J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Internationalizing Your University From Talk to Action And From Action to Results LACHEC
November 2016, Bogota Colombia
Prof. John K. Hudzik, Michigan State University President of MUCIA and NAFSA Senior Scholar for Internationalization; Chair of the UCSC CHEI Scientific Committee, Milan; Former MSU Vice President and Dean of International Programs And President of AIEA and of NAFSA. Copyrighted by Prof. J. K. Hudzik
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
I bring you an opportunity wrapped in a challenge. The 21st Century internationalization of higher education institutions. An imperative for every institution no matter what kind of institution you are!
2
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Topics 1. Contemporary meanings of comprehensive internationalization for diverse institutions. 2. Outcomes and “who wants what� from doing it. 3. Why is CI an imperative for EVERY kind of higher education institution. 4. How to internationalize: Key action steps and leadership
3
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Strategic and Comprehensive Internationalization (CI) (The “Platinum� Standard) Commitment and action to infuse and integrate international, global and comparative content and perspective throughout the teaching, research and service missions of higher education. Infuse into existing missions, not adding a fourth mission. Benefits in core learning and scholarship outcomes. 4
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Different Institutional Paths for CI Institutions differ widely—so will their internationalization
Differences shaped by:
Missions, values and priorities. Starting points and what is possible. Ways of operation. There is no “best” model or way to internationalize.
The best model for any institution is the one that fits its missions and circumstances. 5
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
However, Commitment to Common Aspirations Even if Following Different Paths Mainstream to Widen Access and Equity: Faculty, students, and leadership. Integrate CI into core and priority institutional missions. Expand who supports and contributes: Beyond the international office to academic and support units.
6
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
For Every Institution, Not Just The Elites! Globalization is no less real for institutions that are new, small, not well funded, or home to mainly first generation or lower income college students? All institutions, students and communities are affected by globalization and need to respond. Otherwise, only the elites and the elite institutions get to connect (limiting access and benefits to societies).
Creativity in internationalizing is required of smaller, less-well funded, and less-well-known institutions.
Don’t emulate the “big guys;� rather, innovate 7
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
For the LONG RUN, Not the Short Run Strategic and comprehensive internationalization is a journey without end. A long run commitment to continuously adjust institutional connections to a constantly changing global environment. It is a destination never reached!!
8
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Manageable Steps Along the Journey Not everything can be accomplished at once. Set priorities.
Build on strength and nurture pockets of good will on campus and with external connections. Design manageable projects. An on-going commitment to action. It is like climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. • “Pole-Pole” (Swahili) • Slowly, steadily, upward 9
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Diverse Institutions currently engaged in initiatives to internationalize the undergraduate curriculum? Source: ACE USA TYPE
PERCENT
Doctoral/Research Masters Baccaleurate
90 77 67
2-Yr Community Colleges
40
Other Examples 11 institutional case stories from every continent in the book Comprehensive Internationalization, one
from Brazil
10
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Among various aspects of internationalization, which receive the most attention and resources? Source: ACE USA ITEM
PhD
MA
BA
CC
Expanding international student recruitment and study abroad.
59
63
55
32
Internationalizing curriculum at home. Faculty research opportunities abroad.
62 64
55 32
70 54
61 36
Strategic partnerships with institutions, government, companies abroad
78
61
56
46
11
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Document Internationalization’s Outcomes and Impacts
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Accountability Documenting outcomes is essential to make the case for internationalizing. Otherwise don’t waste time and money trying to do it. Much competition for scarce resources
13
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Why is Evidence of Outcomes from Internationalization Important? Internationalization needs to visibly contribute to core H. E. missions and values, or be marginalized. Objective evidence of impact is necessary to make the case for it, particularly because it: begins to cost more and impact more people, and It will change the institution.
14
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Who Wants What: Lenses Filter and Prioritize Outcome and Accountability Criteria Institutional Leadership
Funding & Regulatory Bodies
Students (& Parents)
Whose Questions and Assessment Criteria?
External Constituents
Faculty Public and Policy Frameworks 15
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
In Sum, Different Constituents Will View the “End Game� Through Different Lenses Institutions and Their Leaders: Reputation building; rankings; revenue potential; enhance institutional capacities; service to constituents, advancing core values. Students: Prepare me for a global environment; jobs and careers; learning that is both relevant and interesting; connections for life.
Faculty: Opportunities for research, publication, improve teaching/learning; personal reputation and standing. Communities: Solving problems, creating opportunities in a global market; workforce ready graduates. 16
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Defining Success and Benefits Sample Input Measures
Sample Output Measures
Sample Outcome Measures
Number & diversity of study abroad options, locations, subject matter, and support.
Number & diversity of students studying abroad; length of study; curricular integration; safety; cost control; etc.
Impacts on knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, life skills, careers, etc.
Institutional research expenditures per faculty member. Or, external research dollars, etc.
Publications; patents; incidence of citation; grants and contracts from external sources.
Enhanced reputation and awards; commercial applications income; economic development of localities; community problem solving.
Dollars, people and other resources applied to problem solving engagement.
Numbers of projects/locations, numbers of people involved.
Impact on people’s well being: economic, health, income, nutrition, safety/security, access
Note: These are examples and no assumptions are made as to whether evidence exists to establish cause and effect connections when moving from left to right on the grid.
17
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Learning Outcomes Students achieving identifiable knowledge competency in global or comparative studies, or learning objectives achieved. Students achieving objective levels of language competency. Impact on students’, e.g., knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, skills, careers. Students' capacities to learn from and with others from different cultures. 18
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Research/Scholarship Outcomes Refereed publications in international journals, international invitational speaking engagements, review panels, and so forth.
Citations, awards, prizes, recognition, rankings of faculty and institutional international research activity. Strategic ventures abroad that strengthen institutional priorities and capabilities. Growth in revenue to the institution.
19
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Outreach/Engagement Outcomes Impact on people and communities: * Economic/Jobs/Income * Health * Education * Nutrition
* Safety/Security * Access Contribution to community development: at home and abroad. 20
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Ranking Systems: The Two Edge Sword Times Higher Education; Shanghai Jiaotong;QS Emphasize: Research, STEM disciplines, graduate programs Problems: Homogenization, Depreciates niche strengths, Narrow measurement criteria and subjectivity Aggregate fallacy The main payoff from success: Stature
But how wise is it to strive for the top 100, 200, or 400? 21
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Why Internationalize?
Why Bother?
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Big Challenges for Every Institution. Preparing students for a global environment. Connecting teaching/scholarship to global sources of talent and ideas. Recognizing that CI will change your institution.
23
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Driver 1: Globalization of Nearly Everything Local conditions are increasingly tied to global conditions (and vice versa) in: Economies, markets, employment Communicable disease The environment Conflict, peace, justice and human rights Sources of ideas and cutting-edge knowledge “Brain circulation� and global competition for talent 24
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Driver 2 Rapidly Expanding Global Higher Education Capacity and Demand Increases Competition and Opportunities for Collaboration in Higher Education, Strengthening Everyone (Globally and Regionally) 25
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Changing Global Higher Education Capacities and Patterns Educational capacity. “Seats� (places) (100m, 250m, 300m +?) The growth is mostly in Asia, Latin America, and Africa Mobility: 2.4m, 4.5m, 8.1m OR 12-16 m depending on what is counted. Models---diversifying (short, long, active-learning, multiple),
Multi-directional talent flows and collaborations. From brain drain to brain circulation and brain competition
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
But, Mobility is Only a Part of Global Learning Consider: If optimistically we might have 16 million mobile students globally, But, if we are headed toward 300 million tertiary students total, 16 million is only about 5% of 300 million, What do the 95% get?
The answer must be: Internationalization of the curriculum and classroom at home 27
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Global Middle Class Drives H.E. Growth and Commodification The middle class drives consumer spending behaviors, including family funds for higher education.
The definition of middle class is open to debate. Using World Bank “definitions,� middle class growth 2009 to ~2030 Globally, from 1.85b to 4.88b Asia Pacific from .53b to 3.3b LA&C from 181m to 313m Africa from 32m to 107m Middle class growth means more people ABLE to pay for H.E. 28
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Expanding Global Middle Class Consequences Massive increases in global demand for higher education. Governments cannot afford enough new places. Private pay increases in proportion: higher costs to families. If paying more, customers demand more, and “shop around”—including across borders. 29
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Driver 3
The High Cost of Cutting Edge Education and Research
Few Institutions Can Afford It on Their Own.
30
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Shifts in Global Research Capacity Connect to Widening and Changing Pathways of Cutting Edge Scholarship and Education
31
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Percent Proportion of Global R&D Expenditures (2015 country shift in categories) 2016 NSB Report YEAR
EU
N.A
S, S.E, Cent Asia
S.A., C.A., Carib
M.E.
AFR
AUD NZ
Other
CHN
JPN
1996
27
36
23
1.1
-
-
-
~13
2
15
2015
22
29
42
2.5
2.0
.8
1.5
~.2
17
10
First Tier: Second Tier: Third Tier: Fourth Tier:
US, China Japan, Germany S. Korea, France, Russia, UK, India Taiwan, Brazil, Italy, Canada, Australia, Spain
Note: Central Asian data includes the Russian Federation. “Asia� is a huge but nonhomogeneous assembly of nations
32
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Country R & D Expenditures— Top 10 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 USA
CHN
JPN
GER
S.K.
FRN
UK
RUS
IND
BRZ
China forecast to exceed Europe in 2019 China Forecast to exceed USA in 2023 33 Source: NSB 2016, Battelle, 2014
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Additional Countries (Source: NSB, 2016 Report) GERD $B PPP
GERD/% GDP
Brazil
27
1.2%
Italy
27
1.3%
Canada
25
1.6%
Australia
21
2.1%
Sweden
14
3.3%
Mexico
12
0.5%
Argentina
5.5
.6%
S Africa
5
.76%
Chile
1.5
.39%
Colombia
0.9
.17%
G20
na
2.0%
OECD
na
2.4% 34
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Publication Co-Authorship Two-thirds of all world S&E articles were co-authored in 2010. Co-authored articles grew 67% 1988 to 2010. Co-authored domestic (grew 50%) Co-authored international (grew 300%) Scientific knowledge production is shifting from Individual to group Single to multiple institutions National to international teams Citations drive reputation; international co-authored more frequently cited. Sources: NSB 2010, 2012, OECD Scoreboard 2009 35
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Rationales and Drivers for Internationalization
Core Mission Drivers Customer Drivers
Responsibility Drivers
Globalization Drivers 36
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Core Mission (Business) Rationale
With globalization, the business of H.E. is increasingly conducted across borders in the search for cutting edge ideas and talent. Higher education must function in a global marketplace.
37
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Client/Customer Rationale
Life and work in a global environment is increasingly an expectation for everyone. Our “customers� at home are global customers too.
38
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Social Responsibilities Rationale
The social responsibilities of higher education have expanding global dimensions. It is not local v. global but local and global.
Increasingly, local prosperity is tied to global coprosperities.
39
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
If the higher education institution is not globally connected, it will fail society And
The institution will be marginalized.
40
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
How to Internationalize: Leadership and Action Steps
.
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
There are few senior leaders of universities who don’t espouse the importance of internationalization.
Yet, many fail to exert effective leadership for action to bring internationalization from a concept to reality.
42
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Research suggests that there are eight key elements of strategic leadership and action needed to move from internationalization from idea to action. It begins with establishing an organizational culture to support internationalization.
43
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
1. Build an Institutional Culture of Support Macro/Strategic---Develop an institution-wide culture and vision to support internationalization
Engage a campus dialog to achieve an overarching vision and culture to support CI.
But concrete projects happening at the same time. 44
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Sample Agenda for a Strategic Campus Dialog About CI What is it? Why do it? How does it enhance existing missions? What outcomes do we desire?
What would be an energizing but realistic vision? Who has roles to play? Purposes of a dialog: Educate, build support and buy-in, gather attention. 45
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
2. Incorporate into the Institutional Mission and Vision. Is internationalization clearly articulated in the mission and vision statements of the institution, linking it to the core of institutional values and ethos?
46
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
3. Integrate into Strategic and Budget Planning. Is there integration into institutional strategic planning and annual budget planning? Is internationalization connected to core resource investment decisions? 47
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Institutional Strategic Priorities
Shape Program and Action Priorities
Institutional: • Academic Quality • Reputation and Rank • Financial Health • Diversified Revenue • International Reach • Access • Service to Community • Research Portfolio
Funding /Resource Allocation
Internationalization (Example)
Benefit All Priorities
• In/Out Mobility • On-Campus Curriculum • Research Opportunities • Development Abroad • Revenue Generation • Global Reputation • Global Partnerships
Resources for CI
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
4. Review Institutional Policies and Procedures. Does the periodic review of institutional policies, rules and bureaucratic procedures include identify barriers to international activity and remove them?
49
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
5. Incorporate into Institutional Moments of Change. Is internationalization a part of discussions during defining moments and critical events in an institution’s life? Examples: Change in senior leadership, (e.g., VC, Rectors, Deans, Department heads) Periodic curricular reviews Institutional Strategic Planning Exercises.
50
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
6. Expand the Leadership Team for Internationalization Internationalization is not possible if it is the responsibility of the international office alone. Success requires multiple points of leadership and influence. 51
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Many Have Roles to Play, Each in their Own Way
Leaders are important, but leaders without followers do not have much to lead! Leaders must encourage and empower many others to do the work and projects of internationalization
52
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of International Activity/Projects Mobility (in and out)—students, faculty, staff. Programs in key languages for your students. Institutional partnerships abroad. Internationalizing on-campus curricula--undergraduate, graduate, professions.
Cross-border research collaborations Community and clientele problem solving.
53
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Effective Leadership Orients, inspires, motivates, supports, and empowers others to take action and get the job done well. Effective leadership finds was to reward successful people
54
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things. Peter Drucker
55
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Leadership is Partly Leader Attitude
If you think you can do a thing, or
you think you can't do a thing, --you are right. Henry Ford
56
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory and when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Nelson Mandela 57
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Key Players
International office
President and Provost
Academic deans and chairs Campus support and service units
Individual Faculty 58
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Layered Leadership: From the Top, the Bottom, the Middle and throughout From the top: VCs, Rectors, Presidents, Provosts lead institutional goals and priorities.
From the Middle: Academic deans sit astride the levers of action for the academic enterprise. Without academic departments and their faculty, little happens that is intellectually valuable. Institutional service and support units have crucial roles to play. The international office provides important coordination and direction. 59
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
7. Recruit for internationalization Does the institution communicate its commitment to international engagement: In its institutional branding and messaging?
To prospective students in its promotional materials? When advertising faculty vacancies and an interest in hiring faculty who have demonstrated expertise, professional networks, and experience across borders?
60
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
8. Challenge the Status Quo!! Examine policies and procedures that were designed for a different age and primarily for domestic stakeholders, Assess curricula that may now be deemed too parochial in terms of how it prepares students for global citizenship, and
New teaching systems more congruent with student learning preferences and modern experience. Technology and internationalization. Students and the Web. 61
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
http://nafsa.org/Find_Resources/Internationalizing_Hig her_Education/Comprehensive_Internationalization/
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Third in a series of NAFSA publications on Comprehensive Internationalization DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION HUDZIK AND PYNES
http://www.nafsa.org/wc m/Product?prodid=407
COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONALIZATION J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
John K. Hudzik, Routledge Publishers, US and UK, 2015 Includes 13 Institutional Case Stories from Every Continent. Several Chapters on Tactics and Strategy, Leadership, Action Steps, How to Assess, Getting Resources, and more
Go to Website: Routledge.com Search for Hudzik
Use code FLR40 for a 20% discount 64
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Muchas Gracias Y
Gracias Por Escuchar
65
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
SOME COMPARATIVE DATA
66
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Government Expenditures per Tertiary Student as a % of GDP per Capita (Source: World Bank) 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ARG
AUD
BRZ
CHIL
COLO
ECUD
INDIA
NZ
UK
US 67
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Total Public Expenditures on Tertiary Education as a % of GDP 6 5 4 3
2 1 0
AUD
CAN AUD
CHIL CAN
MEX CHIL
MEX
UK UK
US
US OECD
OECD
BRAZIL
BRAZIL
68
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
2000 to 2012 Changes in Expenditures for Tertiary Education as a % of GDP (Public and Private) Source, OECD 2015 3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 AUD
CAN
CHL
MEX
UK (PU)
US
OECD
BRZ (PU)
COLU
69
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Tertiary Educational Attainment % Among 25-34
Year Olds—2000 to 2014 Source: OECD 2015 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AUD
CAN
MEX
UK
US
OECD
BRZ
CHN (10)
COLU
C. R.
S. AFR
70
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Tertiary Expenditure per Student (by Institutions) (2000 and 2012 indexed to 2005 = 100) Source OECD 2015 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 AUD(08)
MEX
UK
US
OECD
BRZ
General Trends 1. Spending per student increased 2000-2012 in most countries reporting. 2. On average OECD spending increased 4% (2000-2005) and 11% 2005-2012 3. Since the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008 expenditures per tertiary student decreased in 1/3 of countries, mainly because enrollment increased faster than expenditures
71
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
A Diversifying Mobility Market: Top 20 Destination Countries for Incoming Students Source: UNESCO 2014
~80,000 to 500,000
~50,000 to 70,000
United States (1m) United Kingdom France Australia Germany Russia Japan Canada China Italy
South Africa Malaysia South Korea Austria Netherlands Spain United Arab Emirates Singapore Egypt Saudi Arabia
A Missing Region/Destination?
72
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Student Mobility by Country of Destination Most to Less “Popular” Destinations Country by Country ORIGIN
DESTINATION
AUD
US, NZ, UK (= 70%)
CAN
US, UK, AUD (= 75.4%)
CHIL
US, SPN, FRN, UK, AUD, GRM, CAN (= 66%)
MEX
US, SPN, FRN, GRM, UK, CAN (= 82.3%)
UK
US, IRE, FRN AUD, GRM, CAN (= 60%)
US
UK, CAN, GRM, FRN, AUD, ITL, JPN, ISRE (= 51%)
OECD
US, UK GRM, AUSTRIA, FRN, AUD (= 56%)
ARG
US, SPN, FRN, GRM, ITL (= 55.6%)
BRZ
US, PORT, FRN, GRM, UK (= 70.4%)
CHIN
US, JPN, AUD, FRN, UK (= 66.5%)
COLO
US, SPN, FRN, GRM, AUD, CHIL (= 70.2%)
73
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Some Conclusions about Mobility Trade Patterns Inbound and Outbound---not along reciprocal country-to-country trade routes.
Weighting toward countries speaking the mother tongue, or English Exchanges are made difficult by “trade� imbalances
74
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
U.S. INBOUND International students in the US are nearing 1,000,000. (10% increase last year) Driven by rising institutional desires for more inbound 4-5% of total USHE seats occupied by international students (room to grow--excess capacity). Latin American inbound fastest growing last year (19% increase). Top sending countries to the US: Canada 5th; Brazil 6th; Mexico 10th. US largest trading partners: China 1st; Canada 2nd; Mexico 3.rd 75
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Commodification Upsets Long-Held Understandings About H.E. The 20th century higher education “social compact:� Government funding of higher education insulates it from having to offer services shaped by political and corporate influence. Seeking knowledge for its own sake, not for its commercial value and freedom to explore and express viewpoints and engage liberal learning are essential. Naidoo and Jamieson, 2005, Marginson and Considine, 2000 and Newomy, Gibbons, and Scott, 2001) 76
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Building Cross Border Partnerships and Collaborations
77
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Do We Have the Right Partner(s)? Are institutional cultures and values Compatible enough to forge a partnership, Flexible enough on both sides to adapt where needed, Open to learning from the outside? Will there be stability in commitments at institutions?
78
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Mutuality? Shared vision of desired outcomes Mutual contribution Documentable benefits for both institutions Symmetric (similar benefits e.g., straight exchanges, project grant and research collaborations leading to shared funding/revenue). Asymmetric (the benefits are defined and operationalized differently for members). 79
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Asymmetric Benefits “Equilibrating” the value of different benefits. Undergraduate study abroad support in one direction, banking “credits” for graduate degrees in the other. Research and publication opportunities for faculty from institution “X” and community capacity building and problem solving at institution and community “Y.”
Developing markets for community “X” products and access to valued products by community “Y”
80
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Is H.E. A Public Good or a Private Benefit? In reality it is both, but there are financial consequences of emphasizing one view over the other—who pays the bill? Those believing education is mainly a public good also believe that access to education should be free to individuals—government pays. Those who see it as mainly a private benefit think that individuals should pay the cost; Over the last several decades “private benefit” gained strength because of declining appropriations, massification, neo-liberal “justification.” (An “ideology” of convenience— the taxation issue. )
81
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Global Funding and Supply/Demand Trends Proportion of public funding for tertiary education declined from 69% to 64% among OECD countries 2000 to 2012 Private public funding increased in 73% of OECD countries. In the US, over 50% of costs of comprehensive institutions are met by tuition. In many, gov’t appropriations account for only 15-25% of total revenues. Massification of participation (1992 to 2012). Global increases: population=193%; GDP=363%; tertiary enrollments=612% Global student-age cohort in tertiary from 14% to 32% Number of countries having GTER of 50%+ from 5 to 54 Once growth reaches 50%+ becomes self fueling?
82
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Current Demand/Supply Coping Mechanisms Are Imperfect Replace government appropriations by increasing tuition. Restrict demand by raising tuition—a viable “business” model in a sellers market. Restrict access through higher entry qualifications. Take only the best of the best (best correlates with privileged background). Expand types/numbers of suppliers in capacity-short countries. But these almost always require financial incentives. Imperfections: restricting access through higher qualifications or price doesn’t dampen demand or address unequal access. 83
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Commodifying Internationalization. Complex Motivations for Internationalization Social/Cultural: National cultural diversity. Intercultural understanding. Citizenship development. Social and community development Political: Foreign policy. National security. Technical assistance. Peace and mutual understanding. National identity. Regional identity Economic: Economic growth and competitiveness. Labour market. Financial incentives Academic: International dimension to research and teaching. Extension of academic horizon. Institution building. Profile and status. Enhancement of quality. International academic standards Knight, 2012
84
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Who Wants What from Internationalization Constituent Lenses Institutions: Reputation building; rankings; revenue potential; enhance institutional capacities; service to constituents, advancing core values, etc.
Students: Prepare me for a global environment; jobs and careers; learning that is both relevant and interesting; connections for life. Faculty: Opportunities for funding, research, publication, improve teaching/learning; personal reputation and standing. Communities and Governments: Solve problems, create global market opportunity and workforce ready graduates. Hudzik 2015 85
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Internationalization as a Business Decision The entrepreneurial university moves internationalization toward a more corporate model and away from more traditional rationales that emphasize cross-cultural understanding and international knowledge, and international understanding. The potential weakening of academic governance structures in favor of corporate executives; the entrepreneurial university reshapes values for international engagements.
86
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
A Sample of “Business” Decision Criteria for Internationalization International activity must have a business plan that at least covers cost and preferably cost+.
Mobility should be self-financing. Recruiting international students and scholars driven by entrepreneurial motivations. Pursue “development” grants having short-term diplomacy goals rather than long-term sustainable development. International activity must have valued outcomes for the institution—financial outcomes play no small role.
87
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Soft Side of “Forcing� Change. Command and control models do not fit well with higher education institutions because of the balancing of academic governance and administrative leadership. The power of persuasion and influence.
88
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Crucial Actions
89
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of Bold Vision and Goals Every student is given significant exposure to international, comparative and global (IGC) content as part of their degree programs. All students have the opportunity to engage learning through educational opportunities abroad.
All faculty are encouraged to enhance (ICG) content in their teaching and scholarship.
90
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Build Support Through Integration Many will see CI as in competition for scarce resources.
There aren’t enough new funds available to virtually any institution to fully or even substantially undertake an ambitious CI effort. The main alternative is through reallocations and “dual purposing” existing resources
91
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Examples of an Integration Strategy Adding new courses does not have to be the principal means of internationalizing the curriculum. One can add global, comparative, and international content to existing courses and modernize pedagogy. Build on existing institutional research priorities and thrusts. Build on existing faculty research interests.
92
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Extend the Leadership Team for CI Comprehensive internationalization is not possible if the responsibility of the international office alone. Success requires multiple points of leadership and building effective partnerships across the campus. Leadership from the top, the bottom, and the middle
Extending the leadership team is a key responsibility of top leadership, the SIO, and/or other CI leaders.
93
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Key Players
International office
President and Provost
Academic deans and chairs Campus support and service units
Individual Faculty 94
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Challenge the Status Quo Examine policies and procedures that were designed for a different age and primarily for domestic stakeholders, Assess curricula that may now be deemed too parochial in terms of how it prepares students for global citizenship, and
Design new delivery systems more congruent with student learning preferences and new technology. 95
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
9. Strategic inclusion (Making an Internationalization Culture of Support Real) Consistent and frequent leadership and messaging
Inclusion in institutional strategic planning. Integrate into annual budget planning.
Inclusion during institutional moments of key change. Part of reviews of rules, procedures, structures.
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
To Identify and Build Institutional Collaborations/Partnerships Across Borders Minimize institutional rank as a criteria in developing a list of potential partners Emphasize Likelihood of achieving valued outcomes/results. Fit at the program level. Prospects for mutual gain/benefit. Real and stable commitments beyond what is on paper (e.g., the MOU). 97
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Perversions of Ranking Schemes The ranking schemes: Devalue undergraduate education, emphasize research and graduate programs by implication. Aggregate fallacy Bad or simplistic methodology
Forces homogeneity, decreases institutional diversity. Sub-optimal measures: E.g., for internationalization—e.g., head counts 98
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Likely Factors in Mobility Expansion Rising global demand for education. Country supply/demand imbalance. Middle class growth. Declining transportation and communication cost. Internationalization of labor markets.
Cross-border ties. Diversification of mobility models.
99
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
BOTTOM LINE
Increased mobility indicates increased aspirations and opportunity to internationalize. By themselves they don’t measure the real degree of internationalization at our institutions. This is the responsibility of the H.E. institution to engage across its missions. 100
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
THE END! THANK YOU!!
101
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
How do the H.E. Ranking Schemes Measure Institutional Internationalization? International students as a percentage of total students (QS goal = 20% or more). Percentage of staff who are “international.� International diversity (Number of countries represented in staff and students.
Number/percentage of students studying abroad International joint publications International student supports (food, religion, counseling, social engagement) 102
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Factors Generally Driving Outbound Mobility Access to degree programs meeting int’l standards. Overall reputation of H.E. in teaching and research.
Large increases in domestic institution fees. Degree of cultural and other ties within the region. Middle class growth and willingness to privately fund mobility. Scholarship support 103
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
HOLD
104
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Problems with Head Counts It is a bad assumption that “numbers� lead to an integrated learning community or to global skills. The real issues (examples) Degree of intermixing in living and learning environments; Curricular integration of education abroad; Internationalizing the on-campus curriculum (curriculum and extra-curricular). Etc. 105
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Differential Tuition Fees for Domestic and International Students—OECD Sample of 39 Countries Tuition and Fees
Countries
Different tuition fees for international students than for domestic
19
Same tuition fees for domestic and international students
13
No tuition fees for either domestic or international
5
106
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Context and Drivers for Assessing Internationalization Comprehensive Internationalization Objectives Institutional Motivations & Outcomes Community, Social and Policy Outcomes
Student and Customer Impacts and Expectations
107
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Existing Motivations and Drivers for Internationalization
Customer Drivers
Core Mission Drivers Responsibility Drivers Globalization Drivers (Evolving) 108
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
System Drivers of Impact/Outcome Assessment (the last decade) Cost/benefit and value-for-money assessment Transparency Accreditation Quality assurance standards Domestic and global ranking schemes Impacts on clients and partners at home and abroad Responsiveness to policy and regulation
109
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Context Provided by Comprehensive Approaches to Internationalization Commitment and action to integrate international, global and comparative content and perspective throughout the teaching, research and service missions of higher education. Achieving benefits in core learning and research outcomes. Assessment: What is the evidence of outcomes related to the first two bullets? (the intellectual and core value drivers of assessment) 110
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Institutional Lens Institutional reputation in a global frame. Revenue and markets.
Mission results. Student learning outcomes. Research/Scholarship outcomes. Service/Engagement outcomes. Local and global responsibilities and interdependencies. Other.
111
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The “National” Policy Lens Workforce development for a global market. Jobs and economic competitiveness.
Access to cutting edge knowledge and research capacity. An informed citizenry able to “function” cross culturally.
A value base for global interactions. National defense. National “position.” 112
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
H.E. Administrator/Leader Lens Presidents, Vice-Chancellors, Provosts, Deans
Institutional reputation and stature. Niche position, branding and identity. Revenue and funding. Academic quality and intellectual outcomes as viewed by institutional constituents and peers. Overall costs/benefits of international engagement.
113
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Faculty Lens Scholarship. Intellectual legitimacy and quality.
Career impacts and opportunities. Value for teaching, research and service roles. How does internationalization reshape and reprioritize what faculty are expected to do?
114
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Consumer Lens (e.g., Students, Parents, Employers, Communities) Learning (knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes).
Jobs. Careers. -------Solving community problems. Jobs, economic development and opportunity. 115
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Multiple Clientele “Lenses� that Shape Assessment Interests Each lens highlights certain issues based on a viewer’s position, interests and biases. Although individual lenses differentially prioritize research interests, comprehensive internationalization encourages a wide and systemic research agenda which over time would build a broad-based body of knowledge across the all relevant assessment criteria and clientele. Nonetheless: what is considered important to know is shaped through the eye of the viewer. 116
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
More Lenses and Filters Teaching and Learning Lens. Those focused on pedagogy and curricular content. Particularly learning outcomes and what leads to them. Research and Scholarship Lens. Impacts on institutional research capacity, priorities, quality and reputation; access to funding; connections to global pathways of innovation and talent. The Service Lens: Impact the various communities the institutions serves? 117
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
What Can be Measured Under Various Systems? Inputs: Resources available to internationalization Outputs: Type and amount of work or activity Outcomes: The end products There is good reason to measure/track all three
118
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
What Can be Measured continued Sample Input Measures
Sample Output Measures
Sample Outcome Measures
Number & diversity of study abroad options, locations, subject matter, and support.
Number & diversity of students studying abroad; length of study; curricular integration; safety; cost control; etc.
Impacts on knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, life skills, careers, etc.
Institutional research expenditures per faculty member. Or, external research dollars, etc.
Publications; patents; incidence of citation; grants and contracts from external sources.
Enhanced reputation/awards; commercial applications income; economic development of locations/regions; community problem solving, etc..
Dollars, people and other resources applied to problem solving engagement.
Numbers of projects/locations, numbers of people involved.
Impact on people’s well being and condition: economic, health, income, nutrition, safety/security, access, etc.
Note: These are examples and no assumptions are made as to whether evidence exists to establish cause and effect connections when moving from left to right on the grid.
119
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Allies Core or key stakeholders who already share your commitment, embrace the concept, and are passionate and engaged about internationalization.
Potential Allies Those not yet engaged, but inclined to be so, if encouraged.
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
What is your objective?
?
Who do you need as allies and partners?
What role can they play?
What will motivate them to be involved?
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Cautions about Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes Some measures can be seen as inputs, outputs or outcomes (e.g., growth in resources/revenue).
Outcomes may be of ultimate interest, but inputs and outputs can be important too as indicators of capacity or means to achieve outcomes There are cause and effect assumptions for which supporting evidence may not exist There are tradeoffs and conflicts – change in a given input or output may advance some goals and impede others (e.g., higher costs---quality v. access). 122
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Example: “Globalizing” Liberal Learning Goals (Source 1 of 5 Michigan State University Liberal Learning and Global Competency Goals)
Analytical Thinking: Uses ways of knowing from mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences and humanities and arts to access information and critically analyzes complex material in order to evaluate evidence, construct reasoned arguments, and communicate inferences and conclusions.
Outcomes: Acquires, analyzes, and evaluates information from multiple sources; synthesizes and applied information within and across disciplines; identifies and applies, as appropriate, quantitative methods for defining and responding to problems; identifies the credibility, use and misuse of scientific, humanistic and artistic methods. Global Competency: Understands the complexity and interconnectedness of global processes—such as environment, trade, and human health—and is able to critical analyze them, as well as compare and contrast them across different cultures and contexts; synthesizes knowledge and meaning from multiple sources to enhance decision making in diverse contexts; uses technology, human and natural capital, information resources, and diverse ways of knowing to solve problems.
123
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Assessing Who Contributes and How Who is responsible for internationalization--all majors and academic units, or only a few specialist individuals and departments? Under a “mainstream� model all academic and support units would be assessed for contributions to institutional internationalization objectives. the shift is from measuring what "they" contribute to what "we" contribute. This would be a major paradigm shift on most campuses. 124
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Diversity in Purpose and Design of Assessment There is tremendous diversity in the priority given instructional, research and outreach service missions across institutions. As a result, assessment foci and criteria appropriately vary across institutions. The approach to assessment should match the range of institutional missions and intended outcomes. 125
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The best approach and model for assessing internationalization is the one that best fits the institution and its missions and goals.
126
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Assessment as Applied Research Assessment needs to be understood as applied research because there is an application in mind from the findings. Applications may be retrospective (how did we do?) Applications may be prospective (what are areas for improvement). Ultimately, assessment needs to focus on impacts, achievements and outcomes, rather than inputs and activities and programs. 127
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The “Do and Don’t Do” of Accountability Assessment Focus on outcomes, but don’t ignore measuring inputs and outputs
Use assessment to guide improvement and not just retrospective evaluation Don’t discourage experimentation, diversity, innovation Preserve institutional identity and individuality in the face of national/global “standards” Encourage development and assessment of niche strengths
Minimize the bureaucracy of measurement and reporting requirements
128
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Goal and Milestones: Knowing the End Game and Assessing Progress Toward it Goals: Define where we want to “end up,� where we are headed, priorities and what we value. Milestones: Provide time-anchored expectations and criteria measuring progress.
129
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Goals, Accountability and Measurement Measuring goal achievement is a basis for accountability and assessment
How we measure goals gives them meaning: There are always measurement choices Different measures may produce different results Examples: ‌‌ How we choose to measure goals is how we choose to be accountable The challenge of multiple and conflicting goals from alternative perspectives. 130
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Common Challenges and Short Comings: Reality Intervenes Limited sample size and use of case studies questions representativeness and generalizability; Weak theoretical underpinnings making it difficult to substantiate cause and effect; Lack of rigorous statistical standards; Reliance on self-reported data and assessments; Lack of objectivity in designing the research and reporting findings. Cost/benefit analysis often avoids outcome
measurement. 131
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Why Does Your Institution Engage Internationally? Are there shared views on: Goals and priorities with respect to international activity? Why these goals and priorities are important and valued? Who the clientele are of your international engagement, and what are the intended outcomes for them? 132
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Are there shared views on? Which metrics will be used to measure achievement (operationalization of goals)
Milestones desired Benchmarking, and, if so, against whom Accountability for progress and achievement How much time and money will be spent measuring; who will do it; how will results be used
133
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Issues of Research Design and Methodology: From Evidence to Proof� of Impact/Outcomes EXAMPLE: STUDY ABROAD
R Y
b
Yb
X STUDY ABROAD
Ya1
Ya2
X NONE
Ya1
Ya2
R=
Randomly assign students to study abroad
Y=
Attitudes, Knowledge, careers
X=
Could be varied by length, location, model, whether language included
N=
Overall sample size and cell sizes
134
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Minimum to Strive For Accurately describe the international activity or “X” Accurately define (operationalize)”Y” Intended Actual Identify theoretical/conceptual reason for X
Y
Objective criteria and measurement Measure “Y” before and after 135
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
The Minimum to Strive For 1. Accurately describe the international activity (X)
3. Theory Explaining Why
2. Carefully define and measure intended outcomes (Y)
4. Maximize Objective Measures Minimize Subjective/Judgmental Measures
5. If possible measure change in Yb‌Ya
136
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Assessment as Applied Research Assessment needs to be understood as applied research because there is an application in mind from the findings. Applications may be retrospective (how did we do?) Applications may be prospective (what are areas for improvement). Ultimately, assessment needs to focus on impacts, achievements and outcomes, rather than inputs and activities and programs. 137
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Steps in Designing the Institutional Context for Assessing International Engagement 1. Identify institutional missions intended to be affected by internationalization. 2. Determine the goals or outcomes desired for each mission area. (Defining what will constitute success). • Who will results be for? 3. Operationalize goals and desired outcomes to empirically gauge results by identifying: • Indicators and measures • data sources and collection methods
138
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Steps in Designing the Institutional Context for Assessing International Engagement 4. Select the best set of measures, balancing issues of: • convergent and divergent validity, • parsimony of effort and • adequacy in measuring what is 5. Plan data collection (collect and analyze). 6. Determine the need and expectations for milestone and benchmarking monitoring. 7. Don’t ignore uncovering unintended consequences: good and bad. 139
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Resolving Multiple and Conflicting Values and Motivations of Internationalization It would be difficult to argue that financial criteria don’t have an element of fiscal and cost/benefit accountability and responsibility. However, the issue easily becomes finding a balance with other motivations and rationales for internationalization activity. Ones that might lead to pursuing some projects even though not contributing to the institutional financial bottom line. 140
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Steps in Designing the Institutional Context for Assessing International Engagement 4. Select the best set of measures, balancing issues of: • convergent and divergent validity, • parsimony of effort and • adequacy in measuring what is 5. Plan data collection (collect and analyze). 6. Determine the need and expectations for milestone and benchmarking monitoring. 7. Don’t ignore uncovering unintended consequences: good and bad. 141
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Categorizing Generic Research Interests Descriptive: E. G. Who does what, where, and when. Comparative: Similarities, differences, categorization of who does what and how (typologies). Trends in…. “Statistical association, short of cause effect
Explanatory: What “causes” what to happen (X) Independent Variable
Policy: Results
(Y) Dependent Variables
X (inputs/outputs)
Y (outcomes/impact)
Assessment: Assessment (retrospective) Change/Improvement (prospective)
142
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Privates are demand absorbing
COUNTRY (Source: PROPHE)
% Enrollments in Privates
% Institutions Private
China
20%
41%
France
17%
4%
Italy
7%
21%
Japan
77%
81%
New Zealand
9%
86%
Korea
80%
m
Mexico
33%
62%
Brazil
75%
89%
Pakistan
24%
46%
Poland
34%
71%
Portugal
26%
67%
Spain
11%
30%
S. Africa
4%
84%
USA
26%
60%
Private spending globally, now 1/3 and growing 143
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Mobility Trends and Patterns
144
J. K. Hudzik Michigan State University
Global Mobility over Time—OECD Data 2015 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
1975
1980
1990
1995
2005
2010
2012
2025 est.
All Type est.
Some Questions: 1. Diversification of study abroad options has accelerated in the last two decades and numbers are NOT counted for many of these new forms. 2. Evidence from past recessions is that numbers may plateau for a period of time and then take off again. 3. What is the real number for mobility, counting everything? 145