Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs
(USC Thesis Other)
The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 1
THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS
IN STUDENT AFFAIRS
by
Elizabeth Jamie (Peterson) Trayner
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
May 2014
Copyright 2014 Elizabeth Jamie (Peterson) Trayner
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 2
Table of Contents
Dedication 5
Acknowledgments 6
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Globalization 10
Student Affairs 12
Leadership 12
Global University Partnerships Between Mexico and the United States 14
Mexican Tech 15
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 19
Significance of the Study 20
Limitations 21
Delimitations 23
Definitions 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review 25
Globalization 25
Terminology and Frameworks 26
Global Partnerships 30
Globalization in Student Affairs 31
Summary for Globalization 35
Leadership 36
Terminology and Frameworks 36
Cultural Impacts on Leadership 39
Leadership in Student Affairs and Internationalization 40
Summary for Leadership 41
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames 42
Structural Frame 42
Human Resource Frame 43
Political Frame 44
Symbolic Frame 45
Use of the Four Frames 46
Synthesis and Analysis of the Literature Related to Bolman and Deal (2003) 48
Overview of the Literature 48
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 3
Chapter Three: Methodology 50
Qualitative Research 51
Population and Sample 52
Instrumentation 57
Interview Protocol 58
Protocol for Document and Artifact Analysis 59
Validity and Reliability 59
Ethics 60
Data Collection and Processes 60
Role of the Researcher 60
Interview Method 61
Document and Artifact Collection Method 62
Data Analysis 62
Chapter Four: Results 64
Participants 65
Results Research Question One 71
History of the Global Partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech 72
Globalization and Mission 77
Knowledge Acquisition and Best Practices 82
Recognition as a Top University 84
Research Question On Discussion 87
Results Research Question Two 88
Research Question Two Discussion 95
Results Research Question Three 96
Human Resource Frame 103
Symbolic Frame 104
Structural Frame 106
Research Question Three Discussion 107
Results Research Question Four 108
Summary 110
Chapter Five: Discussion 112
Discussion of Findings 114
Implications for Practice 119
Future Research 120
Conclusions 121
References 124
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 4
Appendices
Appendix A: Carnegie Classification Descriptions 138
Appendix B: Student Affairs Organization Chart Mexican Tech 140
Appendix C: Student Affairs Organization Chart American Tech 141
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 142
Appendix E: Document and Artifact Protocol 147
Appendix F: Frame Response Analysis 148
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 5
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Jeff Trayner. You are the love of my life.
Thanks for traveling with me on this journey. Your support means the world to me.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 6
Acknowledgments
My Mom: Carol (Kosanke) Peterson
My Dad: Rev. Kenneth Peterson
My niece: Tiffany Hatheway
My nephew: Nick Hatheway
My sister: Angenette Hatheway
My family: Larry Peterson, Barbara and Harry Pazer, Bev and Ken Leinweber, Linda
Hodgins, Michelle Pazer, Judy Leinweber, Lisa Hodgins, Jessica Peterson, Alex Peterson,
Michael Peterson, Brad Hodgins, Lew Hodgins, David and Cindy Kosanke and Michelle
Pinnock
My closest friends: Ryan Jasen Henne, Elizabeth Harder, Tammy Richards, Misty
Bishota, Michael Griess, Julio Morales and Alec Gomez
My committee members: Dean Karen Symms Gallagher, Dr. Michael Diamond and Dr.
Lynette Merriman
My writing support system: Dr. Ilda Jimenez y West and Dr. Linda Fischer
The research sites and participants: Mexican Tech and American Tech
My supervisors: Kathi Baker, Dr. becky martinez, Dr. Carol Schmitz and Dr. David
Douglass
My staff and colleagues: Lori Johnson, Tori Ruiz, Jess Varga, Chris Toutain, Janae
Brewster, Heather Coakley, Carli Rohner, Dr. Karen Wood, Cynthia Stinson, Lisa Holliday, Luis
Rosa, Margaret Trout, Liz Garland and Dr. Jerry Houser
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Choosing a Frame 47
Table 2: Mean Scores for U.S. and Singapore Samples 47
Table 3: Institutional Classifications 54
Table 4: Participants 70
Table 5: Leadership Orientation Survey 98
Table 6: Choosing a Frame 101
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 8
Abstract
This study applies Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames to a senior student affairs officer
at Mexican Tech when establishing global partnerships with American Tech. The purpose of this
study was to understand the role student affairs plays in globalization at Mexican Tech, the
leadership strategies used by the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech, the leadership
styles used when developing global partnerships and to analyze any differences that may have
existed when working with his own staff versus the staff at the partnering institution. Interviews
were conducted with ten participants including the subject of the study, four staff members from
Mexican Tech, and five staff members from American Tech. Additionally, memorandums of
understanding, reports and awards, institutional websites, and organization charts were analyzed.
Findings from this study indicate the importance of a clear mission statement that is supported
and implemented through practice by leadership and student affairs professionals. The findings
further revealed knowledge acquisition and identification of best practices result in positive
outcomes for student affairs professionals. Additionally, collaboration was a key successful
leadership strategy due to the continuity, common goals, and persistent nature of the senior
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech. Staff were empowered and challenged to maintain
relationships and achieve long-term goals, which led to globalization at Mexican Tech. Finally,
operating in the Human Resource Frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003) could serve as a catalyst for
developing global partnerships and positive outcomes due to the relational nature of this form of
globalization.
Keywords: global partnerships, globalization, internationalization, leadership, student
affairs, Bolman and Deal
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Globalization has transformed our world and has a great impact on the way that colleges
and universities viewing their roles (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Armstrong, 2007; Kwiek, 2001;
Mishkin, 2009). According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), global partnerships are critical as the
workforce becomes increasingly global and diverse. As globalization is further infused into
institutions of higher education, student affairs professionals, with senior student affairs officers
playing a critical role, play a stronger role in developing and maintaining global partnerships and
fostering an environment for globalization to flourish at the institution (Green, 2002; Ping,
1999). Schulz, Lee, Cantwell, McClellan and Woodard (2007) emphasize the role of student
affairs professionals is particularly important in supporting international students. In addition,
they are responsible for educating domestic students about global awareness in relation to their
understanding of international matters and their attitudes about internationalization.
Global partnerships within student affairs and in particular the role of their leadership
were the focus of this study. This study examined how a senior student affairs officer at a
Mexican institution developed a global partnership with an American institution and the
leadership styles he employed to impact the student experience at his own institution as well as at
the institution he was partnering with. The main focus in this study was on the leadership style of
the senior student affairs officer at a Mexican institution as he developed global partnerships
with an American institution using Bolman and Deal’s leadership frames (2003). This study
examined which of the four frames he used when working with staff at his own institution and
compares that with the frame or frames he used when working with staff at an American
institution and notes any differences that may or may not exist.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 10
Background of the Problem
The exploration of globalization within the educational setting is becoming a significant
area of research due to the importance of graduating globally competent students and national
needs in this area (Brustein, 2007; Armstrong, 2007). According to Brustein (2007), unless
institutions of higher education prepare students to be globally competent, they will be
unprepared for global citizenship, will be unable to address national security needs, and will not
be successful as they compete in a marketplace that continues to become more global. In order
for globalization to become a focal point, the leadership on campus must stress the importance of
globalization, generate energy and momentum, allocate resources, and provide support (Green,
2002). Green (2002) asserts that as a key member of the campus leadership, the senior student
affairs officer can be instrumental in creating global partnerships.
Global partnerships facilitate opportunities for collaboration across international
boundaries. It allows for a mutually beneficial relationship where each can contribute to the
other’s success (Ping, 1999). In this study pseudonyms were created for all institutions and
participants. Mexican Tech (pseudonym) serves as the conduit for this study in relation to the
global partnership that has been formed in student affairs with American Tech (pseudonym). In
particular, the global partnership in student affairs between Mexican Tech and American Tech
have created opportunities for information exchange and the ability to work towards best
practices within several areas of student affairs including residence life, dining services,
community service learning, student activities, and counseling services.
Globalization
Although defined in many ways, for the purposes of this study, globalization is defined as
“a process in which modularization of production…is joined with state of the art information
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 11
technology and decreasing national trade boundaries to enable a global optimization of
production and distribution” (Armstrong, 2007, p. 131). Although this definition is based upon
corporate tenants, Armstrong posits that globalization impacts all areas of the world economy,
government, and institutions including those in higher education. In contrast, internationalization
is the process of integrating an international or intercultural dimension into the teaching,
research, and service functions of a higher education institution (Knight, 1994). A global
partnership is “a collaboration that can reasonably be expected to have mutual (though not
necessarily identical) benefits, that will contribute to the development of both institutional and
individual capacities at both institutions, that respects the sovereignty and autonomy of both
institutions, and that is itself empowering” (Samoff & Carrol, 2002, p. 44). These definitions
serve as the foundation of this study.
Globalization has an impact on most major components of the world’s economy, and the
college and university setting is no different (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Armstrong, 2007; Kwiek,
2001; Mishkin, 2009). International education is a multi-billion dollar industry and is rapidly on
the rise (Shanahan & McParlane, 2005). This rise in international education leads to more
frequent global partnerships, or collaborations among colleges and universities in different
countries (Sakamoto & Chapman, 2011). Internationalization is frequently heralded as a goal
within higher education and has found its way into more college and university mission
statements (Armstrong, 2007; Childress, 2009). Although internationalization is on the rise, there
has not been a significant amount of research on global partnerships within student affairs.
Understanding the impact of global partnerships on college and university campuses, specifically
in the student affairs profession, will provide insights into the needed supports and services.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 12
Student Affairs
According to Schulz et al. (2007), the role of student affairs is particularly important in
supporting international students. Schultz et al. (2007) indicate that it is equally important for
student affairs professionals to educate domestic students about global awareness in relation to
their understanding of international matters and their attitudes about internationalization. Since
the 1980s, the responsibilities of student affairs administration have grown immensely. Due to
cross-border higher education and the rise in mobility across cultures, responsibilities for student
affairs now include the introduction of intercultural and global perspectives in campus activities
as well as serving the needs of the diversifying student body (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 2005). The role of student affairs administration expanded even
further later in the twentieth century to require more specialized knowledge and interest on the
part of student affairs professionals as a result of globalization (Ping, 1999). Along with the
faculty and university administration, student affairs professionals play an important part in
developing the academic environment at colleges and universities. As globalization becomes
further infused into institutions of higher education, student affairs professionals play a stronger
role in developing and maintaining global partnerships and fostering an environment for
globalization.
Leadership
Lic. Julio Lopez (pseudonym) is the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech and is
the focus of this study. This study examined Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames and how
they are utilized by Lic. Lopez. This research further analyzed the differences between the
leadership style he uses with staff at Mexican Tech and the leadership style he uses with staff at
American Tech. Both institutions are large, technology-based institutions. However, Mexican
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 13
Tech is a private institution while American Tech is a public institution. Mexican Tech began the
global partnership with American Tech in the area of residence life in 2004 under the leadership
of Lic. Lopez, who was serving as the director of residence life at the time. Residence life is
responsible for working with the students living within the residential communities at a
university and providing oversight of the day-to-day operations of the buildings as well as the
development of the community within the buildings. The partnership between Mexican Tech and
American Tech has expanded since 2004 to include additional departments within the Division
of Student Affairs.
This study examined the leadership style of the senior student affairs officer at Mexican
Tech through the framework created by Bolman and Deal (2003). Bolman and Deal (2003) use
frames (the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame and the symbolic
frame) as a way to make sense of leadership and the way leadership is conceptualized. Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) frames have been tested in many settings, giving validity to their theory.
Leadership is “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2004, p. 3). Green (2002) indicates that leadership is
essential for the success of internationalization. Leadership at all levels of the institution must
share in the effort to make progress, and strong leadership is certainly an attribute of leading
educational institutions (Fullan, 2001). When incorporating new ideas, those involved are more
likely to take ownership if there are opportunities for leadership at all levels (Baxter Magolda &
King, 2004). Kouzes and Posner (2002) emphasize the importance of paying attention to the
positive and of being visible as leaders in the increasingly global and diverse workforce.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 14
Global University Partnerships Between Mexico and the United States
There are a growing number of global university partnerships between Mexico and the
United States. The Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation in Development
(ALO), now known as Higher Education for Development (HED), works in close partnership
with several agencies to support the involvement of higher education in development issues
worldwide while funding partnerships between U.S. colleges and universities and developing
nations (Higher Education for Development, 2011). The ALO (2003) suggests that partnerships
between institutions of higher education in the United States and Mexico will be a major source
of development cooperation in the decades ahead as long as there are benefits for all parties.
Within higher education, the Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation in
Development asserts that global partnerships offer opportunities for innovation, continuous
access to critical expertise, cost-effective engagements, and sustainable results.
There is a strong interest and commitment from Mexican higher education institutions to
have a deeper understanding of the issues being faced in their regions, which makes them
formidable partners in promoting continued development in Mexico (The Association Liaison
Office for University Cooperation in Development, 2003). Mexico benefits from exchanges that
increase trust and understanding of others, access to new knowledge, opportunities for better
partnerships in professional training, and links within industry and business to prepare students
for the workplace. Additionally, the expertise American higher education institutions can offer
Mexico makes them a key resource for international development. According to The Association
Liaison Office for University Cooperation in Development, U.S. colleges and universities share
clearer global perspectives and building and strengthening bridges between the U.S. and other
countries.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 15
American institutions benefit from these partnerships due, in part, to the economic value
international students bring to the institution. According to Wang and Frank (2002), international
students typically pay full tuition; thus, they contribute to the overall budget of the institution at a
high rate per capita. Since opportunities to supplement the cost of their education are limited due
to visas, international students will often look for jobs on campus as research and teaching
assistants. Thus, they provide these services at a lower cost to the institution (Tomkovick, 1996).
Wang and Frank (2002) note that international students contribute to the success and enrichment
of colleges and universities since they often bring intellectual contributions to the academic
excellence of a campus. Additionally, international students enrich campus diversity through
their exposure to different cultural and ethnic experiences (Wang & Frank, 2002). Even though
much of what international students offer is positive, critics argue about the efficiency of
resources of the developing world. Cultural and language barriers, along with political loyalties
can pose a problem, when there are a high proportion of international graduate students
(Pedersen, 1991).
Mexican Tech
This study sought to understand the role of a student affairs program at a Mexican
institution in fulfilling the institution’s mission to globalize the co-curricular experience. It
focused on Lic. Julio Lopez, the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech, and analyzed the
manner in which he implemented the process using the views of those he works with, directly
and indirectly, within the Division of Student Affairs at Mexican Tech and American Tech.
The inclusion of globalization or internationalization in college and university mission
statements is prevalent. For example, Mexican Tech has included aspects of globalization and
internationalization in its mission statement:
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 16
The mission of Mexican Tech is to form persons with integrity, ethical standards and a
humanistic outlook, who are internationally competitive in their professional field and,
who, at the same time are good citizens committed to the economic, political and cultural
development of their community and to the sustainable use of natural resources.
Through its educational, research and development programs, Mexican Tech prepares
students and transfers knowledge to:
• Promote the international competitiveness of business enterprises based on
knowledge, innovation, technological development, and sustainable development.
• Develop business management models to compete in a global economy.
• Create, implement and transfer business incubator models and networks to contribute
to the creation of enterprises.
• Collaborate in professionalizing public administration; and analyze and propose
public policies for Mexico’s development.
• Contribute to the sustainable development of the community with innovative models
and systems for its educational, social, economic and political improvement.
With this mission, Mexican Tech and its community are committed to contributing to the
educational, social, economic, and political improvement of Mexico.
To carry out this mission, the academic programs encourage the appreciation of
humanistic culture in its diverse manifestations, as well as the historical and cultural
identity of the country and its regions. They also include reflections upon the ethical
aspects involved in dilemmas that arise during professional life, as well as activities
directed toward the development of civic capabilities (Mexican Tech, 2005).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 17
The concepts of internationalization and globalization play an important role in the
mission of Mexican Tech.
Statement of the Problem
In order to create opportunities for institutions to build a variety of activities with cross-
border colleagues while promoting respect and mutuality, global partnerships are essential to
deepening and sustaining international experiences (Sakamoto & Chapman, 2011; Wiley &
Root, 2003). Thus, global partnerships were an integral focus of this study. When participating in
long-term partnerships amongst colleges and universities, students, faculty and administrators
learn from each other and, in turn, are changed by the partnership (Sakamoto & Chapman, 2011).
According to Sakamoto and Chapman (2011), there may be differences in expectations when
developing global partnerships, but they indicate this should not pose a problem as long as all
parties benefit from the partnership even if these benefits differ. Green (2002) espouses that
global partnerships at colleges and universities are a critical element in internationalization.
Therefore, this study focused on the global partnerships in student affairs between Mexican Tech
and American Tech.
As the world becomes more global, there will be more global partnerships and Student
Affairs will play an even larger role in globalization (Schulz et al., 2007). According to
Ellingboe (1998), international components within co-curricular units including residence life,
conference services, student unions, career centers, student activities and student organizations as
well as cultural immersion and language courses are vital to internationalizing the university.
While the role of student affairs in global partnerships is indeed important, there has been little
research on how these global partnerships function and, in particular, the role of their leadership
in moving these partnerships forward. This study addressed the missing link in that the ways in
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 18
which a senior student affairs officer from a non-American institution integrated globalization
into the student experience is an important addition to the existing research in this area.
Purpose of the Study
As colleges and universities incorporate internationalization into their mission statements,
global partnerships between colleges and universities in the United States and their counterparts
throughout the world become more prevalent. This study examined how a senior student affairs
officer at a Mexican institution developed global partnerships with an American institution and
the leadership styles he employed to shape the student experience at his own institution as well
as at the institution he partnered with. Lic. Julio Lopez is the top administrator within the
division of student affairs at Mexican Tech and was the catalyst in the partnerships with student
affairs at American Tech. Further, this study examined the role student affairs plays in
globalization at a Mexican institution and the partnerships within student affairs including
residence life, global citizens partners (civic engagement), student government, student health
and counseling, campus dining, and student activities. The main focus was on Lic. Lopez’
leadership style using Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames, as he developed a global
partnership with an American institution. This study examined which of the four frames he used
when working with staff at Mexican Tech and compared that to the frames he used when
working with staff at American Tech. This allowed the researcher to examine the cultural factors
in place for this particular leader and whether there was a need to adapt styles across cultures.
The leadership style of the senior student affairs officer was examined from the point of
view of the student affairs staff at Mexican Tech and compared to the point of view of the
student affairs staff at American Tech. The methodology employed was a descriptive case study,
which examined a phenomenon and allowed the author to present a detailed account of what
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 19
occurred (Merriam, 1998). This study utilized applied qualitative research through a bounded
case study methodology using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. An individual
university in Mexico and the partnership developed with an individual university in the United
States were studied and the researcher examined the leadership style of the senior student affairs
officer at the Mexican institution. This allowed the author to focus deeply on one institution’s
partnership with another institution and one individual leader rather than viewing the surface of
several different institutions and leaders.
Research Questions
A deeper understanding of the way in which college and university leaders create global
partnerships along with what leadership styles are effective in developing these partnerships is
needed for the continued sustainability of higher education (Wiley & Root, 2003). In order to
understand the way in which college and university leaders create global partnerships utilizing
effective leadership styles, the following research questions were posed:
1. What role does student affairs play in globalization at Mexican Tech?
2. What leadership strategies did the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use
to implement global partnerships with American Tech?
3. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003), what leadership styles did the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use when developing global
partnerships with American Tech?
4. Is there a difference between the perception of the leadership styles used by the senior
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when working with his own staff versus that
of the leadership styles he used with the staff at American Tech, and, if so, what are
those differences?
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 20
Bolman and Deal (2003) use four leadership frames to describe leadership: the structural
frame, the human resource frame, the political frame and the symbolic frame. Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) leadership frames were used as the framework for leadership, and this allowed the
researcher to provide a descriptive and analytical account of the relationship the senior student
affairs officer has with the student affairs staff at Mexican Tech and compared this with the
relationship he has with the student affairs staff at American Tech. As detailed in Chapter 2,
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory was selected as the framework for this study because it has
proven useful in understanding the effectiveness of leaders and the styles they use to effectuate
this leadership. Thompson (2000) indicates that using Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory allows
the researcher to understand how the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech’s leadership
style relates to managerial and leadership effectiveness. Thompson (2000) states, “a multi-frame
or balanced leadership orientation yields the most effective managers and leaders” (p. 970). This
study analyzed the leadership styles utilized by Lic. Julio Lopez and differences found when
working with the staff at Mexican Tech in comparison to the leadership styles he used when
working with the staff at American Tech.
Significance of the Study
A single case study approach may allow for future comparison by other researchers in
this area due to the fact that a senior student affairs officer’s leadership characteristics are
described in detail (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002) as they pertain to developing global
partnerships. This study analyzed how a senior student affairs officer used his leadership to
shape the role of globalization at a large, technology-based institution in Mexico. Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) leadership frames were used as the foundation and may allow those individuals
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 21
with interests pertaining to the study to apply the research for their own purposes. Additionally,
this study expanded the existing body of literature related to cross-border leadership styles.
The leadership that comes from a senior student affairs officer is critical for student
outcomes. As Green (2002) states, the senior student affairs officer plays a key role in ensuring
that globalization is successful at the university level. Senior-level administrators at large
technology-based institutions may find this study most useful since this study would have the
most transferability for these individuals. However, many institutions include
internationalization or globalization in their mission statements, challenging the historical
missions of many institutions in order to understand the role of globalization in the context of
their individual needs (Armstrong, 2007). Strategies utilized by the senior student affairs officer
may be applied to institutions aiming to further infuse globalization into the student experience.
Because of the increased numbers of students studying abroad and the value they add to
campuses, it is important to understand how to create organizational change to support the
evolving needs the student population.
Limitations
Case study methodology allowed the researcher to provide a detailed and in-depth
descriptive analysis. However, there are limitations to this methodology. It can be difficult to
generalize a case study beyond the individual confines of the study (Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2002), which may have implications on the applicability to other individuals or institutions. A
case study approach can be unreliable due to potential biases of the researcher since the
investigator was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis (Merriam, 1998).
Additionally, according to Merriam, the case study approach can bring validity into question,
unless the study is assessed carefully, since the conclusions of the case study rest upon data. A
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 22
final note about the limitations of case study narratives is that “case studies can oversimplify or
exaggerate a situation, leading the reader to erroneous conclusions about the actual state of
affairs…they tend to masquerade as a whole when in fact they are but a part – a slice of life”
(Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 377).
Another limitation to this study is that the senior student affairs officer supervises, either
directly or indirectly, the individuals at the Mexican institution who were interviewed in this
study. Therefore, individuals may not have been entirely forthcoming during the interview
process (Merriam, 1998). There are also differences in power relationships between those who
were interviewed at Mexican Tech and those interviewed at American Tech since there is no
supervisory relationship with those at American Tech. Other limitations are related to the
interviews because individual recall may be different due perspective. The level of truthfulness
may vary depending on whether the respondent wishes to paint a particular picture or is
conscious of how his or her response may affect someone else. Distance may also have been an
issue, as time and resources were limited and the researcher was unable to travel to either of the
campuses during the time of the study. Merriam (1998) indicates that the use of technology may
aid in limiting the impact that distance may have on a study.
The review of the literature showed that Bolman and Deal’s (2003) framework had not
been tested on foreign leaders working with American individuals. However, due to the
proximity of Mexico, and Mexican Tech in particular, this limitation may be minimized. The fact
that the framework had not been tested in this way allowed this study to serve as a test for the
model and, thus, expand the literature in this area. A final limitation of this study is that,
although members of student affairs at Mexican Tech speak English fluently, it is not their first
language. Thus, language used in interviews was carefully selected to assure validity.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 23
Delimitations
A delimitation of this study is that only two institutions were analyzed. Therefore, the
transferability of the study may be limited to similar institutions (Merriam, 1998). Additionally,
since the study focused on one leader within Student Affairs Administration at one institution,
there will be an effect on transferability since his leadership style may not fit all individuals
(Merriam, 1998). Another delimitation is that this study did not attempt to understand how
globalization affects students or faculty because they are not the focus of the investigation. An
additional delimitation of the study came in the amount of time allotted to conduct this study.
The researcher was limited by the amount of time needed to conduct interviews and the
collection and analysis of artifacts. Results were limited to describing the phenomenon rather
than to attempting to predict future behavior.
Definitions
Definitions of globalization and leadership are very complex and the definitions that
could have been utilized for the purposes of this study were numerous. Stromquist (2002) asserts
that definitions of globalization focus on many areas including social relations, technology,
culture spreading, sociopolitical impacts and how these have been shaped. The transferability of
globalization to higher education can be especially complex. For the purpose of this study, the
following key definitions were used:
Globalization – “process in which modularization of production (from conception
through sales) is joined with state of the art information technology and decreasing national trade
boundaries to enable a global optimization of production and distribution” (Armstrong, 2007, p.
131).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 24
Global partnership – “a collaboration that can reasonably be expected to have mutual
(though not necessarily identical) benefits, that will contribute to the development of both
institutional and individual capacities at both institutions, that respects the sovereignty and
autonomy of both institutions, and that is itself empowering” (Samoff & Carrol, 2002, p. 44).
Internationalization – the process of integrating an international or intercultural
dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of a higher education institution
(Knight, 1994).
Leadership – “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2004, p. 3).
Leadership Frames – Bolman and Deal (2003) use four leadership frames to describe
leadership: the structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame and the symbolic
frame. “The structural frame emphasizes goals, specialized roles, and formal relationships”
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 14). The human resource frame ”sees an organization as much like an
extended family, made up of individuals with needs, feelings, prejudices, skills, and limitations”
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 14). The political frame “sees organizations as arenas, contests or
jungles” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 14). The symbolic frame “treats organizations as tribes,
theaters, or carnivals” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 15).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 25
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter analyzed and synthesized the literature related to global partnerships and
leadership as it relates to student affairs and the study’s research questions. The first topic of
review is globalization. Global partnerships are essential for creating opportunities that diversify
activities offered and promote respect and mutuality (Wiley & Root, 2003). The researcher
examined the terminology and frameworks used for globalization, a history of the evolution of
globalization, how it relates to student affairs and concludes with the synthesis and analysis of
the literature in this area. The second topic of review was leadership, and this chapter provided
an overview of a number of concepts on leadership, factors that may have an impact on
leadership, leadership in student affairs and, finally, a synthesis and analysis of the literature
related to leadership. Additionally, this chapter synthesized the relevant literature related to
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames on creating organizational change, as this was the
key framework used throughout the study. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames are situated
within the literature related to globalization and leadership pertaining to the field of student
affairs. This chapter finished with conclusions based upon the literature, gaps in the literature
that support the need for this study, and relevant links and discussion of the research questions.
Globalization
Globalization has an impact on most major components of the world’s economy, and the
college and university setting is no different (Mishkin, 2009). This section looks at the evolution
of terminology related to globalization and several of the frameworks that have been used over
the years by Armstrong (2007), Sakamoto and Chapman (2011), Knight (1994), Childress
(2009), Davies and Guppy (1997), Arnove (2003), Weber and Duderstadt (2008), Wagner
(2004), Altbach and Knight (2007), and Spring (2008). Frameworks and terminology developed
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 26
by these authors were explored, but this study used Armstrong’s definition for globalization as
the primary model for this study. Armstrong’s model is presented in the following section. Next,
this chapter explored the relevant history of globalization within higher education and student
affairs, including the way global partnerships have been formed and the benefits of global
partnerships. Wiley and Root’s (2003) guidelines for developing global partnerships were
applied to the partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Finally, key aspects of
globalization are discussed.
Terminology and Frameworks
As the concept of international education evolves, the terminology associated with it
continues to change to allow better descriptions of new ways of working (Sakamoto & Chapman,
2011). The evolution of terminology related to globalization and the history of globalization laid
the foundation for the way globalization is conceptualized it affects how it develops. According
to Knight (2006), as globalization changes, the terminology used to describe it no longer captures
the phenomenon that evolves into something new. In generic terms, words such as international
education and comparative education have been around for at least the past 40 years (Knight,
2006). According to Knight, terms such as internationalization, multi-cultural education, inter-
cultural education and global education have been existence for the past 25 years. New terms
developed during the past 15 years include cross-border education, borderless education and
globalization. The new terms reflect changes that occur and allow for more accurate descriptions
of what is happening. Due to the numerous ways that globalization has been defined and
conceptualized, it was important to pinpoint a common definition to serve as the foundation for
the study.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 27
Globalization and internationalization are terms that are often confused (Altbach &
Knight, 2007). In the past several decades, globalization and internationalization have been
frequently heralded as a goal within higher education and are incorporated into many mission
statements (Childress, 2009; Armstrong, 2007). Internationalization integrates international or
intercultural aspects through teaching, research and service within higher education (Knight,
1994). On the other hand, globalization is the description and explanation of social processes
transcending national borders within education (Davies and Guppy, 1997). Arnove (2003) take
globalization a step further to include the closely intertwined economic and education agendas
promoted by the agencies who fund projects and offer technical assistance.
Although institutions of higher education have remained relatively untouched by
globalization in comparison to the corporate world, it is unlikely that higher education will
continue to be so sheltered in the future (Armstrong, 2007). Armstrong’s model on globalization
laid the foundation for this study, it allows students to move beyond the borders of their own
campus and explore new options within a changing world while exchanging people and ideas.
He defines globalization as “a process in which modularization of production (from conception
through sales) is joined with state of the art information technology and decreasing national trade
boundaries to enable a global optimization of production and distribution” (p. 131). Armstrong
reframes the traditional hub-and-spoke model into a multinational context in a way that changes
the way borders affect education. Armstrong asserts that leaders in higher education are pulled
away from the traditional method of being tied to their local institution and are able to
conceptualize cross-border activities including study abroad programs, off-shore programs,
information sharing and global partnerships which may include students, faculty and staff
exchanging people and ideas.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 28
Understanding the mission of an institution is key to developing a strategy for
globalization (Childress, 2009; Armstrong, 2007). This calls for looking beyond the place-based
model that has been a large part of the institutional missions of the past. According to
Armstrong, there are several reasons that cross-border activities come about. The first reason is
to increase globalization skills of students on the home campus by offering options to study
abroad, hosting international students and encouraging international faculty exchanges. Global
twinning – where students attend an institution in one country for two years and complete their
degree at the home institution - may also help fulfill the goal of increasing globalization skills
(Armstrong, 2007). Armstrong believes that branch campuses – where an institution sets up a
campus in a foreign setting - limit the international nature of the experience. The second reason
for international efforts is the desire to generate new income through the recruitment of students,
developing global partnerships and the establishment of overseas branch campuses. The final
reason for cross-border activities presented by Armstrong is to increase international visibility.
Prestigious partnerships are the most useful, and high-level research is usually a core component
within the partnership.
Weber and Duderstadt (2008) acknowledge that globalization is a multi-dimensional
phenomenon that expands beyond the economy to three dimensions: the political dimension, the
social dimension and the cultural dimension. The political dimension looks at power reduction
occurring within national governments as the momentum for globalization. In the social
dimension, the creation of a market society is necessary but not always desirable. In Weber and
Duderstadt’s cultural dimension, economic impulses are not any more important than the cultural
aspects of globalization.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 29
The momentum of globalization over the past twenty years transformed higher education
and lead to the emergence of higher education as a business (Wagner, 2004). Wagner’s model
aligns with two of Weber and Duderstadt’s (2008) dimensions. According to Wagner, there are
usually three dimensions of globalization that are distinguished: economic, cultural and political.
The economic dimension refers to world market and the way it is created. Technology plays a
key role in Wagner’s economic dimension. The cultural dimension can sometimes be referred to
as Americanization whereby culture becomes more homogeneous and specific cultural aspects
may disappear. On the other hand, multiculturalism emerges out of Wagner’s cultural dimension.
Wagner’s political dimension is a product of economic and cultural globalization. In the political
dimension, politics do not play as strong of a role due to an increasing commitment to human
rights and democracy. Wagner views higher education as a product and believes that it should be
seen as a public good, much like clean air. However, higher education must be produced, unlike
clean air. Wagner indicates that the challenges of market and technology are at the forefront of
our attention in this global era.
Altbach and Knight (2007) have two overlapping dimensions with Wagner (2004).
Altbach and Knight define globalization within economic, political and societal forces
transforming higher education into a place where it is hard to ignore international involvement.
The motivation behind globalizing higher education varies. For traditional, non-profit
universities, enhancing research and knowledge capacity and increasing cultural awareness are
the primary motivators due to the fact that such institutions receive their funding from the
government. According to Altbach and Knight, the revenue brought into the institution by
international students is a key factor in making them a priority in the recruitment process. Access
is a factor that motivates institutions to open branch campuses, franchise foreign academic
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 30
programs or recruit international students to attend their institutions (Altbach & Knight, 2007).
Therefore, the competing motivations of economic, political and societal forces create the new
landscape for colleges and universities.
Spring (2008) looks at globalization from a different perspective and defines
globalization within the field of education as involving the study of worldwide discourses,
processes and institutions that are intertwined to affect local practices and policies in education.
Spring discusses four theoretical frameworks for globalization and education: world culture,
world systems, postcolonial, and culturalist. The belief within world culture is that, over time, all
cultures are morphing into a single culture. The premise for world systems is that the globe is
integrated within two major zones: The core (consisting of the United States, the European
Union and Japan) and periphery nations. The goal within world systems is for the core nations to
impose their values upon the periphery nations. Within the postcolonial position, there is a desire
to impose political and economic agendas that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Spring’s concept of the culturalist perspective views globalization as cultural variations where
ideas are shared across borders like what occurs between Mexican Tech and American Tech. The
culturalist perspective was an important aspect of this study, as it examined leadership in a cross-
cultural setting.
Global Partnerships
International activity within the university setting is not a new occurrence, as it has been
going on for a century or more in some cases (Altbach & Knight, 2007). However, according to
Altbach and Knight, globalization in higher education has moved beyond having foreign students
on campus studying amongst domestic students and now includes changes in curriculum through
international studies. Altbach and Knight indicate that the movement of education across
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 31
national borders will continue to grow as the demand for international education increases. With
this increase in demand, new ways of envisioning partnerships and providing service will emerge
(Altbach & Knight, 2007). As such, it is important to understand the way in which these new
partnerships are developed and how they emerge.
Collaborations among colleges in different countries are a fast-growing form of
international trade, and, according to Sakamoto and Chapman (2011), economics often play a
role in the motivation of new endeavors. Therefore, it is important that there is a benefit for all
parties involved in global partnerships even if each party does not value the same aspects. When
it comes to non-instructional programs, including student affairs, Sakamoto and Chapman
indicate that funding may come from a wide variety of sources and may be less predictable than
funding secured for projects that are more academic in nature.
Global partnerships have been defined as “a collaboration that can reasonably be
expected to have mutual (though not necessarily identical) benefits, that will contribute to the
development of both institutional and individual capacities at both institutions, that respects the
sovereignty and autonomy of both institutions, and that is itself empowering” (Samoff & Carrol,
2002, p. 44). This study sought to understand the global partnerships between Mexican Tech and
American Tech that have been established within student affairs.
Globalization in Student Affairs
Globalization changed the ideals of the modern university and, in turn, student affairs
(Kwiek, 2001). The modern university in society changed, along with society itself, due to the
fact that the place, social function and role of the university are no longer as clearly determined
as when the university was held as one of the most significant institutions of modernity (Kwiek,
2001). Kwiek (2001) indicates that, since the location of the university is no longer as important,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 32
other factors must now rise to the surface. As this revolutionary period of change within higher
education continues, Kwiek (2001) maintains that institutions can thrive as they have in the past
and, as such, student affairs can take the lead in this venture. This study examined the role that
student affairs played in globalization at Mexican Tech.
The role of student affairs administration in globalization is expanding much like the
general expansion of responsibilities that occurs as the profession transforms (Ping, 1999; Baxter
Magolda, 2003). According to Ping (1999), the traditional role of student affairs has been
“defining and enforcing appropriate student conduct, developing the whole person, and
providing support services to students” (p. 13). Ping examined the implications that globalization
has on the traditional role of student affairs and found it took decades for American colleges and
universities to embrace global interdependence. Ping indicates that international exchanges
transformed many American campuses beyond simply integrating foreign students into
educational programs and campus life. Today’s international students educate American students
about the realities of a global world. Now, student affairs staff members are expected to nurture
campus programs and activities that contribute to cross-cultural understanding (Ping, 1999).
Through this study, the researcher examined the role of student affairs in nurturing cross-cultural
understanding at a single institution.
Student affairs professionals view education holistically, but the traditional separation
between the curriculum and co-curriculum makes it difficult for students to have this same
holistic view (Baxter Magolda, 2003). According to Baxter Magolda (2003), leaders within
higher education have been slow to make the transformation to this holistic approach, leaving it
to student affairs educators to take the lead. Beyond intellectual growth and career preparation,
most campuses have expectations of incorporating an appreciation of diversity or intercultural
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 33
competence, civil interactions with fellow students, and an emphasis upon self as central (Baxter
Magolda, 2003).
It is not only important for student affairs professionals to develop the students with
whom they work, but it is also important for student affairs professionals to be intentional with
their own professional development. The importance of professional development for student
affairs professionals related to internationalization has been evident since at least 1999. Kruger
and Dungy (1999) discuss opportunities for international travel and professional exchange for
student affairs professionals. Dr. Kevin Kruger is the current president of Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) and Dr. Gwendolyn Dungy is Executive Director
Emerita of NASPA. According to Kruger and Dungy (1999), there has been a rise in the number
of both international participants and programs related to international issues at the NASPA
annual conferences. NASPA cites economic factors, the increase in collegiate global partnerships
and the impact of the internet as factors contributing to this increase in interest. Kruger and
Dungy have stressed the importance of international travel and professional exchange for student
affairs professionals. This is especially true as interest in international issues rises. The work of
student affairs professionals can no longer be confined to the physical borders of an individual
campus (Kruger & Dungy, 1999). Kruger and Dungy (1999) indicate that learning opportunities
such as those offered by international exchange programs for student affairs professionals are
almost universally positive. These exchange programs allow U.S. student affairs staff to better
understand what their students experience when on campus. Since student affairs is still in
development in many countries, such programs allow U.S. student affairs professionals to see the
way programs are run with much smaller staff and fewer resources. This has been particularly
helpful with the recent economic crisis. According to Kruger and Dungy (1999), international
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 34
campuses benefit from the new ideas and programs offered by their American counterparts and
have aided in the development of training programs. Additionally, American programs offer a
theoretical foundation on which foreign campuses can build their programs.
Collaboration is an important part of global partnerships and Wiley and Root (2003) have
indicated there are many positive effects for faculty and student affairs professionals working in
a collaborative environment. Global partnerships are essential for creating opportunities that
diversify the activities offered, promote respect and mutuality, and are an integral part of this
study. According to Wiley and Root (2003), by increasing global partnerships, higher education
can increase the quality of international education at all levels. However, in order to maintain
good will across national borders, these partnerships must be effective and use guidelines to
achieve the goals outlined by all parties. Wiley and Root identify the 16 guidelines for successful
global partnerships including:
• Be clear about goals of the partnership
• Work with a deepened understanding of each other
• Commit internal funding to the partnership, not only grant funds
• Build for the long-term
• Seek broad support from both relevant faculty and administrative leaders
• Make decisions collaboratively
• Operate with written agreements
• Be constant in the goals of the partnership
• Regularly celebrate the creation, successes, and overcoming of difficulties in the
partnership (pp. 4-5).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 35
Wiley and Root’s guidelines can be applied as global partnerships are established in student
affairs and can set the foundation for their success. The use of these guidelines allowed the
researcher to assess the success of the global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American
Tech.
Student affairs plays an instrumental role in globalization. College and university mission
statements that include globalization and internationalization open the door for student affairs to
become a catalyst in organizational change. Global partnerships are essential in creating this
organizational change, and leaders within student affairs are now able to reach beyond their own
borders to shape the student experience on an international level.
Summary for Globalization
Although globalization has been defined and framed in a number of ways, there is
overlap amongst many of the frameworks. Several themes arise when examining the various
frameworks: culture (Weber & Duderstadt, 2008; Wagner, 2004; Spring, 2008), economics
(Arnove, 2003), social (Davies & Guppy, 1997; Weber & Duderstadt, 2008), political (Weber &
Duderstadt, 2008; Wagner, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007) and the idea of transcending national
borders (Davies & Guppy, 1997; Armstrong, 2007). The impact of globalization on the modern
university as well as on student affairs is evident (Kwiek, 2001). Student affairs can take the lead
during this revolutionary period of change within higher education (Kwiek, 2001).
Globalization and internationalization are found as goals to be strived towards in the
mission statements of many colleges and universities (Armstrong, 2007; Childress, 2009; Siaya
& Hayward, 2003). According to Siaya and Hayward (2003), internationalization is mentioned in
the majority of mission statements at research universities in the United States. The increased
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 36
mention of globalization and internationalization in mission statements implies that student
affairs will need to enhance their current role in globalization in order to meet the stated goal.
A global partnership, “a collaboration that can reasonably be expected to have mutual
(though not necessarily identical) benefits, that will contribute to the development of both
institutional and individual capacities at both institutions, that respects the sovereignty and
autonomy of both institutions, and that is itself empowering” (Samoff & Carrol, 2002, p. 44), is
critical in expanding internationalization on a college or university campus. Wiley and Root’s
(2003) guidelines for developing global partnerships will aid in the examination of global
partnerships. Although partnerships are developed across borders, little research has been
established on the role of student affairs in globalization. This study sought to fill this gap in the
literature, as it closely examined one such partnership.
Leadership
There are a plethora of definitions of leadership due to the many ways that it has been
conceptualized. This section begins by introducing several ways leadership has been defined and
continues by examining some of the factors that can affect leadership that are most relevant to
this study. It was important to clearly define leadership for this study to help conceptualize how
interviewees use this term. The literature was synthesized and analyzed in relation to leadership
and provides an in-depth analysis of leadership within student affairs and internationalization.
The section concludes with an examination of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames, as their
research serves as a foundation for this study.
Terminology and Frameworks
Leadership has been defined in many different ways for many different purposes. Stogdill
(1974) noted, “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 37
who have attempted to define the concept” (p. 7). Northouse has defined four components that
can be identified as central to the phenomenon of leadership: (a) Leadership is a process, (b)
leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership
involves goal attainment. Northouse’s four components led to his definition of leadership: “a
process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”
(Northouse, 2004, p. 3) which will be the definition that will be used for this study. The key
words in this definition are process, influence, and goal. Northouse’s (2004) use of process
indicates that it is a transactional event where the leader has an impact on the followers and, in
turn, the leader is affected by the followers. By using the word group, he is referring to the
context, and, within his definition, he does not include programs that teach people to be self-lead.
Northouse (2004) asserts that, in order for leadership to occur, individuals must be moving
toward a common goal. The common goal within the global partnership between Mexican Tech
and American Tech was collaboration. Northouse (2004) outlines multiple approaches including
the trait approach, skills approach, style approach, situational approach, contingency theory,
path-goal theory, leader-member exchange theory, transformational leadership, team leadership
and the psychodynamic approach.
Another perspective on leadership comes from Kouzes and Posner (2002). Kouzes and
Posner (2002) introduce Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership: model the way, inspire a
shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. Listening with
your eyes and heart are key to learning to understand and see things from another’s perspective
and is a critical part of global leadership. It is important to pay attention and actively appreciate
others in order to increase the trust level – a critical kind of relationship as we become
increasingly global and diverse in the workforce (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 38
Bensimon and Neumann (1992) examine leadership as it relates to teams and teamwork
in higher education. Much like the word leadership, they point out that the word team has many
different meanings and definitions. Bensimon and Neumann view leadership as a collaborative
endeavor rather than a single individual’s being a leader. There is a growing interest in
collaborative leadership from executive leaders in corporations, public agencies and within
colleges and universities. Those who utilize collaborative leadership contend that adapting to
technology is easier when working with a team. According to Bensimon and Neumann, there are
also drawbacks to using a team approach to leadership because of its incompatibility with
American cultural values where individualism allows for entrepreneurship. In an examination of
crisis and collaborative resilience in response to the Virginia Tech murders of Monday, April 16,
2007, Goldstein (2011) drew from Beratan (2007), who indicates that collaborative relationships
are diverse, distributed, match to scale, lean local and generate trust. According to Archer and
Cameron (2012) collaborative leadership takes the challenge of leading and delivering across
boundaries. Collaborative leaders need to be able to shift their way of working in order to
address the changing boundaries of what is done inside and outside of an organization (Archer &
Cameron, 2012). A collaborative approach to leadership as described by Bensimon and
Neumann (1992), Archer and Cameron (2012), and Goldstein (2007) matches with the concept
of global partnerships and the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech that was
studied.
Although this only represents five approaches to leadership of the many approaches
defined over the years, the frameworks presented above offer a great deal of connection to the
collaborative approach to leadership utilized by Julio Lopez.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 39
Cultural Impacts on Leadership
There are many factors that can have an impact on leadership for individuals, and culture
plays a major role. Astin and Leland (1991) indicate that many of the traditional models of
leadership have been based upon White men in positions of authority and have not taken into
account differences in culture, gender or other factors that may affect leadership styles. One
aspect of culture is explored by Northouse (2004) who broaches the subject of gender in relation
to leadership. Northouse indicates that male and female leaders are equally effective. However,
he also indicates that context plays a large role in the way that leadership roles are defined,
leading to conditions where males and females may be favored in different ways.
According to Kezar (2000), positional theory suggests that differences in background and
power shape perspectives. Overlap in various aspects of identity such as social class,
professional standing, and gender changes the way that power relations play out. Prior research
on leadership was conducted almost exclusively on males. Kezar indicates that women, in
particular, have a unique way of interpreting leadership that is more participatory, relational and
interpersonal in nature. Eagly and Cali (2007) determined that there is resistance to women’s
leadership. There is a clash between communal and agentic associations. “Women are associated
with communal qualities, which convey a concern for the compassionate treatment of others”
(Eagly & Cali, 2007, p. 66). “Men are associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion
and control” (Eagly & Cali, 2007, p. 66).
Cox (1993) further explores cultural factors in leadership and defines the concept of
managing diversity as “planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to
manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential
disadvantages are minimized” (p. 11). According to Cox, when cultural diversity is ignored
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 40
within organizations, efficiency, quality, relationships and the ability to reach goals are all
affected. However, when cultural differences are acknowledged, efficiency, quality, relationships
and the ability to reach goals are enhanced. Cox indicates that allowing individuals to achieve
their full potential regardless of their race, gender, nationality or age is the ultimate goal of
managing diversity. Cultural differences by nationality, race, gender and racioethnic groups must
be acknowledged in an organizational setting. Cox identifies six areas of behavior that vary
across these cultural differences: time and space orientation, leadership style orientations,
individualism versus collectivism, competitive versus cooperative behavior, locus of control and
communication styles.
Bolman and Deal (1992) analyzed cultural differences between principals in Florida and
principals in Singapore utilizing their four frames of leadership, and this analysis is detailed in
the section on the use of the four frames. Since this study was conducted on a non-American
subject, the application of the frames to a non-American study is particularly relevant.
Leadership in Student Affairs and Internationalization
The internationalization of student affairs administration is a late-twentieth-century
phenomenon (Ping, 1999) and has continued into the twenty-first-century. “The opening of
American campuses to the world continues and expands the traditional role of student affairs”
(Ping, 1999, p. 14). The president, provost and other senior leaders, including the chief student
affairs officer, serve as key players in the leadership of successful internationalization (Green,
2002). Internationalization is “an extension of the historical delegation to student affairs officers
of responsibility for defining and enforcing appropriate conduct, developing the whole person
through student life that complements curriculum, and providing services to students” (Ping,
1999, p. 13). The leaders “must consistently articulate the importance of internationalization,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 41
keep attention focused on the issue, secure and allocate resources for it, provide symbolic
support, engage external groups, and develop on-campus leadership and support” (Green, 2002,
p. 17). Green shares that the leadership of the senior leaders is necessary but not sufficient and
asserts that faculty must be a part of the process. Therefore, according to Green, as leaders in
student affairs take part in the globalization process, they must include the voice of the faculty if
they want their ideas to flourish. It is essential to determine the role that the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech played as a part of this study. In order to generate energy and
momentum, leaders need to make the case for change, focus attention towards the change,
communicate widely, use deadlines effectively, gain recognition from external sources,
continually widen the circle of participation, share leadership responsibilities, and create
coherence. Green indicates that securing financial commitment is the best way to identify and
align resources. Providing incentives, helping people develop new skills and knowledge, and
working effectively with governance bodies allows leaders to remove barriers. Green denotes
that creating numerous campus conversations, utilizing outsiders and their ideas and using work
groups across departments will help people think differently.
Summary for Leadership
Leadership can be defined in many ways but Northouse’s (2004) definition was utilized
for the purposes of this study. He defines it as “a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). Bolman and Deal’s four frames of
leadership (2003) was the framework through which this study was analyzed. In a changing
landscape, collaboration allows leaders to have an easier time adapting to technology but can be
incompatible with the American values of individualism and entrepreneurship (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1992). As colleges and universities become more diverse, culture (gender, nationality,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 42
race, and ethnicity) will play an essential role on campuses (Astin & Leland, 1991; Cox, 1993;
Kezar, 2000 ;). A part of this diversification comes from the internationalization of the university
setting, and the chief student affairs officer plays a key role in the leadership of student affairs in
internationalization (Green, 2002).
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
The framework for this study comes from the four leadership frames developed by
Bolman and Deal (2003) to describe leadership: the structural frame, the human resource frame,
the political frame and the symbolic frame. Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership
encompass many aspects of leadership and allowed the researcher to seek out potential
differences between the ways that leaders adapt their leadership style based upon the population
they work with. Due to the population-based theoretical framework of this theory, it lends itself
to serve as an ideal model for a comparison study such as this. Bolman and Deal compare frames
to “windows, maps, tools, lenses, orientations, and perspectives because all of those images
capture part of the ecumenical idea we want to convey” (p. 12). They define a frame as “a set of
ideas or assumptions you carry in your head” (p. 12). This theory was selected as the framework
for this study due to its application to a wide variety of settings. The researcher was not able to
identify any studies that have tested Bolman and Deal’s (2003) frames in a cross-cultural context
such as this study does, although the theory has been used in diverse settings beyond the White
male population.
Structural Frame
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) structural frame focuses on structure, strategy, environment,
implementation, experimentation and adaptation. Specialized roles and formal relationships are
critical in the structural frame. According to Bolman and Deal’s structural frame, there should be
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 43
a clear division of labor in place. The structural frame can be effective when there are clear
goals, when cause and effect relationships are well defined and understood and conflict,
uncertainty, and ambiguity are at a minimum. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), the
structural frame loses its effectiveness when the situation is not well-suited for structure. The
assumptions highlighted within Bolman and Deal’s (2003) structural frame are:
1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization
and a clear division of labor.
3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of
individuals and units mesh.
4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and
extraneous pressures.
5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances (including its
goals, technology, workforce, and environment).
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be
remedied through analysis and restructuring (p. 45).
The structural frame is well suited for organizations revamping organizational structures and
patterns (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that globalization creates a
need for organizations to restructure to meet the needs of a changing world.
Human Resource Frame
In the human resource frame, the focus is on people (Bolman & Deal, 2003). There is an
emphasis on support, empowerment, staff development and response to the individual needs
within the human resource frame. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), participation is
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 44
maximized and information is shared openly in an environment where decisions are made further
down in the leadership chain. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) human resource frame allows the leader
to tailor the organization to the people he or she works with. Feelings, prejudices, skills and
limitations can get in the way of the effectiveness of the human resource frame. Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) core assumptions for the human resource frame are:
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse.
2. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy, and
talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities.
3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer. Individuals
are exploited or exploit the organization – or both become victims.
4. A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and
organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed (p. 115).
As globalization affects individuals in an organization, the human resource frame allows leaders
to assess the need for a response the impact creates. Challenges related to globalization include
outsourcing, downsizing and the increasing trend of hiring part time employees instead of full
time staff (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Political Frame
A leader within the political frame will advocate and build bridges between stakeholders
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Leaders using Bolman and Deal’s political frame will focus on the
political realities that exist both inside and outside the organization. There is an emphasis upon
dealing with the varying agendas of interest groups, building power bases, building coalitions,
negotiating conflicts over resources which may be limited and finding ways to compromise
within the political frame. When power is concentrated in the wrong place or when it is so
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 45
broadly dispersed that nothing gets done, the political frame loses its effectiveness. The
assumptions driving Bolman and Deal’s (2003) political frame are:
1. Organizations are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs,
information, interests, and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources – who gets what.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to organizational
dynamics and underline power as the most important asset.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position
among competing stakeholders (p. 186).
As senior student affairs officers determine the need for the inclusion of faculty and various
constituents within student affairs, the political frame may prove to be helpful as he or she set an
agenda that creates a shared vision with strategies designed to achieve these goals (Bolman &
Deal, 2003).
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame is more inspirational and the focus is on the vision (Bolman & Deal,
2003). Traditions, ceremonies and rituals are all very important in Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
symbolic frame approach, particularly when goals and/or cause and effect relationships are
unclear. Symbolic leaders may view the organizations they working with as a stage to play
certain roles. Those with a symbolic frame approach use symbols in order to capture the attention
of those they work with and then move towards plausible interpretations of experiences. The
core assumptions within Bolman and Deal’s (2003) symbolic frame are:
1. What is most important is not what happens but what it means.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 46
2. Activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events have multiple meanings because
people interpret experience differently.
3. In the face of widespread uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve
confusion, increase predictability, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.
4. Many events and processes are more important for what is expressed than what is
produced. They form a cultural tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals,
ceremonies, and stories that help people find purpose and passion in their personal
and work lives.
5. Culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around
shared values and beliefs (pp. 242-243).
Similar to the political frame, there is a focus on a vision for the future, but, in the
symbolic frame, the leader paints a picture of what the future will hold through stories and
organizational symbols. Traditions, core values or mascots may be utilized to symbolize aspects
of a shared vision in order to create support across the university.
Use of the Four Frames
A guide to the four frames is provided by Bolman and Deal (2003, p. 310) and can be
found in Table 1 below. This guide offers five questions to ask to determine which of Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) four frames are in use. This assists in the determination of the frames used by
leaders in an organization.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 47
Table 1
Choosing a Frame
Question If yes: If no:
Are individual commitment and
motivation essential to success?
Human resource;
symbolic
Structural; political
Is the technical quality of the decision
important?
Structural Human resource; political;
symbolic
Is there a high level of ambiguity and
uncertainty?
Political; symbolic Structural; human resource
Are conflict and scarce resources
significant?
Political; symbolic Structural; human resource
Are you working from the bottom up? Political; symbolic Structural; human resource
Source: Bolman and Deal, 2003
Bolman and Deal (1992) found important institutional and cultural differences when
comparing the leadership frames used by principals in Florida and Singapore. Table 2 below
shows the mean scores for U.S. and Singapore samples in the study conducted by Bolman and
Deal (1992). As can be seen, Singapore principals were the highest on the structural frame while
Americans were highest on the human resource frame. There were differences between the U.S.
and Singapore samples in all four frames. This study was relevant to the current study because it
demonstrates the use of the model on non-American subjects.
Table 2
Mean Scores for U.S. and Singapore Samples
Variable U.S. Sample Singapore Sample t test
Structural 4.06 4.25 4.48**
Human resource 4.08 4.13 1.30
Political 3.92 4.01 2.12*
Symbolic 3.92 4.12 4.51**
Effectiveness as a
manager
4.46 4.31 1.90
Effectiveness as a leader 4.40 4.28 1.43
*p < .05; **p < .001
Bolman and Deal, 1992, p. 323
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 48
Synthesis and Analysis of the Literature Related to Bolman and Deal (2003)
Bolman and Deal (2003) present four frames through which leaders can be examined: the
structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame and the symbolic frame. Bolman
and Deal’s four frames of leadership encompass many aspects of leadership and enabled the
researcher to seek out potential differences between how leaders adapt their leadership style
based upon the population they work with. The population-based theoretical framework this
theory provides lends itself to serve as an ideal model for a comparison study such as this. The
review of the literature shows there has been no application of Bolman and Deal’s frames in a
cross-cultural context such as that provided by this study. However, the theory has been used in
diverse settings beyond the White male population and, thus, adds to the validity of use the
theory. In 1992, Bolman and Deal tested their theory on a group of principals in Singapore and
compared their leadership styles to those of principals in Florida. While differences existed
between the principals in Singapore and Florida, the theory was still valid in a non-U.S. setting.
Thompson (2000) tested Bolman and Deal’s theory in relation to gender, leadership orientation
and effectiveness. Bolman and Deal’s frames have been tested in the context of globalization by
several individuals (Herrera, 2013; Hyde, 2009; Knodel, 2009; Le Loup, 2009; Sburlan, 2009).
Kezar (2003) used Bolman and Deal’s (2003) frames in a study examining strategies for creating
partnerships between academic and student affairs.
Overview of the Literature
Globalization and internationalization appear in more mission statements in college and
university settings, indicating the growing importance on campuses (Childress, 2009). Such is
the case at Mexican Tech, so this study examined the role that student affairs and the senior
student affairs officer play, partially in response to the mission statement. Global partnerships,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 49
such as the relationship between student affairs at Mexican Tech and American Tech, are an
example of a key element of the internationalization of the college and university landscape
(Wiley & Root, 2003). Collaboration is essential when developing these partnerships and is
essential for providing effective leadership (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992). Internationalization is
quickly diversifying institutions of higher education, and this diversity must be acknowledged in
order to maintain high levels of achievement (Cox, 1993). The chief student affairs officer is a
key element in embracing this diversity and developing global partnerships (Green, 2002).
However, there is a dearth of research in the area of global partnerships related to student affairs,
and this study closely examined how the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech
developed global partnerships with American Tech. In order for chief student affairs officers to
be successful in developing global partnerships they must secure financial commitments beyond
grant money (Green, 2002). This can be challenging during a time when budgets tighter than
ever. Through the use of outsiders and their ideas, global partnerships can be more successful.
Green (2002) indicates that holding multiple conversations and assuring the work is spread
across departments will aid in the buy-in and ultimate success of global partnerships. This study
analyzed the ways in which work was spread out and how buy-in was achieved through the
empowerment of other staff members.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In order to explore the role student affairs plays in globalization, this study described and
analyzed the role of a student affairs program at Mexican Tech, a four-year, private Mexican
institution in fulfilling the institution’s mission to globalize students’ co-curricular experience
and enhance their cultural understanding. American Tech is a four-year, public American
institution that partners with student affairs at Mexican Tech. As the catalyst of the partnership
between student affairs at Mexican Tech and American Tech, the leadership style(s) of the senior
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech, Lic. Julio Lopez, was examined. A comparison was
made between Lic. Lopez’ leadership style(s) when working with staff at his own institution and
his leadership style(s) when working with staff at the partnering institution to determine if any
differences existed in his leadership style. Leadership styles were evaluated using the framework
developed by Bolman and Deal (2003). This chapter describes the methodology that was
employed to undertake this analysis to answer the following questions:
1. What role does student affairs play in globalization at Mexican Tech?
2. What leadership strategies did the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use
to implement global partnerships with American Tech?
3. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003), what leadership styles did the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use when developing global
partnerships with American Tech?
4. Is there a difference between the perception of the leadership styles used by the senior
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when working with his own staff versus that
of the leadership styles he used with the staff at American Tech, and, if so, what are
those differences?
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 51
Qualitative Research
This study is a qualitative study where data are conveyed through words and direct
accounts of what is being described (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). This study used a single
descriptive case study through the use of semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Both
of these techniques were important to fully understand the case study. Patton (2002) and
Merriam (1998) describe a descriptive case study within an educational setting as the
presentation of a detailed account of the phenomenon being studied which will create a historical
perspective on the sequence of events. Interviews took place with select student affairs staff at
Mexican Tech and American Tech. The researcher sought to find complementary staff members
with similar roles and responsibilities from each institution and in each area of responsibility
where a partnership has been developed. However, this was not fully possible due to transitions
in positions and lack of availability by potential participants. Pseudonyms were created in order
to protect the privacy of those who participated in the study.
Yin (2006) defined the following steps in designing a case study: defining the case,
choosing a single or multiple cases and using minimal theoretical perspectives to discover how
and why a phenomenon exists. Yin’s (2006) steps were followed in this study. The findings from
this study were drawn from a single, bounded approach and were limited to a specific time, place
and condition (Patton, 2002). The timeframe for this study ranges from 2004, when contact was
first initiated to develop a relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech, to 2013,
when partnerships had been established and working relationships were in place. The single
case-study approach allowed the researcher to gain a rich understanding of the leadership styles
of the senior student affairs officer as he works with the staff members at Mexican Tech and
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 52
compared this to the leadership styles he used when working with the staff members at American
Tech.
Population and Sample
Population
The selection of Mexican Tech and American Tech and the senior student affairs officer
at Mexican Tech for this study is based on three major factors: 1) Mexican Tech has received
multiple awards by Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) for their
global partnerships, 2) The Division of Student Affairs at Mexican Tech developed global
partnerships with multiple departments at American Tech, and 3) The senior student affairs
officer initiated the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech within student
affairs. Within these two organizations, appropriate individuals were sampled.
Mexican Tech has received multiple awards by Student Affairs Administrators in Higher
Education (NASPA) for their global partnerships and has been seen as a leader in this area.
NASPA espouses to be “the leading association for the advancement, health, and sustainability
of the student affairs profession” (NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education,
2010). NASPA provides professional development, policy advocacy, and research to inform
practice within student affairs. The Division of Student Affairs at Mexican Tech developed
global partnerships with several institutions in the United States, but, because they developed
partnerships with multiple departments at American Tech, this was a primary factor in selecting
the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech as the unit of analysis. Furthermore,
the senior student affairs officer initiated the relationship between Mexican Tech and American
Tech within student affairs, which is why he was selected for this study. The initial relationship
developed when the senior student affairs officer served as the director of residence life at
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 53
Mexican Tech and initiated a partnership with the department of residence life at American
Tech.
This study examined Mexican Tech, a four-year private technical university in Mexico
founded in 1943 and American Tech, a four-year public technical university in the United States
founded in 1872 (American Tech, 2011; Mexican Tech, 2011). In the spring semester of 2011,
Mexican Tech enrolled a total of 67,158 students (73.6% undergraduate and 26.4% graduate
students), and American Tech enrolled a total of 27,687 students (82.3% undergraduate and
17.7% graduate students). According to Mexican Tech’s website, there were 58 undergraduate
programs, 39 international undergraduate programs, 42 master’s programs and 10 Ph. D.
programs in the spring 2011 semester. American Tech’s website indicates that there are 65
bachelor degree programs and 150 master and doctoral degree programs. No actual Carnegie
Classification exists for Mexican Tech, so the researcher developed a profile that fits the
institution as close as possible. Mexican Tech was then compared to American Tech. Table 3
below was developed by the researcher that compares Mexican Tech and American Tech using
the classifications developed by the Carnegie Foundation. Appendix A provides further
explanation of the classifications in Table 3.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 54
Table 3
Institutional Classifications
Mexican Tech American Tech
Level: 4 year or above 4 year or above
Control: Private Public
Student Population 66,634 30,870
Undergraduate Instructional
Program:
Professions plus arts &
sciences, high graduate
coexistence
Balanced arts &
sciences/professions, high
graduate coexistence
Graduate Instructional Program: Comprehensive doctoral
(no medical/veterinary)
Doctoral, STEM dominant
Enrollment Profile: Majority undergraduate High undergraduate
Size & Setting: Large four-year, primarily
nonresidential
Large four-year, primarily
residential
Basic: Master’s Colleges and
Universities (larger
programs)
Research Universities
(very high research
activity)
Community Engagement: Curricular Engagement &
Outreach & Partnerships
Curricular Engagement &
Outreach & Partnerships
Developed by (Peterson) Trayner, 2011 from Mexican Tech, 2011 & Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, 2011
The Division of Student Affairs at Mexican Tech is made up of nine departments:
• Counseling and Psychological Services
• Judicial Affairs
• Student Services and Community Relationships
• Culture and Art
• Student Organizations
• Athletics
• Housing
• Recreation and Intramural Athletics
• Health Promotion and Prevention Services.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 55
The directors of these departments report directly to the senior student affairs officer.
Appendix B provides an organization chart for Student Affairs at Mexican Tech. The division of
student affairs at Mexican Tech employs 400 full-time staff members.
The Division of Student Affairs at American Tech is made up of 15 departments:
• Dean of Students
• International Center
• Multicultural Programs and Services
• Student Centers and Activities
• Career Services
• Dining Services
• Fraternity and Sorority Life
• Housing and Residence Life
• Student Conduct
• Campus Alcohol Abuse Prevention Center
• Counseling Center
• Recreational Sports
• Health Center
• Services for Students with Disabilities
• Corp of Cadets.
The Vice President for Student Affairs supervises the Dean of Students, an Associate
Vice President, two Assistant Vice Presidents, the Commandant of Cadets, the Chief of Staff, the
Director of Administration, and five associate directors within the Office of the Vice President
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 56
(Appendix C). The Division of Student Affairs at American Tech employs more than 2,600 full-
and part-time staff members (American Tech Website, 2013).
Sample
The design strategies utilized by the researcher were emergent design flexibility and
purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). Emergent design strategy allowed for “openness to adapting
inquiry as understanding deepens and/or situations change; the researcher avoids getting locked
into rigid designs that eliminate responsiveness and pursues new paths of discovery as they
emerge” (Patton, 2002, p. 40). Purposeful sampling examined cases for study (e.g., people,
organizations, communities, cultures, events, critical incidences) selected because they are
‘information rich’ and illuminative. That is, they offer useful manifestations of the phenomenon
of interest; sampling, then, is aimed at insight about the phenomenon, not empirical
generalization from a sample to a population” (Patton, 2002, p. 40).
Purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to gain richer data (Patton, 2002). The
researcher identified four key constituents at Mexican Tech and five key constituents at
American Tech who have been working with the senior student affairs officer since he initiated
the partnership with American Tech in 2004.
In addition to purposeful sampling, the researcher used snowball sampling. Snowball
sampling is the concept of asking a broad group of people to identify key individuals for the
purpose of the study (Patton, 2002). The researcher asked the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech for important contacts involved in the partnership. Additionally, the researcher
asked the individuals identified for potential additional contacts. According to Patton, as
recommendations are offered, the snowball grows. No students or faculty participated in
interviews.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 57
It was important for the researcher to use both purposeful and snowball sampling to
identify those who were interviewed. The use of purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to
identify the initial participants for the interviews. However, through the use of snowball
sampling, additional participants were also identified. The researcher compared organizational
charts for the areas where partnerships were established to determine whether there was a natural
set of participants that emerged for interviewing.
The researcher interviewed ten individuals. The senior student affairs officer at Mexican
Tech was interviewed in order to get his perspective on his own leadership styles and to gain
helpful information about the way in which the partnership emerged. Additionally, four staff
members from Mexican Tech and five staff members from American Tech were interviewed.
The researcher sought to interview those who were identified as having the most experience
working with the senior student affairs officer from Mexican Tech as well as with the partnership
established.
Instrumentation
The researcher was the primary instrument for data collection. This case study used three
sources of data to construct validity: interviews, document analysis and artifact analysis. Open-
ended interviews, document analysis and artifact analysis allowed the researcher to describe how
globalization was integrated through the leadership of the senior student affairs officer.
Interviews took place over the phone or via Skype with Lic. Julio Lopez, the senior student
affairs officer at Mexican Tech in addition to the four to five participants from each campus who
were directly involved with the partnership and worked closely with Lic. Lopez. Websites for
Mexican Tech and American Tech, documents such as memorandums of understanding and
documents related to strategic planning that led to the partnership between Mexican Tech and
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 58
American Tech and awards, publicity or articles about the partnership were reviewed and
analyzed.
Interview Protocol
The key instrumentation of this study was the interview protocol. The interview protocol
(Appendix D) was designed to answer the research questions developed by the researcher and
was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval by the University of
Southern California and both universities studied. The semi-structured interview protocol
contains open-ended questions aiming at answering the research questions. The interviews each
took approximately 45 minutes.
Questions one through four in the interview protocol established background information
about the interviewee to lay a foundation for the remainder of the interview. Questions five, six,
seven, eight, eleven and twelve in the interview protocol addressed the role of student affairs in
globalization at Mexican Tech. Questions six, ten and thirteen addressed the leadership strategies
the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech used to implement the partnership with
American Tech. Questions 13-51 addressed the frames used by the senior student affairs officer
at Mexican Tech when developing the partnership with American Tech. Question 14 allowed the
interviewees to use their own language to describe Lic. Julio Lopez’s leadership style as he
developed a partnership with American Tech. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) table for Choosing a
Frame on page 310 provided the framework for questions 14-19. Questions 20-51 were pulled
directly from Michael Thompson’s (2000) Leadership Orientation Survey (p. 987-988).
Questions 13-51 also addressed differences in other people’s perception of the leadership styles
used by the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when he works with his own staff
versus the styles he used with the staff at American Tech. These questions allowed the researcher
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 59
to further understand the background of the partnership and the role of the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech in that process. English was not the first language for any of the
participants from Mexican Tech. However, all of the participants were fluent in English, so there
was no translation provided. There were no pre-tests of the interview protocol.
Protocol for Document and Artifact Analysis
Document analysis refers to a wide range of written, visual, and physical material related
to the study (Merriam, 1998). This study included a program evaluation, described by Patton
(2002) as the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and
outcomes of programs in order to make judgments about the program, improve program
effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programming.
Inter-Institutional Agreements of Cooperation (IACs) or Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) were established between Mexican Tech and American Tech and served
as important tools for the researcher. Reports and award applications related to the partnership
were created and aided in supporting information collected from other sources. Written
correspondence including email and marketing materials further assisted the researcher in
validating information. Articles about the partnership offered information for the researcher, and
the websites for both Mexican Tech and American Tech were analyzed as artifacts for the
purposes of this study. The chart in Appendix E served as a guide for tracking information
related to the study that was discovered while analyzing the documents and artifacts.
Validity and Reliability
In fields such as education, where practitioners intervene in the lives of individuals, it is
critical that the research results can be trusted (Merriam, 1998). According to Merriam, due to
the nature of qualitative research, it can be more difficult to assess validity and reliability
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 60
because there are often needs which must be met on a more immediate basis. Additionally, since
the researcher served as the primary instrument, data analysis was left to the individual to
interpret and may, thus, relay a bias. The researcher’s biases were particularly important as the
researcher clarified her assumptions, worldview, and theoretical orientation as the study began.
Ethics
It was important that the researcher remain ethical throughout the study in order to
maintain validity (Merriam, 1998). The researcher was certified through the Collaborative IRB
Training Initiative (CITI) to assure her understanding the importance of protecting the rights of
the individuals being studied. Pseudonyms were created in order to protect the privacy of those
participating in the study.
Data Collection and Processes
After IRB approval, the researcher collected data from interviews, document analysis,
and artifact analysis. These sources were used to triangulate the validity of the findings.
Interviews allowed the researcher to obtain descriptive accounts of the phenomenon being
studied in order to gain insight on things that cannot be directly observed (Merriam, 1998).
Artifact and data analysis allowed the researcher to gain descriptive information, verify potential
hypotheses, gain a historical perspective, and view changes and developments over time
(Merriam, 1998). The content of the data were then analyzed through a narrative approach. All
information was safeguarded on the personal computer of the researcher and an encrypted flash
drive.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher acted as the primary instrument for data collection. Data were conveyed
through the words of those participating in the study. The researcher presented an in-depth
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 61
description of the data while removing bias the researcher may have exhibited while collecting
and analyzing the data. Doctoral coursework serves as preparation and training for performing
interviews and reviewing documents and artifacts. At the time of this study, the researcher had
worked in student affairs full-time for fourteen years in addition to a year and a half of part-time
work while pursuing a master’s degree. This experience gave her the ability to build rapport with
those being interviewed while maintaining confidentiality throughout the process.
Interview Method
The interview protocol can be found in Appendix D. As the interview protocol was
designed, the researcher formed the questions in a way that would best answer the research
questions presented and related them to the literature review in chapter two. Semi-structured
interviews have flexibly worded questions. There was also a mix of questions with a range of
structure which allowed the researcher to explore issues depending upon the flow of the
interview (Merriam, 1998). Interviews were conducted over the phone or via Skype beginning in
April 2012. The interviews were recorded and transcribed to allow for a verbatim account of
what was said. According to Merriam, drawbacks may be equipment malfunction and making
the respondent feel uneasy. An interview guide was created to use during the interviews.
Merriam stresses the importance of understanding the perspective of the participants and not the
perspective of the researcher so it was imperative that the researcher paid close attention to how
the participants convey their views, beliefs and values without imposing personal views onto the
participants. Direct quotes helped the researcher better describe the findings of the study. The
interviews each took approximately 45 minutes.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 62
Document and Artifact Collection Method
Documents and artifacts offered unique insight into this study because they were in
existence prior to the study (Merriam, 1998). The setting was not disturbed when collecting
documents and artifacts in the same way it can be when an interviewer is present. Documents
and artifacts were obtained from the Mexican Tech and American Tech websites as well as
through the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech and individuals working with him at
Mexican Tech and American Tech. The researcher requested that any electronic copies of
pertinent information such as Memorandums of Understanding, public relations material, student
publications, reports and award applications be sent to the researcher via email. The researcher
requested any information unable to be obtained electronically be sent via mail. After obtaining
these documents and artifacts, the researcher reviewed the information in order to better
understand the partnership and the leadership provided by the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech.
Data Analysis
After the data were collected, the researcher made meaning out of the information by
analyzing the content (Merriam, 1998). The data analysis allowed the researcher to identify
significant patterns, themes or interrelationships found in the data collected (Patton, 2002). To
analyze the data, Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data analysis and interpretation were used:
• Step 1 – Organize and prepare the data for analysis.
• Step 2 – Read through the data to get a general sense of the information and reflect on
its general meaning.
• Step 3 – Begin detailed analysis with a coding process.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 63
• Step 4 – Use the coding process to generate a description of the setting or people as
well as categories or themes for analysis.
• Step 5 – Advance how the description and themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative.
• Step 6 – A final step in data analysis involves making an interpretation or meaning of
the data. (pp. 191-195)
The researcher triangulated the data to support the significance of the findings. The data
collected were revisited throughout the study for comparison and to identify themes to ensure
that the themes were appropriate for the study. The researcher developed a descriptive narrative
analysis that places an emphasis on interpretation of stories and context (Patton, 2002). The
findings from the surveys, interviews and document and artifact analysis were interpreted and
analyzed through Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames. This narrative description answered the
research questions determined at the onset of the study.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings from the single qualitative case study utilizing a
narrative analytical approach (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). The participants were described in
detail, outlining their relationship to the partnership and the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech. The data were collected from interviews, documents and artifacts, which were
analyzed and organized to present a descriptive picture of the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech’s leadership style when working to develop a partnership with American Tech
within student affairs. These data were analyzed in order to find patterns, similarities and
differences between the participants’ perspectives in order to answer the research questions
presented. The interviews and document analysis were based on the following research
questions:
1. What role does student affairs play in globalization at Mexican Tech?
2. What leadership strategies did the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech
use to implement global partnerships with American Tech?
3. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003), what leadership styles did the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use when developing global
partnerships with American Tech?
4. Is there a difference between the perception of the leadership styles used by the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when working with his own staff
versus that of the leadership styles he used with the staff at American Tech, and,
if so, what are those differences?
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 65
Participants
Pseudonyms were created for both institutions and all participants. Ten people were
interviewed: the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech, who was the focus of the study;
four additional staff members in student affairs at Mexican Tech; and five staff members in
student affairs at American Tech. Table 4 gives a summary of the participants in this study. All
interviews took place via phone or Skype. Although there were numerous changes in leadership
during the course of the partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech, there were no
changes in leadership during the course of the study.
The focal point of the study was Lic. Julio Lopez, the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech. This study examines his leadership strategies and leadership styles when working
to develop the partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Lic. Lopez is in charge of
all areas of student affairs: athletics, cultural affairs, student development, counseling, judicial
affairs, the provincial program and housing and residence life. Athletics includes both varsity
teams and intramurals. Cultural affairs include music, dance and other areas of the arts. Student
development is the area that is responsible for student leadership. At the time of this study, he
had been working at Mexican Tech for 25 years. Mexican Tech has a long history of academic
exchanges with several universities. However, Lic. Lopez worked to create co-curricular
partnerships with other universities as well. Lic. Lopez has been involved in the partnership in
student affairs between Mexican Tech and American Tech since the beginning of the
relationship, thus allowing the researcher to gain a broad historical perspective on the partnership
and its creation. This relationship is different from other global partnerships Mexican Tech has
with other institutions because the agreement is in multiple areas of student affairs such as
housing, student development, counseling, sports, cultural affairs, and community service. The
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 66
partnership allowed members of the university to share knowledge and information. Interviewing
Lic. Lopez allowed the researcher to hear how he views his own role within the partnership and
compare that to how others view him. The interview also allowed the researcher to learn more
about the way in which the partnership developed.
Lic. Alejandro Jimenez (pseudonym) is the housing and residence life director at Mexican
Tech. He is in charge of everything in housing and residence life including construction,
renovations, maintenance, Resident Advisors (RAs) and programs. Lic. Jimenez began working
at Mexican Tech in 1995 and has been working in the residence halls since 2000. In 2001, he
began reporting directly to Lic. Lopez. Prior to 2001, he worked with him as an indirect report.
Lic. Jimenez is responsible for developing projects directly related to the RAs for Mexican Tech
and American Tech. Of all the participants, Lic. Jimenez has worked with Lic. Lopez the closest
and for the longest period of time, and, thus, offers an additional perspective on the history of the
partnership, first-hand experience with Lic. Lopez’ leadership style in developing the
partnership, and a broader sensibility about any variance that might exist in the way Lic. Lopez
interacts with staff at Mexican Tech in comparison to the way he interacts with the staff at
American Tech.
Serving in more of a relationship-based role in the partnership between Mexican Tech
and American Tech is Lic. Francisca Ruiz (pseudonym), a psychologist and the coordinator of
first-year orientation at Mexican Tech. She has been working at Mexican Tech since October of
2009. Although she is in Lic. Lopez’ reporting line, she does not report directly to him. When
cases arise on campus, Lic. Ruiz contacted staff members at American Tech and utilized them as
a resource. Lic. Ruiz was able to speak to many of the informal relationships that exist between
American Tech and Mexican Tech as well as her views on Lic. Lopez’ leadership styles.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 67
Lic. Antonio Gonzalez (pseudonym) coordinates student group events at Mexican Tech.
Prior to his current role; he worked in the residence halls. At the time of this study he had been
working at Mexican Tech since 2008. While he was not currently involved with the partnership
between American Tech and Mexican Tech, he was responsible for organizing the exchanges
between the institutions when he worked in housing and residence life. It was during his time in
housing and residence life that he was able to gain the first-hand experience with Lic. Lopez’
leadership style as it relates to the partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Lic.
Gonzalez reported indirectly to Lic. Lopez.
Ing. José Rodriguez (pseudonym) manages the male residence halls at Mexican Tech. He
has been working at the institution since 2000 and reports indirectly to Lic. Lopez. Ing.
Rodriguez is responsible for managing the exchanges between the universities. When male
students visit campus from other institutions, he is the person who is directly in charge of them.
Due to his longevity and his responsibilities during the exchanges, he was able to offer insights
on Lic. Lopez’ leadership styles over time as well as regarding differences that might have
existed when working with members of the Mexican Tech staff in comparison to the way he
interacts with the staff at American Tech.
Since 2004, Dr. Tammy Waltner (pseudonym) has been serving as the chief of staff and
director of administration for the division of student affairs at American Tech. Any international
activities that take place within the division of student affairs are within her purview. She has
been working with Lic. Lopez her entire tenure at American Tech. Some of her involvement
includes the development and renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
two institutions, sending dining staff to Mexican Tech, arranging for exchanges of Resident
Advisors with Mexican Tech that involve sending one for a semester to take a class and serve as
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 68
an RA there and vice versa, and sending students for a short-term Expo, which includes a student
leadership conference. In March 2012, American Tech hosted an International RA Symposium.
Lic. Lopez and Lic. Jimenez accompanied a delegation of four RAs from Mexican Tech.
Additionally, there were delegations from Germany and from Small Private University (SPU)
(pseudonym).
The director of housing and residence life at American Tech is Dr. Tiffany Johnson
(pseudonym) who has been serving in this role since August 2011. American Tech houses
approximately 9,300 students in more than 40 buildings. The areas under her purview include
residence life, housekeeping/maintenance, new construction and renovation, occupancy
management and summer camps and conference services. She met Lic. Lopez at the
International RA Symposium hosted by American Tech in March of 2012. They worked together
on curriculum design and the planning of the conference.
Ms. Jennifer Kosanke (pseudonym) is the associate director for Residence Life at
American Tech at the time of this study. She is responsible for the staffing, policies and
procedures in their housing and residence life operation when it came to student safety and
student success. Ms. Kosanke has been working at American Tech since 2005 and first worked
with Lic. Lopez in the fall of 2006 when she served as an advisor to the delegation from
American Tech that visited Mexico, and, in March 2012, she served as one of the hosts for
Mexican Tech’s visit to American Tech.
Overseeing the student centers, multicultural programs and services, finances, and the
international center is Dr. Nick White (pseudonym), the Assistant Vice President of Student
Affairs at American Tech. He has been working at American Tech since 2006 and with Lic.
Lopez since 2009. On three separate occasions, he traveled to Mexico as a speaker at Mexican
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 69
Tech, and, when Lic. Lopez has visited, Dr. White served as a host and attended the meetings
held on campus.
The interviewee with the least amount of experience working with Lic. Lopez was Dr.
Jeff Frieske (pseudonym), Associate Director of the counseling center at American Tech. His
responsibilities encompass administrative duties, faculty evaluations and management training
for the APA Approved Internship program in addition to clinical work. His interaction with Lic.
Lopez had been minimal at the time of this study, as the two met during March 2012 when they
discussed how they might collaborate in the future.
The following table is a summary pertaining to the interview participants, their
relationship to Lic. Lopez and their role within the partnership between Mexican Tech and
American Tech. Table 4 also includes the method of interview for each participant.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 70
Table 4
Participants
Participant Institution Method of
Interview
Title Relationship to Lic.
Lopez/Role in partnership
Date
met
Lic.
Lopez
Lic. Julio
Lopez
Mexican
Tech
Skype Senior Student
Affairs Officer
Subject of study. Involved in
partnership since the
beginning.
N/A
Lic.
Alejandro
Jimenez
Mexican
Tech
Skype Housing and
Residence Life
Director
Direct Report. Responsible
for developing projects that
are directly related to the
RAs for Mexican Tech and
American Tech.
1995
Lic.
Francisca
Ruiz
Mexican
Tech
Skype Psychologist and
coordinator of
first year
orientation
Indirect Report. Been in
contact with staff members
at American Tech and
utilizes them as a resource
when cases arise on campus.
2009
Lic. Antonio
Gonzalez
Mexican
Tech
Skype Coordinator of
Student Group
Events
Indirect Report. Was
responsible for organizing
the exchanges between the
institutions when he was
working in housing and
residence life.
2008
Ing. José
Rodriguez
Mexican
Tech
Phone Manager of male
residence halls
Indirect Report. Manages the
exchanges between the
universities.
2000
Dr. Tammy
Waltner
American
Tech
Phone Chief of Staff and
Director of
Administration
for Student
Affairs
Responsible for all
international activities in
Student Affairs. Developed
MOU. Sent staff to Mexican
Tech. Hosted Mexican Tech
at American Tech.
2004
Dr. Tiffany
Johnson
American
Tech
Phone Director of
housing and
residence life
Met Julio at international
symposium hosted by
American Tech.
2012
Ms. Jennifer
Kosanke
American
Tech
Phone Associate
director of
housing and
residence life
Served as advisor for
delegation traveling to
Mexican Tech and host for
conference held at American
Tech.
2006
Dr. Nick
White
American
Tech
Phone Assistant Vice
President of
Student Affairs
Speaker at Mexican Tech
and host at American Tech.
2009
Dr. Jeff
Frieske
American
Tech
Phone Associate
Director of the
counseling center
Basic discussion about how
they might collaborate in the
future.
2012
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 71
Results Research Question One
The first research question explored the role that student affairs played in globalization at
Mexican Tech. The aim was to understand how student affairs integrated globalization into the
fabric of the student experience by examining the partnership between Mexican Tech and
American Tech. According to Ping (1999), globalization has implications on the traditional role
of student affairs. There are many possibilities for integrating globalization into the work of
student affairs. However, when college and university mission statements include globalization
and internationalization, there are greater opportunities for student affairs to engage in global
partnerships with other universities. Wiley and Root (2003) indicated there are many benefits to
working within a collaborative environment such as the global partnership between Mexican
Tech and American Tech. However, as noted by Armstrong (2007), the government can play a
significant role in whether or not globalization is woven into the fabric of the institution. Due to
the fact that Mexican Tech is a private institution, this factor had less of an impact on the results.
First, a historical overview of the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech
provides the context for the role that student affairs plays in globalization at Mexican Tech.
Several partnerships have been developed between Mexican Tech and American Tech within
food services, residence life, community service, and counseling. Three main themes emerged
related to the role of student affairs in globalization through interviews and document analysis.
The first theme that emerged was how embedded globalization is within the mission statement
both of the university and of student affairs at Mexican Tech. The second theme related to the
role of student affairs in globalization at Mexican Tech was knowledge acquisition and the
exchange of ideas and best practices. A final theme is that there is a desire to be a top university
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 72
worldwide, so partnerships such as the one with American Tech have been one way that the
institution is striving to achieve this goal.
History Between Mexican Tech and American Tech
At the time of this study, Mexican Tech had academic exchanges with several
universities. However, co-curricular exchanges had also been established with several American
institutions as global partnerships emerged. According to the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech, Lic. Julio Lopez (personal communication, June 8, 2011), Mexican Tech gained
recognition as the recipient of numerous awards from student affairs organizations such as
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA). The division of student affairs
played an instrumental role in forming university partnerships with foreign institutions and
enriching the student experience (J. Lopez, personal communication, June 8, 2011). Key
partnerships were established between Mexican Tech and American Tech within food services,
residence life, community service, and the counseling center. These global partnerships reflect
the importance of globalization within student affairs.
The first connection made by student affairs was in June 2002 when Food Services
Director, Lic. Consuelo Gomez (pseudonym) visited American Tech as part of an exchange
program. It was during that exchange that the relationship in student affairs began. Lic. Lopez
sent Lic. Gomez to several universities as a part of a NASPA internship. The internship was a
15-day trip that included a visit to American Tech. In February 2004, American Tech sent one
member of its dining staff to Mexican Tech. Lic. Lopez presented his ideas to the president of
Mexican Tech, Dr. Tomás Dominguez (pseudonym). Later that year, Dr. Dominguez and Dr.
Ron Harder (pseudonym), president of American Tech, met upon Lic. Lopez’ suggestion. It was
at that time that they acknowledged that their institutions shared some common goals. This
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 73
meeting led to Dr. Dominguez being invited to be the main speaker at American Tech
graduation, one of many endeavors that represented the commitment to this relationship.
The second connection occurred at about the same time that Lic. Lopez met Dr. Ryan
Coatney (pseudonym), then Vice President for Student Affairs at American Tech, at a NASPA
International Symposium. They discussed possibilities for partnerships between the two
institutions. The two institutions entered into their first Inter-Institutional Agreement of
Cooperation (IAC) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in November of 2004. This first
MOU covered five years. The purpose of the IAC was “to promote and expand international
understanding, development, and friendship by stimulating and supporting educational,
professional and intercultural activities and projects among students and staff of the two
institutions” (Inter-Institutional Agreement of Cooperation, 2004; 2009, p. 1) The MOU allowed
the institutions to engage in an exchange of Resident Advisors or “Prefectos” between the two
institutions whereby a student staff member from American Tech attends Mexican Tech for a
semester and serves as a student staff member in the residence halls and a student staff member
from Mexican Tech attends American Tech for a semester and serves as a student staff member
in the residence halls.
According to the Inter-Institutional Agreement of Cooperation (2004, 2009), “there are
many additional activities that may be identified. The extent is limited only by imagination,
initiative and creativity of those involved.” Due to political unrest in Mexico (travel.state.gov,
2013), there had not been any Resident Advisors who engaged in this exchange in the couple of
years prior to this study. However, there was strong interest in continuing the relationship in
other ways. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez, housing and residence life director, worked through security
issues with the use of Skype in order to keep the relationship alive.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 74
Another connection within Residence Life was through an RA Conference and EXPO for
American and Mexican institutions hosted by Mexican Tech since 1991. In 2006, American
Tech was invited to the conference. American Tech sent a delegation to the conference on a bi-
annual basis. The previously established MOU was renewed in 2009 for an additional five years.
However, in April of 2010, gunmen stormed the hotel where the advisors for the conference
typically stay and kidnapped several individuals. Since then and up to the time of this study,
American institutions had not attended the conference. According to Alejandro Jimenez,
“security is one of our main goals” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). They continue to
work with the government in order to increase security. “You must hear a lot of bad things about
Mexico and all the drug dealers and everything. So, at this time our big challenge is to have a
security area and to keep us the most secure that we can have after our students” (A. Jimenez,
personal communication, May 2, 2012).
Community service is the fourth connection where Mexican Tech and American Tech
have formed partnerships. Mexican Tech is one of 73 member institutions participating in
NASPA’s Lead Initiative on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (Lead Initiative)
(NASPA website, 2014). According to the NASPA website (2014), “selected institutions,
representing public and private four-year and two-year colleges and universities, have committed
to a series of strategies to work in partnership with on and off campus constituents to influence
students’ ongoing commitment to civic learning and democratic engagement.” Only two of the
73 participating colleges and universities are from outside of the United States. As a result,
Mexican Tech has a community service requirement for graduation according to Dr. Tammy
Waltner (personal communication, May 2, 2012). She explained “a Mexican student has to
participate in a certain number of hours in order to complete their college degree” (T. Waltner,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 75
personal communication, May 2, 2012). American Tech served as a host institution for the
fulfillment of this requirement. Prior to this study, there had been more of an exchange between
the institutions in that American Tech would send a group of students to Mexico to engage in
community service. According to Ing. José Rodriguez, “for the global partnership, we have that
focus on community service” (personal communication, January 14, 2013). Mexican Tech has
sent a crew to American Tech and vice versa. The relationship works well because “we have a
great match with between universities” (Rodriguez, personal communication, January 14, 2013).
However, due to the unrest in Mexico, the community service exchange in Mexico no longer
took place as of the time of this study. According to travel.state.gov, “travel warning issued
when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State
Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country”
(Travel Warnings, 2013). Mexico was added to the list on November 20, 2012 (travel.state.gov,
2013). This travel warning made it impossible for American Tech students to travel to Mexico to
perform community service. According to Lic. Alejandro Jimenez, he had to “still be in touch to
continue the relationship because we are improving now about the security but we still need
more. You can be in contact even better through Skyping. You don’t really need to be here. So
we understand that there’s a warning but that’s not a limitation to not share” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Tammy Waltner believes that the unrest in Mexico probably
had an impact on enrollment. She read that “they had to lay off 300 employees about a year ago,
just a little more than that, so I know that financially they’ve taken some recent hits” (T. Waltner,
personal communication, May 2, 2012).
Connections between Mexican Tech and American Tech reemerged in new ways. In
March 2012, American Tech hosted an International RA Symposium. This symposium included
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 76
a delegation from Mexican Tech of four Resident Advisors, Lic. Julio Lopez and Lic. Alejandro
Jimenez. Also in attendance were delegations from Small Private University and from a
university in Germany. The plan was to rotate this symposium, thus “growing beyond just an
American Tech/Mexican Tech opportunity” (T. Waltner, personal communication, May 2,
2012). This symposium allowed the continuance of previous, yet less formal, relationships
between the counseling centers at Mexican Tech and American Tech. Lic. Francisca Ruiz, a
counselor at Mexican Tech, utilized American Tech on several occasions as a point of contact
when issues arose on campus. The established relationships allowed her to gain an outside
perspective on best practices as she knows that American Tech dealt with similar situations. “For
example, the American Tech shooting. We also had a shooting. We ask for them how to deal
with the situation with the students and the campus and the employees” (F. Ruiz, Personal
Communication, May 10, 2012). An introductory meeting took place in March 2012 with Dr.
Jeff Frieske, Associate Director of the Counseling Center at American Tech who had recently
stepped into that role. “The very fact of his being here and seeking input from a counseling
center like American Tech would be an example of his desire to address things from a more
global perspective and take into account the specific experiences we’ve had here as an American
school representative in some way of American universities” (J. Frieske, personal
communication, January 30, 2012). This introductory meeting has the potential to lead to future
endeavors.
During the time of the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech there
were a number of changes in leadership within student affairs at American Tech including four
different Vice Presidents for Student Affairs in addition to a change of leadership within
residence life. According to Dr. Tammy Waltner, “we’re about to get our fourth Vice President
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 77
over that same period of time and so as we’ve had leadership changes for a variety of reasons,
Lic. Lopez has been a constant in the relationship” (personal communication, May 2, 2013). Dr.
Waltner indicated that Lic. Lopez “has been very persistent and he’s really kept up with it and
maintained contact, which has been very important to the continuity” (personal communication,
May 2, 2012).
Globalization and Mission
The first theme that emerged was how embedded globalization is within the mission
statement both of the university and of student affairs at Mexican Tech. Armstrong (2007)
suggested, “the greatest difficulty individual institutions face in creating a strategy for
globalization is in knowing why they want to globalize. A key component of this process is
developing a sharper understanding of the institution’s mission, especially in relation to the
characteristics of the students that it seeks to educate” (p. 135). Both the document analysis and
interviews highlighted that relationships have been developed through global partnerships in
residence life, student activities, dining services and other areas of student affairs.
Lic. Lopez has forged formal and informal relationships with American Tech to fulfill the
mission of the institution and division. According to Lic. Alejandro Jimenez,
“internationalization is one of our goals so we have always to work in that direction” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012). The mission statements reflect how central globalization is to the
university as well as student affairs. Globalization is an explicit goal within the institutional
mission statement, acknowledging the importance of being “internationally competitive” as well
as the desire to prepare students to “develop business management models to compete in a global
economy” (Mexican Tech Website, 2013). Student affairs’ link to globalization is broader. The
student affairs mission statement reflects an “appreciation and practice of social, artistic and
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 78
cultural values” and “respect towards others and tolerance towards diversity” (Mexican Tech
Website, 2013).
According to Dr. Alberto Ramos (pseudonym), Vice President of Academic Affairs at
Mexican Tech and a peer to Lic. Julio Lopez, internationalization has been well established
within Mexican Tech at large as well as within student affairs:
Internationalization, with information on the Institutions collaboration agreements with
internationally renowned foreign universities, as well as the location of our offices and
centers abroad. Student affairs, addresses Mexican Tech’s activities designed to foment
its students’ integral education, promoting the development of the values, attitudes, and
skills described in the 2015 Mission. (Ramos, 2010)
The Mexican Tech website (2013) highlights the role of student affairs which was
represented as follows: the role of student affairs is to address the activities at Mexican Tech
designed to foster integral education and promote the development of the values, attitudes and
skills described in the mission of the university.
Relationships are developed beyond the classroom within student affairs and partnerships
were created between personnel in residence life, student activities, dining services and other
areas of student affairs. According to Lic. Lopez, Lic. Jimenez and Lic. Gonzalez, a large part of
the motivation behind student affairs playing a role in globalization at Mexican Tech lies within
the university and student affairs mission statements. During individual interviews Lic. Julio
Lopez, Lic. Alejandro Jimenez and Lic. Antonio Gonzalez indicated that it is the mission of the
university to assure that globalization plays a part in the development of students at Mexican
Tech. When asked about the role of student affairs in globalization at Mexican Tech, Lic. Lopez,
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech, said, “It’s part of our mission. Our main goal here
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 79
is that our students get this kind of exchange programs with universities. The internationalization
of our university is one of the mandates, one of the goals that we need to reach” (personal
communication, May 4, 2012). Lic. Jimenez, housing and residence life director at Mexican
Tech, explained, “our mission from Mexican Tech includes internationalization. So, since the
beginning, we need to develop the international arm” (personal communication, May, 2, 2012).
Similarly, Lic. Gonzalez, psychologist and coordinator of first-year orientation at Mexican Tech,
stated, “it’s part of the mission statement of the university to…develop a student that is not only
good in academics, but is good in leadership also, to have in mind the globalization aspect of the
formation as a student. You need to know that the students you’re going to help coach or help
develop need to know what’s going on around the world” (personal communication, December
21, 2012).
Since globalization is an explicit goal within the institutional mission statement as noted
above, this has allowed Mexican Tech to be internationally competitive in an era when
internationalization is finding its way into many college and university mission statements
(Armstrong, 2007; Childress, 2009). In order to understand the scope of how globalization is
integrated into the mission statement it is important to look at it in its entirety. The full
institutional mission statement is presented below:
The mission of Mexican Tech is to form persons with integrity, ethical standards and a
humanistic outlook, who are internationally competitive in their professional field and,
who, at the same time are good citizens committed to the economic, political, social and
cultural development of their community and to the sustainable use of natural resources.
Through its educational, research and development programs, Mexican Tech prepares
students and transfers knowledge to:
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 80
• Promote the international competitiveness of business enterprises based on
knowledge, innovation, technological development, and sustainable development.
• Develop business management models to compete in a global economy.
• Create, implement and transfer business incubator models and networks to contribute
to the creation of enterprises.
• Collaboration in professionalizing public administration; and analyze and propose
public policies for Mexico’s development.
• Contribute to the sustainable development of the community with innovative models
and systems for its educational, social, economic and political improvement.
With this mission, Mexican Tech and its community are committed to contributing to the
educational, social, economic, and political improvement of Mexico.
To carry out this mission, the academic programs encourage the appreciation of
humanistic culture in its diverse manifestations, as well as the historical and cultural
identity of the country and its regions. They also include reflections upon development of
civic capabilities (Mexican Tech Website, 2005).
The mission statement for student affairs also includes references to the importance of
globalization. However, the mission statement for student affairs is broader in its approach to the
subject. Student affairs has decided to reference an “appreciation and practice of social, artistic
and cultural values” (Mexican Tech Website, 2013), rather than directly referring to
globalization or internationalization. The full student affairs mission statement is as follows:
It is the Mission of Mexican Tech’s Student Affairs Office to enhance comprehensive
formation and foster the harmonious development of its students through active learning
processes that encourage the development of competencies for life and professional
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 81
development. To accomplish this, Mexican Tech’s Student Affairs office organizes and
provides programs and activities that foster and develop:
1. A sense of belonging and pride for their alma mater.
2. Appreciation and practice of social, artistic and cultural values.
3. Leadership.
4. Social commitment to the development of their communities.
5. A taste for sports and athletic practice.
6. An appreciation and concern for physical and mental health.
7. Respect towards others and tolerance towards diversity.
8. A strong link with their families (Mexican Tech Website, 2013).
Mexican Tech is one of many colleges and universities that have included globalization
and internationalization in its mission statements (Armstrong, 2006; Childress, 2009). Both
mission statements are heralded as the main reason Lic. Julio Lopez placed such a strong
emphasis on the partnership with American Tech. The evidence demonstrates the support that
Lic. Julio Lopez lent to assure the accomplishment of the goal of enhancing the global
experience of the students at Mexican Tech. According to Lic. Alejandro Jimenez, “our mission
from Mexican Tech includes internationalization. So since the beginning, we need to develop the
international arm” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). Lic. Antonio Gonzalez indicated that
the motivation behind furthering globalization at Mexican Tech was, first and foremost, the
mission statement of the university (personal communication, December 21, 2012). Lic.
Gonzalez stressed the importance of developing a student “that is not only good in academics,
but good in leadership also and to have in mind the globalization aspect of the formation as a
student” (personal communication, December 2, 2012). Lic. Julio Lopez also asserted that
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 82
globalization is part of their mission. “Our main goal here is to try that our students get this kind
of exchange programs with universities. The internationalization of our university is one of the
mandates, one of the goals that we need to reach” (Lopez, personal communication, May 4,
2012). Therefore, the partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech reflects the
importance of globalization in student affairs supported by Lic. Julio Lopez, which demonstrates
the importance of fulfilling the institutional and divisional mission statements.
Knowledge Acquisition and Best Practices
The second theme related to the role of student affairs in globalization at Mexican Tech
was knowledge acquisition and the exchange of ideas and best practices. Knowledge acquisition
and the exchange of ideas and best practices reflect fundamental aspects of a good student affairs
program. The desire to acquire knowledge and share best practices were the primary motivating
factors for the relationship that has been built between Mexican Tech and American Tech.
Regarding best practices, Lic. Julio Lopez highlighted the motivation behind furthering
globalization was to share information and best practices (personal communication, May 4,
2012). He indicated, “I think it’s important and best practices, for share best practices and a lot of
our programs” (J. Lopez, personal communication, May 4, 2012). Lic. Alejandro Jimenez’
perspective on the motivation behind furthering globalization is “to share different projects with
different universities because we feel that we are part of the globalization community. So, we
have to be in an equal level” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). Lic. Francisca Ruiz
reached out to other universities, including American Tech, when issues arose on campus in
order to gain a different perspective, particularly when she knew that an institution dealt with a
similar situation (personal communication, May 10, 2012). “For example, the American Tech
shooting. We also had a shooting. We ask for them how to deal with the situation with the
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 83
students and the campus and the employees. So that’s the part that I have been in contact with
them” (F. Ruiz, personal communication, May 10, 2012).
Lic. Julio Lopez worked with his team to establish and develop relationships with
American Tech in order to acquire information and share best practices. In 2002, American Tech
was identified as a potential global partner (J. Lopez, personal communication, June 8, 2011).
Due to the similarities between the institutions, the relationship is very relevant. Both institutions
are large, four-year, technologically based institutions of higher education. Through the various
projects and partnerships, the two institutions exchanged ideas and serve as a point of contact
when issues arise on campus. Within food services, the exchange has allowed chefs to learn
about local cuisine first hand. The resident advisor exchanges bring an international perspective
to the residence life team for a full semester. During these resident advisor exchanges, the
student staff are able acquire new knowledge while sharing their own experiences of being a
resident advisor at another institution. The RA Conference and EXPO allows for a shorter period
of time for knowledge exchange. The RA Conference and EXPO is a three day period in which
staff and students from several institutions come together to learn from each other and exchange
ideas. Each university is asked to present best practices related to the theme of that year’s
conference. Additionally, there are booths that have been created for the EXPO which allow
countries to showcase the things that make them unique. The community service exchange not
only allowed students from Mexican Tech to fulfill their graduation requirement, but it also
formed a natural connection between the related offices at Mexican Tech and American Tech.
Finally, the RA Symposium held at American Tech, allowed for a relationship between Lic.
Francisca Ruiz and Dr. Jeff Frieske to be formed. Lic. Ruiz had previously utilized her
relationship with the counseling center when a shooting took place on campus. The relationship
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 84
with American Tech gave her a point of contact when she was seeking assistance on how to best
support the students at Mexican Tech.
Recognition as a Top University
A final theme is that there is a desire to be a top university worldwide, so partnerships
such as the one with American Tech have been one way that the institution strives to achieve this
goal. The desire for recognition was evident from the interviews as well as from the awards they
have received in relation to globalization.
Emphasizing the desire to be a top university, Ing. José Rodriguez indicates “we want to
be a top university worldwide so we have to adjust to the need. Global things we have to do”
(personal communication, January 14, 2013). Ing. Rodriguez continued, “If we want to be among
the best then we have to change and try. Because we have been closed minded in that sense.
We’re changing. We have to make more changes but we are on our way” (personal
communication, January 14, 2013). Lic. Francisca Ruiz further supported the desire to be a top
university. According to Lic. Ruiz, “he’s trying for that improvement and trying to get better”
(personal communication, May 10, 2012).
Mexican Tech gained recognition as a recipient of multiple awards from Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA). In 2005, the institution received the NASPA
International Education Knowledge Community Annual Best Practices Award for “Tech-to-Tech
Connections: Building an International Partnership between Mexican Tech and American Tech.”
According to the award application, “the mission of Tech-to-Tech Connections is to promote and
foster a unique and innovative partnership in student affairs that promotes the development of
international competence in faculty, staff and students through international opportunities in
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 85
professional development, research, teaching, and cultural exchange” (NASPA IEKC Annual
Best Practices Award Nomination, 2005). The goals of this relationship are:
1. To establish a broad agreement between Mexican Tech and American Tech that
promotes student affairs, academic, and student exchanges.
2. To institute an annual mechanism to discuss and assess progress in the various areas
of the relationship and to explore new possibilities.
3. To facilitate the development of cultural competencies among the faculty and staff of
both institutions.
4. To create an enable annual opportunities for exchanges between staff and faculty
from both institutions with a focus on student affairs exchanges.
5. To promote student exchanges in multiple areas including both student affairs and
academic programs. (NASPA IEKC Annual Best Practices Award Nomination,
2005).
The interviews and analysis of other documents supported this award nomination. At the
time of the award process, the resident advisor exchange was in place. According to the Inter-
Institutional Agreement of Cooperation (IAC) (2004), “the purpose of the IAC is to promote and
expand international understanding, development, and friendship by stimulating and supporting
educational, professional and intercultural activities and projects among students and staff of the
two institutions.” Some of the activities that were identified as possibilities within the IAC
included student exchange programs, faculty/staff exchange programs, cultural exchange
programs, visiting scholar, collaborative research projects, double degree programs, short term
training programs/projects, and cooperative and exchange lectures, conferences and seminars.
The activities that the researcher was informed of through interviews that actually occurred
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 86
included student exchange programs, staff exchange programs, conferences and seminars. Due to
the fact that security has become such a big issue, the relationship has needed to be more
flexible. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez indicated that Skype has allowed them to continue to develop
the relationship between Mexican Tech in addition to traveling to American Tech for the RA
Symposium. The partnership has morphed but it has not dissolved.
In 2006 NASPA awarded Mexican Tech an Honorable Mention for the International Best
Practices Award for “RA International Conference Mexico 2006.” The written nomination
included a description of the program, mission and goals of the program, how it contributes to
international education and learning in student affairs and higher education, and technical
information about the program including the institution, name of the program and contact
information for the nominator (Bair, 2006).
Additionally, they received the NASPA International Education Knowledge Community
2007 Best Practices Award for the Global Citizen Partnership Program. The award for
international best practices is given to “programs that encourage collaboration with colleagues
and students internationally to enhance global perspective” (Fienman, 2007). Unfortunately, due
to technical problems with Mexican Tech’s database the researcher was unable to access the
application for these awards. The researcher also contacted NASPA to obtain copies but they
were unable to locate them.
Overall, the global partnerships with American Tech serve as a way to achieve the goal of
being a top university worldwide. According to Dr. Tammy Waltner, Lic. Julio Lopez was very
diligent when working to finalize the NASPA award applications. “He worked very hard on his
end to make sure it was very technically correct and as near a perfect product as possible”
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 87
(Waltner, personal communication, May 2, 2012). The awards they have won from NASPA are
indicators of the determination Lic. Julio Lopez demonstrated to achieve this goal.
Research Question One Discussion
Student affairs played a key role in globalization at Mexican Tech. Traditionally
speaking, Student Affairs has been responsible for supporting international students and
educating domestic students about global awareness. In the past, the formation of formal
relationships between institutions have been left up to those working within academic affairs.
Student affairs officers like Lic. Julio Lopez can and are instrumental in creating global
partnerships. The history of the global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech
highlighted the many connections that have been made between the two institutions. Student
Affairs partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech have been established in food
services, residence life, community service, and counseling. These relationships were formalized
through the Inter-Institutional Agreement of Cooperation (2004; 2009).
Globalization is embedded within the mission statement of Mexican Tech and implied by
the division of student affairs. The mission statement was the driving force behind Lic. Julio
Lopez’ desire to pursue a partnership with American Tech. Due to Lic. Lopez’ commitment to
fulfilling the mission of globalization, the students at Mexican Tech are able to benefit from the
global partnership with American Tech. Globalization is a clear component of Mexican Tech’s
institutional mission statement and loosely related to mission statement for student affairs. Thus
Lic. Lopez was able to support these mission statements. Additionally, Mexican Tech searched
for knowledge acquisition and the exchange of ideas and best practices. Lic. Lopez is actively
seeking out the best ways to serve the needs of his students through the relationships he is
forging with institutions such as American Tech. Finally, as the NASPA awards have shown,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 88
Mexican Tech, at the time of this study, was making strong efforts to be a top university
worldwide. Strong emphasis has been made upon applying for awards through NASPA to gain
the recognition they seek. According to Dr. Tammy Waltner, Lic. Lopez was very careful to
make sure that the awards that were submitted were near perfect (personal communication, May
2, 2012).
Mexican Tech as an institution and the student affairs program were governed by strong
mission statements that included globalization. This was coupled by engaging administrative
leadership and student affairs professionals who sought to acquire knowledge which provided
opportunities to evaluate approaches to student issues and identify best practices. The results
were recognition as a top university. There were two findings from the first research question.
The first finding is the importance of a clear mission statement, which is supported and
implemented through practice by both the leadership and student affairs professionals. The
second finding reflects the importance of knowledge acquisition and the identification of best
practices resulting in positive outcomes for student affairs professionals at Mexican Tech.
Results Research Question Two
The second research question examines the leadership strategies that the senior student
affairs officer at Mexican Tech used to implement global partnerships with American Tech. The
senior student affairs officer can play a key role in internationalization alongside their
counterparts in other areas of leadership within the university setting. In order for student affairs
to be truly instrumental in the globalization of the university, resources must be allocated and
support provided by the senior student affairs officer (Green, 2002). Increasing global
partnerships can increase the quality of the student experience. In order for these global
partnerships to be successful there are several factors defined by Wiley and Root (2003). Some
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 89
of the guidelines presented by Wiley and Root (2003) included building the relationship for the
long-term, operating with written agreements, making collaborative decisions, and being
constant in the goals of the partnership. Continuity of personnel and persistence are two
attributes that allow for relationships to continue over the long term. Traditionally, divisions of
student affairs have been responsible for developing the whole student. At the same time
individuals working in student affairs must be intentional with their own professional
development, which includes participating in international exchanges and connecting with
student affairs professionals from a variety of institutions domestically and internationally
(Kruger & Dungy, 1999). Lic. Julio Lopez empowered his staff to take advantage of
opportunities to participate in international exchanges and learn from other institutions in order
to seek out common ground.
The student affairs leaders at Mexican Tech paved the way for some of the changes
taking place in response to globalization and expanding upon the traditional role of student
affairs. Mexican Tech prioritized international travel and professional exchange for students and
student affairs professionals (J. Lopez, personal communication, June 8, 2011). Several themes
emerged from the interviews. First, participants identified Lic. Lopez as a source of continuity in
the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Second, Lic. Lopez remained
persistent in pursuit of the partnerships. The third theme highlights the collaboration between the
two institutions while establishing a common ground. Additionally, as a fourth theme,
participants noted Lic. Lopez’ desire to empower his staff to forge these cross-border
relationships and his ability to think towards the future.
The first theme that emerged was Lic. Lopez’ role in the continuity of the relationship
between Mexican Tech and American Tech through the many changes in leadership at American
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 90
Tech. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez highlighted the numerous changes in leadership within student
affairs over the course of the relationship. So much change created challenges in continuity and
persistence. Lic. Jimenez stated, “people are not exactly the same guys we started to talk to and
naturally we change as well. I mean, our president who made the relation or the connection, he is
not here anymore. We have a new president” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). The
presidential change at Mexican Tech was not the only transition to occur during the time of the
partnership. According to Dr. Tammy Waltner, American Tech has had four vice presidents for
student affairs in the past nine years (personal communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Waltner
indicated, “we’ve had leadership changes for a variety of reasons, Lic. Lopez has been a constant
in the relationship” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). “We keep seeming to have
leadership changes due to retirement, a death, and then our current vice president is retiring at the
end of June and so we have a new person who will be beginning, she’ll be starting in August” (T.
Waltner, personal communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Evelyn Stinson was appointed the new vice
president for student affairs succeeding Dr. David Wood according to the American Tech
website (2012). Because of these numerous changes, Dr. Waltner noted the importance of Lic.
Lopez’ continuity. At the time of this study, he had been a champion of pursing globalization as
a goal within student affairs. “I think that continuity and maintaining that relationship, that’s kind
of fallen on him because he’s been there” (T. Waltner, personal communication, May 2, 2012).
Although a number of individuals played a prominent role in the partnership between American
Tech and Mexican Tech, he was the main point person for the relationship. While a
memorandum of understanding was in place, as a fluid document someone was needed to keep
the partnership at the forefront of the institutions’ minds. Mechanisms were not in place to
automate any of the aspects of the agreement. Thus, when turnover occurred at American Lic.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 91
Lopez initiated a new relationship with the successor from American Tech. Additionally, when
political unrest was happening in Mexico the terms of the resident advisor exchange agreement
were not met. Lic. Lopez’ continuity allowed for prior conversations that may not have been
fully documented to not be forgotten.
The second theme was Lic. Lopez’ persistence in continuing to pursue the partnership. It
would have been easy to let the goals fade away as leadership transitioned, but he pushed
forward to assure that the relationship did not wither. Demonstrating this persistence, Dr. Nick
White stated, “If he’s not committed to it, then it can easily fall away as a program” (personal
communication, December 19, 2012). Similarly, Dr. Tammy Waltner said, “he’s been very
persistent and he’s really kept up with it and maintained contact” (personal communication, May
2, 2012). Dr. Waltner continued “he’s worked really hard to maintain that relationship with us
and to be a friend. And I think that’s gone a long way to sustain that collaboration” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012). Ms. Jennifer Kosanke echoed these sentiments and said, “he’s
been very professional, authentic and definitely focused on maintaining and sustaining the
relationship. I found it to be a very positive approach” (personal communication, May 3, 2012).
Dr. Tiffany Johnson elaborated on this stating “he works continuously to solidify his relationship
with us and that then provides a pathway for exchange of ideas, exchange of processes and
protocols” (personal communication, December 19, 2012). Lic. Antonio Gonzalez indicated that
Lic. Lopez’ leadership style as he developed global partnerships with American Tech was to lead
through perseverance (personal communication, December 21, 2012).
Common Ground was the third theme that emerged in relation to leadership strategies
Lic. Lopez utilized. Lic. Lopez forged the relationship with American Tech due to his desire to
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 92
find common ground. Through information sharing across borders, he sought out opportunities to
enact best practices within the field of student affairs. According to Dr. Tiffany Johnson:
It’s really more about what are we doing when it comes to philosophical stances with
regard to student learning, student development in the higher education environment.
Institutionally we have some different components but we are all educators and so his
efforts have both been on his own campus to continue to perpetuate support for the
program to continue and to get that buy-in and I think he’s been wonderful to work with
us just in that the relationship is solidified (personal communication, December 19,
2012).
Lic. Francisca Ruiz corroborated the importance of pursuing a relationship where common
ground is in place during her interview. “One trip at American Tech they thought they have
things in common. And it’s really important the investigation about how the counseling center
can help” (F. Ruiz, personal communication, May 10, 2012). Lic. Ruiz utilized her contacts with
American Tech when a shooting occurred at Mexican Tech in 2012 because she knew that
American Tech had dealt with a campus shooter. Lic. José Rodriguez believed that Lic. Lopez
chose to partner with American Tech due to certain goals they have in common. According to
Lic. Rodriguez Mexican Tech and American Tech both have a focus on community service.
(personal communication, January 14, 2013). The common goal for community service resulted
in a reciprocal relationship where students from Mexican Tech were sent to American Tech to do
community service and vice versa. Lic. Rodriguez also recognized a good academic match
resulted in academic exchanges (personal communication, January 14, 2013). The academic
exchanges between Mexican Tech and American Tech allowed the for leadership exchanges to
take place within residence life.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 93
The fourth theme related to the ability of Lic. Lopez to empower his staff members to do
their jobs and form relationships across borders and was considered a long-range planner. From
speaking with Lic. Lopez, the staff at Mexican Tech and the staff at American Tech, it became
obvious Lic. Lopez believed in empowering his staff members to do their jobs. Lic. Lopez said,
“I try to empower my people to get in contact with the people from other universities” (personal
communication, May 4, 2012). He developed trust in them so they could forge relationships
beyond the borders of their campus. Ing. José Rodriguez corroborated Lic. Lopez’ ideas and
described Lic. Lopez’ leadership style as he developed a global partnership with American Tech
based on confidence:
With empowerment and confidence in your people so you expect the same from them and
you expect the same from the people you’re working and trying to do the best so that
confidence does some good. So that’s his way and I think it’s working and with the
agreement and with all the students we had from many universities I can tell you it’s
pretty much the same. We trust our partnership and we trust our people here so we rely
on the trust for all the things we do. (J. Rodriguez, personal communication, January 14,
2013).
Lic. Antonio Gonzalez felt that Lic. Lopez empowers his staff to develop cross border
relationships in order to enhance the student experience beyond the curricular experience they
would traditionally have when studying abroad. Lic. Gonzalez indicated:
The global partnerships in student affairs gives them a little bit more experience other
than the academic side of the international experience. They actually take on a role of
being a leader overseas or in another country at another university with a different
culture. This gives it a very different aspect, complementing that side of the academic
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 94
experience. It helps them see themselves outside as a leader not only in their own
community but with a totally different side of a different culture (personal
communication, December 21, 2012).
Lic. Lopez’ collaborative approach allowed him to build strong relationships. Dr. Tiffany
Johnson said, “our institutional experience with him has suggested that it’s a great collaboration”
(personal communication, December 19, 2012). Dr. Tammy Waltner credited Lic. Lopez with
initiating the collaboration between Mexican Tech and American Tech and described him as a
participative manager who seeks input from the people he works with, leads by example, and is
viewed as a hard worker. Dr. Tiffany Johnson described him as “incredibly engaging, thoughtful,
proactive, lots of enthusiasm, seeing the possibilities, sharing in the learning. He was
interpersonally engaging, committed, and a critical thinker when it came to the conversations
that we had among the advisors and directors” (personal communication, December 19, 2012).
Lic. Antonio Gonzalez had the opportunity in his previous position as student
development coordinator to work with the exchange programs in residence life between Mexican
Tech and American Tech. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez, housing and residence life director, has been
empowered by Lic. Lopez to provide oversight for the international department of student
affairs. One of Lic. Jimenez’ responsibilities is to “promote the participation with other
universities and continue, at least as student affairs, internships and visits and everything”
(personal communication, May 2, 2012). Several of the participants described Lic. Lopez as
long-range and forward thinking. According to Lic. Julio Lopez, “each semester, at the
beginning, we have a planning session. This planning session is the main objective of what we
want to do this semester in several main areas. One of the areas is in internationalization”
(personal communication, May 4, 2012). Dr. Nick White said, “he is a very strategic thinker,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 95
very long-range thinker” (personal communication, December 19, 2012). Dr. Jeff Frieske
described Lic Lopez as “collaborative, open mind and forward thinking” (personal
communication, January 30, 2013). Dr White stated Lic Lopez was able to see other perspectives
and maintain an open mind when approaching various subjects. Dr. Tiffany Johnson described
him as “warm and engaging and hard-working and really advocates for students and student
experience and to expand a student’s mindset beyond their homeland” (personal communication,
December 19, 2012). Students were at the center of his approach as he led his team to expanding
their perspectives to take on a global view.
Research Question Two Discussion
Participants saw Lic. Lopez as a source of continuity in the relationship between Mexican
Tech and American Tech. He also persisted in pursuing the relationship despite numerous
changes in leadership. The collaboration between Mexican Tech and American Tech was
successful due, in part, to the common goals that the institutions hold. Lic. Lopez instilled trust
in his staff and desired to empower his staff to pursue these partnerships with American Tech.
He has an eye on the future and has an ability to think about long-term goals in order to be
successful. The partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech were largely based
upon rapport and relationships. This means that, when turnover occurred, there was at least some
starting over which took place and potentially slowed down the progress. There are two findings.
First, collaboration was a successful leadership strategy due to the continuity, common goals,
and persistent nature of the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech. Second, the ways in
which the staff were empowered and challenged to maintain relationships and achieve long-term
goals were key leadership strategies, which led to globalization in student affairs at Mexican
Tech.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 96
Results Research Question Three
Using the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003), the third question explores Lic. Julio
Lopez’ leadership styles while developing global partnerships with American Tech. Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four frames are an ideal model for a comparison study such as this due to the
comprehensive picture the framework provides. Each of the four frames provides a distinct and
coherent approach to leadership (Bolman & Deal (2003). The human resource frame sees
members of the organization as extended family members, and those using this framework to
help individuals find a way to feel good about the work they do. Bolman and Deal (2003)
suggest human resource leaders empower others by believing in their people and communicating
this with their staff. Many of the guidelines presented by Wiley and Root (2003) connect to the
human resource frame because relationships are at the heart of these guidelines. Wiley and Root
(2003) suggest that decisions should be made collaboratively and work to gain a deeper
understanding of each other. Those using the political frame see organizations as arenas,
contests, or jungles and utilize bargaining, negotiation, coercion, and compromise. Bolman and
Deal highlight political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get. The symbolic
frame treats organizations as tribes, theaters, or carnivals. Symbolic leaders lead by example.
They also communicate a vision. Awards are an important symbol in the global partnership
between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Wiley and Root (2003) outline the importance of
regularly celebrating the creation and successes of the global partnership in addition to
overcoming any difficulties that may come about. Leaders who emphasize the structural frame
center on goals, specialized roles and formal relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Structural
leaders focus on goals and do their homework. Similarly, Wiley and Root (2003) outlined clear
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 97
goals as a foundational guideline for a successful global partnership. They also outline the
importance of written agreements in order to formalize the relationship for the long term.
Relevant to the frames when applied to the development of global partnerships, during
the interviews, participants were asked how often each item was true of Lic. Lopez using a five
point scale where 1 = never and 5 = always (Bolman & Deal, 1992, 1997). Table 5 shows the
averages for each of the four frames in comparison to alpha as determined by Bolman and Deal
(1992, 1997). Appendix F provides the full results of the interview questions designed to
determine Lic. Julio Lopez’ leadership frames. The table in Appendix F allows the reader to
compare how each question affected the overall score that Lic. Lopez received. It is interesting to
note that, when looking at individual questions in Appendix F, Lic. Lopez tested positive for
different frames. However, Table 5 presents the average of all questions to determine the frames
utilized.
Based upon Bolman and Deal’s (1992, 1997) Leadership Orientation Survey, the
requirement to test positive varies amongst each of the four frames. According to Bolman and
Deal (1992, 1997), if the Structural Frame alpha equals .90, this would indicate that the
individual tests positive in this area. The average across all participants came to .868, thus testing
negative for the Structural Frame. In order to test positive for the Human Resource Frame, alpha
should equal .93. Lic. Lopez had .9315, indicating that he utilized this frame. In the Political
Frame alpha equals .89, compared to Lic. Lopez’ .84, which would indicate he does not utilize
this frame when looking at the average. The Symbolic Frame was where scores were strongest
when comparing Lic. Lopez’ Alpha to Bolman and Deal’s (1992, 1997) leadership orientation
survey. Lic. Lopez scored an average of .92 on a scale where alpha equals .91. These scores
indicate that Lic. Lopez utilized the Human Resource Frame and the Symbolic Frame. Lic.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 98
Lopez’ primary frames while developing global partnerships with American Tech were symbolic
and human resource and to a lesser degree the structural frame.
In the human resource frame, Lic. Julio Lopez empowered his staff to develop
relationships with other institutions such as American Tech in order to acquire knowledge and
further best practices. He encouraged his staff to engage in projects to aid in Mexican Tech’s
recognition as a top university. In the symbolic frame, Lic. Julio Lopez incorporated the
importance of globalization within the mission of the university and the division of student
affairs to the work that he gave his time and energy. The formal relationships developed between
the institutions have become a symbolic feature of the way in which student affairs at Mexican
Tech are portrayed to other institutions.
Table 5
Leadership Orientation Survey
Frame Lic. Lopez’
Average Score
Lic. Lopez’
Alpha =
Requirement to test
positive Alpha =
Frame
Utilized?
Structural 4.34 .868 .90 No
Human Resource 4.66 .9315 .93 Yes
Political 4.2 .84 .89 No
Symbolic 4.6 .92 .91 Yes
Bolman and Deal (2003) also provide a simpler test for determining which frame is in
play. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), leaders match the frames they utilize based upon
the given time and situation. Depending upon the circumstances, a leader may use one frame in
one situation and another in a different situation. There were five questions that were used to
facilitate the determination of which frames were most influential in practice as see in Table 6
below.
When participants were asked if individual commitment and motivation were essential to
Lic. Lopez’ success, most responded affirmatively. Lic. Antonio Gonzalez indicated “yeah, a lot.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 99
And a lot of teamwork. Teamwork is very important to Lic. Lopez” (personal communication,
December 21, 2012). Ms. Jennifer Kosanke elaborated “Lic. Is genuine and has a personal
passion for making sure that the partnership works and not just as an authoritarian, like a father
says to a child you need to take your medicine so this is good for you. I think that global
partnerships really are a genuine passion for him” (personal communication, May 3, 2012). Dr.
Nick White agreed “if he’s not committed to the relationship then it can easily fall away”
(personal communication, December 19, 2012). According to Dr. Tammy Waltner “Lic. Lopez’
individual commitment and motivation are things I identified as really sustaining the partnership.
I think they are critical” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Tiffany Johnson said that it
took Lic. Lopez’ “industriousness, diligence and perseverance that he believed the partnership
was the right thing to do for students in order to create pathways and partnerships that allow it to
happen” (personal communication, December 19, 2012).
In response to whether the technical quality of the decision is important or not, most
responded that they felt this was an attribute of Lic. Lopez, although the response was split when
speaking with participants from Mexican Tech. Lic. Francisca Ruiz believes that the technical
quality of the decision is important for Lic. Lopez. She indicated “his decisions are really
important and all in favor of the student and what’s best for the student. He expects the people he
works with as well to make good decisions as well” (personal communication, May 10, 2012).
Dr. Nick White believes that Lic. Julio Lopez wants a quality program. “He wants to get the
most impactful experience for his students and his staff” (White, personal communication,
December 19, 2012). Dr. Tammy Waltner worked with Lic. Julio Lopez on the submission of a
joint NASPA award. Dr. Waltner indicated “he really took a great deal of pride in getting the
submission to cover a lot of information and to be accurate and exact and so he worked very hard
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 100
on his end to make sure it was very technically correct and as near a perfect product as possible”
(personal communication, May 2, 2012).
Ambiguity and uncertainty were not something that participants felt was significant
factors for Lic. Lopez. Lic. Antonio Lopez shared “Lic. Lopez is pretty determined. When he
gets an idea he will make sure it happens. Like when he knows it’s a project that will elevate the
university, he will make it happen” (personal communication, December 21, 2012). Ing. Jose
Rodriguez stated “No, he likes to make his point crystal clear. I can tell you there is no
ambiguity” (personal communication, January 19, 2013). Dr. Nick White spoke of the
importance of having an intentional plan due to the international component involving
international travel. “You really have to have everything in line. Now in the formation of ideas
before anything’s enacted, I might say he dealt with some broad ideas but once it was enacted, he
really had to be very tight to be dealing with two different governments and with the travel”
(White, personal communication, December 19, 2012).
Conflict and particularly scarce resources were significant issues for Lic. Lopez, although
this was not as readily apparent for the American Tech participants. Ing. Jose Rodriguez
indicated that money is limited. “But if we don’t have funds we can find people that can help
with the programs. If we believe in a project, we can do it” (Rodriguez, personal communication,
January 19, 2013).
Participants in this study felt that Lic. Julio Lopez works both from the bottom up as well
as the top down. Lic. Francisca Lopez said “I think he works in a combination. He gets in contact
with those above him as well as those below him when making decisions” (personal
communication, May 10, 2012).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 101
Utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2003) table for Choosing a Frame, Lic. Lopez tested high
for the Human Resource, Symbolic and Structural Frames when developing global partnerships
with American Tech as revealed in the evidence. The results are highlighted in Table 6.
Table 6
Choosing a Frame
Question If yes If No Lic.
Lopez’
Response
Mexican
Tech
Response
American
Tech
Response
Overall
Response
Are
individual
commitment
and
motivation
essential to
success?
Human
resource;
symbolic
Structural;
political
Human
resource;
symbolic
Human
resource;
symbolic
Human
resource;
symbolic
Human
resource;
symbolic
Is the
technical
quality of
the decision
important?
Structural Human
Resource;
political;
symbolic
Structural Split Structural Structural
Is there a
high level of
ambiguity
and
uncertainty?
Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human
resource
Structural;
human
resource
Structural;
human
resource
Structural;
human
resource
Structural;
human
resource
Are conflict
and scarce
resources
significant?
Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human
resource
Political;
symbolic
Political;
symbolic
Split Political;
symbolic
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 102
Table 6, continued
Are you
working
from the
bottom up?
Political;
symbolic
Structural;
human
resource
Political;
symbolic;
Structural;
human
resource
Political;
symbolic;
Structural;
human
resource
Political;
symbolic;
Structural;
human
resource
Political;
symbolic;
Structural;
human
resource
Overall 3 Human
Resource;
2 Political;
3
Structural;
3 Symbolic
3-4 Human
Resource;
2-3
Political;
2-3
Structural;
3-4
Symbolic
3-4 Human
Resource;
1-2
Political;
3-4
Structural;
2-3
Symbolic
3 Human
Resource;
2
Political;
3
Structural;
3
Symbolic
Similarly, when utilizing the criteria from Choosing a Frame, Lic. Lopez utilized Human
Resource and Symbolic Frames. Lic. Lopez tested positive for the Structural Frame as well when
utilizing the second set of questions. It is worth mentioning that it was only by a narrow margin
that he did not test positive for the Structural Frame utilizing the first set of criteria. Participants
were asked to think about Lic. Julio Lopez through the lens of his work with the partnership
between Mexican Tech and American Tech. The only comparison point is from person to person.
There was no comparison point for different situations to determine whether he utilized varying
frames based upon the circumstances.
From the interviews there were several examples of how the elements of each of the
frames showed up. There were seven main observations, which reflect the development of global
partnerships. There are three related to the human resource frame. Regarding the development of
global partnerships from the human resource frame, the three examples are alignment of
organizational and human needs, empowerment, and family. There were two observations related
to the symbolic frame. Regarding the development of global partnerships from the symbolic
frame the three examples are his ability to inspire, the way that activity and meaning are loosely
coupled, and his ability to lead by example (Bolman & Deal, 2003). There were two observations
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 103
related to the structural frame. An important indicator regarding the structural frame was his
focus on goals and the fact that he has done his homework.
Human Resource Frame
Leadership within the Human Resource frame played out in several different ways while
Lic. Julio Lopez developed global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech when
looking at it through the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003). The first example is the way
that the alignment of organizational and human needs play out. The second is the way in which
Bolman and Deal (2003) described the image of leadership in the Human Resource frame
through the use of empowerment. Finally, family is a metaphor that is often used for the Human
Resource frame.
The first example of how global partnerships can be successful when viewed through the
human resource frame is to align organizational and human needs. The alignment of these
organizational and human needs was something that Lic. Julio Lopez was particularly successful
with. Dr. Tiffany Johnson said, “he created the buy-in at his own institutions for them to have
support and to see value in having international partners. And he works continuously to solidify
his relationship with us and that then provides a pathway for exchange of ideas, exchange of
processes and protocols” (personal communication, December 19, 2012). He saw a need to find
experts in the field to help members of his organization push forward to the next level. Dr. Nick
White said that Lic. Lopez “reaches out to experts in the field and a number of different places. I
believe he synthesizes the information and see what works for his campus” (personal
communication, December 19, 2012). Ing. Jose Rodriguez stated “he gave us the resources to
work our human resources. We have the backup from Lic. Lopez” (personal communication,
January 14, 2013).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 104
The second example of how Lic. Julio Lopez utilized the Human Resource frame when
developing global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech was his ability to
empower the staff with whom he worked. Lic. Julio Lopez believes in his people. Lic. Lopez
said that he tries to “empower my people to get in contact with the people from other
universities” (personal communication, May 4, 2012). Ing. Jose Rodriguez indicated that Lic.
Lopez utilized empowerment and confidence in his people he has developed a trusting
partnership with American Tech (personal communication, January 14, 2013). Lic. Francisca
Ruiz shared “Lic. Lopez is always trying to improve and get better, but he also empowers the
directors to get better and spend more time, not only on our campus, but also outside” (personal
communication, May 10, 2012).
Finally, Bolman and Deal (2003) described family as a metaphor for the Human
Resource frame, something that Lic. Julio Lopez took to heart in the development of global
partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Lic. Francisca Ruiz described him as a
“father towards others” (personal communication, May 10, 2012). Lic. Alejandro Jimenez
explained that “Lic. Lopez receives people from different countries like a family. Since
internationalization is one of our goals, we always have to work in that direction” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012).
Symbolic Frame
Regarding the development of global partnerships from the symbolic frame, the three
examples are his ability to inspire, the way the activity and meaning are loosely coupled, and his
ability to lead by example. Bolman and Deal (2003) described inspiration as a descriptor of the
image of leadership in the symbolic frame just as Lic. Julio Lopez inspired his staff to pursue
global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech. The loose coupling of activity
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 105
and meaning is an assumption of the symbolic frame as described by Bolman and Deal (2003).
Leading by example, Lic. Julio Lopez is someone who has paved the way for other members of
his staff to continue to reach across the border to develop relationships and learn from other
campuses.
Reflecting Lic. Lopez’s ability to inspire, several participants indicated the way in which
he has moved them to further their relationship building across national boundaries and seek to
be better leaders. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez indicated that Lic. Lopez has inspired him to “always
promote internationalization and globalization, especially on shared projects” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Tiffany Johnson was inspired by Lic. Lopez ability to be
engaging, thoughtful, proactive, and hardworking (personal communication, December 19,
2012).
Demonstrating Lic. Julio Lopez’ development of a loose coupling of activity and
meaning, when speaking with the various participants, it was evident that events have multiple
meanings due to the fact that interpretations of experiences may vary from person to person as
described by Bolman and Deal (2003). Internationalization is a symbol that is held dear at
Mexican Tech. According to Lic. Julio Lopez, “[internationalization is] part of our mission”
(personal communication, May 4, 2012). Lic. Alejandro Jimenez highlighted that Lic. Lopez
“always promotes internationalization and globalization on shared projects” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012).
Leading by example is the final marker of Lic. Julio Lopez’s use of the Symbolic Frame
when developing global partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Lic. Antonio
Gonzalez described Lic. Julio Lopez as someone who “leads by example because he’s been the
one who has gone on the trips in the first place so he knows the people, he knows how it’s run,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 106
he knows who to call up” (personal communication, December 21, 2012). Similarly, Dr. Tiffany
Johnson saw Lic. Lopez as someone who “shares in the learning” and sets an example for his
team (personal communication, December 19, 2012).
Structural Frame
Two important indicators regarding the structural frame were Lic. Lopez’ focus on goals
and the fact that he had done his homework. Lic. Lopez maintained a constant focus on
globalization and the importance of developing a stable global partnership between Mexican
Tech and American Tech. However, he did this after doing his homework by connecting with
experts and assuring that there was good reason for the relationship to be created between
Mexican Tech and American Tech.
Lic. Lopez indicated, “our main goal here is that our students get this kind of exchange
programs with universities. The internationalization of our mandates” (personal communication,
May 4, 2012). Lic. Alejandro Jimenez shared that “when you believe in something you always
reach that goal. We have a lot of wonderful proof of benefits with different relationships. So they
are speaking for themselves” (personal communication, May 2, 2012). Dr. Tiffany Johnson
credited Lic. Lopez with sustaining the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech.
Dr. Johnson indicated “You don’t get a program that looks like this, that has gone on for a few
years to be successful and have the traction that it does, even if it’s a little bit small, without that
kind of industriousness, diligence, and perseverance that he believed it was the right thing to do
for students” (personal communication, December 19, 2012).
The final indicator of Lic. Lopez’ use of the Structural Frame when developing global
partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech was that he did his homework.
American Tech was not selected as a potential site for a global partnership by accident. The
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 107
institutions are well matched as partners as both are large, technologically based institutions. It is
perhaps, one of the best examples of an intentional partnership within student affairs at Mexican
Tech due to the technology-based connection between the two institutions. None of the other
partnerships that are currently in place are with technology-based institutions. Lic. Lopez also
did his homework on how he could best serve his students through global partnerships.
According to Dr. Nick White, Lic. Lopez had a good grasp of campus concerns and has reached
out to experts in order to better serve the needs of his students (personal communication,
December 19, 2012). Lic. Lopez is interested in sharing in the learning according to Dr. Tiffany
Johnson. Dr. Johnson indicated “he is really present with you and when you think about
leadership, showing that presence and that ethic of care, and that enthusiasm for leaning and that
curiosity and wonder with an international experience it’s just really cool to see that modeled”
(personal communication, December 19, 2012).
Research Question Three Discussion
Overall, there was one finding from the results of research question three. The most
predominant frame used by Lic. Julio Lopez was the human resource frame due to the value that
Lic. Lopez put upon the individuals that he works with and the relationships that are developed.
When developing global partnerships action such as commitment to his staff through his ability
to align organizational and human need and to empower his staff to develop relationships led to
the achievement of the overall goal of globalization. These actions reflect those of an individual
operating from the human resource frame and supports the finding that operating in the Human
Resource frame could serve as a catalyst for developing global partnerships and positive
outcomes due to the relational nature of this form of globalization.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 108
Results Research Question Four
The final research question sought to determine any differences between the perceptions
of Lic. Lopez’ leadership styles when working with his own staff versus that of the leadership
styles he used with the staff at American Tech. As Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames
have not been applied in a cross-cultural setting; if there would be a difference in Lic. Julio
Lopez’ leadership style in the two settings. Hofstede (1996) indicates “there are no such things as
universal management theories” (p. 254). However, all but one participant indicated there was no
difference in Lic. Lopez’ leadership style when working with his own staff versus the leadership
styles he used when working with the staff at American Tech. The emergent theme is the
overwhelming evidence of how Lic. Lopez was consistent with his professional engagement in
both settings.
Each participant was asked, “Have you observed any difference between the way Lic.
Julio Lopez works and interacts with the staff a Mexican Tech versus the way he interacts with
the staff at American Tech, and if so, what are some of those differences?” The one person who
did not indicate that there was no difference in Lic. Lopez’ leadership style was more neutral
with his response. Due to his limited interactions with Lic. Lopez, Dr. Jeff Frieske indicated, “I
don’t think I had enough information to be able to speak to that” (personal communication,
January 30, 2013). Given the opportunity, Dr. Frieske may have been able to make a better
assessment of any differences that may have existed.
More importantly regarding interactions from within Mexican Tech, Lic. Alejandro
Jimenez was able to give a better analysis of any differences that may have existed in Lic.
Lopez’ leadership style when working with staff from Mexican Tech in comparison to his
leadership style when working with staff from American Tech. Lic. Alejandro Jimenez
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 109
responded with “I think [the way in which Lic. Lopez interacts with the staff at Mexican Tech
and American Tech] are always exactly the same. Yeah, the same. He’s very natural” (personal
communication, May 2, 2012). Lic. Francisca Ruiz agreed that Lic. Lopez interacted with staff at
Mexican Tech and American Tech in similar manners. Lic. Ruiz indicated, “I haven’t seen [a
difference in the way Lic. Lopez interact with the staff at Mexican Tech in comparison to the
way he interacts with the staff at American Tech]. Haven’t seen that” (personal communication,
May 10, 2012). Similarly, Lic. Antonio Gonzalez said, “not really. I would say he is the same
person. Yeah” (personal communication, December 21, 2012).
The staff from American Tech had similar sentiments to the staff from Mexican Tech. Dr.
Tiffany Johnson shared, “the only observations I had was with his colleague that came from the
institution that they were very collegial, jovial, positive, proactive. They both were down to earth
and real. I felt comfortable with them, and I think their relationship was that they were willing to
reach out. They asked questions of each other. They shared information openly, transparently
and that behavior seemed consistent with that colleague as well as with the rest of us” (personal
communication, December 19, 2012). Dr. Nick White’s response was “When he’s here he’s
always cordial, when I’m down there he’s always cordial. He’s open. He’s inviting. And so I’ve
seen that at both campuses” (personal communication, December 19, 2012). Ms. Jennifer
Kosanke said, “I don’t think his style or approach is different. I can definitely tell that it is
meaningful authentic relationships that he has on campus and that’s probably from the amount of
time he gets to spend with those students and staff members. And even in our short interactions I
have felt that if we had more time together I would have that same relationship” (personal
communication, May 3, 2012). Dr. Tammy Waltner corroborated all this with “I’m not aware of
any major differences. From what I’ve observed, I think he treats the staff at both institutions
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 110
very much the same. And he’s the same Lic. Lopez regardless of which group he’s interacting
with as far as I can tell” (personal communication, May 2, 2012).
The leadership strategies described about Lic. Julio Lopez when implementing global
partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech were much the same, regardless of
which institution the participant was from as described in the results of research question two.
Participants from both Mexican Tech and American Tech described the importance of his
continuity and persistence as key components for the continuation of the relationship between
the institutions. Participants from both institutions also described his desire to find common
ground as a key theme that was prevalent in his work in developing the global partnerships.
Finally, Lic. Lopez sought to empower his staff to seek out global partnerships.
Similarly, the leadership frames used by Lic. Julio Lopez was the same when tested by
staff members at either institution. Regardless of which institution the participant was from,
observations indicated Lic. Lopez utilized the Human Resource, Symbolic, and Structural frames
as outlined in the results of research question three. When comparing the results of the two sets
of questions there are no notable difference in the frames utilized by Lic. Julio Lopez when
working with the staff at Mexican Tech versus the frames utilized when working with the staff at
American Tech.
Overall, there was no finding from the results of research question four. An important
indicator that emerged was there were no significant differences in the way in which Lic. Julio
Lopez operated in the two settings. His ability to operate fluidly was instrumental to his success.
Summary
Mexican Tech is gaining recognition as a recipient of numerous awards from Student
Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA). Lic. Julio Lopez is leading the way
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 111
toward obtaining these awards. This case study illustrated the role of student affairs in
globalization along with the leadership strategies that Lic. Julio Lopez, the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech, utilized in order to implement global partnerships with American Tech,
with Bolman and Deal’s (2003) leadership framework. The researcher was then able to examine
the results to find that no notable difference existed in the leadership styles Lic. Lopez used
when working with his own staff versus those he used with the staff at American Tech.
Overall, there were five findings. There were two findings in response to the first
research question. The findings from research question one were the importance of a clear
mission statement, which is supported and implemented through practice by both the leadership
and student affairs professionals and the importance of knowledge acquisition and the
identification of best practices resulting in positive outcomes for student affairs professionals at
Mexican Tech. In response to research question two, there were two findings. First, collaboration
was a key successful leadership strategy due to the continuity, common goals, and persistent
nature of the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech. Second, staff were empowered and
challenged to maintain relationships and achieve long-term goals, which led to globalization in
student affairs at Mexican Tech. Research question three revealed operating in the Human
Resource frame could serve a catalyst for developing global partnerships and positive outcomes
due to the relational nature of this form of globalization as a finding.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 112
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the key findings revealed through the analysis of the data collected
for this study. The purpose of this study was to examine how a senior student affairs officer at a
Mexican institution went about developing global partnerships with an American institution and
the leadership styles he employed to affect the student experience at his own institution as well
as at the partner institution. To fully understand how a senior student affairs officer from a non-
American institution integrated globalization into the student experience provides insights into
successful strategies to the student affairs profession. Further, the role student affairs plays in
globalization at a Mexican institution and the partnerships within student affairs including
residence life, global citizens partners (civic engagement), student government and student
activities were examined. The purpose of the study was to use Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four
frames to examine the senior student affairs officer and Mexican Tech’s leadership style as he
developed a global partnership with an American institution using. This study examined which
of the four frames he used when working with staff at Mexican Tech and compared these frames
to the frames he used when working with staff at American Tech. This examination and
comparison allowed the researcher to explore strategies used by this particular leader and
whether he adapted styles across cultures.
The following research questions were utilized as a foundation for the study:
1. What role does student affairs play in globalization at Mexican Tech?
2. What leadership strategies did the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use
to implement global partnerships with American Tech?
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 113
3. Using the framework of Bolman and Deal (2003), what leadership styles did the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech use when developing global
partnerships with American Tech?
4. Is there a difference between the perception of the leadership styles used by the senior
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when working with his own staff versus that
of the leadership styles he used with the staff at American Tech, and, if so, what are
those differences?
The methodology employed was a descriptive case study examining a phenomenon and
allowed the author to present a detailed account of what occurred in detail (Merriam, 1998). This
study used applied qualitative research through a bounded case study methodology using semi-
structured interviews and document analysis. The unit of analysis was an individual university in
Mexico and the partnership it developed with an individual university in the United States. This
study examined the leadership style of the senior student affairs officer at the Mexican institution
being studied. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four leadership frames were utilized as the theoretical
framework for the study. Using a single case study allowed the author to focus deeply on one
institution’s partnership with another institution and one individual leader rather than viewing the
surface of several different institutions and leaders. The leadership style of the senior student
affairs officer was examined from the point of view of the student affairs staff at Mexican Tech
and compared to that presented from the point of view of the student affairs staff at American
Tech. The researcher analyzed the data to determine whether there were specific leadership
qualities or tenets from the student affairs profession that affected the frames of this particular
leader.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 114
Discussion of Findings
In response to the research questions, there were five findings. The first research question
sought to understand the role that student affairs plays in globalization at Mexican Tech. There
were two findings relevant to the first research question. The first finding was the importance of
a clear mission statement which is then supported and implemented through practice by student
affairs leadership and other professionals in the division. The second finding was the importance
of knowledge acquisition and the identification of best practices which resulted in positive
outcomes for student affairs professionals at Mexican Tech. The second research question
examined the leadership strategies of the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when
implementing global partnerships with American Tech. Two findings emerged from the second
research question. The first finding was the way in which collaboration served as a key
successful leadership strategy due to common goals between Mexican Tech and American Tech
as well as the continuity and persistence Lic. Lopez brought to the partnership. The second
finding from research question two was the student affairs staff from Mexican Tech were
empowered and challenged to maintain relationships and achieve long-term goals which resulted
in globalization in student affairs at Mexican Tech. The third research question sought to
understand the leadership frames utilized by Lic. Julio Lopez when developing global
partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech through the framework of Bolman and
Deal (2003). The finding for research question three was that operating in the human resource
frame could serve as a catalyst for developing global partnerships and positive outcomes due to
the relational nature of this form of globalization. The final research question sought to
understand any differences that may have existed between other people’s perception of the
leadership styles used by Lic. Julio Lopez when working with his own staff versus the leadership
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 115
styles he used with the staff at American Tech. There was no finding in response to research
question four. However, an important indicator was that there were no differences in other
people’s perception of the leadership styles used by Lic. Lopez when working with the staff at
Mexican Tech when compared to the leadership styles he used when working with the staff at
American Tech.
The first finding reflected the importance of a clear mission statement supported and
implemented through practice by student affairs leadership and other members of the division.
Mexican Tech’s mission statement was the driving force behind Lic. Julio Lopez’ keen interest
in global partnerships and his desire to pursue a partnership with American Tech..This aligns
with the work of Armstrong (2007), which indicates understanding the mission of the institution
is a key component in making globalization a viable plan. Mexican Tech is not alone in
including globalization as part of the mission statement. Currently, the majority of research
universities in the United States mention internationalization in their mission statement
(Stromquist, 2007). Traditionally, student affairs professionals were responsible for supporting
international students and educating domestic students about global awareness (Schulz, Lee,
Cantwell, McClellan & Woodard, 2007). The formation of formal relationships between
institutions was up to those working within academic affairs. Green (2002) asserts that, as a key
member of the campus leadership, senior student affairs officers like Lic. Julio Lopez can and
are instrumental in creating global partnerships.
The second finding highlights the importance of knowledge acquisition and identification
of best practices through connections with a similar institution. Knowledge acquisition and
identification of best practices can result in positive outcomes for student affairs professionals.
The student affairs leaders at Mexican Tech took it upon themselves to pave the way for some of
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 116
the changes taking place in response to globalization and expanding upon the traditional role of
student affairs as stipulated by Ping (1999). International exchanges on college and university
campuses meant that student affairs administrators were now called upon to “nurture campus
programs and activities that contributed to cross-cultural understanding and empathy with others
(Ping, 1999, p. 14). Additionally, student affairs administrators have a duty to educate the whole
person (Ping, 1999). A primary task of educating the whole person is to create opportunities for
students to understand and accept differences, even when cultural barriers such as language are
in play. The similarities in institutional type between Mexican Tech and American Tech has
aided in finding common ground. Mutual areas of interest within the Inter-Institutional
Agreement of Cooperation (IAC) (2004, 2009) were linked to student affairs. The knowledge
acquisition and identification of best practices reflect the intent of the Inter-Institutional
Agreement of Cooperation (IAC) (2004, 2009) between Mexican Tech and American Tech
which was “to promote and expand international understanding, development, and friendship by
stimulating and supporting educational, professional and intercultural activities and projects
among students and staff of the two institutions.”
The third finding revealed collaboration as a key successful leadership strategy when
developing a global partnership due to continuity, common goals and persistence. Collaboration
was a key component of the relationship between Mexican Tech and American Tech. This is the
same as Bensimon and Neumann (1992). They examined the importance of teams and teamwork
within a higher education environment. Rather than a single individual being the leader,
Bensimon and Neumann view leadership as a collaborative endeavor. Similarly, Archer and
Cameron (2012) emphasize the importance of leadership reaching across boundaries when
working in collaboration.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 117
The fourth finding was that the student affairs staff from Mexican Tech were empowered
and challenged to maintain relationships and achieve long-term goals which resulted in
globalization. Consequently, relationships were forged with American institutions of higher
education. Student affairs professionals are now able to forge relationships across international
boundaries. This is similar to Kruger and Dungy (1999) who found conference programs dealing
with international issues were on the rise. More and more international students are recruited to
college campuses and student affairs professionals develop these students alongside their
domestic counterparts and integrate them into the community. Mitstifer (2012) highlights “in an
increasingly complex and shrinking global environment, it is essential that students learn to
function effectively and justly when exposed to ideas, beliefs, values, physical and mental
abilities, sexual orientations, gender expressions, and cultures that differ from their own” (p. 8).
According to Anderson, Carmichael, Harper and Huang (2009), international students have
unique needs and issues. Psychological issues are the most common challenge faced by
international students. Homesickness, loneliness, isolation, alienation, and loss of identity all
come into play for international students (Tseng & Newton, 2002). Collaboration with
counterparts in the student affairs profession is essential to gain insights for support to those
students.
The final finding was that operating in the human resource frame could serve as a catalyst
for developing global partnerships and positive outcomes due to the relational nature of this form
of globalization. It was clear that, when working with his own staff as well as with the staff at
American Tech, Lic. Lopez utilized the Human Resource Frame as posited by Bolman and Deal
(2003). Belief in staff was a key leadership attribute. The staff was empowered to develop and
maintain global partnerships. Additionally, many of the guidelines for developing global
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 118
partnerships as outlined by Wiley and Root (2003) are grounded in the human resource frame.
Wiley and Root stress the importance of working with a deepened understanding of each other
similar to the way human resource theorists advocate for openness and mutuality. Successful
human resource leaders reward their staff (Bolman & Deal, 2003); likewise Wiley and Root
(2003) highlight the importance of regularly celebrating the successes while developing global
partnerships. If leaders are able to step back and share in the opportunities for celebration this
can catapult the relationship to the next level and lead to further success.
One limitation of the study was that the political unrest in Mexico prohibited the
researcher and the American Tech staff from traveling to Mexican Tech. According to
travel.state.gov, “travel waning as issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a
country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or
consider the risk of travel to that country” (Current Travel Warnings, 2013). Mexico was added
to the list on November 20, 2012 (travel.state.gov, 2013). Another limitation to this study was
that Lic. Julio Lopez supervised the individuals at Mexican Tech, either directly or indirectly.
Therefore, individuals may not have been as forthcoming during the interview process (Merriam,
1998).
Additionally, since only one leader was examined utilizing only two sites, there may be
threats to external validity due to the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other
individuals, sites and cultures. The review of the literature showed that Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) framework has not been tested on foreign leaders working with American individuals.
This limitation may have been minimized due to the proximity of Mexico and Mexican Tech in
particular.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 119
Implications for Practice
There is no singular way to forge an international relationship. For example, the
partnerships established between Mexican Tech and American Tech have been largely based
upon making connections and finding ways to work together to develop a relationship.
Persistence was a key factor in the success of the partnership. There are two major implications
for practice. The first is the importance of reaching across international boundaries to acquire
knowledge and best practice. The second is the use of the human resource frame as a catalyst for
developing global partnerships.
Student affairs professionals should not limit their search for knowledge acquisition and
best practices to the confines of their own country. This is based on the second finding that
centered on the importance of knowledge acquisition and identification of best practices through
connections with a similar institution. Student affairs professionals can benefit from outside
sources to improve practices on their own campuses. Through global partnerships such as those
developed between Mexican Tech and American Tech, student affairs professionals can learn
from one another and enrich the experiences of their students. Not all global partnerships need to
be as formalized as the one established within Residence Life between American Tech and
Mexican Tech, nor does travel always have to be involved. Equally as important are the personal
connections been established to enable opportunities to engage in conversations around best
practices when issues such as a crisis arise. Collaboration in its many forms could promote
resilience to crisis (Goldstein, 2011).
Second, based upon the fifth finding, operating in the human resource frame (Bolman &
Deal, 2003) could serve as a catalyst for developing global partnerships and positive outcomes
due to the relational nature of this form of globalization. As institutions continue to globalize,
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 120
global partnerships in student affairs will become more frequent. In order to forge relationships
across international boundaries, leaders using the human resource frame will be able to create
authentic connections and empower the staff with whom they work to do the same. Global
partnerships such as those developed between Mexican Tech and American Tech are grounded
in relationships that have been built over time when common ground has been established.
Future Research
This qualitative study examined how a senior student affairs officer in Mexico
established global partnerships with an American Institution and the leadership styles he used.
The researcher presents two recommendations for future research. First, a possibility for future
research may include a longitudinal and comparative examination of other institutions that have
been forming global partnerships in student affairs. The second recommendation for future
research may be the examination of Lic. Julio Lopez’ leadership through a different framework.
The first recommendation for future research may include a longitudinal and comparative
examination of other global partnerships in student affairs. Future case studies on cross-cultural
differences in leadership styles is the first recommendation for future practice. Any number of
partnerships that have developed across national boundaries and the leadership styles of those
who are the primary points of contact between universities could be studied. The descriptive
single case study does not provide the same opportunity for generalization beyond the global
partnerships between Mexican Tech and American Tech. Other leaders may use different
approaches which may be equally successful. Examining additional global partnerships will
increase this study’s usefulness and could serve as a benchmark for other institutions to measure
their own progress. A longitudinal analysis may also aid in determining the effect of leadership
transition on establishing global partnerships.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 121
The second recommendation for future research is to examine the leadership styles of
Lic. Julio Lopez through a different framework. In this study the researcher chose to use Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) leadership frames to study Lic. Lopez’ leadership styles. Future research could
examine his leadership styles through a different framework. For example, Lic. Lopez’
leadership could be examined through Peter Northouse’s (2004) Trait Approach, Skills
Approach, Style Approach, Situational Approach, Contingency Theory, Path-Goal Theory,
Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Transformational Leadership, Team Leadership or
Psychodynamic Approach. Lic. Lopez’ leadership could also be examined through Ingo
Winkler’s (2010) Attribution Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Symbolic Leadership,
Role Theory of Leadership, or Social Learning Theory of Leadership.
Conclusions
Globalization continues to transform our world and the way that colleges and universities
view their roles (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Armstrong, 2007; Kwiek, 2001; Mishkin, 2009). The
purpose of this study was to examine how a senior student affairs officer at a Mexican institution
developed global partnerships with an American institution and the leadership styles he
employed to affect the student experience at his own institution as well as at the institution he
partnered with. Student affairs professionals like Lic. Julio Lopez play a stronger role in
developing and maintaining global partnerships and fostering an environment for globalization to
flourish at the institution as globalization becomes further infused into institutions of higher
education (Ping, 1999; Green, 2002). Mexican Tech is a leader in developing global partnerships
in student affairs. Lic. Julio Lopez had a large hand in developing these relationships,
particularly when it came to persistence. If global partnerships such as those established between
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 122
Mexican Tech and American Tech do not continue to grow, student affairs will be left behind in
a world where globalization is continuing to grow.
For student affairs professionals who may be looking to forge global partnerships, based
upon the findings there are some things to keep in mind. First of all, globalization or
internationalization should be part of the institutional mission in order to garner support for the
partnership from all levels of the university. Second, although the benefits do not be the same for
each institution, each of the partnering institutions must gain something from the relationship.
Third, changes in leadership may have an impact on sustainability of the relationship. However,
although transition in leadership may impact the direction of the relationship, written documents
such as Memorandums of Understanding can minimize the disruption. A fourth factor to keep in
mind is that global partnerships can start with a simple relationship with the possibility of
growing into a much more elaborate plan, but the human connection should play a key role. Not
all global partnerships need to be as broad as the relationships built between Mexican Tech and
American Tech. A fifth consideration is to examine commonalities with potential partnering
institutions as a starting place for relationship building. In the case of Mexican Tech and
American Tech, both institutions were large technology-based institutions. Looking for
possibilities can serve as a foundation for relationships to emerge. Finally, do not be limited by
thinking about global partnerships from a single perspective. Do not be limited to considering
partnerships that have been established at other institutions. And although travel to partnering
institutions is helpful, the inability to travel should not serve as a limitation to forging the
relationship.
It is important to think about the ways in which student affairs professionals can not only
cultivate global partnerships, but also enhance the experience of international students who come
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 123
to their campuses. International students may experience challenges in transitioning in the
residential setting (Anderson, Carmichael, Harper & Huang, 2009). Students may arrive on
campus on a different schedule than domestic students due to limited flight schedules, yet
institutions may not be prepared to fully accommodate them. International students may not have
the bedding required or outreach may not occur due to the fact that student staff may still be in
training. Residential staff should make sure they are communicating with those who are
coordinating the arrival of international students to make sure that their onboarding experience is
as seamless as possible. Dietary restrictions may not always be taken into account for
international students (Anderson, Carmichael, Harper & Huang, 2009). University cuisine may
be unpalatable or even culturally or religiously offensive (Chen, 1999). Dining services staff
should consider the ways in which they can work with international students to accommodate
their unique needs. Finally, career services need to have a sense of career development across
international boundaries (Anderson, Carmichael, Harper & Huang, 2009). Job preparation for
international students must include policies that may implicate their employment opportunities in
the United States as well as ways to navigate the process if they choose to return to their home
country (Anderson, Carmichael, Harper & Huang, 2009).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 124
References
Adams, R. N. Brokers and career mobility systems in the structure of complex societies.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26(4), 315-327.
Alleyne, S. (2011). Collaborative leadership. Black Enterprise, 41(8), 56-57.
Altbach, P. G. & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and
realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(34), 290-305.
American Tech (2011). American Tech. Retrieved from website for American Tech.
Anderson, G., Carmichael, K. Y., Harper, T. J. & Huang, T. (2009). International students at
four-year institutions. In Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. (Eds.) Student Engagement in
Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse
Populations. New York: Routledge.
Archer, D. & Cameron, A. (2012). Collaborative leadership. Training Journal, 35-38. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1021726726?accountid=14749
Armstrong, L. (2007). Competing in Global Higher Education Marketplace: Outsourcing,
twinning, and franchising. New Directions for Higher Education, (2007)140, 131-138.
Arnesen, D. W. & Weis, W. L. (2007). Developing an effective company policy for employee
internet and email use. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,
11(2), 53-66.
Arnove, R. F. (2003). Introduction: Reframing comparative education. In R. F. Arnove, C. A.
Torres (Eds.). Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global the Local (2
nd
ed.).
NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 125
Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation in Development (2003). The United
States and Mexico: Partnering to Address Shared Developmental Goals 1995-2003.
University Cooperation in Development.
Astin, H. & Leland, C. (1991). Women of Influence, Women of Vision. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bair, K. A. (2006). Best practices in international education and learning. NASPA Region I
Newsletter, 4(11), 2.
Bair, K. A. (2005). 2005-Third annual NASPA IEKC best practices award. NASPA Region I
Newsletter, 3(2), 6.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs’ role in transforming higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 231-247.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2011). Authoring your life: A lifewide learning perspective. In Jackson,
N. J. (Ed.) Learning for a Complex World: A Lifewide Concept of Learning Education
and Personal Development. Authorhouse.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. & King (2004). Learning Partnerships: Theory and Models of Practice
to Educate for Self-Authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Bensimon, E. M. & Neumann, A. (1992). Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and
Teamwork. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Beratan, K. K. (2007). A cognition-based view of decision processes in complex social-
ecological systems. Ecology and Society. Retrived from
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art27/
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 126
Boote, D. N. & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation
literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame,
multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture, and
gender. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 314- 329.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borrows, L. C. (2000). Internationalization of Higher Education: An Institutional Perspective.
Papers on Higher Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, Bucharet (Romania) Europeans Centre for Higher Education.
Brustein, W. I. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in
North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 382-391.
Bureau of Consular Affairs (2013). Current Travel Warnings. Retrieved from Travel.state.gov
Bushardt, S. C., Lambert, J. & Duhon, D. L. (2007). Selecting a better carrot: Organizational
learning, formal rewards and culture – A behavioral perspective. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11(2), 67-79.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2011). Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
Carriveau, A., Viers, V. & Ziebell, C. (2008). Collaborative leadership at Ripon College. College
& Undergraduate Libraries, 15(2), 301-313.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 127
Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.
Christensen, C. M. & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of
Higher Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Second Edition. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Globalization and educational reforms in Anglo- American
democracies. Comparative Education Review, 41(4), 435- 495.
DeLauder, W. B. (2004). A call to leadership: The presidential role in internationalizing the
university. National Association of State University Land Grant Colleges Task Force on
International Education, 19-22.
De Pree, M. (2004). Leadership is an Art. New York: Doubleday.
Dika, S. L. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 85(9), 62-72.
Eagly, A. H. & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 216-224.
Eagly, A. H., Eaton, A., Rose, S. M., Riger, S. & McHug, M. C. (2012). Feminism and
psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender. American
Psychologist, 67(5), 211-230.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 128
Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.Eyring, H. J. (2011). The Innovative University:
Changing the DNA of Higher Education From the Inside Out. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results,
resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a U.S. university. In J. A.
Mestenhauser & B. J. Eligboe (Eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum:
Internationalizing the Campus (pp. 198-228). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on
Education and Oryx Press.
Fienman, B. (2007). International education knowledge community. NASPA Region I Newsletter,
5(2), 6.
Fried, J. (2012). Transformative Learning Through Engagement: Student Affairs Practice as
Experiential Pedagogy. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Friedman, T. L (2007). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New
York: Picador.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gentemann, K. M. & Whitehead, T. L (1983). The cultural broker concept in bicultural
education. The Journal of Negro Education, 52(2), 118-129.
Goldstein, B. E. (2011). Collaborative Resilience: Moving Through Crisis to Opportunity.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gore, J. S., Morfit, C. A., Nabavi, M., Robles, C., Sisane, J., Sanchez, M., Henson, J., Koo, C.,
Simmonds, L., Vyas, N., Gartner, E. & Womack-Bolden, W. (2010). Higher education
partnerships in Mexico: An impact assessment report of eight higher education
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 129
partnerships. United States Agency for International Development/Mexico and United
States Agency for International Development Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture
and Trade/Washington DC.
Green, M. F. (2002). The challenge of internationalizing undergraduate education: Global
learning for all. Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education Conference, Duke
University.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gulbro, R. D. & Herbig, P. (1996). Negotiating successfully in cross-cultural situations.
Industrial Marketing Management, 25(3), 235-241.
Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. (Eds.) (2009). Student Engagement in Higher Education:
Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York:
Routledge.
Heggins, W. J. III & Jackson, J. F. L. (2003). Understanding the collegiate experience for Asian
international students at a midwestern research university. College Student Journal, 27,
379-391.
Hernez-Broome, G. & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present, and future.
Human Resource Planning, 27, 24-32.
Herrera, M. L. (2013). Creating and Implementing an Offshore Graduate Program: A Case
Study of Leadership and Development of the Global Executive MBA Program. Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (325916).
Higher Education for Development (2011). Higher Education for Development. Retrieved from
http://www.hedprogram.org/
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 130
Hofstede, G. (1996). Cultural constraints in management theories. Wren, J. T. (Ed.). The
Leadership Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New York: The Free
Press.
Hyde, J. M. (2009). Leading while expanding: A case study examining the changing nature of an
American land grant public research university in response to the forces of globalization.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3368562).
Johnson, P. R. & Carland, J. C. (2007). Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and
Conflict, 11(2).
Keohane, N. O. (2006). Higher Ground: Ethics and Leadership in the Modern University.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Kezar, A. (2003). Achieving student success: Strategies for creating partnerships between
academic and student affairs. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 1-22.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(6), 722-743.
Kika, S. L. & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record,
108(4), 529-576.
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints. Canadian Bureau for
International Education Research, 7, 1-15.
Knight J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Dducation: New Directions, New Challenges.
The 2005 IAU Global Survey Report. Paris: International Association of Univerisities.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 131
Knodel, K. (2009). A case study examining how a land-grant research university integrated
global initiatives into its mission and institutional program. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3355426).
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Third Edition. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kruger, K. W. & Dungy, G. J. (1999). Opportunities for international travel and professional
exchange for student affairs professionals. New Directions for Student Services, 1999,
86, 23-31.
Kwiek, M. (2001). Globalization and higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 26(1), 29-
38.
Le Loup, B. R. (2009). The global citizenship initiative: A case study examining the leadership
of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to
globalization. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
(3368587).
Marcoulides, G. A. & Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing
and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225.
Maxcy, S. J. (1995). Beyond leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly,
31(3), 473-483.
McCabe, L. T. (2001). Globalization and internationalization: The impact on education abroad
programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 138-145.
McGinn, N. F. (1997). An overview of the issues: The impact of globalization on national
education systems. Prospects, 27(1), 41-54.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 132
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mexican Tech (2011). Mexican Tech. Retrieved from website for Mexican Tech.
Mishkin, F. S. (2009). Globalization, macroeconomic performance, and monetary policy.
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 41(1), 187-196.
Mitstifer, D. I. (Ed.) (2012). Eighth Edition. CAS Professional Standards for Higher Education.
Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.
Murphy, M. (2007). Experiences in the internationalization of education: Strategies to promote
equality of opportunity at Monterrey Tech. Higher Education, 53, 167-208.
NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (2010). NASPA – Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Odin, J. K. & Manicas, P. T. (Eds.) (2004). Globalization and Higher Education. University of
Hawai’i Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005). Guidelines for quality
provision in cross-border higher education. Paris: Author.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(1),
10-58.
Ping, C. J. (1999). An expanded international role for student affairs. New Directions for Student
Services, 86, 13-21.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 133
Ream, R. K. & Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2007). The mobility/social capital dynamic:
Understanding Mexican American families and students. In S. Paik & H. Walberg (Eds.),
Narrowing the Achievement Gap: Strategies for Education Latino, Black and Asian
Students, 67-89. New York: Springer.
Rhoades, G., Maldonado-Maldonado, A., Ordorika, I. & Velazquez, Martin (2004). Imagining
alternatives to global, corporate, new economy academic capitalism. Policy Futures in
Education, 2(2), 316-329.
Rhoads, R. A. (2003). Globalization and resistance in the United States and Mexico: The global
Potemkin village. Higher Education, 45, 223-250.
Richter, D. K. (1988). Cultural brokers and intercultural politics: New York-Iroquois relations,
1664-1701. The Journal of American History, 75(1), 40-67.
Rubin, H. (2009). Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships for Communities
and Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sakamoto, R. & Chapman, D. (2011). Cross-border Partnerships in Higher Education:
Strategies and Issues. New York: Routledge.
Samoff, J. & Carrol, B. (2002). The promise of partnership and continuities of dependence:
External support to higher education in Africa. Prepared for 45
th
Annual meeting of the
African Studies Association, Washington, D.C.
Saner, R. (2001). Globalization and its impact on leadership qualification in public
administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67(4), 649-661.
Sburlan, A. F. (2009). (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (3389560).
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 134
Schulz, S. A., Lee, J. J., Cantwell, B. McClellan, G. & Woodard, D. B. (2007). Moving toward a
global community: An analysis of the internationalization of student affairs graduate
preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 44(3), 610-632.
Shanahan P. & McParlane J. (2005). Serendipity or strategy? An investigation into
entrepreneurial transnational higher education and risk management. On the Horizon,
13(4), 220-228.
Shavelson, R. J. & Town, L. (2002). Scientific Research in Education. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Shushok, F., Henry, D. V., Blalock, G. & Sriram, R. R. (2009). Learning at any time: Supporting
student learning wherever it happens. About Campus, 2009, 14(1), 10-15.
Shutt, M. D., Garrett, J. M., Lynch, J. W. & Dean, L. A. (2012). An assessment model as best
practice in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(1), 65-
82.
Siaya, L. M. & Hayward, F. M. (2003). Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: Final
Report, 2003. American Council on Education.
Slater, C. L., Garcia, J. M. & Gorosave, G. L. (2008). Challenges of a successful first-year
principal in Mexico. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 702-714.
Smith, I. & Addison, C. (2013). The “new” school leader: Training instructional leaders for a
new generation of teachers and learners. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,
17(2), 135-140.
Spiller, S. & Hatfield, R. D. (2007). A multi-study investigation of self-efficacy measurement
issues. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11(2) 81-94.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 135
Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education: challenges for the 21
st
century.
Journal of Studies in International Education. Sage Publications.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of
inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology
of Education, 68(2), 116-135.
Stelter, N. Z. (2002). Gender differences in leadership: Current social issues and future
organizational implications. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(4), 88-
99.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
The Free Press.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Second Edition. Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a Globalized world: The Connectivity of Economic Power,
Technology, and Knowledge. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in
university environments. Higher Education, 54, 81-105.
Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the
theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 969-992.
Tomkovick, C. (1996). An assessment of the service quality provided to foreign students at U.S.
business school. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62678058?accountid=14749
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 136
Torney-Purta, J. (2009). The global awareness survey: Implications for teacher education.
Theory Into Practice, 21(3), 200-205.
Torres, C. A. & Schugurensky, D. (2002). The political economy of higher education in the era
of neoliberal globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. Higher Education,
43, 429-455.
Tseng, W. & Newton, F. B. (2002). International students’ strategies for well-being. College
Student Journal, 36(4), 591-597.
Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for
analysis. Higher Education, 48, 483-510.
Valverde, L. A. (2006). Needed: Leadership for liberation: A global portrait painted in shades of
brown. Journal of Leader Education.
Wagner, P. (2004). Higher education in an era of globalization: What is at stake? In J. K. Odin
& P. T. Manicas (Eds.) Globalization and Higher Education. University of Hawaii Press.
Wang, J. & Frank, D. G. (2002). Cross-Cultural communication: Implications for effective
information services in academic libraries. Libraries and the Academy, 2(2), 207-216.
Webber, C. F. (2008). Principal preparation: International perspectives. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(6).
Weber, L. E. & Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). The globalization of higher education. Economica, 5.
Weiss, M. S. (1994). Marginality, cultural brokerage, and school aides: A success story in
education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(3), 336-346.
Wiley, D. & Root, C. (2003). Educational partnerships with foreign institutions for increasing the
quality of international education in the United States. Prepared for Global challenges
and U.S. higher education: National needs and policy implications.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 137
Winker, I. (2010). Contemporary Leadership Theories: Enhancing the Understanding of the
Complexity, Subjectivity and Dynamic of Leadership. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wren, J. T. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New
York: The Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2006). Chapter 6 – Case study methods from Handbook of Complementary Methods
in Education Research, edited by Green, Camille, Elemore and Grace, 111-122.
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 138
Appendix A
Carnegie Classification Descriptions
Undergraduate Instructional Program
Prof+A&S/HGC – professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate coexistence: 60-79%
of bachelor’s degree majors were in professional fields, and graduate degrees were
observed in at least half of the fields corresponding to undergraduate majors.
Bal/HGC – Balanced arts & sciences/professions, high graduate coexistence: Bachelor’s
degree majors were relatively balanced between arts and sciences and professional fields
(41-59% in each), and graduate degrees were observed in at least half of the fields
corresponding to undergraduate majors.
Graduate Instructional Program
CompDoc/NMedVet – Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary): These
institutions awarded research doctorate degrees in the humanities, social sciences, and
STEM fields. They also offer professional education in fields such as business, education,
engineering, law, public policy, social work, or health professions other than medicine,
dentistry, or veterinary medicine.
Doc/STEM – Doctoral, STEM dominant: These institutions awarded research doctorate
degrees in a range of fields, and the largest number of research doctorates were in the
STEM fields. They may also offer professional education at the doctoral level or in fields
such as law or medicine.
Enrollment Profile
MU – Majority undergraduate: Fall enrollment data show both undergraduate and
graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 25-49% of FTE
enrollment.
HU – High undergraduate: Fall enrollment data show both undergraduate and
graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10-24% of FTE
enrollment.
Size & Setting
L4/NR – Large four-year, primarily nonresidential: Fall enrollment data show FTE
enrollment of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting
institutions. Fewer than 25% of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus and/or
fewer than 50% attend full time (includes exclusively distance education institutions).
L4/R – Large four-year, primarily residential: Fall enrollment data show FTE enrollment
of at least 10,000 degree-seeking students at these bachelor’s degree granting institutions.
25-49% of degree-seeking undergraduates live on campus and at least 50% attend full
time.
Basic
Master’s/L – Master’s Colleges and Universities (larger programs): Generally includes
institutions that awarded at least 50 master’s degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees
during the update year (with occasional exceptions – see Methodology). Excludes Special
Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
RU/VH – Research Universities (very high research activity): Includes institutions that
awarded at least 20 research doctoral degrees during the update year (excluding doctoral-
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 139
level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD,
MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
Community Engagement
Curricular Engagement & Outreach & Partnerships: includes institutions where teaching,
learning and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial
and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address community-identified needs,
deepen students’ civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich
the scholarship of the institution. Also includes institutions that provided compelling
evidence of one or both of two approaches to community engagement. Outreach focuses
on the application and provision of institutional resources for community use with
benefits to both campus and community. Partnerships focuses on collaborative
interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial
exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources
(research, capacity building, economic development, etc.)
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2011
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 140
Appendix B
Student Affairs Organization Chart
Mexican Tech
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 141
Appendix C
Student Affairs Organization Chart
American Tech
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 142
Appendix D
Interview Protocol
Section One
Interview Question Who will
be asked?
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Research
Question 3
Research
Question
4
What is your functional area of
responsibility and your role in that
functional area?
SSAO
MT
How long have you been working at your
institution?
SSAO
MT
How long have you been working with the
Senior Student Affairs Officer at Mexican
Tech and in what capacity?
MT
AT
What has been your involvement with the
partnership between Mexican Tech and
American Tech?
SSAO
MT
AT
How do you view the role of student
affairs in globalization at your institution,
if any?
SSAO
MT
X
What types of changes, if any, have been
implemented in response to globalization
at your institution?
SSAO
MT
X X
What are the motivations behind
furthering globalization at your
institution?
SSAO
MT
X
What is your role in sustaining global
initiatives in student affairs at your
institution?
SSAO
MT
X
What role, if any, did the senior student
affairs officer at Mexican Tech play in
implementing change in response to
globalization?
SSAO
MT
AT
X
How did the various partnerships between
Mexican Tech and American Tech come
about?
SSAO
MT
AT
X
What role have you played in working
with the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech in developing and/or
sustaining relationships with American
Tech?
MT
AT
X
What sort of written agreements have been
established? Is it possible obtain copies of
such agreements?
SSAO
MT
AT
X
How would you describe the senior SSAO X X X
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 143
student affairs officer at Mexican Tech’s
leadership style as he has developed a
global partnership with American Tech?
MT
AT
Are individual commitment and
motivation essential to success for the
senior student affairs officer at Mexican
Tech? Please elaborate.
SSAO
MT
VT
X X
Is the technical quality of the decision
important for the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech? Please elaborate.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is there a high level of ambiguity and
uncertainty for the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech? Please elaborate.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Are conflict and scarce resources
significant for the senior student affairs
officer at Mexican Tech? Please elaborate.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Does the senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech work from the bottom up?
Please elaborate.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Have you observed any differences
between the way that the senior student
affairs officer at Mexican Tech interacts
with the staff at Mexican Tech versus the
way he interacts with the staff at American
Tech. If so, what were these differences?
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 144
Section Two
Participants will be asked how often each item was true of the leader they were rating using a 5-
point scale (1 = never to 5 = always). Source: Bolman and Deal (1992, 1997). As participants are
answering the questions they should keep in mind their functional area they are working in and
how they view the leadership style of the senior student affairs officer at Mexican Tech when
working with their functional area.
Interview Question Who
will be
asked?
Research
Question
1
Research
Question
2
Research
Question
3
Research
Question
4
Thinks clearly and logically. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Strongly emphasizes careful planning
and clear time lines.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Approaches problems through logical
analysis and careful thinking.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Develops and implements clear, logical
policies and procedures.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Approaches problems with fact and
logic.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Sets specific, measurable goals and
holds people accountable for results.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Has extraordinary attention to details.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Strongly believes in clear structure and
a chain of command.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Shows high levels of support and
concern for others.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Builds trust through open and
collaborative relationships.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 145
Shows high sensitivity and concern for
others’ needs and feelings.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Fosters high level of participation and
involvement in decisions.
SSAO
MT
VT
X X
Is consistently helpful and responsive
to others.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Listens well and is unusually receptive
to other people’s ideas and input.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Gives personal recognition for work
well done.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is a high participative manager. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Shows exceptional ability to mobilize
people and resources to get things
done.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is a very skillful and shrewd negotiator. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is unusually persuasive and influential. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Anticipates and deals skillfully with
organizational conflict.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is very effective in getting support
from people with influence and power.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is politically very sensitive and skillful. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Develops alliances to build a strong
base of support.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Succeeds in the face of conflict and
opposition.
SSAO
MT
VT
X X
Inspires others to do their best. SSAO
MT
VT
X X
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 146
Is highly charismatic. SSAO
MT
VT
X X
Is an inspiration to others. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Is highly imaginative and creative. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Communicates a strong and
challenging vision and sense of
mission.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Sees beyond current realities to create
exciting new opportunities.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Generates loyalty and enthusiasm. SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Serves as an influential model of
organizational aspirations and values.
SSAO
MT
AT
X X
Key
SSAO = Senior Student Affairs Officer at Mexican Tech
MT = Staff at Mexican Tech
AT = Staff at American Tech
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 147
Appendix E
Document and Artifact Protocol
Document or Artifact ________________________________________________
Retrieved from _____________________________________________________
Date Analyzed ___________________________________________________
Globalization in Student Affairs
Addresses role of student affairs in
globalization Y or N
Addresses strategies for globalization
Y or N
Senior student affairs officer at
Mexican Tech’s role, if any
Four Frames
Frame Context Used
Structural
Human Resource
Political
Symbolic
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 148
Appendix F
Frame Response Analysis
Frame Question Average
Score
Lic.
Lopez’
Alpha =
Requirement to test
positive Alpha =
Frame
Utilized?
Structural Thinks clearly and
logically
4.6 .92 .90 Yes
Structural Strongly emphasizes
careful planning and
clear time lines
3.9 .78 .90 No
Structural Approaches problems
through logical
analysis and careful
thinking.
4.25 .85 .90 No
Structural Develops and
implements clear,
logical policies and
procedures.
4.56 .912 .90 Yes
Structural Approaches problems
with fact and logic.
4.2 .84 .90 No
Structural Sets specific,
measurable goals and
holds people
accountable for
results.
4.5 .90 .90 Yes
Structural Has extraordinary
attention to details.
4.5 .90 .90 Yes
Structural Strongly believes in
clear structure and a
chain of command.
4.22 .84 .90 No
Structural Average 4.34 .868 .90 No
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 149
Human
Resource
Shows high levels of
support and concern
for others.
5 1.00 .93 Yes
Human
Resource
Builds trust through
open and
collaborative
relationships.
4.9 .98 .93 Yes
Human
Resource
Shows high sensitivity
and concern for
others’ needs and
feelings.
4.8 .96 .93 Yes
Human
Resource
Fosters high level of
participation and
involvement in
decisions.
4.22 .84 .93 No
Human
Resource
Is consistently helpful
and responsive to
others.
4.72 .94 .93 Yes
Human
Resource
Listens well and is
unusually receptive to
other people’s ideas
and input.
4.45 .89 .93 No
Human
Resource
Gives personal
recognition for work
well done.
4.5 .90 .93 No
Human
Resource
Is a high participative
manager.
4.67 .933 .93 Yes
Human
Resource
Average 4.66 .9315 .93 Yes
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 150
Political Shows exceptional
ability to mobilize
people and resources
to get things done.
4.45 .89 .89 Yes
Political Is a very skillful and
shrewd negotiator.
3.89 .778 .89 No
Political Is unusually
persuasive and
influential.
4.3 .86 .89 No
Political Anticipates and deals
skillfully with
organizational
conflict.
3.86 .77 .89 No
Political Is very effective in
getting support from
people with influence
and power.
4.3 .86 .89 No
Political Is politically very
sensitive and skillful.
4.2 .84 .89 No
Political Develops alliances to
build a strong base of
support.
4.7 .94 .89 Yes
Political Succeeds in the face
of conflict and
opposition.
3.875 .775 .89 No
Political Average 4.2 .84 .89 No
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS 151
Symbolic Inspires others to do
their best.
4.78 .956 .91 Yes
Symbolic Is highly charismatic. 4.5 .90 .91 No
Symbolic Is an inspiration to
others.
4.4 .88 .91 No
Symbolic Is highly imaginative
and creative.
4.4 .88 .91 No
Symbolic Communicates a
strong and
challenging vision and
sense of mission.
4.6 .92 .91 Yes
Symbolic Sees beyond current
realities to create
exciting new
opportunities.
4.4 .88 .91 No
Symbolic Generates loyalty and
enthusiasm.
4.9 .98 .91 Yes
Symbolic Serves as an
influential model of
organizational
aspirations and values.
4.8 .96 .91 Yes
Symbolic Average 4.6 .92 .91 Yes
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Leading while expanding: a case study examining the changing nature of an American land grant public research university in response to the forces of globalization
PDF
Creating and implementing an offshore graduate program: a case study of leadership and development of the global executive MBA program
PDF
Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California
PDF
The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit
PDF
Third culture kids and college support: a case study
PDF
Leadership strategies, skills, and professional approaches utilized by effective senior-level student affairs administrators at urban universities
PDF
The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization
PDF
Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field
PDF
Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education
PDF
Chinese students’ college choice: targeting the U.S as the top study destination
PDF
Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies
PDF
Measuring and assessing globalization in higher education: the creation of a scale of global engagement
PDF
The influence of globalization and multinational corporations on schools and universities in Costa Rica
PDF
Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion
PDF
The work-life balance pursuit: challenges, supports, and strategies of successful women senior student affairs officers
PDF
Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration
PDF
Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life
PDF
Globalization, curricular elements, organizational practices and perceived student outcomes in California schools
PDF
The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students
PDF
Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Trayner, Elizabeth Jamie (Peterson)
(author)
Core Title
The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs
Publication Date
04/15/2014
Defense Date
03/05/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Bolman and Deal,global partnerships,Globalization,internationalization,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,student affairs
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gallagher, Karen Symms (
committee chair
), Diamond, Michael A. (
committee member
), Merriman, Lynette (
committee member
)
Creator Email
elizabethjamie@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-378065
Unique identifier
UC11295435
Identifier
etd-TraynerEli-2358.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-378065 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-TraynerEli-2358.pdf
Dmrecord
378065
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Trayner, Elizabeth Jamie (Peterson)
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
Tags
Bolman and Deal
global partnerships
internationalization
student affairs