1、1Third editionBY LAURA E.RUMBLEY&JODY HOEKSTRA-SELTEN2All EAIE publications are exclusive property of the EAIE.Commercial use,modification or electronic redistribution of EAIE publications are strictly prohibited.Please contact publicationseaie.org for permission for use.EAIE BAROMETER:INTERNATIONLI

2、SATION IN EUROPE(THIRD EDITION)AuthorsLaura E.Rumbley,Jody Hoekstra-SeltenPublished by The European Association for International Education(EAIE)Copyright 2024 EAIEISBN 978-90-74721-69-1www.eaie.orgABOUT THE EAIE Founded in 1989,the European Association for International Education(EAIE)is the Europe

3、an centre for knowledge,expertise and networking in the internationalisation of higher education.As a member-led association of more than 3000 members from more than 95 countries,our mission is to enable the international higher education sector,demonstrate the impact of internationalisation,and inf

4、luence and engage policymakers and the public in support of our vision.We achieve this mission through a combination of training,conferences,and knowledge acquisition and sharing.We partner with key stakeholder organisations and institutions to promote our memberships interests and advance internati

5、onal higher education in Europe and the rest of the world.ABOUT MCKINLEYMcKinley Advisors(McKinley)is an award-winning association consulting firm dedicated to accelerating associations positive impact on the world.Their in-house research team and experience working with associations sets them apart

6、.They work in partnership with association executives and volunteer leaders to identify and address their most significant challenges and opportunities.McKinley provides services through four practice areas:strategy and innovation,organisational excellence,business transformation,and research and in

7、sights.3ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe EAIE is indebted to a variety of individuals and organisations whose kind support and attention played a direct role in the successful design and delivery of this iteration of EAIE Barometer research.First and foremost,we extend our sincerest thanks to the EAIE Barometer

8、Advisory Group,whose members include:Alicia Betts(University of Girona)Lucian Botea(Romanian-American University)Irina Ferencz(Academic Cooperation Association)Alenka Flander(Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes)Wim Gabriels(Erasmus Student

9、 Network)Tatevik Gharibyan(Ministry of Education,Science,Culture and Sports of the Republic of Armenia)Anna Grnlund(University of Jyvskyl)Kirrilee Hughes(International Education Association of Australia)Giorgio Marinoni(International Association of Universities)Mirka Martel(Institute of Internationa

10、l Education)Wessel Meijer(Tilburg University)Joanne Pagze(University of Bordeaux)Charley Robinson(Universities UK International)Serge Sych(Corvinus University of Budapest)These colleagues dedicated valuable time and attention both to ensuring a robust survey instrument and the thoughtful considerati

11、on of the wide range of data collected.We are also extremely grateful to the many individuals and organisations particularly national agencies across the European Higher Education Area who supported the EAIEs efforts to disseminate the survey and encourage broad participation.4CONTENTS05 Executive s

12、ummary18 Introduction22 Methodology24 Respondents33 Section 1:How do respondents feel about their roles?46 Section 2:How do respondents feel about their institutions/organisations?61 Section 3:Perceptions about budgets 67 Section 4:National and European-level dynamics 79 Section 5:Perceptions about

13、impact87 Section 6:Topics of interest94 Conclusion99 References101 About the authors5ACRONYMSAI Artificial intelligenceCOIL Collaborative Online International LearningEAIE European Association for International EducationEHEA European Higher Education AreaEU European UnionFTE Full-time equivalentGDPR

14、 General Data Protection RegulationHEI Higher education institutionIAU International Association of UniversitiesNGO Non-governmental organisationUK United Kingdom6LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1:Geographical distribution of respondents(n=2817)Figure 2:Regional distribution of respondents per Barometer editi

15、onFigure 3:Do you identify as belonging to an underrepresented group based on language,religion,gender,sexuality,ability,age or other criteria?(n=2025)Figure 4:How many years of experience do you have working in international higher education?(n=2684)Figure 5:How many years of experience do you have

16、 in your current role in international higher education?(n=2682)Figure 6:Which of the following best describes your position?(n=2633)Figure 7:Which of the following categories best describes the general focus of your work?(select up to three)(n=2608)Figure 8:Which best describes the institution/orga

17、nisation where you work?(n=2608)Figure 9:How would you categorise the institution/organisation where you work?(n=2565)Figure 10:In how many different countries(excluding your home country)have you had educational experience(s)of 2 months or more?(n=2047)Figure 11:In how many different countries(excl

18、uding your home country)have you had professional experience(s)of 1 month or more?(n=2047)Figure 12:Overall job/role/position(n=2423)Figure 13:Sense of purpose(n=2423)Figure 14:Feeling valued by employer(n=2423)Figure 15:Work-life balance(n=2423)Figure 16:Salary or compensation level(n=2423)Figure 1

19、7:Plans to continue working in the field in the next three years(n=2423)Figure 18:Plans to continue working at the same institution/organisation in the next three years(n=2426)Figure 19:Perception of role changes over the past three years(n=1737)Figure 20:Clear career development opportunities at my

20、 institution/organisation(n=2375)7Figure 21:Need for training/professional development opportunities related to current role(n=2376)Figure 22:Satisfaction with the training/professional development opportunities offered by institution/organisation related to current role(n=2324)Figure 23:How is resp

21、onsibility for internationalisation organised(ie structured)at your institution?(n=1954)Figure 24:Change over time in how responsibility for internationalisation is organisedFigure 25:How satisfied are you with how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised(ie structured)at your institu

22、tion/organisation?(n=2293)Figure 26:How much confidence do you have in the leadership for internationalisation at your institution/organisation?(n=2288)Figure 27:Does your institution have a formal policy,strategy or plan for internationalisation?(n=1950)Figure 28:My institution has a clearly define

23、d set of goals for internationalisation(n=1947)Figure 29:My institutions goals for internationalisation are achievable(n=1089)Figure 30:What are some of the main drivers that you think have allowed your institution to successfully establish a clearly defined set of goals for internationalisation?(n=

24、854)Figure 31:Main drivers to successfully establish a clearly defined set of goals for internationalisation,by region.Figure 32:How would you characterise the influence of the following stakeholder groups in driving your institutions internationalisation goals?(n=1924)Figure 33:What level of attent

25、ion do the following topics require for your institution to achieve its internationalisation goals over the next 3-5 years?(n=1908)Figure 34:More and continued levels of attention to topics of interest,by regionFigure 35:I have spending and/or budget responsibilities for(n=2542)Figure 36:Please esti

26、mate the size of the budget you are responsible for(n=1459)Figure 37:How satisfied are you with the size of the budget you are responsible for?(n=1452)Figure 38:Overall,how stable is the size of the budget you are responsible for?(n=1399)Figure 39:Overall,how stable are the funding sources for the b

27、udget you are responsible for?(n=1404)8Figure 40:How would you characterise the influence of national authorities in driving your institutions internationalisation goals?(n=1924)Figure 41:How would you characterise the influence of European-level authorities in driving your institutions internationa

28、lisation goals?(n=1924)Figure 42:How would you characterise the effect of national policy(ies)/programmes/initiatives on your institutions activities?(n=1879)Figure 43:Erasmus+opportunities for staff,by years of experience in the field (%strongly agree+agree)(n=1805)Figure 44:Erasmus+opportunities f

29、or staff,by position(%strongly agree+agree)(n=1805)Figure 45:Erasmus+opportunities for staff,by region(%strongly agree+agree)(n=1805)Figure 46:How would you characterise the effect of the European Universities Initiative on your institutions internationalisation activities?(n=1833)Figure 47:How woul

30、d you characterise the debate or discussion about the impact of internationalisation at your institution/organisation?(n=2159)Figure 48:How much pressure do you feel in your role to produce evidence of the impact of internationalisation?(n=2134)Figure 49:Where does the pressure to produce evidence o

31、f impact come from?(select all that apply)(n=1690)Figure 50:In which areas is your institution/organisation most concerned with delivering impact from its internationalisation activities?(select up to three)(n=2135)Figure 51:From the list below,please select up to two topic areas that are particular

32、ly interesting to you personally and/or professionally.(n=2092)Figure 52:Respondents personal and professional topics of interest,by region.Figure 53:Higher than average interest in specific topics,by country.9GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE1 DIVISION OF REGIONS2Based on United Nations definitionsEastern EuropeN

33、orthern EuropeSouthern EuropeWestern EuropeWestern AsiaBelarusDenmarkAlbaniaAustriaArmeniaBulgariaEstoniaAndorraBelgium*AzerbaijanCzechiaFinlandBosnia and HerzegovinaFranceCyprusHungaryIcelandCroatiaGermanyGeorgiaMoldovaIrelandGreeceLiechtensteinKazakhstan*PolandLatviaHoly SeeLuxembourgTrkiyeRomania

34、LithuaniaItalyNetherlandsRussian FederationNorwayMaltaSwitzerlandSlovakiaSwedenMontenegroUkraineUnited KingdomNorth MacedoniaPortugalSan MarinoSerbiaSloveniaSpain*Includes both Belgium-Flemish Community and Belgium-French Community*Per the United Nations,Kazakhstan is part of Central Asia but for th

35、e purpose of this study it is included in Western Asia,as it is the only Central Asian country included in the European Higher Education Area.1.Following the list of countries on the Bologna Process/EHEA website as of March 2024:https:/www.ehea.info/page-full_members.2.Following the list of geograph

36、ical regions on the United Nations Statistics Division website as of March 2024:https:/unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/10EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The EAIE Barometer(third edition)offers up a remarkably comprehensive set of insights into the state of internationalisation in European higher education tod

37、ay,specifically through the eyes of the professionals directly involved in carrying out this work across the European Higher Education Area(EHEA).In doing so,it provides important indications of the health and vitality of the sector at a moment of significant challenge,opportunity and change.As the

38、third iteration in an ongoing series since 2015,it also offers insight into how perspectives on some issues have evolved over the last decade and presents indications of emerging priorities or concerns.The full EAIE Barometer(third edition)report provides detailed insight into these issues,through r

39、espondents perceptions in 5 key areas:1.Their own professional roles in international higher education 2.Their institutions or organisations structure and strategy for internationalisation,goals and stakeholder influences 3.Budgets for internationalisation 4.The impact of internationalisation 5.How

40、their institutions are performing in relation to specific topics of current interest in the fieldWHO RESPONDED TO THE EAIE BAROMETER SURVEY?The EAIE Barometer(third edition)survey was available for completion from 28 September to 28 November 2023.It was open to anyone working in the European Higher

41、Education Area whose work at the time of survey completion was focused on internationalisation in higher education,as either a main or partial aspect of their work.The survey generated a total of 2817 individual respondents from 46 EHEA countries slightly more than both the 2015 and 2018 iterations

42、of the survey.Responses were received from all regions of Europe,with Western Europe the most represented in the data and Western Asia the least.This is consistent with the past Barometer exercises,although in the current iteration there was a noticeable drop in representation from Northern Europe a

43、longside increases in survey participation in all other regions.11The majority(68%)of respondents are individuals for whom internationalisation is a main(rather than a partial)focus of their work.The respondents are based at institutions of various types and sizes,however most(55%)report working at

44、a research university and 77%indicate that their employer is a public institution or organisation.They hold a variety of distinct professional positions across nearly a dozen different functional areas and represent the full range of career tenure,from fewer than two years of experience in the secto

45、r to 15 or more years in the field.Notably,at a time of high interest in matters of diversity and inclusion in internationalisation activities and programmes,fewer than one fifth(17%)identify as belonging to an underrepresented group3.While there is no previous Barometer data against which to compar

46、e this data,it does establish a baseline of information and opens the door on potentially important conversations about the participation of underrepresented populations in a field that overtly values international and intercultural engagement.Perhaps not surprisingly,a solid majority of respondents

47、 report having had a study or a professional experience abroad of more than one to two months.Even still,more than a quarter(26%)have not studied outside their home country and 29%have not worked outside their home country for these indicative periods of time;this points to the idea that internation

48、al education careers can be accessible to individuals who have not had prior physical mobility experiences of significant duration.Employment changes are another notable finding in the data.That is,whilst 28%of respondents have worked in the sector for five years or less,a much larger group(53%)has

49、only been in their current role for five years or less.This means a notable proportion of respondents have made job or role changes in the last several years.It is unclear if this is the result of some particular characteristic of the last several years including,for example,the tumult brought about

50、 by the global COVID-19 pandemic as comparable data from past EAIE Barometer exercises is not available.However,it does raise interesting questions about the recent flux in employment experienced by many of the current respondents.The professional or functional areas that the largest percentages of

51、respondents indicate their work is focused on include student and staff mobility,partnerships,and European-funded programmes.The smallest proportion of participants(3%)indicated focusing on social responsibility in their work.3.This question was specifically worded as,“Do you identify as belonging t

52、o an underrepresented group based on language,religion,gender,sexuality,ability,age,or other criteria?No specific criteria for underrepresented are provided here;we simply would like to know how you identify.”12HOW DO RESPONDENTS PERCEIVE THEIR ROLES?Overall,respondents report a high level of satisf

53、action with the jobs they hold and the sense of purpose their work provides.This is less so amongst those who identify as academic staff,and amongst those with three to five years of experience in the field.There also seems to be a strong sense of commitment to continue working in the field,as 80%of

54、 respondents expect to still be working in international higher education in the next three years,and just 3%feel they will definitely transition out of the field within that timeframe.Respondents report less positivity with regard to their salary/compensation(40%unsatisfied),work-life balance(one t

55、hird unsatisfied)and feeling valued by their employer(25%unsatisfied).Change has been a reality in the daily working lives of respondents over the last several years.In addition to the indications of actual changes in position noted above,80%of respondents who have been working within the same role

56、over the last three years indicate that this role has changed in some way.Amongst the specific new or different skills required in their work,a notable 40%referenced in some way digital skills,including AI(artificial intelligence).When asked about the clarity of career development opportunities“from

57、 entry level to advanced level”at their institutions or organisations,just one third of EAIE Barometer respondents indicated agreement that a clear career trajectory exists.A larger percentage(40%)indicated that such a career trajectory is not visible to them at their employing institution/organisat

58、ion,whilst a notable 28%were ambivalent on this question.WHAT DO RESPONDENTS THINK ABOUT THEIR INSTITUTIONS/ORGANISATIONS?The organisation of responsibility for internationalisation in a single central office or with a single centralised team has decreased notably and consistently since the first it

59、eration of the EAIE Barometer in 2015.Just 24%of respondents reported this type of configuration in 2023,as compared to 35%in 2018 and 51%in 2015.Half of all respondents indicated that responsibility for internationalisation is currently structured instead around“coordinated central and decentral te

60、ams”.Respondents provided some conflicting signals around leadership and goal achievement.On the one hand,more than one third of Barometer respondents indicated being(very)unsatisfied with how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised at their 13institution/organisation and had limited

61、 confidence in their leadership.At the same time,a solid majority(56%)of respondents believed the internationalisation goals set by their institution/organisation were clearly defined and a convincing majority of 79%felt these goals were achievable.A clear strategy,inspiring and effective institutio

62、nal leadership,and strong support amongst administrative and academic staff were considered the main drivers to successfully establishing a clearly defined set of goals for internationalisation.When asked which topics required specifically more attention for institutions to achieve their internation

63、alisation goals over the next three to five years,the three topics most frequently chosen were:strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum(65%),virtual internationalisation activities(58%),and student/staff well-being(57%).However,there are strong indications that an overwhel

64、ming majority of respondents feel that all of the key topics included in this analysis need more or continued levels of attention.WHAT DO RESPONDENTS THINK ABOUT THEIR BUDGETS FOR INTERNATIONALISATION?Concerns about insufficient funding for internationalisation were clearly registered in the finding

65、s from the 2015 and 2018 iterations of the EAIE Barometer.To shed more light on this topic,the current Barometer edition sought input on several key questions about the size and stability of budgets dedicated to internationalisation,but this time specifically from individuals with budget responsibil

66、ities.Just under 1500 Barometer respondents indicated having some type of budget or spending responsibilities in the context of their work.Overall,the data from these individuals produced a relatively positive picture:more than 70%indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the size of the budg

67、et they work with.A similar percentage perceived the source(s)of the budget they are responsible for as either very or somewhat stable/predictable.However,those working with the largest budgets(ie 5 million or more)were much more likely(at 26%)to indicate being very satisfied with their budgets than

68、 those working with smaller budget amounts,only 10%to 15%of whom selected the very satisfied option for budget size.When it comes to dissatisfaction with budget sizes by place of employment,respondents working at research universities were more likely(at 26%)to express this position than respondents

69、 from other institutional or organisational types.14In terms of perceptions regarding the(in)stability of budgets,some variation across regions was in evidence.Somewhat higher percentages of respondents in Northern Europe(29%)and Eastern and Southern Europe(28%)noted unstable/unpredictable funding s

70、ources than in Western Europe(23%)and Western Asia(22%).When queried as to what respondents would do if presented with a significant increase in budget,the largest percentage(34%)indicated that they would focus on adding additional staff or providing more opportunities for existing staff,including t

71、raining,higher pay/compensation,and other activities geared towards retention and general“staff happiness”.HOW DO RESPONDENTS PERCEIVE NATIONAL AND EUROPEAN-LEVEL DYNAMICS?A majority of respondents see national(58%)and European-level(53%)authorities as either highly influential or influential when i

72、t comes to being drivers of their institutions goals for internationalisation.However,a look back at past EAIE Barometer data indicates that the influence of both national and European-level actors may be waning.For example,in 2015,68%of respondents felt that the national policy level exerted a stro

73、ng or relatively strong influence on their institutions internationalisation policy,and 66%perceived the same regarding EU-level influence.Even still,when asked about the effects from national policies,programmes or initiatives on their institutions actual internationalisation activities(as opposed

74、to influences on institutional policies or goals),a solid 41%of respondents indicated a positive effect.When it comes to European Union-funded programmes,policies and initiatives,several specific priorities yielded clear indications of beneficial influence.For example,a solid percentage of responden

75、ts(43%)characterised the effect of the European Universities Initiative on their institutions internationalisation activities as positive,with a miniscule proportion(1%)noting negative effects.Separately,57%of respondents(strongly)agree that“Erasmus+staff mobility has positively impacted my career.”

76、Importantly,there are very real differences apparent in the data when it comes to the influence of national and European-level policies and programmes,depending on national contexts,professional roles of respondents and other variables.WHAT DO RESPONDENTS THINK ABOUT IMPACT?Without necessarily defin

77、ing the precise nature of impact for respondents,the EAIE Barometer(third edition)nonetheless sought to gain insight into how professionals working in international higher education across the European Higher Education Area perceive the conversation about impact at their institutions and organisatio

78、ns.15A solid 63%of respondents to the Barometer survey indicated some level of urgency around“the debate or discussion about the impact of internationalisation”at their institution or organisation.At the same time,it is notable that nearly one third of respondents perceived there is no such debate o

79、r discussion,or that there is no urgency in relation to it.Just under half of all respondents(47%)reported feeling significant or very significant pressure in their roles when it comes to demonstrating the impact of internationalisation.The most common sources of pressure to demonstrate impact repor

80、ted by respondents were the leadership from within their own institutions or organisations,followed by national governments or national higher education authorities.Respondents were asked to select up to three different areas in which they perceive that their institution/organisation is most concern

81、ed with delivering impact from its internationalisation activities.Here,it is notable that impact in relation to reputation or rankings was pointed to as a top concern as frequently(47%)as the core higher education interests of student learning outcomes(46%)and research activity(46%).WHAT DO RESPOND

82、ENTS THINK OF CURRENT KEY TOPICS IN INTERNATIONALISATION?Noting the focus in international higher education circles on a number of key topics in recent years,the Barometer survey also sought to zero in on specific issues of personal or professional interest to respondents.The aspiration here was to

83、gain insight into these key topics from professionals who really care about them,and to understand how they perceive their institutions/organisations engagement with and performance with respect to these matters.From a predetermined list that was generated from several wide-ranging environmental sca

84、nning exercises,respondents were asked to select up to two topics of particular interest to them personally or professionally.The topic options included:Crisis preparedness/management Data knowledge/security Digitalisation of administrative tasks Environmental sustainability and climate action Inclu

85、sion and diversity Student/staff wellbeing Virtual internationalisation activities(COIL,virtual exchange,etc)Other 16The three topics most frequently selected by respondents were student/staff well-being,digitalisation of administrative tasks and inclusion and diversity,with only slight variations a

86、mongst different respondent groups.Respondents from Northern and Western Europe picked inclusion and diversity and environmental sustainability and climate action considerably more often as a topic of interest than other EHEA regions.For each topic selected,respondents were also asked to agree or di

87、sagree with a series of statements designed to provide further indications of how they see their institution/organisation engaging with that topic.These statements covered such aspects as clear planning with respect to the key topic,committed leadership with respect to the topic,investment of suffic

88、ient financial and non-financial resources to address the topic,and more.Respondents were also asked to indicate if they thought their institution/organisation had“made progress with respect to”the topic over the last 12 months.Some notable findings from this data include the following:When looking

89、at whether an institution/organisation has a clear plan for the activities it is pursuing,inclusion and diversity came out on top with a large percentage of respondents agreeing with this statement.Across all of the key topics,respondents were most commonly inclined to indicate that their institutio

90、n/organisation was underperforming in relation to providing sufficient financial resources and non-financial resources.Overall,respondents interested in Virtual internationalisation were most negative about the way their institution/organisation deals with this topic,from planning to leadership to i

91、nvestment of financial resources.Data knowledge/security scored highest against the question of committed leadership,with 61%of respondents agreeing with this statement.As a whole,the respondents choosing this topic were quite positive about how their institution/organisation is doing.When it comes

92、to having made progress in the last 12 months,the results are quite positive.For most of the topics at least half of respondents felt progress was made,and especially in relation to digitalisation of administrative tasks and data/knowledge security.Interestingly,crisis preparedness/management scored

93、 lowest,with roughly one third agreeing that progress has been made over the last year,but also almost one third disagreeing.Future Barometer reporting will focus in greater detail on these key topics.17WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?Overall,the current EAIE Barometer survey provi

94、des clear indications of positivity,change and important work ahead in a variety of areas.At an individual level,professionals in international higher education across the EHEA appear to be largely satisfied with their work,although as a group they are less satisfied with the salary/compensation the

95、y receive than with the personal satisfaction they derive.For many,their roles and responsibilities have been changing over the last several years,with an appetite for training and professional development evident across the board.At an institutional level,they are also fairly satisfied with the bud

96、gets they have responsibility for and are largely confident in the achievability of their institutions or organisations internationalisation goals.However,there seem to be some concerns about how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised and confidence in leadership is lacking in some

97、quarters.Meanwhile,the perceived influence of national and European-level actors remains significant but may have waned over the last decade.The sense of urgency professionals feel around demonstrating the impact of internationalisation is widespread but not omnipresent.Interestingly,professionals i

98、n the field perceive that their institutions are as focused on demonstrating the impact of internationalisation via reputation and rankings performance as demonstrating student learning outcomes or achieving certain levels of research activity.Institutions are,overall,perceived to be making progress

99、 over the last 12 months in regard to a range of topics currently of high interest to respondents and the wider field,but additional attention to key activities and priority issues is still required.Indeed,the data highlights the ongoing need for the sector to attend simultaneously to a multitude of

100、 activities and considerations.It also raises important questions about the extent to which,and in what ways,different stakeholders and national and European-level initiatives exert influence on internationalisation across the EHEA.As seen through the lens of the current EAIE Barometer survey exerci

101、se,the community of international higher education professionals in Europe presents as essentially optimistic in spirit,measured in its sense of recent progress in key areas and hungry for opportunities to improve practice and deliver results.Understanding their interests and aspirations,while harne

102、ssing their energy and expertise,is vital,given their frontline role in supporting the many and varied internationalisation agendas in European higher education today.18INTRODUCTION The departure of the UK from the European Union.The COVID-19 pandemic.The increasing presence of artificial intelligen

103、ce in our everyday lives.The accommodation crisis.The Russian invasion of Ukraine.Much has happened in Europe,and the world as a whole,since the publication of the EAIE Barometer(second edition)in 2018,let alone the first iteration in 2015.Indeed,although originally planned for 2021,the third instan

104、ce of this large and important research project was delayed by the unprecedented uncertainty and turmoil of the pandemic period.Now in 2024,in the face of rapid and constant change,it is as important as ever to continue mapping the landscape of internationalisation in the European Higher Education A

105、rea(EHEA)from the perspective of professionals working directly on this process at higher education institutions(HEIs)and other stakeholder organisations across Europe.Such is the aim of this third edition of the EAIE Barometer,which serves as the latest instance in a large-scale,ongoing research pr

106、oject that aspires to enhance understanding of the realities of internationalisation in higher education across the EHEA.Through periodic survey and analysis exercises,the EAIE seeks to inform and empower the international higher education community in Europe including institutional leaders,policyma

107、kers and other stakeholders when it comes to understanding the state of internationalisation today,its evolving profile over time,and possible future directions and developments.BUILDING ON PREVIOUS BAROMETER EXERCISESThe EAIE Barometer research project was initially launched in 2014.It employed an

108、innovative-for-its-time survey exercise that was designed to provide new and useful insights into the current practices employed by higher education institutions with respect to internationalisation,as well as the enabling factors and the challenges inherent in this work.The results of that exercise

109、 were published in 2015 as The EAIE Barometer:Internationalisation in Europe.This report focused on the state of internationalisation in Europe,key developments and challenges in the field,as well as the specific skills and needs of staff involved in internationalisation.It provided valuable insight

110、s into changes in the field,actual practices employed by European institutions and tools required for the further professionalisation of internationalisation.A spin-off report was also published,titled International Strategic Partnerships(Sandstrm&Weimer,2016),which spoke to a clear 19current intere

111、st in the issue of partnerships at that time.This publication looked into the state of strategic partnerships in Europe at that moment and was aimed at international officers seeking to improve their knowledge of the topic.Following another large-scale survey exercise in 2017,the second edition of t

112、he Barometer was published in 2018 and built upon the results of the first edition in order to detail changes and growth within the field and highlight trends.It led to two spin-off reports.The EAIE Barometer:Signposts of Success(Sandstrm&Hudson,2016)delved into nine commonalities shared by institut

113、ions where practitioners were most confident about internationalisations current and future state,and EAIE Barometer:Money Matters(Sandstrm&Rumbley,2016),which focused on the ways in which funding and financial considerations can act as an enabler as well as an obstacle to internationalisation in Eu

114、rope.Building on the knowledge gained from these two previous EAIE Barometer surveys,this current and third edition addresses themes covered in these previous exercises as well as several new and contemporary issues in internationalisation,in order to reflect on and better understand the field as it

115、 looks today.From its beginnings,the EAIE Barometer project has examined internationalisation from the point of view of the actors directly involved in international higher education.For this third edition,the main aim was to collect important data about how these professionals operating on the fron

116、tlines of internationalisation are personally experiencing the various challenges and opportunities currently framing the field.This viewpoint can provide important indicators of what is working well and how policy and practice can evolve in constructive ways.Key questions this survey aimed to explo

117、re include:What is really going on at ground level in these rapidly changing times?How do professionals in the field feel about their roles,their institutions or the policy environments that affect their work?What levels of confidence do they feel when it comes to the achievability of their institut

118、ions/organisations internationalisation goals or the ability of leadership to lead?What specific topics deserve extra attention in the years to come and to what extent do they perceive that progress has recently been made in key areas?CONTENTS OF THE EAIE BAROMETER(THIRD EDITION)REPORT The current E

119、AIE Barometer report is divided into seven sections.Within each section,the analysis focuses on the aggregate EHEA results and compares results by region,country,and other key variables,as appropriate.Where possible,comparisons to similar data captured from previous Barometer reports is also present

120、ed,to provide indications of continuity or change over time.The report sections are as follows:20 Respondents This section provides an overview of all respondents that filled in the 2023 Barometer survey,including information on the country/regional breakdown of responses,years of experience working

121、 in the sector/current role,general focus of work and type of institution/organisation.How do respondents feel about their roles?This section focuses on respondents perceptions of their specific role at their employing institution or organisation.Data covers topics such as satisfaction with their ov

122、erall job,work/life balance and salary/compensation;expectations of continuing to work at their institution/organisation specifically,or in the sector generally,in three years time;how their role has changed over the past three years;and the need for professional development.How do respondents feel

123、about their institutions/organisations?This section provides insights into how respondents feel about their employing institution/organisation.How responsibility for internationalisation is organised at HEIs and how satisfied respondents are with that approach;confidence in leadership for internatio

124、nalisation;the achievability of internationalisation goals;which stakeholder groups drive internationalisation;and which topics require more,less or continued attention in the next few years.Perceptions about budgets This section attempts to shed some light on perceptions about the size and stabilit

125、y of budgets dedicated to internationalisation efforts.The data analysed was collected solely from individuals who indicate they have budget responsibilities of some type and the analysis addresses such issues as the size of the budgets respondents are responsible for,how satisfied they are with the

126、 size of this budget,and satisfaction levels with the stability of the budget size and funding sources.National and European-level dynamics In this section,the main focus is on the influence of national and European-level authorities and developments.Questions covered in this section include:How inf

127、luential are these players?What effect do national policy(ies)/programmes/initiatives have on institutions activities?How do respondents characterise their individual and/or institutional experience with various aspects of the Erasmus+programme?And how have institutions engaged with or been affected

128、 by other priorities and opportunities emanating from the European Commission?21 Perceptions about impact This section sheds light on how respondents perceive the nature of the conversation about the impact of internationalisation at their institution/organisation.What kinds of impact are most value

129、d?Which stakeholders are most invested in questions of impact and what is the general level of urgency about demonstrating impact?Topics of Interest Last but not least,this section provides more information about how professionals in international higher education relate to current topics of interes

130、t to the field.Respondents were asked to pick up to two topics that are particularly interesting/important to them,either professionally or personally,and answer several questions about how they think their institution/organisation is performing in relation to those topics.Topics included,amongst ot

131、hers,climate change and environmental sustainability,inclusion and diversity,student/staff well-being and digitalisation of administrative tasks.The study concludes with reflections on the implications of the EAIE Barometer (third edition)findings for the higher education sector in Europe,now and lo

132、oking toward the future.22METHODOLOGY OVERVIEWThe EAIE Barometer is the largest,most geographically representative study of its kind focused on internationalisation in higher education in Europe.The research explores the current state of affairs with respect to internationalisation in European highe

133、r education as viewed by professionals directly involved in this work.The EAIE Barometer forms an ongoing series of studies(with previous data collection exercises completed in 2015 and 2018),providing insights into developments in internationalisation over time.For the current edition,the EAIE reta

134、ined McKinley Advisors(McKinley),a market-leading consulting firm focused exclusively on serving the association sector,to support study design and data collection.POPULATION AND SAMPLEThe population for this study included professionals working at higher education institutions and relevant stakehol

135、der groups within the European Higher Education Area(EHEA).The sample included all current and prospective EAIE members and the networks of a broad range of national agencies and partner organisations across the EHEA.The survey was also promoted via various EAIE communication channels.SURVEY INSTRUM

136、ENTThe primary data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire comprising close-ended and Likert-scale questions to quantify responses and gather detailed insights.The instrument also included open-ended questions to provide additional nuance to the data.The questions were divided into sev

137、en sections.These addressed aspects such as respondents perceptions of their role and institution,budgets for internationalisation and the impact of internationalisation.One section was specifically devoted to current topics of interest to the field,to uncover challenges,emerging trends and the futu

138、re outlook for the sector.The instrument was developed by EAIE staff,with input from an international advisory group with expertise in both internationalisation and data collection,as well as McKinley research experts.Additionally,the instrument development process drew inspiration from previous EAI

139、E survey activities and a comprehensive review of other major recent surveys on internationalisation in higher education.Before launching the survey,a pilot test was 23conducted with a small group representing the target population.The pilot test aimed to identify any ambiguities in the questionnair

140、e and assess the clarity of questions,and the survey instrument was revised accordingly after the pilot testing period.DATA COLLECTIONThe survey was launched on 28 September 2023 and closed on 28 November 2023 after fielding for 61 days.Respondents received an invitation email and six reminder email

141、s from the EAIE.Multiple channels were utilised to maximise responses and ensure a diverse sample.The survey received 2817 total responses,including 2001 complete and 816 partial responses.In appreciation for participation,every 500 respondents who completed the survey were entered in a drawing to w

142、in one of three prizes:one conference fee waiver for the 2024 EAIE Annual Conference and Exhibition in Toulouse,one free EAIE annual membership for 2024,or one registration fee waiver for the 2024 EAIE training offer of their choice.From amongst all of the completed surveys,one grand prize was also

143、awarded,consisting of a conference fee waiver for the 2024 EAIE Annual Conference and Exhibition in Toulouse,plus an invitation to the EAIE Presidents Reception in Toulouse.DATA ANALYSISQuantitative data collected through the survey was analysed overall and in terms of various key variables,includin

144、g institution/organisation type,role,institution size,country and other important segments.The analysis included partial responses as they contribute valuable insights and prevent potential biases.This practice ensures a more inclusive representation of participant perspectives.It also acknowledges

145、the diversity in respondent engagement levels,ie their willingness or ability to complete a rather extensive online survey.Taken together,these approaches enhance the overall reliability of the studys findings.Open-ended responses from the survey were thematically analysed to identify recurring patt

146、erns,themes,and qualitative insights.This qualitative analysis provides a deeper understanding of the nuances of respondents experiences and perspectives with respect to the various topics and issues addressed in the survey questions.ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONSThis survey adhered to ethical guidelines ou

147、tlined by the European Unions General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR),ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of respondents.Informed consent was obtained from participants,and their data was used solely for research purposes.24RESPONDENTS The 2023 Barometer survey exercise generated a total of

148、2817 individual respondents from 46 EHEA countries.This shows a slight increase in comparison to the two previous Barometer surveys:2411 respondents participated in the 2015 survey(representing 32 EHEA countries),whilst 2317 individual responses were collected for the 2018 edition(representing 44 EH

149、EA countries).In this most recent survey,the highest number of respondents came from the Netherlands(9%,250 respondents),Germany(8%,223 respondents),the United Kingdom(6%,168 respondents),Ukraine(5%,142 respondents),and France(5%,141 respondents).This was followed by roughly 4%of respondents each fr

150、om Belgium,Portugal,Spain and Sweden.Other countries represented in the survey each made up 3%or less of the respondents(Figure 1).There were only three countries that are part of the EHEA from which no responses were received:Holy See,Moldova and San Marino.NETHERLANDSTRKIYEAZERBAIJANGERMANYSWEDENN

151、ORWAYICELANDIRELANDFINLANDRUSSIAN FEDERATIONHUNGARYSERBIABULGARIA LATVIAESTONIALITHUANIAKAZAKHSTAN GREECECYPRUSCROATIANORTH MACEDONIAMONTENEGRO BOSNIA&HERZEGOVINA MALTAANDORRA SLOVENIAAUSTRIASLOVAKIACZECHIADENMARKROMANIABELARUSPOLANDARMENIAGEORGIALUXEMBOURG LIECHTENSTEIN ITALYBELGIUMUKRAINEFRANCEPOR

152、TUGALSPAINUNITED KINGDOMFigure 1Geographical distribution of respondents(n=2817)2502238630948892141121 119 142 168120 SWITZERLAND77ALBANIA25Meanwhile,in comparison to the previous Barometer report,large increases in responses were seen in the ca

153、ses of Serbia(from 0 to 63),Armenia(from 2 to 88),Azerbaijan(from 8 to 43),Ukraine(from 35 to 142),and Portugal(49 to 121).There are also notable decreases in responses as compared to the EAIE Barometer(second edition,2018),including from Estonia,Finland,Georgia,Kazakhstan,Lithuania and the Russian

154、Federation.When looking at the distribution of respondents across the various regions within the EHEA(see Figure 2),the most represented region is Western Europe and the least represented is Western Asia,although in absolute numbers the participation of respondents from Western Asia has doubled sinc

155、e the first Barometer report in 2015.The representation amongst the other three regions is quite even.There has been a noticeable drop in representation from Northern Europe since the first iteration of the EAIE Barometer(2015),both in terms of numbers of respondents and as a percentage of total res

156、pondents.Conversely,there has been a notable increase in respondent numbers from Western Europe in 2024 as compared to previous Barometer surveys,along with some increases in Eastern and Southern Europe,as well.Figure 2Regional distribution of respondents per Barometer editionRegionEAIE Barometer 20

157、15EAIE Barometer 2018EAIE Barometer 2024Change in respondent numbers (2015 vs.2024)Eastern Europe419(17%)411(18%)536(19%)117Northern Europe 764(32%)673(29%)627(22%)-137Southern Europe447(19%)339(15%)533(19%)86Western Europe658(27%)669(29%)878(31%)220Western Asia123(5%)225(9%)241(9%)11826In addition

158、to country information,respondents were also asked whether they identify as belonging to an“underrepresented group”.4 Of the roughly 2000 respondents who answered this question,close to three quarters(74%)did not consider themselves part of an underrepresented group,whilst 17%did(see Figure 3).Inter

159、estingly,in countries such as Austria,the Netherlands and the UK,where respondents indicated that inclusion and diversity is a topic that is of interest or needs more attention(as explored in Section 6),a higher percentage of respondents considered themselves as belonging to an underrepresented grou

160、p.Figure 3Do you identify as belonging to an underrepresented group based on language,religion,gender,sexuality,ability,age,or other criteria?(n=2025)17+74+6+3x3017%74%6%3%Yes No Unsure Prefer not to sayWithout significant additional information,of course,the picture of representation or underrepres

161、entation amongst international higher education professionals across Europe cannot be effectively illustrated.However,it does perhaps begin to hint at a reality that has also surfaced in the context of research focused on senior international education officers in the United States,where a 2017 surv

162、ey found that“the profession lacks racial diversity,with 69%of the respondents marking white”(AIEA,p.5).4.Do you identify as belonging to an underrepresented group based on language,religion,gender,sexuality,ability,age,or other criteria?No specific criteria for underrepresented are provided here;we

163、 simply would like to know how you identify.27INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICSClose to 75%of all respondents have been working in the international higher education sector for over five years,with one third of respondents(32%)having over 15 years of experience in the sector(see Figure 4).When looking at h

164、ow many years of experience respondents have within their current roles,the results were divided quite equally,with 53%of respondents being in their current role for five years or less,and 47%for more than five years(see Figure 5).Figure 4How many years of experience do you have working in internati

165、onal higher education?(n=2684)Figure 5How many years of experience do you have in your current role in interna-tional higher education?(n=2682)4+9+15+21+19+32x3011+18+24+21+11+15x30 Less than a year 12 years 35 years 610 years 1115 years More than 15 years15%18%24%21%11%15%21%19%32%4%11%9%Interestin

166、gly,whilst 28%of respondents have worked in the sector for five years or less,a notably larger group(53%)reported that they have only been in their current role for five years or less.This means that,while a strong majority of respondents(72%)are seasoned professionals with more than five years expe

167、rience in international higher education,a much slimmer majority(47%)have enjoyed more than five years experience in their current role within the sector.This indicates that a significant proportion of respondents have made job or role changes in the last several years,including during the rather tu

168、multuous period of the COVID-19 pandemic.As described in Section 1 of this report,some of this transition may account for the strong percentages of individuals who report the need for some level of training in their current position.285.For more information on the EAIE Taxonomy,see https:/www.eaie.o

169、rg/resource/eaie-taxonomy.html.For the majority of respondents,internationalisation is the main focus of their everyday work(68%),whilst 32%indicate it as a partial focus of their job.In terms of position types,almost half(48%)define themselves as Professional staff Specialist or Coordinator(35%)or

170、Professional staff Director or Manager(13%).One quarter of respondents work as the Head of international office or equivalent,and 13%consider themselves a Faculty member/academic staff.Other answer options included,amongst others,Policy advisor(4%),Deputy head or Vice Rector at HEI(3%),and Head or R

171、ector at HEI(1%)(see Figure 6).Figure 6Which of the following best describes your position?(n=2633)35+25+13+13+4+3+1+1+1+1+1+1+1Professional staff-Specialist or Coordinator or equivalent35%25%13%13%4%3%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%Faculty member/academic staff or equivalentSelf-employedHead of national agency or e

172、quivalentHead of international office or equivalentPolicy advisor or equivalentDean/Head of faculty or equivalentHead of higher education institution/Rector or equivalentProfessional staff-Director or Manager or equivalentDeputy head of higher education institution/Vice Rector,or equivalentChief Exe

173、cutive Officer(CEO)/Vice President(VP)or equivalentOther,please specifyPrefer not to sayRespondents were also asked to pick up to three categories that best describe the general focus of their work,based on the EAIE Taxonomy5.29Figure 7Which of the following categories best describes the general foc

174、us of your work?(select up to three)(n=2608)53+47+43+24+19+15+12+11+3+5Student and staff mobility53%47%43%24%19%15%12%11%3%5%Leadership,strategy and policyStudent and alumni servicesPartnershipsTeaching,learning and curriculumSocial responsibilityResearch on internationalisationEuropean-funded progr

175、ammesMarketing and admissionsOther,please specifyAs seen in Figure 7,the most chosen categories were Student and staff mobility(53%),Partnerships(47%),and European-funded programmes(43%).A striking regional difference worth mentioning is that in Eastern Europe(53%),Southern Europe(49%),and Western A

176、sia(59%)more respondents specifically linked their work to European-funded programmes than in Northern(32%)and Western Europe(37%).INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICSA convincing majority of respondents work at a public institution(77%),with the remaining 23%working at either a private non-profit,private

177、for-profit or other type of organisation(see Figure 8).That same majority of respondents,77%,work at a higher education institution,either a research university(55%)or university of applied sciences(22%)(see Figure 9).These percentages are almost exactly the same as for the previous Barometer report

178、 from 2018.30 Public Private non-profit Private for-profit Other,please specifyFigure 8Which best describes the institution/organisation where you work?(n=2608)77+14+7+2x3014%77%7%2%Research University University of Applied Sciences Specialised institution Private enterprise/company/service provider

179、 Ministry or government agency Non-governmental organisation(NGO)Other,please specifyFigure 9How would you categorise the institution/organisation where you work?(n=2565)55+22+8+5+4+2+4x3022%55%8%5%4%2%4%31Especially in Western Europe,the difference between the number of research university responde

180、nts(42%)and university of applied sciences respondents(36%)is quite small,in contrast to the other regions where research universities were by far the most frequently represented type of institution/organisation.When looking at the size of the institutions respondents work for,the distribution is qu

181、ite equal across institutional types:29%work at relatively small HEIs(fewer than 5001 full-time equivalent FTE students),33%at medium-sized HEIs(500120,000 FTE students),and 32%at large HEIs(more than 20,000 FTE students).This breakdown roughly matches the EAIE Barometer(second edition)numbers.INTER

182、NATIONAL CHARACTER OF RESPONDENTSTo begin to form an understanding of the international character or experiences of the Barometer respondents themselves,two questions were included in the survey focusing on the number of international educational and/or professional experiences respondents have had.

183、As shown in Figures 10 and 11,a large majority of 74%has had at least one international educational experience of two months or more.Similarly,71%of respondents indicated they have had at least one international professional experience of one month or more.This signals that international education p

184、rofessionals largely practice what they preach in terms of engaging in international experiences in the context of their own education and career activities.Meanwhile,it also shows that mobility experiences are not required in order to work in this field.32Zooming in to individual countries,the larg

185、est percentages of respondents per country with at least one international education experience are Switzerland(94%)and Germany(91%).For the international professional experiences,the highest scoring countries are France(89%)and Austria(86%).Countries where most or sizable proportions of respondents

186、 have had no international educational experiences include Serbia(50%),Portugal(47%)and Slovakia(44%).Meanwhile,the top countries with a large part of respondents without international professional experiences are Slovenia(60%),once again Portugal(51%),and Romania(44%).Figure 10In how many different

187、 countries(excluding your home country)have you had educational experience(s)of 2 months or more?(n=2047)Figure 11In how many different countries(excluding your home country)have you had professional experience(s)of 1 month or more?(n=2047)26+29+25+10+10 x3029+27+19+10+15x30 None 1 country 2 countri

188、es 3 countries 4 countries or more 26%29%29%27%19%25%10%10%10%15%33SECTION 1HOW DO RESPONDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR ROLES?SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Overall,respondents report a high level of satisfaction,with their jobs and the sense of purpose they feel.This is less so amongst academic staff members,and among

189、st those with three to five years of experience.The image is also less rosy when we look closer at the satisfaction linked to salary/compensation(40%unsatisfied),work-life balance(30%unsatisfied)and feeling valued by ones employer(25%unsatisfied).Nearly 80%of respondents expected to still be working

190、 in international higher education in the next three years,whilst just 3%felt they will definitely leave the field within that timeframe.81%of respondents who have worked in the same role over the past three years,indicated that that role has changed in some way.Looking at the specific new or differ

191、ent skills required,a notable 40%referenced in some way digital skills,including AI(artificial intelligence).There is a robust interest in training,regardless of years of experience,with nearly 85%of respondents perceiving a significant or moderate need for training or professional development.When

192、looking at satisfaction related to training opportunities,close to two thirds of respondents were satisfied,but a solid 36%indicated being unsatisfied.An argument can be made that the strength of any given sector relies heavily on the extent to which the individuals working within that sector are en

193、ergised by the work they do,feel committed to their jobs and feel supported in their roles by the institutions and organisations that employ them.The EAIE Barometer findings provide important insights into these questions amongst professionals working in the field of international higher education a

194、cross Europe today.34SATISFACTION WITH JOB,SENSE OF PURPOSE AND COMPENSATIONOverall,as seen in Figure 12,there appears to be a high level of job satisfaction:91%of respondents reported being either very satisfied or satisfied in their current positions,and nearly as many(89%)indicated the same level

195、s of satisfaction with the sense of purpose their job/role/position provides.The types of roles held by respondents correlate with different levels of reported overall satisfaction.Here,holding a position of authority of some type seems to matter,with those indicating that they have higher levels of

196、 responsibility also reporting satisfaction with their positions more frequently.For example,55%of individuals working as heads of international offices and 42%in other leadership roles reported being very satisfied in their positions,notably above the EHEA average of 34%very satisfied.And whilst ju

197、st 1%of total respondents reported being very unsatisfied with their roles,a much larger 10%of those identifying as academic staff indicated being very unsatisfied with their jobs.Along these same lines,those reporting that the main focus of their work falls in the category of leadership,strategy an

198、d policy were most likely(at 40%)to indicate high satisfaction with their jobs overall,whilst those who say their work is mostly focused on research on internationalisation were the least likely(at 12%)to report being very satisfied with their work.Figure 12Overall job/role/position(n=2423)34+57+6+1

199、+2x3057%34%6%1%2%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure35Due to the wide difference in numbers of respondents per country,comparing percentages across countries can be misleading.However,amongst those countries with at least 40 responses to the survey,the country with the large

200、st percentage of respondents reporting that they were either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied(18%)was Ireland.A positive sense of purpose was widely reported across the responses(see Figure 13).As with overall job/role/position satisfaction,respondents identifying as focused in their work on leadersh

201、ip,strategy and policy most frequently indicated being(very)satisfied,and those identifying as academic staff were at 11%slightly more inclined than the overall average to indicate being(very)unsatisfied with the sense of purpose that comes with their work.Figure 13Sense of purpose(n=2423)37+52+8+1+

202、2x3052%37%8%1%2%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied UnsureIn terms of results per country,a resounding 99%of Swiss respondents indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the sense of purpose that comes from their jobs.Countries representing the least satisfied end of the spec

203、trum include Serbia(20%unsatisfied or very unsatisfied)along with Slovakia,Romania and Italy,all registering 15%(very)unsatisfied in this area.36When it comes to the questions of feeling appreciated by ones employer,sense of work-life balance and satisfaction with compensation,the picture is a bit l

204、ess rosy.One quarter of respondents indicated they are either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied when it comes to feeling valued by their employer(Figure 14),one third reported the same when it comes to work-life balance(Figure 15),and a full 40%are not satisfied by their salary or compensation level(F

205、igure 16).Figure 14Feeling valued by employer(n=2423)23+49+20+5+3x3049%23%20%5%3%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure37Considering this question from the perspective of respondents countries,the data indicates that those working in Spain and Denmark are most likely(around 80%

206、to 90%)to enjoy satisfactory work-life balance,whilst those in Czechia and Ukraine(61%and 56%,respectively)are amongst the respondents least likely to report being(very)satisfied in this area.Set against the strong indications of satisfaction with ones overall job/role/position and sense of purpose,

207、the data on satisfaction with salary or compensation is starkly different,at least in terms of the percentages of individuals who are very satisfied with this aspect of their employment.Figure 15Work-life balance(n=2423)16+52+24+6+2x3052%16%24%6%2%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfie

208、d UnsureIn regard to work-life balance,there is an interesting and sharp distinction between those who are very new to the sector(ie working for less than two years in international higher education)and those who have been employed for a period of three to five years in the field.Nearly three quarte

209、rs(74%)of the earlier career respondents reported being(very)satisfied with their work-life balance,whilst just 34%of those with three to five years of experience in the sector indicated this same level of satisfaction.Something of a similar distinction can be seen across position types,whereby 74%o

210、f those identifying as professional staff-specialist or coordinator or equivalent are(very)satisfied with work-life balance and a significantly smaller 49%of those identifying as faculty member/academic staff or equivalent indicated being(very)satisfied in relation to work-life balance.38Figure 16Sa

211、lary or compensation level(n=2423)As compared to the 9%of total respondents who report being very satisfied with their salary/compensation,a notable 16%of those working at private higher education institutions and 22%working at other kinds of private organisations also report this same high level of

212、 satisfaction with their income.This same tendency toward satisfaction with salary/compensation can also be seen in relation to years of experience and in terms of type of role held.That is,those with more experience more frequently report satisfaction than those with less experience,whilst 72%of th

213、ose holding other leadership roles report being(very)satisfied with their salary against 52%of professional staff/specialist/coordinator respondents and 51%of faculty/academic staff respondents.From a cross-country comparison perspective,Dutch and Swiss respondents are most often satisfied with thei

214、r pay,whilst those from countries such as Ukraine,Italy,Poland and Slovakia are least likely to report satisfaction.9+49+30+10+2x3049%9%30%10%2%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure39CHANGES IN ROLES AND PLANS TO STAY IN THE SECTORPerhaps in keeping with the overall high level

215、s of work satisfaction,nearly 80%of respondents expect to still be working in international higher education in the next three years,whilst just 3%feel they will definitely leave the field within that timeframe(see Figure 17).Though inclined to stay in the field,nearly 10%of these same respondents i

216、ndicate they expect to leave their current institution or organisation,and a full quarter of respondents are not sure if they will still be working for the same employer in three years time(see Figure 18).Figure 17Plans to continue working in the field in the next three years(n=2423)Figure 18Plans t

217、o continue working at the same institution/organisation in the next three years(n=2426)79+3+18x30 Yes No Unsure79%3%65+9+26x3065%9%26%18%In comparison to the 3%of total respondents who do not see themselves working in the field in the next three years,countries with amongst the most sizable percenta

218、ges of respondents with plans to exit the sector included Austria(15%),Poland(16%),Czechia(18%)and France(18%).40The primary reason cited for leaving the field was retirement,followed by lack of opportunities for advancement.Those providing additional information about why they might leave their spe

219、cific institution/organisation also cited retirement and lack of career advancement opportunities,but also referenced the need for better pay,as well as issues such as poor management and not feeling valued by their current employer.In addition to asking Barometer respondents to look ahead to the ne

220、xt three years,the survey also asked them to reflect on any perceived changes in their role over the previous three years.Amongst those respondents who have been working in the same position for that period of time,just over 80%indicate that their roles have changed in some way.Here,it is notable th

221、at the answer option most frequently selected by respondents(ie 37%)relates to an increase in both time and effort as well as the need for new or different skills(see Figure 19).My role now requires more time/effort My role requires new or different skills My role now requires both new or different

222、skills and more time/effort My role has not changed muchFigure 19Perception of role changes over the past three years(n=1737)30+14+37+19x3014%37%19%30%When it comes to the specific new or different skills required by respondents in their jobs,a notable 40%referenced in some way digital skills,includ

223、ing AI.Leadership(22%)and project management(17%)were also amongst those new/different skills most frequently mentioned by respondents as relevant to the ways their roles had changed over the last three years.It is interesting here to reflect on the first iteration of the EAIE Barometer(2015),in whi

224、ch skills needs amongst internationalisation staff were also explored.At that time,the survey found that:41“On average,for HEI respondents within the EHEA there is a particular need to improve:a)project or programme management skills;b)staff management and leadership skills;c)skills for developing a

225、nd maintaining international partnerships;d)marketing skills;and e)proficiency in foreign languages other than English.”(p.85)Whilst the need for leadership and project management skills continues to resonate with professionals in the field,the rise in relevance of digital skills stands out as a not

226、able new priority in this discussion.Finally,highlighting the extent to which national contexts may differ with respect to role changes or stability,significant percentages of respondents from Hungary(35%),Sweden(36%)and Trkiye(36%)reported that their role has not changed much over the last three ye

227、ars.THE CONTINUING IMPORTANCE OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIESThe opportunity to develop professionally and to imagine advancement across a defined career trajectory may be a key component of job satisfaction for individuals.At a more systemic level,the extent to which professional development op

228、portunities are available can provide indications of the commitment that organisations are making to their staff and the seriousness with which they consider the domain in which international higher education professionals work.When asked about the clarity of career development opportunities“from en

229、try level to advanced level”at their institutions or organisations,just one third of EAIE Barometer respondents indicated agreement that a clear career trajectory exists.A larger percentage(40%)indicated that such a career trajectory is not visible to them at their employing institution/organisation

230、,whilst a notable 28%were ambivalent on this question(see Figure 20).425+25+28+27+13+2x30 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree UnsureFigure 20Clear career development opportunities at my institution/organisation(n=2375)13%25%28%27%5%2%A closer look at the Barome

231、ter data indicates that a sense of clear career development opportunities is much more prevalent amongst professionals who are working in private enterprises or the for-profit sector.Some 48%of respondents from these types of institutions/organisations(strongly)agree that such opportunities are avai

232、lable to them,as opposed to roughly a quarter of respondents at research universities or universities of applied sciences.Additionally,the earliest career respondents(ie those with zero to two years in the field)were most likely(at 37%)to register(strong)agreement that clear career development oppor

233、tunities exist at their institution or organisation.This stands in contrast to those with the most experience in the field(ie more than 15 years),43%of whom(strongly)disagree that clear career development opportunities exist in their current place of employment.Meanwhile,when it comes to perceptions

234、 viewed through the lens of job roles,49%of respondents who indicate holding professional staff/specialist/coordinator positions(strongly)disagree that there are clear career development opportunities at their institution/organisation,whilst only 15%of respondents identifying other leadership roles

235、feel the same way.43Different national pictures emerge from this data,as well.For example,respondents from Azerbaijan(63%),Romania(55%)and Ukraine(50%)most often(strongly)agree with this statement.The strongest levels of disagreement are seen in the responses from Italy(63%)and Germany(62%).What may

236、 be most notable here is the spread of responses in Figure 20 across the agree,disagree,and neither agree nor disagree answer options,which seems to suggest a rather fragmented overall set of perceptions about this matter amongst the total pool of respondents.A much clearer picture emerged from the

237、data in relation to the need for training or professional development(see Figure 21):nearly 85%of respondents overall perceive a significant or moderate need for access to such support in their current roles.A significant need A moderate need A limited need No needFigure 21Need for training/professi

238、onal development opportunities related to current role(n=2376)30+54+14+2x3054%30%14%2%Interestingly,the response rates in relation to a significant need for training were quite similar across the full pool of respondents(averaging around 30%),no matter respondents years of experience in their curren

239、t role or type of higher education institution.Those who identify as having a general focus of work on European-funded programmes or research on internationalisation were most inclined to say they have a significant need for 44training,at 35%and 38%respectively.And those who indicate their general f

240、ocus of work is leadership,strategy and policy or social responsibility most commonly reported at 19%and 20%,respectively having a limited need for training in support of their roles.When it comes to organisational types,the largest percentage of respondents indicating a significant or moderate need

241、 for training was evidenced by those international education professionals working at NGOs(90%),whilst those employed by private enterprises/companies/service providers were least likely to report a significant or moderate need for training(78%).Against this backdrop of a clear sense of need for tra

242、ining,it is interesting to note that very few respondents just 7%overall are very satisfied about the training/professional development opportunities their institution/organisation offers in relation to their role(see Figure 22).Figure 22Satisfaction with the training/professional development opport

243、unities offered by institution/organisation related to current role(n=2324)7+51+31+5+6x3051%7%31%5%6%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Unsure45Respondents working in private for-profit/private enterprise/company contexts most frequently report high levels of satisfaction with the

244、 training/professional development opportunities offered by their employers.Those most frequently indicating they are(very)unsatisfied in this area are respondents with either three to five years of experience or six to ten years of experience.When it comes to satisfaction levels by role,individuals

245、 identifying as academic staff were most frequently(42%)unsatisfied or very unsatisfied,whilst those identifying as holding other leadership roles were most frequently(71%)very satisfied.National highlights with respect to this question include significant rates of dissatisfaction amongst respondent

246、s from Norway and Switzerland(42%each),Hungary and Poland(46%each)and Italy(53%),but a significant 23%of respondents from Romania indicated being very satisfied with their employers training/professional development offer with respect to their role.The survey included an open-ended question about“wh

247、at contributes to your level of satisfaction with the professional development opportunities offered by your institution/organisation”.Of the more than 1100 responses to this question,most(58%)simply referenced the fact that such a resource is available to them,whilst another 20%indicated either the

248、 partial lack or complete lack of such opportunities as a factor in their satisfaction levels in this area.46SECTION 2HOW DO RESPONDENTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR INSTITUTIONS/ORGANISATIONS?SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Since 2015,it has become less common for Barometer respondents to report that their institutions rel

249、y on a single international office and more common to see reliance on central and decentral teams.More than one third of Barometer respondents indicated being(very)unsatisfied with how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised at their institution/organisation and having low confidence

250、 in their leadership.Internationalisation was more often seen to be embedded in the overall institutional strategy instead of being articulated in a stand-alone strategy document.Whilst 56%of respondents believed the internationalisation goals set by their institution/organisation were clearly defin

251、ed,a more convincing majority of 79%felt the goals were achievable.A clear strategy,inspiring and effective institutional leadership,and strong support amongst administrative and academic staff were considered the main drivers to successfully establishing a clearly defined set of goals for internati

252、onalisation.The influence of national authorities in driving institutional internationalisation goals proved to be quite high in individual countries such as Czechia(77%),Norway(76%),Trkiye(74%),Romania(69%)and the Netherlands(66%).When asked which topics required more attention for institutions to

253、achieve their internationalisation goals over the next three to five years,the three topics most frequently chosen were:strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum(65%),virtual internationalisation activities(58%),and student/staff well-being(57%).47The previous section of th

254、is report looked in more detail at how respondents feel about their roles.Yet,topics such as job satisfaction,role changes during the past couple of turbulent years,and needs for professional development all have a crucial link:the place where it all comes together,ie higher education institutions a

255、nd organisations.This section dives into respondents workplaces and looks more closely at internationalisation strategies and goals,responsibility and leadership,drivers and stakeholders,and topics that require the most attention.RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERNATIONALISATION:ORGANISATION AND SATISFACTIONW

256、hen respondents were asked how responsibility for internationalisation is organised at their institution,half of them indicated it tends to be a combination of central and decentral teams(see Figure 23).When we look back at the first Barometer report(2015),it is noticeable that at that time a single

257、 international office was the most common way to organise the implementation of internationalisation(51%),followed by multiple offices/teams working in coordination(24%).A single central team Multiple central teams Decentral teams (eg on faculty level)A combination of central and decentral teams No

258、separate teams,fully integrated Other,please specify UnsureFigure 23How is responsibility for internationalisation organised(ie structured)at your institution?(n=1954)24+12+7+50+2+2+3x3012%50%7%24%2%2%3%48Three years later,in the Barometer 2018 report,this had slightly shifted to only 35%of responde

259、nts working with a single centralised internationalisation office,and an increase in working via multiple coordinated offices(from 24%to 40%).It is interesting to see how this trend has continued in the same direction,with the single central team taking a step back and the central/decentral teams st

260、ructure rising in prominence(see Figure 24).Figure 24Change over time in how responsibility for internationalisation is organisedb+51+35+2451%35%24%Single international office/centralised office/central team Barometer 2015(first edition)Barometer 2018(second edition)Barometer 2024(third edition)Cons

261、idering institution type,more than half of the respondents working at research universities(52%)and universities of applied sciences(53%)indicated they work with a combination of central and decentral teams.Meanwhile,39%of those working at specialised institutions reported that their institution rel

262、ies on a single central team for internationalisation,which is well above the overall average of 24%shown in Figure 23).These findings by institutional type may in part be linked to institutional size:43%of respondents from HEIs with 5000 students or fewer(which is the student body size indicated by

263、 73%of respondents from specialised institutions)reported that internationalisation is the responsibility of a single central team,as opposed to just 17%of respondents from HEIs with more than 5000 students.When looking at the different regions,Northern and Western Europe had over half of respondent

264、s indicating a combination of central and decentral teams,and 19%choosing a single central office.These two answer options were closer together for Southern and Eastern Europe(30%single team,4045%combination),with Western Asia as the only 49region where the largest group of respondents(38%)indicated

265、 a single central team as the structure chosen,though this was closely followed by a combination of central and decentral teams(32%).Figure 25How satisfied are you with how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised(ie structured)at your institution/organisation?(n=2293)9+49+28+6+8x3049

266、%9%28%8%6%Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied UnsureZooming in on the question of satisfaction with how responsibilities for internationalisation are organised at institutions/organisations,as is visible in Figure 25,it is concerning to establish that over one third(34%)of Baromete

267、r respondents indicated being(very)unsatisfied,with another 8%being unsure.The highest percentage of respondents that indicated they were unsatisfied work at public institutions/organisations(29%),followed by private non-profits(27%)and private for-profits(19%).When looking at the different roles of

268、 respondents,close to one third of all categories chose the unsatisfied answer option,except for other leadership,where this is only 19%.Individual countries that jump out with a relatively high percentage of unsatisfied respon-dents are Ireland(56%),Slovenia(50%),and Italy and Poland(49%each).On a

269、more positive note,in Lithuania(81%),Denmark(78%)and Romania(74%)respondents indicated being(very)satisfied with the way internationalisation responsibilities are organised at an institu-tional level.Ultimately,the overall picture shows that over half of all respondents(58%)are(very)satisfied with h

270、ow internationalisation responsibilities are organised at their institution.50Figure 26How much confidence do you have in the leadership for internationalisation at your institution/organisation?(n=2288)18+45+26+5+6x3045%18%26%5%6%Very confident Confident Not very confident Not at all confident Unsu

271、reWe see roughly the same percentages when looking at how much confidence respondents had in the leadership for internationalisation at their institution/organisation(see Figure 26).Whilst a majority indicated being(very)confident(63%),a third(31%)stated that they were not very,or not at all,confide

272、nt.Confidence in leadership scored highest at the private for-profit institutions/organisations,with 33%being very confident(in contrast to 16%at public institutions,for example).Looking in more detail at the type of institution/organisation,NGOs and private enterprise/company/service providers scor

273、ed considerably higher on satisfaction,with over 80%having confidence in their leadership.When looking at the different roles,professional staff/specialist/coordinator(37%)and faculty(38%)were the least confident,whilst other leadership was most confident(82%).When looking at the different regions,W

274、estern and Northern Europe had the least confidence in leadership(35%and 34%),whilst in Western Asia 76%indicated feeling(very)confident about their leaders.Individual countries that stand out here are Italy,Poland and Serbia,where over 40%of respondents indicated being not confident in their intern

275、ationalisation leadership,whilst Romania(86%),Azerbaijan(83%),and Armenia(79%)have a lot of faith in their leaders.51INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY:THE WHAT,WHY AND HOWAs Figure 27 indicates,a convincing majority of respondents specified that their institution has a formal policy,strategy or plan for

276、 internationalisation,whether as a stand-alone document,an explicit section of the overall institutional strategy,or embedded in the overall institutional strategy.This largely aligns with the results collected by IAU(2024)in their 6th Global Survey on Internationalization,which indicates that Europ

277、e aligns with the rest of the world when it comes to this particular topic.Figure 27Does your institution have a formal policy,strategy or plan for internationalisation?(n=1950)21+29+25+12+6+7x3029%21%25%12%7%6%Yes,internationalisation is embedded in the overall institutional strategy Yes,as an expl

278、icit section of the overall institutional strategy Yes,as a stand-alone document Not yet,but it is in preparation No UnsureIn the 2015 Barometer report,46%of respondents reported that internationalisation was one of the priority areas addressed in the overall institutional strategy.This number decre

279、ased to 39%in the second Barometer edition in 2018,and has now further decreased to 29%.Furthermore,in the first edition 38%of respondents shared that their HEI had a separate strategic plan for internationalisation,which is a number that remained roughly the same three years later(39%).In 2023,fewe

280、r institutions report having a stand-alone strategy document for internationalisation(25%)in comparison to the past Barometer reports.Instead,it seems to be more common today to simply embed internationalisation in the overall institutional strategy,which is the answer option chosen by 21%of all res

281、pondents.This points to a gradual trend towards embedding internationalisation in the overall institutional strategy,as part of everything an HEI undertakes and aims to accomplish.52Similar to the 2018 Barometer report,it is worth noting that 7%of respondents were unsure about their institutions int

282、ernationalisation strategy.This includes academic staff in particular,which indicates that this might be a stakeholder group that is not always as effectively involved in internationalisation endeavours.One in five respondents with fewer than two years of experience working in international higher e

283、ducation also indicated they are unsure.This is not surprising,since these respondents might be quite new in their jobs and thus not completely aware of the internationalisation strategy at their institution.Analysis of the findings by country reveals some pronounced differences in how international

284、isation strategies are set up.Whilst in both Finland and Lithuania internationalisation tends to be embedded in the overall institutional strategy(44%),institutions in countries such as Ukraine(42%)and Serbia(41%)more often work with a stand-alone document.Surprisingly,various Northern/Western Europ

285、ean countries recorded some of the highest percentages of respondents with no internationalisation strategy at all,namely Denmark(24%),Norway(14%),and France(12%).15+41+25+12+4+3x30 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree UnsureFigure 28My institution has a clearly

286、 defined set of goals for internationalisation(n=1947)4%41%25%12%15%3%Next to having an internationalisation strategy in one form or another,respondents were also asked whether the goals are clearly defined or not,for which the results can be found in Figure 28.Whilst over half(56%)agreed with this

287、statement,it is interesting to see that a quarter of respondents were not sure about this and another 16%(strongly)disagreed.When looking at the different regions,there is some variation visible.Whilst 53in Western Asia(69%)and Eastern Europe(67%)more than two thirds of respondents(strongly)agreed w

288、ith this statement,Northern Europe comes last with only 49%in agreement.Disagreement is highest in Denmark(41%),Switzerland(27%),Italy and Norway(26%each).According to respondents,institutions with a clearly defined set of goals for internationalisation can be found more readily in Romania(86%),Arme

289、nia(74%),Czechia(73%)and Ukraine(72%).16+63+13+5+3x30 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree(0%)UnsureFigure 29My institutions goals for internationalisation are achievable(n=1089)63%13%5%16%3%Even though Figure 28 showed that there is a bit of doubt across the EH

290、EA about whether internationalisation goals are clearly defined or not,a convincing majority(79%)did feel their institutions goals are achievable(see Figure 29).Specialised institutions had an especially positive response to this statement,with 90%(strongly)agreeing,and only 1%disagreeing.When looki

291、ng at the categories describing the general focus of respondents work,there are also some intriguing differences.Whilst people with jobs linked to European-funded programmes(83%)and research on internationalisation(82%)most commonly felt their institutions goals for internationalisation are achievab

292、le,it is especially striking to see that those who linked their jobs to social responsibility most frequently disagreed with this statement,namely 15%.54A closer look at individual country response rates shows that perceptions of the achievability of goals were highest in Armenia,Greece and Portugal

293、(92%each),followed closely by Ukraine(91%).Doubt that goals are achievable was highest in Norway(24%),closely followed by Ireland(22%)and Slovenia(17%).MAIN DRIVERS AND INFLUENTIAL STAKEHOLDERSAfter asking about the clarity and achievability of institutions internationalisation goals,we were also in

294、terested to look in more detail at the main drivers that helped establish these goals.Respondents were able to select multiple answers,and the top four answer options all scored between 45%and 49%(see Figure 30).Whilst strong support amongst faculty featured amongst the top answers,it seems the avai

295、lability of resources and strong support amongst current/former students have been less influential.Figure 30What are some of the main drivers that you think have allowed your institution to successfully establish a clearly defined set of goals for internationalisation?(select all that apply)(n=854)

296、49+48+48+45+36+29+22+10+4+5A clear strategy49%48%48%45%36%29%22%10%4%5%Strong support amongst academic staffA conducive national environmentInspiring and effective institutional leadershipAvailability of sufficient resourcesOther,please specifyStrong support amongst former students(alumni)Strong sup

297、port amongst administrative staffStrong support amongst current studentsUnsure55Taking into consideration the different roles of respondents,each group seemed to consider themselves as an important main driver.Over half of the heads of international offices and 64%of respondents that fall within the

298、 other leadership group chose inspiring and effective institutional leadership as the main driver.Similarly,the faculty/academic staff respondents four most frequently selected strong support amongst academic staff(51%)and professional staff specialist/coordinator respondents(54%)saw strong support

299、amongst administrative staff as a crucial main driver.In all regions the most frequently selected answers were overall the same,as can be seen in Figure 31,with small changes in the top choice.Whilst in Northern,Western and Southern Europe a clear strategy was considered the main driver to successfu

300、lly establish those clearly defined goals for internationalisation,Eastern Europe saw strong support amongst academic staff as the main driver,and in Western Asia this was strong support amongst administrative staff.Figure 31Main drivers to successfully establish a clearly defined set of goals for i

301、nternationalisation,by regionRegionEastern Europe(n=198)Northern Europe(n=153)Southern Europe(n=168)Western Europe(n=259)Western Asia(n=76)A clear strategy49%52%51%48%43%Inspiring and effective institutional leadership50%52%50%41%53%Strong support amongst administrative staff49%48%42%46%63%Strong su

302、pport amongst academic staff52%38%41%43%55%Availability of sufficient resources31%42%31%42%32%Strong support amongst current students36%23%25%26%38%A conducive national environment29%26%14%19%21%Strong support amongst former students(alumni)17%8%10%6%13%Other3%7%2%7%0%Unsure4%7%5%5%1%Per region:most

303、 common choice second most common choice third most common choice 56When looking at the options that were chosen least,former students(alumni)came out as the least important driver in all regions but scored the lowest in Western and Northern Europe.Other interesting data from this overview includes

304、the fact that in comparison with respondents from other regions those from Eastern Europe were more inclined to cite the importance of a conducive national environment(29%),closely followed by Northern Europe(26%).Figure 32How would you characterise the influence of the following stakeholder groups

305、in driving your institutions internationalisation goals?(n=1924)Highly influentialInfluentialSomewhat influentialNot at all influentialUnsureExecutive board/team39%35%16%4%5%Academic staff19%42%30%6%2%Administrative staff11%32%36%18%3%Current students10%29%38%18%4%Former students(alumni)5%15%27%42%1

306、2%External advisory board5%16%24%27%28%National authorities20%38%26%8%9%European level authorities17%36%26%9%12%Per level of influence:most common choice second most common choice third most common choicePeople are crucial when it comes to actually realising particular goals,so one question in the B

307、arometer survey focused on the influence of stakeholder groups in driving institutional internationalisation goals.As can be seen in Figure 32,the two groups that came out as most influential were the executive board/team(considered by 74%as influential or highly influential)and academic staff(consi

308、dered by 61%to be influential or highly influential,and by another 30%to be at least somewhat influential).In addition to national and European-level authorities(see Section 4 of this report),current students were considered as an important voice as well,with two thirds indicating them as(somewhat)i

309、nfluential.This in contrast to former students(alumni),who were considered not at all influential by 42%of respondents.It is also noteworthy that 28%of respondents were unsure about the possible influence of an external advisory board,or considered them not all influential(27%).57Diving into individ

310、ual country details shows that the executive board/team was considered(highly)influential in most countries by over 55%of respondents.An exception here is Norway,where only 30%considered this group influential,and another 10%as highly influential.Former students(alumni)were already identified as a s

311、takeholder group that does not seem to be considered influential,but especially in Scandinavia this group scored significantly low on this question.Meanwhile,the influence of national authorities scored quite high in such places such as Czechia(77%),Norway(76%),Trkiye(74%),Romania(69%)and the Nether

312、lands(66%).Respondents were additionally asked to indicate which topics,from a predetermined list developed through extensive environmental scanning,they perceive as requiring more,less or continued levels of attention in order for their institution to achieve its internationalisation goals in the c

313、oming three to five years.It is important to note that respondents were not asked to rank or indicate priorities across the various topics of interest;they were asked to indicate whether a particular topic needs more/less attention.58Figure 33What level of attention do the following topics require f

314、or your institution to achieve its internationalisation goals over the next 35 years?(n=1908)More attentionContinued level of attention as nowLess attentionUnsureDoes not apply to my institutionCrisis preparedness/management42%43%5%10%1%Data/knowledge security42%43%4%10%1%Digitalisation of administr

315、ative tasks56%35%3%5%0%Environmental sustainability and climate action52%37%4%6%1%Inclusion and diversity50%42%3%5%0%International development and capacity building projects50%38%4%8%1%Local/regional community engagement and/or development38%46%5%10%2%Partnerships and networks50%46%2%2%0%Recruiting

316、international talent(students/staff)52%33%7%6%2%Research collaborations and outputs47%43%3%7%1%Strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum65%29%3%3%0%Student/staff mobility51%45%2%2%0%Student/staff well-being57%38%2%3%0%Virtual internationalisation activities(COIL,virtual exc

317、hange,etc)58%28%6%7%1%Above 59%50%59%40%49%As can be seen from Figure 33,respondents seem to feel that all of the topics require more or continued attention.However,when it comes to those specifically requiring more attention for institutions to achieve their internationalisation goals over the next

318、 three to five years,the three topics chosen most frequently were strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum(65%),virtual internationalisation activities(58%),and student/staff well-being(57%).When looking at the topics that overall scored the highest on receiving more atten

319、tion or a continued level of attention as now,partnerships and networks(96%)and student/staff mobility(96%)took the lead.59A regional perspective on this data reveals several interesting insights.Strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum was most frequently selected as the

320、topic to receive more attention for all individual regions,but as seen in Figure 34 it appears that respondents across all regions feel that all of the key topics included in this analysis need more or continued levels of attention.Still,there are a few notable region-specific results to highlight.F

321、igure 34More and continued levels of attention to topics of interest,by regionTopics of interestEastern Europe(n=336)Northern Europe(n=457)Southern Europe(n=340)Western Europe(n=648)Western Asia(n=127)Crisis preparedness/management88%85%86%81%87%Data/knowledge security85%86%87%82%86%Digitalisation o

322、f administrative tasks92%88%94%91%94%Environmental sustainability and climate action88%89%88%91%90%Inclusion and diversity89%91%92%94%94%International development and capacity building projects94%81%93%83%96%Local/regional community engagement and/or development88%77%91%83%88%Partnerships and networ

323、ks98%94%96%95%98%Recruiting international talent(students/staff)90%86%88%80%89%Research collaborations and outputs97%87%92%86%98%Strengthening international/intercultural content of the curriculum95%92%96%93%94%Student/staff mobility97%95%97%95%98%Student/staff well-being94%94%96%93%95%Virtual inter

324、nationalisation activities(COIL,virtual exchange,etc)86%87%88%85%84%60For example,inclusion and diversity was chosen more often as a needs more attention topic by respondents in Western Europe than by those in other regions.Eastern European respondents were most inclined(61%)to select digitalisation

325、 of administrative tasks as a needs more attention topic,while respondents from Western Asia(51%)were least apt to point to this topic.As seen in Figure 34,the responses from Eastern and Southern Europe,as well as Western Asia show a stronger interest in both research collaborations and outputs and

326、international development and capacity building projects,as opposed to Northern and Western Europe.Perhaps the most notable finding here is the relatively smaller percentages of respondents based in Northern and Western Europe who see the need for more or continued attention to the topic of internat

327、ional development and capacity building projects,as compared to other regions.Whilst none of the topics stand out as needing to receive less attention,it is interesting to note that in both Western Europe and Western Asia,10%of respondents indicated less attention should be given to recruiting inter

328、national talent(students/staff),as well as 11%of respondents from Western Asia drawing the same conclusion for virtual internationalisation activities.Respondents were asked more questions on topics of interest;the data on this can be found in Section 6.61SECTION 3PERCEPTIONS ABOUT BUDGETS SECTION H

329、IGHLIGHTS Well over half of respondents(58%)indicated having some type of budget or spending responsibilities in the context of their work.More than 70%of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the size of the budget they work with;a similar percentage perceived the source(s)of the budget

330、 they are responsible for as either very or somewhat stable/predictable.Respondents working at research universities were most likely to express dissatisfaction with the budgets they are responsible for(26%).When looking at the stability of budgets,some variation across regions was perceived,with hi

331、gher percentages of respondents noting unstable/unpredictable funding sources in Northern Europe(29%)and Eastern and Southern Europe(28%)than in Western Europe(23%)and Western Asia(22%).When asked what they would do if presented with a significant infusion of financial support,the largest percentage

332、 of respondents(34%)indicated that they would focus on adding additional staff or providing more opportunities for existing staff,including training,higher pay/compensation and other activities geared towards retention and staff happiness in general.62Whether internationalisation is undertaken as a

333、revenue generation exercise or as a non-profit activity,financial supports are still required to ensure the viability of programmes,activities and initiatives.Notably,the EAIE Barometer(second edition,2018)reported that insufficient financial resources were most frequently cited by respondents when it came to both internal and external challenges to internationalisation.Indeed,just under 40%saw in