Reason before passion: faculty viewson internationalization in higher education

Patricia Dewey Æ Stephen Duff

Published online: 17 February 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract In this era of globalization, internationalization—both as an idea and an

agenda—is receiving widespread attention at academic institutions across North America.

Although faculty are necessarily key participants in initiatives to internationalize acade-

mia, surprisingly little work has been published that addresses the roles, responsibilities,

and problems faced by the faculty on an operational level. This article has been written to

provide administrators with some insight into faculty perspectives on the goals, strategies,

and processes of internationalization. The authors present a case study of internationali-

zation processes currently underway in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the

University of Oregon. They discuss a faculty-driven approach that focused on mapping

internationalization, addressing barriers to internationalization, and improving structures

and systems to enhance internationalization. An in-depth critical analysis of the case leads

to recommendations and a framework for navigating diverse tensions and responsibilities

implicit in an internationalization imperative.

Keywords Internationalization in higher education �Internationalizing university faculty � Internationalization processes �Barriers to international education

Introduction

Our global era requires globally competent citizens. Global competency, understood as

‘‘having an open mind while actively seeking to understand cultural norms and expectations

of others, leveraging this gained knowledge to interact, communicate and work effectively

outside one’s environment’’ (Hunter, as cited in Hunter et al. 2006, p. 270), requires

P. Dewey (&)Arts and Administration Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5230, USAe-mail: pdewey@uoregon.edu

S. DuffDepartment of Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USAe-mail: sduff@uoregon.edu

123

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9207-z

internationalized higher education. These statements suggest an ever-increasing imperative

to internationalize colleges and universities. Indeed, extant research on internationalization

in higher education demonstrates the growing importance of internationalization as a pri-

ority issue (Kehm and Teichler 2007, p. 262). As Altbach and Knight (2007) argue, ‘‘Now

academe has regained its international scope and direction. IT [information technology]; the

knowledge economy; increased mobility for students, faculty, programs, and providers; and

an integrated world economy propel internationalization. Internationalism will remain a

central force in higher education, though its contours are unclear’’ (p. 303).

A review of scholarship on internationalization in higher education reveals surprisingly

little insight into faculty roles and responsibilities. Kehm and Teichler (2007, p. 264)

contend that research and studies on issues of internationalization in higher education can

be grouped into seven main themes, two of which are addressed in this article: interna-

tionalization of teaching, learning, and research; and institutional strategies of

internationalization. The objective of this article is to contribute to this increasingly sig-

nificant educational priority by sharing faculty insight into internationalization processes

that have taken place in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts at the University of

Oregon. Told from the faculty perspective, this case study of institutional internationali-

zation reveals opportunities and perils in addressing both institutional and individual

responsibility in leading an internationalization imperative. While findings from this case

study may not be generalizable, valuable lessons have nonetheless been learned that may

be transferred to internationalization processes underway at other universities.

The case study: school of architecture and allied arts at the University of Oregon

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university located in the

Pacific Northwest of the United States. The School of Architecture and Allied Arts

(A&AA) at the University of Oregon contains ten academic departments and programs:

Architecture; Art; Art History; Arts and Administration; Digital Arts; Historic Preserva-

tion; Interior Architecture; Landscape Architecture; Planning, Public Policy, and

Management; and Product Design. Offering undergraduate and graduate level programs

and degrees, the academic units extend from a focus on academic research in the

humanities tradition, to applied social science research, to technical and applied sciences,

to pre-professional education, to creative work in the arts.

In fall 2005, new administrative leaders (the school’s dean, and the university’s provost

and vice provost for international affairs) brought energy and enthusiasm for reinvigorating

‘‘internationalization’’, which has been articulated as a strategic priority in the School of

Architecture and Allied Arts as well as in the university as a whole. Documents that

identify international education as an institutional priority are accessible on the university’s

website (http://www.uoregon.edu). Internationalization is included in the University of

Oregon mission statement as follows: ‘‘a commitment to international awareness and

understanding, and to the development of a faculty and student body that are capable of

participating effectively in a global society’’ (website). Significant portions of the provost’s

statement on academic priorities, dated January 11, 2007, are devoted to arguing the

importance of ‘‘international fluency,’’ suggesting the need for enhanced global strategic

partnerships, and outlining six specific priorities for institutional internationalization.

In response to the internationalization strategic priorities emphasized by A&AA and the

University of Oregon central administration, a new faculty-led A&AA International Ini-

tiatives Committee was established to formulate a vision, strategic approach, and specific

492 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

action steps toward implementation of this priority area. The specific charge given to the

committee was stated as follows:

Craft vision of A&AA’s international presence. Inventory and evaluate current

international opportunities for A&AA faculty and students. Inventory and evaluate

existing support systems at the UO with regard to international initiatives. Evaluate

new A&AA international initiatives, prioritize initiatives based on A&AA strategic

goals, make recommendations to the Dean prior to new initiatives being submitted to

UO International Programs for approval.

The A&AA International Initiatives Committee (IIC) met regularly throughout 2006–

2007 to conduct a systematic assessment of the internationalization process in the school.

Continued analysis and discussion took place in the 2007–2008 academic year. The

committee’s members grappled with the undefined objective of ‘‘internationalization’’

given them by administrative leaders, conducted an inventory of the faculty’s international

engagement, identified barriers to internationalization, and proposed structures, systems

and personnel to foster international activity. The case study presented in this article

presents insight into faculty considerations and conceptualization processes that took place

without the guidance of scholarly and administrative expertise in the field of interna-

tionalization of higher education. The approach taken thus provides faculty perspectives on

internationalization in an academic institution that emphasizes decentralized faculty

leadership and a culture of academic freedom. As Knight (2004) states, ‘‘…it is usually at

the individual, institutional level that the real process of internationalization is taking

place’’ (pp. 6–7). In many ways, the approach that Altbach and Knight (2007, p. 293) refer

to as a ‘‘traditional internationalization’’ was intuitively adopted by concentrating on

reviewing existing campus-based internationalization initiatives at our institution. In

assessing international strategies and activities underway, the strengths of program strat-

egies and the weaknesses in organizational strategies became self-evident.

Defining and mapping internationalization

The A&AA International Initiatives Committee commenced work by explicitly recognizing

that, in an era of globalization, academic institutions must continue to foster a commitment

to internationalization in higher education. However, what is meant by internationalization?

As Altbach and Knight (2007) state, ‘‘globalization may be unalterable, but international-

ization involves many choices’’ (p. 291). Internationalization is not explicitly defined at the

University of Oregon, and there does not appear to be a generally accepted definition of

internationalization among leading scholars in the field of international higher education

(Knight 2004, pp. 8–12; Teichler 2004). A concept of internationalization as ‘‘the process of

integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or

delivery of post-secondary education’’ (Knight 2004, p. 11) may provide a helpful approach

for considering international initiatives. In this case, the IIC began the investigation by

assessing how the institutional community understands itself to be international.

In sum, the IIC came to understand internationalization to mean school-wide involve-

ment in myriad networks, research, creative work, exchanges, professional development,

curricular development, study abroad programs, and institutional partnerships. Such

activities range from the individual (faculty, students, administration) to the institutional

(A&AA, UO, external partners) and may require varying levels of resources, support and

investment. School-wide internationalization could be conceptualized and mapped

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 493

123

according to an initiative’s required individual or institutional level of responsibility and

the anticipated level of resource investment required to realize the initiative. An initial

typology of diverse programs and activities involved in school-wide internationalization is

mapped in Fig. 1. In strategically assessing the range of international activities, the IIC

noted that it would be possible to evaluate, invest in, leverage, and develop all areas in this

schematic. At the University of Oregon, specific areas involving internationalization could

be grouped in four main categories.

Faculty research and teaching

Faculty international research and teaching activities range from personal experience, to

participation in conferences and networks, to short-term or long-term appointments as

visiting researchers or instructors. Required A&AA investment of resources and support

varies significantly among these areas.

Curriculum

All A&AA administrators and faculty members face decisions regarding international

coursework requirements and instructional content. A systematic assessment of interna-

tional dimensions of A&AA coursework may be helpful in determining the range of

internationally-focused courses that students are encouraged or required to take as part of

their degree requirements.

Study abroad programs

Closely linked with international curricular requirements may be opportunities to engage in

study abroad programs. Such programs are structured as A&AA-run international pro-

grams, faculty-run programs with potential affiliations and partnerships with external

programs, and specialized agency-run programs or other contracted programs.

Other areas of activity

Students. Many international students attend the University of Oregon and the School of

Architecture and Allied Arts. Diverse international student exchange programs and student

international internship programs exist.

Development and External Relations. International A&A alumni networks and diverse

international external relations initiatives might be cultivated.

Institutional Partnerships. Such partnerships may take the form of student and faculty

exchanges with sister universities abroad, the establishment of an international faculty

research chair, or various other forms of long-term international institutional collaboration.

There is a potential to establish joint degree or dual degree education programs in coop-

eration with international partner universities.

During the course of the 2006–2007 academic year, the IIC also administered a survey to

departments and individual faculty members to inventory recent, current and planned

international activities in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Administrators were

asked to report data regarding study abroad programs and other related opportunities for

both faculty and students. Individual members of the A&AA faculty were asked to provide

details of international activities and connections related to research and scholarship,

494 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

FA

CU

LT

Y R

ESE

AR

CH

A

ND

TE

AC

HIN

G

IND

IVID

UA

L

HIG

H

LO

W

INST

ITU

TIO

NA

L

Incr

easi

ngle

vel o

f re

quir

edre

sour

ces,

supp

ort,

and

inve

stm

ent.

Incr

easi

ng le

vel o

f adm

inis

trat

ive

infr

astr

uctu

re r

equi

red,

and

po

tent

ial b

urea

ucra

tic

barr

iers

.

Dev

elop

sys

tem

atic

fra

mew

ork

for

curr

icul

ar r

equi

rem

ents

at

UO

and

abr

oad

Con

tinui

ng e

duca

tion

and

di

stan

ce le

arni

ng p

rogr

ams

Vir

tual

inte

rnat

iona

lin

stru

ctio

n op

port

uniti

es

CU

RR

ICU

LU

M

Ass

ess

curr

ent i

nter

natio

nal

dim

ensi

ons

of A

AA

pro

gram

cu

rric

ula

and

cour

sew

ork

Ass

ess

“mul

ticul

tura

l”

requ

irem

ent f

or u

nder

grad

uate

A

AA

stu

dent

s

Enc

oura

ge A

AA

stu

dent

s to

en

roll

in in

tern

atio

nally

-fo

cuse

d co

urse

s in

oth

er

depa

rtm

ents

, in

wel

l as

in

fore

ign

lang

uage

s

Facu

lty b

ackg

roun

ds

and

pers

onal

net

wor

ks

AA

A d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

exte

rnal

rel

atio

ns

initi

ativ

es

Inte

rnat

iona

l AA

A

alum

ni n

etw

orks

Inte

rnat

iona

l fac

ulty

an

d re

sear

ch v

isito

rs,

shor

t and

long

-ter

m

Facu

lty te

achi

ng a

nd

lect

urin

g ab

road

,

shor

t or/

long

-ter

m

Facu

lty in

tern

atio

nal

rese

arch

fun

ding

/ gr

ants

Inte

rnat

iona

l stu

dent

s st

udyi

ng a

t AA

A/U

O

Facu

lty in

tern

atio

nal

prof

essi

onal

net

wor

ks,

conf

eren

ces,

pub

licat

ions

, ex

hibi

ts

Coo

rdin

ate

stud

ent

inte

rnat

iona

l int

erns

hips

th

roug

h A

AA

(PO

DS)

Facu

lty p

artic

ipat

ion

in U

O

inte

rnat

iona

l and

are

a st

udie

s co

mm

ittee

s an

d pr

ojec

ts

Inte

rnat

iona

l con

fere

nces

tha

t A

AA

fac

ulty

hos

t / c

hair

B

i- a

nd m

ultil

ater

al

inte

rnat

iona

l col

labo

ratio

n w

ith lo

ng-t

erm

pa

rtne

rshi

ps:

acad

emic

, go

vern

men

tal,

and

nong

over

nmen

tal

orga

niza

tions

OU

S st

uden

t int

erna

tiona

l in

tern

ship

pro

gram

s

AA

A-

run

inte

rnat

iona

lpr

ogra

ms

UO

– o

ffer

ed (

OIP

) ST

UD

Y A

BR

OA

D

PR

OG

RA

MS

UO

fac

ulty

-run

pro

gram

s,

AH

A p

rogr

ams,

an

d ot

her

cont

ract

ed p

rogr

ams

Inte

rnat

iona

l stu

dent

ex

chan

ge p

rogr

ams

Inte

rnat

iona

l fac

ulty

re

sear

ch c

hair

(e.

g.,

UN

ESC

O, F

ulbr

ight

)

Stud

ent/f

acul

ty e

xcha

nge

Inte

rnat

iona

l par

tner

ship

s (s

iste

r un

iver

sitie

s)

Pote

ntia

l fac

ulty

aff

iliat

ions

or

par

tner

ship

s w

ith e

xter

nal

over

seas

stu

dy p

rogr

ams

Fig

.1

Map

pin

gA

&A

Ain

tern

atio

nal

izat

ion

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 495

123

creative and professional work, teaching, administration, and interest in future international

initiatives. Specific questions asked in the faculty questionnaire were designed to collect

data on the nature and scope of faculty international research and professional work,

including the identification of international research communities and professional asso-

ciations in which faculty were active. Questions about teaching included identification of

international subject matter, prior teaching positions abroad, and collaborative teaching

initiatives with colleagues in other nations. Questions about faculty members’ academic

backgrounds were posed to collect information about pre-professional international study

and research, as well as foreign language skills. Finally, several open-ended questions were

included to identify faculty members’ interest in participating in a comprehensive inter-

nationalization initiative.

After assessing the data collected in the survey and casting it in the context of the

conceptual model in Fig. 1, the IIC began to systematically discuss internationalization

strategies in the school. It was discovered, and subsequently emphasized in a formal report,

that despite an initial implicit assumption to the contrary, faculty, students, initiatives,

research and programs were—judged against an intuitive benchmark—already interna-

tional.1 However, it became clear that the necessary strategic oversight and development of

international initiatives had been neither conducted nor communicated by the school. In

other words, there were strengths in program strategies but weaknesses in organization

strategies framing the internationalization imperative at our institution (Knight 2004,

pp. 13–16).

Fundamentally, the IIC sought to understand, develop, and communicate our school-

wide internationalization strategic priority. As an initial step in this process, administrative

policies and procedures, incentives, barriers, curricula, and overseas programs all required

careful assessment. A detailed needs assessment would lead to the formulation of specific

recommendations and action steps.

In a nutshell, the IIC’s initial recommendations for advancing school-wide internation-

alization focused on framing an approach toward removing barriers to internationalization,

as well as creating effective and efficient structures to foster international activity. The next

section of this article focuses on articulating and analyzing these two dimensions of

internationalization from the perspective of faculty in higher education.

Barriers to internationalization

The data reviewed by the A&AA International Initiatives Committee revealed four major

types of barriers to faculty involvement in international activities at the University of

Oregon. First, there is a general lack of coordination and information available regarding

engagement in international initiatives. Second, many constraints exist due to limited

funding availability for international work. Third, numerous administrative policies and

procedures exist that serve as disincentives to participation in international initiatives.

Fourth, there is a lack of support staff and personnel to facilitate international initiatives.

This section of the article explores each of these barriers from the perspective of

1 Our survey of 90 tenure-related faculty members had a response rate of 55%. Of the responses, we foundthat 82% of faculty have significant international activity in research, teaching, or involvement in studyabroad programs. The School of Architecture and Allied Arts has 16 distinct study abroad programs inwhich faculty and students are involved; roughly 8–10% of A&AA students participate in these programsannually.

496 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

encouraging faculty involvement in international initiatives, and concludes with several

suggestions for ways in which these barriers might be addressed.

The IIC began its exploration of barriers to internationalization by discussing specific

barriers to faculty involvement in international research and scholarship as well as creative

and professional work. Limitations in available financial support make it difficult to secure

the necessary funds for travel as well as other overhead expenses (such as shipping

materials, securing photograph permission, communications) that are more expensive in

the international context. We found that there are policy statements existing at the uni-

versity level that serve as financial disincentives to faculty taking advantage of prestigious

international research grants, such as Fulbright fellowships.2 International engagement

involves extensive bureaucratic procedures and administrative red tape that is a burden to

the faculty member. Further, compliance procedures and protocols for research involving

human subjects are immensely time consuming, frustrating, and often difficult or inap-

propriate to use in international field research. Finally, domestic and international

academic calendars vary in their semester or quarter configurations, which can make it

difficulty for faculty to interface with institutions running on a different calendar.

Faculty also identified other barriers to international curricular development. Program

curricula are already packed, and adding new courses could only come at the expense of

removing other required or elective courses in the curricula. The work of course devel-

opment is currently accomplished through faculty work overloads—it is unlikely that this

is a sustainable or desirable approach, given other performance expectations. Not all

faculty consider international research, teaching, and creative work to be central to their

individual academic mission and professional success, and this must be respected in the

spirit of academic freedom.

The IIC then considered barriers to cultivating international diversity of students and

faculty. Clearly, diversity of students can be increased by recruiting more international

students to study at the university, but this raises many questions. To what specific aim did

we wish to recruit more international students? Would a specific recruitment strategy

focusing on specific regions of the world, academic programs, and graduate or under-

graduate students be appropriate? What were the implications of recruiting more

international students in terms of faculty workload? How would individual academic

programs address displacement of local and domestic students by the admission of more

international students?

The discussion of increasing international diversity of faculty was less controversial.

Committee members agreed that diversity of faculty could be enhanced by bringing more

international faculty as visiting scholars for lectures, symposia, short-term courses, and

academic quarters. Of course, funding for scholarships for international students and grants

for international faculty are limited, and bureaucratic procedures (for example, processing

visas) are burdensome and not always successful.

The IIC explored various barriers inhibiting participation in study abroad programs. The

first challenge is cost: student participation in overseas programs is expensive and not all

students can afford to participate. Students may also face problems in securing visas for

studying abroad, an issue that has worsened in the last decade. Management of these

2 If the faculty member receives external grant funding to support research during a research leave that isnot a sabbatical, a university-level policy exists that limits the amount of faculty salary payment to thedesignated annual base salary level. As a result, a significant financial disincentive exists for faculty whowish to participate in professional activities abroad. Many additional expenses are incurred while living andtraveling overseas for an extended period of time, while often one must continue to maintain basic livingexpenses at the domestic residence.

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 497

123

programs is confusing and cumbersome. In the School of Architecture and Allied Arts,

there are currently three different management models in place for existing study abroad

programs, and the policies, procedures, and costs (overhead and faculty salaries, in par-

ticular) differ significantly among these three management models. Student demand for

increased offerings of study abroad programs can become an issue as a point of saturation

is approached (that is, when different programs compete with each other for students and

support). Faculty emphasized that successfully starting and/or directing study abroad

programs is time intensive, with workload relative to student credit hour production very

high. Time investment for program development alone discourages many faculty members

from attempting to launch new programs. Some observed that an administrative attitude

considering faculty participation in a study abroad program as a ‘‘perk’’ for faculty would

be off-putting or even offensive, given the extensive work involved. Moreover, in terms of

program development, the school did not have a useful template, guidelines, or vetting

procedures in place for initiating new study abroad programs.

There are also important curricular considerations for study abroad programs. Timing

relationships with respect to required courses and the rigor or equivalency of course

content may be critical issues. Further, there are very real consequences and challenges to

academic departments when faculty participate in study abroad programs or participate in

other long-term research and teaching engagements overseas. Instructors must be found to

replace faculty for teaching courses in the curriculum, there is the issue of how salary

payments are to be made when faculty are abroad, and there can be a considerable impact

on student advising and a sense of faculty continuity in the department.

Analysis of barriers to internationalization from the faculty perspective led to several

specific ideas for means and approaches to address these challenges, focusing primarily on

enhancing administrative capacity and responsibility. First, the Committee identified the

need to increase faculty incentives to encourage participation in international work.

Incentives could include funding for travel and research, scholarships for international

students, and grants to bring international faculty as visitors. Providing course releases to

offer time for international curricular development would also serve as an excellent

incentive.

Second, the IIC suggested that staff support within the school to assist with international

research and study abroad program coordination is vital. Ideally, personnel should be

knowledgeable about all administrative procedures associated with international research

activities, do the bulk of work in navigating the paperwork associated with international

grants, organize and update the information for all study abroad programs offered by the

school, and organize information sessions about these programs for students. Currently, in

our institution, faculty perform many of these functions individually.

Third, the committee emphasized that existing administrative policies and procedures

serve as enormous barriers and disincentives to faculty international engagement. As a

point of action, central university administration should review all policies and procedures

regarding international research and teaching activity currently in place in order to

streamline, clarify, and systematize them—as well as assess the potential unintended

consequences of the policies.

Finally, the IIC recommended that coordination of international initiatives be enhanced

within the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. Information regarding the school’s study

abroad programs needed to be updated, centralized, coordinated, and more effectively

communicated. The committee also identified the diverse departments, committees, and

individuals within the school and the university as a whole that would need to be part of an

effective coordinative effort. We felt that continued work by the International Initiatives

498 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

Committee would play a key role in providing oversight of international programs being

offered and developed in the school. Further, the IIC might become engaged in the dis-

bursal of international travel awards or course releases for curricular development, in the

preparation of templates for study abroad program development, and in clarifying the

management profiles for international programs.

Interesting comparisons can be made between the findings and recommendations made

by the A&AA International Initiatives Committee and those published in a recent report

titled Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses (Saiya and Hayward 2003). Based

on data collected through surveys and focus groups, this study suggests that general interest

in and support for international higher education is high, but low institutional commitment

and a lack of incentives for faculty participation create numerous barriers to internation-

alization efforts. Survey findings showed ‘‘that colleges and universities did not offer

faculty much incentive to internationalize their courses or participate in other interna-

tionally oriented activities’’ (p. 15). Research universities do fund diverse international

activities for faculty development, but financial awards provided to faculty to pursue

international activities are generally very small (see Figs. 44, 45 of Saiya and Hayward

2003, for complete data). The authors conclude by arguing that ‘‘research universities need

to develop additional strategies that could turn faculty and student support into partici-

pation in international programs and activities’’ (p. 71). The A&AA committee discussed

specific strategies for fostering faculty involvement in international initiatives in terms of

the need for structures, systems, and personnel in our institution.

Requisite structures, systems and personnel to foster international activity

In order to begin the process of addressing the barriers listed above, the IIC discussed the

establishment of a long-term institutional support infrastructure to advance the School of

Architecture and Allied Arts’ internationalization strategic priority. Initial recommenda-

tions were twofold: (1) To continue the A&AA International Initiatives Committee, and (2)

To consider appointing an A&AA International Initiatives Director.

The mandate for a continuing IIC would include five specific areas of responsibility:

• To advise the A&AA Dean and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs regarding the

school-wide internationalization strategic priority;

• To advise and assist the prospective new A&AA Director of International Initiatives;

• To determine disbursal of future international travel awards and course releases for

international curricular development;

• In cooperation and with the leadership of the UO Office of International Affairs, to

continue to collect information and develop templates for international program

involvement;

• To vet new international program proposals from A&AA faculty.

The recommended institutional positioning of the International Initiatives Committee is

depicted in Fig. 2. The second structural recommendation proposed by the committee was

to consider appointing a half-time faculty administrative position within the school to

provide oversight, support, and coordination of the internationalization strategic priority

area. The potential hierarchical positioning of this individual is also provided in Fig. 2.

The committee envisioned and proposed that the main responsibilities of this individual,

essentially creating a draft job description. Written from a faculty perspective, the func-

tions and roles indicated in this list of responsibilities provide insight into precise

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 499

123

administrative direction and support needs that the IIC believed would facilitate an

ongoing internationalization process at the school level. The IIC envisioned that this new

international initiatives director would provide oversight and information to faculty and

administrative personnel about international activities underway in research, teaching,

curricula, and overseas study programs. This individual would serve as a key liaison among

faculty, students, and the university’s administrative units identified in Fig. 2. The IIC

emphasized the urgent need for general faculty support in navigating bureaucratic policies

and procedures, developing international networks, and cultivating funding. There is a

specific need for faculty support in developing and implementing guidelines for internal

review of new proposals for study abroad programs. The IIC also saw a need for this

individual to spearhead and coordinate opportunities for students, such as developing

international student associations and activities, developing opportunities for international

internships, and serving as a leader in enhancing A&AA international students’ experience

at the university. Finally, the IIC underscored the need for effective information materials,

policies, procedural guidelines, and publicity materials for the school’s spheres of inter-

national activity. Overall, the proposed responsibilities for a new international initiatives

director suggest a need for faculty and student support through the provision of infor-

mation, coordination and oversight, guidance on policies and procedures, fundraising

assistance, networking, curricular assessment, and publicity.

Internationalization… striking a delicate balance

This article has presented an overview of a case study of faculty views on international-

ization within a school of architecture and allied arts in a comprehensive public research

university in the United States. We have discussed our approach to defining, conceptual-

izing, and mapping internationalization. We have presented an in-depth analysis of barriers

Faculty Representatives

A&AA International Initiatives Committee

L ARCH ARCH I ARCH ART ARTHISTORY

HP AAD PPPM

UO Curriculum Committee

UO Foreign Study Programs Committee

A&AA AcademicAffairs Committee

A&AA Dean and Associate Dean for Academic

Affairs

UO Office of International Programs

Vice Provost for International

Affairs

ProposedIntroduction of anew International Initiatives Director

Fig. 2 Proposed A&AA international committee and personnel structure

500 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

to faculty participation in internationalization. And we have offered our recommendations

for specific structures, systems and personnel that we believe would encourage faculty

involvement in international activity in our institution. In the final section of this article,

reflecting on key concepts and approaches presented in current existing scholarship in

international higher education, we present a critical analysis of internationalization in our

institution.

At the University of Oregon, internationalization is an explicitly articulated school-wide

and university-level strategic priority. In the context of an institutional passion for and

commitment to internationalization, assessing the rationales, processes, and activities

involved in internationalization has been delegated as a faculty responsibility within the

School of Architecture and Allied Arts. On one hand, this is highly appropriate because

long-term institutional academic mission and continuity are driven by faculty. In this sense,

the university is the faculty, and the university’s administrators serve to support decen-

tralized faculty leadership of the academic institution. On the other hand, however, faculty

rely on the central administration to clearly communicate strategic priorities, lead strategic

development of priority area initiatives and, in particular, provide means and support to the

faculty to achieve priority area goals. If the real process of internationalization takes place

at the individual and institutional level (Knight 2004, p. 6), then it is precisely this interplay

between institutional and faculty level competence that must be addressed in pursuit of this

strategic priority area.

This case study revealed and underscored numerous strengths in program strategies

within the school, but also revealed manifold weaknesses in organizational strategies.

Following an institutional model of analysis posited by Knight (2004, pp. 13–16) and

supported by the research of Jones and Brown (2007), the school’s strengths in terms of

academic programs, research and scholarly collaboration, external relations, and extra-

curricular activities could similarly be presented. Weaknesses could be identified and

assessed in terms of governance, operations, services, and human resources.

There appear to be multiple challenges if the institution relies solely on faculty lead-

ership to craft and lead processes of internationalization. More specifically, we desire

clarity in faculty involvement and roles in internationalization at the institutional level. We

have grappled with the fact that institutional rationales, concepts, motivations, goals, and

desired outcomes regarding internationalization have not yet been clearly defined.

Administrative approaches to internationalization are not yet clear on an operational level,

and we have not been able to identify specific policies and procedures to implement for

purposes of internationalization review and planning. We struggled to identify strategic

connections between university-wide goals for long-term internationalization and the

detailed committee work and action points we were assigned. It also became quickly

evident through our committee’s work that an incentive system and support infrastructure

for faculty involvement in international activity still needed to be created.

More significantly, although internationalization is articulated as an institutional priority

area, it seems to be a low priority area for institutional infrastructure support, funding, and

communications efforts. As important as internationalization is stated to be, given com-

peting institutional priorities and the reality of limited resources and strained budgets, our

resource-intensive proposals and recommendations to support internationalization have

remained unfunded. This mismatch between institutional intentions and support mecha-

nisms is exacerbated by what appears to be an expectation—perhaps due to a historical

pattern of behavior or an embedded organizational culture—that individual faculty can and

will support virtually all extra work associated with pursuing an internationalization

imperative.

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 501

123

In developing an approach to internationalization in the A&AA International Initiatives

Committee, it was evident that internationalization did not appear to be considered sys-

tematically or in a coordinated way. An initial scan of faculty, students, and academic

initiatives disconfirmed the false assumption that was initially expressed to us that ‘‘we

aren’t international’’, although much more data and assessment is required to effectively

demonstrate the extent to which our institution is international. Yet, this false assumption

reveals a much more salient issue. If it is assumed at the institutional level that we are not

international, when and how would it be determined to be the case, and what would be the

metric for this assessment? And how would this be measured without a clear concept and

definition of internationalization?

Many other phrases that revealed a lack of systematic assessment on the part of the

administration were expressed to us as specific objectives for international activity in our

school. For example, ‘‘we need more international students’’ was often stated, without

consideration of target groups, departmental implications, and academic/administrative

support issues. ‘‘We need better coordination of our international programs’’ was articu-

lated as a major goal, and often internationalization was discussed exclusively in terms of

international programs. ‘‘We need to engage in our university’s East Asia Initiative’’ was

both explicitly and implicitly emphasized, although, apart from the obvious Pacific Rim

proximity, the rationale and concept of this exclusive regional focus were never fully

explained. The IIC appreciated the excellent specific objectives for internationalization that

were communicated to us, but found that these priorities were difficult to isolate from the

more comprehensive approach to internationalization that we strove to articulate.

We as faculty may wholeheartedly support a commitment to internationalization, but

there needs to be solid coordination between institutional goals and faculty initiatives. The

internationalization priority area must be clearly articulated and supported from differing

perspectives of the institution, students, and faculty. For students, the goal of international

higher education may be framed as the importance of developing global competence

(Hunter et al. 2006; Leask 2001). Faculty and institutions, however, may be driven by

diverse rationales of a political, economic, cultural and social, or academic nature (de Wit

2002, Chap. 5). From these multivalent rationales follows an extensive range of approaches

to internationalization at the institutional level. Institutional approaches may concentrate

on activities, rationales, competencies and outcomes, process, as well as competitive

institutional branding. Further, approaches to internationalization may concentrate on

campus-based initiatives or cross-border delivery of education (de Wit 2002, pp. 116–118;

Knight 2004, pp. 20–21).

In this case study, it could be argued that faculty participants in the A&AA International

Initiatives Committee intuitively developed an approach to internationalization that

focused on activities, outcomes, and processes both at home and abroad. What was lacking

in the committee’s deliberations was a shared understanding of the rationales for inter-

nationalization. We contend that a systematic approach to internationalization must

comprise concurrent assessment of all institutional rationales, activities, outcomes, and

processes. Further, it should be noted that helpful reference materials for administrators

and faculty engaged in advancing comprehensive internationalization processes at their

institutions exist (de Wit 2002; Jones and Brown 2007; Knight 2004; Olson et al. 2006;

Saiya and Hayward 2003).

To conclude, realizing that it is impossible to generalize from our single in-depth case

study, we would nonetheless like to posit some of the valuable lessons we have learned as

general recommendations to higher education administrators.

502 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123

First, passion for internationalization is not enough. If it is an institutional strategic

priority, internationalization requires resources, support, and strategic coordination. Sec-

ond, internationalization must be addressed systemically and systematically. There must be

mutual understanding of institutional goals, rationales, and objectives of comprehensive

internationalization. Third, internationalization must take on the form of an individual-institutional partnership. The faculty alone does not have the capacity and responsibility to

take on full implementation of an institution-wide priority area. University administrators

cannot implement a comprehensive internationalization process without coordination with,

support of, and participation by the faculty.

As depicted in Fig. 3, comprehensive internationalization requires a delicate balance

between centralized and decentralized authority and capacity, as well as individual and

institutional spheres of competency and activity.

Central administrators might become individual champions for internationalization,

articulating their vision and goals for this priority area in formal institutional documents.

Similarly, centralized institutional strategic plans, goals, and priorities for an institution-

wide internationalization process might exist. In contrast, international activity might take

the form of decentralized individual faculty initiatives, or decentralized formal academic

programs. Whatever their form, the structures for implementing initiatives must resolve

these seemingly antithetical areas of authority if internationalization is to succeed as a

university-wide strategic priority.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and input pro-vided to the A&AA International Initiatives Committee by Chunsheng Zhang, Frances Bronet, and DougBlandy, as well as by our committee members: Jamie Harper, Ron Lovinger, Kevin Yates, and JennyYoung.

References

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities.Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290–305. doi:10.1177/1028315307303542.

De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: Ahistorical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal ofStudies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. doi:10.1177/1028315306286930.

Jones, E., & Brown, S. (2007). Contextualising international higher education. In E. Jones & S. Brown(Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp. 194–200). London: Routledge.

Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalization in higher education. Journal ofStudies in International Education, 11(3/4), 260–273. doi:10.1177/1028315307303534.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studiesin International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula. Journal of Studies in Interna-tional Education, 5(2), 100–115. doi:10.1177/102831530152002.

Champions Initiatives

Strategies Programs

Centralized

Institutional

Individual

DecentralizedFig. 3 Balancing theresponsibility forinternationalization

High Educ (2009) 58:491–504 503

123

Olson, C. L., Green, M. F., & Hill, B. A. (2006). A handbook for advancing comprehensive internation-alization: What institutions can do and what students should learn. Washington, DC: AmericanCouncil on Education.

Saiya, L., & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48,5–26. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000033771.69078.41.

504 High Educ (2009) 58:491–504

123