Posted on by m.parsowith

W5, Blog 5: Melissa Parsowith (Article Response)

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.

The first article named An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance aims to categorize the different types of higher education governance, mostly in Europe, in order to better track changes in organizational structures and policy trends.  The authors describe three major organizational types including state-centered, the Humboldt method, which is an academic focused “community of scholars,” and marketization.  In the state-based model, the state has much of the power, leaving the institution with low autonomy on issues such as curriculum, funding, and staffing.   In the self-governing community of scholars model, institutions are often referred to as Ivory Towers, professors have most of the power, and there is a strong emphasis on academic freedom and self-regulation.   The market-oriented model relies on market forces and views higher education as a commodity and competition ensures quality and innovation.  In this model, university management makes a majority of the decisions, yet the students, who are viewed as customers, also play a role.

The next reading, Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice talks about different types of internationalization, the benefits and challenges of each type, and provides suggestions for successful institutions.  Some of these internationalization initiatives include strategies that we have talked about before such as off-shore campuses, networks, and information and computing technology (ICT).  However, this reading looks at internationalization from an institutional perspective and provides suggestions for institutions, rather than strictly taking a governmental policy point of view.  Some of the overarching themes include the importance of having a balance between cultural sensitivity and maintaining quality, and aligning government motives, goals, and objectives with those at the institutional level.  For example, off-shore campuses, also referred to as branch campuses, can be risky, so they need a well-thought out business plan.  Suggestions for institutions include starting small and making sure sufficient funding is available.

Another topic that I think is crucial for attracting international students to your campus is to have sufficient infrastructure, support systems, and culturally sensitive staff to address the unique needs of international students.  Henard, Diamond, and Roseveare write, “Mismatches and misunderstandings in their respective expectations and needs/requirements can create a fundamental gap between students and academic staff” (p 25).  This is why it is important for colleges and universities to provide students with as much information as possible before they start classes. Many international students socialize only with other international students, but wish they had better methods of meeting Americans.  It is often the responsibility of the staff to facilitate programs that aid students with their integration into campus life.

Many universities have started programs that help international students and American students get to know each other.  One example is at Juniata College in Pennsylvania where they have an option for students to participate in a program before orientation where students form groups based on shared interests such as outdoor activities.  The dean of international students writes, “Our idea is that when international students come to campus, they should be thrust into interaction with domestic students as quickly as possible, so they don’t bond and form their own cohorts within [their cultures].”  Institutions should be prepared to address both the academic needs, including language barriers, preparedness, and different approaches to teaching as well as social needs of international students, including engagement and cultural adjustment assistance.

Posted on by Zeline Santana

W5, Faculty governance and internationalization

The reading Why Focus on Internalization validates many of our comments and discussions regarding the importance of internalization in higher education. I agree that internalization is far more complex then providing mobility. In reviewing all the readings thus far, it seems like the U.S takes pride that mobility is an option through study abroad and internalization at home, however, internalization works when unique forms of joint, dual programs and school partnerships exists. Overall, I think this reading was very informative as to why higher education institutions and systems need to focus on internalization. It is very rare for internalization to prevail in the United States. According to this reading internalization matters because it adds mobilization and internal intellectual resources. In addition, it enlarges the academic community and leverage institutional strength. The U.S is very far from internalization because there are a lot of issues legally that may affect the mission of internalization. When I think of internalization I think of global change that first need to happen at home, for example, providing more access to undocumented students in the U.S. The reading also states that government systems must implement “national universities systems” which is nearly impossible for the U.S due to its complex system and different sectors. In the U.S the analytical framework and governance structure is too complex to run as a “self-governing” community.

In Dobbins, reading three governance models were discussed. The three models where the sate-centered model, the academic self- rule, and the market-oriented model. If I understand correctly all three governing models needs to be in communication with universities strategies to correlate socio-economic and academic needs. In order for internalization to work in a state-centered model, then internalization needs to be in the forefront and within the budgeting plans of the state. In an academic- rule model, the faculty needs to also place a high importance to internationalization. Unfortunately, in the U.S the majority of faculty questions the quality of education through internationalization, so this model might not work in the U.S. I believe internationalization might work in a market-oriented model, however, the concerns of quality also exits. One example is GoAborad.com. Even though GoAbroad is not an affiliated to an institution it works as a market-oriented model, which provides study aboard programs that can be approved by intuitions (as course work), volunteer opportunities, internships and teaching programs. The concern with this model will always be quality since it not tied into faculty governance.

Posted on by Ben Levine

W5- Governance Models

As I read the Dobbins piece, I initially had a little difficulty relating governance and internationalization. I wasn’t sure why the professor would choose this as a reading since it seems like something that would be assigned in the history of higher education class. As I kept reading, though, I started to understand the importance of institutional governance and how it connects to internationalization. The three governance models that Dobbins discusses can have significant influences on how a college promotes both internationalization and ‘internationalization at home.’

The ‘state-centered model’ places the majority, if all, authority in the hands of state government. The members of the board, who are usually appointed and not elected, plus the president, ultimately make all the major decisions that affect an individual institution or a system of institutions. The priorities of the colleges are determined by the state, and so are operations and quality assessment. This model removes a lot of the autonomy institutions would normally have, which, as one can imagine, creates a lot of friction between college and government. An approach like this exists in Connecticut, where all public higher education institutions are under the jurisdiction of the state. Called Transform CSCU (Connecticut State Colleges & Universities) 2020, this model aims to standardize almost everything, much to the chagrin of the college presidents, the boards, and especially the faculty.

I have a feeling that internationalization would be overlooked in a model like this. Budgeting and academic services are probably way higher on the list of priorities than study abroad programs and concepts that do not directly impact the stability of the institutions, such as internationalization at home. If budgeting is in the hands of the state, it is even possible that internationalization could be negatively impacted. I could easily imagine the state moving money around and dismantling or severely reducing the funding of  the existing programs.

The second model is ‘academic self-rule.’ This provides much more freedom to the faculty, but it also decentralizes authority and can potentially result in mismanagement and inaction. Allowing faculty to make their own decisions seems beneficial enough, especially since they are at the ‘center of the college,’ but they are not professional administrators. Faculty are known for being slow-moving, and that can be quite detrimental to the running of an institution. Still, there is a better chance that internationalization will be advocated for, since there are undeniable benefits to becoming global citizens and learning about other cultures. The only problem would be to determine whether or not a program would be efficiently managed; however, the research we looked at in class indicates that most SIOs previously held or currently hold faculty positions. If that’s the case, then internationalization would thrive much more with this model.

According to Dobbins, the last model is ‘market-oriented.’ This is the approach that we always debate about- should institutions of higher education be run like businesses. This means that students are the clients or customers, which is a potentially dangerous way of thinking because it could compromise the quality of education the students would receive. Usually competition encourages progress and higher quality because the colleges need to attract new students. Better housing, sports facilities, dining services, and other amenities are always thrown in the faces of prospective students as they walk around campuses (you rarely hear about the hiring of great professors). Internationalization may thrive in this environment, too, because study abroad programs are one more way to make a college more appealing. Great. But it almost seems dirty. Does the institution actually care about internationalization or does it just want to collect more tuition money? That may be a skeptical way of looking at things, but internationalization should exist for genuine reasons, not just as a recruitment ploy.

As one can see, depending on the model a college adopts, internationalization can fare differently. Unfortunately, there are so many factors to consider when running a school that  both internationalization and internationalization at home fall to the wayside. As we have learned, sometimes it is up to a charismatic individual to change an institution’s view of the worth of internationalization. Let’s find those people!

 

Links

Transform CSCU 2020

http://www.ct.edu/transform