Descriptive Analysis of Benchmarking in Respect to SMART/UNI-Q Systems’ Intellectual Integrations within the European Higher Education Area

Introduction. The strategy for the development of international education ERASMUS 20.30 stimulates the study of how intellectual integration programmes are introduced into the system of further education of universities around the world. The research is relevant, for studying the integration of intellectual potential in a single space of higher and further education EHEA allows to determine the efficacy of application of world benchmarking technologies in the management of SMART/UNI-Q systems and the convergence of world universities. The EU Education Department conditioned the significance of the research content by the target request to investigate the change in the benchmarking mission at the international education market and to make a thorough informational review of its application in the international activities of universities in the EU, CIS and the Russian Federation for the dissemination of information by international partner universities of ERASMUS central office. The study aims at identifying general and specific indicators of sustainable international partnerships that affect consumer demand at the international education and labour markets by means of concretization of an extensive descriptive analysis of the intellectual integration benchmarking and the description of the processes of benchmarking technology application, its scientific identification and implementation in individual universities, university alliances and consortia. Researchers were looking for an answer to the question: why, with high interest and theoretical recognition of technology benchmarking in quality management, universities show low rates of benchmarking in assessing the quality of their international activities. Materials and Methods. It is the first time that the research of benchmarking intellectual integrations in the university international activities uses the method of descriptive analysis. The study identifies active sectors of the SMART / UNI-Q benchmarking for the entire set of data voluntarily submitted by the universities participating in the projects of the Austrian Institute for Intellectual Integrations in the pre-pandemic period of 2017-2020. The participating countries have analyzed the share of key participants and the share of published benchmarking studies. The study analyzes the changes in the benchmarking mission in the international education market in accordance with the needs of global consumers. The analysis uses the data of the bases of the EU Department of Education, the ETINED platform and open-access European dissertation reviews portals. The research uses the WERGELAND European Resource Center data as the comparison point indicators. The study presents an analysis of five segments of international benchmarking: transparency, diversity, “product line”, digital activity, and digital management tools. Modus infographics shows the real, improved and ideal models. The applied comparative analysis studies the asynchrony of academic mobility during the COVID crisis. Results. The research findings show low value of efficiency indicators for the use of intellectual integration benchmarking in the international cooperation of university alliances. The predominance and stable efficiency in the use of benchmarking takes place at certain universities in Europe during periods of activity in implementing new strategies of international education and only for a short time most often during the periods of university accreditation. The model for overcoming sustainable development asynchronies in the management of SMART/UNI-Q systems according to the criterion of guaranteeing the quality of higher education in international cooperation EHEA is not final and today it is possible to characterize it through descriptive indicators. Amid the economic crisis and turbulence associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in large-scale academic mobility is an inevitable trend. However, due to the growing difference in the responses of economies and management in the field of higher vocational education between developed and less developed countries, as well as with the strengthening of general trends in economic integration, the number of academic migrants is likely to increase. Asynchrony, that is, unevenness, of opportunities and adaptation to the new digital environment of university consortia and the possibility to implement the opportunities in practice has become a psychological problem of scientific migration. Discussion and Conclusion. The materials of this article will be useful to CEO-s of international universities, heads of departments of international activities, employees of ERASMUS national offices, coordinators of ERASMUS+ projects, departments of continuing professional education and academic mobility in the development of promising strategies for external and internal benchmarking of inter-university projects of intellectual integration and international activity quality management.

21st Century International Higher Education Hotspots

The Institute of International Education (IIE) 2018 Open Doors report highlighted that the United States is the leading international education destination, having hosted about 1.1 million international students in 2017 (IIE, 2018a). Despite year over year increases, U.S. Department of State (USDOS, 2018) data show that for a third year in a row, international student visa issuance is down. This is not the first decline. Student visa issuance for long-term academic students on F visas also significantly dropped following the 9/11 attacks (Johnson, 2018). The fall in issuances recovered within 5 years of 2001 and continued to steadily increase until the drop in 2016. Taken together, the drops in international student numbers indicate a softening of the U.S. international education market. In 2001, the United States hosted one out of every three globally mobile students, but by 2018 it hosted just one of five (IIE, 2018b). This suggests that over the past 20 years, the United States has lost a share of mobile students in the international education market because they’re enrolled elsewhere. The Rise of Nontraditional Education Destination Countries Unlike the United States, the percentage of inbound students to other traditional destinations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, has remained stable since the turn of the 21st century. Meanwhile, nontraditional countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Russia are garnering more students and rising as educational hotspots (Knight, 2013). The UAE and Russia annually welcome thousands of foreign students, respectively hosting over 53,000 and 194,000 inbound international university students in 2017 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019). This is not happenstance. In the past 5 years, these two countries, among others, have adopted higher education internationalization policies, immigration reforms, and academic excellence initiatives to attract foreign students from around the world. The UAE is one of six self-identified international education hubs in the world (Knight, 2013) and with 42 international universities located across the emirates, it has the most international branch campuses (IBCs) worldwide (Cross-Border Education Research Team, 2017). Being a country composed of nearly 90% immigrants, IBCs allow the UAE to offer quality higher education to its non-Emirati population and to attract students from across the Arab region and broader Muslim world. National policy and open regulations not only encourage foreign universities to establish IBCs, they alsoattract international student mobility (Ilieva, 2017). For example, on November 24, 2018, the national government updated immigration policy to allow foreign students to apply for 5-year visas (Government.ae, 2018). The Centennial 2071 strategic development plan aims for the UAE to become a regional and world leader in innovation, research, and education (Government.ae, 2019), with the long-term goal of creating the conditions necessary to attract foreign talent. Russia’s strategic agenda also intends to gain a greater competitive advantage in the world economy by improving its higher education and research capacity. Russia currently has two higher education internationalization policies: “5-100-2020” and “Export Education.” The academic excellence project, known as “5-100-2020,” funds leading institutions with the goal to advance five Russian universities into the top 100 globally by 2020 (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, 2018). The “Export Education” initiative mandates that all universities double or triple the number of enrolled foreign students to over half a million by 2025 (Government.ru, 2017). These policies are explicitly motivated by boosting the Russian higher education system and making it more open to foreigners. Another growing area is international cooperation. Unlike the UAE, Russia has few IBCs, but at present, Russian universities partner with European and Asian administrators and government delegates to create dual degree and short-term programs. Historically, Russia has been a leading destination for work and education migrants from soviet republics in the region, but new internationalization policies are meant to propel the country into the international education market and to attract international students beyond Asia and Europe. Future Trends in 21st Century International Education Emerging destination hotspots like the UAE and Russia are vying to become more competitive in the global international higher education market by offering quality education at lower tuition rates in safe, welcoming locations closer to home. As suggested by the softening of the U.S. higher education market, international students may find these points attractive when considering where to study. Sociopolitical shifts that result from events such as 9/11 or the election of Donald Trump in combination with student mobility recruitment initiatives in emerging destinations may disrupt the status quo for traditional countries by rerouting international student enrollment to burgeoning educational hotspots over the coming decades.

UNIVERSITIES’ COMPETITIVENESS MODELS IN ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT: A NATIONAL-LEVEL APPROACH

The developing international education market requires additional qualitative and detailed information on the comparative characteristics of universities. This study suggests a single synthetic model for describing and assessing universities’ competitiveness at the national level for advanced, emerging, and transitioning economies. The model is based on the same methodology as international university rankings, but employs different techniques for initial clustering and further analysis. We identified four different university clusters in the Russian Ministry of Education and Science database, distinguished by specific development goals. We argue that applying these clear and welldefined criteria as clustering attributes allows us to compare competitiveness in different settings, formulate academic management strategy and recommend policy guidelines tailored precisely for each university’s requirements.

Singapore’s “Global Schoolhouse” Aspirations

Singapore’s Trade and Industry Ministry announced an ambitious ‘global schoolhouse’ vision in 2002. This vision, which was clearly economically-driven in nature, involved Singapore capturing a share of the lucrative international education market by attracting 150,000 international full-fee paying students by the year 2015. Fourteen years down the road, it appears that the target is nowhere near attainment.