In November 2021 at the Cop26 climate summit, Greta Thunberg accused world leaders of being all “blah, blah, blah” about the climate emergency and making promises that are no more than sound bites. As she put it: “words that sound great but so far have not led to action” (Carrington, 2021). Could a similar accusation be levelled against those who lead our universities when it comes to global engagement? What does a strategic institutional commitment to global engagement look like and how can success be measured?
This was one of the questions in my mind as I embarked on a review of 134 UK university strategic plans, all current in late 2020, exploring the global dimension within them (Lewis, 2021). While global themes were prominent in over three-quarters of the strategies, it was clear that there had been changes in emphasis over time.
Changes in strategic focus over time
On the level of terminology, it was interesting to note a gradual migration from ‘international’ and ‘internationalisation’ in the older strategic plans towards ‘global’ and ‘global engagement’ in the more recent ones, presumably because it is a more inclusive and all-encompassing term. In the older plans, when the term ‘sustainability’ was used, it tended to refer to financial sustainability.
The scope of the strategic plans broadened out too. Dominant features of those published in 2020 included sustainability (in the sense of environmental and social, as well as financial). This was often linked to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate emergency. Diversity, inclusion, social mobility and social justice were also key themes; as was the need to work collaboratively with international partners to address global challenges. Civic and community engagement were prominent topics, sometimes linked to global engagement.
Rhetoric or reality?
The 2020 strategic plans certainly appear more values-based than their predecessors, actively considering positive impact and global contribution (rather than the more prosaic “where does our institution want to be in X years’ time?”). But does this translate into action (Mitchell, 2021)? And how is success measured?
Where Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are included in the published plans (and it is important to note that it is only the minority of strategies that share them publicly), these tend to reflect traditional measures of ‘international success’ that have been used for many years (and by many other universities). They include metrics such as international student numbers or tuition fee income; number of international partnerships; volume or quality of research outputs; and global league table position. While there is growing use of environmental sustainability KPIs, success in some of the other aspects of global engagement that are prominent within the rhetoric of strategic plans tends to be overlooked when it comes to institutional KPIs. This may result in the actions flowing from the strategy being less radical and ‘globally engaged’ than might be expected from the noble words used in the text itself.
What will the next generation of strategies prioritise?
As part of my research, I interviewed twelve senior sector stakeholders and investigated numerous conferences, webinars, reports and other publications to explore views on what future, post-pandemic global engagement strategies might prioritise (Lewis, 2021b).
One interviewee challenged the term ‘global engagement’ itself, suggesting that it was like trying to put a plaster on a gaping wound. Such terminology can obscure the fact that – for many institutions – there is a lack of true engagement with stakeholders from the Global South who can spot problematic notions, challenge common internationalisation practices and highlight the ways these may perpetuate inequalities. In the UK, we need to be aware that our approach to global engagement is governed by Anglo-centric, Global North perspectives.
The theme of questioning and challenging the way we conceptualise and operationalise ‘global engagement’ was prominent during interviews. It was proposed that future strategies would benefit from paying more attention to the student voice and from placing as much emphasis on social responsibility as on research and teaching. This echoes the challenge issued by Jonathan Grant in his March 2021 book The New Power University: The Social Purpose of Higher Education in the 21st Century, where he urges universities to be more up front about what they stand for, arguing that this would make for a healthier, more diverse sector comprising institutions with differentiated missions (Grant, 2021).
Another key theme was the role of universities in addressing global – and local – challenges. There was a particular focus on the UN SDGs and the importance of avoiding a ‘lip service’ approach. Some benefits of full institutional commitment include “building a positive reputation among partner networks, particularly in emerging economies, and responding to the concerns of students and other stakeholders” (Lewis, 2021, p.35).
The climate emergency was specifically highlighted, alongside the importance of international collaboration on this issue. Joanna Newman points out in Research Professional News that “universities’ ability to promote climate action stretches beyond research – from teaching and learning, to outreach activities, to enabling public debate and modelling sustainability in their own activities” (Newman, 2021).
It was observed that the pandemic has highlighted issues around accessibility and equality in international education and that HEIs have an important role to play in reducing inequalities. One suggestion was for UK universities to use international scholarships to help diversify the student body not only in terms of nationality but also by social and economic background. Another opportunity might be to use transnational education partnerships or new delivery models as a way to widen international participation in HE.
It was also proposed that greater alignment between agendas that tend to be treated separately – such as internationalisation, equality, diversity and inclusion, racial justice and decolonisation – would have a positive impact (IHES Conference, 2020).
Recent emphasis on the civic role of universities was seen by some as offering a “powerful opportunity to bring together what institutions are doing locally and regionally with what they are doing internationally, demonstrating their common underpinning principles and the mutual benefits (including two-way learning and valuable connections) that can be derived from coordinated civic and global engagement” (Lewis, 2021, p.36).
New ways of measuring success
So how can HEIs see beyond those traditional measures of ‘international success’ and start to evaluate progress with the aspects of global engagement highlighted in their strategy documents?
Some argue that a mindset shift is needed – from an approach to KPIs that is largely about ‘looking good’ (image) to one that is about ‘being good’ (substance) (Gioia and Corley, 2002); a move from being concerned about ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ to focusing on self-improvement; from chasing the same metrics as other institutions to developing the inner confidence to pursue a distinctive path.
In the Principal’s introduction to one UK HEI strategic plan, it states that “this is not about league tables but about the real contributions we make to the world around us. It is, after all, our deeds that define us. (King’s College London, 2016, p.2)”
Inclusion of qualitative measures of impact to supplement quantitative metrics can be a step in the right direction. There are also indexes and rating tools designed to help institutions improve their performance against specific engagement criteria. The Positive Impact Rating is a tool which captures the voice of students to evaluate the positive societal impacts of Business Schools, fostering collaboration and inspiring change. The Education Insight Global Engagement Index “aims to capture the state of international engagement across 30 measures”, including sustainable development, capacity building and international student success. The Global Education Profiler focuses on the factors that lead to ‘community internationalisation’, including levels of intercultural interaction and integration. It has a firm focus on diagnosing areas for development and tracking institutional improvement.
However, these are just tools. Ultimately, the most important thing is for HEIs to determine the precise combination of actions that will most effectively deliver the global engagement priorities articulated in their strategy documents, truly aligning those actions to the rhetoric.
The ‘blah, blah, blah’ is all very well, but it needs to be followed through with concrete measures.
Carrington, D. (2021). ‘Blah, blah, blah’: Greta Thunberg lambasts leaders over climate crisis. The Guardian. 28 September 2021.
Gioia, D. and Corley, K. (2002). Being Good Versus Looking Good: Business School Rankings and the Circean Transformation from Substance to Image. Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol.1(1). 107-120
Grant, J. (2021). The New Power University: The social purpose of higher education in the 21st century. Pearson
IHES Conference (2020). Internationalization and Diversity Competing or Complementary Imperatives. Available to view on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5U82GdI2lo&list=PLHDDaUIG_UADnlNLExisNifchfpgjChvR&index=18
King’s College London (2016). King’s Strategic Vision 2029.
Lewis, V. (2021). UK Universities’ Global Engagement Strategies: Time for a rethink? Downloadable from: https://www.vickylewisconsulting.co.uk/gsr
Lewis, V. (2021b). A good time to rethink global engagement strategies? University World News. 15 May 2021.
Mitchell, N. (2021). Does UK universities’ global rhetoric match reality? University World News. 21 January 2021.
Newman, J (2021). Solidarity is Survival. Research Professional News (3 March 2021). Available to subscribers at: https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/uk/views-of-the-uk/2021/3/Solidarity-is-survival.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rpMailing&utm_campaign=researchFortnightNews_2021-03-03
Canva