ACE on June 14 released its signature Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses
report, which found that internationalization is continuing to gain
traction among U.S. colleges and universities. Amid this release, a
group of provosts, senior international officers, deans and other
administrators with a critical role in advancing internationalization
met in Washington for the ACE Institute for Leading
Internationalization, where they discussed strategies for globalizing
learning and the challenges they face, as well as how their campuses are
seeing Mapping’s findings come to life.
A three-day professional development experience hosted by ACE’s Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement
(CIGE), the Institute provided practical examples, case studies and
effective practices to address internationalization issues. A team of
seasoned international education experts served as faculty, guiding
participants through a series of sessions on international strategy,
working with senior leadership, managing international partnerships and
fundraising.
To kick off and provide a framework for the entire Institute, Barbara
Hill, CIGE’s senior associate for internationalization, and Vice
President Brad Farnsworth introduced the participants to the CIGE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization.
Comprehensive internationalization is a strategic, coordinated process
that seeks to align and integrate policies, programs and initiatives to
position colleges and universities as more globally oriented and
internationally connected institutions.
The SIO Role
Hill led Monday morning’s discussion of strategic plans, which began with a review of two case studies from previous ACE Internationalization Lab
members and concluded with an in-depth conversation on how Institute
participants could develop a comprehensive internationalization
strategy.
The group touched on the importance of the senior international
officer (SIO), including the function of the position and the
qualifications for the role. Noting that an SIO can have vastly
different tasks, Hill said, “Who fills this role says less about the
individual’s capacity for the job and more about an institution’s
ambitions.” One participant remarked that sometimes an SIO’s job is to
show the president what is possible in terms of internationalization.
Student Identity
Defining the SIO’s role led to a discussion on the challenges of
serving a broad variety of students. Wendy Haynes, interim dean of the
College of Graduate Studies at Bridgewater State University (MA),
remarked that many of her students are first-generation: “A lot of them
don’t conceive of themselves as world travelers . . . How does everyone
deal with this?” Others offered solutions that would engage more
students on their campuses, such as virtual exchange (also known as the COIL model),
ensuring that students can use financial aid on study abroad, and
reinforcing the value of global competence from day one of freshman
year.
To support a broad definition of student identity, participants from
Connecticut College described how their campus is currently examining
the intersection between multiculturalism and internationalization.
John F. McKnight, Jr., dean of institutional equity and inclusion and
the affirmative action officer, said, “I’m really interested in pushing
people to think of who’s not in the community and making sure all
students and faculty have the tools to engage.” Amy Dooling, associate
dean of global initiatives, added, “Historically, we’d had a narrow
paradigm of diversity that emphasized numbers.” She described the recent
shift from this thinking to a more comprehensive approach and how it is
impacting how they view internationalization.
Broadening the Definition of Success
Fernando P. Delgado, Institute faculty member and executive vice
chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Minnesota Duluth,
led the Monday afternoon session on integrating international and
institutional goals.
After Delgado’s presentation, the Institute broke off into small
groups based on institution type. Each had to come up with a common
internationalization goal attainable for every member in the group. Some
groups focused on engaging faculty, while others worked on
demonstrating the value of international learning in the job market for
their graduates.
In a group composed of public universities from different regions of
the country, the conversation eventually turned to envisioning less
costly global experiences. Hayes asked, “Are there enclaves of different
cultures in-state that can expose our students to cross-cultures?”
Yimin Wang, associate director of the Office of International Studies
and Programs at Illinois State University, posed the question of how to challenge the boundaries of internationalization: “How [can we] broaden the definition of institutional success?”
Next Steps
Cheryl Matherly, vice president and vice provost for international
affairs at Lehigh University (PA), and Gilles Bousquet, senior advisor
to the UW-System president for international economic development at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, each led sessions on Tuesday on
identifying international partnerships and fundraising and external
relations, respectively. Among her points on elements for successful
partnerships, Matherly emphasized building on previous faculty
connections between partner institutions. Bouquet stressed cultivating
relationships as essential to fundraising strategies for
internationalization efforts.
Following the Institute, participants will complete an ACE-supervised
project, applying lessons from the Institute to a particular challenge
or opportunity on their campuses.