ECA is stepping up its initiatives on supporting internationalisation. This is in accordance with the third aim of ECA.
A proposal for EU funding for a new European certificate on the assessment of internationalisation will be submitted in February.
The proposal will be based on experiences in the Netherlands and Flanders with assessing internationalisation. An evaluation report on pilots carried out by NVAO in 2010 and the framework that is used by NVAO for assessing internationalisation are available here.
A short explanation of the ECA certificate on internationalisation can be downloaded below.
ECA Agreement of Cooperation 2008.

By Francisco Marmolejo. Last December, I had the opportunity to participate in two different overseas meetings on higher-education internationalization within the same week. Since the themes of the conferences were similar, one might imagine that they would generate discussions that were similar. I was quite surprised that these events–held 6,300 miles apart from each other–in Penang, Malaysia, and in Lund, Sweden, seemed to be as distant on the rationale and focus for internationalization as they were geographically. In their own way, both events reflected the important dilemma that higher education faces in today’s world: how to serve the current and future needs of our societies in an increasingly competitive and internationalized knowledge-based economy.
The first of the two events that I attended was the Global Higher Education Forum, hosted on December 12-13 by the University of Sciences of Malaysia (USM), and co-convened by a variety of international organizations including the Association of African Universities (AAU), the International Association of Universities (IAU), and the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC), among others. At this conference, more than 400 delegates, overwhelmingly from developing countries, debated future scenarios for higher education in the world as well as threats and opportunities associated with them. Speakers emphasized the need to embed a socially-responsible approach when establishing national policies for higher education and when internationalization strategies are implemented at the institutional level. It was recognized that global growth in higher-education enrollment over the next 30 years will happen mostly in the developing world, that access to higher education continues to be highly selective, that participation in international mobility mostly benefits more well-off students, and that national policies in developed countries aimed at attracting and retaining talent from abroad are harmful to countries with emerging economies.
At the core of the discussions in Malaysia was the question of whether it is possible for higher-education institutions to help create a world with more justice, equality, intercultural understanding, and tolerance, while operating in a highly competitive environment with limited resources, increased accountability, and rankings.
Just two days later, attendees of the Conference on Strategic Management of Internationalization in Higher Education were convened at Lund University by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its higher-education program (IMHE) in collaboration with the Nordic Association of University Administrators (NUAS) with the attempt to address a similar question–the ways in which the role of internationalization in higher education has been shifting in recent years and how institutions are coping with it.
Participants, mostly from European and other OECD market-based economies, largely agreed that higher education has not been immune to globalization, and, in fact, the internationalization agenda has moved from the margins of higher-education policy to a more central role and has become a topic of great interest not only to institutions but also to government policymakers.
In many OECD countries, internationalization of higher education has become an important component of national trade policies. It generates significant resources to institutions and local economies, it helps fill graduate programs and laboratories that otherwise might be languishing, it attracts talented individuals from many parts of the world, and it serves as key strategy for so-called soft diplomacy.
Although the rationale heard in Lund was different to the one being discussed in Penang, it was intriguing to hear speakers warn about the dangers of seeing international higher education as just another commodity, or about the risks associated with linking internationalization of higher education just to prestige and rankings. Some speakers very vocally insisted that higher-education institutions should be a voice for social justice and should not benefit only the elite.
After reflecting on the rationales for internationalization that prevailed at the two events, there seems to exist a split in approaches and expectations in the developing and the developed world in matters related to the goals and means of internationalization of higher education. Nevertheless, the need to find common ground is crucial. At the end of the day, the key challenge faced by higher-education leaders and practitioners in both the developing and the developed world is how to reconcile both perspectives in such a way that future graduates of our institutions will have both the knowledge base and the cultural and linguistic skills that are required in today’s competitive world, as well as a strong sense of social responsibility and commitment towards social justice globally and locally.
Certainly, there is no simple recipe to resolve these apparently competing positions, but comprehensive internationalization strategies like the ones described by John Hudzik at Nafsa have been successfully implemented in a variety of institutions and many valuable lessons can be learned from these cases.

By Elspeth Jones*. Hans de Wit's commentary in University World News on 23 October, titled "Naming internationalisation will not revive it", makes interesting reading. He is right to say that too much time is spent on definitions and arguing over detail, and asks whether such labels will advance the debate on the future of internationalisation. Perhaps this is exactly the problem - we are still having a debate.
While we continue to argue over whether internationalisation means student mobility, recruiting international students, internationalising the curriculum, developing globally competent staff or preparing students for a globally interconnected world, we need to be reminded that an integrated approach to internationalisation involves all of these and more. Too few university leaders have yet grasped the potential of internationalisation as a powerful force for change, restricting themselves instead to the economic or brand-enhancing concepts of global engagement. John Hudzik's article on 'comprehensive internationalisation' at least seeks to remind us of the breadth of issues we face.
As Hans de Wit says, Jane Knight, in her article "Is Internationalisation Having an Identity Crisis?", asks whether we are able to "focus on values and not only on definitions".
Equally it is now time to ask whether we are able to focus on actions rather than further debate. In Australia, academics talk of the two phases of internationalisation as being aid then trade. It's now time for internationalisation to 'pervade' and to reach all aspects of university life - vice-chancellors, presidents and provosts, take note. At the same conference in Adelaide to which Hans de Wit refers, I gave a paper which asked whether different global interpretations of the term 'internationalisation' are not in fact barriers to greater effectiveness in achieving internationalisation itself.
The paper suggested 10 key indicators of a university which has achieved 'comprehensive' or 'integrated' internationalisation:
1. The rationale and strategy for internationalisation is linked to the university's vision and values and clearly communicated to and understood by academic and support staff at all levels across the institution, governing bodies and external stakeholders.
2. Governance, leadership and management. The importance and relevance of internationalisation is explicit in all key university policies and strategies, incorporated into planning processes and delivered through normal line management routes across academic and corporate services and reported on annually to governors and-or senate.
3. Internationalisation of the formal curriculum for all students is pervasive, in terms of content, pedagogy, assessment processes and graduate outcomes. This demonstrates the impact of global issues on the discipline and related professions and the role and impact of that discipline in the global context. Varied international mobility opportunities support the internationalised curriculum and intercultural learning opportunities are available within the local community.
4. International campus culture and informal curriculum is visible. The international aspects of university life are celebrated regularly through events and activities that support internationalisation on the home campus.
5. A vibrant, diverse international and multicultural student community is evident, with students actively participating in campus life and being valued for the way in which they enrich classroom and campus culture.
6. Guidance and support for students outside the classroom supports incoming international students as well as promoting and encouraging internationalisation for all students, domestic and international.
7. Staff development, recognition and reward for engaging in any aspect of the international dimension of university life is offered systematically for all staff through performance review or appraisal.
8. Broad and deep international partnerships provide global opportunities for student and staff engagement through research, staff and student exchange or placement, collaborative programmes, benchmarking of performance and a bilateral programme of visiting academic and support staff.
9. Resources follow strategy to ensure that the commitment to integrated internationalisation can be delivered.
10. Continuous enhancement of internationalisation activities and strategy is undertaken through monitoring, reflection and evaluation processes which inform reviews of policy and practice.
This is challenge enough for any university and our efforts should not be impeded by the distraction of terminology, definition or debate. To achieve our objectives we need to take small steps on all fronts rather than berating ourselves for lack of progress. We should integrate rather than 'add on' internationalisation. We need to engage all staff in this endeavour whether academic or professional support and, above all, we need to engage and listen to our students, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of our efforts to internationalise.
Enough rhetoric and debate - let's get on with it!
* Professor Elspeth Jones is emerita professor of the internationalisation of higher education at Leeds Metropolitan University and an international education consultant. Until July 2011 she was international dean at the university, where she devised and led implementation of its internationalisation strategies. In 2009 she founded CAPRI, the Centre for Academic Practice and Research in Internationalisation. Her publications include the edited collection, Internationalisation and the Student Voice (Routledge 2010), and Internationalising Higher Education (edited with Sally Brown) (Routledge 2007). She is a member of the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Studies in International Education and visiting professor at the University of Zagreb. Email: EJ@ElspethJones.com.

Theme
The vast majority of analysts and actors in international higher education concede that internationalisation has come a long way during the past two decades. It moved from being a peripheral trait of institutional activities to the very core of institutional (and sometimes national-level) strategies, not only in the West, but in most corners of the world.  In what appears to be a close to global internationalisation euphoria, we cannot help but wonder if our understanding of this concept has managed to keep up with ever changing international, national and institutional realities. What do we truly mean when we talk about internationalisation today? What kind of activities and ambitions are now at the core of internationalisation? Are they the same as ten, twenty years ago, or have they tremendously changed? Was/is there a shared understanding of internationalisation at all, or should we rather use the plural when referring to this phenomenon? And more importantly, what are the implications for the years to come? What kind of internationalisation do we want and need for the future?
We find it timelier than ever to ask these questions and encourage a general reflection around this central concept. The last ACA European Policy Seminar (EPS) of the year - Internationalisation revisited - will provide a venue for this pressing debate, in the company of a host of highly-inspiring and extremely knowledgeable speakers from around the world.  The agenda will include: overviews of ongoing discussions within international fora and organisations; examinations of some of the “traditional” internationalisation activities (from cross-border student mobility, to curricular internationalisation and international partnerships) and recent trends in these areas; as well as nuanced views of this process from the institutional level.

By Francisco Marmolejo. Across the world, higher education has experienced dramatic changes in recent years. There is no doubt that it should be viewed in the global context and not solely from a domestic point of view. Internationalization of higher education is no longer just about the mobility of students and signing of international memoranda of understanding. Issues now include the internationalization of curriculum, “brain drain” versus “brain circulation,” the internationalization of research, offering of dual degrees with foreign partners, establishing of branch campuses abroad, involvement of international alumni, creation of international quality assurance frameworks, proliferation of international rankings, increased competition for international students, and the role of recruiting agents. There are just a few of the many changes that higher education is experiencing in a globally interconnected world.
While most practitioners see internationalization as something good for individuals and institutions, specific initiatives can have wide-ranging effects on the parties involved, some positive and some negative. Even the traditional scope of action–mobility of students–and the way internationalization of higher education used to be defined, no longer seem sufficient to address a much more complex and changing reality. What is true is that while internationalization of higher education is here to stay, there is considerable variation in the way it unfolds over time on the regional, institutional, and individual level. Because it is an evolving phenomenon, its meaning can be difficult to pin down. This explains why well respected scholars like Hans de Wit and Uwe Brandenburg, Jocelyne Gacel-Avila, John Hudzik, and many more, have raised legitimate questions about the need to revisit the traditional concept and definition of internationalization of higher education.
As a way to address such concerns, the Paris-based International Association of Universities (IAU) just announced the creation of an ad-hoc international experts group that, according to Eva Egron-Polak, secretary general of IAU, intends “to bring together perspectives from all parts of the world inter alia to: assess the extent to which internationalization activities fit the current conceptual umbrella, to critically examine the causes that are leading to some questioning and even criticism of the concept, and to investigate the ways to address these concerns.”
The IAU group will engage in a broader discussion and analysis of trends and different approaches, and it is expected to suggest a revised understanding of internationalization of higher education. As expressed by de Wit and Brandenburg in the provocative paper entitled “The End of Internationalization,” it is imperative to “move away from dogmatic and idealistic concepts of internationalization and globalization,” and to understand them “in their pure meaning–not as goals in themselves but rather as means to an end.”
At this point some might wonder if internationalization of higher education is really dead.  The answer is evident: it is most definitely not. It is more vibrant than ever. Nevertheless, it has changed and will continue to do so. Paraphrasing Paul Valéry, I may say that what makes us worried about internationalization of higher education is that it is no longer what it used to be. Are we prepared for such a change?

Building on the lively discussion that took place during the 4th IAU Global Meeting of Associations in Delhi, India, in April, 2011, IAU invited a number of experts from around the world to take part in a discussion about the need to re-examine the concept of internationalization. Is the concept and the definition of internationalization keeping up with developments in higher education? Is there a shared understanding of the concept? Has internationalization lost sight of its central purposes?
IAU is posing these and other questions in a reflection directly in line with the findings of the 3rd Global Survey on Internationalization. The Survey clearly points out the differences in why internationalization is pursued in different parts of the world and how it impacts on various institutions in vastly diverse contexts. Furthermore, this initiative is a natural sequel to past normative efforts of the Association, such as the Policy Statement and Declaration and Checklist for Good Practice.
The Ad hoc international Expert Group was created to bring together perspectives from all parts of the world inter alia to: assess the extent to which internationalization activities fit the current conceptual umbrella, to critically examine the causes that are leading to some questioning and even criticism of the concept and to investigate the ways to address these concerns. The Group has met for the first time 'virtually' this summer. The Agenda lists the main questions and issues that were covered. The Notes, prepared by IAU following this first meeting, summarize what was actually a wide ranging beginning to a rich discussion. IAU and all the members of the Group are committed to continue this discussion and move forward in concrete ways in an effort to reposition/reinvent internationalization as a valuable and transformative process of change in higher education in the current context.
As it is essential that we keep the momentum in this initiative going, the Group members agreed to use a large number of upcoming international events to raise similar questions and share the inputs that various audiences may make to the discussion. In case you are interested in taking part in some of these discussions, a number of events was mentioned by the Group members.
Finally, IAU will be buidling a virtual space for sharing related papers and documents on its webpages devoted to internationalization. Should you have a paper or a presentation that you wish to make known to the Group, or simply to comment on this initiative, please contact Eva Egron-Polak or Ross Hudson.

The Center for International Higher Education defines its mission to be advancing knowledge about the complex realities of higher education in the contemporary world. International Higher Education (IHE). Our flagship quarterly publication features analysis and reports about key issues in higher education worldwide. The current issue is featured on the website. A comprehensive subject and author index permits easy access to all past articles.
Issue 64, Summer 2011
Internationalization of Higher Education: Nine Misconceptions, by Hans de Wit. Hans de Wit is professor of internationalization at the School of Economics and Management, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands. This is an abridged version of his public lecture in Amsterdam, April 6, 2011. E-mail: j.w.m.de.wit@hva.nl.
EDUCATION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
The influence of the English language as a medium of communication in research has been dominant for a long period of time. Also, over the past 20 years the tendency in higher education has been to teach in English, as an alternative for teaching in one’s mother tongue. There are several unintended negative effects. Increasingly, education offered in the English language is regarded as the equivalent of internationalization, which results in a decreasing focus on other foreign languages; in an insufficient focus on the quality of the English spoken by students and teachers for whom English is not their native language; and thus leading to a decline in the quality of education.
STUDYING OR STAYING ABROAD
A study or internship abroad as part of your home studies is often regarded as the equivalent of internationalization. In particular, the European Commission’s policy to stimulate this manner of mobility has contributed to that instrumental approach over the last 25 years. It is questionable, however, whether the imbalanced and oversimplified approach to mobility matches internationalization. As well, it can be said that mobility is merely an instrument for promoting internationalization and not a goal in itself. Mobility needs to be finely embedded in the internationalization of education. It should be determined whether these Internationalization in European higher education has developed over the last 20 years, from a marginal point of interest to a central factor—also called a mainstreaming of internationalization. Indisputably, globalization of our societies and economies has expanded the influence of competition and market processes on the manner in which internationalization is implemented. Internationalization distinguishes many motives and approaches. The mainstreaming of internationalization assumes a more integral process-based approach, aimed at a better quality of higher education and competencies of staff and students. Reality is less promising, however, although the international dimension takes an increasingly central role in higher education. Still, there is a predominantly activity-oriented or even instrumental approach toward internationalization, which leads to major misconceptions about the nature of this development. Nine misconceptions will be described (two of them coinciding with a myth as described in IHE by Jane Knight in “Five Myths About Internationalization,” no. 62, winter 2011), whereby internationalization is regarded as synonymous with a specific programmatic or organizational strategy to promote internationalization—in other words, where the means appear to have become the goal. added values are developed among students; and more innovative reflection is required on alternative ways of achieving these added values, for instance by the use of distance education and virtual mobility.
AN INTERNATIONAL SUBJECT
A third misconception that continues to surface persistently is that internationalization is synonymous with providing training based on international content or connotation: European studies, international business, or universal music. Within the institutions and schools offering these programs, the prevailing opinion seems to imply that, in this way, internationalization has been properly implemented. Without meaning to ignore the valuable contribution of such programs, again, it is too simplistic and instrumental an argument to declare regional studies as synonymous with internationalization.
HAVING MANY INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
A fourth misconception of internationalization is the assumption that having many international students equals that trend. Without denying that the combination of local and international students in the lecture room can make a significant contribution to internationalization, simply having international students is not sufficient. Unfortunately, countless examples can be given of programs that are oriented exclusively toward international students or where international students are being added as an isolated group.
FEW INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS GUARANTEES SUCCESS
The other side of the preceding misconception occurs as well. In particular, many international programs have developed a distorted proportion between the number of local and international students. Partly as a result of the increasing national and international competition for international students, the proportion between local and international students becomes more and more unequal. Thus, one can hardly speak of an international classroom setting. Conversely, this development has a negative effect on the internationalization of mainstream, non-English-language programs. Local students with a certain, whether or not motivated, international interest preferably enroll in the international programs—which means the interest of mainstream education in the local language dwindles. Also, in these programs, the presence of a small number of international students creates tensions. Should the courses be taught in English if there are only one or two international students in the lecture room? How can the integration of international students be realized in such distorted proportions?
NO NEED TO TEST INTERCULTURAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETENCIES
A sixth misconception assumes that students normally acquire intercultural and international competencies if they study or serve their internship abroad or take part in an international class. This misconception is closely related to the previous ones about mobility, education in English, and the presence of international students. If these kinds of activities and instruments are considered synonymous with internationalization, then it is obvious to assume that intercultural and international competences will therefore also be acquired. Once again, reality is more complicated. It is not guaranteed from the outset that these activities will actually lead to that result. After all, students can completely seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other students and other sections of the population in the countries they visit.
THE MORE PARTNERSHIPS, THE MORE INTERNATIONAL
A seventh misconception on internationalization is the focus on partnerships: the more partnerships, the more success of internationalization. Globalization, competition, and market processes have reinforced the development toward strategic partnerships. This tendency toward strategic partnerships often implicates intentions, however. The majority of partnerships remain bilateral, and in several institutions and schools the number far exceeds the number of students and teachers being exchanged.
HIGHER EDUCATION—INTERNATIONAL BY NATURE
At universities and among their researchers, the general opinion identified a truly international characteristic, and thus there is no need to stimulate and guide internationalization. Thereby, references are made to the Renaissance, the time of the philosopher Erasmus (ca. 1467–1536), whom the European exchange program is named after. This historic reference ignores the fact that universities, mostly originated in the 18th and 19th century, had a clear national orientation and function. Internationalization does not arrive naturally in general universities and universities of applied sciences, but needs to be introduced. That is why the rather widely accepted definition of internationalization by Jane Knight refers to an integration process.
INTERNATIONALIZATION AS A PRECISE GOAL
Most of the mentioned misconceptions conceive an activity or instrument as synonymous with internationalization. The last, also fairly prevailing, misconception regards internationalization as a main goal, and therefore it is in line with the misconceptions mentioned earlier. Internationalization is a process to introduce intercultural, international, and global dimensions in higher education; to improve the goals, functions, and delivery of higher education; and thus to upgrade the quality of education and research. If internationalization is regarded as a specific goal, then it remains ad hoc and marginal. To comprehend the challenges and opportunities for the internationalization of higher education it is compelling to recognize that these misconceptions are still fairly common.

From 30 November until 2 December 2011, INQAAHE and ENQA organise a joint seminar “Internationalisation and QA: Connecting European and Global Experiences”. The seminar takes place in Brussels, Belgium at the Metropole Hotel.
The first day (30 November 2011) is organised by INQAAHE and is entitled “Quality of International Education in the Professions”. During this day INQAAHE will pay a tribute to Dr Marjorie Peace Lenn, one of the founders of INQAAHE in 1991, who sadly died last year. Marjorie’s main interests, the various forms of international higher education and its relation with the professional accreditors will be explored through presentations and workshops.
The second day (1 December 2011)  'Connecting European and Global experiences' is jointly organised by ENQA and INQAAHE. The ENQA seminar, entitled “European Quality Labels and QA”, will take place on 2 December 2011 and will focus on European Quality Labels and Quality Assurance.The objectives of the seminar are to analyse the nature of so-called quality labels in terms of their aims and objectives, methodological approaches and criteria used in their reviews, to discuss their specific contribution to quality assurance in Europe and to analyse the relation between quality labels and quality assurance solely based on the European Standards and Guidelines.
Programme
The seminar Internationalisation and QA: Connecting European and Global Experiences is divided in three parts. On the first day  INQAAHE will offer a programme on the Quality of Internationalisation in the Professions. On the second day INQAAHE and ENQA will jointly explore their experiences with disciplinary accreditation initiatives and mutual recognition. The third day is organised by ENQA and focusses at European Quality Labels and Quality Assurance. Please find below more information about the different parts. Preliminary programme Internationalisation and QA.
Quality of International Education in the Professions
On Wednesday 30 November INQAAHE will organise a seminar on the Quality of International Education in the Professions. During this day INQAAHE will pay tribute to Dr Marjorie Peace Lenn, one of the founders of INQAAHE in 1991, who sadly died last year. Marjorie’s main interests, the various forms of international higher education and its relation with the professional accreditors will be explored through presentations and workshops. There will also be presentations about linking internationalisation trends to QA developments. Contributions will come from many parts of the world. One of the plenary keynote speakers is Bethany Jones, President of the Center for QA in International Education (confirmed). She will talk about Quality Assurance in Teacher Education.
Connecting European and Global Experiences
On Thursday 1 December INQAAHE and ENQA will organise a joint seminar: Connecting European and Global Experiences.  Attention will be paid to (recently) established European and International disciplinary accreditation initiatives and their relation to (national) QA systems. Also during this day mutual recognition in Europe, Latin-America and the Asia-Pacific region will be addressed. One of the plenary keynote speakers is Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary General of the International Association of Universities (IAU). She will talk about IAU’s 3rd Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education and the role for Quality Assurance Agencies in relation to internationalisation of higher education.
European Quality Labels and Quality Assurance
On Friday 2 December ENQA will organise a seminar on European Quality Labels and Quality Assurance. The objectives of the seminar are to analyse the nature of so-called quality labels in terms of their aims and objectives, methodological approaches and criteria used in their reviews, to discuss their specific contribution to quality assurance in Europe and to analyse the relation between quality labels and quality assurance solely based on the European Standards and Guidelines.

Conference - Strategic Management of Internationalisation. Lund, Sweden, 15-16 December 2011.
Organised by the Nordic University Association (NUS), the Nordic Association of University Administrators (NUAS) and the OECD’s Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE).
The conference will examine some of the challenges facing universities and governments as a result of the growing internationalisation of higher education throughout the world. Participants will have the opportunity to hear from leading experts on global trends, to learn about new developments and to consider practical responses. Case studies of national policy and institutional practice will be debated and new approaches to the evaluation of internationalisation discussed.