Posted on by d.grant1

Higher Education Governance

This week we have two articles that cover higher education governance. The first article “An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance”, focuses on three models used In Europe: academic self-governance, the state-centeredness and the market-oriented model. The article shows belief that it is because of an increase in competition paired with the economic crisis many countries are facing, that has had an adverse effect on higher education. Higher education all over the world, not just in America, has been put under an ever more careful watchful eye where minor mistakes have been blown up and scrutinized. To combat this, many countries have conducted self-assessments to try and figure out how to rectify and prevent future occurrences. These efforts are noted in the article but newer solutions that place more attention on system autonomy institutional balance of power, and financial governance are proposed. This article reinforces the thought that many have had in the past; there is a shift that is causing higher education to have more of a business structure. Just this past week in a case study for my fundraising class, we had to pitch why a made up higher education institute should focus on receiving corporate funding. Corporations have long funneled money into higher education as a way to push themselves beyond their competitors. This is a reality that isn’t going to change, but if it can positively benefit students in the long run it’s a necessary evil I suppose.

The second article, Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, covers internationalization and how the government affects them. On a political front, student mobility; having an intake of foreign students and the export of our own, fosters growth and shows a welcoming side and continues to push global awareness. Students who do study aboard don’t think about how them traveling to this foreign country affects or reflects on their home countries, for many the thought never crossed their minds, this course has opened my eyes to see that this is a large reality, like a majority of things in life, everything or everyone keeps what benefits them in mind. Study aboard and internationalization (when done correctly) benefits the country, the higher education institution, the student, and the government.

Both articles focus on higher education and how it is affected by the government. It was welcoming (albeit a bit disturbing on my end) to see that European institutions are having similar issues. For me who constantly writes that America is a bit too full of itself when it comes to being the perceived number 1 place in the world for education. These readings give me two possible outcomes from this, either America will notice that other places have the same issues and be more open to changing and developing, or feeling as though we are still the best if everyone has our issues because they are following our lead.

Posted on by t.bailey

W5- Two-way equally beneficial process of internationalization.

This week’s readings have helped to further my understanding of the internationalization of higher education. I was drawn more to the reading, Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, by authors Henard, Diamond and Roseveare, where I was particularly interested in the Internationalization and international network section (P. 24). This piece describes the way in which higher education has become increasingly internationalized through dense networking among key constituents – institutions, scholars, students and industry – to meld best practices, create name based sought after partnerships and create added value networks that trigger competition.
Institutions seem to be eager to participate in international networks because they provide institutions the ability to weigh in on different perspectives on issues, expose them to interactions with countries and institutions they may not otherwise have access to. They also allow for student exchange and research collaborations with institutions and experts around the world. Equally important through networking, trust is established and the sending and receiving of international students can increase. Through trust building a mutual recognition of degrees, collaborative learning and burgeoning research partnerships can be the long-term impacts of successful international networking. Some of the problems that have occurred in international networking partnerships are outgrowths of poor follow through among institutions. In the beginning, as with most new projects, there is great enthusiasm and as time progresses, interest can decline and fewer participants remain involved. The best way to ensure that a network is a two-way process that is equally beneficial, is for institutions to contribute and expect returns. There should be a written contract among institutions that outlines the ground level benefits of partnership and ways in which continuity, innovation and commitment will be integrated into the partnership. In my experience, I have seen partnerships developed that have produced stellar outcomes, however this can be unhinged if the founding partners move on. An agreement/contract with the fine details, expectations and long term quantitative goals can remedy that.
In the research, An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance, three governance models where discussed – state-centered model, the academic self- rule, and the market-oriented model. Of these three it seems that it is important for all three model needs to be strategically aligned with the economic and academic needs of each institution. I do not see this as a viable plan for internationalization. I look forward to discussing this reading in class as, it honestly did not interest me and perhaps a group discussion will influence that.

Posted on by e.truong

W5- NYU Academic Freedom in China

Branch campuses have always been an area of interest to me because it is a clear and physical indication of globalization and how our world is becoming more “flat”, as Friedman would say. I thought it was amazing that students could receive a higher education at an American institution without coming to the United States. Of course, there are financial issues when opening anything in another country; however, one aspect I did not really think about was the academic freedom differences. As the OECD report on internationalization policies suggests, institutions that pan on establishing branch campuses should consider the “political, legal and cultural environment of the offshore campus” and how it may or may not match the institution’s own environment. A case, like NYU’s Shanghai campus, really highlights this point.

Last fall, I read an article about NYU’s Shanghai campus and how the institution is an island of academic freedom and expression in the midst of China’s long-standing national censorship policies and how this impacts students. As critics note in the article “how can universities that prize open inquiry as a fundamental tenet find a home in an authoritarian country without compromising its views?”. The Chinese government has had a long-standing tradition in censorship and denying the freedom of speech to its people for many years.  Websites like YouTube and Facebook are blocked; and terms that allude to the June 4th,1989 Tiananmen Square protests are censored from the public eye.  But, students who attend the NYU Shanghai Campus are able to freely browse the web, as if they were in United States. So, Chinese students, who grew up in a censored society, are being exposed to this information now and are encouraged to be critical about the Chinese government in a public setting.Students that were being interviewed in this article talked about the cultural and political conflicts and isolation they faced when they left the campus and went home. One student said he felt like he lived in “two worlds”: one where he can express his critical political views and one where he must hold his tongue. In relating back to the Dobbins et al. reading we also had, China must have had a market-oriented approach to higher education because it invited NYU to Shanghai and hopes that the school will create graduates that can stimulate the economy. It is clear that these intentions are market-based and economic rather than political.

It is really interesting how the authoritarian chinese government allowed NYU to make its home in Shanghai. It will be even more interesting to see how this campus and most likely many other American campuses can change the political and cultural environment of China in the future. Recently, China has made its internet censorship policies stricter rather than loosen its grip. So it is interesting to see how this dynamic will play out in the future.

Posted on by s.ahuja1

W5-OECD Guide

This week’s readings, particularly the OECD Higher Education Programme:  Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, A Guide to Higher Education Institutions, brought some practical guidance and insight on the challenges of implementing internationalization whereas, to date, we have focused more on the evolution and theory of the concept.  I personally appreciated the guidance aspect of the readings, because tangible implementation strategies that have been tested and well formulated are key to internationalization initiatives succeeding.  While the European models of higher education reviewed in An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance (academic self-governance, state-centered model and the market-oriented model) were interesting and their intersections are instructive for non-European regions as well, I am not focusing on them for this blog post.

Instead, I take a closer look at the international branch campus (IBC) phenomenon as I thought the OECD paper had more concrete details on how to actually implement a successful IBC in an off-shore setting.  OECD suggests five actions for institutions to consider when contemplating off-shore campuses (see pp. 14-18).  First, the “genuine interests” of stakeholders in the higher education institution as well as the host country must be considered.  Not focusing on the host country can lead to gaps in understanding between the institution and host country and unsuccessful implementation.  Second, the host country’s legal and regulatory environment must be thoroughly vetted and the compliance costs must be analyzed.  Without this component, the very survival of an off-shore campus can be threatened.  Third, sustainable business models must be applied taking into account main divers.  Fourth, have a viable plan for quality faculty recruitment and retention.  Fifth, regularly monitor quality.

The above mentioned actions to consider may help mitigate some of the pause and caution with which off-shore campuses are progressing due to some high-profile failures and an earlier desire to be first to market without careful consideration of the OECD guide’s review of strategic management and institutional practice.  For example, see http://monitor.icef.com/2015/10/a-more-cautious-outlook-for-international-branch-campuses/ which discusses a recent survey of European universities which found that IBCs were the lowest priority among 15 prominent internationalization strategies but despite that figure, the number of branch campuses worldwide is rising although perhaps with greater awareness of the financial and quality assurance issues discussed in the OECD guide.  To me, a highlight of the OECD guidance was the observation that “in starting up and operating an off-shore campus, experience has shown that it is better to start small and expand incrementally.” (p. 14).  Interestingly, while India may not be fully willing to let IBCs infiltrate its own shores, I was surprised to learn that it seems to be taking the OECD guide’s advice to start small and expand one by one in bringing Indian branch campuses to other countries.  (see http://www.obhe.ac.uk/what_we_do/news_articles_reports/news_analysis/na_2015/news_analysis_3_22jan15).  Perhaps, India will be well served to learn lessons from its own regional off-shore expansion to allow for other countries to being IBCs to India with the above mentioned actions underpinning implementation.

Posted on by J.Gulston

W5- Bringing Internationalization to the masses

This week’s readings continued to further my understanding of the internationalization of higher education. Of the two readings for this week, the report entitled “Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Intuitional Practice”, focused on an area that I wanted to get more information about. These past weeks in class we have discussed the internationalization of higher education policy and programs in place across various countries. Most of the policies and programs we discussed were based at higher education institutions but we haven’t deviled into how institutions directly deal with the trend of internationalization; how are colleges and universities administrations incorporating internationalization into their management approaches? The OECD piece breaks down how higher education institutions can approach internationalization. It can be seen as a blueprint for institutions who wish to create or expand their strategic management to include internationalization.

Several connections are made between internationalization and topic/areas related to higher education. The internationalization through dual and joint programs would allow the students of higher education institutions the opportunity to study multiple subjects at the same time. An article in the US News and World Reports defines dual degree as “Dual degree programs show both degrees on a student’s diploma. The program is formally organized by the university and may involve a great deal of overlap to minimize time spent and cost…” and joint degree as “Some joint degrees combine two or more areas of study in two separate departments on the same campus or at two different universities, Kent says, and are interdisciplinary in nature. Joint and dual degrees are also common structures for international programs, some of which are conferred jointly by different universities in different countries, or conferred separately as dual degrees by international partner institutions.” Dual degrees programs seem to be similar to double majoring and joint degree programs are more synchronized than dual programs, there is a connection between the subjects you are studying. A student can potentially earn a dual/joint degree at their home country and spend a significant amount of time at their host school abroad.

The internationalization of joint and dual degree programs is directly linked to student mobility. Most student mobility is connected to credit mobility but if more joint and dual degree programs were established it could lead to further growth in student mobility.  In order to help alleviate the risks that are discussed in the report, institutions must ensure that dual and joint degree programs are all round beneficial for all parties involved- home and host institutions, students and faculty/staff.  An article in Business World discusses how the Indian government is pushing for international collaborations like dual and joint degree programs.

ICT assisting institutions in internationalization is another area worth further discussion. More and more universities and colleges are introducing or expanding the online presence of their classes. Connecting information and computing technology with the internationalization policies of higher education institutions can run into some of the same concerns that people have about MOOCs and fully online classes. However, a major advantage for ICT assistance in internationalization is that it could help with internationalization at home. It could connect the non-mobile student with international experiences or at least an international perspective. By using ICT to help with internationalization, universities and college understand the need to bring internationalization to all its students. Two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education discuss the pros and cons of using MOOCs with regards to internationalization.

In order for ICT assistance to be successfully there has to be systems in place that would ensure that the benefits and skills that are gained through face to face instruction are still there for the students.