IALU – Encuentro XI Findings and methodology March 4th, 2015
Board Member Interviews
Board Member Interviews • Why? • Methodology – One-to-one interviews via Skype or personal – 25-45 minutes – 4 main topics • • • •
Network activities within the region / within IALU Strengths and advantages of these activities / of IALU Weaknesses and threats of these activities / of IALU Ideas on thematic lines / network development lines
• 8/10 Board members interviewed
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 1. Network activities within the region / within IALU – Active at regional level • Mexico: meetings, “Free Program Circulation Agreement”, National Teacher Forum, joint program design, CONADEL • Europe: webpage, Identity Charter, brochures • Philippines: pool purchasing, knowledge exchange • Central and South America: “LS Summer Program in Leadership and Global Understanding” • USA: collaborative MA and PhD training
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 1. Network activities within the region / within IALU – Various global IALU initiatives • LS Identity and leadership: Rome Summer Seminar, Leadership Summer Program • Research: RIILSA, Minneapolis Symposium • Teaching: International Postgraduate Program in Financial Management • Mobility: US-Mexico Business Schools • Knowledge exchange: Cuernavaca meetings and teacher training • Communication: webpage • Encuentro
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 1. Network activities within the region / within IALU – Takeaways:
• • • •
More activity regionally than globally More structured at regional level IALU activities: autonomous, diverse, but often short-lived Increased global awareness and knowledge
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 2. Strengths / advantages of these activities / of IALU • Common history, values and identity • Strong regional groups -> Truly global network • Strong differentiators: pedagogy, outreach, education for the poor, “common brand” • Recognition from the Institute • Common knowledge, friendship • Strong interest and faith
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 3. Weaknesses / threats of these activities / of IALU • Effectiveness: lack of clear objectives, results or achievements • Strength: vulnerable to changes, individual schedules, personal motivation and regional interests • Priority: important to all, a priority for few • Coherence: find a clearer “objective / activity” alignment • Structure: lack of memory and permanence: transient • Funding: no clear rules to collect or access it • Communication: a lot is done, little is told
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 3. Weaknesses / threats of these activities / of IALU “IALU needs to exist. We need it”.
• SOLUTIONS: STRUCTURE – Permanent base: Technical Coordinator / Executive Secretary + assistant – Less change in the Board: renewed by half every 3 years – President elected on the basis of a Proposal – Regional directors + regional “champions” – Planned budget and access tools – Clearer membership cost rules: “Get what you pay for” --> “Stronger governance”
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 4. Ideas on thematic lines / network development lines • SOLUTIONS: THEMATIC LINES – – – – – – – –
Research Student and teacher mobility Social innovation / voluntary networks Teacher training Leadership + LS identity Alumni Online lecture catalogues Business school network
Board Member Interviews RESULTS 4. Ideas on thematic lines / network development lines • SOLUTIONS: NETWORK DEVELOPMENT – – – – – –
Communication strategy Common branding Joint global diplomacy and lobby Strong differentiators Quality accreditation Online platforms
Participant Surveys
Participant Surveys • Why? • Methodology – On-line survey – One answer per participant – 5 questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Involvement in activities with IALU-affiliated institutions? IALU = strong or weak network? IALU’s strengths and advantages? IALU’s weaknesses and threats? How to control them? Suggested thematic / technical lines of work.
• 28 answers (37% of participants)
Participant Surveys RESULTS 1. Involvement in activities with IALU institutions? – Yes: 81,5% No: 18,5% Meetings / Encuentro – Activities (can be several per answer): Support
12%
2%
25%
Joint training
Mobility 19%
Summer schools / Leadership 21%
Research 21%
Participant Surveys RESULTS 2. IALU: rather strong or rather weak network?
22%
Rather strong Rather weak 78%
Participant Surveys RESULTS 3. IALU’s strengths and advantages • • • • • • • •
A huge potential and a lot of interest in IALU LS differentiators: spirit, values, heritage, pedagogy Global reach Experience Formal status and legal personality Frequent meetings -> Awareness and knowledge Rome sessions Research agenda
Participant Surveys RESULTS 4. IALU’s weaknesses and threats? How to control them? • • • • • • • •
Structure: lack of full-time staff, and clear leadership More coherent governance and shared political will Global vision and global advocacy Stronger financial commitment of members Lack of follow-up on meetings and activities Knowledge of regional differences and contexts Collaboration between IALU and the Institute and the Mission “Common purpose”, “Substantive work”
Participant Surveys RESULTS Some of your words… “ I consider IALU to have a strong potential thanks to our common spirit and philosophy, but weak in its structure, which should allow a closer and more concrete collaboration”.
“A full-time paid position of President and Administrative Assistant is required to move IALU to the next level of success”. “Perhaps the website is not well developed, perhaps there is not good use of interactive technology, perhaps there is not an investment of human and other resources necessary to bolster up the network.”
Participant Surveys RESULTS 5. Suggested thematic / technical lines of work • • • • • • •
Research Mobility (students and professors) Social innovation, volunteering, community work Teacher networks, on-line lecture catalogues Professional development Environment, human rights Knowledge management and exchange
Conclusions IALU: – has active regional hubs and important global activities, – members are diverse, but know each other increasingly well, – members believe in it, and expect a lot from it, – is still rather weak, but has a considerable global potential, – generates many activities, but often short-lived, – does a lot, but doesn’t capitalize or tell much about it, – needs a permanent structure and clearer rules, – needs clear thematic and development lines.
Our challenge
Our Challenge
How can we make IALU stronger?
Our Challenge How can we make IALU stronger? • We connect it to its XXIst century identity and to current internationalization trends
• We articulate it with the Lasallian Education Mission • We improve our understanding on how to build and manage networks
• We prioritize IALU’s thematic lines • We propose the bases of a permanent structure
• We discuss network development issues We all do it, and we do it together
Methodology of Encuentro XI
Pegar infografĂa martes
Methodology of Encuentro XI NETWORK CREATION EXERCISES 1. The steps of the collaborative process 2. Themes and typologies of networks 1. Creating a holonic network 2. Basics for the creation of a network
Methodology of Encuentro XI THEMATIC LINES SUGGESTED (based on interviews, survey and plenaries) 1.
Internationalization • •
2.
Common research Agenda •
• •
3.
Teacher training, research on pedagogy Student life management
Social responsibility •
5.
IALU research agenda Food, nutrition and health Sustainability and the environment Education and learning innovations Research on LS mission and differentiators Funding (sources and tools to mobilize it)
Pedagogy / Education • •
4.
Student and teacher academic mobility Joint programs, Double degrees, Academic Summer Schools
Social work, voluntary networks, community work, outreach
One LS Mission and Identity • •
Coordination between IALU and the Lasallian Education Mission Rome leadership training, student leadership, alumni networks
Methodology of Encuentro XI NETWORK DEVELOPMENT LINES SUGGESTED (based on interviews, survey and plenaries)
1. Communication strategy •
Institutional, internal, external, website
2. Common Branding •
One global brand, positioning LS differentiators
3. Joint global advocacy and lobby • •
One global voice A reference on key subjects (poverty, social innovation, education, food, environment, etc)
4. Knowledge exchange • • •
Program circulation Good practice platform MOUs and agreements
Thank you March 4th, 2015