Internationalisation and social responsibility: public-interest considerations

In 2009, consideration of internationalisation and social responsibility must take account of the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education and the responsibilities it places before education systems. For the arrangements, the relevant policy question is how the stated public objective is translated into responsibilities that can be applied, supervised and reviewed. Assessment of internationalisation and social responsibility should consider learner impact, institutional accountability and stewardship of entrusted resources.

Status and scope

The relevant context is provided by 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Its relevance to internationalisation and social responsibility should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.

For internationalisation and social responsibility, the relevant outcome should be capable of direct and consistent explanation. Governing bodies should receive sufficient, reliable and timely information to oversee education quality, learner protection and material institutional risk. Assurance should not stop at adoption, resourcing or completion of administrative tasks. Assurance should address actual effect and provide a means of correcting disadvantage that the arrangement did not intend.

Public-interest implications

Review of internationalisation and social responsibility should be based on a stated method rather than general assurance. The subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. The most consequential weakness may arise at a handover rather than within one responsible function. The method, assumptions and limitations should be stated in terms suitable for responsible decision-making.

Implementation of the policy position should be organised around a decision that can be tested. In the context of internationalisation and social responsibility, where responsibilities are divided across ministries, regulators, funders and providers, the interfaces between those responsibilities should be explicit. Resources and activity should be reconciled with the operating evidence and result for which the responsible function is accountable.

Institutional responsibilities

Failure in relation to internationalisation and social responsibility may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include governing bodies receiving activity data instead of outcome evidence, management assurance accepted without testing, material risks omitted from reporting, and authority assigned without accountability. An exception should be assessed by effect, duration, recurrence and reach, including possible exposure beyond the initial sample.

For internationalisation and social responsibility, readily available material should not define the enquiry if it cannot answer the relevant decision question. For implementation, the most relevant material is likely to include defined delegations and reserved decisions, conflict declarations and controls, risk and assurance plans, and governing-body papers and decisions. Independent records should be reconciled, with disagreement and uncertainty reported alongside the finding.

Continuing review

Authorities and providers reviewing internationalisation and social responsibility should proceed in a defined sequence. A competent review of the policy position should map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. A case-by-case response is insufficient when evidence shows recurrence or a population beyond the cases already identified.

A policy conclusion on the arrangements should state who is required or expected to act, the source of that expectation and the consequence of non-implementation. Jurisdictional variation should be identified wherever it narrows the reach of the conclusion. In the context of internationalisation and social responsibility, public communication should not present an aspiration, recommendation or proposed measure as an existing legal duty.

Continuing review

Care is required in drawing conclusions about internationalisation and social responsibility. Governance structures do not provide assurance merely because committees exist. Membership, information quality, challenge, decisions and follow-through determine whether oversight is effective. For the policy position, a policy direction should not be presented as a uniform legal obligation where national implementation differs. Providers remain responsible for identifying the requirements that apply to their own activities. Limitations should be prominent wherever the finding may influence a consequential decision.

Within the scope under review, traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. When examining internationalisation and social responsibility, in this case, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed. The record for internationalisation and social responsibility should prevent a later amendment from being treated as if it applied when an earlier decision was made.

Public reporting on implementation should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action.

For internationalisation and social responsibility, no individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the arrangements across the affected scope.