CAEI Brasil 2012
A segunda edição do CAEI será realizada de 25 a 28 de abril de 2012, no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. As três organizações na origem do evento, a Organização Universitária Interamericana (OUI), o Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) e o Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC), e novos parceiros tais como o Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Brasileiras (CRUB), o Fórum das Assessorias das Universidades Brasileiras para Assuntos Internacionais (FAUBAI) e a Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) colaborarão ativamente na edição 2012.
As Américas, parceiras do mundo
A colaboração interamericana no campo da pesquisa e da mobilidade acadêmica cresceu muito na última década. Numerosos expertos acreditam no forte potencial de desenvolvimento da cooperação universitária nas Américas e destacam a necessidade de promover vínculos de colaboração cada vez mais sólidos no ensino superior de acordo com as novas tendências do século 21.
O Congresso das Américas sobre Educação Internacional (CAEI) tem um imenso potencial para enfrentar este desafio. Em resumo, o CAEI quer ser um espaço fecundo de diálogo interamericano para os líderes do campo a fim de discutir as prioridades relacionadas com a internacionalização do ensino superior. Em conseqüência, este evento representa um fórum dinâmico para aprofundar a colaboração mútua entre os atores do ensino superior das Américas.
Venham encontrar parceiros e aliados potenciais e:
• Partilhar sua visão e as melhores práticas em educação internacional favorecendo a qualidade e inovação
• Debater as diversas políticas, métodos e tendências emergentes no ensino superior que afetam o conjunto das Américas
• Fortalecer parcerias atuais e criar novas alianças
• Analisar as questões relativas à internacionalização do ensino superior numa perspectiva Norte - Sul e Sul - Sul
• Desenvolver redes de colaboração e identificar novas oportunidades em educação
• Fazer recomendações e dar avisos em matéria de educação a organizações e fóruns regionais tais como a Organização dos Estados americanos (OEA), e contribuir à elaboração de programas respondendo às necessidades e prioridades atuais
Antecedentes – Edição precedente
A primeira edição do CAEI realizou-se em outubro de 2010, em Calgary, Canadá. O evento reuniu mais de 650 participantes de 44 países de cinco continentes. Graças ao enorme sucesso desta edição, o objetivo de contribuir à criação de espaços comuns no ensino superior foi amplamente alcançado.
Melhores práticas, tendências atuais, paradigmas emergentes e aspectos fundamentais da internacionalização do ensino superior: tais foram as temáticas centrais desta primeira edição, que também propôs espaços suplementares de discussão e numerosas oportunidades de networking com organizações de todo o hemisfério.
As principais atividades da primeira edição permitiram aos delegados de participar de um debate em plenária sobre a criação de um espaço comum para o ensino superior nas Américas, uma entrevista em plenária sobre a internacionalização, 6 workshops de desenvolvimento e 49 sessões paralelas, contando com 114 conferencistas.
Estas sessões trataram de sete temáticas, nas quatro línguas das Américas (francês, espanhol, inglês e português). Expertos de alto nível, reitores de universidades, presidentes de grupos de pesquisa, profissionais da cooperação internacional e professores atuando na colaboração no ensino superior participaram das atividades do CAEI, além de ministros e representantes de diversos corpos diplomáticos. Este evento único, que se realizará a cada 18 meses, será imprescindível para as instituições de ensino superior das Américas.

Developing university strategies for internationalisation in a global context, a new professional development event for senior management. Course dates: 28 November - 1 December 2011. Registration deadline: 10 October 2011. Course location: Rome, Italy.
Internationalisation is increasingly a key element of strategic planning in higher education, and many universities are in the process of rethinking what role internationalisation can or should play in their future development. This course aims to:
- Create a purposive forum for the discussion of current and future international agendas.
- Enable participants to reflect on, and receive advice on their own strategic priorities and their implementation.
- Provide participants with feedback on appropriate approaches to deal with real life cases in their own universities.
- Develop sound conceptual underpinnings for the advancement of their universities in the international domain.
The programme will be focused, issue centred, action oriented, collaborative, comparative, challenging and supporting. It requires some prior preparation of documents, as well as individual and group work in the evenings during the programme. Individual consultations will also be available in the evenings.
Target audience:
The course is designed for a group of 15-20 vice rectors, deans and international directors who play a key role in strategic processes for internationalisation in their institutions, and who are willing to undertake the necessary preparations, i.e. read assigned course material, complete a SWOT-analysis, and prepare a case study (optional). Upon registration the participants will be requested to submit a brief description of their role in order for the course leaders to be able to assess if they fall within the target audience of the course.
Trainers:
Fiona Hunter, University Carlo Cattaneo-LIUC, International Office, Italy
Hans de Wit, School of Economics and Management, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Netherlands
John Davies, International Centre for Higher Education Management, University of Bath, United Kingdom.

By David Wheeler. As more universities develop international operations, the negotiating list is becoming clearer for faculty members considering overseas jobs. Ticket home twice a year? Check. Private schools for the children? Check. But that old saying, The devil is in the details, certainly applies in this situation. Is the ticket business class or premium economy? Will the prospective faculty or staff members be given free time to pack up their belongings, or will they need to use vacation days? Likewise, for administrators planning an overseas operation, minding the staffing details as well as the strategy can feel overwhelming. A potential resource for those who are new to academic international efforts, “A Guide to Offshore Staffing Strategies for UK Universities,” may have been overlooked, perhaps because its title suggests it is just for the British.
The report, released this spring, is actually based on nine case studies, including Texas A&M University’s experience in Qatar and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s experience in Vietnam. Many of the report’s checklists and conclusions are applicable to a university in any country considering offshore operations. (The report was published by the UK Higher Education International and Europe Unit and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, and it can be downloaded along with the case studies. More U.S.-oriented information on such international administrative matters can be found at the Web site of the University of Washington Global Operations Support.)
The 48-page report plus the 56 pages of case studies are a lot to read.  Use of a big highlighting pen and a little caffeine is advised. But they are an especially close and rare public look at the administrative detail involved in international-academic efforts, occasionally reminiscent of the war stories international-relations managers swap privately. The lesson learned in one case study in Malaysia: “The bureaucracies of other countries can prove to be very confusing and incomprehensible to foreigners.” In short, local support is needed. The report sounds some alarms that echo what has appeared elsewhere. To avoid “brand damage” from international operations, the faculty and staff members need to be of the same quality as those at the home institution. Having a strong research element in an overseas operation is “proving to be a problem.”
But the authors also ring a positive note. They say that finding people to work in international-academic programs is no longer an issue of “exporting staff from the home country, but of tapping global networks and markets for the best people.” In short, university human-resource managers need to mimic the practices of multinational corporations. They need to switch their goal from persuading faculty members to fly out to international programs to finding those academics who are already internationally inclined. The report gives checklists of topics to consider for institutional policy makers, human-resource managers, and faculty and staff members themselves.
Policy makers need to think ahead about what will happen to international-program employees in crafting an “exit strategy.” (And, oh yes, they will need an exit strategy.) Human-resource managers need to consider what country’s laws any contracts will be written for and in what currency salaries will be paid. Managers need to consider the morale problems that might arise when large gaps in pay and benefits crop up between those hired locally and those hired internationally.
Benefits packages may need to include a car in the new country or an allowance for transportation, help renting an existing home, and health screening. Those pesky “risk management” people will need to be called to take a look at international operations. For those below the level of dean, or for faculty members who want to stay home, each detail may be another drumbeat of boredom. But increasingly in the world of academic internationalization, information has a price. The British report offers up a lot of information for free.

Lors de l'ouverture du sommet mondial des universités, Valérie Pécresse est revenue sur l'internationalisation de l'enseignement supérieur: aujourd'hui 3 millions d'étudiants suivent un cursus à l'étranger (+24 % depuis 2003)...
Les cultures universitaires au cœur de l'internationalisation
Je tenais également à saluer d'emblée votre volonté, Monsieur le Président Louis Vogel, d'élargir ces rencontres aux représentants de l'ensemble des universités du monde. Tous les continents sont aujourd'hui présents et c'est à mes yeux un très beau symbole : celui des valeurs d'ouverture, de coopération et d'échange qui portent l'univers académique. Bien sûr, les nations du monde se sont toujours montrées fières de leurs universités. Et je dirais même qu'une saine émulation a toujours régné entre elles : ce Collège de France où nous nous retrouvons aujourd'hui en est un très bel exemple, puisqu'il a été fondé pour enseigner les disciplines que négligeait alors la Sorbonne, pourtant située à quelques mètres d'ici.
Mais loin de se fonder sur le repli sur soi, cette émulation s'est au contraire nourrie de la circulation des idées et des esprits, une circulation qui a systématiquement bénéficié à l'ensemble des pays du monde. Et j'en veux pour preuve la devise même de la Sorbonne : Hic et ubique terrarum, ici et partout sur la terre. On ne saurait mieux dire que l'émulation et le rayonnement international sont au cœur de la vocation historique des universités. A l'heure de la société de la connaissance, les valeurs universitaires ont encore tout pour nous guider et nous inspirer. Car chacun de nous peut le constater : jamais les idées n'ont circulé aussi vite ; jamais les enseignants-chercheurs n'ont été aussi mobiles ; jamais les étudiants n'ont été aussi nombreux à choisir de se former dans une autre nation que la leur. Vous qui les accueillez jour après jour dans vos universités, vous le savez mieux que quiconque : ils sont aujourd'hui 3 millions d'étudiants à suivre un cursus à l'étranger, soit une hausse de 24 % depuis 2003.
L'internationalisation de la vie universitaire est une évidence : aller contre ce mouvement, ce serait aller non seulement contre le sens de l'histoire, mais aussi contre la vocation même des universités, qui sont par nature des lieux de rencontre et de diffusion du savoir.
Et dans ce monde où les enseignants-chercheurs et les étudiants peuvent aller d'une université à l'autre, d'un pays à l'autre, il est crucial que chaque nation, chaque université puisse construire et affirmer sa forme d'excellence académique pour rayonner aux yeux du monde. Claude Lévi-Strauss aimait à le répéter, les grands progrès naissent de la rencontre de traditions et de pensées différentes, qui s'enrichissent et se fécondent mutuellement. Mais comme le soulignait le père de l'ethnologie et de l'anthropologie contemporaines, si l'on veut maintenir intacte la possibilité d'avancées futures, encore faut-il que cette rencontre des différences n'affaiblisse pas les cultures elles-mêmes. Au contraire, la singularité de chaque modèle doit sortir renforcée et transformée de cette confrontation, pour rendre possible de nouvelles rencontres et de nouveaux progrès.
Et pour nous tous, cela veut dire une chose très simple : tous nos systèmes universitaires sont confrontés au défi de l'internationalisation. Tous doivent se donner les moyens de rendre visibles et lisibles aux yeux du monde la qualité de leur formation et de leur recherche. Et je suis convaincue que cette confrontation entre les cultures académiques contribuera à renforcer encore nos universités respectives, qui ne sont pas des univers stables et clos, mais se transforment aujourd'hui dans un monde en mouvement. Et pour autant, il ne peut pas, il ne doit pas y avoir de modèle universitaire unique. A l'université de Delhi comme à l'université Lomonossov de Moscou, à Berkeley comme à l'université Jiao-Tong de Shanghai, les enseignants-chercheurs et les étudiants m'ont dit leur volonté de miser sur leurs atouts singuliers pour s'inscrire pleinement dans la société mondiale de la connaissance.
Depuis 4 ans, au fil de mes déplacements dans les universités du monde, j'ai pu le mesurer : chacune de nos nations est l'héritière d'une tradition académique unique, qui est le fruit de la rencontre permanente de nos histoires scientifiques. Ce sont ces rencontres qui ont contribué à faire évoluer nos modèles universitaires respectifs et ainsi à nous faire prendre conscience de nos forces et de nos faiblesses, en un mot, de nos identités. Et ce qui est vrai des nations l'est parfois même des universités elles-mêmes : à peine plus de deux kilomètres séparent Harvard du MIT. Et pourtant, on ne peut imaginer deux atmosphères plus différentes que celles qui règnent dans ces deux établissements connus et reconnus dans  le monde entier. Mesdames et Messieurs les présidents, vous êtes, nous sommes aussi les dépositaires de ces différences: à nous de connaître et de mesurer nos atouts respectifs, pour que l'internationalisation de l'enseignement supérieur permette à chacun de nos modèles universitaires de rayonner à l'échelle non plus d'une nation ou d'un continent, mais du monde.
La nouvelle université française
Les investissements d'avenir : faire le pari de l'innovation
Une circulation des idées qui doit bénéficier à tous
Relever les défis de demain : le développement durable

Author: Hans de Wit. Internationalisation of Higher Education in Europe and its assessment, trends and issues.
Towards a European Programme Label for internationalisation?
From the present overview, some issues come clearly to the forefront:
> There appears a need for quality assessment of internationalisation strategies in higher education
> Around the world, in particular in the USA and Europe, several instruments have been developed over the past 15 years to assess that quality
> They use more or less the same programmatic and organizational categories for assessment
> They are focusing on input and output assessment
> They are mainly taking place at the institutional level
> They address the state of the art and/or the process for improvement
> With preference some form of benchmarking as to create comparison and best practice is appreciated.
At the same time, one can observe that:
> Institutions are reluctant to ongoing assessmen of internationalisation strategies, as this is a time consuming process
> In the present world of branding and ranking, an instrument without some kind of certification is not considered a high priority
> Assessment of institutional strategies denies the diversity of strategies for disciplines and programmes and the different levels within them
> Increasingly, institutions and programmes distinguish between a minimum requirement of internationalisation, applicable to all students and all programmes, and a maximum requirement, applicable to programmes and students with a high international and intercultural focus
> Internationalisation is becoming more mainstream in het higher education agenda, as in the present global knowledge economy internationalisation is strongly linked to innovation, interdisciplinarity and interculturality, and
> Increasingly a link has to be made to learning outcomes for students.
Based on these observations, it appears advisable to develop a system of certification of internationalisation at the programme level. This certification should be able to distinguish programmes for the quality of their internationalisation.
The following characteristics should be taken into consideration:
> The use of different assessment levels in order to indicate the state of internationalisation (what has been achieved so far) and to provide incentives for improvement (where is it heading to or what is attainable)
> The certification is available at least at the level of the programme or a combination of programmes (bachelor and/or master; schools/faculties)
> The assessment procedure is not focused on a specific activity but is comprehensive towards internationalisation (the why, how and what of internationalisation)
> It should focus on how internationalisation contributes to the overall quality by focusing on qualitative indicators (vision, content, provisional elements and outcomes) while using quantitative indicators (e.g. staff mobility figures) as supporting elements
> It should be with preference a regional (European) or international certificate, as the purpose is to position it in a comparative international context
> The assessment should be done by a team which combines expertise on the subject, on quality assurance and on internationalisation, and should include international expertise and the student perspective
> Given the global knowledge economy and the diverse society we live in, both intercultural and international competencies should be addressed
> As much as possible, the assessment should be combined with existing assessment of the programme, as to avoid extra workload and costs.

By Hans de Wit. A recent phenomenon in the debate on the future of the internationalisation of higher education is the inclination to put new broad-based labels on it: mainstreaming, comprehensive, holistic, integrated and deep internationalisation are some of the ones we see used in recent writings and presentations. The most common current label appears to be 'comprehensive internationalisation', thanks mainly to the paper with that title which past president of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), John Hudzik, wrote this year with the subtitle 'From concept to action'.
In Europe the term 'mainstream(ing) internationalisation' is becoming more common, although this is perceived less as a concept than 'comprehensive internationalisation'. It is used to describe a process emphasising the need to position internationalisation within the core of higher education instead of keeping it as a marginal issue.
Why do we see this emergence of new labels? What do they mean and how are they used? And will they advance the debate on the future of internationalisation started by Uwe Brandenburg and me in our recent International Higher Education essay with the provocative title "The End of Internationalisation"?
These questions occurred to me after chairing a debate on "What do we mean by 'deep internationalisation'?" at the Australia International Education Conference in Adelaide on 13 October 2011.
Even after the session I was not clear what our Australian colleagues meant by the term 'deep internationalisation' and it also seemed to me that they themselves were not very clear or convinced about it. From what I can ascertain, 'deep' internationalisation seems to lie somewhere between 'comprehensive' and 'mainstream'.
It is a bit clearer what John Hudzik means by 'comprehensive internationalisation'. His definition - although I read it more as a statement and action plan - reads as follows: "A commitment through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research and service mission of higher education". He continues, adding values, ethos and internal and external stakeholders.
I have little against this statement or the term itself, but still I wonder why there is a need for this new label.
If one compares Hudzik's definition of 'comprehensive internationalisation' with the generally accepted definition by Jane Knight on internationalisation - "the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education", which dates back to the early 1990s - one cannot see much difference. And that applies to all the other labels too. There is no other conclusion but that these labels are tautologies, using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not actually make the meaning any clearer.
Why then does there appear to be a need for new labels?
As Uwe Brandenburg and I pointed out in our essay about the end of internationalisation, there appears to be a trend to move from substance to form and to devalue the notion of internationalisation. If one looks at recently published articles and themes at international education conferences, one gets the impression that internationalisation is suffering from an identity or mid-life crisis, as Jane Knight wonders in the August edition of the OECD's IMHE Info.
The International Association of Universities has even established an ad hoc international expert group to rethink internationalisation. The group will address three questions: Is the concept and the definition of internationalisation keeping up with developments in higher education? Is there a shared understanding of the concept? Has internationalisation lost sight of its central purposes?
I participate in this group, as it is my strong conviction that we must constantly update and, if necessary, refresh our concepts and ideas. Uwe Brandenburg and I have already initiated a debate on the third of these questions in our essay. Jane Knight in her identity crisis article makes a statement about the first question that I sympathise with. She asks: "Can we focus on values and not only on definitions?"
Although I understand the motivations behind the inclination to develop new definitions and labels, and although I sympathise with the underlying urge to broaden and deepen the notion of internationalisation, I do not think they are much of a help. And I fear they might have the opposite effect. In the discussions I have taken part in recently, I observe the inclination to embrace these new labels, but continue with business as usual.
If we want to bring internationalisation a step closer we have to look at its achievements; its misconceptions; the changing global landscape and the related debate about internationalisation as a 'Western concept' or as a repetition of the old system by new players; internationalisation for a small elite or for all; the similarities and differences between intercultural and international and global cooperation, and other fundamental developments and values. If internationalisation is to be revived it will not be the result of new labels, but of a debate and action around these key questions.
In that respect I have been inspired by the critical remarks on ethos and values by Simon Marginson and Fazal Rizvi of Melbourne University, by increased attention to the theme of 'internationalisation of the curriculum', by the establishment of an International Education Researchers Network, and by the increased participation from Asia at the AIEC Conference in Adelaide. Awang Bulgiba Awang Mahmud, director of global planning and strategy at the University of Malaysia, in explaining the Malaysian internationalisation strategy - international research, international students and international branding and reputation - said with conviction: "The end of internationalisation? We are just at the beginning!"
* Hans de Wit is professor of internationalisation of higher education at the Centre for Applied Research in Economics and Management (CAREM) in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Email: j.w.m.de.wit@hva.nl.

Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives, IAU 3rd Global Survey Report. Internationalization is now perhaps the most important agent of change in higher education. Higher Education Institution leaders, faculty members, researchers and students, as well as government policy makers and education planners are increasingly interested in internationalization approaches, strategies, as well as issues related to the benefits, risks and challenges that need to be considered as they look into the future. From its unique global vantage point, the International Association of Universities (IAU) regularly undertakes Global Surveys on Internationalization of Higher Education and disseminates their findings.
Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives is the title of the IAU 3rd Global Survey Report, data for which was collected in 2009. With contributions from internationalization experts from around the world, the analysis of results is based on responses from HEIs in 115 countries making this the largest internationalization study of its kind!  Internationalization of Higher Education.

Depuis quelques années, les façons dont l’enseignement supérieur « s’internationalise » sont de plus en plus diverses. Par ailleurs, les tendances et les développements internationaux qui se manifestent au-delà des frontières nationales ont plus facilement d’impact sur les politiques de l’enseignement supérieur aux niveaux institutionnels et nationaux, créant ainsi des interconnexions supplémentaires entre les divers changements. En conséquence, il est non seulement difficile d’actualiser les différents termes et concepts utilisés pour décrire les nouveaux processus inhérents aux aspects internationaux de l’enseignement supérieur mais il est également complexe de saisir ces interconnexions. Le fait que les innovations et les changements soient en cours et que le domaine évolue donc constamment constitue un défi supplémentaire.
Afin de permettre aux utilisateurs de naviguer plus facilement sur ces pages web, l’AIU propose une page d’introduction sur laquelle figurent des définitions. Ceci permet de structurer nos pages web et peut simultanément servir à guider les utilisateurs qui voudraient avoir accès à des ressources et des informations concernant les termes internationalisation, enseignement transfrontalier (enseignement sans frontières/ transnational) ou internationalisation « à la maison ». Par ailleurs, ceci permet d’accéder plus facilement à des informations portant sur des sujets liés au domaine dans son ensemble, comme par exemple l’AGCS. 2009 IAU Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education (Key_results_2009).
Recent years have seen a tremendous expansion of ways in which higher education goes "international". As well, international trends and developments taking place beyond national boundaries impact more easily on higher education policy at institutional and national levels, thus creating additional inter-connections between various changes. Consequently it is not only difficult to keep track of the various concepts and terms used to describe new processes in the international aspects of higher education, it is also difficult to capture these interconnections.  An additional challenge comes from the fact that innovations and changes are on-going and thus the field is evolving constantly.