internationalization of universities: a university...

Internationalization of Universities: A University Culture-Based FrameworkAuthor(s): Marvin BartellSource: Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 43-70Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447513 .

Accessed: 06/04/2013 06:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.170.217.12 on Sat, 6 Apr 2013 06:07:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447513?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Higher Education 45: 43-70,2003. 43 ? 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework

MARVIN BARTELL Department of Business Administration, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T5V4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. This paper employs Spor's (1996) organizational culture typology in developing a framework to assist in the understanding of the process of internationalization of universities. Both the collegial process and executive authority are acknowledged as necessary to position the university to bring about substantive, integrated, university-wide internationalization in response to pervasive and rapidly changing global environmental demands. Internationaliza- tion, viewed as an organizational adaptation, requires its articulation by the leadership while simultaneously institutionalizing a strategic planning process that is representative and partici- pative in that it recognizes and utilizes the power of the culture within which it occurs. The orientation and strength of the university culture and the functioning structure can be inhibiting or facilitating of the strategies employed to advance internationalization. Two examples are juxtaposed to illustrate the range of circumstances confronting universities in a complex and dynamic external environment and their responses with respect to internationalization. Drawing from these examples, discussion centers on the alignment of internal culture with the internationalization objectives and strategies selected by the institution in order to enhance effectiveness of outcomes. It is concluded that the framework provided helps to understand the different approaches to internationalization and may be helpful from both a managerial and research perspective.

Keywords: understanding process of internationalization of universities, university culture framework and illustrative examples

Introduction

During the last two decades universities worldwide have come under increasing pressures to adapt to rapidly changing social, technological, economic and political forces emanating from the immediate as well as from the broader postindustrial external environment. The unprecedented growth, complexity and competitiveness of the global economy with its attendant socio-political and technological forces have been creating relent- less and cumulative pressures on higher education institutions to respond to the changing environment requiring far-reaching institutional adaptations involving "... significant transformation in the organization of research,



MARVIN BARTELL

training, and administration in higher education" (Cohen 1997, p. 549). There appears to be a concurrence of assessment that universities are experiencing "... a profound shift: environmental forces have become so dynamic as to lead to a basic shift in the structure of education as an industry" (Cameron and Tschirhart 1992 cited in Gumport and Sporn 1999, p. 105); that changes taking place are "revolutionary, rather than evolutionary" (Kerr 1987; cited in Gumport and Sporn 1999, p. 105); that "... the demands of global capitalism hinder the university's ability to fulfill its cultural mission" (Readings 1996 cited in Gumport and Sporn 1999, p. 105); and that in the changed circumstances universities are called upon to "... equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills in preparation for the job market" (Sporn 1999, p. 70), which is increasingly global in character.

Specific calls for the adaptation of the university through an internationalization process come from various sources (e.g., Backman 1984; Goodwin 1991; Harari 1989; Marsella 2001; Merkur'ev 1991; Mestenhauser and Ellingboe 1998; Mittelman 1996; Skolnikoff 1994; Sporn 1999). Adaptation is viewed here as an aspect of a process of organizational change and innovation involving openness and responsiveness to changing demands emanating from the external environment. Interationalization requires organizational adaptation, that is, a process involving "... modifications and alterations in the organization or its components in order to adjust to changes in the external environment" (Cameron 1984, p. 123).

Cameron (1984) draws a distinction between adaptation and organization development (OD). "Adaptation focuses on changes motivated by the external environment; OD focuses on changes motivated from within the organization" (p. 123). While both kinds of organizational change are germane to internationalization, the strategic choice approach and, more specifically, the "strategy-structure" model (Hardy et al. 1983; Keller 1997; Peterson and Dill 1997; Porter 1980) in combination with a "planned change" process, focusing on the organization's culture, provides an underpinning for the conceptual framework that is proposed to assist in the understanding and implementation of a process of internationalization of universities.

Until recently, structure and strategy were the fundamental variables considered with respect to organizational change and innovation (e.g., Cameron and Freeman 1991; Peterson and Spencer 1990). While not a new concept, organizational culture has been emerging in the organizational literature during the past two decades as significantly impacting on organizational effectiveness (Whetten and Cameron 1994) and has the capacity to foster or inhibit renewal and innovation (e.g., Cameron and Freeman 1991; Tichy 1982). According to Peterson and Spencer (1990), "Organizational culture is a holistic perspective." "It focuses on the deeply embedded patterns of

44



INTERNATIONALIZATION OF UNIVERSITIES

organizational behavior and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs or ideolo-

gies that members have about their organization or its work" (p. 6). Chaffee and Jacobson (1997) assert that those in charge of planned change, as a part of the adaptation process, need to provide "... adequate recognition to the

power of the cultures in which planning occurs." "... if they (planners) help to establish an institutional culture with a shared vision, a willingness to understand the organization and its environment, and trust, they gain access to the efforts and enthusiasm of all participants in transforming the institution" (p. 244).

The purpose of this article is to adapt a typology of organizational culture as a framework for analyzing and understanding the interationalization process of universities. The paper begins with an explication of the

concepts of internationalization and globalization followed by a brief review of the need for the internationalization of universities. Unique characteristics of universities are described and the concept of organizational culture is discussed in relation to the process of interationalization of universities. Several examples of measurement indicators of the process of internationalization are provided as a background for an illustrative two-example comparison.

Internationalization and globalization

Internationalization of universities is far from a clearly defined and understood concept. Mestenhauser (1998) contrasts the observation that

... Much of what I see in international education in the United States is minimalist, instrumental, introductory, conceptually simple, disciplinary- reductionist, and static;

with the exhortation that

There is an urgent need to study international education on the highest level of sophistication as a multidimensional, multiplex, interdisciplinary, intercultural, research, and policy-driven system of global scope at all levels of education (p. 7).

Ellingboe's (1998) research findings on the internationalization of the curriculum at the University of Minnesota, reflect the "multidimensional", "multiplex", "global scope" and "policy-driven system" aspects of Mestenhauser's definition of internationalization of the university. Accord- ingly, Ellingboe (1998) defines internationalization "... as the process of integrating an international perspective into a college or university

45



MARVIN BARTELL

system. It is an ongoing, future-oriented, multidimensional, interdisciplinary, leadership-driven vision that involves many stakeholders working to change the internal dynamics of an institution to respond and adapt appropriately to an increasingly diverse, globally focused, ever-changing external environment" (p. 199). Ellingboe's findings spell out more specifically five additional components which are integral to more completely understanding the process applied in internationalizing the university. These components are as follows:

(1) college leadership; (2) faculty members' international involvement in activities with colleagues,

research sites, and institutions worldwide; (3) the availability, affordability, accessibility, and transferability of study

abroad programs for students; (4) the presence and integration of international students, scholars and

visiting faculty into campus life; and

(5) international co-curricular units (residence halls, conference planning centers, student unions, career centers, cultural immersion and language houses, student activities and student organizations) (p. 205).

Dobbert (1998), on the other hand, employing an anthropological perspective, focuses on the individual student outcomes rather than the process of organizational interationalization, expecting that " ... a globalized person must (1) speak two to three languages in addition to English at the level of 7 or above on a 10 point scale, where zero means no knowledge of the language and 10 refers to native knowledge of the language, and (2) must have resided in at least two non-English speaking countries, in non-Americanized environments, for at least one year each" (Dobbert, p. 65). While Dobbert's expectations of internationalization are highly desirable, it is doubtful if they can be achieved on a large scale and sustained basis without internationalizing the institution and all its stakeholders.

The reality, then, is that interationalization conveys a variety of understandings, interpretations and applications, anywhere from a minimalist, instrumental and static view, such as securing external funding for study abroad programs, through international exchange of students, conducting research internationally, to a view of internationalization as a complex, all encompassing and policy-driven process, integral to and permeating the life, culture, curriculum and instruction as well as research activities of the university and its members. The latter conception of internationalization, consistent with the Mestenhauser and Ellingboe definitions, is employed herewith.

While internationalization is used virtually interchangeably with globalization (e.g., Dobbert 1998; Mestenhauser 1998), an explicitly helpful distinction can be made between them (Adler 1997; Lapiner 1994), in viewing globalization as an advanced phase in the evolving process of inter-

46




nationalization. Applying the metaphor of the industrial/commercial world to

higher education, during the immediate post World War II period, firms func- tioned primarily from a domestic North American ethnocentric perspective (Phase I). Fortune 500 companies occupied a position of relative dominance in world trade and commerce owing to favorable perceptions of American products and limited international competition. This phase was succeeded by a multidomestic phase (Phase II), with firms finding it necessary to address each external domestic market separately and differently. In the world of

higher education, the parallel development was the study abroad movement, "... largely originating in the United States, creating programs that brought American undergraduates to European, Asian and Latin American universities, basically to fulfill the requirements of their home schools" (Lapiner 1994).

Another illustration of the type of arrangement found in this multidomestic phase are the research centers located in a particular country for the requirements of scholars elsewhere, such as those in Greece or Italy, for the purposes of classical or artistic study. Essentially, it is pointed out, the study abroad movement structures were - and many remain - "... mission-like outposts of 'home' institutions" (Lapiner 1994, p. 73).

Turning again to the industrial metaphor, the multinational phase (Phase III) begins in the 1980s (Gumport and Sporn 1999). This is a bilateral or

nearly reciprocal model characterized by global price-sensitivity. "Firms can gain competitive advantage only through process engineering, sourcing critical factors on a worldwide basis, and benefitting from economies of scale" (Adler 1997, p. 9; Gumport and Spor 1999). In higher education, the closest parallel is, for example, the development of international business schools (such as, the Graduate School of Business of the University of Chicago campuses in Barcelona, Spain and Singapore) as self-supporting enterprises of a parent institution, using local adjunct faculty for non-American students. Another example is the development of overseas professional education institutions by continuing education units of American and European education organizations.

The succeeding phase, the global or transnational phase (Phase IV), has

emerged in the evolution of organizations involved in transactions beyond their domestic origin (Adler 1997; Gumport and Spor 1999; Lapiner 1994). This phase is characterized by top quality, least-possible-cost products that "... become the baseline, the minimally accepted standard" (Adler 1997,

p. 9). An automobile, for example, may be designed, manufactured, sub- assembled, assembled, advertised and sold by numerous enterprises located in different countries. The organization needs to be multicentric as "... a critical component of this market segmentation is nationality and ethnicity"

47



MARVIN BARTELL

(Adler 1997, p. 9). The orientations of the previous phases disappear and are replaced "with a culturally responsive design orientation, accompanied by a rapid, worldwide, least-cost production function." "... Similarly, the ability to

manage cross-cultural interaction, multinational teams, and global alliances becomes fundamental to business success" (Adler 1997, p. 9).

The parallel for higher education is exemplified by distance learning tech- nologies, including interactive teleconferencing, enabling students located thousands of miles apart on different continents to interact in real time in a virtual classroom (Gumport and Sporn 1999). At the institutional level, the challenge and the opportunity are to globalize the entire research and scholarly enterprise, specifically, "... to address changes in the organization and production of expertise globally" (Cohen 1997, p. 559). Given the pace of technological change and the requirements for lifelong learning across professional careers, higher education institutions are beginning to adapt to the reality that the community of students, like the community of researchers and scholars, increasingly has no single geographical locus. The "student" may be on an aircraft carrier, in the convenience or comfort of home, or, quite simply, anywhere at anytime, receiving satellite transmissions via personal computer or even down-loaded to palm-held equipment.

The need for internationalization

The recent global, competitive environmental forces have created unprecedented challenges for universities: "... the borders of universities have

opened in new ways for their services and products ..." (Gumport and

Sporn 1999, p. 103). Cross border education, that is, internationalization, with consequent requirements for structural and cultural adaptations, is pervasive and an inescapable reality present on a world-wide basis (Gumport and Sporn 1999; Sporn 1999).

In the past, the development and fostering of international competence of students could be perceived as non-essential inasmuch as the United States economy was largely self-contained and the Cold War polarized the world into two competing blocs with the United States as the dominant power in the West. Canada, in a similar vein, felt relatively secure as a member of the British Commonwealth, having a largely resource-based and branch plant economy with strong commercial and cultural ties to the United States. For both countries and their institutions, changes in worldwide environmental parameters (addressed below) have necessitated not merely a reactive but a proactive response by adapting, innovating and internationalizing higher education.

48




The isolated, self-perpetuating, parochial environment can no longer serve a functional purpose for the educating institution or any of its component parts. The proximity and intertwining of diverse cultural experiences, political systems, economic relationships and technological options require the development and infusion of a world view and perspective in curriculum formulation and implementation, and in the definition of research areas and questions posed by researchers in the various disciplines. Historical experience, custom, tradition, the nation-state preoccupation and the evolution of some disciplines tend to perpetuate a relatively narrow focus impoverished by an absence of intercultural and international perspectives, conceptualizations and data.

As the twenty-first century begins to unfold, internationalization of the university has become a strategic high priority for numerous universities across North America. While both Canada and the United States have been involved in international development on a substantial scale during the last half century, universities in these countries, with the possible exception of schools of agriculture and engineering, have not generally been involved to any considerable extent with internationalizing their curriculum or their research goals and objectives. Government-to-government foreign assistance projects as funneled through domestic universities have had a negligible effect on the internationalized culture and structure of these universities.

Yet the compelling pressure to internationalize, owing to the instantaneity in communication and rapid advances in transportation, which result in an increased need for intercultural and international understanding and knowledge, has become an urgent priority. International literacy has become critical to our cultural, technological, economic and political health. International competence in an open world of permeable borders has become a generalized necessity rather than an option for the tier of societal elites as was true in the past. It has become essential for Canadian and United States universities to educate, that is, to transform, on a scale unknown in human experience, all of their stakeholders and constituents to function effectively and comfortably in a world characterized by close; multi-faceted relationships.

The clarion call for internationalization appears to be loud and clear. Thus, the American Council on Education's Commission on International Educa- tion states that higher education institutions must become in a genuine sense institutions without boundaries if the nation and its people are to prosper in the environment of the new century (American Council on Education 1995). The Commission emphasizes that all undergraduates require contact with and understanding of other nations, languages and cultures in order to develop the appropriate level of competence to function effectively in the rapidly emerging global environment. To accomplish this mission, the Commission

49



MARVIN BARTELL

exhorts leaders in universities and colleges to reconsider all components of teaching including the curriculum, the means, the methods and physical location of delivery as well as those who actually do the teaching. Similarly, in Canada, institutional change in universities has been recommended in order to internationalize the undergraduate curriculum (Smith 1991). The required changes for universities included:

(1) a curriculum review to ensure emphasis on international dimensions of issues;

(2) an increase of the proportion of students from abroad including both developed and newly industrializing countries;

(3) further development of the number and types of exchange programs, study abroad programs and internships so that Canadian students can experience other cultures;

(4) enhanced utilization of diversity and international experience from faculty, students and the wider community.

In Europe, the need to internationalize has resulted in establishing ERASMUS, CAMETT and TEMPUS, for example, and high priority has been given to academic international mobility of students and faculty (Sporn 1999). The internationalization of professional licensing and certifi- cation, has occurred in Europe, in compliance with the requirements of the European Union, and continuing professional education is necessary in assuring uniform application of standards across the member nations (Lapiner 1994). In many other countries, moreover, it is evident that universities are recognizing the need to achieve global competence as institutions and on the part of their graduates (Council on International Educational Exchange 1994).

There appears to be considerable variation among universities, and among different units within a single university, with respect to internationalization. This variation can be attributed to several factors, such as structure, strategy, field of study and university culture. Structure refers to the formal hierarchy of authority, patterns of communication, interactions and coordination. Strategy involves action plans, ways and means employed for interacting with the environment in order to achieve the institutional goals. Some fields of study, such as science and engineering, owing to the nature of these disciplines and the use of mathematics as the universal language (Groennings and Wiley 1990), have been internationally oriented, while in some other areas, such as the social sciences, the humanities, education, public administration and, somewhat less so, management studies, the tendency has been to a more narrowly-defined focus characterized by a national, or at most, North Amer- ican approach rather than a substantive international approach. As a result, on a single given campus there can be strong differences in efforts made

50




and results obtained with respect to internationalization, depending on the

discipline. A succinct justification for internationalizing within and across disciplines

and areas as well as in the content and design of curricula may be advanced

by presenting the following points:

(1) As a result of advances in communication and transportation, the massive and voluminous flow of information across national borders is without parallel. The explosion and rate of diffusion of knowledge are compressed within ever shorter time spans as compared with experience over human history. Higher education can no longer merely espouse universal values at the rhetorical level but must promote understanding through interpersonal, cross-cultural, international and shared experiences.

(2) The expanded international system of the media, television in particular, through satellite transmission results in the more rapid diffusion of culture, especially popular culture. Previously remote countries and communities are now intertwined with the rest of the world as the diffusion of ideologies, notably those of democracy and modernization, becomes reflected in demands for resources, recognition and independ- ence.

(3) The last decades of the twentieth century have seen the growth of common norms associated with increasing economic and political inter- dependence and the increasing flow of persons through migration and tourism. Simultaneously, international economic competition has intensi- fied as formerly regulated monopolies were deregulated, state enterprises were privatized and rationalization proceeds through mergers, acquisitions, restructuring and downsizing. Free trade agreements in North and South America, the continuing development of the European Union, and the resulting economic integration, are manifestations and responses to strong international forces. Internationalization, for the reasons described above, is a summary concept that addresses on the institutional level the array of proactive plans and transformative strategies in response to a world in flux exerting a likely enduring and pervasive impact on universities and colleges.

It is proposed here that internationalization may be viewed as occurring on a continuum. At one end, internationalization is limited and essentially symbolic, for example, internationalization may be reflected, in this case, by a relative handful of students from several distant countries having a presence on a campus. At the other end of the continuum, the process of internationalization is conceptualized as a synergistic, transformative process, involving the curriculum and the research programs, that influences the role and activ-

51



MARVIN BARTELL

ities of all stakeholders including faculty, students, administrators, and the

community-at-large.

Characteristics of universities: Beyond structure and strategy

Organizational culture has been recognized as a key component in the organizational change literature. "To be successful, a company's culture needs to support the kind of business the organization is in and its strategy for handling this business" (Tichy 1982, p. 71). In order to understand the unique culture of academia this section describes "the kind of business the organization is in" (p. 71), that is, the unique characteristics of universities. Universities present an inherently unique cultural paradox which requires the ongoing reconciliation of the "accumulated heritage", on one hand, and that of the "modem imperatives" on the other (Kerr 1987).

Recognition and acceptance of the "distinctive nature and unique character" of universities have been long standing "both within and outside higher education" (Peterson and Spencer 1990, p. 5). Furthermore, universities are complex organizations with a distinctive set of characteristics, which have a strong impact on the culture of these institutions (Sporn 1996):

1. Compared to business organizations, goals of universities are fuzzy, differentiated, unclear and difficult to measure (Baldridge et al. 1978; Birnbaum 1988; Kosko 1993; March 1984; Weick 1979, 1983).

2. Internal stakeholders are numerous and varied, including domestic and foreign undergraduates, graduate and professional students as well as mid-career individuals seeking continuing education programs. In addition, researchers typically conduct basic, applied and contract research. As a result, universities may be characterized by disciplinary and cultural diversity. External stakeholders include the surrounding community, the political jurisdiction, granting and accrediting agencies, unions and the press. The work of professionals (the professors and researchers) in a university can, therefore, be conceptualized as a web wherein the role of the 'manager' is to link it altogether, that is, "energizing in the web" (Mintzberg and Van der Heyden 1999, p. 94). Webs are essentially grids with no center, which allow open communication and continuous movement of people and ideas.

3. As a highly labor-intensive organization staffed by a large proportion of diverse professionals, the achievement of goals and objectives is necessarily complicated by the need to develop and employ an array of standards in relation to the variety of outcomes, consequences and outputs produced, many of which cannot be measured very well.

52




4. The conflict inherent in values and belief systems in universities between the professors, on the one hand, and administrators, on the other, mili- tates against the efficient and effective resolution of problems and issues that arise. Professors tend to place a high value on autonomy and academic freedom, while administrators are oriented to maintenance of the administrative system and the associated procedural requirements. Change and innovation are, as a result, inhibited and slowed. However, Weick's (1976) and Orton and Weick's, (1990) conceptualization of

"loosely coupled systems" could provide an adaptational perspective on this apparent duality between professors and administrators - a conception which bears an affinity to Rothenburg's (1979) concept of "Janusian Thinking". It suggests that administrators could play an important balanc- ing role in promoting "experimentation", "collective judgement" and "dissent" by means of "enhanced leadership", "focused attention", or "shared values" rather than being at loggerheads.

5. The environment within which universities operate is currently complex, rapidly changing and demanding. Mass education, state funding reduc- tion, distance learning and capital equipment cost are some of the environmental components that have a persistent and strong impact on

programs, delivery systems and internal relationships. In summary, universities are loosely-coupled systems (Weick 1976),

or more colorfully, "organized anarchies" (Cohen and March 1986). The collegial process and executive authority are both required in managing the university. Bureaucracy, well-suited to a stable or slowly changing environment, is a component in the internal environment as is political (unit) behavior, in the attempt to justify and obtain resources from the central administration. The complexity, high degree of differentiation, multiplicity of units and standards, autonomy of professors, control and management philosophies and mechanisms, which increasingly do not operate effectively even in business organizations, are likely to be complicating and inhibiting factors vis-a-vis pressures for institutional change, particularly, for internationalization of the university as an identified strategic high priority. Under these circumstances, the culture of the university assumes greater prominence in mediating and regulating the university environment. An understanding of the university via its culture can facilitate the analysis of managing structure and processes (Dill 1982; Masland 1985) in order to implement strategies for internationalization in an integrated approach at a level broader than the single, specialized unit or sub-unit.

53



MARVIN BARTELL

Organizational culture of universities

The foregoing characteristics of universities suggest that universities display a high frequency of social interaction resulting in the development of a highly specific organizational culture (Becher 1981; Clark 1983). While definitions of culture vary, patterns of behavior and values that are transmitted over time are components of culture that are included in these definitions (Peterson and Spencer 1990). The process of problem-solving is influenced by these

patterns of behavior and their associated values (Ouchi and Wilkins 1985; Schein 1985; Tierney 1988). Culture is viewed here as the values and beliefs of those associated with the universities (including administrators, faculty, students, board members and support staff), developed in a historical process and conveyed by use of language and symbols (Deal and Kennedy 1982). The effect of these values and beliefs on decision making at universities is

strong (Tierney 1988). Shared assumptions and understandings lie beneath the conscious level of individuals and generally are identified through stories, special language and norms that emerge from individual and organizational behavior (Bartell 1984; Cameron and Freeman 1991; Sporn 1996).

There is a general recognition in the organizational literature of "... the inadequacy of specific quantitative measures to reflect performance ..." and the increased "interest in developing alternative frameworks for evaluating organizational performance. The concept of culture represents a paradigm for providing a holistic (emphasis mine) perspective on organizational functioning" (Peterson and Spencer 1990, p. 4) and the contribution of culture change to organizational change. Cameron and Freeman (1991) go further in asserting that: "Without accompanying culture change, most organizational changes fail or remain temporary" (p. 24). However, the latter authors argued cogently that there was a need to identify and assess empirically the relevant dimensions of organizational culture linked to organizational effectiveness which need to be changed to improve effectiveness.

In an exploratory study using a national sample based on cross-sectional data for 334 United States colleges and universities, Cameron and Freeman (1991) investigated the relationship among three dimensions of organizational culture - congruence, strength, and type - and organizational effectiveness. In their study, Cameron and Freeman found that, contrary to the "conventional wisdom" of the organizational literature, type of culture - clan, adhocracy, hierarchy or market - was more important in accounting for organizational effectiveness than were congruence or strength. Notwith- standing several limitations of Cameron and Freeman's study - the exploratory nature, noncausality, the use of prescribed scenario cultures, the selective sample which was limited to the administrators' and top echelon policymakers' "subculture" and excluded other members of the university

54




culture, e.g., regular faculty members, the various disciplines, students and

support staff and the lack of preponderance of additional supportive evidence - theirs is an important contribution to the empirical testing of almost entrenched conceptualizations about culture and organizational effectiveness.

The above seemingly counter-intuitive findings of Cameron and Freeman need to be reconciled with the two dimensional cultural typology of orientation and strength (i.e., Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Sporn 1996) which has been adapted here to help explore the role of university culture in facilitating the internationalization of the institution. The broader question, namely, do the qualitative and quantitative approaches tell us the same thing about academic culture (Peterson and Spencer 1993) is beyond the scope of this article. More specifically though, the orientation- strength typology is viewed here as more congruent with Cameron and Freeman's (1991) analysis than may be apparent at first blush. The external orientation is congruent with the "external positioning" of the adhocracy culture which focuses on a "shared commitment to entrepreneurship, flexi- bility and risk" (Cameron and Freeman 1991, p. 30), and consequently, a flat structure dominated by professionals and experts (Mintzberg 1989). Both are seen as representing organic processes. Similarly, the internal orientation is consistent with the hierarchy culture which emphasizes control, order, rules and regulations, policy and procedures, uniformity and stability, both reflecting mechanistic processes. The Cameron and Freeman findings are pertinent to the process of internationalization inasmuch as the orientation of organizational culture such as external adaptation, system openness and community interaction - associated with the adhocracy culture type - is the type likely to facilitate a successful internationalization process, while a culture type emphasizing hierarchy and resource allocation is likely the least effective type of culture for this purpose.

Regarding the dimension of strength of culture, Cameron and Freeman defined it as the "dominance of certain cultural attributes within each quadrant (culture type)" (1991, p. 30). In the context of this definition they reported no significant differences in organizational effectiveness between strong versus weak cultures. Sporn (1996), on the other hand, as can be seen below, defined strength as the degree of "fit between cultural values, structural arrangements, and strategic plans within the whole university" (p. 50). The view here is that strength of culture does not necessarily reflect homogeneity of views but rather shared underlying values, assumptions, meanings and understandings. A strong culture is one that not only tolerates debate and discussion of diverse and alternative views and strategies but rather actively encour- ages them for the sake of improvement of the quality of decision making and problem solutions. In that respect, a strong culture is akin to a Janusian

55



MARVIN BARTELL

one, which is considered most appropriate to adaptation in a complex, turbu- lent and fast changing environment, such as the postindustrial environment (Cameron 1984). Furthermore, the dimension of culture strength may be viewed as nonlinear, that is, too weak a culture could inhibit adaptation while an excessively strong culture may lead to "groupthink" phenomena (Janis 1972).

In the context of business firms, alterations to the status quo are undertaken in response to negative indications and outcomes, but in ways that are consistent with established patterns and rules of behavior (Thornton and Ocasio 1999). To develop an organizational culture that can facilitate and

support adaptation to environmental change and to a successful process of innovation, such as, the internationalization of the university, would require that strategic planning be guided and supported by an acknowledgment and understanding of the existing culture, the mission, the communication patterns, the feasible outlooks and the world views.

The orientation and strength of the underlying university culture were shown to be principal variables in influencing strategic management of the institution (Sporn 1996). Drawing on previous research (including Cameron and Freeman 1991; Denison 1990; Dill and Sporn 1995; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Schein 1985; Tierey 1988), a typology of four different types of university culture (Figure 1) has been developed and found to facilitate the assessment of a given university regarding its capacities to adapt and cope with environmental changes (Sporn 1996).

The dimensions of the typology are appropriate for examining a culture's capacity to support strategic management and to secure sufficient consist- ency between strategy and culture. Both strength and orientation of university culture are germane for the institution's attempting to adapt to environmental changes (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Denison 1990; Kotter and Heskett 1992). The assumptions that Sporn makes are as follows: * Strong cultures are more successful in adaptation than weak cultures,

and * Externally oriented cultures are more capable of adapting to environ-

mental changes than internally oriented cultures. Each cell of the typology represents a different type of university culture which reflects itself in attempting to respond to the discontinuity between the

respective university and its environment. Accordingly, the four types of university culture are as follows:

(1) weak and internally oriented cultures (cell 1) (2) weak and externally oriented cultures (cell 2) (3) strong and internally oriented cultures (cell 3) (4) strong and externally oriented cultures (cell 4)

56




Strong

Strength of University Culture

Weak

3 4

1 2

Internal External

Orientation of University Culture

Figure 1. Typology of university culture (Spom 1996, p. 56).

This typology may also be applied beyond the bounds of the university to its external environment, such as, the surrounding community, the political jurisdiction and the press. The degree of congruence of the university culture with its external environment could assist in the assessment of the extent of adaptability of the university to innovation, as in the case of internationalization. The contrasting examples below (cell 1 and cell 4) illustrate the use of Spor's cultural typology as a means of assessing adaptability of the university to the pressures to internationalize.

On the measurement of university-wide internationalization

A variety of indicators may be employed in attempting to operationalize and measure the extent or level of the process of internationalization of universities, such as the number of foreign recruits and exchange students on a given campus; the number and magnitude of interational research grants; cooperative international research projects; international partnerships involving assistance to foreign universities and other institutions; university- private sector partnerships with international goals; international cooperation and collaboration among schools, colleges and faculties in a given university; the extent of international infusion in curriculum content. Once relevant indi-

57



MARVIN BARTELL

cators have been identified, a set of criteria needs to be developed to assign relative weights to these indicators in relation to the self-declared mission of a given university. For example, a university with a strong emphasis on research in its mission will ipsofacto place more weight on the number and magnitude of international research grants and/or cooperative international research projects as compared to the number of undergraduate foreign students. To arrive at a comparative ranking of a university-wide internationalization process, a weighted composite score would have to be calculated for a given category of university (e.g., primarily undergraduate, medical/doctoral, comprehensive). In Canada, the following indicators have been used since 1997 by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia (AUCC 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999) in jointly granting Awards for Excellence in Internationalization:

(1) international student participation; (2) curriculum change; (3) international partnerships; (4) mobilizing financial, human and technological resources for internation-

alization; (5) university-private sector partnerships; (6) faculty contributions to internationalization; (7) contribution of research to internationalization; (8) contribution of university internationalization development projects to

internationalization. As an example, in the first and fourth categories, international student

participation and mobilizing resources for internationalization, respectively, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in Montreal, in its first 10 years of operation, reported receiving 140 incoming international students and sending 180 outgoing Canadian students to institutions abroad, as a part of their student exchange program. Financial resources, reflected in assistance to defray the $4,000 to $6,000. cost of participation, depending on the destina- tion and length of term, was made available through the private sector and government. In addition, participating students could apply to an $80,000 per year student-administered loan fund. HEC received the AUCC/Scotia Bank Award for student participation in 1997.

Another example, in the second category, curriculum change, is the international MBA program at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto. Established in 1989, the program consists of 11 months of business courses at York, eight months abroad on a study and work placement and culminating again in four months at York, where students are enrolled in a seminar and elective courses. Students specialize in a major global trading region and country of focus. Through the MBA program, York has developed

58




links with companies and institutions in some 45 countries. This program contributes to internationalization at York by providing international experience and language skills for students, by reinforcing the university's ties with firms and organizations around the world, by increasing the number of foreign students on campus and by developing a venue for discussion of issues concerning global business management. York has been a winner or has received honorable mention in each year of the AUCC/Scotia Bank Award competition.

Simon Fraser University (SFU)in Vancouver won the AUCC/Scotia Bank Award in 1997 for mobilization of human and technological resources (category 4, above). Over a period of some 25 years, this university has held 35 'field schools' in other countries. These one-semester programs for SFU students, which include training in the host-country language, are led by SFU faculty and foreign counterparts and have been offered in 12 different disciplines in addition to a required course or courses in the host country's language and history. The impact of these international field schools has been diffused throughout the university, especially to the more than 600 students and 52 faculty who have participated. This has been a successful and novel approach to promote the interationalization process.

Illustrative examples

The use of case studies is meant as instrumental, that is, "... to provide insight into an issue or refinement of theory" (Stake 1994, p. 237). Data includes observing patterns of behavior, listening to organizational stories (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Masland 1985; Peterson and Spencer 1990) and examining organizational documents, such as, mission statement, strategic plan, job description of highest official responsible for international affairs, and any additional information on the respective websites of the institution. The two examples that follow were drawn from case study material and presented as narratives of institutional 'culture vignettes' integrating the various criteria and indicators addressed earlier. These examples were chosen to illustrate and highlight two polar opposites of the typology (cell 1 and cell 4), juxtaposed with their respective efforts and outcomes regarding interationalization, as an indication of the potential use of the typology in advancing our understanding of the conditions that are likely to facilitate interationalization processes and outcomes.

59



MARVIN BARTELL

Example I: Weak culture, internal orientation

The university under consideration is a large, urban, comprehensive, research university and is the senior institution in its political jurisdiction. The particular environment external to the university has reinforced the unmistakable

internally oriented culture of the university. The physical location in which the university is situated, while historically characterized by isolation with

respect to large urban centers, experienced a buoyancy and exuberance in its formative growth during the early decades of the previous century. This growth was based on two industries which have undergone severe long- term decline owing to structural changes in the economy and technology. The actors and institutions in this external environment demonstrated over the years a limited and insufficient willingness or capacity to respond and

cope with these massive changes in the broader environment and substantially withdrew into a defensive, passive posture.

This institution, a public university located on the Great Plains or Prairies, has not experienced a strongly felt pressure to adapt to a rapidly changing external global environment. Strategic choice or symbolic action, both of which are characterized by high managerial influence, have not been prom- inent features of this institution during the second half of the twentieth century. While a few units, without active encouragement from the upper echelon of central administration, have exhibited sustained intrapreneurial activity in the multidomestic phase, and more modestly, in the multinational phase of internationalization, the university as an organization muddles through. The major focus is on international development activities, including the provision of information on support programs for this purpose; providing counsel and assistance in the preparation of international development proposals; coordination and facilitation in the development of inter-unit

development activities, as in the health sciences, agriculture and engineering; a limited role in negotiating twinning and academic exchange agreements with other institutions; and the coordination of visits of international delega- tions.

Apart from the foregoing mandate, a campus bureau is responsible for assisting incoming international students and those going abroad. In a fundamental sense, the university has adopted the "international expert model" of assisting developing countries mainly in health related issues, farming techniques and basic engineering projects. This entails the preparation of applications to the federal international aid agencies and, occasionally, to international agencies. As important as these activities are by themselves, they are not, in the context of internationalization as defined here, part of an overall organizational process of planned change that integrates an international perspective into the curriculum across the institution as a

60




coherent interactive system. Hence, while such activities may be viewed as international in substance and in scope, they are nevertheless reactive and opportunistic in character and, even so, the university has missed some substantial opportunities for institutional, curricular and faculty alliances and cooperative arrangements with other institutions. Except in very limited instances, and on a sporadic basis, the curriculum remains unaffected by the international development activities. Similarly, the latter are not effective in increasing the availability, affordability, accessibility and transferability of study abroad programs. Moreover, international co-curricular units are limited in scope and the integration of international students, scholars and visiting faculty into campus life becomes particularly challenging in an essentially commuter campus. The website confirms the characterization of the international orientation of this university, presented above, in terms of its own self declaration of objectives and the amount and type of information provided on the international domain. Overall, this university appears to be functioning in the domestic (Phase I) and multidomestic (Phase II) phases of internationalization.

As a living system (Miller 1979), Example I university is enculturated in the environment described above and its complexities and shares in the beliefs and patterns of behavior of the external community to the extent that the university is regulated by a public regulatory authority - albeit at arm's length - but more subtly, the university culture is shaped and regulated by expectations of, for example, who communicates with whom, with whom does an individual or unit work, what is the shared perspective of the group or unit? Energy is focused on the internal dynamics of the institution. Chal- lenges presented by the environment are: (1) reinterpreted to fit a narrow and symbolic understanding of an issue, such as, internationalization; (2) simply ignored for long periods; or (3) the challenge may be recognized but the response is made with a time lag based on a paradigm that may have been abandoned or superseded by peer institutions elsewhere. The weakness of the culture is reflected in the relatively loosely-linked units, subunits or groups with specific subcultures that can be contradictory to each other. To the extent that the subcultures are poorly linked, it becomes problematic to develop a unified internationalization strategy for the university to implement in a timely and coherent manner. For example, one unit successfully developed international linkages and partnerships for students and faculty but further development was inhibited by the lack of an overarching institutional objective and strategy. Similarly, owing to the weak institutional internationalization objective, the growth of distance education has not been extended considerably beyond the jurisdiction boundaries.

61



MARVIN BARTELL

A weak culture has a low degree of congruence between (1) the values and

goals espoused by the university stakeholders; (2) the hierarchical integration of the institution (for example, having a division of social sciences or physical sciences, or joint or dual-degree programs involving more than a single school, faculty or college); and (3) the degree of integration and coherence of the strategies and their methods as well as timing of implementation. In this university culture, control and the transactional leadership style (Bass 1985; Burs 1978) promote a strong preoccupation with bureaucratic process and procedure and the maintenance of hierarchy and authority, even if this means that the environmental challenge is poorly addressed. The weak and

internally oriented culture of this institution is most suitable and effective under conditions of high environmental stability. However, where mean-

ingful integrated university-wide internationalization as a goal and process are required or desired, the limited but appropriate response set and chain

(Mintzberg and Van der Heyden 1999) are insufficient in terms of outcomes and consequences. Thus, this analysis places example I in the lower left quadrant and quite low on the continuum of internationalization.

Example II: Strong culture, external orientation

This example relates to a large, urban, comprehensive research university with a spirit of creative experimentation. The components of the external environment include one of the world's major seaports, a locus of national and international commands, aeronautics and space installations in the immediate area and a culturally diverse population. Based on the objectives of planned diversity, the university seeks in its student body a diversity of age, gender, ethnic, religious, social and national backgrounds. It actively recruits domestic minority students along with students from countries worldwide in such numbers as to have their presence make a discernible impact on the university's educational processes. The strength of the culture of this university is considerably in tandem with its strong external orientation. The university has defined itself as having a special mission in international affairs and cultures for its political jurisdiction. The university culture promotes and supports an integrated internationalization process involving (1) curriculum design and development; (2) the international exchange of students and faculty members; and (3) the sharing of international interest and expertise with the broader external community that the university seeks to serve. The latter may include as an integral component of the internationalization strategy visits and lecture presentations by foreign diplomats and scholars as well as workshops for teachers and other professionals.

The university has been successful in obtaining a substantial grant from the federal government to assist faculty members, irrespective of discipline,

62




in incorporating international perspectives into their teaching and research. The new general education curriculum establishes course clusters at the upper level of undergraduate studies. These clusters consist of six courses from different disciplines based on a common theme, such as, human justice worldwide, global integration and regional autonomy, world cultures - competing values and visions. These are examples of the global awareness clusters that have an international focus and develop issues that cross disciplinary, national and regional borders. The university's dual degree program curriculum, which allows qualified students to graduate with a bachelor's degree in engineering and a liberal arts discipline, includes twelve to fifteen hours of study abroad.

The university culture manifests itself, in part, by its thrust in integrative national and overseas distance learning initiatives and economic development initiatives in cooperative partnerships with business, science and technology. The distance education network, based on interactive satellite classroom broadcasts, offers both credit (20 bachelor's and 10 master's degree programs) and noncredit programs and the higher education centers also serve as sites for university sponsored teleconferences, seminars and professional meetings. Corporations, hospitals and social service agencies in this university's jurisdiction look to the university for distance education to provide their employees with workforce training at the job site. During the last several years, the university transmitted graduate MBA courses to aircraft carriers while each was deployed overseas. The cooperative partnerships, for example, result in opportunities for faculty to utilize external facilities for academic research purposes, basic and applied, and to promote new ventures and undertakings in numerous science and technology-based enterprises resulting in sites for experiential learning and the stimulation of economic development in the region. In its strategic plan for 2000 to 2005, the university has identified, as a high strategic priority, the objective of becoming the premier international university in its jurisdiction. This overall strategic initiative and objective summarizes the integration of the component objectives relating to (1) curriculum in all units of the university; (2) the support and recognition of faculty for their efforts to internationalize all facets of the university including the means to reward faculty efforts to internationalize teaching and research through the normal faculty review process; (3) the planned diversification of the student body so as to provide all students the opportunity to interact with a culturally, linguistically and geographically diverse population; (4) the expansion of opportunities and support for international study and internships for both undergraduate and graduate students; (5) the further development of the university's international outreach and public service activities across all units in the university; (6) the active promo-

63



MARVIN BARTELL

tion of the university's reputation as its jurisdiction's international university. Each component objective has been assigned specific detailed actions to be undertaken by the responsible units including associated costs and time frames.

This university may be seen as an illustration of an institution that has made a strategic choice and is implementing an overall system plan that effectively satisfies its explicit aspirations to function in a coherent manner in the multinational (Phase III) and even in the global or transnational (Phase IV) phases of interationalization. This academic organization is engaged in a continuing, forward-looking, multifaceted, interdisciplinary, leadership- driven vision that includes principal stakeholders working to change the internal operations so that the university can respond and adapt appropriately to a heterogenous and diverse, globally-focused, dynamic external environment. Its past history, as a largely undergraduate college serving a narrow population of students, has not proved to be an obstacle inhibiting its advancement but rather a springboard to its internationalized present and future. It actively pursues a wide-ranging policy of student recruitment and human resource acquisitions that encompasses all national and international jurisdictions while simultaneously relating and serving its immediate external constituencies with its internationalized curriculum and globalized perspective that involves faculty, students, administrators and community stakeholders.

Internationalization is also reflected in the institution's co-curricular units, which represent a high degree of permeation of the broader forces of the external environment into the immediate environment of the institution. This university's website in its self-presentation as having a policy-driven, coherent system approach to internationalization, including detailed aims and explicit attainments, is an indication, and to some extent confirmation, of its substantial advancement on the continuum of internationalization.

The culture of this university, the surrounding exteral culture, the 'web' structure as manifested by the university in its actual functioning (Mintzberg and Van der Heyden 1999), and the strategies for meaningful, integrated, university-wide internationalization with respect to all facets of the university, appear to be congruent with each other. Specifically, the strength of the university culture and its pervasive outward-looking orientation position the university in cell 4 of the typology, previously discussed, and very high on the continuum of internationalization.

64




Discussion

The following compares Example I and Example II with respect to similari- ties and differences in university culture, external environment, university structure, mission and strategies for internationalization. Example I is one of the oldest universities in the region where it is located while Example II became a university some thirty years ago as it evolved from a college while expanding its research facilities and prepared to offer doctoral degrees. The challenges presented by the environment in Example II were viewed as opportunities rather than threats and the university manifests an externally- oriented culture. This is demonstrated, in part, by the diversity of the student body (all political jurisdictions in the country are represented as well as more than 100 countries); the cooperative and productive relationships the university has actively developed with numerous stakeholders in the surrounding community; and the exploitation of its locational advantages, including strong relationships with military, aeronautic and space organizations.

Example I depicts a university that is reluctant, unwilling or unable to effectively transform threat into opportunity. It functions as a traditional 'set' or chain (Mintzberg and Van der Heyden 1999) with managers that focus on traditional, narrow missions that do not transcend their own immediate self-interests. In Example I, extraordinary missions are not articulated by a large, highly representative university-wide strategic planning committee, as in Example II, and the managerial orientation in Example I is the achievement of extrinsic lower-level goals, that is, teaching and research leading to tenure and promotion, rather than an overarching and integrating intrinsic higher- level goal (for example, internationalization).

Interationalization in Example I is a truncated, piecemeal process, perfunctory and merely token. It is not driven by a well-understood, comprehensive and well-internalized purpose. Commitment to internationalization in Example I is low. This is manifested by the (1) mission statement of the university; (2) the transactional leadership selected for the highest administrative echelons; and (3) the extent of funding allocated to the internationalization process. Stability of the bureaucratic structure and maintenance of the existing system generally have priority over creative innovation or the cultivation and nurturing of a spirit of entrepreneurship and change.

In Example II, the leadership has articulated various extraordinary missions, such as, internationalization, regional, national and overseas distance education and integrative, cooperative arrangements with numerous organizations in the surrounding area. This suggests a strong and outward- oriented culture which can be highly supportive and facilitative in implementing the strategic initiatives and objectives concerning internationalization. Example I, however, does not have the underpinning for such a process,

65



MARVIN BARTELL

owing to its overall institutionally weak and inward-oriented culture. The strategic management of the university is not likely to be particularly effective in creative innovation, such as is necessary for integrated, substantive internationalization to take place, given the absence of congruence between (1) the strategies, (2) the strength of the university culture, (3) the orientation of its culture, and (4) the predominance of and preoccupation with allocation and control priorities.

Conclusion

Universities, in respect to their primary functions of teaching and research and their secondary function of service to the surrounding community, are confronted by a compelling need to relate programmatically to the scope and intensity of transnational connections at all levels of society. Students, preparing for careers, as the twenty first century unfolds, require global competence to understand the world they live in and to function effectively as citizens and in their work lives. Based on this premise, it means in part, that the knowledge and information generated, transmitted and disseminated by the professionals in universities (the professors) must be congruent with the objective of educating for global functioning. While internationalization is essentially a process involving all facets of university life, the university can, nevertheless, select as a target objective the point on the internationalization continuum that is consistent with its environment.

The use of the strength and orientation typology of the university's culture (Sporn 1996) can help to assess the extent of its congruence with the actual functioning structure and the strategies designed to achieve the level of internationalization desired, given the overall surrounding envirQn- ment. As the illustrative examples indicate, the university that functions hierarchically, while being occupied predominantly with internal maintenance, resource allocation and control, ignores or makes only limited or token efforts toward internationalization. On the other hand, the university that is outward looking, fosters, supports and rewards creative innovation and the infusion of intrapreneurial and entrepreneurial spirit, - characterized as adhocratic - also recognizes and builds on the "power of the cultures in which planning occurs" (Chaffee and Jacobson 1997), thus helping to provide an appropriate and integrated cultural underpinning - in the Janusian sense - in the institution so that strategic management is quite successful in bringing about an effective internationalization process. The culture vignettes are consistent with the call for universities to employ some variation of strategic culture management in the adaptation process (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Chaffee and Jacobson 1997; Sporn 1996). Such an effort would lead to an

66




increased social integration of the variety of subcultures of the different units and a unified culture can then convey meaning and identification with the objectives and strategies of internationalization. As it emerges from the above examples, the cross disciplinary global clusters and the dual degree program, including the required study abroad component (example II), is one indication of the attention given to the relationship between the institution's culture and the strategy to advance the internationalization process.

The conception of internationalization on a continuum, as related to the organizational culture typology, provides a framework, illustrated by the examples, which helps to identify and understand the variety of approaches to internationalization of universities in relation to the external environment, the internal culture, the functioning structure and the related strategies. The internal culture can be inhibiting or facilitating and, therefore, to enhance the effectiveness of any substantive, and not merely token, internationalization process, the leadership's role is to foster and link a culture congruent with the internationalization objective and the management of the university, including resource allocation and control techniques. To this end, the task of university leaders would include the identification of internal contradictions and the design of appropriate solutions as well as the clarification and communication of the university's identity relative to its external environment.

Acknowledgements

This article has benefitted from my experience as the founding Director of International Exchange Programs, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 1993-1997 and a research leave during winter 1999 as a visiting scholar at the International Center, University of Missouri-Columbia.

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Riva Bartell, my wife and colleague, for her valuable critical comments, suggestions and boundless support in bringing this article to fruition. I acknowledge with appreciation the helpful comments of Professor Rodney Clifton on a first draft of this article and am indebted to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions which contributed meaningfully to the enhance- ment of this article. The access to information to the unnamed universities referred to in the examples greatly facilitated my work. The resulting article is solely my responsibility.

References

Adler, N.J. (1997). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd edn. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

67



MARVIN BARTELL

American Council on Education (1995). Educating Americans for a World in Flux: Ten Ground Rules for Internationalizing Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Author.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia (1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999). Towards a More Global Campus: Internationalization Initiatives

of Canadian Universities. Ottawa, ON: Author. Backman, E.L. (1984). Approaches to International Education, American Council on Educa-

tion. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G.L. (1978). Policy Making and Effective

Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bartell, M. (1984). 'A bibliographic introduction and review of some factors influencing the

effectiveness of research and development teams: the agricultural context', Agricultural Administration 16, 113-129.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Becher, T. (1981). 'Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures', Studies in Higher Education

6, 109-122. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and

Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burs, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Cameron, K.S. (1984). 'Organizational adaptation and higher education', Journal of Higher

Education 55(2), 122-144. Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. (1991). 'Cultural congruence, strength and type: Rela-

tionships to effectiveness', Research in Organizational Change and Development 5, 23-58.

Chaffee, E.E. and Jacobson, S.W. (1997). 'Creating and changing institutional cultures', in Peterson, M.W., Dill, D.D., Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 230-245.

Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, D.W. (1997). 'Understanding the globalization of scholarship', in Peterson, M.W., Dill, D.D, Mets, L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 548-562.

Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President, 2nd edn. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Council on International Educational Exchange (1994). The Power of Educational Exchange: Essays in Honor of Jack Egle. New York: Author.

Deal, E. and Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Culture: the Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Denison, D. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Dill, D.D. (1982). 'The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of

meaning and social integration', Higher Education 11, 303-320. Dill, D.D., and Sporn, B. (1995). Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform:

Through a Glass Darkly. Oxford: Pergamon. Dobbert, M.L.L. (1998). 'The impossibility of internationalizing students by adding mate-

rials to courses', in Mestenhauser, J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, pp. 53-68.

68



INTERNATIONALIZATION OF UNIVERSITIES 69

Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). 'Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results, resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a U.S. university', in Mestenhauser, J.A. and Elllingboe, B.J (eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Interna- tionalizing the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, pp. 198-228.

Goodwin, C. (1991). Missing the Boat: The Failure to Internationalize American Higher Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Groennings, S. and Wiley, D.S. (1990). Group Portrait: Internationalizing the Disciplines. New York: The American Forum.

Gumport, P.J. and Sporn, B. (1999). 'Institutional adaptation: Demands for management reform and university administration', in Smart, J.C. and Tierney, W.G. (eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume XIV. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 103-145.

Harari, M. (1989). Internationalization of Higher Education: Effecting Institutional Change in the Curriculum and Campus. Long Beach, CA: Center for International Education, California State University.

Hardy, C., Langley, A., Mintzberg, H. and Rose, J. (1983). 'Strategy formation in the university setting', Review of Higher Education 6, 407-433.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Keller, G. (1997). 'Examining what works in strategic planning', in Peterson, M.W., Dill,

D.D., Mets. L.A. and Associates (eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 158-170.

Kerr, C. (1987). 'A critical age in the university world: Accumulated heritage versus moder imperatives', European Journal of Education 22, 183-193.

Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion. Kotter, J. and Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Free Press. Lapiner, R. (1994). 'Defining the challenges for achieving transnational higher education',

in Council on International Educational Exchange (ed.), The Power of Educational Exchange. Essays in Honor of Jack Egle. New York: Author, pp. 71-85.

March, J.G. (1984). 'How we talk and how we act: administrative theory and administrative life', in Sergiovanni, T.J. and Corbally, J.E. (eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture. New Perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 18-35.

Marsella, A.J. (2001). 'Essay: Internationalizing the Psychology Curriculum', Psychology International 12(2), 7-8.

Masland, A.T. (1985). 'Organizational culture in the study of higher education', Review of Higher Education 8, 157-168.

Merkur'ev, S.P. (1991). 'Implications of internationalization for the university', American Behavioral Scientist 35, 43-54.

Mestenhauser, J.A. (1998). 'Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon multidimensional perspective', in Mestenhauser, J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press, pp. 3-39.

Mestenhauser, J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations.

New York: The Free Press.



70 MARVIN BARTELL

Mintzberg, H. and Van der Heyden, L. (1999). 'Organigraphs: Drawing how companies really work', Harvard Business Review 77, 87-94.

Mittelman, J.H. (ed). (1996). Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener. Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990). 'Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization',

Academy of Management Review 15, 203-223. Ouchi, W.G, and Wilkins, A.L. (1985). 'Organizational culture', Annual Review of Sociology

11,457-483. Peterson, M.W. and Dill, D.D. (1997). 'Understanding the competitive environment of the

postsecondary knowledge industry', in Peterson, M.W., Dill, D.D., Mets, L.A. and Asso- ciates (eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-29.

Peterson, M.W. and Spencer, M.G. (1990). 'Understanding academic culture and climate', in Tierney, W.G. (ed.), Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures. New Directions for Institutional Research, 17(68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-18.

Peterson, M.W. and Spencer, M.G. (1993). 'Qualitative and quantitative approaches to academic culture: Do they tell us the same thing?', in Smart, J.C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume IX. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 344-388.

Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press Rothenburg, A. (1979). The Emerging Goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Skolnikoff, E.B. (1994). 'Knowledge without borders? Internationalization of the research

universities', in Cole, J.R., Barber, E.G. and Graubard, S.R. (eds.), The Research Univer- sity in a Time of Discontent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 337-343.

Smith, S. (1991). Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Sporn, B. (1999). 'Current issues and future priorities for European higher education systems', in Altbach, P.G. and Peterson, P.M. (ed.), Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge and National Response. New York: Institute of International Education, Report No. 29, pp. 67-77.

Sporn, B. (1996). 'Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches', Higher Education 32, 41-61.

Stake, R.E. (1994). 'Case studies', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 236-247.

Thorton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (1999). 'Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher-education publishing industry, 1958-1990', American Journal of Sociology 105(3), 801-843.

Tichy, N.M. (1982). 'Managing change strategically: The technical, political and cultural keys', Organizational Dynamics 11(4), 59-80.

Tierney, W.G. (1988). 'Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials', Journal of Higher Education 95, 2-21.

Weick, K.E. (1976). 'Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems', Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 1-19.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Weick, K.E. (1983). 'Contradictions in a community of scholars: The cohesion-accuracy tradeoff', Review of Higher Education 6, 253-267.

Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (1994). 'Organizational effectiveness: Old models and new constructs', in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 135-153.



internationalization of universities: a university...

Documents