Keywords

Introduction

The term “internationalization” has been recognized for many decades, but its rise in popularity in the higher education (HE) sector dates back to the early 1980s. Developing a new definition that fits current global contexts must consider its application to many different countries, cultures, and education systems. In her updated definition, Knight (2015) thus defines it as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 2).

International activity in HE is by no means a recent phenomenon. Educational institutions are, however, complex entities, which do not always easily adapt and react to change. In this sense, a growing movement toward a global knowledge economy and higher demand for international experience has resulted in unprecedented internationalization efforts in HE. Higher education institutions (HEIs) recognize the need to provide students with the relevant skills to succeed in globally integrated economies, culturally diverse societies, and multinational organizations (Harder 2010). Nonetheless, integrating a global dimension into the university structure is not an easy task. Turbulence and transformation still appropriately characterize internationalization in HEIs (Knight 2000, 2015).

In most universities internationalization has moved from being a subordinate issue, aside from the main business, to a central item on the agenda of university management (Brandenburg and de Wit 2015). This shift has occurred as a consequence of moving from a formerly elitist to a more democratic way of thinking, by placing the focus on transformation of curricula instead of mobility in the first place. Outgoing and incoming mobility is starting to be seen as an integral part of the curriculum to ensure that everybody can benefit from internationalization as opposed to the mobile minority of the early years (Salmi et al. 2015).

Different approaches toward the promotion and implementation of internationalization are adopted. Minna Söderqvist (2002) has elaborated a model describing the stages which HEIs pass on their way to truly internationalizing their offers. In this model, the awareness of the need to internationalize, commitment to planning, and implementation of different programs for enhancing the mobility of students constitute the first stage. The second stage starts with the awareness of faculty to internationalize in order to pave the way for the internationalization of curricula, based on faculty exchange and cross-border research. This goes hand in hand with gradually introducing English as a medium of instruction (EMI). The third stage is reached upon embracing an internationalization strategy and forming strategic alliances. The final stage is reached when educational products are commercialized (Söderqvist 2002).

HEIs all over the world struggle in their attempts to properly define their internationalization approach and to move through its stages. Depending on age and experience, location, and networking with other universities, the process of moving forward through internationalization stages can be fast or slow. Most HEIs worldwide have moved beyond what Söderqvist (2002) defined as the “Zero Stage,” catering for internationalization as a marginal activity. Leading universities, however, have already arrived at stage four and started to commercialize education to an extent which carries the potential of “creating severe problems for academic institutions and systems in smaller or poorer nations” (Altbach 2015).

Even though evidence shows the importance of internationalization for HEIs, the different approaches and stages of this relevant phenomenon has seldom been analyzed and compared among young universities and in regional contexts in Europe and Latin America. This contribution aims to analyze the internationalization efforts of three comparable, young HEIs in Austria, Chile, and Peru and to compare the approaches they use, referring to the model proposed by Söderqvist (2002), using qualitative interviews as the main data source.

A short overview of the European and Latin American education systems and some specific characteristics of HEIs in Austria, Chile, and Peru (section “Higher Education Systems in Europe and Latin America”) will be followed with descriptions of the methodology and methods used to gather data and analyze findings (section “Methodology and Methods”). The results are presented per university (section “Results”), followed by a discussion and conclusion (sections “Discussion” and “Conclusions”, respectively), where universities are classified under the Söderqvist (2002) model and research questions answered.

Higher Education Systems in Europe and Latin America

In Europe, major transformations in HE took place during the first decade of the twenty-first century and resulted mainly from the Bologna Declaration. The main goal was to establish a European HE paradigm that allowed an increase in international competitiveness, attractiveness, and similarity among national HE systems (European Commission 2015a).

The agreement signed in 1999 by HE ministers from 29 European countries created a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and initiated a cooperation process that has radically changed HE (Bologna Process). Reforms have affected countries within and beyond Europe, and the number of official signatory countries has risen to 48 to date (Salmi et al. 2015; European Commission 2015b; EHEA 2018). Signatory countries have implemented reforms on the basis of common key values, such as freedom of expression, autonomy for institutions, independent students’ unions, academic freedom, and free movement of students and staff. Countries, institutions, and stakeholders of the EHEA continuously adapt their HE systems to assure more compatibility and to strengthen quality assurance mechanisms. Increased compatibility between education systems makes it easier for students and job seekers to move within Europe and render European HEIs and colleges more competitive and attractive to the rest of the world (European Commission 2015b).

The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) has become a key tool within the EHEA to increase transparency, comparability, and quality of degree programs and course syllabi. ECTS has been adopted as the national credit system in most countries of the EHEA. In other regions of the world, it is increasingly used with underlying local credit systems, based on comparable criteria, playing an important role in the growing global dimension of education and encouraging the shift from a teacher-centered to student-centered learning approach (European Commission 2015a).

Differences between academically and professionally-oriented institutions are still formally present, but—partly due to the Bologna Process—such differences are shrinking or have discontinued to jointly exist. This means that while there might be a (formal) distinction between institutions, there are no differences between the degrees awarded in many cases (European Commission 2015b). In this sense, HEIs differ in their selectivity, curriculum, administration, cost, academic versus practical orientation, and prestige. For example, they distinguish themselves by means of a vocational and professional focus in undergraduate teaching for bachelor or associate degrees (including master’s degrees but not Ph.D.’s). Another distinction lies in the local or national scope of graduate employability, which determines what students are trained for and the research efforts undertaken. These institutions are generally characterized as younger and more entrepreneurial in comparison with research-oriented universities (Yemini et al. 2014).

The type and number of HEIs also vary among EHEA countries. They might be academically or professionally oriented; public or private; or have other distinctions applied in a country context. The number of HEIs varies considerably across the EHEA countries with between 11 (Montenegro) and 900 (Russia) institutions (European Commission 2015b).

The past decades have been marked by great change and growth for HE in the Latin American region, where the late 1980s can be identified as the period when this transformation process began to gather momentum. By 2013, more than 24 million students were pursuing some form of tertiary education in the region, a striking increase from about 10 million in the year 2000 (Brunner and Villalobos 2014). Although access to HE largely increased in the last decade in Latin America (LA), unfortunately it is still relatively low and unequally distributed in terms of socioeconomic groups and countries. There are substantial differences across HEIs and systems among countries in the region. Moreover, the financial sustainability of HE systems is becoming a concern in the face of increasing international competition and rising costs (UNESCO 2013; OECD 2015; Brunner and Miranda 2016). The expansion of enrollment rates has been associated with a considerable enlargement of private supply, and the increased demand for HE in LA has been mainly absorbed by private universities that have grown at a faster pace than public ones. The LA region has the highest percentage (48.6%) of private enrollment worldwide, well above that of OECD countries (30%) (OECD 2015; Brunner and Miranda 2016).

When considering the homogeneity of HE systems among LA countries, some initiatives can be found with the aim of creating a common HE area, however, no solid agreement has been sought or signed by the ministries responsible for HE from all countries in the region. No general and uniformly applied academic credit system has yet been put to use to replace or unify existing diverse practices that have different levels of depth and scope. In this sense, the Latin American Reference Credit (CLAR), was developed under a project supported by the European Commission which geared toward the establishment of a common credit system for HE in LA. It was created to display the relative complexity of different curricular components to facilitate the assessment and comparability of learning results within different contexts of qualifications, degree programs, and learning environments (Tuning Latin America Project 2013). Despite the fact that no common academic credit system has yet been applied uniformly in the region, several universities and nations in Latin America are known to have already strengthened their efforts to validate local credit systems in alignment with ECTS criteria. This opens the path for internationalization and interchange with EHEA universities and other universities worldwide.

The UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) is one such institution devoted to the promotion of HE in the region. In the declaration of the Regional Conference of IESALC in 2008 it was indicated that “Latin American and Caribbean academic integration is an urgent task,” and “that it is necessary to create the future of the continent” (Conferencia Regional de Educación Superior de América Latina y el Caribe 2008, p. 24). Since then, the main actors and representatives of HEIs in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) made commitments to foster regional integration—a platform for the mobilization and articulation of academic cooperation in the LAC region was created (Espacio de Encuentro Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior, ENLACES). At CRES 2018, ENLACES was duly instituted, representing a real opportunity to put forward an agenda of concrete action to build a common space for HE and promote the integration of LAC (Conferencia Regional de Educación Superior de América Latina y el Caribe 2018).

Higher Education in Austria

In 2006, the Austrian university system adopted the European three-tier system of degrees according to the Bologna Process. The old two-tier system still exists in some subject areas and universities. The oldest university in Austria was founded in 1365 (Universität Wien) and is the oldest university in the German-speaking world (BMWFW 2016; OeAD 2017).

According to the Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy (2016), the current Austrian university system comprises three types of HEIs: universities (traditional), universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschule/FH), and university colleges of teacher education (Pädagogische Hochschule). The total number of students enrolled in tertiary education, including all university types in 2016/2017 in Austria was 383,517 (Statistik Austria 2018).

Based on the Bologna Declaration, the traditional research universities offer programs in the form of diploma studies, bachelor’s degree programs , master’s degree programs , and doctoral and Ph.D. programs. Austria has 13 public universities, 6 universities of arts, 3 medical universities, and 12 private universities with “traditional university” status. Universities of applied sciences (UAS) provide scientifically based vocational education and training with a strong occupational focus. Based on the Bologna Declaration, UAS offer bachelor’s degree and master’s degree programs . There are 21 UAS in Austria. University colleges of teacher education are legal entities under public law with restricted autonomy. They offer and provide teacher education as part of initial teacher training: bachelor’s and master’s degree programs to obtain teaching credentials for the primary sector, as well as bachelor’s and master’s degree programs to obtain teaching credentials for the secondary sector. Nowadays, there are 14 HEIs of this type in the country (BMWFW 2016; OeAD 2017).

Higher Education in Chile

The Chilean tertiary education system displays a diverse and complex institutional infrastructure. There are the so-called “traditional” universities, all created prior to 1980, including 2 public universities and 6 private universities with partial public funding. In the reform of 1980, the 2 public universities were dismantled into 11 regional universities, 2 pedagogical universities, and a single technological university. The 6 traditional private universities maintained their original character, except for the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, which underwent a split giving rise to 3 new Catholic universities. The original 8 universities gave way to 16 state universities and 9 private universities. All these universities are part of the so-called Council of Rectors of Chilean Universities (CRUCH). The same reform also established the possibility of creating new private universities and two new types of non-university HEIs, also of private nature: professional institutes and technical training centers. Since the reform, the dynamism of university sectors, professional institutes, and technical training centers has been very relevant (Brunner and Miranda 2016).

During the last decades, 54 private universities, 90 professional institutes, and about 270 technical training centers have been created. These institutions do not receive direct public financing. The system currently has 157 institutions in total: 25 universities belonging to CRUCH, 35 private universities, 43 professional institutes, and 54 technical training centers. Chile has experienced a strong growth in student participation at all levels of its education system. Since the recovery of democracy in 1990, the system has quadrupled in size. By 2015, the total number of students in the system reached 1,232,791. The Chilean educational sector has practically acquired the characteristics of a universal access system. Between 2010 and 2015, undergraduate enrollment increased from 938,338 to 1,165,654 students (Zapata and Tejeda 2016).

Higher Education in Peru

Recent years have seen the reform of HE in Peru, marked by a central concern about quality. Complaints about the poor quality of private institutions generated an early intervention process, particularly in higher pedagogical institutes. The new university law not only sets quality standards but also reorganizes the previous system of quality assurance by extinguishing its specialized bodies. The architecture of the new model (DS No. 016-2015-ED, 2015) has four pillars to its quality assurance system: (1) reliable and timely information; (2) promotion to improve performance; (3) accreditation for continuous improvement; and (4) licensing according to compliance with basic conditions. Implementation is the responsibility of all the actors involved in the Peruvian university system. These guidelines govern the entire HE system (Ganoza and Franco 2016).

According to data from SUNEDU and MINEDU, the number of HEIs decreased over a 6-year period from 1237 institutions in 2010 to 1119 in 2015. This decrease was not homogeneous or constant but occurred during 3 specific years, namely 2011, 2012, and 2015, being linked to the instability of non-university HEIs. The creation of public universities has seemingly come to a halt. Between 2011 and 2015, the number of public universities remained stable at 51 institutions, while the number of private universities increased by 15%—from 76 in 2010 to 91 in 2015 (Ganoza and Franco 2016; SUNEDU 2017; MINEDU 2018).

Methodology and Methods

The research questions this contribution aims to answer are:

  1. 1.

    Can the Söderqvist (2002) model be applied to the HEIs analyzed?

  2. 2.

    Based on these results, can indications be derived about how to continue the internationalization process in these HEIs?

Secondary data analysis and a review of state-of-the-art literature was used to ground the methodological framework of this chapter. Qualitative research, based on an exploratory design, was undertaken for the empirical part of the study for a more holistic outlook with regard to the internationalization phenomenon in three regional HE contexts: Austria, Chile, and Peru. In-depth interviews with experts (international office staff, managers, heads of degree programs/departments/institutes, research and development staff, directors) were undertaken. Content analysis was carried out following the methodology of Mayring (2015) for systematic qualitative data summary and categorization. Homogeneity and heterogeneity among the different HEIs regarding internationalization components have been observed and discussed under the framework of Söderqvist (2002, p. 205).

Data Collection

In this study, 30 face-to-face interviews were conducted by previously trained interviewers between September and December 2017 at three (public-)private HEIs in Austria, Chile, and Peru. The universities included in the survey are considered young universities , founded only 30 years ago (at date of study). In terms of number of students, enrollments were below 8000. All three institutions deliver bachelor’s and master’s degrees, but not Ph.D.’s.

Analysis of the results was completed in January 2018 and March 2018 in Graz (AT). The questionnaire was semi-structured using a predefined interview guideline but allowing for open answers. Audio recordings were made of all the interviews by previous agreement with the interviewees. For each of the questions the expected scope of the answer was described in notes. If the first answer the interviewee provided did not encompass the full extent expected, more detailed questions, following guidelines, were addressed. The interviews were done in Spanish or in English according to the preference of the interviewee, and took between 20 and 40 minutes, on average. Table 4.1 provides the questions used to interview the experts.

Table 4.1 Semi-structured questionnaire for interviewing experts
Full size table

Content Analysis Process

The complete audio of each interview was transcribed in full. The qualitative methodology to summarize the content of the texts derived from the transcriptions followed Mayring’s (2015) systematic approach. The core idea of the Mayring (2015) procedure is to preserve the advantages of quantitative content analysis as developed within communication science and to transfer and further develop them into qualitative–interpretative steps. Qualitative content analysis within this framework is defined “as an approach of empirical, methodologically controlled analysis of texts within their context of communication, following content analytical rules and step by step models, without rash quantification” (Mayring 2000, p. 2) (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1
figure 1

(Adapted from Mayring 2000, p. 5)

Steps of deductive category application

Full size image

The following steps were taken during analysis of the transcribed texts:

  1. 1.

    Each of the statements given by the interviewees was paraphrasedFootnote 1 in clear sentences.

  2. 2.

    The paraphrases were assigned to specific predefined categories, which had been developed deductively from research questions, establishing coding rules (Table 4.2).

    Table 4.2 Steps of deductive category application
    Full size table
  3. 3.

    Reductions from all interviews were collected for each predefined category. Table 4.3 provides an example of the categorization of a paraphrase as well as providing its reduction form.

    Table 4.3 Example of a reduction of a paraphrase for content analysis
    Full size table
  4. 4.

    For each category and country the reductions were generalized leading to a paragraph summary of all answers from one country (university) per category. These statements formed the main body of the content analysis.

Results

Data resulting from the content analysis are presented separated by university. First, an overview of the internationalization aspects from each HEI is presented; then the results related to student exchange, staff, and internationalization services are outlined.

University A (Austria)

Internationalization is seen as a beneficial process of globally active HEIs, forming an integral part of the university. It provides the organizational and administrative framework for actors and works on two levels: internationalization at home and international mobility. It includes online and offline teaching exchanges. The main elements of the internationalization process are (strategic) international partnerships enabling credit mobility and internships of students and staff mobility; internationalization at home draws on the idea of a diversity of campus life characterized by a mix of national and international students and lecturers; international R&D activities and online learning offerings including massive open online courses (MOOCs).

Internationalization is an important cooperation process, which connects institutions that have more in common than separates them. The advantages of internationalization are that the actors are exposed to an international environment, which allows them to experience new ways of thinking and teaching, understand cultural similarities and differences, and train their language skills. Besides intercultural differences, the main stumbling blocks to internationalization are first and foremost administrative in nature, prompting the need to further establish centralized offers. Further challenges include attracting experienced, international, high-quality staff using funds available to universities, and the eventual lack of full English language programs in some fields—significantly affecting and slowing down the internationalization process.

The main issue in terms of adaptation of teaching in an international environment is the availability and range of courses taught in English for international students to choose from. The responsibility for this rests at all levels, including individual teachers, departments, and the university itself. Courses designed specifically for incoming students are a good alternative, however, these are rarely adopted due to cost. The possibility of going abroad is anchored in most curricula (a suggested mobility window). A mandatory semester abroad is often considered a viable option and is realized in a few specialized programs. In support of these main activities, several other adaptations have been made, specifically the provision of additional offers and programs like summer schools and MOOCs as means to attract international attention. Teachers get support running these by means of offers of didactic and/or language training.

Student Exchange

Many institutional partnerships exist, the main driver of which is the Erasmus Programme of the European Union. Additionally, many partnerships are acquired through personal networks or international R&D projects, which are again often funded by the EU. Both university and company partnerships (for internships) are based on learning agreements.

Incoming students are mostly acquired through word of mouth, once exchange has been established using partnership networks. Additional channels are through educational fairs, the university’s English website, and social media. Sometimes summer schools are offered. An adequate English language teaching offer is considered a prerequisite. The university’s central, beautiful, and safe region within the heart of Europe is considered a bonus to attract international students.

Going abroad is considered “the normal thing.” Students are intrinsically motivated and receive information from professors. Teaching staff from other countries represent another motivational factor. All students are supported when going abroad, mandatory internships and exchange semesters make going abroad a necessity in some specialized degree programs. “Study abroad” fairs and informal events support the acquisition of international students. Students and staff receive valuable support in most of these activities both from the international office as well as from the international officers for each degree program.

Staff

Even though attracting very experienced (and expensive), non-German speaking staff is considered perpetually difficult, international staff are commonly, and already successfully, included/integrated into the (adjunct) faculty body at the university. One of the main drivers for acquiring international and company teaching support is the Erasmus Programme, a second being through personal networking between professors at conferences and meetings. Staff are acquired using open job offers, which are internationally accessible. International participation in such calls for staff is common.

Most staff mobility is based on the Erasmus Programme (for teaching or staff exchange), considered to be very important by the interviewees, many of whom have prior experience having benefited from Erasmus schemes as students. Erasmus staff exchange is professionally supported by the university’s international office and attracts many participants. Another option for staff comes from EU projects, which often include mobility funding and lead to follow-up activities. Furthermore, paid trips to international conferences and staff weeks have been implemented and are considered important. Finally, specialized exchange programs for students often lead to teacher mobility.

Currently, common publications with international partners represent a hot topic and seem to be an upcoming trend at the university. Numerous educational projects supported by the EU, as well as student projects connected to specific courses, trigger international R&D activities. The differences in teaching and learning and the internationalization of HE have been mentioned as research topics.

Services

Services offered to the staff include counseling services and administrative support for going abroad. German, English, and other language courses are also provided. A request for additional services (especially translations for publications and advanced IT infrastructure) has been raised.

Services offered to students include administrative support, international coordinators in degree programs, buddy and tandem programs, and social events. Language courses are offered as well, mainly German courses. Intercultural courses are offered for those students aiming to go abroad.

University B (Chile)

Internationalization is a bi-directional process, starting with an openness to other cultures and experiences in an academic context. This creates international visibility and connects the university with other HEIs for the exchange of students, people, and content. This reaches beyond student mobility , creating an international experience and a global vision, especially by including international content in lectures and classes and thus professionally fostering international impact. Internationalization has a focus on teaching and learning, encompassing student mobility , based on a bi-directional agreement–based process. Mobility is covered by the Laureate network or inter-institutional agreements. Successful partner communication is a precondition. Beyond student mobility , further elements encompass people (mostly by inviting guest lecturers), content (by adapting the content of courses to the international environment), and R&D (by participating in international collaborative projects). Diverse activities sponsored by the international club are the backbone of internationalization at home, that are considered to be very important.

The advantages of internationalization are clearly seen in terms of acquiring up-to-date information for teaching. Learning from and exchanging with partner organizations represents a significant advantage and internationalization is a strong contributor to the content and quality of courses. Generally, the university has positive experiences of this. Communication with international partners is generally good and understood to be crucial for its regional impact.

Generally student exchange is working well, but there is an imbalance between incoming students outnumbering outgoing students. The student body comes from diverse social backgrounds, sometimes limiting the possibility of travel. The number of international scholarships is limited. There is no visible strategy and little support from the university for the internationalization of staff—internationalization is mostly dealt with individually. No preparatory courses are provided, and only very limited financial support, through sources of external funding, is offered. Sometimes the language barrier between Spanish and English speaking countries becomes an issue.

Student Exchange

Institutional partnerships are either based on participation in associations (Laureate, Pacific Alliance, ALAIC, AUIP, AFIT, etc.) or agreements at the university level (mainly with Peru, Mexico, Argentina, and Canada). Institutional partnerships are coordinated by the international relations office (IRO). A regional research center (CRIIS) has established links with research teams at some international universities.

Incoming students are recruited from universities which do have a partner agreement using existing networks (e.g., Laureate) to promote the possibility of studying in Chile. International fairs and agencies supporting studying abroad are used to recruit students and/or to find new partner institutions. Exchange is facilitated by English language courses, which are offered in various disciplines. Chile is considered a very safe country with high living standards, making exchange easy for incoming candidates. Word of mouth is the most relevant distribution channel. The IRO is responsible for recruiting incoming students.

Outgoing students are recruited by the international office, using information sessions, seminars, and international fairs. The majority of students benefit from the Laureate Programme or existing bilateral agreements or project-based opportunities. The example set by mobile lecturers is considered important. As students often do not have the resources to travel, the university offers a loan program.

Staff

Currently, limited freedom of transit in working terms represents an obstacle to mobility. Staff exchange is organized in terms of specific individual activities, which might encompass conference speaking, research activities, or agreements between universities, especially at the master’s degree program level. This process is supported by participating in the Laureate network. For most positions, there is no strategy for specifically looking for international staff, even though most staff hired do have international experience as part of their international networks. There are some specific positions announced that require international experience. All positions are open to international participation. Some international staff have been hired and guest lecturers teach on a regular basis. The main information channels for international staff come through word of mouth and personal contacts. The IRO acts as a service unit for incoming professors.

Outgoing staff mobility is either based on agreements for achieving academic degrees in partner universities or for specific research activities. Funds for travel are decentralized and managed by faculties. Online resources are used to complement travel. Attending conferences is financially supported by the university and international journal publications are financially rewarded. Active participation in two ongoing, major EU-funded research projects are seen as an opportunity to develop good practice and exchange knowledge. Activities range from mirror classes to investigations and common research.

Services

Staff services include courses for teacher training, use of the Laureate network, and language courses (e.g., English or French). Seminars on specific topics are developed and open to young researchers. Scholarships are provided for acquiring academic titles at the graduate or postgraduate level, with opportunities being presented, for example, through LATINZ or Fullbright. The international office monitors all internationalization activities and serves as a central service unit for all questions linked to internationalization.

The international office also acts as a central service unit for all matters concerning the internationalization of students. It provides administrative support and support with day-to-day issues like housing or medical aid. It presents opportunities for exchange students and serves as an information hub. There is a student-led international club, supervised by the IRO, that provides social and sports activities and mixes incoming and national students. Spanish language courses are available and supported by buddy and tandem programs.

University C (Peru)

Internationalization is a process understood to reach beyond the university level and beyond regional constraints, even though there is a certain focus on Spanish-speaking countries. It is a horizontal, complementary process, that supports and involves the whole university. It is understood as being essential to the visibility of the university. A global vision and mindset is seen as beneficial, and open dialogue with other universities and institutions is actively sought. Internationalization allows the university to learn through the examples of its international partner institutions. Internationalization mainly encompasses the mobility of incoming and outgoing staff and students. Staff mobility is often connected to staff acquiring degrees from universities abroad. Internationalization at home relies mostly on incoming students and incoming professors. International research networks are based on the personal networks of such professors, with a certain priority given to Spanish-speaking countries. Currently, the focus of internationalization is on teaching, but internationalizing research is an already defined priority for the near future.

The main advantage of internationalization is considered to be the chance to learn from other universities. An international dimension in terms of graduate profiles is seen as beneficial as is the opportunity to present local cultures to students, something that is not fully implemented or defined. Challenges or barriers to internationalization are mainly based on a lack of formalized structures and procedures for internationalization. Currently, work is primarily based on a reactive approach, that is, finding and making the most of opportunities when they arise. Internationalization is considered to be of limited importance at the management level, having a lack of internationalization strategies in place. For example, concrete strategies for the acquisition of international students are missing. Some main factors for promoting international exchange are incomplete and the curriculum is not fully adapted to deliver international requirements. There is no regular summer school to attract foreign students, no courses on cultural theory, and only limited cultural programs. No financial support is provided by the university to outgoing students and international internships are not yet available. As most staff are not educated to Ph.D. level, international research-driven exchange is limited.

Student Exchange

Institutional partnerships are built on either an association basis (Pacific Alliance, CRISCOS, Fullright, IEEE, Peruvian State Teacher Exchange) or on the basis of specific agreements with universities abroad (e.g., Murcia, Hanoi, and Arizona). Agreements mostly aim at realizing student mobility or staff mobility. Staff mobility is often associated with the acquisition of degrees abroad. IRO acts as a central service unit. The university is involved in the INCHIPE project, which is considered very beneficial for the development of internationalization. The university has no association for the support of student or staff mobility.

While there is no elaborate plan for the acquisition of incoming students, exchanges are successfully conducted with a number of partner institutions in America and Europe. Once an agreement has been signed, direct channels are used for promoting the university. Some support comes from student associations and mobility associations (ONUCAL, CRISCOS, and AISEEC). Some courses are taught in English and do have an international focus, but no full program or semester is offered in English. There are more outgoing than incoming students. Students coming to the university can participate in community programs for underdeveloped areas.

Some partial and full scholarships are offered using different funding sources and are supported by associations, such as UDUAL, CRISCOS, FIUC, and ODUCAL. Some bilateral agreements have also been signed. More scholarships have been offered than used. Internships abroad are realized using student organizations like IAESTE and AISEEC. Support for these is delivered on an individual basis. Mobilities are evaluated and a student satisfaction survey has been set up. Mobility is required by the state and the number of students and their satisfaction levels are defined as success indicators.

Staff

The recruitment of incoming staff is based on the personal networks of professors. These are utilized to set up research cooperation projects or to organize and/or participate in conferences. Some international staff work at the university, but the main focus is to recruit national professors with some international experience and/or language skills. There is no formalized strategy to attract international staff.

Outgoing staff are often teaching staff seeking degree-level educational opportunities (e.g., master’s degrees, Ph.D. studies, or sabbaticals)—often supported by the Pacific Alliance. There are (financial) incentives for researchers who publish internationally or form research consortia, coordinated by the research directorate. Support for teacher mobility is on a case-by-case basis.

International R&D is based on a number of initiatives, like the INCHIPE project, mostly within small local networks or with institutions from America and Europe. These projects are often initiated by professors. The university offers an incentive program for international research and the library supports research activities with a broad range of resources.

Services

IRO acts as the central service provider. Several staff services include free English and other language courses (fees apply for students) and journal subscriptions can be freely accessed. While there is no specific seminar on publication competences, attendance of research talks for qualitative and quantitative methods is encouraged. Remote (video) conferencing equipment is available and supported by the university. There is financial support offered for visiting and hosting conferences and for publications. A translation service to English is also offered.

Students are supported in administrative matters by IRO, which act as a central service provider. A buddy program and a tutoring program have been established. A cultural program providing a variety of social, cultural, and sporting activities is available for national and international students. A foreign language training program is in place. Every semester, an intercultural fair is organized for students with an interest in going abroad. Library services are open to national and international students offering books, computers, journal access, and study rooms. Medical and psychological services are available to students. The university supports the formation of clubs and networks. Generally, an interdisciplinary and international mindset is promoted.

Discussion

Content analysis clearly shows that the surveyed universities are located at different levels according to the Söderqvist (2002) model (p. 205). University A (Austria) has clearly reached the third stage, marked by the existence of an internationalization strategy and partnerships and strategic alliances on different levels in pursuit of value creation through research projects and international publications. Multiculturalism is firmly anchored in the university and a relevant number of staff have international backgrounds. Going abroad is a common activity within the university and the advantages of internationalization clearly outweigh the disadvantages. Research into internationalization and learning styles, or the development of MOOCs, show the university’s tendency of slowly evolving to the fourth level.

University B (Chile) is currently in the second stage, with a clear awareness and dedication to engineering curricular reforms and carrying out international research. Specialized staff are appointed to handle curriculum revisions and adaptations. Services are still mostly centralized in the IRO, but some responsibilities are shared between different levels at the university. International staff are welcome and multiculturalism is developing, but the strategy and structure of the internationalization process are yet to be fully defined.

University C (Peru) is currently in the first stage, with awareness of the need for internationalization and a commitment to planning and implementing different measures for supporting the internationalization process. IROs handle the daily routine as centralized units. Strategies and structures are in development, with much of the process still relying on a reactive approach (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Stages of internationalization of HEIs
Full size table

The challenges of internationalization seem to be clearly dependent on the stage a university has reached, according to Söderqvist (2002). Such challenges need to be solved in order to reach the next stage. Seen this way, the challenges for university A are mostly based on how to promote and commercialize their existing offers. By comparison, university B has its main challenges within the institutionalization process, defining high-quality strategies and structures, forming lasting partnerships and strategic alliances, and creating a truly multicultural environment. University C needs to focus on the development of an international curriculum and a research strategy. The content derived from these interviews suggests that most of the current developments at these universities already match these requirements.

Conclusions

The Söderqvist (2002) model constitutes a useful and applicable framework to understand and identify an HEI’s level of internationalization, providing the potential to identify key challenges that need to be overcome in order to reach the next development stage.

To navigate and move forward through the internationalization stages, HEIs need to develop proper strategies and structures to cope with internationalizing. The communication flow and alignment between the different levels of a university is a complex matter that requires well-defined processes and feedback mechanisms.

Each of these levels follows its own agenda and priorities when it comes to internationalization. It is paramount to the success of internationalization of a university, that all three levels—university/institutional, departmental, and individual—communicate successfully with one another. Many activities and initiatives are owned by individuals, whose motives, resources, and challenges require dialogue between different actors to be successful and carry impact for an institution. Feedback systems need to be established and financial resources need to be secured. This process often depends on specific individuals ensuring sustainability (Hahn 2004).

When looking at the different levels of the internationalization process (Fig. 4.2), all three universities surveyed demonstrated a number of bottom-up activities at the individual and departmental level. A clear distinction regarding the importance of internationalization, however, can be seen at the management level. The further developed a university is on the Söderqvist (2002) scale, the more importance internationalization is given at the management level. Process definitions and feedback cycles show different levels of development, not necessarily connected to the general development of universities.

Fig. 4.2
figure 2

(Source Author’s contribution)

Levels of internationalization

Full size image

All universities need to invest in enhanced structures to govern communication between the three different levels at an institution. The more internationally active a university is, the better connected the processes need to be and the clearer the results need to be communicated. While a reactive approach of “grabbing opportunities” might still work at the lower stages of internationalization , the requirement of a highly structured and institutionalized approach gains more relevance at higher stages. When universities envision their internationalization path using structured frameworks, the possibility to take concrete action is more feasible at all three levels due to the definition of processes and structured feedback of results, which is a precondition for evolving to the next level.

International projects in HE are valuable tools for raising awareness of internationalization, to test processes, and to identify gaps and practices that can be transferred and or improved. Using the results of this chapter, universities with similar profiles to those universities considered here, can use the tools used in this chapter to evaluate their current path and thereby identify key challenges and calls for action.

There is no denying that the lives of students, faculty, and staff members are changing considerably in the face of the internationalization of HEIs. Despite the warnings of numerous scholars for HEIs to favor a quantitative over a qualitative set of internationalization strategies, stakeholder perceptions reportedly reflect positive effects. They are undisputed with regard to the improvement of curricula, the vast range of degree programs with English as the language of tuition, the rising numbers of partner universities facilitating studying abroad with double or multiple degree options, and thus the increasing (global) employability of students and graduates. Never before has lifelong learning been facilitated in such a way, nor the opportunity for cross-border collaboration been so high, or knowledge transfer been enabled to such a degree. The enormous potential internationalized HEIs have to educate both students and faculty, and thus benefit society, must not be underestimated.