**1. Introduction**

The internationalization of higher education is of increasingly importance to many universities in the world. Some analyses come out on the main forces driving the internationalization of higher education. Inevitably, globalization is believed as a driving force. In a networked environment in which a higher education is accessible to every other, the weight of global dimension is increasing. Thus, it is no longer possible and relevant to a higher education to seal itself off from global effects. Connected with globalization in higher education, Cantu [1] states that there is a marked differentiation and relationship between globalization and internationalization. The former is comprehended as a social and economic progress, while the latter is described as strategies by which a higher education institution responds to globalization. In that regards, internalization basically arose as a dynamic response to diversity and multiculturalism in an effect to create and achieve global competencies.

However, there are some unsettle issues pertaining the essence of internationalization its self in the higher education institution. Jones and Killick [2] for example suggest on two main types of rationale for internationalization: a value-based and a pragmatic-based. According to them, the former refers to issues of social responsibility, ethics and justice, which are linked with social problems, such as poverty or social injustices. The latter draws attention on the acquired skills and qualities that students need for living and working in a globalized world. In consonance with the issues, interesting to figure out the Top 10 universities which are ranked by the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings1 . In general, these Top 10 universities agree to actively engage with the design of policies, plans, program, strategies and approaches at various levels of decision making so as to further promote the process of internationalization in the higher education. In other words, the spirit of internationalization requires active policy making, not merely drift. In details, the practices of internationalization at these 10 Top universities as follows:

According to **Table 1**, approaches to internationalization dominantly carry out a value-based compared to a pragmatic-based. The top 10 universities engage for collaboration which shared impacts, not merely fulfilling their own internationalization performance indicators. **Table 1** also shows that majority of the Top 10 universities are located in United States of America. Cantu [1] reveals three strategies of internationalization were used, as follows: (1) promoting study abroad program, such as student outbound program, and impact-based intership program on global engagement; (2) international students, such as recruitment the best quality students through reduced fees or scholarship; and (3) internationalizing the faculty through internationalizing curriculum fitted with global demand. Correspond to **Table 1**, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta has been trying to engage actively with internationalization agenda by frequently sending students, lecturers and alumni abroad, meanwhile organizing collaborative program such as joint research, joint conference, and visiting fellows.

Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY) is an established university with a track record of educational excellence and research and with a dynamic programme of collaborative arrangements with many international counterparts. Specific for internationalization agenda, UMY has developed as called "Road Map for Strategic Development 2015-2040" which is based on "Catur Dharma" (Teaching, Research, Community Services, and Islamic Character Building). In the first term (2015–2020), UMY has been working intensively towards a reputable international university. Practically, the university has set strategic goals, indicators, targets, and specific programs particularly for achieving a reputable internasional

<sup>1</sup> The rank is arranged according to six metrics: (1) academic reputation (40%), (2) employer reputation (10%, (3) faculty/student ratio (20%), (4) citations per faculty (20%), (5) international faculty ratio (5%), and (6) international student ratio (5%).


*Development Strategies towards a Reputable International Program: Special Focus… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94322*

*USA = United States of America; ETH = Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule; UK = United Kingdom. Source: Various Publications (2019).*

#### **Table 1.**

*Approach to internationalization.*

university. For example, UMY targets to be ranked QS, ASEAN University Network-Quality Assurance (AUN-QA), international standardized curriculum, and broadened international collaboration, including building program enabler institution, called International Program (IP).

The IP is created under department level and becomes swing to promote the spirit of internalization at both faculty and university level. Until 2020, UMY has established 8 IPs which are coordinated under Vice Rector of Internationalization and Cooperation. One of earlier mature and established IPs is the International Program for Islamic Economics and Finance (IPIEF). IPIEF is an international swing of Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business. It was established in 2009, in cooperation with Department of Islamic Economics, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. Hence, the IPIEF is selected as case study to describe internationalization program in UMY by referring into five interrelated reasons which will easily help to deliver the global engagement strategy in details conducted by UMY, as follows:

First, IPIEF has been intersifying the efforts to recruit excellent and diverse students. According to **Figure 1**, over 10 years since its establishment, IPIEF has roughly 214 active students and more 100 alumni, which have been spread across Indonesia and overseas. In addition, over the last 4 years, IPIEF received full time international students from Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yaman.

Second, IPIEF has adopted the local and global knowledge in the curiculum to expand partners and increase relevant to conduct joint research, teaching, and enterprise activities. IPIEF curriculum is quite unique in the sense that it attempts to integrate between the modern and Islamic knowledge. The curriculum consists of three spirits, including integration, Islamization, and internationalization, represented in 145 credit hours or around 60 courses. The courses for sure capture either substance and methological aspects covering the three spirits.

Third, IPIEF has been working out to facilitate the extended and expanded partnerships both at faculty and university levels. Over the last two years, IPIEF has facilitated a number of memorandum of understandings (MoUs) and Memorandum of Agreements (MoAs) signing with some strategic foreign and domestic institutions.

Forth, IPIEF has sufficient staffs with international capabilities and competencies. IPIEF is supported by 18 permanent lecturers who have been graduated from prestigious universities around the globe, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia.

Fifth, IPIEF has broadened the scope the internationalization agenda coordinated by International Relation Office and Cooperation UMY as the supporting unit. The collaboration agendas are of in the form of students mobility program (inbound and outbound), joint research, joint conference, and visiting fellow.

*Development Strategies towards a Reputable International Program: Special Focus… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94322*

Having discussed the brief implication of globalization in higher learning institution, and UMY's response towards internationalization, there are however still lacking information and study on what does constitute as a good "global higher learning institution", whether in terms of fortering students' skill (pragmatic based approach) or the spirit of academic impacts for a sustainable future (value-based approach)?

Therefore, this paper attempts to put above issues by proposing the balancing approach between the pragmatic and value-based approach by looking at IPIEF as a case study. The paper conceptually contributes towards nationally impact factor as the running process of internationalization. In other words, internationalization of higher learning institution does not hurt the spirit of betterment of humankind under Islamic values.

Systematically, the paper comprises of four chapters. Chapter 1 shares introduction. Chapter 2 contains literature related with internationalization and its components. Chapter 3 elaborates the development of IPIEF responding internationalization agenda of UMY. Chapter 4 ends with conclusion and recommendation.

### **2. Literature review**

Internationalization is a response of existing globalization. It implies that free people, free information, and free market exist and become connected each other. The issues are then on how the higher learning institutions can retain to its role as academic power house for future generations. Some arguments pose that university should broad up its role into equal access with quality. Therefore, this chapter discusses the definition of internationalization, integration process through internationalization, measuring internationalization, and design of internalization.

#### **2.1 Defining internationalization**

According to Cerna [3], Internationalization refers to university strategy in interacting with national policy. **Table 2** shows very interesting condition between state and university corcerning internationalization process. The university needs to ensure a proper facilities, such as strategy, financial and human resources, and commitment. Meanwhile, state is requested to provide favorable immigration policies, funding for universities, clear internationalization policy. Both elements must be in place synchronously in order to ensure the positive synergy and push the internationalization up to a higher level. However, this ideal combination does no longer exist always in the current dynamic global environment. Mismatch or clash condition sometimes happens and it requires the resilience of university in responding such dynamic situation as facilities given by state is considered as external or exogeneous factor [4]. In other words, the progress of internationalization depends highly on respective university in setting out the strategies and goals in whatever conditions [5].

In addition, according to Higher Education Academy UK, internationalization represents the preparation of all UK higher education graduates to live in, and contribute responsibly to a globally connected society. Cantu [1] identifies internationalization as a response of globalization which facilitates higher education to promote study abroad program, recruiting international student, and the internatiolization of faculty.

Therefore, according to above definition, internationalization is basically seen as possible response towards globalization in a way to promote higher educational


**Table 2.**

*Interaction between national policies and university strategies towards international students.*

institutions more connected and finally contribute to global society, culture, economy, and labour markets.

#### **2.2 Integration process through internationalization**

Internationalization does not merely encourage higher education to more globalized but also ensure integration into the culture, heritage, and identity with a smoothly formed. Hence, the essential part of the internationalization is to promote the inclusion of international students and staffs in diverse communities and classes. Spencer-Oatey and Dauber [6] construct a number of different spheres related to integration as an aspect of internationalization results:


In consonant with above integrations, there is a remarkably scenarios for technically executing the integration, namely by combining harmonically between cooperation - competition and international – national nexus. Looking at European experience, cooperation is seen as an embedded element of internationalization associated with promoted academic exchange with quality and intercultural learning. In addition, European higher learning realized that education is a public good where it should be transparent and upgraded time by time. In other words, there is no conflicting measure between cooperation and competition by taking special attention on mutual benefits and shared positive impacts. However, higher education keeps realizing that national interests must be preserved and elevated towards

*Development Strategies towards a Reputable International Program: Special Focus… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94322*

**Figure 2.**

*Strategic options for enhancing global Competiton. Source: Wende [7].*

more globalized concern and ultimately serve the betterment of humankind. On this regards, a set of regulations promoting internationalization should be packaged and guided by a strategic vision – derived into strategic actions, so that come up with a good balance between global competitiveness and national priorities and interests (**Figure 2**).
