utr. final report

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES

13th GENERAL CONFERENCE UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS

15-18 JULY 2008

Higher Education and Research Addressing Local and Global Needs

W ith a backdrop of Europe emerging from a devastating conflict, the university leaders who

met 60 years ago in the historic Hall of Utrecht University knew they had the potential to shape the future.

Driven by the wish of the newly created UNESCO to elaborate a forum through which the combined knowledge and wisdom of the world’s universities could be channelled, their task was to lay the foundations for the creation of the International Association of Universities.

It was not an easy task, as Leen Dorsman and Annemarieke Blankesteijn have painstakingly described.* There were complex differences of outlook and of opinion; there was scepticism about the initiative. But IAU’s inaugural conference took place in Nice, France, two years later.

Six decades later, the world at large may be unrecognisable. But all those who were in Utrecht in August 1948 – with one or two obvious exceptions – would have felt familiar with many of the issues under discussion at the 13th IAU General Conference in 2008.

As the higher education leaders gathered in the transept of Utrecht’s Gothic Dom Church for the opening ceremony, Hans van Ginkel, former Rector of both the United Nations University and Utrecht University and former President of the International Association of Universities reflected that the pioneers had envisaged a

common future in which they helped each other to improve their performance, to serve societies better and to improve the quality of life of the world’s people to ensure a sustainable future.

He called on participants in the Conference to address the many issues universities – and the societies that created and support them – face in an open-minded way.

“In our globalised world we will have to prepare for increased mobility and competition, but also for cultural diversity locally and globally, for a strengthening of

I A U 1 3 T H G E N E R A L C O N F E R E N C E2

Contents

2-3 IAU at 60

4-5 Opening dialogue

6-7 Higher education – serving and shaping society

8-9 Higher education and innovation

10 Public and private – can they work together?

11 Regional Centres of Expertise

12-13 Institutional reform

14-15 International mobility

16-17 IAU speaks out for access and success

18 Action plan 2008-2012

19-21 League tables and rankings

22 IAU Board 2008-2012

23 IAU President elected Goolam Mohamedbhai, former

President, International Association of Universities.

Wieke Eefting

“The goals of the IAU are still as they were formulated in 1948”

Out-going IAU President Goolam Mohamedbhai

“Taking into consideration the mission of IAU, I think we must be very glad that increasing numbers of students all over the world and from all layers of our society find their way to universities and higher education institutes. The more students we can teach these goals and principles, the better it will be, not only for them, but for our society as a whole.”

Ending the Inaugural Ceremony, IAU Secretary-General Eva Egron-Polak called on participants to play an active part in the General Conference and underlined the fact that they represented higher education institutions from the largest number of countries ever gathered by the Association. She urged participants to acknowledge the past achievements but, more importantly, to plan the future of higher education and of the Association as well.

In the Welcome Session, the following morning, Professor Mohamedbhai returned to the theme, reminding delegates that the issues at the heart of IAU at its foundation 60 years ago – human and academic freedom, responsibility and responsiveness, respect for diversity, the opposition to all forms of discrimination, and promotion of access – remained essential to IAU now, and in the future.

He was followed by Ronald Plasterk, the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science, who – in a video presentation to delegates – said universities were searching for the balance between ivory tower status and a closer involvement with society and the training of future generations.

*Leen Dorsman and Annemarieke Blankesteijn, “Work with Universities: The 1948 Utrecht conference and the birth of IAU”, Uitgeverij Matrijs, Utrecht 2008

I A U 1 3 T H G E N E R A L C O N F E R E N C E 3

research, the innovative capacity of universities and role for the humanities in higher education, for the many opportunities that come with complementarities, which can be realised through co-operation, which come with creating an information society, which is really ‘open to all’, with open standards, open software, and open courseware.”

UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Education, Nicholas Burnett, took stock of IAU’s role as a global platform for universities and other higher education institutions to meet and debate on their missions and functions, reflect on changes that influence their development, strengthen co-operation and share good practice.

“In its 60 years of existence, IAU has witnessed the significant changes that are shaping higher education as well as the increasing pressure placed on higher education systems and institutions to change so that they meet national development objectives and individual aspirations,” he said. “This pressure has probably never been as great as it is today.

“I am particularly pleased that 60 years after its creation at the initiative of UNESCO, the IAU continues to be one of our main partners in higher education.”

Out-going IAU President Goolam Mohamedbhai, who completed his four-year term of office at the end of the General Conference, told the Inaugural Ceremony participants that the themes discussed in 1948 were as relevant today as they were then.

“Issues which came up for discussion at the conference, and which are equally pertinent today, were the comparative neglect of humanities in favour of the natural sciences, the role of universities in the development of nations, rising student numbers, the importance

of adult education and the need to make full use of the modern communication media, which in those days were mainly radio and film.”

Hans Stoof, Rector of Utrecht University, told the opening ceremony: “The goals of IAU are still as they were formulated in 1948.

“IAU will and has to continue its tradition of promoting the ideal of universities and other higher education institutes as guardians of intellectual life and intellectual freedom. In addition universities should be conscious of their responsibilities and obligations to our society.


Opening dialogue

“Our task is not only to educate our students but to make sure they

have a sense of responsibility for their future role in our global

society”

The opening session of the 13th General Conference of the IAU – organised as a moderated debate – gave

an opportunity to compare and contrast perceptions on the role of higher education shared by international agencies including the World Bank, UNESCO and OECD, and by leaders of higher education institutions.

The widely held view that higher education was neglected by the Bretton Woods institutions was outdated, Jamil Salmi, Co-ordinator of the Network of Tertiary Education Professionals at the World Bank, assured delegates.

“The World Bank has been supporting higher education for 20 years and more. There has been a disconnect between some of our communications and the views expressed by former colleagues, and what has happened on the ground.”

Instructively, a turning point in the perception had been the publication in 2000 of Peril and Promise, the report by the joint World Bank-UNESCO Task Force on Higher Education and Society.

At its launch, the then president of the Bank, John Wolfensohn, expressly said that the report’s call for an emphasis on all sectors of education reflected existing policy, and added that the perception that the Bank shunned higher education was mistaken.

So the frequently heard view that the Bank in particular still favours basic education at the expense of higher education remains a concern for Bank leaders.

For example, Akilagpa Sawyerr,

“The Bank provides support for governments in Latin America but not in the same way for the institutions. We would like more direct contact.”

Professor Sonni Gwanle Tyoden, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Jos in Nigeria, called on the World Bank to be more sensitive to “local peculiarities” when considering research.

Nicholas Burnett, Assistant Director-General for Education at UNESCO, accepted that with Education for All high on its agenda, “UNESCO does have a focus on basic education – this is not something we are ashamed of.

“How can we not have when 10% of the world’s primary school-aged children do not go to school, or when one in five adults still cannot read or write...?

“There is nothing to be ashamed of – we are very proud this is our priority.”

He conceded that in the past it had appeared that UNESCO’s focus on higher education’s role in EFA had been limited to training teachers.

“This is important but perhaps more important is the strategic role of higher education and higher education institutions.”

He told the conference: “Universities and other higher education institutions need to be more inclusive.

“There are many efforts under way to include students from poorer backgrounds, but, realistically, these are not all that successful.

“The majority of students come from better-off families. More

(left) out-going Secretary-General of the Association of African Universities, IAU Board member, described the effects of a “period of neglect of higher education in Africa”.

And Juan Alejandro Tobias, Rector of the University of Salvador in Argentina, said: “In Latin America higher education is important and growing. But it lacks the necessary support from the World Bank and similar organisations to improve the breadth of our research and capacity.

Yvonne van Rooy (above) President of Utrecht University

Wieke Eefting

Akilagpa Sawyerr

Secretary-General of the Association

of African Universities, IAU Board Member.


effort has to be made with regard to exclusion. ” It was Tricia Jenkins, Head of Educational Opportunities at the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom, one of the Conference participants, who pointed out that although increased numbers of young people were attending university, the social mix was largely unchanged.

Yvonne van Rooy, President, Utrecht University, turned to another international institution. She told the conference that as a well-developed university in a developed country, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had been of major importance in taking her university to where it now was.

“My wish for the future is that OECD keeps up its high quality education department. OECD is well-known as an organisation giving quality advice on economic policies, but from the beginning education has been a vital element of policy. We have benefited enormously from the high-quality link with OECD.

“Our task is not only to educate our students but to make sure they have a sense of responsibility for their future role in our global society. This is the major role we have to fulfil in the years to come.”

Aart de Geus, Deputy Secretary-General, OECD, was explicit: “The economics of the world rely more and more on human capital. Education is the key investment.

“We expect universities and institutions of higher education to provide equal access but differentiated outcomes.”

Georges Haddad, Director of the Division of Higher Education at UNESCO, said that in time it was possible to imagine the World Bank, OECD and other organisations working together, just as universities were becoming more individualistic.

Wieke Eefting

“The World Bank has been supporting higher education for 20 years and more”

Jamil Salmi (above) co-ordinator, Network of tertiary education professionals, World Bank


Plenary Session I: Higher Education – serving and shaping society

I f universities are unable to respond to the crucial issues facing the world, it is difficult to imagine who would, Professor

Brenda Gourley, Vice-Chancellor of the Open University and an IAU Board Member, told the first Plenary Session on Higher Education’s role in serving and shaping society.

“Indeed if universities cannot respond it is difficult to understand how they could be defended. We would, in my view, be in dereliction of our main purpose – and in conflict with our main claim to universality,” Professor Gourley said.

While the world enjoys unprecedented prosperity, health, “dazzling” technology and levels of education, never before have so many people lived in such poverty, died from preventable diseases, more needed education and lived in such a threatened planet.

“It is education that fuels sustainable development, education that is fundamental to enlightened citizenship, to the peace and harmony – and even continued life – of this planet we inhabit.”

She told the conference: “It is a

time for leadership, and particularly a time for university leadership.

“The issues that have to be addressed are complex, they go beyond national and regional preoccupations, they have long time horizons and call for actions and mobilisation across the world.”

She drew on her own experience in South Africa under apartheid to illustrate how universities could produce qualified graduates who lacked the understanding and awareness needed to challenge an unfair society.

The universities omitted to comment on the fact that graduates were exclusively white and almost exclusively male.

She argued that traditional ways of teaching and learning would not change the “deficit” sufficiently. Alternatives might include ‘service learning’ – a movement which seeks to engage students in real work in the communities both local and further afield in an attempt to not only locate learning but also to emphasise the importance of students becoming involved in making the world a better place.

One university-based initiative, the Talloires Network, is seeking to harness student power to address illiteracy.

“With millions of students between us, we can truly make a difference and contribute to achieving one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. It is also an opportunity for universities, as institutions, to reach hard-to-reach potential students as we seek to widen participation in higher education.

“This generation will collectively determine whether our planet survives, or not. As educators we have a critical role in fostering, supporting, encouraging and, above all, equipping our students with the values and skill-set necessary to drive forward such initiatives. Have

“This generation will collectively determine whether our planet survives, or not” Brenda Gourley (above) Vice-Chancellor, The Open University


the stakes ever been higher?”In the same session, Monte

Cassim, President of the Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Japan, warned: “One of the greatest dangers for any university is to become utilitarian.”

He expressed disappointment at colleagues who were “trying to make corporate entities out of [their] universities”.

He suggested universities were

facing simultaneously an era of global competition and “unparalleled” opportunities for co-operation.

“I am convinced we can achieve win-win situations if we go forward to the high ground of co-operation.”

In a parallel workshop on Teaching and Learning for Cultural Diversity, Cristina Escrigas of the Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) suggested that

the main value of higher education should be to serve the common good even though what was understood by “good” and by “common” was difficult to define.

Universities should rethink the social value of higher education with a shift from a system that emphasises the individual and competitiveness to one that emphasises the social and collectiveness.

“We can achieve win-win situations if we go forward to the high ground of co-operation”

Monte Cassim President, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

“To paraphrase Darwin - - it is not the strongest who survive but those best able to adapt”

Wayne Johnson Vice-President, University relations worldwide, Hewlett-Packard

A chilling presentation in a Parallel Workshop on sustainable development by Hans van Ginkel, former Rector, United Nations University and Utrecht University, Former President of IAU, amply demonstrated the urgent need for universities to monitor human activity to ensure that development was sustainable. Universities can act both as a watchdog – ensuring that decision-makers have all relevant information before committing to a course of action that may have unforeseen consequences – and as a driving force, he said.

The relationship between universities and the world of industry and commerce has never been easy.

But it has never been as complex as it is now. Many universities have recognised the commercial value of knowledge and the need to protect their intellectual property while at the same time acting as commercial entities in the provision of some services.

In turn, the “real” world has recognised universities’ role in research and as providers of essential services and skilled employees.

As the boundaries have become blurred, the only certainty is that neither one can ignore – nor survive without – the other.

The common ground is in the area of innovation. One of the most highly-charged sessions of the thematic programme of the General Conference explored universities’ role in this area.

Three speakers presented the philosophical model and graphic case studies. But, as some participants pointed out, while there was much about the good, there was nothing about the bad and little about the unknown that the session’s description promised.

A roadmap for universities and industry to move beyond the current confines on the way they approach

innovation was delivered by Wayne Johnson, Vice- President for university relations worldwide of the computer giant Hewlett-Packard.

Speaking first, he characterised the present state of university-industry relations in the area of innovation as Innovation 2.0. In this phase, industry, universities, and government make investments, create partnerships, build infrastructure, and add capability in a fragmented way. Programmes are narrowly focused and optimised around what they can get out of the system, and serve local interests and stakeholders.

“Attempts at collaboration are increasingly mired in complex issues including intellectual property, legislative hurdles, institutional silos, etc.”

His vision for Innovation 3.0 involves industry, universities and governments working together to identify and amplify key patterns; steer investments; manage the complexity and solve the problems and issues that emerge.

Citing Thomas L.Friedman’s 2005 description of the reduced relevance of historical, regional and geographical divisions, he said: “We need to adapt to the Flat World.”

“Industry and universities must work together to be relevant, innovate in meaningful ways and positively impact on society.


Plenary Session II

Wieke Eefting

“To paraphrase Darwin – it is not the strongest who survive but those best able to adapt.”

Delegates heard details of two innovative universities, one in China and one in Israel.

Zhejiang University was described by Jun Zhu, the university’s Vice President for International Affairs, as an example of an innovative new university. A joint construction scheme with the Hangzhou Municipal Government, it opened in its present form in 1998 and is already building a reputation for itself with the second-highest research income of any Chinese university and an impressive record for publications.

Bill Gates reportedly said that “Israel is like a bit of Silicon Valley”. If so, the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, has an illustrious record as a key player in the country’s technology industry. Some 80% of Israeli NASDAQ-listed companies have Technion graduates as founders, Chief Executive Officers,

or Chief Technical Officers, President of Technion Yitzak Apeloig told the session.

But the presentations prompted a number of critical interventions – principally that little of the bad or the unknown referenced in the title of the session had been heard.

And, in a Workshop on the future of research, Pier Ugo Calzolari, Rector of the University of Bologna, warned that universities were faced with a strategic challenge: to avoid switching university-type research for industry-type research.

“To protect the strategic resource of creativity, our society, already so largely controlled by the instrumental thought, must maintain its intellectual autonomy, its freedom of research, its awareness of the problematic nature of knowledge and the primacy of ethical over utilitarian reasoning: those things which are, as a whole, the true raison d’être of the university.

“We have to watch over our

universities to avoid the risk that an excessive orientation towards business gradually deprives them of their long-term research projects, which would simply mean of the source of their identity and of the unique equipment necessary to recharge their cultural batteries and to conceive the prospective education we have spoken about.”

Universities’ potential to act as drivers of regional development was demonstrated in OECD research across 14 regions in 12 countries presented in a Parallel Workshop by Jaana Puukka, Analyst with the OECD’s Programme in Institutional Management in Higher Education and Francisco Marmolejo, Executive director of the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC).

The research found that regional engagement of universities was often based on short-term project funding and generic growth, and lacked systematic processes and structures.


Yitzak Apeloig President of Technion

Wieke Eefting

Public and private – can they worktogether?

One area of reform discussed in a Parallel Workshop focused on public/private

partnerships in higher education. In one example from South

Africa, Piyushi Kotecha, Chief executive of Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA), described how collaborative arrangements sprang up between public and private providers in the distance education arena between 1994 and 2002.

These effectively pre-empted national quality assurance and higher education restructuring plans.

“South Africa followed international trends around private higher education growth and inter-institutional public-private partnerships – but unintended consequences followed in the absence of a proper policy interface with, for example, a perpetuation of institutional historical advantage via market initiative, geographically skewed access to higher education, and uneven quality.

“The South African government set curbs on these public-private partnerships in 2002 via re-accreditation requirements and funding determinations – a linkage to national imperatives is a key condition for successful inter-institutional and other public-private partnerships,” she said.

“Public-private partnerships have a high potential for higher education and regional development in the Southern African Development Community region – provided they occur in a co-ordinated way in line with regional priorities.”

Svava Bjarnason, Senior Education Specialist with the

International Finance Corporation(IFC) in Washington D.C. put the case for public-private partnerships at the same session.

“Parallel systems (exclusively public or private) do not make best use of scarce resources in any country, she told the same workshop.

“The Millennium Development Goals and economic targets will not be achieved by the public sector working alone and new project structures for the private provision of public services, including PPPs,

can benefit all parties.“These projects can efficiently

increase public access to basic services such as health and education and improve quality of these services.”

She acknowledged there were concerns from both sides but suggested these could be met by a sound regulatory framework from the outset, clear objectives for the relationship, sound economic and financial structures, transparent processes, and quality and service standards for measurement.


Cooperation between the public and private sectors can work if the two can find ways to speak the same language

“Parallel systems (exclusively public or private) do not make best use of scarce resources in any country”

Svava Bjarnason Senior Education Specialist with the International Finance Corporation(IFC)

Wieke Eefting

CASE STUDY

Kenya’s regional centres of expertise

The United Nations University/Institution for Advanced Studies initiative of Regional

Centres of Expertise has been in existence for three years and now has 55 centres.

Each RCE is a network of existing formal, non-formal and informal education organisations, mobilised to deliver education for sustainable development (ESD) to local and regional communities.

A network of RCEs worldwide will constitute the Global Learning Space for Sustainable Development. RCEs aspire to achieve the goals of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014), by translating global objectives into the context of the local communities in which they operate.

Director, Dr A. H. Zakri, told participants: “The initiative should be understood as a UNU/IAS mobilisation mechanism to commend high aspirations and spirits of commitment to promote education for sustainable development on the part of local actors.

“It is not an official mechanism to recognise superiority of local practices, local institutions or the environmental quality of the local region.”

Dorcas Otieno, Executive Director of the Kenya Organisation for Environmental Education, drew attention to the potential role for universities working with public and private sector bodies through the Regional Centres of Expertise.

“Universities require viable strategic partnerships to support the process of integrating and enhancing compliance to environmental requirements,” she said.

“This should be sustainable, inclusive and participatory in nature ultimately fostering solidarity and equity in sustainable development.”

Universities involved in the Greater Nairobi Regional Centre of Expertise include Kenyatta University, University of Nairobi, the Catholic University of East Africa and Daystar University.

RCE Greater Nairobi’s goal is to promote public awareness, education and training to build the capacity of Greater Nairobi community to achieve sustainable development. Expected outcomes include “appropriate innovations” for socially critical research programmes developed through universities.

Universities in the area are conducting research on water quality and monitoring as part of a project to rehabilitate the Nairobi River basin.

About 56% of city residents live in slum settlements encroaching on the river reserve, leading to pollution problems.

www.ias.unu.edu/default.aspx


“Understanding and Creating Regional Centers of Expertise: on Education for Sustainable Development – Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development”

UNITED NATIONSUNIVERSITY

UNI-IASInstitute of Avanced Studies


Plenary Session III: Institutional reform to meet new goals

N o university in the world is immune from the pressure for institutional change – sometimes in reaction to

dramatic external events such as conflict, or more usually in response to demands for greater efficiency and accountability.

In other countries, the imperative is to equip universities to drive development, as in the case of Pakistan. A plenary session on Institutional Reform to Meet New Goals was devoted to the effort in Pakistan to push forward change through the entire higher education system.

The country’s Higher Education Commission was set up in 2002 specifically to strengthen the sector through improved quality, better access and greater relevance to the country’s socio-economic needs.

Atta-Ur-Rahman, Chairman of the Higher Education Commission in Islamabad, presented figures demonstrating an immense government commitment. The science and technology development budget increased by 6,000%, the higher education development budget by 2,300%, and professorial salaries rose to five times those of Government Ministers, equivalent to more than US$5,000 a month with tax concessions lifting pay to US$7,000 a month.

Under a Foreign Faculty Hiring Programme, some 500 eminent scientists had been attracted back to their home country.

Together with a massive investment in information technology, the government is pressing ahead with a programme of new Universities of Engineering Science and Technology of Pakistan (UESTPs), designed to transform engineering and applied science education and to lead the way towards the rapid development and technological advancement of the country.

While Pakistan’s challenge was to wrestle with poverty and under-development, South Africa’s after 1994 was more complex.

Saleem Badat, Vice-Chancellor of Rhodes University in South Africa is no stranger to the process of change in higher education. The first chief executive of the Council of Higher Education, he was at the centre of the process of mergers that has reduced the number of higher education institutions

dramatically in a short period.He said that “the trajectory,

nature, pace and outcomes of change are the products of the combination and interaction of given and changing conditions within and without higher education and the ‘purposeful orientations’ and ‘cognitive and political praxis’ of social and human agency.”

He warned of two dangers in undertaking institutional change that would be universally familiar to higher education leaders. One is to recoil from tackling stubborn and persistent given structures, practices and attitudes or seek accommodation with them. The other danger is an attempt to effect immediate, rapid and sweeping changes with a possible consequence of great flux, serious contestation and conflict, demoralisation of academic and support staff, erosion of existing academic strengths and quality and grave debilitation of the national system and institutions.

Contestation and conflict of differing degrees and varying kinds was unavoidable. “It is perhaps in the judicious and paradoxical mix of adherence to values and goals combined with flexibility of approach; purposeful, bold and resolute leadership and actions and concomitant deliberate, considered and sober management and planning, conservation and continuities and dissolution and discontinuities of structures, policies and practices as

“Pakistan has attracted back 500 eminent scientists” Atta-Ur-Rahman chairman of the Higher Education Commission

Graduation at An-Najah University in Palestine


appropriate to the given and changing conditions and, above all, iterative and interactive planning involving key actors and the willingness to monitor, critically evaluate and rapidly learn from the processes and outcomes of change that the greatest prospect of successful institutional change in higher education and universities lies.”

As a pioneer of structured relationships between universities since its inception in 1999, the Bologna Process, which now

CASE STUDY

EFA – a goal for higher education too

While the focus of Education for All and the education-related Millennium

Development Goals is on basic education, higher education has a role to play in delivering them - a role that stretches beyond teacher education.

A strong emergent theme was the need for higher education to

link and connect with the rest of the education system and to play a vital role in national development, especially with regard to bringing the benefits of education to “every citizen in every society”.

All three roles of higher education – teaching and learning, research and community engagement – were identified as central to promoting EFA, with research emerging as the major instrument for higher education’s contribution.

Expansion of access and the

formation of partnerships with national governments, civil society groups and development agencies were other key strategies for higher education’s contribution to the attainment of Education for All’s goals.

However the workshop recognised the danger of higher education research uncritically supporting agendas of funding agencies and other international agencies that might not be in the interests of the developing world.

involves 46 European nations, is being closely observed in other parts of the world as it nears the key date of 2010. The Process involves the creation of the European Higher Education Area with the aim of easier movement across Europe through the convergence of national systems.

Lesley Wilson, Secretary-General of the European University Association (EUA) told a Parallel Workshop on Bologna that 2010 was less a deadline for creating the European Higher Education Area, and more a time to reflect and move on. There had been considerable progress in raising the profile of European higher education and overcoming fragmentation, but she said there was still work to be carried out.

Bologna had been a catalyst for new reform thinking and ways of working.

But it now had to respond to increasing global pressure from rankings, international competition, and the brain drain.

Ligia Deca, President of the European Students Union (ESU), which has 49 member organisations in 38 countries, appealed to university leaders to make students part of the change process so that they could believe in it.

Lesley Wilson, Secretary-General of the European University Association (EUA)

Ligia Deca, President of the European Students Union

Wieke Eefting

Parallel workshops on internationalisation and cross-border education


“Choice of partner is crucial to success” Rosa Becker Research Officer, OBHE

I nternationalisation is no new phenomenon for universities. They have always been international institutions,

encouraging the movement of students and academics across national and cultural boundaries, seeking knowledge and perspectives from near and far.

But the pace of internationalisation has increased dramatically and, as was found by the IAU 2005 Global Survey, universities now perceived both benefits and risks from the process.

emerging markets such as Vietnam and the Middle East, and the maturing of markets in Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.

In a Parallel Workshop on the emerging opportunities in cross-border higher education, she told participants that the choice of partner was crucial to success. “There are considerable risks involved in developing international collaborations, and if universities do not do their homework properly, their partners may be capable of gaining more from the

Universities see the recruitment of international students as a core of their search for financial stability as funding from public sources is reduced. Campuses in other countries are no longer a novelty.

And the private sector is making its presence felt through institutions that complement or compete with established public universities.

Rosa Brecker, Research Officer at OBHE, predicts that cross-border higher education is likely to grow further. But it is also likely to change in form and geography, with

New patterns emerging – an IAU delegate looks at a work of art during the conference’s cultural programme

Wieke Eefting


‘partnerships’ than they do.”One European dream is to create

a rival to the US as a destination for students from outside the EU. As the US domination of the market faltered, it seemed that this task would be easier.

Rajika Bhandari, Director of research at the US-based Institute of International Education, produced figures suggesting that the number of international students choosing the US had bounced back after a period of decline.

The total international enrolment increased by 3% in 2006/07, while new enrolments increased by 10%.

The top five places of origin were all in Asia - 48% of all international students. Notable increases were seen from Saudi Arabia, Nepal, India, and China with declines from Japan and Indonesia.

Dayanand Dongaonkar, Secretary-General of the Association of Indian Universities, confirmed that numbers of Indian students in the US had recovered to an all-time high of 83,833 after dipping to 76,503 in 2005-06.

Sub-Saharan Africa also has a high level of outward student mobility with one in every 16 students studying abroad.

However, Roshen Kishun, Executive Director of the International Education Association of South Africa, points to evidence that the tide is turning.

South Africa represents the most dramatic increase in the numbers of incoming students, up from 12,500 in 1994 to 53,000 in 2005. Of those, numbers from the Southern African Development Community rose from 7,500 to 35,000. But, with the exception of universities in South Africa and Egypt, few African countries had attracted large numbers of full-time, degree-seeking non-African students from outside the continent.

Lingnan University, Hong Kong


New policy statement approved in Utrecht

The International Association of Universities Conference adopted a significant policy statement on equitable

access, success and quality in higher education.

The statement, accepted with minor amendments in Utrecht, expressed the Association’s commitment to the twin goals of equitable access to, and successful participation in, higher education for all members of society.

Elaborated by an international task force of experts, the Statement’s preamble reads: “The IAU believes that equitable access to quality learning contributes significantly to the development of national human resources, promotes social justice and cohesion, enhances personal development, employability and, in general, facilitates sustainable development.

“The Association urges higher education institutions and government decision-makers at all levels to adopt the following principles and recommendations on equitable access and successful participation in higher education and to act, with some urgency, on their implementation.”

It concludes: “Equitable access and broadening participation in higher education are fundamental to ‘knowledge societies’ in all parts of the world.

“The IAU calls for all stakeholder groups, especially governments and higher education institutions,

to act on the promise and potential of these principles and recommendations.

“Only robust and collective action, based on ongoing research, data analysis and the systematic monitoring of progress, will help achieve these goals.

“Access and participation in higher education are essential for the empowerment of all, especially those often excluded.”

The Statement recognises the differences in context and conditions across the world but says it is inevitable that these two goals of equitable access to, and successful participation in, higher education will be pursued by all sooner or later.

A key principle of the statement is that “the goal of access policies should be successful participation in higher education, as access without a reasonable chance of success is an empty promise”.

Equitable access and academic excellence are seen as essential and compatible aspects of a quality

higher education. Admission criteria must move away from a primary focus on each learner’s achievements and entry qualifications towards the recognition of his/her potential.

Targeted strategies and policies are suggested to increase access to, and success in, higher education by individuals who are traditionally under-represented because of their social background, economic status, gender, ethnic origins, [dis]abilities, low quality of prior schooling or for other reasons.

Different institutional models, flexible programmes of study as well as a variety of delivery modes must be available to allow individuals at all stages of life to move through higher education in a manner that suits their needs.

International mobility, exchanges and cross-border education activities must integrate the twin goals of increased access and equitable participation.

Higher education institutions should:

• Integrate the goals of equitable access and successful participation for all learners into the institutional mission and develop specific objectives and strategies for achieving them;

• Work in partnership with government, representatives of other educational sectors, professional associations and employers to address issues of access and successful

“Access and participation in higher education are essential for the empowerment of all”

IAU Policy Statement

King Saud University in Saudi Arabia

Only robust and collective action will achieve aims of equitable access and broadened participation

Cross border education should reflect the IAU’s goals of increased access and equitable participation


participation in a holistic manner, taking into consideration the outcomes of secondary level schooling, labour market trends and national development needs;

• Develop or strengthen admission policies and practices that emphasise the potential of each applicant and address equity of access and successful participation by offering a variety of flexible learning pathways for entry and exit.

Governments are advised

that they should:• Set out an integrated educational,

social and economic agenda to promote equitable access, broadened participation and success in higher education;

• Demonstrate a commitment to equitable access and success by providing adequate funding using models that are sensitive to, and appropriate for, local conditions and that support higher education institutions and students with financial need.

• Reward higher education institutions that successfully serve individuals from under-represented groups.

The full text is available at: www.unesco.org/iau/access_he/access_statement.html

The General Conference in Numbers438 participants from some 100 countries. 340 Universities.More than 150 Presidents and Rectors. 51 International Associations and Organisations.35 National Associations and Organisations. 8 National Bodies.4 Private Company Representatives.1 Opening Dialogue & 3 Plenary Sessions. 16 Parallel Workshops. 3 IAU Business Sessions. 82 Speakers from around the world2 Cultural evenings.

CASE STUDY

Access policy

Dr Jacqueline E. King, Assistant Vice-President of the American Council on

Education (ACE), illustrated the barriers to participation in the US that stem from inadequate high school preparation.

Addressing a Parallel Workshop on “keys to equitable access and successful retention strategies”, she produced survey data showing that 40-45% of recent high school graduates reported significant skill gaps; 30% of first-year college students required remedial

courses; and faculty estimated that 42% of first-year students were unprepared.

If academic barriers were not enough, Dr King produced data to show that with tuition ranging from US$0 to over US$40,000, university entrants were faced with hundreds of federal, state, institutional and private grant and loan programmes, all with unique criteria and many with their own application systems.

The main form of financial aid, she said, had more than 100 questions and required information from parents income tax forms.

“Affordability is a real problem – but it is not the only one”, she said.

Wieke Eefting


Outline for an action plan for 2008-2012

With part of the General Conference devoted to IAU business sessions, there was an

opportunity for delegates to vote in key elections for the Presidency and Board, and to comment on an action plan for IAU for the next four years.

The plan’s specific objectives are:

• Top priority to themes of importance to higher education institutions, to topics on which a global forum for debate and sharing of experiences was likely to bring innovation and improvement and remaining at the vanguard of emerging challenges.

• Emphasis on activities which offered scope for increased membership services and direct involvement of Members.

• Continue to play a central and facilitating role in the creation of a global higher education space for dialogue and networking among higher education organisations.

• Reinforce cooperation, solidarity and all actions that lead to assessment and implementation of reforms that strengthen the quality and availability of higher education and reduce inequities between people, institutions and systems.

• Expand external project funding and, through increased benefits and activities, consolidate and develop the Membership of the Association.

IAU has introduced numerous new initiatives, increased its activities and expanded its outreach in the recent past. This direction will be continued in the future.

At the same time, it is unlikely

that the next four years will allow IAU to carry on in a ‘business as usual’ manner. The notion of ‘steady state or status quo’ today includes continuous and indeed rapid change, which requires the Association to act and react quickly to challenges and opportunities.

For this reason, this proposed Plan of Action presents an outline that only offers a glimpse at what IAU is already planning to do.

The General Conference was invited to consider this proposed Plan of Action carefully and to provide feedback and comments immediately or later, in writing.

www.unesco.org/iau/association/pdf/Plan_2008_2012.pdf

Wieke Eefting

Eva Egron-Polak, Secretary-General IAU


N o issue generates more heat than university league tables and rankings.

They have long ceased to be a curiosity for the higher education community – an unwelcome intrusion from the grittier world of the consumer market.

A Special Forum on the final day of the IAU General Conference gave participants the opportunity to explore their impact on institutional strategies and to hear the latest developments, not only in one of the key international rankings, but in initiatives that may eventually supplant them.

The view that “league tables are here to stay” was expressed by critics and supporters of league tables alike, though some participants challenged this view, arguing that rankings may be just a passing fad.

At the moment though, while university heads contest their value and question their methodology, they will enthusiastically embrace the results for their marketing strategies when the outcomes are positive.

Now there is evidence that universities are responding to rankings in their decision-making and strategic development.

Ellen Hazelkorn, Director of Research and Enterprise, Dublin

Special Forum

“The assertion that rankings provide useful comparative information about performance is an urban myth”

Ellen Hazelkorn (above) Director of Research and Enterprise, Dublin


Institute of Technology, Ireland, told the Special Forum of the conference of her research into the impact of international rankings on institutional decision-making.

The answer to her rhetorical question, “are Rankings Reshaping Higher Education?”, was an emphatic “yes”.

She found that 70% of all respondents wished to be in the top 10% nationally, and 71% wanted to be in the top 25% internationally. Critically, 63% of higher education leaders who were surveyed had taken strategic organisational, managerial or academic actions in response to rankings.

Only 8% indicated that they had taken no action.

Among high-ranked, international-facing institutions, her research found that 65% had formal mechanisms to review rank and that 60% used rankings to set goals for strategic planning. In contrast, only a fifth of low or non-ranked, regionally-focused universities had a formal mechanism to review rank, but 86% used rankings to set goals for strategic planning.

There were some positives derived from rankings – greater urgency for the modernisation agenda and more public accountability and transparency, for example.

It is open to question whether other trends she noted – for example the creation of an elite group of global universities through the process of greater vertical or

“63% of higher education leaders took strategic organisational, managerial or

academic actions in response to rankings”

Survey

hierarchical differentiation – were positive.

And she confidently dismissed as an “urban myth” the assertion that rankings “provide useful comparative information about the performance of different institutions, facilitating student choice and benchmarking”.

One of the best known international rankings was represented at the Forum by Dr Ying Chen, lecturer at the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in China. Despite its methodological shortcomings, candidly acknowledged by Dr Chen, the Academic Ranking of World Universities is recognised internationally.

He discussed its origins in the Chinese dream for a world class university, which led directly to the SJTU exercise.

Among the limitations of this now annual exercise is the historical nature of a number of its indicators, its limited relevance to the quality of teaching and education and to social sciences. He accepted too that the diversity of universities might not be properly reflected.

Future plans included an annual or biennial report on World-Class Universities, not limited to the top 100 but which could include 500 or more research universities. For 2009, there was a possibility of detailed data analysis rather than a composite ranking, Dr Chen told participants.

The agenda for the Special Forum made a distinction between rankings and classifications, and Professor Frans van Vught, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, gave a progress report on the project to classify European universities.

The proposed classification is quite distinct from – but will be open to integration with – the Carnegie Classification in the United States.

As well as aiding government policies and institutional strategies, the multi-dimensional classification will, Professor van Vught suggested, act as a much sounder base for the

Professor Frans van Vught, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente in the Netherlands

systems. Instead, it is intended to produce evidence for policy and practice.

The process will start with Engineering and Economics – two disciplines that are less dependent on occupational and cultural contexts, and applicable across institutions.

The idea faces a large number of practical challenges. A feasibility study in up to 40 higher education institutions across three to four countries will determine whether it is scientifically possible to make reliable cross-national comparisons of higher education learning outcomes and whether wider implementation is feasible.

It will be late 2010 before countries decide if there is enough

evidence to justify moving towards a full-scale pilot.

So a solid evaluation of outcomes across the developed world is still a long way off. In the meantime universities have to cope with the commercial rankings that are springing up in many countries – and with international rankings.

One delegate’s solution was to encourage so many rankings that they rendered themselves useless. Another had a harsher solution – to ban them altogether. While some universities did withhold their data from the agencies compiling the rankings – in Canada and a handful in the UK – this was unlikely to be welcomed by university heads who use them as marketing tools – or to drive internal change.


compilation of rankings.A different approach was

outlined by Richard Yelland, Head of the Education Management and Infrastructure Division at the OECD’s Directorate for Education.

He presented the OECD’s initiative on Assessing Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) as an alternative to international rankings that captured learning outcomes.

Without such measures, he argued that judgements about higher education outcomes would continue to be made on the basis of rankings derived from inputs or research-driven outputs.

The project, he suggested, was not a ranking, nor would it lead to standardisation across national

Dr Ying Chen, lecturer at the Institute of Higher Education at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in China

“The project was not a ranking, nor would it lead to standardisation across national systems”

Richard Yelland (above) Head of the Education Management and Infrastructure Division at the OECD’s Directorate for Education


PRESIDENT

Juan Ramón de la FuenteFormer Rector National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) Mexico

VICE-PRESIDENTS Abdul Razak DzulkifliVice-Chancellor University Sains Malaysia, MalaysiaPier Ugo CalzolariRector University of Bologna Italy Treasurer IAU Madeleine GreenVice-President American Council on EducationOlive MugendaVice-Chancellor Kenyatta University Kenya

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Goolam MohamedbhaiSecretary-General Association of African Universities (AAU)

MEMBERS

AFRICA / AFRIQUEPiyushi KotechaCEO Southern African Regional Universities AssociationClifford Nii Boi TagoeVice-Chancellor University of Ghana Ghana AMERICAS Manuel J. FernósPresidentInteramerican University of Puerto Rico USAJanyne HodderPresident The College of The Bahamas The BahamasPierre MoreauPresident Université du Québec CanadaSuely VilelaPresident University of Sao Paulo Brazil

ASIA & PACIFICMakoto AsashimaManaging Director & Executive Vice-President University of Tokyo JapanWalid MoussaPresident Notre Dame University Louaize LebanonDeepak PentalVice-Chancellor University of Delhi India

Mohammad Huss SorouraddinFormer Chancellor Tabriz University IranJun ZhuVice-President Zhejiang University China

EUROPE Metin Lufti BaydarRector Suleyman Demirel University Turkey Agneta BladhRector University of Kalmar SwedenNorbert KisVice-Rector Corvinus University of Budapest HungaryPatricia PolVice-President Université Paris 12 - Val de Marne FranceAlvyda PumputisRector Mykolas Romeris University Lithuania

SECRETARY-GENERAL Eva Egron-PolakIAU International Universities Bureau

DEPUTY MEMBERS

AFRICA Is-haq Oloyede Vice-Chancellor University of Ilorin Nigeria

AMERICAS Rafael Cordera CamposSecretary-General UDUAL Union of Universities of Latin America and the CaribbeanStephen FreedmanVice-president Fordham University USAJuan TobiasRector University of Salvador Argentina

ASIA & PACIFICDayanand DongaonkarSecretary-General Association of Indian UniversitiesCarmen LamagnaVice-Chancellor American International UniversityBangladeshPornchai MongkhonvanitPresidentSiam University Thailand

EUROPEAntonio MarquesVice-Rector University of Porto Portugal

HONORARY PRESIDENTS

Guillermo SoberonPresident 1980-1985 Former Rector National University of MexicoBlagovest SendovActing President 1984 Former Rector University of Sofia Bulgaria Justin ThorensPresident 1985-1990 Former Rector Université de Genève SwitzerlandWataru MoriPresident 1995-2000 Former President University of Tokyo Japan Hans Van Ginkel President 2000-2004 Former Rector Utrecht University Netherlands; Former Rector United Nations University JapanDr. Juan Ramón de la Fuente Former Rector of The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) Will Chair The IAU Board Until 2012


D r. Juan Ramón de la Fuente was elected President of the IAU at the 13th General Conference in Utrecht.

He was Rector of UNAM from 1999 to 2007. UNAM, with more than 279,000 students, is one of the largest in the world.

Dr. de la Fuente is a psychiatrist who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Medicine from the UNAM in 1976 and went on to specialise in Psychiatry at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, United States.

He returned to Mexico to found the Clinical Research Unit of the Mexican Institute of Psychiatry while lecturing at UNAM’s School of Medicine, of which he was elected Director in 1991.

In 1995 he became President of the Mexican Academy of Sciences.

From 1994-99 he served as Secretary of Health by President Ernesto Zedillo before leaving the

cabinet to become rector of UNAM.As of 2008 he is a member of the

Council of the United Nations University. Dr. de la Fuente has served as Vice-President of the World Health Assembly and as President of the Board of the United Nations Programme on AIDS.

He is also President of the Net of Macro-Universities of Latin America and the Caribbean, a member of the Board of the Cervantes Institute, Spain, and of the Administrative Council of UNESCO’s International Institute for Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC).

He has published extensively on health, education, and scientific research, and is the recipient of numerous national and international awards and honours.

He also sits in the board of directors of El Universal, the most widely-read newspaper in Mexico City.


International Association of UniversitiesUNESCO House1, rue Miollis75732 Paris Cedex 15

Tel.: (33 1) 45 68 48 00 Fax: (33 1) 47 34 76 05E-mail: mailto:[email protected] [email protected]

Web: www.unesco.org/iau/index.html www.unesco.org/iau/index.html

Conference programme: www.unesco.org/iau/conferences/Utrecht/programme.html www.unesco.org/iau/conferences/Utrecht/programme.html

Conference Workshops: www.unesco.org/iau/conferences/Utrecht/workshops.html www.unesco.org/iau/conferences/Utrecht/workshops.html

Prepared for publication by Candlestar Ltd. | www.candlestar.co.uk

Sponsors