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.