Loading...

The Twenty-First Century University

Developing Faculty Engagement in Internationalization, Second Edition

by Lisa K. Childress (Author)
Textbook XVI, 226 Pages
Series: Complicated Conversation, Volume 48

Summary

During the last few decades, many university presidents and provosts have expressed an intent to internationalize their institutions to equip students with the broad intellectual skills necessary to succeed in the global twenty-first century. However, these well-intentioned calls for internationalization have remained little more than rhetoric. Obstacles embedded in developing faculty engagement in internationalization are largely responsible for this inability to turn rhetoric into reality.
This groundbreaking second edition of The Twenty-First Century University identifies what successful institutions have done to overcome endogenous challenges and successfully engage faculty in the internationalization process.
The book provides updated case studies on two exemplary institutions, demonstrating how these institutions operationalized Childress’ "5 I’s of Faculty Engagement in Internationalization Model" (including intentionality, investments, infrastructure, institutional networks, and individual support) from 2007 through 2017. This book also presents a typology of strategies for faculty engagement in internationalization that higher education leaders can use to increase their faculty’s international teaching, research, and service on campus, regionally, and abroad. Finally, this second edition includes a model of faculty engagement in internationalization within academic departments that institutional leaders can use to ensure that explicit connections are made between internationalization and individual disciplines.

Table Of Content

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author(s)/editor(s)
  • About the book
  • Praise for the Second Edition of the Twenty-First Century University
  • Praise for the First Edition of the Twenty-First Century University
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Table of Contents
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Acknowledgments
  • 1 Introduction: Historical Context of Internationalization
  • Key Problems Facing University Administrators and Faculty
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Definition of Key Terms
  • References
  • 2 Critical Analysis of the Internationalization Literature
  • Rationales for Internationalization
  • Economic Rationales
  • Political Rationales
  • Academic Rationales
  • Sociocultural Rationales
  • Summary
  • Recommendations from Internationalization Leaders
  • Internationalization Plans
  • Roles of Internationalization Plans
  • Recommendations from Internationalization Leaders
  • Insights from Strategic Planning Scholarship
  • Intentionality
  • Information
  • Involvement
  • Institutional Networks
  • Incentives
  • Summary
  • Campus-Wide Internationalization Committees
  • Roles of Campus-Wide Internationalization Committees
  • Build Bridges
  • Foster Collective Leadership
  • Provide Organizational Structure
  • Recommendations from Internationalization Leaders
  • Summary
  • References
  • 3 Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
  • Faculty Role in the Internationalization of the Curriculum
  • Levels of Faculty Engagement
  • Challenges in Developing Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
  • Institutional Barriers
  • Lack of Financial Resources
  • Disciplinary Divisions and Priorities
  • Restrictive Tenure and Promotion Policies
  • Individual Barriers
  • Attitudes toward International Learning
  • Personal Knowledge and Skills
  • Cognitive Competence
  • Recommendations from Internationalization Leaders
  • References
  • 4 Case Studies: Duke University and the University of Richmond
  • Descriptive and Demographic Information
  • Case Study of Duke University
  • Context
  • Background
  • Historical Context for Faculty Engagement in Duke’s Internationalization Plans
  • Supportive Presidents
  • Unanticipated Factors
  • Summary
  • Academic Activities
  • Faculty Seminars
  • International Degree Programs
  • Development of an Overseas Campus
  • Summary
  • Organizational Practices
  • Substantial Investments in Internationalization
  • Differential Investment
  • Multiple Distinguished International Scholar Endowments
  • Curriculum Internationalization Grants
  • OVPIA International Research and Travel Funds
  • Summary
  • Strategic Use of Electronic Resources
  • Development of International Centers
  • Reaccreditation Self-Study
  • Lack of Inclusion of Internationalization in Tenure and Promotion Policies
  • Summary
  • Organizational Principles
  • Collaboration
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Customization
  • Coordination
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Summary
  • Internationalization Plans
  • Internationalization Plan Types
  • Internationalization Plan Roles
  • Internationalization Plan Alignment
  • Duke University Case Study Summary
  • Case Study of the University of Richmond
  • Context
  • Background
  • Historical Context for Faculty Engagement in Richmond’s Internationalization Plans
  • Unanticipated Factors
  • Academic Activities
  • Faculty Seminar Abroad
  • Application Process
  • Faculty Participant-Led Predeparture Workshops
  • Extensive Travel and Wide-Ranging Discussions Abroad
  • Postseminar Report of Learning Outcomes and Plans for Curricular Integration
  • Seminar Outcomes Relating to Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
  • Summary
  • International Teaching Opportunities
  • Leading and Teaching on Summer Study Abroad Programs
  • Integrating Study Abroad Components into On-Campus Courses
  • International Studies Major
  • Summary
  • Organizational Practices
  • Substantial Investments in Internationalization
  • Quest International Faculty Programming and Course Development Grants
  • Curriculum Internationalization Grants
  • Weinstein Grants for Summer International Projects
  • Development of the Office of International Education
  • Academic Standing of the International Education Leader
  • Strategic Use of Electronic Resources
  • Dramatic Gestures and Iconic Moments
  • Lack of Inclusion of Internationalization in Tenure and Promotion Policies
  • Summary
  • Organizational Principles
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Coordination
  • Summary
  • Internationalization Plans
  • Internationalization Plan Types
  • Internationalization Plan Roles
  • Internationalization Plan Alignment
  • Summary
  • University of Richmond Case Study Summary
  • Cross-Case Findings and Analysis
  • Context
  • Endowment Size and Special Allocations
  • Institutional Size
  • Senior Leaders’ Support
  • Types of Stakeholders Who Spearheaded Internationalization Plans
  • Multiple Institutional Levels at Which Internationalization Plans Were Developed
  • Student Influence
  • Lack of Influence of Campus-Wide Internationalization Committees
  • Context Summary
  • Academic Activities
  • Faculty Seminars
  • Sponsored by Well-regarded University Centers
  • Interdisciplinary Focus
  • Timing and Commitment Considerations
  • Required Preseminar Group Study and Teaching
  • International Teaching Opportunities
  • International Degree Programs
  • Development of an Overseas Campus
  • Summer Study Abroad Programs
  • Support to Integrate Study Abroad into On-Campus Courses
  • Academic Activities Summary
  • Organizational Practices
  • Differential Investments in Internationalization Plans
  • Strategic Use of Electronic Communication Channels
  • Lack of Inclusion of Internationally Focused Scholarship in Tenure and Promotion Policies
  • Organizational Principles
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Coordination
  • Customization, Entrepreneurship, and Collaboration
  • Customization
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Collaboration
  • Organizational Principles Summary
  • Internationalization Plans
  • Alignment of Faculty Engagement Strategies in Internationalization Plans
  • Internationalization Plan Summary
  • Conclusions
  • Institutional Contexts
  • Academic Activities
  • Organizational Practices
  • Organizational Principles
  • Internationalization Plan Types
  • Notes
  • References
  • 5 Faculty Engagement Model and Duke University and the University of Richmond’s Operationalization of Model
  • Intentionality
  • Investments
  • Infrastructure
  • Institutional Networks
  • Individual Support
  • Overview of Conceptual Model
  • Operationalization of “The Five I’s of Faculty Engagement in Internationalization” Model at Duke University and the University of Richmond
  • Duke University 2007–2017 Operationalization of Model
  • Intentionality
  • Investments
  • Infrastructure
  • Bass Connections
  • Duke’s Humanities Labs
  • Duke Kunshan University
  • DukeEngage
  • Provostial Initiatives Focused on Region or Theme
  • Process of Vertical Integration
  • Institutional Networks
  • Individual Support
  • Duke University 2007–2017 Operationalization of Model Summary
  • University of Richmond 2007–2017 Operationalization of Model
  • Intentionality
  • Supportive Senior Leadership
  • Investments
  • Infrastructure
  • Faculty Seminar Abroad Program
  • Current World Events Panels
  • Sophomore Scholars in Residence Program
  • Institutional Networks
  • Individual Support
  • University of Richmond 2007–2017 Operationalization of Model Summary
  • Summary
  • Notes
  • References
  • 6 Faculty Engagement Typology and the Role of Academic Departments
  • Typology of Strategies for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
  • Role of Academic Departments in Developing Faculty Engagement in Internationalization
  • (1) Define Internationalization for Department
  • (2) Develop Links with Department’s Other Goals
  • (3) Define Global Learning Outcomes
  • (4) Define Faculty Engagement Strategies
  • (5) Provide Support for Faculty
  • (6) Strategies to Address Challenges
  • (7) Developing Assessments for Global Learning Outcomes
  • (8) Developing Assessments for Faculty Engagement
  • Overview of Model
  • Notes
  • References
  • 7 Implications and Conclusions
  • Intentionality
  • Investments
  • Infrastructure
  • Institutional Networks
  • Individual Support
  • Summary
  • Implications for Institutional Change
  • Necessity of Networks to Bridge Individual Agendas with Institutional Change Agendas
  • Necessity to Recognize and Address Loose Coupling within Institutions
  • Implications for Internationalization
  • Intentionality
  • Investments
  • Infrastructure
  • Institutional Networks
  • Individual Support
  • Nine Recommendations to Engage Faculty in Internationalization
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Index
  • Series index

| ix →

1.1. Internationalization cycle. From “Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints.”

4.1. Critical feedback loops for faculty engagement in internationalization.

5.1. The five I’s of faculty engagement in internationalization.

6.1. Model for faculty engagement in internationalization within academic departments.

| xi →

2.1. Student Attitudes, Beliefs, and Reports as Indicated in ACE’s Study of Students in Eight Higher Education Institutions That Are Highly Active in Internationalization

4.1. Types and Numbers of Documents Analyzed

4.2. Descriptive and Demographic Information about Duke University

4.3. Duke’s Academic Activities Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.4. Duke’s Organizational Practices Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.5. Duke’s Organizational Principles Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.6. Alignment of Strategies Articulated in Duke’s Internationalization Plans

4.7. Synthesis of Duke’s Strategies Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.8. Descriptive and Demographic Information about the University of Richmond

4.9. Recommendations and Action Steps Advocated in Richmond’s 2006 Internationalization Plan ← xi | xii →

4.10. Richmond’s Academic Activities Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.11. Richmond’s Organizational Practices Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.12. Richmond’s Organizational Principles Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.13. Alignment of Strategies Articulated in Richmond’s Internationalization Plans

4.14. Synthesis of Richmond’s Strategies Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.15. Cross-Case Analysis Institutional Size Information

4.16. Cross-Case Comparison of Organizational Practices That Developed Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.17. Differential Investments in Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.18. Cross-case Comparison of Organizational Principles Used to Develop Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

4.19. Cross-Case Comparison of Internationalization Plan Types

4.20. Cross-Case Analysis of Strategies Articulated in Internationalization Plans

5.1. Duke University’s Internal Funds for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

5.2. University of Richmond’s Internal Funds for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

6.1. Typology of Strategies for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization

6.2. Explanation and Examples of Faculty Engagement in Internationalization Typology

6.3. Goal Measures for Faculty Engagement in Internationalization within Academic Departments

7.1. Types and Locations of Faculty Engagement Strategies

| xiii →

Completing a book, just like operationalizing an internationalization plan, requires a team of ardent supporters. Fortunately, I could not have asked for a stronger team of advocates and champions.

To my editors, Sarah Bode, Janell Harris, and Sara McBride, thank you for your time and care in bringing this second edition to life.

To my book series editor, Dr. William Pinar, thank you for your belief in the necessity of the internationalization of higher education being part of the complicated conversations we, as educators, must be having in this day and age.

To Drs. Eve Duffy, Martha Merritt, Uliana Gabara, Gilbert Merkx, and all of the University of Richmond and Duke University faculty and administrators who shared their time and insights with me: This study would not have been possible without your participation. I thank you for taking the time to share your stories with me and for your thoughtfulness about how faculty have engaged in internationalization at your institutions. Eve, Martha, Uliana, and Gil, I have learned a tremendous amount from your leadership of Duke and Richmond’s internationalization.

To my husband and best friend, Trey: I could not ask for a more committed partner in everything I do. Your daily display of love, your incredible sense of ← xiii | xiv → humor, and your phenomenal cooking gave me the sustenance to focus and persevere with this important project.

To my children, Jacob, Caleb, and Shana: Thank you for inspiring me to be the best person I possibly can be. Your smiles and love make all the hard work worthwhile.

| 1 →

Historical Context of Internationalization

Internationalization has become an increasingly relevant trend in higher education. National and global events, such as the Global War on Terrorism, North Korean nuclear testing, and September 11th, have demonstrated the importance of international knowledge for national security and global peace. Rapidly changing demographics in local, regional, and international communities have underscored the importance of cross-cultural understanding and communication in order to enable individuals to effectively contribute across an array of professions. Constant technological advances have broken down cultural and national barriers that previously existed in commerce. Employers seek individuals who have knowledge of cultural and business practices around the world, as well as the skills necessary to communicate across borders. Collectively, these changes require the development of knowledge and skills necessary to adapt and lead in a world with expanding intercultural interactions and decreasing monocultural dimensions. Higher education institutions serve critical roles in this process as they develop knowledge systems; and contemporary knowledge systems are increasingly international.

This is not a new development for higher education. During the latter half of the twentieth century, major world events served as catalysts for universities and colleges to focus on international education. Higher education leaders turned their ← 1 | 2 → attention to the importance of international education after World War II when “the American Council on Education, the President’s Commission on Higher Education, the philanthropic foundations, and the [US] Congress joined forces to counteract the exclusively Western orientation of the curriculum” (Rudolph, 1977, p. 264). At governmental levels, this reorientation was implemented by the Fulbright Act of 1946 and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. In particular, in the wake of World War II, the Fulbright Act established an exchange scholarship system for students and educators between the United States and other countries. In response to Sputnik, the NDEA supported universities in investing in teaching and research on international and foreign area studies. As such, World War II and Sputnik provided an impetus for an increased focus on international education.

Accordingly, numerous national organizations issued reports to alert higher education administrators and faculty of the urgent need to internationalize their institutions. Shortly after the passage of the NDEA, at the request of the US Department of State, the Ford Foundation—a major private source of support for higher education institutions’ international initiatives—developed a committee of university, foundation, business, and government leaders to systematically analyze the international role of universities and suggest ways that higher education institutions could perform more effectively in world affairs. This committee issued a report entitled “The University and World Affairs,” which emphasized the responsibility of university faculty to educate students about world affairs, despite the “largely sporadic and unplanned” attempts in existence (Committee on the University and World Affairs, 1960, p. 2). The report called for the transcendence from the traditionally domestic and Western orientation of scholarship and training to the integration of international dimensions into undergraduate, graduate, and professional curricula. As such, Committee on the University and World Affairs’ report turned the spotlight on the importance of faculty involvement in internationalization.

In 1965, echoing this call for the internationalization of higher education institutions, Education and World Affairs, a nonprofit organization created to study and assist in strengthening the international teaching, research, and service dimensions of colleges and universities, advocated the importance of both institutional and individual approaches to promoting international education. First, Education and World Affairs asserted that a strategic, intentional, institution-wide approach was critical in order to integrate an international dimension into a higher education institution in a meaningful way. Second, in addition to this institutional approach, an individual approach was recommended in order to strategically reach out to individual faculty, disciplines, and colleges to encourage their engagement in ← 2 | 3 → international education. As such, Education and World Affair’s report highlighted the importance of a strategic internationalization plan that accounts for overarching institutional priorities, as well as specific departmental and faculty needs.

Details

Pages
XVI, 226
ISBN (PDF)
9781433154225
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433154232
ISBN (MOBI)
9781433154249
ISBN (Softcover)
9781433154218
Language
English
Publication date
2018 (September)
Published
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Vienna, Oxford, Wien, 2018. XVI, 226 pp., 2 b/w ill., 2 col. ill., 27 tbl.

Biographical notes

Lisa K. Childress (Author)

Lisa K. Childress is a global education consultant, working with universities to engage faculty in international teaching, research, and service. Dr. Childress served as director of special international projects at Duke University Law School and international career consultant at University of Virginia’s Darden Business School.

Previous

Title: The Twenty-First Century University