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