Content uploaded by Elspeth Jones
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elspeth Jones on Mar 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
95
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
Increasing globalization and the
interconnectedness of multinational work
environments have intensified the demand for
graduates capable of operating in culturally
diverse contexts. Some of the skills required to
function effectively in these contexts have been
shown to be developed through international
mobility experiences and yet the connection
between these outcomes and the generic
transferable skills requirements of graduate
employers have rarely been made.
The association between higher
education curricula and future employment
is well developed in professional programmes
such as law, teacher education, or professions
allied to medicine, including nursing and
physiotherapy. The same is increasingly true
for business programmes and more
vocationally-oriented study in, for example,
tourism, hospitality or public relations. In
order to accustom students to professional
practice in their chosen field, as well as to
apply their academic knowledge in ‘real-
world’ contexts, internships, work-based
learning and other kinds of experiential
learning (Kolb, 1984) have been incorporated
into programmes across higher education
with the result that, in many countries, links
between university departments and industry
are commonplace.
Over a similar period, internationalization
has become a high priority for universities
across the globe, yet the intersection of
internationalization and employability has only
been evidenced for a relatively short time and
there are gaps in implementation, research
and practice (Fielden, 2007).
Internationalization in higher education was
defined by Knight (2003) as: ‘the process of
integrating an international, intercultural or
global dimension into the purpose, functions
or delivery of post-secondary education’ (p. 2).
This definition is broad but simplifies the
reality that the rationales or drivers for
internationalization are many and varied, and
that the term itself is interpreted in a variety of
ways. This article argues that one potential
driver largely being ignored at present is the
beneficial relationship between
internationalization and the development of
graduate employability skills. It considers some
of the existing literature and makes
recommendations for policy and practice which
arise from this relatively underexplored aspect
of higher education internationalization.
The context of internationalization
Internationalization is high on the agenda for
institutions of higher education around the
world. It has a wide range of interpretations
depending on geographical location, national
context, institutional mission and purpose, or
on thematic understanding of the concept of
internationalization (Jones and de Wit, 2012).
Various articles on the internationalization
of higher education reveal an increasing focus
on one of two broad drivers. The first is the
institutional aspects of internationalization,
perceived to enhance quality, offer an economic
benefit or elevate perceptions of the institution
Elspeth Jones is
Emerita Professor,
Internationalisation
of Higher
Education, Leeds
Metropolitan
University, Visiting
Professor at the
University of Zagreb
and Edge Hill
University, UK. She
can be contacted at
ej@elspethjones.com
and she tweets as
@elspethjones.
Internationalization and
employability: the role of
intercultural experiences in the
development of transferable skills
Elspeth Jones
This article identifies the alignment of transferable skills developed through
international experience with those sought by graduate employers and argues the
value of domestic intercultural contexts for similar learning. It is essential
reading for world-wide universities, policy-makers and academics, offering key
pointers for policy and practice.
Keywords: Employability; internationalization at home; internationalization of the
curriculum; intercultural competence; international student mobility; study abroad;
transferable skills.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/09540962.2013.763416
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
96
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
and its reputation, such as league table
positioning, global research ranking or high-
level partnerships. The second, perhaps less
prevalent, driver revolves around benefits
for students of an internationalized education
and is primarily concerned with student
support, inclusive pedagogy and questions
of curriculum at home or overseas. Academic
staff are a factor in each of these areas, but
are rarely the main focus of attention.
Of 10 drivers for internationalization
suggested by Green (2012, p. 1), it is notable
that only two relate specifically to students,
although the second hints at graduate
outcomes for employability:
1 To prepare students for ‘global citizenship’
(which can be defined in many ways).
2 To prepare students for the global
workforce.
3 To enhance the quality of teaching and
research.
4 To strengthen institutional capacity.
5 To enhance prestige and visibility.
6 To generate revenue.
7 To contribute to local or regional economic
development.
8 To contribute to knowledge production
on global issues.
9 To solve global problems.
10 To increase international understanding
and promote peace.
The limited focus on students or staff in this
list lends support to the argument that:
‘There is still too great a focus on political
and economic rationales [for
internationalization] from an international
and institutional perspective, in which the
perspectives of those for whom it is all
intended are underrepresented’ (Jones and
de Wit, 2012, p. 50).
Hudzik (2012) argues that the ‘costs to
an institution and its students of ignoring
internationalization may exceed the costs of
doing it’ (p. 2) and the inclination to
emphasise institutional benefit suggests that
student outcomes may be receiving only
partial attention. It could be argued that
outcomes and benefits of internationalization
for academic or support staff receive even
less attention—but see Jones (2012) for staff
and institutional advantages from a different
perspective. One potential discourse, largely
ignored at present, is the relationship
between internationalization and the
development of graduate employability skills,
to which I now turn.
The context of employability
Employability skills have been defined as ‘a
set of achievements—skills, understandings
and personal attributes—that makes
graduates more likely to gain employment
and be successful in their chosen occupations’
(Yorke, 2006, p. 8).
Often described as ‘soft’ or ‘transferable’
skills, they relate to generic personal and
interpersonal qualities which are
independent of the field of study. Knight
and Yorke (2003) describe employability as a
blend of understanding, skilful practices,
efficacy beliefs (or legitimate self-confidence)
and reflectiveness (or metacognition).
In Australia, employability skills as
generic capabilities for employment have
been highlighted for at least two decades. As
far as the UK is concerned, a report for the
UK Commission for Employment and Skills
(UKCES, 2008) found that employability-
related teaching had not been fully
embedded into mainstream curricula in
higher education, although some notable
exceptions are given. It identifies guidance
on pedagogical approaches by the Higher
Education Funding Council for England,
suggesting that employability skills should
be promoted through ‘subject-related
material and through the use of authentic
contexts, collaborative project work,
‘scaffolding’ to encourage learning beyond
current capacity and reflection’ (UKCES,
2008, p. 62).
An Australian government study (AEI,
2010) found that international students were
unaware of the importance of these generic
employability skills, and that there was a
mismatch between employer and graduate
perceptions of key employability attributes.
Archer and Davison (2008) also found a
mismatch, but this time between the key skills
requirements of employers and the actual
capabilities of graduates, for example 86% of
employers consider good communication skills
to be important yet many employers are not
satisfied that graduates can express themselves
appropriately.
In a three-way study of students,
universities and employers, Crossman and
Clarke (2010) found that all stakeholders
identified clear connections between
international experience and employability.
Attributes developed through mobility
included the forging of networks, language
acquisition and the development of soft skills
relating to intercultural understanding,
personal characteristics and ways of thinking.
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
97
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
What is meant by ‘curriculum
internationalization’?
Internationalization of the curriculum has been
an increasing topic of debate and practice in
recent years. This is not only the case in countries
like Australia (Leask, 2012), and the UK (Jones
and Killick, 2007; Clifford and Montgomery,
2011), but also where internationalization is a
more recent development in higher education,
such as South Africa (Kaunda, 2012).
For Leask (2009), internationalization of the
curriculum is ‘the incorporation of an
international and intercultural dimension into
the preparation, delivery and outcomes of a
program of study’ (p. 209). Clifford and
Montgomery (2011) view it as ‘challenging
current course content and pedagogy and
offering a transformative education experience’
which they see as having a ‘very strong agenda
for active global citizenship’ (p. 13). They quote
Schoorman (2000) who regards curriculum
internationalization as a ‘counter-hegemonic
educational process’ (p. 2).
The notion of ‘global citizenship’ has become
part of the rhetoric in higher education and yet
it is the subject of diverse interpretation (Bourn,
2010). Indeed the concept itself is contested, see
Rizvi and Lingard (2010) and Rhoads and
Szelényi (2011) for different sides of the debate.
Curriculum internationalization and
transformational learning (Mezirow, 1991) have
been linked by others (for example Jones, 2010),
while Thom (2010) argues that ‘transformations
take place when respect for, and tolerance of,
difference is embedded in institutional culture,
and where individuals are properly supported
when required to act and think outside their
comfort zone’ (p. 156). As argued later in this
article, the context for such intercultural
curricular activity does not need to be
international.
The important role of internationalization
within the curriculum for all students has been
widely articulated. Zimitat (2008) argues that
‘even if domestic graduates never leave their
own country, on graduation they will be forced
to compete in international, or multi-national,
work and discovery environments’ (p. 136). Webb
(2005) takes this further: ‘Opening the
curriculum to internationalization is…firstly
about opening teaching and learning to change,
to finding innovative ways of changing and
adapting, to contextualizing local engagement
within a wider frame of reference and to
understanding the local implications of global
phenomena. In short, to act locally it is necessary
to understand the global’ (p. 110).
It seems evident from this that a broad
interpretation of curriculum internationalization
is needed, encompassing all students on a
programme of study, not only those who are able
to take part in an international travel experience.
It is vital that all students have the opportunity to
consider the global impact of their field of study
and to understand how their discipline is framed
within a global context. In addition, the kind of
employability skills shown to be developed
through an internationalized curriculum which
incorporates international mobility, should also
be available through an internationalized
curriculum at home for the static majority of
students.
The need for intercultural competence
A range of studies has been undertaken on the
definition of ‘intercultural competence’ and the
skills of which it consists. Deardorff and Jones
(2012) list some of these and highlight the variety
of terms which appear to be interchangeable in
describing the broad concept, including ‘cross-
cultural capability’, ‘intercultural sensitivity’ and
‘cultural fluency’. For the purpose of this article,
the term ‘intercultural competence’ will be used.
Freeman et al. (2009) describe intercultural
competence as ‘a dynamic, ongoing, interactive
self reflective learning process that transforms
attitudes, skills and knowledge for effective and
appropriate communication and interaction
across cultures’ (p. 1). It is not about specific
knowledge of a single culture, but means
operating effectively across cultures and
challenging our own values, assumptions and
stereotypes (Jones, 2011). It can help to deliver
a key function of higher education: ‘to produce
graduates capable of solving problems in a variety
of locations with cultural and environmental
sensitivity’ (Aulakh et al., 1997, p. 15). Alred et al.
(2003) argue that one of the primary purposes of
education is to promote ‘a sense of interculturality,
an intercultural competence, which is
fundamental to education, perhaps always has
been so, but is all the more significant in the
contemporary world’ (p. 6).
Inter-‘cultural’, does not simply mean inter-
‘national’, and there is an increasing body of
literature linking internationalization with
multiculturalism, equity and diversity (Killick,
2006; Clifford and Montgomery, 2011; Fitch
and Desai, 2012). Jones and Killick (2007) argue
that: ‘responding to the diversity of international
students and responding to the diversity of home
students are in fact not two agendas but one’ (p.
110). Indeed, a report looking in detail at the
policies of six universities in the UK and
Australia argues that the ‘at home’ dimension
of internationalization is synonymous with
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
98
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
equality and diversity (Caruana and Ploner,
2010).
These notions are finding increasing
resonance across higher education with the
recognition that the intercultural competence
required to operate effectively in global contexts
is equally important for living in our increasingly
diverse and multicultural local communities.
As this diversity is reflected on campuses around
the world, both through internationally mobile
students and diverse local student populations,
multicultural classrooms become a resource to
be used purposefully to help develop
intercultural skills for all students. However,
this requires us to adopt an inclusive approach
to curriculum and pedagogy and to recognize
and value the cultural insights which our
students (and staff) can offer and which might
otherwise be overlooked. As yet, there is little
published evidence of the impact of
internationalizing the curriculum ‘at home’
using the cultural capital of students and staff.
Development of discipline-specific
professional employability skills through
internationalization
As internationalization has risen up the higher
education agenda at institutional level, so the
interpretation of its meaning for individual
disciplines has increased in prevalence and
importance (Clifford, 2009). Chan (2011)
discussed the role of transnational education in
the development of professional skills for
pharmacists, while industry expectations of the
intercultural competence of public relations
graduates in Singapore and Perth were
explored by Fitch and Desai (2012), along with
implications for the curriculum. Detailed
curriculum internationalization advice has been
offered for other subjects, such as engineering
(Bourn and Neal, 2008) and for medicine
(Willott et al., 2012).
Leask’s Australian Learning and Teaching
Council fellowship explored practical issues in
internationalizing the curriculum, with one of
her findings being the importance of working
at disciplinary level for successful
implementation. The resulting website (Leask,
2012) includes references to literature across a
wide range of disciplines, many of which refer
to the development of skills directly relevant to
their associated professions, as well as to the
generic employability skills discussed in this
article. There is insufficient space to go into
further detail here, but the disciplines include:
accounting; anatomy; Asian studies; business;
economics; education;, engineering;
entrepreneurship; geography; health sciences;
history; hospitality; leisure, sport and tourism;
information management; law; library and
information science; management information
systems; mathematics; medicine; nursing;
physiotherapy; planning; political science;
psychology; public relations; science; and social
work.
It is perhaps more evident for some career
paths than others that intercultural competence
and/or global perspectives are crucial for future
professional roles, yet Webb (2005) argues that
all students need this dimension in their
programmes: ‘graduates need increasingly well-
developed lifelong learning skills and attitudes,
including an international perspective. They
need to interpret local problems within a wider
and global framework and to judge the
importance of global phenomena for their own
lives and work’ (p. 110).
Employability for international students
A further strand in the literature relates to the
employability of those loosely described as
‘international students’, understood to be those
undertaking a full programme of study outside
their own country. Several studies point to
enhanced employability for such students.
Brooks and Waters (2011) claim that ‘there is
substantial evidence that, in certain countries
at least, an overseas qualification does often
lead to substantial labour market rewards’ (p.
11). Indeed, ‘for many overseas students,
international experience is seen as an essential
part of their CV in an increasingly competitive
global employment market’ (Fielden et al., 2007,
p. 16). Rizvi (2000) argues that employers
attribute greater value to an overseas education
which can offer ‘exposure to different people
and cultures, to different ideas and attitudes,
and to different ways of learning and working’
(p. 214).
Overseas study can also lead to a sense of
common identity and mutual recognition for
overseas-educated locals as an exclusive class of
transnational professionals (Waters, 2007) and
the accumulation of ‘forms of capital’ (Bourdieu,
1986). King et al. (2010) explain: ‘Students
who…study in an international arena, especially
if they attend high-prestige universities,
accumulate multiple and mutually-reinforcing
forms of capital—mobility capital, human
capital (a world-class university education),
social capital (access to networks, ‘connections’),
cultural capital…and, eventually, economic
capital’ (p. 32).
These and other studies have tended to
focus on Asian countries and on students who
have studied overseas, in part, to distinguish
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
99
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
themselves from other graduates in a congested
labour market. However, Brooks et al. (2012)
claim a similar phenomenon is being evidenced
in the UK, with increasing numbers of British
students enrolling on full-degree programmes
outside the country as part of a broader attempt
to be distinct from other graduates. King et al.
(2010) view a similar pattern in relation to
extended periods of study or work overseas as
part of a domestic study programme. They
suggest that in an increasingly competitive
national and international graduate job market
‘the year abroad (especially if it produces a
four-year degree) acts rather like a one-year
master’s or MBA as an additional differentiating
factor which can boost the chances of some
students who have this extra element of
educational capital and life experience’ (King
et al., 2010, p. 34). Similar claims are made for
dual degree programmes which provide
extended international experiences (Culver et
al., 2012). However, the same study found that
employers were unclear on the nature of dual-
degree programs and did not tend to view
graduates of such programmes as more
marketable.
Employer perspective
Fielden et al. (2007) claim that employers are
looking for graduates with first-hand
experience of living and working among other
cultures. ‘Employers value graduates who have
a global perspective’, according to Archer and
Davison (2008, p. 5). Fielden (2007) suggests
that: ‘Multinational employers now look for
graduates with a wide range of life skills that
include awareness of other cultures and mastery
of more than one language. They…now seek
employees that are able to work throughout
the world, as required’ (p. 26).
Yet King et al. (2010) argue that ‘solid
evidence on employers’ perspectives on
international student mobility is a major lacuna
in research’ (p. 47). More recent studies have
sought to deliver such evidence (AEI, 2010;
Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Diamond et al.,
2011; NUS, 2012). A British Council/Think
Global survey in 2011 found that 79% of chief
executives and board level directors of
businesses in the UK think that in recruiting
new employees, knowledge and awareness of
the wider world is more important than
achieving a high degree grade.
Meanwhile, in a study of employers in
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and
Vietnam, Ilieva (2012) found that the
intercultural skills requirements of Asian
companies have grown significantly over recent
years and found a mismatch between their
requirements and those with which graduates
are equipped. She identified extra-curricular
aspects of studying abroad, such as social
interactions, as being most important for
developing intercultural competence. A further
finding was that employers perceived graduates
coming from middle class families to have had
a ‘cushioned’ life, and consider an experience
of at least one year abroad to be a ‘guarantee’
for maturity and international exposure.
Numerous lists exist which cite employer
requirements of graduates. These include:
•Knowledge, intellect, willingness to learn, self-
management skills, communication skills,
team-working, interpersonal skills (Harvey
et al., 1997).
•Effective learning skills, self-awareness,
networking and negotiation skills,
transferable skills, self-confidence,
interpersonal skills, team-working ability,
decision-making skills and the capacity to
cope with uncertainty (Knight and Yorke,
2004).
While the skills listed may differ slightly one
from another, it is clear that they are relatively
similar and that they go beyond subject-specific
knowledge or capabilities. Leggott and
Stapleford (2007) reviewed lists of generic
employability skills in a range of countries and
claim that ‘employers’ requirements seem to be
broadly consistent internationally’ (p. 124).
They suggest this means that: ‘On the whole,
employability interventions in the curriculum
which are devised for home students planning
to work in one country are largely appropriate
for both home and international students who
are planning to work in another’ (Leggott and
Stapleford, 2007, p. 124).
Diamond et al. (2011) undertook a study
with 12 leading employers who collectively
recruit over 3,500 graduates each year in the
UK. The employers were asked to rank a list of
global competencies in order of importance
using a 10-point scale. The results are shown in
table 1.
Interestingly, table 1 shows that
multilingualism was not an important
prerequisite for most global graduate roles by
employers in this study, being viewed as a
complementary skill. This is supported by Fitch
and Desai (2012) who found that an awareness
of cultural nuances and protocols was more
important than language competence: ‘It was
the practitioner’s responsibility to be aware of
“all these protocols about how you deal with
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
100
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
Chinese business people, Chinese bureaucrats,
what’s acceptable, what’s not, what’s polite,
what’s not, there’s a whole heap of protocol
around that”, and to brief higher management
accordingly’ (p. 70). However, Crossman and
Clarke (2010) found that language learning
was associated with developing deeper cultural
insights and ‘empathetic responses to workers
in Australian workplaces whose first language
was not English’ (p. 607).
Discussion
Studies in several countries have identified
profound transformational learning in students
through international experiences in a range
of geographical contexts. Whether questioning
personal identity and sense of self, offering
challenging opportunities or merely exposing
students to alternative perspectives, significant
results in terms of personal growth, self-efficacy,
maturity and enhanced intercultural
competence are widely reported.
The evidence comes from a range of
disciplines and types of experience, including
study abroad, work placement and international
volunteering or service learning. There are
similar results from varying visit durations,
although for short-term experiences effective
preparation, active engagement while overseas
along with reflection on return have been shown
to be important for success (Bosley, 2010; Jones,
2012). Frequent replication of similar findings
suggests a framework for the design of
international experiences into higher education
curricula with the objective of transformational
student learning and the development of
transferable employability skills. The research
also identifies a degree of consistency in the
generic transferable requirements of graduates
by employers.
Table 2 summarises employers’ key skills
requirements in comparison with the skills
developed through international experiences
(including work placement, study, volunteering
and service learning) and shows a remarkable
alignment of these skillsets. However, several
questions arise from this:
•Are curriculum designers and the wider
academic community aware of the potential
power of the international learning
experience in enhancing student
employability?
•Are the students who take part in such
experiences aware of this?
•Are employers aware, beyond a general
preference for broader experience (of which
international is one aspect), of the
transferable skills which can be demonstrated
as a result of international experiences?
Thus there are challenges of ensuring that
academics, students and employers are aware
of the link between curriculum
internationalization, insofar as it incorporates
an international experience, and the
development of transferable employability
skills. However, perhaps a more important
challenge is to consider how internationalization
of the curriculum ‘at home’ might offer similar
opportunities for the static majority of students,
who do not take part in an international
experience as part of their programme of study.
To synthesize, and simplify, the distinctive
elements of international mobility experiences—
they offer experiential learning opportunities in
an intercultural context, taking people beyond
their standard comfort zones. Mezirow (1991)
argues that transformational learning can occur
through ‘disorienting dilemmas’, which lead to
altered perspectives, and international
experiences offer just such opportunities.
Table 1. Priority ranking of global competencies by employers (from Diamond et al., 2011).
Global competencies Mean ranking
An ability to work collaboratively with teams of people from a range of backgrounds
and countries 8.2
Excellent communication skills: both speaking and listening 7.5
A high degree of drive and resilience 5.6
An ability to embrace multiple perspectives and challenge thinking 5.4
A capacity to develop new skills and behaviours according to role requirements 4.6
A high degree of self-awareness 4.4
An ability to negotiate and influence clients across the globe from different cultures 4.0
An ability to form professional, global networks 3.9
An openness to and respect of a range of perspectives from around the world 3.6
Multi-cultural learning agility (for example able to learn in any culture or environment) 2.4
Multilingualism 1.7
Knowledge of foreign economies and own industry area overseas 1.7
An understanding of one’s position and role within a global context or economy 1.6
A willingness to play an active role in society at a local, national and international level 0.5
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
101
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
However, if we view internationalization as
one dimension of diversity in higher education,
it is clear that domestic environments could
play an equivalent role in offering opportunities
for experiential learning in an intercultural
context, taking people beyond their comfort
zones, and creating ‘disorienting dilemmas’ by
engaging with cultural otherness.
A group of students in a contemporary
university is likely to include people from
differing national, religious, ethnic
backgrounds, of different genders, sexual
orientation or with physical disabilities. Any of
these might offer creative ‘intercultural’
opportunities in a domestic curriculum and
one route to enhancing intercultural
competence, an important objective of
curriculum internationalization, may be on
our own doorsteps. For example, if
international community volunteering or
service learning can yield results (see, for
example, Jones, 2010; Russell and Vallade,
2010), could the same be true for local
‘intercultural’ volunteering such as with
different religious or faith groups, shelters for
homeless people or drug addicts, women’s
refuges or with people who have severe mental
or physical disabilities?
We have still to make the most of diversity
in our universities and local communities to
support intercultural learning in domestic
settings. As such we do not know whether
internationalization (or ‘interculturalization’)
of the curriculum ‘at home’ can offer parallel
development, including transferable
employability skills. Certainly, published
evidence of this is limited or non-existent.
Furthermore, if we accept that transformational
learning, of the kind identified in the literature
on international mobility, relates to the
intercultural and experiential dimensions of
that international experience, it is likely that
replication in domestic intercultural contexts
may offer at least some degree of equivalent
learning. It comes down to viewing international
and intercultural as two sides of the same coin,
to incorporating relevant learning outcomes
into our curricula for all students, not simply
through mobility opportunities, and to
introducing assessment tasks which measure
whether these have been achieved. We will
only be able to promote the value of the
Table 2. Key transferable employability skills and international experience.
Key skills requirements of Key skills developed through international work placement, study, volunteering or
employers*service learning (with relevant reference shown in parentheses)
Self- Self-awareness Self-awareness, self-confidence, sense of identity, and personal independence
sufficiency/ Initiative and enterprise (Black and Duhon, 2006; Hadis, 2005; NUS, 2012; British Academy, 2012)
self-efficacy Willingness to learn Being informed, greater interest in global affairs and cross-cultural perspectives
skills Planning and organizing (Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Jones, 2010; Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus, 2011)
Integrity Organizational skills, project management, decision-making, creativity and taking
Commitment/motivation on responsibility (Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Jones, 2010 and 2012; NUS, 2012)
Problem-solving Vision, independence, experience, broader outlook and attitude (NUS 2012)
Flexibility Problem-solving, coping strategies and risk-taking (Jones, 2010 and 2012)
Self-management Patience, flexibility, adaptability, open-mindedness and humanity
(Williams, 2005; Black and Duhon, 2006; Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Jones, 2012)
People Team working Team work and team leadership skills (Jones, 2010 and 2012; NUS, 2012)
skills Communication skills Fluency, accuracy and appropriateness of language competence (British Academy
Foreign language 2012)
Networking Mediation skills, conflict resolution, sensitivity, humility and respect (Jones, 2012)
Leadership Forging of relationships and networks (Crossman and Clarke, 2010)
Customer service Challenge to personal stereotypes, cultural relativism (Sutton and Rubin, 2004;
Interpersonal skills Jones, 2010)
Intercultural skills Enhanced intercultural communication, conducting business interculturally
(Hadis, 2005; Crossman and Clarke, 2010; Jones, 2010 and 2012; Gu, 2012)
Cultural empathy (Williams, 2005; Black and Duhon, 2006; Crossman and Clarke
2010; Jones, 2010)
Non-judgmental observation, respect for local values without abandoning one’s own
(British Academy, 2012)
Cultural understandings, ways of thinking and adaptation to complex cultural
milieux (Crossman and Clarke, 2010; British Academy, 2012)
*There are many similar lists produced by universities and employers around the world. This list is based on two sources, chosen to
offer different national perspectives: Prospects: the UK’s official graduate careers website (www.prospects.ac.uk/
job_applications_what_do_employers_want.htm), and University of Sydney guidance (sydney.edu.au/careers/career_advice/downloads/
id_emp_skills.pdf). It has been grouped into two broad themes by the author. Also cited are literacy, numeracy, commercial awareness
and technology skills which have not been included here.
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
102
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
domestic, internationalized curriculum to
students themselves and to potential employers
when we can demonstrate the benefits and
outcomes as clearly as they have been
demonstrated in the literature on
internationally mobile students.
Limitations and further research
In considering the development of generic
employability skills, this article has not
evaluated the capacity for other learning
approaches to offer similar outcomes, such as
experiential learning, work-based learning or
co-operative learning, although examples of
innovative experiential learning methods
appear in the literature on employability (for
example UKCES, 2008, p. 62). It has focused
instead on the overseas experience which, as
noted above, may well incorporate elements of
such learning approaches.
While it seems evident that transferable
skills and capabilities are developed through
international mobility, equally it may be the
case that international mobility programmes
appeal to students who already possess, or
have an advantage in developing, these skills.
For example, in a Norwegian study, Wiers-
Jenssen (2011) showed that those who have
studied abroad represent a select group in
terms of social origin and mobility capital.
If the transformational potential of
internationalization for student learning
outcomes is to be realized beyond the mobile
minority, the relationship between
‘international’ and ‘intercultural’ needs further
exploration and consideration of the value
they can add to curriculum and pedagogical
practice and research. Possible research
questions include:
•What contribution can internationalization
of the curriculum at home make to
employability for non-mobile students?
•How can we make better use of the
multicultural contexts in our universities
and in the local population to offer similar
student learning outcomes as have been
demonstrated through international
experiences?
Implications for policy-makers
This article has argued that one rationale for
internationalization is largely being ignored at
present as universities focus on the institutional
benefits of global reach. The potential for this
student-oriented driver arises from the
evidence that many of the skills developed
through international student mobility
initiatives are precisely those generic
transferable skills sought by graduate
employers. The article has also articulated the
link between ‘international’ and ‘intercultural’
within a broader context of diversity and
inclusion in higher education and drawn
attention to its under-used potential. It has
called for further exploration of the domestic
intercultural context as a vehicle for the kind
of transformational learning evidenced
through international mobility. In conclusion,
the implications for policy and practice are
considered by arguing the need for:
•Enhanced awareness within higher education
of the importance of intercultural
competence, and its associated self-efficacy
and interpersonal skills, in meeting
employer expectations of graduates. Busch
(2012) argues that, ‘for employers,
intercultural competence tends to be seen
as a benefit. However, courses of study that
focus on intercultural communication are
often regarded as academically weak’ (p.
432). This is supported by Leggott and
Stapleford (2007) who maintain that, ‘some
academic staff may be reluctant to
incorporate what they see as ‘mere skills’
[into the curriculum] at the possible expense
of their subject-specific content’ (p. 129).
•Greater understanding by institutions and
academics, as well as students and employers,
of the role that international mobility
experiences have to play in the development
of transferable employability skills, so that
these may be incorporated into curriculum
and pedagogical practice. Fielden (2007)
suggests it is ‘desirable that all graduates
develop intercultural awareness and
sensitivity so they are able to work and live
effectively in our global society’ (p. 28).
•Further exploration through practice and
research of the interconnection of
international and intercultural experience
in delivering the advantages of an
internationalized curriculum ‘at home’.
•Greater pressure on higher education from
employers that they are seeking the kind of
skills that can be developed through
international experiences. One participant
in the study by King et al. (2010) noted,
‘what is curious is that companies in the UK
do not make their views on study abroad
that apparent in public debate’ (p. 34).
Fielden et al. (2007) agree in arguing that,
‘when employers are asked to list the qualities
and attributes they look for in graduate
employees, international experience does
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
103
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
not come high on the list, if it is mentioned
at all’ (p. 14).
•Support for students in understanding the
value of their international and intercultural
experiences and how this enhances their
employability. In Fielden et al.’s (2007) study,
one head of human resources in a major
global company made the following
comment about study abroad ‘most
importantly, the value that employers will
put on it depends on how the graduates
themselves articulate the added value that
overseas study has given them’ (p. 15).
G. K. Chesterton (in The Riddle of the Ivy,
1909) said, ‘the whole object of travel is not to
set foot on foreign land; it is at last to set foot
on one’s own country as a foreign land’. If
international mobility experiences in higher
education can bring about such a change in
perspective, we owe our non-mobile students
similar opportunities. The question for
academics is whether we can open curricula to
creative approaches which may offer similar
outcomes through intercultural engagement
and internationalization of the curriculum at
home.
References
AEI (2010), International Graduate Outcomes and
Employer Perceptions (Australian Government,
Canberra).
Alred, G., Byram, M. and Fleming, M. (2003),
Introduction. Intercultural Experience and
Education (Multilingual Matters, Clevedon).
Archer, W. and Davison, J. (2008), Graduate
Employability (CIHE, London).
Aulakh, G. et al. (1997), Internationalizing the
Curriculum across RMIT University (RMIT
University, Melbourne).
Black, H. T. and Duhon, D. L. (2006), Assessing
the impact of business study abroad programs
on cultural awareness and personal
development. Journal of Education for Business,
81, 3, pp. 140–144.
Bosley, G. W. (2010), Beyond immersion. In
Jones, E. (op. cit.).
Bourdieu, P. (1986), The forms of capital. In
Richardson, J. G. (Ed), Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (Greenwood
Press, New York), pp. 241–258.
Bourn, D. (2010), Students as global citizens. In
Jones, E. (op. cit.).
Bourn, D. and Neal, I. (2008), The Global Engineer
(Engineers Against Poverty, London).
British Academy (2012), Valuing the Year Abroad:
A Position Statement (London).
British Council/Think Global (2011), The Global
Skills Gap: Preparing Young People for the New
Global Economy (London).
Brooks, R. and Waters, J. (2011), Student Mobilities
(Palgrave Macmillan, London).
Brooks, R., Waters, J. and Pimlott-Wilson, H.
(2012), International education and the
employability of UK students. British Educational
Research Journal, 38, 2, pp. 281–298.
Busch, D. (2009), What kind of intercultural
competence will contribute to students’ future
job employability? Intercultural Education, 20,
5, pp. 429–438.
Caruana, V. and Ploner, J. (2010),
Internationalization and Equality and Diversity in
HE (Equality Challenge Unit, London).
Chan, B. T.-Y. (2011), Postgraduate transnational
education in nonbusiness subjects. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 15, 3, pp.
279–298.
Clifford, V. (2009), Engaging the disciplines in
internationalizing the curriculum. International
Journal of Academic Development, 14, 2, pp. 133–
143.
Clifford, V. and Montgomery, C. (Eds), (2011),
Moving Towards Internationalization of the
Curriculum (Centre for Staff and Learning
Development, Oxford).
Crossman, J. E. and Clarke, M. (2010), International
experience and graduate employability. Higher
Education, 59, 5, pp. 599–613.
Culver, S. M. et al. (2012), Collaborative dual-
degree programs and value added for students.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 16,
1, pp. 40–61.
Deardorff, D. and Jones, E. (2012), Intercultural
competence. In Deardorff, D. et al. (Eds), The
SAGE Handbook of International Higher
Education (Sage, Thousand Oaks).
Diamond, A., Walkley, L. and Scott-Davies, S.
(2011), Global Graduates into Global Leaders
(CIHE, London).
Fielden, J. (2007), Global Horizons For UK
Universities (CIHE, London).
Fielden, J., Middlehurst, R. and Woodfield, S.
(2007), Global Horizons for UK Students (CIHE,
London).
Fitch, K. and Desai, R. (2012), Developing global
practitioners. Journal of International
Communication, 18, 1, pp. 63–78.
Freeman, M. et al. (2009), Embedding the
Development of Intercultural Competence in Business
Education (Australian Learning and Teaching
Council, Sydney).
Green, M. F. (2012), Universities must be clear
and honest about internationalization.
University World News (15 April).
Gu, Q. (2012), The impact of study abroad on the
student self. University World News (29 January).
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
104
© 2013 THE AUTHOR
JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
Hadis, B. F. (2005), Gauging the impact of study
abroad. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30, 1, pp. 3–19.
Harvey, L. et al. (1997), Graduates’ Work (CRQ/
AGR, Birmingham).
Hudzik, J. (2012), A few propositions for discussion
on higher education internationalization (EAIE
Annual Conference, Dublin).
Ilieva, J. (2012), Labour shortfalls and employer
demand for intercultural skills in selected ASEAN
countries (British Council Global Education
Dialogues, Ho Chi Minh City).
Jones, E. (2010), ‘Don’t worry about the worries’:
Transforming lives through international
volunteering. In Jones, E. (Ed), Internationalization
and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives
(Routledge, London).
Jones, E. (2011), Internationalization,
multiculturalism, a global outlook and
employability. Assessment, Teaching and Learning
Journal, 11 (Summer), pp. 21–49.
Jones, E. (2012), Challenging received wisdom. In
Beelen, J. and de Wit, H. (Eds), Internationalization
Revisited (Centre For Applied Research on
Economics and Management, Amsterdam).
Jones, E. and Killick, D. (2007), Internationalization
of the curriculum. In Jones, E. and Brown, S.
(Eds), (2007), Internationalizing Higher Education
(Routledge, London), pp. 109–119.
Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2012), Globalization of
internationalization: thematic and regional
reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The
International Journal of Higher Education and
Democracy, 3, pp. 35–54.
Kaunda, L. (2012), Curriculum internationalization
in an African context. University World News (7
October).
Killick, D. (2006), Cross-Cultural Capability and Global
Perspectives: Guidelines for Curriculum Review (Leeds
Metropolitan University).
King, R., Findlay, A. M. and Ahrens, J. (2010),
International Student Mobility Literature Review
(HEFCE, Bristol).
Knight, J. (2003), Updating the definition of
internationalization. International Higher
Education, 33, pp. 2–3.
Knight, P. T. and Yorke, M. (2003), Learning,
Curriculum and Employability in Higher Education
(Routledge, London).
Knight, P. and Yorke. M. (2004), Employability:
Judging and Communicating Achievements (Higher
Education Academy, York).
Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning (Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
Leask, B. (2009), Using formal and informal
curricula to improve interactions between home
and international students. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 13, 2, pp. 205–221.
Leask, B. (2012), Internationalization of the
curriculum in action. See www.ioc.net.au
Leggott, D. and Stapleford, J. (2007),
Internationalization and employability. In Jones,
E. and Brown, S. (Eds), (2007), Internationalizing
Higher Education (Routledge, London).
Mezirow, J. (1991), Transformative Dimensions of
Adult Learning (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
NUS Scotland (2012), Developing Scotland’s Graduates
for the Global Economy (Edinburgh).
Rhoads, R. and Szelényi, K. (2011), Global Citizenship
and the University (Stanford University Press, Palo
Alto).
Rizvi, F. (2000), International education and the
production of global imagination. In Burbules,
N. and Torres, C. (Eds), Globalization and Education
(Routledge, London).
Rizvi, F. and Lingard, R. (2010), Globalizing Education
Policy (Routledge, London).
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. and Niehaus, E. K. (2011),
One year later: the influence of short-term study
abroad experiences on students. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 48, 2, pp. 213–228.
Russell, M. and Vallade, L. (2010), Guided reflective
journalling. In Jones, E. (op. cit.).
Schoorman, D. (2000), What really do we mean by
‘internationalization’? Contemporary Education, 71,
4, pp. 1–13.
Sutton, R. C. and Rubin, D. L. (2004), The
GLOSSARI project. Frontiers: The International
Journal of Study Abroad, 10, pp. 65–82.
Thom, V. (2010), Mutual cultures: engaging with
interculturalism in higher education. In Jones,
E. (op. cit.).
UKCES (2008), Employability Skills Project
(www.ukces.org.uk).
Waters, J. (2007), Roundabout routes and sanctuary
schools. Global Networks, 7, 4 pp. 477–497.
Webb, G. (2005), Internationalization of
curriculum. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. (Eds),
Teaching International Students (Routledge,
London).
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2011), Background and
employability of mobile vs non-mobile students.
Tertiary Education and Management, 17, 2, pp. 79–
100.
Williams, T. R. (2005), Exploring the impact of
study abroad on students’ intercultural
communication skills. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9, 4, pp. 356–371.
Willott, C. et al. (2012), The Global Doctor (Institute
of Education, London).
Yorke, M. (2006), Employability in Higher Education
(Higher Education Academy, York).
Zimitat, C. (2008), Internationalization of the
undergraduate curriculum. In Dunn, L. and
Wallace, M. (Eds), Teaching in Transnational Higher
Education (Routledge, London).
