Divisional strategies on
internationalizing the curriculum:
A comparative
five-college case study
of deans’ and
faculty perspectives at the University of Minnesota
Executive summary of the master's thesis by
Brenda Ellingboe
Internationalization is a complex and challenging
process for higher educational institutions today. This short
executive summary is a condensed version of a comparative
research project which was conducted during Winter and Spring
Quarters l996, and written as a Master of Arts thesis in June
l996. Using data obtained through documents and interviews in five colleges on the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus,
this research project aimed to determine the interest levels and
attitudes to internationalization and to discover evidence of
internationalized curricula, programs, personnel, and planning
documents. It also attempted to gauge future directions for
internationalization of the curriculum within five colleges
through an analysis of individual interviews with five different
stakeholders. These included central administrators, directors of
international units, deans, faculty members, and professional
staff members within those colleges. This case study was designed
to examine both collegiate level and overall University-wide
levels of commitment to and interest in internationalization.
Curricula, personnel (faculty and student international
activities), programs (curricular and co-curricular within
collegiate units), and strategic planning efforts were all
included as relevant strands of internationalization for this
case study.
Back to the top
Statement
of the Problem
Many private and public universities today
are taking major steps to internationalize their institutions as
they prepare to meet the needs of their twenty-first century
students. Monumental changes are occurring outside academia in
the rapidly-changing and challenging external environment.
Although most U.S. higher educational institutions react slowly
to outside factors, several national reports have called upon
universities to act quickly in order to educate students to be
better prepared for an increasingly internationally-connected
society and a culturally-diverse work place. These include "Educating
Americans for a World in Flux: Ten Ground Rules for
Internationalizing Higher Education" (l996), which was
written by 40 college presidents and distributed by the American
Council on Education. This report, like many others, urges
decision-makers to take immediate action to ensure that students
do receive an education that is much more
internationally-focused. A dangerous parochialism underlies the
curriculum of many learning institutions. While some students
will attain a broadened world view through course work and
cultural immersion experiences and study abroad programs, most
students will not (for many reasons, including the curricular
composition of their undergraduate portfolios and the low student
demand for studying abroad).
As mega-changes occur outside our campus
gates, other changes are taking place within the University of
Minnesota Twin Cities Campus (including the semester calendar
change, new top administrative leadership, and curricular
restructuring). The challenge of this study was to discover what
roadblocks are making it difficult for University of Minnesota
internationalization on the Twin Cities Campus to speedily
proceed and to determine how these resistance factors could be
overcome. Discovering what the institutionally-ingrained
difficulties are and finding out what disciplinary boundaries
exist that are preventing college units from becoming
internationally-focused will assist faculty, deans, directors,
and administrators in forging ahead with future plans.
Back to the top
A Working
Definition and Its Components and Approaches
Internationalization is defined as the
process of integrating an international perspective into a
college or university system. It is an ongoing, future-oriented,
interdisciplinary, leadership-driven vision that involves top
administrators creating an institutional vision and motivating
people in both academic affairs and student affairs units to
change an entire system to think globally, comparatively, and
collaboratively while reacting to multi-dimensional external
changes in global political, economic, social, and cultural
arenas. Following a dean’s lead or central
administration’s vision, internationalization flows into
each of the College cultures and co-curricular units by
transforming their focus. It is the way an institution adapts to
an ever-changing, diverse external environment that is becoming
more globally-focused. By transforming its domestic/uni-dimensional central stem into an
international/multidimensional one, universities make strategic,
system-wide directional and curricular changes along with
financial commitments to ensure its success. Thus, this internal
process involves all stakeholders and infuses all collegiate and
co-curricular units on the entire campus.
Many U.S. and European authors define
internationalization quite similarly; others emphasize more goals
and list several components to an internationalized campus or
discuss student learning outcomes within their
definition/description. There are many components or strands
of internationalization pertaining to an entire university
system. Some of these include: internationalization visions,
goals, strategies, mission statements, and leadership
commitments; international majors/minors within college units;
world languages and area studies courses; internationalized core
and elective courses within disciplines; international teaching,
research, and consulting opportunities for faculty; international
study, research, service, or work opportunities for students;
international programs, conferences, and on-campus events planned
by student affairs units; international students, scholars, and
faculty viewed as campus resources/contributors; cultural
immersion houses, language centers, and internationalized student
centers and other such places on-campus; and international
research sites, linkages, and partnerships with universities
worldwide.
The literature discusses various approaches
to internationalizing curriculum and also administrative
strategies for internationalizing educational systems. Some of
the literature makes reference to organizational change and
leadership as a prerequisite for total campus
internationalization. Some articles list examples of universities
which have made the commitment to internationalize. Approaches
for internationalizing the curriculum at the University of
Minnesota are illustrated in Matrix 6 (Appendix C).
Back to the top
Method,
Context, and Research Questions
A qualitative or interpretive research methodology
(known as the in-depth case study) was used to discover answers
to specific research questions through conducing individual
interviews. Forty-two interviews were conducted between March and
May l996; two pilot series of interviews were also conducted in
May l995 and February l996. A purposeful sampling method was used
to include people with certain areas of responsibility for their
knowledge of their collegiate units or divisions. Specific
central administrators and international unit directors were
contacted because of their titles and units; deans and associate
deans were called upon to gain their leadership perspectives for
six dimensions of organizational change and strategic planning
within these colleges. Faculty members were contacted by randomly
selecting their names from department lists within five colleges;
letters were sent to several dozen faculty requesting interviews.
The break-down of interviewees by
title is as follows: faculty members in five colleges (l7),
college deans (5), associate deans (2), professional staff
members from university-wide international student service or
study abroad units (6), professional staff members and directors
with international responsibilities within the five colleges (6),
and central administrators (6). Interviews were tape recorded and
averaged approximately one hour. A moderately-structured research
protocol with open-ended questions was followed as the interview
format.
The five colleges selected for this
case study’s context were: The College of Agricultural,
Food, and Environmental Sciences; the College of Education and
Human Development; the College of Human Ecology; the College of
Liberal Arts; and the Curtis Carlson School of Management. These
five were chosen because of their reputations for having some
international components within them, the researcher’s
access to them, and prior knowledge of some of their
international strategies. All five were considered cultures with
many cultural variables and multiple dimensions (like
disciplinary differences) within them. (Some of these
intra-collegiate differences are noted in Matrix 5; all matrices
illustrate intercollegiate similarities and differences.)
Qualitative research is inductive,
descriptive, and interpretive. It concerns itself with the process
(how internationalization is occurring, how curriculum gets
redesigned, and how organizational change is taking place) and meaning
(why certain disciplines within colleges take various
approaches and why some departmental units are so resistant). The
"what," "how," and "why" questions
are the important defining elements for this case study. In
addition to interviews, various documents (college bulletins,
promotional brochures, strategic planning reports, committee
minutes, task force reports) were reviewed.
The rationale for this case study
concerns itself with the timing of momentous events. The
University of Minnesota system is in both leadership and calendar
transition and is making curricular and systemic changes in all
colleges due to the semesterization process and the advent of the
twenty-first century.
The major research questions for the
thesis were broad and diverse:
l) What evidence shows that
internationalization of the curriculum is currently occurring
within and across five colleges on the Twin Cities Campus?
[Several sub-questions include: How is it occurring, and what
does internationalization mean for each particular collegiate
unit? and Why is internationalizing of the disciplines occurring?
What are the reasons units are internationalizing? How are
faculty internationalizing their courses? Who is leading these
efforts in the colleges? Where are the resistance factors, and
what reasons do people give for this resistance?]
2) What strategies and recommendations
for action do faculty members and deans and professional staff
suggest in order to internationalize the entire University of
Minnesota in the future? [Several sub-questions include: How
do recommendations vary by collegiate unit? by stakeholder? What
are the most commonly-stated strategies for action? Which ones
necessitate a leadership component?]
For the five colleges, four components
of internationalization were specifically analyzed in-depth.
These include: evidence of internationalization of the
curriculum, participation and promotion of study abroad programs
for students, inclusion of international students as classroom
resources, and faculty members’ interest and participation
in international activities. (See Matrices 2 and 8).
Back to the top
Conceptual
Framework
Several matrices and charts were created to
illustrate key findings across college units and for the
University as a whole. The theoretical framework used for Matrix
1 came from Keller’s (l983) six dimensions of organizational
change (vision, strategic planning/goals, finance, program,
personnel, and evaluation), adapting Keller’s (1983) and
Davies’ (1992) work in Klasek’s book Bridges to the
Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education
(1992) and revising a framework written by Henson, Noel, Byers, Gillard, and Ingle in Internationalizing U.S. Universities:
Conference Proceedings (l99l). Other models used to display
results on matrices included: Bennett’s (l986) Model of
Intercultural Competence (in Paige, l993) (see Matrix 5), and
Harari’s (l989) Structural Approaches for Internationalizing
Curriculum (Matrix 6). Additional models of organizational change
were reviewed. (See selected matrices and charts in Appendix C).
Back to the top
Results:
Evidence of Internationalization
The case revealed much campus variation
concerning both evidence of curricular internationalization and
strategic planning for the colleges. Thirty major findings are
listed in the thesis along with explanations of each matrix and
chart in detailed form. This section summarizes some of the major
findings. (Because of the length of the actual thesis, it is
difficult to condense all of the results into this very short
summary; consult the Working Paper (Ellingboe, l997) or Chapters
4-6 of the M.A. thesis for more detailed explanations).
First, internationalizing is
occurring at the University slowly and selectively by a few
players -- some faculty and deans. The process itself is being
discussed at the dean’s level and be international education
task forces or committees and is then moving within departmental
and collegiate units. It is not stemming from the
president’s office and flowing throughout all campus units
(as is described by international education proponents who write
that the presidential commitment is vitally important for total
campus internationalization to occur). For two colleges, the
deans and a few committed faculty members are leading the
internationalization efforts (Agriculture, Management); for
Education, Human Ecology, and Liberal Arts, a few faculty are
leading their deans and persuading their leaders to do more.
Second, most faculty interviewed
agree that participation in international teaching or research
activities should be required for promotion and tenure at some
level on the professorial ladder. Deans and administrators varied
in their responses, but most said it should be positively
regarded, not negatively weighted when giving faculty
consideration for promotion, tenure, and salary increments. (See
Chart B.)
Third, most faculty members
interviewed agreed that newly-hired faculty should come on- board
with an interest in and/or experience in international teaching
or research. Three of the five deans said they already include
this question on their interview guides when conducting
interviews with prospective faculty members. (See Chart B.)
Fourth, interviewees could not
recall if there was a University-wide international education
policy passed and signed by the Board of Regents; most could not
recall if President Hasselmo had ever made an international
education speech, drafted an international vision of his own, or
led any efforts toward campus internationalization. Most did,
however, state that if the president would create a vision for an
internationalized University of Minnesota and clearly communicate
that in an internationalization document with goals, benchmark
figures, and strategies, it would clarify for many deans,
international education committee members, and directors of the
international units exactly where the president stands.
[Literature reviewed for this thesis revealed that support from
top administrators is a prerequisite for any type of
internationalization efforts in the colleges or student
affairs’ units to fully blossom. And cooperative support by
the student affairs/co-curricular units is necessary for a
totally integrated campus internationalization to succeed.]
Fifth, there are new international
majors or minors in the College of Education and Carlson School
of Management starting Fall l996; however, required core courses
for most majors within both these of schools are not
internationalized. The Carlson School will introduce a new
international core course for all students fall l996; the
Colleges of Agriculture and Human Ecology have an international
minor on the books, but few students have declared it. The
content of most majors is still non-internationalized; some
discussion is taking place to include internationalization as one
criterion for the semester conversion process for newly
converted, accepted semesterized courses.
Sixth, very few students study
abroad (or have an international experience of any kind) during
their undergraduate or graduate years here. Despite a diverse
range of countries, sponsoring programs, and creative promotional
strategies, only two percent of the student body will study
abroad in any given year (about 600 students). Most
"internationalization" will have to take place
on-campus within the classrooms and in conjunction with
co-curricular activities and international "personnel"
(students, faculty, fellows, scholars) on campus in an effort to
broaden students’ views. (See Matrix 8)
Seventh, many people do not see the
connection between sponsoring international visiting professors,
scholars, and students on campus and internationalizing courses;
many international students particularly are not viewed as
potential contributors to course units as resources/speakers.
Eighth, Harari’s structural
approaches for internationalizing curriculum are not fully
operating at the University of Minnesota. International issue
discussions and comparative approaches within the disciplines are
two approaches that are operating along with the most common
approach: "offering a few international electives within
departments." Most students will not take these because they
are not required; yet, faculty approaches do vary by college. See
various approaches for internationalizing curricula (Matrix 6).
Ninth, two of the five colleges
(Agriculture and Management) have
"internationalization" written in their strategic
planning documents, and one (Education) has internationalization
listed as one of three criteria for approving semester-converted
courses. Liberal Arts had listed internationalization in two
draft versions of its 1996 strategic planning documents. Human
Ecology and Management had international task forces, and all
five colleges have had international education or strategic
planning committees composed of faculty members advising their
deans on internationalization strategies. Some deans admitted
they have genuine interest in internationalizing their colleges,
but many find it difficult to implement this process
college-wide.
Tenth, the University’s central
administration seems to be rank quite low on the attitudinal
scale of readiness for launching an internationalization effort.
On a six-stage scale, most see central administration in stage
three -- "minimal interest/awareness with major
obstacles." According to documents reviewed and stakeholders
interviewed for this case study, there are attitudinal
differences among central administrators and major disagreement
over funding priorities. Some administrators are already
enthusiastically pursuing an international vision and are working
on strategies; others are more cautious and are causing some of
the obstacles. (See Matrix 5).
Eleventh, this case revealed over nine
resistance factors in operation among faculty and
administrators. Those which are most evident for all colleges
are: the financial factor (for funding international
goals); the institutional dilemma (no university-wide
priority for internationalization exists, making it difficult for
financially-stretched colleges to do more); and the single
disciplinary-focused direction (problems moving "beyond
borders" of disciplinary walls, as opposed to integrating
multiple, interdisciplinary, or international perspectives).
Although many encouragement factors to internationalize courses
do exist, overcoming resistance is the greatest hurdle that most
deans face (in going higher to their superiors for assistance,
funding, and support as well as going to their departmental
chairs and faculty for interest). Although there are
pro-internationalization faculty members and central
administrators, most internationalization strategies and goals
are hindered by these resistance factors. (See Matrix 7). Other
resistance factors in operation in some units include: the
cognitive component, incentive ingredient, public perception
piece, future orientation fear, collaborative component, and
graduate school preparation part..
Twelfth, faculty resistance
partially accounts for the deeper pockets of resistance and
faculty splits within collegiate units (Matrix 5). While one
college (Education) is presently located in stage five of six
possible (in "adaptation of vision/strategies"), two
others (Agriculture and Management) are in stage four or
"general acceptance of internationalization with minor
obstacles." These leaves the other two colleges sharing
stage three "minimal interest/awareness with major
obstacles" with Central Administration. It should be noted
though that there are faculty within both Liberal Arts and Human
Ecology that are very internationally-minded; the score
represents the average for these colleges when interviewees and
documents are analyzed based on evidence and attitudes. This
assessment is based on synthesizing interview data, listening to
answers to questions concerning launching internationalization
efforts, re-reading fieldwork notes concerning strategic
directions/mission statements/deans’ visions at the present
time, and assembling general degrees of interest among
administrators for future planning efforts.
Thirteenth, some interviewees also
suggested many reasons to internationalize; these are known as
the encouragement factors. The top five factors are: "We owe
it to our students;" "We aspire to be one of five top
research universities in the country;" "We will be
pro-actively preparing for the future that is increasingly
internationally-connected;" "We have a golden
opportunity with the semester change;" and "The college
units are doing most of the international strategizing
already."
Back to the top
Recommendations
for the University’s Future Planning
Interviewees had numerous suggestions when
asked about their personal recommendations for the
University’s Central Administration. (See Matrix 4 for
additional suggestions.) Many issued creative suggestions
including these five.
First, make internationalization a
new, additional priority for U-2000. Second, launch the
next capital campaign in favor of internationalization, sponsored
by the University Foundation and the Alumni Association. Third,
allocate funds from this campaign to two specific stakeholders:
undergraduate students for study abroad scholarships and
associate professors for funding international activities. Fourth,
allow collegiate units to distribute internationalization
revenues from fundraising campaigns to faculty and students. Fifth,
include all student affairs units as part of an all-campus
internationalization campaign; these co-cultural units can do
much to cultivate an appreciation for international perspectives
(i.e. residential halls and student union programming, cultural
and language immersion houses and centers, international events
on-campus, etc.)
Directed towards central administrators,
there were eleven recommendations most frequently stated by
interviewees. These include the following four: 1) writing an
internationalization vision statement and publicizing it widely
internally and externally with the help of public relations and
communication offices; 2) changing the reward system making
international activities a requirement for promotion and tenure
for faculty; 3) hiring new faculty members who come on-board with
international interests and/or teaching and research experiences;
and 4) communicating with all college units the opportunity that
semesterization presents for an all-campus discussion on
internationalizing curriculum. (Though this case study revealed
there is little evidence of internationalization being a
University-2000 priority at the present time or in the near
future, many interviewees will continue to push their department
or college for internationalization strategies for action).
At the University system-wide level,
interviewees suggest that administrators expand their vision of
internationalization to include a totally integrated,
internationally-connected strategy, like other universities have
done. Therefore, this requires that an international motto or
theme becomes woven throughout the university like a ribbon
weaving its international colors through all units, threading and
sewing as it goes along. Therefore, internationalization becomes
integrated, not an additive or a specific single unit’s sole
responsibility.
At the college level, interviewees
recommend that central administrators be more aware and
supportive of college-wide international initiatives and
entrepreneurial efforts that deans have made (including
supporting projects with outside funding).
At the individual level, suggestions
include making cultural immersion opportunities available to
administrators so they can meet international alumni and view
first-hand the many university partnerships worldwide and the
research sites that Agriculture and Management, in particular,
have operating in various countries.
(The thesis includes specific
recommendations for deans, directors of international units,
faculty members, and much more detailed suggestions for central
administrators).
Back to the top
Analysis
of the Results and Implications
Faculty members and their deans are much
closer together attitudinally (being generally in favor of
internationalization) than central administrators are with either
of them. The campus overall shows varying attitudinal levels in
internationalization (matrix 5) and major differences in viewing
and defining internationalization (matrix 1) as well as
discovering nine resistance factors (matrix 7) and several
encouragement factors. There are also various structural
approaches that faculty members are taking in order to
internationalize their courses (matrix 6). Differing levels of
commitment reflect the number of internationalization components
in operation in each college (matrix 8).
This case illustrates there is abundant
evidence of internationalization components, but it also reveals
great collegiate variation (matrix 8) and stakeholder support and
faculty interest (matrix 5). Student demand was not included in
this case; most of the research was on the internationalization
"supply" side. However, the percentages of U.S.
American students who study abroad and the numbers of
international students who comprise the undergraduate populations
in each of these colleges both remain very low. [Consult the
author for the complete M.A. thesis, the matrices and charts
(Appendix C), the Memo (Appendix B) and the Abstract (Appendix A)
for additional information.]
The implications for this case point
to the fact that the University of Minnesota stands at a turning
point. There are many interviewees who equate becoming "one
of the top five research universities" with an
"internationalized university system." That description
goes beyond curriculum to include leadership, personnel, programs
on campus, research, outreach, and other components. Turning back
or remaining present-oriented and non-internationalized would be
disappointing. Yet, launching an internationalization plan for
the entire University would be very challenging, given the
present financial constraints, overall attitudes and interest
levels (matrix 5), evidence of managerial and organizational
planning (matrix l), and pockets of resistance (matrix 7). The
next few years before both the calendar and century changes imply
years of transition and planning for organizational change. Many
agenda items are brewing within the offices of these five
entrepreneurial deans.
The University is approaching a golden
moment, and internationalization could certainly be an engaging
topic of all-campus discussion. Since universities are
traditionally where the free expression of ideas should prevail,
it stands to reason that a broad and complex challenge as this
process represents could be perfectly at home in the college
units as a major agenda item for the next several years. Deciding
where the University should be heading and how it should present
itself as a twenty-first century university remains to be seen;
there are plentiful internationally-resourceful faculty members
within the college units. However, there is not an international
ribbon that starts with the administration and threads all the
vice presidential units and all colleges and professional schools
and the co-curricular offices. Creating such a ribbon (as in a
new strategic planning priority) would communicate to all what
the University’s vision is for internationalization and
would provide a much-needed thread which would transform and
educate as it sews.
Back to the top
Concluding
Comments
The University of Minnesota system overall
is minimally interested in internationalization, and it faces
major obstacles in meeting some of its own strategic goals and
plans in keeping with the collegiate units’ own visions for
internationalization. Much of this is attitudinal and financial.
Some of the colleges, departments, and international
co-curricular units are moving their own units forward much
faster than the University administration is moving the system as
a whole toward internationalization. Curricular and co-curricular
internationalization system-wide actions are slowly moving mainly
due to major obstacles (resistance factors) and minimal interest
among central administrators.
Finally, this case study revealed little
hope for internationalization becoming a University of Minnesota
system-wide major priority at the present time or near future.
Some interviewees do carry hope with them, however. Many are
trying new tactics specifically tailored for implementing
international initiatives for their own college units. If the
University of Minnesota makes a pro-active future-oriented move
to include all components of internationalization in future
planning efforts and provides the resources allowing colleges,
student affairs units, and international units to do this
effectively, then the University will be most prepared for
meeting the demands and challenges of educating its future
students. The twenty-first century will be more global in its
career choices, communication networks, and information
production as well as being more diverse in its human resources
than this century currently is. If its vision and strategic
planning efforts and disciplines align themselves with the
external environment, which is becoming more globally-connected,
then the University of Minnesota will be launched into the arena
with other internationally-focused universities which have met
the challenge and laid the groundwork for their future
students’ benefit in preparing them for life in the global
marketplace as leaders and globally-minded citizens.
Back to the top
NOTES:
1) The full text of this Master’s
thesis is available through the
University of Minnesota Libraries or by contacting the
author directly.
2) Dr.
Brenda Ellingboe is available
for making formal presentations on internationalization issues and strategies.
Back to the Internationalization Page
|
