Reason before passion faculty views on internationalization in higher education

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9207-z

Reason before passion: faculty views on internationalization in higher education Patricia Dewey Æ Stephen Duff

Published online: 17 February 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract In this era of globalization, internationalization—both as an idea and an agenda—is receiving widespread attention at academic institutions across North America.

Although faculty are necessarily key participants in initiatives to internationalize academia, surprisingly little work has been published that addresses the roles, responsibilities, and problems faced by the faculty on an operational level. This article has been written to provide administrators with some insight into faculty perspectives on the goals, strategies, and processes of internationalization. The authors present a case study of internationalization processes currently underway in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the University of Oregon. They discuss a faculty-driven approach that focused on mapping internationalization, addressing barriers to internationalization, and improving structures and systems to enhance internationalization. An in-depth critical analysis of the case leads to recommendations and a framework for navigating diverse tensions and responsibilities implicit in an internationalization imperative.

Keywords Internationalization in higher education Internationalizing university faculty Internationalization processes Barriers to international education

Introduction Our global era requires globally competent citizens. Global competency, understood as ‘‘having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively outside one’s environment’’ (Hunter, as cited in Hunter et al. 2006, p. 270), requires P. Dewey (&) Arts and Administration Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5230, USA e-mail: pdewey@uoregon.edu S. Duff Department of Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA e-mail: sduff@uoregon.edu

123

492

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

internationalized higher education. These statements suggest an ever-increasing imperative to internationalize colleges and universities. Indeed, extant research on internationalization in higher education demonstrates the growing importance of internationalization as a priority issue (Kehm and Teichler 2007, p. 262). As Altbach and Knight (2007) argue, ‘‘Now academe has regained its international scope and direction. IT [information technology]; the knowledge economy; increased mobility for students, faculty, programs, and providers; and an integrated world economy propel internationalization. Internationalism will remain a central force in higher education, though its contours are unclear’’ (p. 303).

A review of scholarship on internationalization in higher education reveals surprisingly little insight into faculty roles and responsibilities. Kehm and Teichler (2007, p. 264) contend that research and studies on issues of internationalization in higher education can be grouped into seven main themes, two of which are addressed in this article: internationalization of teaching, learning, and research; and institutional strategies of internationalization. The objective of this article is to contribute to this increasingly significant educational priority by sharing faculty insight into internationalization processes that have taken place in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the University of Oregon. Told from the faculty perspective, this case study of institutional internationalization reveals opportunities and perils in addressing both institutional and individual responsibility in leading an internationalization imperative. While findings from this case study may not be generalizable, valuable lessons have nonetheless been learned that may be transferred to internationalization processes underway at other universities.

The case study: school of architecture and allied arts at the University of Oregon The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university located in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The School of Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) at the University of Oregon contains ten academic departments and programs: Architecture; Art; Art History; Arts and Administration; Digital Arts; Historic Preservation; Interior Architecture; Landscape Architecture; Planning, Public Policy, and Management; and Product Design. Offering undergraduate and graduate level programs and degrees, the academic units extend from a focus on academic research in the humanities tradition, to applied social science research, to technical and applied sciences, to pre-professional education, to creative work in the arts.

In fall 2005, new administrative leaders (the school’s dean, and the university’s provost and vice provost for international affairs) brought energy and enthusiasm for reinvigorating ‘‘internationalization’’, which has been articulated as a strategic priority in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts as well as in the university as a whole. Documents that identify international education as an institutional priority are accessible on the university’s website (http://www.uoregon.edu). Internationalization is included in the University of Oregon mission statement as follows: ‘‘a commitment to international awareness and understanding, and to the development of a faculty and student body that are capable of participating effectively in a global society’’ (website). Significant portions of the provost’s statement on academic priorities, dated January 11, 2007, are devoted to arguing the importance of ‘‘international fluency,’’ suggesting the need for enhanced global strategic partnerships, and outlining six specific priorities for institutional internationalization.

In response to the internationalization strategic priorities emphasized by A&AA and the University of Oregon central administration, a new faculty-led A&AA International Initiatives Committee was established to formulate a vision, strategic approach, and specific

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

493

action steps toward implementation of this priority area. The specific charge given to the committee was stated as follows: Craft vision of A&AA’s international presence. Inventory and evaluate current international opportunities for A&AA faculty and students. Inventory and evaluate existing support systems at the UO with regard to international initiatives. Evaluate new A&AA international initiatives, prioritize initiatives based on A&AA strategic goals, make recommendations to the Dean prior to new initiatives being submitted to UO International Programs for approval.

The A&AA International Initiatives Committee (IIC) met regularly throughout 2006– 2007 to conduct a systematic assessment of the internationalization process in the school.

Continued analysis and discussion took place in the 2007–2008 academic year. The committee’s members grappled with the undefined objective of ‘‘internationalization’’ given them by administrative leaders, conducted an inventory of the faculty’s international engagement, identified barriers to internationalization, and proposed structures, systems and personnel to foster international activity. The case study presented in this article presents insight into faculty considerations and conceptualization processes that took place without the guidance of scholarly and administrative expertise in the field of internationalization of higher education. The approach taken thus provides faculty perspectives on internationalization in an academic institution that emphasizes decentralized faculty leadership and a culture of academic freedom. As Knight (2004) states, ‘‘…it is usually at the individual, institutional level that the real process of internationalization is taking place’’ (pp. 6–7). In many ways, the approach that Altbach and Knight (2007, p. 293) refer to as a ‘‘traditional internationalization’’ was intuitively adopted by concentrating on reviewing existing campus-based internationalization initiatives at our institution. In assessing international strategies and activities underway, the strengths of program strategies and the weaknesses in organizational strategies became self-evident.

Defining and mapping internationalization The A&AA International Initiatives Committee commenced work by explicitly recognizing that, in an era of globalization, academic institutions must continue to foster a commitment to internationalization in higher education. However, what is meant by internationalization?

As Altbach and Knight (2007) state, ‘‘globalization may be unalterable, but internationalization involves many choices’’ (p. 291). Internationalization is not explicitly defined at the University of Oregon, and there does not appear to be a generally accepted definition of internationalization among leading scholars in the field of international higher education (Knight 2004, pp. 8–12; Teichler 2004). A concept of internationalization as ‘‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education’’ (Knight 2004, p. 11) may provide a helpful approach for considering international initiatives. In this case, the IIC began the investigation by assessing how the institutional community understands itself to be international.

In sum, the IIC came to understand internationalization to mean school-wide involvement in myriad networks, research, creative work, exchanges, professional development, curricular development, study abroad programs, and institutional partnerships. Such activities range from the individual (faculty, students, administration) to the institutional (A&AA, UO, external partners) and may require varying levels of resources, support and investment. School-wide internationalization could be conceptualized and mapped

123

494

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

according to an initiative’s required individual or institutional level of responsibility and the anticipated level of resource investment required to realize the initiative. An initial typology of diverse programs and activities involved in school-wide internationalization is mapped in Fig. 1. In strategically assessing the range of international activities, the IIC noted that it would be possible to evaluate, invest in, leverage, and develop all areas in this schematic. At the University of Oregon, specific areas involving internationalization could be grouped in four main categories.

Faculty research and teaching Faculty international research and teaching activities range from personal experience, to participation in conferences and networks, to short-term or long-term appointments as visiting researchers or instructors. Required A&AA investment of resources and support varies significantly among these areas.

Curriculum All A&AA administrators and faculty members face decisions regarding international coursework requirements and instructional content. A systematic assessment of international dimensions of A&AA coursework may be helpful in determining the range of internationally-focused courses that students are encouraged or required to take as part of their degree requirements.

Study abroad programs Closely linked with international curricular requirements may be opportunities to engage in study abroad programs. Such programs are structured as A&AA-run international programs, faculty-run programs with potential affiliations and partnerships with external programs, and specialized agency-run programs or other contracted programs.

Other areas of activity Students. Many international students attend the University of Oregon and the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Diverse international student exchange programs and student international internship programs exist.

Development and External Relations. International A&A alumni networks and diverse international external relations initiatives might be cultivated.

Institutional Partnerships. Such partnerships may take the form of student and faculty exchanges with sister universities abroad, the establishment of an international faculty research chair, or various other forms of long-term international institutional collaboration.

There is a potential to establish joint degree or dual degree education programs in cooperation with international partner universities.

During the course of the 2006–2007 academic year, the IIC also administered a survey to departments and individual faculty members to inventory recent, current and planned international activities in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Administrators were asked to report data regarding study abroad programs and other related opportunities for both faculty and students. Individual members of the A&AA faculty were asked to provide details of international activities and connections related to research and scholarship,

123

International faculty and research visitors, short and long-term

INDIVIDUAL

Faculty backgrounds and personal networks

International students studying at AAA/UO

International student exchange programs

Faculty international professional networks, conferences, publications, exhibits

Faculty participation in UO international and area studies committees and projects

Faculty international research funding / grants

AAA development and external relations initiatives

International AAA alumni networks

FACULTY RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Faculty teaching and lecturing abroad, short or/long-term

International conferences that AAA faculty host / chair

Fig. 1 Mapping A&AA internationalization

LOW

Increasing level of required resources, support, and investment.

HIGH

UO – offered (OIP) STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS

AAA- run international programs

International faculty research chair (e.g., UNESCO, Fulbright)

Increasing level of administrative infrastructure required, and potential bureaucratic barriers.

OUS student international internship programs

Student/faculty exchange International partnerships (sister universities)

Bi- and multilateral international collaboration with long-term partnerships: academic, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations

INSTITUTIONAL

Coordinate student international internships through AAA (PODS)

UO faculty-run programs, AHA programs, and other contracted programs

Potential faculty affiliations or partnerships with external overseas study programs

Encourage AAA students to enroll in internationallyfocused courses in other departments, in well as in foreign languages

Assess “multicultural” requirement for undergraduate AAA students

Assess current international dimensions of AAA program curricula and coursework

CURRICULUM

Virtual international instruction opportunities

Continuing education and distance learning programs

Develop systematic framework for curricular requirements at UO and abroad

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 495

123

496

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

creative and professional work, teaching, administration, and interest in future international initiatives. Specific questions asked in the faculty questionnaire were designed to collect data on the nature and scope of faculty international research and professional work, including the identification of international research communities and professional associations in which faculty were active. Questions about teaching included identification of international subject matter, prior teaching positions abroad, and collaborative teaching initiatives with colleagues in other nations. Questions about faculty members’ academic backgrounds were posed to collect information about pre-professional international study and research, as well as foreign language skills. Finally, several open-ended questions were included to identify faculty members’ interest in participating in a comprehensive internationalization initiative.

After assessing the data collected in the survey and casting it in the context of the conceptual model in Fig. 1, the IIC began to systematically discuss internationalization strategies in the school. It was discovered, and subsequently emphasized in a formal report, that despite an initial implicit assumption to the contrary, faculty, students, initiatives, research and programs were—judged against an intuitive benchmark—already international.1 However, it became clear that the necessary strategic oversight and development of international initiatives had been neither conducted nor communicated by the school. In other words, there were strengths in program strategies but weaknesses in organization strategies framing the internationalization imperative at our institution (Knight 2004, pp. 13–16).

Fundamentally, the IIC sought to understand, develop, and communicate our schoolwide internationalization strategic priority. As an initial step in this process, administrative policies and procedures, incentives, barriers, curricula, and overseas programs all required careful assessment. A detailed needs assessment would lead to the formulation of specific recommendations and action steps.

In a nutshell, the IIC’s initial recommendations for advancing school-wide internationalization focused on framing an approach toward removing barriers to internationalization, as well as creating effective and efficient structures to foster international activity. The next section of this article focuses on articulating and analyzing these two dimensions of internationalization from the perspective of faculty in higher education.

Barriers to internationalization The data reviewed by the A&AA International Initiatives Committee revealed four major types of barriers to faculty involvement in international activities at the University of Oregon. First, there is a general lack of coordination and information available regarding engagement in international initiatives. Second, many constraints exist due to limited funding availability for international work. Third, numerous administrative policies and procedures exist that serve as disincentives to participation in international initiatives.

Fourth, there is a lack of support staff and personnel to facilitate international initiatives.

This section of the article explores each of these barriers from the perspective of 1

Our survey of 90 tenure-related faculty members had a response rate of 55%. Of the responses, we found that 82% of faculty have significant international activity in research, teaching, or involvement in study abroad programs. The School of Architecture and Allied Arts has 16 distinct study abroad programs in which faculty and students are involved; roughly 8–10% of A&AA students participate in these programs annually.

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

497

encouraging faculty involvement in international initiatives, and concludes with several suggestions for ways in which these barriers might be addressed.

The IIC began its exploration of barriers to internationalization by discussing specific barriers to faculty involvement in international research and scholarship as well as creative and professional work. Limitations in available financial support make it difficult to secure the necessary funds for travel as well as other overhead expenses (such as shipping materials, securing photograph permission, communications) that are more expensive in the international context. We found that there are policy statements existing at the university level that serve as financial disincentives to faculty taking advantage of prestigious international research grants, such as Fulbright fellowships.2 International engagement involves extensive bureaucratic procedures and administrative red tape that is a burden to the faculty member. Further, compliance procedures and protocols for research involving human subjects are immensely time consuming, frustrating, and often difficult or inappropriate to use in international field research. Finally, domestic and international academic calendars vary in their semester or quarter configurations, which can make it difficulty for faculty to interface with institutions running on a different calendar.

Faculty also identified other barriers to international curricular development. Program curricula are already packed, and adding new courses could only come at the expense of removing other required or elective courses in the curricula. The work of course development is currently accomplished through faculty work overloads—it is unlikely that this is a sustainable or desirable approach, given other performance expectations. Not all faculty consider international research, teaching, and creative work to be central to their individual academic mission and professional success, and this must be respected in the spirit of academic freedom.

The IIC then considered barriers to cultivating international diversity of students and faculty. Clearly, diversity of students can be increased by recruiting more international students to study at the university, but this raises many questions. To what specific aim did we wish to recruit more international students? Would a specific recruitment strategy focusing on specific regions of the world, academic programs, and graduate or undergraduate students be appropriate? What were the implications of recruiting more international students in terms of faculty workload? How would individual academic programs address displacement of local and domestic students by the admission of more international students?

The discussion of increasing international diversity of faculty was less controversial.

Committee members agreed that diversity of faculty could be enhanced by bringing more international faculty as visiting scholars for lectures, symposia, short-term courses, and academic quarters. Of course, funding for scholarships for international students and grants for international faculty are limited, and bureaucratic procedures (for example, processing visas) are burdensome and not always successful.

The IIC explored various barriers inhibiting participation in study abroad programs. The first challenge is cost: student participation in overseas programs is expensive and not all students can afford to participate. Students may also face problems in securing visas for studying abroad, an issue that has worsened in the last decade. Management of these 2

If the faculty member receives external grant funding to support research during a research leave that is not a sabbatical, a university-level policy exists that limits the amount of faculty salary payment to the designated annual base salary level. As a result, a significant financial disincentive exists for faculty who wish to participate in professional activities abroad. Many additional expenses are incurred while living and traveling overseas for an extended period of time, while often one must continue to maintain basic living expenses at the domestic residence.

123

498

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

programs is confusing and cumbersome. In the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, there are currently three different management models in place for existing study abroad programs, and the policies, procedures, and costs (overhead and faculty salaries, in particular) differ significantly among these three management models. Student demand for increased offerings of study abroad programs can become an issue as a point of saturation is approached (that is, when different programs compete with each other for students and support). Faculty emphasized that successfully starting and/or directing study abroad programs is time intensive, with workload relative to student credit hour production very high. Time investment for program development alone discourages many faculty members from attempting to launch new programs. Some observed that an administrative attitude considering faculty participation in a study abroad program as a ‘‘perk’’ for faculty would be off-putting or even offensive, given the extensive work involved. Moreover, in terms of program development, the school did not have a useful template, guidelines, or vetting procedures in place for initiating new study abroad programs.

There are also important curricular considerations for study abroad programs. Timing relationships with respect to required courses and the rigor or equivalency of course content may be critical issues. Further, there are very real consequences and challenges to academic departments when faculty participate in study abroad programs or participate in other long-term research and teaching engagements overseas. Instructors must be found to replace faculty for teaching courses in the curriculum, there is the issue of how salary payments are to be made when faculty are abroad, and there can be a considerable impact on student advising and a sense of faculty continuity in the department.

Analysis of barriers to internationalization from the faculty perspective led to several specific ideas for means and approaches to address these challenges, focusing primarily on enhancing administrative capacity and responsibility. First, the Committee identified the need to increase faculty incentives to encourage participation in international work.

Incentives could include funding for travel and research, scholarships for international students, and grants to bring international faculty as visitors. Providing course releases to offer time for international curricular development would also serve as an excellent incentive.

Second, the IIC suggested that staff support within the school to assist with international research and study abroad program coordination is vital. Ideally, personnel should be knowledgeable about all administrative procedures associated with international research activities, do the bulk of work in navigating the paperwork associated with international grants, organize and update the information for all study abroad programs offered by the school, and organize information sessions about these programs for students. Currently, in our institution, faculty perform many of these functions individually.

Third, the committee emphasized that existing administrative policies and procedures serve as enormous barriers and disincentives to faculty international engagement. As a point of action, central university administration should review all policies and procedures regarding international research and teaching activity currently in place in order to streamline, clarify, and systematize them—as well as assess the potential unintended consequences of the policies.

Finally, the IIC recommended that coordination of international initiatives be enhanced within the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Information regarding the school’s study abroad programs needed to be updated, centralized, coordinated, and more effectively communicated. The committee also identified the diverse departments, committees, and individuals within the school and the university as a whole that would need to be part of an effective coordinative effort. We felt that continued work by the International Initiatives

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

499

Committee would play a key role in providing oversight of international programs being offered and developed in the school. Further, the IIC might become engaged in the disbursal of international travel awards or course releases for curricular development, in the preparation of templates for study abroad program development, and in clarifying the management profiles for international programs.

Interesting comparisons can be made between the findings and recommendations made by the A&AA International Initiatives Committee and those published in a recent report titled Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses (Saiya and Hayward 2003). Based on data collected through surveys and focus groups, this study suggests that general interest in and support for international higher education is high, but low institutional commitment and a lack of incentives for faculty participation create numerous barriers to internationalization efforts. Survey findings showed ‘‘that colleges and universities did not offer faculty much incentive to internationalize their courses or participate in other internationally oriented activities’’ (p. 15). Research universities do fund diverse international activities for faculty development, but financial awards provided to faculty to pursue international activities are generally very small (see Figs. 44, 45 of Saiya and Hayward 2003, for complete data). The authors conclude by arguing that ‘‘research universities need to develop additional strategies that could turn faculty and student support into participation in international programs and activities’’ (p. 71). The A&AA committee discussed specific strategies for fostering faculty involvement in international initiatives in terms of the need for structures, systems, and personnel in our institution.

Requisite structures, systems and personnel to foster international activity In order to begin the process of addressing the barriers listed above, the IIC discussed the establishment of a long-term institutional support infrastructure to advance the School of Architecture and Allied Arts’ internationalization strategic priority. Initial recommendations were twofold: (1) To continue the A&AA International Initiatives Committee, and (2) To consider appointing an A&AA International Initiatives Director.

The mandate for a continuing IIC would include five specific areas of responsibility: • To advise the A&AA Dean and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs regarding the school-wide internationalization strategic priority; • To advise and assist the prospective new A&AA Director of International Initiatives; • To determine disbursal of future international travel awards and course releases for international curricular development; • In cooperation and with the leadership of the UO Office of International Affairs, to continue to collect information and develop templates for international program involvement; • To vet new international program proposals from A&AA faculty.

The recommended institutional positioning of the International Initiatives Committee is depicted in Fig. 2. The second structural recommendation proposed by the committee was to consider appointing a half-time faculty administrative position within the school to provide oversight, support, and coordination of the internationalization strategic priority area. The potential hierarchical positioning of this individual is also provided in Fig. 2.

The committee envisioned and proposed that the main responsibilities of this individual, essentially creating a draft job description. Written from a faculty perspective, the functions and roles indicated in this list of responsibilities provide insight into precise

123

500

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

A&AA Dean and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Vice Provost for International Affairs

UO Curriculum Committee

UO Foreign Study Programs Committee

A&AA Academic Affairs Committee

A&AA International Initiatives Committee

UO Office of International Programs

Faculty Representatives ARCH

L ARCH

I ARCH

ART

ART HISTORY

HP

AAD

PPPM

Proposed Introduction of a new International Initiatives Director

Fig. 2 Proposed A&AA international committee and personnel structure

administrative direction and support needs that the IIC believed would facilitate an ongoing internationalization process at the school level. The IIC envisioned that this new international initiatives director would provide oversight and information to faculty and administrative personnel about international activities underway in research, teaching, curricula, and overseas study programs. This individual would serve as a key liaison among faculty, students, and the university’s administrative units identified in Fig. 2. The IIC emphasized the urgent need for general faculty support in navigating bureaucratic policies and procedures, developing international networks, and cultivating funding. There is a specific need for faculty support in developing and implementing guidelines for internal review of new proposals for study abroad programs. The IIC also saw a need for this individual to spearhead and coordinate opportunities for students, such as developing international student associations and activities, developing opportunities for international internships, and serving as a leader in enhancing A&AA international students’ experience at the university. Finally, the IIC underscored the need for effective information materials, policies, procedural guidelines, and publicity materials for the school’s spheres of international activity. Overall, the proposed responsibilities for a new international initiatives director suggest a need for faculty and student support through the provision of information, coordination and oversight, guidance on policies and procedures, fundraising assistance, networking, curricular assessment, and publicity.

Internationalization… striking a delicate balance This article has presented an overview of a case study of faculty views on internationalization within a school of architecture and allied arts in a comprehensive public research university in the United States. We have discussed our approach to defining, conceptualizing, and mapping internationalization. We have presented an in-depth analysis of barriers

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

501

to faculty participation in internationalization. And we have offered our recommendations for specific structures, systems and personnel that we believe would encourage faculty involvement in international activity in our institution. In the final section of this article, reflecting on key concepts and approaches presented in current existing scholarship in international higher education, we present a critical analysis of internationalization in our institution.

At the University of Oregon, internationalization is an explicitly articulated school-wide and university-level strategic priority. In the context of an institutional passion for and commitment to internationalization, assessing the rationales, processes, and activities involved in internationalization has been delegated as a faculty responsibility within the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. On one hand, this is highly appropriate because long-term institutional academic mission and continuity are driven by faculty. In this sense, the university is the faculty, and the university’s administrators serve to support decentralized faculty leadership of the academic institution. On the other hand, however, faculty rely on the central administration to clearly communicate strategic priorities, lead strategic development of priority area initiatives and, in particular, provide means and support to the faculty to achieve priority area goals. If the real process of internationalization takes place at the individual and institutional level (Knight 2004, p. 6), then it is precisely this interplay between institutional and faculty level competence that must be addressed in pursuit of this strategic priority area.

This case study revealed and underscored numerous strengths in program strategies within the school, but also revealed manifold weaknesses in organizational strategies.

Following an institutional model of analysis posited by Knight (2004, pp. 13–16) and supported by the research of Jones and Brown (2007), the school’s strengths in terms of academic programs, research and scholarly collaboration, external relations, and extracurricular activities could similarly be presented. Weaknesses could be identified and assessed in terms of governance, operations, services, and human resources.

There appear to be multiple challenges if the institution relies solely on faculty leadership to craft and lead processes of internationalization. More specifically, we desire clarity in faculty involvement and roles in internationalization at the institutional level. We have grappled with the fact that institutional rationales, concepts, motivations, goals, and desired outcomes regarding internationalization have not yet been clearly defined.

Administrative approaches to internationalization are not yet clear on an operational level, and we have not been able to identify specific policies and procedures to implement for purposes of internationalization review and planning. We struggled to identify strategic connections between university-wide goals for long-term internationalization and the detailed committee work and action points we were assigned. It also became quickly evident through our committee’s work that an incentive system and support infrastructure for faculty involvement in international activity still needed to be created.

More significantly, although internationalization is articulated as an institutional priority area, it seems to be a low priority area for institutional infrastructure support, funding, and communications efforts. As important as internationalization is stated to be, given competing institutional priorities and the reality of limited resources and strained budgets, our resource-intensive proposals and recommendations to support internationalization have remained unfunded. This mismatch between institutional intentions and support mechanisms is exacerbated by what appears to be an expectation—perhaps due to a historical pattern of behavior or an embedded organizational culture—that individual faculty can and will support virtually all extra work associated with pursuing an internationalization imperative.

123

502

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

In developing an approach to internationalization in the A&AA International Initiatives Committee, it was evident that internationalization did not appear to be considered systematically or in a coordinated way. An initial scan of faculty, students, and academic initiatives disconfirmed the false assumption that was initially expressed to us that ‘‘we aren’t international’’, although much more data and assessment is required to effectively demonstrate the extent to which our institution is international. Yet, this false assumption reveals a much more salient issue. If it is assumed at the institutional level that we are not international, when and how would it be determined to be the case, and what would be the metric for this assessment? And how would this be measured without a clear concept and definition of internationalization?

Many other phrases that revealed a lack of systematic assessment on the part of the administration were expressed to us as specific objectives for international activity in our school. For example, ‘‘we need more international students’’ was often stated, without consideration of target groups, departmental implications, and academic/administrative support issues. ‘‘We need better coordination of our international programs’’ was articulated as a major goal, and often internationalization was discussed exclusively in terms of international programs. ‘‘We need to engage in our university’s East Asia Initiative’’ was both explicitly and implicitly emphasized, although, apart from the obvious Pacific Rim proximity, the rationale and concept of this exclusive regional focus were never fully explained. The IIC appreciated the excellent specific objectives for internationalization that were communicated to us, but found that these priorities were difficult to isolate from the more comprehensive approach to internationalization that we strove to articulate.

We as faculty may wholeheartedly support a commitment to internationalization, but there needs to be solid coordination between institutional goals and faculty initiatives. The internationalization priority area must be clearly articulated and supported from differing perspectives of the institution, students, and faculty. For students, the goal of international higher education may be framed as the importance of developing global competence (Hunter et al. 2006; Leask 2001). Faculty and institutions, however, may be driven by diverse rationales of a political, economic, cultural and social, or academic nature (de Wit 2002, Chap. 5). From these multivalent rationales follows an extensive range of approaches to internationalization at the institutional level. Institutional approaches may concentrate on activities, rationales, competencies and outcomes, process, as well as competitive institutional branding. Further, approaches to internationalization may concentrate on campus-based initiatives or cross-border delivery of education (de Wit 2002, pp. 116–118; Knight 2004, pp. 20–21).

In this case study, it could be argued that faculty participants in the A&AA International Initiatives Committee intuitively developed an approach to internationalization that focused on activities, outcomes, and processes both at home and abroad. What was lacking in the committee’s deliberations was a shared understanding of the rationales for internationalization. We contend that a systematic approach to internationalization must comprise concurrent assessment of all institutional rationales, activities, outcomes, and processes. Further, it should be noted that helpful reference materials for administrators and faculty engaged in advancing comprehensive internationalization processes at their institutions exist (de Wit 2002; Jones and Brown 2007; Knight 2004; Olson et al. 2006; Saiya and Hayward 2003).

To conclude, realizing that it is impossible to generalize from our single in-depth case study, we would nonetheless like to posit some of the valuable lessons we have learned as general recommendations to higher education administrators.

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 Fig. 3 Balancing the responsibility for internationalization

503 Centralized

Decentralized

Individual

Champions

Initiatives

Institutional

Strategies

Programs

First, passion for internationalization is not enough. If it is an institutional strategic priority, internationalization requires resources, support, and strategic coordination. Second, internationalization must be addressed systemically and systematically. There must be mutual understanding of institutional goals, rationales, and objectives of comprehensive internationalization. Third, internationalization must take on the form of an individualinstitutional partnership. The faculty alone does not have the capacity and responsibility to take on full implementation of an institution-wide priority area. University administrators cannot implement a comprehensive internationalization process without coordination with, support of, and participation by the faculty.

As depicted in Fig. 3, comprehensive internationalization requires a delicate balance between centralized and decentralized authority and capacity, as well as individual and institutional spheres of competency and activity.

Central administrators might become individual champions for internationalization, articulating their vision and goals for this priority area in formal institutional documents.

Similarly, centralized institutional strategic plans, goals, and priorities for an institutionwide internationalization process might exist. In contrast, international activity might take the form of decentralized individual faculty initiatives, or decentralized formal academic programs. Whatever their form, the structures for implementing initiatives must resolve these seemingly antithetical areas of authority if internationalization is to succeed as a university-wide strategic priority.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and input provided to the A&AA International Initiatives Committee by Chunsheng Zhang, Frances Bronet, and Doug Blandy, as well as by our committee members: Jamie Harper, Ron Lovinger, Kevin Yates, and Jenny Young.

References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542.

De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. doi:10.1177/1028315306286930.

Jones, E., & Brown, S. (2007). Contextualising international higher education. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 194–200). London: Routledge.

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalization in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260–273. doi:10.1177/1028315307303534.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 100–115. doi:10.1177/102831530152002.

123

504

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

Olson, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2006). A handbook for advancing comprehensive internationalization: What institutions can do and what students should learn. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Saiya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41.

123