Internationalization Plans for American Higher Education Institutions: The Development and Monitoring of Written Commitments to Internationalization.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the internationalization of higher education institutions. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and types of institutional plans for internationalization. Even less is known about how higher education institutions develop and monitor internationalization plans. This paper presents the results of a study conducted with the American Council on Education’s Center for International Initiatives on the types, prevalence, development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans at 31 Association of International Education Administrator (AIEA) institutions. Internationalization plans were found in existence at 71% of the institutions. Based on analysis of these internationalization plans, an internationalization plan typology was developed that can be used by internationalization administrators and scholars in designing and assessing internationalization plans that address specific institutional needs. The findings also revealed numerous enabling and hindering factors in the development, implementation, and monitoring of internationalization plans. Finally, the study identified five major benefits and functions of internationalization plans: An internationalization plan serves as a (a) roadmap for internationalization, (b) tool to develop buyin, (c) tool for explanation of the meaning and goals of internationalization, (d) tool for interdisciplinary collaboration, and (e) tool for fundraising. Internationalization Plans 3 Planning for the Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education Institutions: The Development and Monitoring of Written Commitments to Internationalization During the past several decades, internationalization has emerged as a frequently heralded goal of American higher education. In response to a myriad of studies (American Council on Education, 1997, 2000; Council on International Educational Exchange, 1988; Lambert, 1989, 1990; Siaya & Hayward, 2001) that found American students tended to lack global awareness, second language fluency, and international knowledge of their major disciplines, higher education leaders have called for the internationalization of their campuses. Internationalization, as defined by a leading scholar in the field Jane Knight (1994), is a “process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of their institutions” (p. 21). Despite institutional leaders’ rhetoric in support of internationalization, many of their articulated goals have not been operationalized (Ellingboe, 1999; Knight, 1994; Schoorman, 1997, 1999; Wood, 1990). According to Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle, institutions must develop plans for internationalization before operationalization can occur. The purpose of this study was to understand the types, prevalence, development, and monitoring of internationalization plans at 31 institutions. Context Though internationalization is a prevalent goal of contemporary higher education institutions, significant barriers to its institutionalization exist. In particular, as internationalization is a process of institutional transformation, it requires a paradigm shift in order to alter institutional stakeholders’ assumptions, values, and practices from a myopic, inward focus to a broader international perspective (Ellingboe, 1999; Knight, 1994; Schoorman, 1997; Wood, 1990). Yet, a significant obstacle to internationalization is the “normal structure of Internationalization Plans 4 the university itself, which neither lends itself to sweeping reform nor centralized coordination” (Aigner, Nelson, & Stimpfl, 1992, p. 9). As higher education institutions are comprised of organizational structures with diverse academic and co-curricular units operating individually under a large institutional umbrella, developing consensus for internationalization is challenging. Moreover, as a process of institutional transformation, internationalization requires leaders not only to “access all levels up and down the institutional hierarchy but also up and down the vertical silos in which many units are located” (Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 2005, p. 43). Consequently, the complexities embedded in the management of institutional transformation serve as substantial barriers to internationalization. In order to address these barriers to internationalization, an institution’s development of an internationalization plan is one of several critical “points of leverage” (Scott, 1992, p. 7). Internationalization plans are higher education institutions’ written commitments to internationalization, including goals, mission statements, implementation plans, allocated resources, and/or timelines (Moats-Gallagher, 2004; Paige, 2005; Scott, 1992; Urquiola-Audas, 1989). Concrete, comprehensive internationalization plans are important, as they “stimulate and inform” (Knight, 1994, p. 8) institutional stakeholders’ responses. An internationalization plan “provides direction, expresses institutional commitment, and may define the particular goals of internationalization for an institution” (Knight, 1994, p. 8). In so doing, internationalization plans take account of the complexity of internationalization by focusing institutional energies on overcoming endogenous barriers to institutional change. Further, internationalization plans help to mobilize the support and involvement of faculty throughout the institution, which is a key factor in implementation (Aigner et al., 1992; Audas, 1990; Harari, 1989; Knight, 1994). Thus, internationalization plans advance institutional goals for internationalization by expressing Internationalization Plans 5 institutional commitment, defining institutional goals, informing stakeholders’ participation, and stimulating implementation activities. Despite the importance of written commitments in under girding a process of institutional transformation, little is known about the prevalence and types of written internationalization plans in existence in higher education institutions. There is an even greater lack of knowledge about how universities and colleges develop and monitor internationalization plans. This research is particularly important because the scholarly and practitioner literature to date indicate that internationalization plans provide a valuable foundation from which to develop institutional support for internationalization (Aigner et al, 1992; Audas, 1990; Harari, 1989; Knight, 1994; Moats-Gallagher, 2004; Paige, 2005; Scott, 1992; Urquiola-Audas, 1989). Theoretical Framework From a theoretical perspective, Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle grounded this study. This cycle indicates that institutions proceed through six phases of developing and implementing an internationalization strategy. These phases include (a) awareness, (b) commitment, (c) planning, (d) operationalization, (e) review, and (f) reinforcement (Knight, 1994). The literature to date emphasizes the importance of Knight’s third and fourth phases— planning for and operationalization of internationalization. Yet, there is a lack of research on how institutions proceed from the planning phase to the operationalization phase. This study addressed this gap in the literature by using Knight’s (1994) internationalization cycle as a theoretical framework to understand how and why institutions develop, implement, and monitor internationalization plans in order to transition from the planning to operationalization phases of internationalization. Internationalization Plans 6 Methodology In conjunction with the American Council on Education’s Center for International Initiatives (ACE CII), the researcher conducted a qualitative, multiple case study (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2006; Yin, 1994, 2003) for this investigation. This section explains and justifies the methodology used for this study including the research design, unit of analysis, population, sampling procedures, data collection, and data analysis. This multiple case study research design enabled the investigator to understand the complexities of each case and identify components that can be compared and contrasted across cases (Stake, 2006). Specifically, this research design allowed the investigator to “address the same research question in a number of settings using similar data collection and analysis procedures in each setting [and] consciously seek . cross-site comparison without necessarily sacrificing within-site understanding” (Herriott & Firestone, 1983, p. 14). As the researcher sought to understand the prevalence, development, and monitoring of internationalization plans at not only one higher education institution but to compare processes across institutions, the multiple case study research design was appropriate. Internationalization plans served as the unit of analysis for this study. The multiple case study research design enabled the researcher to describe and assess this unit of analysis in depth (Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995). This unit of analysis remained constant among all institutions examined in the study, set the parameters for the study, and guided the researcher on where to search for information, as is critical in multiple case study methodology (Pettigrew, 1990; Stoeker, 1991; Yin, 1994). 1 ACE CII supports “senior leaders and institution-wide teams in enhancing internationalization on campuses” (American Council on Education, 2006a, p. 2) Internationalization Plans 7 Criterion-based, expert-driven sampling was used in order to select institutions for investigation in this study. In consultation with internationalization experts Madeleine Green, ACE CII’s vice president/director, and Christa Olson, ACE CII’s associate director, the Association of International Education Administrators (AIEA) was selected as the population for investigation, given these institutions’ demonstrated commitment to internationalization through their AIEA membership. In addition, the AIEA member list was a