International Strategy for Higher Education Institutions
International Strategy for Higher Education Institutions
Themes from the EAIE conference Posted on by Vicky Lewis
It was a real pleasure to be part of the 2026 EAIE conference in Glasgow last week. The conference sessions I attended were all excellent, with some key themes running through them:
This blog draws particularly on the sessions below, while also reflecting on strands of thinking woven through other sessions and my conversations with colleagues:
There was recurring commentary about the need for HE internationalisation to demonstrate value beyond mobility numbers, institutional prestige, rankings or revenue generation. Uwe Brandenburg described the (emerging) Internationalisation 3.0 as ‘designed to contribute to democratic resilience, sustainability, and global problem-solving beyond higher education’.
Examples from Latin America demonstrated what humanised internationalisation (Stallivieri) and solidarity-based internationalisation can look like, with their focus on spreading the societal benefits across local, national, regional and global contexts.
Another theme was the importance of getting out of our bubbles and engaging in diverse ways with those who may not currently register the positive impact of international education – whether policy-makers, the media or the general public. This means providing a range of evidence to resonate with the interests of different stakeholders.
NAFSA has done some great work quantifying the economic and employment impact of international students. But data needs to be combined with real student and alumni stories to win hearts as well as minds. And it’s particularly valuable when people from outside our sector make the case – such as the Dutch semiconductor industry lobbying for international talent and illustrating how this connects directly to skills, innovation and economic priorities.
Several sessions highlighted that internationalisation in many countries now operates within a complicated web of national priorities, contradictory policies, and institutional autonomy. The Netherlands was used as an example of a country that is seeking international talent, while constraining international programmes.
Representatives from Australia, Canada, the UK and the US described changes in their own national policies (particularly around immigration) that have had a significant impact on their respective HE sectors. In some cases, developments directly contradict government rhetoric stating that international students are welcome.
International education leaders are increasingly challenged to demonstrate how their institution can support government priorities, while not shying away from exposing policy inconsistencies. Quite the tightrope!
A final theme links all of the above: the need to collaborate with others in our responses to this complex environment. There were some valuable lessons to be learned from the experience of those managing European University Alliances.
Collaboration across an alliance or network does not require everyone to do everything together. A particularly useful question to ask oneself is ‘What are we willing to give up to achieve a joint vision?’.
There may be shared core activities, but there will also be coalitions of the willing, and space for bilateral experimentation. This idea of learning through doing, being open about mistakes and adapting as you go along (rather than pretending strategic planning is linear) came across strongly.
I’ve only touched on a fraction of the fascinating content that was shared and debated at this year’s EAIE conference. And I know I’m looking at this tiny subset through my own particular lens.
I’d love to hear from other attendees – in the comments below, on LinkedIn or on the EAIE community platform – about the themes that stood out for you.
|
|
