a case study in education abroad
Meeting the Institutional Challenge: Managing Growth
New Leadership—and a New Appetite for Growth
Leslie Danielson smiled to herself as she listened to the speech of the incoming Chancellor of State University. The inauguration was a lovely affair with about 1,000 dignitaries and others in attendance from the national, state, and local levels. Danielson loved the sight of faculty and staff dressed in full academic regalia. A sunny day and a speech heavily focused on the internationalization of the campus—both in the past and in the future—warmed her heart even more and brought a smile to her face. “Our goal,” the new Chancellor continued, “is to ensure that every student attending State is prepared to compete, not just in the local economy, but in the global economy, and to contribute—as a good citizen and educated person—to the American dialogue about all things international: economic, social, and political.” Danielson knew full well that within a week the Provost would repeat these words as he presented her with her new marching orders. Danielson had been at State for three years. With slightly more than a dozen years in academic administration, an Ed.D. from a top education school, and a life partner now on the tenure track at State, it was a perfect position for her skills, background, and personal life. Born of multilingual parents, raised overseas for part of her childhood, and educated in the U.S., Danielson had a global perspective and considerable experience abroad. When it worked out that she was able to secure this job, at almost the same time her husband had been recruited, it was a great fit.
Assessing the Status Quo—and Preparing for Success
State was not the largest or most international school in the U.S. by any measure. A mid-sized university, it served a smaller state that had relatively modest ambitions for its academic mission—at least internationally—although that was clearly about to change. It had professional schools (medicine, law, architecture, business, and engineering), some outstanding research facilities and faculty, a beautiful campus, and a small town atmosphere that made it an easy location in which to live and a delightful setting in which to work. The school, while local in orientation, had a reasonable representation of out-of-state and international students.
There had been solid fundraising campaigns but a large endowment was a long way from realization. The State Legislature was not ungenerous, but the state’s growth strategy was not as forward-thinking about globalization as was the case in some other states. There was clearly a focus on things local (lots of talk in every campaign about shopkeepers and neighbors), the environment (a clear anti-lumbering bias), and tourism (which was one of the state’s largest industries).
The management of the state higher education system was reasonably professional, and the President of the system had considerable latitude for a leader at a public institution. Participation in study abroad was quite good, with 15% of the University’s students taking part. The numbers were split about 50-50 between semester and summer programs; the latter were faculty-led efforts that usually ran three to six weeks. Academic year program participants were few. State students paid home school tuition plus a study abroad fee that was considered by most to be moderate but not prohibitive. As state tuition was high, the study abroad fee was not a huge factor in keeping the vast majority of students from this activity; but as with most schools, it was an issue for everyone as the rising cost of education took hold, and many students took out additional loans or financial aid during their semester abroad.
Danielson reported to the Provost, and as Dean of International Affairs, was focused on both inbound and outbound student participation as well as campus internationalization. Reporting to Danielson, the Director of International Students and Scholars had a staff of three and several student assistants. A new position had recently been created for a doctoral student to work on data gathering and research, but at present, that job was unfilled. An international liaison staff member, at a manager rather than director level, coordinated overseas research activities with the academic departments and units whose faculty usually carried out the research. A Director of Study Abroad also reported to Danielson, running the Study Abroad office; a staff of five plus a part-time student peer advisor counseled individual students on program selection. To a large extent, the strategic choices about how to increase study abroad enrollments—and in fact about many of the school’s international activities—were Danielson’s responsibility. Those reporting to her were in charge of day-to-day execution.
As Danielson thought about the last few years, she felt she had made substantial progress. International student enrollments had been flat due to increased competition from schools with stronger recruiting efforts. She had been working with the Director of International Students and Scholars to increase enrollments in this area, but she hadn’t yet reached any firm conclusions about how they ought to proceed. Campus internationalization had not been a priority, but there was a lot of on-campus activity that was international in nature—concerts, speakers, and so forth—which, while not entirely her doing, gave a global feeling to campus life.
Study abroad numbers were growing, but not fast enough to satisfy the new Chancellor’s expectations, given her inaugural remarks. There was no question in Danielson’s mind that, from the Chancellor’s point of view, success over the next few years would require that they step up the activity level and get more students abroad, and move forward faster in some of the other areas under her purview as well.
Building Success on Borrowed Experience
She had thought a good deal about how they were going to increase study abroad enrollments—the area where both the Chancellor and Provost were directing increased attention. In the simplest sense, her strategic choices were divided between supply and demand. On the demand side, the challenge was to increase the number of students who wanted to have a learning experience abroad. On the supply side, State’s limited resources would require careful allocation in order to meet the Chancellor’s challenge. Danielson had seen the change in administration coming and had spent a good deal of the last year gathering information on how other colleges and universities had increased their numbers abroad over recent years. She thought there were three or four key factors that would lead to an increase.
First, success would require leadership that supported the idea of studying abroad. Many administrations she knew thought of study abroad as a good idea but a necessary evil that left dorm rooms empty and ultimately cost the university more money than it brought in. While some of those challenges were real, it was clear that at State, at least as long as the new Chancellor was in place, there was going to be considerable support for all of her work, including study abroad.
Second, study abroad seemed to work best in schools where there was faculty support for the activity. State did have a faculty study abroad advisory committee that met several times a year, but it had not been particularly forceful in carrying out its charge. Danielson had been around long enough to know that some faculty always opposed study abroad: what could students possibly learn abroad that that they can’t learn better here? What were they truly learning overseas? Students returning to campus often emphasized what fun they had had, rather than what they had learned, which made some faculty wary of what was really happening on these programs.
In general, however, her experience with State faculty was that they were supportive of study abroad and saw it as an opportunity to advance the educational mission of the school—not detract from it. There were always a few naysayers, and they would have to be dealt with in some way, but overall, State had an academic environment positively disposed toward—if not all that experienced with—study abroad and international activities.
Next, Danielson realized, from all the conferences she had attended and the people she had talked to, that having an upbeat and knowledgeable person running the study abroad office was a must. Students needed support to make study abroad work, and a lot of that support started in the international programs office. On this front, Danielson thought she had a competent Director with solid experience in the office, although she wasn’t sure how much that person was truly committed to growth.
Finally, the school needed a variety of study abroad offerings to meet student needs. State had an approved list of programs that it recommended to students. The list consisted of about 150 programs around the world. Students wishing to attend a program not on this list had to petition both Academic Affairs for transfer credit and their department for major course credit. This approval was generally granted although some students balked at the requirement that they petition in order to attend the study abroad program of their choice.
State’s approved list contained four types of programs: four study centers in major international capitals that State had operated for many years (the study abroad office ran these, but to some extent they ran on remote control); a consortium of State and five other mid-sized universities which worked together to run five or six programs, depending on the semester (with responsibility for program operations largely handled by the larger institutions); third-party providers that offered a broad array of programs throughout the world; and third-party providers that had specialized programs in one or two places, and that focused on particular types of activities of interest to State students, such as service-learning.
Turning Ideas into Action
As she returned to her office, re-donning her street clothes and reflecting on the inaugural celebration, she thought about her next steps in developing and implementing a strategy for growth and development: what needed to be done, how long each step would take, who needed to be involved at each step, where these activities were going to take place, and so forth. In some ways, she had as many questions as answers!
Her first step was to write a memo to present to the Provost about what State needed to do to develop its overall campus internationalization. She planned to focus heavily on undergraduate study abroad, where the Chancellor was putting emphasis, but to relate this in a larger sense to campus internationalization issues, including the recruitment of non-U.S. students and scholars.
Danielson believed that she had about a month to prepare her strategic plan for the future.
COMMENTARY: Harnessing Momentum—with a Practical Plan
John K. Hudzik, Ph.D.
Professor and Vice President
Michigan State University
It is worrisome if the Chancellor’s one sentence remark was the first inkling Leslie had about a new emphasis on preparing undergraduates for living and working in a global environment. It is difficult to imagine any large scale institutional revisioning effort in which the responsible leadership had not been given a “heads up” e.g., the dean of medicine about a major new health sciences initiative, or the dean of arts and sciences about a new liberal arts strengthening initiative. If the Chancellor’s remark was indeed a surprise, it signals either an administrative style of the incoming leadership, or something about Leslie’s position and access to superiors; perhaps the remark was simply “off handed.” The Provost was probably aware of the speech’s content. Seasoned administrators will give subordinates in whom they have confidence a heads-up on issues that may attract press attention or questions. What is Leslie supposed to say if asked by the press: “I am pleased as well as surprised?”
Before leaping to conclusions or springing to action, Leslie should be careful not to assume too much about the Chancellor’s one sentence remark. There are very few presidents and chancellors today who don’t raise the rhetorical flag on the subject of preparing graduates for a global environment. The pertinent question is whether there is a real commitment to action beyond the rhetoric; there is no reasonable way to judge this from the Chancellor’s speech. Further, Leslie seems focused on study abroad as the major way in which this new initiative will be operationalized. We don’t actually know that either from the speech.
To demonstrate her initiative—and to clarify the weight of the Chancellor’s remarks—Leslie should take the lead, and contact the Provost. She should prepare a short list of framing questions for the meeting. The over-arching purpose of the meeting should be to: (1) gauge whether the Provost and/or Chancellor have pre-determined views about what the initiative means; (2) gauge whether they have a sense of the level of effort and commitment required to make it work; and (3) gauge whether this is rhetoric or a commitment to results.
The framing questions are not for the faint of heart because they will press a superior for answers to hard questions which s/he may not be prepared to answer or that may cause irritation from perceived pressure. Much depends on the pre-existing nature and openness of the relationship between Leslie and the Provost. Does Leslie have the basis for a candid and open conversation? Not having answers to the framing questions, however, will leave Leslie in the dark and possibly frozen out of a serious role in advancing the initiative. Some of the framing questions might include:
1. How serious is the Chancellor regarding this new initiative and how does the Chancellor see its scope?
2. What do the Provost and Chancellor seek as the major outcomes? What are the goals for undergraduates? What will define “success”—increased participation, learning outcomes, impacts on student careers? Unless the Provost has given this significant prior thought, the answers will be in generalities, but even this can be helpful.
3. How focused or wide does the Provost/Chancellor see this initiative, e.g., encompassing only study abroad, or also internationalizing on-campus curricula, curricular integration of study abroad, expansion of language learning, new graduation requirements?
4. Does the Provost foresee faculty and academic departments closely and actively involved in this initiative? If so, will the Provost and/or the Chancellor be on message to champion this new direction on campus and off and with the general public and legislature? Will academic units be held accountable for participation and results?
5. What does the Provost see as the role of the academic deans in this new initiative and what is the role of International Affairs and its dean?
6. Is there any evidence that thought has been given to the likely need to reallocate resources to support this initiative or the scope of resources needed and where they will come from?
The Provost’s answers to questions two and three speak to the administration’s commitment—and will help form the scope of resource needs. Leslie needs to be prepared with benchmark data from other institutions both as to amounts of funds, given varying sizes of operation, as well as alternative funding mechanisms. Examples from other institutions can help anchor the conversation if it gets to that level of detail and also provide external validation of likely needs.
Depending on the answers to the questions above, Leslie could volunteer to produce a short five to seven page concept paper that outlines directions and next steps to move from rhetoric to action. She should probe the Provost for the topics he would want covered in such a concept paper.
In response, the Provost may say “yes” or suggest “holding tight” for a while—which in itself is a message—or that he has in mind the formation of a campus-wide task force on internationalization of the undergraduate experience. Leslie should be prepared to suggest categories of people who should be involved in such a task force and suggest a prominent role for International Affairs (and herself—even if ex officio).
If this initiative is real and encompassing of the full range of efforts outlined in question three, Leslie’s biggest challenge will be relationships and effective influence with faculty and academic colleagues. In the simplest sense, this kind of initiative cannot possibly be successful without the active involvement of the faculty and cooperation of academic administrators, i.e., deans and department heads. This is true even if the focus is mainly on an expansion of study abroad.
Leslie’s existing relationship with academic units and faculty is not clear. The case material conveys a mixed view—at best that the most apt characterization of relations between International Affairs and the academic enterprise is cordial but benign. It is also possible, reading between the lines, that International Affairs is seen more by the academic units as a service provider than as exerting real leadership with respect to campus internationalization efforts. If this is true, it needs correction if International Affairs is to have a real role in framing and advancing the initiative.
If International Affairs and Leslie are to have real influence in setting directions and achieving success, they will have to be publicly and meaningfully supported in this role. That support takes many forms: (1) The Provost/Chancellor must be clear, with the academic deans in particular, about the nature of the “leadership” role International Affairs will take. (2) International Affairs and Leslie will need “walking around” money to incentivize the faculty developing new programs and courses, to fund start-up and experimentation efforts and, ideally, to ensure adequate resources to partner with academic units to expand programming. (3) A method will be needed to effectively engage the academic community in this effort to give it a real role in planning and implementation and, as a result, buy-in and support from them.
An equally important variable (and need) is that Leslie is seen to be an effective leader and visionary for this effort. A belief among those involved that she is capable of orchestrating its success is critical. This is not an issue of “position power.” Deans of international programs on campuses typically exercise little power per se and particularly with respect to academic units. The most effective international deans are those who can exercise influence. While Leslie is apparently well liked, the real question is: do others see her as a person of substance and compelling influence on the direction of internationalization? Leslie may have the basis for building this kind of image and relationship with academic units, but it is something that will have to be constantly attended to and nurtured.
As a key component to her credibility—and to the success of internationalization—Leslie will need to focus her efforts. It is likely that expansion of study abroad will be a component of any enhanced internationalization effort in the present environment; initially it may be the principal focus. If so, it is critical that Leslie obtain a clear understanding and vision of the prerequisites not only for the expansion of study abroad numbers, but for effective attention to quality. Quality enhancement requires a professional study abroad staff and it requires academic engagement of faculty and academic units.
But study abroad cannot be the only agent for internationalization. The on-campus curriculum itself likely needs significant strengthening in terms of international, comparative, and global content in both general education and major curricula. Staffing in study abroad may need to expand, but this is probably an issue to be addressed later rather than immediately so as to avoid the appearance of trying to “feather one’s nest.”
Study abroad will be only an appendage to the curriculum and learning (an island in the undergraduate experience) unless it is integrated into the curriculum. Curricular integration requires the active participation of faculty. Also, if the goal is to significantly expand (e.g., double participation rates), this cannot be done easily without growth in faculty-led programs as one of the options. A mid-sized university with the usual range of professional majors will require diversity in program length and pedagogy and levels of faculty engagement. Faculty will have to be advocates not only for curricular integration but for student participation as well.
Regardless whether the Chancellor and Provost define the initiative narrowly as expanding study abroad, or more widely to encompass other aspects of internationalization, the foundation issues will remain the same: (1) Have the Chancellor and Provost clearly defined a vision for internationalization? (2) Will they publicly advocate the vision and cultivate the support of academic leaders and faculty? (3) What are the prospects that Leslie can expand the proportion of faculty and administrators on campus who actively support rather than benignly neglect internationalization? (4) What is the campus climate and support for internationalizing on-campus curriculum and also for integrating and accommodating study abroad into the curriculum? (5) Is there awareness among the leadership that financial and other resources will be necessary? (6) Is there an awareness that there will have to be incentives for faculty and academic units to expand their commitment to internationalization (since that rhetoric and command will be insufficient)? The answers to these questions will help gauge the likelihood of success for Leslie and the campus.
Institutions of higher education increasingly face resource constraints and expanding workloads. This is partly driven by a decrease in public funding and mounting pressure for institutions to become entrepreneurial. The latter requires institutions and their academic units to be directly responsive to a wider array of constituencies. The Chancellor’s remarks to expand internationalization are likely to be greeted, at least in part, with “Oh, great, another load being dumped on us.” Attention needs to be given early in the process to creation of incentives for cooperation.
In an academic community, as Leslie no doubt understands, incentives can take many forms. Among the most important for faculty is that participation in international efforts (whether study abroad or in other ways) needs to be recognized in faculty performance assessment. Is international engagement flagged in tenure, promotion, and merit increase guidelines? Are funds available to support faculty travel, new course development, or start-up for expanded international activity?
Departments and academic units will need incentives to participate. If salary release funds are generated through study abroad or other means, departments will want to capture them. There are ways to consider departmental overhead in the form of administrative costs or foregone opportunities which can be calculated and reimbursed through a revenue stream back to departments from study abroad and other international activity. The critical issue for Leslie and campus leadership to wrestle with is how they intend to financially support and incentivize participation. This should be thought through in advance of announcing the details of a new initiative.
Professor John Hudzik, Ph.D., is Vice President for Global Engagement and Strategic Projects at Michigan State University (MSU) and Professor of Criminal Justice. He was Dean of International Studies and Programs at MSU from 1995 to 2004, and Acting Provost from 2004–05. He serves on numerous policy and advisory Boards including Australia Education International and the HED. He is President-elect of NAFSA; previous President of the Association of International Education Administrators; member of the University Working Group of the Overseas Security Advisory Council, United States Department of State; and National Co-Chair of the Data and Strategic Analysis Working Group for the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Commission.
COMMENTARY: Internationalization at State U: From Buzzword to Brass Tacks
Kumble R. Subbaswamy, Ph.D.
Provost
University of Kentucky
Although the new Chancellor of State U uttered the words in her inaugural speech, surely this is not the first time Dean Leslie Danielson has heard the exhortation, “Our goal is to assure that every student is... prepared to compete, not just in the local economy, but in the global economy of which we’re all a part....” As someone with a dozen years in academic administration and a global personal history, she must have had this as at least an implicit goal in her dealings as Dean of International Affairs at State. As such, Dean Danielson is in big trouble if she thinks she can create and present her plan for the future in “about a month,” as the case study’s conclusion indicates.
It sounds as though State has not taken its internationalization effort very seriously until this point, being satisfied with a study abroad program which seems to be working on par with most peer institutions. The case narrative states that her plan is now “to develop a ‘paper’ for presentation to the Provost.” It doesn’t speak too well of the Provost either that such a paper, if not a well-articulated internationalization strategic plan, doesn’t already exist. According to the case narrative, internationalization was not a priority for the previous administration. If Danielson wants to earn the confidence of the new Chancellor, she needs to jolt herself, as well as her unit, out of its apparent sense of complacency. At this point her best option is to begin, with the support of the Provost (who might also have a self-interest in earning the confidence of the new Chancellor), to put in place the kind of internationalization plan the institution needs.
According to the case narrative, the State Legislature “was not as forward-thinking about globalization as part of the state growth strategy as other states might have been.” This makes the University’s role in preparing citizens to “compete in the global economy” so much more urgent, and clearly the new Chancellor has the correct vision. The State has a concern about the environment and tourism, both of which have global dimensions, whether State leadership realizes this or not. State is not unusual in this regard. Too many Americans have no need for a passport, and they see the role of the U.S. in the production of knowledge and commerce as more central than it actually is. Consciously or not, universities run the danger of reinforcing that perception to their students. State U needs to lead the state to think beyond the local, in the local interest.
Danielson needs to see, and more importantly her Provost needs to understand, that internationalization today is more than a buzzword, and extends far beyond student exchange and study abroad programs. At an internationalized university, the international arena is not seen merely as one more dimension of the courses it offers, the research it undertakes, or the experience it offers its students; instead, it forms a core value of the university, pervading both the curriculum and the co-curriculum. In other words, an internationalized university makes its students engage intensely with the world at large as a matter of course—not as a separate effort. Bringing international perspectives and experiences within the range of all students requires that “knowledge” be seen correctly in perspective as “internationally-produced knowledge.” Faculty members rightly realize they are conducting research in the global arena, but is that perspective brought into the classroom? The same is true of transnational commerce and culture.
The new Chancellor of State U speaks of preparing students “to contribute as a good citizen and educated person to the American dialogue about all things international; economic, social, and political.” In this regard, the new Chancellor reinforces what Robert G. Hanvey, in his book An Attainable Global Perspective, calls “perspective consciousness,” or the awareness that each group has a “view of the world that is not universally shared, and that others have views of the world that are profoundly different from our own.”1 A 2002 study by NAFSA, the Association for International Educators, concludes that this consciousness, which the world now demands of all of us, is “not so much a dimension of a global perspective... but its foundational prerequisite.”2 The integration of this vision as part of its academic mission should be the goal of State U’s new agenda of internationalization.
In this era of extensive “off-shoring,” there is a tendency to tell students they should be aware of other cultures because they will find themselves competing with those cultures. Instead, they should be allowed to see those college graduates abroad as potential partners, and co-producers of knowledge and commerce. With this in mind, the experience of working in an international laboratory, or school, or place of business can teach students the valuable skill of listening across cultural boundaries, as well as to speak effectively across those differences. This is what is meant by “global citizens.”
Danielson needs to use this month not to prepare a “paper,” but to create a plan for the planning process. She needs to use the month for intensive assessment of her own unit, and for a critical look at the state of affairs there. The narrative indicates, for example, that there are too-deep divisions between strategy and operations within the study abroad office; that inbound international student numbers are flat; that the faculty study abroad advisory committee had become largely irrelevant; and that the study abroad director is “competent,” “solid,” but not “truly committed to growth.” Overall, the description is that of an International Affairs office that is complacent, uninspired, and in danger of drifting towards ever increasing entropy.
In order to address these issues, Danielson will need to create a plan that involves new energy from some source. She might think about bringing in an external consultant, or envisioning a planning process that will have broad campus buy-in. She should consult benchmark institutions as well as the associations within her professional field, in order to compile a set of best practices that can serve as criteria for assessment of her own shop. In other words, she should create a plan of action that will lead to an effective planning process, one that will engage both the division of International Affairs and the faculty/staff/students of the campus.
Danielson should also recognize that, while international issues took center stage in the incoming Chancellor’s inaugural speech, she will most likely engage in a broader strategic planning process shortly after arrival. Danielson should make sure that she is closely attuned to this process, and that her own strategic planning process dovetails well with this larger agenda, in both its process and its focus. The broad strategic plan should stress the importance of internationalization, and at the same time the planning for International Affairs should build upon the key themes of the larger strategic plan.
Danielson should use the new Chancellor’s agenda to also instill a degree of urgency on the part of the Provost to support her efforts. She cannot succeed in this far-reaching internationalization agenda without the whole-hearted support of the academic deans. Danielson will need to demonstrate how their agendas—enhancing research, recruiting graduate students, broadening their curricula, taking advantage of foundations and federal programs—will be advanced through internationalization.
The narrative offers several bases upon which the eventual strategic plan for International Affairs might build. For example, State is a mid-sized university with professional schools and “some outstanding research facilities and faculty.” Yet overseas research activities are coordinated by “an international liaison staff member, at a manager rather than director level.” An energetic plan for growth or increased momentum should be firmly grounded in the research program, which is likely to have global pathways already well-established, but not functioning as well as they might to the benefit of the students and the home campus. The narrative also mentions the environment and tourism as local preoccupations. These two foci can form bulwarks of the new plan.
The penultimate paragraph of the narrative mentions that Danielson intends to focus on undergraduate study abroad, since that seemed to be where the Chancellor was putting emphasis. This is the wrong approach, focusing on one output measure rather than on the engine that would drive that output. Instead, Danielson needs to educate herself about the ways that study abroad will grow as a consequence of a broader internationalization focus outlined above. By directing faculty energies toward international endeavors, by pushing for a stronger global focus in the curriculum and the co-curriculum, and by promoting opportunities for service-learning, internships, and other types of international engagement for students, Danielson will see consequent growth in study abroad, and will shepherd a much deeper agenda for change than the short-sighted one she now envisions. She needs to realize that her position and leadership have suddenly become far more central to State U’s mission, and she had better prepare herself to meet that challenge!
Acknowledgement: Thoughts expressed in this response are a result of discussions currently taking place at my own university. I am grateful to Dr. Susan Carvalho, Assistant Provost for Internationalization, for her help in formulating these thoughts.
Kumble R. Subbaswamy came to the U.S. in 1971 as a doctoral student in physics at Indiana University. He joined the faculty of the University of Kentucky in 1978, remaining there until 1997. He was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 1989 for his research in theoretical condensed matter physics. His administrative career has taken him to the University of Miami and Indiana University, where he was the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He returned to the University of Kentucky as Provost in 2006.
1 Robert G. Hanvey, An Attainable Global Perspective (New York: Center for Global Perspectives, 1979). Cited in Spencer & Tuma, p. 4.
2 Sarah E. Spencer and Kathy Tuma, eds. and Introduction. The Guide to Successful Short-Term Programs Abroad. (NAFSA Association of International Educators, 2002), p. 4. www.nafsa.org/_/Document/_/guide_to_successful_short-term.pdf
COMMENTARY: Collaboration and a Plan of Action: Creating Institutional Change
Lynn C. Anderson
Dean of International Education, Director of the International Center
University of California San Diego
Danielson’s reflections about State and her challenges to manage growth are similar to those faced by international educators at institutions that are following the national trend to internationalize. While eminently worthy, internationalization has become a popular goal, easily espoused by upper level administrators, but less easily actualized. And while there are excellent resources available to assist institutions interested in internationalizing, few have, or take, the time to develop a comprehensive, reasonable, and detailed plan. Even fewer have, or provide, the resources necessary to make the plan viable.
Danielson faces this very dilemma. State has some good assets, Danielson among them, but she seems to understand the gap between the expectations likely to be set for her and her ability to be successful with her current resources and allies. Danielson must set specific, achievable goals with reasonable timelines, demonstrate success, and build on that success. Let’s consider the wide range of issues crucial for any institution intent on internationalizing with specific reference to Danielson’s deliberations and State’s situation. First, with whom will Danielson consult as she develops her plan and who will her stakeholders be at State? Second, what are her existing resources and strengths? Third, what are the challenges and how might she address them as she develops her plan?
First, Danielson should identify her critical constituents—those with whom she’ll consult, and those with a stake in the success of her efforts. If internationalization is a campus-wide initiative, then consultation must also be campus-wide. Internationalization must be integrated into the fabric of the institution and its operations. This will also help ensure sustainability. Danielson identifies some crucial allies—including administrators and faculty—but her list isn’t nearly long enough. Her potential allies and stakeholders ought to include admissions, the alumni office, career services, student affairs, academic affairs, financial aid, housing, colleges, departments, faculty, administrators, advisors, central administration, the foundation, and students.
For instance, career services has a vested interest in developing State’s undergraduates and preparing them for careers, graduate and professional schools, and other pursuits. Does career services assist study abroad returnees in preparing for interviews and developing resumes that reflect and highlight the study abroad experience? Has Danielson consulted with career services to determine what they know, anecdotally or statistically, about how State graduates who have and have not studied abroad fare in the world of work, in acceptance into medical school, or in competition for Fulbrights? If career services sees that students who study abroad are more successful, they will become natural allies of study abroad and of Danielson’s efforts. And as stakeholders with a vested interest in the success of internationalization efforts, they will be more likely to encourage students to go abroad.
As other, later examples will show, each of these groups will respond to different aspects of internationalization—and each has a key role to play in achieving State’s goals.
Danielson’s overview of State’s resources and strengths is thoughtful. She describes support from upper level administrators and some faculty, but she doesn’t consider the level of support and awareness among academic deans, faculty chairs, directors of advising, and admissions. With 15% of students going abroad, State has a good foundation of success upon which to build. In her role, Danielson needs to recommend specific growth goals to help State measure its success in efforts to internationalize.
Danielson goes on to describe funding as adequate—but laments the lack of endowments. The strong community connection could be a source of financial support (assuming local companies hire State graduates) and of scholarship funding (if they want the skills that State graduates acquire during abroad experiences). State doesn’t have much of a national reputation but new leadership may signal new support.
Although Danielson has the funds to hire someone to gather data and do research, the position is unfilled—and she lacks the hard numbers she needs to demonstrate growth, drive planning, and win the support of potential stakeholders. Hard information is crucial at research institutions where management decisions are increasingly data-driven. For instance, are there data about student satisfaction with and without study abroad? If students who study abroad are happier alumni, that will influence administrative support for study abroad. To achieve a baseline of information and data, and develop a basic needs analysis, Danielson will want to hire her data person and then conduct focus groups and surveys of students and faculty to identify real and perceived barriers.
Although Danielson anticipates support from the Chancellor and Provost, where is the energy within the institution to achieve the goals that will be set? What is already in place, and exciting, and how can she build upon that? Are there departments that are logical allies and sources of expertise? Language departments, area studies, international studies, and international business departments all have a vested interest in Danielson’s work. In addition to these select departments, there are likely international faculty in all departments and faculty who have spent significant time abroad who may also be strong allies.
Danielson spent time in the last year learning about what other colleges and universities have done, but has she shared that information with key leaders on campus? There are many good resources she could share with them, including, NASULGC’s “Call to Leadership,” the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program’s “Global Competence and Needs,” the American Council on Education’s “Internationalizing the Campus: A User’s Guide,” and the Forum on Education Abroad’s “Standards” and “Code of Ethics.” In addition, in January 2008 NAFSA released “Strengthening Study Abroad: Recommendations for Effective Institutional Management for Presidents, Senior Administrators, and Study Abroad Professionals.” Articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education underscore the importance of this report and its implications for U.S. higher education. Davidson is fortunate that so many of State’s upper level administrators endorse and support study abroad and international education. These resources can help administrators gain a sense of direction and focus their internationalization efforts, without creating a new process from scratch.
Danielson has the knowledge and experience to provide strong leadership, and she seems dedicated and positive. As Dean of International Affairs, she is responsible for incoming and outgoing students, has great potential for programming initiatives, and could develop a coordinated and articulated set of programs, courses, and domestic experiences that would provide all State students with the knowledge, skills, and sensitivities they need to function in the global environment. In addition, these curricular and co-curricular offerings could provide a framework for students before and after they go abroad as well as a venue for internationals to contribute to campus international discourse.
Danielson will want to explore the existing and potential connections between faculty research initiatives abroad and undergraduates doing research abroad. Additionally, how do faculty bring content from international research back into their classrooms? Could her office organize presentations on international research that are open to faculty, staff, and students?
State has a good breadth of disciplines and many professional programs, so Danielson will need thoughtful and compelling study abroad learning goals from each department. This will require close collaboration with departments to ensure program continuity—and to ensure that curricula abroad measure up to the standards required of each State program. If more pre-med and engineering students are to study abroad, then State will need to identify full year programs that offer core science courses, so that course sequences are not interrupted.
Addressing challenges in a coordinated fashion can lead to the development of an excellent plan to internationalize. Danielson expresses concerns about the funding model and about the fact that some at State see students going away on study abroad as tuition flight rather than an issue of enrollment management. If admissible students are being turned away, then why not increase the number of students admitted each year by the average FTE that participate in study abroad each year? This would require close collaboration with admissions, as would any attempts to increase the number of international students at State. Admissions would be very interested in increasing enrollments abroad if emphasis on study abroad and the international dimensions of the on-campus experience could help increase yield. At some universities, study abroad scholarships have been developed to attract students—and augment admissions.
Danielson wonders how to increase international enrollments. Might she encourage faculty who are doing research abroad or going to conferences to spend part of a day helping with international student recruitment? Are there international alumni abroad who are willing to help with recruitment? Since students going abroad create empty dorm rooms on campus, can internationals coming in balance out the domestic students going out?
Danielson can increase faculty support through faculty participation in site visits, site reviews, and conversations with study abroad providers when they are on campus. In addition, faculty could visit study abroad sites when they are at conferences or doing research abroad—particularly if funding is available to support them. Faculty can also learn more about study abroad options by talking with returned students, getting postcards from students, and attending research fairs or other venues that showcase the work those students have done abroad. Danielson’s staff can coach students so they focus on talking about academics and not just on stories about fun and drinking. Danielson might work with faculty to explore how study abroad might enhance class discussions or senior theses—while encouraging faculty to observe any distinctions between the work and attitudes of students who have studied abroad, and those who have remained on campus.
Danielson expresses general confidence but also some concern about the study abroad director. Could the director’s hesitancy come from a lack of clarity about whether the office will be staffed for growth or whether they will be expected to do more with current staff? If they must do more with existing staff, then how can the advising model be adjusted to allow for growth with static staffing?
To find additional avenues for support and growth for the director, Danielson might also see if the director is a member of NACADA, especially of the Study Abroad Advising Interest Group. The director is in a key position to be able to collaborate with and train departmental and college advisors, get invited to advisor training, and know the challenges that advisors face. She needs to investigate how advisors across campus can become allies, refer students, and help with academic planning. Whatever processes are developed must be developed with advisors—not for them.
To address the problem of students balking at the need to do academic planning, State needs to make the process clear from the beginning through a combination of informational meetings, interactive content, print materials, and advisor appointments. If departmental and college advisors are informed and engaged, they will help get messages to students early and often.
To address issues of availability of high quality abroad options, Danielson needs to ascertain whether State is fully utilizing existing relationships. With that knowledge, she can determine which programs and relationships might be modified to accommodate more students.
Finally, State needs to make maximum use of third-party providers and other consortia, while avoiding exchanges that are too time consuming to provide real value. International alumni or expatriates may be willing to “meet and greet” students going abroad, provide internship, community service, or volunteer opportunities—helping to round out programs that might otherwise fall short of State’s standards.
Through the development of a broad and active group of stakeholders, careful examination of resources and strengths, and a realistic and concrete approach to challenges, Danielson should be able to develop a plan for internationalizing State that meets the goals of the new Chancellor and the needs of State students in the 21st Century.
Lynn C. Anderson is the Dean of International Education and Director of the International Center at the University of California San Diego. Anderson was Director of Curriculum Integration and Associate Director of the Learning Abroad Center at the University of Minnesota (UMTC).
Anderson authored the chapter on “Advising Principles and Strategies” in the NAFSA Guide and edited and contributed to the monograph “Internationalizing Undergraduate Education: Integrating Study Abroad into the Curriculum.” She has served on the Advisory Council of the Forum on Education Abroad, the IES Curricular Audit Committee, the CAPA Academic Advisory Board, and chaired the YMCA Camp du Nord Board.
Anderson holds a B.A. in German (Hamline University, Phi Beta Kappa) and M.A.s in German and in ESL (UMTC).
COMMENTARY: Danielson’s Dilemma
Carl A. Herrin
Senior Partner
Global Education Solutions
It’s good to know that Leslie Danielson is eager to embrace the challenge of advancing internationalization efforts at State. The push toward internationalization is a reality faced by a growing number of international program heads at institutions throughout the U.S. Danielson’s responses to this new emphasis will be critical to the success of her university’s efforts.
Before commenting on Danielson’s challenges, it is useful to examine the developments and events that have put internationalization at center stage of our American higher education agenda. Let’s begin with the headlines of this age: the United States is embroiled in a post-Cold War world in which real and imagined new adversaries (and friends) press in upon the national consciousness with an urgency that is making significant new demands on our institutions and organizations. While the so-called war on terror is arguably the lead story politically, there is a range of social, environmental, economic, and security concerns that were either secondary or unrecognized less than a decade ago.
Globalization defines our new economic reality. We face an evolving set of environmental crises that begin with global warming. There is a reinvigorated sense of global social responsibility within our campus communities. We have a new appreciation for the need to engage with the world, and this engagement is not properly reserved to diplomats and political leaders. While perhaps not fully embraced, we seem to sense that pulling away from the rest of the world is not a practical strategy.
Danielson, her Chancellor, and fellow administrators and faculty are being asked to respond to this new world in several specific ways: redouble efforts to attract the best and brightest students and scholars from around the world; explore new ways to plant the institution’s flag abroad in the crossroads of international commerce; foster deeper and more utilitarian skills in strategic languages among our students; and democratize overseas study so that literally millions of our undergraduates have some educational experience outside our national borders. We are being asked to change our world—and Danielson has a lot of work ahead of her.
Based on the scenario presented in the case study, it is evident that she has no strategic plan, programmatic vision, or action plan. The sad reality is that most of us probably lack this kind of document. Imagine, though, how much better prepared Danielson would be if she already had an outline of such a document in hand. Her smile might be that much warmer.
Let’s assume that State’s new Chancellor has given voice to at least a shorthand expression of a vision for the institution’s commitment and purpose to be addressed through undergraduate study abroad. That vision might not be much more nuanced than, “I want more of our undergraduates to study abroad....” Danielson should begin by sitting down for a few moments and jotting down the vision she has for growth. What kind of learning experiences does she envision for most students? Will the backbone of this growth be on State’s own programmatic development or through outsourcing? How shall the institution demonstrate its leadership to students and faculty, and what are the likely themes of programmatic emphasis? She will need to imagine the face of this new focus beyond the Chancellor’s call for internationalization.
Assuming neither the Chancellor nor Danielson has a draft plan of action at hand, let’s begin with two further assumptions. First, what State University already has in place is the necessary foundation for further action; and second, that she must act in planned stages—she cannot get to her destination all at once.
The existing foundation for State University begins with a summary of institutional strengths. What are State’s leading academic programs? What correlations exist between the political priorities in the community (e.g., the local economy and a left-leaning environmental outlook) and opportunities to connect students to learning opportunities abroad? Study abroad would appear vital with a participation rate of 15 percent, but who’s participating among that segment of the undergraduate population? Is there a relationship between who is going (and where) and the demographic make-up of the student body and the surrounding communities? Are there particular heritage communities conspicuous in their representation in study abroad? How diverse is the international experience of faculty and staff?
An examination of the institution’s strengths will provide Danielson with three key categories of information. First, she will find out where she can propose to realize her earliest successes with internationalization. These may include expanding existing program offerings, capitalizing on ready-made opportunities for success, and tapping into natural and ready allies whose own motivations and interests will drive innovation and initiative. Second, she will see what is missing in the landscape of the institution. Third, she is likely to see where the greatest potential(s) exist for significant new program development and institutional growth. In order to achieve immediate results, her planning efforts should focus on a handful that close gaps, build on promising strengths, and maximize impact on campus.
The plan for action—different than a strategic vision for grounding overall study abroad programming—might have three sequential components. First, following the public call to action by her new chancellor, Danielson must identify steps she can take that will result in an early and noticeable bump in participation rates for study abroad. Her actions must stimulate a buzz on campus that this is a priority activity. This initial short-term action is designed to demonstrate success, build expectations and excitement, and stimulate ideas.
The middle sequence should be built around achievable objectives that produce participant growth through the period of one to three years going forward. This may reflect the ongoing planning she and her study abroad director have already put in place, but should demonstrate a more clearly strategic focus on programmatic opportunities that are sustainable in the long run and serve the core values of the institution. If the early steps are more grounded in a public relations demonstration, these mid-range objectives are substantive, expanding participation into student segments and academic areas that have heretofore been ignored or unavailable. These activities might include making a concerted effort to capture the imagination and innovation of a particular academic department or school (e.g., engineering) and building new program outreach efforts to attract underrepresented students (e.g., students of color). The university might also begin to craft a program model—built around service-learning, thematic emphases like environmental sustainability, interdisciplinary or collaborative teaching involving an overseas partner institution, or field research and lab-styled activities—that can begin to distinguish the State University education abroad programming from that of its sister institutions.
The final sequence is a comprehensive, long-term plan to place the institution’s commitment to internationalization at the core of its academic life. Admissions and marketing are featuring study abroad as a distinguishing aspect of the undergraduate experience at State. The curricular design of most (if not all) of the institution’s majors are presuming that students will study abroad, that early-sequence courses are anticipating the preparation of the students for this experience, and that upper level classes and concluding academic requirements—like capstone programs—presume or at least anticipate the learning expectations and opportunities required by returning students. Programs for first-year students have central international components—including an early option for an overseas experience. Student re-entry programming offers an opportunity to ease each student’s return to their home campus, while encouraging their participation as proselytes for abroad programming.
As Danielson puts together her plan’s components, she must also anticipate the implications for other key campus concerns. More students studying abroad changes the on-campus enrollment picture, affects tuition flows, alters student residential demands, and creates new and different demands on financial aid administration. Furthermore, as the campus advocates for more students to study abroad, State needs to recruit incoming students for whom this experience is critical—alerting both students and their parents that this activity is not only valued but expected as an educational activity.
This three-step roadmap is naturally going to evolve as time and experience inform the Chancellor’s internationalization initiative, and will be complemented by other aspects of both the chancellor’s vision for State, and by Danielson’s other efforts on non-study abroad components of a full-fledged internationalization push. So a key aspect of this push is recognition of the need to be flexible about the details while staying focused on the core objective of encouraging greater participation in the kind of quality programs the institution values.
Danielson’s greatest challenges may not be the content of her plans or the specific execution of program development and expansion. More likely, they will center on the limited resources at her disposal. A colleague—Joseph Brockington—often warns that education abroad is not an amateur sport. Executing a plan to rebuild and reconceptualize study abroad with an eye toward greater student participation comes at a cost. Resources are needed to build capacity, to engage faculty, to provide assistance to students, to market and promote, to evaluate and assess, and to adequately staff an office. Danielson should arrive at the table with a realistic sense of what it will cost to fulfill the Chancellor’s lofty objectives. An institution committed to true internationalization must put its full resources behind the initiative—beginning with the discretionary dollars controlled by the Chancellor or Provost and including the services and expertise of the university’s development office.
Beyond financial resources, Danielson needs two other assets to succeed. She needs more time to dedicate to planning and development, and she needs additional expertise and assistance. In order to secure more time, she must rely on her directors of international students and study abroad to take more responsibility for conceptualizing and executing her plans for achieving the Chancellor’s vision—and she must empower them to do so. There is a suggestion in the case study that her Study Abroad Director may not be up to this challenge. While stopping short of suggesting that she replace that staff member, Danielson will need to have confidence that her Study Abroad Director is equal to the task of growing study abroad programming.
In order to attain expertise and assistance as quickly and efficiently as possible, Danielson would be well advised to retain a consultant—or a team of outside experts—to invigorate her efforts. Depending on her comfort level, and the resources she and her Chancellor agree to make available, a consultancy is an effective method for outsourcing aspects of the planning, program development, and organizational capacity-building that can both jump start her project and give her and her office needed flexibility and time on task.
Danielson’s dilemma is that she must maintain her existing array of program activities and services while launching a new initiative. She must also support her team’s efforts to service her existing constituents—both students and faculty—while engaging new stakeholders and program participants. And ultimately, she must produce results for her new Chancellor, while maintaining the quality, continuity, and value of her existing offerings. For many of us, the arrival of this day on campus is worthy of a smile—may she roll up her sleeves and jump right in.
Carl A. Herrin, Senior Partner of Global Education Solutions, is well-versed on policy issues in international education, and has focused on professional practice in education abroad over the past dozen years. After more than eight years on the senior staff of American Councils for International Education, he launched a consulting practice that included conducting external reviews of campus study abroad practices and speaking on study abroad policy and program development.
Beginning in 2004, he was first a consultant and then the education abroad initiative director for the Academy for Educational Development, where he launched a start-up that built overseas capacity to host U.S. study abroad students, expanded participation by nontraditional participants, and built a model for experientially-based overseas experiences. With John Deupree, he launched Global Education Solutions in 2008.