International Strategy for Higher Education Institutions
Posted on by Vicky Lewis
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.
UK universities’ international strategies vary greatly in positioning, scale, scope and approach.
As I pointed out in my 2021 Global Strategies Report (p.21-22), some were well-aligned with their institution’s strategic plan. A small number were explicitly referenced as a named supporting or enabling strategy. A few were clearly developed in parallel with the strategic plan as there was cross-referencing in both directions. Others were developed at a later date, often following a period of consultation. A handful came across as standalone documents with little relationship to the strategic plan.
Of the 14 international strategies with KPIs, the shortest in duration was three years and the longest ten years (2016-2026). The most common duration was five years.
There was even greater variation in the number of KPIs included: from two (in this case taken directly from the strategic plan) to 49. Interestingly, two of the strategies I reviewed were sequential ones for the same institution (2018-2022; and 2021-2024). The earlier document was the strategy with 49 KPIs, while its replacement had only three, perhaps recognising that less can be more!
Based on what UK universities say in the narrative of their international strategies, most of them want to achieve all or most of the following:
Some institutions are better at applying a strategic and distinctive approach to their international ambitions than others.
But how are priorities reflected in the KPIs they select?
Focusing solely on the six international strategies still current in 2024 (i.e. with end dates between 2024 and 2030), it is interesting to consider the distribution of their collective 42 KPIs.
The small number of strategies reviewed means that a focus in one area by a single institution can skew the picture, so this should be treated as a snapshot, rather than an analysis from which wider trends can be extrapolated. Having said that, the profile of the institutions is fairly diverse:
The chart below shows the distribution of KPIs by thematic category.
At first sight, the spread of KPIs suggests that post-pandemic international strategies have a different balance of international success measures, when compared with (post-pandemic) institutional strategic plans.
In strategic plans, international student recruitment and global rankings remain the most prominent success metrics.
However, in international strategies, the highest number of KPIs relates to transnational students, programmes and partnerships. And, while attracting international students to the home campus is still a key measure of success, there is also a focus on promoting international and intercultural experiences and exposure.
The next blog in this series will outline the characteristics of a good KPI and detail some traps to avoid and tips to bear in mind.
From Part 4 of the series onwards, I'll provide a commentary on the specific KPIs which are (or could be) used to measure success — one international engagement theme at a time.
|