Campus-Based Models to Support Internationalization: Principles, Prerequisites, and An Example

1. Campus-Based Models to Support Internationalization: Principles, Prerequisites, and An Example Prof. John K. Hudzik Vice President, Global Engagement and Strategic Projects, Michigan State University and President of NAFSA: Association of International Educators AIEC Annual Conference, Sydney, Australia - October, 2009 [Software: PowerPoint 2007]

2. Internationalization • “The conscious effort to integrate and infuse international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the ethos and outcomes of postsecondary education….“ (NAFSA, 2008). • "The process of integrating an international perspective into a college or university system,…working to change the internal dynamics of an institution to respond and adapt appropriately to an increasingly diverse, globally focused, ever-changing external environment “ (Ellingboe, 1998).

3. Campus-Based Model(s) • There is no “best” organizational model to support campus-based internationalization. • There are alternatives; choice depends on: • Fit with institutional mission and goals. • Fit with institutional values and campus culture. • Scope of intended clientele and program reach. • Breadth of responsibility to contribute. • Key issues frame the choice of model.

4. 1. How Encompassing will the Internationalization Effort be? • Study abroad? • International students and scholars? • Internationalizing on-campus curriculum? • Language acquisition? • World-region and thematic global expertise? • Cross-border research/scholarship/service? • Global problem-solving and development? • “Globalizing” institutional ethos, practice, connections and partnerships?

5. 2. What are Traditional Campus Organizational Patterns? • Is there precedent on campus for central offices to provide campus-wide leadership in key areas? • Is there a tradition of productive collaboration between such offices and academic units? • Is there a culture for cross-walks and partnerships between “service” and “academic” units? • Among academic units, is the culture one of “Stovepipes” or cross-disciplinary collaboration?

6. 3. What are the Intellectual Drivers of Internationalization? • Intended learning outcomes for students and others. • Expected research opportunities for students and faculty. • Strengthening key institutional curricula or research thrusts. • Opportunity for expanding and sustaining institutional capacity and position.

7. 4. What is the Breadth and Depth of Leadership and Commitment? • Is a commitment to internationalization driven by a few personalities, or more broadly? Without organizational support, birth or sustainability is doubtful? • If driven by administrative leaders, is there evidence of commitment from key faculty(ies)? • What is the longer-term staying power of support and drive for internationalization? • Is there a commitment to adequate funding? Internationalization will require significant reallocation of institutional funds and effort. Adequate funds are the barometer of institutional commitment.

8. Breadth and Depth… (Cont’d) Is the vision for internationalization comprehensive (across all missions and units) or limited? The limited vision sees internationalization…. • (1) provided by a specialty “shop” or two in the university mall from which some elect to obtain an international product (e.g., study abroad, or a language), rather than as a mall mission to which all shops contribute. • (2) provided to a limited few who elect to purchase the product rather than as something given to all.

9. 5. Will Key Sectors Support? • What roles must academic governance play? Is there reasonable prospect of support? • Will key university support units assist with academic and non-academic student needs? • Will accreditation bodies support; will they impose unworkable conditions? • Must others approve (e.g., government funding authorities)?

10. Prerequisites for Successful Initiation of campus-wide internationalization • Clear and consistent leadership from the top (President, Provost, Academic Deans). • Clear and measurable goals; staying on message. • Internationalization supported by both academic and “service” units, and cooperation between them. • Institutional recognition/rewards for units that contribute; accountability for those that do not. • Merit systems that reward internationally engaged faculty and staff in promotion, tenure and salary.

11. Prerequisites for success (Cont’d) • A commitment to build toward a majority of faculty engaged internationally. • Faculty hiring and development shaped in part by the internationalization agenda and goals. • An operational definition of success, a commitment to measurement and evaluation, and targets. • Persistence: Internationalization takes years and sometimes decades of persistent building. • Resources.

12. Institutional Motivations to Internationalize • Student learning; • Research and scholarship; • Revenue and markets; • Service and engagement; • Global bridge building; • Enhancement of Institutional reputation, distinction and connections.

13. Assessment and Evidence of Value • Without evidence that internationalization contributes to core institutional missions, it will never rise above secondary status. • Assessment options: inputs, outputs, outcomes. • Ultimately, it is outcomes and impacts that measure true value added.

14. What Can be Measured: Examples 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.

15. Sample Impact/Outcome Indicators

16. An Example:The MSU Commitment to Comprehensive InternationalizationTo be an institution of distinction in the 21st century requires global reach and engagement

17. The Scope of MSU’s Vision: • Internationalization should be infused throughout all missions (teaching, research and service). • Internationalization is a core aspect of MSU’s traditions and contemporary ethos. • Everyone and every unit should be involved, participate and contribute to this culture. • All faculty and students will have broad opportunity to acquire global, international and comparative understanding and experience.

18. Clientele Reach and Scope at MSU • Globally informed content will be integrated into the vast majority of courses and curricula. • Comparative and global perspectives are integrated into research and scholarship of faculty. • The benefits of cross-cultural and comparative understanding will be extended through outreach to citizens, businesses, and public officials. • Engage problem solving at home and abroad, recognizing that increasingly problems and their solutions are borderless.

19. Organizational Model for Internationalization • The Dean of International Studies and Programs (ISP): • Is the University’s chief international officer, with University-wide involvement in all international activity. • Reports to the Provost, is a member of the Academic Council of Deans, advises President and Provost. • Gives Broad Coordinative Leadership Campus-Wide to: • study abroad and international students and scholars; • area and thematic study and research centers; languages; • International programs budget, planning and support services; • faculty support and development for international activity; • international contract and grant support; • international development and outreach.

20. Organization (cont’d) • ISP collaboration and partnership with academic colleges and departments is essential. • The supporting organizational structure is a matrix design. Influence rather than authority drive internationalization. • Internationally focused units are located throughout the University as a part of the matrix design. These units have varying reporting relationships to the ISP. • The University’s annual budget planning process requires attention to international program priorities and allocations.

21. Core Funding Elements • International program activity is funded from a wide variety of sources including general fund allocations. • The Dean of ISP has responsibility for a “central” budget of many millions per year for infrastructure (e.g., the study abroad and the international students offices), and area and thematic centers, and seed money for new initiatives. • Academic departments have “internationalist” faculty lines involving tens of millions of dollars.  • ISP focuses on funding interdisciplinary and cross-unit international projects.

22. Influencing What Counts in Faculty Effort • Institutional tenure and promotion criteria • Paper Criteria v. Behaviors • Other “enablers” of faculty international activity: • differential workload assignments, • assisted teaching models and release time, • inclusive “model” departmental tenure, and promotion guidelines. • Grant location and grant writing assistance. • Impact assessment

23. Faculty Appointment Homes • Core internationalization faculty have their (1) tenure homes in academic colleges/departments and (2) secondary appointments in international institutes. • Such joint appointments bring disciplinary strengths to interdisciplinary teams and vice versa. • Every college and most departments have internationally engaged faculty. • Having faculty homes in academic units “mainstreams” internationalization throughout the university and such faculty serve as “in-house” models and catalysts.

24. Continuing Challenges • Staying power and surviving leadership changes. • Surviving funding downturns. • Reducing “academic parochialism” in cross-border dealings. • Colleges’ responses to the international section of the annual budget planning process are of uneven quality. • International development projects are seen by many as “project activity” rather than “research.” • Narrow departmental and disciplinary cultures make it difficult to forge cross-disciplinary teams. • Expand faculty hiring practices campus wide to include international experience and interests.