HE senior mgrs_Apr18 - Bournemouth University

The Global UniversityThe role of senior managersBournemouth Universityin association with the DEA

AcknowledgementsBournemouth University and the DEA would like to thank the following publication contributors:Professor Paul Luker, High Education Academy; Professor Robin Middlehurst, KingstonUniversity and Leadership Foundation; Professor Nick Petford and Chris Shiel, BournemouthUniversity; Professor Simon Lee and Dr Elspeth Jones, Leeds Metropolitan University; ProfessorJane Hanstock and Dr Viv Caruana, University of Salford; Professor Jane Broadbent and DrDavid Woodman, Roehampton University; Dr Geoffrey Copland CBE, formerly VC of theUniversity of Westminster; Professor Patricia Broadfoot and Professor Carolyn Roberts, Universityof Gloucestershire; Professor Shirley Pearce, Dr Ed Brown and Jon Walker, LoughboroughUniversity; Professor John Mallea, Past President and Vice-Chancellor of Brandon University,Canada; Professor Jocelyne Gacel-Avila and Professor Ricardo Avila Palafox, University ofGuadalajara, Mexico.Thanks should also be accorded to the Publication Advisory Group members who havecontributed toward the thinking behind the publication: Doug Bourn, Viv Caruana; Paul Luker,Hetan Shah, Joanna Simpson, Helen Young. Finally thanks should go to Phyllis Thompson,formerly Deputy Director of the DEA who played an important role in developing early supportfor the project and contributing to the submission of the HEFCE bid.This publication was made possible by a grant from the HEFCE LeadershipGovernance and Management Fund, awarded to Bournemouth University to enablea partnership project with the DEA.The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

The Global UniversityThe role of senior managersChris Shiel, Aileen McKenzie (Ed)© BU/DEA April 2008Published by DEA Can Mezzanine 32 – 36 Loman Street London SE1 0EHISBN-978-1-900109-31-4Designed by MDM Creative. Printed on recycled paper by Vitesse Print London.

GlossaryAHRCArts and Humanities Research CouncilAOPIAspects of Programme InternationalisationBUBournemouth UniversityCARACouncil for Assisting Refugee AcademicsCIHECouncil for Industry and Higher EducationCIRCLECentre for International Research on Creativity andLearning in EducationCETLCentre for Excellence in Teaching and LearningCPDContinuing Professional DevelopmentCRONENFederal Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicityand MulticulturalismCSRCorporate Social ResponsibilityDEADEA is an educational charity with a network of organisational memberspromoting education for a just and sustainable workDEEDDevelopment Education in DorsetDFESDepartment for Education and SkillsDESD(UN) Decade of Education for Sustainable DevelopmentDFIDDepartment for International DevelopmentEAPEngland Africa Partnership SchemeEPSRCEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilESRCEconomic and Social Research CouncilHEAHigher Education AcademyHEFCEHigher Education Funding Council for EnglandHEIsHigher Education InstitutionsHERCHigher Education Research CentreILIAInnovative Learning in Action (University of Salfordin-house journal)IMDInstitute for Management DevelopmentINTIInternational Network for technical InformationIOInternational OfficeISO14001International Standards Organisation environmentalmanagement system (EMS) standardNERCNational Environmental Research CouncilOECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPMI(2) Prime Minister’s Initiative (2)PROMEPPrograma para el Mejoramiento del ProfesoradoPISAProgramme for International Student AssessmentPVC International Pro-Vice Chancellor InternationalRAEResearch Assessment EnterpriseSDSustainable DevelopmentTNETransnational EducationUBCUniversity of British ColumbiaUCLUniversity College LondonUNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural OrganisationUNRCEUnited Nations Regional Centres for Expertise in EducationUSLFUniversity Leaders for a Sustainable FutureWCEDWorld Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWEDCWater Engineering Development Centre(Loughborough University)WUNWorld Universities NetworkVCVice ChancellorThe Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

ContentsPREFACEBill Rammell MP and Ewart Wooldridge CBE 4-5INTRODUCTIONChris Shiel 6-10The Internationalisation of Higher Education: shifting the paradigmPaul Luker 11-14Leadership and InternationalisationRobin Middlehurst 15-19A holistic approach to the ‘globalisation’ agenda at Bournemouth University:the role of senior managementNick Petford and Chris Shiel 20-25Perspectives, policy and institutional cultures: world-wide horizons atLeeds Metropolitan UniversityElspeth Jones and Simon Lee 26-30Conceptualising the internationalised curriculum at the University of Salford:from rhetoric to realityViv Caruana and Jane Hanstock 31-35The global university: the Roehampton University experienceJane Broadbent and David Woodman 36-38Sustainable development: strategic considerations for senior managersGeoffrey Copland 39-42Sustainable development: drivers for change at the Universityof GloucestershirePatricia Broadfoot and Carolyn Roberts 43-46The role of universities in sustainable developmentShirley Pearce, Ed Brown and Jon Walker 47-50The university’s role in developing global citizens: a case study of theUniversity of British ColumbiaJohn Mallea 51-56How can Latin American universities benefit from internationalisation?Jocelyne Gacel-Avila and Ricardo Avila Pilafox 57-61REFERENCES 62-653

PrefaceMany of our HE institutions have been in existence for decades nowand in some cases centuries. They enjoy an illustrious history andhave built an enduring reputation worldwide. Our more moderninstitutions also have unique attributes and have forged powerfulcollaborations, incorporating innovative ideas in their approach toHE provision in the UK. However, as the pace of change in theglobalisation agenda has gathered one thing remains constant andthat is that all HEIs will be required to continually adapt in order tokeep up with ever changing demands. One key challenge is toprovide courses which are not only exciting and attractive but moreimportantly, relevant to both students and employers in a context ofincreasing global interdependence. HEIs have a critical role to playin developing the knowledge, skills and attributes that will contributeto enhancing global society, the economy and the need forsustainable development in the 21st century.Many institutions now have explicit internationalisation strategies andindividuals whose role it is to lead change to make these a reality.Globalisation has brought many changes. More students than ever before travel across borders with the adventof cheaper international travel, there have been significant advances in communications technology, but thereare also more countries and providers entering the international education market. In order to continue tosucceed our HEIs will need to continue to adapt the programmes they offer, the ways in which they are offeredand where they are offered.The UK HE sector has an enviable reputation for the quality of research it produces which has led to thedevelopment of many of the innovations we make use of in our daily lives. The big challenges that face theworld today – climate change, pandemics, renewable energy – cannot be solved by one country or university inisolation. It requires institutions to work together across country boundaries and I know that much collaborativework of this kind is going on.Globalisation is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored and its forces can be felt in almost every aspect of auniversity’s operations - its staff, students, curriculum, research activities - to name just a few.This publication enables leaders in universities to exchange experiences and learn from one another.I welcome this publication for the useful contribution it makes to the globalisation debate.Bill RammellMinister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education,Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS).4The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Of the four cross-cutting themes of the Leadership Foundation’s new5-year Strategic Plan, two are ‘globalisation’ and ‘sustainability’.They underpin our leadership programmes not as mererhetoric, but as intensely practical dimensions of what we teachabout leadership, governance and management in UK HigherEducation. They are vital components in the context and challengesfacing universities over the next five to ten years. Moreover, thesevital issues require sound leadership at all levels of the institution, ifthey are to be properly developed, championed and embeddedinside our university system.Chris Shiel was one of the first Leadership Foundation Fellows andthe subject of her LF Fellowship was concerned with the global,sustainable university and internationalisation. We are pleased tohave played a part in the earlier development of this key piece ofwork and have no hesitation in endorsing this publication. It will bea very useful adjunct to our programmes and related research.Ewart Wooldridge CBEChief ExecutiveLeadership Foundation for Higher Education.5

IntroductionAs we move forward into the 21 st Century it isimpossible to ignore the challenges that we facein securing a sustainable future for humankind. Itmay seem preferable (and often simpler), tofocus largely on the economic and competitiveaspects of globalisation when we are caught upin the complexity of our ‘local’ working contextsbut if in so doing, we then neglect to consider thecontribution that we might make to resolvingissues such as global poverty, conflict, inequality,injustice and environmental degradation – thenwe all stand to lose.Government underscores the role of education intaking up these challenges: global citizenshipand sustainability are at the heart of policyconcerns (Department for Education and Skills,DfES 2003, 2004). Such documents may becriticised and it could be suggested that theymay confuse, rather than clarify what formengagement should take, however the HigherEducation Funding Council for England (HEFCE)and the Higher Education Academy (HEA) havesought to elaborate, suggesting possibledirections. HEFCE endorse that ‘Higher educationhas a pivotal role to play in helping societydevelop sustainably’ (HEFCE 2005, 6) and thatengagement involves three broad areas –through the educational role; through researchwhich provides social and technical solutions,and by nature of the fact that HEIs arethemselves large businesses, consumingresources and with a duty to stakeholders to besocially responsible.The HEA has responded to the educationalchallenge, addressing internationalisation andsustainability, albeit as separate concerns butacknowledging that they overlap. They stress theimportance of preparing ‘all graduates,regardless of country of origin, to be informed,responsible citizens able to work effectively in aglobal, multi-cultural context’(www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/international). They are also supporting initiativesto extend sustainable development.The HE Leadership Foundation has also placed aspotlight on these issues. Their 2006 conferenceconsidered ‘The Leadership Challenges ofGlobalisation and Internationalisation’ asits theme, stimulating a broader debatearound interpretations and consequences ofinternationalisation, and referencing the criticalityof new leadership approaches. The responsibilityof universities in ‘resolving the current andemergent global problems’ (Fielden, 2006 p6)in both developed and developing countrieswas reinforced.If the role of higher education is undoubtedly‘pivotal’ (and judging by the increasingnumber of conferences for senior staff onInternationalisation, globalisation, andsustainable development, these concerns aremore frequently marketed as ‘managerial’ andstrategically important), how do we build themomentum for change? What do we need to doto ensure that a ‘global vision’, or a goal ofbeing ‘world-class’, also aligns with the need forsustainable development?Unfortunately, there are no simple answers. Thispublication certainly does not set out to proposea ‘one size fits all’ solution. It is hoped however,that by sharing reflection, perspectives andexamples of practice, that ideas are stimulatedand potential opportunities to engage arerevealed. The publication has been purposefullywritten by senior managers for senior managers.The former were invited to share theirexperiences and reflections on shaping a‘global university’, with the aim of contributing tothe debate around particular challengesconfronting the sector: internationalisation,globalisation, and sustainable development.An increasing number of universities haveresponded to globalisation by broadening thecurriculum and developing the student experienceto embrace a ‘global perspective’, addressing‘internationalisation at home’ as an essentialcomponent of international strategy. The notionthat higher education might develop ‘activeglobal citizens’ who are equipped to addresssustainable development, is becoming acceptedas a strategic aim of a few Higher EducationInstitutions (Bourn, McKenzie, Shiel 2006) and is6The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

eing explored by others (Jones & Brown 2007,Lunn 2006).Other universities are addressing this agendafrom a starting point which focuses onsustainability, albeit that for a few, approachesare limited to addressing environmental aspects.However for an increasing number of institutionssuch engagement embraces innovation (HEFCE2008) and a focus on education for sustainabledevelopment, as a driver for change.This publication includes contributions from arange of perspectives and suggests thatuniversities are uniquely placed to contribute toboth ‘internationalisation’ and ‘sustainabledevelopment’ – concepts which may even bebrought together, under the overarching conceptof ‘global perspectives’. Some papers stimulateconsideration of these issues as separate anddistinctive strategic policy concerns; otherssuggest the potential for strategic solutions toactually overlap. We hope that by offeringdiversity, including two contributions from outsideof the UK, that there is something here foreveryone while ensuring that a common featureis evident: strategic commitment of senior staff isvital. This agenda represents a significantleadership challenge. To secure strategic change,it has to be much more than the inclusion ofinspiring words in mission statements – providingthe enabling environment for implementation, isessential in moving forward.‘Like other important concepts such as equity andjustice, sustainability can be thought of as both adestination (something worth aiming for) and ajourney (that has no pre-ordained route).’(New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner forthe Environment 2004, Cited in Tilbury andWortman 2004:7)In embarking on this ‘journey’ what seemsimportant to emphasise is that there are strategicchoices: paths to follow, modes of transport andthings to see (or even chose not to see), alongthe way. Each institution needs to develop waysof working that resonate with ethos, mission andcontext – but hopefully with a commondestination – contributing to a more just,sustainable, global society.Before moving into the detail of the contributions,it seems important to say something about the‘journey’ that provided the context for thispublication. This is done in part to acknowledgethe contribution of the DEA and participants whohave contributed along the way but also toreinforce that developing approaches to changeand the importance of leadership, werefrequently signposted.Background to the publicationThe Global University: the role of seniormanagers represents an outcome of engagementbetween the DEA and Higher Education. TheDEA’s networking activity within the sector hasinspired a number of projects, including a majornational conference in 2005, Graduates asGlobal Citizens: Quality Education for life in the21 st century and publications such as The GlobalUniversity: the role of the curriculum (DEA, 2006).The early departure point (The GlobalPerspectives in Higher Education Project), involvedworking with champions in just four institutions,bringing together enthusiasts who shared a beliefthat higher education might do more to enablestudents to make an effective contribution toglobal society, in the light of critical global issuesand the need for sustainability. As the networkgrew, the early priority became working withcourse developers to explore global perspectivesacross subject disciplines. During this phase the‘leadership of change’ was raised as animportant aspect of maintaining momentum.The importance of leadership and the role ofchange agents was reinforced at ‘Graduates asGlobal Citizens’, a groundbreaking conference,hosted in partnership with the StandingConference of Vice-Principals (SCOP), The HigherEducation Academy (HEA), the Department forInternational Development (DFID) andUniversities UK. The conference enabledpolicymakers and academics (from almost 707

Introduction continuedHEIs) to critically examine the role and mission ofuniversities in the context of sustainabledevelopment initiatives and in relation togovernment policies (DfES 2003, 2004).Discussion highlighted a number of themes andraised a substantial number of questions. Mostapparent in the debate was the continuedreference to senior managers as supporters andindeed leaders of change processes. Withoutsenior management support and strategy to aligninitiatives with the institutional strategic directionand committee structures, innovations risk failure.Furthermore, ‘bottom-up’ approaches were notsustained unless they were joined at some pointby ‘top-down’.Throughout the journey participants have alsoconfirmed the importance of leading institutionaldebate about values and the inspiration providedby senor staff who not only espouse a broaderagenda but ‘walk the talk’, helping championsembed initiatives into the fabric of the institution.Stace and Dunphy (2001:262-3) argue that if weare to meet the challenges of ‘transformingorganizations’ to cope with the pace of change ofthe 21 st Century that such transformation needsto encompass traditional ‘production andconsumption patterns and our personal lifestylesto reflect the fact that we are an integral part of aglobal community and an ecology vital to ourwelfare and survival.’ They suggest that that sucha transformative agenda means that ‘We are allchange agents now’. This might seem like anintimidating prospect but this publication may atthe very least, inspire an exploration of whatmight be involved.The article by Paul Luker sets down the gauntlet.He explores the shifting paradigm of internationalisation,reflecting on the purpose of highereducation, while at the same time reminding thereader that HE is a business. He suggests that thebusiness imperative has the potential to ’subvert’the ‘mission to contribute to sustainabledevelopment and improvement of society as awhole’ (UNESCO 1998). He provides criticalcommentary on government initiatives in relationto internationalisation (including PMI and PMI2and the EAPs) indicating the shortcomings ofapproaches which are either ‘colonial’ or toofocused on commercial interests. He offers avision of ‘true internationalisation’, with thepotential benefits of collaboration and reciprocityin the learning process. He concludes by callingfor leaders to shift perspectives and practices,highlighting that support from the top is criticaland that governing bodies should also beinvolved.Robin Middlehurst’s contribution draws uponextensive research and practical examples tofocus upon the leadership challenges posed byinternationalisation, identifying the different levelsof leadership and the challenge of aligningleadership, management, administration andgovernance. She illustrates the levels ofleadership that cut across institutional activitiesand summarises the potential ‘pitfalls’ for thosewho lead the internationalisation agenda.She stresses that a fully integrated vision of‘internationalisation’ necessitates the leadershipof change and the management of complexity.The contribution from Nick Petford and ChrisShiel provides a snapshot of strategicdevelopments at Bournemouth University set inthe ‘realpolitik’ of institutional life, as theuniversity builds upon its holistic approach(incorporating global perspectives, sustainabledevelopment and internationalisation). Theaccount offers insight into the reflection takingplace in the process of setting up a Centre forGlobal Perspectives which will contributestrategically to the internationalisation agendaand cross-institutional developments. Theapproach builds upon earlier bottom up andtop down initiatives, aiming to secure furtheralignment with corporate strategy, in a way whichmight be described by Caruana and Hanstock(subsequently) as a ‘middle-out’ approach. Asummary of learning is provided and the role ofleadership is outlined.Viv Caruana and Jane Hanstock reflect upondifferent interpretations of internationalisationdrawing attention to the influence of the‘marketisation discourse’, the tensions where8The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

internationalisation conflicts with other agendasand the complexity created by the variousperspectives of staff towards what is meant byinternationalisation. The paper provides usefulinsights drawn from their experience at SalfordUniversity, as they embark upon‘internationalising the curriculum’ with a goalof ‘relational participation’, rather than mere‘technical observance’. They suggest that thelatter subverts internationalisation (in its widestsense) whilst the former, necessitates a process ofchange management that incorporatesdeveloping shared values and embracing localingenuity. They draw attention to the ‘diffusionistmodel’ (Rogers 1995) of change as a‘middle-out’ approach.Elspeth Jones and Simon Lee articulate cogentlythe benefits that a wider interpretation ofinternationalisation offers, providing an exampleof how a strategic approach and indeed, onethat ‘is fundamental to the university’s vision andcharacter’, enhances the global perspectives ofstudents and staff. They provide an account ofhow agendas have been brought together andimplemented in a holistic way at Leeds MetUniversity, including detail of a strategicframework for curriculum change and initiativesthat are contributing to culture change. Theemphasis on a multi-cultural and strategicapproach involves broad stakeholderparticipation and is engendering enthusiasm‘which will sustain enduring institutional change’.Jane Broadbent and David Woodman focus onthe role of senior managers as leaders andadvocates of change in the development andimplementation of strategy and highlight theimportance of involving students and listening tostaff, as part of communicating a vision. Theydescribe activities taking place at RoehamptonUniversity as part of the goal of global educationand developing ‘global citizens’ in a contextwhich celebrates diversity. In particular they referto how the CETL (CRUCIBLE) is providing a majorstimulus in the implementation of a globaluniversity, highlight their substantial experiencein ‘service learning’ and illustrate how researchactivity brings broader cultural perspectives,across the institution.Geoffrey Copland’s article like others in thispublication, offers thoughtful consideration of therole of universities with regard to sustainabledevelopment reminding the reader that apartfrom generating and transmitting knowledge;developing future leaders and decision makers;lifelong learning for the professions industry, andsociety, that universities, are also large employersand users of resources in their communities. Hesuggests that universities must provide leadershipon sustainability issues, addressing sustainabilitywithin their own institutions and within their widercommunities. He refers to the work of HEFCE andevidence gathered as part of the strategic reviewof sustainable development in England, andhighlights a range of issues relating tosustainability, offering personal insights basedupon substantial experience. The paperconcludes that senor managers need to ensurethat sustainability is more than just intentions inmission statements; leading by example isvitally important.Patricia Broadfoot and Carolyn Roberts providean insightful perspective based on experience ata university where sustainability has been adefining feature of the institution’s work for overtwenty years. They start with general observationson sustainability initiatives then provide anaccount of three drivers at the University ofGloucestershire: going with the grain of theinstitution; commitment from the top andinclusion. In addressing these, they highlight howvalues influence commitment to social justice andsocial responsibility, mutual support and publicservice. They stress that commitment from the VCand senior managers is crucial to progressingdevelopments; developing a mechanism forinclusion ensures everyone is involved. Theyconclude with reflections on the role of auniversity ‘in a world full of challengeand change.’Shirley Pearce, Ed Brown and Jon Walker remindus of the role that universities have already9

Introduction continuedplayed in bringing environmental issues to thefore, of the need to work across disciplines andthe global nature of the challenges which includethe Millennium Development Goals andaddressing poverty alongside environmentalconcerns They offer examples of initiatives thatLoughborough University has been involved inincluding the higher education working group ofthe East Midlands UNRCE. They suggest thatHigher Education must ‘put its own house inorder’ by embedding sustainable developmentprinciples – ‘bold and innovative leaders’ need torespond to the challenge.John Mallea’s commitment to the ‘globaluniversity’ has been longstanding. Hiscontribution provides an opportunity to learnfrom a perspective and approach from outsidethe UK, and from a country where issues ofcitizenship and civil society (and more recentlyglobal citizenship) have been central to debate.The paper provides a useful ‘aide memoire’ in itsillustration of how the University of BritishColumbia has strategically promoted the valuesof civil and sustainable society in Canada, with acentral focus on developing global citizens. Heoutlines the detail of their Global Journey whichembraces goals and strategies under the areas ofPeople, Learning, Research, Community andInternationalisation, with some supportingillustrations.If we are to collaborate in learning as part of aglobal network, in the sense suggested by Luker,then a starting point has to include challengingour own assumptions about the impact ofinternationalisation on higher education in othercountries. The contribution from Jocelyne Gaceland Ricardo Avila offers a reality check and aplatform for further reflection on how, what Lukerdescribes as the ‘colonial approach’, might beavoided. The authors share their perspective onthe internationalization of HE in Latin America,reminding the reader of the critical role ofeducation in developing countries and theadvances and challenges posed. Whileinternationalisation can help transform andmodernise education systems, policies andstructures need to be in place if the benefits areto be fully realized. They bring the difficulties ofmobilising financial and human resources toenable institutions to adapt ‘to a new globalreality’ sharply into focus. Taking their cue fromthe UNESCO (1998) Declaration on HigherEducation in the Twenty-First Century, Gacel andAvila suggest that international cooperationbased on solidarity has real potential to enhancequality, contribute to staff development andimprove the effectiveness of higher education ata faster pace – with the caveat that commercialinterests may impact upon such an approach.I would like to thank all of our contributors forsharing their ideas. We hope that this publicationwill inspire debate on what should constitute thevision, mission and values of a global university,within the context of global society. Given theglobal footprint of universities, the researchcapability to devise technical and social solutionswhich address global problems and above all,the ability of our graduates to influence the futureof global society, universities certainly cannotignore the broader agenda. If HE is to contributefully towards a more just and sustainable society,senior managers have a critical responsibility toreview existing practices and perspectives andexplore new ways of working – visionary andenabling leadership has to promote and sustainchange.Chris ShielFor further information on any aspect of thisproject or the work of the Centre for GlobalPerspectives, please contactcshiel@bournemouth.ac.uk10The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

The internationalisation of higher education:shifting the paradigmPaul LukerSome would argue that the most critical issuewith respect to the internationalisation of highereducation in the UK is to agree just what thephrase means. There is wide support across thesector for the definition of ‘internationalisation’that Jane Knight originally formulated in 1994,for it has helped institutions to realise thepervasive nature of internationalisation and tounderstand that it is a process. But what is thepurpose of internationalisation and why shouldwe bother, when there are so many other thingsto do? For me, answering those questions isthe most fundamental issue that needs to beaddressed and the key to the answers liesin reflecting on the purpose of highereducation itself.The World Declaration on Higher Education forthe 21st Century (1998) stated that ‘We affirmthat the core missions and values of highereducation, in particular the mission to contributeto the sustainable development and improvementof society as a whole, should be preserved,reinforced and further expanded.’ Thedeclaration elaborated this by saying that staffand students in higher education institutionsshould ‘be able to speak out on ethical, culturaland social problems completely independentlyand in full awareness of their responsibilities…’In essence, the declaration conveys a strongsense that, whatever else higher educationachieves in respect to the acquisition ofknowledge and skills, it must equip graduatesto be responsible global citizens. This wasexactly the aspiration for those, like my formercolleagues at Bournemouth University, who werein the vanguard of the movement tointernationalise higher education in the UK.It is instructive to look at what we can learnfrom the pioneers.One of the key drivers of the internationalisationstrategy at Bournemouth University (See Lewis V.,Luker P, 2004) was the Global PerspectivesGroup, which published “A Global Vision forBournemouth University” (See BU, 1999). Thisinternal paper drew on a number of sources and,significantly, mapped the relevance of the visionto each of the University’s Schools. The groupgrew in size and breadth of membership toinclude many areas of the University, includingthe International Office. Also, it gained impetusthrough the support of the Leadership Foundationfor Higher Education and the DEA.Internationalisation at Bournemouth included thefollowing components:• Internationalising the curriculum• Integrating international and UK students• Extra-curricular activities to supportcitizenship and global awareness• Preparing the University to be a responsibleglobal citizenWe found that, just as Knight’s definition clearlystates, internationalisation is a process, and itevolves as the complexities and nuances ofinternationalisation become apparent. One ofthe most crucial factors we found was the needfor commitment from the top of the institution, anecessary condition to which I shall return. First,however, I shall briefly look at how we aredoing (and how we are perceived to be doing)as a sector.At a conference in London in October 2007,Professor Paul Wellings, Vice-Chancellor ofLancaster University, gave a thoughtful overviewof the strategic issues with respect to theinternationalisation of higher education. Henoted that the paradigm of international activityis changing, from the colonial mode of the1950s, through the commercial mode of thelatter quarter of the twentieth century to the trulycollaborative mode that is emerging today.However, if that collaborative paradigm is tosucceed, then all vestiges of the other paradigmsmust be eradicated, which will take time, owingto the damage these paradigms have caused.I do not see Paul Wellings’ three modes asentirely separate paradigms. In particular,‘colonial’ and ‘commercial’ are variations on atheme that is predicated on financial self interestand which is developed from a viewpoint whichplaces the UK (and especially England) at thecentre of the universe. Like it or not, highereducation is patently a business, both forThe internationalisation of higher education:11

institutions and for UK plc. For wealthy nations,it is a global business. That, in a nutshell, is ourproblem, for, in such a climate, businessimperatives can subvert the very purpose ofhigher education. Also, it is easy for thelong-term sustainability (and financial viability) ofan internationalisation strategy to be obscured byshorter-term expediencies. Let us look at this fromboth national and institutional perspectives.It would be remiss of the British government if itdid not develop strategies designed to enhancethe competitiveness of the UK. How it goes aboutdoing this, however, is highly significant. Take thePrime Minister’s Initiative (PMI) as an example.PMI was originally launched in 1999 to promoteUK higher education to international studentsand, through so doing, generate income for theUK (and its HEIs), while establishing a bondbetween our international graduates and theircountry of study, which will reap benefits to theUK later on. (Of course, the latter is predicatedon those graduates having had a positiveexperience of studying and living in the UK.)Unfortunately, PMI conveyed the impression to allthat the bottom line is clearly the bottom line.PMI2, which followed in 2006, introduced anelement of partnership, which at first sight,appears to be less financially motivated. Inpractice, however, self interest lurks just belowthe surface. Are our higher education institutionsdoing any better?Vice-Chancellors and Principals are accountableto their governing body for the financial health ofthe institutions they lead. The discharge of thatresponsibility requires balancing a number ofincome streams and aligning expenditureappropriately. As the unit of resource for teachinghome and EU students has continued to decline,institutions have been under increasing pressureto generate more income from other sources.International students have for some time beenviewed as a valuable source of income that mightgenerate a surplus to offset costs elsewhere. Notsurprisingly, therefore, a number of institutionshave developed strategies to attract internationalstudents in large numbers. Institutions havebegun to realise that their position in theinternational market can no longer be taken forgranted. Consequently, as John Fielden notes inhis excellent report (2006:29), institutions haverecently developed a variety of mechanisms toenhance the international student experience ofUK higher education in order to protect theincome stream in the face of intense internationalcompetition. I contend that these mechanismsalone will not secure this lucrative market, unlessthey are an integral part of a broader strategy forinternationalisation that is not motivated by profit.Is it better if we offer UK higher education outsidethe UK?A frequent criticism of models of highereducation that require students to incur the costof studying and living abroad for long periods isthat they tend to favour the wealthy and denudethe home country of talent. ‘Internationalisationabroad’ or transnational education (TNE) avoidsthis problem through a range of in-countryinitiatives, such as a franchise to an overseaspartner, or even the development of an overseascampus. Indeed, the majority of internationalstudents enrolled on UK higher educationprogrammes are already studying outside the UKand that majority is likely to increase significantly(See Vision 2020, British Council, 2004).Unfortunately, the primary incentive for the UKHEIs (and any partners involved) remains largelyfinancial, so that, while TNE helps avoidthe problems of brain drain and inequality,the perception that it’s the profit that countsremains. So, what is the answer?I shall return to my starting point, which Irevealed as my most critical issue, the purpose ofhigher education. I firmly believe that if we, asindividuals, institutions and countries, do not signup to the mission to ‘contribute to the sustainabledevelopment and improvement of society as awhole’ we will be selling our students, regardlessof domicile, short. In a truly international marketfor higher education, we cannot afford to takeour own students for granted. Why should astudent from the UK settle for a less thaninternationalised education, when there arecheaper (even free) options to be had, taughtin English, elsewhere? This brings me to a12The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

second critical issue, which is our need tounderstand our own place in the global highereducation marketplace.Once, UK higher education had a number ofunique selling points. Today, apart from thetransparent accountability and quality oversightwe demonstrate, I struggle to see any uniquenessof our system, although it is one of the mostexpensive options. Let us be mindful of that if andwhen the cap is removed from tuition fees.Countries such as China, from which we currentlydraw significant numbers of students, have theirown aspirations with respect to higher education.We need to engage with that in mind. AnnaFazackerley (2007), director of the HE think tankAgora has said the UK has ‘no overarchingstrategy about what it should be trying to achievein China in the long term or what formpartnerships should take’ We need to work outwhat roles we can play well in this changinglandscape, but we can’t do this on our own. Weneed to develop appropriate and sustainablepartnerships, not based on fixed models andideas, but partnerships that will evolve asnecessary. Partnerships with whom, however?I have mentioned China only to illustrate a point.If we are to create an internationalised highereducation system for the development andimprovement of ‘society as a whole’, it isimportant that the UK’s strategy not just focuson the countries we currently see as beingeconomically important. That in itself would bea vestige of the old order. The England-AfricaPartnership (EAP) scheme was launched by theDepartment for Education and Skills (DFES) in2006 with a view to funding partnershipsbetween universities in England and sub-SaharanAfrica to strengthen capacity in African highereducation. An example project in the scheme isthat between the Vaal University of Technologyand the University of East London, which aimsto address specific skills shortages and socialexclusion in the Gauteng (See UEL, undated).Notwithstanding excellent projects like this, EAPitself, however, has been tarred with thecolonial/commercial brush. Andy Cherry, (2007)science and technology advisor of the Africa unitof the Association of Commonwealth Universitieshas said of EAP ‘The UK wants Africa to see it asa major trading partner and the aid budget is notjust for altruistic purposes. There is a strongelement of increasing UK competitiveness.’ Hewent on to say that schemes like EAP ‘havesparked criticism for failing to include enoughAfrican involvement in the way they areorganised.’ How, then, do we develop thecollaborative paradigm? Let me startwith government.I would like to see the UK government articulatea clear strategy for how UK HE will continue tobe strong internationally, not just as a collectionof HEIs, but as a country and sector committed todeveloping a truly international higher educationsystem that is easy to access. It should supportthis vision by sponsoring programmes free of anywhiff of the colonial/commercial paradigm.Funding should be contingent on engagementwith a range of countries with wide geographicand economic spread. It would be better toengage with and support programmes developedby partners themselves, such as the MobilisingRegional Capacity Initiative, launched by theAssociation of African Universities late in 2007.Indeed, this programme is supported by theDepartment for International Development. Letus build on such initiatives. However, if we areto do that successfully, we need to remindourselves of who we are doing this for, andlook at our students somewhat differently.Too often, we divide our student bodies intocompartments with labels such as ‘home/EU’,‘UK’ and ‘international’. This is a barrier tointernationalisation and also, perhaps, acontravention of equality and diversity principles.True internationalisation requires looking at thestudent body as a whole, not as several distinctpopulations. It is important that students get thechance to learn from and with students fromother cultures and from other parts of the world.We can do much more with today’s technology toprovide electronic bridges to overcome problemsof distance, so that peer learning can enrich theeducation of many. It is exciting to think whatcould be achieved through opening our minds toThe internationalisation of higher education:13

co-operative internationalised learning. There isa clear role for the Higher Education Academyhere! The final piece in my jigsaw, then, isleadership across the sector.I have already asked for government to take alead. It is up to the sector as a whole, agencies,organisations and institutions, to evince theleadership to shift perspectives and practices.Earlier, I spoke of our appreciation atBournemouth of the vital importance ofsupport from the top. In our case, there certainlywas buy-in from the very top of the University.The then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gillian Slater,believed that ‘As educators, we have a uniqueopportunity and clear responsibility to helpprepare our students to be responsible citizens inthe future. The fate of our planet and all its lifeforms lies in their hands.’ (Mckenzie, A. et al,2003:3). Such support makes it easier toengender support across the institution (which isnot to say that it is easy!). That support also hasto be evident in decision making across theinstitution, so that the institution itself is seen as aresponsible global citizen. Should this not be thecase, or should the chief executive go ‘offmessage’, I would like to see the governing bodyof the institution take a lead. For that to happen,we need to look at the composition of governingbodies. Many institutions have worked hard, withvarying degrees of success, to get greaterdiversity among its governors. That should beextended to attract governors with internationalexperience and expertise but let us not forget thatinternationalisation should concern all ourgovernors, just as it should benefit all ourstudents. We should be mindful of this whendesigning training and support for governors.construct an accessible internationalised highereducation programme. Partners will learn fromeach other no less than the students will. Nowthat would be revolutionary!Paul LukerSenior Associate,Higher Education AcademyProfessor Paul Luker has spent 37 years inhigher education, in the UK and the USA.In April 2006, after nearly 6 years as ProVice-Chancellor Academic, Paul retired as anemeritus professor from BournemouthUniversity, where he had been fortunate towork with a brilliant team across theUniversity, all of whom were committed tointernationalisation in its broadest sense. InJune 2006, he became a Senior Associatewith the Higher Education Academy,where part of his remit is to contributeto the Academy’s support for theinternationalisation of Higher Educationin the UK.In conclusion, money is, of course, important.It should not, however, be the driver forinternationalisation. The catalyst for the revolutionhas to be a shared view of what a sustainableglobal higher education network requires,coupled with a realistic assessment of our ownplace within that network. Given the right visionand leadership, groups of like-minded partnersfrom all continents will get together to begin to14The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Leadership and internationalisationRobin MiddlehurstWhy is leadership important forinternationalisation? What roles doleaders play, or need to play, in promotingthe international agenda in higher educationinstitutions? These are the questions that thispaper addresses, based on recent researchpublished by the Higher Education Academy(HEA, Middlehurst and Woodfield, 2007) andwork with higher education leaders through theLeadership Foundation for Higher Education.I will argue that leadership at several levels isneeded to promote and sustain the process ofinternationalisation and in addition, that closelinks are needed between effective leadership,efficient management and administration, andsound governance if internationalisation is tobe successful.It is widely acknowledged by practitioners andresearchers alike that the internationaldimensions of higher education are increasinglyimportant at institutional and policy levels.Altbach (2007) in the US writes of ‘theinternational imperative’ for higher educationwhile Kehm and de Wit (2006:3) note in aEuropean context, that ‘internationalisation hasbecome a strategic issue for individual highereducation institutions’. UK policy agencies alsorecognise the significance of internationalisation;the funding and representative bodies havejointly established an International Unit focusingon UK ‘competitiveness,’ while the UK ResearchCouncils launched a new office in China inOctober 2007, in Washington DC in November2007 with further plans for India in 2008. Asthese developments suggest, the internationaldimension is becoming a key part of the highereducation operating environment and for thisreason, ‘internationalisation’ – albeit in diverseforms - is now a core business agenda forstrategic leaders, managers and governors.Examples of the kind of strategies that institutionsare adopting are taken from recent research(Middlehurst and Woodfield, 2007):• Strategic investment in overseas’ campusesor centres (Nottingham, Liverpool,Westminster, Heriott-Watt, Middlesex)• Strategic re-orientation of institutional missionand organisational approach in the UK(Middlesex, UCL, Warwick)• Strategic focus on collaboration with privatesector partners (eg Sylvan, Kaplan, or INTI),Nottingham Trent University, Surrey,Liverpool, Sussex• Strategic focus on the development ofoverseas’ collaborative provision fortransnational education with a targeted rangeof international partners (eg CentralLancashire, Derby, Northumbria) or with awide range of partners (Middlesex,Coventry, Westminster)• Investment in and development ofinternational consortia to deliveradministrative, educational and researchbenefits (Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol,Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge,among others)• Strategic investment in distance or blendedlearning (eg Open University, Heriott-Watt,Leicester and University of London(external)• Strategic re-structuring and re-focusing ofinternational activity based on detailedfinancial and political assessment, includingwithdrawal from some or all transnationalprovision (Derby, Lincoln, De Montfort,Southampton Solent University)• Strategic focus on the Bologna Process andthe implications of the European agendafor research and teaching (Kingston,Bedfordshire, London Metropolitan University)• Strategic partnerships with companies andRegional Development Agencies (eg WhiteRose Consortium, Sussex, Liverpool).As these examples of different strategic directionssuggest, leadership responsibilities at theinstitutional level have both external and internaldimensions. These responsibilities are widelyspread across different roles and functionsincluding the roles of Vice-Chancellor orPrincipal, Pro Vice-Chancellors or equivalent,Head of the Administration, Finance, MarketingLeadership and internationalisation15

and Human Resources Directors as well as theDirector of the International Office and theGoverning Body. Leadership is required both atthe level of individual functions and portfoliosand collectively, combined with effectiveco-ordination and communication within andoutside the institution. Jane Knight’s definition of‘internationalisation’ as ‘the process ofintegrating an international, intercultural orglobal dimension into the purpose, functions ordelivery of post-secondary education’ (2004)captures the notion of ‘integration’ as well asthe need to infuse the international agendainto the core strategies and operations ofthe institution.The growing significance of internationalisationfor institutional reputation and positioning hashad a number of consequences forinstitution-level leadership. Some of themore obvious ones include:• The creation of new leadership roles withresponsibility for developing, co-ordinatingor implementing an internationalisationstrategy (eg. PVC International, Director ofInternational Development – the distribution ofroles at the University of Birmingham offers aninteresting example). A different model hasbeen created at UCL with the identification of‘country or regional champions’ for differentparts of the world, co-ordinated by aVice-Provost.• New demands on the Vice-Chancellor’soffice (affecting both the VC and seniormanagement team) with more time spentoverseas or focused on internationalpartnerships and related activities. Examplesinclude institutions which are part ofinternational collaborative networks, such asthe World-wide Universities’ Network (WUN)or Universitas 21. Both membership andchairmanship of these global internationalresearch and education networks involvesextensive engagement with overseas’ partnersfor the Vice-Chancellor and other senior staff.Clearly, other staff involved in the delivery ofprojects and programmes will also becommitted to working with theirinternational colleagues.• A need for senior staff to enhance theirknowledge of international developments,their cultural awareness and sensitivity andtheir range of ‘political’ skills includingdiplomacy, negotiating, lobbying, networking,partnership working and commercial businessdevelopment. Some senior staff have a greatdeal of experience in these areas based ontheir academic and professional backgrounds,others have more to learn.There are significant leadership challenges inboth the external and the internal dimensions ofinternationalisation. Internally, the challenge is toact as energetic and intelligent champion of theinternational agenda. This requires ‘strategicintelligence’ to understand the dynamics ofinternationalisation in a global context as well as‘organisational intelligence’ to know how totranslate external insights into internal rationales,persuasive arguments for a variety of disciplinaryand professional groups, the re-shaping ofsystems and processes, and the crafting ofoperational solutions for the delivery of a rangeof institutional services. A key requirement is theability to interpret the agenda in ways that chimewith different constituencies and to work acrossboundaries within the institution and externally, incontexts where positional power may either belacking or be insufficient to achieve desiredoutcomes. A premium is likely to be placed onother sources of power (drawn from French andRaven’s (1959) original taxonomy) namely, powerarising from professional credibility and expertise,relationships, social and professional networks,information, and inter-personal skills.Through the lens of research and consultancy aswell as observation of strategic leaders in action,it is clear that there are many pitfalls en route tosuccessful leadership of internationalisation.Some of those encountered include:• Failure to act as champion(s) for the agenda,providing guidance on direction and priorities,taking charge of strategy development andconsultation, engaging with key players in16The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

different parts of the institution (faculties,student services, Registry, Research Office etc),focusing attention, maintaining momentumand co-ordinating activities to achievealignment and integration across functions.• A lack of co-ordination: this may result eitherin duplication of effort (eg where severalfaculties or departments are undertaking thesame work or contacting the same clients inthe name of the institution) or gaps betweenactivities (eg where international activity inresearch is unconnected to teaching orknowledge transfer opportunities).• A lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities:this may occur between members of thesenior management team or between thesenior management team and othersengaged with the international agenda suchas Deans or Directors of the InternationalOffice or equivalent.• A failure to acquire new or to redeployexisting resources in order to achieve theright balance between centralised anddevolved responsibilities and accountabilitiesinside the institution or to align internalresources with those needed to support newventures (campuses, centres, programmes,projects) overseas. The level of knowledgeresources, knowledge sharing and knowledgemanagement required may also beunderestimated (eg market information,country profiles, key contacts andstakeholders, internal expertise andspecialist data).• Failure to gain internal support for theprocess of internationalisation from facultiesor departments or the governing body. Thismay lead to lack of commitment to supportextra work or new ways of working, and lackof willingness to share information andknowledge; it may also mean a lack ofnecessary formal support for the agenda.While leadership at institutional level is necessaryto develop the internationalisation strategy, tofocus attention and mobilise support and actionfor its delivery, leadership is also needed at otherlevels. Examples drawn from different sources aregiven in Table 1 (following page).There are several kinds of leadership actionidentified in Table 1. In many cases, such actioninvolves taking initiative, gaining support for acourse of action from different constituencies andacquiring or mobilising resources to achievechange. In some cases, leadership is an expectedpart of a formal role and position, although theinternationalisation agenda may be new (forexample, for some Deans or Heads ofDepartment). In other cases, leadership is notassociated with a formal role but is exercised byindividuals or groups because of a perceivedneed, an opportunity spotted or on the basis ofvalues or ideas that act as drivers for action.Leadership can also be undertaken in differentways - by individuals or groups acting directly –or promulgated indirectly through a variety ofstructures and processes such as committees ornetworks and other media. Symbolic mechanismssuch as individual rewards and incentives or thebehavioural signals that are linked to internalresource allocation systems may also act insupport of leadership or against it.The focus, above, on leadership at different levelsand in different forms has perhaps underplayedthe importance of effective management,administration and governance in relation tointernationalisation. Each of these overlaps withleadership and is of critical importance in relationto internationalisation both because of the levelof risk and opportunity involved and because ofthe wide spread of institutional functions thatneed to be drawn into the internationalisationagenda. Kotter (1990) provides a usefulframework for describing the relationshipbetween leadership and management, arguingthat leadership is a system of action that isneeded to produce useful change whilemanagement is a complementary system ofaction that is required to produce a degree ofpredictability and order in complex situations. If‘internationalisation’ is to be achieved in its fullyintegrated sense then both leadership for changeand management of complexity will be needed.According to Kotter, the leadership actions ofLeadership and internationalisation17

Table 1: Exercising leadership formally and informally in support ofinternationalisation across an institutionTeachingResearchBusiness andCommunityLinksInfrastructureand ServicesAcademicLeadersDesigning anddelivering newprogrammes;interpreting theagenda andgainingcommitment fromcolleaguesBuilding researchpartnerships andinternationalprojectsIdentifying andbuildingpartnershipswith business orcommunityagencies anddevelopingprojects alignedwith theinternationalagendaLiaison,co-ordination,communicationacross functionalboundariesProfessionalService LeadersProvidingspecialistguidance,support, advice tosupportinternationalprogrammes,teachers, studentsDevelopingspecialist orinnovative servicesto supportresearchActively working tobring externalopportunities tothe attentionof internal experts;making connectionsTaking theinitiative to design,gainsupport for andimplementtailored services(eg catering,pastoral care,careers guidance,cultural awarenesstraining)Informalleadership insupport ofstudents orgraduatesTaking theinitiative toassist andsupportinternationalstudents andalumniStudents Unionand studentleadersRedesigningservices to meetthe needs ofdifferent culturesand activelypromotingdiversityActivelyengaging withcommittees andmanagementgroups topromote new orenhancedservices18The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

developing a vision and direction, aligninggroups and individuals and motivating andinspiring people are matched by themanagement activities of planning andbudgeting, organising and staffing, controllingand problem solving; clearly both areunderpinned by timely and appropriately tailoredadministration. Governance, through the actionsof the governing body, will involve debating andconfirming strategy, direction and resourceallocations, ensuring due diligence, financialprobity and ethical conduct, providing usefulcritique and challenge in order to test institutionaldecisions, assessing risk management, andmonitoring and reviewing progress andachievements. Arguably, the most difficultchallenge that ‘internationalisation’ brings is toachieve alignment between leadership,management, administration and governance.This paper has explored the variety of leadershiproles that are needed in order to promoteinternationalisation as an integrated process.It has also highlighted the need for formal andinformal, direct and indirect forms of leadershipand for an alignment between leadership,management, administration and governance.Both research evidence and practical experiencehave been drawn upon to offer examples ofeffective and less effective practice.Robin MiddlehurstProfessor of Higher Education at KingstonUniversity and Director, Strategy, Researchand International at the LeadershipFoundation for Higher Education.Robin’s recent report for the HEA: Middlehurst,R. & Woodfield, S. (2007). Responding to theInternationalisation Agenda: implications forinstitutional strategy. Research Report 05/06,York: Higher Education Academy. Furtherinformation about Robin and Steve’s researchand consultancy work on internationalisationand international higher education can beobtained by email contact:r.middlehurst@kingston.ac.ukLeadership and internationalisation19

A holistic approach to the ‘globalisation’ agenda atBournemouth University: the role of senior managementNick Petford and Chris ShielThis article sets out how different concepts(global, international, sustainable development)might be drawn together. It describes theapproach adopted by Bournemouth University(BU) to develop a holistic (and strategic)approach to the globalisation agenda, describing‘work in progress’ as we establish a Centre forGlobal Perspectives. The article concludes bycommenting on the role of senior managementin such developments.Our mission at BU is to embrace and integratethree essential aspects of globalisation thattogether inform our higher education provision:(1) embedding global perspectives in thecurricula (2), developing global awarenessamong our staff and students that feeds intoresearch, enterprise and education, and (3)offering students an international curriculumand opportunities for cross-cultural learning in aninternational environment, befitting for a contextof ‘global employability’. In addition, findingways to embed corporate responsibility andbehaviour (the notion of the University as aglobal citizen) into the workplace remains animportant longer-term goal. None of these keythemes can, nor should work in splendidisolation, and their whole is definitely greaterthan the sum of their parts. In order to achievesuccess in uniting each theme coherently, we aredevising ways to help implement the University’scommitment to developing an internationalisedcurriculum as set out in our Corporate andStrategic Plans to 2012. These documents, alongwith the University International Strategy, providethe essential framework and supporting structurewithin which the global agenda will bedeveloped. Our objective is to implement amanagement system that enables learners tobe apprised of global issues and processes,together with sustainable development andinternationalisation, both at home and aboard.A holistic approach to what might be seen asdisparate agendas has the potential to securesynergies through more focused efforts. Weaspire to build on our established excellentreputation for global perspectives (andinternationalisation at home) and to growour global reputation for high quality researchand pedagogy, while at the same timepromoting the student experience, diversityand employability.These things are of course easy to write - afterall, what university worth its salt would not wantto push such a well-meaning agenda forward?But as ever, the Devil is in the detail. In a worldwhere ‘going global’ is fast in danger ofbecoming a hollow mantra, success or failure willdepend crucially on a well managed agenda,driven from the top by senior management andlinked fundamentally to the strategic vision of theorganisation.The context at Bournemouth is such that the driveto develop global perspectives has largely beensustained by champions working ‘bottom-up’;such approaches run the risk of losingmomentum without continued seniormanagement support and change which is led‘top-down’. The current situation is one wheredespite substantial good work 1 to develop acurriculum for global citizenship based on themodel represented in Figure 1, more needs to bedone if Bournemouth is to ‘foster a globaloutlook’ in all students and staff, as championedin the Corporate Plan. Our experience to date(and one which appears to be reflectednationally), is that students still lack an‘international experience’ at home (Middlehurst,2007; Shiel and Mann, 2005) and are not takingfull advantage of study and work abroadopportunities. Our campus is still not as diverseas we would like in terms of students and staff,(although this is changing) and we continue towrestle in some quarters with conflictingdefinitions of ‘international’ and ‘global’ in ourundergraduate and postgraduate programmes.We suspect that we are not alone in this, andrecognise a current tension between what isrequired of us with respect to our strategicdevelopment and mission and what is currentlyhappening ‘on the ground’. Indeed, reconcilingthe rhetoric with reality would provide a nicesubheading to this article, where high-levelmanagerial pronouncements on ‘going global’1. BU has been engaged with the ‘global perspectives’ agenda since 1999: Shiel (2007) provides a summary. Essentially global perspectives hasbeen developed as an ‘umbrella term’ incorporating several aspects including, internationalisation and sustainable development The approach isfounded on the belief that ‘internationalising’ the experience of UK students has a key role to play in the wider context of ‘globalisation’ in HEIs.20The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

can easily become lost in the day-to-day bustleof university life.There continues to be a real danger thatinternationalisation and globalisation are readcynically as euphemisms for internationalstudent recruitment (Fazackerley, 2007). There isalso the idea, held by some, that simply havingoverseas students on campus makes a university‘international’. Both are of course misguided, asis the notion that being global requires a physicalbase abroad. Recognising these tensions andputting in place a management system thatallows the University to follow through on itsstrategic commitment to global perspectives isthus key, to overcoming those sceptics who choseto interpret globalisation in a limited way andsustainable development as ‘nothing to do withme or student learning!’So what are we doing to address this?Bournemouth University’s new Corporate Planstates that while the bedrock of academicdevelopment and innovation will be found in itssix academic Schools, this will be facilitated byappropriately resourced, University-wide activities.A Centre will function as a hub 2 , coordinatingUniversity-wide efforts to take global perspectivesand internationalisation forward and ensuringthat sufficient momentum is attained. Such aCentre would contribute strategically to theinternationalisation agenda, taking responsibilityfor relevant areas of the InternationalisationStrategy, particularly with regard to the studentexperience and ‘internationalisation at home’.It would also facilitate the development ofcross-institutional programmes (working underthe direction of the International Strategy Group)and have an incubation and project developmentrole, until new initiatives are embedded within thefabric of the institution.More broadly, a fully integrated approachshould support international recruitment (andmarketing), contributing to an enhanced studentexperience and in turn, improved retention.Feedback from our students certainly suggeststhat we need to do more to reduce the‘ghettoisation’ of the student body which weFigure 1: Aspects that contribute to development of global citizens inhigher education setting, Shiel and Mann (2006)2. Not in the sense used as the centre of a wheel which may conjure up images of centralised control, but in the sense inferred by a ‘transport hub’-where movements are both inwards/outwards, operations may be on different levels and involve multiple stakeholder groups.A holistic approach to the ‘globalisation’ agenda at Bournemouth University21

actually contribute to, by targeting universityactivities at overseas students, as a separate(and mistakenly homogenous) group. Betterintegration, an enriched student environment andcross-cultural learning could result, if activitieswere co-ordinated and targeted at all students.A Centre could also have a role to play in liaisingwith Human Resources, addressing staffing issuesnecessitated by globalisation: the appropriatebalance of overseas academic and support staffand appropriate staff development to addresscurriculum, pedagogy and cross-cultural diversity.Of course, none of the above works withoutcomprehensive buy-in and a sustained level ofcollaboration, within and between Schools andProfessional Services, in the pursuit of a commongoal. Achieving success requires new, moreinclusive ways of working that in the short termnecessitate strong support from senior managers.So how do we move towards a central functionfor the management of global agendas? The nextsection represents ‘a stage’ in the developmentour thinking.Before we can move forward in a strategic andholistic way, a number of issues internal to theUniversity need to be addressed. For example,how will a Centre, outlined in concept above,ensure that we achieve the aims of the CorporatePlan? What can a Centre do that the Schoolsaren’t doing already? How will a Centre enablethe development of new opportunities for globalengagement at BU? In addition, the relativelysmall number of academics engaged in shapingthe international/globalisation agenda meansthat significant staff development may berequired in order to achieve strength and,eventually, excellence (in the sense of a ‘Centreof Excellence’ at BU). Ensuring that the currentUniversity-wide activities that promote goodpractice at a local level inform the developmentand role of the Centre is clearly an important firststep. As part of our holistic management modelto develop and promote globalisation as auniversity agenda, the following would seem tobe a minimum set of requirements to be fulfilledby a centralised function:• Act as a hub to coordinate and leadcurriculum development in all areas of globalperspectives and internationalisationincluding the development ofcross-institutional units that addressglobal employability.• Work towards the integration of (and learningbetween) UK and International students,fostering a student body with a broadinternational perspective and senseof responsibility.• Contribute to the development of a network ofstrategic international partners (working withthe Schools and International Office), toextend student/staff exchange and globalopportunities, both in HE and industry.• Develop an international perspective in theoutlook of academic staff and within curricula.• Contribute positively to institutional reputationand generate income through research andconsultancy activities.This is a tall order. Within most UK HEIs, variouscombinations of the above will doubtless be inoperation at some level within the organisation.The suspicion of course is that they are run asuncoordinated 3 , fragmented and at best tacticalinitiatives. The cost to the organisation is induplication of effort, time and resources and thepotential danger of impact on retention,conflicting advice to students and staff andmissed opportunities for learning throughpartnership. It is our belief that the only sensibleway forward is to create a central function thatwill provide a focus for coordination and act asan enabling mechanism to develop (and indeedlead) a more holistic approach, engaging withmultiple agendas across communities. The model(Figure 2) suggests how we envisage thepervasiveness of global perspectives.The aim of the Centre will be ‘to developcross-disciplinary research and activities tosupport the development of global perspectivesand sustainable development across theUniversity.’ Cross-institutional working will involvethe challenge of aligning academic endeavour(research, curriculum development and223. Separate articles by Ritchie, E and Middlehurst R, in HE Academy Exchange Issue 5, Winter 2006 draw attention to the structural spread of internationalisationinitiatives and issues of lack of coordinationThe Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

enterprise/consulting) with the non-academic,particularly activities currently undertaken by theInternational Office (IO) relating to theinternational experience, including studentexchanges. The ‘academic’ and ‘non-academic’are obviously not clear cut distinctions but withregard to the latter, the Centre will becomeinvolved for example, with the functions of the IOfrom a perspective that is strategic and scholarlyrather than operational (operational defined as:international student recruitment and support).Separating out the outward facing aspects of theIO and re-positioning activities within the Centreshould enable the former to focus on recruitmentwhile the latter enhances ‘internationalisation athome’ in a more coherent way. The spirit ofworking in partnership will be critical to success.Indeed, developing mechanisms for collaborationacross the range of institutional departments andfunctions to ensure that the global perspectivesagenda is a key feature of activity and fullyintegrated will be vital.Attempting to combine the academic with thenon-academic acknowledges what the researchreveals as important: ‘internationalisation iseverybody’s business’ (Middlehurst, 2006) – thechallenge is to find ways to work across the ‘silos’within HE and to align academic leadership withthe leadership and activities of professionalservices. The Centre will fulfil a consultancy roleacross the institution, bridging the academic andnon-academic domains but with particularregard in the short-term to the urgent task ofworking with academics to internationalisecourses and develop more inclusive pedagogicapproaches. This will require senior managementsupport in the short term, until full buy-inis secured.Figure 2: The Working ModelA holistic approach to the ‘globalisation’ agenda at Bournemouth University23

Cross-University working is already underwaythrough the activity of the Global PerspectivesGroup (each school has at least one member).The Skills for Life Project (a DFID fundedinitiative) is also driving the development of‘skills’ for citizenship across disciplines. Furthercurriculum developments (keystone/capstoneunits) will require the commitment of senior staffand strategic leadership to adapt the curriculumframework. Ritchie (2006:15) suggests, that withregard to internationalisation and curriculumchange, ‘leave the more difficult issues until later’- we can fully appreciate this logic, but suggestthat incorporating a global perspective acrosslearning and teaching, is an urgent issue in theglobal context.Enhancing the student experience but particularlypreparing students for global employability willbe a key feature of the Centre’s work. This willinclude initiatives to increase the number ofstudents undertaking overseas exchange andvolunteering; work with colleagues to improve theemployability of all students through PersonalDevelopment Planning and; developments withpartners to provide more flexible opportunities forwork experience both in the UK (for internationalstudents) and abroad (for all). This willnecessitate coordination with the activities ofother professional services e.g. Careers andthe Student Experience and work in theextra-curricular sphere, with the Students Union.Finally if the Centre is to achieve academiccredibility developing the research base will beimportant. The Centre will provide a forum forstaff from across the University who are alreadywriting in the areas of globalisation, globalissues, cross cultural and education forsustainable development. An early task will be toscope the expertise within BU and draw togetherthose who are developing their scholarly profilesin this area. The Centre will be a catalyst fordeveloping high quality research and enterprisebids and building cross-disciplinary teams to takethis forward.How will we know if our approach has beensuccessful? The University-wide performancebenchmarks embrace our strategy and set outthe following general outcomes to be achieved by 2012:• Be recognised internationally as a leader ininnovative curriculum development that equipsstudents with the skills necessary foremployment in the global market place.• Have a substantial track record in publicationsand research income.• Have a critical mass of staff who are fulfillingthese key agenda.Apart from institutional performance indicators,we also hope that feedback from students andstaff, will acknowledge that the Centre hascontributed to an enhanced learning environmentand student experience; external endorsementwill eventually, also confirm that BU graduateshave a broader world-view as ‘global citizens’.We shall develop methods to capturethis information.Conclusion and commentary on therole of leadersWe have presented one institution’s approachtowards integrating internationalisation with anumber of other activities under the banner of‘global perspectives’, to enhance how we preparestudents for global employability. The Centre forGlobal Perspectives existed as a proposal at thestart of writing; it was approved in December2007 and from 2008, will lead theimplementation agenda, reporting to theDean of Student Experience.The journey from concept to approval has beenarduous, which may seem surprising for auniversity that has played a leading role in thedevelopment of global citizenship andsustainable development. It is however, to beexpected in the context of complexity created by alarge institutional change agenda, a newstrategic plan and the competing challengesconfronting senior leaders. It should also benoted that when an initiative involves breakingthe mould in terms of working across traditionalboundaries (academic/non-academic), the vestedinterests at stake are considerable: stakeholdersneed to be won over - this takes time.24The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

What we have learned in the process issummarised below.• An important aspect of leadership in thedevelopment of strategy, is to find ways toincorporate the valuable work of champions,such that initiatives are not lost and contributeto the new strategic direction.• Once the vision is set, it needs to bereinforced appropriately in key strategicdocuments and policies.• The most critical role of leaders is to articulatethe vision. Following this, they should ensurethe vision is more than just rhetoric throughproactive engagement.• Providing an enabling framework or operatingenvironment for change is essential. This mayinvolve challenging the status quo andremoving ‘any barriers which may beentrenched within the processes and structuresof the institution’ (Leadership Summit 2006,Post Summit Report, p5) with regard to variedinterpretations of ‘internationalisation’. Unlessmechanisms are established to make a visionoperationally possible, the best ideas/idealswill fail.• It is important that the notion of a ‘hub’ (asused in this paper) is not seen as furthercentralisation (or managerial control) but inthe sense used in transport networks wheremovements are in multiple directions atmultiple levels – language used by leadersneeds to make the distinction clear.• Political support is necessary to challengeinstitutional hurdles and to create asupportive culture that makesinnovation possible.Our success so far at Bournemouth has beenachieved by focusing attention on how thisagenda contributes to global employability,and enhances the student experience. Withoutpersistent support of leadership to bring theagenda into a coherent whole, the initiativewould have floundered on several occasions. It isnow up to the Centre to prove that this approachwill make a positive contribution to the Universityand our graduates.Nick PetfordPro Vice-Chancellor Research andEnterprise, Bournemouth UniversityProfessor Nick Petford is responsible forinternationalisation as Chair of theInternational Strategy Group. He joinedBournemouth University in June 2006 fromKingston University. He is a geologist bytraining and has worked on academic andcommercial research projects throughout theworld, most recently as a consultant to DFIDon the management of volcanic hazardmonitoring on Montserrat. He is formerCouncil Member of the Geological Society,London, former Vice-President of theMineralogical Society of Great Britain andIreland and current section chair of theInternational Association of Volcanology andChemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI). Hehas held visiting professor appointments atthe University of Vermont (USA) andMacquarie University (Australia).Chris ShielDirector of the Centre for GlobalPerspectives, Bournemouth UniversityChris was previously Head of Learning andTeaching in the Business School. She has led theGlobal Perspectives agenda at Bournemouthsince 1999 and was awarded a LeadershipFoundation Fellowship in 2005, for her work inthis area. In 2005 she convened the first BUinternational conference on: ‘Education forSustainable Development: Graduates as GlobalCitizens’ and a further conference in 2007. Shehas led staff development in a number ofinstitutions in relation to global perspectives andsustainable development and is an AdvisoryBoard member of the UNESCO Centre,University of Ulster and the DevelopmentEducation Research Centre, Institute ofEducation, University of London. She is a formerTrustee of the DEA and previously chaired theDEA Higher Education Committee. She is alsoa Board member of DEED: DevelopmentEducation in Dorset.A holistic approach to the ‘globalisation’ agenda at Bournemouth University25

Perspectives, policy and institutional cultures: world-widehorizons at Leeds Metropolitan UniversityElspeth Jones and Simon LeeWriting in the Journal of Studies inInternational Education, John Taylor describesinternationalisation as ‘one of the mostpowerful forces for change in contemporaryhigher education’ (Taylor, 2005). Instead, formany universities, internationalisation has meantsimply the recruitment of international students,primarily as a source of income. This not onlyneglects other benefits such students can bring tothe institution, but ignores opportunities toenhance the global perspectives of the widerstudent and staff body through a broaderinterpretation of the term. Ellingboe’s definition ofinternationalisation begins to hint at this, seeing‘an ongoing, future oriented, multi-dimensional,interdisciplinary, leadership-driven vision thatinvolves many stakeholders working to change theinternal dynamics of an institution to respond andadapt appropriately to an increasingly diverse,globally-focused, ever-changing externalenvironment.’ (Ellingboe 1998). Ellingboe soughtto identify what this means for leaders of aninstitution, based on a study of respondents’views of ideal practice for a university attemptingto internationalise. Examples in the literature ofsuch a strategic approach being implementedwithin an institution and from which lessons canbe drawn are less easy to find. We seek to offerhere examples from our own experience.At Leeds Metropolitan University (2007) we referto ‘world-wide horizons’ and this broadunderstanding of internationalisation is seen asfundamental to the university’s vision andcharacter. Such an interpretation offerscreative opportunities to enhance the globalperspectives of all students and staff, not onlythose who are already in an internationalenvironment through undertaking their educationin another country. While international studentsbring important cultural diversity, it is clear thatthe mere presence of international studentscannot alone deliver these ‘world-wide horizons’.A systematic approach to introducing globalperspectives across the curriculum has beenadopted and opportunities for all students andstaff to engage with the international dimensionsof university life have been supported by staffdevelopment for internationalisation. Drawing onthe experience of Leeds Met’s approach toenriching the learning experience both for homeand international students and to expanding staffhorizons, we outline here some considerations forleaders who wish to adopt a similar strategicapproach and place global perspectives at thehighest level of institutional commitment.The first of these concerns the vision itself. Anyhigher education institution wishing to integrateinternationalisation successfully across a broadspectrum of activities needs to articulate thisclearly in its vision or mission, and this must beunderpinned by an institutional ethos whichvisibly values global perspectives. If such anethos is supported and enabled by seniormanagement, we have found that rapid progresscan be made. Without such commitment, theemphasis may continue to be placed on theincome which international students bring, or belimited to the disparate efforts of individuals. Acollaboratively-produced InternationalisationStrategy may help to drive a sharedunderstanding of how such a commitment tointernationalisation can permeate university life.At Leeds Met, our Strategy (Leeds Met, 2003)identified six key elements and illustrated whatthis meant for different aspects of university life.We have sought to engage staff in the process bypresenting information, offering opportunitiesand establishing policy requirements. For thelatter, we require all staff wishing to traveloverseas on behalf of the university to identifyhow their visit will fit with one of the six elementsof our Internationalisation Strategy, to reflect ontheir experiences and to work with others whoplan to visit the same country. We use theInternational Reflections web page (discussed inmore detail below) to disseminate informationand to raise awareness of world-wide horizons.International opportunities are offered regularlyincluding festivals celebrating different cultures,international secondments, and the chance totake part in international volunteering initiativeson six continents. By drawing in staff throughthese means, the internationalisation processgrows in strength and momentum; by extendingopportunities, further creative ideas are released.We have found that a genuine culture shift can26The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

e realised if the vision is supported throughpolicies and strategies which make explicit therelevance and importance of internationalisationin all aspects of university life. Such documentsmay include the Corporate Plan, Assessment,Learning and Teaching strategy, Research,Retention and Widening Participation strategies inaddition to Equality, Diversity, Human Resourcesand Sustainability policies.Strong international partnerships are animportant mechanism in supportinginternationalisation. These can facilitate staffsecondments, student exchanges, internationalresearch, development and benchmarkingopportunities. Such positive partnership linkscan go well beyond student exchanges and staffvisits, leading to shared curriculum, researchpublications and other opportunities to supportcurriculum internationalisation.Appointing diverse staff with varied internationalexperience and bringing in regular internationalvisiting lecturers is essential for a strategicapproach to internationalisation. Equallyimportant is enabling staff of all categories tohave international experiences as part of aninstitutional enrichment process. Exchangeprogrammes or visits to partner institutions arevaluable for the majority of staff and the resultinglearning or benchmarking process can enhancepractice in the home institution. Opportunitiescan be found for support staff, as well as theiracademic colleagues, to engage in internationalresearch, knowledge exchange, partnershipworking and capacity-building. At Leeds Met wehave enabled professional administrators toundertake secondments in partner institutions aswell as helping to deliver governance andbenchmarking projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.Staff from our Learning Support team work withstudents on programmes delivered overseas, thusenabling them to bring back the experience theyhave gained, and to support internationalstudents at the home campus more effectively.Systematically providing staff developmentopportunities to support internationalisation canmake a real impact on institutional change. Thismay include providing for language learning andcross-cultural capability training, or seminars onworking with students whose first language isnot English.Regular recognition and celebration ofinternational developments can also facilitateculture change and may include a programme ofevents to make explicit the institution’sinternational intents. Recognising and valuing theinternational achievements of staff and studentscan support this. Whether this is linked topromotion and career progression, or whether itis celebrated by public recognition throughinternal awards, it is important to value what staffdo to promote global perspectives in all aspectsof their work, including learning, teaching,assessment, research or student support. It maynot be the case that all staff share the enthusiasmand the capability necessary for turning theinternational vision into reality, so it is helpful toidentify and support internationalisationchampions across the institution. They, in turn,can help to spread the word amongst thosestaff who may be less eager to embracethe challenge.A critical mass of international students oncampus across a range of courses and fromdiverse countries can help the internationalisationeffort. This needs to be coupled with actions toassist effective integration within and acrossnational and cultural boundaries, includingwelcome events for international students,buddying schemes, arranged opportunities forstudents to network within and beyond theirnational groups, and targeted social activities. Itshould also be linked to, and benefit from, thebroader celebration of diversity across theinstitution, and to policies and practice whichenhance the diversity of the home studentpopulation. Leeds Met’s partnership with theInternational Indian Film Academy enabled 150international and UK students to work asvolunteers when the awards ceremony took placerecently in Yorkshire. Not only were they able torub shoulders with the stars but working togetheras a team became a useful vehicle to support theintegration of home and international students.A flexible, integrated and discipline-focusedPerspectives, policy and institutional cultures27

internationalised curriculum, incorporating globalperspectives, will make curriculum access forinternational students easier while alsodeveloping the international and interculturalperspectives of all students and staff. Jones andKillick (2007) identify how a strategic approach tocurriculum internationalisation has beenimplemented at Leeds Met. A frameworkdocument was devised outlining what was meantby cross-cultural capability and globalperspectives across the curriculum. Course teamsuse the document in their own subjects to reviewcourses, with the help of a series of enablingquestions. Examples are given to assistinterpretation, and suggestions from thepan-university Teacher Fellows network offer helpon implementing the ideas in different classroomenvironments and subject fields for those withlimited experience of internationalisation. By theend of 2008, all programmes will have beenreviewed against these guidelines, although weview this as a process of continuous renewal.This approach of providing a strategicframework, while enabling subject specialists todetermine appropriacy for their own courses, hasproved to be a helpful means of deliveringuniversity-wide change.Going beyond the traditional programme ofstudy, Webb (2005) encourages us to ‘normaliseinternationalisation of the curriculum’ and offersstrategies for doing so which extend beyond thenarrow interpretation of curriculum into thestudent experience as a whole. He defines suchnormalisation as ‘turning the ad hoc and unevenefforts of a few enthusiasts into the normalexpectations and requirements of theorganisation’. Thus, while internationalisation ofthe formal curriculum is important, extendedcurriculum opportunities can also contribute.These may include tandem learning, clubs andsocieties appealing to home and internationalstudents, celebrations of international culture andidentifying international dimensions of all aspectsof university life.While an international experience might benefitthe majority of students, not all will have themeans to undertake study abroad or aninternational work placement. A coordinatedprogramme of opportunities for internationalvolunteering for staff and students can provideshorter engagement in an international contextwhich may be just as valuable. Equally, ‘servicelearning’ in the local community can offerinternational students a learning experiencewhich benefits both the student and the localpopulation. It can also be another meaningfulvehicle for integration between domestic andinternational students.A sensitive and positive institutional approach toaccommodation, food, worship and otherfacilities will recognise the needs of students fromother cultures and yet take account of theinherent dangers of ghettoisation which ‘special’services can lead to. Strategic decisions areneeded in delivering pastoral supportprogrammes, for domestic as well asinternational students, which should recognisewhere needs differ and where extra support maybe required. This could include, for example,specialist advisors on immigration issues, aformal pastoral support system and befriending28The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

opportunities where the support needs are socialrather than practical.In concluding this contribution, we offer anexample of how a relatively simple idea has bothsupported and reflected cultural change at LeedsMet and helped to move the organisation fromone which merely recruited international studentsto one which now embraces world-wide horizons.In September 2003 we introduced a daily on-line200-word (no more, no less) InternationalReflection 1 and this has appeared each weekdaysince then, amounting to over one thousandtestimonies from students, staff and friends of theuniversity. As mentioned above, the originalintention of this initiative was to raise awarenessof internationalisation and to demonstrate thatthis went well beyond the recruitment ofinternational students. Yet these daily postingshave become much more than a source ofinformation and have brought about change inthe institutional culture, while at the same timereflecting change within that culture through theirgrowing sophistication (see Jones, 2007). Severalcontributors note that engaging in the reflectiveprocess, and doing so in a public forum, isfundamental to the broader culture of academia,and it may be for this reason that they have beenso enthusiastically embraced. Kezar and Eckel(2002) conclude that, ‘change strategies seem tobe successful if they are culturally coherent oraligned with the culture’ and this may be onereason for their success.Reflections may offer tantalising glimpses of othercultures, or of different viewpoints on life as aninternational student in the UK. Many talk ofpersonal transformation or changed perspectivesas a result of an international experience orencounter. Others help to raise awareness ofglobal development issues or the need tounderstand better other communities andcultures, including the needs of our internationalstudents. Yet more mark a response to worldevents, including natural disasters which mayhave affected students’ families. It is not onlyacademic staff who write reflections. Some of themost well received have been from support staff,including one who took part in a fundraisingwalk along the Great Wall of China 2 . Colleaguesfrom international partner institutions and theBritish Council have made contributions, as havealumni and students on exchange overseas andincoming exchange students. There have beenreflections from agents, representatives andinternational visitors. Many colleagues have saidhow much they value International Reflections,one saying that the best of these ‘transport’ himto other countries or cultures. The Reflectionshave created a focal point which draw staff andstudents to the website each day. The ensuingdiscussion has, in turn, led to an increase in thequality of reflection produced and illustrateschanged mindsets towards internationalisation.The sustainable progress towards world-widehorizons has been greatly enhanced by studentsand staff having multiple opportunities forinternational experiences and to reflect thereon.The governors’ strategy of vision and character orthe commitment and leadership of senior staffwould not alone make the difference that comesfrom creating life-changing experiences for awide range of staff and students. It is no1. www.leedsmet.ac.uk/internat/reflects/index.htm2. www.leedsmet.ac.uk/internat/reflects/jan06/jan17.htmPerspectives, policy and institutional cultures29

accident, therefore, that our university’s statementof vision and character has on its front cover aphotograph of one of our recent graduates, DeeCaffari, becoming the first woman in history tosail solo, non-stop, round the world the so-called‘wrong’ way, against the prevailing winds andcurrents. Nor is it accidental that the front coverof Leeds Met Acts (a statement of the attitudes,character and talents expected of members ofour university community) shows students andstaff together with a local guide at the conclusionof an international volunteering opportunity inIndonesia, the inside cover shows the platformparty at a summer graduation all focused onapplauding a graduating student and the backcover shows colleagues and governorsapplauding staff winners of the Chancellor’sAwards. The enthusiasm of students, staff,alumni and partner organisations provides themomentum which will sustain enduringinstitutional change.Simon Lee,Vice-Chancellor,Leeds Metropolitan UniversityProfessor Simon Lee became theVice-Chancellor of Leeds MetropolitanUniversity in 2003. He had studied as aBrackenbury Scholar at Balliol College, Oxfordand then a Harkness Fellow at Yale Law Schoolbefore becoming a lecturer in law at TrinityCollege, Oxford and then King’s CollegeLondon. He was appointed Professor ofJurisprudence at Queen’s University Belfast inJanuary 1989 where he also served as Deanof the Faculty of Law, before becoming anemeritus professor of Queen’s when he left inSeptember 1995 to take up the role of Rector& Chief Executive at Liverpool Hope UniversityCollege. Professor Lee is the author of severalbooks and has served on a number ofgovernment and voluntary sector bodies, suchas the Standing Advisory Commission onHuman Rights in Northern Ireland, andchaired others, such as the IndependentMonitoring Board for the Liverpool educationauthority, the board of the Everyman &Playhouse theatres and now of LeedsCarnegie, the professional rugbyunion team.Elspeth Jones,International Dean,Leeds Metropolitan UniversityAs International Dean at Leeds MetropolitanUniversity Elspeth is responsible for leadingthe University’s ambitious internationalisationplans. These include all aspects of theinternational student experience, fromrecruitment to alumni relations,internationalisation for home students, andassociated staff development.With a background in applied linguistics andteaching English as a foreign language,Elspeth has many years’ experience oflearning, assessment and cross-culturalissues for students from a wide variety ofnationalities and cultural backgrounds.She worked at the British Council in Japan forthree years and in Singapore for four years.As Secretary of the University Council ofModern Languages, Elspeth was involved innational debates on the future of languagesin the UK and co-edited Setting the Agendafor Languages in Higher Education withDavid Head, Mike Kelly and Teresa Tinsley(National Centre for Languages, 2003). Sheis currently editing her next book entitled,Internationalisation: the Student Voice. Shehas delivered keynote speeches around theworld and authored a range of chapters andpapers on values-driven internationalisationand world-wide horizons. Elspeth wasfounding editor of Leeds Met’s InternationalReflections webpage in 2003 and has editedit for more than four years.30The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Internationalising the curriculum at the Universityof Salford: from rhetoric to realityViv Caruana and Jane HanstockThe managerial challenge of‘internationalising the curriculum’as distinct from ‘internationalisation’Ten years ago the concept of internationalisationin UK HE was marginalised, today it has ‘comeof age’ and almost all UK universities havecompleted or are developing theirinternationalisation strategies. Whilst thelanguage and content of such statements aresimilar across higher education institutions a keydistinction emerges is that some institutions tendtowards a university-centred approach whilstothers are more student-centred. In effect, theseapproaches are informed by one of twoalternative perspectives arising from the processof globalisation. The university-led approach isinfluenced by a ‘marketisation discourse’ that hascome to pervade higher education as competitionhas intensified, whilst the student-centredapproach is informed by conceptualisations ofglobalisation and internationalisation assynonymous with the emergence of the‘knowledge economy and learning society’(Caruana and Spurling, 2006; Fielden, 2007).Arguably, the university-centred approachfocussing on reputation, branding etc. is likely toengage managerial, administrative and supportservices to a greater or lesser degree in thediscourse that shapes and drives policy whereasthe discourse within a student-centred approachis likely to be more firmly embedded within theacademic community and supported by a myriadof academic-related functions (educationdevelopers, learning technologists etc) Stier(2002) cited in Mercado and Leopold (2006)notes the differences in approach tointernationalisation adopted by theseprofessional groupings:Policy-makers and managers tend to focus onideological goals (e.g. the overall course ofhigher education), university administrators onformalities and practicalities (e.g. student visas,health insurance, grading systems,course-equivalencies etc) whereas teachersemphasise pedagogic issues (e.g. coursecontent, language problems etc). (Stier (2002)cited in Mercado and Leopold, 2006)The balance between different goals and/orideologies within any strategy may well be quitedifferent, as indeed may be the focus of theprocess of managing internationalisation andwhat transpires as an outcome at the teachingand learning practice level. To quote Taylor(2004) cited in Caruana and Spurling (2007):…the process of planning is about priorities,determining what will be done, but alsowhat will not be done or what will bediscontinued…Whilst internationalisation may mean differentthings to different professional groups it isnonetheless likely to resonate since it is rooted intraditional structures of UK higher education andhas simply evolved under the influence ofglobalisation. By contrast, ‘Internationalising thecurriculum’ is a relatively new phenomenonwhose meaning in practice tends to be blurred bythe traditional distinctions drawn between homeand international student experiences. The realchallenge of ‘internationalising the curriculum’ inUK higher education, is as described by Ball(1994) cited by Keeling (2004) ‘…the translationof the crude, abstract simplicity of policy texts intointeractive and sustainable practices…’ andundoubtedly a key factor in the transition is theapproach adopted by university leaders.University of Salford: The voyage ofdiscovery…in search of meaningInitial foraysThe University of Salford’s Strategic Framework2003-2004 envisaged a mission which included:… preparing students for careers that will be inthe global economy…’, whilst at the same time‘…enriching the wider student experience byintegrating the knowledge and experience ofour international students...Our initial research explored howinternationalisation as defined in this way(student-centred), could be concretised,underpinned by sound pedagogical principlesand embedded into the University’s curriculaInternationalising the curriculum at the University of Salford31

(Caruana and Hanstock, 2003). This earlyresearch explored four alternative approaches tointernationalisation: ethos, activity, content andgraduate attributes. We concluded that eachapproach progressively raised the profile ofinternationalisation in terms of curriculum designand together formed a continuum along whichinstitutions could develop in order to fulfil theirinternational missions. Ethos stood at one end ofthe continuum assuming a ‘campus culture’orientation and the graduate attributes approachstood at the other with its focus on employabilityencompassing cognitive, attitudinal andintercultural dimensions. This latter approachseemed to offer potential in addressing theUniversity’s student-centred goals (Caruanaand Hanstock, 2003).As our research progressed we found however,that we were becoming pre-occupied (as wasmuch of the literature with which we engaged)with the international student experience. Wetherefore made a conscious effort to try tore-focus and de-construct what it means ‘toprepare students for the global world of work’.We began to engage with notions ofcross-cultural capability and interculturalcompetence and in considering curriculum designto support the development of graduatecapability encountered the distinction between‘internationalisation abroad’ and’internationalisation at home’ (Caruana andHanstock, 2005). ‘Internationalisation at Home’served to illuminate subconscious preconceptionsand assumptions about the nature of theinternationalised curriculum which we hadgenerally been oblivious to. We noted that thetraditional emphasis on international mobilitycould ironically perpetuate a static view ofcultural knowledge as facts or artefacts, history,art, literature etc. where internationalisation isperceived as involving activities that are ‘faraway’ and that concern ‘others’. Furthermore,we were introduced to the possibility thatinternational mobility may reinforce the myth thata country has a homogenous national culturewhich in itself, may further detract from thedynamic view of culture as sets of practices inwhich people engage in order to live their lives,to understand their world and to produce andcomprehend (Teekens, 2005; Liddicoat, 2004cited in Caruana and Hanstock, 2005). Theliterature in the field therefore suggested that‘internationalisation at home’ could provide theframework to develop a broader and moredynamic conceptualisation of internationalisationin pursuit of a learning experience whichembraced cross-cultural capability and, indeedprepared graduates for a global world of work.As we reflected on these insights in the context ofour experience at Salford we became moreconvinced that the gap between policy andpractice might be rooted in the fact thatinternationalisation is a social practice whichtakes time to put into effect and will occur atdifferent levels of engagement on adevelopmental continuum from ‘technicalobservance’ to ‘relational participation’. Technicalobservance emphasises technical practices suchas the recruitment of international students andinternational staff; use of international examplesin curricula; support services tailored to helpstudents to survive and to assimilate; remedialsupport to deal with poor English as a clinicalcondition etc. It seemed that technical observancemight perpetuate a primarily university-centredapproach based on ‘old style’ conceptions ofinternationalisation and our concern was thatinternationalisation would remain the ‘add-on’with students being expected to change to meetthe expectations of the University that remains thesame. Technical observance thus offered little inthe way of any systematic, self reflexive andcritical challenge to entrenched norms andpedagogical practices. ‘Relational participation’on the other hand, is more specifically focussedon the learning experience and the studentlife-cycle. It is therefore student-centred and inturn thereby capable of accommodating themultiple yet complementary perspectives thatrepresent the internationalised curriculum across32The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

a multitude of disciplines. Of course, as part oftheir academic development university studentswill engage in cultural reproduction but theprinciple of relational participation goes beyondthis encouraging engagement in culturalproduction as well through a dialecticalrelationship between text and learner, teacherand taught, student and milieu that re-createglobalisation in the form of social practices, thatconfront homogenisation and build new forms oftrans-cultural existence (McTaggart, 2003 cited inCaruana and Hanstock, 2005).At this juncture the notion of ‘relationalparticipation’ began to emerge as a key conceptin driving a strategy that was designed to equipstudents with the cross-cultural capabilities thatwould enable them to operate effectively in theglobal world of work. Nonetheless, from ourreading of the literature it seemed that a focus ontechnical practices had legitimacy as apreparatory stage in a process ofinternationalisation that would ultimately findinstitutions progressively moving towardsauthentic views of themselves as internationalisededucational institutions. Emerging from this stageof our research was the key question – how willthe University of Salford progress from a state oftechnical observance to one of relationalparticipation?To return to the original key issue of the role ofuniversity leaders it is significant that seniormanagers have tended traditionally to espouse arational view, involving a process of identifyingstrategic priorities, getting people and resourcesfocussed on them, developing key performanceindicators and measuring how well they aredoing. Interestingly, Taylor (2004) notes thetendency towards centralisation withinmanagement of internationalisation processesbecause of the perceived need for prioritisation,targets and planning. However, is this necessarilythe approach which will drive institutions towardsrelational participation? (always assuming thatthat is indeed where they want to be). We arguethat if the ‘internationalised curriculum’ is tobecome a reality rather than simply rhetoric,alongside the ‘hierarchy of objectives cascadeddown through organisational levels, giving targetand performance indicators’, there is animperative to think less rationally and morerelationally in seeking to appeal to shared valuesand local ingenuity. A purely rational approach tomanaging internationalisation may simplyreinforce technical observance and hinderprogress towards relational participation bysubverting the goals of ‘internationalising thecurriculum’ creating an ‘illusion of compliance’and even ‘inducing counter-productive behaviour’(Cuthbert, 2006). Our current preoccupation istherefore with identifying a process of changemanagement that - whilst embracing the rationalperspective - is based on the principle of sharedvalues and local ingenuity.Managing the Way Forward - FromTechnical Observance to RelationalParticipation?The University of Salford has recently developeda draft International Strategy which focuses onthree broad – but potentially antagonistic -strands of development: marketing, the studentexperience and business development. Within thelanguage of the strategy influence of both the‘marketisation discourse’ and notions of the‘knowledge economy and learning society’ isapparent. As far as the student experience isconcerned the Strategy anticipates between 2008and 2010, a phase of new programmedevelopment. Faculties and schools, individualsand teams responsible for developing policy andpractices will be supported in driving theinternational agenda and a process ofcurriculum internationalisation will recogniseand accommodate differing school, disciplineand vocational requirements (University ofSalford, 2007). This draft strategy then - interms of the internationalised curriculum - hasmuch in common with other institutions bothwithin the UK and abroad, in identifying thedegree programme as the appropriateInternationalising the curriculum at the University of Salford33

framework for curriculum innovation. Like ourcolleagues at the University of Leicester we wouldenvisage the development of programmes thatembody an international and interculturalorientation, a cross-cultural pedagogy,constructive alignment with student profile,working with local ethnic communities andintercultural learning in a virtual classroom(Chan, 2006).Anecdotally, we know that there is already muchuseful work going on across and some veryuseful tools for supporting curriculuminterrogation have been identified such asMercado and Leopold’s (2007) AOPI (Aspects OfProgramme Internationalisation) framework.However, the crucial challenge of promoting anddisseminating good practice, thereby harnessinglocal ingenuity in pursuit of institutional goalsremains. In this context the ‘diffusionist’ model ofchange management as defined by Rogers(1995) may be more effective than the rationalplanning model in moving the University towardsa position of relational participation. Rogers(1995) defines the model thus: ‘…the process bywhich an innovation is communicated throughcertain channels over time among members of asocial system.’ Arguably the model is highlyappropriate when the degree programme is usedas the lens through which to look at ways todiffuse innovations to teaching staff. Rather thanseeking change from the top-down (from seniormanagement) or bottom-up (from students) the‘diffusionist’ model promotes a middle-outapproach to change that is based on theeducational development function working withprogramme teams and acting as an interfacebetween policy makers and programme staff,interpreting policy in terms of programmeenhancement as well as providing soundpractical solutions as a means of implementingpolicy (Chang et al, 1994).At the University of Salford the academicdevelopment function has traditionally embracedStaff and Curriculum Development within anover-arching structure of an EducationDevelopment Unit. In terms of engagement withthe academic community two models are inevidence: (1) staff development catering for thecontinuing professional development (CPD) needsof individuals within the context of institutionalstrategies and objectives cascaded, interpretedand re-interpreted through the variousorganisational levels, and (2) curriculumdevelopment organised on a project basis with‘project managers’ at the centre supportingnominated individuals based in schools andfaculties and programme teams, in embeddingparticular strategic initiatives (e.g. employability).This second approach mirrors the ‘diffusionistmodel’ of change although specific projects tendto exist almost in isolation of each other.The outcomes of the first approach have tendedat times to be fractured and unsystematic. All toooften staff development events designed toencourage ownership of University strategy at thelocal level and geared towards embeddingstrategic initiatives across the institution haveattracted a relatively small number of willingconverts or ‘champions’ in the field recruitedfrom the ranks of a hard-pressed army ofacademics who are struggling to cope with theever-increasing, ever-more complex and oftencompeting demands of their role. The secondapproach seems to offer more in terms offacilitating change across the institution. However,the change which takes place - whilst beingsignificant in terms of its breadth - is relativelylacking in scope since there is limited opportunityto make connections between alternativestrategies at the level of the programme andfoster a more holistic approach to curriculuminnovation. On balance, it seems that the seeds34The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

of the ‘diffusionist model’ exist in the projectmodel but this seed needs to be nurtured if theinternationalised curriculum is to become areality. Centrally-based project managers are in aposition to foster collaboration across disciplinesas they operate within and across the boundariesbut they cannot provide the holistic frameworkthrough which potentially disparate strategicinitiatives affecting curriculum design can beunderstood as a whole (Chang et al 2004). Therole that senior managers will play in supportingand developing a diffusionist model of changemanagement seems to be the current challengein making the rhetoric of the internationalisedcurriculum a reality.Jane Hanstock,University of Salford, Pro Vice-ChancellorTeaching and LearningJane has worked extensively with highereducation institutions across the globe in thefield of internationalisation and in her capacityas PVC chairs the University’s InternationalStrategy Committee.Dr Viv Caruana,University of Salford, EducationDevelopment Co-ordinator (Learningand Teaching Practice)Viv ‘s role embraces staff and curriculumdevelopment in the general field ofteaching and learning in higher education. Sheis an active member of the University’s HigherEducation Research Centre (HERC) and Editorof the University’s in-house journal ’InnovativeLearning in Action’ (ILIA). Her researchinterests include the impact of the globalknowledge-based economy and learningsociety on learning and teaching in highereducation with special reference tointernationalising the curriculum andinterdisciplinarity. Viv has recently conducted aliterature review with Nicola Spurling,commissioned by the Higher EducationAcademy, The Internationalisation of UK HigherEducation: a review of selected materialavailable at:www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/internationalInternationalising the curriculum at the University of Salford35

The global university: the RoehamptonUniversity experienceJane Broadbent and David WoodmanIn embracing the concept of the GlobalUniversity, Roehampton University has developeda mission that emphasises and celebratesdiversity. We are of the view that education isenriched for all when a diverse community ofstaff and students is fostered and supported. Inour conception of diversity we recognise the needto build our community to both include and learnfrom those from different nations and cultures toensure all members of the University communityhave the skills needed to reach out to the globalcommunity. Roehampton University’s Vision seesour role as ‘Challenging, inspiring andsupporting students to grow as individuals and tobe responsible citizens and leaders in a complexworld.’ The values that underlie this cite ourdesire to work to promote social justice in avariety of ways including engagement withdifferent communities. For example, Roehamptonis a member of the CARA (Council for AssistingRefugee Academics) network of UK universities,which, , through its pathfinder grant scheme,helps support the special needs of refugeeacademics. This work clearly supports theUniversity’s mission but it, in addition, broadensthe frame of reference of all the academic andadministrative staff who are involved. Studentsalso benefit, when refugee academics share theirexperiences in the classroom as part of theprocess of helping them to understand the UKcontext of learning and teaching.We aim to be excellent in all aspects of ouractivity and in this sense our teaching andresearch will contribute to the global communityin both the development of knowledge moregenerally and in the development of ourgraduates as global citizens. Hence we recognisethe importance of promoting the exchange ofstudents, academic and administrative/professional colleagues in both learningand teaching and research activity.Internationalisation is recognised as an importantelement of our academic strategy and isdescribed in more detail in the UniversityInternationalisation Strategy, which states,The University’s own vision for its futuredevelopment builds on our historic desire topromote equality, diversity, mutual respect andunderstanding: ideals which underpinsRoehampton’s mission as a University. Byfacilitating exposure to different social andcultural traditions and fostering an internationalperspective among both staff and students wewill help prepare our students to be leaders andresponsible citizens in an increasingly complexworld as well as to take up successful careers ina globalised economy.In summary, Roehampton is working towards theinternationalisation of its curriculum as well asthe student and staff experienceOne key aspect of leadership in strategydevelopment is that of interpreting the externalenvironment, predicting the changes taking placenow and in the future and considering the effectsuch changes may have on the institution. In thissense senior management must not only identifyopportunities but also become advocates forchange. This will involve convincing colleaguesof changes they may not have thought aboutand it is also important to recognise that not allrelevant change will be palatable toorganisational colleagues.Senior Managers can, by themselves, achievevery little. Alongside the identification of a set ofstrategic challenges, the need to engagecolleagues in such challenges is paramount. Tomake progress in any aspiration requires theinvolvement of the whole of the Universitycommunity and that requires that the communityis involved in the building of strategy as well asits delivery. A clarification of this approach is tobe found in a contribution our Vice-Chancellorgave to the Leadership Foundation’s Engagemagazine in late 2007:I think it’s really important to listen tostudents. When putting the plan together,the most valuable interactions for me weretalking with people in small groups wherepeople felt able to speak up. Students have alot to offer on advising the university on itsfuture direction, especially in timesof unpredictability.Senior managers need to be facilitators while36The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

leading and inspiring. Change of any sort iseasiest to achieve when it helps to deliverelements that are not in conflict with existingvalues of the University. This does not meanignoring aspects outside the existing value set. Ifsenior managers simply act within the boundariesof accepted practice then, as noted above, thedanger is that there will be no change and theinstitution may well simply become stale andobsolete. It is important to recognise if a changeis an incremental one or if it is morefundamental, in order to adopt relevantprocesses to achieve it. Understanding the viewsof the members of the university is thereforecrucial as a starting point for developing thecommunication that will enable change.Senior managers have recognised that the needto work towards a Global University must beembedded in the usual range of activities that areundertaken in the University. The implementationof Roehampton’s strategic aims works withcurrent strengths and resources as well as thedevelopment of new initiatives across theuniversity in research, teaching and learning andenterprise.For example, a major stimulus to theimplementation of the concept of a globaluniversity comes from the University’s Centre forExcellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL)Crucible (Human Rights, Social Justice andCitizenship Education). This centre is workingacross the University in the development of boththe undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum,new initiatives in teaching and learning and,most importantly, using its relationships with avariety of external partners to enrich the studentlearning experience. All of this work has aglobal orientation.In the past two years Crucible has developed,organised and delivered a new module entitled‘Questioning Citizenship’ which is available to allfirst year students across the University. In the firstyear 400 or so students were enrolled and in thecurrent year it is closer to 600; almost half of thewhole intake of the University. This module, as itsname suggests, questions the formal associationof citizenship with the nation-state as the onlypossible interpretation which, then, forces aconsideration of citizenship on a global scale.The significance of this work lies not just in itscontent but in its form i.e. the fact that it bringstogether students from more than 20 subjects towork together on a variety of topics and tasks, allof which have an international dimension. Thereare opportunities for students to share theirexperiences of being ‘citizens’ around the world.For many students their understanding ofcitizenship only develops after they have heardfrom others, whose citizenship has been deniedor severely limited.Crucible also has a number of initiatives atpostgraduate level including a prestigiousmaster’s programme in human rights practice.The programme successfully applied for ErasmusMundus status. Roehampton is one of the few UKuniversities to have two of these programmes, theother being in special educational needs. Bothare international programmes with studentsselected from around the world and providedwith extensive EU bursary support. The studentson the MA Human Rights Practice spend time inthe partner universities in Göteborg (Sweden) andTromsø (Norway) as well as London. The studentson these programmes considerably enrich theinternational experience of students and theUniversity as a whole. Finally, Crucible hastaken a strategic initiative to co-ordinate thedevelopment of a portfolio of master’sprogrammes in the area of human rights, all ofwhich contain a global perspective. Theseprogrammes are central in establishing theUniversity’s reputation for global education.Crucible works with many internationalorganisations in both the public and voluntarysectors. These organisations help in the provisionof placement opportunities for students and in thedevelopment of learning resources and thecurriculum. Students on overseas placementsdocument and share their experiences with otherstudents.For the past 15 years we have operateda level 2 and 3 service-learning programme,which has been adopted by a number of differentsubjects. This programme integratesvolunteering into a student’s academic study ofcivil society. It attracts overseas students who areThe global university: the Roehampton University experience37

interested in working in civil society organisationsaround the globe. Complementary to this theUniversity has 10 years experience of running amasters programme in International Servicewhere students spend their time on placementswith national and international Non-GovernmentOrganisations (NGOs) in Jamaica, Mexico andthe UK. In a relatively smalluniversity like Roehampton these students, mostof whom are from outside the EU, make animportant contribution to the global reach andappeal of the University.The University has a highly regarded researchprofile and, inevitably, much of its work isinternational in nature. For example, ourresearch work is clustered within research centresand, as can be seen from the titles of a sampleof these, their horizons are truly international:• Arts and Humanities Research Centre (AHRC)Research Centre for Cross-CulturalMusic and Dance Performance• Centre for International Research on Creativityand Learning in Education (CIRCLE)• Centre for Research in Postcolonial andTranscultural Studies• Federal Centre for Research on Nationalism,Ethnicity and Multiculturalism (CRONEM)• Centre for Theatre Research in Europe• Hispanic Research CentreThese research centres attract academics fromoverseas to participate in the research culture ofthe University, through both their specialistknowledge and their experiences of working inoverseas universities. The University’s AcademicEnterprise office has helped strengthen theseglobal initiatives through its knowledge of andparticipation in networks of universities aroundthe world. For example, It has provided thespecialist support and guidance required for twosuccessful manoeuvres through the complexprocedures of the Erasmus Mundus applicationprocess. Finally, the International office has acentral function in helping staff and studentsengage with a variety of academic communitiesoverseas. In conclusion, it is RoehamptonUniversity’s belief that a higher education mustbe an international or global education. We havenot reached this point yet but we are committedto a vision of a Roehampton graduate whoseperspective and aspirations reach beyond thelimits of the local and the nation-state.Professor Jane Broadbent,Deputy Vice-Chancellor,Roehampton UniversityPrior to becoming the Deputy VC ofRoehampton University in 2006, Jane wasformerly Senior Vice-Principal (AcademicAffairs) at Royal Holloway, University ofLondon. Jane has over 40 refereedpublications and numerous professionalarticles aligned to management andaccounting change in the public sector. Shehas jointly (with Richard Laughlin) held threeresearch grants from the ESRC, the most recentconducting research into PerformanceManagement of Universities in the UK. Earlierwork researching PFI in the UK and funded bythe Chartered Institute of ManagementAccountants is now being extended jointly withcolleagues at the University of Sydney. Thislatter work is funded by the AustralianResearch Council.Dr David Woodman, Director,Crucible, Roehampton UniversityCrucible is the University’s Centre of Excellencein Teaching and Learning, focusing on humanrights and social justice education. David hassubstantial experience of developingprogrammes of study with an internationalperspective at master’s level, where studentsstudy overseas and gain placement experiencethere. He is also Assistant Dean (Learningand Teaching) in the School of Businessand Social Sciences.38The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Sustainable development: strategic considerationsfor senior managersGeoffrey CoplandUniversities are institutions for the generation andtransmission of knowledge and for thedevelopment of technical and personal skills ofstudents and staff. They develop the nextgeneration of decision makers and leadersthrough their students. They are major resourcesfor professional and personal updating ofknowledge for lifelong learning and to meet thedemands of industry and society for a highlyskilled and cultured society. They are amongst thelargest employers and users of resources in theircommunities. Given this range of responsibilities,the role of universities in responding to thechallenges of environmental sustainability is onewhich should come to the forefront in thethinking of senior managers and their governingbodies. University senior managers, with theirgoverning bodies, are responsible for providingthe strategic direction for their universities; foreffective operational implementation of thesestrategies; for setting the standards for the ethosand culture of the university and for itspresentation to the public. They should now begiving serious thought to how their universitiescan provide leadership and thoughtful debate onsustainable development issues both internallyand to their wider communities.Now there is evidence (UUK, 2008: HEFCE,2008) that most universities are engaged in somelevels of research and teaching related tosustainable development and the challenges thatthe current patterns of resource usage andbehaviour pose for the future well-being ofsociety. The ‘Greening Spires’ publication byUniversities UK describes a number of research,knowledge transfer, teaching and operationalactivities in which universities in the UK arealready engaged to respond to the challenges ofsustainable development. The Higher Educationfor Funding Councils for England (HEFCE) studyset out, amongst other matters, to establish abaseline of sustainable development in Englishhigher education against which HEFCE canmeasure and publicise what the sector is alreadydoing; to learn from institutions’ experience; toidentify key issues which present opportunitiesand challenges and to help to shape the prioritiesfor the Funding Council. That research showedthat these activities frequently have beenstimulated by individuals or small groups of staffchoosing to pursue a particular line of researchor syllabus development, rather than being partof a senior management led strategy. Oftenmuch of this work is conducted in isolation fromthe mainstream subjects. These pioneers maywell find their sources of inspiration amongstlike-minded colleagues outside the university,indeed outside academe or the country ofoperation. As this work progresses, the evidencein the HEFCE study indicates that institutionsbegin to engage with the ‘bottom-up’ agenda,with senior management taking an interest butessentially as a watching brief. As the workprogresses, this may lead to senior managementdeveloping an institutional position, engaging theinterest of the governing body and so leadingto incorporation into the next stage of theinstitutional strategic plan. There are nowindications of some universities embracing theideas of sustainable development into changinginstitutional behaviour, taking them beyond therealms of research and teaching into practicalactions. At present, there is no evidence of anyUK university taking this through to fullcommitment by the whole institution and makingsustainable development absolutely integral tothe institution. No university can yet call itself an‘environmental sustainable’ university in the waythey might describe themselves as ‘researchintensive’ or ‘business facing’.To move in that direction, senior managementshould be asking questions about theengagement of university research and teachingin the issues of sustainable development, theperformance of the physical infrastructure and ofthe attitudes and behaviour of staff and studentsif universities are going to remain at the forefrontof addressing issues facing global society. It hasto weave its way through complex pressures vyingfor its attention in a highly competitiveenvironment, whilst addressing the realities of theuniversity world. All universities are faced with theproblems of resources constraint and competingclaims on these. Universities and their staffbelieve strongly in the principle of academicfreedom. This gives their academic staff theSustainable development: strategic considerations for senior managers39

opportunity to study and write about matters thatthey identify to be important without the controlon individual actions that are to be found inmany other organisations. They can challengeaccepted ideas and orthodoxies and it is a partof the development of students that they too learnthe importance of such challenge and argument.This means that senior management cannotsimply instruct its academic community to followa particular path of research and teaching. It hasto develop a culture and behaviour pattern thatstimulates debate to inform collegiate decisionsthat lead to change.Given the nature of sustainable development,work related to it is not readily identified with thetraditional subject lines on which universities andtheir funding are normally based. It often drawson a range of disciplines and thereby challengesthe ‘silo’ thinking that characterises mostuniversity academic structures. Such thinking wasexacerbated by the Research Assessment Exercise(RAE) that dominated thinking in UK universitiesfor two decades and which did not identify‘sustainable development’ as a Unit ofAssessment. Whilst the way funding councilsorganise their assessment and funding streamsshould not be the determining factor on universitybehaviour, it does influence thinking andattitudes. Universities have to respond toimportance of sustainable development bybreaking down these silos. Recently the ResearchCouncils have been stimulating collaborative andinterdisciplinary research on issues related tosustainable development, establishing centressuch as the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)jointly funded by EPSRC, ESRC and NERC 1 . Suchinitiatives and signals by funding bodies are mostuseful in helping senior management to promotethe sort of interdisciplinarity that is likely toadvance research into sustainability issues. Ibelieved that the university of which I wasVice-Chancellor was ideally placed to develop aCentre for World Cities and SustainableDevelopment, through drawing together expertisefrom different subject areas and research groups.This initially was treated as a Vice-Chancellor’sfantasy, but eventually after sowing the seedsamongst individuals, they came together withoutmy direct intervention, realised that they couldindeed develop a uniquely placed centre, butstill worry about the resource issues ofcross-disciplinary activity. There are increasingnumbers of examples of such research rangingfrom what might be termed ‘blue skies’research,through technological research and itsapplications in everyday products and intoareas related to behaviour of groups andgovernance issues.Teaching and curriculum development can bedifficult to manage from senior level. In 2005HEFCE (2005/01) developed proposals for theway in which universities might engage withsustainable development issues. Whilst there wasgeneral recognition of the importance ofsustainability, the proposals made by the FundingCouncil (HEFCE 2005/28) were received withlimited enthusiasm although several universitiespointed to their existing activities in this area.There was a strong sense in the responses to theFunding Council that these proposals were toointrusive and challenged the autonomy ofinstitutions. One proposal that provoked a strongreaction was that the assessment of quality oftaught programmes should take account of thepresence of aspects of sustainable development.Resistance arose from concerns that, whilstuniversities could see the importance of engagingwith the sustainability agenda, they could notaccept that their funding body, not being aplanning body, should be setting measures bywhich courses should be evaluated. Acceptanceof that proposal, no matter how well intentioned,would have been seen as a precedent for futureinterference in the academic work of universities.There are strong reasons for universities toencourage sustainable development issues to beincluded in the curriculum. Young people arebecoming more aware of ‘green’ issues andworried about the future of the world that theyand their children will inhabit. Universities mustrespond to this, not just through a few committedenvironmentally aware staff but in the generalcultural awareness that is displayed throughresearch, teaching and overall delivery ofservices. If the university is going actively to show1. www.ukerc.ac.uk40The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

leadership, rather than responsiveness in theseareas then senior management must take thelead. It should identify the staff and students whohave a real interest in and thoughtful awarenessof these issues and draw them together to seektheir ideas, not only on what might be in thecurriculum but how sustainability awarenessshould be promoted across the university.Intellectually, it is easy to see the importanceof improving the physical operations andperformance of the university estate inenvironmental terms, but practicalimplementation can be fraught with difficulties.Sustainable operations can have a direct impacton the financial performance of an organisation.For example, the simple actions of ensuring allcommittee papers and lecture note handouts areavailable on-line with only the minimum numberof hard copies printed, double sided, on recycledpaper, and not bound in plastic binders can savesubstantial amounts of paper, copying costs,postage and non recyclable waste. Reducing thenumber of computers and screens left running 24hours a day, 365 days a year seems obvious yetis seldom practiced. Real encouragement of staffand students to use public transport, cycling andwalking rather than fighting over car parkingspaces would also seem easy but experienceshows that these can be real battles. Here seniormanagement must lead by example. Suchinitiatives could be easily undermined if seniormanagers were to be seen leaving the officewith lights on, air conditioning and computersrunning, carrying expensively bound committeepapers and driving home as sole occupants oflarge cars. Of course there have to be exceptionsto any tough regulatory behaviour regime butsenior management really does have to lead byexample in such matters. Purchasing andprocurement are key areas where life-time cyclecosts and local sourcing of materials should befactored into consideration alongside direct costs.True Value for Money should be practised, notjust buying the cheapest to meet immediatebudget targets.Sustainable building design and operation isimportant. There is much good architecturalpractice in designing new environmentally soundbuildings and in use of less energy intensivematerials and construction methods. Suchbuildings may not be the cheapest to constructbut senior management should seek the bestperforming buildings over their lifetime ofoperations, not just adopt the initially cheapestsolution. All universities have existing buildingsand many of these were built to much lowerenvironmental standards, often in the 1960s. Amajor problem is how to change these buildingsinto energy and resource efficient operationswithin affordable cost limits, as well as makingthem fit for the needs of 21 st century research,learning and teaching. Universities with historicGrade 1 listed buildings face similar problems.The recent announcement by HEFCE (2008/03)of a ‘revolving green fund’ to help highereducation institutions to cut their ‘greenhousegas’ emissions will provide some help in this.Senior management has to take a long termstrategic view of the nature and form of theirestates for the future where the university willbe required to operate at a much lower‘carbon foot-print’.Such considerations can lead into challengingareas. How sustainable is it for millions ofstudents to travel around the world to gain orenhance their higher education? Should muchmore use be made of building local capacity incountries where it is needed rather than providingincentives for the brightest and best students tostudy abroad? Will new technologies liberate thelearning and teaching processes, making currentmodels of delivery of higher education redundantand unaffordable in sustainability terms? Areuniversity buildings used efficiently and to fullcapacity? These are not new debates and thereare no simple answers but it is the responsibilityof all universities and their professionalorganisations to think beyond the recruitmentand financial problems of the next three years.Many challenges face senior management in thisrapidly changing world, with much effort beingmade to resolve immediate challenges. In manyuniversities, individuals are engaging in research,curriculum development and operational deliverySustainable development: strategic considerations for senior managers41

that begin to address some of the questionsposed by the environmental sustainability andclimate change issues. Increasingly we seeuniversities declaring their sustainability intentionsin mission statements and promotional materials.Senior management must ensure that theseaspirations are delivered in practice by taking thelead and making unequivocal public statementsabout the relevant values of their institution. Theymust help their universities to think collectivelyand constructively about how they will adapt tothese challenges. They must harness theenthusiasm of their staff and lead by example todeliver bold sustainability statements. They will behelped by key agencies with which they engageencouraging and supporting moves towardsgreater sustainable development, whilstrespecting the critical line between institutionalautonomy and creating a climate for change.The signs are encouraging but there is a verylong road to travel.Geoffrey Copland,Formerly Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity of Westminster, retired 2007.Dr Geoffrey Copland, CBE was the foundingChair of World Cities Universities network thatamongst other issues is concerned with issuesof environmental sustainability in major worldcities. He is Chair of the HEFCE SteeringGroup on Sustainable Development in HigherEducation and also Chair of the UniversitiesUK Steering Group for Greening Spires.42The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Sustainable development: drivers for changeat the University of GloucestershirePatricia Broadfoot and Carolyn RobertsSustainability has suddenly become a fashionableconcept. Universities around the world, like manyother organisations, have been quick to jump onthe ‘green’ bandwagon. Some are motivated bythe scientific challenges this agenda poses, othersby moral concerns. Still other universities areidentifying the sustainability agenda as a new wayof distinguishing themselves in a crowdedmarket-place, pursuing the increasing number ofawards and league tables now being introducedto recognise excellence in this area. Sustainabilityhas indeed become a feature of the ’global’university. Sustainable development, the processof progress towards ‘sustainability’, is oftendefined in terms of an aspiration. The WorldCommission on Environment and Development(WCED), chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland(1987: 8-9), provided probably the mostcommonly quoted definition used by nationalgovernments when discussing sustainabledevelopment, asserting thatHumanity has the ability to make developmentsustainable – to ensure that: it meets the needsof the present without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their own needs.The Higher Education for Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE) Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy (2005) translates this general definitioninto four areas in which Higher EducationInstitutions can make a potentially distinctivecontribution through their:• Role as educators• Generation and transfer of knowledge• Leadership of, and influence upon, local,national and international networks• Business strategy and operationsHotly contested during its genesis by Vice-Chancellors who resented potential interferenceswith their academic freedoms, the ‘Strategy’ didnot have an easy passage into the public domain.Perhaps as a result, its emphasis is clearly oneconomics and the extension of UK universities’local and global influence, with Brundtland’sexpectations concerning ecology and global-levelsocial justice almost invisible in its wording,despite some development of the themes in thedocument itself. If this is a measure of the sector’sunderstanding of the term sustainability, thenthere is as little overall consensus about it as thereis in understanding what a ‘global’ universitymight be.Robinson (2004) has argued that this conceptualimprecision has provided university leaders withplenty of opportunity to include sustainabledevelopment alongside corporate socialresponsibility in their vision and missionstatements, without actually making significantchanges to their institutional practices. Since1990, over 300 university presidents andchancellors in some 40 countries have signed theTalloires Declaration for instance, the first officialstatement made by university managers of acommitment to sustainable development. Manyare (or were) leaders of major world universities,highly ranked in respect of their research andteaching by any criteria. Joining together as theAssociation of University Leaders for a SustainableFuture (ULSF, 2006) their ‘ten point action plan’incorporates sustainability and environmentalliteracy in teaching, research and outreach. Butagain, it is somewhat reticent about specificactivities and approaches that might be adoptedin particular settings, and there is only limitedevidence that it has delivered significantdevelopments in the knowledge, understandingand practice of sustainable development, atleast in its first seventeen years.HEFCE itself has recently identified similar issuesof definitions and variable levels of adoption in itsStrategic Review of Sustainable Development inHigher Education (January 2008) for Englishinstitutions. The definition of ‘sustainabledevelopment’ adopted by their consultantssuggested that it must embrace:…a significant element related to either or bothof the natural environment and naturalresources, PLUS a significant element related toeither or both of economic or social issues.HEFCE continued by noting that:Although this definition was widely accepted byHEIs, it emerged very early on in the review thatSustainable development: drivers for change at the University of Gloucestershire43

sustainable development lacks an adequate andconsistent definition in the sector. Moreover, it isclear that there is currently no single definitionof sustainable development which wouldcommand consensus across the sector, makingit difficult for HEFCE to adopt a genericapproach to sustainable development. However,it is clear that it will need to do this if it wishesto generate a definitive and comprehensivebaseline for sustainable development activityin HEIs.Even when all the internal and external conditionsare favourable, sustainability initiatives can befragile and transient. Recidivism in the face ofoverwhelming economic and consumeristpressure is often the easiest option, whenapproaches are uncoordinated, or theresponsibility is vested only in small groups ofstaff. New challenges, including those fromincreasing globalisation, are also needed tomaintain and refresh interest. Clugston andCalder (1999) have summarised seven keydimensions for university sustainability initiativesto be successful, including:1. The perception of the ‘champions’ ofsustainability initiatives by others in theirinstitution, as positive, credible andpersistent activists.2. Visible endorsement of sustainability principlesat the highest levels of management ofthe institution3. The balance of perceptions of benefits andthreats to individual Departments and coursesfrom the initiative4. The ‘fit’ with the institutional ethos, cultureand history5. The sharing of information about successesand failures, celebration of achievement,opportunity for dialogue, and recognitionof accountability6. The academic legitimacy of the initiative, andits grounding in sound theory7. The ability of the initiative to attract externalresources such as research grants andcontracts, student numbers and recognitionfrom key national and internationalstakeholders, or to reduce costs.University leaders, including Vice-Chancellorsand Presidents, self evidently have significantroles in addressing the majority of thesedimensions, in particular through their influenceon the ethos of the institution, through visiblyendorsing well-founded initiatives, in theirbacking of sustainability ‘champions’, and thecelebrating of institutional achievements in thisdomain. Most particularly, they have the power topersuade senior colleagues to move fromseeing sustainability as a ‘subversive litany’,to one of the most appropriate academicchallenges of the twenty-first century (Vareand Scott, 2007).Sustainability at the Universityof GloucestershireThe University of Gloucestershire’s experienceprovides clear testimony to the validity of thisanalysis. Clearly it is not alone in activelypursuing the sustainability agenda. However, it isperhaps unique in having been committed to thisarea as a defining feature of the University’swork for over 20 years. It is also unusual inhaving a university-wide commitment to thistheme, so that sustainability is central tocurriculum design and teaching, drives a gooddeal of research activity and informs the wholeadministration of the University. As well as manystudents and staff being passionately committedat a personal level, the University itself has manyactive links with stakeholder organisations withwhich it works in partnership to promote theunderstanding and practice of sustainability. If itis indeed the case that the University ofGloucestershire has made more progress thanmost in ‘mainstreaming’ sustainability, it is usefulto review the particular factors that have led tothis position and in particular, the lessons thatmight be learned for the sector concerning thepotential role of senior managers in this respect.In what follows, three main drivers are identifiedwhich both underpin, and derive from the overtstatement of the University’s position in thisrespect drawn from the 2005 version of itsmission statement:44The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

The University Mission is to create a dynamicand sustainable portfolio of learningopportunities for the communities it serves.Within this overarching mission, the Universitywill contribute fully to the economic, social andcultural life of Gloucestershire and its region,while fostering national and international links.It will also develop an approach to socialresponsibility which reflects its commitment tosustainability and social justice.Driver 1: going with the grain ofthe institutionAlthough the University of Gloucestershire wasonly established in 2001, its history stretchesback through its component institutions to the1840s and beyond. From several of theUniversity’s founding institutions has come atradition of religious inquiry which helped toinform the university’s commitment to socialjustice and social responsibility, as well as itsvalues of mutual support and public service.These values provide a significant element ofthe context in which its subsequent ethical andmoral commitments have developed. Theyhave framed the nature and focus of theuniversity’s leadership.Driver 2: commitment from the very topThe University has aspired to promote sustainabledevelopment for almost two decades. Roberts(2007) describes the rather halting emergence ofthis idea from around 1991, and the gradualshift from the early focus on short-term initiativesdeveloping ‘environmental awareness’ to a moresustained and systematic approach to‘sustainability’ as the defining concept. Over thewhole period, the role of the thenVice-Chancellor, and other senior managers inthe institution, was crucial in progressing thisdevelopment. Their leadership led to theUniversity of Gloucestershire in July 2005becoming the first UK University to be awardedISO14001, the internationally-recognisedEnvironmental Management System standard.This award reflects progress in both the wholeinstitutional ‘housekeeping’ arrangements, andthe formal taught curriculum delivered to allstudents. Other awards both preceded andfollowed. Since 2006 there has been a furthershift towards the incorporation of sustainabledevelopment into an institutional CorporateSocial Responsibility (CSR) Action Plan and thedevelopment of a wider perspective into whichsustainable development is yet more firmlyembedded in all aspects of the University’s liferanging from course validation criteria to thesourcing of food for University refectories.The arrival of a new Vice-Chancellor inSeptember 2006 provided a fresh opportunity toreinforce sustainability as the central plank of theUniversity’s new strategic development plan.Initially viewed as a high risk strategy by thesenior team, experience rapidly demonstratedthat the outcome was in fact the opposite, thedecision to ‘define’ the University’s identity interms of its commitment to sustainabilityattracting both external interest and beingwarmly welcomed by staff and students.Given this explicit commitment, it has beenimportant to ensure the University’s continuingcredibility in this respect and hence, strong andvisible senior management leadership forsustainability. Thus the University’s Director ofResources has been made responsible forrevising the University Sustainability Strategy, theimplementation of which is closely monitored.This has led, for example, to the introduction of aUniversity-wide, bicycle loan scheme to allowstudents to cycle between campuses and aroundtown. Other examples include the progressiveremoval of personal printers, the introduction of‘paperless’ meetings and a consistent steer forestate management. In regard to the curriculum,the approach through validation requirementshas been strengthened, and additional highprofile opportunities for academic debate anddevelopment cultivated, initiated not only by theVice-Chancellor and other senior staff, but bymore junior academic and support staffand students.Driver 3: inclusionFor change to be effective, everyone has to beinvolved. Whether it is the Vice-Chancellor’s‘green forum’ that gives any member of staff orstudent the opportunity to hear about andcontribute to the developing sustainabilitySustainable development: drivers for change at the University of Gloucestershire45

agenda; the opportunity for all students to studya sustainability module; or staff cooperation inthe writing of a book documenting a range ofdifferent sustainability initiatives in the University,the creation of a strong narrative in relation to‘the way we do things around here’, has provedcritically important. Communication, networkingand inclusion – led by members of the seniorteam, Deans and Heads of Department - havebeen central to establishing this culture. TheHEFCE-funded Centre for Excellence in Teachingand Learning (the Centre for Active Learning inGeography, Environment and Related Disciplines)has provided a physical and academic focus forsome of this activity, now complemented by thesenior team’s decision to establish a‘Sustainability Institute’ as a focus forsustainability leadership within the Universityas well as for links externallyReturning to HEFCE’s four sustainability areas –teaching, research and knowledge exchange,leadership of external networks and businessoperations, it is clear that the University ofGloucestershire’s senior management team havetaken a deliberate decision to support thesustainability dimension in all four of these areas.Working with local businesses on ‘going green’and promoting corporate social responsibility,building international partnerships with bodiessuch as UNESCO and the United NationsUniversity, providing a focus for research in thisfield and encouraging students to engagethrough a policy of active learning havecombined to establish sustainability at the veryheart of the University’s life. Indeed the challengeof defining what sustainability can mean inpractice is beginning to transform our very notionof what it is to be a university in the 21 st century.At the University of Gloucestershire, we arebeginning to challenge the more conventional,ivory-tower university tradition of thedispassionate pursuit of knowledge in favour ofa more active engagement in problems such assustainability, that seem, at present, to defyanswers. Such a ‘post-modern’ vision, groundedin the pursuit of wisdom, rather than knowledgealone, requires both vision and courage on thepart of the University leadership. Adopting such avision, which puts questions concerning howuniversities can play a role in shaping a morejust and sustainable society, will take theUniversity into unfamiliar territory. But, in anincreasingly global and unpredictable world fullof challenges and change, we believe that this isthe mission for a University in which tradition andhistory have combined to shape perhaps aunique opportunity to pursue such a vision.Including the whole University community in thisproject is proving transformational for us all.Carolyn RobertsProfessor of Environmental Sciences andHigher Education at the University ofGloucestershire, and Director of the Centrefor Active Learning, a national Centre forExcellence in Teaching and Learningrecognised by HEFCE.For eight years Head of the University’s‘School of Environment’, Professor CarolynRoberts FRGS FIEnvSc CEnv MCIWEM FHEAchaired the University of Gloucestershire’sSustainable Development Committee throughthe period leading to the securing ofISO14001. Carolyn is currently national Chairof the Institution of Environmental Sciences, theprofessional body for practicing environmentalscientists, and Director of the Society for theEnvironment.Patricia BroadfootVice-Chancellor of the Universityof Gloucestershire.Professor Patricia Broadfoot CBE. BA. MEDPhD DSc AcSS has contributed towardeducational reform in a range of developedand developing countries, learning in theprocess a great deal about educationalchange and educational leadership. She hasplayed several leading roles in the Economicand Social Research Council and on nationaleducation policy bodies.46The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

The role of universities in sustainable developmentShirley Pearce, Ed Brown and Jon WalkerUniversities are uniquely placed to play a leadingrole in the pursuit of Sustainable Development.Their mission of innovation and transferringknowledge through research, scholarship,teaching and learning makes them a powerfulforce for change. One of the continuingchallenges for HE Senior Management isto lead the academic community in itsengagement in this process and to facilitatethis wider impact.Changes in artistic and scientific thinking,in the social sciences and in philosophy, inpolitics and economics have for generationsbeen rooted in higher education.The growth of the international environmentalmovement since the 1960’s and the more recentevolution of the idea of sustainable developmenthave been no exception to this rule. Universitieshave played a major role in providing thescientific evidence, analytical rigour andinnovative thinking that have graduallybrought environmental issues into themainstream. Leaders across the world havebecome increasingly convinced of the importanceof tackling the major environmental andsocio-economic challenges facing the planet.Sustainable development touches upon everyarea of human activity. It requires integrated,holistic thinking necessitating communicationbetween specialists in totally different fields ofacademic enquiry and practical delivery. So,for example, the adoption of advances inenvironmental understanding and technology ishighly dependent on social and cultural issues;considering these issues as parallel allows helpfulcross verification as well as more rapidsubsequent deployment.This multi-disciplinarity and the unquestionablyglobal nature of the challenges that sustainabledevelopment must address, should makesustainable development a priority for Universitiesworldwide. It should also make mobilising theresources and strengths of Universities a keygoal for those championing the cause ofsustainable development.The role of universities extends well beyond theirbeing ‘leaders of change’. At their bestUniversities create enabling environments wherepeople are able to work across the barriers thatrestrict the emergence of important andchallenging new ideas. At Loughborough,although the University has a long record ofinter-disciplinary work, the recent establishmentof cross department and faculty inter-disciplinaryResearch Schools has demonstrated that it isnecessary to continually reduce barriers and toincrease opportunities for inter-action betweenstaff. One research school is Sustainability, andothers include Materials, Health and Life Sciencesand Systems Engineering.Boundaries can have all kinds of differentdimensions which may operate at local, nationalor global levels. As the Brundtland Report(WCED, 1987) pointed out twenty years ago,building dialogue and understanding betweenpeoples and nations will be crucial if we are tobalance correctly the needs of people today withprotecting the ability of future generations tomeet their needs (however they might bedefined). In today’s globalising world,furthermore, it is impossible for us to conceive ofa sustainable future without an adequateunderstanding of the complex connectionsbetween seemingly distant places within theglobal economy. Academic enquiry is not boundby national boundaries, and so Universitiesare especially well placed to consider the ‘bigpicture’ of the global when applied tosustainable development.Sustainable development is not only about theconservation of natural resources, though suchissues will remain a central concern. No trulysustainable future will be possible without realadvances in the global struggle against poverty.The achievement of developmental targets suchas the millennium development goals 1 will requireus to adapt existing models and patterns ofsocio-economic development to rapidly changingcircumstances and technologies. Universitiesshould be at the forefront of such creativethinking.1. This people-centred solution is almost exclusively directed towards low income countries in the developing world.The role of universities in sustainable development47

One example of this comes from thepeople-centred solutions to the provision ofbasic services and infrastructure developedby WEDC (Water Engineering DevelopmentCentre) at Loughborough University. Over recentyears, WEDC has pioneered an approach tourban service delivery which has stressed theneed to combine appropriate technologicaldevelopment and technical knowledge with anunderstanding of the social context within whichservices are delivered. Only through suchmethodologies, they argue, will we findsustainable solutions to the intractable problemsof, for example, the low-coverage and poorsustainability of water and sanitation servicesin low-income communities in manydeveloping countries.Commentators the world over have stressed thekey significance of education to the pursuit ofsustainable development and yet the nature ofour educational provision and dominant socialand cultural attitudes towards education canpresent barriers to the spread and take-up ofsustainable development thinking. These includestructures which artificially divide our educationalsectors from each other and frequently from thewider community. In the UK, for example, theeducational environment is all too frequentlyfragmented into separate, isolated, communitiesin higher education, further education, schools,youth services or the voluntary and businesssectors. Similarly, whilst slogans such as‘education, education, education’ may create theimpression of a society that is driven byknowledge and skills acquisition, the reality isthat in many ways the UK remains profoundlysuspicious of intellectuals, science and knowledgecreation. (See Furedi, 2006). It is crucial in thisscenario that opportunities are created andused for ‘informed conversations’ across thedemarcation and funding lines and that theabsolute centrality of education to theachievement of sustainability goals is recognisedand promoted.For this reason, the network of United NationsRegional Centres for Expertise in Education forSustainable Development (UNRCE) is especiallysignificant. The network aims to create aninnovative ‘Global Learning Space’ as part of theUN Decade of Education for SustainableDevelopment (DESD, 2005-2014). We aredelighted that the first such centre in the UK hasbeen established in the East Midlands with a verywide range of University and other partners. AnRCE is a network of formal and informaleducation organisations, mobilised to delivereducation for sustainable development (ESD) tolocal and regional communities. The highereducation working group of the East MidlandsUNRCE has brought together representativesfrom the ten higher education institutions of theregion to explore shared experiences andformulate collaborative project proposals. It hasalso initiated several cross-sectoral initiatives,including the inaugural conference of thecentre which was held in Loughborough inSeptember of this year, attracting 160participants from an impressive range ofeducational sectors.Communications must also be improved betweenthose in industry, government and academia –although we must acknowledge that much isbeing done to overcome this situation. Animportant new initiative in the UK has been theestablishment of the Energy TechnologiesInstitute, a billion pound partnership of industrialpartners and government, hosted by aconsortium of leading Midlands Universities andwith its HQ at Loughborough, to enable thedevelopment and commercial deployment oflow-carbon technologies. One area of particularimportance in developing sustainability will be thecreation of technologies for the distributed lowcarbon generation of power. These will beparticularly important in parts of developingcountries where the distribution of grids isunrealistically expensive.The achievement of sustainable developmentgoals will depend greatly on our ability toharness economic forces in their service. Forsome this may seem to be a controversial area,for whilst it is right that universities recognise thegreat role that the commercial world can play intaking forward the sustainability agenda, it is also48The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

ight that universities will ask challengingquestions when commercial and sustainabilityobjectives appear to clash.This kind of critical thinking is something thatUniversities can do extremely well and connectsdirectly into debates taking place within thebusiness world about the viability of ideas ofcorporate social responsibility and the widerimpacts of commercial organisations upon themyriad of communities who are affected by theiractivities as producers, consumers or perhapseven neighbours. There is a growing expectationthat all organisations, whether public, private or‘third-sector’, will act with integrity and to thehighest ethical standards and that they will notonly do so, but be able to demonstrate in robustways their compliance with public expectation.It is an imperative that the higher educationsector ‘puts its own house in order’ in termsof embedding the principles of sustainabledevelopment. Bringing about the changesneeded, both in the sector as a whole and inindividual institutions, will require input fromSenior Managers across the sector. Some aspectsof this input will fall broadly within the range ofthe existing capabilities and proficiencies ofsector managers. The rapidity of change inhigher education over recent years shows that themanagerial skills needed to bring about thenecessary radical change to both curriculum andresearch already exist. Once the will is there, andthis might be motivated by ethical/political belief,by market forces or by government incentive, thecapacity to bring about some of the necessarychanges already exists within our institutions.More challenging, however, will be those changesrequiring us to change not just the content of ourteaching and research but also the way weundertake our many activities. If Universities areto be recognised as major players in the pursuitof sustainable development we must alsodemonstrate that we are placing these issues atthe centre of how we ourselves operate asinstitutions. It is in this context that current effortsto deepen Universities own commitment to theprinciples of corporate social responsibility and torespond to the challenges of the HE carbonmanagement programme are very much tobe welcomed. To deliver this effectively willrequire new skills and capabilities in oursenior managers.Some might say that Universities have for manyyears relied on their educational purpose toshield them from direct enquiry and examination;a growing number of institutions now recognisethat this approach is no longer sufficient.Carrying out educational programmes of thehighest standard is no defence if our cleaners arelow-paid and exploited, if our campuses arewasteful and if our employment practices arediscriminatory. In the UK there have been earlystudies, for example ‘Universities that Count’(available from the Business in the Communitywebsite: www.bitc.org.uk/resources/publications/universities_count.html)evaluating the suitability of the well establishedBusiness in the Community CSR evaluation toolswhen applied to an HE setting. An element ofthat corporate responsibility will be the successfuloperation of sustainable campuses – substantialand dynamic communities where we are seen tobe leaders not just in innovation and research,but also in environmental good practice. Thechanges needed are not easily won, but areincreasingly expected by students and staff alike.A sustainable campus will need to address awide range of issues:• Energy consumption – and increasinglyproduction as well (from renewable sourcesand CHP projects)• Water utilisation• Waste and recycling• Green transport programmes• Bio-diversity and wildlife provision• The development of sustainable buildings.Universities are well placed to fulfil a ‘life-scaledemonstrator role’. In the UK the pace ofdevelopment on campus has been exceptionalfor the past 10 years and shows no sign ofslowing. As we have noted above, sustainabledevelopment is about both sustainability anddevelopment. By achieving both of theseThe role of universities in sustainable development49

simultaneously within their own campusenvironments, in a setting that allows rigorousacademic assessment and close engagement ofa learning community, Universities will helpshape future of thinking and practice aboutsustainable development.Concepts of sustainable development areleast useful when they are peripheral ormarginal. Only when they become part of themainstream do they begin to achieve thefundamental change required. The same is trueof Universities. Around the world are institutionswhose mission and modus operandi uniquelyequip them to be a driving force in enablingsociety to achieve both its development andsustainability goals. It is now time for bold andinnovative leaders in our Universities to respondto that challenge.Shirley Pearce,Vice-Chancellor and President,Loughborough UniversityProfessor Shirley Pearce CBE has been theVice-Chancellor at Loughborough Universitysince the beginning of 2006, having previouslybeen Pro Vice-Chancellor at the University ofEast Anglia. She is a Clinical Psychologist andhad worked in both academia and the HealthService. Since arriving at Loughborough Shirleyhas overseen the development of a newstrategy “Towards 2016” which includes asignificant focus on both Internationalisationand Sustainability. Loughborough Universityhas significant activities in SustainableDevelopment and most recently strengthenedthis portfolio when it was chosen as thelocation for the new Energy TechnologiesInstitute, a £1 Billion initiative in lowcarbon technologies.Ed Brown,Lecturer in Geography, Department ofGeography, Loughborough UniversityDr Ed Brown is Co-Chair of the HigherEducation Working Group and member of theManagement Committee of the United NationsEast Midlands Regional Centre for Expertise inEducation for Sustainable Development. Ed’sResearch projects include an European Unionand Foreign and Commonwealth Officefunded project on renewable energy in CentralAmerica and an exploration of financialservices for the poor in seven major LatinAmerican cities. Ed is a member of theGlobalisation and World Cities ResearchNetwork at Loughborough and is also heavilyinvolved in the University's SustainabilityResearch School. He is Programme Director ofLoughborough University Master’s programmesin Global Transformations andInternational Financial and Political Relations.Jon Walker,Director of External Affairs,Loughborough UniversityJon Walker has worked across a wide range ofactivities at Loughborough. His responsibilitieshave included fundraising, alumni relationsand public relations. His current role focuseson institution wide public affairs and majorproject bids.50The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

The university’s role in developing global citizens: a casestudy of the University of British ColumbiaJohn R. MalleaThe university, as the word suggests, is aninstitution that is deeply committed to developinguniversalistic values. Over the centuries it hasalso occupied a major leadership role in definingcivic society and citizenship. More recently, inresponding to the cumulative forces ofglobalisation, its senior leaders have focusedattention on the relevance, meaning anddevelopment of global civic societyand citizenship.There are five main reasons why this is the case:the urgent need to find solutions to the world’smost pressing human and environmentalproblems, recognition of the increasinginterdependence of nations, economies andcultures, widespread disenchantment with thelimitations of purely economic forms ofglobalisation, the growing internationaldimensions of civic society and citizenship, andthe university’s interest in graduating studentspossessing globally oriented knowledge,perspectives, values and skills. All five reasonsapply in Canada where the issue of citizenship ispart of the national debate on the rights andresponsibilities of citizens, their governments, andtheir institutions. 1The University of British Columbia (UBC)UBC’s 2 stated goals are to be ranked as one ofthe world’s best universities, to promote thevalues of a civil and sustainable society, toconduct research that not only serves the peopleof British Columbia and Canada but also theworld, and to prepare its students to becomeexceptional global citizens that value ‘…diversityand strive to secure a sustainable and equitablefuture for all.’ www.ubc.ca/about/mission.html 3How are UBC’s aspirations being translated intopractice? What form is the global citizenshipinitiative taking? What timelines and resourcesare involved? What challenges remain to beaddressed? And what role are senioradministrators playing in the process?Planning for planningIn translating the university’s goals into practicethe senior administration placed great emphasison the importance of advanced preparation andplanning characterised by transparency,consultation, sustained dialogue and theinteractive use of communication technologies.In 2003, the university leadership 4 sponsored aconference on global citizenship on its maincampus (UBC, 2003). It published a StrategicPlanning Discussion Paper in October of thesame year and followed up with a Green Papertitled ‘A Global Journey’ some months later. Thelatter was disseminated widely throughout thebroader university community with feedbackbeing solicited in a variety of innovative ways,including electronically. Taking this feedback intoaccount, a White Paper was published inSeptember, 2004.Sustained dialogue with student and alumnigroups was maintained via a ‘Global Citizenship’project (UBC, 2004a, b and c) in which students1. Canadian citizens are generally supportive of Canada’s traditional internationalist stance. Moreover, at the beginning of the 21st century,discussions of civic society and citizenship have taken on a more global flavour and character. Bricker and Greenspan (2001), for example, considerthat Canadians are well on their way to developing a Can-global identity; and Welsh (2004) expresses the view that young Canadians — the mostethnically diverse generation in Canadian history — have developed a global identification that increasingly expresses itself in terms of participationin global society.2. Founded in 1915, in Vancouver, UBC has four campuses, some 35,000 undergraduate, 8,000 graduate students and 4,000 faculty members. Inacademic year 2004/2005 it attracted $350 million (CDN) in external research funding. Over 4,000 international students from 120 countries areenrolled in its programs and its 212,000 alumni are to be found in 120 countries. The university has twelve faculties, thirty-two undergraduateprograms, twenty-nine masters programs, and a wide range of doctoral programs. Its annual revenue in 2004 amounted to $1.13 billion (Cdn), ithouses 115 spin-off companies and in 2003/2004 filed 268 new patents, licensed 380 technologies and earned $143 million (CDN.) in royalties(www.ubc.ca/).3. UBC is well aware that the meaning of the term global citizenship, while frequently employed, remains a subject of debate (Byers, 2007). But ithas perhaps unconsciously adopted the stance that, within the framework of its institutional plan (see below), meaning will be given to it in a varietyof ways by academic and administrative units and that such diversity is an enriching rather than a problematic endeavour.4. Professor Martha Piper, President and Vice-Chancellor of UBC from 1997 to 2006, provided outstanding intellectual leadership in asserting thekey role that Canadian universities and research should play in fostering civic society, citizenship, and the public good (Piper,2002). Under herdynamic leadership, UBC formally adopted global citizenship as a major institutional goal. Efforts to promote global awareness and citizenship wereto be based on and around the university’s already highly culturally diverse community; global leadership skills were to be developed utilisingcritical thinking and problem-based approaches; and institutional priority was to be given to trans-national and trans-cultural research.The university’s role in developing global citizens51

and alumni participated in twenty discussiongroups that addressed four key questions: Whatdoes global citizenship mean? What values andcompetencies are entailed in translating it intopractice? What kind of programs might bestcontribute to the development of these valuesand competencies? And what, in this regard,should the university be doing or doingdifferently? Responses to these questions wereanalysed by the central administration andcontributed to the development of theuniversity’s formally approved mission statementTrek 2010: A Global Journeywww.vision.ubc.ca/index.html One concretesuggestion that has been adopted is the highprofile Global Speakers Forum that has attractedconsiderable media attention both locally andnationally. More detailed information on studentinput and discussions can be found in theUniversity of British Columbia sources (2004 a,b,and c) cited in the Bibliography.Mission renewal and enhancementThe principles on which Trek 2010: A GlobalJourney was based were spelled out in five broadareas: People, Learning, Research, Community,and Internationalisation. Based on theseprinciples, relevant goals, strategies, targets,individual and unit responsibilities, operationaltimetables, and annual forms of assessment werealso identified.PeopleBelieving in the importance of an educatedcitizenry that contributes positively to thewell-being and improvement of all, UBC willreflect the values of a civil society in the selectionand recognition of faculty and staff, in therecruitment and retention of outstanding studentswho understand the value of civic engagement,in its relations with the Aboriginal communities ofour region, and in the facilities we provide thatwill make it possible for everyone to live, work,and study in the most supportive environmentpossible. This will entail equity in employmentpractices, a respect for social diversity, attentionto the conservation of resources, and ethicalpractices in the conduct of our professional andbusiness affairs.Goals and strategies:• Review our broad-based admission and studentfinancial aid policies to ensure that qualifiedstudents with a variety of backgrounds andexperiences have access to UBC.• Review student recruitment, admissions,and scholarship policies and processes toensure that UBC attracts and retains the bestundergraduate and graduate students fromacross British Columbia, Canada andthe world.• Work towards a more diverse faculty andstaff complement, to reflect the increasingdiversity in our student population.• Review criteria for promotion and tenureto include greater recognition for outstandingteaching, co-operative education initiatives,the creative application of new learningtechnologies, civic and professionalinvolvement, and community-basedscholarship.• Ensure that the principles of sustainabilityas expressed in the UBC SustainableDevelopment Policy are incorporated intoall levels of strategic planning anduniversity operations.LearningBy promoting excellence at every level, we shallhelp our students to become leaders in theirchosen fields, achieve their personal and careergoals, and contribute effectively to the well-beingof society. The key is to provide UBC studentswith the best possible educational experience,founded on the principles outlined in our visionand mission statements. Our students willdevelop an understanding of their responsibilitiesas members of a global society, including theneed to respect the natural environment and livein harmony with their fellow human beings.They will learn to push boundaries and take risksin search of new knowledge and unconventionalideas. They will acquire strong analytical andcommunication skills, and continue to developtheir ideas beyond graduation throughlife-long learning.52The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Goals and Strategies:• Through the Faculty-directed creation ofnew courses, the augmentation of existingcourses, modified promotion/graduationrequirements, and expanded co-curricularopportunities, ensure that all studentsdevelop a greater awareness of theirresponsibilities as global citizens and ofthe issues surrounding social, environmental,and economic sustainability.• Create new programs for both full-time andpart-time students that address life-longlearning needs of citizens in aknowledge-based society.• Support innovative teaching and createnew learning experiences through theapplication of leading-edge technology.ResearchIn the face of growing challenges such as globalwarming, poverty, human rights abuses, disease,and illiteracy, people everywhere have come torecognise the vital importance of securing asustainable and equitable future, and striving fora just and tolerant society. With these goalsbefore it, the University seeks to improve thecondition of life for all through basic researchand the discovery, dissemination and applicationof new knowledge. Through free and ethicalinquiry in all disciplines and professions, UBCresearchers will enlarge our understanding of theworld, address its problems and seek to enhancethe social and cultural aspects of humanexperience. At the same time, the Universityrecognises the value and importance of pureresearch in all areas: that is, research that maynot have any immediate application, yetultimately contributes to the body ofhuman knowledge.Goals and Strategies:• Increase awareness of international sources ofresearch funding.• Collaborate with local, national andinternational communities on problemsof global interest in such areas assustainability, health care, law,transportation, alternate energies,education, immigration, culture, and socialand economic development.• Encourage active involvement in internationalresearch networks.• Develop and support co-operative researchinitiatives with Aboriginal scholars andcommunities in Canada and aroundthe world.CommunityWhile committed to its role as a global university,UBC recognises its responsibilities to the citizensof British Columbia and Canada. We areaccountable to the society that supports us, andmust seek ways of responding to its needs andconcerns through research, through educationoutreach, and through partnerships that bringmutual benefit. We should also invite our alumnito participate more fully in our affairs, and tocontribute their expertise and experience tocareer development, fundraising, advocacy,and new educational opportunities forcurrent students.UBC will expand its community presence bydeveloping Community Service Learning coursesand programs; by devising more joint programswith other provincial post-secondary institutions;and by offering new learning opportunities tomeet the needs of communities and life-longlearners throughout British Columbia. UBC willalso develop more opportunities for localcommunities to make use of UBC facilities andcontribute actively to learning and research.Goals and Strategies:• Model UBC as a responsible, engaged,and sustainable community, dedicated tothe principles of inclusiveness and globalcitizenship.• Work with international alumni to createlinks with important groups or communitiesin other countries.InternationalisationIn a world where countries are increasinglyinterdependent, we share a commonresponsibility to protect and conserve naturalThe university’s role in developing global citizens53

esources, promote global health and well-being,and foster international co-operation. UBC isalready part of a growing network of learningthat encompasses the globe; we must strengthenestablished links and develop new ones throughenhanced student mobility and study abroadprograms, faculty and staff exchangeopportunities, and educational consortia.We shall encourage research projects that linkUBC faculty and students with their peers aroundthe world, including projects that address globalproblems in health, safety, economic opportunity,human rights, and environmental integrity.The University will seek to broaden globalawareness both on and off the campus throughinnovative programs and educational outreach ina variety of formats. We shall also attempt tomake the concept of global citizenship anintegral part of undergraduate learning throughits introduction into our core programs. We shallwork to increase understanding of Aboriginalcultures in other parts of the world, and bringscholars from many different cultures to UBC.Goals and Strategies• Strengthen Global Awareness Through DegreePrograms, Public Lectures, and Conferences.• Include ‘global content’ in programs,wherever possible and appropriate, to ensurestudents are presented with global issues,concerns, and solutions as part of theirdisciplinary or professional studies.• Develop new programs on global citizenship,civil society, and related issues, intended foraudiences both on and off campus.• Establish and nurture mutually beneficialpartnerships with international agencies andorganisations based in British Columbia, topromote learning and research opportunitiesfor students and faculty.• Ensure that students have access to a range ofcourses and experiences that provideinformation and ideas about all parts ofthe world.A few examples serve to illustrate the types ofinitiatives that put flesh on the bones of theaspirations expressed above. The university hasput in place an International Student OrientationProgram. It includes an intensive 3-dayconference-style program, a reception service oftwo weeks duration at the airport and oncampus, and a half-day program specificallydesigned for graduate students. A planningcommittee made up of students and faculty fromacross the campus organises the program. Largenumbers of Canadian students serve asvolunteers in the program that is seen as asignificant learning opportunity for UBC studentsand a launching pad for the realisation of UBC’sinternational goals. A second program, theInternational Peer Program, offers an opportunityto engage students in meaningful cross-culturalexperiences. It matches new internationalstudents with experienced Canadian andInternational students known as senior peers.They are guided by trained student leaders whoassume responsibility for between 5-8 pairsof students.The China Programs of the Faculty of Commerceand Business, for instance, have been a majorforce for the internationalisation of the campus.This faculty is partnered with both academic andgovernment institutions including Shanghai JiaoTong University and the Ministry of Foreign Tradeand Economic Development. Program activitiesinclude a distinguished visitors program and aUnited Nations/International Trade CentreInitiative with four Chinese foreign tradeinstitutes. An economic development course forthe Federation of Canadian Municipalities’China Open Cities program has been offeredalong with customised executive programsin Chinese for senior business and governmentofficials.Recent changes in the Faculty of Land and FoodSystems (formerly the Faculty of Agriculture) serveto illustrate how units are integrating globalcitizenship into their core activities. This Facultyhas adopted an integrated, interdisciplinary andglobal approach in its core functions of teaching,research and service functions which emphasisethe importance of problem-solving and group54The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

work in addressing issues of global health andsustainable land and food systems. It hasintroduced an award winning undergraduatedegree program called Global Resource Systemsthat integrates the sciences, regional studies, andlanguages. It has established partnerships thatreflect the importance it places on strengtheninglinkages between the Faculty’s global outreachand its local roots and its global outreach(www.landfood.ubc.ca) And, as an indicator of itsintent, it has made a half-time appointmentwhose specific task is to locate funding forglobally oriented research that has relevance forregional issues. Campus-wide efforts also arebeing made to integrate UBC’s internationalstudents within service learning opportunities inthe local community.St.John’s College at UBC is a residentialgraduate community that offers a ‘Microcosm ofthe Global Community Program’ aimed atfostering a better understanding of internationalrelations and research on global issues. Throughlectures, invited speakers, seminars, workshops,social activities and shared meals, the studentscreate an intellectually and culturally diverseenvironment. And UBC has recently entered intoan agreement with the Technological University ofMonterrey resulting in the establishment of aMexico House where students from this universityshare accommodation and integrated academicprograms with UBC students. A similar andearlier arrangement was agreed with RitsumeikanUniversity, Kyoto, Japan.Finally, at the formal launch of Trek 2010:A Global Journey in 2005, the university was atpains to emphasise that realising its goal ofpreparing global citizens was not an event but anongoing process. Three respected members offaculty, therefore, were asked to prepare andpresent their views on the continuing challengesthe university faced in achieving its declaredmission. Boothroyd (2005) drew attention to thedifferent ways the term ‘global citizenship’ isunderstood and the importance of the universityconducting business as a responsible globalcitizen. Fryer (2005) asked how UBC couldbecome a community of practice dedicated to theexploration and cultivation of the qualities ofglobal citizenship? And Robinson (2005)addressed the issue of how such a community ofpractice becomes sustainable.A general idea of how UBC is tracking theimplementation of its new institutional vision isoffered in ‘Without Borders’, the university’sannual report for 2005-06.A second marker is the university’s‘People Plan’ introduced in 2006(www.peopleplan.ubc.ca) Its goals are to developinstitutional leadership by implement best‘people practices’ and making connectionsbetween the day-to-day work of faculty membersand staff with the broader goals of Trek 2010: AGlobal Journey.Four major challenges, however, will have to beaddressed in the future if UBC is to successfullytranslate its goal of developing outstandingglobal citizens into sustainable practice.These are:• To specify in much greater detail what itunderstands by the term global citizenship.• To clarify what values, attitudes, perspectives,knowledge, competencies and skills a globalcitizen should ideally possess.• To construct a range of outcome indicators todemonstrate that these resultsare in fact being achieved.• To introduce an institution-wide incentiveand reward structure to profile andpromote global citizenship.ConclusionThe UBC experience suggests nine key issues inthe management of change process that senioradministrative leaders need to consider if theyare to successfully establish global citizenship asa major institutional goal and ensure that it isachieved:• There is a crucial need for an institution toact, and also be seen to be acting, as aresponsible global citizen in areas such aspurchasing and investments.• A university’s intellectual, moral andsocial mission in developing global citizenshipThe university’s role in developing global citizens55

needs to be translated into concrete andsustainable policy and practice.• The goal of global citizenship is embeddedwithin each of the university’s corefunctions: teaching, research, and service.• The significance of employing communication,consultative, and dissemination processes(both internally and externally) that aredemonstrably inclusive and transparent.• It is fundamentally important to establishan appropriate balance betweencentralised and decentralised initiatives.• There is a need to allocate sufficientand sustainable resources to support theimplementation of these initiatives.• Universities need to introduce annualassessment processes to determine whetheror not specified targets and timelines arein fact being met.• Emphasis must be placed on the creationof an incentive and reward structure thatencourages and recognises successfulperformance.• Senior university administrators mustrecognise that the preparation of globalcitizens is an ongoing process not anend state.John Mallea,Past President and Vice-Chancellor ofBrandon University, Manitoba, Canada.Professor John Mallea is widely published in thearea of cultural pluralism and education. FormerlyPresident of the Comparative and InternationalEducation Society of Canada and Chair of theBoard of the Canadian Bureau for InternationalEducation, he has also served on the Board of theWorld University Service of Canada. John is nowHead of JRM and Associates (InternationalConsultants) where his consultancies includechairing several OECD National Reviews ofEducation, work on the African Virtual Universityfor the World Bank, and membership in aninternational team responsible for evaluating thenew system of Technological Universities in Mexico.He has also chaired three Institutional Evaluationsof Internationalisation and offered workshops onInternationalisation for senior leadership teams ata number of universities in Canada and Mexico.His interest in the idea of the ‘global university’is longstanding and is reflected in his currentthree-year project ‘Going Global: Innovations andBest Practices in Canadian Universities’ based onsite visits to more than ninety universities. His emailaddress is malleaj@gmail.com56The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

How can Latin American universities benefitfrom internationalisation?Jocelyne Gacel and Ricardo ÁvilaA concise analysis of the state of highereducation in Latin AmericaBeyond the variables stemming from theirrespective national context, Latin Americanuniversities experience common characteristicsand problems. These stem from commonhistorical backgrounds and determine, to acertain extent, the current state and capacity ofLatin American universities to adapt and respondto the challenges of the 21st century.Tünnermann (1998) depicted the present LatinAmerican universities as a ‘heterogeneousnumber of institutions stemmed from a traditionalscheme inherited from Spain in 18th centurymixed with 20th century elements from Europeanand North American universities’.The first relevant and common characteristic liesin the academic model and organisationalstructure. Both refer to the 19th century, when theso-called ‘traditional’ or ‘professional’universities were established following theNapoleonic model, which was combined duringthe last decades with elements taken from NorthAmerican universities. In 1966, González(Tünnermann, 1998) maintained that LatinAmerican universities converged in more negativethan positive aspects, and described them asdogmatic and book- and memorisation-basedwhere no teaching of science or scientificresearch was taking place; lacking libraries andlaboratories, made up of professionalautonomous schools, in which a union spirit tookprecedence over a university one; with authoritieselected for short periods of time with a politicalrather than academic profile. Furthermore, thefaculty members were hired on a part-time basiswith tenure held for life. Students were part-time,participated in a decisive manner in theacademic and administrative governing bodiesand were looking for a diploma more thanknowledge. Today, little has changed. One couldtherefore argue that Latin American universitieshave entered the 21st century with problemsunsolved since the 19th century.But as the ‘knowledge society’ puts highereducation in the centre of the agenda to meet thethe challenges of the 21 st century, Latin Americancountries are striving to implement strategies toimprove the quality and competitiveness of theirhigher education systems. Against this a rapidgrowth (an annual average growth rate of 2.3%since 1985) in student enrollment can be noted,rising to the present participation rate of 33%,which is a great progress but still lags behind the56% of the OECD countries. Broader access tostudents with few resources has been possiblethanks to increased rates of participation inpublic education. This expansion has beenreached by different means, depending on thecountry. In Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, it isthe result of a growing privatisation of theuniversity sector. However, in Argentina, CostaRica, Ecuador, and Mexico, granting accessibilityto education for the less privileged groups in thepublic system has occurred. Despite suchincreases, dropout rates are very high: inArgentina 40% of the students leave the universityduring the first year and only one in fourgraduate; in Chile the rate is one in three, whilein Colombia and Mexico the rate is one in two(Marquis, 2003). Similarly, the postgraduate levelin general presents a limited offering and anaverage graduation rate of one in every twostudents. While the OECD countries have, onaverage, one doctoral program for every 5,000inhabitants, in Brazil the average is one inevery 70,000, in Chile one in every 140,000and in Colombia one in every 700,000(Holms – Nielsen, 2005:41).Notwithstanding a certain rise in funding by theGDP dedicated to education, the averagespending per student remains low. In Mexico$5,774 US dollars are allocated for every studentcompared with $11,254 US dollars in OECDcountries. The largest part of this money goes tosalaries and bureaucratic functions (OECD,2006) leaving few resources for innovation,internationalisation or research. Major problemspersist, such as student overpopulation,deteriorating facilities, scarcity of equipmentand laboratories, obsolete materials, deficientlearning, outdated curricula and lack ofcompetence in teachers. In Latin America as awhole, less than 26% of professors hold master’sdegrees (García Guadilla, 1998). But greatHow can Latin American universities benefit from internationalisation?57

progress is being made in this area, as anexample, in Brazil 33% of university professorsmust have a master’s or doctorate degree by law(Pereira, 2005), while in México thanks toPROMEP 1 in 2007, 27% of full time professorshave doctorate degree and 52% have masterdegree (PROMEP, 2007). But on the whole, still60% of professors in public universities are hiredas part-time and in the private sector thepercentage rises to 86% (Altbach, 2003).The majority of Latin American universities havenot yet adopted a pedagogical model to fosterstudents’ participation and ‘learning to learn’methodologies. Recently, new pedagogicalapproaches have been adopted to improveteaching, but the results are not yet significant.In the OECD PISA 2 test (2007b), Mexican studentsobtained the best results in works ofmemorisation and the worst ones in thosefocused on data analysis. Half of the studentscould not solve simple problems of readingcomprehension, mathematics and appliedscience. The relationship between academicdepartments is weak and lack trans- andmultidisciplinary focuses. On average, 50% ofuniversity students are enrolled in fields such aseconomics, business administration andhumanities (Levy, 2002), even though there is alack of job opportunities in the economy. Studentsare required to specialise at the beginning oftheir studies, thus generating rigidities in thecurricula. This goes against the internationaltendency towards more general andmodule-based undergraduate educationpermitting specialisation at the graduate level(Holms-Nielsen, 2005:48) though theimplementation of common courses of generaleducation during the first semesters, allowingmobility and flexibility is increasing.Despite increased emphasis, research still lagsbehind OECD member states. In 1999, theregion had 0.32% researchers for every 1,000inhabitants, compared with 5.51% in OECD(OECD, 2002a). Conditions to retain researchersare lacking and brain drain persists (Mullin,2000). To avoid brain drain, Latin America isnow promoting more attractive employmentpackages to recruit and retain talent. Throughhigher salaries and repatriation expenditures,Mexico operated a program from 1991 to 2000to attract over 2,000 researchers from 33countries back into the country (Wodon, 2003 inHolm-Nielsen, 2005). Only 5% of studentsbenefiting from overseas scholarships failed toreturn to Mexico after their foreign studies (Gacel,2005) and in Brazil, 80% of its graduate studentsare returning (Pereira, 2005). In recognition ofthis problem, the World Bank assigned $1.5billion in loans, over the last decade, to promoteresearch, science and technologies in Brazil,Chile, México, and Venezuela (Gacel, 2005:357).In university governing structures, there is amarked difference between the private and publicsectors. The private sector favours centralisedadministration and is business-orientated, leavingfew mechanisms for internal consulting andallowing little influence by academics overplanning and institutional management. In thepublic sector, leadership belongs to electedauthorities with a political profile, thus curbingprofessionalisation and institutionalisation inuniversity management. There is also very littleparticipation of stakeholders from industry orsociety in general so that universities are unableto benefit from the synergy of intersectorialcooperation (World Bank, 2002). Against thisbackdrop the business sector does not showmuch interest in investing in research. In the year2000, Latin American countries altogetherassigned barely 0.54% of their GDP in researchand development; while the OECD countriesinvested, on average, 2.24% (OECD, 2002a;Lundvall, 1992; De Ferranti et al, 2003).A positive change has been the mental shiftamong universities regarding funding. Publicuniversities are developing new ways of raisingrevenue. Contracting research, selling services,renting out facilities, providing counselling andtraining programs are some strategies thatinstitutions are implementing to generate newsources of funding. Such innovations haveencouraged entrepreneurship and broughtuniversities closer to the community and itsneeds, locally and abroad. To satisfy the581. PROMEP: Programa para el Mejoramiento del Profesorado, is a programme implemented by the Ministry of Education in order to supportprofessors for postgraduate studies in Mexico or abroad.2. OECD PISA: Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation Programme for International Student AssessmentThe Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

increased demand for tertiary education,non-university education institutions have beencreated. By the year 2005, there were 3,000technical schools, teacher training colleges andpostsecondary vocational training facilities, 60%of them being private (Holms-Nielsen, 2005:41).These new institutions also need to be supportedby global cooperation projects. The quality andrelevance of higher education in the region hasbecome a priority. Independent nationalaccreditation agencies and committees havebeen created to maintain academic standards.To measure quality Latin American institutions areusing quantitative performance, studentassessment, external peer review, and acquiredstudent competencies. Some countries are alsomeasuring performance against assigned funds(Holm-Nielsen, 2005). By following establishedstandards, educational programs will eventuallybecome certified, ensuring a certain level ofquality and international recognition. Though fewactions are being taken, all this adds up to therebeing an awareness of the need for seriousreflection on the state of the university and its rolewithin the national and global context, fewactions are being taken. In summary, resistanceto change is conditioned by historical and culturalfactors which impact upon Latin Americanuniversities’ adaptation to the demands ofcontemporary societies. Global tendencies areoften perceived as threats and not as windows ofopportunity that prevent the full potential of theliberalisation of economies and societies to bereaped (Malo, 2005). For all the above statedreasons, the Institute for ManagementDevelopment (IMD, 2002) declared that highereducation in Latin America does not meet thecurrent demands of a competitive economy orknowledge society.Advances and challenges in the process ofinternationalisationThe mid-1990s brought opportunities to LatinAmerica. As a result of more open economies,new technologies came into the region,facilitating productivity, innovation andknowledge, not only in industry but also ineducation institutions. This caused considerablegrowth in international academic activities.Universities embraced internationalisation as partof a strategy to improve the quality and relevanceof education, in order to enable graduates to bemore competitive in the global marketplace.The major universities, both public and private,established offices for carrying out internationalactivities. These offices promote student mobilityand scholarships for study abroad; foster theparticipation of academics and researchers ininternational networks; and are active membersin associations promoting academic internationalcollaboration. An increasing number ofinternational activities have been reportedamong universities. Generally speaking, publicuniversities tend to be involved in academiccollaboration projects, while the privateuniversities favour more student mobility.The preferred partners in both instances areEuropean institutions, followed by the UnitedStates and Canada.According to the OECD (2004) at 4%, LatinAmerica has the lowest rate of student mobility inthe world, compared with 45% in Asia, 11% inAfrica and 6% in North America. Student mobilityis hindered by such factors as the lack ofcurricular flexibility and credit transfermechanisms and low linguistic and culturalcompetency levels among staff and students.Part-time study and low family income also havean impact. However increase shown in this areain the last decade is encouraging, as students areshowing a growing interest in an internationalexperience, especially in Europe and NorthAmerica, but also in Asia and Oceania.Conversely, the region receives few internationalstudents. Most come from the US and Europe(Institute for International Education, 2003),though a growing number come from Asiancountries, mainly to study Spanish and LatinAmerican culture. Intraregional mobilityprograms are still scarce but slowly increasing,thanks to programs and networks such as theNetwork of Macro-universities of Latin Americansupported by the National Autonomous Universityof Mexico and Santander Bank.Teaching staff and researchers are mainly withoutinternational profile and experience. InHow can Latin American universities benefit from internationalisation?59

consequence, there are an increasing number ofLatin American scholars involved in internationalteaching and research activities. A recent study bythe European Union 3 reports that the productivityof Mexican and Brazilian researchers hasincreased thanks to collaboration with Europeanpartners, especially HEIs in France and Germany.Cooperation for development has diminished tomake way for new patterns of collaborationbetween Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile andCuba and such European partners as France,Germany, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.Intraregional projects often involve developmentcooperation between richest countries and thepoorest: for example Mexico with other CentralAmerican countries; Cuba with Bolivia,Colombia, Ecuador, and the Caribbean;Argentina and Chile with Bolivia, Ecuador andPeru. Both horizontal and vertical cooperationnetworks have become an important strategy forsupporting the internationalisation of curriculaand research. However, since such networks oftenrespond to opportunities offered by donatingorganisations, rather than proactively identifyeducational development needs, post-fundingsustainability tends to be reduced.The concepts ‘internationalisation of thecurriculum’ and ‘internationalisation at home’are practically unknown, and rarely is aninternational perspective integrated into studyplans or topics. Latin American undergraduateprogrammes, compared to those in Europe andAsia, do not have an international profile.Moreover, the transnational commerce ofeducational services has found fertile ground inLatin America due to the tardiness of universitiesto update their academic offerings. Foreignproviders have increased such a climate.Thoughdecreasing, the internationalisation process stillencounters resistance. Some perceiveglobalisation as a threat rather than anopportunity. Yet as De Wit (1995) notes,internationalisation can help mitigateglobalisation’s negative influences. If it is truethat internationalisation underpins thetransformation and modernisation of educationalsystems, its achievement requires certainconditions. According to studies conducted bythe OECD the effective implementation ofinternationalisation strategies largely depends onthe establishment and consolidation of structuresand functions that are both program-based 4 andorganisational 5 in nature. Both structures areessential and interdependent. The existence ofsuccessful programs without an organisationalstructure to support and facilitate them is notfeasible. It is the existence of both types ofstructure and function that ensure the viability ofinternationalisation strategies as has been shownby the experience of advanced institutions inCanada, in Europe and the Asian Pacific Rim(De Wit, ibid).ConclusionIn order to participate in the globalisation ofhigher education and to reap the full benefits ofinternationalisation, Latin America needs toimprove the quality and the competitiveness of itshigher education systems. Important progress hasbeen made. But many problems persist.Programs are often of low quality and relevance,talent is underused, and scarce resources areinefficiently managed. The region requiresprograms of study that are updated and linked tothe needs of national and global markets;academics with higher levels of awareness,education, linguistic and interculturalcompetences; increased postgraduate programquality; better work conditions for staffparticipating in international networks ofknowledge; accreditation systems to ensurequality; the intensive use of technologies forinformation and communication; managementmore professional structures; transparency in thehandling of resources. The internationalisation ofhigher education provides new opportunities forLatin America to improve all of these areas.Manyreforms are in process but the slow pace ofchange means that efforts must be doubled,3. Project called VALUE, supported by the European Union, with the objective to make recommendations for the conformation of a commonacademic space between Latin America and Europe.4. A program-based structure refers to international programs, which may include: mobility of students and academics, internationalisation of thecurriculum, subscribing to networks, etc.5. Organisational structure refers to management, regulations, institutional policy-making and processes of planning, budgeting and evaluation,among others.60The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

ecause other world regions are moving fast.Latin America must not only aim to improve itssystems of education but to close the gap withhigh-income nations (Holms-Nielsen, 2005:65).Sadly, the internationalisation of education hasnot yet achieved prominence on the politicalagenda. Unlike emergent regions in Asia, LatinAmerica has not yet been able to developadequate strategies for internationalisation.Educational decision-makers need to be awarethat comprehensive internationalisation policiesand strategies should be central to institutionaland academic development. The centre forInternational Research of the OECD arguesthat a comprehensive definition ofinternationalisation, which stresses internationalcooperation and mobility is essential.’Comprehensiveness’ means thatdecision-makers need to recognise thatinternationalisation strategies have the capacityto contribute toward the improvement of quality,relevance, and support for the changes requiredprovided such strategies encompass the: micro(class-room level and pedagogical methods),micro (curricular policy) and macro (design ofeducational policies), they will permeate alluniversity sectors (Van der Wende, 1994).It is recommended, therefore, that North-Southcollaboration be focused on training of advancedhuman capital through study abroad, ondeveloping joint undergraduate andpostgraduate programs (double-degreeprograms); and offering innovative and academicprograms, in order to avoid brain drain in thelong run. It is also necessary to promoteintraregional excellence in teaching and researchprograms to maintain sustainable development.Decision-makers and senior staff both at theinstitutional and sector level must be trained ineducation management in general, andespecially in the field of internationalisation.Latin America is definitely a region where theprinciples of the UNESCO (1998) WorldDeclaration on Higher Education apply.Cooperation based on solidarity would enableLatin American higher education systems tochange at a faster pace. However, it also needsto be commercial imperatives increasecompetition render cooperation less important.This should be an area of great attention for thedeveloped world in the near future.Jocelyne Gacel- Ávila,Director of the Office for internationalisationand International Cooperation, University ofGuadalajaraDr Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila has been Directorof the Office for Cooperation andinternationalisation at the University ofGuadalajara since 2001, she is also aprofessor and researcher and has publishedbooks, articles and reports on the theme ofinternationalisation in higher education.Jocelyne has coordinated research teams forthe World Bank, Ford Foundation, EuropeanCommission and was President of the MexicanAssociation for International Education,Vice-President of the Consortium forCollaboration in Higher Education in NorthAmerica, member of the IMHE GoverningBoard of the OCDE. Jocelyne is interested inthe internationalisation of higher education,particularly definitions of concepts, trends andperspectives; internationalisation strategiesat national and institutional level,internationalisation and cooperation trendsbetween Latin America and Europe.She is also a member of the NationalResearchers System of Mexico (SNI).Ricardo Ávila Palafox,Provost, Universidad de GuadalajaraDr Ricardo Ávila Palafox is a professor andresearcher, founder and Head of TheDepartment of Anthropology since 1987, haspublished numerous books and articles onthe theme of Mexican History, culture andsocial anthropology. In the field ofinternationalisation, Ricardo is interested in theprocesses of world history and comparativeculture. Ricardo is a member of the NationalResearchers System of Mexico (SNI).How can Latin American universities benefit from internationalisation?61

ReferencesAAU (launched 2007) Mobilising Regional Capacity Initiative. Accra, Ghana: Association of African Universities.www.aau.org/announce/programmes/index.htmAUCC (1997 - 2006) Towards a More Global Campus: Internationalisation Initiatives of Canadian Universities. Ottawa:Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. www.aucc.ca/publications/auccpubs/research/global_e.html(2002) Building Global Literacy: A report on a Workshop organised by AUCC. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Collegesof Canada.Altbach, P. (2003) The decline of the guru: The academia profession in developing and middle-income countries. New York andHampshire, England: Palgrave MacMillan.(2007) Tradition and Transition: The International Imperative in Higher Education. Boston: Centre for International HigherEducation, Boston College and Sense PublishersBoothroyd, P. (2005) Global Citizenship in www.trek2000.ubc.ca/TrekLaunch.html. Vancouver:University of British Columbia.Bourn, D., McKenzie, A. and Shiel C. (2006) The Global University: the role of the curriculum. London: DEA.BU (2006-2012) Corporate Plan: a statement of strategic intent. Bournemouth: Bournemouth University.(1999) A Global Vision for Bournemouth University.www.bournemouth.ac.uk/about/the_global_dimension/global_perspectives/global_perspectives.htmlBournemouth: Bournemouth University.BC (2004) Vision 2020: forecasting international student mobility, a UK perspective. London: British Council.Byers, M. (2007) Intent for a Nation. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (eds) (2005) Teaching International Students, Improving Learning for All. London: Routledge.Caruana, V. and Hanstock, J. (2005) Internationalising the Curriculum – at home or far away? Making connections through aholistic approach based on inclusivity. Paper delivered to the Education for Sustainable Development: Graduates as GlobalCitizens conference, Bournemouth University, 12-13 September.(2003) Internationalising the Curriculum: From Policy to Practice. Education in a Changing Environment conference,Salford University, 17-18 September 2003.Caruana, V. and Spurling, N. (2007) The Internationalisation of UK Higher Education: a review of selected material. York:Higher Education Academy available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/internationalChan, W. (2006) Internationalisation of UK HE: purposes, policies and predicaments Presentation at Higher Education Policyconference, Midlands Staff Development Partnership (MSDP), Leicester, 19 September.Chang, R., Wahr, F., De Pew, D., Gray, K., Jansz - Senn, A., and Radloff, A. (2004) Knowledge, wisdom and a holisticapproach: A case study of change management in Academic Development, available at:www.herdsa.org.au/conference2004/Contributions/RPapers/P019-jt.pdfCherry, A. (2007) Partnership not pledges, Education Guardian, November 13 th , p12. London: Education Guardian.Cuthbert, R. (2006) A Certain Kind of Leadership in Engage, The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education magazine8(Q4): 12-13Clugston, R. M. and Calder, W. (1999) Critical dimensions of sustainability in Higher Education, in Filho, W.L. (ed),Sustainability and University Life, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.De Ferranti, D. et al, (2003). Closing the Gap in Education and Technology. Washington, DC: World Bank Latin Americanand Caribbean Studies.DfES (2003) Sustainable development action plan for Education and Skills. www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/docs/SDactionplan.pdf(2004) Putting the World into World-Class Education. www.globalgateway.org/default.aspx?page=624De Wit, H. (ed.) (1995) Strategies for internationalisation of Higher Education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada,Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: EAIE.(2005) Higher Education in Latin America: the international dimension. Washington DC: The World Bank.Ellingboe, B. J. (1998) Divisional strategies to internationalise a campus portrait: Results, resistance and recommendationsfrom a case study at US universities. In Mestenhauser, J. A. and Ellingboe, B. J. (eds) (1998).Fazackerly, A. (2007) British Universities in China: the reality beyond the rhetoric, Agora Discussion Paper, 1-9, December.www.agora-education.org62The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Fielden, J. (2006) ‘Internationalisation and Leadership: What are the issues?’ Leadership Summit 2006: The LeadershipChallenges of Globalisation and Internationalisation. www.lfhe.ac.uk/international/summit2006/(2007) Global Horizons for UK Universities. London: Council for Industry and Higher Education.Furedi, F. (2006) Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?: Confronting 21st Century Philistinism (2 nd edn). London: ContinuumInternational Publishing Group.French, J. and Raven, B. (1959) The bases of social power in Cartwright, D. (ed) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: Institutefor Social Research, University of MichiganFryer, M. (2005). Civil Society in www.trek2000.ubc.ca/TrekLaunch.html Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Gacel Avila, J. (2003) Internacionalización de la educación Superior: Paradigma para la Ciudadanía Global. Guadalajara:Universidad de Guadalajara.(2005) internationalisation of Higher Education in Mexico in Higher Education in Latin America:The International Dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.García Guardilla, C. (1998) Situación y principales dinámicas de transformación de la educación superioren América Latina. Caracas: CRESALC/ UNESCO.Haigh, M. (2002) Internationalisation of the Curriculum: designing inclusive education for a small world in Journal ofGeography in Higher Education 26(1): pp. 49-66.HEFCE (2005/01) Sustainable development in higher education: consultation on a support strategy and action plan, Bristol:Higher Education Funding Council for England.(2005/28) Sustainable development in higher education. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.http://hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_28/(2008) HEFCE strategic review of sustainable development in England - report to HEFCE by the Policy Studies Institute, PAConsulting Group and the Centre for Research in Education and the Environment, University of Bath. Bristol: Higher EducationFunding Council for England. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd03%5F08/(2008/03) Policy Development Consultation Revolving Green Fund, Consultation January 2008. Bristol: Higher Education FundingCouncil for England. http:hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2008/08 03/Holm Nielsen, L. et al (2005). Regional and International Challenges to Higher Education in Latin America in HigherEducation in Latin America: The International Dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.IMD (2002). World Competitiveness Yearbook. 2001 / 02. Laussanne: Institute for Management Development.Jones, E. and Brown, S. (eds) (2007) Internationalising Higher Education. Oxon: Routledge.Jones, E. (2007) International reflections and culture change in Jones, E and Brown, S (eds) (2007).Jones, E. and Killick, D. (2007) Internationalisation of the Curriculum in Jones, E. and Brown, S. (eds) (2007).Kehm, B and de Wit, H. (eds) (2006) Internationalisation in higher education: European responses to theglobal perspective. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE) and European Higher Education Societylinking Research, Policy and Practice (EAIR).Kezar, A. and Eckel, P. D. (2002) The Effect of Institucional Cultura on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universalprincipals or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education Vol 73:4, pp. 435-460. Columbus, USA: OhioState University.Keeling, R. (2004) Locating ourselves in the ‘European Higher Education Area’: investigating the Bologna process in practice.Available at: www.epsnet.org/2004/pps/Keeling.pdfKnight, J. (2004). internationalisation Remodelled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales in Journal of Studies in InternationalEducation 8(1) pp. 5-31.Kotter, J. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: The Free Press.LMU (2003) Internationalisation Strategy. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan Universitywww.leedsmet.ac.uk/international/Internationalisation_Strategy.(1).doc(2007) Vision and Character Statement, Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University www.leedsmet.ac.uk/visionandcharacter.pdfLewis, Vicky and Luker, Paul (2004). The meaning of internationalisation for a modern vocational institution:a study of Bournemouth University, UK. Presentation at 1st UK International Education Conference Going Global: TheInternationalisation of Education’. Edinburgh, December 2004.63

References continuedLeadership Summit (2006) The Leadership and Development Challenges of Globalisation and Internationalisation (PostSummit Report) p5. www.lfhe.ac.ukLundvall, B-A, (ed) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London:Pinter Publishers.Lunn. J. (2006) Global Perspectives in higher education (Project report). London: Royal Geographical Society with Institute ofBritish Geographers.Marquis, C. (2003) Universities and Professors in Argentina. Buenos Aires: Comisión Nacional para el mejoramiento de laEducación Superior.Mercado, S. and Leopold, J. (2007) Assessing curriculum internationalisation: reflections on the experience of two UKbusiness schools. Presentation to University of Salford, Awayday for Associate Heads of School and Deans of Faculty(Teaching) 31. May.Middlehurst, R. (2006) A leadership challenge in Academy Exchange: Supporting the student Learning Experience:Internationalisation, Issue 5, winter. York: Higher Education Academy.Middlehurst, R. and Woodfield, S. (2007a) International Activity or Internationalisation Strategy? Insights from aninstitutional Pilot Study in the UK in Tertiary Education and Management, 13, 3, pp 263-279.(2007b) Responding to the Internationalisation Agenda: Implications for Institutional Strategy. York: Research Report, HigherEducation Academy.Middlehurst, R (2007) Internationalisation: a changing ball game EUA Case Studies 2007 in Managing the UniversityCommunity: Exploring Good Practice, p 27-32.Open Doors-IIE NETWORK. http://opendoors,iienetwork.org/?p=113121, 113274, 35933, 35942 (18/02/2008)OECD (2002a) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2002. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development.(2002b) Indicators on internationalisation and trade of postsecondary education. OECD/US. Forum on Trade in EducationalServices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2006) Datos de México de acuerdo a la OCDE. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2006. Paris: Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development.(2007a) OECD Factbook 2007: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development.(2007b) PISA 2006: Aptitudes para las ciencias para el mundo del mañana. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/54/39730555.pdfPIHE (2007) Practicas y tendencias para la internacionalización y la cooperación entre universidades de América Latina y UniónEuropea. España: Partnership for internationalisation of Higher Education Network.Pereira Laus, S. and Costa Morosini, M. (2005) internationalisation of Higher Education in Brazil in Higher Education in LatinAmerica: The International Dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.Piper, M (2002) Building a Civil Society: A New Role for the Human Sciences, Killam Annual Lecture.www.killamtrusta.ca/docs/killam_Lec_02.pdfPROMEP (2007) Estadísticas del Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado, Subsecretaría de Educación Superior, Secretaríade Educación Pública, México. http://promep.sep.gob.mx/estadisticas/slide12.htm (13/03/2008)Ramírez Sanchez, C. (2005) internationalisation of Higher Education in Chile in Higher Education in Latin America: TheInternational Dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.Ritchie, E. (2006) Internationalisation: where are we going and how do we know when we have got there? in AcademyExchange: Supporting the student Learning Experience: Internationalisation, Issue 5, winter. York: Higher Education AcademyRoberts, C. and Roberts, J. (2007) Greener by degrees? pp1-11 in Roberts, C and Roberts J. (eds) Greener by Degrees:Exploring sustainability through Higher Education curricula. Cheltenham: GDN.Roberts C. (2007) Learning, living and leading green? Curriculum policy for sustainability. pp316-327 in Roberts, C andRoberts J. (eds) 2007. Greener by Degrees: Exploring sustainability through Higher Education curricula. Cheltenham: GDN.Robinson, J. (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development in Ecological Economics,48, pp. 369-384.(2005) Sustainability in www.trek2000.ubc.ca/TrekLaunch.html. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Saul, J. R. (2005) The Collapse of Globalism. Toronto: Viking Canada.64The Global UniversityThe role of senior managers

Shiel C. (2007) ‘Developing and embedding global perspectives across the university’, in Marshal, S. (Ed) Strategic Leadershipof Change in Higher Education: what’s new? London and New York: Routledge,Shiel, C. and Mann, S. (2006) Becoming a Global Citizen in Bournemouth University Global in the Local Education (BUGLE),internal newspublication IO, (2007). Bournemouth: Bournemouth University.Slater, G. (2003) Preface in McKenzie, A. et al. Global Perspectives in Higher Education. London: DEA.Spicer, K. (1995) Canada: Values in Search of a Vision in Earle, R. L. and Worth, J. D. (eds)Search for Community. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Identities in North America: TheStace, D. and Dunphy, D. C. (2001). Beyond the boundaries: Leading and re-creating the successful enterprise, (2nd edn).Sydney: McGraw Hill.Taylor, J. (2004) Toward a Strategy for Internationalisation: Lessons and Practice from Four Universities, in Journal of Studies inInternational Education Vol 8 (2), pages 149-171. Association for Studies in International Education.Tilbury, D. and Wortman, D. (Eds) (2004) Engaging people in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication,Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)Times Higher (2007), ‘Expert warns ‘naïve’ British’ in The Times Higher, December 7, p4. London: Times HigherTünnerman, C. (1998) “La declaración mundial sobre la educación superior en el siglo XXI”. En Universidades, 16(julio/diciembre). México, D.F.: UDUAL.UNESCO (1998) World Declaration on Higher Education, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htmUEL (undated) www.uel.ac.uk/continuum/projects/index.htm#EAP. London: University of East London.UBC (2003) Trek 2010: A Global Journey, Green Paper. Vancouver: University of British Columbiawww.trek2000.ubc.ca/index.html(2004a) Exploring Global Citizenship at UBC in Plan 5480, SCARP. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.(2004b). Global Citizenship Project (GLP) at UBC. Vancouver: Office of the Vice-President, Students, University of BritishColumbia.(2004c). Looking into the Future: Views of UBC Students and Alumni on Global Citizenship. Office of the Vice-President, Students.Vancouver: University of British Columbia.University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (2006) The Talloires Declaration, [online].www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.htmlUS (2007) International Strategy 2007-2011. Salford: University of Salford.(2004) The Strategic Framework 2003-2004. Salford: University of Salford.UUK (2008) Greening Spires. London: Universities UK, January.Van der Wende, M. (1994) Internationalisation as a process of educational change in Pilot Project on Regional Co-operationin Reforming Higher Education, Seminar II: Mobility in Higher Education (OECD/GC(94)112), pp. 37-49. Paris: EuropeanCommission /OECD(1997) Missing links: the relationship between National policies for Internationalisation and those for Higher Education inGeneral in National policies for the Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe, (eds) Kälvermark, T. and Van der Wende,M. Stokholm: Högskolverket Studies, National Agency for Higher Education.Vare, P. and Scott, W. (2007) Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainabledevelopment. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 1:2 p191-198. London: Sage Publications.Webb, G. (2005) Internationalisation of curriculum: an institutional approach in Carroll, J and Ryan, J (2005).Wellings, P. (2007) Internationalising Higher Education. London, 4 October 2007Welsh, J. (2004) At Home in the World: Canada’s Global Vision for the 21 st Century. Toronto: Harper CollinsWorld Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, London: Earthscan.Wodon, Q. (ed). (2003). International migration in Latin America: Brain Drain, remittances and Development. Washington, DC:World Bank.WB, (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for tertiary education. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The Global University: The role of senior managers is a companion publication toThe Global University: the role of the curriculum (DEA, 2006). Supported by HEFCE Leadership,Governance and Management Funding, The Global University: the role of seniormanagers is written by higher education institution senior managers, for HEI senior managers.Contributors address the role of senior managers in relation to internationalisation, globalisation,and sustainable development and share how these often overlapping challenges can beaddressed. Consideration has been given to a range of potentially competing demands includingthe relationship between what Paul Luker describes as the ‘core mission and values of HE’ andwhat Caruana and Hanstock describe as ‘marketisation discourse’.Many of the contributors are regarded as critical champions of internationalisation in the UKas well as thoughtful strategists in the process of affecting sustainable university-wide change.To provide further food for thought, in addition to the UK contributions, a case study onuniversity-wide approaches to the development of global citizens at the University of BritishColumbia and a perspective on the barriers affecting the process of internationalisation inLatin American Universities have also been included.Contributors address key concepts from a variety of perspectives and what will quickly becomeapparent is that the terms are not always translated in quite the same way (a way of seeing isalso a way of not seeing) but in spite of this, collectively, considerable insight for moving theagenda forward is provided.At the very least, the publication will serve to inspire debate on what should constitute the vision,mission and values of a global university, within the context of global society. Given the globalfootprint of universities and the ability of our graduates to influence change in global society, thepublication maintains that universities cannot ignore their corporate and social responsibilities:senior managers have a critical role to play as leaders of this agenda and of change that resultsin positive benefits for a wider stakeholder group.Further copies of the publication can be obtained/downloaded from:www.dea.org.uk/publicationsDEACan Mezzanine32 – 36 Loman StreetLondon SE1 0EHwww.dea.org.ukApril 2008ISBN-978-1-900109-31-4© BU, DEA 2008