Check our brand new blog. As part of our spectacular website facelift, we are launching an education blog aimed at providing you with useful resources, commentaries and the latest trends in higher education. Want to share your ideas and expertise? Our blog is the way for you to get your message across! Read more.
Rewarding innovation in internationalisation
As a growing number of higher education institutions around Europe are putting together innovative internationalisation strategies, the EAIE is committed to highlighting their good work and to this end we have recently launched a brand new institutional award. The main aim of the award is to showcase outstanding practices that further the internationalisation of higher education.
We recognise institutions which distinguish themselves through innovative internationalisation programmes and strategies and have integrated these initiatives institution-wide. Fostering international partnerships with a positive impact on European higher education, integrating internationalisation in strategic planning, curriculum or infrastructure development, or enhancing the international student experience are among the elements we will consider in our assessment. Is your institution pursuing any of these? Then let us know!
Put your organisation in the spotlight by:
- Promoting it and telling its success story to more than 4000 professionals at the EAIE Annual Conference
- Growing its visibility via EAIE Forum magazine and all EAIE online channels
- Wining two fee waivers to the EAIE Annual Conference and building new partnerships at our global meeting
To be considered for the EAIE Institutional Award for Innovation in Internationalisation, the institution must be an accredited, degree-granting university, university consortium, or other higher education institution in Europe and the nominator must be an EAIE member. The applications will be assessed by prominent EAIE Board members.
Learn more about how to submit your application by the 1 May 2012 deadline.

IIENetworker Spring 2012: Engaging Faculty in Internationalization
This issue of IIENetworker highlights a wide range of innovative ways that colleges, universities, governments, and other organizations encourage and support faculty engagement in internationalization. Click here for the digital edition.
Featured Articles
Engaging Science Faculty in Internationalization: Teaching Innovations at UW-Madison
Masarah Van Eyck, Laura Van Toll, Michel Wattiaux, and John Ferrick, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Early-College Study Abroad: A Gateway for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
James M. Lucas, Michigan State University; Paige E. Sindt, CEA Global Education; Kira Espiritu, University of San Diego; and Jessica Luchesi, University of San Diego
Promoting Engagement in Curriculum Internationalization
Hilary Landorf and Stephanie Doscher, Florida International University
The International Network of Universities: The Consortium for Global Citizenship
Melanie Pissarius, James Madison University; Ingrid Elam, Malmo University; Hajime Nishitani, Hiroshima University; Lee Sternberger, James Madison University
Ten Elements of Faculty Involvement in Global Engagement
Woody Pelton, Elon University
Building an Interculturally Competent Faculty
Darla K. Deardorff, Duke University
China's Policies on Overseas Faculty Requirement
Yiqun Geng, Communication University of China
Overcoming the "American Bubble": The Norwegian Partnership Programme for Collaboration in Higher Education with North America
Agnete Vabo and Rachel Sweetman, NIFU Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education
Overcoming "Publish or Perish": Fostering Faculty Engagement in Internationalization through Tenure Codes and Other Employment Policies
Robin Matross Helms, Institute of International Education
A Shrinking World with Expanding Visions: Faculty as Key Players in Internationalization
Andrew Riess, Institute of International Education.
IIENetworker University Presidents Interview Series: Renu Khator, University of Houston. Click here for the digital edition.
Past issues of IIENetworker are available in our digital edition archives: http://www.naylornetwork.com/iie-nxt/index.asp.

"Internationalising higher education conference”, Londres, mars 2012. Hervé Lièvre, directeur du CERIMES, s'est rendu à la conférence Going Global.
Quelques interrogations, quelques réflexions. 
Comment faire émerger une éthique éducative et culturelle dans un monde qui est de plus interdépendant au plan de la sécurité et de la surveillance des individus tandis que perdurent les stéréotypes culturels? 
Comment des institutions enracinées dans la tradition peuvent-elles embrasser l’innovation?
Les TIC n’y suffiront pas.
Ne serait-ce que du fait de la quantité des individus à prendre en compte, le 21ème siècle représente un défi pour les universités, plus ample et sans doute plus difficile que ceux qu’elles ont eu à relever depuis leur création. Au surplus, à la quantité des étudiants, il faut ajouter la privatisation croissante de nombre d’entre elles. Le maintient d’un statut qui s’exonère des pressions politiques, culturelles ou religieuses, devient délicat.
Les frontières nationales s'estompent pour les étudiants comme pour les chercheurs, dont un nombre exponentiellement croissant travaille dans un autre pays que celui de leur naissance.
Pour les uns et les autres, l’université est clairement la meilleure voie pour transcender les différences politiques, religieuses ou culturelles.
Toutefois, pour ne pas sombrer dans la mêlée actuelle – la globalisation -  les universités devront se rappeler leurs valeurs fondamentales : une recherche absolument libre, la quête de l’excellence académique, et l’acquisition de connaissances universelles, qui sont autre chose que des savoir-faire.
Hervé Lièvre. Commentez sur FaceBook.

By Jason Lane and Kevin Kinser. In recent days, the actions of two higher-education institutions have raised concerns about the oversight of their internationalization activities. Last week, an audit of Dickinson State University, a public institution in North Dakota, revealed that the institution had operated as a diploma mill for hundreds of international students, awarding degrees despite the individuals not completing all degree requirements, and many not even having a basic level of English proficiency. This week, a New York Times article raised concerns about degrees being offered by Empire State College (ESC) in Albania. ESC, part of New York’s public higher-education system, was operating in cooperation with the University of New York, Tirana (a private entity registered in Albania), to offer degree-granting academic programs to local students. The Times’ investigations suggested that the students were being misled by advertising, faculty were not approved by Empire State, and some of the courses were poor quality.
To us this raised a question about who provides oversight of a college or university’s international activities?
In short, international activities rely on internal oversight. External mechanisms don’t do a good job of crossing borders. Here we’re only commenting on the situation in the U.S., though there are commonalities with other nations.
Empire State and Dickenson State are both public institutions and the reports raise questions about the effectiveness of state oversight. In a study we recently completed of state regulation of the importing and exporting of higher-education institutions, we found most states just focused on what institutions within in their borders were doing. Few seemed to care all that much about what their public institutions did outside of the state. And for those that did care, they cared about process and finances, with quality rarely considered.
The institutional accreditation agencies aren’t filling the gap in oversight of offshore locations. They do have some procedures in place: Institutions are required to alert the accreditation agencies of any new teaching locations, and when these presences are substantial, such as a branch campus, a review team from the accreditation agency usually visits around the time that the campus is opened to ensure that it complies with home campus policies and procedures. In other words, accreditation is supposed to verify that an institution has appropriate internal oversight of the international activity. But in the ESC case, the Albania location was approved by the accreditation agency, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, as an “other instructional site” without making a site visit. If internal oversight by ESC breaks down, as is implied in the article, Middle States can’t provide the crucial back-up necessary to ensure quality overseas.
So, it is mostly left to the institution to assure its own quality. To be clear, we believe that most institutions take issues of quality seriously; setting up processes that allow faculty members on the home campus oversight of the hiring and curricular practices at the branch campus and making sure that programs offered to international students meet the same standards expected of all students. On paper, at least, it can all look quite solid.
However, despite the rules and regulations, constantly monitoring the activities of entity that operates thousands of miles away—particularly if the entity is not viewed as part of the core mission—is difficult to achieve via the typical university committee structure. And, let us not forgot that the diploma mill activity at Dickinson State occurred right here in the United States. This highlights another problem with the oversight of internationalization—international activities are often justified in terms of the potential revenue streams they provide. A nod to the creation of global citizens, of course, but the cynical selling point is that they bring more resources to the home campus. Again, it is not the typical case we describe, but rather a scenario that relies solely on institutional actors to guard against trading quality for profits that brings us pause.
Internationalization is an important goal, which almost by definition extends the university beyond its typical external oversight structure. Should internationalization activities remain the almost exclusive domain of the institution or does external oversight need to play a more substantial role?

The following is a guest post by Elspeth Jones, professor emerita of the internationalization of higher education at Leeds Metropolitan University, in Britain, and an international-education consultant.
Last month, The New York Times published a provocative essay by Larry H. Summers which argued, amongst other things, that American college students don’t necessarily need to learn a second language. The spread of English globally, the fragmentation of other languages, and the improvement in translation technology, he writes, “make it less clear that the substantial investment necessary to speak a foreign tongue is universally worthwhile.” I couldn’t disagree more.
Prompt responses from Nafsa: The Association of International Educators and others presented alternative viewpoints, but it is difficult to get across to those who speak only one language how greatly life is enriched through competence in another. There are many important reasons to study languages (the Centre for Languages, Linguistics, and Area Studies in the United Kingdom offers 700 of them) and those of us interested in the internationalization of higher education have special reason to argue the cause. More...

By David Wheeler. Is internationalization becoming too popular? When ideas become too popular, then academics, despite their feisty image, are less willing to dissent. Associate deans or assistant professors have plenty of their own battles to fight, like getting their share of the budget or winning tenure. When they see the internationalization theme sweeping across campus, they resign themselves to yet another academic fad. They keep their head below the parapet, quietly focusing on their own or their departments’ interests. Being against internationalization may look like being against diversity: a highly risky personal proposition.
The nature of the discussion about internationalization often depends on which side of the Atlantic it occurs. (I’ll save the trans-Pacific differences for another day.) Europeans sometimes talk about the “end of internationalization.” In the debates I have witnessed, the theory is that internationalization has moved out of international offices to all of the other academic and administrative offices on campuses, and thus international offices can be closed down.
But the view in the United States is very different. Some international higher-education consultants avoid working for American universities altogether, in the belief that U.S. universities aren’t serious about internationalization, with miniscule budgets and no one on the senior-leadership teams who represents the global perspective. In this view, the “beginning of internationalization” would be a more appropriate topic at many U.S. institutions, where internationalization is often mentioned but frequently not practiced.
Amid all of this discussion, the opinion that internationalization may be unwise altogether is rarely voiced. So here is a devil’s-advocate view on internationalization, offered up tongue-in-cheek. In particular, here are four reasons for an institution not to internationalize:
Internationalization eats up resources, including time and money. At some point in meaningful internationalization, video conferences and phone calls don’t work anymore, and face-to-face meetings become essential. On overseas trips, academics don’t just lose the time when they are away from their jobs on the home campus. They are distracted before they go by the extra logistical details and jet-lagged when they get back. No matter how much mental or physical stamina someone has, travel takes a personal toll, which means it ultimately takes an institutional toll.
Internationalization requires long-term thinking, and that is hard to come by in academe, because of dependence on governments. While many an academic administrator has crafted a long-term strategic plan, federal and state legislatures, economic cycles, natural disasters, and any number of other unexpected events tend to turn those plans upside down. They are not always redrawn. When disasters hit and money is tight, internationalization is often the first victim.
But there are exceptions. While some international academics have a quarrel with Singapore’s policies on such matters as freedom of speech, the Singaporean government kept spending on its universities right through the global financial crisis. U.S. state legislatures tend not to have the same kind of budgets or guts.
Internationalization requires institutional commitment, not just the commitment of leaders. Many times adventurous, well-meaning, globally minded presidents sally forth and visit other presidents. Consortia are formed. Then leadership changes. Suddenly interest drops, and the institution does not return its partners’ e-mails. Broad institutional support for international adventures is often not there. Better not to sally forth at all.
Universities should focus on supporting their own countries. In short, national competitiveness should win out over efforts at universities cooperating. For instance, because the Chinese government wants to be a “superpower” in higher education, supporting its efforts is against U.S. or European interests.
To be clear, these are all views I do not necessarily hold. What I do believe is that ideas are best sharpened by opposition. While the start-up of branch campuses has sparked robust debate at some U.S. universities, most notably Duke and New York universities, at many institutions, it often seems to be missing.

Guest article by Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General, International Association of Universities.
There is currently an omnipresent preoccupation with assessment and evaluation of higher education internationalisation.  This is a positive trend.  It attests to the interest in internationalisation at the level of policy makers as well as amongst institutional leadership and other stakeholders.  Second, it shines a spotlight on the ways and means that are being used to increase or strengthen the international dimensions of higher education and research.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, this trend fosters a critical analysis of what it means to internationalise teaching, learning, research and the overall higher education experience.  It also keeps alive the debate about why, how and how well different higher education institutions around the world pursue internationalisation.
Quite certainly, specialists in quality assurance and/or evaluation would take me to task for not drawing precise and clear distinctions between the myriad terms used to describe the practice in which we endeavour to make sense of our internationalisation efforts.  Indeed, each specific term—evaluation, assessment, review, audit, etc—depicts a process that may have a slightly different purpose and methodology. Ultimately, however, the aim is to know whether or not the internationalisation goals are being achieved; and if we fall short of that, why this is the case, and what is required to redress the situation.
Evaluation/assessment/auditing is part of institutional development and learning, and thus absolutely essential in higher education institutions.  When we apply these processes to internationalisation, however, the key is to ensure that the goals or objectives of internationalisation also become subjects of the assessment process.  It is not sufficient to undertake a ‘fitness for purpose’ evaluation of internationalisation; it is necessary to also assess the ‘fitness of the purpose’, both for the institution itself and for any international partners involved.
The International Association Universities’ (IAU) experience with institutional reviews of internationalisation is not long-standing or vast, yet.  IAU only recently developed and launched its Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service (ISAS). Our work in this area is, nevertheless, highly diverse since the ISAS projects to date have taken place in three different world regions.  And, despite the vastly dissimilar contextual realities in each university, each ISAS project still confirmed that the dominant understanding of internationalisation of higher education remains relatively narrow or only partial. Consequently, internationalisation tends to be implemented in a limited manner. And when institutions embark on an assessment, they are likely to focus on just a few, basic aspects, using a limited set of (usually quantitative) indicators, such as the number of international students on campus, the number of exchange partnerships, the teaching of foreign languages and the hosting of visitors from abroad.  Despite the clear importance of these indicators of internationalisation, are they really a mark that the goals of internationalisation have been achieved?  How much do they tell us about the impact of these actions on the learning that takes place?  How well can the academic community reply to the ‘why’ questions that can be raised about these actions, particularly when they require institutional investment?
Perhaps the most important value of the ISAS service lies less in the obvious results (such as the report and the data collected) and more in the process, whereby, for example, institutional committees learn what is actually going on in their university; groups form to discuss why certain internationalisation priorities and projects have or are being developed; and mutual learning takes place about what has been successful and what is failing.  Stimulating such on-going analysis of the ‘why, how and how well’ of the internationalisation strategy in turn leads to a much larger number of stakeholders with an improved understanding and commitment to internationalisation as an institutional policy in which they have a role, a stake and a responsibility.
Scholars, policy makers and practitioners agree that internationalisation of higher education is a complex and multi-facetted process which ideally permeates all aspects of the higher education enterprise.  If audits, evaluations and projects such as IAU’s ISAS and others can mobilise more institutional actors to focus on the fundamental academic reasons for internationalisation—and the impact it can and should have on the quality of learning, research and outreach—then they are valuable instruments to promote innovation and improvement, not simply labels that are pursued for prestige purposes.

L’AIU, en partenariat avec le Comité de coordination du British Council pour le Going Global 2012, coordonnera le débat sur l’internationalisation qui sera l’un des piliers de ce GG2012 (13-15 mars 2012, Londres, RU).
Présidant une séance intitulée ‘Internationalization of higher education: who benefits who is at risk?’ le 14 mars, la Secrétaire générale de l’AIU coordonnera aussi les discussions de six groupes de travail, lesquels adresseront une série de questions portant sur divers aspects de l’internationalisation de l’enseignement supérieur tels que:
- le concept en lui-même;
- les moteurs de l’internationalisation;
- le rôle de la mobilité étudiante dans les efforts d’internationalisation entrepris;
- l'internationalisation et la responsabilité de l’enseignement supérieur au niveau mondial;
- l’internationalisation en tant que catalyseur de réformes plus générales aux niveaux institutionnel et systémique;
- quelles pourraient être quelques unes des caractéristiques d’une université internationalisée.
Les présidents de ces groupes de travail rapporteront les résultats des échanges lors de la dernière séance plénière de la conférence le 15 mars. Les groupes de travail se réuniront deux fois lors de la conférence afin de préparer des réponses pratiques aux points précédemment mentionnés.
Cet évènement offre à l’AIU une occasion propice de présenter et faire avancer les délibérations de son Groupe international ad-hoc d’experts, qui eux aussi planchent sur la question de l’internationalisation puisque plusieurs membres de ce groupe prendront par au GG2012 et contribueront substantiellement aux discussions. Tous les participants du GG2012 auront, par ailleurs, l’opportunité de contribuer aux débats en tant qu’invités lors d’une réception offerte par le British Council le 14 mars. A cette occasion, ils seront invités à offrir leur point de vue sur les six questions mentionnées plus haut.
Going Global est en passe de devenir un rendez vous annuel apprécié et l’édition 2012 sera un jalon important dans la réflexion de l’AIU portant sur l’internationalisation.
Pour de plus amples informations au sujet des divers évènements relatifs à ces questions lors du GG2012, n’hésitez pas à visiter le site internet de la conférence. Pour accéder à la liste complète des questions qui seront abordées par les groupes de travail cliquez ici (en anglais seulement), et accédez également à une description détaillée (en anglais) du travail mené par le Groupe international ad-hoc d’experts coordonné par l’AIU. Les actions de l’AIU se poursuivent car l’Association prépare sa 14e Conférence Générale (27-30 Novembre, 2012) au cours de laquelle la question ‘Is globalization setting a new agenda for internationalization of higher education?’ occupera une place centrale au sein du programme et le fruit des efforts du Groupe international ad hoc d’experts y sera présenté et largement débattu. Pour plus d'information:r.hudson@iau-aiu.net.
Re-Thinking Internationalization
IAU, working in partnership with the British Council’s Going Global Steering Committee, is coordinating the debate on internationalization that forms a central part of this Going Global 2012 (GG2012) (13-15 March, 2012, London, UK).
Chairing a Plenary session entitled: ‘Internationalization of higher education: who benefits who is at risk?’ on March 14, the IAU Secretary General will coordinate the deliberations of six Working Groups which will each address a set of questions on various aspects of internationalization such as:
- the concept itself;
- what is driving internationalization;
- the role of student mobility in the internationalization efforts;
- the extent to which internationalization is conducted in ways that are mindful of higher education’s global responsibility;
- whether and how the process has acted as a catalyst for wider reforms at institutional and systemic levels;
- what may be some of the features of an internationalized university.
The Chairs of each these Working Groups will report back on the outcomes at the final substantive plenary of the conference on March 15. The Working Groups will meet twice during the conference and are expected to prepare practical responses to these challenges.
For IAU, this event offers a timely opportunity to showcase and further the deliberations of the Rethinking Internationalization Ad hoc Experts Group since many members of this Ad hoc Group will take part in the GG2012 and will contribute substantively to the process described above. All GG2012 participants will also have an opportunity to contribute in the debate, as guests at a Reception offered by the British Council on March 14. During this social gathering they will also be invited to offer their views on the six questions mentioned above.
Going Global is growing into an annual international event of some importance and this conference will be an important milestone in the work of the IAU on re-thinking internationalization.
For more information about the Re-thinking Internationalization series of events at GG2012 please visit their website. For the complete set of questions to be addressed by the Working Groups see here and also read a fuller description of the work of the international Ad hoc Group whose efforts are being coordinated by IAU too. The work will carry on even afterwards as IAU prepares for its 14th General Conference where the question ‘Is globalization setting a new agenda for internationalization of higher education?’ forms a central part of the programme. For more information: r.hudson@iau-aiu.net.

By Guest Writer. The following is a guest post by John K. Hudzik, former vice president for global and strategic projects at Michigan State University and former president of Nafsa: Association of International Educators.
Higher-education internationalization is a hot topic. In the past year a robust discussion about the issues and challenges surrounding the international efforts of higher education has developed. I contributed an essay to these discussions titled, “Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action,” and have spoken about internationalization over the last eight months at conferences across five continents. With insightful commentaries by other academics, including Uwe Brandenburg, Jane Knight, Elspeth Jones, Francisco Marmolejo, and Hans de Wit, thinking about internationalization has been enriched.
All this is well and good. Ideas need to guide action, but as the new year begins, I hope we see more work by higher education to truly go global. With that in mind, I wanted to layout some observations arising in part from my recent travels and conversations and to outline key elements for how universities can move forward.
For much of higher education, internationalization is undergoing a paradigm shift in scale and scope, rather than a fundamental shift in the basic concept. So, perhaps it isn’t that internationalization has lost its way or having an identify crisis, but rather is better understanding the road being travelled and the motivations for doing so.
The activity of higher education is increasingly crossing borders with the flow of ideas, students, scholars, and partnerships–both instructional and research.  Preparing graduates for a global labor market and economy and helping communities and businesses negotiate a global landscape has increased saliency.  We are learning that prosperity at home is heavily dependent on global “co-prosperities”—not just with matters of markets and economies, but with, for example, health, safe and sustainable food supply, peace and security, and justice.  The social responsibilities of higher education have rising global dimensions.  Internationalization is not an end, but rather a means to meet these challenges and opportunities. It is not local versus global in how higher education responds but a blending of the two in “local to global.”
Comprehensive internationalization describes behaviors and outcomes relevant for internationalization in a 21st century context. To paraphrase: it is commitment and action to integrate international, global, and comparative content and perspective throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education to achieve core learning and discovery outcomes. Similar concepts are being discussed outside the United States with different terms—“deep internationalization” in Australia and “mainstream internationalization” in Europe.
Although there are regional differences, all appear to share aspects of certain tenets: providing access to international content and perspective to all students, not just a minority; student mobility as a component of internationalization, not a synonym for it; moving internationalization beyond teaching and learning to include research and service missions; expanding the number of faculty and staff members engaged in international efforts; and as Mr. Brandenberg and Mr. de Wit have put it: “Internationalization can no longer be seen as a fragmented list of activities.”
So, how to make these ideas a reality?
For decades, colleges and universities in the United States have internationalized through faculty and student exchanges, research collaborations, and internationally focused coursework. At most institutions, these efforts touched the few, not the many. That must change if institutions are to prepare students for the global workforce and themselves be prepared to help solve the big problems of the 21st century.
Treating internationalization as yet another “add on” responsibility can neither be afforded, nor prevent its eventual marginalization in the competition for scarce resources.  Sustainability requires its integration into the core missions and involving the campus widely. Lou Anna Simon, president of Michigan State University, champions a reaffirmation of traditional land-grant and public university values of “quality, inclusiveness, and connectivity” for a global environment—or what she refers to as a transition from land-grant to world-grant in orientation and commitment, and integration of the local and the global.
In “Comprehensive Internationalization,” I outlined a number of prerequisites, barriers to, and actions for success. The list is long, and all are important issues, but my experience as dean of international programs and later vice president at Michigan State suggests that a few deserve emphasis.
Institutional Culture. Comprehensive internationalization needs a culture that defines institutional missions and values in global terms–not just in local or national terms. Needed is a broadly shared culture throughout the institution of a commitment to internationalization and its outcomes.
Define Objectives and Measure Success. The currency of higher education is defined by intellectual objectives. The connection of international engagement to measurable outcomes for students and society–in learning, research, problem solving, and capacity building–is crucial to its sustainability.
Contributors. While humanities, languages, and social and behavioral sciences remain core elements in international education, professional disciplines take on renewed importance. Problems and opportunities in, for example, public health, environment, food supply, and economies now easily jump boundaries. All disciplines and professions are better informed by global perspective, shaped by it, and capable of contributing globally.
Leadership for Action. Clear and frequent messaging from the president and provost are important. The role of academic deans is critical for prompting action in academic programs. Faculty intellectual leadership and commitment is essential for progress. As not everything can be done at once, an important role of leadership is to set priorities for action and hold accountable those who should be contributing?
Define and Reward What Counts. What is counted counts. Integration of international dimensions into curricula signals what counts for students. Including international accomplishments into promotion, compensation, and tenure criteria signals what counts for faculty. The allocation of resources to internationalization signals institutional commitment.
Recruit and Employ for Internationalization. Institutional capacity is enhanced by recruiting students who have an interest in international learning and by hiring administrators, faculty, and staff members with international backgrounds, experience, or interests.
In conclusion, higher-education internationalization is a road without end, an aspiration unfolding in a continuously changing world. The core concepts remain stable but how they will be implemented across regions and institutions will differ. There are several of us now beginning to focus on action for internationalization.

By Sam Creighton. The government has launched a new cross-department venture to encourage universities to expand internationally.
The HE Global Integrated Advisory Service (HE Global), announced today by Foreign Secretary William Hague, aims to bolster the competitiveness of UK institutions in the increasingly crowded global education market.
It will collect in one place the advice and services offered by the Foreign Office and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills as well as the British Council, making them available to universities.
It is the first time the Foreign Office has become directly involved in the expansion of UK higher education.
Colin Riodan, vice-chancellor of the University of Essex and chair of the UK Higher Education International and Europe Unit, said this was a “recognition that universities are a key element of soft power” and that they have an important role to play in diplomacy and promoting foreign trade.
He added that “there has always been a lack of coordination of the help universities can have if we want to internationalise effectively”.
HE Global seeks to rectify this by pulling together all the different strands of support and offering institutions insight into both opportunities abroad and foreign systems as well as access to finance and insurance to minimise the risk of international ventures.
David Willetts, the universities and science minister, said: “The HE Global service will ensure that our universities continue to be market-leaders providing high quality teaching and research world-wide.”