Posted on by c.graziano · 5 Comments

W6 – International Partnerships

The ACE article International Higher Education Partnerships: A Global Review of Standards and Practices brings to our attention common themes and key concepts which are required in order to have successful international programs and partnerships. The article points out how active engagement with the world has become an essential part of a students higher education in order to prepare students to live and work in this interconnected global world. Now that this concept of international education is widely accepted, the issues that we struggle with is HOW do provide this type of education. Based off various survey results, half of Unite States institutions have at least one partnership with institutions abroad and even higher percentages have joint degree programs or dual degree programs with partners abroad. However, with these partnerships, comes an array of challenges.  The article examines the themes the Blue Ribbon Panel identified which fall under two categories: Administration and Management and Cultural and Contextual issues.  The themes include Transparency and Accountability, Faculty and Staff Engagement, Quality Assurance, Strategic Planning and the Role of Institutional Leadership, Cultural Awareness, Access and Equity, Institutional and Human Capacity building, and Ethical Dilemmas and “Negotiated Space”.  I chose to focus my post on the Cultural and Contextual issues these partnerships face.

With any type of international program, whether domestic or abroad, awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences is essential to success. ACE identifies how communication between stakeholders on both ends of the partnership is essential to identifying the possible cultural differences that may cause problems or tensions and explore possible solutions before the start of the partnership.  I had never really thought of this before reading this section of the article and while it makes perfect sense, I had never thought about the important role that stakeholders can play in exploring cultural differences and establishing best practices for cultural acceptance in their program.  I always looked as stakeholders on each end as more of a business transaction, where each explores what this partnership can do for them and working out the logistics of how to make it happen.  It seems that the training of faculty and staff on cultural sensitivity varies greatly from campus to campus and while I know we have discussed that there is no “one size fits all” model for internationalization, I am curious if there could be an educational training model that all schools who wish to internationalize require for faculty and staff.  We have programs like Safe Zone for faculty and staff to become more aware of the issues that face LGBTQ students and how they can better serve this population – lets develop a standardized program that addresses cultural awareness.  I did some research and it seems like there are many resources available for teachers to tap into in order to become a culturally sensitive educator; however, I did not come across one standard or specific program for higher education faculty and staff.  One article from the National Education Association puts it perfectly: “Understanding our culture is important so that we understand how we interact with individuals from cultures that are different from ours.  This understanding helps us see our students and their families more clearly, and shape policies and practice in ways that will help our students to succeed.”  Not only does understanding our own culture help us relate to people from different cultures, it is also important to understand different educational practices in different areas of the world. Teaching style, grading techniques, and evaluation processes are all very different depending on the countries the partnerships are between.  Faculty play an essential role in this process and the ACE article points out an example from a dual degree partnership between Appalachian State University and Universi-dad de las Americas in Mexico.  The two schools sent faculty back and forth to discuss course content, curriculum and what the program would actually look like at each campus.  The faculty were able to collaborate to develop “cultural norms” for the program, which took into account their cultural differences, creating a program that would be accessible for all students involved.  These interactions created a solid foundation for their program and opened the lines of communication for any problems or issues that may arise.

Posted on by Victoria Tsang · 3 Comments

W6 – Cultural Awareness in International Higher Education Partnerships

One of the things the ACE report highlights that the report from IIE does not mention is the need for cultural awareness when fostering potential partnerships with other institutions in other countries. Having studied and worked abroad, and having spoken to many other students and alumni about their experiences abroad as well, it is not surprising to me that the report would highlight the importance of considering the cultural differences and potential conflicts and risks they oppose. Especially since academic freedom, in particular, is so heavily stressed in U.S. higher education. I also have personal experience of how a lack of presence on the part of administration can lead to many frustrations and misunderstandings due to cultural differences that may be hard to navigate and resolve without a third party present. Due to the typical culture of the country I worked in, it was hard for my foreign coworkers and I to properly inform our supervisors of the issues that we encountered. And we felt we were not being heard and out issues were not taken seriously until there were consequences that affect our supervisors as well. So I also think it’s very important that key faculty and staff can form preliminary relationships with the key faculty and staff of the potential partner institution to come to agreement on set standards of practices and cultural differences that need to be addressed.

And while the report seems to focus more heavily on ensuring cultural awareness and sensitivity of the faculty and administration involved in establishing and maintaining the partnerships, ensuring that the students involved are very important as well. There are instances, particularly in the U.S. institutions, where international students and local students voluntarily socially-segregate from each other. At times there may be language barriers, but there’s also the issue of not “fitting in” with local peers due to cultural differences, which defeats the purpose of having an international presence to promote global competency amongst the parties involved. But there has been a number of U.S. institutions like Case Western Reserve University that has begun to offer training for faculty to better serve and integrate the international students into the classroom. Duke University has also created an Intercultural Skills Development Program for all permanent faculty and staff to become more culturally aware and engaging with the growing international population on the Duke campus. More institutions who are aiming to globalize their campuses and formulate partnerships abroad need to keep in mind not only the issues with faculty and staff but also with the students themselves.