UK universities' international KPIs - PART 9

“Vicky was able to provide us with valuable insights that helped us to develop a strategy that was both realistic and ambitious. As a result of her work, we are now well-positioned to expand our international reach. ”

— Kate Walewska, Director of Marketing and Student Recruitment, University of Warwick (at the time: Director of Future Students Office, University of Leicester) (2023)

UK universities' international KPIs - PART 9

Posted on 19 Mar 2025 at 17:20 by Vicky Lewis

International staff base and development opportunities

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.

How is success measured when it comes to staff internationalisation?

An analysis of the KPIs of six published international strategies with an end date between 2024 and 2030 shows that only two include explicit KPIs relating to international staff. One institution lists three of these, the other lists one. All the KPIs are about numbers of staff.

Institution A (small and at an early stage of internationalisation):

Number of visiting international scholars (target: 10 by Year 5 of strategy period))
Number of dedicated international staff in commercial subsidiary for international business (target: 6)
Number of staff delivering international programmes (target: 16)

Institution B:

Number of overseas staff (no target given).

The indicators proposed in the Education Insight Global Engagement Index relate to international (non-UK) academic staff, breaking them down into categories (based on the HESA staff record). There is a focus on proportions rather than absolute numbers:

The Proportion of Non-UK Junior Researchers
The Proportion of Non-UK Senior Researchers and Professors
The Proportion of Non-UK Senior Leadership Team

As with other KPI categories, I found a good deal more variety when analysing international strategies in 2020.

Looking at earlier strategies

Across those international strategies reviewed in 2020, KPIs relating to staff fell into different thematic categories.

Diversity of staff community

While several institutions included KPIs relating to number or proportion of non-UK staff, some went further and sought to diversify the number of countries from which such staff come (presumably seeking to address the dominance of staff from Europe and the Anglosphere). Others included EDI-aligned ambitions (e.g. to increase the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic staff, especially at senior academic levels).

Visiting scholars

Several KPIs related to the number of visiting scholars and researchers. In one case there was a hint at diversification in terms of seeking visitors from ‘different global regions’. In another, the KPI was to increase opportunities ‘for inward sabbatical visits, especially from high-profile international researchers (such as field medallists or Nobel laureates)’.

Engagement in events, activities and projects

There was a good deal of emphasis on staff engagement with internationally focused events, activities and projects, including:

Number of internationally focused lectures, workshops, conferences etc. hosted by the institution involving participation from overseas colleagues or visiting researchers
Number of staff involved in teaching overseas, participating in conferences, engaged in international research, knowledge exchange or commercial projects
Range and quality of staff involvement in international activities, including ‘recruitment, programme approvals, academic support and evaluation of learning’.

Exchanges and mobility opportunities

Linked to the previous set of KPIs are some which explicitly mentioned staff mobility. In one case, the KPI was simply to increase opportunities for this. In another case, it was the number of staff engaged in international exchanges and internships. A third institution aspired to offer all staff the opportunity to undertake ‘scholarly or professional international experience’ (with a target take-up rate of 80%). Another university sought increases in academic staff engaging with international opportunities such as ‘sabbaticals, short and medium-term visits’; and increases in professional services staff ‘spending a period of time at international partners and vice versa’.

Recognition and nurturing of international engagement and expertise

One university included a KPI relating to ‘recognition of staff with membership of international advisory boards or organisations (such as grant bodies, commercial, governmental, and international conferences)’. Another set milestones by which certain developments would be expected, including:

Agree new promotion criteria (linked to international capacity and skills) by [date]
Agree a set of Global Leadership Competencies by [date].

A further KPI from the same institution was for an internal strategy delivery forum and its associated regional networks to be generating a specific number of new collaborative activities by a given date.

Commentary on staff internationalisation KPIs

It’s interesting to note the emphasis on international mobility of staff (both inward and outward) reflected in the KPIs from international strategies current in 2020 (and therefore mostly developed and written well before then).

In light of the enforced immobility of the Covid-19 pandemic, heightened consciousness of the climate impact of long-haul travel, and the ongoing financial challenges of the UK HE sector, some of them come across as unrealistically ambitious or, at the very least, crafted in a different era.

Having said that, I think it’s important to hold onto ambitions to diversify the international staff base and to support a programme of visiting scholars and researchers.

While international experiences are hugely beneficial, some of the outcomes sought through outbound travel by UK-based staff could be achieved via virtual mobility and other forms of international or intercultural engagement, which have the potential to level the playing field in terms of accessibility. There’s a clear parallel with the drive for all students to benefit from intercultural interactions and learning experiences even if they are not in a position to travel (see Blog 6). Digital technologies can help to bring colleagues in far-flung locations together virtually.

The growing emphasis in strategies on expanding international partnerships and TNE provision (see Blog 4) also presents an opportunity for enhanced staff engagement with international colleagues.

However, the final sub-category of KPIs in the section above (Recognition and nurturing of international engagement and expertise) is the one that’s likely to make a sustainable difference to levels of engagement.

The university which really majored in this area adopted a multi-pronged approach of linking international capacity and skills to promotion, establishing a suite of global leadership competencies, and setting up appropriate internal groups and resources to support strategically aligned international collaborations.

This is an example of how it can be valuable to include non-numeric KPIs which clearly signal an institution’s priorities and direction of travel.