Transcript Building MSU’s Metrics for Accountability: The Challenge

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]
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).
2
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.
3
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?
4
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?
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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)?
9
Prerequisites for Successful Initiation
of campus-wide internationalization
1. Clear and consistent leadership from the top
(President, Provost, Academic Deans).
2. Clear and measurable goals; staying on message.
3. Internationalization supported by both academic
and “service” units, and cooperation between them.
4. Institutional recognition/rewards for units that
contribute; accountability for those that do not.
5. Merit systems that reward internationally engaged
faculty and staff in promotion, tenure and salary.
10
Prerequisites for success (Cont’d)
6. A commitment to build toward a majority of
faculty engaged internationally.
7. Faculty hiring and development shaped in part
by the internationalization agenda and goals.
8. An operational definition of success, a
commitment to measurement and evaluation,
and targets.
9. Persistence: Internationalization takes years
and sometimes decades of persistent building.
10. Resources.
11
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.
12
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.
13
What Can be Measured: Examples
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 in types of
programs and locations; etc.
Impacts on knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs, life skills,
careers, etc.
Number of on-campus
courses/curricula with
significant international content.
Number and diversity of students
completing such courses and
curricula.
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.
14
Sample Impact/Outcome Indicators
STUDENTS AND
LEARNING
OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT
RESEARCH AND
SCHOLARSHIP
Knowledge gain.
Measurable impact on
people’s conditions:
Enhanced institution or
program rankings.
Awards and prizes.
Competitive research
funding.
Citations index frequency
Commercial applications
and income.
Economic development of
locations/regions.
Community problem
solving.
Impacts on attitudes.
Health
Change in or widened
basis for beliefs.
Income
Intellectual skills.
Education
Life skills and personal
capabilities.
Nutrition
Safety/security
Career options and
directions.
Access
15
An Example:
The MSU Commitment to Comprehensive
Internationalization
To be an institution of distinction in
the 21st century requires global
reach and engagement
16
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.
17
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.
18
Organizational Model for Internationalization
The Dean of International Studies and Programs (ISP):
Is the University’s chief international officer, with Universitywide 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.
19
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.
20
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 crossunit international projects.
21
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
22
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.
23
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.
24