I can say for sure that the depth of internationalization is a lot more than I imagined. From the first week of defining the term, to understanding Cross Border Internationalization compared to Internationalization at home, to National Policy and Marketization of Internationalization, Internationalization is a complex term.
This week’s understanding on partnerships and the difference between a dual degree and a joint degree, it is clear Internationalization is broad, deep, layered and has a wingspan with an infinite range of global partnerships and possibilities. With the vast vision of Internationalization, comes much to be considered outside of the direct benefit to students and schools. This week’s reading from the American Council on Higher Education, International Higher Education Partnerships: A Global Review of Standards and Practices goes through a slew of information that needs to be considered from Language, Accountability, Transparency, Assessments, Cultural Awareness and the importance of Faculty. Without the input and drive of the faculty, internationalization is only a dream. The faculty need to be active in decision making across the board, especially in academic matters. Faculty, from both countries need to have an understanding of each other’s culture, as well as an understanding of each other’s university. Without this respect and understanding, opportunities could be lost.
Because of the depth of this term and program, International Partnership Directors are a new position that is on the rise. If schools wish to compete and build their international programs, the position of an International Partnership Director is needed. Future directors of International Partnerships will need to “wear many hats” as stated in ACE’s study Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses. The Director needs to be versed in “teaching, research, outreach, financial and legal matters” as well as be connected internally to their own institution’s staff to get the job done well.
Deborah
although I see what you are saying in terms of faculty being involved more I don’t necessarily agree with that notion. In the US faculty is greatly involved in higher education matters and they are basically the ones that set the standard for graduation requirements, and often their views are somewhat skewed of how education should really be. Which can cause a constant battle between faculty and administration, who is trying to put a new spin on higher education as well as make things much more pliable as well as keep students on the right path.
I also believe that your point about faculty spawns debate. Frankly, I find it so easy to bash professors and their commonly perceived narrow-mindedness when it comes to administrative affairs, that I find your outlook refreshing. Still, when it comes to creating and operating an international program, I feel that faculty should indeed play a role, but not run it or have all the say in decision-making. Despite their good intentions, I would be nervous to have a faculty member in charge. On the flip side, I wouldn’t want someone with zero academic experience running the show either (this obviously leads to the whole controversy about who should lead institutions- business-oriented people or academics). In any case, I would never have an international program without professors in some type of advisory role. There are too many nuances that must be addressed, such as curricula, language, pedagogical philosophies, and student engagement, for a manager-type person to take on.
I definitely see how your post and the comments of our classmates regarding involvement of faculty can be seen somewhat controversial. I work in student affairs and there is always an issue when collaborating with academic affairs, there seems to be two very different methodologies to getting things done which can also cause conflict. I do however agree after reading the ACE article that faculty can be very important stakeholders and open the lines of communication between their institution and the partner institution in order to create a curriculum that benefits both parties. I think faculty must be involved in the process, but I believe there are multiple parties who need to be involved in decision making.
I am with you 100%. I didn’t realize the depth of internationalization either. I follow America’s old guide of tunnel vision, pretty much only paying attention to our educational system, which I barely do. But it is refreshing, and enlightening to be learning about internationalization as America moves forward with it, and us on the starting path of our careers, who knows how we can benefit the internationalization efforts of the future.
As you mentioned with the position of International Partnership Director, I am happy we are able to get on top of this internationalization matter and seek out ways to pull forward, also adding jobs to the market always a plus.