University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

(USC Thesis Other)

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 1

SENIOR UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS’ APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT: A
CASE STUDY OF A PRIVATE AND A PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

by

Shirley Chan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2013

Copyright 2013 Shirley Chan

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 2

Acknowledgements
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank several individuals who not
only expressed interest in my research study, but also offered guidance, support, and
encouragement throughout my time at the USC Rossier School of Education. I want to begin by
expressing my deep gratitude for the distinguished faculty members who comprised my
dissertation committee: Chairperson Dr. Mark Robison with Dr. Mike Diamond and Dr. Tracy
Tambascia. Despite having to travel, teach, research, mentor other doctoral study groups, and
manage other aspects of their personal lives, each of them devoted numerous hours reviewing
and offering feedback on my dissertation. In addition, they were warm, approachable, and never
hesitated to schedule a telephone call or in-person meeting with me to discuss my career or
research endeavors. I especially want to thank Dr. Mark Robison and Dr. Mike Diamond for
leading the Globalization in Higher Education Thematic Group in the fall of 2010 and
accommodating my desired dissertation timeline. I deeply admire and respect Drs. Mark
Robison, Mike Diamond and Tracy Tambascia, and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to
work with each of them. Thank you to all the academic advisors and the Doctoral Support Center
for keeping me on track and preparing me for my qualifying exam and dissertation defense.
Each of the 13 senior university officials who participated in this research study are extremely
busy individuals, and I am very thankful for their time and often candid conversations regarding
their experiences leading globalization efforts at their respective academic institution. Without
their participation, this research study would not have been possible, and I would not have
learned as much as I have about globalization’s influence in higher education. I sincerely
appreciate each of the individuals who introduced me or recommended me to contact the
participants involved in this research study.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 3

Balancing my career, personal life and the rigorous curriculum of the Doctor of Education
program were some of the greatest challenges I have ever encountered, and I could not have
endured the pressure and determination without the support of my family, friends, my
colleagues, and my husband. My parents have sacrificed much of their personal endeavors to
migrate to the United States in hopes of establishing a better life for their children and I am
eternally grateful to them for giving me life, strength, love and support to achieve my personal
and career aspirations. Thank you, Mom and Dad. My brother, Eddie, and his family, my sister,
Sylvia, and her family, my cousin, Roger, and his family, have always taken care of me and
given me confidence to succeed. I could not have completed the Doctor of Education program
without their love and support. Thank you to my mother in law, Grace, father in law, Richard,
and brother in law, Jack, for welcoming me into your family with open arms and love. Each of
you have given me words of encouragement throughout my academic study, and I cannot thank
you enough for making it easy to call you my new family.
Thank you to my friends who created opportunities for me to have fun while completing
this program. I also want to thank my friends and colleagues, Dr. Alexander Jun and Dr. John
Bertrand. They wrote exceptional recommendation letters for my application to the Doctor of
Education program, and I appreciate their time and faith in my abilities. Thank you.
Perhaps the only other person who has seen and felt my perseverance on a daily basis is my
husband, Michael (Mike) Lee. Thank you for giving me endless words of encouragement, love
and support. Thank you for understanding when I needed to dedicate my free time to studying
and fulfilling other responsibilities in my life. I was able to sustain a healthy life during this
rigorous program because you always reminded me to rest, eat well and relax. Thank you for
being my best friend.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 4

List of Tables
Table 1: Job Titles and Roles and Responsibilities of Senior University Officials at EU 66
Table 2: Job Titles and Roles and Responsibilities of Senior University Officials at WU 67

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 5

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 4

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem 9
Key Concepts 12
Background of the Problem 16
Mission and Demographics 18
Internationalization Strategies 19
Statement of the Problem 21
Purpose of the Study 22
Research Questions 23
Significance of the Study 23
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions 24
Frameworks 25
Organization of the Study 26

Chapter Two: Literature Review 28
Defining Globalization 29
Globalization’s Impact on Higher Education Institutions 31
Mission 32
Operations 33
Quality 34
Composition of higher education institutions 35
Defining Organizational Culture 36
The role of organizational culture in higher education 38
Assessing organizational culture 40
Figure 1: Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) Model of Cultural Congruence
for Organizations 43
Public and Private Research Universities 45
The Budget Process 46
Factors Influencing the Budget in Higher Education 48
External Factors 48
Internal Factors 49

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 6

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 51
Research Questions 53
Qualitative Research Orientation 53
Case Study Design 54
Population and Sample 56
Instrumentation and Sources of Evidence 59
Data collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Reliability and Validity 61
Construct validity 61
Internal validity 62
External validity 62
Reliability 62
Conclusion 63

Chapter Four: Findings 64
Overview of Two Higher Education Institutions 65
Senior university officials’ roles and responsibilities 65
The Research Questions 69
Research Question # 1 70
Eastside University (EU): Activity and process approaches 70
Westside University: Activity and competency approaches 75
Research Question # 2 83
Individuality 85
Additional Findings 97
Conclusion 110

Chapter Five: Discussion 112
Research Question #1 115
Research Question #2 117
Analysis 120
Recommendations for Academic Institutions 125
Recommendations for Future Research 125
Conclusion 126

References 128

Appendix 134

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 7

Abstract
The phenomenon of globalization has a significant impact on higher education, but the
lack of a clear roadmap for how senior university official should create and implement global
engagement strategies and for how these approaches support (or impede) an organizational
culture that fosters globalization remains a gap in knowledge in higher education. The purpose of
the study was to gain a better understanding of the approaches senior university officials at a
private research university and at a public research university adopted to make their campuses
more globally engaged and of how these approaches interact with each institution’s culture. Both
academic institutions were selected for their prestigious reputation, large student population,
location in an urban neighborhood and emphasis on global engagement. Given the many
differences in financial and administrative operations of private and public higher education
institutions, these two academic institutions were selected to illuminate those attributes that
accelerate or decelerate global engagement. A total of 13 senior university officials were
interviewed in person and via telephone or Skype for 30 to 45 minutes during Spring 2012. All
interviews were tape recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed through the lens of Qiang’s
(2003) conceptual framework of internationalization in higher education and Cameron and
Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures.
The key findings from the analysis of interviews, written materials and observations are
that senior university officials must dedicate a significant amount of resources to developing
sustainable global engagement activities. Financial constraints and administrative restrictions
often negatively influenced each academic institution’s culture. Involving faculty and other
important constituents in decision-making processes and allowing flexibility with financial
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 8

expenditures are critical for formulating and implementing new ideas and approaches related to
internationalization.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 9

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon affecting a series of transformations in
higher education systems and institutions. From the late 20
th
century to the early 21
st
century, the
liberalization of trade across borders gave universities an opportunity to engage in
internationalization activities such as increasing enrollment of foreign students, expanding study
abroad programs and increasing faculty mobility (Lenn, 2000). Creating and implementing these
internationalization activities requires a significant amount of discourse amongst administrators
and faculty on administrative processes and expected outcomes. Tierney (1988) argued that,
through the process of deciding who will perform the work, how the work will be completed, and
what is going to be achieved, an organization’s culture is established, and examining the
organization’s culture will enhance the understanding of how to improve the management and
performance of higher education institutions.
Eastside University (EU) and Westside University (WU) are pseudonyms used to
describe two research universities praised by higher education professionals for their active
participation in global engagement. This comparative case study examined approaches senior
university officials at a private research university (EU) and at a public research university (WU)
adopt to become more globally engaged and how these approaches interact with their
institution’s culture. Results derived from this comparative case study reveal some approaches to
global engagement that favorably shape an academic institution’s culture to become adaptable,
sustainable, and purposeful in the global marketplace.
In 1950, Eastside University became a member of the Association of American
Universities (AAU), a nonprofit organization that originally focused on the advancement of
research universities in the U.S. and now addresses issues faced by research-intensive
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 10

universities related to funding and research policies (AAU, 2012). While staying focused on
research advancement as a private university, EU also prides itself on becoming one of the most
globally connected universities in the world and draws inspiration from its creative and energetic
surrounding communities. EU’s website attests that universities exist to “create new knowledge
through research and discovery and to pass on knowledge to the next generation” and to
“prepare…students to become engaged and contributing citizens.” Specifically, EU encourages
“students to think of themselves as participants in and shapers of a complex and changing
environment” and strives to prepare students to live in a diverse world. To accomplish these
goals, EU offers courses at various locations around the world and has created opportunities for
over 40 percent of their undergraduate student population to participate in study abroad
programs. In addition to having a main campus on the east coast of the United States, EU has
established comprehensive liberal arts campuses in two other countries, a law school in
Singapore, and ten academic sites in Accra, Ghana; Berlin, Germany; Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Florence, Italy; London, England; Madrid, Spain; Paris, France; Prague, the Czech Republic;
Shanghai, China; and Tel Aviv, Israel. EU’s global initiatives and accomplishments warrant an
in-depth examination of the types of approaches senior university officials at a private university
(EU) adopt to become more globally engaged and how these approaches to global engagement
interact with each institution’s culture.
Founded in the 1960s, Westside University (WU) became one of the first campuses of the
University of California system to become a member of AAU. Shaped by its land-grant mission
to provide teaching, research and public service, WU is an institution focused on achieving
global engagement goals with the establishment of an International Center that “promotes social,
educational, and intercultural participation and awareness, provides leadership with regard to
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 11

campus internationalization efforts,” and serves and supports international students, international
scholars, faculty, staff and students. WU’s International Center oversees four offices that lead
and facilitate a significant amount of WU’s global engagement activities: the International
Education Office, the International Scholars Office, the International Students and Programs
Office, and the Programs Abroad Office. The International Education Office promotes and
organizes events and activities to enhance cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity for all
students. The International Scholars Office provides support services, such as immigration
services, to assist prospective and current international scholars with their transition to WU.
Similarly, the International Students and Programs Office provides support services such as
immigration services, housing options, English language resources, and cultural adjustment
activities, for international students attending WU. Lastly, the Programs Abroad Office
collaborates with various academic units to manage and facilitate study abroad programs for
WU’s students.
WU’s Office of International Affairs supports central faculty who strive to develop
agreements between WU and international universities and institutions by guiding faculty
through agreement development processes. As of 2013, there were 108 active agreements listed
on WU’s Office of International Affairs’ website that confirm a partnership between WU and the
respective country to engage in collaborative research and educational activities. In comparison
to EU, WU appears to have fewer tangible internationalization activities in other countries (i.e.
branch campuses), yet it is obvious that WU places a strong emphasis on internationalization
strategies based on the range of work conducted by WU’s International Center.
In selecting EU and WU for this comparative case study, the researcher asked several
higher education administrators and professors to identify a public research university and a
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 12

private research university that lead globalization efforts in the higher education arena. The
researcher discovered that EU and WU were often identified as research universities with
significant global engagement activities. After examining information obtained from EU and
WU’s websites and reading articles written about EU and WU’s global engagement activities,
the researcher affirmed that these two academic institutions indeed participate in many global
engagement activities.
The researcher conducted an in-depth examination to identify approaches that senior
university officials at a private university (EU) and at a public research university (WU) adopt to
become more globally engaged and to understand how these approaches to global engagement
interact with each institution’s culture. EU and WU were deliberately selected for this
comparative case study because of their similar large student population sizes and their urban
locations. However, the differences found between these two institutions piqued other interesting
points that further merited a comparative case study analysis of EU and WU. For example, there
are some differences in the financial and administrative operations between a private research
university and public research university and these distinctions may or may not affect each
institution’s culture and present implications applicable to other academic institutions. This
comparative case study sought to answer two overarching research questions and provide
generalizable recommendations for senior university officials at other public and private research
universities seeking to become more globally engaged.
Key Concepts
There are several key concepts that must be presented to introduce a foundation of
knowledge. These concepts will be further discussed in Chapter Two and are necessary for
understanding this comparative case study. To begin, understanding the phenomenon of
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 13

globalization and its impact on society will solidify the connections made between globalization
and higher education. Second, explaining what organizational culture is and its relevancy to
higher education institutions’ global engagement goals will clarify why examining organizational
culture was deemed important for this comparative case study. Lastly, recognizing some of the
different financial and administrative operations between private and public research universities
will provide insight on how these nuances may or may not shape an academic institution’s
culture.
Globalization is rooted and often linked to neoliberalism, the economic and social
ideologies and practices that stress market deregulation, government decentralization, and
privatization and liberalized trade (Navarro, 1998). Discussions on neoliberalism revolve around
utilizing the private sector to strengthen the economy and lessen state control over economic
exchanges. These discourses imply that globalization means more than a mere definition, but is,
rather, a multifaceted phenomenon driving change in society. One of the processes or outcomes
of globalization is the increased interdependency of world economies in the free market. The
Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), the Organisation for Economic Co-
Operation and Development (OECD), and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)
are economic alliances and trade agreements that promoted interdependency of national
economies and undermined the capacity of government control on economic and political
activities, including national higher education systems (Witte, 2008).
The phenomenon of globalization trickled into the higher education arena, and the terms
“globalization” and “internationalization” are either used interchangeably or described with
major distinctions. Globalization has become a ubiquitous force or movement that is unalterable,
whereas internationalization encompasses many choices in the higher education arena, such as
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 14

faculty and student mobility across nations, revisions of curricula, expansion of programs and
development of international activities (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Thus, one may infer that
internationalization refers to the processes by which higher education institutions respond to
globalization. For the purposes of this comparative case study, the terms “globalization” and
“internationalization” are used interchangeably to describe universities’ efforts to become more
globally engaged in an integrated world economy of the 21
st
century. As such, the phrase,
“internationalization strategies” will be used to describe a university’s implementation of
processes, procedures, activities and programs to become more globally engaged, and the phrase
“global engagement goals” will be used to describe the intended outcomes of these strategies
(Knight, 2004).
The ascending significance of internationalization in higher education implies change
occurring in the way senior university officials lead and manage academic institutions and, as a
result, shape academic institutions’ cultures. There has been a growing interest in studying
organizational culture to understand organizational management and organizational performance.
Tierney (1988) found that organizational culture is not only formed through the structures and
laws of an organization, but also created through the interpretations made by participating
individuals of an organization. An organizational culture emerges from the stories that are
shared, language, attitudes, norms and ideology of individuals and the organization. Schein
(1992) designated organizational culture the nucleus for understanding organizational
performance and explained that an organization’s culture creates the capacity for individuals of
the organization to adapt to internal and external changes. In addition, the author states that not
only should an organization’s culture be aligned with the organization’s beliefs, values, and
norms, but an organizational culture should also be aligned with the organization’s policies,
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 15

programs, and management practices. Similarly, this comparative case study sought to
understand the various approaches that senior university officials utilize to institute global
engagement activities and how these approaches to global engagement interact with an
institution’s culture. Senior university officials served as the population and sample for this
comparative case study because there is growing interest in developing effective institutional-
level leaders and understanding their role in creating and implementing global engagement
initiatives in higher education institutions. Researchers suggest that individuals assuming
leadership roles in higher education institutions in the 21
st
century must have the responsibility of
developing, collaborating, and implementing internationalization strategies (Bournemouth
University and DEA, 2008). To accomplish these goals, leaders must have the ability to interpret
an agenda that resonates with different internal and external constituents. While the development
of effective institutional-level leaders is essential for implementing effective internationalization
strategies, there is a section dedicated to explaining leadership development in Chapter Two
because the focus of this comparative case study was on globalization and organizational culture
in higher education institutions rather than on the development of effective institutional-level
leaders.
Since the organizational culture of higher education institutions can be strongly affected
by each academic institution’s financial and administrative operations, an overview of some of
the challenges higher education institutions encounter in obtaining funds to pay for their
expenses is critical. . At the state level, higher education competes with other state-supported
activities for state revenue, but it is often categorized as a discretionary item that convinces
legislature to reduce spending and allocate additional funding to other state-supported activities
(Breneman and Finney, 2000). Federal support for higher education has shown similar declining
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 16

patterns. From 1990 to 1996, federal student aid declined from 49 to 42 percent, and student
loans increased from 48 to 57 percent (Breneman and Finney, 2000). Federal support for
research grew over the few years prior to this study, but funds were spread across numerous
research proposals and the competition was fierce. Since the 1990s, tuition revenue significantly
increased in response to rising institutional expenditure and greater dependency on tuition as a
substantial source of revenue. Faced with lower student enrollment as a result of tuition
increases, some private colleges and universities increased tuition discounts to recruit more
students. Higher education institutions adjust financial and administrative structures and
operations to address these challenges.
Presenting the key concepts explained above provides the essential elements discussed in
this comparative case study regarding the role of senior university officials in making the
decisions for each institution’s (EU and WU) global engagement goals. The following chapters
delve into understanding globalization and its impact on higher education and organization
culture.
Background of the Problem
Globalization often refers to social, political and economic changes occurring at the turn
of the 21
st
century, but its meaning and impact on society has been described in different ways
through different disciplinary lenses (Stromquist, 2002). Though some of the debate on
globalization revolves around identifying the time in which globalization began, acknowledging
the establishment of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) in 1947 is a
reasonable starting point for understanding the background to this comparative study. The OEEC
enabled individual governments to recognize the interdependency of their economies and
facilitate discourse amongst all European countries to achieve political and economic goals. The
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 17

success of the OEEC encouraged Canada and the United States to establish the Organisation of
Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in 1961. Then, in 1947, the General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) was endorsed by member nations during a United
Nations conference to regulate tariffs and resolve trading disputes to encourage free trade across
nations. Under the provision of these trade agreements and economic alliances, some American
higher education institutions became active participants in a global race to enhance educational
achievement and economic growth of advanced nations.
Individuals, companies, and academic institutions can use technology to gain a
competitive advantage or outsource work to reduce costs and become more profitable. The New
York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, explained the flattening of the world as the leveling of
the global economic playing field (Friedman, 2005). Through the use of technology and
communication devices, developing countries can now compete for resources, knowledge and
profits alongside advanced industrialized nations. While some economists and politicians treat
economic competitiveness as a zero-sum game in which one nation gains as another one loses,
others argue that intensive collaboration and spreading of educational attainment across all
nations would be more beneficial for the world’s economies (Duncan, 2010). There is no
denying that higher education institutions will continue to be affected by the blurring of national
boundaries, ascendance of interdependency, utility of technology to increase connectivity,
mobilization of individuals and change in the work force.
However, how is internationalization interpreted and delivered in higher education
institutions? There is no consensus on how the phenomenon of globalization has been interpreted
and exercised in higher education institutions, but Knight (2004) provided an explanation of how
internationalization is manifested at both the institutional and national/sector level. The
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 18

national/sector level has a strong influence on internationalization through the allocation of
funding, policy planning and regulatory frameworks, but most of the process of
internationalization occurs at the institutional level. Knight’s (2004) table of Institutional-Level
Program and Organization Strategies provides an overview of how internationalization is formed
through programs, policies and strategies at the institutional level. In general, Knight’s (2004)
table is composed of two columns where one column lists program strategies and the other
column lists organization strategies. Program strategies include academic programs (i.e., student
exchange programs, international students, and faculty/staff mobility programs), research and
scholarly collaboration (i.e., joint research projects, published articles, and international research
agreements), domestic and international external relations and partnerships, and extracurricular
activities (i.e., student organizations and peer support groups). Organization strategies include
governance (i.e., the commitment of senior leaders and involvement of faculty and students),
operations (i.e., adequate financial support and appropriate organizational structures), services
(i.e., student support services and involvement of academic support units), and human resources
(i.e., recruitment that recognizes international expertise). As a university strives to achieve its
global engagement goals, senior university officials will benefit from learning how their
approaches and decisions for instituting global engagement activities will affect the institution’s
culture. The following segments will provide an overview of EU and WU’s mission,
demographics and internationalization strategies to exemplify the unique features of the two
academic institutions and why EU and WU were examined for this comparative case study.
Mission and Demographics. According to EU’s website, EU was founded in 1831 with
a vision of the university as “in and of the city,” constantly absorbing its energy and
entrepreneurial spirit from the surrounding community of writers, artists, and musicians. EU’s
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 19

student population consists of over 40,000 students from all across the United States and from
133 foreign countries. There are more than 3,100 full-time faculty members researching and
teaching humanities, social work, law, medicine, education, business, public administration,
performing and cinematic arts, the ancient world, music and other professional subject matters.
Students may select courses taught at 18 different schools and colleges located in academic
centers in the United States, South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. Students and faculty at EU
have access to nine libraries, residence halls, advanced computer resources, centers for special
interests, and over 400 clubs and organizations, sports, guest lectures, community service and
city excursions.
WU was established in the 1960s as one of several campuses representing one of the
Southern Branches of the University of California. Today, WU is one of 10 University of
California campuses that share a mission of teaching, researching and providing public service to
enhance the quality of students’ lives and contribute to growth and innovations of California and
the nation. WU has a student population of about 29,000 students who have access to enrolling in
courses offered by over 70 different academic departments within 10 different divisions and
schools. More than 60% of WU’s undergraduate students receive need-based financial support.
About 73% of WU’s alumni live in California and about 40% of those alumni live within the
surrounding community. Many faculty members have been recognized by national and
international organizations as preeminent scholars by winning the Nobel Prize, National Medal
of Science, Pulitzer Prize, and other accolades.
Internationalization Strategies. On EU’s website, one of its planning reports states a
goal of establishing “guiding principles and processes” for the future growth of EU and shaping
the development of EU’s University Initiatives. In 2002, EU realized that they faced two
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 20

detrimental problems at their institution: EU had a severe structural deficit, and its Medical
Center encountered financial challenges as a result of change occurring in the economics of
health care. To attempt to solve these problems, EU’s Board of Trustees initiated “Campaign for
[EU]” to raise $2.5 billion to invigorate substantial growth of faculty members, particularly
within the arts and sciences divisions. At the time of this study, one part of EU’s goals was to
preserve its disciplinary strengths in the arts core and continue to partner with theatres and other
organizations to ensure that the university continues to lead in excellence and in creativity.
Another part of EU’s goals was to develop “a new model for a worldwide research university” to
encourage students and faculty to study at any of their campuses or center locations and learn
from various cultures. EU has academic centers in 10 countries and 16 partnerships with research
universities that offer international student exchange programs. Most recently, in Singapore, EU
established a school of art and a dual master’s degree in global business law. EU also established
two campuses in two different countries where students are able to earn a baccalaureate degree
from EU. EU offers a wide range of internationalization activities on and off the main campus
located in New York City.
In comparison to EU, WU may appear to be less globally engaged because of the absence
of academic and learning centers in other countries. However, a closer look at WU in Chapter
Four will reveal that WU has been managing and facilitating many internationalization activities.
WU’s International Center oversees programs such as University of California Education Abroad
Program (EAP), Opportunities Abroad Program (OAP), Global Seminars, and other programs
offered by WU’s academic departments or by other UC campuses. WU’s EAP allows WU’s
undergraduate students to earn course credit and obtain a letter grade by enrolling in courses
offered in 35 countries. WU’s OAP provides undergraduate students opportunities to engage
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 21

globally by studying abroad at a foreign academic institution, by completing an internship in
another country or by completing volunteer hours in another country. WU’s Global Seminars
are summer study abroad experiences that are completed within a span of five weeks and are led
by one of WU’s professors. These programs consist of 15 to 25 undergraduate students, and
these students must enroll in two courses to earn eight quarter units upon completion of the
program. Students attending WU have opportunities to engage in many internationalization
activities on and off campus.
Statement of the Problem
As higher education institutions continue to change their behaviors to adapt to the
influence of globalization, the attitudes, values and beliefs of institutional leaders also transforms
and affects the organizational culture of these universities. Research studies on organizational
culture stems from the corporate sector, but has become more prominent in higher education
over the past few decades. Many researchers agree that understanding an organization’s culture
is a critical component to adequately understanding an organization’s performance. These
researchers attest that successful change in higher education occurs when an organization has
trust amongst all stakeholders, recognition of stakeholders’ motivations and adaptive behaviors,
consensus of values, and collaboration in an organized and secure environment (Hunt, Bromage,
& Tomkinson, 2006).
Despite the wide-spread phenomenon of globalization, neither administrators nor scholars
have a clear understanding of how adaptations for globalization should be constructed or which
adaptations are necessary. The lack of a clear roadmap for how senior university officials should
approach their decision-making on global engagement and how these approaches support or
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 22

impede an organizational culture that fosters globalization signifies a gap in knowledge in higher
education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this comparative case study was to gain a better understanding of the
types of approaches senior university officials at a private university (EU) and at a public
research university (WU) adopt to become more globally engaged and how these approaches
interact with each institution’s culture. Though there are different types of higher education
institutions and not all of these institutions strive to become more globally engaged, globalization
is a phenomenon that influences some universities to restructure their mission and strategic plan.
Change in institutional operations or institutional goals will inevitably transform the culture of
the university and this dissertation sought to reveal information that will be helpful for future
senior university officials.
EU and WU are two research universities with a large student population size and both
are located in two large cities in the United States. While both of these academic institutions
focus on research and teaching, there are key differences between the two that suggest
differences in financial and administrative operations that may shape each institution’s culture.
EU is a private university that relies heavily on endowments and tuition revenues to support its
internationalization strategies. WU is a public university that relies heavily on financial support
from the state and federal government and, because of the heavy involvement of the state, must
be more transparent with their budget. The differences in the budget process of EU and WU
indicates that there are differences in each academic institution’s operations and implies that
there are different factors shaping each institution’s culture. Thus, the following section displays
the two research questions addressed in this comparative case study.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 23

Research Questions
RESEARCH QUESTION # 1: Which approach(es) do senior university officials at private and
public research universities adopt to become more globally engaged?
RESEARCH QUESTION # 2: How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement
interact with each institution’s culture?
Significance of the Study
The results derived from this dissertation provide guidelines for senior university officials
who desire strategizing and implementing procedures, policies and programs that contribute to
creating an institutional culture that fosters globalization. At the time of this study, there was a
breadth of literature linking the phenomena of globalization and organizational culture with
higher education, but there is very limited research explaining the factors affecting an
organizational culture that would enable the phenomenon of globalization to flourish in higher
education. Scott (2000) contributed to literature surrounding globalization and higher education
by foreseeing some of the challenges higher education institutions would face in an era of
globalization. Altbach and Knight (2007) later explained higher education institutions’
motivations for internationalization and exemplified internationalization occurring in higher
education institutions through student and faculty mobility programs, branch campuses, and
cross-border collaborative arrangements. In the 1980s, Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) and Tierney
(1988) introduced the concept of organizational culture into the higher education arena by
defining organizational culture and labeling it as a critical component for understanding how to
improve performance in higher education institutions. More recently, Schein (2010) posited that
examining an organization’s artifacts, beliefs and values, and basic assumptions enables
individuals to understand an organization’s culture.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 24

This comparative case study examined strategies that interact with an organizational
culture in higher education and characterized an organizational culture that embraces
globalization while simultaneously enhancing an academic institution’s performance.
Globalization is a complex movement that will continue to shape higher education institutions.
The process of managing the interpretations and implementations of internationalization
strategies will undoubtedly affect an organization’s culture composed of beliefs, values, mission,
and individuals. Similarly, an organization’s culture also influences how senior university
officials approach creating and implementing global engagement strategies. Senior university
officials may refer to this dissertation to gain insight on how to identify the key players of a
higher education institution striving to become more globally engaged, learn how to instill
values, attitudes and belief systems that aim to accomplish global engagement goals, and learn
how to integrate global engagement goals into the core mission of their university.
Limitations, Delimitations and Assumptions
This comparative case study is limited in providing a generalizable roadmap for all senior
university officials who seek to adopt approaches to global engagement that strengthens an
institution’s culture because there are some limitations, delimitations and assumptions in this
study. First, due to time constraints, the researcher was unable to conduct in-depth interviews
with a larger sample size, and only two universities were examined in this dissertation. Second,
though the terms “globalization,” “internationalization,” and “global university” may be used
throughout this dissertation, the researcher does not assume that EU, WU and all other
universities strive to become global universities. Instead, this comparative case study introduces
features that may contribute to the creation of a global university if and when there is a clear
description of what a global university entails. Third, to fully understand an organization’s
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 25

culture, a researcher would need to conduct interviews with individuals representing all
populations at the university and examine numerous documents; this comparative case study
focuses only on interviewing six or seven senior university officials from each university.
Lastly, this comparative case study does not claim to explain which leadership styles are most
conducive for fostering global engagement activities and strong organizational culture. Rather,
facilitating interviews with senior university officials generated discussions of who performs the
work, how the work is evaluated, what will achieved, and why global engagement goals are
important for an academic institution.
Frameworks
Two theoretical frameworks were used to organize the data collected in this comparative
case study. In Qiang’s (2003) conceptual framework of internationalization of higher education,
the author explained that several authors describe “approaches” as institutional leaders’ stances
toward promoting and implementing internationalization programs. The activity approach refers
to the facilitation of international activities in various higher education institutions. The
competency approach emphasizes developing competencies in staff, faculty and students to
ensure they are more internationally knowledgeable and skillful. The ethos approach stresses
establishing a culture or milieu that supports international/intercultural engagement. Finally, the
process approach focuses on integrating international/intercultural aspects into policies,
procedures and activities to create internationalized research, curriculum and service. Qiang’s
(2003) description of approaches to internationalization in higher education institutions served as
a framework for understanding the various types of approaches that senior university officials
adopt as they strategize and implement their institution’s global engagement goals.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 26

Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures
was the second theoretical framework used in this comparative case study to guide the process of
collecting and analyzing data. Chapter Two delves into describing this theoretical framework. In
general, the typology includes the following: (1) a vertical dimension characterizing
organizational culture by flexibility, individuality and spontaneity on the upper-end of the
vertical axis, and, on the lower-end of the vertical axis, characterizing organizational culture by
stability, control and predictability, (2) a horizontal dimension characterizing organizational
culture with an internal orientation that has short-term orientation and smoothing activities on the
left-hand side of the horizontal axis, and, on the right-hand side of the horizontal axis,
characterizing organizational culture with an external orientation that has long-term orientation
and achievement-oriented activities. The vertical and horizontal dimensions form four
quadrants, and each quadrant includes additional descriptions of organizational frames and
governance models displayed in the figure below. The researcher analyzed the information
gathered from senior university officials to determine which of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988)
dimensions were reflected at EU and WU. For example, since the state has less control over the
budget process of private universities, such as EU, than of public universities, such as WU, EU
appeared to possess qualities of an entrepreneurial leadership style, as reflected in the upper right
quadrant of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational culture.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One presents the introduction and
background of the problem, key concepts that will be revealed in subsequent chapters, and
unique characteristics and features of EU and WU. Chapter Two presents the review of literature
revolving around the topics of globalization (internationalization), organizational culture and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 27

nuances of private and public research universities. Chapter Three addresses the methodology
and research design applied to this comparative case study and acknowledges the study’s
limitations and delimitations. Chapter Four provides the description and analysis of the collected
data. Chapter Five concludes this comparative case study and offers recommendations to future
practitioners and scholars who play a pivotal role in developing strategies for global engagement
and shaping the culture of a higher education institution.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 28

Chapter Two: Literature Review
As the advancement of technology expedites the process of communication and
economies across all nations continue to compete in the global marketplace, higher education
institutions are challenged to respond in many ways in the 21
st
century. The increased mobility of
faculty and students across all nations, the creation of offshore campuses, the expansion of
academic programs and partnerships and the emphasis on advanced research are some examples
of how globalization is translated into the higher education arena. Institutional budgets,
administrative operations and even institutional mission may change over time and inevitably
affect each higher education institution’s culture. Since budget development is often facilitated in
a “top-down” manner (Lasher and Greene, 2001), investigating how senior university officials
strategize and manage daily operations may lead to generalizations regarding what globalization
approaches senior university officials adopt and how these approaches shape an institution’s
culture.
The following review of literature serves to establish a foundation of knowledge to
answer the two research questions that seek to understand which approaches senior university
officials at a private research university (EU) and a public research university (WU) adopt to
become more globally engaged and how these approaches interact with each institution’s culture.
The review of literature begins by defining globalization and its impact on higher education to
ensure consistent use of terminology throughout this dissertation. Since the second research
question involves understanding how approaches to global engagement shape an academic
institution’s culture, a segment of this chapter is dedicated to defining the phrase and explaining
why understanding and assessing organizational culture is important in higher education.
Because this comparative case study employs comparisons between a private research university
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 29

(EU) and public research university (WU), the last segment of the review of literature explains
the differences in the budget processes and administrative operations of private and public
research universities.
Defining Globalization
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon that has been defined in several ways. These
various definitions provide an indication of its interconnectedness with social, political,
environmental, technological, economic and educational engagements. Depending on the
disciplinary lens, globalization has been described as a process, an era, or a force associated with
the economy and technology. Mazaar (1999) described the end of the 20
th
century and the
beginning of the 21
st
century as the “information age” or “knowledge era” in which
industrialized societies constantly manipulated information to gain social control or direct
innovation and transformation. Scott (2000) explained that globalization represents the processes
of global competitiveness in the United States, European Union and the Pacific Rim marketplace
and intensified collaboration resulting from the expansive division of labor. Stromquist (2002)
acknowledged that numerous studies examine globalization and described globalization as
encompassing global processes and global outcomes. The author elaborates that globalization is
a process driven by advanced industrialized countries through economic, social, technological,
and political means that lead to political, environmental, and cultural consequences. Odin and
Manicas (2004) explained that education in a global environment spreads access to developing
basic and advanced intellectual and labor skills while also increasing inequalities in less
developed countries. Armstrong (2007) described globalization as a process in which the product
cycle consists of advanced technology and minimizing national trade boundaries. In relation to
higher education institutions, Armstrong (2007) noted that increased student mobility across
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 30

national borders and increased outsourcing of faculty research exemplify the occurrence of
globalization. Furthermore, Altbach and Knight (2007) explained that global capital motivated
all nations to invest in knowledge industries in which there is interdependency of knowledge
products for economic growth and that higher education serves as the “knowledge society.” In
the higher education arena, globalization represents the dissemination of knowledge.
The term “globalization” is often confused with the term “internationalization.” Though
Scott (2000) stated that these two terms are used interchangeably and have no significant
differences, the author acknowledges that these two movements differ in their scale and
intensity. “Internationalization” reflects ideologies and dynamics in the aftermath of the Great
Powers rivalry from the Cold War and diplomatic exchanges between nation states. In contrast,
“globalization,” is modern terminology addressing new ideologies, practices and competition
requiring intensified collaboration among all nations. In the higher education arena, Qiang
(2003) described the internationalization of higher education institutions with only a brief
mention of “globalization” as a phenomenon that now includes higher education. The author
focused on describing how higher education institutions establish and implement
internationalization strategies as a means to become part of the globalization process. The terms,
“globalization” and “internationalization” are used synonymously throughout this comparative
case study. The phrase “global engagement strategies” is used to describe a university’s
implementation of processes, procedures and activities to become more globally engaged, and
the phrase “global engagement goals” is used to describe the intended outcomes of these
strategies. The researcher selected this terminology to avoid assumptions that each of the
participating universities strove to become a global university or focused on becoming an
internationalized institution. Rather, each university examined in this comparative case study has
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 31

been identified as a higher education institution with established global engagement goals based
on information accessible through EU and WU’s websites and based on recommendations given
to the researcher by experienced faculty.
Globalization’s Impact on Higher Education Institutions
One of the significant changes to the rationale for internationalization in higher education
institutions is the branding of academic institutions or the emphasis on developing a stronger
international reputation to compete in the global marketplace (Knight, 2004). Higher education
institutions vie in various ways to recruit the best students, faculty, funding for research, and
state and federal contributions (Ehrenberg, 2002). Many factors cause these behaviors to occur in
higher education institutions, and one of the factors is the existence of ranking systems for
academic institutions. For many consumers, commercialized and non-commercialized ranking
systems are perceived as a form of an organizational report card for assessing the quality of
academic institutions, motivating some universities to implement strategies that would enhance
the prestige of their respective institutions (Dill and Soo, 2005). In a comparative analysis of five
university league tables (United States News and World Report, The Times Good University
Guide, The Maclean’s Guide to Good Canadian Universities) in Australia, Canada, the United
Kingdom and the United States, Dill and Soo (2005) explained that university league tables, in
general, focus on examining institutions’ input measures (i.e., student selectivity) and output
measures (i.e. research publications, student graduation rates). The information presented in
these ranking systems often influence public opinion regarding the quality of education. As a
result, universities participate in an “academic arms race” to compete with their peers for a
stronger reputation.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 32

Though competition in higher education has existed for some time, at the time of this
study, there was a drastic shift of academic institutions to compete for a strong international
reputation. Universities recognize the scarcity of resources and the benefits of increasing
collaboration with their peers (Ehrenberg, 2002). For example, five higher education institutions
in the Pioneer Valley region of Massachusetts collaborated and permitted their students to enroll
in courses from any of their institutions to provide a broader range of courses and increase access
for students. As mentioned earlier, EU further expanded the range of courses and increased
access for students by offering courses in other countries.
The changes resulting from the process of globalization are affecting the mission, quality,
operations, and composition of higher education institutions. The transformation of the economic
sector has coincidentally instigated a concern for knowledge and, thus, education systems across
all nations assume a prominent role in creating the skilled labor force and responding to criticism
of deficient public school systems (Stromquist, 2002). For the purposes of providing an overview
of globalization’s impact on higher education institutions, the following section examines how
globalization affected higher education institutions’ mission, operations, quality and
composition.
Mission. The mission of American higher education institutions evolved over the
centuries. In the colonial 1700s, higher education institutions focused on preparing individuals to
serve in the Christian ministry (Rudolph, 1990). Most of these colleges were founded by
Protestant denominations and provided an education for men. After the War of Independence,
colleges and universities responded to critics who argued that students were not being prepared
for contemporary society and called on colleges and universities to offer more scientific,
mathematical and career-related courses. Over subsequent decades and throughout the 20
th

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 33

century, higher education institutions offered ever broader academic programs, increased student
enrollment, diversified the student population, and sought other avenues for funding. Today,
higher education institutions have earned the label as “knowledge societies” in which innovation
is created and promoted (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartman, Scott, & Trow, 1994). In
addition to focusing on research and innovation, higher education institutions focus on
developing students who are able to understand and interpret events through the minds of others
(Lovett, 2008). This mission not only emphasizes the importance of fostering an appreciation for
diversity, but it also responds to the escalated need to develop leaders with a global mindset in
the business and education sectors. In explaining the qualities of 21
st
century global leaders,
Marquardt and Berger (2000) state that leaders who have a global mindset will seek
opportunities to expand their knowledge, be sensitive to cultural differences, be flexible and able
to make sound decisions with inadequate information, and be a reflective person. Today’s higher
education institutions focus on creating and implementing global engagement strategies to
attempt to develop students with a global mindset, a critical component to becoming a global
leader.
Operations. The transformation of higher education institutions’ mission inevitably
changed their operations in many ways. Today, governing boards demand assessment of
respective institutions and approve policies and strategic plans that dictate institutional practices
(Michael, Schwartz, & Balraj, 2001). In private higher education institutions, trustees manage
the appointment and termination of university presidents, and university presidents no longer
spend their time focused on teaching and learning, but, instead, allocate increasing amounts of
their time to fund-raising and managing complex institutional bureaucracies (Dennison, 2001).
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 34

University presidents must possess leadership skills to manage and adapt to the ever-
changing institutional dynamics as higher education institutions find new ways to be
entrepreneurial and attract more students (Stromquist, 2002). Establishing joint ventures between
universities has become one of the more prevalent strategies for increasing student enrollment
and global activities. Typically facilitated through collaboration with a local entity, universities
set up branch campuses to offer the same degrees as those granted by the home institution
(Armstrong, 2007). Another type of international partnership is twinning, a process in which a
foreign partner offers the first two years of preapproved undergraduate courses and students
complete the remainder of the program at the source institution. Even franchising, a process that
was once exclusively known in the business sector, now exists in the higher education arena as
some higher education institutions retain control and rights of their program content and
franchise a foreign institution to deliver the program. In 2000, Lenn explained that the increased
number of higher education institutions and programs improved access, increased the availability
of a diverse range of academic providers and globally expanded the variety of professions.
Through referencing a report published by the National Committee on International Trade in
Education (NCITE), Lenn (2000) listed the following as forms of exporting higher education and
training: branch campuses, franchises, articulation, twinning, corporate programs, companies,
distance education programs, and study abroad programs. These rapid operational changes
occurring in American higher education institutions are ambiguous and managed differently at
each campus.
Quality. As higher education institutions across nations become more entrepreneurial,
designing quality assurance schemes to evaluate these programs while preserving institutional
objectives and practices has become a concern. Defining and measuring quality assurance is a
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 35

multidimensional concept that considers performance, local and national standards, norms,
accreditation, institutional comparisons, outcomes and accountability (Adelman, 2009). The
language and terminology for quality assurance across national boundaries are often understood
differently and require more consistent definitions across national boundaries (Crozier, Curvale,
Dearlove, Helle, & Henard, 2006). The new trend of quality assurance schemes is for higher
education institutions to facilitate self-study or self-review of the institution and programs rather
than to rely on government authorities to evaluate processes (UNESCO, 2009). The growing
diversity and new approaches to internationalization require higher education institutions to
establish their own criteria and for government agencies to focus on evaluating whether
institutions have sufficient resources to operate effectively to support their dynamic processes.
Over the years, higher education institutions and third party evaluators have scrutinized student-
professor ratios, professors’ advanced degrees and publications, accessibility and capacity of
facilities, content covered in courses and degree programs, and career opportunities for students
upon graduation. The wide spectrum of quality assurance criteria and measurements implies that
the process of evaluating learning outcomes and quality of education is inconsistent and
complex, proving that managing these operations is not an easy task.
Composition of higher education institutions. The composition of higher education
institutions changed through the process of creating opportunities for students to develop a
global mindset and for faculty to expand their research across national boundaries. To start,
various educational programs across nations warrant international student mobility, and the
United States and other nations enroll a more diverse group of students than similar higher
education institutions in other nations. The University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific program
(UMAP) was established in 1991 to promote student mobility programs in the Asia/Pacific
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 36

region (Van Damme, 2000). The European ERASMUS became a subprogram within
SOCRATES in 1995 and allocated more than half of its funds to student mobility grants in the
European Union (Teichler, 2001). The United States attracted the largest number of foreign
students with its world-famous research universities and “dominance of English as the lingua
franca in contemporary science and scientific training and the most commonly mastered second
language” (Van Damme, 2000, p. 3). Faculty members are exchanged between higher education
institutions across all nations, but the gender ratio of the faculty pool favors men over women.
One of the reasons for the unbalanced gender ratio is that faculty exchange programs value
faculty members who teach mathematics, technology and sciences, and there are fewer women
represented in these disciplines. An unbalanced gender ratio is seen amongst the pool of senior
administrators as well. The changes in the composition of higher education institutions indicate
changes in what is valued and who is affected.
This section explored how globalization affected higher education institutions’ mission,
operations, quality and composition to provide an overview of topics that matter to individuals in
leadership positions at higher education institutions. As the mission of higher education
institutions transforms to a focus on developing research, innovation and global leaders, so do
the institutional operations employed to achieve these initiatives and the organizational culture
that results from these transformations.
Defining Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a popular line of inquiry in exploring organizational
effectiveness in higher education institutions. As academic institutions attempt to cope with
external environments that undergo change, unpredictable circumstances and competition, many
prominent scholars of higher education management recognize organizational culture as an
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 37

important area of research that is linked to improving organizational effectiveness (Fjortoft &
Smart, 1994). The following section of this dissertation provides scholars’ definitions of
organizational culture.
According to Ouchi (1980) and Wilkins and Ouchi (1983), organizational culture can be
defined by the way in which an organization is governed or controlled. The authors propose a
threefold typology of organizational culture rooted in transaction cost theory. The three culture
types are described as the governance modes or “patterned exchanges” of an organization:
markets, bureaucracy or clans. The market form of governance involves managing exchange
problems by adjusting prices in competitive situations, and the bureaucracy form of governance
involves managing exchange problems through an employment contract in which employees
accept wages in exchange for submission to supervision. The authors warn that market and
bureaucracy forms of governance may fail when circumstances become ambiguous or uncertain.
In changing environments, such as universities that expand globalization activities to fulfill a
commitment to a wide range of constituents, a market culture may prevent the institution from
achieving success due to inequitable assessment of values during exchanges. The clan culture,
however, involves socializing organizational members to view their exchanges with each other
and the organization as congruent with the organization’s goals. Clans can control complex and
ambiguous transactions when organizational members share two areas of social knowledge: (1) a
general paradigm that provides rational organizational members with categories, routine
processes, and frameworks to make decisions that best serve the organization and (2) goal
congruence, the belief that shared exchanges will lead to long-term equity. Tierney (1988)
simplified the definition of organizational culture by explaining that an organization’s culture is
not simply described by its organizational structure, but, rather, by an interconnected web in
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 38

which the individuals within the organization have their own interpretations of the web.
Individuals participating in an organization create an organization’s culture through their
interpretations of the stories that are shared, the norms, the symbols, and the institutional
ideology.
According to Cameron and Ettington (1988), organizational culture is defined by the
researcher or observer. Through the process of observing organizational functions, events and
activities, the observer serves as the central figure for interpreting an organization’s culture. The
role of the observer is to describe and identify patterns occurring in the organization. Cameron
and Ettington (1988) explained that the observer’s cognitive framework in examining
organizational culture may function from an anthropological or sociological perspective. From
an anthropological perspective, the observer focuses on explaining what the organization is
rather than explaining what the organization has, as from a sociological perspective. The authors
suggest that the definition of organizational culture revolves around social interpretation
definitions, behavioral control definitions, and organizational adaptation definitions. Social
interpretation definitions refer to the observer’s interpretation of the schema, meaning and
indicators of what creates the organization’s culture. Behavior interpretation definitions
emphasize the observer’s identification of the organization’s patterns and activities.
Organizational adaptation definitions focus on the observer’s comprehension of how the
organization routinely solves common organizational problems. These definitions ground
organizational culture on the beliefs, values and assumptions made about an organization’s
culture.
The role of organizational culture in higher education. Stemming from the private
corporate sector, understanding organizational culture emerged as a critical component for
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 39

understanding management and organizational performance in higher education. Although most
scholars agree that there are various approaches to examining organizational culture and that
there is no clear explanation for how organization culture functions in higher education
institutions (Sporn, 1996), the variety of definitions of organizational culture implies that
organizational culture plays a significant role in engaging faculty, administrators, students, the
surrounding community and the society. The following section presents a review of literature
that rationalizes the role of organizational culture in higher education.
Although organizational culture is an important focus in studies of higher education
management, the complicated features of universities prevent a clear explanation of how the
culture of universities functions (Sporn, 1996). According to Sporn (1996), universities have a
wide range of objectives from research and teaching to servicing the surrounding community,
and the frequent lack of a consensus on objectives result in inconsistent decision-making
processes. Second, universities are people-oriented with different individuals enrolling in a
university for different intentions and with different motivations. Third, universities cannot
develop a standard process for delivering services to a diverse group of individuals. Fourth, the
governing of universities becomes more complex because professionals working at universities
have different levels of expertise and want autonomy and freedom. For example, more professors
have expertise in financial management or information systems management and the role of an
expert is blurred between the scholars and those with more corporate experiences. Lastly, Sporn
(1996) explains that social, political, economic, and technological changes strongly affect how
universities form and manage their respective institution. In general, a strong organizational
culture will strive to align the values of highly motivated employees with the organization’s
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 40

goals, ensure that the organization is suitable for its organizational strategy, and anticipate
adapting to environmental changes.
Assessing organizational culture. The concept of organizational culture has been
criticized for being weak because it has been defined and interpreted in multiple ways. Some
scholars argue a lack of a systematic way for observing or measuring organizational culture
caused by the fact that measuring organizational culture requires consideration of numerous
factors and organizations are continuously changing (Marcoulides and Heck, 1993). Since this
comparative case study examined the types of approaches senior university officials at a private
university (EU) and a public research university (WU) adopt to become more globally engaged
and how these approaches shape each institution’s culture, the following section explores various
researchers’ multidimensional and multilevel analyses for assessing organizational culture.
Schein (1985) posited that organizational culture consists of three levels: organizational
artifacts, organizational beliefs and values, and basic organizational assumptions. Organizational
artifacts refer to visible features such as organizational structures, facilities, procedures, and
websites. Organizational beliefs and values reflect organizational philosophies, strategies and
goals. Basic organizational assumptions refer to the norms regarding how organizational
members behave and what is highly valued by the organization.
Tierney’s (1988) framework of organizational culture includes six categories that enable
administrators to assess an organization’s culture with the intent of affecting organizational
change without instigating unnecessary conflict. First, the environment category examines how
an organization is defined by its environment and an organization’s attitude toward its
environment. The mission category examines how an organization’s mission is defined,
articulated and how it serves as a basis for making decisions. The socialization category
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 41

examines how an organization socializes new members and familiarizes them regarding how to
survive or excel in the organization. The information category focuses on determining what
comprises of information, identifying who possesses information and how information is
disseminated. The strategy category examines the decision-making process, including the
individuals making the decisions, how the decisions are determined and the penalty for making
unfavorable decisions. Lastly, the leadership category focuses on identifying the informal and
formal leaders of the organization and what the leader is expected to do for the organization.
Tierney’s (1988) framework of organizational culture provides a simplistic overview of what
constitutes an organizational culture and how it can be assessed.
Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) conducted a study of 334 colleges and universities in the
United States and developed a two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures framework
to understand cultural congruence. This framework is one of two theoretical frameworks used in
this comparative case study to guide the process of collecting and analyzing data. The typology
includes the following: (1) a vertical dimension characterizing organizational culture by
flexibility, individuality and spontaneity on upper end of the vertical axis, and, on the lower end
of the vertical axis, characterizing organizational culture by stability, control and predictability
(2) a horizontal dimension characterizing organizational culture with an internal orientation that
has short-term orientation and smoothing activities on the left-hand side of the horizontal axis,
and, on the right-hand side of the horizontal axis, characterizing organizational culture with an
external orientation that has long-term orientation and achievement-oriented activities. The
vertical and horizontal dimensions form four quadrants, and each quadrant includes additional
descriptions of organizational frames and governance models displayed in Table 1. On the upper-
left quadrant, the clan culture is characterized by having high levels of flexibility, individuality
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 42

and spontaneity while also having internal emphasis, short-term focus and smoothing activities.
The dominant leadership style consists of mentorship and facilitation with a strategic emphasis
of cohesion to sustain an institutional bonding effect of loyalty and tradition. This quadrant
typically provides a framework for describing a university composed of a community of scholars
(Goodman, 1962), reflecting historical colleges and universities. The lower-left quadrant,
described as the hierarchy culture but also known as the bureaucracy culture, also encompasses
an internal emphasis, short-term focus and smoothing activities. However, unlike the first
quadrant, it has an emphasis on stability, control, and predictability. The dominant leadership
style is a coordinator or organizer who is able to strategize with an emphasis on permanence and
stability to create an institutional bond that is focused on rules and policies. This quadrant may
describe many universities that have relied on policies and procedures to manage their operations
but focused less on forming a community of scholars because faculty members typically do not
value following standardized rules and procedures (Bess, 1992). The adhocracy is located in the
upper-right quadrant, and, similar to the clan culture quadrant, also focuses on flexibility,
individuality, and spontaneity. Unlike the clan culture quadrant, however, this quadrant focuses
on external positioning, long-term focus and achievement-oriented activities. In addition, this
quadrant provides a framework for describing a leadership style focused on entrepreneurship and
innovation to foster strategies that promote growth and creating an institutional bonding effect of
innovation and development. This particular quadrant represents a university that has flexible
systems with a wide range of approaches for developing institutional strategies and managing the
institution’s operations. Lastly, similar to the adhocracy culture quadrant, the lower-right
quadrant encompasses the market culture with an emphasis on external positioning, long-term
focus and achievement-oriented activities. However, this quadrant values stability, control, and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 43

predictability and a dominant leadership style of a producer or hard-driver to strategize
competitive actions and fosters an institutional bonding effect of goal accomplishment. This
quadrant is suitable for describing a university that develops adaptive strategies to compete in the
proliferation of higher education. Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework was applied to
answer the second research question of this study.

Internal emphasis External positioning
Short-term orientation Long-term orientation
Smoothing activities Achievement-oriented activities

Figure 1. Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) Model of Cultural Congruence for Organizations
Data collected in this study was analyze through Qiang’s (2003) description of
institutional leaders’ approaches for internationalization of higher education to answer the first
Flexibility
Individuality
Spontaneity
FORM: Clan
LEADER STYLE: Mentor, facilitator
BONDING: Loyalty, tradition
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Human resources,
cohesion

FORM: Adhocracy
LEADER STYLE: Entrepreneur,
innovator
BONDING: Innovation, development
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Growth,
new resources
FORM: Market
LEADER STYLE: Producer, hard-driver
BONDING: Goal accomplishment
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Competitive
actions, achievements

FORM: Hierarchy
LEADER STYLE: Coordinator, organizer
BONDING: Rules, policies
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Permanence,
stability

Stability
Control
Predictability
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 44

research question. . Qiang’s (2003) literature review recognizes several major authors describing
various approaches to internationalization in higher education institutions. According to Qiang,
the authors explain “approaches” as institutional leaders’ stances toward promoting and
implementing internationalization programs. The activity approach refers to the facilitation of
international activities in various higher education institutions, such as implementing
international exchange programs for students and faculty, increasing enrollment of international
students, and extending access to higher education through technical assistance. The competency
approach emphasizes developing competencies in staff, faculty and students to ensure that they
are more internationally knowledgeable and skillful. The changing world and growing emphasis
on global education demands students develop a deeper understanding of intercultural issues.
The ethos approach stresses establishing a culture or milieu that supports
international/intercultural engagement. This approach recognizes the importance of creating and
maintaining a strong belief system that fosters the internationalization components of an
institution. Finally, the process approach focuses on integrating international/intercultural
aspects into policies, procedures and activities to create internationalized research, curriculum
and service. This approach emphasizes the importance of implementing policies and facilitating
procedures that address the sustainability of internationalization activities. Qiang’s (2003)
description of approaches to internationalization in higher education institutions served as a
framework for understanding the various types of approaches that senior university officials
adopt as they strategize and implement their institution’s global engagement strategies.
Having the flexibility to change an approach to internationalization is more critical in
higher education in the 21
st
century because the rationale for internationalization is transforms
and becomes more explicit (Knight, 2004). In the past, efforts to internationalize higher
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 45

education institutions focused on discussing what needed to be implemented rather than the new
and more explicit discussion of why internationalization needed to occur for a particular
institution.
Public and Private Research Universities
Since organizations rarely have sufficient resources to implement all institutional
initiatives or to satisfy every need, a budget serves to identify and communicate institutional
priorities that may indirectly and directly shape an organization’s culture. A budget serves as a
contract displaying an institutional operating plan during a given period time and is carried
through multiple fiscal periods and budget cycles in which the budget is significantly influenced
by the budget from the previous cycle (Lasher & Greene, 2001). The creation of a budget
requires a significant amount of political discourse, compromise and negotiation, implying that
there are subtle and obvious differences in how organizations develop their budget. Lasher and
Greene (2001) explained that the budget cycles for public and private colleges and universities
are similar, but public institutions require additional time to determine a budget because of the
involvement of state-level and system-level decisions. This section presents a review of literature
explaining the different budget processes for private and public higher education institutions and
external and internal factors that affect higher education budgets. Since budget is linked to
administrative operations, understanding budget processes and factors influencing the budget
will enable an understanding regarding how administrative operations differ between private and
public higher education institutions and how these differences may affect the alignment of an
institutional culture with its global engagement goals. The researcher anticipated that the senior
university officials participating in this comparative case study would reveal financial and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 46

administrative operations that shaped the institution’s culture and, indeed, some of the EU and
WU’s culture were shaped by these assumptions.
The Budget Process
The budget process affects the administrative operations of public and private higher
education institutions. The budget cycle of public higher education institutions generally follow
the state or local government budget cycles and rely on state budget instructions to steer their
institutional guidelines and policies (Meisinger & Dubeck, 1984). In private higher education
institutions, institutional guidelines and policies typically reflect economic and political
environment and institutional goals. In both public and private institutions, there is generally a
hierarchical system in which the central administration initiates budget development by
instructing lower units and departments to prepare the budget. Meisinger and Dubeck (1984)
emphasize that the central administration typically requires superfluous information from their
subordinates for decision-making, but seldom provides sufficient feedback to the lower units and
departments. The perception of an imbalance in how information is communicated from the top-
down or from the bottom-up implies there are differences in administrative structure and
processes in private and public higher education institutions.
In public higher education institutions, requests for expenditure are first reviewed by
campus-level administrators, system-level administrators and the institution’s governing board.
Thereafter, the expenditure estimates are submitted to and evaluated and reviewed by the state-
level postsecondary education agency, the legislature and the governor (Lasher & Greene, 2001).
Budget hearings are scheduled to provide additional information about expenditure estimates for
funders to make their decisions. In private higher education institutions, expenditure requests are
reviewed by campus-level administrators and then submitted to and evaluated by the institutional
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 47

governing board. After the state finalizes the level of higher education funding, the funds are
allocated to the state’s postsecondary agency to determine subsequent allocations to higher
education institutions. The funds may be distributed as a lump sum to each institution or by line
item for specific institutional functions. Since public and private higher education institutions
rarely receive funds for all of their expenditure requests, each higher education institution must
recalculate and possibly reconfigure their budget upon receiving the state’s financial support.
Both public and private higher education institutions must complete expenditure estimates
through other sources, such as tuition and fees, investment income, and sponsored programs.
Once the budget is finalized, disseminated and implemented, administrative procedures may
change because the budget affects an institution’s daily operation and activities (Lasher &
Greene, 2001). In comparison to private higher education institutions, public higher education
institutions have additional operational activities with the state. Public higher education
institutions are required to report actual expenditures to state treasury officials and to satisfy
other reporting requirements prior to receiving funds from the state treasury. The transfer of line
item appropriations may also require approval from higher levels of governance, such as
executive or legislative branches. The additional reporting requirements set forth for public
higher education institutions implies there are differences in administrative procedures for public
and private higher education institutions that may shape institutional culture.
This comparative case study of EU, a private university, and WU, a public university,
prompted senior university officials at each institution to explain the nuances of administrative
operational decisions and procedures that pertain to their particular institution. These nuances
appeared to directly or indirectly affect each academic institution’s culture. The information
gathered from this study may guide senior university officials in making decisions that will
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 48

strengthen an organization’s culture and enhance their ability to achieve their global engagement
goals.
Factors Influencing the Budget in Higher Education
According to Lasher and Greene (2001), external and internal factors influence higher
education budgets and, therefore, influence operational procedures and organizational culture as
well. The external factors may relate to the economy, politics, demographics, and regulatory
environments. The internal factors may include institutional history, mission, age, and tradition.
External Factors. The strength of the economy directly affects the distribution of
private appropriations because monies flowing to higher education institutions are more fluid
during strong economic times and significantly reduced during weak economic times. Higher
education institutions face greater competition for resources during weak economic times. For
example, during an economic recession with high unemployment rates, consumers reduce
spending and the government collects fewer federal tax dollars than are necessary to fund federal
and state services (Lasher & Greene, 2001). Though more students enroll in college during an
economic recession because they are unable to work, lower high school graduation rates cause
fewer students to enroll in colleges and reduced federal student aid also causes individual
students to receive fewer grants to pay for tuition and fees. While it may seem obvious that
raising the cost of tuition and fees to generate more revenue for each higher education institution,
public and private higher education institutions that receive federal and state funds are
scrutinized and face many limitations. At the national level, the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act in 1992 requires public and private higher education institutions to ensure that all
programs and activities receiving federal financial support also comply with federal laws
protecting civil rights and equality in employment practices (Wolanin, 2003). At the state level,
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 49

the government’s growing perception of higher education expenditure as a discretionary item
places greater emphasis on understanding the role of the governor in developing higher
education policies and budget (Zusman, 1986). After all, the governor may influence resource
allocation for higher education expenditure through his or her cabinet-level appointments and
personal interests involved in making decisions. External factors inevitably influence budget
development and also alter administrative operations differently in public and private higher
education institutions.
Internal Factors. The budget for a higher education institution is often shaped by the
institutional mission, tradition, history and other characteristics (Lasher & Greene, 2001). A
higher education institution’s mission and tradition guide the initiatives and development of
academic programs and research and affect the demographic of students recruited for enrollment.
Costs for maintaining personnel to deliver services to students account for a great portion of
expenses in higher education institutions. The governing boards overseeing these operations
differ between public and private higher education institutions. In private higher education
institutions, alumni and existing board members elect the board of trustees, whereas, in public
higher education institutions, the governing boards are elected by the governor or the state’s
voters. The internal factors influencing budget development inevitably affect administrative
operations that shape an organization’s culture.
Higher education institutions will continue to increase costs to create and sustain
programs and research studies, but the budget in many higher education institutions are unlikely
to increase given the turbulent financial environment of the early 21
st
century. Massy (1989)
asserted that higher education institutions are reluctant to relinquish old programs and services
prior to adding new programs and services. Costs will rise while resources stay stagnant and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 50

senior university officials will continuously reconfigure organizational structure and
administrative operations to adapt to these transformations and the culture of each academic
institution will change through this process.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 51

Chapter Three: Research Methodology
Globalization refers to the economic, political and social transformations occurring as a
result of an integrated world economy, and this phenomenon shapes the growth strategies for
many universities. As more governments rely on universities to address their national interests,
more companies rely on universities to produce dynamic employees to work intelligently in their
organization, and more individuals strive to pursue higher education to fulfill their life goals.
Senior university officials must implement strategies to ensure their institution meets these
demands. However, changes in the mission, operations, quality and composition in higher
education institutions undoubtedly cause an academic institution’s culture to change as well.
This dissertation examines the approaches senior university officials at a private research
university (EU) and a public research university (WU) adopt to become more globally engaged
and how these approaches interact with each institution’s culture.
Chapter One provided the statement and background of the problem presented in this
comparative case study. Chapter Two provided the analysis of literature pertaining to
globalization’s impact on higher education, organizational culture and financial and
administrative operations of private and public research universities. Chapter Three presents the
methodology that was applied to this comparative case study. Two theoretical frameworks were
used to analyze the data collected in this comparative case study. First, Qiang’s (2003)
description of the approaches to internationalization of higher education were used to identify the
types of approaches senior university officials at EU and WU adopt to become more globally
engaged. The second theoretical framework used to analyze the data collected in this study was
Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational culture, which is
also known as the model of cultural congruence for organizations. The typology of
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 52

organizational culture includes the following: (1) a vertical dimension characterizing
organizational culture by flexibility, individuality and spontaneity on upper-end of the vertical
axis, and, on the lower-end of the vertical axis, characterizing organizational culture by stability,
control and predictability (2) a horizontal dimension characterizing organizational culture with
an internal orientation that has short-term orientation and smoothing activities on the left-hand
side of the horizontal axis, and, on the right-hand side of the horizontal axis, characterizing
organizational culture with an external orientation that has long-term orientation and
achievement-oriented activities. The vertical and horizontal dimensions form four quadrants, and
each quadrant includes additional descriptions of organizational frames and governance models
explained in Chapter two. This qualitative inquiry is a comparative case study of a private
research university (EU) and a public research university (WU), and this chapter explains the
research methods used to answer this study’s research questions.
Patton (2002) explained that well-constructed case studies can reveal specific stages of a
program, life, occurrence, or a phenomenon and serve as “information-rich” cases that provide
descriptive information. The researcher conducted in-person and telephone interviews with
participants and review documents and artifacts found at both academic institutions to collect
rich information. The collected data were carefully organized to reveal EU and WU’s senior
university officials’ approaches to global engagement and how these approaches shaped each
institution’s culture. The researcher created a case study profile for each participant who was
interviewed and performed a cross-case analysis for each academic institution by grouping
together answers from different participants to answer common questions. Finally, the researcher
compared analysis results between EU and WU to determine whether there were similarities and
differences between a private and public research university’s approaches to global engagement
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 53

and how these approaches shaped each institution’s culture. Pseudonyms for all participants were
used when necessary to protect the identity of participants in this study. This comparative case
study answered the following research questions:
Research Questions
RESEARCH QUESTION # 1: Which approach(es) do senior university officials at private and
public research universities adopt to become more globally engaged?
RESEARCH QUESTION # 2: How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement
interact with the institution’s culture?
Qualitative Research Orientation
This section explains and justifies why a qualitative research approach was selected to
answer this study’s research questions. Understanding the distinctions between quantitative and
qualitative research studies is a suitable starting point. Lichtman (2006) provided a simplistic
comparison between quantitative and qualitative research approaches from a theoretical and a
practical perspective.
From a theoretical perspective, a researcher typically uses a quantitative approach to
avoid bias and to present a cause and effect outcome rather than to produce generalizable
information. Qualitative research approach, on the other hand, consists of multiple realities
derived from subjective and interpretative methods of study. The goal of using a qualitative
research approach for a study is not to demonstrate a cause and effect outcome but, rather, to
formulate conclusions from specific findings. Qualitative research employs inductive reasoning
to move research from being concrete to being abstract (Lichtman, 2006). The researcher applied
a qualitative research approach to this comparative case study because specific findings from EU
and WU enabled the researcher to formulate generalizations or hypotheses that can assist future
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 54

senior university officials in private and public research universities understand how to create
and maintain an organizational culture that fosters global engagement. A quantitative research
approach in this comparative case study is unnecessary because the researcher does not aim to
reveal cause and effect outcomes.
From a practical perspective, quantitative research serves to test hypotheses and make
predictions (Lichtman, 2006). Quantitative research tends to require a large sample size and
anonymity is highly valued. There are few variables in quantitative research, and data is
statistically analyzed and less personal. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research does
not use random sampling and the sample size tends to be smaller. The emphasis in qualitative
research is on words, being more personal, and examining visual data. This comparative case
study applied qualitative research methods because understanding organizational culture requires
the researcher to understand and interpret information gathered from prominent individuals.
Qualitative research requires the researcher to code and extrapolate themes from the
collected data. Due to some limitations in this study, the small sample size of senior university
officials were purposefully selected based on their knowledge of relevant subject matter.
Documents and artifacts were also examined to postulate other generalizations. The application
of qualitative research methods was selected for this comparative case study to enable the
researcher to fully understand, from senior university officials’ point of view, EU and WU’s
approaches to global engagement, and the relationship between those activities and the culture
that manifested at each university.
Case Study Design
There are many approaches to conducting educational research, but because the
phenomena of globalization and organizational culture are complex and the research questions
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 55

for this study aimed to address issues surrounding “how” research universities perform, a
comparative case study (multiple-case study) design was selected for this study. Yin (1989)
explains that case studies can be used to pursue an explanatory purpose. The author argues that
the researcher’s objective in an explanatory case study is to present competing explanations for
the same set of circumstances and then explicate how these explanations will apply to other
circumstances. Research studies that inquiry with “how” and “why” questions are more
explanatory and require an investigation of operational links that need to be traced over a period
of time rather than through a survey measuring frequency of occurrences or incidence (Yin,
1989).
There are also different reasons for conducting a single-case study versus a multiple-case
study. A single-case study tends to represent a critical case that tests a well-constructed theory by
confirming, challenging or extending the theory. A second reason for conducting a single-case
study is to represent extreme or unique circumstances. For example, EU attests to becoming the
first Global Network University, and a future case study on EU may seek to explore how EU
created a Global Network University. Third, a single-case study may serve as a revelatory case in
which a researcher has an opportunity to observe information and explore a phenomenon that
was previously inaccessible to other researchers (Yin, 1989). For example, if a professor is
teaching a course and has access to a unique student population, he or she may conduct a case
study based on information collected from his or her students and reveal results that no other
researcher was able to conclude because of inaccessibility to the same student population.
In comparison to single-case studies, multiple-case studies tend to be more labor-
intensive and require significant resources to facilitate observations and evaluation of collected
data (Yin, 1989). While single-case studies may be more suitable for rare cases or revelatory
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 56

cases, multiple-case studies follow a “replication” logic in which the same circumstances
occurring in separate cases verifies that replication had taken place (Yin, 1989). Yin (1989)
further explains that each case selected for a multiple-case study should either (a) predict similar
results (literal replication) or (b) produce contradictory results but for anticipated reasons
(theoretical replication).
Population and Sample
EU and WU are members of a selective nonprofit organization, the Association of
American Universities (AAU), and have existing partnership agreements with other countries to
focus on engaging in globalization activities. EU and WU are two leading research universities
that were selected for this comparative case study because the similarities and differences found
in their institutional operations implied potential similarities and differences that would be
interesting to examine and understand. Both universities have a large student population and
each university is located in a large city. However, EU is a private research university that
focuses on implementing global engagement strategies that offer more outbound student
opportunities, and WU is a public research university that focuses on implementing global
engagement strategies that foster global partnership agreements and inbound student
opportunities. The similarities and differences found between EU and WU’s approaches to
global engagement pose an exciting opportunity for the researcher to generate a discussion
regarding best practices for leaders in higher education and ideas for future research.
The unit of analysis in this comparative case study included senior university officials at
EU and WU who are involved with influencing EU and WU’s global engagement strategies and
institutional culture. Patton (2002) posited that evaluating thick descriptions allow the researcher
to immerse into the experience and outcomes of a particular occurrence or program. The author
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 57

elaborates that qualitative inquiry often consists of a small sample size that is purposefully
selected to allow for an in depth understanding of a concept or occurrences. Collecting the lowest
level unit of analysis will unveil unique complexities of a research study; for example, one would
obtain more information by collecting data from individual students instead of collecting data
from a classroom of students. Since the focus of this study was to examine senior university
officials’ approaches to leading the university to become more globally engaged and how these
approaches shape the institution’s culture, collecting data from senior university officials who
manage various operations within each academic institution and examining documents and
artifacts ensured that the data collected was comprehensive and represented different
perspectives within each academic institution.
The researcher first contacted senior university faculty chairpersons to identify and/or
introduce senior university officials at EU and WU to complete the data collection process.
Though the researcher initially intended to interview specific individuals from various functional
roles at each university, the researcher learned that job titles and organizational charts did not
accurately identify senior university officials charged with creating and implementing the
respective university’s global engagement strategies. Instead, the researcher used snowball
sampling to identify the most suitable individuals to participate in this research study. That is, the
researcher contacted a senior university official who was charged with overseeing some global
engagement activities at each university and each of those senior university officials
recommended several other senior university officials within their respective university to
participate in this research study. The researcher contacted those senior university officials and
then asked each of them to recommend at least one other senior university official to be
contacted. After numerous e-mail exchanges, the researcher conducted interviews with seven
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 58

senior university officials from Eastside University (EU) and six senior university officials from
Westside University (WU) between the months of March through June of 2012. Some interviews
were completed in-person, and others were completed via telephone or Skype. Collecting
qualitative data from EU and WU for this comparative case study enabled the researcher to
understand how each institution’s senior university officials decides to approach global
engagement and how their approaches have shaped the institution’s culture. The small sample
size of two academic institutions and six to seven senior university officials from each academic
institution allowed for in-depth analysis of the senior university officials’ approaches to
internationalization, the factors influencing the institution’s culture and similarities and
differences found between private and public research universities in relation to globalization
and organizational culture. In addition to conducting interviews with senior university officials at
EU and WU, the researcher also examined documents and artifacts at each of the academic
institutions and recorded thorough field notes.
Both EU and WU are prestigious and reputable American research universities that have
existing offices and higher education professionals dedicated to managing and facilitating global
engagement activities occurring at their universities. Some researchers would say that
establishing offices and hiring higher education professionals who focus on managing and
facilitating global engagement activities is essential for creating an atmosphere that fosters global
engagement. There is no doubt that EU and WU has dedicated a significant amount of funds and
resources over the past decade to earn some of their recent accolades in relation to globalization
and, for these reasons, EU and WU were selected to participate in this study and possibly serve
as benchmarks for other higher education institutions striving to become more globally engaged.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 59

Instrumentation and Sources of Evidence
Conducting interviews with senior university officials at EU and WU was the primary
instrument selected for gathering information to answer the research questions presented in this
comparative case study. The researcher conducted interviews with senior university officials who
have the authority to make strategic decisions for the university to engage in globalization
activities. Senior university officials’ responses revealed their respective university’s global
engagement strategies and goals, achievements, challenges, and future strategic plans. Some
senior university officials revealed information regarding financial and administrative operations
of their respective university and how these nuances affected the implementation of academic
programs and individuals involved in those academic programs. Reviewing documents and
artifacts was the secondary instrument selected for providing additional information about each
university’s global engagement strategies (Appendix).
Data collection. The researcher conducted interviews upon receiving a consent form
approved by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California. EU and WU
did not request the researcher to complete any additional documents prior to collecting data.
Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was tape recorded after receiving
permission from each interviewee. All tapes were stored in a secured drawer in the researcher’s
home. Pseudonyms were used throughout the data collection and analysis process. The
researcher used a notebook and pen to transcribe some of the important points mentioned by
each participant during the interview.
Documents and artifacts. Lastly, the researcher examined brochures, posters, flyers,
websites, and other documents that provide information on global engagement activities
occurring on and off campus. The researcher analyzed information that was accessible via each
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 60

academic institution’s website to identify the types of global engagement activities occurring at
each academic institution. This information provided context for the researcher to ask probing
questions during the interview session with each senior university official. The researcher also
reviewed brochures, flyers and posters that advertised global engagement activities to determine
whether either of the academic institutions focused on inbound or outbound global engagement
activities more than the other academic institution. Most of the documents and artifacts examined
were publicly obtainable information unless a senior university official provided additional
information to the researcher during the interview process. The amount and quality of these
documents indicated how information was disseminated and implied whether faculty and
administrators dedicate resources and efforts to communicate with members of the institution
regarding the institution’s global engagement strategies.
Data Analysis
This section identifies common themes exposed through each of the in-depth interviews
with senior university officials and analysis of documents and artifacts. As previously
mentioned, Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures
and Qiang’s (2003) approaches to internationalization of higher education were used to analyze
the data collected in this comparative case study. After transcribing each interview, the
researcher used key terms indicated in Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) model of cultural
congruence to code some of the themes related to organizational culture (form, leadership style,
bonding and strategic emphasis). For example, when a senior university official explained any
activities that demonstrated innovation or development, the researcher coded “adhocracy,
entrepreneurship and innovation” to reflect the upper-right quadrant stating characteristics of an
institutional culture that fosters external emphasis, long-term orientation and achievement-
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 61

oriented activities on the horizontal dimension (x-axis) and an institutional culture of flexibility,
individuality and spontaneity on the vertical dimension (y-axis). Similar coding mechanisms
were applied to artifacts and documents that the researcher examined. Using Cameron and
Ettington’s model of cultural congruence as a coding mechanism ensured that the leadership,
organizational culture and strategic emphasis at EU and WU were thoroughly investigated. The
researcher also coded each segment that disclosed a particular type of approach to
internationalization in higher education as outlined by Qiang (2003), and these coding
mechanisms were also applied to artifacts and documents that the researcher examined. After the
researcher completed coding each data collected through the interviews, artifacts and documents,
the researcher identified common themes related to globalization and organizational culture.
Reliability and Validity
It is important to examine the quality of any research design. There were numerous
“threats” to the validity and reliability of this comparative case study.
Construct validity. Establishing construct validity for case studies, according to Yin
(1989), referred to instituting appropriate operational measures for examining the concepts that
are being examined. A researcher can increase construct validity by gathering multiple sources of
evidence, establishing a chain of evidence and finding key informants to review drafts of case
study reports. To test for construct validity, Yin (1989) also recommended that a researcher
selects particular types of changes that will be studied and then demonstrate that the chosen
measurements of these changes appropriately reflect the particular changes that have been
selected. In this dissertation, the researcher ensured construct validity by informally requesting
senior university officials from other research universities to review interview questions that the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 62

researcher asked each participant to determine whether these questions led to the collection of
necessary information to attempt to answer this study’s research questions.
Internal validity. According to Yin (1989), emphasis on establishing internal validity is
especially important for explanatory studies. Internal validity refers to identifying and explaining
causal relationships, pattern matching, explanation building and time-series analysis. A
researcher must clearly explain how condition A causes condition B to occur and clearly explain
if and how other factors may have caused condition B to occur to ensure that the research study
is internally valid. In addition, a researcher must make inferences for all collected data and must
consistently consider if other factors for producing a particular outcome were possible and
whether there are opposing explanations that may make more sense in explaining a particular
outcome. After coding each transcription obtained from the interviews for this comparative case
study, the researcher reviewed all of the codes and compared these codes to other key terms
explained in Qiang (2003) and Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) model of cultural congruence to
ensure that no other codes would have been more effective in describing a particular
transcription.
External validity. Testing for external validity refers to testing whether or not a research
study’s findings can be generalizable to other situations and circumstances (Yin, 1989). As
mentioned earlier, performing case studies and following the logic of replication ensured that this
research study is externally valid. Due to limited resource and cost constraints, this study
provided generalizable information for private and public research universities, but further
research will be necessary to ensure external validity.
Reliability. The goal of testing for reliability is to reduce the amount of errors and biases
in a research study. A research study is deemed reliable if any individual can perform the same
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 63

research study over again. This does not mean that a researcher will produce the same results
each time he or she performs the exact same case study. As mentioned earlier, the researcher for
this comparative case study informally requested senior university officials to review and
evaluate interview questions prior to facilitating interviews with senior university officials at EU
and WU to ensure construct validity and reliability.
Conclusion
This dissertation examined the types of approaches senior university officials at a private
university (EU) and a public research university (WU) adopt to become more globally engaged
and examined how these approaches interacted with each institution’s culture. The similarities
and differences between the two academic institutions revealed distinct characteristics that
occasionally ignited or impeded a private or public research university’s ability to create an
organizational culture that fosters global engagement. Extensive efforts were employed to ensure
that the identity of participants is kept confidential and that the researcher does not contribute
personal biases into the inductive reasoning process.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 64

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the results obtained from a qualitative research study comparing
global engagement at a private research university and a public research university. The
pseudonym Eastside University (EU) refers to a leading private research university located in the
northeast United States and the pseudonym Westside University (WU) refers to a leading public
research university located in southern California. Within a span of three months, the researcher
interviewed 13 senior administrators and faculty charged with creating and implementing global
engagement initiatives at Eastside University (EU) and Westside University (WU). Since the
researcher aimed to understand senior university officials’ approaches to global engagement and
how these approaches to global engagement interacted with EU and WU’s institutional culture,
in addition to interviewing senior university officials, the researcher noted the observation of
offices and documents such as brochures, reports and flyers to capture each university’s global
engagement strategy and institutional culture. All of the collected data were coded, analyzed and
presented through a narrative approach. All senior university officials who participated in this
study explained that their answers were based on their involvement with creating and
implementing global engagement initiatives for the undergraduate student population. Though
there are occasional references to undergraduate and graduate students, this study did not focus
on examining one particular academic unit at the university. Rather, this study focused on
examining the key senior administrators and faculty making decisions that affect the entire
university and predominantly, the undergraduate student population.
This chapter compares a private research university, EU, and a public research university,
WU, in three major sections. First, there an overview describes some of the global engagement
strategies and activities at both universities, including the roles and responsibilities of senior
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 65

university officials and the roles of specific departments and offices involved with global
engagement. The second and third sections respond to this study’s research questions:
RESEARCH QUESTION # 1:
Which approach(es) do senior university officials at a private and a public research university
adopt to become more globally engaged?
RESEARCH QUESTION # 2:
How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement interact with each institution’s
culture?
Overview of Two Higher Education Institutions
Participants in this study were informed that all names and job titles would remain
anonymous and, therefore, pseudonyms were applied throughout each chapter of this research
study. Each of these senior university officials had worked at their respective university for at
least 3 years and played a pivotal role in creating and implementing the university’s global
engagement strategies. The following section provides an overview of EU and WU in two
segments: (1) descriptions of each senior university official’s job title, roles and responsibilities,
and (2) descriptions of departments and offices overseeing global engagement activities as
conveyed by senior university officials and each university’s website.
Senior university officials’ roles and responsibilities. As a result of cold-calling and
corresponding via e-mail, several senior university officials agreed to participate in this study
and those who were unable to participate often recommended other senior university officials
whom the researcher subsequently contacted. Table 1 displays job titles (changed to obscure the
individuals’ identities while still conveying key information about their responsibilities) as well
as further information about each university official’s role. Table 2 displays the same
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 66

information for senior university officials interviewed at WU. Some of the senior university
officials at EU and WU serve both as professors and administrators and these nuances are
indicated in the table.
Table 1
Job Titles and Roles and Responsibilities of Senior University Officials at EU

Job Titles

Roles and Responsibilities

Vice-President (V. P.) of Budget

A senior administrator who oversees budget
and planning at EU
Vice-President (V. P.) of Administration A senior administrators who oversees
administration and staff at EU
Vice-President (V. P.) of Student Affairs A senior administrator who oversees student
affairs and student life
Vice-President (V. P.) of Portal Campuses A senior administrator and a senior professor
who oversees one of EU’s portal campuses
with regards to recruiting talented faculty
Vice-President (V. P.) of Research A senior administrator and a senior professor
who oversees research activities occurring
throughout the campus
Vice-President (V. P.) of Global Expansion A senior administrator and senior professor
who strategizes how to leverage EU’s global
presence to expand research opportunities
Vice-President (V. P.) of International
Services
A senior administrator who oversees
resources provided to inbound international
students and scholars and outbound EU
students
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 67

Table 2
Job Titles and Roles and Responsibilities of Senior University Officials at WU

Job Titles

Roles and Responsibilities

Vice-President (V. P.) of Faculty Research

A senior administrator who supports faculty
who want to engage globally
Vice-President (V. P.) of International
Services
A senior administrator who oversees various
international engagement activities for
students and scholars
Vice-President (V. P.) of Engineering A senior administrator and a senior professor
who oversees research projects and global
expansion at the School of Engineering
Vice-President (V. P.) of Global Expansion A senior administrator and a senior professor
who oversees research projects and global
expansion at the School of Pharmaceutical
Sciences
Vice-President (V. P.) of Biological Sciences A senior administrator and a senior professor
who oversees research projects and global
expansion at the School of Biological
Sciences
Vice-President (V. P.) of Faculty Engagement A senior administrator and a senior professor
who teaches political science and oversees
research projects in various subject areas

The researcher scheduled a visit to the main campus of EU in the spring of 2012 to
interview each of three senior university officials for a span of 30 to 45 minutes. The remaining
four senior university officials were interviewed via telephone or video conferencing through
Skype. Similarly, at WU, the researcher contacted the V. P. of International Services who kindly
agreed to participate in this research study and recommended the researcher contact the V. P. of
Faculty Research. Since the V. P. of Faculty Research worked closely with several professors
who were leading WU’s global engagement activities, the researcher obtained a list of professors
to recruit as participants for this research study. Through a series of e-mail correspondence and
telephone messages, the researcher was able to recruit the remaining participants from WU to
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 68

complete this research study. The researcher then scheduled a visit to the main campus to
interview each of four senior university officials for a span of 30 to 40 minutes per participant.
The remaining two senior university officials were interviewed via telephone.
Departments and Offices
EU has 10 international academic centers located in different parts of the world, enabling
over 40% of their undergraduate students to study abroad every year. The two central offices, the
Office of Global Programs and the Office of International Students and Scholars, work closely
with each of EU’s 18 schools and/or colleges to manage and organize global engagement
activities for students, faculty, and scholars. The Office of Global Programs oversees EU’s 10
international academic centers and three international campuses that provide opportunities for
faculty, students and scholars to enhance their internationalization experience in various parts of
the world. The three international campuses enable undergraduate students to earn their
baccalaureate degree while the international academic centers provide opportunities for
undergraduate students to participate in study abroad and international exchange programs,
participate in research projects or pursue internship opportunities in other parts of the world. The
Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) provides specialized support services to
over 7000 students and scholars from 130 countries, and these services include, immigration
advisement, cultural adjustment resources and organizing cultural activities and events.
WU is one of 10 campuses representing the University of California (UC) system and
several of the faculty and senior administrators who participated in this study mentioned that WU
is a leader in the UC system for creating and implementing global engagement strategies. On the
main campus of WU, there are four offices dedicated to leading and developing global
engagement activities at WU: Office of International Education, Programs Abroad Office, Office
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 69

of International Scholars and Office of International Students and Programs. Descriptions of
each of these four offices will be further examined during the analysis process of this study.
Both EU and WU have large student populations, prioritize sustaining a high quality of
education, and are located in a densely populated city and state on the east coast (EU) and on the
west coast (WU) of the United States. Each university is composed of over 10 colleges and/or
schools offering undergraduate, graduate and certificate programs in over 60 areas of study.
However, as indicated in Chapter Two, private and public universities engage in different budget
and administrative processes and their distinctive features became apparent during the data
analysis process. In general, by having more flexible expenditures as a private university, EU is
able to make decisions on developing and implementing global engagement opportunities more
easily than a public university, such as WU.
The Research Questions
Qiang’s (2003) approaches to internationalization for higher education and Cameron and
Ettington’s (1988) Model of Cultural Congruence for Organizations were two theoretical
frameworks utilized to analyze data collected in this comparative case study between a private
research university, EU, and a public research university, WU. Qiang’s (2003) description of
institutional leaders’ approaches for internationalization of higher education enabled the
researcher to thoroughly analyze information gathered from interviews with senior university
officials, brochures, flyers, reports and other observations to unveil the various approaches
(activity, process, competency, and ethos) to global engagement reflected at each of these two
universities. Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) four-quadrant framework (clan, adhocracy, market
and hierarchy) enabled the researcher to thoroughly analyze interviews with senior university
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 70

officials, brochures, flyers, reports and other observations to determine how various leadership
approaches to global engagement interact with each institution’s culture.
Research Question # 1. Which approaches do senior university officials at a private and
a public research university adopt to become more globally engaged?
Eastside University (EU): Activity and process approaches. Although aspects of all
four of Qiang’s (2003) approaches to internationalization were evident in the data collected and
analyzed for this comparative case study, the results indicate that senior university officials at
Eastside University (EU) more frequently practice Qiang’s (2003) activity and process
approaches and senior university officials at Westside University (WU) more frequently practice
Qiang’s (2003) activity and competency approaches. As explained in chapter two, Qiang’s
(2003) activity approach refers to facilitating international activities in various higher education
institutions, such as implementing international exchange programs and increasing enrollment of
international students. Qiang’s (2003) process approach reflects integrating
international/intercultural aspects of the institution into the implementation of policies,
procedures and activities to create internationalized research, curriculum and service. The
competency approach focuses on developing competencies in staff, faculty, and students to
ensure that they become more internationally knowledgeable and skillful. Qiang’s (2003) ethos
approach refers to institutional leaders stressing on establishing a culture that supports
international/intercultural engagement.
Though the ethos approach was reflected by some senior university officials at EU and at
WU when they mentioned the importance of gaining additional support from faculty, staff and
students to achieve the university’s global engagement goals, the ethos approach was not
frequently represented throughout the interviews with senior university officials at EU and at
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 71

WU. Several senior university officials from both universities pointed out that their respective
university has a large population of faculty, staff, and students, and deciphering whether all
individuals of the organization share a common set of values and beliefs is difficult. Rather, each
senior university official focused on describing what types of global engagement activities
occurred on their campus and how members of the university were involved in creating and
implementing the global engagement activities. Qiang’s (2003) activities, process and
competency approaches were more frequently represented in the participants’ responses.
EU’s website includes several pages devoted to explaining the institution’s mission of
becoming a leading research university with a strong global presence that fosters a strong global
network and provides opportunities for undergraduate students and faculty to study and research
abroad. All of EU’s senior officials interviewed mentioned EU’s strong global presence with the
establishment of 10 international academic centers and two degree-granting portal campuses.
The V. P. of Budget, the V. P. of Administration and the V. P. of International Services also
mentioned that the university aims to increase its international student population every year.
Though senior university officials at EU adopt an activities approach for internationalization by
instituting various international study programs and increasing its international student
population, Qiang (2003) notes that internationalization activities should not be fragmented and
uncoordinated with no understanding of how the relationship between these activities benefit
each other and the institution. Therefore, senior university officials’ process approach for
internationalization lends some level of assurance that each internationalization activity relates
and benefits another internationalization activity.
Office of Global Programs. The activity approach and the process approach for
internationalization are exemplified through the senior university officials’ involvement in and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 72

establishment of the Office of Global Programs and Office for International Students and
Scholars. According to one of EU’s organizational charts, the Office of the Provost houses the
Global Study Abroad Sites and also oversees the Office of Global Programs. Taking pride in
“actively reaching outside [their] comfort zones, confronting difference, and challenging [their]
preconceptions of how the world should be,” EU’s Office of Global Programs offers several
undergraduate study abroad programs in different countries for different subject areas of study.
Since fall of 2012, undergraduate students have been eligible to confer a bachelor’s degree in one
of many locations in the Middle East and Asia.
EU’s Office of Global Programs is located in the same high-rise building that includes
the offices of many senior university officials and several floors of study halls are located
towards the center of the building. The convenient location of EU’s Office of Global Programs
allows students to easily visit the office and select from a variety of professionally printed
brochures containing lucid information regarding each study abroad program. For example, for
“Communications and Media Studies,” the brochure briefly explained how students may gain
experience and knowledge at EU’s academic centers located in Buenos Aires, Florence, London,
Paris, Prague and Shanghai by getting access to each of the respective country’s most influential
politicians and journalists who are often the professors teaching the courses. The brochure also
lists a sample of courses that students may enroll in at each of the academic centers. For
example, students may enroll in a courses named “Global Media Seminar: Post-Communist” in
Prague or “Methods and Practice of Journalism: Constructing Narratives” in Shanghai. During
the researcher’s brief tour of the Office of Global Programs, the V. P. of Budget selected a few
of the colorful brochures to show the researcher pictures of students visiting a variety of places
around the world. EU’s senior university officials stressed the importance of ensuring that the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 73

study abroad programs (activity approach) and the process (process approach) in which students
learn about these study abroad programs need to be easily accessible for students to be
encouraged to study abroad. The colorful brochures serve as an easy way to display engaging
educational activities offered through study abroad programs.
Office for International Students and Scholars. In collaboration with EU’s Office of
Global Programs, EU’s Office for International Students and Scholars provides support services
to international students, scholars, and their dependents, including immigration services, cultural
adjustment events and programs and other resources (process approach). Though many large
academic institutions in the 21
st
century have similar offices that provide support services for
international students and scholars, the researcher learned from EU’s V.P. of International
Services that OISS has assumed an additional administrative role over the past year of providing
support and mobility services for outbound faculty, students and scholars who are relocating to
other countries to research, teach or study at one of EU’s academic centers or portal campuses.
These services include assisting faculty, students and scholars with completing immigration
processes, relocating dependents, finding housing options, and related activities. The additional
responsibilities given to OISS also suggest that the university requires additional staff and
resources to provide new support services to faculty, students and staff. The establishment of an
office charged with facilitating and organizing inbound and outbound global student programs
and activities exemplifies senior university officials’ adoption of an activity approach and
process approach for internationalization.
Though the Office of Global Programs and the Office of International Students and
Scholars are dedicated to providing resources and support services to an increased number of
international students studying at the main campus or studying at one of EU’s international
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 74

academic centers, there are other groups of individuals charged with developing and
implementing internationalization activities. The university’s president, according to a few senior
university officials, organized nine task forces to be charged with “operationalizing the
[university].” The V. P. of Student Affairs and the V. P. of Budget were amongst the few senior
university officials responsible for leading each of these task forces by scheduling numerous
meetings to discuss policies, procedures and resources that were necessary for adapting to a
larger population of students studying at the main campus and around the world. According to
the V. P. of Administration, these meetings enabled senior university officials to “hear each other
and to plan together how to do operational change.” This comment reflects an optimistic
perspective of collaboration and cohesion occurring amongst senior university officials at EU,
but this comment also illustrates that the university’s president and other senior university
officials established a set of processes to facilitate EU’s global engagement activities (activity
approach and process approach).
Through the work of a task force, the Office of International Students and Scholars was
able to hire additional staff to reduce their student to advisor ratio from one advisor to every
1300 students to one advisor to every 800 students. The added staff and responsibilities appear to
have been a favorable operational change at EU because the V. P. of International Services
complimented the university’s president for “putting very serious resources behind discussion”
and the V. P. of Administration expressed gratitude for the university president’s guidance in
“getting everyone at this university to think of ourselves as networked all together as a connect
university in a world that is getting smaller and everything is global.” By forming nine task
forces charged with configuring the operations of EU, EU’s president and other senior university
officials pursued a process approach for internationalization. Resources were and continue to be
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 75

consciously allocated to various offices and departments to improve processes that affect the
coordination and outcomes of EU’s global engagement activities.
In Qiang’s (2003) explanation of institutional leaders’ approaches for
internationalization, the author points out that institutional leaders’ activity approach for
internationalization may often be fragmented and uncoordinated and that a process approach for
internationalization may often weigh heavily on establishing processes with limited concern for
the sustainability of the internationalization dimension. EU’s senior university officials illustrate
Qiang’s (2003) activity approach by instituting international programs and facilities in various
countries that benefit EU’s faculty, students and staff. Though the V.P. of Portal Campuses and
the V.P. of Global Expansion admitted to the researcher that some faculty, students and staff
believe EU has been overly ambitious in implementing its global engagement strategies, they
also acknowledge that the school president and other senior university officials allocate
resources, instituting processes and procedures to ensure that these internationalization efforts
are manageable and sustainable for faculty, students and staff. EU’s senior university officials
appear to successfully combine the activity and process approaches to address the
internationalization dimension of the university’s mission.
Westside University: Activity and competency approaches. Similarly, Westside
University (WU) adopts Qiang’s (2003) activity approach for internationalization by generating
internationalization activities and the competency approach for internationalization by
emphasizing the need to develop competent global leaders for the 21
st
century. The competency
approach emphasizes generating and transferring knowledge that enable faculty, students and
staff on a higher education institution to become more internationally knowledgeable and
skillful. All of the senior university officials at WU stressed that WU is a public research
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 76

university and is responsible for creating accessible opportunities for students to engage globally
and develop as competent leaders in the global marketplace. The consistency of these responses
amongst all senior university officials at WU is one important finding that demonstrates a
cohesive goal for developing competent leaders.
The International Center. The International Center applies the activity approach and
competency approach to leading WU’s internationalization efforts by overseeing the Office of
International Students and Programs, the Office of International Education, the Office of
International Scholars, and the Programs Abroad Office. According to the V. P. of International
Services, the International Center is the nucleus of all internationalization activities occurring at
WU. For example, the International Center often collaborates with the Office of International
Affairs to provide support for faculty and senior administrators who are interested in engaging
globally. Faculty typically contact the Office of International Affairs if they are interested in
partnering with a department or division of a university located in another country, and the
Office of International Affairs, with the support of the International Center, provides resources
and services to establish these international partnerships. The partnership between the
International Center and the Office of International Affairs allows undergraduate students to
explore global opportunities that were historically believed to be impossible. For example, the
V.P. of International Services explained that WU’s engineering school previously did not offer
international research or study abroad programs to their students. Now, with the support of the
International Center and the Office of International Affairs, WU has been able to apply the
activities approach by forming partnerships with foreign universities and encouraging
engineering students to study or research abroad. The establishment of these international
opportunities draws attention to senior university officials’ competency approach for
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 77

internationalization by providing students with opportunities to understand and analyze their
research or academic studies through a different lens.
According to the V. P. of Faculty Research and the V. P. of International Services, each
school at WU collaborates with the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and the
International Center to provide support services and opportunities for faculty, students and staff
to become more internationally knowledgeable and skillful. The International Center provides
services and programs for all incoming international students and scholars and the Office of the
Vice-Chancellor for Research collaborates with each school within WU to support faculty and
senior administrators who aim to engage globally for research. The activities generated by each
of WU’s schools with the International Center demonstrate senior university officials’ activity
approach for internationalization and their aim to develop globally competent individuals.
Most of the senior university officials expressed the belief that a strong partnership
between faculty and senior administrators is critical for ensuring that every student is able to
develop as globally competent leaders. Four out of the six senior university officials served a
dual role as a professor and a senior administrator for strategizing and implementing
internationalization activities. By serving a dual role as a professor and a senior administrator,
these senior university officials explained that they are constantly reminded of the importance of
developing an intercultural experience in their classrooms. Students need to learn to effectively
communicate with individuals from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds so that they
may become global leaders in the workforce. Faculty regularly explore opportunities to create
partnerships and alliances with international academic institutions, particularly in the School of
Engineering. For example, since India’s higher education institutions are composed of numerous
students with strong quantitative skills, the School of Engineering often establishes partnerships
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 78

that allow WU’s undergraduate students to participate in research projects with Indian students
and allow Indian students to study at WU’s campus for one or two semesters. The Center for
Global Justice also serves as a research entity allowing groups of faculty from different subject
areas, such as business and engineering, to meet and conduct research studies together to solve
“real world problems.” By allowing faculty and students to form alliances aimed at solving
problems, faculty and students become more equipped in overcoming obstacles and resolving
problems in the future.
These responses reflect Qiang’s (2003) competency approach for internationalization
because there is emphasis on ensuring that students’ experience at WU is closely connected with
the expected professional experience in the workforce. The V. P. of Engineering added that
faculty regularly interact with students and have a better understanding of their gaps of
knowledge in regards to global competency. By involving faculty in study abroad programs and
other internationalization activities, these faculty members are able to be more effective senior
administrators creating and implementing the university’s global engagement goals. These
explanations suggest that faculty who have an administrative and teaching role are better
equipped to identify and address areas in which students need more development as a global
leader.
The Office of International Students and Programs, an office within the International
Center, provides a wide range of services to 2591 international students and their dependents at
WU, and this number increased from 2053 during the 2005-2006 academic term. WU’s
international student population represents 90 different countries, and 70% of the international
student population is comprised of students from Asia/Pacific Region. The rise in the number of
international students attending WU and the vast countries represented in the international
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 79

student population indicates institutional expansion and growth of internationalization activities.
In addition to providing immigration services and orientation programs to international students
attending WU, the Office of International Students and Programs also organizes cross-cultural
programs including English-in-Action Tutor Program and Peer Leader Program. These programs
do not only allow international students to obtain academic support from domestic students, but
these programs also allow domestic students to practice speaking a foreign language or learn
more about another culture. The V. P. of International Services explained that these programs
also give domestic students who are unable to study abroad an opportunity to engage with a
student who has a different cultural background. By acknowledging that not all students have the
opportunity to study abroad and by creating alternative ways for domestic and international
students to learn from each other’s differences, WU’s senior university officials demonstrate a
commitment to applying activity and competency approaches for internationalization.
The Programs Abroad Office, another office within the International Center, provides
services to enable students to research, study, work, or volunteer in another country. The V. P. of
International Services, the V. P. of Faculty Research and the V. P. of Biological Research
proudly mentioned that WU’s annual report captures the positive outcomes of WU’s global
seminars, a five-weeks summer study abroad program that is led by a professor from WU and
allows students to enroll in two courses to earn about eight academic quarter units towards the
number of units required for graduation. The V. P. of Faculty Research and the V.P. of
International Services labeled a few faculty from various academic departments as “real
champions” for the global seminars. These comments portray senior administrators’ gratitude
towards a few faculty who are fully committed to leading global engagement programs for
students.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 80

In the International Center, there are brochures and flyers providing general information
about study abroad programs for different subject areas. For example, on the flyer titled,
“Mathematics in Rome,” the V.P. of International Services explained that this program includes
a computer engineering professor guiding a group of undergraduate students to visit the
Coliseum in Rome, Italy, and urging students to calculate and explain how the building was
constructed. This particular global seminar attracted about 130 undergraduate students in 2008
and grew to 250 undergraduate students participating two years later. Other study abroad
programs also saw an increased number of student participation, an indication that these
programs are becoming more desirable. The V.P. of International Services explained that these
types of study abroad programs are intriguing to students because they remind students of
theories they learned in the classroom and how they function in the real world. WU’s Programs
Abroad Office facilitates a workshop to guide students on selecting a quality housing option in a
foreign country and on resolving problems that may arise during their stay in a foreign country
before every study abroad program. Senior administrators apply an activity approach and
competency approach by ensuring these study abroad programs emphasize the importance of
teaching students the nuances of another culture and to develop necessary skills to live and work
independently.
Measuring performance outcomes. The competency approach for internationalization
was strongly exhibited when the V. P. of International Services enthusiastically explained how
WU’s senior university officials value the importance of measuring the positive and/or negative
influence of internationalization on students’ academic achievement. The V. P. of International
Services actively recruits graduate students to research and compile annual reports that measure
performance outcomes of the International Center. Deliberately measuring the annual
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 81

performance of the International Center ensures that the UC system recognizes WU’s
commitment to internationalization and provides funding that enable WU to achieve its global
engagement goals. Measuring performance outcomes does not only support senior university
officials’ ability to obtain more federal and state funding, but it also allows senior university
officials to evaluate how internationalization activities are negatively or positively affecting
students’ global leadership development.
For example, the V. P. of International Services requested a team of graduate students at
WU to measure whether study abroad programs positively or negatively affect undergraduate
students’ academic performance and the results were captured in two reports. One report displays
graduation rates for students who participated in study abroad programs versus students who did
not participate in study abroad programs. The second report also displays the graduation rates of
students who participated in study abroad programs versus students who did not participate in
study abroad programs, but the student groups are distinguished by their major field of study.
Both reports illustrate that students who participated in study abroad programs had a higher
graduation rates than students who did not participate in study programs in all major fields of
study. The existence and thoroughness of these reports conveys that WU’s senior university
officials care and value how internationalization activities affect students’ ability to obtain a
baccalaureate degree. Though WU’s senior university officials may be required to produce these
statistics to the UC system governing board, these reports, nonetheless, demonstrate the senior
university officials’ competency approach by ensuring that internationalization activities are
positively affecting students’ leadership development.
WU’s senior university officials demonstrate the adoption of activity and competency
approaches for internationalization by offering a variety of programs dedicated to developing
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 82

opportunities for students, faculty and researchers to gain more international knowledge and
exposure. A few senior university officials emphasized the importance of providing tools and
resources necessary for assisting students overcome obstacles during their stay in a foreign
country and believe these students become stronger leaders when they develop the skills and
knowledge to adapt to a new environment. Qiang (2003) acknowledged there is a growing
interest in developing globally competent individuals to adapt to a global labor market, but
cautioned that there is a need to identify which competencies are necessary for individuals to
become successful in a global labor market. WU’s senior university officials are keen on
providing students with on-campus opportunities and opportunities to study or research abroad to
provide students with a chance to understand another culture. The V.P. of International Services
emphasized that, because theirs is a large public research university, senior administrators and
faculty must remember to focus on providing opportunities that are accessible to all students who
wish to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to become competent global leaders in the
21
st
century. Many of these students, according to the V.P. of Biological Sciences, never had the
opportunity to travel to a foreign country and would never have an opportunity to think
differently or view a problem from a different cultural prospective if he or she were not given an
opportunity to study or research abroad. This comment reflects the sentiment of other senior
university officials from WU and illustrates the emphasis on providing international exposure as
a mechanism for developing competent global leaders.
Qiang’s (2003) four approaches for internationalization in higher education were
reflected throughout the data analysis, but EU’s senior university officials more often illustrated
the adoption of the activity and process approach while WU’s senior university officials more
often illustrated the adoption of the activity and competency approach. Both EU and WU
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 83

illustrated the activity approach for internationalization by generating study programs with a
focus on internationalization. Though the process approach was represented at both academic
institutions as a result of dedicated offices and leaders that focused on implementing
internationalization activities, the process approach was more heavily emphasized at EU due to
the existence of its branch campuses (portal campuses). WU’s senior university officials spent
more time emphasizing to the researcher the importance of creating accessible opportunities for
all students to develop as strong leaders in the global marketplace. The competency approach
became even more apparent when the researcher learned about WU’s annual report
demonstrating the positive effects of student abroad programs for undergraduate students.
Research Question # 2. How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement
interact with each institution’s culture?
Common findings. Based on a qualitative analysis of interviews and documents
collected from Eastside University and Westside University, several common themes emerged to
describe the institutional culture shaped by each university’s approaches to global engagement.
Revisiting the definition of organizational culture serves to clarify some of the data analysis in
this chapter. Ouchi (1980) and Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) defined organizational culture as the
way in which an organization is governed or controlled. Tierney (1988) explained that
organizational culture is defined by an interconnected web in which the individuals of an
organization have their own interpretations of the web (i.e. the stories that are shared, the norms,
the institutional ideology, etc.). Cameron and Ettington (1988) attest that organizational culture
is defined by a researcher’s observations of organizational functions, events and activities. The
authors derive a two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures framework to understand
cultural congruence. The typology includes (1) a vertical axis characterizing organizational
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 84

culture by flexibility, individuality and spontaneity on the upper end of the vertical axis and
stability, control and predictability on the lower end of the vertical axis and (2) a horizontal axis
characterizing organizational culture by an internal orientation that has a short-term orientation
and smoothing activities on the left-hand side of the horizontal axis, and external orientation that
has a long-term orientation and achievement-oriented activities on the right-hand side of the
horizontal axis. The vertical and horizontal axes form four quadrants, and each quadrant provides
a description of an organizational frame (clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy).
EU predominantly reflects the upper right-hand side of the vertical and horizontal axes
(flexibility, individuality, spontaneity, entrepreneurship, innovation and development, and long-
term orientation) while WU predominantly reflects the lower right-hand side of the vertical and
horizontal axes (stability, control, predictability, competitiveness, and long-term orientation) of
Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) descriptions for organizational culture.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 85

Internal emphasis External positioning
Short-term orientation Long-term orientation
Smoothing activities Achievement-oriented activities

Figure 1. Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) Model of Cultural Congruence for Organizations
Individuality. On the upper-end of the vertical axis for Cameron and Ettington’s (1988)
typology of organization cultures, the authors label “flexibility, individuality and spontaneity” to
describe organizations’ cultures that possess characteristics of innovation and uniqueness. The
researcher discovered that both EU and WU value their “individuality” by differentiating each of
their institutions from other higher education institutions in regards to creating and implementing
global engagement strategies. Senior university officials at EU, such as the V.P. of Budget and
the V. P. of Administration, proudly mentioned that EU has become the benchmark for other
Flexibility
Individuality
Spontaneity
FORM: Clan
LEADER STYLE: Mentor, facilitator
BONDING: Loyalty, tradition
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Human resources,
cohesion

FORM: Adhocracy
LEADER STYLE: Entrepreneur,
innovator
BONDING: Innovation, development
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Growth,
new resources
FORM: Market
LEADER STYLE: Producer, hard-driver
BONDING: Goal accomplishment
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Competitive
actions, achievements

FORM: Hierarchy
LEADER STYLE: Coordinator, organizer
BONDING: Rules, policies
STRATEGIC EMPHASIS: Permanence,
stability

Stability
Control
Predictability
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 86

academic institutions aiming to become more globally engaged. At WU, the V. P. of
International Services, the V. P. of Engineering, the V. P. of Pharmaceutical Sciences and the V.
P. of Biological Sciences emphasized that WU is one of the leading academic institutions who
continues to create and implement global engagement strategies, particularly within the UC
system. EU and WU’s robust and creative approaches to global engagement appear to have given
their institutions a competitive advantage in the global marketplace of higher education.
Eastside University. Eastside University (EU) values its individuality by claiming to be
one of the pioneers of globalization. EU’s website states that it is the only university providing a
global network for students to learn from faculty, students and researchers from many different
countries. Since the fall of 2012, undergraduate students have been able to earn a bachelor’s
degree in three different countries. There are also 10 international academic centers located in
different parts of the world and students are encouraged to study at one of these locations for at
least one semester during their undergraduate years. The V. P. of Student Affairs at EU said, “no
one else is doing what we’re doing” and the V. P. of Administration referred to EU’s global
engagement strategies in the early 1990s as “fairly novel back then because there wasn’t much of
that going on.” These comments imply that, from the early 1990s, EU demonstrated innovation
and individuality by formulating and executing globalization strategies while other higher
education were merely discussing the implications of globalization.
Even EU’s main campus is atypical, with many high-rise buildings scattered throughout a
large urban neighborhood. Most of the senior university officials’ offices are located in one high-
rise building where a security guard sits by the entrance to check in every visitor. One may easily
mistake these high-rise buildings as belonging to the financial district of the city had there not
been names engraved on the side of the building with the university’s flags hanging outside the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 87

windows of the colleges and/or schools. In addition to the senior university officials’ offices, the
Office of Global Programs is located in a suite on the 7
th
floor and several lower-level floors
consist of study lounges where students may study and/or purchase snacks from vending
machines. Today, when a student walks into EU’s Office of Global Programs, he or she may
mistake this office as a travel agency rather than an office on a university campus. There are four
clocks hanging on a wall behind the reception desk and each clock reflects the current time in
other countries. Brochures advertising various study abroad destinations are neatly stacked on a
shelf and each brochure contains colorful pictures of famous attractions in the particular country
and students engaging in conversations. By having an aesthetically modern office dedicated to
glamorizing the study abroad experience and enticing students to apply for study abroad
programs, EU demonstrates a commitment to providing students with opportunities to participate
in unique experiences. EU, a strong global presence, may very likely be envied by other
universities who may not have the resources to establish and maintain these facilities and
programs worldwide.
Westside University. Similarly, WU also values its individuality within the higher
education arena. As one of 10 campuses managed under the umbrella of the University of
California (UC) system, WU differentiates its institution by consistently achieving accolades
recognizing the institution as a leader in the areas of research, teaching and innovation. Some of
WU’s senior university officials, such as the V.P. of International Services and the V. P. of
Faculty Research, are members of a committee called the Senior International Leadership
Committee (SILC), a committee comprised of senior university officials from each of the UC
campuses that meet twice a year to discuss each university’s global engagement strategies. These
meetings allow each of the campuses within the UC system to communicate and strategize on
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 88

how to work more effectively, and the V. P. of International Services said that there are other
schools within the UC system who are relying on WU as a role model for creating and sustaining
global engagement strategies. For example, one of the universities within the UC system has
been communicating with the V. P. of Faculty Research about setting up an International Affairs
Office similar to WU’s International Affairs Office to support faculty’s global engagement
activities. By serving in the SILC, these senior university officials catalyze WU to be noticed and
stand out amongst the other UC campuses.
The V. P. of Engineering, who is also a professor, is a member of the Center for
Undergraduate Research and Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CURIE), a committee that
strategizes on how to encourage more faculty to be involved with undergraduate studies. In most
research universities, faculty typically recruit graduate students to join their research teams
because graduate students typically have more knowledge and experience than undergraduate
students, but WU is attempting to shift its culture by encouraging faculty to recruit
undergraduate students to join their research teams on domestic and international projects. WU’s
accolades and its senior university officials’ heavy involvement with various steering committees
are some unique features that stand out.
External positioning, long-term orientation and achievement-oriented activities. On
the right-hand side of the horizontal axis of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) typology of
organizational culture, the authors label “external positioning, long-term orientation and
achievement-oriented activities” to describe organizations that are characterized by long-term
strategic planning and facilitating activities aimed to achieve positive outcomes. Many of the
senior university officials interviewed in this research study explained that it is difficult to
describe any one particular culture of any large academic institution because there are numerous
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 89

factors to consider. Indeed, the individuals at EU and WU have varying opinions about the
institutions’ global engagement strategies, and how these shaped the institution’s culture.
According to the V. P. of Budget, V. P. of Administration and V. P. of Student Affairs, many
administrators and faculty appreciate and are excited by EU’s global expansion. However, senior
university officials who also serve a faculty role and interact more frequently with other faculty
said that there are also administrators, faculty and students who believe that the senior
management team is overly ambitious and some resources are inappropriately allocated. At WU,
there are administrators and faculty who value WU’s global engagement strategies, but the lack
of sufficient funding and resources hinder faculty and administrators’ full participation in
achieving the university’s global engagement goals. The following paragraphs present an
evaluation of the wide variety of perspectives on each university’s global engagement goals to
discern what Cameron and Ettington (1988) explain as identifying patterns occurring in
organizations.
Eastside University. For over a decade, EU has enjoyed a significant amount of what
Cameron and Ettington (1988) would categorize as external positioning of the university by
offering study abroad programs in 25 different countries, establishing 10 academic centers on
major continents, and developing its third portal campus in Shanghai in 2012. Though many
faculty and staff at EU appreciate and recognize some of the positive change occurring at EU in
relation to creating and implementing global engagement strategies, it is difficult for senior
university officials at EU to discern whether most of the faculty, staff and students are supportive
of EU’s ambitious global initiatives.
From an optimistic perspective, some senior university officials express a sense of pride
and accomplishment when speaking about EU’s global expansion. The V. P. of Administration
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 90

proudly explained that the freshmen class of the Abu Dhabi campus are recruited from the top
2% of graduating seniors from around the world and described this statistic as “quite
remarkable” and comparable to the composition of the freshman class at Harvard University. The
V. P. of Portal Campuses proudly stated that other universities turn to EU for advice on how to
launch branch campuses or recruit qualified faculty to teach and research abroad. Several senior
university officials expressed excitement about EU’s increased opportunities for students to
study abroad and for faculty to broaden their research outside of the United States. The V. P. of
Global Expansion said: “things have changed now that faculty see that it works and we’ve
leveraged research in a quite dramatic fashion.” This particular senior university official
explained that, about a decade ago, some faculty were resistant to EU’s ambitious global
engagement strategies, but many quickly recognized some of the advantages of having increased
external positioning and long-term goals of becoming a global network university. In
congruence to this statement, the V. P. of Portal Campuses who is also a professor at EU, states
that many faculty are realizing that they can perform research studies in other countries when the
opportunities are not available in the United States. For example, it may be easier for faculty to
find more affordable research facilities and laboratories in China than in New York City.
From a less optimistic perspective, some senior university officials mentioned concerns
that have been raised by faculty, administrators and students regarding EU’s global expansion.
For example, the V. P. of Portal Campuses who is charged with recruiting faculty to teach and
research in two other countries, explained that maintaining the quality of education is a high
priority for many senior university officials. The senior university official adds that a professor
who is not qualified to teach at the main campus located in the United States also will not be
qualified to teach at any of the international academic centers or portal campuses. This quality
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 91

assurance of recruiting qualified faculty who are willing to teach and research all around the
world is a constant challenge for senior university officials at EU. These comments illustrate
senior university officials’ concern for the sustainability of EU’s global engagement strategies
(long-term orientation) and for achieving a high quality education for students who learn in the
United States or in another country. Though many senior university officials recognize that the
external positioning of the university is a favorable change for the university, there are some
faculty and administrators, according to several senior university officials, who believe the
university’s president is overly aggressive. The V. P. of Student Affairs mentioned that there are
students who are concerned that their tuition is funding EU’s globalization expansion rather than
improving the quality of education, such as offering competitive salary for reputable faculty or
establishing better facilities on the main campus in New York City. It appears that those who do
not directly benefit from EU’s global expansion may not necessary value the additional
international opportunities.
It is important to note that all of EU’s senior university officials who were interviewed in
this research study were knowledgeable about the university’s long-term global engagement
goals. At least half of the senior university officials who were interviewed mentioned that EU
has specifically articulated goals, such as having more than 50% of their undergraduate students
participating in at least one semester abroad by the time they graduate. These senior university
officials were also aware of some of EU’s future global expansion plans and existing steering
committees charged with strategizing growth opportunities for EU. According to the V. P. of
Budget, the goal of increasing the percentage of undergraduate students traveling abroad will
eventually rise to 60% and EU’s senior university officials are confident that it is a measureable
goal and each college within EU will be incentivized to achieve this goal. These comments imply
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 92

that senior university officials frequently communicate about the institution’s long-term goals
while developing and implementing activities and academic programs. It is evident that these
officials are not only communicating with each other about long-term institutional goals, but they
are also deciphering ways to measure each college and each department’s success or failure.
Hudzik (2011) attests that successful internationalization requires measurable goals that are
known and accepted and departments across the institution must be accountable for goal
achievement. Assuming that EU’s senior university officials are held accountable for achieving
EU’s global engagement goals, EU’s senior university officials portray that they possess a strong
leadership team to develop and implement effective global engagement strategies.
EU’s senior university officials have a strong understanding and a significant role in
establishing the university’s long-term goals. Over half of the participants in this research study
applauded the university president’s recommendation of forming task forces. Senior university
officials explained that nine task forces were formed to configure new ways of improving
operations at EU and ensuring that the university continues to provide exceptional support
services to faculty, students and staff. The V. P. of Student Affairs provided a document to the
researcher that explained existing and future resources dedicated to improving student life
throughout EU in a global context. The document was created by a steering committee charged
with developing an action plan focused on improving student life in the areas of student health,
career development, global leadership, audit and assessment, programming, transitions, strategic
communications and structure (policies and procedures). There are three guiding principles in
this proposal. First, EU aims to establish a “standard of care” throughout all its campuses “to
ensure that its students receive a quality of experience in and out of the classroom.” The second
guiding principle serves to “ensure that there are a set of defining [EU] student life features that
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 93

are embedded throughout the [university].” The third guiding principle focuses on developing
strategic communication with all newly admitted undergraduate students. For example, EU will
send each newly admitted undergraduate student a four-page packet that will outline all of the
communication the student will receive from the moment he or she is accepted to a program to
the moment he or she begins classes. These guiding principles illustrate EU’s commitment to
strategically provide support services for undergraduate students from the moment they are
accepted to a program to the moment they arrive on campus. In addition to the proposal, the
other task forces focus on improving other functions of the university to ensure that faculty,
students and staff have a positive and enriching experience at EU. Senior university officials
actively communicate with one another to ensure that the domestic and international growth of
the university is sustainable for the long-term.
Westside University. WU also demonstrates characteristics of an organizational culture
that is focused on external-positioning, long-term orientation and achievement-oriented
activities. Senior university officials at WU are also setting institutional goals of encouraging
more undergraduate students to study abroad, but there are some concerns about not receiving
sufficient funding, resources, and dedication from faculty and senior administrators to achieve its
global engagement goals. Similar to EU, WU’s chancellor set a goal for all academic
departments to increase the percentage of undergraduate students studying abroad from 22% of
the student population to 50% of the student population. Many senior university officials
explained that, because they are part of large public research university that serves its
surrounding community, they feel obligated to fulfill WU’s international ambitions and ensure
that their students get a world-class education. WU’s V. P. of International Services pointed out
that public universities attract first-generation college students and/or students from low-income
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 94

families who have never had the opportunity to travel outside of their surrounding community,
and the university is responsible for providing an international experience that will challenge
students to think differently. There is a shared belief amongst many senior university officials
that WU should offer international opportunities for all students to explore and view situations
from a global perspective.
Though many faculty and staff are excited to actively participate in motivating more
undergraduate students to travel abroad, there is still a lack of participation by the majority of
faculty and staff. Many senior university officials believe that WU needs additional resources
and more faculty and senior administrators need to be involved to ensure that WU achieves its
global engagement goals. Faculty involvement is an important component of developing and
implementing internationalization activities because faculty often teach a study abroad course or
lead groups of students to foreign countries to complete research projects. The V. P. of
Biological Sciences mentioned that most students learn about study abroad programs through
professors who encourage them to participate in study abroad programs. Faculty play a pivotal
role in ensuring that students are informed about international opportunities and their eligibility
of earning course credits by studying abroad. The V. P. of International Services said, “We had a
workshop on internationalizing undergraduate education, and we had about 50 faculty that came
and that was phenomenal for a big public research university. We’re continuing to bring in more
faculty.” This comment reflects that faculty are engaged with internationalizing undergraduate
education and that senior university officials seek more faculty involvement in the future.
The V. P. of Pharmaceutical Sciences explained that faculty who are more heavily
involved with research, rather than teaching, often have a stronger propensity to assist with
developing and leading international programs because these faculty believe that their
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 95

involvement will keep them connected with students and the institution. The V. P. of Faculty
Research explained that faculty are involved with creating and implementing WU’s global
engagement strategies, but “not on strategic planning…there are a lot of one-off meetings.”
Faculty seem to be involved with initiating and leading activities and programs, but not
significantly involved with strategically planning the university’s long-term global engagement
strategy. Senior institutional leadership rarely incentivize faculty to be involved with strategic
planning and, therefore, some senior university officials simply tell faculty to get involved and
hope that these faculty will rise to the challenge. These are unstructured strategies for sustaining
faculty involvement, according to a senior university official. However, the V. P. of Engineering,
who is also a professor at WU, said that some faculty are more involved with strategic planning
at WU than at other universities. This senior university official further explained that WU was
founded with five professors who were Nobel Prize winners and these professors attracted other
renowned faculty to teach and research at WU. Therefore, recruiting distinguished faculty has
historically been one of the core values of WU.
According to a few of the senior university officials, the culture of WU has been to
include faculty in the strategic planning and decision-making process to accomplish institutional
goals. The V. P. of Engineering explained that receiving funding is often an obstacle for a large
public research university, such as WU, and while senior administrators may value
accomplishing the university’s global engagement goals, faculty often need to seek other sources
of revenue to implement any global initiatives at WU, and this often discourages some faculty
from participating or accepting a leadership role at the university. There have been significant
state budget cuts, and public research universities rely heavily on those funds to fuel their global
engagement activities. While WU has long-term goals of becoming more globally engaged, the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 96

lack of funding and lack of sufficient resources seem to cause some disparity between what
senior administrators desire versus what faculty desire. Many of the faculty and senior
administrators are committed to helping WU become more globally engaged because they want
students to have an opportunity to learn about another culture and enhance their ability to be a
competent global leader in the 21
st
century. However, several senior university officials stressed
that the senior leadership team must continue to find creative ways to raise funds to support the
university’s global engagement activities or future global engagement activities may diminish.
These viewpoints suggest that senior university officials are thinking and planning ahead to
achieve their long-term goals.
Since the lack of sufficient funds or resources continue to pose an obstacle for public
universities, WU’s senior university officials must pay close attention to their competitiveness in
comparison to other schools to ensure that they remain relevant and attractive to faculty and
students despite facing financial obstacles. Some of the senior university officials who also teach
and research, said that a reputable and competitive research university will attract a high quality
of faculty, researchers and students, particularly international students because many of these
students decide to attend a foreign institution based on location and institutional reputation.
According to the V. P. of International Services, it is especially important for WU to attract
international students because they diversify the student population, but also because WU
receives additional revenue from international students who pay more tuition and fees than
California resident students. Under the UC residence regulations, the term, “California resident
for purposes of tuition and fees,” in general, refers to students who are U.S. Citizens or
Permanent Residents who have lived in California for a significant amount of time determined
after submitting a Statement of Legal Residence. Students who do not meet the residency
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 97

requirements set forth by the UC system, such as international students, pay an additional 200%
of tuition and fees. According to tuition and fees posted on WU’s website for spring’s academic
quarter in 2012, California resident students pay $4,710.72 while non-resident students pay
$12.336.72. Last year, WU gained an additional $30 million from revenue gained from tuition
and fees paid by international students. Though admitting non-residents students may
significantly increase revenue for WU and the UC system, increasing the enrollment of non-
resident students will drastically decrease the admittance of in-state residents and this causes
some concern amongst politicians and residents of California (Ghaffary, 2012). WU has set
ambitious long-term goals of expanding global academic programs, but there are different
perspectives on how faculty, administrators, students and the surrounding community may view
these long-term goals. These varying viewpoints may cause tension and stress throughout the
university.
Additional Findings. Previous sections discussed how EU and WU both reflect the
upper vertical axis and the right hand side of the horizontal axis of Cameron and Ettington’s
(1988) model of cultural congruence for organizations. The upper vertical axis describes
organizations that represent characteristics of flexibility, individuality and spontaneity, and the
right-hand side of the horizontal axis represents external positioning, long-term orientation and
achievement-oriented activities. Both research universities reflect the right-hand side of Cameron
and Ettington’s (1988) framework and demonstrate similar global engagement activities. Senior
university officials from both universities claim to be leading and developing unique global
engagement strategies and approaching global engagement with a long-term focus. However, the
following paragraphs explain some distinctions between the two universities, particularly in
leadership styles and administrative operations.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 98

The only dimensions that have not been discussed within the right-hand side of Cameron
and Ettington’s (1988) framework are the differences in the form (administrative operations) and
the leadership style of both EU and WU. Evaluating the leadership style represented at EU and
WU is particularly interesting and important because this comparative case study focused on
gaining insights from senior leaders of each university. Though both universities resemble
leadership qualities from the description of “adhocracy” and “market” form of an organizational
culture, based on the data collected and analyzed, the researcher determined that WU’s senior
university officials reflect more of the leadership style presented in the “market” quadrant of
Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework where the leadership style is described as
“producer” and “hard-driver.” There was a significant amount of discussion revolving around
ambitiously motivating faculty and administrators to achieve WU’s global engagement goals.
EU, on the other hand, reflects more of the leadership style presented in the “adhocracy”
quadrant of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework where the leadership style is described
as an “entrepreneur” and “innovator.” EU’s unique international academic centers and portal
campuses located in different parts of the world illustrate its institutional leaders’ entrepreneurial
and innovative spirit.
Eastside University: Leading as an entrepreneur and innovator. The right-hand side of
Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework includes an upper quadrant and a lower quadrant
describing various types of organizational culture. The upper right-hand quadrant of Cameron
and Ettington’s (1988) framework describes an “adhocracy” organizational culture where
individuals bond through “innovation” and “development” and where individuals of the
organization value a strategic emphasis on “growth” or gaining “new resources.” The lower
right-hand quadrant describes a “market” organizational culture where individuals in the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 99

organization bond through “goal accomplishment” and they value a strategic emphasis on being
“competitive.” EU demonstrates characteristics of the “adhocracy” and “market” (right-hand)
quadrant because members of the institution bond through innovation and emphasizes growth
and development. EU’s senior university officials’ leadership style reflects the leadership style
described in the “adhocracy” quadrant as “entrepreneur” and “innovator.”
With 18 colleges on the main campus, three portal campuses located in three different
countries, 10 international academic centers located in various parts of the world, a prestigious
and nationally renowned medical center and a partnership with a university focused on teaching
and advancement of engineering, it is reasonable to say that EU’s leadership style may reflect
innovation, development and entrepreneurship. The V. P. of Administration explained that senior
university officials often employ innovative solutions to resolve any concerns or problems that
arise. For example, according to the V. P. of Administration, some of EU’s international sites for
study, such as, Accra, Ghana, do not have access to high-speed internet because high-speed
internet is not a readily accessible commodity in less developed countries. A steering committee
at EU is now collaborating with a consortium of universities to promote and develop high speed
internet for colleges and universities in those countries. Faculty, staff and administrators at EU
frequently apply innovative and collaborative approaches to resolving any problems that hinder
the success of a particular program, according to one senior university official. The culture of the
university is to frequently communicate with one another. According to the V. P. of Student
Affairs, there are a lot of meetings occurring on campus, via Skype, and via telephone to ensure
that “everyone knows what is going on.”
The V. P. of Budget, the V. P. of Administration, the V. P. of Portal Campuses and the V.
P. of Global Expansion attributed EU’s uniqueness and success of having a greater global
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 100

presence to the university’s president. According to the V. P. of International Services, the
university’s president frequently welcomes discussions regarding new ideas and encourages
faculty and staff to spontaneously test new ideas. Several senior university officials at EU
expressed that deans, senior administrators and faculty are encouraged to formulate new ideas
and openly discuss their ideas in the next meeting with the school president or steering
committee. They described that the university’s president as ambitious, forthcoming with
information and entrepreneurial. The university’s president entrepreneurial spirit permeates
throughout the university. The V. P. of Administration and the V. P. of Student Affairs described
the culture at EU in relation to globalization as “anything goes” or “you throw any idea out and
see what sticks” and the following comments illustrate a common belief that the university
possesses leadership qualities of entrepreneurship and innovation.
V. P. of Student Affairs: We have a very visionary president who is incredibly
charismatic, dynamic, and successful. He has the board of trustee in the palm of his hand.
He’s got big aspirations, big plans.
V. P. of International Services: Our university has an entrepreneurial spirit. The deans
have now said, ‘I got it and if I have an idea, I’ll bring it to my colleagues at the
university to see how it can best integrate with the mission of our university.
V. P. of Administration: I would describe our university as being entrepreneurial. We
have a vision and we make it happen. Most universities will take a lot longer to plan and
implement and do all the process before they really get something up and going. We are
making it all happen at the same time.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 101

V. P. Portal Campuses: [Eastside University] is very different from any other university
I’ve ever seen. You come up with a good idea and you run with it. We’ve always been
entrepreneurial, or at least it has always been like this with [our current president].
The numerous comments applauding the university president’s entrepreneurial leadership
style may exemplify that entrepreneurship is the preferred leadership style amongst the
leadership team at EU. EU’s leadership culture fosters exchanging and implementing new ideas.
In Hudzik’s (2011) explanation of the prerequisites for successful initiation and implementation
of comprehensive internationalization, the author explained that leadership helps to prioritize the
goals that must be pursued and the learning, research, and problem-solving outcomes that must
be achieved. The author advises that leaders, such as a school president or provost, should
deliver clear, consistent and frequent messages to catalyze discussion and action in academic
programs and reinforce a culture of comprehensive internationalization. Though this comparative
case study is not focused on understanding comprehensive internationalization, Hudzik’s (2011)
explanation addresses the importance of having effective leaders in higher education that
consistently encourage faculty, staff and students to drive towards achieving expected outcomes.
Most of the senior university officials interviewed in this study expressed that the university’s
president encouraged all faculty, staff and students to excel.
However, not everyone shares favorable opinions about the president’s tactics. The V. P.
of Global Expansion, for example, noted that some faculty feel that they are the last members of
the university to learn about change occurring at the university and they often feel “left out” of
knowing the university’s global engagement strategies. The V. P. of Student Affairs explained
that some students are concerned that their tuition money is funding most of EU’s global
expansion instead of adequately funding and supporting domestic opportunities for students.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 102

These comments indicate that some faculty feel that their opinions are not valued and some
students feel that their tuition and fees are not properly distributed to resources that matter to
them.
Newspaper and magazine publications recorded similar sentiment felt by faculty,
students, staff and the surrounding community. In April of 2008, New York Magazine published
an article expressing faculty’s disapproval of the president’s decision to create an off shore
campus in Abu Dhabi that would allow students to obtain the same degree as they would obtain
at EU’s main campus. Some faculty were concerned that this off shore campus would diminish
the value of EU’s academic degree. The article addressed EU’s president as a “sell out” for
accepting the city-state of Abu Dhabi’s gift of $50 million to build the new off shore campus. In
December of 2012, The New York Times and Businessweek published articles about EU’s faculty
initiating a “no-confidence” vote for the university’s president and criticizing the university
president’s top-down leadership style that ignore faculty governance and opinions. For example,
to complete part of EU’s expansion plans for the next 20 years, the university president received
approval from New York City to add another 1.9 million square feet of academic facilities that
will interfere with the historical layout currently surrounding the university. This decision has
upset many faculty, staff, students and other constituents.
There are concerns that the entrepreneurial leadership style of the university’s president
may lead to setting overly ambitious goals. These negative opinions of the university’s president
reflect a tumultuous culture that is developing at EU. Though there are a wide range of student,
faculty and administrators’ perspectives towards EU’s leadership tactics, most faculty, student
and staff, according to senior university officials interviewed in this study, are appreciative and
enthusiastic about EU’s entrepreneurial approaches to global engagement.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 103

Flexibility with financial expenditure. Though some have criticized EU’s president’s
financial decisions, particularly with regard to EU’s global expansion, EU’s flexibility with
financial expenditure has propelled a culture that may foster globalization. Unlike public higher
education institutions where an institution’s budget is reviewed and evaluated by a state-level
postsecondary education agency, legislature and governor, at a private higher education
institution (i.e., EU), financial expenditure and budget is determined by campus-level
administrators and an institutional governing board (Lasher & Greene, 2001). This type of
organizational structure allows senior university officials to exercise more freedom in developing
a financial model and budget that is conducive to achieving the institution’s goals.
In the same upper right-hand quadrant of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework that
describe an organizational culture as “adhocracy” with a leadership style of entrepreneurship, the
authors also explain that the strategic emphasis of the organization is on growth and finding new
resources. EU’s ambitious global expansion strategies exemplify growth and its operational
structure illustrates its ability to find new resources that enable growth. For example, though
senior university officials at EU emphasize that the university is not allowed to give bonuses to
faculty as a an economic incentive for researching and teaching abroad, EU is allowed to
subsidize some of the faculty’s expenses resulting from relocating to another country.
V. P. of Budget: We encourage faculty to spend time abroad to teach and to do research
abroad. We provide economic incentives to the individual faculty and to the department
that their affiliated with for that faculty member to spend a semester or more at one of our
sites. This means we will cover their living expenses and if there is a tax differential, we
will cover them. We do not pay them any extra money for going abroad, but we ensure
that they are not harmed economically by going abroad.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 104

The V. P. of Portal Campuses explains that, even though a faculty member may not receive
additional bonuses for researching or teaching abroad, the faculty member may see financial
gains by relocating abroad because he or she may find a tenant to lease and pay for rent or
mortgage in New York while EU pays for his or her living expenses in another country. In
countries where a portal campus or international academic center is located in a remote area or a
place less appealing to faculty and school administrators, generous salaries or research budgets
may be awarded as incentives for faculty to relocate from their home in New York.
V. P. of Portal Campuses: People like to have an intellectual community around them and
so for our portal campus in Abu Dhabi, we had to offer generous salaries and, more
importantly, offer a generous research budget [to recruit strong faculty to research and
teach in Abu Dhabi].
These comments demonstrate that EU’s leadership recognizes the importance of creating an
intellectual community where faculty can thrive in research and instruction. These comments
also convey that EU relies on its flexibility with financial expenditure to monetarily incentivize
faculty to teach and research in another country.
In addition to paying higher salaries to individual faculty members or even school
administrators who are willing to relocate to another country, EU is also able to institute
operational incentives to motivate each college to achieve the university’s global engagement
goals. According to the V. P. of Budget, EU is a decentralized university that adopts a “balance
of trade” policy to determine how tuition is distributed amongst various colleges within the
university. If an undergraduate student is enrolled in an academic program at one college and
enrolls in a course at another college, 30% of the student’s tuition will be paid to the home
college while the other 70% of the student’s tuition will be paid to the college that is teaching the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 105

course. Senior university officials agreed to alter the balance of trade policy to incentivize each
college within the university to encourage undergraduate students to study abroad. As a result,
today, at EU, if an undergraduate student decides to study abroad, 45% of the student’s tuition
for a particular semester will be paid to the global study abroad program and 55% of the tuition
will be paid to the home college. Thus, the home college receives 55% of a student’s semester
tuition if a student participates in a global study abroad program versus only receiving 30% of
tuition per course when a student enrolls in a course at another college at EU’s main campus.
The revision to the balance of trade policy demonstrates that the senior university officials at EU
do not only focus on providing financial incentives to faculty contributing to achieving the
university’s global engagement goals, but they also implement processes and policies that
encourage each college within the university to achieve the university’s global engagement
goals.
Students’ tuition and fees significantly contribute to EU’s ability to accomplish its global
engagement goals. According to the V. P. of Budget, EU relies more heavily on students’ tuition
and fees to pay institutional expenses than public higher education institutions. EU receives more
revenue from tuition and fees in comparison to public universities such as WU. The lack of
involvement of a state-level postsecondary education agency and legislature in determining
financial expenditure for private universities enables EU to manage its operations with more
flexibility and autonomy. In contrast, at WU, several senior university officials express concerns
over the lack of financial support dedicated to achieving WU’s global engagement goals and
emphasize that public universities face many restrictions on financial expenditure in comparison
to private universities. Several senior university officials referenced how California’s budget
crisis has negatively affected the UC system’s budget and prioritization of projects and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 106

initiatives. In regards to allocating resources to building global partnerships, for example, WU’s
V.P. of Faculty Research stated:
We can’t use public funds, California funds, to provide a nice welcome reception for our
visitors and we wouldn’t be able to use grant funding for that either. So there really is no
way that we can be on par in terms of the hosting and reciprocity with our international
partners.
This particular senior university official explained that many foreign universities typically host
formal receptions and provide gifts to welcome visiting faculty and administrators. WU is
usually unable to host a similar reception or offer gifts to faculty and administrators visiting from
foreign universities to reciprocate their hospitality. The inability to reciprocate such simple
gestures prevents WU from impressing foreign universities and may even affect the development
of strong global partnerships.
Lasher and Greene (2001) explain that though there are similar budget cycles for private
and public universities, but public institutions require additional time to determine a budget
because of the involvement of state-level and system-level decisions. Since budget directly
affects administrative operations, the institutional culture of EU and WU differ quite
significantly in relation to financial expenditure. As a private research university, EU has more
flexibility with its financial expenditure in comparison to WU, whose financial expenditures are
predominantly controlled by the state’s postsecondary education agency, the UC system.
Previous sections of this paper noted that WU’s senior university official expressed frustration
with the university’s lack of funding and resources and understanding some of the unique
features of EU’s financial structure sheds light on the reasons why administrators and faculty at a
public research university, such as WU, may experience frustration.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 107

Westside University: Leading as a producer and hard-driver. Similar to EU, many
senior university officials at WU attributed their success as a globally engaged research
university to the university’s chancellor. WU’s V. P. of Faculty Engagement mentioned that the
chancellor is keen on ensuring that WU becomes a “competitive player” in the global
marketplace and states that the chancellor leads the institution with three words, “international,
innovation and interdisciplinary.” The chancellor has allocated additional resources, such as
staffing to the International Center, to ensure that WU continues to focus on creating new
opportunities for students and scholars to stay globally engaged.
The chancellor is not the only leader focused on being competitive. About four years ago,
the V. P. of International Services partnered with a research team at WU to identify whether
there were any correlations between retention and graduation rate with students participating in
opportunities abroad programs (OAP). This particular senior university official believed that if
WU could prove that providing students with an opportunity to study abroad not only exposed
students to another culture or a new way of thinking, but that these opportunities also motivated
students to successfully complete their baccalaureate degree, senior leadership at WU and at the
UC system would continue to allocate resources and funds to support OAPs. Thus, in 2008, a
research team in WU analyzed the retention and graduation rates of 2002 students who
participated in OAPs versus the students who did not participate in any OAPs, and the results
favored offering study abroad programs to undergraduate students. There was a higher
percentage of male and female students graduating in their fourth, fifth or sixth year of a
baccalaureate degree program if they participated in at least one OAP versus male and female
students who did not participate in any OAPs. Over the years, WU’s International Center was
able to hire additional staff to continue to provide support services to the increasing number of
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 108

students participating in opportunities abroad program. These research reports exemplify the
leadership style of senior university officials at WU as driven and motivated to produce
achievement outcomes. The V. P. of International Services explained that public universities
need to focus more efforts on proving achievement outcomes than private universities because
public universities compete for a limited supply of state funding and resources. Senior university
officials at public universities may feel compelled to exercise a leadership style of a “producer”
and “hard-driver” because showing achievement outcomes is a critical component of receiving
recognition and obtaining sufficient resources.
An organization that requires stability, control, rules and policies. Westside University
is one of 10 campuses of the University of California and this fact serves as a reminder that WU
does not function independently from the policies and procedures set forth by the University of
California (UC). According to the UC’s 2012-2013 Budget for Current Operations Report, the
state’s fiscal support in 2011-2012 was nearly $900 million less than the amount provided during
the 2007-2008 academic term and this has implications on all UC campuses, including WU. The
V. P. of Faculty Research explains that the state’s fiscal crisis has caused many departments and
colleges to cut back on expenditure and staffing. This particular senior administrator is now the
only staff member remaining in the department after senior university officials of the UC system
and at WU decided to eliminate the role of the Associate Vice Chancellor and other staff to
reduce costs. Reduction of state and federal fiscal support and enforcement of strict policies on
how to utilize revenue, such as grants, create obstacles for accomplishing WU’s global
engagement goals. The V. P. of Biological Sciences explained that the schools of engineering
and sciences at WU typically receive slightly more funding and resources because those subject
areas are some of the core strengths of WU, but the funding is not enough.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 109

V. P. of Biological Sciences: That is one of the problems when you are a public research
university, especially right now, any UC or Cal State school, there’s just no money for
what we want do to advance globally. We are doing things on a shoestring. We are
depending on grants and what we have also engaged in is fundraising for scholarship for
students. But it is very limited and there are a lot of restrictions of what we can and
cannot do with grants that we receive.
This comment reflects senior university officials’ frustration regarding not having sufficient
funds allocated to global engagement programs and annoyance with restrictions on how grants
need to be spent. There are also many occasions where faculty do not receive approval for their
grant proposals and anticipated projects and programs must be terminated due to lack of
sufficient funding. There are operational policies at the university that frustrate faculty as well.
The V. P. of Faculty Engagement is involved with an organization on campus that allows
researchers from different areas of discipline to meet and discuss research opportunities and
ideas. This senior university official has a strong interest in working with undergraduate
students, but the UC system does not allow for faculty who are deeply involved with the research
unit at a UC campus to develop undergraduate curricula or undergraduate training.
Undergraduate curricula and undergraduate education are separate tracks from faculty research
and the tone of voice of this senior university official expressed some annoyance with this policy
and said, “it’s an administrative thing.” In order for this senior university official’s organization
to receive funding from the UC system, the senior university official said the organization must
establish itself as producing valuable research and not managing any activities related to
undergraduate curricula or education. This is an example of some strict policies created and
mandated by a state-level postsecondary education agency, such as the UC system, that prevent
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 110

public universities from enjoying more flexibility on managing their academic programs and
institutional strategies.
Conclusion
Interviews with senior university officials, document analysis and participant
observations provided an opportunity for the researcher to analyze and determine how senior
university officials approached global engagement at their respective university and how these
approaches directly or indirectly interact with the institution’s culture. Senior university officials
from both universities demonstrated high levels of global engagement activity and opinions and
perspectives towards these activities vary amongst administrators, faculty and students.
Evidence is clear that EU’s senior university officials adopt Qiang’s (2003) activity
approach to internationalization by offering a multitude of study abroad programs and research
opportunities at all of its 12 branch campuses. EU’s senior university officials demonstrate the
adoption of process approach to internationalization by developing and sustaining offices and
resources to support the management and facilitation of the institution’s internationalization
activities. Similarly, WU’s senior university officials also adopt Qiang’s (2003) activity
approach to internationalization by offering a multitude of study abroad programs, research
opportunities and internship opportunities in various parts of the world through partnerships with
foreign academic institutions. Unlike EU, however, WU also adopts a competency approach to
internationalization. As a public research university, WU focuses on serving its undergraduate
student population and surrounding community by creating international opportunities accessible
to all students attending WU. The researcher had several discussions with senior university
officials about paying particular attention to first-generation college students and students from
low-income families who have never traveled outside of the United States and giving these
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 111

students an opportunity to develop global leadership skills by studying, researching or
volunteering abroad.
Both universities exhibit characteristics of Cameron’s and Ettington’s (1988) right-hand
horizontal dimension of external-positioning, long-term orientation and achievement-oriented
activities, but financial constraints and strict policies enforced upon public academic institutions
contributed to differentiating the leadership style and administrative operations between EU and
WU. As a private research university with more flexibility with financial expenditure, EU’s
leadership is more willing to test new ideas, be innovative and spontaneous. As a public research
university with more restrictions on financial expenditure, WU’s leadership expressed
motivation to compete as a leading research university in the 21
st
century, but also expressed
concerns revolving around budget constraints preventing the growth of WU.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 112

Chapter Five: Discussion
This dissertation examined how senior university officials at a private and at a public
research university approached global engagement and how these approaches interacted with
each institution’s culture. Understanding how the worldwide globalization phenomenon shapes
the practices in higher education and the organizational culture of two different types of
American universities provides topics for future senior university officials to deliberate when
strategizing on how to foster a milieu that fosters global engagement. This chapter reviews
important points mentioned throughout each chapter previously presented and synthesize results
obtained from this comparative case study.
Chapter one explained that, through the process of creating and implementing
internationalization activities, faculty and administrators engage in a significant amount of
discourse that naturally affects an institution’s culture. The lack of a clear roadmap for faculty
and administrators to develop and implement their strategies for achieving global engagement
goals also implies that there is a lack of understanding regarding how approaches to
internationalization shape a higher education institution’s culture and is worthy of further
research. This comparative case study examined how senior university officials at Eastside
University (EU), a private research university, and at Westside University (WU), a public
research university, approached global engagement and how these approaches interacted with
each institution’s culture. Since most private and public higher education institutions have a
hierarchical system in which information is transferred through a top-down or a bottom-up
fashion (Meisinger & Dubeck, 1984), this study targeted a sample of senior university officials
charged with making decisions for achieving global engagement goals for their respective
university. The primary purpose of this study was to identify and examine the existing
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 113

approaches to global engagement at two different types of research universities and then
determine how these approaches interacted with each institution’s culture.
Chapter Two presented the literature supporting the concept of globalization, its impact
on higher education institutions, the importance of understanding organizational culture, and
how the budget process differs in private and public higher education institutions. Researchers
clarify that the term, “globalization,” is a modern term used interchangeably with the term,
“internationalization,” to explain the phenomenon for which all nations are collaborating to
address new ideologies, practices and competition. In higher education, the movement of
globalization has given rise to generating new ideas, programs and resources to achieve global
engagement goals and trigger intensive deliberation aimed to identifying procedures, processes
and programs that are effective for various types of higher education institutions striving to
become more globally engaged. While researchers have successfully identified effective
procedures, processes and programs used for increasing global engagement in higher education
institutions, there are nuances found in each higher education institution that make generalizing
best practices difficult to be applied to all higher education institutions. Instead, an attempt to
understand how senior university officials at two different types of large research universities
approach global engagement and how these approaches interact with each institution’s culture
becomes necessary for contributing to research on understanding how an organization’s culture
can enhance a higher education institution’s goals such as increasing global engagement. In
particular, Chapter Two outlined two theoretical frameworks for describing approaches to global
engagement and assessing higher education institutions’ culture. Qiang’s (2003) explanation of
institutional leaders’ activity, competency, process and/or ethos approaches towards promoting
and implementing internationalization programs allowed the researcher to determine that the
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 114

activity and process approaches were more often reflected at EU and activity and competency
approaches were more often reflected at WU. Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) Model of
Cultural Congruence served to expose specific features of various types of organization culture
and the researcher determined that both EU and WU represented qualities of an organizational
culture that mostly reflected the right-hand side of Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) framework
with some differences reflected as a result of different financial and administrative structures and
operations within each university. EU exhibited more qualities associated with an “adhocracy”
form of organizational culture that values entrepreneurial leadership, innovation and growth
whereas WU manifested more qualities associated with a “market” form of organizational
culture that values leadership that drives for aggressive results, staying competitive and
accomplishing goals.
Eastside University (EU) and Westside University (WU) were selected for this
comparative case study over other higher education institutions because both universities have a
large student population, received many accolades for contributing intensive research in a wide
variety of subject areas, and house offices and departments dedicated to developing, facilitating
and sustaining global engagement activities. EU and WU’s websites and senior university
officials share a common belief that their respective university takes the lead in creating and
implementing global engagement strategies in the higher education arena. EU and WU also share
an ambitious goal of encouraging at least 50% of their student population to participate in an
international program for at least one academic term and in attempting to gain additional
resources to support their programs. As mentioned in Chapter Three, because single-case studies
tend to test a well-constructed theory or represent extreme or unique situations, the researcher
selected to take a multiple-case study approach to this research study in hopes of producing
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 115

results that may be generalizable to other higher education institutions aiming to become more
globally engaged. Two research questions guided this comparative case study:
Research Question # 1: Which approach(es) do senior university officials at a private
and a public research university adopt to become more globally engaged?
Research Question # 2: How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement
interact with each institution’s culture?
A total of 13 interviews were conducted with senior university officials who either served
a role as a senior administrator, professor or both in creating and implementing global
engagement strategies for their respective university. The following is a summary of findings
gathered throughout this research study and a proposal for recommending topics worthy of
discussion for any senior university official aiming to lead a higher education institution to
become more globally engaged.
Research Question #1
The researcher relied on Qiang’s (2003) explanation of institutional leaders’ approaches
to internationalization to analyze EU and WU’s senior university officials’ approaches to global
engagement. The responses from EU’s senior university officials more frequently demonstrated
the adoption of Qiang’s (2003) activity approach for creating and implementing global
engagement strategies by instituting various international study programs and inviting more
inbound international students to study at EU. The processes approach was represented through
the establishment of offices that carried out these internationalization activities. The Office of
Global Programs collaborates with various colleges to develop undergraduate study abroad
programs in EU’s 10 international academic centers and portal campuses. The Office of
International Students and Scholars provides numerous support services for students, scholars
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 116

and their dependents, such as immigration services, cultural adjustment events and programs and
other resources. The Office of International Students and Scholars was recently given an
additional responsibility of providing support services to support and mobility services for
students, scholars and faculty relocating to other countries to research, teach or study. To adjust
to the increased amount of responsibility, the Office of International Students and Scholars was
recently allocated additional staff to assist with developing and executing global engagement
strategies.
Though WU also demonstrates the adoption of Qiang’s (2003) activity and process
approaches, the responses from senior university officials at WU more heavily demonstrated the
adoption of Qiang’s (2003) activity and competency approaches. Similar to EU, WU provides
international inbound and outbound opportunities for undergraduate students and established
WU’s International Center to oversee activities and transactions by the Office of International
Education, Office of International Scholars, Office of International Students and Programs and
Programs Abroad Office. WU’s International Affairs Office serves to support faculty’s global
engagement activities. Unlike EU, however, senior university officials at WU emphasized the
importance of ensuring that opportunities to engage in internationalization activities were
accessible to all students. Senior university officials placed a greater emphasis on ensuring that
students who do not have an opportunity to study abroad will also have an opportunity to engage
in internationalization activities that will contribute to preparing students to become leaders in
the global marketplace. In addition, by showing several institutional reports to the researcher that
thoroughly measured the performance outcomes of students who participated in study abroad
programs versus students who did not participate in study abroad programs, WU illustrated its
adoption of the competency approach for internationalization. Many senior university officials at
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 117

WU expressed a sense of ownership and responsibility for establishing opportunities to develop
competent global leaders from its undergraduate student population.
Research Question #2
The researcher determined that there were many similarities between EU and WU on
how their senior university officials’ approaches to global engagement interacted with the
respective institution’s culture. However, there were also a few distinct qualities that
differentiated each university as a result of each university’s distinct financial and administrative
operations as a private research university versus a public research university. EU and WU’s
organizational culture represent Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) description of an organization’s
culture as valuing individuality, external-positioning, long-term orientation and achievement-
oriented activities. EU’s senior university officials explain EU’s individuality as an institution
that has consistently applied entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to becoming more
globally engaged. While most of the senior university officials who were interviewed in this
study showed tremendous support of EU’s president’s leadership style, a few senior university
officials and newspaper and magazine publications alluded to faculty and students disapproving
EU’s president’s decisions. WU’s senior university officials affirmed WU’s individuality by
noting faculty and senior university officials’ involvement with various strategic planning
committees for enhancing WU’s global engagement.
EU and WU demonstrated a culture of external-positioning, long-term orientation and
achievement-oriented activities through establishing international partnerships that provide
international opportunities for undergraduate students to partake and establishing offices and
resources to sustain international programs and activities that will eventually assist EU and WU
in achieving their ambitious goal of enabling over 50% of its undergraduate student population to
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 118

participate in at least one international opportunity for at least one academic term. EU offers
study abroad programs at 10 international academic centers and at two degree-granting portal
campuses (external-positioning). In collaboration with each college within EU, the Office of
Global Programs offers study abroad programs for undergraduate students and the Office of
International Students and Scholars offers support services that contribute to the sustainability of
various global engagement programs and partnerships (long-term orientation). Senior university
officials at EU also financially incentivize each college within EU to encourage undergraduate
students to participate in study abroad programs. Lastly, EU has steering committees charged
with creating and implementing processes, procedures and policies to enforce efforts that lead to
achieving EU’s global engagement goals (achievement-oriented activities). For example, one
senior university committee was charged with developing an action plan that examined and
implemented processes and procedures that would improve student life in the areas of health,
career development, global leadership, audit and assessment, programming, transitions, strategic
communications and structure.
Similarly, WU also demonstrates external-positioning by offering study abroad,
international internship and international volunteer opportunities to all undergraduate students. In
collaboration with each of the colleges within WU, WU’s International Center and International
Affairs Office support the sustainability of WU’s international research, scholar and student
programs (long-term orientation). Some of WU’s faculty and senior administrators play a pivotal
role in steering committees focused on guiding WU to become more globally engaged
(achievement-oriented activities). The establishment of offices dedicated to developing,
facilitating and maintaining global engagement strategies is a common administrative structure
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 119

found at both EU and WU and imply that these offices play a critical role at each higher
education institution.
There are subtle and very apparent differences between EU and WU’s culture and many
of the differences are associated with the financial and administrative operations for a private
research university versus a public research university. First, EU possesses leadership
characteristics that appear to be entrepreneurial and innovative. Many senior university officials
mentioned that the university’s president created a culture that allowed academic deans and other
higher education professionals to openly share their opinions and test their ideas. Though some
faculty, administrators and students expressed concern for the senior leadership team’s desire to
achieve aggressive global engagement goals, most members of the institution seem to have
accepted and embraced the ability to become more globally engaged. Second, as opposed to a
public research university, EU makes decisions without receiving additional evaluation or
approval from a state-level postsecondary education agency or legislature. By having a financial
structure that is less hierarchical, EU is able to have more flexibility with its financial
expenditure than WU. The more flexible spending structure supports a culture that fosters
globalization. For example EU’s senior university officials may incentivize faculty to research
and/or study abroad by agreeing to subsidize expenses resulting from relocation to another
country. Senior university officials at WU did not mention any kind on financial incentives given
to faculty who agree to participate or lead global engagement activities and programs. In fact,
unlike EU, WU does not have branch campuses and according to one senior university official, it
is near impossible for a UC campus to establish a branch campus because there is a lack of
funding for public higher education institutions, and there are too many restrictions regulating
each UC campus’ strategies.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 120

Though EU is also keen on displaying Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) leadership
characteristics of being competitive and driven for results, WU appears to represent more of
these characteristics than EU. WU’s senior university officials stressed the need to remain
competitive despite their lack of sufficient funding for specific global engagement activities and
programs. One senior university official pointed out that public universities compete for a limited
supply of state funding and resources. This comment implied that maintaining WU’s
competitiveness is one way to ensure that the university remains relevant and attractive to
talented and qualified faculty, student and scholars. Despite the lack of funding and sufficient
resources, there are faculty who dedicate their efforts to enable WU to become more globally
engaged. There are faculty who serve on multiple steering committees and strive to be involved
with WU’s strategic planning. Another characteristic that differentiates WU from EU is that as a
public research university, WU’s culture instills stability, control, rules and policies. Several
faculty and senior administrators expressed frustration for not obtaining sufficient funds to
support global engagement activities and others expressed concern for how the university will
continue to find creative alternatives for raising capital to support WU’s global engagement
strategies. In addition, WU must follow many guidelines and policies set forth by the UC
regulation team prior to initiating, developing and implementing any global engagement
activities and programs. These financial and administrative constraints form an extra layer of
complexity and challenges that do not seem to significantly concern senior university officials at
a private research university, such as EU.
Analysis
Senior university officials at today’s colleges and universities are challenged to respond
to globalization while remaining devoted to their institution’s core mission and financial
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 121

structures that were set forth decades ago. As mentioned in Chapter Two, in the colonial 1700s,
higher education institutions focused on preparing individuals to serve in the Christian ministry
and, over the intervening centuries, evolved into “knowledge societies” where innovation is
cultivated and promoted. The growth of higher education and increased competition for scarce
resources has created financial pressure on institutions. Those “knowledge societies” now require
the creation and implementation of new budgeting tools and methods for financing capital
expenditure as senior university officials are called to deliver more educational products and
services in more locations as they compete in the global market place. Whether it is obvious or
subtle, an increasingly integrated world economy influenced the way every faculty member,
student and administrator thinks, behaves, and feels as a member of a higher education
institution. Many leaders and scholars in the field of higher education have a favorable view of
the influence of globalization in higher education, but there are differing opinions regarding how
institutional responses to globalization are executed and to what degree members of an
organization are willing to gain or lose. In this study, the responses from EU and WU’s senior
university officials reflected the range of changes and challenges facing most higher education
institutions throughout the world. The analysis below examines some of these challenges and
underpins the recommendations for practices included in the next section.
The current financial structure and budget process of private and public higher education
institutions continue to cause limitations for both public and private higher education institutions.
Several senior university officials at WU expressed that a lack of sufficient funding to support
internationalization activities becomes problematic, especially when the lack of funding
discourages faculty from becoming more involved with these activities. These senior university
officials expressed frustration with insufficient funding for global engagement activities and
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 122

annoyance with restrictions on how grants and other funds are spent. From the standpoint of their
role as professors, it is frustrating not to have a stronger influence on how funding is allocated
throughout the UC and WU’s budget systems. From the standpoint of their role as senior
university officials, waiting for several governing boards and committees to approve of funding
impedes internationalization efforts. This indicates that WU relies on faculty to think
strategically and plan global engagement strategies. The V. P. of International Services at WU
said, “There’s good momentum here [faculty involvement]. There’s no strategic plan. I’m a big
fan of figuring out where the energy is, who is engaged.” The viewpoints of these senior
university officials imply that public higher education institutions often rely on faculty to
volunteer their time and effort to lead global engagement efforts. Public higher education
institutions typically encounter greater financial and administrative restrictions in comparison to
private higher education institutions, and these restrictions may cause public higher education
institutions to rely more heavily on faculty to lead global engagement efforts. It is easier and
possibly more cost-effective to assign additional tasks to an existing professor than to hire a new
senior administrator. The limited funding and the complexity of the financial structure and
budget process of public higher education institutions create challenges that require faculty to
create a greater sense of agency on behalf of senior leadership.
Though private higher education institutions, such as EU, also face challenges with
accessing funding and budget processes, their greater flexibility is beneficial and even allows
them to generate more revenue. For example, EU created financial incentives to motivate each
academic unit to encourage students to study abroad, whereas WU encounters greater restrictions
with finances and is less likely to implement creative financial structures to incentivize faculty or
academic units to promote internationalization efforts. In addition, at EU, the senior university
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 123

officials interviewed were primarily administrators instead of professors. This implies that EU
has designated senior administrators to manage internationalization efforts in contrast to WU’s
faculty-centered approach. Senior administrators at EU seem to have a stronger influence on
internationalization efforts than faculty at WU. By having a more flexible financial structure and
budget process, private higher education institutions are able to creatively incentivize or
influence constituents (faculty, academic units, and international partnerships) to create a culture
that fosters achieving institutional global engagement goals.
Collaboration between faculty and senior administrators is critical for fostering an
organizational culture that fosters global engagement. Failure to establish a strong partnership
between faculty and senior administrators to create and implement internationalization efforts
may lead to creating a disruptive organizational culture. For example, at EU senior university
officials praised the university president’s ambitious global engagement goals, but several news
reports indicate that many students, surrounding community members and, in particular, faculty,
continue to criticize the university president’s hard-driver approach to global engagement.
Faculty members worry that the off-shore campuses in the Middle East and Asia will diminish
the value of EU’s academic degree and that the university’s president does not value faculty’s
opinions. Many faculty members, students, and staff have held protests near EU to vocalize their
concerns. These actions illustrate how the lack of a strong partnership between faculty, senior
administrators and even students and community members, may negatively affect an
organization’s culture and hinder the process of reaching the institution’s global engagement
goals.
Allowing more flexibility with financial structures and budget processes as well as
increasing collaboration amongst faculty, students, staff and community members may increase
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 124

the number of global engagement activities implemented at a public or private higher education
institution. However, programs and resources must regularly be evaluated for their effectiveness.
First, public and private higher education institutions must evaluate the efficacy of their global
engagement strategies to ensure that these programs and resources are positively affecting
students’ learning process, an overarching mission of higher education institutions. For example,
WU’s annual reports measure students’ performance outcomes and show a strong correlation
between participation in study abroad programs and high graduation rates across all major fields
of study. These reports illustrate which activities are positively or negatively affecting students’
competency development and may serve as a tool to convince a budget governing board to
allocate more funding to effective resources. Second, in the past decade, there has been a
performance-based accountability movement challenging public and private higher education
institutions to redefine their relationship with the government and alter the traditional
measurement and assessment of institutional performance (Alexander, K., 2000). Governments
increasingly turn to higher education institutions to improve knowledge in the workforce and
implementing performance-based financing and budgeting to hold higher education institutions
accountable for producing knowledgeable and capable workers. Therefore, instead of increasing
the flexibility of their financial structures and budget processes, higher education institutions
may encounter more limitations with their financial structures and budget processes if they do
not achieve performance goals outlined by the state and/or federal government. Higher education
must develop institutional cultures that foster achieving global engagement goals through
collaboration with various constituents, creative financial structures/budget processes and
consistent measurement of institutional performance.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 125

Recommendations for Academic Institutions
Financial pressure, competing values, increased use of technology, transforming faculty
roles and demographics, and increased competition drive change and alter the culture of each
higher education institution. This study underscores the ways in which the roles of senior
administrators and faculty change and the greater need for senior administrators and faculty to
collaborate and effectively communicate with each other and to the public. Faculty must partner
with senior administrators and actively participate in discussions related to creating and
implementing internationalization efforts. Budget planning and expenditure in public higher
education should also include faculty and be more streamlined and what Cameron and Ettington
(1988) would describe as more “flexible” and “achievement-oriented.” Senior university officials
at any higher education institution should advocate for more flexibility of spending and be
equipped to make sound financial decisions that will help to achieve the institution’s global
engagement goals.
Higher education institutions should also continue to measure the effectiveness of each
global engagement activity to determine which programs and resources are effective or
ineffective. Though many higher education institutions increasingly produce annual performance
reports, senior university officials should pay attention to developing thorough and detailed
annual reports and annually review these reports to determine new areas for improvement and
growth.
Recommendations for Future Research
The ascendance of faculty and student mobility across all nations and the expansion of
global partnerships to create offshore campuses, study abroad/international exchange programs,
research opportunities and other student programs, have complicated educators’ ability to make a
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 126

sound decision for their academic institution in regards to becoming more globally engaged.
How much activity is considered too much? What serves as a benchmark for an academic
institution? How should activities be managed? Comprehensive internationalization is a new
phenomenon that has been coined in higher education. Comprehensive internationalization
requires the continuous process of broadening and strengthening the dimensions of globalization
for any academic institution. The “internationalization index” has been used to measure
internationalization for a university by examining six dimensions: articulated commitment,
academic offerings, organizational infrastructure, external funding, institutional investment in
faculty, and international students and student programs (Greene, 2005). Some of the common
strategies Greene (2005) found in highly active comprehensive universities were obtaining
external funding for international education, involving faculty, requiring undergraduate students
to complete a general education course with an international focus, developing study abroad
programs for incoming international and outgoing domestic students, and utilizing internal e-
mail system to communicate internationalization activities with faculty, staff and students.
Further research should explore how academic institutions may continue to create and implement
global engagement strategies that coincide with the internationalization index regardless of
financial constraints. Research should examine academic institutions representing a wide range
of geographic locations and student population size to determine how these nuances affect the
academic institution’s ability to meet the expectations outlined via the internationalization index.
Conclusion
After coding and analyzing interviews, participant observations, brochures, website and
other documents from EU and WU, the researcher concluded that senior university officials of
large research universities may adopt several of Qiang’s (2003) approaches to
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 127

internationalization when leading efforts to achieve their respective university’s global
engagement goals. However, instituting activities focused on increasing global engagement is a
common theme shared between EU and WU (activity approach). The researcher also discovered
that both universities reflected the right-hand side of Cameron’s and Ettington’s (1988) Model of
Cultural Congruence by possessing characteristics that resemble external-positioning, long-term
orientation and achievement-oriented activities. Regardless of what kinds of internationalization
activities exist at EU or at WU, senior university officials at both universities dedicated
significant amount of time and resources to focus on improving and sustaining effective global
engagement activities and programs. Some of the differences found in each institution’s culture
is influenced, if not, caused, by the distinctive financial and administrative structure and
operations of each university. Private research universities appear to have a financial and
administrative structure that is more conducive for formulating and implementing new ideas and
approaches for becoming more globally engaged while public research universities appear to
focus on providing a public service of developing global leaders and maintaining a competitive
drive to stay relevant and desirable. Future senior university officials who strive to create an
organizational culture that fosters global engagement should consider recruiting dedicated
faculty and administrators to lead and organize global engagement activities and programs.
These prominent faculty and administrators should also be given supporting staff and resources
dedicated and committed to achieving the institution’s global engagement goals. Lastly,
individuals involved with creating and implementing global engagement strategies need to be
held accountable for measuring the success and failure of each global engagement activity and
program.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 128

References
Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning higher education in the
Age of Convergence, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington.
Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007, Fall/Winter). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-
305.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L, and Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education:
Tracking an Academic Revolution. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Armstrong, L. (2007, Winter). Competing in the global higher education marketplace:
Outsourcing, twinning, and franchising, New Directions for Higher Education, 140, 131-
138.
Association of American Universities. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.aau.edu/default.aspx
on June 20, 2013.
Bess, J. L. (1992). Collegiality: Toward a clarification of meaning and function. In J. C. Smart
(Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 8, 1-36. New York:
Agathon Press.
Breneman, D. W. and Finney, J. E. (2000). The changing landscape: Higher education finance in
the 1990s. In Finney, J. E. and Callan, P. M. (1997), Public and private financing of
higher education: Shaping public policy for the future. Oryx Press.
Cameron, K. S. and Ettington, D. R. (1988). Conceptual foundations of organizational culture. In
Smart, J.C. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 4, 356-396.
New York: Agathon Press.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 129

Crozier, F., Curvale, B., Dearlove, R., Helle, E. and Henard, F. (2006). Terminology of quality
assurance: Towards shared European values? ENQA Occasional Papers, No. 40.
Dennison, G. M. (2001, Summer). Small men on campus: Modern university presidents,
Innovative Higher Education, 25(4), 279-284.
Dill, D. D. & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-
national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 495-533.
Duncan, A. (2010, November/December). Back to school: Enhancing U.S. education and
competitiveness, Foreign Affairs, 89(6), 65-76.
Ehrenberg, R. E. (2002, Winter). Reaching for the brass ring: The US News & World Report
rankings and competition, The Review of Higher Education, 26, 145-162.
Fjortoft, N. and Smart, J C. (1994). Enhancing organizational effectiveness: The importance of
culture type and mission agreement, Higher Education, 27, 429-447.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. London: Safe
Goodman, P. (1962). The community of scholars. New York: Random House.
Greene, M. F. (2005). Internationalization of U.S. Higher Education: A student perspective.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Hudnik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action, NAFSA:
Association of International Educators.
Hunt, L., Bromage, A. and Tomkinson, B. (2006). The realities of change in higher education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 130

Knight, J. (2004, Spring). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales,
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.
Lasher, W. F. and Greene, D. L. (2001). College and university budgeting: What do we know
and what do we need to know? In M.B. Paulson and J.C. Smart, (Eds.), The Finance of
Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy and Practice, (pp. 501-542). New York,
NY: Agathon Press.
Lenn, M P. (2000, September/October). Higher education and the global marketplace: A
practical guide to sustaining quality. On the Horizon, 7-10.
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
sage Publications, Inc.
Lovett, C. M. (2008). We need a new model of global education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54(31), A.40
Marcoulides, G. A. and Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing
and testing a model, Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225.
Marquardt, M. J. & Berger, N. O. (2000). Global leaders for the 21st century. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Massy, W. (1989). Budget decentralization at Stanford University, Planning for Higher
Education, 18(2), 39-55.
Mazaar, M. J. (1999). Global Trends 2005: An owner’s manual for the next decade. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Meisinger, R. J. & Dubeck, L. W. (1984). College and university budgeting: An introduction for
faculty and academic administrators. Washington, D.C.: National Association of College
and University Business Officers.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 131

Michael, S. O., Schwartz, M., & Balraj, L. (2001). Indicators of presidential effectiveness: A
study of trustees of higher education institutions, The International Journal of
Educational Management, 15(7), 332-346.
Navarro, V. (1998). Neoliberalism, globalization, unemployment, inequalities, and the welfare
state, International Journal of Health Services. 22(4), 607-682.
New York University. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/about.html on June 20, 2013.
Odin, J. K. & Manicas, P. T. (2004). Globalization and higher education, Hawaii, HI: University
of Hawaii Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
129-141.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html on January 11,
2011.
Patton, M. Q. (3
rd
Ed.)(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Qiang, Z. (2003, November). Internationalization of higher education towards a conceptual
framework, Policy Futures in Education, 1, 248-270.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university: A history. Athens, GA: The University
of Georgia Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 132

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Shiel, C. and McKenzie, A. (2008, April). The global university: The role of senior managers,
Bournemouth University in association with the DEA, 4-65.
Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century, Journal of
Studies in International Education, 4(3), 3-10.
Smart, J. C. & St. John, E. P. (1996, Fall). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher
education: A test of the “culture type” and “strong culture” hypothesis, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-241.
Sporn, B. (1996). Managing university culture: An analysis of the relationship between
institutional culture and management approaches, Higher Education, 32, 41-61.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power,
technology, and knowledge. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Teichler, U. (2001). Changes of ERASMUS under the umbrella of SOCRATES, Journal of
Studies in International Education, 5, 201-227.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Van Damme, D. (2000). Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide
accreditation? European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 4, 1-20.
Wilkins, A. L. and Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between
culture and organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 3, 468-
481.
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 133

Witte, J. K. (2008). Aspired convergence, cherished diversity: Dealing with the contradictions of
Bologna.” Tertiary Education and Management, 14 (2), 81-94.
Wolanin, T. (2003). Reauthorizing the higher education act: Issues and options. Institute for
Higher Education Policy, Washington, D.C.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zusman, A. (1986). Legislature and university conflict: The case of California. The Review of
Higher Education 9(4), 397-418.

APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 134

Appendix
Interview Protocol for Senior University Officials
Research Question # 1: Which approach(es) do senior university officials at private and public
research universities adopt to become more globally engaged?
Research Question # 2: How does each institution’s approach(es) to global engagement shape
the institution’s culture?
1) Who are the key players involved in creating and implementing global engagement
goals? Probing questions:
a) Who are the individuals included in important meetings/discussions revolving
around initiating or implementing global engagement strategies?
b) Who makes the final decision on global engagement strategies and goals, etc.?
2) What role do you play in creating the university’s global engagement strategies and
goals and what are the current global engagement goals? Probing questions:
a) Are you responsible for initiating meetings/discussions revolving around
global engagement strategies and goals?
b) In relation to global engagement goals, what are you held accountable for and
how is your performance evaluated?
3) What led the university to decide to establish global engagement goals? Probing
questions:
a) What types of political, economic and societal pressures motivate this
university to establish global engagement goals?
b) How do you benchmark this academic institution to other academic
institutions?
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 135

4) How do you navigate the politics of negotiating internationalization strategies that
you manage? Probing questions:
a) What are some of the differences in what faculty desire with internationalization
strategies versus what staff desire with internationalization strategies?
b) What concerns regarding global engagement strategies were recently raised by
faculty and administrators?
5) How would you describe the work environment for your faculty, students and
administrators? Probing questions:
a) What role do faculty members play in creating and implementing globalization
strategies?
b) How do faculty and administrators get along during discussions about
globalization strategies?
c) How do senior university officials create opportunities for faculty, administrators
and students to engage with one another?
d) What do faculty value? What do administrators value?
6) What kinds of financial challenges does this academic institution encounter in the
process of planning or implementing global engagement strategies? How do these
challenges affect the institution’s culture? Probing questions:
a) What are some financial challenges you experience at the state level and, in your
opinion, how does this affect the institution’s culture?
b) What are some financial challenges you experience at the federal level and, in
your opinion, how does this affect the institution’s culture?
APPROACHES TO GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 136

c) What are some financial challenges you experience with private
donations/endowments and, in your opinion, how does this affect the institution’s
culture?
7) How do these financial obstacles affect the administrative operations occurring at
your academic institution? Probing questions:
a) What kinds of administrative “cut backs” have you implemented as a result of the
economic recession?
b) How have the financial challenges affected this academic institution’s
organizational structure?
8) Why have some global engagement strategies been more difficult to implement than
others? Probing questions:
a) Describe some of the challenges the institution encounters while trying to
establish partnerships with academic institutions in other countries?
b) Describe some of the resistance you faced from faculty and administrators in
relation to internationalization efforts exercised at this academic institution?
9) What kinds of information do you disseminate to your faculty and staff and how is
the information delivered? Probing questions:
a) Are there weekly/bi-weekly/monthly e-mail correspondences or newsletters sent
to faculty and staff regarding upcoming events and change in institutional
operations?
b) Are there weekly/bi-weekly/monthly town hall or faculty and staff meetings to
disseminate information?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The phenomenon of globalization has a significant impact on higher education, but the lack of a clear roadmap for how senior university official should create and implement global engagement strategies and for how these approaches support (or impede) an organizational culture that fosters globalization remains a gap in knowledge in higher education. The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding of the approaches senior university officials at a private research university and at a public research university adopted to make their campuses more globally engaged and of how these approaches interact with each institution’s culture. Both academic institutions were selected for their prestigious reputation, large student population, location in an urban neighborhood and emphasis on global engagement. Given the many differences in financial and administrative operations of private and public higher education institutions, these two academic institutions were selected to illuminate those attributes that accelerate or decelerate global engagement. A total of 13 senior university officials were interviewed in person and via telephone or Skype for 30 to 45 minutes during Spring 2012. All interviews were tape recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed through the lens of Qiang’s (2003) conceptual framework of internationalization in higher education and Cameron and Ettington’s (1988) two-dimensional typology of organizational cultures. ❧ The key findings from the analysis of interviews, written materials and observations are that senior university officials must dedicate a significant amount of resources to developing sustainable global engagement activities. Financial constraints and administrative restrictions often negatively influenced each academic institution’s culture. Involving faculty and other important constituents in decision-making processes and allowing flexibility with financial expenditures are critical for formulating and implementing new ideas and approaches related to internationalization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

An institution's global engagement and its connection with the surrounding community: a case study

PDF

The internationalization of higher education in an era of globalization: a case study of a national research university in an emerging municipality in southwest China

PDF

The conceptualization and development of a global community college: a case study examining the perspective and roles of Pasadena City College leadership and management

PDF

Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement

PDF

Standards as drivers of internationalization

PDF

Faculty internationalization at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST): a promising practice study

PDF

The role of international research collaboration in enhancing global presence of an institution

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: a case study of three Korean private universities

PDF

Intercultural integration of students at a Sino-foreign cooperative university in China: an evaluation study

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Establishing and marketing an international branch campus: a case study of Savannah College of Art and Design Hong Kong

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

PDF

The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Enrollment and financial aid decisions of first-year students at a private institution

PDF

Unlocking the potential: improving persistence and graduation of Black female students at select historically Black colleges and universities: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Chan, Shirley L. (author)

Core Title Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 12/09/2013

Defense Date 08/28/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag global engagement,globalization in higher education,higher education administration,international higher education,internationalization in higher education,leadership in higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational culture in higher education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Robison, Mark Power (committee chair), Diamond, Michael A. (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email shirlelc@usc.edu,shirleychan420@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-356556

Unique identifier UC11296236

Identifier etd-ChanShirle-2213.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-356556 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChanShirle-2213-0.pdf

Dmrecord 356556

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Chan, Shirley L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA