This week’s reading by Henard, Diamond, and Roseveare reinforced key concepts that have been addressed in previous weeks. It explained the significance of the government developing a comprehensive policy framework with other countries to enhance the system of internationalization within higher education institutions. In order to achieve a globally shared program, creating a best practices approach, model for ethics and values, and effective assessment tools would be required. Also, individualized institutions would need to link up their mission and goals with national policies and strategic plans. Since funding is crucial, collaboration, especially with research would allow fewer resources to be used. I appreciate the reading for stating the importance of a business plan. Although I mentioned in one of my other blogs that higher education should really focus on student learning, when making costly new programs, such as internationalization, as aspect of business has to be incorporated into the framework.
It is interesting that corporations were suggested to be included in the strategic thinking and implementation phase of internationalization within higher education. As we know, states are decreasing their funding towards higher education institutions, therefore a heavily reliance on fundraising has allowed the survival of many colleges and universities. A multi- national corporation is unique because once an institution builds a strong partnership with one, there can be beneficial incentives. For one, they would allocate large monetary gifts to a particular program and that could be directed towards an international office (for helping foreign students acclimate to the new campus culture), or to an international program. Corporations are motivated to giving because it provides an easy way to obtain the most skilled workers upon graduation, which is also a win-win for the institution as well. Other constituents that give to institutions, such as alumni, philanthropists, international students employed in their host or home country, regional authorities, and local communities and businesses that will benefit from internationalization should have input on strategic plans. Major gifts and annual fund giving are important for carrying out the daily operating costs of an institution. I do think these parties should have a say in the planning phase, but I fear it would become a numbers game. For example, whomever gave the most contributions would have the most influence. Large donations cannot signify access to more power. And it shouldn’t be at the institution level. Panels with random constituents can be arranged at the national level.
The reading brought up dual and joint programs and off-shore campuses, which is a foreign concept for me. I understand that there seems to be issues creating and supporting quality curriculums in these areas that do not overlap in competencies and cause tensions amongst the host and home countries. Cultural and environmental adaption is significant and faculty have to be flexible. By flexible, I am not just referencing utilizing ICT systems such blended/hybrid courses, which are effective tools for learning. Flexibility would entail being able to effectively teach a diverse set of students. Similar to professional development programs that encourage faculty and staff to partake in conferences, maybe there should be a grant funded program that ensures faculty teaching abroad or within their home campus are constantly in-tune with the needs of all of their students.

Adia Johnson

The OECD states that Internationalization today is important for “student mobility, internationalization research collaboration and education as an export industry”. I have not thought of internationalization in Higher Ed as a commodity that can be exported and imported, but in reality, it is. For student mobility, the intake of foreign students is good for growth of that institution where as the export of foreign students is good for over populated countries who cannot keep up with the demand, such as China. For students, the question is “Where to go to study”? For the government the question is, “Where do we need to have a presence and who can we benefit from”, and for the universities the question is, ”How do we increase revenue, expand internationalization and at the same time, increase diversity”? It is a win-win for all when this is achieved.
Dobbins, et al refers to Higher Ed as being “marketized” and states that “universities function more effectively when operating as economic enterprises within and for regional or global markets” and defines marketization as “policies that are aimed at strengthening student choice and liberalizing markets in order to increase quality and variety of services offered”. If universities are going to be marketized by government policies, how do we ensure quality and which government decides the policy? Is it the home country or the visiting country? And who are the staff? Are they imported and exported as well? Will exported staff achieve the goal of internationalizing our students? Will local staff be able to understand the way the U.S. higher Ed system works?
Cultural differences is one the benefits of internationalization to achieve global awareness. Global awareness is very important today for employers and for students. The lack of global awareness can cause unnecessary situations. I work in a career center with many international students at the graduate level. We were having the discussion of reneging on a job offer and how your reputation is at stake when you do so. The Chinese student who reneged did not understand this because in China if you renege, you pay a fine and move on.

Marketization also seems to follow the trends of today and has changed Higher Ed in many ways. It is suggested in the readings that we follow trends but incorporate them into an already rich historic foundation to make Higher Ed even better today. One way this can be achieved is by being able to reach more students in areas that would not have Higher Ed if it wasn’t for internationalization and Marketization of importing and exporting this rich commodity called education.

An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance asserts that there is a need to classify the indicators of governance within higher education. To do so, authors Dobbins, Knill and Vogtle take a critical look at three different European governance models: academic self-governance, the state-centered model and the market-oriented model. They believe that due to increased competition and struggling economies worldwide, higher education institutions are now under more scrutiny than ever before. This increased attention subsequently drives the need for institutions to address how they are governed, in order to determine and sustain best practices. In European universities, the European Commission has worked to reform governance through “the diversification of funding sources, an intensification of ties between universities and industries and a match between the supply of qualifications and labour market demands” (European Commission 2003, 2006). Although the authors recognize these efforts, they propose ideal-type models, calling specific attention to the categories of institutional balance of power, financial governance, and system autonomy. They find it most important to identify empirically observable indicators to observe the direction policy change is headed for European systems.

In the OECD article Approaches to Internationalization and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice, authors Henard, Diamond and Roseveare focus again on internationalization and the key role of governments. They offer suggestions for this partnership, citing that the following attributes will positively effect outcomes: “consistency is needed between policies and educational objectives, activities should be diversified, strategies should be linked to national policies and the framework should be explicit” (p.10-11). The article offers broad suggestions for how government can align with institutional strategies and further reflects on the ethics and values involved in this process.

Both articles from this week highlight the overarching relationship between government and higher education institutions. Although one article focused more on European systems, I found myself constantly comparing each of the 2 readings to our U.S system of government. They prompted me to think deeply about how we govern our own institutions, and what policies we have in place. As I read, I was reminded of the current presidential campaigns and how the topic of higher education is now of greater interest to Americans than ever before. As the Analytical Framework article mentions, there is more emphasis placed on the relationship of government through this economic downturn. Therefore, pressing issues such as government policies, support and financial aid have risen to the top of the discussion. On NASFAA’s website (the National Association of Student Financial Aide Administrators) they provide a concise list of the current presidential candidates and their plans for financing the future of higher education. As more candidates develop their own higher education proposals, this page will be updated accordingly. I enjoyed taking a look at their ideas and comparing them to the proposals from this weeks readings.