Introduction

Internationalization of higher education (HE) has for some time now been seen as ‘a key component of the changing landscape of higher education’ (Marmolejo, 2010, 1) and ‘central on the agenda of international organizations, national governments, institutions of higher education and their representative bodies, student organizations, and accreditation agencies’ (de Wit, 2011, 241).Footnote 1 Although it is understood, interpreted and acted upon in various different ways, it is most commonly defined as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education’ (Knight, 2008, 21). It is a process and term that is highly normative, and is presented as bringing a wide range of positive outcomes. In addition a number of commentators have discussed the potentially negative consequences of pursuing the process many commentators have discussed the ‘dark side’ of internationalization, for example, in terms of inequality in the global education space. As noted by Obamba and Mwema (2009), in some international institutional partnerships, especially those involving institutions from the developed ‘north’ and the developing ‘south’ it can be the case ‘whereby non-Western knowledge from the poor world regions has been systematically relegated to a peripheral epistemic position’ (Obamba and Mwema, 2009, 364).

As a process, internationalization is seen as both driving and being driven by globalization. The rapid changes made possible by globalization including increasing innovations and global interconnectedness have had a major impact on HE (Altbach et al., 2009; Delgado-Marquez et al., 2011). For some time now, the pressures and possibilities of an increasingly globalized world and an internationalized HE sector have led to a large number of changes. Indeed many universities have now essentially become international organizations, leading to wide spread changes. Both the way they are managed and the meaning of what HE is, can be, and should be, has evolved. For example, internationalization activities have ‘dramatically expanded in volume, scope and complexity’ (Altbach and Knight, 2007, 290), meaning that ‘more people than ever are involved in, and influenced by, internationalization’ (Curtis, 2013, 42). Nowadays it is not ‘just students and scholars who are moving across borders; so are programmes, providers, projects and polices’ (Knight, 2014, 1). The numbers of international students being admitted to universities has increased as more and more students are choosing ‘to study abroad, enrol in foreign educational programmes and institutions in their home country, or simply use the internet to take courses at colleges and universities in other countries’ (Delgado-Marquez et al., 2011, 268). International networking has become the norm and universities are signing more and more partnership agreements with institutions in other countries for joint research, teaching and student exchange, for example, and ‘new values and perspectives’ have entered ‘academic endeavours in education and research’ (Paulsdottir and van Liempd, 2012, 25; see also Delgado-Marquez et al., 2011). Other changes have included English becoming the ‘lingua franca’ of international HE, as it is in the sectors of finance, aviation and ‘scientific communication’ (Altbach and Knight, 2007, 291), with universities in non-English speaking countries now offering whole degree programmes taught in English.

Consequently, universities, governments, policymakers and HE leaders across the world have been signing cooperation agreements, implementing policies and taking other pro-active steps to enhance internationalization, and maximize the benefits that the process is believed to bring. Although the perception of these rationales and benefits will vary widely among universities and regions, they can be split into four broad categories — political, economic, social and cultural, academic — all of which are interconnected (de Wit, 2011). The perception of the wide range of benefits includes preparing students to work in a globalized world and human resource development; status and profile building; increasing cooperation and development; quality enhancement and capacity building including of teaching, research and learning; socio-cultural development including increased inter-cultural understanding; promoting skilled migration and revenue generation, among many other factors (Brandenburg and de Wit, 2011; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014).

How different universities and/or policymakers prioritize the perceived benefits and rationales for internationalization, and as such what is driving them to pursue the enhancement of the process and its related activities, will have a direct impact on the internationalization policies that are developed at all levels. Indeed the development of specific policies for internationalization has become a common feature of university management processes. The International Association of Universities’ (IAU) 4th Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education, which drew responses from 1,336 HE institutions from 131 different countries, found that 75% of the global sample of respondents either had a specific internationalization strategy in place, or were in the process of developing one (the comparable figure for European respondents was 81%) with a further 16% saying that internationalization forms part of the overall institutional strategy (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014, 43). At the same time, national governments play a crucial role in promoting internationalization. This is especially the case when government policies for internationalization are tied to funding for certain activities, thereby heavily influencing institutions. Indeed as noted by Delgado-Marquez et al. (2011, 268) ‘in a global world of higher education, most national governments want to have international universities that compete and cooperate with other universities worldwide’. As such many states have now developed nationwide internationalization policies. These have included the governments of Canada (Canadian Strategy for International Education, 2014), Ireland (National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, 2011), Malaysia (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025), the United Kingdom (International Education — Global Growth and Prosperity) and Finland (Strategy for the internationalization of HEIs in Finland 2009–2015).

As funding is a centrally important issue in a university’s ability to pursue its internationalization goals, governments have sought to provide additional resources at either the national or regional levels. For example, Asian countries, including, Japan, China and Korea, and countries in the Gulf region have recently increased national funding schemes for internationalization related activities, especially mobility and research. European countries have access to large scale EU funding schemes as described below, and European regional government as well, have also for some time, been implementing policies and programmes that either directly or indirectly support internationalization of HE in the region. For example, an intergovernmental action of France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom in 1999 initiated the Bologna Process with the original objective of bringing together HE process in the European region and unifying ‘academic issues in order to ensure compatible structures, transferable credits, and equality in qualifications’ (Iñiguez, 2011, 319), in order to promote academic mobility, and exchanges between institutions in the region, and the attractiveness of HE to those outside Europe (Council of Europe, 2014). Other initiatives, including the EU Erasmus student mobility grant programme, have had a substantial impact on internationalization of HE in the region — as of 2013 over 3 million students had benefited from EU Erasmus programme grant, since the programme’s inception in 1987 (EC, 2013). This programme was replaced by Erasmus+ in 2014 and that will run for the next 7 years, making €14.7 billion available to help fund European students to ‘study, train, gain work experience and volunteer abroad and will also support transnational partnerships between education, training and youth organisations’ (Erasmusplus, 2014). The Horizon 2020 programme that makes over €80 billion available for research and innovation also started in 2014, which is also when the European Commission released the strategy European Higher Education in the World. Among other aspects this strategy seeks to ‘promote mobility and cooperation between universities, EU member states and [importantly] non-EU countries’ and to encourage European member states and universities to ‘develop their own Internationalization strategies, adapted to their own situations and needs and taking into account different aspects of international mobility and cooperation’ (European Commission, 2014).

Even though internationalization is not a new process, and there has been a growth of policymaking at all levels, the ways in which internationalization conceived within universities and how this has evolved is less well understood — including the changing external and internal forces that are driving the process forward, and the evolving perception of the key rationales and benefits of the process. These changes have at least in part been influenced by the global economic crisis, which has led many countries to reduce and/or restructure their public funding of HE. Taking Europe as just one example, a recent European University Association (EUA) study reports that the cut to public funding of HE in Latvia has been over 50%, while the United Kingdom (40%), Greece (30%) and Italy (20%) have also seen big reductions in the public funding being made available to fund HE (EUA, 2011). These pressures have led internationalization to become increasingly market orientated, especially as it is believed to have some revenue generation capacity particularly in terms of fee paying international student recruitment. The process has therefore come to be noted in the literature as ‘a common response to the need for revenue-generation’ (University of Alberta, 2014; see also de Wit, 2011), and in turn one that is dominated by economic concerns and rationales. As noted by Knight, from its beginnings as a process that has been ‘traditionally seen’ as being ‘based on values of cooperation, partnership, exchange, mutual benefits and capacity building’ it has come to be detailed in recent years, as a process that is ‘increasingly characterized by competition, commercialization, self-interest and status building’ (Knight, 2013, 89), and ‘a source of competitive advantage’ (Delgado-Marquez et al., 2011, 267).

However on deeper reflection and analysis of the literature, one finds that many of the statements about the changing nature and drivers of internationalization are based on assertions rather than evidence-based research. Indeed very little research has examined whether internationalization within universities has indeed become more economically/commercially focused — in terms of policy priorities, and institutional perceptions of how the process is conceived and acted upon. Even fewer studies have examined what role financial resources play in internationalization — both in terms of how the process is funded, and the role and priority given within universities to internationalization activities that have the potential to generate revenue, including recruitment of fee paying international students. This has meant that a number of questions regarding how internationalization is conceived and acted upon remained unanswered. For example, given that public funding for HE has been reduced in many countries, what evidence is there that funding for internationalization related activities has also been reduced? What evidence is there that internationalization has changed so much that it is now dominated by economic concerns where money making is seen as a key rationale? What evidence is there that commercialized internationalization activities such as increasing international student recruitment have become a priority focus within institutional internationalization strategies?

Methodology

These and other questions will be investigated in this paper. To do this, and focusing on HE in Europe, a critical analysis of selected results collected from European universities in the IAU 4th Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education will be undertaken. The electronic questionnaire was sent to university heads and focused on a wide range of topics relating to internationalization of HE within institutions. Once the survey had closed it had drawn responses from 1,336 HE institutions in 131 countries thereby making it the largest and most geographically comprehensive study of its kind. This included responses from 604 HE institutions in Europe.

To frame the analysis the following three research questions will be addressed:

  1. 1

    In a world where public funding for HE has been reducing in many countries has there in turn been a reduction in funding of internationalization activities within universities? If there has been a reduction, which activities are becoming less well funded?

  2. 2

    Given the continued reduction of funding for HE, has internationalization ‘traditionally seen as a process based on values of cooperation, partnership, exchange, […] and capacity building’ (Knight, 2011, 1) become to be a more commercial process in which economic and revenue generation imperatives are a ‘key motive for all internationalization projects’ (Altbach and Knight, 2007, 292)?

  3. 3

    If a reduction in public funding has led to internationalization activities, and especially TNE and inward student recruitment becoming more commercially focused, and international student recruitment has the potential to have a significant impact on institutional income, is international student recruitment a key priority internationalization activity within institutions?

Limitations

Because of the confines of this paper, several points of interest will only be discussed briefly. This study was robust, and made use of a survey instrument that was rigorously tested, and one that builds on experience that the IAU had gained in undertaking three precious global surveys of internationalization. The study is the biggest and most geographically representative study of institutional perceptions, policies and actions on internationalization ever undertaken. However it is worth pointing out a number of things. First, and even though the study is the largest one of its kind, an in-depth analysis of internationalization policymaking within institutions would provide more detailed evidenced-based responses to the research questions. It would have also been highly beneficial to undertake detailed cost-benefit analysis studies of the impact of internationalization and its related activities at a number of institutions around the world, thereby providing more detailed and evidence-based answers to the research questions. For example, respondents may have found it difficult to admit that revenue generation is an important rationale for undertaking internationalization. This is in part because of the way that internationalization is presented within the literature. As noted by Brandenburg and de Wit (2011, 16) ‘Internationalization is claimed to be the last stand for humanistic ideas against the world of pure economic benefits allegedly represented by the term globalization’. Second, and as will be discussed later on in this paper, there is no practical way to verify that the responses given to the survey, and analysed here, are a true reflection of actual institutional thinking and action on internationalization. In some cases it could be the case that respondents felt implied to provide socially desirable responses to certain questions analysed within this paper. In addition, because there was only one completed questionnaire per institution, it is important to note that the responses received will have been affected by the perceptions of the person completing the online survey questionnaire. It is also important to note that the nature of the responses provided to the survey can also be affected by the position/role profile of the person completing the questionnaire, and those institutions that are more active in internationalization and/or internationally are more likely to respond to surveys of this kind. These factors may have skewed the analysis of the survey’s results and should be kept in mind throughout this paper.

Findings

Funding for internationalization activities

It is first important to understand how universities source their funding for internationalization. As can be seen in Figure 1, although nearly a quarter of the respondent institutions receive the largest proportion of their funding from external public funds, by far the largest source of funding for internationalization is the General institutional budget (53%). In addition, other data collected in the survey shows that 61% of the respondent institutions that did have an institutional strategy for internationalization (710 respondent institutions) also had a specific funding line for internationalization activities.

Figure 1
figure 1

Largest source of funds for international activities — Global (n =1,336).

Full size image

This seems to indicate two things. First, because it is process that is predominately centrally funded, this suggests that internationalization is a central part of what universities consider their core work, especially given that over 60% of respondents had a dedicated budget for internationalization. Second, given that 77% of funding for the process comes either from central university budgets or from external public funds, any reduction in external funding for the HE system would have a knock on effect and reduce the level of funding for internationalization, and its related activities, thereby acting as a barrier to universities achieving their internationalization goals.

Indeed the survey sought to explore what universities saw as the key internal and external obstacles to advancing internationalization, the results of which are presented in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2
figure 2

Top ranked internal obstacles to advancing internationalization — Europe (n=604).

Full size image
Figure 3
figure 3

Top ranked external obstacle to advancing internationalization — Europe (n=604).

Full size image

When we look at internal barriers, by a considerable margin respondent institutions in Europe ranked Insufficient financial resources as the most important internal obstacle to advance internationalization. At the same time Limited public funding to support internationalization efforts is noted as the highest ranked external obstacle. As such it appears that within respondent institutions in Europe, the main problem to overcome or barrier to institutions advancing internationalization or achieving their internationalization goals is a lack of sufficient financial resources (Figures 2 and 3).

However when we look at other results of the survey, it appears that funding for internationalization activities is not being reduced, even though that it is clear that in a number of countries, the reduction in public funding requires universities to make important choices about which international activities they invest in. One question of the survey asked participants to detail if the funding they had made available for a number of specific internationalization activities had increased, remained stable, decreased and so on (see Table 1). What is apparent is that for the majority of internationalization activities undertaken within institutions, respondents from Europe reported that funding made available had either increased or remained stable. Indeed for two activities in particular, namely International research collaboration and Outgoing mobility opportunities/learning experiences for students (study abroad, international internships etc.) the level of funding had increased.

Table 1 Change in funding to support internationalization activities in past 3 years — Europe (n=604)
Full size table

In addition for a further two activities, namely Outgoing mobility opportunities for faculty/staff and Marketing and promoting our institution internationally the percentage of respondents indicating that funding for these activities had remained stable was only 2 or 3% more than those saying that it had increased. Furthermore it is important to note that while respondents indicated that they had not undertaken four of the activities listed as options in the questionnaire, in the past 3 years, very few respondents said that they were reducing funding for specific internationalization activities.

What is clear is that the biggest ‘loser’ activities with regards to current trends in internationalization in Europe are Off-shore provision (academic courses/programmes abroad, branch campuses, overseas joint venture, franchises) and Delivery of distance, online and/or e-learning courses/programmes designed for students in other countries. In both cases, close to 50% of European respondents detailed that they had not undertaken this activity in the past 3 years. This is in conjunction with the low priority given to these activities within respondents’ internationalization strategies as detailed in Figure 7. These activities, including, for example, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), have received a lot of attention in the literature. Perhaps it is the case that both offshore provision and distance education are expensive activities for universities to undertake, that are also proportionately high risk, and so they are being overlooked? It may be that universities are choosing to primarily focus their internationalization on activities that are relatively ‘safe’ and proportionately easier to implement.

The findings with regards to recruiting fee-paying international undergraduate and post-graduate students are particularly surprising. In both cases, approximately a third of European respondents indicated that they have not undertaken this activity in the past 3 years, which is particularly puzzling considering that other findings of the survey point at a general worldwide trend to increase the numbers of international students (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014).

In common with European respondents, the global level responses of all European respondents to the survey also noted that the two internationalization activities for which they had particularly increased funding were International research collaboration and Outgoing mobility opportunities for students. Indeed these two activities have clearly become of central importance to institutions as they pursue internationalization, as respondents from almost every other geographic region, also detailed that these two activities had received increased funding.

Internationalization as a commercially driven process

Within universities, the internationalization strategy plays a central role in advancing internationalization This strategy will help to focus attention and activity on the process within institutions, especially as ‘strategic choices and investments are often required to pursue institutional objectives’ (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014, 43). The perceived benefits that institutions and their leaders believe internationalization will bring will have a direct impact on the institutional policy that is implemented, and the types of internationalization activities that the institution will pursue. As such, the survey asked respondents to rank what they saw as the key benefits in pursuing internationalization, the European results of which are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4
figure 4

Top ranked benefit of internationalization — Europe (n=604).

Full size image

What is immediately obvious is that European respondents do not see revenue generation as a significant benefit of pursuing internationalization. It ranks second lowest in the list of benefit options. It appears from these results that even though the economic rationales are still present in the background, internationalization within universities is instead much more academically focused — focusing on students, their international experiences, teaching and learning, as well as cooperation and capacity building. For example, we can see by a considerable margin that Increased international awareness of/deeper engagement with global issues by students is considered as being the most important benefit of internationalization, with nearly 1/3 of all respondents selecting this option. This compares to only 3% who ranked Increased/diversified revenue generation as the most important benefit. Could it therefore be that until a few years ago, the process of internationalization was more commercially orientated, but that universities have come to realize that the profit margin from internationalization activities is low, especially when other indirect costs are taken into consideration? Consequently, the emphasis of the process may have shifted towards issues such as international learning outcomes and intercultural competence. A more definitive answer would require more in-depth research, but the findings on the societal risk (see below) seem to suggest that universities are genuinely concerned about the economization of HE (internationalization).

When asking about the risks of internationalization, it is clear that issues related to funding, money and revenue generation within the process do remain a central concern. For example, respondents were asked to rank what they saw as the key institutional and societal risks of pursuing internationalization, the results of which are presented in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5
figure 5

Top ranked societal risks of increasing internationalization — Europe (n=604).

Full size image
Figure 6
figure 6

Top ranked potential risks of internationalization to the institution — Europe (n=604).

Full size image

It is clear that institutions are aware that current external pressures and forces affect internationalization and make the process (and likely HE more generally) appear to be more commercially focused — which they see as a key risk. For example, Commodification and commercialization of education was noted as the most important societal risk of increasing internationalization (Figure 5) by European respondent institutions.

The issue of finance also has an important part to play in how respondent institutions assessed the risks of increasing internationalization in their institution. As can be seen in Figure 6, when we look at the top ranked risk of internationalization to institutions in Europe, by a considerable margin respondents felt that International opportunities being assessable to students with financial resources, as being the most important. There is an interesting parallel between the results of this question and the one focused on priority activities (Figure 7) — where respondent universities detailed Outgoing mobility opportunities/learning experiences for students (study abroad, international internships etc.) as being the highest priority activity.

Figure 7
figure 7

Top ranked priority internationalization activities undertaken by institutions — Europe (n = 604).

Full size image

Student recruitment as a priority in intuitional internationalization

It has been well discussed in the literature that the money involved in internationalization projects in universities is substantial and growing quickly, particularly with regards to the recruitment of full-fee-paying international students where universities in some countries seek to ‘earn profits [from international students] by charging high fees’ (Altbach and Knight, 2007, 292). The recruitment of international fee-paying students is the most significant internationalization activity that has been commercialized in the past 30 years, but this commercialization is limited and/or having the most effect in a selection of countries that dominate the field in terms of international student recruitment. These countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, have also in many cases been the countries where public funding for HE has decreased most markedly, which in turn has had a cyclic effect. As public subsidy for international students is removed, such as was the case for the United Kingdom in 1980 and in Scandinavian countries more recently, then international student recruitment becomes increasingly commercially orientated. The United Kingdom, for example, has seen widespread restructuring of funding for university students and funding for HE more generally, which has meant that many UK academics now ‘share the belief that UK universities need the money provided by international student fees to overcome the decline in government funding of HE’ (Warwick and Moogan, 2013, 105). However in other countries, including the Netherlands, for example, international students are charged the same level of tuition fees as home students.

In common with the previous IAU surveys of internationalization, the 4th Global Survey also asked institutions to detail what were the highest priority internationalization activities undertaken at their institutions. The results of this question can be seen in Figure 7.

We see that recruiting fee-paying international and post-graduate students is not seen as among the highest priority internationalization activities undertaken by European institutions. In the cumulative ranking of priority activities, Recruiting fee paying international post-graduate students is only the 9th highest ranked response, even though the recruitment of international undergraduate students is higher. This finding concurs with other findings of the survey, including those regarding funding for specific internationalization activities, where the largest grouping of respondents in each case said that they had not undertaken recruitment of graduate and post-graduate international students in the past 3 years (see Table 1).

Conclusion and Discussion

The analysis of the results seems to show that internationalization in Europe is not, at least at the moment, centrally focused on economic and/or competitive priorities — even though it is widely recognized that this is important concern. However respondents think that lack of funding is a key barrier in their drive to increase internationalization in universities.

In summary, first, it is apparent that the majority of funding for internationalization comes from the institutions’ general budget, the majority of which in many universities is provided by public funds. Therefore a reduction in public funding for HE would appear to have a detrimental effect on institutions’ ability to achieve their internationalization goals. Indeed lack of funding (both internal and external) is perceived by universities to be a centrally important obstacle for pursuing internationalization. However this is contrasted by the fact that funding for the majority of internationalization activities undertaken by institutions remains stable or in some cases is increasing.

Second, it seems to be clear that currently internationalization is in the main not pursued as a commercial venture, and institutions at the global level do not see revenue generation as an important benefit of pursuing internationalization. It instead appears to be that the more centralized drivers for pursuing and enhancing internationalization within institutions are value-based with institutions primarily pursuing internationalization to seek out and enhance its positive benefits, including increased cultural understanding, collaboration, and improved quality of teaching, learning and research. This is perhaps because universities now have a better understanding that the profit margins for a number of internationalization activities are lower than expected, at the same time as there has been growing interest in other types of internationalization related activities including internationalization at home. However, the potential for further commodification and commercialization of internationalization is recognized by universities as being the most important societal risks of increased internationalization.

The survey data also seem to show that, that although recruitment of fee-paying international students is still an important feature of university activities on internationalization, it no longer dominates thinking and action on internationalization. Indeed some respondent institutions noted that they had not undertaken recruitment of such students in the past 3 years.

Many of the findings of the 4th Global Survey tie up with other recently completed survey studies on internationalization. For example, the data collected in EUA (2013) study showed that 53% of the respondent institutions (132 in 24 EU Member states) indicated that they did have a specific policy for internationalization, and that the second most important institutional priority for internationalization was Internationalization of learning and teaching (EUA, 2013). Furthermore, the results of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) 2006 Internationalization survey showed that 94% of respondents ranked Prepare internationally knowledgeable graduates as the key rationale for pursuing internationalization within their institution (AUCC, 2007). Indeed the data collected during the 4th Global Survey, as well as other surveys, provides practitioners and policymakers with evidence to help them to see what ‘others are doing’ that can give them better overview of trends in the process, which in turn may be of assistance to help better inform their policy choices. As well, such studies can also help to shed new light upon long held perceptions and descriptions of internationalization, that in a number of cases have not been based on empirical or factual evidence.

Aside from just analysing the results against the three research questions, the results of the survey pose additional questions, some of which will be highlighted here. For example, as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, lack of internal and external funding to support internationalization are seen as the most important barriers to advancing internationalization. However, even though respondents felt the commercialization of HE was the most important potential risk of current trends in internationalization (Figure 5), the process and the related activities carried out in its name, are not seen as a way to generate revenue. So where should the money to fill this funding gap come from? And what should universities do to help ensure that international education opportunities, including mobility, are not the reserve of students with financial resources (Figure 6)? In Europe, there has been an increase in investment in regional programmes that support internationalization related activities, including Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020. But what is the case in other regions of the world? And what impacts will the fact that these funding programmes are operated on a competitive basis have? Will this mean that in the future there will be greater competition for external sources of funding for internationalization? How will this affect how universities manage their work on the process? Finally, if lack of funding is such an important barrier, why do universities in the main say that funding for internationalization activities has remained stable or increased for most internationalization activities? Indeed, if it is the case that there has either been an increase in funding, or funding has remained stable for the majority of internationalization related activities undertaken in universities (see Table 1), does this mean that money is being directed away from certain other more central or ‘core’ work or activities in institutions?

As detailed earlier in this paper, to more fully answer the research questions posed, would require additional research. It would be beneficial to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of internationalization activities within a number of case study institutions. It would be beneficial to address the research questions using both the data taken from the survey, and a number of case study examples/studies, that compare the differences between the cost of recruiting and teaching international students against the fees that they pay.

As such, even though the data presented here show that internationalization in European universities is not a process dominated by competitive or economic concerns, internationalization is both growing in stature, and an increasing amount of funding is being made available to further promote it. A more in-depth analysis of the research questions and pursuing others, using alternative perspectives and methods (e.g., in-depth case studies) is certainly needed.