for a strategic marketing-based approach to international student recruitment.
• To guide them through the process of creating a robust international marketing and student recruitment plan. 

Any successful student recruitment plan is built on strategic marketing and long-term relationship building. Resources need to be focused on the most productive activities. 

This guide seeks to provide a useful framework to keep your planning on track.

In my previous blog post, I looked at national motivations for (and approaches to) developing international education hubs. In this one, I focus on the opportunities for UK higher education institutions to engage with partners in hub countries in new and interesting ways.

Recent political developments at home (notably the Brexit vote and associated noises around constraining international student enrolments at UK institutions) have sparked grave concern within the UK HE sector.

There is already abundant evidence that the UK is becoming a less attractive destination for international students than it once was. Lacklustre international application figures are reinforced by the results of the 2016 ICEF i-graduate Agent Barometer. Over 1000 recruitment agents from over 100 countries were surveyed in September and October 2016. After four years when the percentage of agents rating the UK as a ‘very attractive’ study destination consistently hovered around 64%, the proportion plummeted this year to 48%.

A continued primary emphasis for UK HEIs on international student recruitment seems unwise. It is surely time to adopt a broader approach to internationalisation, seeing it as a way to ‘enhance academic quality and foster global citizenship’ (EAIE Barometer 2015).

In my first blog post, I looked at the broad context for the development of international education hubs, what they are and where they can be found. This post focuses on national motivations and approaches (with a couple of case studies thrown in).

In some countries, international education hubs are an election issue. An advert from the 2015 Sri Lankan presidential election campaign (see above) asks ‘Are you voting for an international education hub?’. Hub status is often a key plank of national economic development strategy and can be strongly associated with national identity and self-confidence. In some parts of the world, enhancing educational opportunities is absolutely central to national mission in a way that we’re not really familiar with in the UK.

2016 is proving to be a turning point year for the UK on many different levels. Domestic political developments have surely knocked any complacency out of UK universities when it comes to their ability to recruit ever-increasing numbers of international students.

At the same time there’s growing global competition, with many countries (particularly in Asia and the Middle East) setting themselves up as international education hubs. Such developments could be perceived as a threat – or treated as an opportunity.

Staff from other countries are thinking twice about coming to work at UK institutions, which will reduce the diversity of our staff base and, with it, diminish the potential for innovation that is sparked by having a multiplicity of perspectives.

Students from other countries are feeling discouraged from choosing the UK amidst proposed further tightening of visa regulations (while competitors such as Canada welcome them with open arms and see the benefits of encouraging them to stay on and work after their studies).

And, following the tremendous efforts of universities and other stakeholders to increase the flow of UK students undertaking study periods abroad, further barriers may be put in place with loss of access to the life-changing opportunities offered via EU-funded schemes such as Erasmus+.

Cue much wringing of hands.

But I wonder whether there is, in fact, a silver lining.

This was the thinking behind developing the pre-conference workshop that Fiona Hunter and I ran before last year’s EAIE (European Association for International Education) conference in Glasgow. We had positive feedback and are offering (an improved version of) the workshop again on Tuesday 13 September at this year’s EAIE conference in Liverpool.

The workshop covers organisational context, personal impact and influence, and stakeholder perspectives.

According to an HEGlobal survey, ‘almost all the UK's HE providers plan to grow their TNE [transnational education] delivery in the coming years’.

TNE provision based on two-way, collaborative partnerships, built on more equitable relationships, is on the rise (see, for example, this blog post on HEGlobal by Janet Ilieva).

In this article in The Guardian, entitled ‘It must be love: what makes university partnerships tick?’, Uwe Brandenburg (drawing on academic research) argues that ‘if we look at our university partnerships the same way we look at relationships in our private lives, it may be easier to identify what we want and what we need’, noting that ‘human relationships between individuals from different cultures have to cope with different conventions of what is proper’.

Colleagues at UK HEIs involved in marketing an international campus felt they were having to learn the quirks of international campus marketing as they went. They agreed that having some good practice guidelines and recommendations would have been valuable.

So one output - drawn not only from my research but also from my consultancy work - is this new guide (pdf): How to use marketing effectively when establishing an international campus.

In it, I highlight ways in which the global education landscape is rapidly changing and explore the implications for both education providers and students. Some of the top trends identified are:

• An influx of alternative providers
• New models of partnership working
• A spotlight on globally connected consumers

I conclude that there are some common themes around adaptability and flexibility. And that there is a onus on institutions to communicate clearly and honestly who they are, what values drive them and the sort of experience and outcomes their students can expect.

You can read the full blog here.

"Why do they just not get it?" Even the most obvious internationalisation priorities seem to be ignored by colleagues in other parts of your institution. Yet you can’t hope to embed internationalisation – or even do your job effectively – without their support. This workshop will explore how different values, assumptions and behaviours within an institution can inhibit the cultivation of internal support for internationalisation. As a group, we’ll all share strategies for engaging key internal stakeholders by recognising what motivates them. You will leave with some concrete strategies for building internal advocacy for internationalisation in your own institutional setting within as little as six months."

For those interested in a slightly more in-depth account of the recommendations generated by interviewing senior staff involved in the marketing of UK university campuses in Malaysia, here's a peer-reviewed journal article on the topic of embedding marketing in international campus development.

It was published online in the Taylor and Francis journal Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education in July 2015.

I focused on the need for inter-campus collaboration and the sharing of different perspectives and approaches when it comes to the marketing of an international campus.

Here's a link to the post.

The main focus is on the marketing and positioning of international campuses. However the list also includes sources of facts and figures relating to transnational education more generally - and a couple of useful guides (both emanating from the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education) for those leading transnational education projects.

I’ll be sharing detailed findings elsewhere. In the meantime, here are the key recommendations, broken down by themes (roughly corresponding to consecutive phases in the international campus development project):

• market intelligence and marketing strategy
• marketing resources and expertise
• marketing activity planning

So I decided to undertake my own research into the role of marketing in international campus development – with the aim of generating some useful (evidence-based) recommendations.

According to the C-BERT database, there are currently 235 international campuses worldwide. And there have been 29 campus closures to date. In some cases, closures have been linked to over-ambitious student recruitment targets (along with a reality that fell short).

Whilst international campuses remain a minority pursuit within the broad category of transnational education, each institution that commits to establishing an international campus is making a significant investment – in terms of time, money and reputation. A lot of groundwork is needed to give it the best chance of success – and this includes the embedding of a market-informed approach from concept stage onwards.

In this, Hawawini explores rationales for setting up an international campus. He articulates the key to the whole process (of determining whether to establish an international presence and in what form) as being about interrogating one’s own mission and raison d’être as an institution.

The critique extends to the UK’s national-level International Education Strategy (entitled International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity), which was published in July 2013 under the auspices of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and described as an ‘industrial strategy’.

This blog summarises the survey findings which were generated exactly ten years ago. I then speculate on what might be different if I were to re-run the survey today.

Traditionally, these have been focused on international student pathways to HE (often based on the university campus itself) as a centrepiece of the relationship – sometimes with an associated injection of capital for residential and teaching accommodation, sometimes without. This focus is entirely consistent with an era when the ‘easiest win’ (and the primary focus of many HEI international strategies) was represented by recruitment of additional non-EU students onto the university’s UK campus-based courses.

The established pathway providers (INTO, Kaplan, Navitas, Study Group and CEG) are often badged as the ‘big five’ (see THE article The Rise of the Route Masters, 20 March 2014). The years from 2007 to 2013 are described (by INTO’s Colin) as ‘something of a land grab’ by pathway providers in the UK. In addition to the standard International Foundation Year and Pre-Masters, most of them started to offer programmes equivalent to the first year of a degree, allowing direct entry to year two.

There has been some debate about whether the UK has now reached saturation point in terms of pathway programmes. At the very least it can be described as a mature market.

Recent UK government constraints on (and rhetoric about) non-EU student immigration are generating additional challenges for recruitment to UK-based programmes. And they have made private providers particularly jittery.

For me, this includes:

• inspiring prospective students to engage with (and ultimately join) your institution
• persuading current students to embrace international opportunities
• and getting staff to engage in activities which drive forward institutional internationalisation.

Subscribers to the monthly HEER newsletter have new reports and papers flagged up and the ‘most-read’ summaries from the previous month highlighted. It is also possible to browse the database by theme (broad ones and sub-themes), year of publication and publisher.

Personally, I find it a quick and easy way to keep abreast of the latest research and, based on the summary, to determine whether it is worth reading the full paper or report.

I have a particular interest in Transnational Education (TNE) (which is one of the sub-themes) and have been struck by the increasing number of papers relating to this.

Following on from the webinar I gave in June on The Proper Role of Marketing in Overseas Campus Development (see Resources page of this site), here's a PDF copy of an article of mine (entitled: Branch Campus Development - Marketing expertise required) which has just been published in the Summer 2014 edition of the European Association for International Education's (EAIE) Forum magazine.

International branch campuses can succeed or fail depending on whether they enrol enough students. Failure is costly - financially and for reputation. To give such a high-profile, high-risk development the best chance of success, marketing expertise must be sought and heeded throughout the project.

My article outlines where marketing fits in and how relevant marketing expertise can play a crucial role at the strategy development stage, the resource allocation stage and the implementation stage of a campus development project.

It draws on my experience of the International Branch Campus of a UK university in EduCity in southern Malaysia (just across the Straits from Singapore). It seeks to highlight some of the challenges which hamper what appears to be a great idea for a more cost-effective and collaborative approach to branch campus development.

National agenda

As argued in The Shape of Things to Come: the evolution of transnational education: data, definitions, opportunities and impacts analysis (PDF) (British Council, Going Global 2013), Malaysia has used transnational education (TNE) strategically to meet demand from specific student population groups and to ‘cap the outflow of currency’ via students who study abroad. The country has taken a market-oriented approach and has ambitions to become a regional hub for international education. It aims to attract 150,000 international students by 2015. It is envisaged that a proportion of those international students will be attracted to one of the foreign branch campuses (of which there were eight – mainly Australian and UK - as of January 2013 [British Council, 2013]) established with the encouragement of the Malaysian government.

The answer to this has evolved down the years with the traditional double-helix of research and teaching more recently becoming a triple-helix incorporating business links and knowledge transfer. Internationalisation has been part of higher education’s DNA since the Middle Ages when academics travelled across Europe visiting Courts and setting up universities. However, in the last 15 years or so, we have seen an evolutionary jump in attitudes to internationalisation across the whole higher education sector.

There has also been a changing understanding of internationalisation with many institutions moving beyond the model of simply being universities with international students to becoming international universities.

Internationalisation strategies reflect many aspects of universities’ activities - from the staff and students they recruit, the curriculum they teach, the overseas study and work experiences they offer, their research and institutional partners to more high profile initiatives such as developing campuses overseas.

Institutions are in different places along this spectrum but there is a clear direction of travel towards increasingly comprehensive internationalisation.

GuildHE’s recent two-day strategic event on internationalising higher education was held at Ashridge Business School, and - as if to emphasise the theme - just days later Ashridge announced a strategic alliance with Hult International, the multi-campus business school, which is intended to lead to merger.

The webinar highlights the different stages in the campus development process when marketing expertise needs to be drawn upon. I've produced an accompanying PDF Information Sheet which provides a checklist of marketing-related questions that institutions need to ask themselves at each stage; it also includes a suggested structure for a branch campus marketing and recruitment activity plan.

I'd really welcome any feedback on how useful this is as a resource for those in marketing roles who are embarking on the international branch campus development process.

The Information Sheet, along with links to both the webinar recording and my presentation slides, can be accessed from the Resources and Publications page of this website under Resources: Transnational Education.

Are they a great tool to broaden access to higher education to new constituencies across the world? Or do they simply offer ‘free university education for highly qualified professionals’ (see this recent Institute of Education blog post )? Are they all about brand-building for the institutions involved? Will they change the face of higher education as we know it? Are they a fad?

This post doesn’t deal with any of those big issues.

Instead I wanted to share a few comments on what it was like for me to study on a MOOC (yes, I’m one of those highly qualified professionals who wouldn’t say ‘no’ to an injection of free university education….). This is very much a personal perspective on one specific MOOC (my first). I know there are others out there who are serial MOOCsters and therefore more qualified than I am to make generalisable comments and valid comparisons.

The topic is 'The Proper Role of Marketing in Overseas Campus Development'. It's free of charge, easy to register and the webinar lasts just 30 minutes.

The session highlights six critical points in the overseas campus development process where marketing should influence strategy, resourcing, and operations. It also provides compelling arguments for involving your marketing team throughout that process.

The webinar takes place at 1000 hours EDT (New York City time) which is 1500 hours UK time (BST). If you register but cannot participate live, you will be sent a link to the webinar after it has taken place.