 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
Institute of
International Education
809 United Nations Plaza
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
USA
Tel: +1 (212) 984 5367
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Globalization and Higher Education: Eight Common Perceptions From University Leaders |
|
|
|
|
|
By Van R. Wood
The term “globalization” represents the international system that is shaping most societies today. It is a process that is “super charging” the interaction and integration of cultures, politics, business and intellectual elements around world. Driven by technology, information and finance, a full spectrum of views exist, some praising, some disparaging, as to the value of globalization. However, most observers believe that the ability to harness the good from globalization and avoid the bad lies in the cultivation of knowledge (see - Robertson 1992; Ali 2000; Friedman 2000; Newman, Couturier and Scurry 2005).
Today, possessing knowledge and having the ability to use knowledge in a world-wide arena is critical to personal and societal advancement. Likewise, having a skilled and globally focused workforce is perhaps the most important ingredient to any organization’s competitiveness in a world where competitors can come from next door or around the world. Any entity that does not support an environment that attracts, sustains and retains creative, imaginative, and globally resourceful individuals will eventually fall behind. The role of higher education in such nurturing is most apparent as universities and colleges are considered by many to be the primary suppliers of such individuals (see Florida 2002, Friedman 2005).
What are institutions of higher education doing to create an environment that nurtures promising individuals and allows future knowledge workers to compete globally? How are such institutions responding to the needs of students, faculty and their communities such that each has the ability to prosper in the interconnected milieu of the 21st century? Do the leaders of such institutions profess a common body of thought, wisdom or insights with respect higher education and globalization? The following represents findings of a year-long investigation into these questions. Eight commonly shared perceptions of the “realities” of globalization and higher education were revealed from this effort. Each represents what leaders of U.S. universities, in general, are thinking in terms of the internationalization of their institutions and communities.
In the research, 110 U.S. institutions of higher education (drawn primarily from the Institute of International Education’s 2004 Open Doors Report) were benchmarked. “Benchmarking” entailed – 1) extensive perusal of institutional perspectives on internationalization or globalization as illuminated on official web pages; 2) reviewing relevant secondary documents/reports, scholarly articles and conference proceedings; and 3) interviewing presidents, vice-presidents, deans, directors and others who guide the international education at the universities examined (a complete list of references related to this study is available from the author upon request). The vast majority of participating institutions were research-focused universities with 77% percent classified as Doctoral Research Extensive and 15% as Doctoral Research Intensive. One hundred and one of the 110 were publicly funded.
Eight Common Perceptions
1. The internationalization of campus and community is both an opportunity and a challenge that must be dealt with today.
Study results indicated that university leaders understand and embrace this point and feel an urgency to deal with it. Those in charge of programs, curricula and initiatives are looking for solutions to the challenges of globalization. Key questions posed by those interviewed included:
• What kind of careers are emerging in today’s interconnected world, where are they emerging and how do we prepare our students and communities for them?
• How can our departments, schools and university as a whole achieve an enhanced international presence?
• How can institutions of higher education be positioned for success in today’s global environment and what role should local, regional, national and international partners play?
• What global trends, developments and related research topics are most important to our scholarly disciplines today, and how can we take advantage of such to create new knowledge in the future?
The realities of globalization (greater competition, relentless pressures to innovate, new worldwide markets and production options, growing concerns over cultural and environmental degradation) have resulted in a common perception that “knowledge societies,” those that constantly develop new ideas, technologies, methods, products and services are crucial for future prosperity. This has resulted in even greater demands on universities to develop deep rooted entrepreneurial cultures that are international in scope, such that the creation, transfer and use of knowledge is ongoing and evolving. Likewise, the growing competition among universities and other entities that now develop, distribute and market education are compelling academic leaders to seek unique ways to differentiate their programs from others’ programs.
To meet these challenges, institutions of higher education are seeking ways to further connect their faculty, students and outside communities in a strategic infrastructure where ideas flow, new initiatives blossom, flexibility abounds and global reputations expand. Knowledge development and the commercialization of that knowledge in the international context are seen as the primary work of 21st century universities.
When asked for his definition of a successful 21st century institution, Dr. John Heyl, Executive Director for International Programs at Old Dominion University responded:
“Every campus is different so it depends on what environment you are in, what your strengths are, to whom you are trying to cater, and where you want to go. For example, the international student population at ODU has doubled over the last six years, and we believe this has come about because of the goals we set for the university and the resulting international programs and initiatives that we have developed. If you provide a distinct and high quality product and back it up with meaningful service, the rest will take care of itself. Institutions begin to be successful when they realize that globalization is not going away and in response build a campus and community culture that embraces tolerance, interconnectivity and openness.”
2. Vision matters - an institution’s buildings and infrastructure are only part of success equation. Great universities need to let the world know they have a purpose and a vision concerning what they are and what they seek to become.
University leaders interviewed tended to express a common vision that institutions of higher education have two central responsibilities in society today, including 1) enlightening and preparing, not just their students, but their respective communities as a whole for the challenges and opportunities brought on by globalization, and 2) being the major supplier of the intellectual capital (knowledge workers) that communities need to survive and prosper in the era of globalization.
Indeed, it was a vision or philosophy transmitted from the highest levels of university leadership concerning the necessity and value of internationalization that guided and motivated most of the excellent programs and initiatives that were examined in this investigation. Without solid top level visionary underpinnings, most exercises in internationalization were treated like ‘step children,’ allowed at the table, but never given equal status with others, and thus, never really influential in terms of campus culture or community impact.
Former President Herman B. Wells of Indiana University - Bloomington set the tone for bringing the world to large public university, saying that “the campus of Indiana University is not just in Bloomington, or even the state of Indiana; it encompasses the four corners of the globe. And our campus culture from the top echelons of leadership to the bottom rungs of entering freshmen must reflect this reality.”
3. Effective university leaders do not demand an embrace of the international arena at their institutions. What they do is establish broad policies and priorities related to innovative initiatives aimed at developing a global culture throughout their campus and community, and then let the creative entrepreneurs take over.
The study revealed that the most fruitful internationally focused initiatives, while meshing with broad university values (i.e., top quality scholarship, excellence in teaching, high moral standards, a student oriented environment), were also aimed at establishing a campus and community-wide global orientation. Likewise, for almost all universities that embraced significant international programs there were clearly delineated “guiding principles” that defined where priorities would lie, how efforts related to such priorities would be supported and how success would be rewarded. Clearly stated policies and resulting priorities led to a myriad of noteworthy international initiatives among the universities examined. These initiatives include exceptional visiting scholar support, unique degree and non-degree certification options, distinctive overseas study agendas, exclusive international internships, innovative student scholarships, part-time job options in the international arena; outstanding cross-disciplinary grant opportunities for faculty, and promising overseas partnerships, all of which meshed with their respective institutional vision and strengths.
Getting meaningful initiatives off the ground was typically accompanied by broad-based “buy-ins,” beginning with the top university leadership, but also including deans and department heads at specifics schools, directors of centers, individual faculty members, students, and the broader community-based leadership as well. In 1995, The University of Pennsylvania initiated a planning process entitled “Agenda for Excellence,” which had as one of its primary goals the enhancement of the university’s global position and international reputation both at home and overseas. Today, all twelve of Penn's schools and virtually every academic program incorporate a global perspective as part of their curricula, and faculty in a wide variety of disciplines view international issues and comparative approaches as integral to their research agendas. Leadership at the university has continually restated its commitment to this focus and has indicated in a variety of communications that global dimensions are becoming even more important as information and technology reduce the natural barriers of time and distance, resulting in the need for more globally educated graduates.
4. Exemplary international programs and initiatives succeed or fail based primarily on the dedication and capability of their faculty champions, their creative entrepreneurs.
Among the universities studied, the role of faculty was seen as central and critical to an institution’s embrace of globalization. While many internationally-focused programs tended to have a clear vision of what they hoped to accomplish, along with solid backing from the president and other key leaders (as well as a dedicated and skilled support staff), it was a motivated, entrepreneurial faculty, more so than any other component, which drove international success. In numerous ways, interviewees indicated that universities must create a team of dedicated, internationally focused faculty, give them responsibility for initiatives, and then get out of their way and reward them for superior effort and results. Findings also indicate that global focused faculty can come from many different places, including one’s own campus, overseas institutions, alliances of multiple institutions, or the cross-town community college.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), through its University Center for International Studies (UCIS) is an excellent example of an institution which emphasizes the central role of its faculty in developing programs of excellence. Mr. Raymond Farrow, Director of Development for UCIS, explained that in the early 1990s only a small number of individual faculty at UNC accomplished what the university undertook internationally. For the most part, these individuals operated independently and, because of this, UNC failed to realize significant synergies of effort. Mr. Farrow indicated that these “faculty champions” of international initiatives were primarily self-motivated as there were no specific rewards for such work at UNC. Likewise, there were no significant efforts at UNC to join these champions into some sort of coherent whole. Realization of this shortcoming led to the establishment of the UCIS in 1993. This pan-university center is now charged with identifying and encouraging UNC faculty members to further their careers by incorporating an international dimension into all they do. The Center also forms the basis for cross-campus sharing of international undertakings and the breaking down of traditional disciplinary “silos” such that cross-functional insights and ideas can be nurtured and brought to fruition. UNC appreciated early on that much could be gained in the overall arena of international research and education, if motivated faculty members were encouraged to interact and to know what one another were doing. Mr. Farrow emphasized that at the core of UNC’s global culture is a widely held belief that much of the “new knowledge” being developed comes from these efforts.
5. Students are central to the success of any university’s attempt to globalize its campus and community, and students are the primary reason why a university should embrace internationalization.
Findings also revealed a widely held tenet, that if students are to fully assume positions of leadership and responsibility in specific organizations and in society as a whole, then they must be prepared to deal with the global environment that confronts them today and will continue to challenge them in the future. Both domestic and international students must be woven into any institution’s “international fabric” if a genuinely globalized on-campus and community-wide environment is to be achieved.
Institutions with outstanding international programs were those that cultivated an underlying philosophy of providing an international environment and international experience for all their students. This required a concerted focus on both international students studying on campus and domestic students studying abroad. It also required dedicated efforts by faculty and administrators to create innovative on-campus courses, programs and events of learning that allowed both international and domestic students to interact with one another and to think outside their regional or national “boxes.” It also required strategic alliances with the outside communities that envelop a university and bring a “real world” dimension to the initiatives and programs undertaken on behalf of students. The more successful institutions tended to view themselves as an education service provider with the larger community being their customer, and the student being their “raw material” that was being shaped, molded and guided in order to eventually achieve excellence in the global arena. Most understood that making their students receptive to this view depended on what they offered in the way of globally relevant education and experience opportunities and how they catered to and provided services related to their global education.
Georgia Tech University exemplifies this in many ways. GTU has over 2,400 international students representing 100 countries. This comprises roughly thirteen percent of the total student population. Forty percent of all master level graduate students at GTU are international, as are 50 percent of doctoral candidates. The university supports these students through 33 internationally oriented clubs and organizations. The majority of these organizations are designed to promote cultural interaction among all GTU students and the Atlanta community. The university also makes effective use of its international educational partnerships to recruit overseas students. One successful tactic in this regard is to promote GTU as an institution where one can get an additional “third” cultural experience (i.e., beyond one’s home country and the United States) by studying at one of the university’s partner institutions in Hong Kong, Europe, or South America. The university also hosts an annual “Culture Fest” that brings students, faculty, and Atlanta businesses and government leaders together in a “melting pot” of cultural activity. [To read more about GTU, an honorable mention recipient of IIE’s 2006 Heiskell Awards, go to page XXX.]
6. No institution is an island. Partnerships and alliances are critical components of international educational development and a global focus.
The value of university partnerships (whether they are developed by the university as a whole, or contained within various colleges, schools, departments or programs) with local, regional, national and international communities is well understood by leaders in higher education. Partnerships or alliances can take on many forms including those with other institutions of education (within the United States and overseas), within a framework of a consortium of universities (again, within the United States and overseas), with a university and its alumni (both U.S. based and international), and with a university and various for-profit, not-for-profit, governmental, non-governmental, and other types of organizations. The list of possibilities is truly only limited by a university’s vision and corresponding goals.
The goals of university-community alliances can vary widely, including enhancing the content and array of educational offerings, recruiting new students and faculty, and raising funds or developing streams of revenues to support mutual aspirations such as building a shared global reputation as a progressive and engaged community. In the words of Dr. William Bosher, Former Dean, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University: “The focus of the university should not be location, location, location, but relation, relation, relation. A central ingredient to strong international programs is the establishment of meaningful relationships based on common values and goals and a sense of trust between partners. In today’s globalized world this reality has never been more important.”
7. The organization behind a university’s international efforts appears to work best when it is both centralized and decentralized.
Perhaps the most prominent commonality among the institutions examined, particularly those that exhibited progressive and innovative approaches to their international programs, initiatives and alliances, was the organizational structure that guided their efforts. Both centralized and decentralized dimensions were apparent. On the one hand, the majority of successful institutions had a centralized “one-stop” office for administering, advising, coordinating, implementing, and maintaining all international activities.
On the other hand, it was apparent that while information on almost all international programs could be found in the centralized international office, most successful international programs were championed by a specific faculty (or individual) of a specific school, department, center or other decentralized branch of an institution. In general, innovative initiatives tended to have clearly designated individuals with known “creative” expertise who developed, promoted, managed, maintained and continually sought to improve a given program. Such “champions” tended to passionately advance their programs by actively campaigning for their support both within the academic and larger outside community environments.
Dr. John Holm, executive director of Cleveland State University’s Center for International Services and Programs (CISP) articulated this reality saying that “…it is information flow that forms the basis of a campus and community-wide international culture. Good ideas can come from the top, the bottom or the side. The key is to have an organizational structure that encourages and facilitates the exchange of information, ideas and ultimately knowledge.”
8. Branding of the university in the international arena is a responsibility that all must understand and share.
Another commonly held perception that was derived from this research centered on the notion of branding a university in the international arena. Most of the university leaders interviewed viewed their institutions as a brand, whose reputation (good and bad) is built primarily by the people that make up its entire or extended community, including creative faculty, loyal students, proud alumni, committed partners, and visionary administrators. Such people tend to be guided by the principle that a university’s global standing is a product of the relationships it has with its extended constituencies.
These relationships were considered equal in value to a university’s infrastructure or its ultimate product, namely education itself. The more successful, globally focused universities tended to be those that proactively harnessed the emotional as well as the intellectual connections with all members of their extended communities. Such universities articulated worthy causes, communicated important outcomes and promised meaningful experiences worthy of one’s energies, time and allegiance. In other words, among great universities, an overarching reality is that success is not just about the education (the product), or the buildings (the infrastructure) it is about the people.
Conclusion
Two concluding insights from this work can be offered. The first relates to perhaps the most profound hallmark of the new millennium – the ever-increasing interdependence of our world. Globalization is here, it is not going away, and those that embrace it will benefit the most. Indeed, the majority of forward-thinking individuals interviewed for this research envisioned their university, city, region and state from an emerging global community perspective. The second insight is that a good part, if not the majority of any institution of higher education’s success comes from the people that develop, nurture, manage, consume and grow from the international experience offered by the institution. Universities that understand this, and get it right, are more than likely to be out in front in terms of global preeminence.
Van R. Wood, Ph.D. is Philip Morris Endowed Chair in International Business, and Professor of Marketing at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Cited References
Ali, Abbas, J. (2000), Globalization of Business: Practice and Theory, International Business Press, Binghamton, NY.
Florida, Richard (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York, New York.
Friedman, Thomas L. (2000), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, First Anchor Books edition, New York, New York.
Friedman, Thomas L. (2005), The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty – First Century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, New York.
Institute of International Education (2004), Open Doors, Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/
Newman, Frank; Lara Couturier and Jamie Scurry (2005), The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of Markets, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, Ca.
Robertson, R. (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London, Sage Publications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
