Cambridge University Reporter


Report of the Working Party on International Academic Relationships

1. Introduction

The Working Party was established by the Council and the General Board in the Easter Term 2004. Its membership and Terms of Reference are attached as Annex I. It has held nine meetings, including a joint meeting with the Working Party on International Student Recruitment, Selection, and Support, with which it has kept in close contact through overlapping membership and a joint secretariat. The Working Party agreed that a number of meetings should focus on particular regions of the world and it met selected individuals (listed in Annex II) with particular regional expertise (although the Working Party acknowledges that, had time permitted, there are many others with comparable expertise that it could have met).

Throughout this report, 'international' means any region or country outside the UK, and 'University' or 'Cambridge' is intended to include the Colleges as well as the University and its institutions.

Whilst there have been central International committees in the past, the Working Parties' deliberations represent a first attempt to review the University's international characteristics and to articulate a strategy within which activities should be undertaken and partnerships developed.

The key findings and the recommendations in this report are in bold type, with a summary of recommendations in section 8.

2. The need for a strategic approach to international relationships

2.1. Cambridge is an international University. The international context within which it operates is summarized in its Mission Statement: 'to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.' There are few areas of the world with which it does not engage in one form or another. It has extensive links with many overseas universities and other partners, established primarily through the activities of individual staff, Faculties, Departments, and Colleges, (although there are also a number of University-wide bilateral agreements with overseas institutions (see para.3.1.)). Links may involve: research or teaching collaborations; a regular incoming flow of (typically postgraduate research) students; student exchanges or study abroad opportunities; and interaction with corporate organizations, governmental agencies or NGOs.

International students from over 120 different countries currently make up almost one in five of the student population (and are particularly significant at postgraduate level where they make up over 50% of the student body). Their admission is greatly facilitated by a number of high profile scholarship and bursary schemes, particularly those provided through the Commonwealth, European, Gates, and Overseas Trusts.

Cambridge staff, at all levels (from postdoctoral workers to the holders of established Chairs), come from international backgrounds: a third of the University's employees is from outside the UK. At any one time there are significant numbers of visiting international scholars: the Colleges' contribution in receiving and accommodating them is substantial.

The international status of the University's research can be gauged through RAE results. In RAE 2001, 95% of submissions were graded at 5* or 5 (i.e. at least up to half of the work being of international excellence). The University's international ranking can also be measured by its position in a number of 'league tables'. For example, Shanghai Jiao Tong University's 'Academic Ranking of World Universities 2005' placed Cambridge 2nd globally (after Harvard). The Higher's survey (7 October 2005) ranked the University 1st globally for science.

2.2. All this has occurred without an explicit institutional strategy. The question then arises as to whether such a strategy is necessary. The Working Party believes that it is, for the following reasons:

2.3. The defining characteristics of the international strategy proposed by the Working Party are as follows:

  1. engagement only with activities of a quality consistent with those undertaken in Cambridge and of a kind which plays to Cambridge's strengths;
  2. consolidating existing institutional links and a selective approach to further bi- or multi-lateral links;
  3. close collaboration with, and use of the expertise of, Cambridge Assessment and CUP;
  4. avoidance of reputational risk in international activities;
  5. a more structured engagement with selected national and international agencies and with UK and overseas governments;
  6. institutional activities in a particular country or region which do not interfere with existing links, on the part of individual members of staff, Faculties, Departments, and Colleges, in that country or region;
  7. activities to be undertaken with an awareness of particular regional characteristics and needs around the world, particularly in capacity-building or pro bono work; and
  8. a more solid administrative infrastructure to provide central support for international activities.

2.4. The University should ensure that it pursues international activities which complement its other academic activities and are of comparable quality. Those activities, in whatever form or region, will normally be based on a selective engagement with international, high status, partners. Cambridge should avoid unfocused attempts to expand its international activities and should not take up requests by other parties to participate in activities inconsistent with the University's strengths. It should be accepted that whilst international contacts may help to fund international and other activities, it is not realistic to expect significant recurrent income being generated through international activity per se. Indeed, it is clear that some activities will be carried out at cost, by volunteers from the University.

2.5. A number of other UK universities have responded to international opportunities through forms of 'off campus' collaboration which include the establishment of campuses overseas, accreditation, validation, and franchising of provision elsewhere, and distance learning programmes. The quality assurance implications and the reputational risks associated with such ventures are significant. The Working Party is firmly of the view that, at least so far as the award of University qualifications is concerned, these are not appropriate routes for Cambridge to follow except in the context of distance learning on programmes approved by the General Board or through Cambridge Assessment. A Cambridge education leading to a degree is, and should remain, based primarily on study in the University. The Working Party cannot conceive of that domestic base being appropriately replicated overseas. Such ventures would distort and dilute the nature and quality of the University's provision and erode the synergy between teaching and research which underpins the University's reputation. They would also require a level of commitment and investment which the University is unlikely to wish to provide.

2.6. This does not, however, mean that Cambridge should avoid any form of educational activity overseas. There are innumerable occasions when Cambridge staff, on an individual basis, teach, lecture, and examine overseas; and a number act in an advisory capacity, for example in establishing new universities and on behalf of governmental agencies. The Working Party draws attention to the valuable work undertaken by many staff in voluntarily contributing to academic development, at institutional and subject level, in less developed regions. This work constitutes an important element in the University's international mission.

At undergraduate level a number of schemes exist to promote student exchange and mobility. Cambridge research students often spend time, countable towards their Ph.D.s, studying in overseas institutions, organized either on the basis of individual students' research programmes or through more structured agreements (for example, the Clinical School's links with the US National Institute for Health). Cambridge Assessment successfully provides a wide range of 'Cambridge' qualifications globally. Executive education and continuing professional development delivered outside Cambridge for overseas groups are provided through, for example, the Institute of Continuing Education and the Cambridge Programme for Industry. Provided that the appropriate quality assurance (and, where applicable, risk assessment and management) arrangements are in place through the General Board, the Working Party sees no reason to constrain such activities.

2.7. An explicit institutional strategy does not imply a need to expand significantly the University's international activities or overseas student numbers. The University has not hitherto sought proactively to promote itself internationally. The Working Party sees no reason for any marked change to this approach; rather, that approach should be refined, made more selective, and continue to be driven by purely academic considerations. The University should avoid a higher international profile of a kind which generates levels of demand which it cannot or would not wish to satisfy. The Working Party shares the other Working Party's views on there being no cogent financial case for any substantial University-wide increase in overseas fee paying student numbers (although the value of incoming international students (in particular research students) in building and fostering international links is acknowledged). It also concurs with the views of the other Working Party on the needs to focus on quality and to expedite admissions procedures and to co-ordinate academic and funding decisions to ensure that the University attracts its proper share of the highest calibre international students.

3. University-wide links

3.1. At present University-wide 'framework' agreements (or comparable concordats) exist with the following: MIT, USA; Tsinghua University (Qinghua), PRC; Peking University (Beida), PRC; Kyoto University, Japan; and Tokyo University, Japan.

Of these, the alliance with MIT, fostered through CMI, is both the most recent and that which impacts on the greatest number of University institutions (and, through the Undergraduate Student Exchange, the Colleges). Irrespective of the future of CMI, the Working Party recommends that further consideration be given by the Council and General Board to Cambridge's future relationship with MIT. Of the remaining alliances, that with Tsinghua involves the next greatest number of University institutions.

3.2. The Working Party has considered whether it would be in Cambridge's interests to increase the number of overseas universities with which it has strategic partnerships. It acknowledges that there may be advantage in establishing, on a selective basis, other general bilateral alliances, although it sees more likelihood of an increase in agreements which specify particular educational, research or discipline-specific projects. It recommends that the following criteria be used in considering future University-wide bilateral agreements:

The University should not enter into bilateral agreements which cannot map satisfactorily against the above criteria, or where the volume and/or nature of the activity likely to be facilitated by such an agreement is insufficient, or where the likely benefits are inappropriately skewed towards the proposed partner.

On occasion, the Vice-Chancellor is asked to endorse agreements which concern a particular University institution or are aimed to facilitate the international activities of particular members of staff. The Working Party recommends that, for the future, such endorsement should only be given when there is clear evidence that the proposed activity cannot be undertaken without a formal agreement signed by the head of the institution.

3.3. Whilst many highly ranked universities already have a range of bilateral alliances, the Working Party sees potential, subject to the suitability of the overseas partners, in multilateral alliances aimed, primarily, at facilitating interaction of various forms between cognate subject areas, and of a kind which enables each university to choose the nature and volume of its engagement with each of the partners in a flexible and non-binding way.

In this connection the Council have agreed that the University become a member of a group of international research universities, known as the 'International Alliance of Research Universities' (IARU). The rest of the group comprises: ANU (Australia); NUS (Singapore); Tokyo (Japan); Beida (PRC); University of California (Berkeley) and Yale (USA); ETH Zurich and Copenhagen (Europe); and Oxford. This will have the merit of clarifying existing relationships with NUS and Yale, refreshing the existing agreements with Tokyo and Beida (see 3.1) and establishing new links with Europe and, indeed, Oxford.

4. Working with local, national, and international organizations

4.1. The University needs to work more closely with Cambridge Assessment and the CUP, both of which have major global reputations and established administrative overseas infrastructures, and can provide valuable regional expertise. Cambridge Assessment has a wide network of links with overseas universities, government agencies, national examining boards, and the British Council. Collaboration with Cambridge Assessment and CUP could, inter alia, help to promote (at a relatively modest cost) a co-ordinated 'Cambridge' presence in particular regions. For example, their offices might provide a base for visiting Cambridge staff; and Cambridge Assessment's experience in language testing for non-English speakers and its Thinking Skills Assessment Test could be useful resources in international student selection.

4.2. A clear strategy must be established by the International Steering Committee (para 7.3) for more structured and effective engagement with national and international bodies. At present, the University's capacity for influencing the policies of such bodies and for becoming aware of policy changes can be patchy and is often carried out by individuals without reference to the central bodies. This is in contrast to other members of the Russell Group which have close links, normally through particular senior academics, with the policy makers in those organizations. Cambridge should be open to accessing the expertise gained by other members of the Russell Group in international matters, such as the Bologna Process and new European Commission policies and directives. Appropriate channels of communication should be established with relevant UK government departments, particularly the FCO and DfID. Universities UK has a 'Europe Unit' to act as a central observatory of European educational and research issues: Cambridge should proactively engage with that Unit. It should also liaise further with the Royal Society's Foreign Secretary and interact with any group, such as the one chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts, established to report to government on UK international partnerships of research excellence.

Regular lines of communication should be established with, and briefings provided for, personnel in selected embassies, both in the UK and overseas, which play an influential role in educational matters. There are, in this connection, a number of Heads of House whose diplomatic experience should be called upon so that the University can build and maintain productive relationships with certain embassies. Involvement with the British Council, at both an institutional level and in dealings with its offices overseas, has hitherto been somewhat limited. Cambridge Assessment has particular expertise in the quality of British Council offices overseas and the extent to which it is desirable, sometimes even necessary, to work through them. The University should make full use of that expertise and take steps to brief British Council staff taking up posts in these offices.

4.3. There is a range of international groups of universities with which the University currently has links. These include: the League of European Research Universities (LERU), the Coimbra Group, the Association of European Universities (EUA), the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU). Some of these links are long standing; others are more recent. The University's current level of engagement with each organization varies considerably. The central bodies should, through the International Steering Committee, review the University's membership of each group, taking into account the cost and benefits of membership, with a view to selecting those which are most influential and which most complement Cambridge's interests, and to investing in our membership of those groups. Named individuals should be appointed to represent Cambridge in its dealings with these selected groups and should be appropriately supported, in terms of briefing and the necessary funding to attend meetings. Continued membership of each group should thereafter be reviewed on a regular basis.

5. Risk management

The Working Group has already indicated that a University international strategy should not constrain activities undertaken by individual staff, institutions, and Colleges. There is, however, (aside from collecting fuller data on those activities) one aspect of international work at a local level which requires a degree of central oversight: the need for the University to be assured that any risks to the University as a whole, associated with particular activities, institutions or countries, have been satisfactorily assessed and can be managed, and that the University's reputation, title, and crest are properly protected. Whilst within Cambridge the distinction between local and central responsibilities may be clear enough, that distinction may not be perceived by external parties who may well consider individual Faculties, Departments, and Colleges as 'agents' of the University. Recent experience has, for example, demonstrated that the use of the University crest in the promotional material of departmental and College activities overseas can lead to the University's position being misunderstood. Examples of activities where a degree of central oversight is appropriate include those which involve: accreditation and certification; use of the name 'The University of Cambridge' or the University crest; and the exchange of formal contracts with an overseas partner by a Faculty/Department or a College.

So far as educational activities leading to qualifications are concerned, the General Board's Education Committee has in place, in light of a recommendation made following the QAA's Institutional Audit in 2003, mechanisms which identify overseas educational activities undertaken by individual Faculties and Departments and ensure the necessary quality assurance processes are in place. All activity leading to formal accreditation is reviewed periodically by the Education Committee and may not be offered by any institution without the permission of the General Board.

International activities may, however, also be undertaken by Colleges, individuals, and student societies. The Working Party accepts that it is not possible (or desirable) to monitor all such activities, but it believes that individuals and other bodies should be aware of the possible implications of their activities for the University and should not imply that they are acting on behalf of the University when this is not the case.

The Working Party notes that Colleges undertake a number of international activities. Many Colleges, for example, have arrangements with overseas institutions whereby students from those institutions spend time in the College. So long as any form of certification does not imply University accreditation, the Working Party sees no difficulties with such activities. Where, however, Colleges offer any kind of educational provision or other service overseas, then the International Office should be informed so that it can give any necessary advice and ensure, so far as possible, that the University's name and reputation is not adversely affected by such activities. The Working Party invites the Colleges' Committee to consider how such activities might be appropriately monitored.

Individual members of University staff are free to conduct, in broad terms, such international activity as they choose. This activity should not, however, compromise the position of either the individual's institution or the University and should not be construed as implying that the individual is acting on behalf of either, unless this is clearly agreed beforehand. It is a matter for the head of each institution to determine whether individual staff activities in any way compromise the institution's position or have an impact on the individual's obligations to that institution or the University.

The Working Party has become aware that a number of student societies may be perceived, by their letterhead, title or other means, to be acting on the University's behalf or in some other way to be representing the University. It urges that the Societies Syndicate considers appropriate means of ensuring such societies represent their status accurately.

The Working Party recommends that it should become established practice for staff and institutions to inform the International Officer of any form of proposed formal interaction with an overseas institution so that an appropriate risk assessment can be undertaken and, where necessary, advice from the Legal Services Section of the Secretariat can be sought. In this context, 'formal' is defined as an interaction with an overseas partner which involves the exchange of letters of intent, memoranda of understanding or some other form of contract. Not all such interactions will necessarily be legal documents and a distinction may be drawn between letters of intent and contracts. It should be for the International Officer to decide whether the advice of the Legal Services Section needs to be sought. In all instances, however, the International Office should be satisfied that whatever commitment is being entered into is deliverable. The Legal Services Section should also be asked to draft model agreements for the more common forms of international cooperation. Various University institutions have reported to the Working Party that they would welcome central guidance on approaches they receive from international parties.

Any formal agreement should be time-limited and should allow for notice to be given of the withdrawal of the individual's, the institution's or the University's involvement in the activity. A protocol should be agreed, between the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Special Responsibilities), the Registrary, and the Legal Services Section, as to who is permitted to sign particular types of document, where they commit the University to certain undertakings.

The Working Party further recommends that the University's name and the University Crest should only be used where institutional activities are wholly owned by Cambridge or through a limited use legal agreement in a collaborative venture. Decisions on the use of the name and crest in this context should be made by the International Steering Committee (proposed in para.7.3). That Committee should, in any event, also consider any proposals for formal collaboration which are judged to be strategically significant or particularly sensitive.

6. A regional approach to international activity

6.1. From the outset the Working Party was quite clear that a single global strategy would be inappropriate, and that activities and approaches needed to be sensitive to regional (and, within regions, country) differences. Accordingly, it has discussed, at length and in detail, various regions in terms of their academic and educational characteristics and the opportunities and challenges each might present. Some of its conclusions are summarized below under various themes. The Working Party acknowledges that these are necessarily generalized and that circumstances and opportunities are liable to change (often at a rapid pace). This is one reason for the proposed establishment of 'Area Working Groups' (see para.6.5) to which the Working Party's data and full findings will be made available.

6.2. Student mobility and recruitment

In terms of European student mobility, the Working Party notes the University's current involvement with Erasmus/Socrates programmes. There are at present some fifteen active bilateral agreements between Cambridge institutions and partner EU institutions. Their value varies according to the level of investment on the Faculty's or Department's part. Whilst this level of engagement is not, by UK standards, particularly great, participation is politically important for a number of institutions. The Working Party sees little likelihood of an expansion in student mobility through this route, although there are good reasons for maintaining the current level of activity. It is not aware of any unsatisfied demand on the part of the University's students for European study abroad. The value of the University's membership of the Coimbra Group - initially, in part, a vehicle to promote mobility and other European student activities - may be less than it once was: the continuation of that membership should be considered as part of the review recommended in para. 4.3.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) should continue as the University's principal adviser on the implications of the Bologna Process. The Working Party notes that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor has established a group to advise the General Board's Education Committee on the likely impact of the Process on all aspects of the University's Masters provision. Representatives of certain other Russell Group universities are particularly close to influential individuals driving the Process (and EU educational initiatives generally): their expertise should be fully utilized. There is scope for a better awareness and exploitation of educational funding opportunities in Europe: as a first step in this direction, a good relationship with UUK's Europe Unit (see para. 4.2) should be established.

In terms of undergraduate student recruitment, Singapore and Malaysia already provide Cambridge with many high quality students: the revival of English Language teaching in Malaysia is likely to generate further demand from that quarter. At postgraduate level there are academic advantages in continuing to attract European research students (from both within and outwith the EU). (EU postgraduate research students are now eligible for full stipends from the Research Councils' Doctoral Training Accounts.) There are other countries which generate buoyant numbers of high quality postgraduate applicants, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and India. In the first three cases, securing the necessary funding for high calibre students is not a major issue. In the case of India, however, there is a need at least to maintain the scholarship schemes presently available. There are other countries where the quality of students is more variable, including much of the Middle East, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; rigorous selection criteria should continue to be applied. The highest calibre Japanese students tend, for cultural reasons, to remain in their home country. The other Working Party has proposed that overseas student recruitment does not need to be managed in terms of geographical coverage: this Working Party would agree that quality should be the main criterion for admission.

6.3. Research

In the European context, the University is a member of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). This is a small but influential group of institutions concerned primarily with a pan-European research agenda and acting as a lobby group in EU research policy and legislation. A proactive engagement with LERU is likely to pay dividends.

Whilst Faculties, Departments, and Colleges have their own links in the US which seem to work smoothly, there can be difficulties in securing funding for joint research programmes with US universities, particularly if the proposal emanates from the UK. There is no US/UK equivalent of an EU project. Proposals filtered through the Research Councils for interaction with the National Science Foundation are at present unlikely to come to fruition unless other European partners are involved. Comparable difficulties exist in interacting with the National Endowment for Humanities, in that funding from this source is only available if a project is sponsored by the US partner. There is a need to lobby for smoother funding routes for UK/US research partnerships. This is a serious issue which needs to be pursued on a number of fronts, including liaison with the major philanthropic trusts and through any group charged with making recommendations to Government on international partnerships of research excellence. This may be facilitated by the International Alliance of Research Universities (see para.3.3).

6.4. Capacity building

There are a number of regions where the work of staff in capacity building and general pro bono academic development is important, including Latin America, Central Asia, and Africa. So far as the first is concerned, the University should examine how the high level and long standing links which Cambridge Assessment has developed in certain countries might be exploited. The range of educational environments within Africa is such that a country by country approach is appropriate. Needs are primarily discipline-specific and generally revolve around the provision of advanced training at postgraduate and postdoctoral levels. The limited funding available locally and the variable political stability within certain countries is likely to require a flexible, short term approach, suitably responsive to local circumstances, on the University's part. In these regions, the University should liaise with DfID, the British Council, and other agencies and programmes (such as the United Nations Development Programme) to identify how best to continue to contribute to academic development.

6.5. Area Working Groups

There are many regions whose complexity and the varied quality of education and educational institutions pose particular opportunities and challenges, which require specialized knowledge of the region or country. In Cambridge, such knowledge resides both in individuals and in institutions, particularly the Centres for Area Studies, among the Colleges and their Heads of House and in the agencies which manage student admissions and funding and research. The range of educational provision in areas like the Indian sub-continent, SE Asia, and the Middle East is enormously varied and potential academic links need to be carefully selected and maintained. These are also areas which offer potential for fund-raising within the Campaign.

With this in mind, the Working Party recommends the establishment of Area Working Groups made up of those with particular expertise in each area. Such groups will serve various purposes. They will offer advice on how Cambridge's interests can be best promoted within the framework of the University's mission and international strategy. They will provide information for institutions or staff who are presented with opportunities or need assistance in developing relationships in the region, and advise on any reputational risks associated with particular activities.

The Working Party envisages these groups as being relatively informal. In one or two cases, they already exist in practice but have no reporting mechanism to the University. Each group should have a core membership to include in all cases representatives of the Colleges, Cambridge Assessment, and CUP, with others being co-opted at need for particular purposes. Not all members need to be drawn from within the University itself. Whilst the International Office should be responsible for establishing each Area Working Group, the level and nature of administrative support for each will vary according to need. However, each Group should be expected to report annually to a central International Steering Committee (see para.7.3).

7. Central administrative organization and academic management

7.1. Visits to the University

Various central offices receive a considerable number of requests, at the rate of at least two a week, to organize programmes for incoming groups of academic and other visitors. Such requests come from overseas universities and governments, the British Council, the FCO, and other bodies. Accommodating all of them (many of which are made at short notice) is time consuming and resource intensive. Whilst a number of such visits are strategically important and can pay particular dividends, many others, whilst presumably beneficial to the visitors, are of less obvious benefit to Cambridge. The Working Party recommends that all such requests, unless they flow from already established connections, be forwarded to the International Officer for consultation with the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor. After taking into account the purpose and scale of the visit, its likely value both to Cambridge and to the prospective visitors, and the University's current links with the visitors' institution/country, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor should decide whether or not to agree to the request. When a visit is to be accommodated, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor will decide the nature of the programme to be offered. Programmes should broadly be of two kinds. Strategically important visitors will continue to have bespoke programmes arranged according to their needs (and for which the costs should, where necessary, be met by the University). Other visitors should be offered a more standard programme for which, save in exceptional circumstances, a charge should be made to (at least) cover direct costs. The International Office should be responsible for arranging the necessary briefings and presentations. The Working Party further recommends that the University's position be made clear to the British Council, the FCO, and the embassies of the countries where demand for such visits is particularly high.

The Working Party is well aware that similar requests are made to individual institutions and Colleges, who will continue to respond as they think appropriate. The Working Party does, however, recommend that when any such visit involves a Head of State or a Head of an overseas institution, the Vice-Chancellor should, via the International Officer, be informed.

7.2. The strategy and the recommendations proposed in this report require an administrative infrastructure to support and implement them. It is important that the University does not attempt to promote activities which are beyond operational and resourcing capabilities.

An International Education Office was established in 2003 through a three-year CMI grant. That office has now been retitled the International Office. Its current establishment consists of an Assistant Registrary (International Officer), an Administrative Officer (Grade II), a CS4 Secretary, and further part-time secretarial support. The Office currently has a non-pay budget of £35,000 a year. Given the level of resource currently available, it is clear that not all components of the strategy can be taken forward simultaneously. The Working Party recommends that, assuming its recommendations are accepted by the central bodies and pending the establishment of an International Steering Committee (see para.7.3), the Pro-Vice-Chancellors (Education and Special Responsibilities) determine, in consultation with the International Officer, immediate and longer term priorities.

The purpose of central involvement in international work for individual staff and institutions should be to facilitate local initiatives consistent with the criteria listed in para. 2.3. Models of activity which have a successful track record should be identified and, where appropriate, replicated elsewhere. There is no shortage of interest across the academic community in pursuing international activity: what is needed is easily accessible central advice and support in translating that interest into action, for example, in setting up study abroad programmes or in engagement with a new partner organization.

Fundamental to improving central knowledge of the University's international academic relationships is the need more effectively to capture data on activities undertaken by University institutions, Colleges, and individual staff. For this purpose, a pilot project on the introduction of an international links database, available within the @cam domain, is underway. It is intended that this will capture data on international activities locally, including parties with whom institutions (and Colleges) regularly interact, the purpose of that interaction, and those countries where the University is heavily involved. The results of the project will be available during 2005-06, at which point consideration will be given to the database's permanent establishment and maintenance. When fully operational, the database should prove a useful resource for central purposes (for example, in ensuring appropriate central responses to requests from overseas and in the production of briefings for the Vice-Chancellor and senior officers) and for individual staff, institutions, and Colleges (when they are faced with possible opportunities overseas and need to locate expertise in Cambridge). It is also anticipated that such a database could provide much clearer means of individuals communicating their international activities to a central point. (The Working Party has been struck by the fact that whilst many senior members of staff participate in international forums, it has not been clear to them, on their return to Cambridge, where any generally useful information should be forwarded.)

7.3. The Working Party has considered where central responsibility for implementing this international strategy, and for monitoring and further developing it, should rest. In the past, a series of international committees have existed. These acted, in effect, as clearing houses for a variety of international matters, of varying levels of significance, without having a clear remit or particular responsibilities. The Working Party sees no purpose in recommending the establishment of another such committee. It recommends, rather, that the Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Education and with Special Responsibilities should provide academic leadership for the International Office. Formal oversight of the University's international strategy and this report's recommendations should rest with an International Steering Committee, jointly chaired by the two Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and otherwise comprising the Chief Executive of Cambridge Assessment, and three members taken from the core members of the Area Working Groups (one of which should be a representative of the Colleges). The Steering Committee should report annually to the Council and the General Board.

8. Summary of recommendations

  1. The University's international activities will be enhanced by an explicit international strategy, for a number of reasons:
    • a more strategic approach will benefit the University, its overseas partners, and the UK in academic, cultural, political, and economic terms;
    • the University's institutional 'presence' overseas is relatively ill-defined;
    • Cambridge requires a better grasp of opportunities and challenges and needs to avoid the risks of late or inappropriate reaction;
    • Cambridge needs to establish better criteria for successful collaboration as part of its international strategy;
    • a more systematic approach will help to ensure that international activities are conducted more efficiently, that duplication of effort is avoided, and that a better sense is gained of potential activities which deserve particular investment and priority.
  2. The defining characteristics of the international strategy proposed by the Working Party should be:
    1. engagement only with activities of a quality consistent with those undertaken in Cambridge and of a kind which plays to Cambridge's strengths;
    2. consolidating existing institutional links and a selective approach to further bi- or multi-lateral links;
    3. close collaboration with, and use of the expertise of, Cambridge Assessment and CUP;
    4. avoidance of reputational risk in international activities;
    5. a more structured engagement with selected national and international agencies and with UK and overseas governments;
    6. institutional activities in a particular country or region which do not interfere with existing links, on the part of individual members of staff, Faculties, Departments, and Colleges, in that country or region;
    7. activities to be undertaken with an awareness of particular regional characteristics around the world, particularly in capacity-building or pro bono work; and
    8. a more solid administrative infrastructure to provide central support for international activities.
  3. In terms of educational provision, a Cambridge education leading to a degree should remain based primarily on study in the University.
  4. An explicit institutional strategy does not imply a need to expand significantly the University's international activities or overseas student numbers. A more coordinated approach to international activities should not be expected to generate significant additional recurrent income. Attention is drawn to the valuable work undertaken by many staff in voluntarily contributing to academic development, at institutional and subject level, in less developed regions.
  5. There may be advantage in establishing, on a selective basis, general bilateral alliances in addition to those already in existence, although there seems more likelihood of an increase in agreements which specify particular educational, research or discipline-specific projects. Further consideration should be given to the future of Cambridge's links with MIT. The following criteria should be used in considering future University-wide bilateral agreements:
    • the quality and characteristics of the overseas institution (although its reputation alone should not in itself be a sufficient reason for partnership);
    • demonstrable evidence of the importance of the alliance for a significant number of Cambridge institutions;
    • evidence that the University has the capacity to make the alliance operationally successful;
    • that any costs, including start up and maintenance costs, are justifiable, including any prospects offered by the alliance for leverage of significant funding which would not otherwise be available;
    • that the alliance is 'non-exclusive', i.e. that it will not constrain Cambridge activity with other partners in the country or region concerned;
    • that any risk, reputational or other, associated with the partnership be subject to the University's standard risk assessment processes.

    The University should not enter into bilateral agreements which cannot map satisfactorily against the above criteria, or where the volume and/or nature of the activity likely to be facilitated by such an agreement is insufficient, or where the likely benefits are inappropriately skewed towards the proposed partner.

  6. The Vice-Chancellor's formal endorsement of local agreements should only be given when there is clear evidence that the proposed activity cannot be undertaken without a formal agreement signed by the head of the institution.
  7. There is potential, subject to the suitability of the overseas partners, in multilateral alliances. In this connection, the Council have agreed that the University should join the 'International Alliance of Research Universities'.
  8. The University needs to work more closely in international matters with Cambridge Assessment and CUP.
  9. A clear strategy must be established for more structured and effective engagement with national and international bodies, including the Russell Group, relevant UK government departments, particularly the FCO and DfID, and personnel in selected embassies, both in the UK and overseas, which play an influential role in educational matters.
  10. There is a need to select those international groups of universities which are most influential and which most complement Cambridge's areas of interest, and invest in relationships with them. Named individuals should be appointed to represent Cambridge in its dealings with these selected groups.
  11. There is a need for the University to be assured that any risks to the University as a whole, associated with particular activities, institutions or countries, have been satisfactorily assessed and can be managed, and that the University's reputation, name, and crest are properly protected. The protocols recommended in Section 5 of the report should be adopted. It should become established practice for staff and institutions to inform the International Officer of any form of proposed formal interaction with an overseas institution so that an appropriate risk assessment can be undertaken and, where necessary, advice from the Legal Services Section of the Secretariat can be sought. That Section should draw up model agreements for the more common forms of collaboration.
  12. The University Crest should only be used where institutional activities are wholly owned by Cambridge or through a limited use legal agreement in a collaborative venture.
  13. International activities should be sensitive to differences between and within regions and countries. Area Working Groups of those with particular expertise in each area should be established.
  14. Requests for programmes for overseas groups wishing to visit the University need to be better managed and treated more selectively. All such requests, unless they flow from already established connections, should be forwarded to the International Officer for consultation with the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

    Programmes should be of two kinds. Strategically important visitors should continue to have bespoke programmes. Other visitors should be offered a more standard programme. The University's position should be made clear to the British Council, the FCO, and the embassies of the countries where demand for such visits is particularly high. When any visit to a University institution or College involves a Head of State or a Head of an overseas institution, the Vice-Chancellor should be informed.

  15. Assuming this report's recommendations are accepted and pending the establishment of an International Steering Committee (see below), the Pro-Vice-Chancellors (Education and Special Responsibilities) should determine, in consultation with the International Officer, immediate and longer term priorities.
  16. The Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Education and with Special Responsibilities should provide academic leadership for the International Office. Formal oversight of the University's international strategy and this report's recommendations should rest with an International Steering Committee, reporting annually to the central bodies.

Annex I

Working Party on International Academic Relationships

1. Membership

2. Terms of Reference

The Council and the General Board agreed to the establishment of a Working Party to consider possible institutional activity which the University might undertake in collaboration with overseas partners.

The Working Party was tasked with consideration of the following questions:

  1. What should be the over-arching institutional aims of these activities? For example, promoting the University's international reputation, extending educational provision, facilitating research or raising revenue.
  2. What particular opportunities might be afforded by such activities? For example, study abroad for Cambridge students, systematic agreements to receive visiting Ph.D. students to facilitate applications for graduate study at Cambridge.
  3. Are there particular regions, countries or types of institution with which Cambridge should endeavour to form or further develop linkages? What considerations should inform the University's policy when considering particular proposals?
  4. What kinds of partnerships or other institutional arrangements should Cambridge consider?
  5. How much operational capacity is required to support institutional activity and to what extent should it be funded by the University?
  6. How should the University ensure the necessary management and strategic oversight of this activity?

Annex II

Working Party on International Academic Relationships

Individuals participating in discussions of particular regions