International partnerships are becoming an increasingly important role for advancing institution’s global engagement strategy. This drive is not only reflective of demand for more infusing more global perspectives in curriculum but also pressure to build institutional reputation.  With curriculum and learning comes the role of faculty as an integral component at every stage of building and executing partnerships.

However, sometimes faculty are under-prepared and other times they are disinterested due to lack of incentives. ACE’s 2011 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses survey reported that just 8 percent of respondents indicated that their institutions had guidelines in place to specify international work or experience as a consideration in faculty promotion and tenure decisions.

The readings from Chevallier and Helms for week 6 provide tangible approaches of building partnerships. In addition to the example of University of Minnesota (p. 9, Helms), Indiana University provides several templates of agreements and also very good definitions related to international partnerships including “overseas distance education”, “Twinning programs (a/k/a “sandwich programs”, and “branch campus”.

One important correction related to definitions of joint and dual degrees. As you would notice that Henard’s definition does not match with CGS definition. The correct definition is from CGS.

According to Henard (p.25):

“A dual degree programme consists of two separate approved degree programmes. A candidate will earn one degree that will be approved and recognised by two different institutions. A joint degree programme is agreed upon by two institutions for which two diplomas are issued, one by each institution.”

According to CGS definition used by Chevallier (p.5):

Dual (or double) degree: students receive a separate diploma from each of the participating institutions.
Joint degree: students receive a single diploma representing work completed at two or more institutions.

Here are couple of related examples:

In addition to managing the growing complexity, scale and scope of international partnerships, another element which is becoming important for international offices is demonstrating the impact of their work and helping larger campus community understand their work. Some institutions have started using visual dashboards. Here are couple of examples:

Look forward to more discussion in the classroom on week 8.



One thought on “Growing complexity, scale and scope of international partnerships

  1. The issue of faculty felling that there are perhaps a lack of incentives seems to be a real problem as it is highlighted in week 7’s reading as well. If faculty are not committed to internationalization whether in the context of global partnerships or more broadly, global initiatives cannot be successful because faculty are the ones delivering the educational services being provided. Thus, they must feel that there is appropriate benefit to them whether in the form of compensation or scholarly advancement. Involving them in strategic planning as discussed this week is the linchpin to making this happen.

Leave a Reply