EAIE 2016 Winter Forum: THE NEW INTERNATIONAL OFFICER
The professionalisation of the field of international higher education has, among other things, amplified the need for specific skills at the international office. Even the definition and location of the international office now vary from one university to the next. Among all these changes, who is the international officer of today? As the diversity of opinions, experiences and case studies in this issue illustrate, the answer to this question is anything but straight forward.
The old and well-known saying teaches us not to invent the wheel twice. Even though cooperation and knowledge sharing has always been a part of higher education activities, the topic gets never outdated. We tend to think that in order to have fruitful cooperation, it has to be planned and organized well. This often leads to structured and tightly scoped projects and collaboration activities which bring results and answers to pre-defined questions and targets. Open and cross-disciplinary sharing of practices provides another, more experimental-driven approach to cooperation. It offers the sharers the opportunity to describe their experiences and learnings from their own point of view, without the limitation of considering the different interpretations from readers and listeners. It also enables the sharer to use familiar terminologies and expressions and focus on the content. Storytelling has been introduced to the academic field as a valid format of sharing practices, experiences and learnings. Stories appear in multiple formats, and it has to be noted that as storytelling is sharer-driven, the choice of format is also in the hands of the sharer. Stories can be personal or organizational, even multiorganizational. They can be formal or free-form, fact-driven or based on opinions, and the heterogeneity of stories offers the reader and listener a wide choice of interpretations. Learning from stories requires an open mind and the ability to transfer the message from the story to the reader’s own context. While this can be demanding, it is also rewarding, as it does not limit the message transfer in any way. There are no pre-defined targets or expectations for the utilization of the learnings, and each reader can interpret the message of the story according to their own contexts and needs. The demanding side comes with a fact that stories rarely give readymade answers or solutions to the reader’s needs, but require effort in interpretation. While the world around us becomes more and more complex, the solutions and answers to rising challenges and needs also need to be discovered from different sources than before. The best solutions may be found in the most unexpected places and stories. With open eyes, ears and minds.
The article focuses on examination of the innovativeness as a factor which determines to a considerable degree the success of internationalisation in the educational sphere. It considers different approaches to the definition of concepts "innovation" and "innovativeness". Levels and kinds of the innovativeness are analyzed.
The paper focuses on how accurate teachers may or may not be in gauging their class’academic abilities. We use a sample of classrooms in three Russian regions to identify sources of mathematics and Russian teachers’ inaccuracies in predicting their high school classes’ scores on Russian and mathematics high stakes college entrance tests (the Unified State Exam, or USE). We test the hypothesis that teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with their classes are good predictors of such inaccuracies. This is important because teachers often focus on their relationship with the class as an end in itself or as a means to engaging students. Good teacher–student relations may indeed result in more students’ learning, but perhaps not nearly as much as teachers believe. We find that both Russian and mathematics teachers make inaccurate predictions of their class’ high stakes examination results based on how they perceive their relationship with their class. Teachers who believe they have a very good relationship with the class significantly overestimate their class’ performance on the USE, and those who perceive a poor relationship, underestimate their class’ performance, although this underestimate is generally not statistically significant.
Global rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education is an examination of the impact and influence that university rankings have had on higher education, policy and public opinion in recent years. Bringing together some of the most informed authorities on this very complex issue, this edited collection of specially commissioned chapters examines the changes affecting higher education and the implications for society and the economy.
Split into four interrelated sections, this book covers:The development of rankings in higher education, how they have impacted upon both the production of knowledge and its geography, and their influence in shaping policymaking. Overviews of the significance of rankings for higher education systems in Europe, Asia, Africa, Russia, South America, India and North America. An analysis of rankings in relation to key concerns that pervade contemporary higher education. Examination of the role rankings are likely to play in the future directions for higher education.
This is a significant scholarly work that analyses in depth an important development in higher education systems, and which is likely to have an important influence upon how we understand the higher education policy-making process – past, present and future. It provides new analysis and conceptual understanding for researchers, and firm evidence for policy makers to use when addressing the value of rankings in measuring the quality of their institutions. Besides bringing together a powerful cast of academics, this book incorporates contributions from heads of important international higher education organisations – from both those involved in making and also in administering key decisions.
This timely, reflective and accessible book forms crucial reading for those studying the subject of rankings, as well as the broader implications and unintended consequences of rankings on national higher education policies. Extending beyond academic researchers and students, this book will also be of significant interest to policymakers, higher education leaders and key stakeholders.
The presented monograph includes papers of the acknowledged Russian and foreign researchers and practitioners in internationalisation of higher education. It also presents analysis of current trends and practices of internationalisation at institutional and national levels. The monograph’s content reflects transformations of internationalisation as a key concept and process that shape discourse and practices in higher education systems. The authors hope that this book will contribute to enhancement of national higher education policy on development of the system and Russian HEIs. The monograph is recommended to researchers and experts in higher education policy and management, government officials, rectors and university managers responsible for internationalisation of higher education.
The chapter analyses the experience of evaluation of modern universities’ internationalization. Special focus is given to the systems of indicators used for evaluation of international activities within various academic rankings. Drawing from analysis of the most popular global, regional and national single- and multidimensional academic rankings the authors argue that the number of indicators, that are reliable and relevant for evaluation of university international activities, is limited and doesn’t reflect modern development processes in higher education. The authors stress the importance of further development of the internationalization’s evaluation within different approaches, in particular multi-dimensional rankings practices, where internationalization is considered as one of the key institutional function. Based on the analysis of the approbation outcomes of the Template Methodology of Russian HEIs Multidimensional Ranking, the authors describe the differentiation processes occur in the Russian Higher Education system. Level of internationalization of Russian HEIs is seen as a possible criterion of their further differentiation
Despite the measures taken by the Russian government to attract foreign scientists for work in Russian research organizations and universities, the level of incoming academic mobility to Russia remains extremely low. The paper provides quantitative estimates of the number of foreign researchers in different sectors of Russian science, and analyzes the attitude to the experience of their involvement on the part of the leaders of academic organizations. The work is based on the data of the Federal system for monitoring the performance of scientific organizations, as well as interview data with more than one hundred heads of Russian universities and research organizations.
The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data demonstrates that for Russian organizations, recruitment of foreign scientists is not a usual and widespread practice, and is often considered as a difficult task with non-obvious benefits. This practice differs in its scope and implementations across the R&D sectors. The internationalization process is most active in universities, which are supported by the governmental measures developed specifically for these purposes. Based on the identified barriers, the paper offers several recommendations to increase the involvement of foreign researchers, as this can significantly contribute to the promotion of the country’s integration into the world science.
This paper describes the inclusion of Russia in the Bologna process. In addition to the literature review, description of events and their results on two primary objectives of the Declaration (compatibility-competitiveness and academic mobility) are evidenced and exemplified with information obtained through key informant interviews, 35 students (between them, student leaders) and 12 teachers (including department heads) of two of the largest universities Muscovites. The results indicate that the Bologna process in Russia is emerging, characterized by disbelief about the quality of Russian higher education, corruption, and low academic mobility.