This document provides an introduction to the 4th Global Meeting of Associations of Universities on internationalization of higher education. It discusses that internationalization is a dynamic process involving many actors. The meeting will address key findings from a survey on internationalization including the importance of student mobility but low actual mobility levels. It will also discuss new approaches like branch campuses and examine the role associations can play in advancing the internationalization agenda and identifying trends. The goal is for participants to work together on common challenges and solutions regarding internationalization.

1.
IAU 4th Global Meeting of Associations of Universities
(GMA IV)
Internationalization of Higher Education:
New Players, New Approaches
New Delhi (India) ‐ April 11‐12, 2011
Opening Plenary – Introduction to GMA IV
Prof. Juan Ramon de la Fuente
As Chair of this first plenary session, I have been tasked not only with moderating the
first presentations by our speakers and the discussion that will follow but also with
providing a brief introduction to the overall theme of the Meeting.
As we all witness almost daily, internationalization of higher education is a highly
dynamic process, constantly evolving and being discussed more and more frequently by
a variety of actors: government policy makers in science and education as well as in
foreign affairs, immigration, finance, industry and commerce ministries, leaders of
universities and HEIs, student organizations, faculty members as well as staff. It is for
this reason that associations like yours are also increasingly engaged in this area.
The Programme has been designed keeping in mind primarily two aspects:
‐ the findings of the 3rd Global Survey on internationalization
‐ the role that we as associations play alone and collectively, as key actors in the process
The results of the survey show that Student Mobility remains the defining feature of
internationalization despite the fact that actual student flows are relatively low level
and highly unbalanced in reality.
Yet, the focus on preparing students to live and work in a globalized world is of such
importance that we need to find ways to both improve mobility and when needed,
substitute other activities and approaches that will help achieve this goal when mobility
is not possible.
We learned as well, that the top obstacles to internationalization are almost all related
to mobility. In addition to lack of funds, such obstacles have to do with recognition of
1

2. credits and credentials, visas etc. These, as we also know, have been around for a long
time.
The first two plenary sessions will address these two areas and the concurrent smaller
group discussions that will follow, will allow all of you to share your knowledge, your
solutions or challenges related to mobility and to overcoming such obstacles as
recognition.
Second, we learned that mobility of programmes and the creation of branch campuses –
though frequently discussed and often polemical, remains a relatively restricted
phenomenon, highly concentrated among a few nations both as those who build and
those who host such programs/campuses. As the discussion about the conditions under
which foreign providers can come to India take place, this approach is being promoted
by those in favour, as a means to opening access. It is being criticized by those who are
against, as a sure way to raise costs to students and as a vehicle for one of the main risks
associated with internationalization – as noted in the IAU survey – the risk of
commercialization.
The third plenary will focus on that aspect of internationalization, examining what the
future of this phenomenon might be, what considerations to keep in mind as potential
host nations or as potential sending nations.
The GMA is a special event, it is a forum or a platform of peers, coming together
because they face common challenges and perhaps wish to find common solutions. For
this reason, the second half of the Programme, starting with the two concurrent
sessions tomorrow morning at 10:45 is really about what we, as a group or individually
as association can do to advance the agenda of internationalization and where this
agenda should move.
In these sessions and in the final substantive plenary, we will debate the leadership role
that associations can and need to play and how.
Associations are observatories of developments, identifying trends and danger signals
that may not always be visible on the ground. IAU, working at the most macro level
cannot fulfill its role without collaborating with you. It is our conviction as well though,
that our work can help you be more productive if we playing our global role fully.
In the concurrent sessions, you will be invited to re‐examine some of the fundamentals
of internationalization, what is the purpose and how does this process fit into the
overall reforms of higher education, how it impacts positively on the changes underway
and when, or if, it can also bring negative consequences. If we are serious about the
centrality of this process in HE and Research, it needs to permeate all of our work. The
question is, does it do so?
For the IAU this means that as it drafts a Code of Ethical Conduct or Code of Ethics for
Higher Education under the leadership of Prof. Calzolari and in cooperation with the
2

3. Magna Charta Observatory, how should internationalization be treated? In our project
to improve Equitable Access and Success in Higher Education – how do we see
internationalization contribute to these objectives? When we focus on doctoral
programmes in African institutions, how can internationalization serve to strengthen
research capacity in these institutions?
Finally, there is no other policy area in higher education where collaboration is more
necessary than in internationalization; yet, competition often rules the day both
between institutions and among associations. In the view of IAU, this is unsustainable
and all our efforts target the development of effective partnerships. Our
Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service project, launched last year is a case in
point. We hope that your universities will opt to call upon IAU for this review process.
We would gladly work in partnership with you.
At the end of this GMA, I hope that we will find and commit to developing several
actions together.
3