Posted on by Natallia Kolbun · 2 Comments

W6 – International Partnerships

Both the ACE report on International Higher Ed Partnerships and the IIE Report on the Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs have touched upon details from initiating international partnership to keeping them valuable and successful. The collaboration, development, and establishment of international partnerships is not a one step process, it includes numerous important phases, such as strategic planning, faculty and student engagement, ongoing collaboration for enhancements and improvement, and of course quality assurance. Within those phases, the institutions need to remember that transparency, accountability and commitment are extremely important throughout the whole process.

From the ACE report, it is evident that it is very important for the individual institutions to establish international strategy and policies as the first step toward internationalization and most importantly international partnerships. The base recommendations/requirements for international partnerships seem to be very similar or rather more stringent than for any other internationalization initiatives. It could be due to the fact that many internationalization programs created by the government or NGOs are typically short-lived and often don’t have long lasting strategy. On the other hand, international partnerships are typically institution initiated and are all about keeping the relationship and enhancing knowledge and experience as the partnership grows and progresses. That is why establishing international policies that will help institutions determine the goals, priorities, rules, and limitations and being able to compare them to those of the partnering institution are extremely important. They will not only determine the initial negotiations that need to take place, but also the future potential conflicts that can take place, which should be addressed at the initiation of the partnership agreement to avoid future disagreements.

I found the example of Rice University in IIE The Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs to be a perfect example of how any partnership process should work. It includes a lot of collaboration, details, clear guidelines, continuous learning process, evaluation, and improvement of programs and experience. Although ACE report that concentrates mainly on the American partnerships, additional IIE resources also talk about 4 Steps for Creating Sustainable Academic Partnerships. Those include finding sustainable partnership based on common goals, creating more specific shared vision, establishing commitment from faculty and other involved parties, and making sure the partnerships will have longevity. Therefore, no matter if an institution is in the United States, Europe, or any other part of the world, finding a partner institution that shares common vision and international goals will certainly create a base for successful long-term partnership, as long as institutions are willing to collaborate and learn through the process.

Posted on by e.truong · 4 Comments

W6- Best Practices in International Higher Ed.

In this week’s ACE report, it states in the beginning that a one-size fits all type of policy or solution to internationalizing higher education in the United States is not possible. The report says that this kinds of unitary over-arching solution will not “adequately address the nuances and realities of international partnership development in the US”( p.3).Partnerships in many cases are very unique to the institution, so having a one-size fits all solution in maintaining a partnership would not be very effective. However, the ACE’s survey and report on best practices is very helpful for administrators and institutions that are looking to establish a partnership with an institution abroad. These suggestions should not be limited to just international partnerships, but to all international higher education programs.

As a higher education administrator, I found what they said about transparency and accountability very important because having transparency and a common understanding will help with the buy-in from staff and faculty. The report suggests that the institution should make a strong effort to inform everyone at the institution about the partnership program, even during the beginning planning stages. Having everyone informed and educated about the program will allow everyone to have common understanding about it which will make them feel included and more likely to buy-in. Memorandums regarding the “nuts and bolts” of the program to how this will affect governance in the institution should be well communicated. Senior administrators who are heading these initiatives should be sure to include the entire institution when communicating with them because everyone has a stake in sustaining the program. If no one but the staff and faculty who are directly involved only know the details, then how will the word about these amazing opportunities spread among students. As an academic advisor, I would be less inclined to suggest or promote a program to a student if I did not know all the promises and details about the program. As a result, low participation rate becomes an issue for sustainability. Not only is inclusion of staff and faculty important after implementation, but it should be an essential from the beginning.

At a large institution like Baruch College could be difficult, however, it can and should be done. Of course communicating the details to students is the most important thing; but, those leading these initiatives should not forget about the administrators who can help to guide students towards these opportunities. Staff and faculty participation and buy-in is hard to achieve, and that might be the reason why many programs and partnership initiatives lose its momentum. However, transparency and accountability throughout the development of these partnerships is a good practice that all should utilize.

Posted on by j.kalaidis · 3 Comments

W 6: The limits of academic freedom

Academic freedom is one of the most prized assets of American higher education. Yet despite the flowery rhetoric, U.S. higher education has a tenuous history with academic freedom, largely due to its governance structure. Unlike countries whose higher education institutions follow the Humboldt model, where the faculty control most areas of governance (as was detailed in last week’s readings), U.S. higher education has always concentrated power towards the administrative leadership, such as the university president and chancellor. This power dynamic has occasionally challenged the integrity of academic freedom. From McCarthyism to the adjunctification of the teaching force, there have constantly been limits to academic freedom in U.S. higher education.

The issue of protecting the integrity of academic freedom becomes even more complicated when applied to an international context, as this week’s ACE/CIGE reading shows. While the reading glosses over the domestic limits of academic freedom, there is still much more academic freedom in the U.S. than many other countries. Because of this, the American Association of Universities developed its Principles and Guidelines for Establishing Joint Academic Programs and Campuses Abroad. A notable passage includes: “When establishing campuses abroad or joint academic programs, agreements between universities and foreign partners should strive to include a commitment to commonly accepted principles of academic freedom. Members of the academic community should be able to ask questions and engage in discussion, and write and publish without the fear of punishment of intrusion by governments or authorities holding public, private, or institutional power” (ACE/CIGE, 2014, pp. 31).

While these are important guidelines, they are difficult to enforce, especially in countries with different political and cultural histories. “Even if a partner institution is supportive of academic freedom in theory, encouraging or allowing discussion of certain topics could lead to considerable problems for the institution, as well as the individual faculty and students involved” (ACE/CIGE, 2014, pp. 32).

This made me think about the newly-launched Schwarzman Scholars program that I wrote about briefly a few weeks ago. The program, funded by U.S. businessman Stephen Schwarzmann, consists of fully-funded master’s degrees in Public Policy, Economics and Business, or International Studies in China. Its inaugural class will begin their coursework this upcoming fall and consists of 45% Americans, 20% Chinese, and 35% international students. While it is hosted by Tsinghua University in Beijing, courses will be held on Schwarzman College, which is a subset of the larger university. Since classes will be conducted on a U.S. campus within a foreign university, I imagine that academic freedom will be more prevalent than in other Chinese universities. However, I imagine this could prove to be a tricky aspect to overcome when trying to sell this program to top-U.S. students, who might also pursue their degrees in the U.S. or other western countries with a more traditional understanding of academic freedom.

One program that the report deemed a success between two countries with very different cultures and values was the partnership between Kabul University in Afghanistan and Boston College/Hunter College in the U.S. This partnership, “funded by UNICEF through a grant administered by the Afghan government (ACE/CIGE, 2014, pp. 28)”, set out to develop a social work program at Kabul University. The project included two phases: “the development of standards and curricula, then implementation of Afghanistan’s first bachelor’s level social work program at Kabul University” (28). While the project was only funded through the first initiative, overall it was a success because faculty from each institution were able to stay in contact with one another when the program was finally ready to be implemented.

Frankly, I was surprised to read about this kind of success given the rocky political relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan. My intuition tells me that academic partnerships and initiatives in the hard sciences will have more success than those with a more liberal arts/socio-political component, like social work, since there tends to be much more cultural, religious, and political debate around those disciplines than the hard sciences. It was encouraging to read that is not always the case, and that some degree of academic freedom can exist between countries with very different political and cultural histories.

 

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 4 Comments

W6 – Partnership between Fairfield University and UCA

This week’s readings looked at policies surrounding institutional collaborations across borders. “A Process for Screening and Authorizing Joint and Double Degree Programs” is a document by IIE that explores Rice University’s policies and processes for evaluating proposals for dual and joint degree programs.  A dual degree program is when each institution involved awards a diploma, resulting in two degrees.  A joint degree program is when one degree is recognized by two institutions.  The reading titled “International Higher Education Partnerships” looks at common themes in the existing partnership standards of conduct for various organizations and analyzes their best practices.  Some of these themes include transparency or clearly articulating and publishing a description of the goals, rules, and policies of the partnership, and quality assurance, which entails risk assessment of potential institutional and personal risks.

My alma mater, Fairfield University, has a partnership with Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) in Managua, Nicaragua.  I took advantage of this partnership when I was an undergrad and studied abroad in Managua for a semester.  According to an article in NAFSA, the relationship goes back to the 1990s, starting with research ties between faculty at Fairfield and UCA.  The two universities signed a collaborative partnership agreement in 2004, which has evolved during more than a decade of collaboration.  Fairfield’s website notes that the partnership “provides opportunities for scholarly collaborations, service learning opportunities, faculty/student exchanges, and curricular projects.”

Although both Fairfield and UCA are Jesuit universities, the two institutions are quite different.  UCA is located in the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and Fairfield is located in an affluent suburb of NYC.  Therefore, many of the challenges listed in the reading are relevant to this partnership.   The first theme that was highlighted by ACE was cultural awareness, which applies not only to national and regional cultures but also the difference in academic cultures across institutions.  Within that category falls the dilemma of deciding which language to use for instruction and administration purposes.  UCA had a very small international student population, so all of my courses except one were taught in Spanish.  I think this is a great way for students to increase their language skills and engage in the local culture.  Of course, this does limit the number of possible participants.

The second theme highlighted in ACE was the problem of access and equity.  According to a survey cited in the reading, limitations due to financial barriers were big concerns surrounding the feasibility and accessibility of international opportunities.  Although internationalization at home is a potential benefit for both Fairfield and UCA, financial disparities could pose challenges for the partnership, especially since Fairfield provides a scholarship for one Nicaraguan student to study at Fairfield each semester.  I really like the fact that it is a true exchange and that students that may not otherwise be able to study abroad have the opportunity to do so, but the administration will have to keep communication open with UCA leadership to not cause any imbalances of power due to uneven financial resources.  Although Fairfield and UCA have many differences that could potentially cause administrative and logistical challenges, I think students have the most to learn by experiencing cultures that are quite different from their own.

Posted on by Ben Levine · 4 Comments

W6- Quality Assurance, Frames, and How to Develop a Sustainable Program

In ACE’s International Higher Education Partnerships, I gleaned one major theme: for a program to survive, there must be transparency. The piece delves into many other topics, but that is the one that, to me, is at the base of them all. There are so many steps to ensuring a successful program, from the inception to implementation to assessment, that nothing can be forgotten or overlooked.

When it comes to running an international education program, involved parties cannot take anything for granted. Whether it is creating appropriate curricula, hiring suitable faculty, or obtaining funding, every detail affects quality. Something as fundamental as language could derail an entire program due to misinterpretation. I say this because when you associate with people from other countries, you never know how others will understand your policies. At my college of employment, where many of our students are from other countries, miscommunications occur frequently. This is what is called a ‘pattern sheet,’ or a list of all the classes a student needs to take in order to graduate. In the bottom left corner, there is a paragraph explaining that certain courses are recommended, but not required. This creates a lot of confusion amongst students because some believe that they should be taking those courses no matter what, while others are more lax about their interpretation and will take other classes. What they choose may end up impacting what they need to take when they get to a senior college. This example demonstrates that semantics can effect the decisions made by students, which signifies that any and all international programs must be very careful with their wording.

Transparency is a concept that all areas of education should follow. An international education program must get funded, so it is absolutely necessary for the finance team to look over everything and make sure that all their dealings are kosher. Gross indicates that it is one of the most important roles of the finance director to keep clear records that everyone can comprehend. I bring this up simply to reiterate that from top to bottom, all aspects of a program must be air-tight.

This applies to the staff and faculty that is hired. As the readings suggest, they must be skilled in intercultural communication. They must be patient and articulate so students can understand things clearly. Additionally, faculty needs to be a good match for the program. There is a problem across the board of professors being hired at institutions that do not fit their pedagogical philosophies, or professors teaching subjects they shouldn’t be teaching. Since quality assurance is such a key factor in international education, the above-mentioned occurrences are big no-nos.

All of this reminds me of one of the most memorable things I have learned in graduate school- the four frames by Bolman and Deal. Probably everyone has taken the organizational management class in this program, so I won’t go into detail, but as a refresher, the four frames are strategic, human resources, political, and symbolic. As I was reading the documents for this week, my mind kept on wandering back to the four frames. Which one would best fit an international education program? I almost immediately nixed human resources, despite heavily leaning towards that frame myself. By process of elimination, I would then take away symbolic, simply because oftentimes the objectives of the program don’t directly relate to the mission of the institution. Still, the SIO can instill in his/her staff the notion that what they are doing is important. That leaves us with strategic and political. At this point, I realized that I couldn’t assume that just one frame would be the best fit- that would contradict the very concept of reframing. So, I decided that all frames could be used, but perhaps with a slight bias towards strategic. In the readings, especially the one about joint/dual degree programs, it is obvious how detail-oriented things must be. Using the degree programs as an example, the countries, institutions, programs, and students all must understand the difference between joint and dual before anything else! That being said, whoever ends up becoming the SIO must have a strong background in analysis and a history of paying close attention to detail. Who here thinks that they are, or will be one day, cut out for that role?