Content uploaded by Abdelaziz Bouras
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelaziz Bouras on Nov 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value
Abdelaziz Bouras1,2
1Computer Science Department, College of Engineering
Qatar University,
Doha Qatar
abdelaziz.bouras@qu.edu.qa
2DISP laboratory, University of Lyon, France
Nopasit Chakpitak
College of Art, Media and Technology
Chiangmai University,
Chiangmai, Thailand
nopasit@cmu.org.th
Sebti Foufou1
sfoufou@qu.edu.qa
Abstract— Higher education internationalization can play a
major role in developing universities and students’ capacities and
their opportunities broadly throughout the world. Irrespective of
contextual differences within and between countries, nearly all
higher education institutions worldwide are engaged in
international activities and are seeking to expand them. Engaging
with the world is now considered part of the definition of quality
in education and research. However, with the current crisis,
possible tensions and counter reactions to the development of the
internationalization can occur, such as an imminent resistance to
a supposed denationalizing effect of internationalization, and
related to that the possible development of a new form of local
and regional identity, and the increasing influence of competition
and market processes as driving factors in internationalization.
In this paper we highlight a specific internationalization case
study between Europe and South East Asia. We mainly explain
the construction process of such historical collaboration, which is
the essential element for its sustainability. We open
Keywords—Internationalization; Erasmus-Mundus; South East
Asia; Bilateral and multilateral collaboration; Mobility
I. INTRODUCTION
The internationalization of higher education is a dynamic
process, impacted by the international changing context. One
of the current contextual factors is the globalization. Central to
the globalization are the increased mobility of people and
services, and the accelerating use of information and
communication technologies to bridge time and space in
unprecedented ways and at continually decreasing costs.
Globalization gives an international dimension to all aspects of
our lives, communities, and professions. Globalization is the
system of interaction among the countries and regions in the
world in order to develop the global economy.
Somehow, the distinction between internationalisation and
globalisation is not categorical [1][2]. They overlap and are
interrelated in all possible ways. In terms of both practice and
perceptions, internationalization is closer to the well-
established tradition of international cooperation and mobility
and to the core values of quality and excellence, whereas
globalization refers more to competition, pushing the concept
of higher education as a tradable commodity and challenging
the concept of higher education as a public good.
In higher education, globalization has led to intensified
mobility of ideas, students and academic staff and to expanded
possibilities for collaboration and global dissemination of
knowledge. It has also introduced new aims, activities and
actors engaged in the internationalization [3][4].
In all cases, though the risk of brain drain remains a serious
concern in some parts of the world, some countries are using
international student mobility to expand their higher education
capacity and capabilities [5]. Surprisingly, some of the
countries benefiting from the internationalization are those
who suffered in the past from the brain-drain. They succeded
in creating solid links with the academic talents in the world
and with their own diasporas in the industrialized countries. It
is worth to mention that today a good amount of resources
exist in an open access way on internet such memorandums,
guidelines, codes of good practices [6][7]. Such codes include
a set of principles which should be respected by institutions or
organizations involved in the provision of educational services
through transnational arrangements.
Higher education internationalization can play a major role in
developing universities and students’ capacities and their
opportunities broadly throughout the world. Irrespective of
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
contextual differences within and between countries, nearly all
higher education institutions worldwide are engaged in
international activities and are seeking to expand them.
Engaging with the world is now considered part of the
definition of quality in education and research.
This paper highlights the construction process of some
Erasmus-Mundus exchange programs and their added value to
the EU-Asia mobility. Section II reminds some higher
internationalization topics, Section III focuses on the EU-Asia
specific case, Section IV brings a discussion related to the
outcome of such Erasmus-Mundus programs and the last
Section draws some conclusions and perspectives.
II. HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION
CHALLENGES
Internationalization covers a broad range of topics that
include cross-border education, e-learning, massive open
online courses (MOOCs), student mobility and several others.
The two topics of interest for financing higher education are
cross-border (sometimes called borderless or transnational)
education and student mobility. Cross-border education refers
to the delivery of higher education in a country through a
branch campus of a foreign institution of higher education,
while student mobility refers to students studying abroad to
obtain a degree or a number of credits.
De Wit [8] described the internationalization of European
education as a positive development and gave its features:
• more explicit and coordinated
• interactive and proactive
• more strategically focused on multilateral partnerships
• continuing professionalization
• more focused on the world outside Europe
• more attention given to internationalization of the
curriculum
• more attention to quality assurance
Besides this, he also pointed to possible tensions in and
counter reactions to the development of the
internationalization, such as an imminent resistance to a
supposed denationalizing effect of internationalization, and
related to that the possible development of a new form of local
and regional identity, and the increasing influence of
competition and market processes as driving factors in
internationalization. In Europe, in the first place we see a
growing tendency to criticise the European unification and
cooperation, despite the achievements of the Bologna Process
[9] and the European programmes for education and research.
Whereas at the same time, ironically, stronger appeals are
made to European values versus other cultures.
Brandenburg and De Wit [10] think that
internationalization is claimed to be the last stand for
humanistic ideas against the world !of pure economic benefits
allegedly represented by the term globalization. Alas, this
constructed antagonism between internationalization and
globalization ignores the fact that activities that are more
related to the concept of globalization are increasingly
executed under the flag of internationalization.
Knight [11] points out that internationalization of higher
education is being fundamentally changed in reaction to and
support of the competition agenda and market orientation. He
mention that what is certain is that it brings new opportunities,
risks, benefits and challenges, and that the double role of
internationalization in furthering both cooperation and
competition among countries is a new reality of our more
globalized world.
Europe has always seen the mobility as an instrument for
promoting internationalization. For instance, in the 2009
communiqué of the Ministers of Education of the Bologna
countries it is stated that “Mobility is important for personal
development and employability, it fosters respect for diversity
and a capacity to deal with other cultures. It encourages
linguistic pluralism, thus underpinning the multilingual
tradition of the European Higher Education Area and !it
increases cooperation and competition between higher
education institutions. Therefore, mobility shall be the
hallmark of the European Higher Education Area. We call
upon each country to increase mobility, to ensure its high
quality and to diversify its types and scope. In 2020, at least
20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education
Area should have had a study or training period abroad.”
The Bologna Process is changing the higher education
landscape of the continent, through internationally coordinated
reforms, illustrates how internationalization fulfills different
purposes and brings different rewards and challenges. A
widening of drivers of EU higher education has had the effect
of making internationalization more of an institutional
imperative. The resulting changes in goals, activities, and
actors have led to a re-examination of conceptual frameworks
and understandings and, more importantly, to an increased but
healthy questioning of internationalization’s values, purposes,
goals and means.
Recent initiatives (such as the EAR1 project) aimed to
provide more clarity on recognition practices in all European
countries, through agreeing on common recognition standards
and measuring them against current practices in Europe. It also
aimed to serve as a major step towards establishing similar
recognition practices. The EAR project contributed to the
concept of a joint recognition area of higher education in
which all EU countries share similar recognition practices,
based on commonly agreed standards and guidelines. This is
achieved through the creation of a European recognition
manual.
Other initiatives, such as the IMPI2 project, focus on
mapping and profiling internationalization of higher education
institutions. They aim at providing institutions information
related to their performance in internationalization and
measures for improvement. A set of indicators were
1"http://www.eurorecognition.eu/manual/EAR_manual_v_1.0.pdf"
2"http://www.impi-project.eu/"
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
developed, with relevance to all EU higher institutions. This
provides options for comparison but also will offer
opportunities for higher institutions to choose their individual
profile of internationalization.
III. EU/SOUTH-EAST-ASIA COOPERATION: A CASE STUDY
Close historical bi-lateral links exist between some South-
East-Asian and EU countries since decades. The French-
Vietnamese link is a good example: With around 6000
Vietnamese students in France, including about one thousand
PhD students, Vietnam represents one of the biggest Asian
communities in French universities. Numerous partnerships
between Vietnamese and French higher education exist, such
as training programs for engineering excellence, French-
Vietnamese centers for Management Training in Hanoi and
Ho Chi Minh City, French university centers, etc. The French-
Cambodian3 case is another good example: after years of
support for the education of the elites, the current
collaboration is more focusing on priority sectors related to
sustainable development. Several programs are used in
supplement, such as those of the “Agence universitaire de la
Francophonie” (Francophony Agency), the Eiffel excellence
program and programs implemented by local regions (Rhone
Alps region, Brittany region, etc).
Earlier 2000, the European Union launched several
collaborations and exchange educational programs with Asia.
Since then, the number of students under mobility is
continuously increasing. This gave the opportunity to the
involved partners to develop specific partnership and
curricula4.
The authors had the opportunity to coordinate several
collaboration programs and initiatives in this context and to be
part of the construction process of a European/South-East-
Asian network as detailed hereunder:
• We have started from a bilateral project (1-to-1) funded
by two countries (France, Thailand) that allowed us to
understand the needs and the culture of some of our
partners.
• This rapidly led to new projects and bigger programs
where more universities from each continent have
participated (n-to-n), with a significant involvement of
the economical sector in fields related to ICT,
Engineering, Business, Management and Education
Sciences, with broad applications in the Tourism and
industry sectors (supply chains, product innovations,
change management, etc). This was mainly achieved
through Asia-Link and Erasmus-Mundus exchange
programs. From the initial exchange of 2 to 4 students
3"http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo/cambodge/la-
france-et-le-cambodge/evenements-11566/article/document-cadre-de-
partenariat-22910"
4 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/asia/country-
cooperation/index_fr.htm"
per mobility we have achieved the level of a maximum
of 334 exchanged students and staff in the Erasmus-
Mundus e-Link program.
• The new born network encouraged us to enlarge the
collaboration, and participate in bigger consortia and
exchange programs. At this level collaboration and
exchange of practices between clusters of institutions
from former projects and programs became possible
(N-to-N). However the quick need in terms of
collaboration sustainability and network preservation,
leads us to create Knowledge Infocenters in both
Europe and Asia, where common studies and joint
research are made.
It is worth mentioning that beyond the EU and Asia
institutions’ networking activities, these experiences resulted
in mutual recognition, through some mechanisms such as the
ECTS (European Credits Transfer System). Beyond the ECTS
themselves, a particular attention was paid to what do learners
know and understand and what are they able to do on the basis
of their qualifications, and more importantly how can learners
carry their qualifications across borders without leaving part of
their real value behind [12]. Of course, all this cannot not be
possible without a specific attention and understanding
between the partners that led to a mutual and sustainable trust.
These projects helped to build joint/Double Degrees and
joint PhD supervision for which the examination committees
always include members from outstanding foreign universities
or research institutes. In several cases the Doctoral Schools
signed additional specific bilateral agreements and approved
new procedures to bestow the label "Doctor Europaeus" on
students who had the appropriate prerequisites.
Furthermore, these projects also helped to regularly
organize joint conferences and workshops. The best example
is the SKIMA International conference on Knowledge,
Information Management and Applications (the 7th edition of
the conference5 was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand in
December 2013), which was originated from one of the former
exchange programs of the network (the EU EAST-WEST
Asia-Link project).
Beyond the research sessions as any conference, SKIMA
features education and industry panel sessions, governments
and funding agencies panels, interactive sessions, and
invited/special sessions. It is intended from the beginning to be
an open forum between researchers from developed and
emerging countries, to communicate and discuss their latest
research findings, but also to propose possible solutions to
enhance their future collaboration.
A special care was made in each SKIMA conference to
introduce specific sessions related to future collaboration
strategies. Representatives from the hosting country
government are systematically invited to such sessions.
Several Ministers or vice-Ministers of Education, Technology
5"http://www.camt.cmu.ac.th/skima2013/"
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
and Economy (Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Italy…) had
already attended these SKIMA specific sessions and shared
their countries visions and strategies. This feedback was
important to understand the specificity of each member
country and its strategic vision, beyond the technical and
scientific exchange itself. It also helped some South-East-
Asian partners to build a mutual understanding within the
ASEAN higher education context.
It is clear that from the research point view, this
cooperation enhanced the collaborative publication metrics
and reinforced the convergence to harmonized and coherent
research platforms and infrastructures.
In the following, we summarize some of the collaboration
projects and their main activities and added value to the
collaboration construction process.
Figure 1. From bilateral collaboration to multi-lateral and
consortia networks: an EU/South-East-Asia case study
• ASIA-LINK EAST-WEST PROGRAM 2004-2007:
(Euro-Asia collaboraTions and NetWorking in
information Engineering System Technology). This
project contributed in the development of new co-
operative research and teaching links and networking
among the participating institutions in the area of
information engineering technology. Partners:
University of Bradford, UK - University Lumière Lyon
2, France- Kantipur Engineering College, Nepal-
Chiang Mai University, Thailand - Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China. This project was funded by the
European Union.
• EGIDE BILATERAL ETOURISM PROJECT 2009-
2010: This project focused on helping tourism Small
and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in both countries
(Thailand and France) to improve the sharing
knowledge and ideas. It proposed methodologies and
an infrastructure to enhance existing “Tourism
Clusters” and studied the competitive capabilities to
increase the competitiveness of the partners in order to
capture new opportunities in tourism industry.
Partners: Chiang Mai University, Thailand- University
Lumière Lyon 2, France- Yonok University, Thailand -
Burgundy University, Dijon, France). This project was
funded by the French and Thai governments.
• EU-THAI SQUARE PROJECT 2009-2010: (Systems
for QUality Assurance in Research and Education).
This project contributed to promote Quality Culture for
academic activities, to enhance the continuous
improvement and enhanced-led evaluation in the
academic activities and to develop Quality Approaches
for academic institutions. SQUARE primarily aimed at
understanding the university culture between EU and
Thai universities, and enhancing the research system of
the partner universities through a new quality oriented
way to conceive the management of research and
educational activities. A Quality Management System
(QMS) has been achieved (quality manuals, audit
programs, management reviews programs and
reports…).
Partners: Chiang Mai University, Thailand- University
of Sannio, Benevento, Italy- University Lumière Lyon
2, France. This project was funded by the European
Union.
• EU-THAI ETHICS-FED PROJECT 2009-2010 (Euro-
THai Implementation of Cooperative Study for
Economic development) aimed at promoting
cooperative education (sandwich programs with the
industrial sector) in higher education system by sharing
good practices and establishing pilot structures. It
brought EU experience in order to build a cooperative
Bachelor/Master degree in production systems, in
cooperation with Northen Thailand industry areas.
Partners: Chiang Mai University, Thailand - University
Lumière Lyon 2, France - Duale Hochschule, Bade-
Wurtemberg State University, Germany. This project
was funded by the European Union.
• ERASMUS-MUNDUS E.C.W. E-LINK 2009-2011:
This program contributed to improve the quality of
European higher education, to promote intercultural
understanding and to increase the attractiveness of
European countries as an educational destination and
center of excellence. It helped to upgrade the skills of
the students, lecturers and researchers of the program
and to raise awareness of opportunities in making
interesting links with the economic sectors in the fields
of Supply Chain Management.
Partners: University of Bradford, UK- Budapesti
Corvinus Egyetem, Hungary- Università degli Studi del
Sannio, Italy- Staffordshire University UK- University
Lumière Lyon 2, France- United International
University, Bangladesh- College of Science &
Technology, Bhutan- Kantipur Engineering College,
Nepal - Mohammed Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad,
!"#$%&'$$(
)*+!,-)+!(
',./&01(+#$%2('!3#"/$4(
Next
EcoSystem
5'%63"0/&7(
+#$%8/&89/:/%;(
(
<#%#8:(='>37&/?3&(
<#:?:8%'"8:(@"37"84(A&,&B(
)"8$4#$,<#&C#$(A5,5(D3&$3"?8B(
E&36:'C7'(F&G3D'&%"'(
H/:8%'"8:(@"3I'>%(AJ,JB((
(
)#,!K8/(@"3I'>%(A&,JB(
Competencies: ICT, Engineering,
Business and Management,
Education and Teachers training
EU-Asia collaboration
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
Pakistan- Chiang Mai University, Thailand- Shanghai
Jiao Tong University, China. This project was funded
by the European Union.
• BILATERAL PHC CAI YUANPEI PROJECT 2012-
2013: This project focuses on Sustainable Product Life
cycle Management Project (sPLM) to help enterprises
improve the environmental performance of their
product in terms of product design, development and
management. It explores multidisciplinary approaches
for product sustainability such as green product design
and life cycle assessment.
Partners: University Lumière Lyon 2, France- Shanghai
Jiao Tong University, China. This project was funded
by the French and Chinese governments.
• ERASMUS-MUNDUS SUSTAINABLE E-TOURISM
PROGRAM 2010-2014: This program explores the use
of advanced technologies within responsible and
sustainable tourism, but also contributes to the
exchange of knowledge and best practices between the
partners, to enhance their cultural understanding. A
proposal was made to extend this program and its
students’ applications to contribute to the Creative
Cities Network. This network was initiated by the
UNESCO to promote social, economic and cultural
developments at the city level, through creative
industries. It also promotes and protects the cultural
diversity.
Partners: University Lumière Lyon 2, France,
University Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, France -
Università degli Studi del Sannio, Italy - Staffordshire
University, UK - Villingen-Schwenningen University
of Cooperative Education, Germany - Royal University
of Law and Economics, Cambodia - International
School - Vietnam National University, Vietnam -
National University of Laos, Laos - Health Sciences
University of Mongolia, Mongolia - Chiang Mai
University, Thailand - Chengdu University, China. This
project was funded by the European Union."
• ERASMUS-MUNDUS ACTION-2 GULF
COUNTRIES (EMA2 GCC) PROGRAM 2011-2015:
This program aims at enhancing the knowledge
exchange and mutual understanding between EU and
all countries member of the Cooperation Council for
the Arab States of the Gulf through an innovative
mobility program between the partners of the
consortium.
Partners: University of Deusto, Spain- Lund
Universitet, Sweden- University College Dublin,
Ireland- Technische Universität Berlin, Germany-
University of Sciences and Technology Lille 1, France-
University of Bahrain- Kuwait University, Qatar
University, Sultan Qaboos University and University of
Nizwa, Oman- The United Arab Emirates University-
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology,
Saudi Arabia.
In this project two of the authors participated as
teachers in a host partner university (Qatar University)
for students coming from Europe. This completed their
practice of the Erasmus-Mundus exchange and
mobility in both sides as they have seen the benefit for
the involved European students in terms of knowledge,
language and culture, and the impact on the mutual
understanding between partner universities. This
project was funded by the European Union.
DISCUSSION
From a practical point of view, one can ask “where and by
what means are an international project can be valued?” Here
the attention is drawn towards those spaces where
international projects are formed and promoted, and here we
can examine their basis and logic. To limit our selves to the
Erasmus-Mundus network projects, the specific question is
what is their knowledge economy, and why universities
massively responded to them? One of the answers is that these
universities understood that cooperation is an important mean
to capacity building and to advance alternate concepts and
metrics of innovation. For the mobility students it is a matter
of “learning outcome” formulated by the sending and
receiving institutions and stating the “what” a learner is
expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate
after completion of an Erasmus-Mundus learning. This leads
to achieving new competences that represent a dynamic
combination of knowledge, understanding, skills and abilities.
Indeed, the Erasmus-Mundus programs set objectives to be
specified in terms of learning outcomes and competences, and
validated by the needed ECTS.
Given the specific perceived importance of higher education
international exchange, student mobility has become in many
regions of the globe not only an essential instrument for
internationalization, but a policy objective in its own right.
Actually, at some universities and among their researchers the
general opinion is that the university is international by nature,
and thus there is no need to stimulate and guide
internationalization. Thereby, references are made to the
Renaissance, the time of the philosopher Erasmus (ca. 1467-
1536), whom the European exchange programme is named
after. Neave [13] explains that this historic reference ignores
the fact that many universities are mostly originated in the
18th and 19th century and had a clear national orientation and
function). He refers here to, amongst others, Neave [14] and
Scott [15], who both speak of an ‘inaccurate myth’.
Internationalization is not a natural process and does not come
naturally in universities, but it should be introduced and
encouraged. That is why the rather widely accepted definition
of internationalization as “the process of integrating an
international, intercultural or global dimension into the
purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education”
[16].
Original Version:
Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., Foufou, S. (2014). Higher Education Internationalization:
The Erasmus-Mundus network added value (pp. 849-854). IEEE Int. Conf. on Interactive Collaborative
Learning (ICL2014). UAE, DOI: 10.1109/ICL.2014.7017884
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7017884
In order to promote good practice in the area of transnational
education, the internationalization must now improve in
quality to become 'made-to-measure' to serve different
institutional aims and objectives. It must also be adapted to the
new 'multipolar' higher education world order, in which
western universities and colleges continue to play an
important, but not any longer an exclusive role. A more
critical approach to understanding the work of
internationalization explores the ethical implications of
disciplining the value of internationalization in different ways.
However it is tremendous to move away from dogmatic and
idealist concepts of internationalization and understand that
internationalization is not a goal in itself but but rather as a
mean or instrument to an end, and carefully reconsider our
preoccupation with instruments and invest more time on
questions of rationales and outcomes.
Erasmus-Mundus programs, which are moving to another
phase in their lifecycle called Erasmus+, are good examples of
successful international mobility and recognition. With
Erasmus-Mundus successful first phases, the collective
Erasmus+ network might now work to help reframing the
innovation and knowledge economy, achieving world-class
institutions or other concepts relating to the academy, state and
civil society. It will foster quality improvements in youth
work, in particular through enhanced cooperation between
organizations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders. It
also aims to promote synergies, cooperation and cross-
fertilization between the different fields. Universities will have
tools and means to cooperate and to change the international
playing field for all.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors would like to express his
gratitude to the mentioned European and Asian Governments and to
the European Union for their support and funding for the programs
activities.
REFERENCES
[1] Scott, Peter. The Global Dimension: Internationalising Higher
Education. In B. Khem and H. de Wit (eds.), Internationalization in
Higher Education: European Responses to the Global Perspective.
Amsterdam: European Association for International Education and the
European Higher Education Society (EAIR), 2005.
[2] Macmillan. P. Internationalization vs Regionalization of Higher
Education in East Africa and the Challenges of Quality Assurance and
Knowledge Production. Higher Education Policy 22, 331-347, 2009
[3] Ness, Daniel and Chia-ling Lin. International Education: An
Encyclopedia of Contemporary Issues and Systems. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 2013
[4] Hunt E.S and S. Bergan. Developing attitudes to recognition: substantial
differences in an age of globalisation, Council of Europe Higher
Education Series N°13. ISBN 978-92-871-6697-5. 2010.
(http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&prod
uit_aliasid=2478, accessed 06/ 2014).
[5] Blachford D.R. and B. Zhang. Rethinking International Migration of
Human Capital and Brain Circulation: The Case of Chinese-Canadian
Academics. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 18(3)
202-222, 2014
[6] Council of Europe and UNESCO, Revised code of good practice in the
provision of transnational education. Report (www.enic-
naric.net/documents/REVISED_CODE_OF_GOOD_PRACTICE_TNE.
pdf, accessed 06/ 2014).
[7] OECD and UNESCO, Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border
higher education. Report (www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/51/35779480.pdf,
accessed 06/ 2014)
[8] De Wit, Hans. The internationalization of higher education in a
global context. in : The Dynamics of International Student Circulation
in a Global Context. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers,
2008.
[9] Rauhvargers, A. and A. Rusakova, Improving recognition in the
European Higher Education Area: an analysis of national action plans,
Council of Europe Higher Education Series N°12. SBN 978-92-871-
6648-7, 2010.
(http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&pro
duit_aliasid=2469, accessed on 06/2014)
[10] Brandenburg U. and De Wit H. (2010). The end of
internationalization. In International Higher Education. pp:15-16, in
International Higher Education, number 62. Boston College Center
for International Higher Education, 2011
[11] Knight J. Internationalization and the Competitiveness Agenda.
In: Higher Education, Policy, and the Global Competition Phenomenon,
pp:205-218. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2010
[12] Tarrant M.A, D.L. Rubin and L. Stoner. The Added Value of Study
Abroad: Fostering a Global Citizenry. Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 18(2) 141-161, 2014
[13] De Wit H. Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States
of America and Europe, A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual
Analysis. Greenwood Studies in Higher Education. Greenwood,
Connecticut, 2002
[14] Neave G. The European Dimension in Higher Education: An
Excursion into the Modern Use of Historical Analogues. In:
Higher Education and the Nation state, The International Dimension of
Higher Education. Pergamon/IAU Press, Paris, 2001
[15] Scott, Peter. Massification, Internationalization and Globalization.
In: The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and
Open University Press. 1998
[16] Knight J. Higher education in turmoil. The changing world of
internationalization. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2008
