Abstract
Internationalisation of universities can often be a process with few obvious connections to the surrounding environment and the people in the city or region around a university. Few channels exist to link university decisions about internationalisation to the local stakeholder community . At the same time, universities are regarded by many as a potential source of transformative change in their regions, both directly (through net inward income flows) and indirectly (through long-term good will and sharing of diverse cultural assets). For many universities in the UK, their international portfolio is crucial to their long-term success, both financially and in terms of attracting talent. Internationalisation is not a neutral process that happens in a bubble, this chapter argues. It has an impact at many levels that bring costs as well as benefits to local communities. Surrounding communities, for instance, may simply see the impact on their lives of a very large injection of young people from around the world and not fully understand the benefits—economic growth, knowledge transfer and innovation and longer-term cultural ties—that the international activity brings. In the same ways that public engagement with research has become a topic of interest for the tertiary sector, public engagement with internationalisation , this chapter argues, is similarly important. The result of the EU Referendum and the polarised views around who gains from globalisation have increased the urgency of these debates.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Russell Group represents 24 leading UK research-intensive universities.
- 2.
One analysis suggests that the difference between students with more modest language proficiency as represented in the International English Language Test System (IELTS) test by a score of 6.0 compared to the more ‘native speaker like’ errors found at band 7.0 will lead to significantly increased academic workloads. The study reaches the conclusion that it may be more cost effective to raise the IELTS scores than put remediation in place (Müller 2015).
References
Arbo P, Benneworth P (2007) Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: a literature review. OECD Education working papers (No. 9). OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/161208155312. Accessed Feb 2016
Marmolejo F, Puukka J (2006) Supporting the contribution of higher education to regional development: lessons learned from an OECD review of 14 regions throughout 12 countries. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED494412
Müller A (2015) The differences in error rate and type between IELTS writing bands and their impact on academic workload. Higher Educ Res Dev 34(6):1207–1219
Newcastle University (2015) www.ncl.ac.uk/engagement/vision/index.htm. Accessed Feb 2016
UKCES (2015) UKCES explains: what is an anchor institution? https://ukces.blog.gov.uk/2015/03/19/ukces-explains-what-is-an-anchor-institution/. Accessed Feb 2016
University of Oxford (2015) https://www.ox.ac.uk/local-community?wssl=1. Accessed Feb 2016
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hughes, R. (2018). University Internationalisation Strategies and Public Engagement. In: James, J., Preece, J., Valdés-Cotera, R. (eds) Entrepreneurial Learning City Regions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61130-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61130-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61129-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61130-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)