This paper was prepared under the direction of Prof. Marvin W. Peterson for the project on Managing Institutional Change and Transformation in Higher Education at the University of Michigan. The series is part of a University of Michigan project supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation as a part of the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education Transformation (KFHET).
 
 

The late 1980s and early 1990s were a period in which many political and educational leaders called for increased internationalization in U.S. higher education. Almost a decade later, the higher education community is in a position to evaluate its progress in this area. How effective have American institutions been in preparing students to function in an international setting? How has the curriculum been adjusted to reflect the cross-cultural and multi-national issues and problems facing U.S. students and organizations? How has the curriculum changed to reflect the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity among undergraduate students? What did proponents of internationalization envision as the result of their efforts, and have those visions been realized?

This report will not answer those questions. Rather, by taking a retrospective view of the calls for internationalization in the previous decade, it suggests particular actions (and a rationale for those actions) that can promote internationalization within higher education institutions. This report views the process of university internationalization from the perspective of theoretical approaches to organizational change. Are there particular approaches to internationalization that are consistent with particular approaches to change? This report recommends that the approach to change most consistent with internationalization is that of population ecology. The report concludes with some broad suggestions intended to guide institutions in their efforts to internationalize.

In order to frame the approaches to internationalization, three volumes from the early 1990s —Johnston and Edelstein’s (1993) Beyond Borders: Profiles in International Education, Pickert and Turlington’s (1992) Internationalizing the Undergraduate Curriculum, and Klasek’s (1992) Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education - are particularly useful. These books will be considered from the perspective of their proposals for internationalizing colleges and universities. Their proposals and their strategies for change will be viewed, in turn, from four primary approaches to organizational change — organizational development, strategic choice, resource dependence, and population ecology.

Conceptualizations of Internationalization

Internationalization has been conceptualized in at least four ways in the higher education literature. Traditionally, internationalization has described activities which are often known as international studies. Area studies, interdisciplinary programs in languages, political science, cultural anthropology and sociology could all fall under this rubric. The goal of this type of internationalization is the preparation of students who are to be knowledgeable of other nations and cultures, and skillful in the languages and customs of those cultures.

A second view of internationalization is to describe activities which promote the interaction of domestic students with students and faculty from other nations. This interaction can take the form of study abroad experiences, and includes the influx of international students and faculty on U.S. campuses.

A third view of internationalization is the technical assistance which U.S. institutions offer to other countries, sometimes in the form of faculty going overseas to teach foreign nationals, or having short-term international visitors on U.S. campuses for the purposes of learning particular information or skills.

A fourth conceptualization, and perhaps the most salient in calls to reform higher education, is the preparation of people to function in an increasingly international and culturally diverse environment. This definition is both broad in scope and in function, as it can include many aspects of the international studies approach, but it also implies the infusion of international and cross-cultural information throughout the curriculum. It is this fourth use of the term that is the focus of this essay.

Rationale for Internationalization

Over the years much enthusiasm has been generated for internationalization on the basis of national economic competitiveness. Calls for internationalization resulted from political and educational concerns that the United States was losing its position of world economic leadership, and that American education would have to prepare future generations to function in a more competitive and more international marketplace. Much as the Soviet launch of Sputnik in the fifties pressed the higher education community to meet a perceived Russian technological and military challenge, Americans emerged from the 1980s with the perception that the Pacific Rim nations and a united Europe could provide significant challenges to American economic primacy. These competitive fears were fueled by reports that American students lagged behind students from other developed nations in basic math and science knowledge and skills, as well as knowledge of foreign languages and geography.

The concerns of lagging American economic competitiveness cut across educational, political, and social sectors. Higher education leaders promoted internationalization on other grounds, which included the increasing interdependent nature of the world. Environmental, economic, social, and medical problems of the 1980s and early 1990s were seldom limited by national or political boundaries. Some educators proposed internationalization of the curriculum as a means of bringing coherence to a fragmented undergraduate curriculum.

Internationalists’ Strategies for Change

Apart from the rationale for internationalization are the ways in which change can be implemented. Some change theorists view organizational change as a dynamic, organic, and non-linear process. In this view change occurs naturally, and in directions that are unanticipated and unintended by managers and leaders. Other views propose change as a deliberate, rational, and management-led process. The three internationalist volumes of the early 1990s tend toward the latter view: institutional leaders should pre-determine desired outcomes which would be appropriate for their institutions. The three volumes describe various models or outcomes of internationalization, and they all promote the notion that institutional leaders should envision change on their campuses, and then set out to bring about those changes.

First, effective leadership has been emphasized by the internationalists in terms of affecting campus-wide change. Johnston and Edelstein write that successful internationalization is dependent on a campus "champion" who has the necessary institutional rank and prestige to coordinate campus coalitions and engage symbolic actions toward the goal of internationalization. Pickert and Turlington’s book also emphasizes the importance of institutional leadership. Much of their book is a series of descriptive vignettes, and an entire chapter is devoted to presidential "testimonials" as to how international initiatives have been implemented on various campuses.

The second theme relates to organizational structure. The internationalists had much to say regarding what organizational unit should be the lead unit for the institution’s internationalization activity. Johnson and Edelstsein point out the wide range of these organizational homes: an international centers, a separate "international" college, in research institutes and student life centers, etc. In Klasek’s volume, Rahman and Kopp describe efforts at Penn State to centralize the institution’s international activities; they recommend that some central and visible campus unit become the standard-bearer for international activities.

The third common theme of also relates to organizational structure. The internationalists were concerned with the mechanisms by which internationalism could be infused into various units and departments. For example, Klasek’s Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education (1992) devotes a chapter to each of the topics of internationalizing the curriculum, the faculty, the student body, etc. Johnston and Edelstein recognize the strong influence of the disciplines on institutions, and they point out that the disciplines form considerable barriers to internationalization. At the same time, they believe that the disciplines can serve as tremendous resources for internationalization if the effort is managed skillfully. Implicit here is the notion that creative interdisciplinarity is a prerequisite for institution-wide internationalization.

Perhaps the most often-repeated position of the internationalists is the fourth theme: faculty development is an absolute necessity if campuses are to become internationalized. Concern is raised that faculty are ill prepared to infuse the curriculum with international objectives or processes. The internationalists propose several solutions to this problem, including: 1) initiatives to provide faculty with international teaching or research experience; 2) professional development in areas related to international concerns; and 3) tenure and promotion incentives. The internationalists’ proposals for institutional change share four common themes which are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Internationalists’ Recommendations for Change

Author
 

Theme	Johnston & Edelstein	Pickert & Turlington	Klasek
Leadership	X	X
Lead unit	X		X
Infusing units	X		X
Fac. development	X	X	X

Interestingly, the internationalists pay relatively little attention to the literature on organizational change. While all the authors recognized that bringing about institutional change requires some sort of strategy, only Johnston and Edelstein acknowledge the implications of internationalization within the broader concept of organizational change: "The substantial body of literature on organizational change is relevant whether the problem is developing a course on global interdependence in a business school or integrating an international internship option into a college of letters and sciences (Johnston & Edelstein, 1993, p. 71).

It is also interesting that internationalists have little to say about organizational culture. Only Harari, in his chapter in Klasek’s book, addresses issues of campus culture, or "ethos." He maintains that as an institution increasingly values understanding diverse cultures and societies, its curriculum will be gradually transformed.

Calls for Internationalization and Change Theories

Given the internationalist’s proposals, how might those proposals fit within the various conceptualizations of change found organizational change literature? A helpful summary of the organizational change literature has been provided by Quinn, Kahn, and Mandl (1994). They do not provide specific models for change, but they do provide an overview of change theories that can help in building a framework for analyzing various approaches to change.

Quinn, Kahn, and Mandl’s first perspective is that of organizational development, a positivistic approach which emphasizes the use of strategic interventions to further develop and streamline an organization’s use of human resources. Organizational development assumes that managers can make changes that direct their organizations toward greater effectiveness.

The second perspective is strategic choice, which points to the decisions and choices made by organizational leaders in a context of an organization’s specific characteristics and its environment. The third perspective is resource dependence, in which organizational changes are motivated and directed by the availability and accrual of required resources from an organization’s environment. The fourth perspective is population ecology, in which organizational change is perceived as a function of environmental forces on groups or populations of organizations.

Quinn, Kahn, and Mandl’s four perspectives might be placed on a continuum representing the impetus of change, with one end representing change that occurs as a result of human agency within the organization, and the other end representing change resulting from factors external to the organization. Figure 1 shows such a continuum:

Figure 1: Change Perspectives and the Impetus for Change
 
 

Organizational Strategic Resource Population

Development Choice Dependence Ecology

Internal factors External factors
 
 

The internationalists of the early nineties pointed to changes that could be categorized primarily in the area of organizational development. In all the volumes, the internationalists promoted a view that organizational change could be implemented through the effective management of human resources?a characteristic of an organizational development perspective on change. To a lesser degree, their strategies were representative of a strategic choice perspective. The internationalists’ themes are inconsistent with views of change which are driven by factors that are external to the organization. Table 2 summarizes the internationalists key themes within the context of the four approaches to change:

Table 2: Internationalists’ Themes Fit with Change Perspectives

Change Perspective:

It should not be too surprising that the internationalists suggested organizational development and strategic choice approaches — approaches that emphasize managerial activity within the organization. After all, campus leaders are expected to lead, and there is the assumption that leaders should do more than prepare their organizations to adapt to external circumstances that are beyond the organization’s control. Nevertheless, the internationalists’ volumes are arguably deficient in their attention to external factors that might effect internationalization. This fact is inconsistent with the stated rationale of many of the internationalists: that university internationalization is necessary if institutions are to prepare their students to function in an environment that goes far beyond national borders. In other words, it seems peculiar that the internationalists would not have approached change from strategies rooted in the resource dependency or population ecology perspectives —because the very rationale for internationalization is based on the notion that the environment of institutions is changing. That is, institutions must change because the "the world" is growing much closer to the institutions; perhaps the world is encroaching on our institutions. For colleges and universities to provide a useful education to students, that education must prepare students to function more effectively within the environment of a shrinking world. The following section offers some suggestions for viewing internationalization from such a perspective.

Internationalization from a Resource Dependency/Population Ecology Perspective

How might future efforts to implement internationalization reflect a more external approach to change? How might internationalization efforts of the coming decades be informed by approaches to change that would reflect factors rooted in the environments of our organizations? This report concludes with four recommendations by which institutional leaders can approach internationalizing their campuses. These recommendations are based on the assumption that internationalization is a fact of academic life; institutions of higher education find themselves in an increasingly international context in terms of research, student and faculty populations, and, most important, the curriculum which prepares students to function in an increasingly diverse and international environment.

1.Anticipate alternate sources of internationalization

The volumes of the early nineties seemed to ignore the potential of "alternative" educational resources. A change strategy grounded in a population ecology perspective would emphasize the need for campus leaders to look outside the institution to determine sources of information (For example, there was only one reference in the volumes to the potential of the internet as an information resource. Any contemporary treatment of internationalization would no doubt emphasize the potential of the internet as a source of valuable international information?one which campus leaders must both utilize and acknowledge as a competing information provider).

Any number of agencies and organizations serve as alternative providers of international education. Some of these are a part of the higher education community (e.g. any of the many study abroad consortia, the Institute for International Education, and Council on International Educational Exchange). Other agencies outside the higher education community have strong track records in providing information and/or preparing people to function in an international environment. Examples include the Peace Corps and any number of religious missionary agencies. These external agencies already provide college students and recent graduates with significant international education; a population ecology or resource-dependency perspective encourages campus leaders to consider such resources in developing international education programs that are compatible with the experiences and training offered by such agencies.

Local agencies and businesses that function in the international arena may also serve as campus resources. These organizations may be able to provide resources to the institution?both in terms of instructional support and practical experience (internships, co-op programs) for students. Institutional leaders can promote the formation of mutually beneficial partnership between the institution and local organizations with international expertise.

2. Analyze existing international resources and strengths

A population ecology perspective on change promotes the notion that organizational change is to be considered from the view of a group or "population" of organizations. In this sense, change is to be perceived by studying organizations in the aggregate. This notion implies that any change with respect to internationalization in higher education can be considered from a group of institutions. Thus, leaders in a given institution should consider changes at that institution as a small piece in a greater organizational puzzle. No single institution possesses the resources to provide a complete "international education;" instead, an institution should examine its international strengths and weaknesses and build upon those strengths.

This idea is touched upon by the internationalists of the early 1990s in their recommendations that institutions develop first-rate programs (few would own up to a goal of organizing second-rate international programs). But the internationalists based their recommendation on the need to bring international education into the forefront of the academy. Campus leaders today would be well-advised to consider current sources of international strength — not because it is more efficient to develop those resources than to begin brand new programs or upgrade weak programs — but because one institution’s strengths will help that organization in developing a lasting fit among the larger population of institutions. Indeed, with a change of the magnitude of internationalizing higher education, it would seem reasonable that an institution focus on developing a small piece of the larger international puzzle.

3. Examine critical needs in the local community

By taking a look locally, leaders can better prepare their institutions and their students for functioning in the international arena. First, what are the needs of the local community that might be met by the institution? Do businesses need assistance with foreign languages? Are manufacturers looking for expertise in import and export policies, or international law? Are there immigrant populations with special needs or special skills? The college or university that can position itself to meet those local community needs increases the likelihood of having faculty with scholarly interests in various international arenas. And as the institution develops projects, programs, and courses of study to meet those needs, students and faculty alike develop strong international skills that enhance their productivity and marketability. And as described in Section 1 above, it may well be that local agencies with international components can serve as valuable resources to the institution.
 
 

4. Emphasize organizational functions, not structures

Institutional leaders often turn to or create an "international office" in order to internationalize their institutions. While organizational structure may enhance an institution’s ability to deal with internationalization, it is far more important that the leaders themselves become involved in promoting the institution’s international functions and capacity. The multiplicity of international concerns makes it increasingly unlikely that an "international office" can grasp all of an institution’s international activity?much less plan and organize new international initiatives. Thus, institutional leaders should promote and support all types of internationalization efforts, encouraging the development of a patchwork of centers of international expertise throughout the campus. Indeed, a population ecology perspective would highlight the fact that internationalization is nothing more than a geographical expansion of the institutional influence — the institution finds its niche not just in the local community, but in the world at large. Effective internationalization is much more than the development of good "international programs" — rather it is developing programs at the juxtaposition of an institution’s geographical and functional spheres of influence. This kind of development occurs best when it is handled by those who understand the disciplinary and professional needs of the expanding community.

A Concluding Perspective

In a recent graduate course in which the author was involved, there was considerable discussion of current issues in undergraduate curricula. When class discussion turned to the question of internationalization, one student argued, persuasively, that there was no particular need to internationalize higher education. His point was that the world has "imposed itself" upon American academic culture in the form of an increasingly diverse student population, faculty, and curricular content. In his opinion, higher education was already internationalized in that no decent college could ignore the need to prepare students to function across national boundaries.

From a perspective of those who would support a population ecology approach to change, the student was correct. If in fact the world is shrinking, then perhaps that world has already imposed itself on American campuses, whether or not institutions have planned for its presence. If campuses have been internationalized not by design but by natural, inexorable forces, then perhaps we run the risk of future calls for reform that are reactionary—calling for a distinctly national perspective to American higher education. Institutions can avoid this risk, and ensure a more cohesive approach to implementation of internationalization, by making real efforts to find each institution’s niche in the broader international arena.